Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/1997 Council Mtg PACKET r/' r, Council Meeting Pkt. I BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER ....""'.'........--"".,....."...'.-......iIjjing council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please 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 16, 1997 /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:00 p.m., CMc Center Council Chambers. /ROLL CALL / ., / ~. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting minutes of December 2, 1997. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS / Mayor's Proclamation declaring January 10, 1998, as 'Christmas Tree _ ~ecycle Day in Ashland" /../' ~troduction and presentation by the Traffic Safety Commission. 7 Presentation of retirement plaque to Jerry Glossop. Street Superintendent for 25 years of service with the Street Division. /' Presentation of retirement plaque to Tim Caswell, Engineer for 25 years of . _~rvice with the Fire Department. ~/ ~~cognition of OMECA Bonus to City of Ashland. / ~ Presentation by R.V.C.O.G. and Public Works Director regarding the TAP. / waterline intertie project. / V. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - November, 1997. 3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Rich Whitall to the Ashland Tree ftfCommission. . Adoption of Findings for denial of a Conditional Use Permit to add additional unit to an existing 4-unit plus owner's quarters travelers ~ ,~b-/,~accommOdatiOn located at 570 Siskiyou Blvd. OVJ"-) . Approval of a Quitclaim Deed for the termination of a public utility and )?J irrigation easement at 949 Cedar Way. . Approval of an ingress and egress easement across a street plug located at the terminus of Renaissance Drive. ~ 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). . ~ecommendatiOn from the Planning Commission to modify Section / ~8.84.050A of the Ashland Municipal Code pertaining to minimum size ~eqUirements for manufactured housing development sites. . 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). /. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience llil! included on the agenda. (Umited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) VIII. Report from Finance Director on Flood Restoration Bond Sale scheduled for Monday, December 15, 1997. IX. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS .~First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Sections 11.54.030 /. ~nd 11.54.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Remove Helmet Requirements on Sidewalks and to Reduce Criminal Penalties for ~kateboard Violations in the Downtown Area." . Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing and Approving of a State RevoMng Fund Loan Agreement to Finance a Wastewater Treatment / Facilities Project." . First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Section 18.84.050.A of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Required Minimum Size for a Manufactured Housing Development Site to be Not Less than One Acre." X. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XI. ADJOURNMENT (No Study Session on Wednesday, December 17) City Council Agenda now available on the Internet. Internet Address: http://www.ashland.or.us MEMORANDUM CITY OF ASHLAND Administration Office of thB City Administrator DATE: December 11, 1997 FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Council Greg Scoles, Interim City Administratol1J MODIFICATION OF SKATEBOARD ~ULATIONS TO: RE: Backaround At the council meeting on December 2, 1997, the council requested that staff revise Chapter 11.54 (skateboards) of the Ashland Municipal Code to reduce the penalties in the downtown area and to clearly identify that protective headgear would only be required on public streets. The proposed modifications are contained in the attached ordinance. Recommendation It is recommended that council adopt the attached ordinance which removes the helmet requirement for sidewalks and reduces the criminal penalties for skateboard violations in the downtown. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Chapter 11.54 of the Ashland Municipal Code ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 11.54.030 AND 11.54.050 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE HELMET REQUIREMENTS ON SIDEWALKS AND TO REDUCE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR SKATEBOARD VIOLATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDmONS. DELETIONS ARE U~IED THROUGH AND ADDITIONS ARE ~. THE PEOPLE OF THE CIlY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 11.54.030.A of Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 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 Headoear. Any person operating a skateboard shall wear protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052 for bicycle helmets. SECTION 2. Section 11.54.050 of Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 11.54.050 Enhanced Penalties in Downtown Area. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter in the downtown area defined in section 11.52.020.8.1 is, upon conviction, punishable as follows: A. First offense. Upon the first conviction for a violation under this chapter, the person shall be punished by a fine of $69.00 liB(to include all costs and assessments). This fine shall not be suspended or deferred, but the court may authorize community service in lieu of all or part of this fine. B. Second offense. Every person who is convicted of a violation of this chapter for a second time within a five-year period shall be punished by a fine . not less than $100 g,or more than $600.. ORe RLJAC:lreef l!!Idollars of the fine shall not be suspended or deferred, 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 third or more times within a five-year period shall be g\;.lilt)' at a FRisaeFReonor, punishable by a fine of hot less than two, t-l\;.lI1e1reel elellar.s ~nor more PAGE 1-ORDINANCE fp_obd,0m21 than eRe thel;lsaRel elellaFS ~, 8Aell3y impFiseRmeRt iR jail Rat te el(eeeel Rinety elays. ~undred 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 9hristensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of .1997. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-0RDINANCE (p:skotobd,0m21 Chapter 11.54 Ord.'2804. S1. 1997 SKATEBOARDS Sections: 11.54.010 11 :54.020 11.54.030 11.54.040 11.54.050 ' Definitions Areas Permitted; Areas Prohibited Skateboard Regulations Penalties 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, scooter::;, , coasters, roller skis or any similar device, ' . , , 11.54.020 Areas Permitted: Areas Prohibited, A Where Ridina Permitted. Riding or operating a skateboard is permitted'in' the following areas: 1. 25 Moh 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 Propert;y 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 Ridina Prohibited. No person shall ride or operate a skateboard in the follo\Ying areas: '1. - Streets or Sidewalks in the Downtown Area, Sidewa'lks 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 boundary 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 adjoining sidewalk at the corner of Pioneer Street and Uthia Way; , b. The west boundary shall be Water Street from the Uthia , 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 Wiriburn Way and its sidewalks through Uthia Park. c, The south boundary shall be the northern sidewalk of HargadineStreet 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 Uthia Way and Hargadine Street., ., 2, ,Citv Parks. Within any city park including streets within the . boundaries of a park unless tbe 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 prooerty Unless Consent. On private, property. It is an affirmative dE1fense to a prosecution on any charge under this subseCtion that the property owner or person in charge of the property conse'nteq to such use ofthe 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 B, Yield Rieht-of-Wav. 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, bipycle 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 Iightirig 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. Ata 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 c:onformance with rules established by the Ashland Park Commission within a city park designated for skateboard use under section 11.54;020. ' K. Hitchina on Vehicles., No, person while operating a skateboard shall in any way attach themselves or the skateboard to any moving motor vehicle. L Careless Ridina. 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. 11.54.050 Enhanced Penalties in Downtown Area, Any person Who violates any of the provisions of this chapter in the downtown area defined in section 11,52.020,8.1 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 ctwpter, 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 service in lieu of all or part of this fine. 8, Second offense, Every person who is convicted of a violation of this chapter for a second time within a five-year period shall be punished by a fine not less than $100 nor more than $500, One 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 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 whCJ violatEls this chapt~r a third or more time, s w, ith,in 8fi,V, e-ye,ar period,S,h~,'Im,,:,'~1r.~~,'~;c'" misdemea.nqr,pl,lnishabIEl9X a fi~e of not le~:;;J.!;!f.lQJXt"g . ," i3Uarsf ~t::~~u~]~~rj~:~~~t~~:'~~~;j~6ic~~'BQn6;: '" 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 e.vidence 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 , MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Jill Turner, Director of Finance Subject: Wastewater Treatment Financing Date: December 12, 1997 Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution authorizing and directing the Director of Finance and the Interim City Administrator, acting for and on behalf of the City, to execute a final SRF Loan agreement. Background: The State of Oregon, through the Department of Environmental Quality, offers Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loans, The terms of these loans are more favorable to the City than other financing options. These loans work as a reimbursement or on a draw-down method versus a bond sale where all the money is received up front. Some of these favorable terms are: Interest Rate -- The current interest rate is 3,57 percent and will be fixed upon executing this agreement. This rate changes each quarter and is trending downward. In addition, the City pays a ,5 percent loan servicing fee. This combination of fees and interest rates is approximately one percent below the current revenue bond market. Loan Processing Fee - A one-time 1.5 percent loan processing fee and an annual loan. This is similar to the costs associated with a revenue loan, Term - Twenty years from the time the loan is completed. The final payment will be in approximately the year 2020, ;0~. Prepayment Options - The City has the right to pay any or all portions at any time. This call provision is usually not possible until the 10th year for other bonds: Loan Reserve Requirement -- Approximates one year's debt service, The is normal for a revenue bond, Coverage requirements -- 105 percent of net wastewater revenues including Food and Beverage Tax, A revenue bond would require 125 percent. t Rate Stabilization -- This loan permits the City to establish a rate stabilization account. The purpose of this account is to mitigate rate shock when the Food and Beverage Tax ends in 2010, Terms of Repayment -- Semi-annual'startingafter the loan is complete. Some other bonds require more frequent payments, Some of the other terms are: Security and Pledge -- Wastewater rates and Food and Beverage Tax, This is similar to revenue bonds. Representations -- The City is required to meet covenants related to the construction project that would not otherwise be required, This is the largest financing project that the' City has ever accomplished, In the last ten years we have completed six new issues for a total of $9,015;000 in bonds (including the Flood Bonds), This issue is the lowest rate received by the City in more than twenty years, which is even more impressive when it comes on the largest infrastructure project this community has ever undertaken, The long-term effect of this good deal is long-term stable wastewater rates versus increasing rates as was predicted. The Finance Staff have prepared a detailed wastewater rate model through the year 2020. A summary of the construction portion of this model is attached. , RESOLUTION NO, 97-_ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING OF A STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN AGREEMENT TO FINANCE A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland (the "City") has entered into negotiations with the State of Oregon . Department of Environmental Quality (the "DEQ") for a loan to the City from the State Revolving Fund in the approximate amount of $15,000,000,00, B, The DEQ has provided to the City a form of State Revolving Fund Agreement. C, The City Attorney and Director of Finance are finalizing this agreement. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: Section 1, The City does authorize and approve of the form of the SRF Loan Agreement for the financing of the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Project, Section 2. The City does authorize and approve the establishment and funding of a designated reserve account to meet the "Loan Reserve" requirement of the SRF Loan Agreement, and does direct the Director of Finance to establish this Loan Reserve. Section 3, The City does authorize and approve the establishment and funding of a Wastewater Rate Stabilization Account. The purpose of this account is to mitigate rate shock when the Food and Beverage Tax sunsets. The City does direct the Director of Finance to establish this account. Section 4, The City does authorize and direct the Director of Finance and the Interim City Administrator, acting for and on behalf of the City, to execute the final SRF Loan Agreement and such other and additional documents as may reasonably be required for the consummation and closing of the Loan, and any amendments required thereafter, 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 Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney N:\8cCtg\bondsale\sl1'v'eso .... '" 0 0 8 0 g 0 0 on on on on 0 en 0 0 .... .... 8 0 ;1j ... ... CIJ .... '" 0 0 '" 0 co ... on on -' .; f1i f1i 0 0 0 0 gl 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ;:: ;1j 0 co Qli Qli '" 8 0 '" ... "1. co co ... .... ~ ~ '" 0 e>i e>i .,; .,; .; .; >- N '" '" '" '" l3 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 :g Gi 0 g 0 '" g g 0 0 Cl N "0 0 '" '" " 0 ~ 0 e>i e>i lD '" it ! '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 a> '" 0) 0) .,; j .,; Cl' -g 0 co co ... i ... ... ... '" '" lD ~ e>i e>i I it I I ;; 0 0 on on 0 8. 0 0 .1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gi 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 '" ..; ..; 0 ,.: ,.: Cl <'> g I "0 0 - - 0 on ~ " - - co' "0 '" 0 .,; .; e>i e>i lD '" ~ it 0 I. ::E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 I 0 Gi '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl d. 0 0 0 0 0 .,; .,; "0 0 0 0 0 ~ '" .... " en on co - co '" j co en lD - .,; <D .,; i <D it I Cl 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 8 g 0 8 0 0 8 Gi en 0 0 0 a, 0 0 0 0 'i, .,; 0) Cl en '" 0 fa 0 co i - "0 en co "! en - .... " - .,; .,; <D lD it on I I co 0 co 0 co 0 0 0 0 I 0 Ol co 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 Gi ..:. .... 0 .... 0 0 0 0 o. 0) 0 0) 0 .,; 0 <D Cl Ol ... 0 ... 0 -a; 0 '" I CD "0 en " - 0 - "! ... - co lD - e>i e>i e>i it I .... 0 co ~ on on 0 j on '" l3 en on I ;1j :'b ... co .... .... 0) ..; ..; 0) .,; .,; en N on .... gJ on en - '" - q OJ - - " it ~ .... en co I -a; 0 co 0 '" I 0 co 0 en co I '" co Ol Ol .... 0 '" 0 '" co I' - .;, .,; 0) 0 gi 0 <D ,.: 8l ... on '" '" 1!i. OJ - en o. en - i u it j < i I on 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 .... 0 '" Ol Ol .... ... '" ;!: j '" .... ..... OJ ..;. 0 "i <D " 8l ! - -0 '" ... I!. I co o. < it I I en a> en a> '" a. Cl " " a> ..; )( " W a> .r; :;; " " :;; c 0 a. > .r; ~ <: a> .0 "" " <: lD a. E " <: OJ " ~ "0 a> "0 'E lD .3 o!l .e <: > a> '8 " 0 a> "0 " ClIL 0 ;;: z z < "0 a> Cl <: a: 0 " "0' ~ "0 -0 <: ~ Z 'E CIJ IL CIJ OJ < a> " a> " 0 <: E E E l!! 15 ij E o.!!.:p ~ z 0> e e e ~ a> 0 a> CD ~ a. E Q.O:~ ~ < lD IL IL IL .E a> " )( z 0 Ii: CIJ w u: ARTICLE 1: ARTICLE 2: ARTICLE 3: ARTICLE 4: ARTICLE 5: ARTICLE 6: ARTICLE 7: ARTICLE 8: ARTICLE 9: ARTICLE 10: ARTICLE 11: APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: TABLE OF CONTENTS THE LoAN - SPECIFIC TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS .................~...........2 DEFINITIONS..............................................................................~.............................3 GENERAL WAN PROVISIONS...................................................................................5 TERMS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND PROCEDURES .............................,........................7 GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS .........................12 REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS RELATING TO CONSTRUcnON PROJECTS ONLY ...............................;.........................................15 RIGHTS OF DEQ; LIMITATIONS ON DEQ RESPONSIBILITIES.............................16 DEFAULT AND REMEDIES........................................................................................18 CWSRF PROCEDURES MANUAL..~...................~....................................................19 ApPLICABLE FEDERAL AUmORlTIES AND LAWS ("CROSS-:-CUTIERS") ............20 LOAN EXECUTION ..................................................................................................21 PRELIMINARY REPAYMENT SCHEDULE.................................................................22 SEWER RATE STABILIZATION PLAN ......................................................................23 RESOLUTION ..........................................................................................................24 PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGE T AX.........................................................~........25 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 2 ARTICLE 1: THE LOAN - SPECIFIC TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS (A) BORROWER: City of Ashland. (B) LOAN No.: R11750, (C) LOAN AMOUNT: $15,000,000, (D) PROJECf TITLE: Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade (E) DATE OF AGREEMENT: November 7,1997, (F) ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: September 1,2000, (G) INTEREST RATE: 3,57% per annum, Calculation of interest is also discussed in Section 4(G) on page 10 and in Section 4(1) on page 11 of this agreement. ,.1(1. ri'- (H) LoAN PROCESSING FEE: 1.5% of the Final Loan Amount will be due with the r'lle, \ first repayment following the determination of the Final Loan Amount as discussed in Section 2(H) ,\\1- on page 4 and Section 4(H)(1) on page 11 of this agreement. (I) LoAN SERVICING FEE: 0,5% of the outstanding principal will be due annually beginning with the second repayment as discussed in Section 4(H)(2) on page 11 of this agreement. (J) TERMS OF REPAYMENT: Forty semi-annual payments beginning with an interest-only payment six months after project completion, When all disbursements have been made and the Final Loan Amount is determined, a repayment schedule amortizing the loan over the remaining repayment period will be prepared, Attached as Appendix A is a preliminary repayment schedule based on an estimated disbursement schedule and the original Loan Amount. Repayment , is also discussed in Section 4(1) on page 11 of this agreement. Any prepayments will result in the revision of the repayment schedule to reduce the required payments during the period after the Prepared Food and Beverage Tax is terminated. The tax will terminate on December 31, 2010 unless extended by a vote of the electorate, Revenues from the Prepared Food and Beverage Tax designated for the wastewater system will be deposited into the Sewer Rate Stabilization Account. A copy of the authorizing documentation of the Sewer Rate Stabilization Account is attached as Appendix B: (K) BORROWER'S ADDRESS: City of Ashland 20 E, Main Ashland, Oregon 97520 (L) DESCRIYI'ION OF THE PROJECf: Upgrade to the wastewater treatment plant to meet the Total Maximum Daily Load requirements of Bear Creek, including Iieadworks, LOAN AGREEMENT CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 3 disinfection, oxidation ditches, secondary clarifier and upgrades, RAS pump station, thickener, sludge lagoon, pipelines, sludge pump station, effluent storage, pumps, and pipelines, (M) CONSTRUcnON COSTS, As of the date of this Loan Agreement, the Borrower has already incurred $0 in construction costs on the Project. (N) TYPE OF LoAN. The loan authorized by this Loan Agreement has been approved by, the DEQ as an "Revenue Secured Loan" pursuant to OAR Section 340-54-065(2). (0) BORROWER'S AUTHORIZATION. The Borrower has authorized this agreement pursuant to ORS 468,439 by Resolution No" which was duly passed by the Borrower's City Council on ,1997. A copy of this document is attached as Appendix C, (P) PLEDGE. The Borrower hereby pledges its Net Operating Revenues to pay the amounts due under this Loan Agreement. The Borrower covenants with the DEQ and any assignee of this Agreement that the Borrower shall not issue any other obligations which have a pledge or lien on the Net Operating Revenues which is superior to or on a parity with the pledge herein granted without the written permission of the DEQ, which will not be unreasonably withheld, This loan is a parity obligation with all other Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans between the DEQ and the Borrower. (Q) COVERAGE REQUIREMENT. Until the loan is repaid in full, the Borrower covenants with the DEQ to maintain sewer rates sufficient to meet the requirements listed in Section 4(D) on page 9 with a debt service coverage factor of 105%, If the coverage requirement is not met as defined in Section 4(D), sufficient funds may be transferred from the Rate Stabilization Account into the sewer fund to meet the coverage requirement. Funds so transferred will be considered current sewer revenues for the purpose of calculating coverage, (R) LOAN RESERVE REQUIREMENT. The Borrower covenants with the DEQ and any assignee of this Loan Agreement that the Borrower shall establish and maintain a Loan Reserve Account as described in Section 4(E) on page 9. The Loan Reserve Requirement shall be an amount that equals 100% of the average annual debt service as shown on the repayment schedule, Until the Final Loan Amount is calculated, the Loan Reserve Requirement shall be an amount equal to the lesser of 50% of the total loan proceeds disbursed to that date or $1,087,679. ARTICLE 2: DEFINITIONS Unless the context otherwise requires, the capitalized terms used in this Loan Agreement shall have the meanings defmed in this Article. (A) "BORROWER" means the public jurisdiction shown as the "Borrower" in Section X aA" I (A) on page 2. , ~oY (B) "CWSRF" means the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, The Clean ~te Revolving Fund is the same as the SRF and the State Revolving Fund of the Oregon Department of CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 4 Environmental Quality, and as the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund referred to in ORS Chapter 468, Division 423, (C) "COMPLETION DATE" means either the date on which a facility planning project is accepted by the Department, the date on which a design project is ready for the ,contractor bid process, or the date on which a construction project is substantially complete and ready for initiation of operations, (D) "COSTS OF THE PROJEcr" means expenditures approved by the DEQ which are necessary to construct the Project in compliance with DEQ requirements which may include but are not limited to the following items: (1) Obligations of the Borrower incurred for labor and materials and all costs which the Borrower shall be required to pay under the terms of any contract for the design, acquisition, construction or installation of the Project; (2) Engineering fees for the design and construction of the Project. (3) The costs of contract bonds and of insurance of all kinds that may be required or necessary during the course of completion of the Project; (4) The legal, financing and administrative costs of obtairiing the loan and completing the Project; arid (5) Any other costs approved in writing by the DEQ, (E) "DEQ" means the State of Oregon, acting by and through the Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality or the Director's authorized representative, (F) "DIREcrOR" means the Director of the Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality or the Director's authorized representative. (G) "FACILITY" means the Borrower's wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems, (II) "FINAL LOAN AMOUNT" means the total of all loan proceeds disbursed to the Borrower including any Loan Agreement amendment increases or decreases, The Final Loan Amount will be determined when the project is complete or the Borrower indicates that no further loan funds will be requested, or all eligible expenditures have been reimbursed from the loan proceeds. The Final Loan Amount will be amortized over the balance of the repayment period on a final repayment schedule, (I) "LOAN AGREEMENT" or "AGREEMENT" means this Loan Agreement, its appendices, and any amendments or supplements thereto, LOAN AGREEMENT CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 5 (J) "LoAN AMOUNT" means the maximum amount the DEQ agrees to loan the Borrower as shown in Section 1(C) on page 2, This amount may be changed by an amendment to the Loan Agreement approved by both parties, (K) "NET OPERATING REVENUES" means the gross sewer system revenues less the operating expenses, Gross revenues are all fees and charges resulting from operation of the sewer system, and any interest earnings thereon, Gross revenues for the purpose of this Loan Agreement includes the portion of the Prepared Food and Beverage Tax designated for sewer improvements if permanently transferred from the Rate Stabilization Account to meet the Coverage Requirement for the prior or the current fiscal year, Documentation on the Prepared Food and Beverage Tax is attached as Appendix D, Gross revenues for the purpose of this Loan Agreement does not include: any payments of assessments levied against properties; the proceeds of any grants; the proceeds of any borrowings for capital improvements; the proceeds of any liability insurance; or the proceeds of any casualty insurance which the Borrower intends to utilize for repair or replacement of the sewer system. Operating expenses includes all direct and indirect expenses incurred for operation, maintenance and repair of the sewer system, including but not limited to administrative expenses, financial and accounting expenses, insurance premiums, claims (to the extent that monies are not available from proceeds of insurance), taxes, legal and engineering expenses relating to the operation and maintenance, payments and reserves for pension, retirement, health, hospitalization, and sick leave benefits, and any other similar expenses to be paid to the extent properly and directly attributable to operations of the sewer system. (L) "OUTSTANDING LOAN AMOUNT" means the sum of all disbursements to the Borrower hereunder less the sum of all loan principal repayments. (M) "PROJECT" means the facilities, activities or documents described in Section 1(L) on page 2, (N) "STATE" means the State of Oregon, ARTICLE 3: GENERAL LOAN PROVISiONS (A) AGREEMENT OF DEQ TO LoAN. The DEQ agrees to loan the Borrower an amount not to exceed the Loan Amount, subject to. the terms and conditions of this Loan Agreement, but solely from funds available to the DEQ under its Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, The obligation of the DEQ to make the loan described in this agreement is subject to the availability of such funds, and the DEQ shall have no liability to the Borrower or any other party if such funds are not available, or are not available in amounts sufficient to fund the entire loan described herein. ' (B) AVAILABILITY OF FuNDS. The DEQ represents that it has available to it, or expects that it can obtain within a reasonable period of time, money to make the loan contemplated by this Loan Agreement on the schedule submitted by the Borrower in the Final Application. (C) TAX-EXEMPT STATUS. The Borrower covenants to comply with all provisions of the Code which are required in order for interest on the Loan to be excluded from gross income under Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and any regulations or CtTY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOL VlNG FUND PAGE 6 ruling issued thereunder, At the option of the Department, the source of loan funds may be tax- exempt bond proceeds (Slate of Oregon General Obligation bonds), The Borrower covenants not to take any actions that may jeopardize the tax-exempt slatus of these funds, (D) SINGLE AUDIT Acr REQUIREMENTS. The Clean Water Slate Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a loan program of theDEQ which operates under the regulations of the U,S, Environmental Protection Agency and receives capitalization grants through the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No, 66.458: Capilalization Grants for Clean Water Slate Revolving Funds, As such, the CWSRF program and its loan recipients are subject to the U,S, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, "Audits of Slate and Local Governments" implementing the Single Audit Act of 1984. Borrowers are subject to Circular A-128 to the extent that loan proceeds include federal capitalization grant funds, The DEQ will notify the Borrower of the sources of the loan funds after the completion of each fiscal year. The Borrower is responsible for compliance with A-128 audit procedures, (E) AGREEMENT OF BORROWER TO REPAY. The Borrower agrees to repay all amounts, owed on this loan as described in Section 1(1) on page 2, In any case, the Borrower agrees to repay all amounts owed on this loan within twenty years of the actual completion date of the Project. (F) AUTHORIZATION. (1) This Loan Agreement is given as evidence of a loan to the Borrower made by the DEQ pursuant to ORS Title 21 and ORS Chapters 190, 287, 288, and 468, as amended, and shall be subject to the present regulations of the DEQ and to its future regulations consistent with the express provisions hereof, (2) The Borrower has authorized this agreement pursuant to ORS 468,439 by a resolution or ordinance, which was duly passed by the Borrower's governing body as described in Section 1(0) on page 3. (G) TERMINATION OF LoAN AGREEMENT. Upon compliance by the Borrower with all of its obligations under this Loan Agreement, including payment in full of the Final Loan Amount, accrued interest and fees, this Loan Agreement will terminate and the DEQ shall take the steps necessary to release the DEQ's interest in any collateral given as security under this Loan Agreement. ' (II) NOTICES, All notices, payments, statements, demands, costs, approvals, authorizations, offers, designations, requests or other communications under this Loan Agreement by either party to the other shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, and, if to the Borrower, addressed to the location listed in Section 1(K) on page 2, "Borrower's Address," and if to the DEQ, addressed to: Clean Water Slate Revolving Fund Program Water Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality 811 S.W, Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204-1390 CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT (I) CONTRACf. This Loan Agreement shall constitut and the DEQ which shall be binding on the parties thereto u their ing separately executed by the parties. This Loan Agreement including all related loan documents and instruments may not be amended, changed, modified, altered or tem1inated without the written consent of the parties, PAGE 7 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND or to such other addresses as the respective parties may from time e designate, (J) FURTHER INSTRUMENTS. The Borrower and the DEQ agree to execute and deliver any written instruments necessary to carry out any agreement, term, condition or assurance in this Loan Agreement whenever occasion shall arise and reasonable request for such instruments shall be made, (K) AsSIGNMENT. The DEQ shall have the right to transfer the loan or assign this Loan Agreement at any time after its execution upon written approval of the Borrower, This Loan Agreement shall be assigned by the Borrower only with the written approval of the DEQ. (L) LAWS GOVERNING. This agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon as the same from time to time exist. (M) JURISDICfION OF LITIGATION. Any litigation brought under this Loan Agreement shall be conducted in the courts of the county designated by the DEQ or in the courts of Marion County , (N) VALIDITY AND SEVERABILITY, If any pafl,term, or provision of this Loan Agreement, or of any other loan document, shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, voidable, or unenforceable by either party, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and all such remaining portions or provisions shall remain in full force and effect. (0) ARTICLE HEADINGS. All headings contained herein are for convenience of reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Loan Agreement. (P) APPENDICES. The appendices attached to this Loan Agreement are a part of it. (Q) COUNTERPARTS. This Loan Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. ARTICLE 4: TERMS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND PROCEDURES (A) OPINION OF LEGAL COUNSEL. The DEQ shall not be obligated to disburse any funds to the Borrower hereunder unless and until the Borrower has provided the DEQ with an opinion of the legal counsel to the Borrower, in form and substance satisfactory to the DEQ, to the effect that: CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE8 ' (1) The Borrower has the power and authority to execute and deliver, and perform its obligations under this Loan Agreement; (2) This Loan Agreement has been duly executed, acknowledged where necessary by the Borrower's authorized representatives and, to the best knowledge of such counsel, all other necessary actions have been taken, so that this Loan Agreement is valid, binding, and enforceable upon Borrower in accordance with its terms, except as such enforcement is affected by bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium, or other laws affecting creditor's rights generally; and (3) To such counsel's knowledge, this Loan Agreement does not violate any other agreement, statute, court order, or law to which Borrower is a party or by which it is bound, (4) Interest on the CWSRF loan is excluded from gross income under Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and any regulations or ruling issued thereunder, (5) Revenues used as security for the loan will not constitute taxes whIch are limited by Section 11 b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. (B) ,BORROWER'S FINANCIAL RECORDS. (1) The Borrower shall maintain appropriate and complete financial accounts for this Project, for this debt service fund, and for the loan repayment funding source at all times during the term of this Loan Agreement consistent with Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and State Minimum Standards for Audits of Municipal Corporations. Separate accounting will be performed for the Facility producing the gross sewer revenues and for the Project. (2) The Borrower shall retain files and records relating to the Project and this Loan Agreement for at least three (3) years after the project has been completed and all ainounts due under this Loan Agreement are fully repaid, (3) Audit. Federal enabling legislation and rules require lin audit of each CWSRF loan, DEQ agrees to accept the following as adequate to meet this requirement. (a) A full and complete accounting of Project costs incurred including documentation to support each cost element with a summary of the total costs of the Project and the sources of funding submitted to the DEQ no more than six months following project completion; and (b) A copy the Borrower's annual audit report provided by December 31 st of each year until the loan is fully repaid, LOAN AGREEMENT CITY OF AsHLAND: R11750: 11/7/97 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENvIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 9 (C) INSURANCE. At its own expense, the Borrower shall procure and maintain insurance coverage (including, but not limited to hazard, flood and general liability insurance) adeqUate to protect DEQ's interest, and in such amounts and against such risks as are usually insurable in connection with similar projects and as is usually carried by entities operating similar facilities,' The Borrower shall maintain this insurance until all amounts due under this Loan Agreement are fully repaid, and shall provide evidence of such insurance to the DEQ, Self insurance pursuant to a recognized municipal program of self insurance shall be adequate to satisfy this requirement. (D) SEWER RATE COVENANT. (1) Sewer Rates to Cover Debt Service Payments. The Borrower covenants with the DEQ and any assignee of this Loan Agreement that the Borrower shall charge fees in connection with the operation of the sewer system which are adequate to generate Net Operating Revenues in each fiscal year equal to or greater than the debt service coverage factor given in Section I(Q) on page 3 multiplied by the debt service payments due under this Loan Agreement in that fiscal year. (2) Sewer Rate Adjustments, If, in any fiscal year, the Borrower fails to collect fees sufficient to meet the coverage requirements described in paragraph (D)(I) of this Article, the Borrower agrees to promptly adjust its fees to assure future compliance and to transfer funds to the Sewer Fund from other sources in an amount equal to the deficiency. Any transfers or deposits to the Sewer Fund shall be maintained in the Sewer Fund and be used only for purposes for which the Net Operating Revenues may be used. If the Borrower fails to meet the coverage requirements, then the transfer of funds to cover the deficiency does not constitute the correction of the default unless the transfer is made from the Sewer Rate Stabilization Account from sewer fees and Prepared Food and Beverage taxes previously collected, (3) Financial Reporting Requirement. The Borrower shall provide the DEQ with a report which demonstrates the Borrower's compliance with the requirements of this section by December 31 st of each year until the loan is repaid. If the audit report described in Section 4(B)(3)(b) on page 8 identifies the Net Operating Revenues and contains a calculation demonstrating whether the Borrower satisfied the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, the audit report described in Section 4(B)(3)(b) on page 8 shall satisfy the requirements of this subsection. ' (E) LoAN RESERVE ACCOUNT. (1) The Borrower covenants with the DEQ and any assignee of this Loan Agreement that the Borrower shall create a restricted Loan Reserve Account, which it shall hold in trust for the benefit of the DEQ and any assignee of this Loan Agreement. The Borrower covenants to use the funds in the Loan Reserve Account solely to pay amounts due hereunder until the loan, interest and fees have been fully repaid. CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : I1n/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 10 (2) The Borrower covenants that it shall deposit an amount equal to the Loan Reserve Requirement as described in Section 1(R) on page 3 into the Loan Reserve Account no later than the first day on which a disbursement is received hereunder, (3) The Borrower covenants that if the balance in the Loan Reserve Account falls below the Loan Reserve Requirement, it will promptly deposit an amount sufficient to restore the balance from the first net revenues available after payment of the amounts due hereunder unless the deposit has been made previously from other money of the Borrower, (F) DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN PROCEEDS. (1) Bid Documents, The DEQ shall not be obligated to disburse any loan proceeds to the Borrower hereunder unless and until the Borrower has submitted a copy of the awarded cOntract and bid documents to the DEQ for the portion of the Project costs which will be funded with the disbursement. (2) Documentation of Expenditures, The Borrower shall provide the DEQ with written evidence of materials and labor furnished to and performed upon the premises, receipts for the payment of the same, releases, satisfactions and other signed statements and forms as may be reasonably required by the DEQ. (3) Adjustments and Corrections. The DEQ may at any time, review and audit ,requests for disbursement and make adjustments for, but not limited to, ineligible expenditures, mathematical errors, items not built or bought and unacceptable work. Nothing herein contained shall require the DEQ to pay any amounts for labor or materials unless satisfied that such claims are reasonable and that such labor and materials were actually expended and used in the completion of the Project. In addition, the DEQ shall not be required to disburse loan proceeds in any amount greater than the total estimated cost of the work completed at the time of the disbursement as determined by the DEQ, (4) Contract Retainage Disbursement. The DEQ will not disburse loan proceeds to cover contractor retainage unless the Borrower is disbursing retainage to an' escrow account and provide~ proof of the deposit, or until the Borrower provides proof that retained funds were paid to the contractor. (G) INTEREST EXPENSE. Interest will accrue at the rate specified in Section I(G) on page 2 from the date that a disbursement is mailed or delivered to the Borrower, or deposited into an account of the Borrower. Interest will accrue without compounding using a 365/366 day year until the Final Loan Amount is determined. After the Final Loan Amount is determined and the final repayment schedule is prepared, interest on future scheduled payments will accrue on a 360 day year basis and compound semi-annually on the payment due dates, Scheduled payments will be applied to interest and principal according to the repayment schedule, rather than being applied based on the day the payment is received, CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ST ATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 11 (H) FEES. (1) Loan Processing Fee, The Borrower agrees to pay a one-time loan processing fee of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the Final Loan Amount. The loan processing fee shall be assessed after the Final Amount is determined and shall be due and payable as described in Section 1(H) on page 2. (2) Loan Servicing Fee, The Borrower agrees to pay an annual loan servicing fee during the repayment period equal to one-half of one percent (0,5%) of the Outstanding Loan Amount. The loan servicing fee shall be assessed and payable as described in Section 1(1) on page 2, The loan servicing fee shall be calculated based upon the Outstanding Loan Amount prior to the posting of the payment due on that date. (3) Late Payment Fee, The Borrower agrees to pay immediately upon demand of the DEQ, a late fee equal to five percent (5%) of any loan payment which is not received by the DEQ on or before the tenth day after such payment is due, This late fee shall also apply to any loan processing fee or loan servicing fee which is due on that loan payment due date, (I) LOAN REPAYMENT. (1) Final Loan Amount. After the final request for loan proceeds is submitted by the Borrower and disbursed by the DEQ, the Final Loan Amount will be determined. The Final Loan Amount is the sum of all disbursements made including any amounts authorized by loan amendments. ,The Final Loan Amount less any principal payments received will be amortized over the balance of the repayment term specified under "Terms of Repayment" in Section 1(1) on page 2, (2) Interim Payments, The Borrower agrees to make the first repayment on the loan as stated on the repayment schedule, but, in any case, no later than one year following the actual completion date of the Project, Semi-annual payments will continue to be due based upon a Preliminary or reVised schedule until the Final Loan Amount is determined and the final repayment schedule is prepared, Any payments received during this period will be credited first to fees due, if any, then to accrued interest as of the payment due date, and then to principal, . (3) Repayment Schedule. A final repayment schedule will be calculated after the final disbursement is made and the Final Loan Amount is determined, This schedule will record any interim payments which have already been made, The remaining scheduled payments will amortize the Final Loan Amount less any principal payments received over the remaining number of years or payments specified under "Terms of Repayment" in Section 1(1) on page 2. Attached as Appendix A is a preliminary repayment schedule based on the estimated completion date and original Loan Amount. (4) Crediting of Scheduled Payments, Scheduled payments will be applied first to fees due, if any, and then to interest according to the repayment schedule, and then to principal, CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 12 (5) Crediting of Unscheduled Payments, All unscheduled payments, including any prepayments and partial payments, wiIl be applied first to fees due, if any, and then to interest computed using a 365/366 day year, and then to principal, After an unscheduled payment, the Outstanding Loan Amount will be reamortized to reduce payments during the period after the termination of the Prepared Food and Beverage Tax. After a partial payment, the Outstanding Loan Amount will be reamortized at the same interest rate for the same number of payments to increase the loan payment amount. (6) Final Payment. All outstanding loan principal, interest and fees will be due and payable no later than twenty years after the completion date, (J) PREPAYMENT. (1) Optional Prepayment. The Borrower may prepay any amounts owed on this loan without penalty on any business day upon 24 hours prior written notice, (2) Mandatory Prepayment. The Borrower shall prepay all amounts owed on this loan upon receipt of notice that the DEQ has accelerated the loan in accordance with the default provisions of this Loan Agreement. (3) Refinancing of Loan by Borrower, The Borrower warrants that if it refinances the portion of the Project fmanced by this loan, or obtains an additional grant or loan which is intended to finance the portion of the Project financed by this loan, it will prepay the portion of the Loan constituting a double benefit. ARTICLE 5: GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS (A) REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE BORROWER. (1) The Borrower hereby certifies, recites and declares that all acts, conditions and things required to exist, happen and be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Agreement have existed, have happened, and have been performed in due time, form ' and manner as required by law; and that the Loan Amount together with all obligations of the Borrower does not, and will not, exceed any limits prescribed by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Oregon or the Borrower's authority, (2) The Borrower warrants that it is a duly formed and existing municipal corporation of the State of Oregon and has full corporate and other power to enter into this Loan Agreement. (3) The Borrower warrants that there is no material adverse information relating to the Project or the loan, known to the Borrower, which has not been disclosed to the DEQ. LOAN AGREEMENT CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 1117197 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 13 (4) The Borrower warrants that no litigation exists or has been threatened which would cast doubt on the enforceability of the Borrower's obligations under this Loan Agreement. (5) The Borrower warrants that this Loan Agreement does not create any unconstitutional indebtedness, (6) The Borrower warrants that neither the execution of this Loan Agreement, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this Loan Agreement, will violate any provision of law, or any order of any court or other agency of govemment, or any agreement or other instrument to which the Borrower is now a party or by which the Borrower or any of its properties or assets is bound, nor will same be in conflict with, result in a breach or constitute a default (with due notice or the passage oftime or both) under any such agreement or other instrument, or, except as provided hereunder, result in the creation or in1position of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature whatsoever upon any of the property or assets of the Borrower, (7) The Borrower warrants that any necessary local, state, and federal licenses, permits, and other approvals and authorizations for completion of the Project have been or will be obtained before the Project begins, and their provisions shall be complied with during the term of this Loan Agreement. (B) REpRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES,OF THE DEQ. The DEQ represents and warrants that the Director or the Director's representative has power under ORS 468 and OAR, Chapter 340, Division 54, to enter into the transactions contemplated by this Loan Agreement and to carry out the Department's obligations thereunder, By proper action of the State, the Director , and the Director's representative have been duly authorized to execute and deliver this Loan Agreement and to make the loan as contemplated hereby, (C) PROJECf AsSURANCES. Nothing in this Loan Agreement prohibits the Borrower from requiring more assurances, guarantees, or indemnity or other contractual requirements from any party performing Project work, (D) GENERAL COVENANTS OF THE BORROWER. The Borrower covenants with the DEQ that: (1) The Borrower shall use the loan funds only for payment of or reimbursement of costs of the Project in accordance with this Loan Agreement. (2) The Borrower is and will be the owner of the sewer system and the Project, and shall defend it against the claims and demands of all other persons at any time claiming , the same or any interest therein, (3) The Borrower shall not sell, transfer, or encumber the sewer system without the prior Written approval of the DEQ, which approval shall not unreasonably be withheld, CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVtRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 14 Upon sale of the sewer system or the Project, in whole or in part, to a private purchaser, this CWSRF loan shall be immediately due and payable in full. (4) The Borrower shall undertake the Project, request disbursements under this Loan Agreement, and use the Loan Amount in full compliance with all applicable laws and rules of the State of Oregon, including ORS Chapter 468 and Oregon Administrative Rules Sections 340-54-005 to 340-54-080, as they may be amended from time to time, and all applicable laws and rules of the United States, including Title VI of the Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4 and any subsequent amendments, and all applicable rules of the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. Article lOon page 20 lists many of the applicable federal laws and authorities ("Cross-Cutters"), (5) To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Borrower shall indemnify, save, defend and hold the DEQ harmless in any action, suit, or claim arising from the Borrower's failure to comply with any laws, requirements, permits and licenses relating to the Project or this Loan Agreement. (6) The Borrower shall disburse monies from the loan proceeds solely for the costs of the Project. (7) Concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Loan Agreement, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Borrower shall take all steps necessiuy to cause the Project to be completed in accordance with all applicable DEQ requirements. (8) If the Loan Amount is not sufficient to pay for the costs of the Project in full, the Borrower shall pay at its own expense from its own funds and without any right of reimbursement from the DEQ all such costs of the Project in excess of the loan funds and additions thereto. (9) The Borrower shall take no action which would adversely affect the , eligibility of the project as a Clean Water State Revolving Fund Project, or cause a violation of any loan covenant herein, (10) The Borrower shall keep the sewer system in good repair and working order at all times and operate the system in an efficient and economical manner. (E) PROJECf COVENANTS OF THE BORROWER. The Borrower covenants with the DEQ that: (1) MBE, WBE and SBRA Affirmative Steps, The Borrower shall promote a fair share award to Small Businesses in Rural Areas, Minority Business Enterprises, and Women's Business Enterprises on all contract and subcontracts awarded as a part of the Project. (2) Surety Bond, Unless the DEQ provides a written waiver, the Borrower shall have all prime contractors execute and deliver a corporate surety bond acceptable to the DEQ for the faithful performance of the contract or subcontract and payment of all liens and CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ST ATE REVOL VlNG FUND PAGE 15 lienable expenses in connection therewith in a sum equal to the contract or subcontract price, (3) Retainage. The Borrower shall include a five percent (5%) retainage provision in all of the Borrowers contracts for purchases or completion, of any part of the Project greater in cost than One Hundred Thousand ($100,000) Dollars. , (4) Change Orders, The Borrower shall submit all change orders to the DEQ, The Borrower shall not use amounts loaned under this Loan Agreement to pay for costs of any change order which has not been approved, in writing, by the DEQ. This subsection shall not prevent the Borrower from approving a change prior to approval by DEQ, as long as the Borrower accepts the risk of paying for costs of the change if it is not approved by DEQ, ARTICLE 6: REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS RELATING TO CONSTRUCfION PROJECTS ONLY (A) COVENANTS. The Borrower covenants with the DEQ that: (1) 'Inspections. The Borrower shall provide inspections dining the building of the Project as required by the DEQ to ensure that the Project complies with approved plans and specifications, These inspections shall be conducted by qualified inspectors under the direction of a registered civil, mechanical or electrical engineer, whichever is appropriate. The DEQ or its representatives may conduct interim building inspections to determine compliance with approved plans and specifications and with the Loan Agreement, as appropriate, (2) Asbestos. The Borrower shall ensure that any removal of asbestos which may be part of this Project will be performed by parties trained and qualified for asbestos removal, (3) Operation and Maintenance Manual. The Borrower shall submit a draft facility operation and maintenance manual before the project is fifty percent (50%) complete, The Borrower shall submit a facility operation and maintenance manual which meets DEQ approval before the Project is ninety percent (90%) complete. (4) Project Perfoffilance Certification, Draft performance standards shall be submitted by the borrower before fifty percent (50%) project completion, Final standards shall be submitted and approved by DEQ before ninety percent (90%) project completion. The borrower shall notify the DEQ of the initiation of operation date within 30 days following the event. No later than 10.5 months after the initiation of operation, the borrower shall submit a perfOffilance evaluation report based on the approved perfOffilance evaluation criteria and standards, An affIrmative or negative certification statement is required one year after the project's initiation of operation. If the project certification is negative, a corrective action plan shall be submitted to DEQ within two months of the certification to provide a basis for discussion and action to , CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 16 correct project deficiencies, The Project performance process is discussed in further detail in the "SRF Manual for Construction Projects," (5) Alterations After Completion, The Borrower shall not materially alter the design or structural character of the Project after the completion of the Project without the written approval of the DEQ, (B) COSTS ALREADY INCURRED BY THE BORROWER. (1) The Borrower represents that the amount of construction costs of the Project which have been incurred by the Borrower for the Project as of the date of this Loan Agreement do not exceed the amounts shown in Section 1(M) on page 3. (2) 'The DEQ has relied upon Borrower's representation as to the amount of construction costs incurred prior to the date of this Loan Agreement. If that sum is within the V.S, Environmental Protection Agency's definition of "refinancing," the DEQ warrants that that amount is within the exception to the refinancing rule allowed by the EP A. As such, Clean Water State Revolving Fund rules (40 CFR Part 35) allow disbursements to be made on a reimbursement basis, (C) PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. The Borrower's plans, specifications and related documents for the Project will be reviewed and approved by the DEQ. (D) PROJECT INITIATION OF OPERATIONS. (1) The Borrower shall notify the DEQ no more than thirty (30) days after the actual Project Completion Date. (2) If the Project is completed, or is completed except for minor items, and the Project is operable, but the Borrower has not sent its notice of initiation of operation, the DEQ may assign an initiation of operation date, ARTICLE 7: RIGHTS OF DEQ; LIMITATIONS ON DEQ RESPONSIBILITIES (A) QUALITY OF MATERIAl.S. The DEQ does not warrant or guarantee the quality of materials supplied to and which become a part of the Project, the quality of the workmanship performed upon the project, or the extent and stage of completion of the Project, and no such warranty or guarantee shall be implied by virtue of any inspection or disbursement made by the DEQ, (B) LIABILITY OF THE DEQ. It is expressly understood and agreed that the DEQ will be under no liability of any kind or character whatsoever for payment of labor or materials or otherwise in connection with the completion of the Project or for the carrying out of contracts entered into by the Borrower with third parties for the completion of the Project. All costs of material, labor and construction, including indirect costs, shall be paid by the Borrower. CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 17 (C) RIGHT OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION. The Borrower will allow the DEQ or its agents or assignees the right to enter the premises during reasonable business hours upon reasonable notice to the Borrower to inspect the Project and for all other lawful purposes including the examining of books and records pertaining to the Project or this Loan Agreement and to make extracts and copies thereof. (D) DEQ NOT REQUIRED TO ACT. Nothing contained in this Loan Agreement shall require the DEQ to incur any expense or to take any action hereunder, and it shall not be liable to the Borrower for any damages or claims arising out of action taken pursuant to this Loan Agreement. (E) WAIVERS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. (1) The waiver by the DEQ of any breach by the Borrower of any term, covenant or condition of this Loan Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition of this Loan Agreement. The DEQ may pursue any of its remedies hereunder concurrently or consecutively without being deemed to have waived its right to pursue any other remedy. (2) Nothing in this Loan Agreement affects the DEQ's right to take remedial action, including; but not limited .to, administrative enforcement action and actions for breach of contract against a Borrower that fails to carry out its obligations under this Loan Agreement. (F) NONLIABILITY OF STATE. (1) The State and its officers, agents and employees shall not be liable to the Borrower, or to any other party whomsoever for any death, injury, damage, or loss that may result to any person or property by or fromany cause whatsoever, arising out of the Project. The Borrower shall, and does hereby agree to the extent permitted by law and the Oregon Constitution, to indemnify, defend, save and hold the State, its officers, agents and employees harmless from and defend each of them against any and all claims, liens and judgments for death of, injury to, or loss by any person or damage to property whatsoever occurring in, on or about the premises of the Project or due to the existence or activities of the Project, and, to the extent permitted by law, any reasonable attorneys' fees and expense incurred in connection with litigation against the State challenging or questioning the validity of this Loan Agreement, the existence or activities of the Project or actions, contracts, permits, or licenses obtained, agreed to, or performed by the Borrower in connection therewith. (2) Any findings by the Department concerning the Project and any inspections or analyses of the Project by the DEQ are for purposes of determining eligibility for the loan and disbursement of loan proceeds only and do not constitute an endorsement of the feasibility of the Project or its components or an assurance of any kind for any other purpose. CITY OF ASHLAND: RI1750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 18 (3) Review and approval of facilities plans, design drawings and specifications or other documents by or for the DEQ does not relieve the Borrower of its responsibility to properly plan, design, build and effectively operate and maintain the Facility as required by law, regulations, permits and good management practices. ARTICLE 8: DEFAULT AND REMEDIES (A) EVENTS OF DEFAULT. The occurrence of one or more of the following events shall constitute an Event of Default, whether occurring voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or pursuant to any order of any court or governmental agency: (1) The Borrower's failure to make any loan payment within thirty (30) days after the payment is scheduled to be made according to the repayment schedule; (2) The Borrower's failure to comply in any material respect with any other covenant, condition, or agreement of the Borrower hereunder for a period of thirty (30) days after notice thereof from the DEQ; (3) The DEQ reasonably determines that any representation or warranty made by the Borrower hereunder was untrue in any material respect as of the date it was made; (4) The Borrower becomes insolvent or admits in writing an inability to pay its debts as they mature or applies for, consents to, or acquiesces in the appointment of a trustee or receiver for the Borrower or a substantial part of its property; or in the absence of . such application, consent, or acquiescence, a trustee or receiver is appointed for the Borrower or a substantial part of its property and is not discharged within sixty (60) days; or any bankruptcy, reorganization, debt arrangement or moratorium or any dissolution or liquidation proceeding, is instituted by or against the Borrower and, if instituted against the Borrower, is consented to or acquiesced in by the Borrower or is not dismissed within ninety (90) days; or (5) The DEQ reasonably determines that, as a result of any changes in the Constitution of the United States of Ainerica or the Oregon Constitution or as a result of any legislative, judicial, or administrative action, any part of this Loan Agreement shall have become void or unenforceable or impossible to perform in accordance with the intention and purposes of the parties hereto, or shall have been declared unlawful. (B) REMEDIES. If the DEQ determines that an Event of Default has occurred, the DEQ may: (1) Declare the Outstanding Loan Ainount plus any unpaid accrued interest and fees immediately due and payable; (2) Cease making disbursement of loan proceeds, or make some disbursements . of loan proceeds and withhold or refuse to make other disbursements; LOAN AGREEMENT CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 19 (3) Appoint a receiver at the expense of the Borrower to operate the Facility and collect the gross revenues; (4) Pay, compromise or settle any liens on the premises or the Project or pay other sums required to be paid by the Borrower in connection with the Project, at the DEQ's discretion, using the loan proceeds and such additional money as may be required. In the event of payment by the DEQ, or any payment out of the loan proceeds secured hereby, of any encumbrance, lien, claim, or demand, the DEQ may, at its option, be subrogated to the extent of the arnoWlt of such payment to all the rights, powers, privileges, and remedies of the payor or payee, as the case may be, and any such subrogation rights shall be additional cumulative security for this Loan Agreement; (5) Direct the State Treasurer to withhold any arnoWlts otherwise due to the Borrower from the State of Oregon and, to the extent permitted by Law, direct that such funds be applied to the 3rnOWlts. due to the DEQ Wlder this Loan Agreement and be deposited into the Clean Water State Revolving FWld; (6) Compel the specific performance of any term, covenant, or condition of this Loan Agreement; and (7) Pursue any other legal or equitable remedy it may have. (C) ATIORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES. In the event the Borrower shall default Wlder any of the provisions of this Loan Agreement and the DEQ shall employ attorneys or incur other expenses for the DEQ's successful enforcement of or the performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the Borrower contained therein, the Borrower agrees that it will, upon demand thereof, pay to the order of the DEQ the reasonable fee of such attorneys and other expenses incurred by the DEQ. ARTICLE 9: CWSRF PROCEDURES MANUAL The Oregon Administrative Rule references the Clean Water State Revolving FWld Procedures Manual for requirements and guidance on many aspects of Section 212 publicly-owned treatment works projects. Ibis document lists many of the requirements for meeting DEQ plan review and approval standards, as well as CWSRF loan conditions. While some of the document is guidance rather than requirement, this guidance is written with the intent of assisting the Borrower with important issues, and borrowers are strongly encouraged to consider and follow the guidance when applicable. The SRF Manual forConstrnction Projects provides additional information on many of the project requirements and guidance. ARTICLE 10: ApPLICABLE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES AND LAWS ("CROSS-CUTIERS") (A) ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION: Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, PL 93-291. CITY OF AsHLAND: RII 750 : 1I/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 20 Clean Air Act, 42 V.S.C. 7506(c). Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 V.S.C. 3501, et seq. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, PL 92-583, as amended. Endangered Species Act 16 V.S.C. 1531, et seq. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancementofthe Cultural Environment. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. Fannland Protection Policy Act, 7 V.S.C. 4201, et seq. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, PL 85-624, as amended. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, PL 89-665, as amended. Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1424(e), PL 92-523, as amended. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, PL 90-542, as amended. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500. (B) ECONOMIC LEGISLATION: Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, PL 89-754, as amended. Section 306 of the Clean Air Act and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act, including Executive Order 11738, Administration of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with Respect to Federal Contracts, Grants or Loans. (C) SOCIAL LEGISLATION: Age Discrimination Act, PL 94-135. Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88-352, as amended, 42 V.S.C. 2000d et seq. Section 13 ofPL 92-500; Prohibition against Sex Discrimination under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity. Executive Order 11625 and 12138, Women's and Minority Business Enterprise. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, PL 93-112 (including Executive Orders 11914 and 11250), as amended, 29 V.S.C. 794. (D) MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITY: Vniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, PL 92-646. Executive Order 12549 and 40 CFR Part 32, Debannent and Suspension. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, Section 1352, Title 31, V.S. Code. CITY OF ASHLAND: RI1750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND ARTICLE 11: LoAN EXECUTION PAGE 21 This loan agreement is executed between the STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (the "DEQ") and the CITY OF AsHLAND (the "Borrower") effective as of the date indicated in Section 1 (E) on page 2. BORROWER: CITY OF AsHLAND Authorized Officer Typed Name: Title: Date STATE OF OREGON, ) ) ) County of This instrument was acknowledged before me on by as the . Name Title of the City of Ashland. . Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: DEQ: STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL.QUALITY Authorized Officer Typed Name: Langdon Marsh Title: Director Date CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LoAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY' STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 22 ApPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY REPAYMENT SCHEDULE BORROWER: CITY OF ASHLAND ANNUAL INTEREST RATE: 3.57% SRF LOAN NO.: R11750 TERM IN YEARS: 20 LOAN AMOUNT: $ 15,000,000.00 PAYMENT AMOUNT: $537,188.00 Due .------------.-----PAYMENT------.--,-.----.-- Principal Date Pml# Principal Interest Fees Total Balance $ 15,000,000.00 6/1/01 1 0.00 803,250.00 225,000.00 . 1,028,250.00 15,000,000.00 12/1/01 2 269,438.00 267,750.00 75,000.00 612,188.00 14,730,562.00 6/1/02 3 274,247.47 262,940.53 0.00 537,188.00 14,456,314.53 12/1/02 4 279,142.79 258,045.21 72,281.57 609,469.57 14,177,171.74 6/1/03 5 284,125.48 253,062.52 0.00 537,188.00 13,893,046.26 12/1/03 6 289,197.12 247,990.88 69,465.23 606,653.23 13,603,849.14 6/1/04 7 294,359.29 242,828.71 0.00 537,188.00 13,309,489.85 12/1/04 8 299,613.61 237,574.39 66,547.45 603,735.45 13,009,876.24 6/1/05 9 304,961.71 232,226.29 0.00 537,188.00 12,704,914.53 12/1/05 10 310,405.28 226,782.72 63,524.57 600,712.57 12,394,509.25 6/1/06 11 315,946.01 221,241.99 0.00 537,188.00 12,078,563.24 12/1/06 12 321,585.65 215,602.35 60,392.82 597,580.82 11,756,977 .59 6/1/07 13 327,325.95 209,862.05 0.00 537,188.00 11,429,651.64 12/1/07 14 333,168.72 204,019.28 57,148.26 594,336.26 11,096,482.92 6/1/08 15 339,115.78 198,072.22 . 0.00 537,188.00 10,757,367.14 12/1/08 16 345,169.00 192,019.00 53,786.84 590,974.84 10,412,198.14 6/1109 17 351,330.26 185,857.74 0.00 537,188.00 10,060,867.88 12/1/09 18 357,601.51 179,586.49 .50,304.34 587,492.34 9,703,266.37 6/1110 19 363,984.70 173,203.30 0.00 537,188.00 9,339,281.67 12/1110 20 370,481.82 166,706.18 46,696.41 583,884.41 8,968,799.85 6/1/11 21 377,094.92 160,093.08 0.00 537,188.00 8,591,704.93 12/1/11 22 383,826.07 153,361.93 42,958.52 580,146.52 8,207,878.86 6/1/12 23 390,677.36 146,510.64 0.00 537,188.00 7,817,201.50 12/1/12 24 397,650.95 139,537.05 39,086.01 576,274.01 7,419,550.55 6/1/13 25 404,749.02 132,438.98 0.00 537,188.00 7,014,801.53 12/1/13 26 411,973.79 125,214.21 35,074.01 572,262.01 6,602,827.74 6/1/14 27 . 419,327.52 117,860.48 0.00 537,188.00 6,183,500.22 12/1/14 28 426,812.52 110,375.48 30,917.50 568,105.50 5,756,687.70 6/1/15 29 434,431.12 102,756.88 0.00 537,188.00 5,322,256.58 12/1/15 30 442,185.72 95,002.28 26,611.28 563,799.28 4,880,070.86 6/1/16 31 450,078.74 87,109.26 0.00 537,188.00 4,429,992.12 12/1/16 32 458,112.64 79,075.36 22,149.96 559,337.96 3,971,879.48 6/1/17 33 466,289.95 70,898.05 0.00 537,188.00 3,505,589.53 12/1/17 34 474,613.23 62,574.77 17,527.95 554,715.95 3,030,976.30 6/1/18 35 483,085.07 54,102.93 0.00 537,188.00 2,547,891.23 12/1/18 36 491,708.14 45,479.86 12,739.46 549,927.46 . 2,056,183.09 6/1119 37 500,485.13 36,702.87 0.00 537,188.00 1,555,697.96 12/1/19 38 509,418.79 27,769.21 7,778.49 544,966.49 1,046,279.17 6/1/20 39 518,511.92 18,676.08 0.00 537,188.00 527,767.25 12/1120 40 527,767.25 9,420.65 2,638.84 539,826.74 0.00 TOTALS $15,000,000.00 $ 6,753,581.90 $1,077,629.51 $ 22,831 ,211.41 REQUIRED LOAN RESERVE: $ 1,087,679 Note: Interest in the first payment assumes disbursements are made evenly between 12/98 and 12/00. CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT ~ Rate Stabilization Account. The purpose of this 'S01!J1ilt when the Prepared Food and Beverage Tax ends. ffie t, balance in this account shall not exceed the total amount of outstandin . ~ c, I r.em i at any time during the term of this loan, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOLVING FUND PAGE 24 APPENDIX C: RESOLUTION [Attach copy of the Resolution approving the loan] CITY OF ASHLA~ : R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STATE REVOL VlNG FUND ApPENDIX D: PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX DOCUMENT AnON ~ PAGE 25 Chaoter 4.34 FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX (Referred to voters by Resolution No. 93-02 for 3/23/93 election) (Approved by the voters. YES 3658; NO 2980) (Effective July 1, 1993) '--' Sections: 4.34.010 4.34.020 4.34.030 4.34.040 4.34.050 4.34.060 4.34.070 Director. 4.34.080 4.34.090 4.34.100 4.34.110 4.34.120 4.34.130 4.34.140 4.34.150 . 4.34.160 Definitions. Tax Imposed. . Exemptions. Operator's Duties. Reporting and remitting. Penalties and Interest. Failure to Collect and Report Tax-Determination of Tax by AppeaL Records. Refunds. Actions to Collect. VIolationS-Infractions. Confidentiality. Examining Books. Records. . Special account. Termination of tax. 4.34.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shaU be construed as defined In this section unless from the context a different meaning is intended. A. "Caterer" means a person who prepares food at a business site, for compensatiol'l. for consumption off the business premises but within the corporate limits of the city. "Combination faCility" has the same meaning as defined in Oregon Administrative Rule 333-150-000(8) which the State of Oregon Department of Agriculture ncenses or inspects under Oregon Administrative Rule 333-158-000. B. c. "Director" means the Director of Finance of the City of Ashland. or designee. ......... Title 4 Page 53 CITY OF ASHLAND: R11750 : 11/7/97 LOAN AGREEMENT D. "Food" includes all meals and beverages, excluding alcoholic beverages, served in a restaurant including "takeout", "to go" or delivered orders. E. .Open Space Park Program" and "Open Space lands or easements" have the same meaning as used in Article XIX A of the Ashland City Charter. F. .Operator" means the person who is proprietor of the restaurant, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee or-any other capacity. Where the operator is a corporation, the term operator shall also include each and every member of the Board of Directors of such corporation for the time involved. G. .Restauranf means any establishment required to be licensed as a restaurant, mobile unit or pushcart by the State of Oregon Health DMsion and includes any establishment where food or beverage is prepared for consumption by the public or any establishment where the public obtains food or beverage so prepared in form or quantity consumable then and . there, whether or not it is consumed within the confines of the premises where prepared, and also includes establishments which prepare food or beverage. in consumable form for service outside the premises where prepared. The term restaurant also includes establishments where such food or beverage is prepared in a combination facility. The term restaurant does not include a restaurant licensed by the State of Oregon Health Division as a limited service restaurant. (Ord. 2716, S1, 1993) 4.34.020 Tax imDosed. . A. The city imposes and levies, in addition to all other taxes, fees and charges of every kind, a tax upon: 1. All food and beverages sold by restaurants located within the city to the public, except for whole cakes, pies, and loaves of bread if purchased for consumption off premises, and for alcoholic beverages; . 2. All food and beverages, except alcoholic beverages, sold by a caterer for an event located within the city; and 3. The following items sold by combination facilities: a. Salads from salad bars; b. Dispensed soft drinks and coffee; and c. Sandwiches or hot prepared foods ready for immediate consumption. RovIood June 1993 Title 4 Page 54 d. The following items, including toppings or additions, scooped or otherwise placed into a cone, bowl or other container for immediate consumption whether or not they are consumed within the confines of the premises where scooped or placed: Any frozen dessert regulated by the Oregon State Department of Agriculture under ORS 621.311 and any ice cream, ice milk, sherbet or frozen yogurt. No tax shall be imposed under this subsection, however, on any item whose volume exceeds one-half gallon or more. (Ord. 2720, 1993) e. Any other food mixed, cooked or processed on the premises in form or quantity for immediate consumption whether or not it is consumed within the confines of the premises where prepared. (Ord. 2716, S2, 1993) 4. The following items sold by combination facilities that are bakeries: a. All those items listed in Section 4.34.020.A.3.a-d; b. All bakery products sold for consumption on the premises; and c. All "takeout" or "to go. orders of bakery products prepared on the premises except for whole cakes, pies, and loaves of bread and any order consisting of six or more bakery products. (Ord. 271653, 1993; 2720, 1993) B. Such tax shall be imposed at a rate of one percent on the total amount charged by the seller for the food and beverages, or for the meal. In the computation of this tax any fraction of one-half cent or more shall be treated as one cent. (Ord. 2716 S4, 1993) C. All taxes collected by the city under this chapter shall be paid into the Open Space Park Account. Such taxes shall be used for the acquisition of Open Space lands or easements and for such other purposes pertinent to the Open Space Park Program as the Council and. Park Commission may Jointly determine. D. The council may increase the rate of the tax described in subsection 4.34.02O.A up to a maximum of five percent after a public hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the date of the publiC hearing. Notwithstanding subsection 4.34.020.C, taxes collected by the City as a result of any increased rate under this subsection shall be used for the purpose of researching, designing and constructing State of Oregon mandated lIovIoeel August 1993 Title 4 Page 55 sewage treatment methods, which may include, but not be limited to, wetlands. 4.34.030 Exemptions. The tax levied by Section 4.34.020 shall not be collected or assessed on food or beverages: A. Sold by public or private schools or colleges, except that food sold by independent contractor operators at such schools or colleges shall be subject to the tax imposed by this chapter; , B. Provided by hospitals; C. Provided by bed and breakfast establishments to their guests. D. Sold in vending machines; E. Sold in temporary restaurants including food stands, booths, street concessions and similar type operations, operated by non-profit organizations or service clubs. F. Served in connection with overnight or residential facilities-including, but not limited to, convalescent homes, nursing homes, retirement homes and motels-if the food and beverage are provided as part of the cost of , sleeping accommodations. G. Provided by nonprofit tax-exempt organizations to citizens over 60 years of age as a part of a recognized senior citizen nutritional program. H. Sold for resale to the public. I. Sold in bulk to the public for non-immediate consumption off the premises such as ice cream packed in a container of one-half gallon or 'more. J. Which are candy, popcorn, nuts, chips, gum or other confections but not including ice cream, frozen yogurt, cakes, pies or other desserts. K Sold after July 1, 1993, but before December 31, 1993, pursuant to a contract for the sale of such food or beverages signed and delivered to the operator prior to May 4,1993, provided that a copy of such contract is retained by the operator for review by the director upon request. (Ord. 2716 S5, 1993) 4.34.040 Operator's Duties. Each operator shall collect the tax imposed by this chapter, to the same extent and at the same time as the amount for the food or beverage is collected from every purchaser. The amount of tax need not be . separately stated from the amount of the food or beverage. Every operator required to collect the tax imposed in this chapter shall be entitled to retain five percent of all taxes collected to defray the costs of collections and remittance. (Ord. 2716 56, 1993) _eel June 1993 Title 4 Page 56 4.34.050 ReoortinQ and remittina. On or after July 1, 1993, every operator shall, on or before the 25th day of the month following the end of each calendar quarter On the months of April, July, October and January), make a return to the director, on forms provided by the City, specifying the total sales subject to this chapter and the amount of tax collected under this chapter. At the time the return is filed, the full amount of the tax collected shall be remitted to the director. The director may establish shor,ter reporting periods for any operator if the administrator deems it necessary in order to insure collection of the tax and the administrator may require further information in the return relevant to payment of the liability. Returns and payments are due immediately upon cessation of business for any reason. All taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account of the City until payment is made to the director. A separate trust ba,nk account is not required in order to comply with this provision. (Ord. 2716 S7, 1993) . 4.34.060 Penalties and interest. A. Any operator who fails to remit any portion of any tax imposed by this chapter within the time required, shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax, in addition to the amount of the tax. B. Any operator who fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of 30 days following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent, shall pay a second delinquency penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax in addition to the amount of the tax and the penalty first imposed. C. If the director determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of 25% percent of the amount of the tax shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subparagraphs A and B of this section, D. In addition to the penalties imposed, any operator who fails to remit any tax imposed by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one percent per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the tax, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid. E.. Everypenalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of this section shall become a part of the tax required to be paid. ReYiood J.... 1883 Title 4 Page 57 4.34.070 Failure to Collect and Reoort Tax--Determination of Tax bv Director. If any operator should fail to keep adequate records or refuse to pay the tax imposed by this chapter, or to make, within the time provided in this chapter, any report and remittance of the tax or any portion required by this chapter, the director shall proceed in such manner as deemed best to obtain facts and information on which to base the estimate of tax due. As soon as the director shall procure such facts and information as is able to be obtained, upon which to base the assessment of any tax imposed by this chapter and payable by any operator who has failed or refused to collect the same and to make such report and remittance, the administrator shall proceed to determine and assess against such operator the tax, interest and penalties provided for by this chapter. In case such determination is made, the director shall give a notice of the amount so assessed by having it served personally or by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the operator so assessed at the last known place of address. Such operator may make an appeal of such determinations as provide in section 4.34.060. If no appeal is filed, the director's determination is final and the amount thereby is immediately due and payable. (Ord. 2716 S8, 1993) 4.34.080 Apoea!. Any operator aggrieved by an decision of the director with respect to the amount of such tax, interest and penalties, if any, may appeal to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city administrator within 15 days of the serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The council shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal, and the city administrator shall give five days written notice of the time and place of hearing to such operator at the last known place of address. The council shall hear arid consider any records and evidence presented bearing upon the director's determination of amount due, and make findings affirming, reversing or modifying the determination. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive, and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and payable upon the service of notice. 4.34.090 Records. It shall be the duty of every operator liable for the collection and payment to the city of any tax imposed by this chapter to keep and preserve, for a period of three years, all such records as may be necessary to determine the amount of such tax. The director shall have the right to inspect all records at all reasonable times. 4.34.100 Refunds. A. Whenever the amount of any tax, interest or penalty has been overpaid or paid more than once, or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by the city under this chapter, it may. be refunded as provide in subparagraph B of this section, provided a claim in writing, stating under penalty of perjury the specific Revised June 1993 Title 4 Page 58 grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the director within three years of the date of payment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the director. B. An operator may claim a refund, or take as credit against taxes collected and remitted, the amount overpaid, paid more than once or erroneously or illegally collected or received in a manner prescribed by the director. C. No refund shall be paid under the provisions of this section unless the claimant established the right by written records showing entitlement to such refund. 4.34.110 Actions to Collect. Any tax required to be paid by any operator under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the city. . Any such tax collected by an operator which has not been paid to the city shall be deemed a debt owned to the operator to the city. Any person owing money to the city under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City Of Ashland for the recovery of such amount. 4.34.120 Violations-Infractions. Any operator or other person who fails or refuse to comply as required herein, or to furnish any return required to be make, or fails or refuse to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the director, or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim, or who fails, refuses or neglects to remit the tax to the city by the due date, is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished as set forth in section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 4.34.130 Confidentialily. Except as otherwise required by law, it shall be unlawful for the city, any officer, employee or agent to divulge, release or make known in any manner any financial information submitted or disclosed to the city under the terms of this chapter. Nothing in this section shall prohibit: A. The disclosure of the names and addresses of any person who are . operating a restaurant; or B. The disclosure of general statistics in a form which would prevent the identification of financial information regarding an individual operator; or C. Presentation of evidence to the court, or other tribunal having jurisdiction in the prosecution of a claim by the Administrator or an appeal form the city administrator for amount due the city urider this chapter. Revieed June 1993 Title 4 Page 59 4.34.140 Examining Books. Records. or Persons. The city, for the purpose of . determining the correctness of any operator of a restaurant tax return, or for the purpose of an estimate of taxes due, may examine or may cause to be examined by . an agent or representative designed by it for that purpose, any books, papers, records, or memoranda, including copies of operator's state and federal income tax return, bearing upon the matter of the operator's tax return. 4.34.150 Soecial account. The monies collected from this tax shall be expended only for the Open Space lands or easements, for costs of acquisition, for costs of development, for costs of collection and for such other purposes pertinent to the Open Space Park Program as the Council and Park Commission may jointly determine. All monies dedicated under this chapter shall remain under the financial management of the City of Ashland. 4.34.160 Termination of tax. This chapter shall expire on December 31, 2010, unless extended by a vote of the electorate. (Ord. 2707-E, 1993; Ord. 2716, 1993; Ord. 2720, 1993) ;, -' Revised June 1993 Title 4 Page 60 , ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ~~~iNG RECORD / ~ _I t, - 9 7 ORDIRES MIS ;{e.rd NO ORD/R'S~/~ ~~ Mis ~ ~ YES NO Laws Reid Wheeldon ~eB......J::: Hagen Hauck Mayor iiP~ Laws jiX_ Reid _ Wheeldon . :..50.." ~ ~ d'iUV ~~jUA^ ~CC ~ ~tf - - TOTAL TOTAL f~ ~r~ ~S'!!!f'f; ~ tW. &<{.DW ORD/R",O~ L/J1n<fJs APPD'tt.- MIS ~;, ,J, YES NO MIS &w.;S/ I~ YES NO ~ /$f' r.1"1//~ ' ~ . / Laws ~.:J Laws v Reid .V - Reid ~ Wheeldon v/ Wheeldon ~ BoBvc::r- ~ = DeBoe!: Hagen ~ _ Hagen Hauck ~ Hauck Mayor ~_.~~ Mayor TOTAL ~ ~~ TOTAL --v'" V'~ ~~ (O:m)RESO/OTHER Ig~.Q:dp~ ORD/fESO)OTHER ~ Liv&t(/u:J ~ MI S ;-I-~ [a.uJ.S YES NO MI S YES NO ~ ....L ~ Laws Reid Wheeldon Laws Reid Wheeldon ./ ~ "7 Dc.B...,.II;lL 4)~Bvc,l;; Hagen 17 Hagen ~ Hauck 7~ Hauck Mayor @- Mayor f)0~'7~ TOTAL TOTAL (- ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ~~i~NG RECORD I~_/~~ CJ7 ~ESO/OTHER (~~~~ ORD/RESO/oTHER MIs YES NO MIS YES NO Laws Reid Wheeldon B....&uer Hagen Hauck Mayor Laws Reid Wheeldon DeBoer Hagen Hauck Mayor TOTAL TOTAL ORD/RESO/OTHER ORD/RESO/OTHER MIS YES NO MIS YES NO Laws Laws Reid Reid Wheeldon Wheeldon DeBoer DeBoer Hagen Hagen Hauck Hauck Mayor Mayor TOTAL TOTAL ORD/RESO/OTHER ORD/RESO/OTHER MIS YES NO MIS YES NO Laws Laws Reid Reid Wheeldon Wheeldon DeBoer DeBoer Hagen Hagen Hauck Hauck Mayor Mayor TOTAL TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 2, 1997 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Wheeldon and DeBoer were present; Councilors Hagen and Hauck were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Regular meeting of November 18, 1997 were approved as presented, minutes of the adjourned meeting of November 19, 1997 were approved with the following amendment. At the bottom of page six, the sentence reading "Mayor Golden declares conflict of interest due to being a propeny owner on the hillside" should be corrected to read "Mayor Golden declares a conflict of interest due to being a propeny owner on the ridgeline. " SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Presentation of Ahwahnee A ward to the Community Development Department, for the newly adopted Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Golden read background on Ahwahnee Award presented to the Community Development Department, which recognizes exemplary projects that funher an evolution toward more livable, pedestrian.oriented and transit.based communities. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - October, 1997. 3. Appointment of Paul Nolte as Judge Pro- Tem for December 20, 1997. Councilors ReidlWheeldon mls to accept the consent agenda as presented. Voice vote, all A YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 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). At the request of the applicant, the appeal hearing was continued to the December 16, 1997 meeting. 2. CitizenIBoard and Commission Members input on 97-98 Council Goals, not previonsly submitted in writing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:11 p.m. Mayor Golden noted that Interim City Administrator Scoles had compiled written citizen input for Community Goal Setting for '98.'99. No one came forward wishing to speak. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:11 p.m. 3. Appeal Hearing on a Planning Commission Denial of a Conditional Use Pennit 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). Mayor Golden read the guidelines and procedures for a Land Use Public Hearing. City Council Meeting 12-02-97 1 EXPARTE CONTACT: Councilor Reid reponed site visit. Reid noted that she is an owner of a lodging business. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:14 p.m. STAFF REPORT: Planning Director, John McLaughlin read criteria for travelers accommodations from the Ashland Municipal Code. McLaughlin presented overheads showing present layout, and explained location and history of the site. Noted that the proposed additional unit would reduce the owner's living quarters, and explained that an expansion follows the same approval process as a conditional use permit. Stated that the Planning Commission had denied the original application as it was determined that the owner had purchased a home elsewhere in Ashland, and the travelers accommodation was no longer the owner's primary residence. McLaughlin read the ordinance language regarding the requirement for traveler's accommodation found in 18.24.030.k.1.: "That all residences used for travelers accomnwdation be business.owner occupied. The business-owner shall be reQuired to reside on the propeT1V occupied by the accommodation. am{occupancv shall be determined as the travelers accommodation location beinl! the primary residence of the owner durin/! operation of the accommodation. ...." McLaughlin clarified for council that the reason the travelers accommodation license wasn't revoked based on this determination, was due to an enforcement issue and would be dealt with after tonight's decision by council. Councilor Reid questioned whether location was for sale, noting that this modification would reduce living space for a new owner. McLaughlin explained that all requirements relevant to building codes had been met, with the exception of the owner's maintaining "primary residence" on site. APPLICANT: J. Michael LaNier of the Richard Stevens Company, LLC/336 W. Sixth, Medford/Agent for Applicant/Questioned definition of primary residence, noting that the city code does not provide a specific definition. Noted that the original staff repon stated staff felt that residence meant, occupant sleeping on site at all times. Explained that the owner had endeavored to remain in compliance at all times for the past years. LaNier distributed information from 1990 Black's Law Dictionary defining residence and noted that residence is not synonymous with domicile. Cited military, "home of record", as an example for determining residency and noted that Shrewsbury had established residence at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard. LaNiet argued that it is Shrewsbury's legal domicile, and is where mail is received and telephone is listed. LaNier explained that Shrewsbury is on site when clients are present, and that there are no "drop.ins" compared to a motellhotel business. Client use is based on a reservation list only, so knowledge of use is always a known factor. Stated that the owner is in residence whenever business is operational and it is her prima facie residence, legal domicile and therefore feels that Shrewsbury is in compliance. LaNier also noted that to his knowledge, the propeny is not currently for sale with any agent. Requested that council determine this location to be owner's domicile, and approve a conditional use permit. Noted that McLaughlin had confirmed this, as the only issue that staff felt was not in compliance. Councilor Wheeldon questioned whether owner is there overnight during operations, and LaNier confirmed that she stays on site overnight from March to November. Councilor City Attorney, Paul Nolte explained that the issue is the definition of primary residence. Explained that 'council can rule as they wish, and are not bound by coun rulings from other States or Black's Dictionary. 2 Reid noted previous situation of the Chanticleer Inn, where owners had to lease the business to a manager, in order to allow them to live next door. LaNier questioned City's role in "micro managing people's lives", and stated that the Shrewsbury's are keeping with both the letter and spirit of the law. Asked council to blend needs of business community and the community at large, noting the need for housing in light of the recent closure of the Mark Antony Hotel. Nolte confirmed for council where it is reported in the staff report. a statement that Mrs. Shrewsbury sleeps in the accommodation. Councilor Laws questioned if LaNier was certain she sleeps there every night during the season, and LaNier stated it was his understanding that she did. IN FAVOR: None IN OPPOSmON: None PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:51 p.m. STAFF RESPONSE: PI arming Director, John McLaughlin confirmed history on previous negotiations concerning situation at the Chanticleer Inn. Explained that the intent of the ordinance was for owners to reside in their homes, on site, and be part of the neighborhood. Noted that a resident business.owner leasing the site fits this situation, because their remaining in business was dependent on their day.to.day operation of the site where they were living. Emphasized that the criteria established, does not allow for an on.site manager or someone else to run the business, it must be the resident property owner or business owner leasing the property. McLaughlin noted one example he was aware of where an owner of a travelers accommodations lives on site only during operation. Explained that the owner maintained an apartment in Sacramento for business travel, but that it was determined his primary residence was the travelers accommodation in Ashland. Again stated the intent of ordinance, which was that travelers accommodations be the home of the owner. REBUITAL: LaNier restated that the applicant is seeking a fifth unit to the accommodation and that they have complied with the letter of the law and that the city ordinance does not define residence. It is his opinion that the primary residence is the legal "home of record". Noted that Shrewsbury's are a family in transition, and that they are considering selling the business. Councilor Laws noted that when the ordinance was originally proposed, many neighborhoods were opposed. The requirement of primary residence was needed to make owners part of the neighborhood and compatible with the concerns of the neighborhood community. Laws stated that this is a good principle to follow, as it creates a commitment and sense of belonging on the part of the owners, and that Mrs. Shrewsbury is only there in a commercial way, not as a neighborhood resident. Laws agreed with the Plarming Commission fmdings both in terms of intent, and in terms of a common sense definition of primary residence. Councilors Laws/Wheeldon m/s to deny the appeal. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Wheeldon and DeBoer, YES. Motion passed. 4. Consideration of recommendation to reduce the Wastewater System Development Charges as recommended by the Systems Development Charge Committee. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:54 p.m. City Council Meeting 12-02-97 3 Interim City Administrator Greg Scoles explained the last page of the report which gave examples of SDC charges and the changes to be made. Finance Director, Jill Turner explained for council why the reduction was being made only to single family rates. This was done because other rates had received appropriate reductions previously, but that the single family rate had not been reduced properly. Turner explained amount of reduction listed in the "Sewer" column under "Single Family (ITE 210)", as a reduction from $2,255 to $2,123. Council discussion regarding the possibility of retiring the Food and Beverage Tax earlier than expected. It was noted that it was not sufficient enough to do this. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:59 p.m. Councilors LawslReid m/s to adopt recommendation to reduce the Wastewater System Development Charges. Roll Call vote: Reid, Wheeldon, DeBoer and Laws, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM John Fields/845 Oak St./Suggested adoption of an overlay for the Railroad District. Concerned about property across tracks at 4th Street. traffic on A Street and parking issues. Fields would like a plan similar to the downtown plan implemented for the Railroad District. Mayor Golden noted that Planning Director, John Mclaughlin had provided council with information on what is being implemented in tenos of a Railroad District plan. Noted that this will be included in the upcoming Council Goal Setting session, and that Mclaughlin could make this information available to Mr. Fields. Brent Thompson/582 Allison St./Concurred with Fields on the need for a Railroad District plan, citing the need for a pedestrianlbicycle crossing at 4th Street. Noted the 1995 meetings regarding Highway 66, and asked that the city paint green proposed medians in a noncontroversial area along the highway. Felt that this would give citizens an idea what medians would be like and allow movement toward making more areas with medians on Siskiyou Boulevard. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS l. Anthorization by Council for Site Review for the construction of a 7800 square foot City office building located at 1175 E. Main Street (Planning Action 97.100). PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN: 8:05 p.m. Bob Taber/97 Scenic Dr .lFelt that moving City Hall is bad idea. Cited 1988 downtown plan that recommended City Hall remaining in core of the city. Reminded council of former Governor Roberts strong recommendation to resist suburbanization of cities. Noted that the moving of City Halls from cily cores, have historically adverse effects on the <ore's economic health. Felt that the 1993 adopted Resolution was a contract that had been broken, and that it is an error in judgement to further pursue the relocation of City Hall. Stated that he had spoken with ninety five business owners in the downtown area who were shocked lhat this was still underway. Urged the council to withdraw plans and honor the 1993 adopted Resolution. Jim Lewis/640 A. St./Agreed with Mr. Taber. Noted the history of the ad hoc Space Needs Study Committee's process with regard to this issue. Felt that even if a small group of employees were to be moved, that .the new building proposed represented a large investment by the city away from the core downtown area. Questioned the amount of space actually needed, and asked that council not make a decision now. but to hold 4 further public meetings to formulate an alternative plan. Concluded that the proposed building would be a shortsighted investment. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 South/Provided information to council on space needs. the bigger picture and explained contents. Noted the need for a Siskiyou Bicycle Path and for sidewalks on Tolman Creek Road. Stated that these needs are more important than office space needs. Also suggested that a new library could be built on the 1175 East Main site. Asked that council review priorities and not seek this site review. Rick Vezie/446 Walker Ave.lNoted his involvement in this process over the past four years. Stated concerns about citizen involvement in this process. Noted contract with city when his ballot initiative was withdrawn and the adoption of Resolution #93-41. Explained that the Ad Hoc Space Needs Committee recommended use of building funds to acquire space downtown. That while Resolution #93-41 may not constitute an enforceable legal contract, it is an agreement that three current councilors played a part in and should be honored. Asked that the agreement be honored, and not just "substantially fulfilled". Brent Thompson/582 Allison St.lNoted that the previous space needs calculations did not take the needs of the Fire Department into account. Asked that council hold off on a decision until further study is done on the possible relocation of the Fire Department. Noted possible alternatives for location and the use of funds to include a larger project involving City Hall and the Fire Department. Felt that this combination would provide some cost savings. Concluded by asking council to take advantage of this opportunity for a creative solution. John Fields/845 Oak St./Noted lengthy nature of process and changing trends of public identity. Felt that council should consider not remodeling current City Hall. It was his belief that Hillah Temple intends to move. and that site's location and surroundings make it a primary candidate for a public building. Noted that the 1175 East Main site will always be available and that the purchase of the Hillah Temple site would reinforce presence in the downtown and that the building would only increase in value. Felt that the site would not continue to be available if opportunity to purchase is allowed to pass. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED: 8:35 p.m. Mayor Golden noted the history of the Ad Hoc Space Needs Committee and read out loud the recommendations submitted by this committee, to the city council, dated April 13, 1994. Golden reported progress made or completed on these recommendations. Golden firmly stated that the downtown employees in City Hall, would remain downtown. That the $1.25 million earmarked for the improvement of city offices has remained as designated but that the fund has actually doubled. The additional funds would be for the proposed addition at East Main to house Public Works Department, currently being housed in rental space across from City Hall. Noted that negotiations had fallen through with Hillah Temple, and that the building isn't usable. That it would require new construction limited by the need to protect views of the houses located to the rear. Golden restated that Public Works would use the site at 1175 East Main and that City Hall would be rehabilitated. Confirmed that public process has been properly conducted and that City Hall will remain downtown. Vezie asked for clarification, noting that the process had been "less than perfect". Questioned how first recommendation had been fulfilled and how funding had been reorganized. Also questioned the proposed six year timeline. Golden asked that focus be shifted to moving timeline ahead for sooner completion and noted concerns about space needs for city employees during remodel. Stated that the new building on East Main would serve to provide housing for employees during the City Hall remodel. Felt that while the timeline is a legitimate City Council Meeting 12-02-97 5 concern, that the logistics of the plan to build on East Main and remodel City Hall are sound and necessary for the situation. Councilor Reid noted that 12 years ago, the council had stated that City Hall would stay downtown. Felt that the city is committed to remaining downtown as investments and projects have repeatedly shown. Councilor DeBoer noted that the current Public Works and Engineering space being rented at 27'12 N. Main, cannot be made to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), without considerable expense to remodeling the rented space. Councilor Laws noted that for years city employees have been working in inaccessible and unsafe work spaces. Stated that the council is committed to City Hall remaining downtown. Explained that the timeline was laid out to meet projected needs for increased city personnel. That the only personnel who have moved are the Street Department, Electric Department, Water Department and Computer Services. Other than Computer Services, these departments were previously at an old shop space on A Street and are now closer to downtown core. Laws stated that there has been no consistent removal of personnel from the downtown City Hall. Felt that the study has been done, plan is complete, and that the city should proceed with site review. Councilor Wheeldon agreed that the Hillah Temple building would be an excellent public space, but it is not readily available within a reasonable timeframe. Felt that extending the process further would only prolong the process unnecessarily. Wheeldon expressed interest in finding a way to link projects to obligate future councils and set a timeline, and would like to see this completed sooner than the year 2005. Noted the need to plan for future space needs downtown as well. Councilor DeBoer expressed support for authorizing the site review. Noted process involved and stated he would like to reconvene Space Needs Committee. Also in favor of continuing to pursue Hillah Temple purchase. Councilor Wheeldon questioned the possibility of connecting the projects and confirming commitment. City Attorney, Paul Nolte noted the difficulty in binding future councils. Nolte stated that even if the issue were submitted to a vote of the people and the charter amended, the project would be subject to available funds. Suggested that there may be a possibility to finance through a bond issue. Council discussion regarding public's concern that the project would not be completed due to the lengthy timeline and what they could do to alleviate this concern. Councilor Laws asked that Interim Administrator Greg Scoles and City Attorney Paul Nolte look into a plan that would accelerate the project and return their findings to council at a meeting in the near future. Felt that the proposed plan could be placed on an upcoming agenda and formally adopted. Noted that this is the strongest commitment that the council could make and he has continued faith in present and future councils. Golden requested that Finance Director Jill Turner work with Scoles to bring a revised plan back to council for the January 6th, 1998 meeting. Discussion of whether bonds were necessary for financing and what other finance options might be available. Councilors DeBoerlLaws mls to authorize site review. Councilor LawsIDeBoer mls to amend first motion asking that staff provide a plan to council with possibilities of accelerating this project. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6 Vote on first motion: Voice vote: all A YES. Motion passed. Councilor Deboer noted that approving the site review does not represent a commitment, that it is just to begin the process for the site review. 2. Authorization by Council to set a Public Hearing Date for the Fonnation of Westwood Street LID to January 6, 1998. Councilors ReidlWheeldon mls to authorize setting a public hearing date for the fonnation of Westwood Street LID for January 6, 1998. DISCUSSION: Director of Public Works Paul Brown, noted options offered by Anna Hassel, including determining benefit to Nyla Lane residents. Brown noted that staff felt that Nyla Lane residents benefit and should pay. City Attorney Nolte clarified for council timeframe and prOcedure that would be involved if there is a change to the methodology of the assessment at the proposed public hearing. Explained that re.noticing would need to be done if there is a change in the assessed amount. Clarified that the public notice sent out to property owners would include the proposed method of assessment. Councilor Laws nOled the city easement near the gully area on one side of the street, and suggested option 4 as the preferred option. Golden. Reid. DeBoer and Wheeldon all expressed approval of option 4 as well. Brown explained to council that there is no change in cost to property owners with the inclusion of Nyla Lane. Councilors ReidlWheeldon mls to amend original motion to include option 4, with the city splitting assessment rate with five Nyla Lane property owners. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Vote on first motion: Voice vote: all A YES. Motion passed. 3. Election of Citizens' Budget Committee Members (2). Councilors WheeldonlReid mls to re-appoint Cate Hartzell to the Citizens' Budget Committee. Voice vote, all AYES. Motion passed. Councilors DeBoerlReid mls to appoint Michael Donovan to the Citizens' Budget Committee. DISCUSSION:Councilor Laws noted preference for applicant David Williams, who he had known since high school. Noted this is Williams' first time to volunteer, and that he was bright, a nice guy and a new face. Councilor Wheeldon agreed with Laws, noting the need to bring in new members to the committee. Councilor DeBoer noted that Donovan's appointment would be important in maintaining the relationship with downtown community and the city Chamber of Commerce. Roll call vote. Laws NO; Reid YES; Wheeldon NO; DeBoer YES; Golden NO. Motion failed 2-3. Councilor DeBoer moved to appoint Michael Bingham to the Citizens' Budget Committee. No second, motion failed. Councilor LawslWheeldon mls to appoint David Williams to the Citizens's Budget Committee. DISCUSSION:Councilor DeBoer expressed his concern that the appointment needed to continue the representation of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce on the committee. Roll call vote: Reid, Wheeldon, Laws, YES; DeBoer NO. Motion passed 3-1. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Adopting New Hillside Development Standards and Adoption of Findings in Support." Councilors LawslWheeldon mls to adopt Ordinance #2808. Roll call vote: Reid, Wheeldon, DeBoer and Laws, YES. Motion passed. City Council Meeting 12..()2-97 7 2. 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." Councilors WheeldonlLaws m/s to adopt Resolution #97-41. Roll call vote: DeBoer, Reid, Laws and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed. 3. First reading of "An Ordinance Amending Section 11.54.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Reduce Criminal Penalties for Skateboard Violations in the Downtown Area." Rueben Davis/865 Wagner Cr. Rd., Talent/Spoke regarding Chief of Police, Scott Fleuters' recommendations. Asked to reconvene the original committee in order to look at the ordinance again. Stated that the ordinance's original spirit and enactment doesn't match well and resulted in perception of discrimination over helmet requirements. Felt that it is not necessary to require helmets everywhere, and that the ordinance has created problems because of this. Commented on other issues including inconsistent enforcement, and asked that council move to reconvene skateboard committee. Mayor Golden noted original willingness to wear helmets by skateboarders in previous public meetings. Councilor Reid noted the value of warnings and the variety of elements which come into play on this issue. Discussion of perceived discrimination between skateboarders and bicyclists. Cate Hartzell/881 East Main St./Questioned makeup of original committee. Stated that council can change regulations but cannot change skateboarding culture. Noted discrimination in enforcement, stating that cars and bikes aren't confiscated whereas skateboards are. Explained that skateboarders, and teenagers in general. are sensitive to their treatment and this treatment can create lasting impressions. Requested that the skateboard committee be reconvened and publicly noticed. Golden noted discrimination is an enforcement issue and confiscation is in the downtown area. Councilor Laws asked that Interim City Administrator Scoles meet with Police Department to discuss enforcement issues. Felt that we must allow police officers some judgement. Noted that skaters are not typically canying identification where motorists do. Councilor DeBoer recommended changes in the requirement of helmets and reducing all fines by one-half. Chief Fleuters explained that officers could enforce a street-only helmet requirement, but questioned how officers were to handle crosswalk skating. Councilor Wheeldon questioned enforcement of helmets in front of homes. Fleuters noted officers would engage the skaters in conversation and make decisions based on the situation. Explained that contact is frequently complaint generated and that discretion should playa role in enforcement. Deboer again stated his proposed changes which would require helmets on the street and make them "optional elsewhere, but recommended at all times", and halving all penalties. Councilors DeBoer/Laws m/s to change ordinance to require helmets only on streets and cut criminal penalties in half. DISCUSSION:City Attorney Paul Nolte noted the need to do a full reading of a first reading on an ordinance. Recommended that council allow staff to bring a proposed amended ordinance back for approval at the next council meeting for a possible first reading. Motion and second withdrawn. Council agreed to have staff bring back a proposed ordinance, with recommendations, for first reading. 8 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Exempting from Competitive Bidding the Selection of a Financial Software System for the Department of Finance and a Records Software Program for the Police Department." Council discussed how exemption from competitive bidding, in special circumstances, could make negotiation easier and cheaper. Councilors Lawsmeboer mls to adopt Resolution #97-42. Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Laws, DeBoer and Reid, YES. Motion passed. 5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of Intention to Provide for Improvements to Westwood Street Consisting of Curbs, Gutters, Sewers, Stonn Drains, Paving and Sidewalks and Setting a Public Hearing." Councilors DeboerlWheeldon mls to adopt Resolution #97-40. Roll call vote: Reid, Laws, Wheeldon, and DeBoer, YES. Motion passed. Councilor DeBoer thanked Anna Hassell for all her efforts. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Councilor Wheeldon noted request from Parks and Recreation Commission to repaint the Butler Bandshell in Lithia Park. Council discussion on who would be responsible with regard to the historic status of the Band Shell. It was determined that this request should be handled by the Parks and Recreation Department to the appropriate source. Noted that there will be no council study session on December 17th, 1997. Public Works Director, Paul Brown noted that R.Y.C.O.G. will be making a presentation on the T.A.P. intertie project at the next meeting December 16th, 1997. Councilor Wheeldon suggested a light agenda to allow discussion of this project. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned meeting at 9:53 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor City Council Meeting 12-02.97 9 .... ~ . . .-'\' . ',-.!.".' ~\~~ ;~f~ ~f'~ . <.if,;: ....'.J.~ ~:~~ .....'f!. ,~ ;."5.'t~ "~"'I:::;'- ~.,-. .:~';; . '^ A~ .'i(:J;; :~~< ':~:ft" ~'XI,Ji "~.:~~~, ,i;;~1 ,}".jl "",<{ ::;;1&'i! '~...~~ ~..~ >~":;; . $,0"". ~~~~ .~~~ &1ji ;~~~':(- .",!V[~- ''"JJ .../......,.. .",~& ", ,i:t <~:t '1'~1 <"f.{t.~ .....~~~ ;~I~':itI.; ~.-. . !t:t,' 't,,~ ~~ ,'_' .Vo ;/ CITY OF ASHLAND MEMORANDUM Department of Community Development Conservation Division DATE: December 9, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dick Wanderscheid RE: Update on OMECA and OMECA Bonus Back in 1993, Ashland joined together with the municipal electric utilities of Forest Grove, McMinnville, Monmouth, Milton Freewater and Springfield to form an intergovernmental entity called the Oregon Municipal Energy & Conservation Agency (OMECA). The initial purpose of this organization was to sell tax exempt municipal bonds to finance conservation in the service areas of the OMECA member utilities. BPA would then pay the principal and debt service required to retire these municipal bonds. The reason BP A wanted to pursue this type of funding was because it allowed them to save money since municipal interest rates were lower than federal treasury rates and also because this method did not affect BPA's federal treasury debt ceiling limit. Because of changing circumstances, BPA decided to direct-fund OMECA's conservation budget instead of selling the municipal bonds; hence, BPA provided over $10.6 million to OMECA utilities to provide conservation funding for our citizens, businesses and institutions. As part of this initial agreement, a bonus payment would become available to OMECA if we could collectively achieve 4.2 aMW of conservation at a cost of less than 2.0e/kWh. Ashland's share of the entire,conservation budget was $1,212,650. We started to utilize OMECA funding for our programs on October 1, 1994 and completed committing these funds on September 30, 1997. At the end of this period, OMECA had spent or obligated all of the money provided by BPA and as a result, we had achieved 5.7 aMW at a totallevelized cost of 1.47C/kWh. These efforts produced a total bonus payment from BPA of $304,084. During the three years of operating OMECA funded programs in Ashland. 7,520,259 kWh (or 0.86 AMW) of conservation was acquired by our programs. The totallevelized cost of our programs was only .85e/kWh, which was the lowest cost of any OMECA utility. ". The OMECA Technical Advisory Committee jointly devised a formula for distribution of the bonus among member utilities that was based on the amount of sav. . nd cost of the programs. Ashland's total share was $55,894, of which 80%, r $44,490, wa received by the City on December 3, 1997. The remaining $11,404 will be rece w en all remaining obligated funds are expended, probably within the next 12 months. In anticipation of this bonus payment, a total of $40,000 was included in the FY 97-98 City budget for "City Conservation Programs." This money is being used to transition Ashland's Electric Utility Conservation Programs from 'BPA funding to locally funded programs. Much of this money will be loaned out as 0% loans, and will return to the City after repayment to possibly fund future conservation initiatives. Included with this memo is a copy of a letter from Governor Kitzhaber congratulating OMECA for its accomplislunent over the last three years. From 1980 to 1994, a total of $5,120,626 of BPA conservation funding has been provided to Ashland. The additional OMECA money brings this total up to $6,333,276. This money has been used in Ashland homes, businesses and public facilities to help improve their energy efficiency, comfort, lighting and heating systems, and water use efficiency. This not only creates local jobs but helps to reduce utility bills for the people of Ashland and keeps valuable dollars here in the local community. i JOHN A. KITZHABER GOVERNOR H November 6, 1997 Cathy Higgins, Manager Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency 101 SW Main Street Portland, OR 97294 Dear Ms. Higgins: Congratulations to you and the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency for your accomplishments over the past three years in saving energy. I am particularly pleased that the collaboration of the City of Ashland, Forest Grove Light and Power, McMinnville Water & Light, Milton-Freewater Light & Power, the City of Monmouth, and the Springfield Utility Board resulted in significant savings from every customer class — households, government agencies, commercial firms, and industries. Oregon's clean environment and quality of life are due to the commitment of groups like yours. I appreciate the efforts you have made to promote energy efficiency, and I wish you continued success. Sincerely, John A. ter, M.D. JAK/NR/sm STATE CAPITOL, SALEM 97310-0370 (503) 378-3111 FAX (503) 378-4863 TDD (503) 378-4859 \ ) @ � ■ . , . V9 D . - y � � « d ° I _ _ 0 0 : Er wm k � � I 0 ) - ! j K■@ c ! r I° ! m o d/� 7 k E$o . \ \ ( # I ]!!! \ / � § f ] , E k w cc 2 /k | ,cov of As CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Public Works a Public Works Administration EGO " MEMORANDUM DATE: December 10, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Paula C. Brown, PE, Public Works Director / City Engineer RE: TALENT ASHLAND PHOENIX (TAP) WATER INTERTIE Synopsis The City has been participating, with the cities of Talent and Phoenix, in studying the feasibility, environmental impacts and initial design efforts to provide a water line intertie from the Medford Water Commission's facilities to service the entire municipal water needs for cities of Talent and Phoenix, and potentially a portion of the future water needs for the City of Ashland. The TAP Committee (two council members from Phoenix and Talent, one council member, Susan Reid, from Ashland, one staff member from each city and RVCOG's facilitation) has been utilizing the services of Lee Engineering to complete the feasibility study, preliminary engineering and the environmental analysis. The committee needs a decision from the City of Ashland to determine the size of the transmission line from Phoenix to Talent to continue to final design and secure funding options for the cities of Talent and Phoenix. Line Size Analysis The decision has been made by the TAP Committee to bring the transmission line from Medford's facilities in White City, along the railroad right of way, to Phoenix with a 24 inch line, and on to Talent with either an 18 inch or a 24 inch line, depending upon the demand required by Ashland. You will recall discussions in the past regarding the line size and amount of water to be utilized by Ashland. These are further summarized. The TAP Committee and Lee Engineering have sized the line for 100% of peak daily demand for both the cities of Phoenix and Talent through the year 2050, and for an additional amount for Ashland that would provide 25% of the average daily demand for the City based on projected population in the year 2050 (a little over 1 million gallons). A summary of these figures is attached. The 25% figure is based upon Ashland's water treatment plant providing the majority of the City's water needs and the difference due to drought conditions, peak flow needs, emergency use, or other needs for the City. With Ashland participating in the project at these flow or usage amounts, the line would need to be sized at 24 inches. Should Ashland chose not to participate, the line could be sized at 18 inches (from Phoenix to Talent) to accommodate Talent's needs only. Cost Impacts In the Feasibility Report, Lee Engineering was responsible for making a determination on cost responsibilities for each City. Lee Engineering used a formula to determine the splits based upon the amount of flow in each segment of pipe (Medford to Phoenix in the 24 inch pipe, and from Phoenix to Talent in either a 24 inch pipe to include Ashland's flow or in an 18 inch pipe excluding Ashland). There was an additional amount in the formula for the necessary pump stations and other items. Based upon this formula, Ashland's total flow based share is $968,613 (see also the attached figures). One option is that Ashland participate by paying only the cost of the incremental pipe size increase. There may be some additional cost attributable to Ashland for increasing the pumping. As such, I have calculated the following incremental cost to be approximately $525,000 (direct differential cost of$455,000 plus 15%). This could be offered to Talent and Phoenix with an agreement to pay the incremental flow based costs (approximately $444,000 plus interest) as Ashland makes it's tie into the system in the future. Paying the incremental cost would allow Ashland to participate in the construction of the line, and continue our internal discussion of future water need. Basis of Water Need Ashland receives its water basically from two sources; water rights from Ashland Creek which provides the majority of the domestic water uses, and water through contracts with the Talent Irrigation District which has traditional provided water for irrigation and at times some water to treat for potable sources. Our critical water shortage times have been in periods of drought when there is not enough water in Ashland Creek to treat for use, nor is there enough water from TID to treat. In the past aggressive conservation efforts have helped us get through those periods. However, in the future, will we always be able to accommodate our City's needs during drought periods. There are other justifications for additional water sources including emergency situations when an additional source like the TAP project could provide back up for our water (fire, floods, etc.). Recommendation It is staff's recommendation to continue to participate in the TAP project to secure the option of another source of water for the City in the future. It is further recommended that the Council authorize staff to discuss the option of incremental costs and acceptable agreements with the cities of Talent and Phoenix and bring those back to council for approval. J, _sJ Cl) N n SJ p o m p o ri ri a CID C, op °v, m M ui oa ° °o °m I � a Q ul a N °° ° v QN O O O (°D co m M w Oi m p m v N tD O N Na (7) N to tti F- 'tf Ot N N N W 4 co N CD m o 0 in m to o t0 Cl) N O r K N L Q m n t° 4! m O n Oi co N OI N O Q w O N m M E m r. 9L 4 V x m (D 69 a m " ar y o m v- o c C �- rn N Cl) N C b p (Ti C4 N U a n n C m a C 3 j c i m v w v 69 o � as y o p rn N o 69 d G m S Cl) d e p v to m C t0 r o mow ¢ 0 ¢ E x u a'0 i O o m v °^ IZ ? a e $ $ if) ~ o IL N n v E K O In h n j Q. 3 C to C C ,� ° v N $ m e6 -41 m w o o. 4 0 N °ni �1t�7 �p D QO C OM Q) -6 R p fig CL Pi L t CL m co m O m a u g $ $ � em � a _ N A o N W °- S * , p ID n rn N « 117 to N - y C a p 6 O O � a � $ o y mF N o � co w m R d L h p mto :30 ~ o v Q O O O O O C O ° N � ^ N O E , U a V y o 0 0 cc .ti a o ° a �' LE +-r o 0 0 Z3 m c to r E o. C n tD o o �, m 4) 0 0 0 0 o. n n (D O ,p E O to N ^ O cni to t9 tH to O N C cm 11 cz O ° O ^ m two d R q) :3 E 0 L R G 0 0 0 `AEcE m .? � EOm :om m o G O p ° o m n e e p a U o o o a'. C� 00 � aN r r r O .N.. m0 O ? N a G G to 11 .NL( W J 69 to to ro O y E Q N °a M a .k C N 'm °eE aaU0mm �ooS o o m m n 'D c ¢ a E c° a s $ $ $ ` a o to c3tom rni t°'D m a movmoa ¢ ` m Q cWO GcoD In 4QND o m f0 v N E ma � 0 0 O O 1°O Q t ¢U d a C Q@ x `o o` b io 03 E V x '_ 2 m O1 m n, tCa d c y id @ � ` n a '�oTUo :3 0 0 "' a ° zLt. a° �e ° a � � . ' 4.4 Cost per Participant The cost of the project for each municipality depends on the supply option chosen(I-lII). Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the cost summary as described previously and participant share. The participant share was determined by proportioning the flow required by each city through the facilities needed. The waterline was separated into two sections, A and B. Section A extends from the north end of the project to Phoenix and is required by all participants. Section B extends from Phoenix to Talent and would not require Phoenix's participation. The pump station and associated appurtenances would be required for all participants. Based on this discussion participant shares for Options I-II are as follows (Option III is Talent only): OPTION I CITY A B Q (mgd) % Q (mgd) % Ashland 1.3 15.7 1.3 24.5 Phoenix 3.0 36.1 0 0 Talent 4.0 48.2 4.0 75.5 Totals 8.3 100 5.3 100 COST FORMULA Ashland Cost = 0.157A+0.245B+ 0.157 PS Phoenix Cost = 0361A+OB+0.361 PS Talent Cost = 0.482A+0.755B+0.482 PS OPTION II CITY A B Q (mgd) % Q (mgd) % Ashland 0 0 0 0 Phoenix 3.0 42.9 0 0 Talent 4.0 57.1 4.0 100 Totals 7.0 100 4.0 100 4 -6 December 16, 1997 To: City Council City of Ashland Ashland, Oregon From: Darrell A. Boldt 1950 Tamarack Pl. Ashland, Oregon 97520 Phone: 482-4865 Fax: 482-7851 Ref: Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Water Intertie Dear City Council, I feel it is essential that we, the City of Ashland, continue to participate in the Phoenix Talent intertic from the Medford water source. It is important that we pay the estimated $525,000.00 for the incremental costs of increasing the size of the water line to allow for providing 25% of Ashland water needs in the future. It is very likely that we will need the water in the future during times of drought, fire, or flood. It is apparent that conservation and TID will not be able to provide enough water during times of drought or natural disaster in the future. TID is short on water during droughts and it serves its agricultural customers first. There is also a possibility that, with the increasing concerns of the Native American rights in the Klamath Basin, providing water from TID will not be an option. The estimated 4 million dollars to install the line and pump stations from Talent to Ashland is less expensive than it would cost to provide other water supplies. Through a system of control valves, the water would be able to provide water to the lower levels of Ashland without going through the treatment plant. The existing system could supply water to the upper levels of Ashland. The system could also be activated as it is needed, contrary to earlier erroneous information that once the system is in place it would have to be used on a continuous basis to remain functional. Thank you for your consideration. Darrell A. Boldt 9 City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 17, 1997 ATTENDANCE: Present: Al Alsing, Bob Bennett, Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers Director Ken Mickelsen, Councilor Wheeldon Absent: Laurie MacGraw 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Coppedge called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meetine - October 20, 1997 Commissioner Bennett made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 20, 1997 as written. Commissioner Eggers seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 1 abstain (Alsing) B. Special Meetine - October 16, 1997 Commissioner Eggers noted that Commissioner MacGraw's name had been left off the list of those in attendance at the top of the page and needed to be added. Commissioner Bennett made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 1997 as corrected. Commissioner Eggers seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 1 abstain (Alsing) IV. REVIEW OF FINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Alsing made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as indicated by checks #17947 through #18164 in the amount of$202,916.65. Commissioner Bennett seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no B. Acceptance of GFOA Certificate of Achievement Chair Coppedge announced that the Commission and Department had been awarded the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement award for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996. The award represents the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting. It is the eighth consecutive year that the Commission has received the award and she expressed appreciation to Department staff for its superior efforts which enables the Commission to receive the award. Regular Meeting - November 17, 1997 Page 2 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Open Forum None VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Review of hydraulic model report related to the skateboard facility at Water Street Park Chair Coppedge indicated that the Commission had received the report from Otak, Inc. related to whether or not placement of the proposed facility at Water Street Park would have an adverse affect on the hydraulics of Ashland Creek. The report indicated that constructing the facility at the proposed location would not have an adverse affect on the hydraulics of the creek. As the Commission had previously approved placing the skateboard facility at Water Street Park contingent on Otak's findings, the next step in the process is for the Planning Commission to issue the appropriate permits related to having the facility constructed. Director Mickelsen said that the item has been placed on the Planning Commission's agenda for the month of December. Reuben Davis (8653 Wagner Creek Rd., Talent) and Noah Sanderson (2458 Siskiyou Blvd.) were present in the audience to answer any questions which the Commission might have. In discussion with Commissioners, Mr. Sanderson confirmed that although some minor tweaking had been done to the design, it was essentially the same as Commissioners had previously seen in the model. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Eggers, Mr. Sanderson said that no changes would be made to the shape and steepness of the creek channel and that only one bush would need to be removed. She expressed concern that the integrity of the riparian zone remain intact. Mr. Sanderson said that there was no access to the skateboard facility from that side and he did not see it an area which would attract use. Commissioner Coppedge inquired whether or not a loose skateboard might fly out of the facility in the direction of the creek. Mr. Sanderson said that that was extremely unlikely due to the design of the facility. Allan Sandler (1260 Prospect) said that in discussion with prospective financial contributors to the facility he had heard concern expressed about whether or not participants would have to wear helmets. Apparently, concern had been expressed because of some opposition within the skateboard community to the new City ordinance related to skateboarding. Chair Coppedge explained that the Commission has adopted rules and regulations pertaining to use of the facility and that one of those rules includes the use of helmets. She said that the facility would be regularly patrolled by Park Patrol and the Central Area Patrol police officer and that all the rules would be strictly enforced. If someone was not wearing a helmet, they would be asked to leave. Repeat or chronic offenders would be suspended from use of the facility. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Discuss criteria for flood restoration on Calle Guanajuato Commissioner Eggers opened the discussion by indicating that the Study Session which the Commission had held on October 27, 1997 was very rich in ideas and comments as to what people would like to see happen related to the Calle. From that meeting a list of Regular Meeting - November 17, 1997 Page 3 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Criteria for restoration on the Calle - continued suggested ideas had been made. Because of the size of the area, obviously not all the items on the list could be accomplished. Therefore, the Commission was considering establishing a list of criteria or values against which the various items could be considered as design concepts are being discussed. Referring to a memorandum dated November 13, 1997, for discussion purposes, Chair Coppedge read a short list of possible criteria: Consideration of the health of Ashland Creek and related habitat A conduit for flood waters Commercial usage Recreational opportunities Health and safety considerations Cost and long-term sustainability Protecting and enhancing the environment of the area Maintaining the present functions that the Calle serves She then asked for comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Alsing said that if a list of criteria were adopted that he would prefer to look at them as a composite; he would not prefer to list them as priorities. Commissioner Bennett said that three things stood out for him: stabilizing the hillside, access to Granite Street, and restrooms. Cate Hartzell (881 East Main Street) said that as she was thinking of possible "criteria" she realized that ultimately what she was leaning toward was "goals". She said that essentially she felt that the criteria or goals would be used as a tool to determine how well preliminary design plans match what the Commission and community wanted to have happen in the area. She said that personally she felt that flood mitigation, the slide area, and habitat enhancement should be top priorities. Jim Young (1102 Holton Rd., Talent) said that he had attended a meeting earlier this week in which the groups attempted to discuss an overall vision for the Calle. He read two statements to the Commission which individuals had written after the meeting. The first encouraged the Commission to adopt a written vision statement related to the Calle. Mr. Young said that, speaking as an artist, his statement encouraged the Commission to consider the importance of the cultural diversity which occurs on the Calle and to develop a plan which enables that diversity to be celebrated and enhanced. In discussion among Commissioners, Commissioner Eggers said that maintaining the health of the stream and stabilizing the hillside would be of primary importance to her. She said that she did not believe that this would preclude other activities. She said that there were some obvious constraints to what could be done because of some requirements of the area, such a emergency vehicle access. Commissioner Bennett indicated that he felt he would be able to conceptualize better after the landscape architect presented a preliminary plan to review. He said that he felt that all of the criteria mentioned earlier were important but that if he were to choose just one as most important it would be items which pertained to health and safety. Regular Meeting - November 17, 1997 Page 4 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Criteria for restoration on the Calle -continued Commissioner Alsing indicated that he would have no problem with the criteria as earlier enumerated by Chair Coppedge. Referring to Ms. Hartzell's comment about the possibility of outside funding sources, he said that he would prefer that the Commission focused on an optimum design at this time and then see what was affordable. If cost required backing off on some design elements or working through the design in phases, that could be determined at a later date. Commissioner Coppedge said that she concurred with the comments of the other Commissioners and spoke in support of the various criteria mentioned earlier. She said that between the short list of criteria and the long list of suggested items which came out of the October Study Session, she would like the Commission to direct Brian McCarthy, the landscape architect, to "go ahead and do his balancing act" by creating a preliminary design plan or two. Councillor Wheeldon said that she had attended a conference recently in which one of the topics discussed was the use of public space. She said that similarly to the ice rink, perhaps the west side of the Calle could be designed in such a manner as to encourage gathering by the manner in which seating is planned; perhaps a terraced affect which could be incorporated into whatever needs to be done to stabilize the hillside. Director Mickelsen mentioned that two elements which would need to be addressed soon were the need for a retaining wall and the stairway. In discussion with Commissioners he said that because there was some concern about,additional slides this winter, it would be possible to pull those two items to the front of the planning process so that they could be accomplished this winter. In response to a question by Commissioner Alsing, he said that Brian McCarthy could possibly have conceptual designs for the retaining wall by January. Referring to Director Mickelsen's comments, David Burnson (77 Granite) suggested that a possible design concept would be to combine the retaining wall and the stairs into one engineered item which would serve both purposes. In further brief discussion among Commissioners concerning the criteria stated above, Commissioner Eggers indicated that she had some hesitation about the one related to "maintaining the present functions of the Calle". She said that she could see no value in "maintaining present functions" simply because it was what had been done in the past. However, she said that if there were legal, contractual, or other valid reasons to "maintain" a function, then she would have no problem with keeping it on the list of criteria. Understanding Commissioner Eggers' concern about the one point, by consensus, Commissioners chose to adopt the list of criteria as mentioned above and to forward them to Brian McCarthy to use as guidelines when developing preliminary designs. VIII. COMMUNICATIONS and STAFF REPORTS None Regular Meeting - November 17, 1997 Page 5 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Chair Coppedge read a letter she had received from a student who will be graduating from S.O.U. this June. The letter suggested that perhaps the Bandshell could receive a new coat of paint, and, requested that a more suitable color than pink be selected. As monies to paint the Bandshell are allocated by the Band Fund, the letter was passed on to Councillor Wheeldon to forward to the appropriate City Department. X. UPCOMING MEETING DATE(S) and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS Commissioners noted the Special Meeting concerning flood restoration in upper Lithia Park which had been previously scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the Department Office. Commissioners noted that the next Regular Meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 15, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, by consensus, Chair Coppedge adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, J Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department City of Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission SPECIAL MEETING November 19, 1997 ATTENDANCE: Present: Bob Bennett, Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Laurie MacGraw, Director Ken Mickelsen Absent: Commissioner Al Alsing I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Coppedge called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the 340 S. Pioneer Street, the Department Office. She opened the meeting by turning it over to Paul Fishman of Fishman Environmental Services who would present their report of recommendations related to trail and bridge rehabilitation in upper Lithia Park. II. PRESENTATION and DISCUSSION - Fishman Environmental Services Paul Fishman indicated that he and Todd Moses were present to review their report dated November 19, 1997 entitled "Lithia Park Trail and Bridge Rehabilitation - Implementation Plan". Prior to addressing the report he gave a brief update on the overall flood restoration projects in progress as they pertained to the plaza and the front of Lithia Park. Also, prior to addressing the report per se, Mr. Fishman reviewed two maps which illustrated alternative trail routes from the plaza to the top of Lithia Park proper: one illustrated possible circulation patterns after trail rehabilitation but before bridges were repaired and the other illustrated possible circulation patterns once both trails and bridges were repaired. Beginning discussion of the report, Mr. Fishman said that the recommendations included within the report represented the efforts of the consulting team to synthesize their skills and expertise with the comments, ideas and suggestions made by the public, Commissioners, and Department staff. He indicated that one of the consistent comments made in the public meetings was that they would like to see the east side trail rehabilitated if it could be done in a manner which would not be harmful to the stream ecology or would create future hazards during times of high flood waters. He said that the recommendations for trail and bridge rehabilitation presented in the report met that critia and would provide a trail which most people could use, and, though all the bridges would not be replaced, there would be sufficient bridge crossings to provide flexibility in use of the trails on both the east and west side of the creek. He and Todd Moses went through the report item by item discussing the recommendations and the reasons behind them. Prior to concluding the presentation, he briefly discussed the fact that they were going to be working to assist the Commission in developing a management plan for the Ashland Creek Corridor as it flows through Lithia Park. t . F Special Meeting- November 19, 1997 Page 2 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission III. COMMISSION DELIBERATION Following the presentation and public discussion, Chair Coppedge asked Commissioners to share their thoughts on the recommendations as written in the "Lithia Park Trail and Bridge Rehabilitation - Implementation Plan" as presented. Commissioner Eggers inquired as to what stage we were in the process. It was indicated that to date there had been four meetings related to upper Lithia Park. Director Mickelsen also said that there would probably be at least a couple more meetings on the Calle and there was still the stream management and enhancement needed to be addressed. Referring to the report itself, Commissioner Eggers said that she had found it very helpful and now wanted the opportunity to study it and consider the recommendations. She inquired as to whether or not there was a copy of the consultants report which did not incorporate the thoughts and ideas of Department staff. Mr. Fishman said that there was no separate report from the consultants which did not include staff input, that it was a collaborative effort. He indicated that the underlying information was derived from the two previous preliminary reports on trails and bridges. The recommendations this evening represented a composite of all which has gone before including comments from Commissioners and public input. Commissioner Eggers said that it would have been more helpful to her to have a report which was not a composite of consultant and staff ideas. Indicating that it was possible for the consultants and staff to have differing points of view, she said she would have preferred a report showing the consultants recommendations with staff comments noted separately. Mr. Fishman said that the consultants report dated September 8, 1997 could be considered "the consultants'" report. MOMON Commissioner Bennett made a motion to accept the report on "Lithia Park Trail and Bridge Rehabilitation - Implementation Plan" and to authorize staff, with the continued assistance of the consulting team, to begin implementing the plan. Commissioner MacGraw seconded. Commissioner Eggers indicated that she would have difficulty voting in favor of the motion ' because the report had just been made available this evening and she felt that it deserved more consideration than could be done with one quick review. Commissioner MacGraw differed with her statement saying that she felt confident in accepting the report and moving forward with the implementation plan. She said that she believed the recommendations were balanced between aesthetics and creating a trail and bridge system compatible and functional within the floodplain. Commissioner Coppedge concurred with Commissioner MacGraw's statements indicating that she felt confident that it was the time to move forward with implementing the plan for trails and bridges. The vote was: 3 yes - 1 no (Eggers) IV. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Coppedge adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Business Manager ! �i Ashland Parks and Recreation Department ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Ron Bass at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners present were Hearn, Gardiner, Morris, Howe, Armitage, and Briggs. Jarvis was absent. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Harris and Yates. ANNOUNCEMENTS Planning Action 97-10 (1175 E. Main Street) has been taken off the agenda and will come before the City Council for discussion on December 2, 1997. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Howe moved to approve the Minutes of the October 14, 1997 meeting. The motion was seconded and the Minutes were approved. Armitage moved to approve the Findings for PA97-060 and PA97-077. Briggs seconded the motion and all favored. Hearn abstained from voting on the Welles' Findings. Howe moved to approve PA97-084 (Molig), the motion was seconded and the Findings approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 97-087 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED NEAR THE GRANITE STREET/WINBURN WAY JUNCTION (SOUTH OF 247 GRANITE STREET). A DRIVEWAY GRADE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A 17 PERCENT GRADE RATHER THAN 15 PERCENT AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. A SECOND VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 40 PERCENT. APPLICANT: ROB CAIN Site Visits or Ex Parts Contacts Bass listened to the tape from the previous hearing and was present at the site visit. Site visits were made by all. All Planning Commissioners attended the site visit on October 19, 1997. STAFF REPORT There is a submittal in the packet from the project engineers and architect as part of last month's testimony. Staff maintains its position from last month that there are unique aspects on this site and unique circumstances that are not a result of the applicant, therefore, not self-imposed. The main issue -what are the overall benefits (Criteria B) to approving the Variances? The applicant's position has been that this site is not a natural site but has been quite heavily modified, thereby justifying a different approach to development. Howe wondered, if the Variances are not granted, what would the City require to stabilize the slopes? Molnar said there are still areas of cuts and fills for the driveway, particularly in the bend area. No Variance would increase the cuts and fills and Staff would impose the Conditions that the cut banks be stabilized with retaining walls, structural equivalent, or rock facing. This is the same thing as required for any fill slope as well. As part of final plan, site drainage would be addressed. McLaughlin added a reclamation plan will need to be implemented in order to stabilize the site. Armitage asked if this project is denied, then what reclamation would be forced on someone? McLaughlin said this is still considered by the City as an active quarry site and unless a specific change is requested, the City cannot require a reclamation plan. PUBLIC HEARING TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, said he sees no liabilities in the project. Everything being done is to benefit the land. The drawings presented are preliminary until a house is designed specifically for each site. The driveway is a little under 17 percent grade. He has provided a section drawing (house with wall as retaining wall and terracing). With regard to the driveway, they tried to follow the gradual incline of the site. To get the slope under 15 percent would mean considerable cutting and filling. The reasons for the two sites on top are to stabilize the site and defer some of the cost of the reclamation plan. Again, the building envelopes are designed to help stabilize the banks. Instead of having a number of walls (concrete), these buildings will step up the site, making it aesthetically more pleasing. Also, one wall serves two purposes making it more economical. Giordano said a more detailed outline of the reclamation plan will be presented at this meeting. They are willing to include the stepping approach in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. This would be provided prior to Final Plan approval. Something could also be included about the work being done by a licensed architect. An added item that could be included in the CC&R's is that the retaining walls be rock. KERRY KENCAIRN, 147 Central, landscape designer, showed on the overhead that the driveway design takes some advantage of the flat, the slopes, and the longest horizontal level run to get to upper terraces. Briggs questioned in the section drawing of Lot D, the percentage of slope. She is concerned about the power of the berm against the house when the berm is loaded with water and wondered how they knew it could work. MARK AMRHEIN, 804 Roca, geotechnical engineer said the slope is almost 100 percent. The backfill is free-draining material. The gravel used for backfill would drain all the water that could enter and go into the pipe. There are typically about 24 inches (wide) of backfill against the wall. Amrhein said it is fairly common construction. The footings will most likely be on solid rock. Briggs asked if half the house is on 100 percent slope, why not pull the building envelope closer to the street? Giordano said this is aesthetically and functionally superior because the retaining wall and building wall are one. Site D is probably the worst case and less of the house could be pushed back. Amrhein said by pushing the house further up the slope, the length of the steep slope behind the house is decreased. By pulling it down, the length increases. Bass asked Staff if there is a benefit to disturbing the bank. McLaughlin said the cross-section came in ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 11,1997 y on Monday but there is compelling evidence that this is a more appropriate way to develop the site. Giordano said it is similar to what is in the proposed hillside development standards. Gardiner asked how the surface water would be channeled. Giordano said it would be directed in a U- shape around the house to the drainage system. Howe wanted to know about pedestrian access from Granite up to the open space. Kencairn said it will be accessed using a series of stairs with handrails and terraces. Giordano believes at Final Plan he will need to submit final architectural plans as well as final plans for the subdivision. Armitage wondered since the home design is an integral part of the stabilization, should it be required as part of the reclamation plan and part of Final Plan? Molnar said under Condition 13, there is an expectation that all the buildings are designed similar to the section view (Lot D). McLaughlin said the quarry site has to be reclaimed but the negotiations are for the area beyond the quarry site (undisturbed area). Bass wondered if the reclamation strategies can be attached to the Conditions of approval? McLaughlin affirmed. Morris asked how Giordano envisioned the site looking when It is developed. Will the driveways be visible? Giordano said there is going to be a lot of terracing and that is why he would like to see rock. The plantings should soften the look as well. Kencalm envisions using natives on the site. In the building envelopes there will be more ornamentals. The slope should look softer and more gradual. She thinks it will be hard to see the drive from below. Bass suggested, in the future, we could require a photo montage to see a future concept. Amrhein said he would like to have some kind of outlet for retaining exceptions even though the walls could still be faced with rock. Gardiner wondered how the public is notified of a public footpath. McLaughlin said a Condition could be included to provide a sign indicating a pedestrian path. CATE HARTZELL, 881 E. Main Street, asked If this is a case of development driving reclamation or the other way around. It is already a place of high disturbance and this will cause more disturbance in order to stabilize it. She asked the Commission to give due consideration into the proposed Physical and Environmental Constraints and not allow building on anything over 35 percent. She Is assuming none of the houses below would go in before the stabilization above is totally complete. She is hoping there will be some geotechnical evidence required such as developed cross-sections, safety calculations, debris potential, etc. Hartzell said If this site were determined not to be buildable, in the future, some action could be brought forth to force reclamation. She would like to know what other areas have learned about this type of development. She felt until the Commission had a sense of how this site could be reclaimed in other ways than just through development, it will be hard to determine the benefits of granting the Variances. She asked why the envelopes show cuts if they are not going to use them. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 11, 1997 Rebuttal Giordano said the adjacent neighbor sent a letter supporting the project. The development is driving the reclamation plan. Without potential development to sell these lots, reclamation would not happen. This site is a special situation that does not exist anyplace else in Ashland. Amrhein said there would have to be additional stability analysis for specific house development. There is bedrock on the lower portion of the site. Up above, the slopes are of more concern. That is why the building envelopes do not cut into the hillsides very much. Catchment walls (three to four feet) will provide a space for minor rock fall. Howe expressed concern about the building/placement of the houses on the upper lots. If that is not going in until the homes below are complete, then it is possible to have houses underneath a slope that has not been stabilized. Kencairn thought the retaining system (above) could be in place before the houses (above) are built. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn likes the project. This is a good way to reclaim the site. He likes the dedication of the back area to the City. Gardiner would like some control over timing of how portions of this project are developed so home sites are not being built on Granite with unstable areas on top. Howe agreed with Hearn that the site will be stabilized and beautified. She wants to see where the retaining is going to be. She would like a sense of what is going to be built first and what area will be stabilized first. McLaughlin said the Commission requires a full phasing and development plan, indicating the sequence of development. Armitage wondered if Condition 15 could require the applicant to provide this information at Final Plan. Howe said it would seem the engineer would have to certify that all of the structural retainage (structures are part of the retainage) and the erosion control measures are in place for all five houses. McLaughlin said that is not the intent because each site is disturbed at a different point. The phasing of the plan is not clear and the applicant may want to define the extent of the plan at each level. Briggs said she appreciates how the applicant plans to build into the hillside but she is uncomfortable with the 100 percent slope and not knowing how the houses will run into it. She is uncomfortable with the steepness of the road and would like to see it configured at 15 percent. She is uncomfortable approving both Variances; one maybe, but not the other. Bass asked if this site is so unique it will not be setting a precedent. McLaughlin said they can make findings the site is unique because of its disturbance, history, and artificially created slopes. Bass does not see a problem with the other criteria. McLaughlin suggested wording for Condition 16: "That the private drive and all associated erosion control plans, excepting those specifically for individual home sites, shall be indicated on the Final Plan. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 11,1997 Private drive construction and erosion control measures for the entire subdivision site shall be installed prior to signature of the final survey plat." This condition asks for stabilization of the site and Improvements before beginning any construction. A concept must be incorporated into each home plan so a buyer would have to follow the premise of stepping it up the hill. Molnar added wording to the end of Condition 13: 'That building sections be provided at Final Plan for each lot, incorporating those above measures for slope stability." Molnar suggested the reclamation strategies be made part of Condition 11. Amend Condition 4 by adding a sentence: "That the ten foot pedestrian easement indicated on the plan from Granite Street to the ditch be dedicated for public pedestrian use and designated through appropriate signage provided at Final Plan. Final construction design of the pedestrian path be supplied at Final Plan indicating change of texture for pedestrian surface and addressing the need for stairs." Howe would like to specify "rock face" in the strategy. Armitage moved to approve Planning Action 97-087 as presented with modifications to Conditions 4, 11, and 13 and with the addition of Condition 16 discussing the placement and approval at Final Plan of the erosion control plan. Howe seconded the motion and it carried with Briggs voting "no". TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 97-107 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 18.40 (EMPLOYMENT) AND 18.32 (COMMERCIAL) PERTAINING TO "EATING, DRINKING, ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING ESTABLISHMENTS". APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND There is a new definition for restaurant, nightclubs and bar. In the C-1 Retail Commercial District, restaurants are an outright permitted use and nightclubs and bars are outright permitted uses except when in the Historic Interest Area. Then it becomes a Conditional Use, unless in the downtown. After some discussion, McLaughlin said Staff would look at teen dance clubs and see where they fit. Howe moved to recommend to the Council adoption of Planning Action 97-107 and consider entertainment that does not include alcohol. Hearn seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 97-108 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 18.84 PERTAINING TO MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED DWELLING DEVELOPMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND This ordinance reflects changes at the state level and just matches our ordinances to the state requirements. Briggs moved to recommend to the Council adoption of Planning Action 97-108 as written. Armitage ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 11,1997 - ' P seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER The Commission discussed giving out infill awards or awards for good development. Landscaping awards could be included too. This could encourage developers to do the right thing. It will be left to the Hearings Board chair person to decide whether or not to hear the Type I Planning Actions before or after the Type II's. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Armitage moved to approve Findings for PA97-093 (Shapiro). Bass abstained, Morris seconded and the Findings were approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 77,1997 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Ron Bass and Marilyn Briggs. Staff present were Molnar, Knox and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Briggs moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the October 14, 1997 Regular Meeting, Armitage seconded and they were approved. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 97-078 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR 41 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS (PHASE 4) LOCATED AT 900 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE(MOUNTAIN MEADOWS SENIOR LIVING DEVELOPMENT). APPLICANT: MOUNTAIN MEADOWS LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 97-109 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT A RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1056 HENRY STREET TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE. APPLICANT: BRUCE MOATS This action was approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 97-075 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION/ALTERATION OF THE TEMPORARY USE AT 40 NORTH MAIN STREET. THE PROPOSAL IS TO PERMIT A PORTABLE BBQ ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING ESPRESSO BAR. APPLICANT: CHRISTOPHER R. MCINTOSH Chris McIntosh requested a continuance until the December 9, 1997. He waived the right to a decision within the 120 day time limit. Bass moved to continue this action until the December Hearings Board, Briggs seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 97-050 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OUTLINE PLAN/SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 17-LOT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT LOCATED AT 963 "B" STREET. APPLICANT: WILLIAM D. BARCHET Site visits and ex carte contacts. . Bass and Briggs had site visits. Armitage is familiar with the site and has had a prior site visit. STAFF REPORT In 1995 the Planning Commission approved a 17 unit development under the Performance Standards Option. The units are proposed to be townhouses, available for individual purchase with common areas and CC&R's. The applicant is asking for an extension of his approval for Outline Plan. He has submitted a revised site plan that shows 10 foot setbacks which the Commission had requested. The 28 parking spaces have been clearly marked and the pedestrian pathway modified. The majority of the trees have been incorporated into the design. Staff has recommended approval. The original conditions have been kept in the Findings. The Findings have been prepared for approval if the Commission wishes. PUBLIC HEARING William Barchet, 464 Lori Lane, believes staff has covered his position. Briggs asked why he was keeping the existing house. Barchet said the greenhouse addition will be removed. The rest of the house is in good condition. Briggs noted several things on Barchet's floor plan that are impossible to build. When he submits for final plan, she would like to see those things cleared up. Bass sees some problems when back yards are treated as side yards especially when two projects are next to each other; small, dark backyard areas are created. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs moved to approve PA97-050. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Bass moved to approve the Findings for Barchet (PA97-050) with the addition of wording that he has requested a one year extension. Briggs seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 1997 Monthly Building Activity Report : 10/97 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS : Building: ACCESSORY RES UNIT 1 108, 228 ADDENDUM TO 9709064 1 25 BATHROOM REMODEL 1 6, 000 COUNT SDC FIXTURES 1 0 DEMOLITION OF GARAGE 1 0 DETACHED GARAGE 1 8, 591 DORMER ADDITION 1 3, 500 ENCLOSE PORCH 1 3 , 500 FENCE 2 12 , 017 NEW GARAGE - DETACHED 1 3 , 897 ONE UNIT HOTEL/MOTEL 2 148, 976 POOL 1 15, 000 REMODEL 6 72, 725 REROOF 1 2, 000 SERVICE/WTR HTR/FURN/HP 1 10, 000 SFR 5 648, 604 SFR - ATTACHED 2 213 , 946 SOLAR WATER HEATER 2 6,400 STORAGE SHED 1 2, 082 VACATION RENTAL 1 64 , 660 Subtotal : $ 1, 330, 151 Electrical : 1 BR CIR FOR HOT TUB 2 580 1 BR CIR FOR WTR HTR 1 130 2 BR CIR FOR FURNACES 1 500 ADD 20 AMP CIRCUIT 1 350 ALARM SYSTEM 1 238 ALTERATION OF 1 BR CIR 1 400 FEEDER TO GARAGE/3 BR CIR 1 990 FIVE BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 1, 500 SERVICE + 1 BR CIR 1 52 SERVICE CHANGE 4 2, 600 SERVICE CHANGE + 10 BR CR 1 1, 000 SERVICE CHANGE + 2 BR CIR 1 800 SERVICE CHANGE + 4 BR CIR 1 1, 550 SERVICE CHANGE/METER BASE 1 500 TEMPORARY POWER 2 237 TWO BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 375 Subtotal : $ 11, 802 Mechanical : AC/2 BR CIRS 1 6, 426 Monthly Building Activity Report : 10/97 Page 2 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS : Mechanical : GAS LINE/FIREPLACE INSERT 1 1, 915 GAS LINE/FURN/AC/1 BR CIR 1 4 , 470 GAS LINE/FURN/AC/2 BR CIR 1 4, 272 GAS LINE/FURN/HP/2 BR CIR 2 12, 434 GAS LINE/FURNACE/1 BR CIR 3 7, 297 GAS LINE/GAS FURNACE 2 5, 830 GAS LINE/GAS FURNACE/AC 1 3 , 605 GAS LINE/GAS STOVE 1 350 GAS LINE/RANGE/FIREPLACE 1 1, 000 GAS LINE/WATER HEATER 1 250 GAS LOG SET 1 730 GAS PACK + 2 BR CIRS 1 5, 196 GAS VENT CHIMNEY 1 1, 150 INSTALL GAS WATER HEATER 1 300 INSTALL HEAT PUMP 1 5, 395 SPACE HEATER/VENT 1 250 VOIDED ON 11/10/97 1 4, 400 WALL HEATER 1 600 Subtotal : $ 65, 870 Plumbing: ADD BATH/UTILITY SINK 1 3 , 000 ADD SINK 1 200 BACKFLOW DEVICE 8 3, 800 DOUBLE CHECK VALVE 1 100 RELOCATE EXISITING BATHRM 1 4, 000 REPLACE ELECT WATER HTR 1 150 REPLACE SEWER LINE 1 800 REPLACE WATER LINE 1 1, 200 REPLACE WTR HTR TO GAS 1 1, 000 REPLUMB 4 FIXTURES 1 300 SEWER LINE 2 31100 SEWER LINE/WATER LINE 1 350 SPECIAL INSPECT-PLUMBING 1 0 WATER LINE 1 175 WATER LINE/FUTURE SERVICE 2 400 Subtotal : $ 18, 575 ***Total : $ 1, 426, 398 COMMERCIAL: Building: COMMERCIAL SHELL 1 328, 512 Monthly Building Activity Report : 10/97 Page 3 # Units Value COMMERCIAL: Building: FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 15, 217 MINI STORAGE #2 1 269, 004 OFFICE BLDG/APARTMENT 1 260, 000 REMODEL 4 48 , 000 REROOF 1 14 , 610 SPECIAL INSPECTION 1 0 TENANT IMPROVEMENT 3 23 , 202 THEATER & COMMONS 1 7, 090 , 400 Subtotal : $ 8, 048, 945 Electrical : 5 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 550 ENTRY VOIDING 9709041 -1 -750 FIRE SYSTEM 1 1, 692 SERVICE CHANGE 1 6, 000 TEMP POWER FOR JOB TRAILR 1 500 Subtotal : $ 7, 992 Mechanical : GAS LINE/GAS FURNACE 1 1, 775 Subtotal : $ 1, 775 Plumbing: BACKFLOW DEVICE/SINK VENT 1 700 Subtotal : $ 700 ***Total : $ 8, 059, 412 Monthly Building Activity Report : 10/97 Page 4 Total this month: 122 $ 9, 485, 810 Total this month last year: 117 $ 3 , 868, 751 Total year to date : 397 $17, 212, 791 Total last year: 434 $12, 866, 863 This month This month This year last year Total Fees : 71, 035 38, 110 150, 990 Total Inspections : 888 779 3009 • NEW CONSTRUCTION: 10/97 RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 12/10/97 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ACCESSORY RES UNIT 136 SECOND ST N GREENEWOOD HOMES 108228 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 108228 . 00 ** DETACHED GARAGE 1314 SEENA LANE OWNER 8591 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 8591 . 00 ** NEW GARAGE - DETACHED 938 ELKADER ST OWNER 3897 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 3897 . 00 ** SFR 181 ORANGE AV COX, FRED--CONSTRUCTION 138111 . 00 805 CREEK STONE WY MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 120000 . 00 230 VILLAGE PARK DR M. ROCK 89335 . 00 777 CAPELLA CR GENTRY, HAROLD T. 134857 . 00 1010 WALKER AV OWNER 166301 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 648604 . 00 ** SFR - ATTACHED 2150 SISKIYOU BV3 ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 107490 . 00 HOMES 2170 SISKIYOU BV4 ASHER, STEVEN DBA ASHER 106456 . 00 HOMES ** Subtotal ** 213946 . 00 ** STORAGE SHED 704 INDIANA ST OWNER 2082 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 2082 . 00 *** Total *** 985348 . 00 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 10/97 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 12/10/97 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ONE UNIT HOTEL/MOTEL 464 NORTH MAIN ST ROUPP, BRAD - 74488 . 00 CONSTRUCTION 466 NORTH MAIN ST ROUPP, BRAD - 74488 . 00 CONSTRUCTION ** Subtotal ** 148976 . 00 ** VACATION RENTAL 323 HELMAN ST OWNER 64660 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 64660 . 00 ** COMMERCIAL SHELL 1401 SISKIYOU BV BATZER CONSTRUCTION, INC. 328512 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 328512 . 00 ** MINI STORAGE #2 1095 BENSON WY TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. 269004 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 269004 . 00 ** OFFICE BLDG/APARTMENT 565 A ST SHOSTROM BROS .LTD. 260000 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 260000 . 00 ** THEATER & COMMONS 201 MOUNTAIN AV S ADROIT CONST. CO. 7090400 . 00 ** Subtotal ** 7090400 . 00 *** Total *** 8161552 . 00 CITY OF ASHLAND Office of the Mayor a 0 MEMORANDUM *•0R EGO ?,.•'�• DATE: December 10, 1997 TO: City Council Members FROM: Cathy Golden, Mayor RE: TREE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT There is an opening on the Tree Commission due to the recent resignation of Jack Goldberg from his position which expires April 30, 1999. 1 would like to appoint Rich Whitall to this vacancy. Mr. Whitall is a previous Tree Commission member who was first elected on December 20, 1994 for a term ending April 30, 1996. At the end of his term he chose not to be considered for reappointment as he was moving from the area. He has now moved back and has expressed an interest in being reappointed to this commission. A copy of his letter of interest dated November 19, 1997, is attached. 91ch and Debble cWbdall O 350 9 c5bvet Q� 2 4 1997 -%bland, Oregon 97520 9Yoo¢mber 19, 1997 91onourable 9Vlayor Cathy Golden Ashland Ctty 91all clear 9Veyor golden; 9 am oriting to request consideratlon for appointment to the 97sbland`Tree Commission. 975 you may recall, 9 resigned as Chair of the Commission last year rnhen cl ebble and 9 left for a year-long exchange to c.�uslralia. 97 few weeks ago 9,5 oke with Donn 'Todt about the cbav s in the commissions membership since last year, and he encouraged me to seek re-appolntmed.. `Should the city b¢seeking to replace members of the `Tree Commission, or should openings occur,please consider me an applicant. cSincerely yours, `Etch gVbitall BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 16, 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. 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 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 . 5) The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the Ashland City Council, as per 18 . 108. 110 . The Ashland City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 2 , 1997 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Ashland City Council denied the application. Now, therefore, The Ashland City Council finds and concludes as follows : SECTION 1 . EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent' s Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent' s Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an npq" SECTION 2 . CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2 . 1 The Ashland City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2 . 2 The Ashland City Council finds that the proposal to expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five units does not meet all applicable criteria for approval, as required in 18 :24 . 030 .x. of the land use ordinance. Specifically, the Ashland City Council finds that the applicant has failed to meet the standard requiring that the accommodation be business-owner occupied - 18 . 24 . 030 .K. 1 . and that the accommodation be the primary residence of the owner. Specifically, the section states: 18. 24 . 030.x. 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 travelers 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. In information contained in the record provided by the applicant, she indicated that she and her husband recently purchased another home in Ashland so that their young children could be closer to school . She indicated that as of August 30 , 1997, her husband and children had moved to the new home . She indicated that she still resided at the travellers accommodation during its operation, and maintained it as her mailing address . The applicant' s agent, during the public hearing, provided additional information regarding the definition of a residence. Many of the issues involved in this matter concern whether or not the applicant' s primary residence is the site of the traveler' s accommodation. We recognize that there are numerous and different requirements in regard to what constitutes one' s residence and those requirements may fluctuate depending upon the context of the law or regulation being interpreted. In the context of this ordinance, however, we interpret the phrase "primary residence" as used in § 18 . 24 . 030 .K. 1 as a residence where the business owner resides . If the business owner has more than one residence, and if the owner has a spouse and minor chidden, as in this case, the primary residence is the residence where the owner' s spouse and children reside. We base this interpretation in part on the history of this section as related by the Community Development Director at the hearing. Traveler' s accommodations are uses located in residential neighborhoods and they are to remain a part of such neighborhoods . The potential for conflict between residential uses and business uses in residential neighborhoods is reduced when the owner and the owner' s family reside where the business is located. A primary residence should not be one which causes the operator "considerable personal inconvenience" (as stated in a finding submitted by the applicant, p. 16 of the record. ) The Council finds that the applicant has not provided evidence assuring the Council that during the operation of the travelers accommodation that it would be her primary residence . 2 .3 Based upon information provided in the record, the Ashland City Council finds that the travelers accommodation located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard is not the primary residence of the applicant/business-owner, and therefore fails to meet the requirements of 18 .24 . 030 . x. 1 of the Ashland land use ordinance . SECTION 3 . DECISION 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Ashland City Council 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. Specifically, the application fails to meet 18 .24 . 030 .K. 1 regarding business-owner occupancy of the site as her primary residence during operation of the travelers accommodation. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action #97-073 . Mayor Date CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Public Works Z Engineering Division ; MEMORANDUM ' .�REGO?,,'" DATE: December 11, 1997 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Paula Brown, Public Works Director RE: Termination of Public Utility Easement - Cedar Way Subdivision REQUEST: Mr. Don Rounds has submitted a request to terminate a public utility and irrigation easement located across the rear of his lot at 949 Cedar Way. A quitclaim deed has been prepared whereby the City can relinquish all its interest in the easement. The deed requires City Council approval and the Mayor's signature. BACKGROUND: The easement to be terminated was created on the plat of the Cedar Way Subdivision which was recorded on December 17, 1981. The easement was created to provide irrigation services to the lots in the subdivision as well as other rear yard services. The easement was never utilized. Planned construction on the lot would encroach onto the easement. Mr. Don Rounds, as agent for the owner Ms. Susan Jay, has requested a termination of the easement. A query was sent to all utility companies including: T.I.D., U.S. West, T.C.I. Cablevision, W.P. Natural Gas, and City Electric Department and Water Quality Division (see attached memo). Each company responded that the easement was unused and unneeded. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the easement be terminated and that Mr. Round's request be submitted to the City Council for authorization for approval of the quitclaim deed. (Opw\cedamay.eas) 1 N i n i v i cn i (n i n i 00 1 m i ° : a [ r , o ] t:]a r 8 as=:a 1. ` la � !. Y54 d tdE ec 3, i . , i ii f , t � 7Y�iioi r : •:,Y �tt7qq Stie di t id i y� Y. @1 � is a i f5 xtLi:==== a dy 'i 99 II Yja ifM' Y : sYp`p Y, iSSLa -d Y sail i fa baa dddi 1§ ���J� t "� 1 t c i yCLP.CBB 1 T ' i t 1e Y F T rlpgqyyqq° ri6Yeil:TcY � di��l . 4pp ( evv. afi1St , , : ct�. C! !- r1ft�1l {slr47ttaSlliiitrsr[iYffiri11i1 afaa EEYE4it$g 3:t r [:t a ::: :r I r. Y .Yi : eL ii e . tliii 'YS1Tt ° y ' e> P taut � 1 uae: :a :a::s . tfpy ' `�Sai"i }pii{{yYl! lll I rFi11Aid gyi� l (iii i 13 # 1iitfC4 �44;6a� b � i1l441171111d17 �8 - r ' .J � p> :L 'Yy iEi • [ds6s 1i °df �� .— .�`... -1",� .�.�,...;at ^ .`.F. _ 0 9a�i7411st �141� 19i7133 � II ._y t- •-' i ! _ ..._t,.• l -° 1\Wi - ��� � j� •r _'V�� �- sy: :acts • - U �11 Y_pp � Ilt1j cn �4 <1 C,] (` •• �,� - it 31�I. satt t t B E a ,ZW (n 1 �t rl 9 :•EC spY:�s1 r — 6 ��•i 't di w � / i• ss fi Yx .td(ds s: D - it— I ].. ..86:e]l:f:i: [ i �; � Yom— ''., 7.�t �• [, q :f'ij ili "r p U � Fxl�' , — _lil.� •• • .� -- as°1F4dIlYf; ili¢ U qa �7• tc .,^� l i \.�i•� 1 1 r a c1 ]t : a : [ s :a:: :, : _ i []C:: fair L:[Y ld:t: : : t: :] }I ]dC ! :f . ,� L � 1 :Fev�:a F a $ys� ii /i iC•Cy7`s . Bfl ! . I Q � � _ _ \ ettEttaa ' 7 �33 � 81 :11�3l1��5� 6EEdo� 2ialaaES ?: C r y . _ � 1 1 t , s, si tratart::esa: r:: xna : a. :tt , ttcra ,st - _ ts:i � jty4 /• �'\� l �li € f3 ° E3 p• 4iA'r� . i'9Y:(c �"i- `t Yi4"Ayr c , r s al (N 1 M V 1 to I (O I t` 1 00 ° y / `t IV. VY. I/`t Jr— 0 I. JJJ. R.IG. VV. IVI. 39 IB 5BB SCALE: I=100 R 3BIE32 t W JAN 2 I gg7 CITY OF ASHCAN I / 20o a./ 5-8 y I I lkq r-' 201~ In 9ll6 SUeO m9 202 •'!\��! 203 •^ •v\ r/// / . / •�� 7 /i) Z/ 5 900' t000 f P-4332) OssAC °l:..it, \Ml\:'L+�h f •,� ,F: P4LH51 1200 1300 ",.. '•.. •`K 2000 ¢ 1400 'y,y\,• 'Rfn, ) .' o,' °° /P/ m 1500 • 1` "' • (P-2145 1600 j V \ o rn 0374 170 OA: 1900 BLK I 1100 8 • y".'...,'�y Q3)4L 190 \\ RR5 NT �% ' 5 sUB�j7�0N ` Y • fi. CEDAR WAY 5uts- I N_ MAGI - .64005-26' . - - - ' ( I)_. .S rlEr W000' - t - - : O : 2.163' street •IS`�(21• .'� S64°0S 40 E.76463 • ,%Oa C. N0. 67-097 1 r�z6 13 Public Utility c.o. Road Slope Easement-'' / R:20.00'00' L-30.60 i � N it . . r� o r � / 10626 sq. ft. lo_• F F F F r • n 10.03 Im G h U 1- 941,9s /�/w- 1 � � - -; 5 6 6°20'00"E _ _ f•� o mu �� 9T �. 112. 99' H O D w F FQ ;�•: . Fd. �JrT o.; ; ;•I0' Irr'it'ation d P. U.I o F TO o ::R, Ea cement Id _ Pil n m 8 2.2 T�2.27 9tcA_ ry � ' 11585 7q. ft. A o 65 "7,9 - ry•• :I �- a \, 5.66 39'40 E. S.6 t5 •E � o _ _ ..-Vol. 512 P. 332 .•�\2 "m r:;,: S H4 59 1.98!5 •-1 I ''10 55� d.r. .c.0. a . __93.31' - ?N.70°47'5H"W. 99.34' � ;• f �10 Public Utility 8 1 Rood Slope Eason 40.04.* ; BOUNDARY LINE-'-nC oo' Izo.HH' : N .,-' AGREEMENT 1 .10,Doc. No. 79-05239 I t' o.r. j...C:o. F o 95.461. 0 o N ? to •' Vol. , 383 P. 2.781_ l :-94.90' d.r. 1.C.O. ,•' 1p 12633 sq. ft. ,A 7 o I �-2 6 40.56 60.0' 1 5.00, -" - -1' '.- - .109.00'- '--existing irrig. point of dslirery< ' . . - - u0 ASHLAND IV:INE RD. SCALE 1"=50' CITY OF ASHLAND DEFT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION CITY OF ASHLAND a 1j pf ASy�oo Department of Public Works Engineering Division MEMORANDUM •,. REGO,10• DATE: November 4, 1997 TO: Pete L.; Scott J.; Dennis B.; Paula Brown; Jerry G. & Bill Molnar FROM: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer A RE: Request for Termination of a Public Utility Easement in Cedar Way Subdivision REQUEST: In May of 1997 two requests to terminate utility easements were forwarded to you. One of those requests was from Don Rounds and was for the relocation of an existing utility easement in Cedar Way Subdivision. The May request was never acted upon and it is now being re-submitted with modifications. Mr. Rounds would like to terminate the entire easement (excluding the sanitary sewer easement) which runs in a northerly direction across Lot 8 and connects Lots 7 and 9. The easement to be terminated is as shown on the attached map. SUMMARY: Would you please review this request for easement termination to determine if you have a current or future need for this easement. Please let me know as quickly as possible if you have any objections to the termination. Please feel free to call me at 488-5347 for further information. cc: Hollie Cannon, Talent Irrigation District Dennis Ott, WP Natural Gas Dennis Eubanks, TCI Cablevision David Hoxie, US West Communications Don Rounds (c:leng ineer%easementlrounds.ter) N9 - City of Ashland STATE OF OREGON, lss Ci-ty--Ffa-11----------------------------------- County of-------------------------- 1 ----'A§T1lanif;--III--- 752TT-------------------- 1 certify that the within instrument __________________W______________________________________ Susan ,l By e«.«a.am••• was received for record -- the ______ ay 94-9 Cii d-ar-Way-------------------------- -----------o'clock------M..and recorded in ASFi an ---___ZI752U------------------ book/reel/volume No. _ on page sPSeE PESERVEO _______________ and/or as fee/GIe/instru• anR may'��«'a't' FOA ment/microfilm/reception No. _•___ _ _ __ ___ _____ _______________________________ RECOPOER9 USE Records of said 944 Cedar Way ____________________ County. Ashland� DR 3752Q Witness my hand and seal of County affixed. unm we«•uwN«.«naww•m•„v„umlx•m•,eae.u•.npP USanJay___________________________________ --------;we---------------------flite_______ •----9 4 9_Cedar--Way---------------------------- AShI and,__OR_ 97520 ____________________ By---------------------------------Deputy. QUITCLAIM DEED KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS that__City-of Ashland, an Oregon municipal _ _____________________________________.__________.________. ----C o r p o r a t i on -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------I hereinafter called grantor,for the consideration hereinafter stated,does hereby remise,release and forever quitclaim unto---------- -----S u A a n--Jay-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hereinafter called grantee,and unto grantee's heirs,successors and assigns,all of the grantor's right,title and interest in that certain real property,with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thercunto belonging or in any way appertaining, situated in J-dC k S 0 n_____------_--__County,State of Oregon,described as follows,to-wit: The purpose of this instrument is to terminate a 10 foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) and Irrigation Easement, dedicated on the declaration and plat of Lot Number 8 of Cedar Way Subdivision, filed 17 December 1981 in Volume 14 of Plats at page 77 of Records of Jackson County, Oregon. Said 10 foot easement bears S 190 30' 09" W from the southwest property corner of lot 7 for a distance of 159.32 feet to the south property line of Lot 8, excluding that portion lying within the intersecting 10' wide sanitary sewer easement. C,Spn W UMOEW..eoxnxUE DExcnef NON REVERSE) To Have and to Hold the same unto grantee and grantee's heirs,successors and assigns fo4rever. The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer,stated in terms of dollars,is S__=u___________________m-lie wevay-th► delete OF at nel"desellne ple, wltteh)-eeM{tlerat_ (The sentence between the symbols m,if not spplicoble,should be deleted.See ORS 97.030.) In construing this deed,where the context so requires,the singular includes the plural,and all grammatical changes shall be made so that this deed shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the grantor has executed this instrument this_________day of________________________19-91.;if grantor-is a corporation,it has caused its name to be signed and its seal,if any,affixed by an officer or other person duly authorized to do so by order of its board of directors. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN _______________________________________________________________ THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGU- Catherine M. Golden, Mayor LATIONS.BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPRO_ _______________________________________________________________ PRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES Barbara Christensen, Recorder AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF OREGON,County of-------- _____Jackson_ )ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on_______________________________________ This instrument was acknowledged before me on---------------------------------------19-___, by _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ as _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ of______________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires_________________________________________ 1 CITY OF ASHLAND pF ASy Department of Public Works a Engineering Division MEMORANDUM °kern , DATE: December 11, 1997 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Paula Brown, Public Works Director RE: Council Approval of Easement Across Street Plug. REQUEST: Mr. Matthew Bond recently made a request for access across the 1.00' wide street plug located at the terminus of Renaissance Drive in Lithia Park Village, P.U.D. (see attached letter). An easement form has been prepared by the City Council. BACKGROUND: In 1983 when Mark Cooper filed his Lithia Park Village P.U.D. plat he had plans to extend Renaissance Drive and Marklyn Drive to access additional properties that he held. Street plugs were dedicated on the subdivision plat to ensure that building construction did not block the future extension of either of these streets. Ordinarily these plugs would remain in place until additional right-of-way was dedicated as the street was extended. Cooper has since sold his properties in this area and with the new hillside standards, the extension of either of these streets is not likely nor is it desirable. Planning staff has recommended that on extension of Renaissance Drive would not be in the City's best interest. RECOMMENDATION: Public Works staff recommends approval of this easement. Concurrence has been expressed from the Street Division, Water Quality Division, Fire Department and Planning Department. Attachments: Vicinity map Assessors plat (c9pwlstretp1g.mem) FIRST PAGE RECORDING REQUIREMENTS PER ORS 205.234 NAME OF TRANSACTION: Access Easement NAME OF PARTIES: Grantor: City of Ashland, Oregon Grantee: Matthew Richard Bond 584 Prim Ashland, Oregon 97520 DOCUMENT TO BE RETURNED TO: Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION: $1.00 UNTIL A CHANGE IS REQUESTED, SEND TAX Grantee at above address STATEMENTS TO: EASEMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this_ day of , between the above-named Grantor and Grantee. Grantor grants to Grantee a nonexclusive easement across Grantor's land described on Exhibit "A." 1. Purpose. Scone of Use. This easement shall be for ingress and egress purposes for the Grantee and Grantee's agents and assigns for one single family residence, utility installation and maintenance to Grantee's property which adjoins the property described on Exhibit A. 2. Term. This easement shall expire when Grantor's land becomes a public street. 3. Maintenance. Any road constructed upon the easement shall be maintained by Grantee. 4. Prior Encumbrances. This easement is granted subject to all prior easements or encumbrances of record. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, GRANTOR By: Catherine M. Golden, Mayor By: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder State of Oregon County of Jackson This instrument was acknowledged before me on 1998, by Catherine M. Golden as Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, and by Barbara Christensen as Recorder of the City of Ashland, Oregon. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: i EXHIBIT 'A' INGRESS AND EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT A 1.00 foot wide street plug dedicated to the City of Ashland on the plat of the Lithia Park Village, Planned Unit Development in the City of Ashland filed for record on May 18, 1983 and recorded in Volume 14 of plats on page 98 of the records of Jackson County, Oregon being further described as follows: A 1.00 foot wide strip of land across the terminus of Renaissance Drive and extending North 730 55' 58" East, 32.00 feet from the Northeast corner of Lot 12 to the Northwest corner of Lot 13 of said subdivision. IOU 1��! NOV 1 2 IG;_,7 Tuesday 11 November 1997 crrr ---=- -__- Matthew Bond 584 Prim Street, Ashland OR 97520 Mr. James Olson 488 6465 (Bus) City of Ashland Delivered by Hand Dear Jim, Thanks for the time spent with you the other day. You may recall that we spoke about access to my property through the street plug located at the terminus of Renaissance Road in the new subdivision known as Lithia Park Village. So, I hereby request for an easement for access through the street plug located at the terminus of Renaissance Road so that I may have access to my property shown as: 39 1 E 17 AA Tax Lot 2300. Please give me a call to let me know how long this process will take and when I will know when the easement is granted. Thanking you in advance. I N I M I I N I t0 I !^ I fA I Ot I 0 3 : 3 3 3: t 3 alx :a:: 10: rd,3 r0 ? sa2 is am 9� caux_2 s •. . T1f is3 # li�at Sf _ °°ia : its ' 3111�I ;Eit i' il1 �sl/: 1tls?� jf riapya.__ Etle3evel 361i61TIlIii'il�: �f lllil7��if' lll �}I1� 7IISIISi 1 � 7 'tl ! lijlirxriiYfidiII313 4j33 €6x,EC::a: If aats: :l :ar: .a7a " _t• ((' • • i/ 3s3li m { e33s3 113737 '- SSs• 1=� fSiit Idl ii iSllll lli �i3i i1 }IIl I. IiI71l�f liili333 —,J —1- �.. _ l i i s i :a :3: �\ se • ::Rsiii: .37ippl 1gag T" i@ i E§g° s I i `� _ I4I iiiit�j if 4l3 } I114 � i11l331iId11Ji111 ` — I ,,: i4 ! i33I;; 3; !�i� ilf i —I � _, f j I` I Y�l-•�. � Z f I3! ill3 � Ii !� f + lfgT�i3S : 1jV � , —` —.I _) Il jI�I. `aa ssi is s ac ::r r zCV I ' , irs f1iE� (� oo - 1 \` P h — 1 - - j3S 33ii3i1411�! i - O _ tt:i Eti:•:t ~ � 1 Si' /.• ` � — ! 1 • _'1•I 331. ltlll�I � �ii�iii� s a s: — /: _ '3 ' .— \ _ /r • ,' j•-�1 �. ed =3�E91a'ii�I�ld — _ " • � I• �r•, f• •.� i � � -.� .�• :: : see t : e:i:r:l: e U 1 Is!„' 1 ! 1•—J_{ _.ll!•� ^� yf — ! � iil qif lSf lff �3 ` U m !!� ILA . l r!•�, J —. � L3I E :s I1:91j a?: i . ',i 3-• - - , , -c�, . . .i:e: : rrl :l: ::a::: rl, : :a: r :f _ _ V VI; i e j r' — � V •' F!� - j Fyf° i• i7ei. Idf- S C a / � � _ J� � SIi39i1�33 �1SSI�SI6SS5ii7nclQ�ilS! 7 s : sass : E: : sata I N I M I '.T I N 1 sD I n 1 00 I Os 1 � O • �n � 'N o v Q1 ~I i DEa. ph W ?• h oh t g^ _ C�- r�7N 3r a Q1 m �a * NN / N? Z 1 u ° MN N � • \ ND �n .�o Q zc Ma c n pa On N a \ e (J C NN / v p n T M =d mm 'Bw f� �4 J '... 13 LU iv r s. m V W U a h Z W W N =o t�D Q _ n tall( O N t0 W N u�'i Q u 2 a me W —N 4 y� 8 m 6c.11 e T Ii Q M ny M SB^ co Y � a cs M ti O = ON - Z J N� 4. O CL =o m � c 3 W LLI m W a F H Cl) x om N -69 IF Z :�' 1-� s'3 bf 41 tti .,eJ,f£ e� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.84.050.A OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SIZE FOR A MANUFACTURED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SITE TO BE NOT LESS THAN ONE ACRE. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The first paragraph of Section 18.84.050.A of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance is amended as follows: 18.84.050 Design Standards. A. Minimum Court Size. A manufactured housing development shall occupy a site of not less than one acre in size. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 16th day of December, 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 Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 97 -108 ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.84.05O.A OF THE ASHLAND MUNICPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SIZE FOR A MANUFACTURED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SITE TO BE NOT LESS THAN ONE ACRE. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND -- Planning Dept. Staff Report dated 11/12/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -- Planning Commission Minutes dated 11/12/97 2-3 -- Memo from John McLaughlin dated 10/3/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -- Letter from Oregon Manufactured Housing Assn. dated 9/3/97 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -- House Bill 2641 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 12, 1997 PLANNING ACTION: 97-108 APPLICANT:City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments 18.84 Manufactured Housing Developments REQUEST: I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: This ordinance change is necessitated by HB 2641, adopted by the Oregon Legislature during the 1997 session. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: Currently, the City's ordinance regarding manufactured housing developments requires that sites occupy an area not less than two acres in size. The new legislation states that the minimum lot size for a development cannot be larger than one acre. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.• 18.84.050 Design Standards. A. Minimum Court Size. A manufactured housing development shall ....................... occupy a site of not less than one acre two aef;es_ in size. H. Project Impact The ordinance change will bring the City's ordinance in line with state statutes, and recognize that the availability of larger parcels may hinder the development of manufactured housing within our city, and through this reduction, the provision of this form of housing may be more likely. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof This is a legislative amendment processed under 18.107.170. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the amendment and forwarding on to the City Council. Private drive construction and erosion control measures for the entire subdivision site shall be installed prior to signature of the final survey plat." This condition asks for stabilization of the site and improvements before beginning any construction. A concept must be incorporated into each home plan so a buyer would have to follow the'premise of stepping it up the hill. Molnar added wording to the end of Condition 13: 'That building sections be provided at Final Plan for each lot, incorporating those above measures for slope stability." Molnar suggested the reclamation strategies be made part of Condition 11. Amend Condition 4 by adding a sentence: 'That the ten foot pedestrian easement indicated on the plan from Granite Street to the ditch be dedicated for public pedestrian use and designated through appropriate signage provided at Final Plan. Final construction design of the pedestrian path be supplied at Final Plan Indicating change of texture for pedestrian surface and addressing the need for stairs." Howe would like to specify "rock face" in the strategy. Armitage moved to approve Planning Action 97-087 as presented with modifications to Conditions 4, 11, and 13 and with the addition of Condition 16 discussing the placement and approval at Final Plan of the erosion control plan. Howe seconded the motion and it carried with Briggs voting "no". TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 97-107 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CHAPTERS 18.40 (EMPLOYMENT) AND 18.32 (COMMERCIAL) PERTAINING TO "EATING, DRINKING, ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING ESTABLISHMENTS". APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND There is a new definition for restaurant, nightclubs and bar. In the C-1 Retail Commercial District, restaurants are an outright permitted use and nightclubs and bars are outright permitted uses except when in the Historic Interest Area. Then it becomes a Conditional Use, unless in the downtown. After some discussion, McLaughlin said Staff would look at teen dance clubs and see where they fit. Howe moved to recommend to the Council adoption of Planning Action 97-107 and consider entertainment that does not include alcohol. Hearn seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 97-108 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 18.84 PERTAINING.TO MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED DWELLING DEVELOPMENTS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND This ordinance reflects changes at the state level and just matches our ordinances to the state requirements. Briggs moved to recommend to the Council adoption of Planning Action 97-108 as written. Armitage ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER IX 1997 seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER The Commission discussed giving out infill awards or awards for good development. Landscaping awards could be included too. This could encourage developers to do the right thing. It will be left to the Hearings Board chair person to decide whether or not to hear the Type I Planning Actions before or after the Type IL's. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Armitage moved to approve Findings for PA97-M (Shapiro). Bass abstained, Morris seconded and the Findings were approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION e REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 11,1997 °CITY OF ASHLAND °" "" { pF ASy�9,,F Department of Community Development ~ . � •: ,_ do Planning Division MEMORANDUM '.�RIGO •" DATE: October 3, 1997 TO: Planning Commission FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Changes in state requirements Minimum size for manufactured dwelling developments HB 2641, adopted by the Oregon Legislature during the 1997 session, changes the minimum lot size for a manufactured dwelling park, such that the minimum cannot be larger than one acre. Our current ordinance has a two acre minimum requirement. Staff recommends that the following modification be adopted: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. 18.84.050 Design Standards. A. Minimum Court Size. A manufactured housing development shall occupy a site of not less than one acre. twe aeres in size. .. .................. . ....................... ....................... ....................... A letter from Don Miner of the Oregon Manufactured Housing Association and a copy of HB 2641 are attached to this memo. OREGON MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOCIATION 2255 State Street • Salem, OR 97301 (503) 364-2470 FAX (503) 371-7374 http://www.omha.com September 3, 1997 SEP 10897 Dear Planning Director: The 1997 Legislature passed HB 2641 which may affect your local planning ordinances. The measure requires that within any residential zone inside an urban growth boundary, where a manufactured dwelling park is allowed, the minimum lot size for the park cannot be larger than one acre. I have attached a copy of the legislation for your review. This measure, which is effective October 4, 1997, was adopted by the Legislature in recognition of a developing shortage of large parcels within urban growth boundaries. While this problem does not exist in every city, there are a growing number of communities where large parcels simply do not exist or are at a cost beyond that which would allow the development of a manufactured housing park. Many communities have current ordinances which may be in conflict with this new law. It may be impossible for a jurisdiction to immediately change its ordinances. Under . ORS 197.646, land use changes adopted by the Legislature take effect whether or not local ordinances have been amended to conform with the new law. if you have questions concerning the new law or wish assistance in developing an implementing ordinance, please contact me. Sincerely, 4 liN,lJ Don Miner Executive Director S TODAYS MANUFACTURED HOME . . . Built for Living . . . Built for Life . 69th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEM13LY-1997 Regular Session . A-Engrossed House Bill 2641 Ordered by the House April 4 Including House Amendments dated April 4 Sponsored by COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY (at the request of Manufactured Housing Com- munities of Oregon, Oregon Manufactured Housing Association) SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editors brief statement of the essential features of the measure. Prohibits local governments within urban growth boundary, where a manufactured dwelling park is otherwise allowed, from adopting minimum lot size for manufactured dwelling park larger than specified area. Allows adoption by local governments of roof pitch and siding standards for approval of manufactured homes in certain parks. i A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to zoning for manufactured dwelling parks; amending ORS 197.314. '3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 4 SECTION 1. ORS 197.314 is amended to read: 5 197.314. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 197.295 to 197.313, within urban growth boundaries each city 6 and county shall amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations for all land zoned for 7 single-family residential uses to allow for siting of manufactured homes as defined in ORS 446.003 8 (26)(a)(C). A local government may only subject the siting of a manufactured home allowed under 9 this section to regulation as set forth in ORS 197.307 (5). 10 (2) Cities and counties shall adopt and amend comprehensive plans and land use regulations 11 under subsection (1) of this section according to the provisions of ORS 197.610 to 197.650. 12 (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any area designated in an acknowledged 13 comprehensive plan or land use regulation as a historic district or residential land immediately ad- 14 jacent to a historic landmark. 15 (4) Manufactured homes on individual lots zoned for single-family residential use in subsection 16 (1) of this section shall be in addition to manufactured homes on lots within designated manufac- 17 tured dwelling subdivisions. 18 (5) Within any residential zone inside an urban growth boundary where a manufactured 19 dwelling park is otherwise allowed, a city or county shall not adopt, by charter or ordinance, 20 a minimum lot size for a manufactured dwelling park that is larger than one acre. 21 (6) A city or county may adopt the following standards for the approval of manufactured 22 homes located in manufactured dwelling parks that are smaller than three acres: 23 (a) The manufactured home shall have a pitched roof, except that no standard shall re- 24 quire a slope of greater than a nominal three feet in height for each 12 feet in width. 25 (b) The manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing that, in color,material 26 and appearance, is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new;matter(italic and bracketed) is existing law to be omitted. New sections are in boldfaced type. LC 2431 A-Eng. HB 2641 1 residential dwellings within the community or that is comparable to the predominant mate- 2 rials used on surrounding dwellings as determined by the local permit approval authority. 3 [(5)] (7) This section shall not be construed as abrogating a recorded restrictive covenant. 4 [2] 7 Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 97 -085 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE THE RAISING OF FOUR LLAMAS PER ACRE RATHER THAN TWO LIVESTOCK PER ACRE AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. (NOTE: APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION TO ALLOW FOR A TOTAL OF 15 LLAMAS ON THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN 21 AS PROPOSED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E23BA; TAX LOTS: 308,400, AND 501. APPLICANT: SHERRY T. JOHNSTON - Public Notice Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -- Variance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -- Memo from Planning Staff dated 12/11/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 -- Planning Commission Findings dated 10/14/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8 -- Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/9/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14 -- Planning Department Staff Report dated 9/9/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-18 , -- Letter from Adam Hanks, Code Compliance dated 8/1/97, 6/19/97, 4/25/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-21 - Memo from Ron Thurner dated 11/25/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 - Memo from Ron Thurner dated 10/30/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-25 -- Variance Application and Statement of Facts-8/8/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-35 - Testimony of Ron Thurner before Hearings Board 9/9/97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-40 -- Miscellaneous Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41-73 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant v request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on December reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if 16, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Main Street, Ashland,Oregon 97520. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,either those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor 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. �� _—. •I 306 Jid O l 311 aw\Q r 301• ;yt/II 310•t `IBS a , u4 t1° , .....[Y. t•� 201 309 r9 •.� ••314 R31'. ,J. l •' Daze ,.. Cs um9 ' n 103 316 �O * W ,..311 „. I— 400 k W ola� Isolation v ze Area [ -- 306 North Pasture /\ :P.zezz X501 109 • X ZI 1.1994 500 : I ti1lele 5 ye IC$-5!<JI � 3 South Pasture 1..------ ,,. . [0014 & z „ 'FR/GG UB' Q 2100 BR/G S SUb- 900 600 - 700 6L0 J 1300 ;, 1200 : 1100 17 1000 y+Ih ,�: k lO� 1`4 {. GREENMEADOWS WAY I`5 1601 'UN17 I NO ' I400 i t — o 1700 k lean 1900 z000 PLANNING ACTION 97-085 is a request for a Variance to allow the property to accommodate the raising of four llamas per acre rather than two livestock per acre as required by ordinance. (NOTE: APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION TO ALLOW FOR A TOTAL OF 15 LLAMAS ON THE PROPERTY RATHER THAN 21 AS PROPOSED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential: Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 le 23 BA; Tax Lots: 308, 400, and 501. APPLICANT: Sherry T. Johnston v CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE The criteria for the approval of a Variance are found in 18.100.020 and are as follows: 1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not apply elsewhere. 2) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1, 1987) 3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996) I CITY OF ASHLAND °"`°" oa{�pf Department of Community Development Planning Division '4 MEMORANDUM �REGO�,,< DATE: December 11, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Staff RE: Planning Action 97-085 - Variance Appeal/Llamas At their September, 1997 meeting, the Planning Commission Hearings Board denied a variance request to increase the number of livestock allowed per acre from two to four. The applicant was specifically requesting that the number of llamas allowed on her property be greater than that currently allowed by ordinance. Given the total acreage of the farm, the total number of llamas proposed was 21. This application was initiated by the applicant after being contacted by the Code Compliance Specialist based on complaints from neighbors. The applicant has appealed the denial of the Hearings Board, and has modified the request to reduce the total number of llamas allowed on the property from 21 down to 15. There is 5.25 acres of land associated with the farm, permitting a total 10 llamas under the ordinance. Given the concerns of the neighborhood, and the criteria for a variance, Staff still does not believe that the reduced request for 15 llamas meets the burden of proof for approval. While it is commendable that the applicant is willing to compromise from the original application, we do riot believe the revised application meets the two criteria that the Hearings Board specifically addressed in their findings: That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The same findings made by the Board applies with 15 llamas as well as with 21. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. It does not appear that there are substantial benefits associated with a variance to the number of livestock allowed on a property, except to the property owner. While the negative effects are lessened by reducing the proposed number of llamas from 21 to 15, it still does not appear that the applicant has demonstrated that having 15 llamas rather than 10 will have benefits which will be greater than the negative impacts, primarily associated with odor on the surrounding neighborhood, as stated in the Hearings Board findings for denial. Again, while we commend the applicant for attempting a compromise, we do not believe that the request meets the burden of proof for approval, and recommend that the application for a variance be denied. f CITY OF ASHLAND - CITY HALL '00 ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)492-3211 October 15, 1997 RE: Planning Action # 97-085 Dear Sherry Johnston: At its meeting of September 9, 1997, the Ashland Planning Commission denied your request for a Variance for the property located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road. A copy of the Findings and Orders which was adopted at the October 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting is enclosed. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have questions. Sincerely, lv'L�/ 6L — Bill Molnar Senior Planner Enclosure cc: People Who Testified and/or Wrote Letters J BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 14 , 1997 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #97-085, REQUEST FOR A ) VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK FROM ) FINDINGS, THE PERMITTED TWO HEAD OF LIVESTOCK OVER THE AGE OF ) CONCLUSIONS SIX MONTHS PER ACRE TO FOUR HEAD OF LIVESTOCK ) AND ORDERS OVER THE AGE OF SIX MOTHS PER ACRE LOCATED AT ) 1405 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. ) APPLICANT: Sherry Johnston ) ----------- -- ----------- -------------------------------- RECITALS : 1) Tax lots 308 , 314 , 316, 317, 400 and 501 of 391E 23BA is located at 1405 Tolman Creek Road; Single-Family Residential . 2) The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the permitted number of livestock from two head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to four head of livestock over the age of six moths per acre . The applicant raises llamas on the subject property. Site improvements and supporting documents are on file at the Community Development Department . 3) The proposal involves six tax lots with an aggregate size of 5 . 25 acres . Under the current Ashland Land Use Ordinance based on the aggregate size of six tax lots, the subject property is permitted to have a maximum of 10 llamas over the age of six moths . The proposal for a variance to increase the number of livestock over the age of six months to four per acre would increase the permitted number of livestock permitted on the subject property to 21 llamas over the age of six months . 4) . The criteria for Variance approval are found in the Variance Chapter 18 . 100 and are as follows : (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. (2) That the proposal 's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the Ci ty. (3). That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on September 9, 1997, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission denied the application as presented, noting that the application failed to meet the required burden of proof . 1 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 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 "M" SECTION 2 . CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2 . 1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2 . 2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to increase the number of livestock per acre does not meet all applicable criteria for a Variance as described in the Variances Chapter 18 . 100 . 2 . 3 The Commission finds that there are not unique and unusual circumstances which apply to the subject site which do not typically apply elsewhere . The applicant stated the site is unique because the property is an undeveloped area on the urban edge, has historically been used as a ranch and has irrigated pasture. The Commission finds these characteristics are not unique to the subject property as there are several undeveloped properties within the city limits on the urban edge of Ashland that have been used for grazing purposes . 2 .4 The Commission finds that the proposed livestock variance will not have benefits which will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses . The applicant has made the argument that the impact of raising llamas is not as great as the impact of other livestock such as cattle or horses because llamas use " ' communal"' locations for dropping feces and urine which can be controlled and removed. Testimony was received in writing and at the public hearing from a llama breeder and neighbors saying that the llama droppings do not create an odor. Testimony was also received in writing and at the public hearing from neighbors who asserted the llama droppings do create an odor. The Commission finds the applicant has not met the burden of proof in demonstrating the negative impact associated with llama droppings does not increase proportionally with the number of llamas . Furthermore, the Commission finds the applicant has not Y demonstrated that the benefits of having 21 llamas will have benefits which will be greater than the negative impacts associated with odor on the surrounding neighborhood. SECTION 3 . DECISION 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed variance to increase the permitted number of two head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to four head of livestock over the age of six moths per acre is not supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we deny Planning Action #97-085 . Planning Commis s pproval Date 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Howe and Moms. Staff present were Molnar, 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 LOCATED AT 570 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: LAURA SHREWSBURY Molnar explained there was a public noticing error on this application. Staff is prepared to hold a public hearing, however, this was not noticed as a public hearing. The notice stated the Staff had granted administrative approval and it would be heard as a Type I. At this point, a public hearing cannot be held because it was not noticed as such. Staff's recommendation is for the Hearings Board to call it up for a public hearing and then it can be noticed as a public hearing and can be heard on October 14, 1997. LAURA SHREWSBURY said this would be workable. The Hearings Board called it up for a public hearing and it will be heard on October 14th at the afternoon Hearings Board meeting. At that time, Staff will have prepared findings for adoption either to approve or deny. PLANNING ACTION 97-085 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE THE RAISING OF FOUR LLAMAS PER ACRE RATHER THAN TWO LIVESTOCK PER ACRE AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. APPLICANT: SHERRY T. JOHNSTON/ESTATE REPRESENTATIVE Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. Howe said Johnston showed her around the property, pointing out various pastures. Armitage noted an odor while visiting the site. STAFF REPORT Harris reported on the history of this application as outlined in the Staff Report. She explained under ordinance that not more than two head of livestock are allowed per acre. The applicant has ten head over six months on her property. She would like to increase the number to four per acre which would allow for 21 llamas. Her application has to meet all three criteria for approval of a Variance. Staff does not see any unique or unusual circumstances in Johnston's request. With regard to the benefits being greater than the negative Impact, in Staff's opinion, she is asking for a little more than double the livestock. The negative impacts are greater. Staff sees no benefit to increasing the livestock. In reviewing the third criteria, the application will not further the purposes In the Comprehensive Plan. It is apparent from the Code Enforcement's reports, letters and site visits, there are not unique or unusual circumstances even though the operation is well maintained. The property has had several 9 code enforcement complaints beginning September 1996. The Code Enforcement Officer's correspondence has been included in the packet. Armitage read the letters into the record. The letters were from Roy Marvin, Pleasant View Farm, and Camille Marsky. PUBLIC HEARING SHERRY JOHNSTON, does not want to increase the size of the herd but keep it the same size it is now. She said the only way to make an income with llamas is to buy the females which have babies. They do not sell the adults. If nine adult llamas are removed from the property, she will lose around $60,000. When she stands in front of neighbors homes and sniffs, she cannot smell an odor. She can smell a manure pile if standing over it. In the back pasture, there are only two llamas and that area is cleaned . everyday. There is a powder that is sprinkled where the llamas urinate to cut the odor. One could have ten llamas and if they weren't cleaned up after daily, it could smell worse than 20 llamas. She uses fly traps and a fly parasite program. The people who have the most difficulty seem to live the farthest away. None of the neighbors had called Johnston except the Davis's to say they had a problem. Neighbors, as she can see, don't' want any llamas. RON THURNER, the applicant's representative, responded with a prepared statement. The granting of the Variance will not decrease property values. Some buyers would prefer being near a farm operation as it could be more desirable than backing residences. The owner does not intend to increase the number of llamas. The result of a denial will reduce Johnston's herd and cause redistribution of the herd while reducing her income. He wants the application to be reviewed on the merits of the criteria as stated rather than a punitive evaluation. This site is comprised of irrigated pastureland that historically was used for the raising of livestock and as such is not typical in our community and therefore, meets the standard for Criteria 1 (unique and unusual circumstances). The obvious benefit refuted by Staff regards the comparison of ten versus 21 adult llamas. Staff does not compare the 21 llamas with the ten horses or cows permitted outright with regard to odor, flies and noise. Staff has not recognized the conditions that would require the applicant to adhere to extraordinary farming practices to reduce odors and flies. These practices are possible, in part, due to the economics of efficiency that come with the current size of the herd. The Variance application establishes a maximum density for each of the pastures to further reduce impacts at those pastures adjoining the residences. He would like the Commission and the neighbors to understand that the herd distribution patterns described in the Herd Management Plan will very likely become more intensive in the two pastures adjoining the residences most opposed, out of necessity if the Variance is not granted. The farming practices and conditions in this application further the intent and purpose of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan by allowing this mixed use while further establishing certain standards which must be adhered to which go beyond the normal farming practices which are implied by the lack of any standards as adjuncts of the zoning regulation. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES /O Thurner said that Ashland's approach to the stipulation of two head of livestock per acre fails to consider differences between various types of livestock and in the incumbent impacts found with various types. It fails to stipulate any farming practices. This is the condition or circumstance which is pertinent to this variance request. It is the condition or circumstance for which the applicant seeks relief and is the basis which was not willfully or purposely self-imposed. Howe said when Johnston showed her around the property, certain parts were set aside for certain sexes and ages. Johnston said two studs are in the north pasture (in back of the house) which are kept separate from the younger males in the south pasture. The females and the babies are in the largest pasture. There are more females and babies than there are males. Johnston said there are 19 adult llamas presently. There can be additional llama babies. Armitage wondered if a Variance goes with the property. Molnar said generally the approval runs with the property. Armitage wondered if an analysis has been done comparing, for example, three llamas to one horse. Molnar explained the applicant could initiate an ordinance change and present an analysis. It would cost $1300 and take from three to five months to move ahead. The applicant could discuss an ordinance change with our elected officials to see if they would support it. If the Council is supportive, it would be up to them to determine how soon it would go on the agenda and that would depend on the current workload. It would be a time constraint for the City to do an analysis. Thurner thought a better approach would be to hear this type of variance on a case by case basis where standards could be applied. He believes there should be additional standards allowing two livestock per acre with conditioning of farming practices. For example, should the livestock be in a 50 square foot pen, does it need to be cleaned, how often? Armitage said it would be helpful for him to know if other cities consider llamas having a different impact than horses. Howe always thought Criteria #1 (unique or unusual circumstances) related to the land such as slope and water rather than animals on it. Molnar agreed the most frequent interpretation pertained to topography, location, etc. Molnar said the Commissioners have a lot of latitude to determine whether or not it is unique or unusual. He would be in some disagreement with the applicant as to whether or not the property could be further subdivided. Thurner did not say it could not be done, but there would be some difficulties with that option. It is not typical to find five acre parcels. That makes it unique. PUBLIC HEARING JIM VOLLER, 1365 Tolman Creek, said his property borders Tolman Creek Road and the applicant's northern pasture, the larger pasture. He has lived there a couple of years and has experienced no problems. He did not even know she had increased her herd. He has noticed an odor, but it passes quickly. He has not noticed flies. He would rather have llamas than cows or other buildings. CAMILA MARKSKY, 972 Old Stage Road, Central Point, said she been to Johnston's ranch several times. Johnston maintains the ranch and has hired help to do so. Marsky has three acres and has had as many as 27 llamas on her property at one time. She said llamas are clean animals. Visitors enjoy visiting her ranch. The visitors would not come back if they smelled bad. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 HEARINGS BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES �r DAN MILTON, 560 Hamilton Road, Jacksonville, said he has been involved with llamas for 12 years. He 1 has written articles and lectured on all aspects of llama raising. Llamas have been compared with sheep and goats as far as density--three llamas to one horse. Studies have been done in the national forests on the environmental impacts of animals of burden. Llamas have been found to be environmentally safe. They do not impact the soil or plants. Horses can create a mud pasture in the winter. If four or five llamas graze on a one acre pasture in the winter and grass still remains. Milton has visited Johnston's ranch several times. It is a model of a llama operation. Herd management plans are important to raising llamas. Armitage asked how many cities/counties did Milton know of that make a distinction between equivalent number of livestock. Milton has talked with a dozen people getting llamas categorized either as a horse or as a goat and in all cases, they always got categorized as goats. MARILYN MILTON, 560 Hamilton Road, Jacksonville, said she rarely hears comments about how much llamas smell. They receive comments about how little they smell. As soon as Johnston found out she was violating the ordinances she boarded the llamas with the Miltons. She did not believe being next to a llama property will bring house values down. ESTELLE VOLLER, 1365 Tolman Creek Road, lives directly north of the ranch. She has not smelled an odor for months until two days ago. They do not find it offensive. It is just part of agriculture that will cause smells but they rarely smell anything peculiar to the llamas. Her concern is the operation be kept financially viable so Johnston can maintain the same level of care. Voller is concerned that she could have a lot of cows or other animals. In the past, they have allowed Johnston to use some of their land. They have a lot of neighbors that come by and visit the llamas. HAROLD PARKER said he has stayed at Johnston's guest house. His bedroom faced the north pasture housing the male llamas. In his coming and going from the residence he has noticed no odor. If there is an occasional dropping, he will notice the odor. There is no noise that keeps him up at night or wakes him up in the morning like some dogs do in the neighborhood. He cannot see why the Variance should not be approved. He sees tourists stop and enjoy the llamas. Armitage read comments from LAWRENCE R. OLSON, 2365 Lupine Drive, who opposes the proposal and from BERNICE STRUSE, 1378 Tolman Creek Road who also opposes the proposal. KEN MICKELSON, 2370 Lupine Drive, stated the applicant failed to meet the three criteria. The land is no different than any other land in Ashland. It is not a unique piece of property. There are many other acreages on which llamas can be raised, for example, in the county. Will the benefits be greater than the negative impact? There is no benefit to having increased llamas to the neighborhood. He lives directly adjacent to the west pasture. He realizes the property can be subdivided. He is not opposed to having 10 llamas nor the property subdivided. He is asking for what is appropriate and in accord with the ordinance. Johnston's present herd is in violation of the City code. Mickelson has lived in agricultural country and knows when the number of animals, no matter what kind increase, the smell will increase. He smells the odor all the time. He likes to spend time outside and has at times, been driven indoors from the smell. The smell was never there before the llamas arrived. He believes Ms. Johnston has brought much of this on herself. it was a self-imposed situation. If she had checked, she would have found out she was only allowed two head per acre. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES Johnston has stated this operation provides her income. Is a commercial business allowed in an R-1 zone? Molnar said the only provision is for a home occupation with strict requirements governing that. Mickelson submitted she is operating a commercial business and she has said she needs 20 llamas to make it a viable farm operation. That is not appropriate in an R-1 zone. He would support whatever number is allowed under ordinance. He noted the code enforcement officer has been working on this for the past nine months, therefore this is not a unique situation. In summary, she has not met the three criteria and is very much opposed to granting of the Variance. LESLIE DAVIS, 1407 Tolman Creek Road, said he lives directly in front of Johnston's house. He has lived there for 18 years. There have never been any animals on the property until Ms. Johnston brought the llamas. His house is less than 50 feet from the pasture and four males lay on the fence every morning. When the wind blows and if his window is open to air out his house, the llama odor is offensive. They have had company move to a motel because they could not stand the smell. Johnston does maintain the property everyday but that is not enough. When it rains and the wind blows, there is a dirty, wet hair odor. He does not think it is possible to get rid of the urine smell. JEAN DAVIS, 1407 Tolman Creek Road, has lived on Tolman Creek Rd. since 1951. She said perhaps they have become acclimated to the odor but every guest they have ask how they can tolerate the odor. Johnston does everything she can to keep her pasture clean but there are only 2.4 acres of pasture. There are at least 24 llamas there, including babies, all the time. Staff Response Molnar said most of the testimony is focusing on the negative impacts. That has been the biggest issue for Staff over the past six to nine months. The impacts are associated with the use and it is reasonable to assume doubling the density would exacerbate such impacts. While there has been a lot of testimony regarding the proportionality of the impacts of the llama versus three horses, the findings submitted by the applicant do not show evidence or analysis of that. Staff wants to make sure a decision made by the Hearings Board can be sustained in the event this application is appealed. In absence of any other information being presented, Staff is not convinced the increased density is appropriate. Molnar said the ordinance states mixed uses will be acceptable if the practices are not disruptive to the standard of living the residents are used to. Howe wondered about the commercial operation. Molnar said they have not pursued this property as a commercial use. Their code enforcement has been to make sure the density numbers comply. The only thing they can go by is the home occupation which would not allow for the retail sale of a product on the site and limited to one full-time employee, eight cars per day, and visibility of equipment. The intent of the home occupation is not to infringe on neighboring residents. Rebuttal THURNER said Johnston does have a business license. Because Staff has a limited description as to where this fits, speaks to the issue itself. There is a presumption the raising of livestock would be for the sale of the livestock itself or the products generated by the livestock. Johnston has not been guilty of having eight clients a day. Thurner thinks the opposing neighbors do not think animals have a place in residential zones. It is an outright permitted use. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES 13 Benefits versus the negative impacts: The code says it is alright to have animals in a residential zone. He does not have any additional information comparing differences in odors from cows defecating versus a llama defecating. What is easily recognized, is there anyone raising cows who removes cow piles everyday? The impacts because of standard farming practices that are employed, one could have ten horses or ten cows. Johnston suggested a compromise by having only 16 adult llamas. This is not a commercial operation but a small llama operation. Molnar said the Hearings Board has the power to approve, deny or condition. They could reduce the number of llamas by conditioning. Johnston said she takes the llamas off-site to sell them. Thurner said someone could come to the property but the that would be minimal. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Morris can't say the benefits would be greater than the negative impacts. He questioned whether or not it is a ranch. He cannot see any benefit of going to 18. The operation has outgrown the area it is in now. Howe noted that there are no site specific conditions that make it impossible for the applicant to live up to the City standards under Criteria #1. Two livestock per acre can work. Howe feels the code is not adequate to cover the standards of having minimal impact animals. The benefit to the City would be the diversity of experience in Ashland which does not outweigh the problems that have been brought up. Howe believes the conditions have been self-imposed. It is Johnston's personal choice to sell the animals, however, Howe does not believe she is trying to thwart the law. Armitage said this is a well-kept operation and he would like to find a way to approve it but does not believe it meets the criteria for approval. He could possibly stretch unique and unusual circumstances. He finds it impossible to come up with something that would stand for Criteria #2 and #3. There is no doubt that 20 cows would create more problems than 20 llamas. He believes the best avenue would be to fix the ordinance. Howe moved to deny the Variance request for PA97-085. Morris,seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 97-082 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING ROCK WALL TO REMAIN AT 60 INCHES (FRONT YARD), 18 INCHES ABOVE WHAT IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE AT 872 B STREET. THE ROCK WALL WITHIN THE SIDE YARD IS TO REMAIN AT A HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES. APPLICANT: DAN HELLER/MARY BETH BURTON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Morris had a site visit and talked with the builder. Armitage had a site visit. His family uses the services of Ms. Burton but that will not influence his ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 HEARINGS BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 9, 1997 PLANNING ACTION: 97-085 APPLICANT:Sherry Johnston LOCATION: 1405 Tolman Creek Road ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-1 Zoning District 18.100 Variances REQUEST: A Variance is requested to increase the number of livestock from the permitted two head of livestock over the age of six months per acre to four head of livestock over the age of six months per acre. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In September 1996, the Code Enforcement Officer received an anonymous complaint about the number of llamas being cared for on the property and the resulting odor. After receiving the complaint, the Code Enforcement Officer visited the site and counted 18 llamas (they appeared to be adult llamas). Subsequently, a letter was sent to the applicant detailing the ordinance requirements. In April 1997 and June 1997, the Code Enforcement Officer again received complaints again regarding the number of llamas and resulting odor. Another site visit was conducted and again 18 llamas were counted. Once again, the Code Enforcement Officer contacted the applicant requesting an update on the direction which would be taken to remedy the situation (see attached letters). Subsequently, an application for a Variance was submitted. In July of 1995, the Planning Commission approved outline and final plan approval for the Wildcreek Subdivision, a four-lot subdivision under the performance standards options (PA95-037). This subdivision created lots 308, 314, 316 and 317. There are no other planning actions of record for the site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: /S The proposal involves six tax lots (39 1E 23BA tax lots 308, 314, 316, 317, 400 and 501) totaling 5.25 acres. Several buildings are located on tax lot 308, including a single-family residence, guest house with garage and a shop/stable/storage building. None of the other tax lots are developed or contain structures. The primary residence has access from Tolman Creek Road via a driveway across tax lot 501. The residence and accessory buildings on tax lot 308 are used with the acreage of lots 316, 317, 314, 400 and 501 as a llama ranch. There are three fenced pasture areas totaling 2.3 acres. The north pasture, comprised of tax lot 400 and the northeast portion of tax lot 308, is .9 acres in size. The south pasture, a portion of tax lot 501, is .8 acres in size. The west pasture, the westerly portion of tax lot 308, is .6 acres in size. There is a fenced isolation area adjacent to the shop/stable/storage building that is .09 acres in size. There is a total of approximately 2.4 acres of fenced area for livestock. A seasonal creek runs from the northeast corner of tax lot 314 through the east side of tax lot 317 and through the west side of tax lot 308. Much of the natural drainage is wooded with heavy vegetation in areas. Livestock Variance Under the Land Use Ordinance, two livestock over the age of six months in age can be maintained per acre for a total of 10 llamas on the ranch's 5.25 acres. Consequently, the applicant is requesting a Variance to the increase the number of livestock allowed to four per acre for a total of 21 llamas. II. Project Impact As described above, the application includes a request for a Variance for the number of livestock permitted per acre. Livestock Variance The request for a Variance involves an evaluation of the consistency of the proposal and conditions with the applicable requirements of the R-1 Single-Family Residential District chapter and the Variances chapter. The keeping of livestock is permitted in the R-1 district and the parameters are outlined in 18.20.020(D) of the Land Use Ordinance as follows: PA97-085 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Sherry Johnston September 9, 1997 Page 2 The keeping of livestock, except swine, provided that: 1. No livestock shall be kept on any lot less than one (1) acre in area. 2. No more than two (2) head of livestock over the age of six (6) months may be maintained per acre. 3. Barns, stables, and other buildings and structures to house said livestock shall not be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line. In a case such as this with multiple parcels, the definition of a lot from the in 18.08.350of the Land Use Ordinance must be used. A lot is defined as follows: A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision, or a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership, which complies with all applicable laws at the time such lots were created. Any contiguous ownership of non- conforming lots will be considered one (1) tract of land. In Staff's opinion, the increase in the number of livestock per acre does not meet the requirements for a Variance. The applicant has argued that the site is unique because the property is an undeveloped area on the urban edge, has historically been used as a ranch and has irrigated pasture. Staff feels the site is not unique in this regard as there are parcels of similar sizes inside the city limits on the urban edge which are used for grazing and keeping of livestock (i.e. east of Tolman Creek Road between Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, west of Tolman Creek Road south of Siskiyou Boulevard, the southeast corner of the Billings farm near Cambridge St. and West Nevada St.). In Staff's opinion, there is no obvious benefit of having 21 adult llamas in as opposed to 10 adult llamas. Rather, the increased numbers of livestock are likely to negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood due to the increase in animal excrement and the subsequent increase in odor and flies. The applicant argues the circumstances are not purposely self-imposed because "the cpnditions present in this situation have resulted due to the zoning designation of this parcel and the development pattern of the adjoining parcels." In Staff's opinion, the condition has been self-imposed as the applicant began raising llamas on the property in 1994, 30 years after the property was annexed into the City and 19 years after the property was zoned for Single-Family Residential, including the provision for two livestock per acre. It is Staff's feeling the condition is willfully self- imposed as the decision was made to pursue the llama ranch endeavor PA97-085 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Sherry Johnston September 9, 1997 Page 3 despite the Single-Family Residential zoning and livestock limitations being ' in place at that time. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for approval of a Variance are found in the Variances chapter 18.100 and are as follows: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. (2) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses, and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (3) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, it is Staff's opinion that the conditions applicable to this site are not unique nor unusual. The current zoning has been in place for many years and the surrounding area continues to urbanize. Further, we believe doubling the permitted number of livestock over the age of six months per acre will result in negative impacts inconsistent with other neighborhoods in the community. The current ordinance provision allows for a variety of land uses (i.e. residential, agriculture), while setting reasonable limits to insure a suitable environment for residential living. The applicant starting raising llamas on the property in 1994 and should have been aware of the limitation placed on the land by the underlying zoning. Consequently, the current conditions which necessitate relief from these ordinance provisions clearly appear to have resulted from actions taken by the property owner. Consequently, Staff recommends that the request for a Variance be denied. PA97-085 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Sherry Johnston September 9, 1997 Page 4 o�w0F`As" 1 V O City of Ashland 1,0 EGOt� , Department of Community Development Adam,Hanks (541)488-5305 Code Compliance Specialist Fax (541)488-5311 August 1, 1997 Sherry Johnston 1405 Tolman Creek Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Johnston: Mr. Thurner has met with Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, to discuss the situation that exists with the number of llamas being maintained on your property. As mentioned to Mr. Thurner in their meeting, the deadline for an application for a variance is August 8 by three o'clock. Mr. Thurner had asked me to contact Mr. Mickelson again to inquire about the neighbor's willingness to work out some possible alternatives to reducing the number of llamas. Mr. Mickelson felt that the neighbors that he had spoken with did not want to discuss other options, their intention is to have the number of llamas reduced to the number required by Code. I will assume that arrangements will be made to reduce the number of llamas on your property to the level required in the Code if you choose not to apply for a variance Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. Thank you for your attention and for your positive and friendly attitude throughout this process. Sincerely, Adam Hanks Code Compliance c: Ron Thurner � 9 Am � r City of Ashland ''.,OREGON Department of Community Development Adam Hanks (541)488-5305 Code Compliance Specialist Fax (541)488-5311 June 19, 1997 Sherry Johnston 1405 Tolman Creek Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Johnston: Because I haven't heard from you in a while, I thought I should drop you a note and inquire about your plans in resolving the issue of the number of llamas on your property. In our last conversation you were doing some background work on preparing an application for a variance on the number of llamas per acre. I have had calls from residents of the area voicing their concerns and requesting that the code be enforced immediately. My response to them has been that I have been in contact with you and that you are working on putting an application together. A few submittal dates have gone by, which means that you will need to either submit your application for a variance or comply with the Code as it is currently written. If you could contact me sometime in the next week to give me an update on the direction that you will be going I would appreciate it. If you are planning to proceed with a variance application, please don't hesitate to give me a call with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Adam Hanks Code Compliance �a J+0 ASh City of Ashland OREGOa Department of Community Development Adam Hanks (541)488-5305 Code Compliance Specialist Fax (541)488-5311 April 25, 1997 Sherry Johnston 1455 Tolman Creek Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Johnston: Since our conversation last fall, I have again received complaints about the number of llamas being cared for on your property. The neighborhood association is concerned mainly about the smell that is generated by the number of llamas on site. With spring upon us, people are again spending more time outdoors and it seems to be an issue. I took a count this week and I came up with 16, although at least two could have been less than 6 months of age. In order to maintain 16 llamas, they would have to reside on an eight acre parcel of land. In our discussions last fall, I think it was concluded that you had between three and four acres of land. What I do not recall from our last discussion was your intent to sell some of the llamas. I thought that you had mentioned something about selling some of them and I noticed that you have signs displaying that intent. I would like to come out and meet with you and your llamas and determine what needs to occur so that the concerned neighbors are adequately satisfied that intent of the Municipal Code is being adhered to. Please give me a call either at the office or my voice mail (857-8352). My schedule is very flexible, so I can meet whatever time works best for you. Thanks again for your time. Sincerely, Adam Hanks Code Compliance IUEVEILCU/41ENIt IMNSUIL MIC SIEI�VI�CIES RONALD THURNER PLANNING AND BUSINESS CONSULTING 1170 BELLVIEW AVENUE ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 488-2414 NOV 2 5 1997 Memorandum November 25, 1997 To, Honorable Mayor and City Council From. Ronald Thurner, agent for Appellant Subject. Appeal Hearing, Planning Action 97-085 Per discussion with the Planning Department Staff it is necessary for this appeal hearing to be postponed due to some procedural irregularities . At their request I am providing this letter of explanation. Specifically; 1) the record was not complete until November 21, 1997 as the original Appeal request was apparently misplaced, thus not in . the record, 2) the notice of a December 2, 1997 hearing was mailed November 13, 1997, thus providing less than the required 20 day notice, and 3) the notice, as mailed, does not include the stipulation of the Appellant/Applicant to reduce the requested variance from 21 adult llamas, 4 llamas per acre, ,to a total of 15 adult llamas . While this is not a new application it does include the above stipulation, significantly reducing the total number of llamas subject to a variance, and which ought to be reflected in the notice on this matter, to allow concerned/affected properties to be informed of the true nature of the appeal . Resp Sub d, Ronald Thurner IUEVIEILCUAIU IF (CCSSUILINC %IEUV11CIE% RONALD TRURNER PLANNING AND BUSINESS CONSULTING 1170 BELLVIEW AVENUE ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 488-2414 DATE: October 30, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members c/o City Administrator ' s Office FROM: Sherry Johnston 1405 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 482-5851 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Action 97-085 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, While I understand that each of you have very busy schedules and a number of obligations to attend, I do wish to encourage each of you to make a site-visit in order to experience for yourselves the uniqueness of my llama ranch. Entrance to the ranch is gated but is available to each of you. I have included my telephone number above so that I can instruct you how to operate the gate system and gain entry. Decision to be reviewed: Planning Action 97-085, a request for a variance to increase the number of livestock, llamas, allowed in a residential zone. Standing of appellant: The appellant is the applicant and therefore has standing to appeal this Planning Commission decision for review by the City Council. Date of the decision to being appealed: The hearing of this matter before the Planning Commission occurred September 9, 1997, and the findings were adopted at the regular Planning Commission hearing October 14 , 1997 and was signed and mailed October 16, 1997 . Grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1) Appellant asserts that the Planning Staff and Planning Commission failed to properly evaluate or apply the Variance criteria to their decision. As regards criteria; (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically [emphasis added] apply elsewhere. Staff and the Commission presumes that unique and unusual circumstances which apply to a site can' t apply elsewhere, rather than comparing whether 1 � 3 the unique or unusual circumstances which apply to a site typically apply elsewhere . In this Planning Action the Staff report and consequently the Findings for this decision state that this criteria was not met because there are other large parcels on the urban edge which are used for pasture and therefore the subject site has no unique or unusual circumstances which apply. The location, configuration and use of the subject property are unique or unusual circumstances which do not typically apply elsewhere . (A complete description of the subject property, including history, can be found in the original application. ) It is not typical to find neighborhoods in our town which possess the attributes found with the subject property which is why the City initiated the campaign and policies to create or preserve open spaces in town. Unfortunately when a property owner elects to retain a rural, open space, atmosphere there is a financial burden incumbent with the retention of these qualities . In this instance, the raising of llamas is the financial mechanism chosen to accommodate this burden. The Applicant acknowledges there are other large parcels in the City but this fact does not obscure the fact that each may represent unique or unusual circumstances which do not typically apply elsewhere . For example, a fence height variance request can not be measured against the fact that there are other houses or fences which do not warrant a variance . This site, also, does not bear any of the negative environmental impacts found with the other parcels of similar size which are used for grazing. That is, these pastures are not muddy, pocked or otherwise scarred nor are they covered with the waste products commonly found with the raising of horses, cattle or the normal farming practices employed on the sites cited by staff. (2) That the proposal 's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The benefit of granting this variance request is in the ability of the City to require the Applicant to strictly adhere to the enhanced farming practices stipulated by the Applicant and the very minimal environmental disturbance associated with llamas . The other sites cited in Staff ' s report all manifest significant disturbance to the land and are littered throughout with feces and urine which along with natural run-off contributes to the erosion and fouling of our storm drain system. Normal farming practices are assumed by the lack of any stipulations in our land use ordinances to the contrary and are easily observed in reviewing the other large pasture areal cited by staff. There are no scientific studies comparing the strength or quantity of odor between differing types of livestock. However, it is intuitively obvious that the enhanced farming practices agreed to by the Applicant which include daily removal of feces and treating the pastures for flies and even urine smells are much more effective at minimizing odors than the normal farming practice of allowing waste products to remain in the pastures for extended periods or build up in large piles to ' ripen' , partly decompose, before removal . The Applicant has attempted to illustrate these differing farming practices found with different types of livestock but it must be noted that if normal farming practices are employed with llamas any negative odor impacts at this site would increase even if the herd is limited to the outright permitted number of head. 2 Y• x • (3) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. It is true that the Applicant would have greatly benefited by knowing that the zoning of the subject property limited the number of llamas allowed. However, she was not aware of this until contacted by the Code Enforcement Specialist . It is a result of this information that the Applicant seeks relief through the variance process . The fact that the Applicant is currently not in conformance is not the condition or circumstance for which the Applicant seeks relief as the excess herd could be boarded elsewhere while this request is reviewed. Staff have assured the Applicant that the herd may remain on site until a decision is rendered. The findings for this decision are silent on this criteria . The conditions or circumstance for which the Applicant seeks relief is the ordinance limitation of two head of livestock per acre . This ordinance was not willfully or purposely self-imposed. Applicant is asking the City Council to recognize this ordinance as being short-sighted and deficient as regards the differences between different types of livestock and that other factors, such as farming practices, can have greater impact on the neighbors than limiting the herd to 10 head, and which could be remedied by the conditions described and agreed to by the Applicant . Most of the opposition to the llama ranch seeks to eliminate all of the animals as they feel livestock have no place in a residential zone and is indicative of the unreasonableness found in the discussion of this variance request. The neighbors must recognize that agricultural uses are permitted uses and there could be odors associated with many of the alternative agricultural uses . The growing of onions being a simple example . Until the City seeks to upgrade the zoning code the only method for resolving the deficiencies is via the variance process through which conditions can be imposed. 2) Additionally, the Applicant wishes to modify her variance request to reduce the livestock density increase being sought, specify llamas as the type of livestock and limit the variance requested to the Applicant rather than the common approach of allowing a variance to "go" with the property. This modification to the variance request resulted from the Applicants experience at the Planning Commission hearing which apparently confused some of the neighbors which opposed the request. Much of the opposition seemed to believe the Applicant intended to double the size of the existing herd rather than just upgrading the density formula used to calculate conformance. The applicant also seeks to alleviate some of the presumed impacts of her llama ranch in deference to her desire to be a reasonable neighbor. The Applicant prefers to approach this application by establishing a target number of llamas at 15 adults rather than seeking a formula increase approach . This 15 adult llama maximum is more than a 50% reduction in the original variance request . The Applicant will also stipulate to the enhanced farming practices described in the original application and to further reduce the herd size proportionately as the aggregate size of the subject land available to pasture is reduced due to sale . Respectfully Submitted, Sherry Johnston 16 3 AW _ gX 7 DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING SERVICES RONALD ThRORNER PLANNING AND BUSINESS CONSULTING 1170 BELLVIEW AVENUE ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 488-2414 August 8, 1997 VARIANCE APPLICATION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS This Variance request is to increase the density limit and allow the raising of four llamas per acre with the inclusion of several stipulations/conditions which will significantly reduce the overall impact of this use . The raising of livestock within a residential zone is a conforming (outright permitted) use. APPLICANT: Sherry Johnston Clover Hay Llama Ranch 1405 Tolman Creek Road Ashland,Oregon 97520 APPLICABLE LAND USE ORDINANCES: 18 . 20 and 18 . 100 18 .20 R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; This section of the land use ordinances escri es the app ica e permitted use as defined in 18 .20. 020 D. as follows; The keeping of livestock, except swine, provided that: 1 . No livestock shall be kept on any lot less than one (1) acre in area. 2. No more than two (2) head of livestock over the age of six (6) months may be maintained per acre. 3. Barns, stables, and other buildings and structures to house said livestock shall not be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any property line. 18 .100 VARIANCES; This section describes the Purpose, ApplicatioT nEffect of the granting of a variance. This Statement of Fact which is made a part of this application will address the pertinent aspects of the Land Use Ordinances . 1 2� PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is an area comprised of several contiguous units of land listed as follows; Lots 1, 2, 3&4, plus refuge and private drive = 3 . 55 acres Tax lot 400 = . 80 acres Tax lot 501 = . 90 acres TOTAL 5.25 acres The subject property is located at the eastern (commonly perceived as the southern) edge of the Ashland city limits . The primary access to the property is via Tolman Creek Road and a secondary access is via a private drive accessible from the Apple Way cul de sac. This latter access is. not fully developed at this time and will become the primary access to "lot' s 1, 2 and 3" if/when developed. The adjoining properties along the west side of Tolman Creek Road are single family residences on large parcels, some of which could be further divided. These large estate configurations provide a complimentary transition buffer from the relatively dense urbanization patterns of the Mountain Ranch (Green Meadows) subdivision to the rural development patterns incumbent with the EFU, exclusive farm use, and F5, farm use with five acre minimums, zoning to the east of Tolman Creek Road. This creates a great deal of open space which enhances the greenway, walking path, that borders the west boundary of the subject property. The entire property is fenced and cross fenced creating four distinct pasture areas, each of which is irrigated, and a smaller utility/isolation area behind the original stable. There is a gentle slope downward from the west boundary to the east and very little variation in the topography other than at the nature refuge and a shallow drainage channel that diagonally bisects the western portion of the property. The zoning for this and the adjoining properties is R-1-7 . 5, Single Family Residential . The north-west portion of the subject property has been subdivided, but remains undeveloped at this time. HISTORY: The tract of land which includes the subject property was incorporated into the City of Ashland May 26, 1964 as a part of the Bellview Acquisition. The Briggs Subdivision was the first major division and housing development to occur within this new tract of City property. Subject property was designated as Unit 3 of said Briggs subdivision or Assessor's Map #39 lE 23BA, Tax Lot (s) 308, 400 and 501 . The Mountain Ranch Subdivision was created in the mid 70 ' s and subsequently developed with single family residential homes . The Mountain Ranch development included a "greenway" pedestrian path system with a segment adjoining the subject property. The parcels of land described previously as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 were created as part of the Wildcreek Subdivision that was processed as Planning Action 95-037, June 13, 1995 from Tax Lot 308, described above. Per this Planning 2 Action a future pedestrian path connection between Apple Way and Tolman Creek Road will be completed upon the future development of Tax Lot 400 . The applicant resides at Lot 4 and this parcel also includes a stable/barn which historically, mid to late 19701s, housed horses: and .Shetland ponies. Tax lot 308 has a very long history of animal husbandry as this lot was a part of a large horse ranch operation with the original caretaker ranch house being constructed in the 1870 ' s. This ranch house was added to and upgraded over the years to the stature currently found as the Applicants residence. The Johnston family purchased the property in the early 70' s and raised 12 shetland ponies and later appaloosa horses, all of which were housed on lot 308 alone until around 1978 . The 1980 's saw no regular use for grazing or housing of livestock until 1994, when the first llamas arrived. Prior to the Wildcreek Subdivision, described above, the Applicant began raising Llamas as a business venture, providing an income source for the Applicant and her son. Around October, 1996 the Code Enforcement Office received the first anonymous inquiry regarding the raising of livestock within the City limits . Subsequently, in the spring of 1997, the Code Enforcement office received further anonymous, though allegedly representing themselves as the neighborhood association, inquiries regarding the llamas and complaints of excessive numbers of llamas, as well as, an offensive odor presumably being generated by same . The Code Enforcement Specialist contacted the Applicant to inform her of the requirements for compliance and the alternative of pursuing a variance application. In June, 1997 the Applicant hired a consultant to assist in the variance application process . The consultant contacted the Code Enforcement Specialist to discuss the situation and to determine the source of the complaints as well as the specific objections to the Applicants llama farm. As most calls to the Community Development Department were anonymous the Code Enforcement Specialists was only able to identify one individual and the specific complaint was the ,smell" . The consultant met with that neighbor and explained the Applicants desire to pursue a Variance and the potential benefit to the neighbors of being able to condition such an application to minimize. the impacts of raising llamas on this property. The only other complaint described in this meeting was an objection to the raising of any animals, or perhaps llamas specifically, on the Applicants land. Apparently there was (is) a presumption that farm use or the raising of livestock has no place within the City limits and especially not in a residential zone. This position is not valid as the zoning ordinance which defines housing as a permitted/legitimate use also establishes the raising of livestock as a permitted/legitimate use. 3 .rV:{{� :tAli1'J4. I�.f9• {1'x.t Some considerations presented to the only known complainant to share with other neighbors that object to the llamas are listed as follows. These considerations are still important to an evaluation of the benefits versus negative impacts . 1) The Applicant has sufficient acreage to allow 11 head of livestock, whether llamas, billy goats, horses or cattle. . . as an outright permitted use in this zone. 2) The impact of raising horses or cattle would be greater than those of llamas - with increased odor and noise. (A worst case scenario would probably be the raising of billy goats, if smell is a consideration. ) 3) The ability of the Applicant to limit the number of head at the west pasture has been voluntary and as this pasture is quite large it could easily support many more head of llamas . Further, limiting the Applicant to only 11 head might necessitate the redistribution of the herd to those pastures closer to those offended by there presence or smell to allow utilization of the other pastures which are better suited to agricultural uses . Applicants consultant also attempted to dispel the notion that increasing the number of head in each pasture is limited by the livestock density limit defined in section 18 . 20 . 020 D. 2 . of the Land Use Ordinance . This density limit is based on aggregate lot size not pasture size . 4) As the Applicant has voluntarily made significant effort to reduce any offensive smells through a comprehensive waste management plan (far in excess of standard farming practices) the benefit of the granting of this variance request would be the making of these voluntary practices a requirement as conditions of approval . 5) Raising of llamas on the subject property would likely be preferential, for some of the neighbors, to the building of additional homes on these lands that have been a de facto open space. 6) Animosity/Antagonism amongst neighbors due to intransigence never benefits anyone and generally leads to further animosity/antagonism, Unfortunately this information was not sufficient to assuage the concerns of this neighbor or any of the unidentified neighbors apparently contacted by the one known complainant. Applicants consultant also solicited City Staff to reiterate the potential opportunity to condition the Applicants practices via the variance application or some compromise amongst any objecting neighbors and Applicant, but this effort was also rejected by the neighbors in favor of a strict application of the existing code limits . Thus it has become necessary to pursue a variance request 4 � 9 before the Planning Commission where the benefits of strict conditioning of the Applicants practices will easily be recognized as being greater than the strict application of the livestock density limits . Such conditioning will obviously protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole. VARIANCE CRITERIA The variance criteria are listed in bold print and the Applicants response demonstrating the justification for the granting of the variance request follows . A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to' thi.s site which do not typically apply elsewhere. This site is unique as it is largely undeveloped, exists at the edge of the City limits/urban growth boundary, is comprised of irrigated pasture land and is over five acres in size. Historically, the site was used for pasture land and the housing of livestock at a density greater than allowed in the current zoning ordinance. Further, the configuration of the cross fencing provides additional buffering from the adjoining properties as does the greenway along the west boundary of the subject property. B. That the proposal 's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. By the granting of this variance the applicant will stipulate to a herd management plan and a waste treatment (odor management) plan. The intent of these stipulations is to allow the applicant an ability to plan for and implement appropriate utilization of the subject property. Many of the. strategies described here are currently being practiced without being requirements out of consideration for the adjoining properties. However, these strategies are possible, in part, because of the practical considerations implicit in the herd distribution pattern currently employed. That is, if the applicant is limited to the 11 head of llama currently permitted then the distribution of the herd would likely be altered to allow other agricultural uses for the unused pastures. HERD MANAGEMENT PLAN Granting this variance will stipulate the maximum number of llamas permissible in the two pasture areas which abut the west and south boundaries of the subject property. The west pasture would be limited to three adult llamas and the south pasture would be limited to six adult llamas . The remaining adult llamas would be restricted to the northeast pastures . By . 5 30 stipulating the maximum number of adult llamas in each of the pasture areas the potential impacts to the adjoining properties are significantly reduced. Without this stipulation there is no established limitation as to the placement of the livestock which could- place all of. the outright permitted number. of. adult llamas in any one of the pastures . If the applicant is unable to establish this variance request and is consequently forced to reduce the herd this likely would necessitate a distribution pattern different than requested and different from the current pattern. The changes would, in part, be due to the social needs of this breed of livestock, to reduce the maintenance load, as well as the need to maximize the utilization of the unneeded pasture land. WASTE TREATMENT PLAN The granting of this variance will establish minimum requirements for the removal and treatment of the waste products generated by these livestock. It is important to understand one of the unique characteristics of llamas is their use of specific ' communal ' .locations for dropping their feces and urine. Generally, there are two to three such communal locations per pasture of the size found at the Applicants location. The applicant will stipulate to a waste management plan designed to minimize the generation or negative impacts of the natural odors imparted by the raising of livestock. The applicant will agree to collect the solid wastes from the pastures on a daily basis during the months - April through October as well as a regular treatment of the urine generated by these animals with "Sweet P B-Z"(D odor reducing powder or equivalent product . Collected solid waste will be stored at a location away from the west or south pastures and would be removed weekly. Weekly application of commercially available "Fly Parasites"® will be worked into the soil at the communal locations used by these animals for defecating and urinating as well as the location where the collected dung is stored. These "Fly Parasites"® emerge from the soil and feed exclusively on the eggs and larvae of flies . Finally, the Applicant will also distribute fly traps at various locations around the property as needed. All of these practices will be performed during the warm weather season, April through October, and any unseasonable warm weather periods . With the .proposed stipulations/conditions any impacts of raising the additional head of llamas will be less than the impacts of raising the permitted number of llamas, or other livestock, using standard farming practices . C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The circumstances which generated the need for a variance is the arbitrary nature of the zoning regulation which sets a global standard for the number of livestock per acre without regard to . 6 31 . the kind of livestock, the type of animal husbandry employed, the size of the lot or the location of the parcel . While the application of this two head of livestock per acre standard for all residentially zoned property is likely implemented on a consistent basis there needs to be recognition of the variation of circumstances which would better be served if other factors were made a part of such a standard. Obviously pygmy goats, while qualifying as livestock, are much different and less impacting than a horse or cow in virtually every way as is the case with llamas (note, llamas are environmentally less impacting than even pygmy goats) . Additional information regarding the uniqueness of llamas and their impacts is attached to this application. The conditions present in this situation have resulted due to the zoning designation of this parcel and the development pattern of the adjoining parcels . Due to existing structures and numerous easements there are significant limitations precluding further development of this land. Therefore the highest use available for this pasture land is the raising of livestock in a manner that is both financially feasible and with minimal impact to the neighbors . It is accurate to recognize the Applicant chose to raise llamas and the economic feasibility of such a venture necessitates a herd larger than permitted outright. However, concomitantly the impact of the additional head of llamas is still less than would be the case if the Applicant were to raise the outright permitted number of cattle or horses . The Applicant has had no control over the economics of llama breeding, the zoning designation for this area or the zoning limitation for livestock density without regard to other factors . Therefore, the circumstances or conditions were not willfully or purposely self-imposed. Enc. (2) : Map of subject property, Highland Lamas letter 7 � I \ C ovoY Y)JYJ NYNJal K W s O e ` iC 00Y 11 VO-CZ-331-GCl �_ AT FIJ � 15' EG(�yS PsG4 iG.VO.00� < �' < W E S n LOS u '•V •-\�'�<�w'J h+. 2yy�8 f1T8 A G'01)AKd KIO.�CO��. i .RD KC,GLYM. cw.00N-T -sfa9oz-r'B: ---------------------------4 )f O )s .� a � � a p \aa♦�\-•,�:��<,♦q6�` 4 �gXe�•tlY7 e�dLL �2 � � ; ygpy , 3 � �G .� ♦ a♦ � � NS}�c� � h � � � 'raj `2� h., EY%R w•r yi�f. hs\ \Y_n..so¢.'.•.CGK« t LL$ i Q• V) _IJ i � �_ )• w !'1 .19LG N \ J H 5T nip 'I: }�f•' : ♦♦\r_ 9I LI K<tOGp4 ry �_ ry- • 1 i PRIVA7 ��: —�/ �O IJ'Lf KCQf1.M1� \ pGL�P $LL B `� A ..[, .R. og ♦♦ �� a '� 3 � Fw Sig o � � ,4� ' V� ' �Cr oaf`♦ � \♦♦♦ b �'.a� �g .,- �o ; !r Fa 97111U,,Vd -UC3M ♦..♦ . coca Fi 5 n 560 Hamilton Road • Ja&sonvillc,Oregon 97530-9736 �'�"' ° 8 1997 • 541 8998097 541 899 8191(fax) ghland Llamas August 5, 1997 Mr. Ron Thumer Land Use Consultant 1170 Bellview Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Thurner: 1 am writing this letter in answer to your request for information about llamas as to their requirements, habits and how they impact the environment in which they live or travel. First,by way of qualification. my husband and 1 have raised lamas for twelve years. We have an extensive stud business as well as maintaining a herd of 3540 animals. We are involved in shows, sales, educational and public service projects involving llamas. We are also heavily involved in the llama community, serving on the Board of Directors of several local and national organizations, giving educational seminars on breeding services and techniques and marketing and promotion. We are also contributing editors for Llamas magazine having written over 50 informational and educational articles over the past six years. Llamas are browsers like deer rather than grazers like other livestock They nibble the ends off various vegetation which preserves the grass and shrubbery rather than destroying it. Llamas are preferred packers in National Parks because they have no negative impact on the environment. They are easy on trails because they have soft feet like a dog, they do not tear up vegetation and their feces,low in nitrogen,does not burn what it comes in contact with. As a pasture animal, llamas are most desirable for all the reasons above and more. Llamas require little space. Because they are a herd animal they prefer to be close to one another and move about in groups. Six to eight llamas per acre is more than adequate space-for them. They are generally fed grass hay and vitamin&mineral supplements. They keep their pasture neatly trimmed and will eat blackberries and poison oak Because llamas do not require individual stalls, large barns which obstruct views and take up space,are not required Habitually, llamas drop their feces in specific locations. This makes cleanup an easy chore, enabling ranches to clean up each day. Llama feces are small pellets which dry quickly. There is little or no odor. There are powdered products available which are sprinkled on piles to negate odor from urine. Llamas do not attract flies like other livestock. They do not have lanolin or any type of oil in their fleece. They dust bathe to stay clean and dry of perspiration. T s � — Clulebn Breeding at ttr Besf � _ - - 3 � Llamas are docile and quiet only emanating low hums unable to be heard for more than a few feet. Alarm calls are made if a predator approaches and young males occasionally play territorial games until they mature making a louder noise while they spar. Adult llamas average 300 pounds in weight. They do not tear up the soil, fences or out buildings. Because most ranchers use 4 or 5 foot no-climb«ire or chain link fencing to protect their animals from predators, llamas do not escape into the neighborhood and fencing remains neat, attractive and in-place. Llamas are beautiful, graceful and intelligent animals which enhance the environment. I sincerely hope this information is helpfid to you in your efforts to bring an understanding of llamas and their habits and requirements to the City Planners. If I can be of further help,please call. Sincerely, Marilyn Milton DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING SERVICES RONALD THURNER PLANNING AND BUSINESS CONSULTING 1170 BELLVIEW AVENUE ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 (503) 488-2414 Unfortunately, from my reading of the letters in opposition and the Staff report for this variance request I feel I must clarify some aspects which apparently have been misunderstood or ignored. Forgive me if some of the information seems redundant, but this application is vital to the Applicant and several of the neighbors so I will attempt to be brief and yet informative . I would like to start by dispelling certain notions presented by some of the opposition letters . 41 ) That the granting of this variance, the raising of llamas, or the raising of additional llamas will reduce property values . The Applicant is not seeking to double the number of llamas beyond the number of llamas currently on site . The current ordinance requirements allow two head of livestock per acre, for a total of 10 head, and the Applicant currently has 19 head of llamas on site and the variance request for four head per acre would allow a maximum of 21 head, though the Applicant does not intend to increase the size of the herd beyond the current numbers . Now as far as property values are concerned there is no formula which considers whether there is a variance on neighboring properties, or one which considers the number of livestock on a neighboring parcel . Most likely this concern is being confused with issues of marketability which means that some buyers will not be interested in buying property which adjoins farm property. However, there are also buyers who would prefer purchasing property committed to farming as this is preferential to having houses backed up to their property, or a farm operation which is less considerate than the Applicant, as regards the 3� farming practices which are strictly voluntarily being applied to this operation . Some purchasers would also avoid buying properties on a cul-de-sac due to safety and security considerations while others would prefer such a location for the very same reasons . #2 ) As I have explained in the discussion of property values the Applicant has no intention of raising the number of llamas beyond the number currently on site . The Applicant also is committed to the raising of llamas and will continue to do so even if she is limited to the 10 head permitted outright . The result of denial of this variance request will only affect the financial viability of this endeavor and will not substantially alter any affects of raising livestock; and will only exacerbate the tenuous personal relations amongst neighbors . Finally the impact of denial of this variance request will also likely require the redistribution of the herd and alteration of the farming practices due to financial constraints resulting from the reduced margin available with a smaller herd. As to the staff report we obviously and vehemently disagree with the conclusion of recommending denial and the premises which were used by staff to come to their conclusion. We wish to emphasize that this Application must be reviewed on the merits of the criteria as stated rather than a punitive evaluation of whether the Applicant "should have been aware . . . " . This Application would have been better served if the staff had employed an approach similar to the approach staff describes in their report on the next public hearing, 97-082, regarding the evaluation of the criteria rather than punitively evaluating the applicantion because the non- conformance already exists . I quote from that staff report "Furthe.r, it is not the role of the Historic or Planning Commission to be punitive in review of the application . " At the time that the Enforcement Specialist informed the Applicant of non-conformance she was told she could maintain the herd on site while pursuing her only recourse of seeking a variance . Neither the criteria or the arguments regarding the criteria would have been 31 different had the Applicant been seeking this variance prior to adding llamas to the site, or if the excess llama had been boarded elsewhere while this variance request was being processed . In fact, the advantage of the situation as it evolved is that the Applicant has demonstrated significant regard for her neighbors through the application of enhanced farming. practices on a voluntary basis . The Applicant did not intentionally exceed the number of head allowed and has been trying to comply with the direction staff has presented her by processing this Application as directed and as Staff can confirm we have also made a good faith effort to contact the offended neighbors to pursue any pertinent viable compromises . The initial presumption presented by staff is that the circumstances or conditions regarding this site are not unique or unusual because there are other unique or unusual properties, which incidentally have a couple head of livestock and therefore this parcel does not have any characteristics warranting consideration under this criterion . In fact this criteria seeks to compare the circumstances or conditions of the Applicants site to those that are Typical in our community. There is no requirement to demonstrate this site as an absolute or of being one of a kind. As stated in the Application this site is comprised of irrigated pasture land that historically was used for the raising of livestock and, as such, is not Typical in our community and therefore meets the standard for criteria #1 . The ' obvious benefit ' refuted by staff regards a comparison of 10 verses 21 adult llamas . Unfortunately, Staff fails to analyze or compare the more critical consideration of 21 llamas verses the 10 horses or cows, which are permitted outright, as regards odor flies and noise . Additionally, the staff fails to recognize the benefits of the conditions that would be a part of approval of this variance and would require the Applicant to exercise extraordinary farming practices to reduce odors and flies . These are not required practices and are possible in part due to the economics of efficiency that come with the current size of the herd. Furthermore, this variance application establishes the maximum densities for each of the pastures to further reduce impacts at those pastures 3 $ adjoining the residences . The two previous points are described in the Application as the ' Herd Management Plan' and the ' Waste Treatment Plan ' . It is critical for the Commission and the neighbors to understand that the herd distribution patterns described in the ' Herd Management Plan ' will very likely become more intensive in the two pastures adjoining the residences most opposed out of necessity if this variance is not granted and this will obviously increase the negatives for those properties . Limiting the herd size will not mean that each pastures density will be proportionally decreased so the alleged impacts may actually increase if the economics of efficiency found with the requested herd size is not allowed. Finally, while this application seeks to raise the allowable density of llamas per acre, it is very important to recognize that this variance request would only apply to the raising of llamas rather than other forms of livestock such as horses . The farming practices and conditioned limits implicit in this Application also further the intent and purpose of this ordinance and the Comprehensive. Plan by allowing this mixed use while further establishing certain standards which must be adhered to, which go beyond the normal farming practices which are implied by the lack of any standards as adjuncts of the zoning regulations . What I mean here is that some impacts, such as o ' er, flies or noise are assumed and are not limited by ordinance beyond normal farming practices . However, the Applicant has gone to extraordinary lengths to minimize these impacts by keeping the pastures far cleaner than required and by choosing to raise llamas rather than other livestock which do not lend themselves to the maintenance practices employed with this llama farm. Unfortunately, the economics of llama farming also necessitates a larger herd, but the increase in llamas does not nearly come close to the impacts that would be found with the outright permitted number of other livestock types . The last criteria considers whether the conditions or circumstances were willfully or purposely self-imposed. The applicant was not aware of the two livestock per acre limitation and even after the Enforcement Specialist initially contacted her thought this 3Q limitation referred to the raising of horses and cattle . This came about in part because when the Applicant partitioned her property in 1995 this property was already being utilized for raising llamas and staff never raised any concerns about this use or the presumed reduction in acreage that would possibly result from the partition. Additionally, the Enforcement Specialist told her there was no need to remove the excess llamas while she pursued the necessary variance request . Had she known that retaining the excess llamas would be held against her for purposes of applying for this variance then she obviously would have made other arrangements while pursuing the variance . Seeking this variance for additional llamas might actually have been put forth prior to any llamas being on site and the arguments put forth in this Application would have been the same reasoned assertions . Therefore the number of llamas on site is not the pertinent condition or circumstance which needs to be considered in this request . If this variance request were reviewed as though the Applicant had no livestock on site then it is obvious that the staff would not have been able to dismiss the application which had been required by staff simply because the applicant was . not in conformance . Ashlands approach to the stipulation of two head of livestock per acre fails to consider differences between various types of livestock and the incumbent impacts found with the various types of livestock. This ordinance fails to stipulate anything with regards to farming practices, e . g . , clean-up, pasture size, or pasture density. This is the condition or circumstance which is pertinent to this variance request, is the condition or circumstance for which the Applicant seeks relief and is the basis which was not willfully or purposely self imposed . It would not be reasonable or consistent to suggest that personal ignorance of the land use laws is sufficient grounds to designate this situation as being self-imposed while another application is not held to the same Planning Department standard. Thank You . . . �O 1v1.5 ilk •c�tf�Ai �2.r {U� DE 0 ti IBS G i� Holly S. Johnston 526 Mc Cadden Place - Los Angeles, Calif. 90004 To Mayor Cathy Golden and City Council Members Ashland City Hall 210 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon, 97520 December 3 , 1997 I am writing this letter in behalf of my mother Sherry Johnston, and her llama ranch in Ashland. I have visited this property many times over the last 20 years, and I would like you to know my beliefs about the situation in the neighborhood. My mother is a most generous loving human being, and would never do anything to distress her neighbors . Most of the neighbors in Ashland enjoy the llamas, and they certainly cannot understand what all the fuss is that just a handful of men and their wives have created. This very small minority of neighbors who are complaining about the llamas are the same neighbors who made my grandfather' s life difficult when he was alive and owned the property. These few men would talk for hours over my randfather's fence saying very unkind things about him and mployees on his property. The-A they would charge for that time as part of their wages. These same neighbors would dump their leaves and other yard debris over on the Johnston property, and then charge to pick it up. One woman sold my grandfather a lot, and then became very angry when he would not sell it back to her 10 years later for the same price. These are the very same people who are making my mother so miserable, and trying to remove her income. My mother is trying to compromise with these difficult people by cutting her herd down to 15 llamas. This alone will cause her financial difficulty, but to cut the herd to . 10 llamas would make it impossible for her to support my brother and herself. As a single woman, my mother adopted my sister, brother and me, and supported us financially and with great love. She has always worked full time as a teacher and then a counselor. When my grandfather ' s ranch did not sell, she gave up her position in Ventura, California and moved to Ashland. She now works twenty hours a week running a religious education program at a local church, and raising her llamas. We all help her clean up after the llamas when we visit. There is no problem with odor and the ranch is yl i, `�1 Ili DEG 08 1997 �'� ' � I q2� C�v — — - -- ' ^J aA4 ahO d 6 DPA4 a C,e aAj 4o AM "4uAf Q _ C �4 I U aTa (.0 Cl)L 2 "ti 41, (CAL w U�11 A/Ii jb 'Aa� t - OL _ _ - tea - -- °FC November 30, 1997 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL RE: APPEAL OF PLANNING ACTION 97-085. CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 2 OR DECEMBER 16 Dear Sir/Madam: We, Les Davis and Jeanne Davis, are hereby requesting that the appeal by Sherry Johnston not be granted. As stated on page 2 of the Ashland Planning Department Staff Report dated September 9, 1997, Sherry only has 2.4 acres of fenced area for livestock. The ordinance allows 2 livestock per acre. . Why is it that under the Livestock Variance portion of the same Staff Report, it states there are 5.25 acres? Sherry's house and buildings cover more than half of that 5.25 acres which could not,possibly be used for grazing llamas. As we stated at the Hearings Board on September 9, 1997, the odor is overwhelming. We fear that the value of our property will be greatly reduced due to the Llamas. We are not able to open the windows at times due to the odor and are not able to enjoy our property to the full extent. We appreciate the opportunity to state our position in this matter. Respectfully submitted, LES DAVIS EANNE DAVIS 1407 TOLMAN CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 43 t cl 9 NOY 2 9 1997 23Sg 555 eel 7 " Mountain Ranch NOV 2 4 19,97 Property Owners Assoc. P.O. Box 3141 Ashland, OR 97520 November 21 , 1997 Ashland Planning Department Attention: Susan Yates RE: December 2 Public Hearing, Sherry T. Johnston The Board of Directors of Mountain Ranch Propidrty Owners ' Association support the recent decision of the Planning De- partment to reject Ms . Johnston ' s request for a variance. Now that Ms. Johnston is appealing that decision to the City Council, the Board respectfully requests that the Council up- hold the current ordinance. We believe the criteria for variance has not been met . Furthermore, we believe that increasing the number of llamas would add to the odor problem and would ad- versely affect property values of nearby homes . We have no' objection to llamas on the property so long as the number of animals is in compliance with present requirements . Thank you for your consideration of our request . Sincerely, Irene Gorham President Mountain Ranch Property Owners ' Association Nov 2 ', 1997 3 � v Gz/may o 27 �✓ .�.� "�z Gia rf-� �` "`��� 3 ,tom 41 1 s cd��zEo , �� �� _-L�c�C/`��'' Gam'-r•������ 2 4G - s aw a4e �� ZIL .. Ice - Iz 407 WW\����\�>�\ Will © . 9. - . .... . »�� d - �7y - , - ;\� \ �»S � �q 2 - ,��# - ��\ }4 , \ y! � w: \� \ \� m � RL,-�EIVEO NOV 2 0 1997 Su�)PC�.' rF'�uPSff��!/�rrlrze /(/a l/. p7 {�lr?r7N r'N i Ac-/{f•OU %7 O/P�� 36✓7-.Z</�di a c 1� 1 K f AS410-� ©r pmN rr-i 1"e.F nsc To coir�ocae�eure /ecee'ec { ire f6e Can cedIA,-a q et /v 4'r<°a lc e fop ell" r+mrc /.vP w-/ /j� Snerv(Y Ti/ .1 m�tus/m vt c' 1 / VrFJm Kc Tol/mwiv ,i Ov-F a s Cr1 7 m//cr/ / G/✓t/elp✓ ^f� /e C r['{er/ls °s �r vorl�zuce / J 1 f/ l' �Q /'ASK IO r(G/! C i r(/ CCO CPS � CGM fk,'k L( e / r7 ,O t/4 1/ .e (/ o /[Lre Q rev�+ / 7L4( re9 eecS/•r� l/a vr'v aer, / 4rc ale//'Cm 6/e � r f� < / Cc[rc1 S fO Hers . � P Sc<5/ tc (u Cf S//it e'/C� /—GvN,,I ���5/'C(PC/ /(b I i• ONP ' R- l - 7- jam, e BP-,/q /[ ml /S Nd Fie IyGJre4/ cese_ lrr:4�� / c ( 9rca , 1 �P+� f�nrs Il4qc•a KCe �u t'(r /Jrse/iacc /7//mfy,K� // /7 reL, Flue pac fed r f�4 .r �cf` /`�� /14�«4. 7l 4n 4u�Y C 3 , A /! CfpCc[w5 {4ur•.-r /'e.�e:. lCk<j fLn ce Yef+' c{�jf va✓ea�ee �P s['f ( !r J[vyi(sy 7Co -,"( rrcaNrucr�.v/ 4 re �, S e/ lei e✓4 I �°`� f / ( . /eve 3 jE< (/ •'K Fe,,�i;�< w <' t 1. iu a ei•f� I'es,,•[d�e<[. FInC oNC4• e /.7rmblPG(.1 rs {�Y i wF 7/o v4vi /Yn/ouc �r/�[ iuce/r.[�/ r`°u //C Iwec�. .C'[�rytut /1f«u6r, ! �r�3iOL 464r'W<(,r c( uueler /c'_� $Ilvt� /e �esidrNfror rOc7J Sccfrnn .S 4B4(e( ha,re UFeu {^ e weweq�' 4u</ c/u•It/.S /�o`l /�r"r'or o e e s Fa b pi4 fi a f 7L �,5 hu-,r'm x, l/er4 14-1 O Dct Fk/c'.SI ref7cee, /may )4h /TS/2^/4u�-�On<n la/�L �.� �'�4"rf(j/Z✓pu rte' be- 4c c .5 '7'n✓ cam. l(Qd/qzzuce- QLI @C �f C`{ QC°l�`( Q � a!'( 6 r0 iS �i^eS PK TCej/ 7J pr��' G T6t e / 1/c'S cc n / cupr e s Ji'ea Li m,✓ f �,rs �¢r 1` a/ Ay �C <Q<!�/ Lt�� / ( f 4 fcvGusfut Cl ec/P(o�Pc( nw�( f o s h -</ //f lce !^e <« f�acs (�,� f rvcS/ooU ��el� ft's To l �,1 �'u� C(ere<o�a eH� Yrsl ecc fig+ / Cc rccb_ 1 TCa (J'/.e.�caf� �u o�' D�ef9 F�sfmlisfaa �sFm �e / Yo�°rJ'Y C,ro-3,'K C Y / �cC�Cc S S3, 61e) Gam, 3 Alort ivd�f ti ymo � S�4fti 770 Ylg-- (ice f 3o8 3,;7 drv/ar��/ �,� /z� fo 3 sNF n�u< fs F,� sE /"J 6eccamsc / N2 1_4 Xr/ �a✓ s / /c�eF n<� Ftw CancPVu,c� �i, c �w CCs �Q ssrssu<� s �s fv f(tee. c�vruo�l r '5'r L' 1clerre« t ' so :3 e q ((Cwu/ le 9ro3 %( p �° u%UAQ (1 7' L Cy[cr6 Pq< /S cec(res C� J`�� err o� Y Cevt /'6ccc�( °<r �tJ {7 Pca� v/ 6t61G(�/%(t"�S�6�Yr -1 J �P 9NR•J7%(L`f Csc r- r ev4ut (?�t'./� I/C<LL /✓Ltrn(i c-Udv r� "✓ P �, /orq'e i f!v e G'4 , C' Tf�ik. fL ru�l c, (!�'c6(< /ivcsfoIu 0/.l ,,4 le' el fl 1 Lyra i h C owCoa foSle s/' f�cQE f!'� hPG !/LG!/ %1�j 8L, �1/ 7s , r ear r,10 {p . 7ra1, 1 �� s n4 t�6r✓ f / ! c:t cr ' ctcd 'flu r'e� /7 e L,7 {.541 a /'rc/c✓¢h/e e?d��/ {r ay f(tie / how. Ale /2r� f/�i '�i �t�Foc � � lle CIeGOI 4`LO e�1�rL(1f� f :e /.x� d«8% .11c^Sr�j/+'u♦ l-Ccc< 41<t r, / ) .lf��4 TO / Lta Cr•FY J S/ Yr'C f �r6,p eft d«r Kws 4qQ Pc( 1%i I µ/' Ccn<�r rn �CO-6(r 7�--✓ �.a S'/ / ucn//4� 24," ( �LW11��SP CrpL7//�.crc� (C<se C'ur'c(r,- S �C9ct�[�( /� Pwt•<( �Yt.a-� Lr� <�a7c R< �L1 Y�j/rc� e,C /^Psje(4,c (e. 3ilu4l(at, 1-PGLI -3ly •'L1 !16 Ccmnr'vcrb ((�rm3r'aq C, I r/ �PS.<.(E« f/dY z6a'D . I Y �e 4l!.� �- � �� /� ��- f f y f �• s o/� eta ,[fc�r fi-(�a f Lrr�� s� �• �, o� i, �a p /fie/YVIt' tt P c� C<sPs�, S r c-¢ (D- 3 Se 6a, ( �CKA < < fw EuU�9.. I I�� 3sG�erFP�� c7,/ na / <6��, dh'o (/( eeGaiu9 Cr� Qtrtlute�s S'`'c frc<-� � S" {46LetiI' (TA lmo ` °� °u6fkvG�rucCly� eq O xlc!ISQ ICP/J ow rn e"", l Q e 1 , / �� 7P�1 j�Prr,r ore% 4 6wf / u S'rFkl fCZelsPr 7• � � �'Y,/3o /mar T It C-o, Se cev-q pe,- H//KW �W F C� COIACP1H / �j,�PCl<c{ 11�Cby Brc reds (2t s CS au r u //airEl< 9 Clu�Pr�w m�v Ira, 4" rG r t c f t �yJ bair AM p - Aj i T A4 j..11 = itrz Y �.. ♦ - Fir� � • ..yam �1- 7 'ice Yi. +■3 ^ _ A • � �t ��t S Y :'. ,•♦�� _ � ! ' �� , jx� s p c IL y -b. S 1� r 1 AAA , All . As b R ♦ f - 1 P J r f NOY 18 1997 JOAN N. BECICH / DAVID THANES 1450 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 15 November, 1997 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL % PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON ATTN: SUSAN YATES RE: PLANNING ACTION 97-085 Dear City Council, We are neighbors of die property owner involved in this planning action, and have no problems with allowing for the variance. The presence of the llamas is aesthetically enriching and very much in character with many of die other pastured properties near by. We feel that the animals are a low impact asset to the neighborhood. Since the animals and pastures are being very well cared for and maintained, we see no reason why the owners will not continue to be responsible. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Joan N. Becich / David Thanes November 17, 1997 City Council City of Ashland Ashland, Oregon 97520 Nov 1 1997 RE: Planning Action 97-058 Honorable Mayor and Councilors: We are submitting this letter regarding Planning Action 97-085, a request for variance by applicant Sherry T.Johnston. As a neighbor and an adjacent property owner to the west pasture of the applicant, we strongly oppose granting the proposed variance. We do not believe that the applicant meets the criteria for a variance as indicated in 18.100.020. In reference to the criteria regarding unique or unusual circumstances, we believe that raising llamas for business purposes can occur in land so zoned for raising livestock whether it be in the city or county. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no unique or unusual circumstance which applies to the applicant's site which do not apply elsewhere. We also concur with the Planning Commission's findings that the characteristics of the property are not unique to the subject property as there are several undeveloped properties within the city limits on the urban edge of Ashland that have been used for grazing purposes. Therefore, we believe that this variance should be denied. A second criteria states that the benefits from the proposed variance will be greater than any negative impacts on adjacent uses. In response to this criteria, we see no positive benefit to the neighbors by increasing the number of livestock (llamas) per acre. We emphatically believe that increasing the number of llama's will have a negative impact on us and the other adjacent neighbors. For example, we are already impacted by the existing smell and odor caused by the defecation deposits from the llamas. In our view, increasing the number of llamas will only increase the smell, odor and fly problems. Presently, there are times when we cannot enjoy the use of our backyard due to the smell from the pasture. For at least the last nine months, Ms. Johnston has pastured more llamas on her property than is permitted in the City of Ashland's ordinance pertaining to livestock. In our view, she is operating a commercial livestock operation in an R-1 residential zone. We purchased our property in an R-1 zone because of the benefits normally associated with living within an R-1 zone. We strongly believe that a commercial livestock operation is not an appropriate activity to take place within an R-1 zone. Furthermore, is it permissible under city ordinance to run a commercial business in a R-1 zone? Criteria number three states "that the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed." The city ordinance pertaining to the number of livestock permitted per acre was in effect prior to Ms. Johnston purchasing the llamas. Regardless of the reason, Ms. Johnston failed to properly determine the number of animals which she could maintain on her property legally. And, due to this "self-imposed" dilemma, she is now seeking a variance to the existing zoning requirements. We believe that because she created her own problem and that she should not be granted a variance to solve that problem. 5� - 2 - We want to respond to two items that Ms. Johnston mentioned at the Planning Commission's public hearing. First, Ms. Johnston mentioned that the llamas are used by school groups for educational purposes. In our opinion, by following the existing code, there would still be a significant number of llamas, a total of 10, available for educational purposes. Second, Ms. Johnston mentioned that she thought some of the neighbors were under the misunderstanding that she wanted to increase the number of llamas she now has which is over twenty. She said that her plan was not to increase the herd any larger than it is now. We are aware of that but the problem is that even with the current number of llamas, she is in violation of the city code. We are not opposed to her having the number of llamas on her property that the city code now allows. But we are opposed to granting a varience so that she may keep the increased number of llamas. We believe that she has failed to meet the requirements under which a varience can be granted. In summary, we oppose the granting of this variance because the applicant has not met the requirements for a variance for the following reasons: 1. There is no unique or unusual circumstance which applies to the site and which does not apply elsewhere. There are other appropriately zoned sites on which llamas can be raised for commercial venture. 2. The benefits will not be greater than the negative impact. We see no benefits to the neighborhood that would be derived from increasing the number of llamas per acre. We believe that increasing the number of llamas on the site will have only negative impact as stated above. 3. We believe that Ms. Johnston caused her own problem in that she failed to adequately determine the regulations related to livestock within the city limits and, therefore, she is now caught in a "self-imposed" situation. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Ken Mickelsen rr � l�l,L4Q(�i��� Diane Mickelsen 2370 Lupine Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 SfP 9 Sept. 5, 1997 199T Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Commissioners: Re: Planning Action 97-085: Request for variance concerning llamas We are owners of Lots 201 and 314, immediately adjacent to the llama farm on the north side. We share approximately 600 feet of fenceline. Our house is 45 feet from the North Pasture, where the majority of the herd is kept and where the stables are located. We are in support of the variance request, and ask that the proposed conditions concerning minimum waste management be adopted. We spend a great deal of time outdoors, eat outside regularly, leave our windows open much of the year and have not been bothered by odor or flies. In fact,we are just completing extensive landscaping between our house and the North Pasture fence which maximizes our time out-of-doors near the pasture. None of our guests or the many workers who have helped us have complained of any odor or flies; on the contrary, they have often been envious of our site and comment on the pleasure of watching the animals and the pastoral environment. A long-time local builder of high quality homes told us just last week that he believes we have one of the "premium properties in Ashland", and part of its charm is the adjacent llama ranch. The llamas do occasionally make a screeching sound, but it is short-lived, during the daytime, and far less bothersome to us than the barking dogs in the neighborhood that often awaken us. The llamas keep the grass clipped much more quietly than either we or other neighbors who use machinery. There has very occasionally been some odor,but never so strong that it has bothered us. It happens so infrequently that we have not been able to tell if it correlates with temperature, rainfall or the size of the herd. It has been such a long time since we have noticed it at all that it actually seems there have been fewer instances since the herd has increased. We have had only two flies in the house all summer, despite many people coming and going. So despite being next door, we personally have not experienced problems with the llama ranch, even with the increased numbers of animals. We have been impressed by the applicant's consistent attention to cleanliness and have witnessed the daily removal of excrement on weekends as well as weekdays. We understand the daily collection of feces is not now required but is done on a voluntary basis. We see approval of the variance, with the proposed condition concerning waste management, as providing a benefit which does not now exist(particularly if a different owner were to continue the raising of livestock on that property who did not have the same commitment to cleanliness as the current owner does). Flytraps are hung and 57 changed regularly. The excrement pile, which is 15 feet from our back fenceline, is regularly removed. We water trees and compost near that locale and have never been bothered by insects there. We recently stood next to the excrement pile around 4 p.m. for 5 minutes and counted a total of 1 yellowjacket and 4 small flies (a different species than housefly) which appeared to remain in the locale of the pile. We would probably find a similar count of insects if we walked 100 feet to the dedicated nature preserve. We have also found the applicant responsive to concerns we have brought to her attention(such as underground seepage of water and outdoor lighting) and willing to work with us to arrive at mutually agreeable solutions. If odor or insects did become a problem for us, we would anticipate a similar willingness to discuss the issue and focus on the solution. The argument that llamas are less impactful than other forms of permitted livestock, so more should be allowed per acre, appears quite legitimate to us. We understand Jackson County now uses an equivalency of 3 llamas to 1 horse. Using that formula on the given property, which is entitled to two livestock per acre by city ordinance, could result in 6 llamas per acre. The proposed request of 4 per acre seems reasonable. The impact of llamas is clearly less than cattle. Feces are dropped in common piles, are in pellet form, drier, less odorous, and much less in quantity. The pasture is intact,despite nearly continual use due to their light use and impact. Being downslope from the ranch,and having a pond that receives runoff water from the pasture, we have concerns about possible erosion from damage to the pasture or excrement remaining on the pasture. We suspect the impact from 4 llamas per acre to be much less than than of cows which could also be kept there. We have seen no increased adverse affect from the increased number of llamas. Since the economic value of llamas appears to be primarily in their wool, breeding potential, or in packing, we can guess that it requires substantially more than 6 months to produce a marketable animal, yet they are counted as adults after 6 months. We believe there is more of a likelihood the high level of cleanliness would continue if the number of llamas is sufficient to ensure the operation is financially viable. We feel it unfortunate that the applicant did not seek the variance prior to increasing the number of animals. The tirping should not obscure the real issues, however, and we urge the variance be considered on its own merits. We understand there are some neighbors who have been bothered by odor or flies. We urge caution be used in determining the source of complaints, and in assuming that more llamas per acre necessarily causes more problems, whereas a slightly larger scale of operation may actually improve the situation. Many homeowners in the area use the llama manure in gardens, perhaps failing to work it thoroughly into the soil. Drainage is poor in these heavy clay soils; we have excavated several times and the disrupted subsoils were very foul smelling-- we may have been the source of some complaints. The Homeowner Association's greenway is heavily watered and may provide breeding grounds for insects. It seems there are a number of variables to consider. 58 We try to be realistic and farsighted when we look at the situation. The applicant's right under existing code to own livestock is clear; we assume there is a clear need to use the land in a financially viable way. The land is agricultural, is irrigated, is within the city, is limited in size, and is broken up in small, but connected parcels. Its uses are limited. The existing use as a llama ranch benefits the surrounding community in many ways by preserving farmland, providing ecological balance amid the housing as well as being a great source of enjoyment to the many neighbors who find delight in these fascinating animals and can be seen walking and often conversing along Tolman Road and the walkway along the westside. Children visit on fieldtrips. Alternatives are other kinds of livestock,or more housing, with its possibilities of barking dogs, loud music, increased traffic. We clearly prefer the approval of the variance request over other alternatives. We hope a way can be found to preserve the mix of uses, which helps provide balance in our community and adds to Ashland's uniqueness. (Are there any other llamas within the city limits?) We personally appreciate the vision of the city's code which allows for a mixture of uses. We chose this area, and our property in particular, so that we could experience the benefits of living within the city, our children could safely bike to schools, we could use public transportation, and yet we could also experience the closer connection with the natural world which we value. We have especially enjoyed living next to the llamas and believe they have much to teach us and our children. Witnessing the miracle of birth, for instance, when the herd protectively gathers around the mother in labor and newborn, is a lesson worth pondering more frequently in our human community. Our experience has been that the increased number of llamas has not increased any adverse affects for us, the proposed variance condition appears to give us a benefit which does not now exist, and we believe the presence of the llama ranch enriches our lives, our property value, and the community. James and Estelle Voeller 1365 Tolman Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-8083 5q RFcFi�FO sF P Marie I . Lee %9yj 2340 Lupine Drive Ashland, Oregon, 97520 September 5 , 1997 To Whom it May Concern, I live directly behind the west llama pasture where two male llamas now live. I enjoy these beautiful animals , and I have no difficulties with them. They do not have an odor, and I see no problems with them at all. I am in favor of the requested variance. Sincerely yours , Marie I . Lee 4 e 1 / f e �� � �� `19/97 :eo . a es> "64 ygg - 1363 6a Y 5 199? 3 `� dA <0 3 September 4, 1997 - q City of Ashland SEP 1997 Planning Department Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Planning Action 97-058 We are submitting this letter regarding Planning Action 97-085, a request for variance by applicant Sherry T. Johnston. As a neighbor and an adjacent property owner to the west pasture of the applicant, we strongly oppose granting the proposed variance. We do not believe that the applicant meets the criteria for a variance as indicated in 18.100.020. In reference to the criteria regarding unique or unusual circumstances, we believe that raising llamas for business purposes can occur in land so zoned for raising livestock. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no unique or unusual circumstance which applies to the applicant's site which do not apply elsewhere. Therefore, we believe that this variance should be denied. A second criteria states that the benefits from the proposed variance will be greater than any negative impacts on adjacent uses. In response to this criteria, we see no positive benefit to the neighbors by increasing the number of livestock (llamas) per acre. We emphatically believe that increasing the number of llama's will have a negative impact on us and the other adjacent neighbors. For example, we are already impacted by the existing smell and odor caused by the defecation deposits from the llamas. In our view, increasing the number of llamas will only increase the smell, odor and fly problems. Presently, there are times when we cannot enjoy the use of our backyard due to the smell from the pasture. For at least the last nine months, Ms. Johnston has pastured more llamas on her property than is permitted in the City of Ashland's ordinance pertaining to livestock. In our view, she is operating a commercial livestock operation in an R-1 residential zone. We purchased our property in an R-1 zone because of the benefits normally associated with living within an R-1 zone. We strongly believe that a commercial livestock operation is not an appropriate activity to take place within an R-1 zone. Furthermore, it is a violation of an existing City ordinance. Criteria number three states "that the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed." The city ordinance pertaining to the number of livestock permitted per acre was in effect prior to Ms. Johnston purchasing the llamas. Regardless of the reason, Ms. Johnston failed to properly determine the number of animals which she could maintain on her property legally. And, due to this "self-imposed" dilemma, she is now seeking a variance to the existing zoning requirements. We believe that because she created her own problem and that she should not be granted a variance to solve that problem. G4 - 2 - In summary, we oppose the granting of this variance because the applicant has not met the requirements for a variance for the following reasons: 1. There is no unique or unusual circumstance which applies to the site and which does not apply elsewhere. There are other appropriately zoned sites on which llamas can be raised for commercial venture. 2. The benefits will not be greater than the negative impact. We see no benefits to the neighborhood that would be derived from increasing the number of llamas per acre. We believe that increasing the number of llamas on the site will have only negative impact as stated above. 3. We believe that Ms. Johnston caused her own problem in that she failed to adequately determine the regulations related to livestock within the city limits and, therefore, she is now caught in a "self-imposed" situation. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. en Mickelsen Diane Mickelsen 2370 Lupine Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 he 4 199,7 2330 Lupine Drive Ashland , OR 97520 Sept . 3 . 1997 Ashland Planning Comm. Hearing Board Ashland Civic Center 1175 East Main Street Ashland , OR 97520 To the Ashland Planning Commission: Re: Planning Act . 97-085 This is in response to the notification of Planning Action 97-085 . I wish to object strenuously to any variance of the city ordinance regardinq livestock per acre within city limits . Since we live in a single family residential area and there hasn' t been livestock on said property since at least 1977 . I feel strongly that we should not now have a llama ranch in the neigh- boorhood. There is a definite odor of manure and the number of animals presently on the property has a detrimental effect on the property values . Also , shouldn' t the request for a variance have occured prior to increasing the herd? in1c/Nle�roeGyj�,( V anneT4� 'W Fassnh V✓ Taxlot 391E23BB 574 Barbara Jarvis c/o Planning Department 20 North Main Street SEP - 4 1987 Ashland, Oregon, 97520 Sept . 2, 1997 Dear Mrs . Jarvis , I have been living on the property at 1405 Tolman Creek Road, and creating my art here for three years, Thanks to the generosity of Sherry Johnston, I have a place to work and live. I love the llamas that live on her property. They are clean and beautiful, and they do not smell . I was here when there were just two llamas, anmd now there are 19. There is no more smell with 19 than there was with two, because the property is cleaned daily. Perhaps you can all come out and visit, and judge for yourselves . It is important to visit this property in order to make an informed judgement about the neighbor ' s complaints . Sincerely yo Wataru S Y a y s .:' •t.i ,... �0 1 Mountain Ranch SEP Property Owners Assoc. 4 1997 P.O. Box 3141 Ashland, OR 97520 September 4, 1997 PLANNING ACTION 97-085 Request for variance Applicant : Sherry T. Johnston/Estate Representative Ashland Planning Commission Ashland Planning Department 20 East Main Street Ashland , Or 97520 In support of members of the Mountain Ranch Property Owners Association whose properties are adjacent to the Johnston property, the members of the Board of Directors oppose the above referenced zoning variance. Thank you for taking this into consideration as you make your decision. Yours truly, n Irene Gorham, President Mountain Ranch Property Owners Assn. b V . CPR S _ SEP 31997 p NO no , A a,� IZ" sIry str _ 2 1997 -- �CUc- coo]'1?�1�2�A�C.(�72ph� ��l✓�4� w atoU m�- _ aP - a ) ��c --fir - - OZq ?0 c �uo� - S�cp f j Aug. 31, 1997 Planning Commission Yembers c/o Planning Commission Dept. 20 el. [chin At Ashland, 0'n ,97520 To 'iihom It Mav Concern - My back yard faces directly on a green field ,vith friendly llamas who are interest:inP to watch and a uleasure to show my grandchildren and gues ts. They do not play loud stereo, litter our streets, trample my garden or complain. I definitely do not object to llamas as neighbors. . . . in fact I prefer them to people who neglect their property or their children and are hasicaliv intolerant of everyone else. After seven vears in this residential section of Pshland I would never consider changing my housing because of the llamas on adjacent pastures. sincerely, 2360 Lupine Dr. ..shland, Oregon 97520 7r Y RECtIVED AUG 2 8 199? Vae i_'a it c-e ------. .-- _ 0-"-L-5 �.e9�e l[�i1.� �✓— c_1 .---- _ _ t-�J ����.u-_c•�._��_�.G.._La_�cs��_c_�_._���.xc !_�.__����_vm-tea _-- -�!— q- a e-i9lr L lflL4C�_te s fL�° CCLa1S -(.c,,[rrS-s �2s•e !'S"_h"tr .n Nom( _._�"mot�C�L��-.- ---.._..------�---•-----._}'1��1-g?./__D-�.-_.l.i�c-Q_sfBC�/14CU.�s:.—(U1�-1 --YS,1 v1---��4-�.-------.. Get- 1 ` /'- �,sc�_ L<__B/� s4_f�E�r.!use - 1-111 ' l.e cin.�CA_e✓te ''�-f_--- -- C r%vu�o --------- ......_ ----- __ -- --/--rv� l:u.csk"_ __. N�mds•..._ /:.G'vl.e✓� feC�.__�1�ua._ I.ertt_@K�'u�_G--- - --- _- .._"._ AIL V-�Fem st eea e /jGl Ae Q ;ed 7.Z. du 9 CQ 2Le --t ...... zc ---------- ritJ e-f ---------------- jj_t jvQ-1t kYW�... ------- ...vlu✓ple ------------ ---------- ---------------- ----------------- AUG 2 7 1997 RECEIVED , On 3 G � Qn 7 � PL 677-09�S7 Dec- 16-97 04 : 26P W . LIEN P - 02 WALLACE W. LIEN %V Lic Marl, '. HoO Vance"A. Coney J;mei K. 1 c Kevin E. M;ivjie Achninr,tr.,tor Gary W VjnrJ(.•n t3kivji December 16, 1997 Mr. Paul Nolte I City of Ashland 20 G. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97)20 1iv •izx: 541-48d-5311 Re: Slal eY rel,jnj1j�t_Qu y. Cltv ol'AHnnd Dear Nor. 1 olte: I write to follow Lit- our conversation of DeS ':�M6, 1991. When we spoke, I confirmed that my client has filclu a writ of mandamus pursuant to ORS '-)-,7.178 because the City or Ashland had not taken final action on her variance application within 120 days of its filing as required by law. Comequovly, my, client has esor,:ised her right to seuk a writ Ol'inandarnw,in circuit court to compel approval of the application. As I am sure you are�wtirc, the expiration oft}e 12 1 O-day deadline divests the City of JU[isdicijou it) act Lo deny my�ient's application. Any I d,:cision made by the City at this point, wili be a nullity, and of no foru,,and effect pursuan! to Fomym.,-'F Corp. v' On, q(Lake. Oswego . 319 OR 537 (1994). Desl)ite this iTIRK11141joll,V;)kj flic City would proceed %v;th the hearing on my client's variance pmnir application schedditcl For 7:00 1).11), this evening, lkmise tho City is vvitho�tjurisdiciion to proceed ir,this matter,m) client will not purticioale in this evening's ' 1v hearing. C clical xil, be prcsorit, and present a Cf)pv of this lelter to V . the city council for Chi', recOrd, hn,pever, slit will not other-vise participate. If you have any questions of conctms%gar(lfing this matter, please teel free to contact me Lit your convenience. Urfi-t Z-4- Mark C.J-1o.vt INICHMIA-b cc: Sheen Johiviton by tnx r4l-4,21 It,"' Leslie P. Davis Jeanne F. Davis 1407 Tolman Cr. Rd. DEC 15 1997 Ashland, OR 97520 The Mayor and Ashland City Council Ashland Civic Center 1175 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Appeal of Planning Action 97-085 Public Hearing December 2, 1997 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We are submitting this letter as our testimony on the above matter for the hearing of December 2, 1997. We urge you to affirm the action of the Planning Commission and deny Ms. Johnston's appeal in this matter. As we stated in our remarks before the planning commission on September 9, 1997, we live directly in front of the subject property (Tax Lot 500 on the notice map). Our house is approximately 50 feet from the South pasture and across from the North pasture. Since Ms. Johnston has had Llamas on her property, we have experienced the unpleasant odor of the animals' urine and feces, particularly when the wind is blowing in our direction. We appreciate that Ms. Johnston has tried to reduce these odors by cleaning up after the animals, but we still continue to experience the odors. The problem is particularly exacerbated when it rains and the wind is blowing. While we have become somewhat acclimated to the odors, we have had guests who have refused to stay with us because with the odors. While Ms. Johnston's application seeks to increase the allowable head of livestock from two to four per acre, we.would We to point out that the actual acreage for pasturing the animals appears to be less than 2.5 acres, not 5 acres! We understand that the ordinance does not differentiate between pasturage and total acres owned by the livestock owner. However, if it was the intent of the drafters of the ordinance that each animal have approximately one-half acre of pasture, this operation falls considerably short of that even without the variance. Sincerely, Leslie P. Davis Jeanne F. Davis Leslie P. Davis Jeanne F. Davis 1407 Tolman Cr. Rd. DEC 1 5 1997 Ashland, OR 97520 The Mayor and Ashland City Council Ashland Civic Center 1175 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Appeal of Planning Action 97-085 Public Hearing December 2, 1997 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We are submitting this letter as our testimony on the above matter for the hearing of December 2, 1997. We urge you to affirm the action of the Planning Commission and deny Ms. Johnston's appeal in this matter. As we stated in our remarks before the planning commission on September 9, 1997, we live directly in front of the subject property (Tax Lot 500 on the notice map). Our house is approximately 50 feet from the South pasture and across from the North pasture. Since Ms. Johnston has had Llamas on her property, we have experienced the unpleasant odor of the animals' urine and feces, particularly when the wind is blowing in our direction. We appreciate that Ms. Johnston has tried to reduce these odors by cleaning up after the animals, but we still continue to experience the odors. The problem is particularly exacerbated when it rains and the wind is blowing. While we have become somewhat acclimated to the odors, we have had guests who have refused to stay with us because with the odors. While Ms. Johnston's application seeks to increase the allowable head of livestock from two to four per'acre, we would !ike to point out that the actual acreage for pasturing the animals appears to be less than 2.5 acres, not 5 acres! We understand that the ordinance does not differentiate between pasturage and total acres owned by the livestock owner. However, if it was the intent of the drafters of the ordinance that each animal have approximately one-half acre of pasture, this operation falls considerably short of that even without the variance. Sincerely, Leslie P. Davis Jeanne F. Davis '1 MEMORANDUM GREGGa.•' To: Mayor and City Council From: Jill Turner, Director of Finance Subject: 1997 General Obligation Flood Restoration and Refunding Bond Sale Date: December 15, 1997 The City of Ashland sold its G.O. Flood Restoration and Refunding Bonds, Series 1997 to Piper, Jaffray, Inc. The bonds are insured and carry a AAA rating. Moody Investors service gave the City an underlying rating of A2 with a stable outlook. Bonds range in maturity from 1998 to 2011 with rates of 3.75 percent to 4.65 percent. Bonds are available by calling either 1-800-444-3235 or 1-800-444-1707. The True Interest Cost is 4.58 percent. The present value of the refunding savings is $113,000, almost double what we had expected. 30, Aow��