Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0707 Hospital Mtg & Council Mtg PACKET HOSPITAL BOARD ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, July 7, 1998 at 6:45 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. STATUS OF ASHLAND COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE SERVICES BOARD REPORT IV. OPERATIONAL/FINANCIAL UPDATE V. ITEMS OF INTEREST VI. ADJOURNMENT Copies to Hospital Board Members ................. ........... .auending causal meetings may speak v: the subject of 7*:public #YOW VA ... Speaker Request farm locatedi near the er►trance : .. ..... ;W recognize you and I.niorm be depenttent to same::extent onthe nature oa the item under discussion,the number of people who AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 7, 1998 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. 11. ROLL CALL: Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting minutes of June 16, 1998. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None) V. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. Appointment of Paul Nolte as Judge Pro Tern for Saturday, August 1, 1998. 3. Authorization for Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed to terminate portion of drainage way easement on Oak Street. 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). 1. Consideration of CATV Assignment TCl/Falcon. Consideration of an amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.72.110 and Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards to establish a set of design standards for the downtown area. VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes totall- Council Meeting Pkt. NOTE: HOSPITAL BD. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN MEETING AT 6.45 P_-M. Crry RECORDER VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Council Decision on Appeal of Planning Action No. 97-054, Planning Commission Approval of a 25-lot subdivision on upper Strawberry Lane. Q IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Council Confirmation of CDBG Funding for Community Works Family Resource Center. 2. Governor Kitzhaber's appointment of Robbin Pearce to State Landscape Contractor's Board. 3. Council Meeting Look Ahead. X. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Approving the Transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise from TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. to Falcon Cable Systems Company II,.L.P.° 2. First reading of"An Ordinance Repealing Merchant Police Regulations, Chapter 6.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code, in Order to Comply with State Law." XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: XII. ADJOURNMENT: - - ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes June 3, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at the Community Center by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:38 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis,Terry Skibby,Vava Bailey, Dale Shostrom,Carol Abrahamson and Joyce Cowan. Also presentwere City Council Liaison Steve Hauck,Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Members Keith Chambers,Joan Steele and Curt Anderson were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Shostrom moved and Cowan seconded to approve the Minutes of the May 6, 1998 meeting as submitted. The motion was unanimously passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action 98-034 Conditional Use Permit and Site Review 122 Church Street Tim Sargent Knox related the applicant proposes to construct an accessory residential unit on the rear of the property which will face Pine Street. He will be restoring the existing house also. The application meets the criteria for an accessory unit, however, since this section of Pine Street is unimproved,one of the conditions of approval will be to improve it with crushed rock from Baum Street to High Street. Tim Sargent clarified he plans to build the accessory unit first, then work on restoring the existing house. He does not want to add on to the house. He noted he and his brother designed the accessory unit to fit into the neighborhood. Skibby asked about changes to the existing house. Sargent stated he is not sure if the exterior will change because there were some incompatible additions that were constructed in previous years. The front will be left as it is. Bailey commented she likes the orientation of the unit with the parking in the back. She is also pleased he decided to build a one story unit rather than two. Skibby said he feels comfortable with the placement of the parking also. Cowan remarked the window to the right of the door on the west elevation does not look right. Sargent said it will be a kitchen window and will likely have a stove,sink or counter space under the window. He said he could reposition it so it will be the same distance as the window to the left of the door and also make it the same width. Bailey added the window grouping on the south elevation would look better if the middle window also had a horizontal bar. Sargent said he could change that. The Commission also suggested all five windows on the south and east elevations be the same size. Cowan moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition the applicant change the windows on the south and east elevations. The motion included all staff conditions also be approved. After discussion, it was clarified the windows on the east elevation be all the same size. Abrahamson seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Planning Action 98-047 Site Review Between 648 and 628 North Main Street Ashland Community Hospital Foundation Knox explained this proposal is for the construction of a 1,770 square foot medical building on the front portion of the lot facing North Main Street. Parking will be in the rear and will be shared with the Ashland Internal Medicine Office. The design is simple and fairly contemporary with a shallow roof line. Staffs main concern is that the applicant is proposing T-1-11 siding, which is discouraged in the Historic District. The application meets all the other criteria. Pat Flannery,representing the Hospital Foundation,clarified the building will have press board,not T-1-11. Lewis suggested he also look at HardiPlank siding,which is cement-based and does not show the nail holes. Skibby stated he would rather see horizontal siding than vertical siding on the building. Flannery also noted the building was designed so it can be used for a business other than medical. Bailey said she was disappointed the building design is more in keeping with the contemporary designs of the buildings to the north than with the buildings in the Historic District. This building is in the Historic District and she feels it would be more interesting if it was more compatible with the retirement center than the medical office next door. Flannery said they looked at it more as being a part of a medical service complex. Abrahamson said it was designed more for function, which is a challenge because one is outside and the other is inside the Historic District. Discussion ensued on the windows. The Commission agreed they would look better if the large windows were divided into two or three vertical ones. Flannery stated the windows were designed to display the durable medical equipment, but the viewing would probably not be impacted if the windows were divided. He also said changing the siding from vertical to horizontal will not be a problem. He will research the types. Bailey and Cowan commented the entryway roof pitch should be higher. The Commission agreed. Shostrom moved to recommend approval of this application with the following three conditions: 1)4"to 6"horizontal siding be used,2)break the large windows into three vertical ones in each group,and 3)increase the entryway roof pitch to at least 6"x 12". Cowan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Planning Action 98-049 Conditional Use Permit 298 Hargadine Street Mark A. and Maddalena M. DiRienzo Knox explained this application is for a transfer of ownership for a one-unit travelers accommodation which was originally approved about three years ago. The applicants have read the record and file and are not proposing to make changes in the operation. Staff is recommending approval. With a motion by Skibby and second by Shostrom,it was the unanimous decision to recommend approval of this application. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of May follow: 71 Dewey Street Langley/Buckley Addition/Remodel 40 North Main Street Gordon Claycomb Awning Extension 311 North Main Street Carol Delgado Reroof 170 Oak Street Ashland Sanitary & Recycling Convert Storage to Office 135 Coolidge Street Hector Aleman Carport 671 "B" Street Thelma Olson Deck 137 Nob Hill Street Steve Rouse Garage 355 High Street Richard Fulton Garage 272 East Main Street Pangea Grills and Wraps Sign 370 Lithia Way OR Pacific Financial Advisory/etc. Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the June schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: June 4" Bailey, Cowan and Skibby June W Steele, Bailey and Skibby June 18' Chambers, Cowan and Skibby June 25' Lewis, Shostrom and Skibby July 2nd Shostrom and Skibby Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 3, 1998 2 OLD BUSINESS Project Assignments for Planning Actions PA# Address Persons Assigned 96-086 685"A" Street Curt Anderson/Jim Lewis 97-018 661 "B" Street Jim Lewis 97-075 40 North Main Street Dale Shostrom 98-022 112 Heiman Street Vava Bailey 98-082 141 Lithia Way Dale Shostrom 98-034 221 Oak Street Dale Shostrom 98-039 Holly Street Joan Steele and Joyce Cowan 98-045 122 Church Street Vava Bailey 98-047 Between 548&628 North Main Joyce Cowan Street Meter Locations Pete Lovrovich was unable to attend the meeting,so Abrahamson gave the Commission a summary of the meeting she and Skibby had with him a couple months ago. She said Lovrovich was very positive something could be worked out in the location of the meter boxes. He would like the Planning Department, Electric Department and Historic Commission to work together as a team. Certain requirements need to be met, but there are location possibilities and options available. Procedures will also need to be worked out. Ideally, the Electric Department would like the criteria and procedures to be given to the applicants at the pre-application stage. Abrahamson then stated since this would be her final meeting, it will be important the Commission study Lovrovich's proposal,then respond to it. Hauck added there is a whole series of aesthetic language in the cell tower ordinance. Also,the franchise agreement with US West should have language the Commission can use regarding the location of the utility boxes. Abrahamson stated the Historic Commission has a chance here to make a difference. Southern Oregon Historical Society Presence in Ashland There was nothing new to report. National Historic Preservation Week Skibby stated it is important to continue to have activities during the week to not only remind people of their heritage but also the heritage of the City of Ashland. After discussing the process of having judges who are not affiliated with the Historic Commission, it was decided if the Commission were to be the judges, the members would have more background information about each nomination. Therefore,Shostrom moved and Abrahamson seconded to officially designate the Historic Commission members asjudges during National Historic Preservation Week. The motion was unanimously passed. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 3, 1998 3 Grant for National Register Web Site Since Ashland has more structures on the National Register than will be allowed on the web site, each member will rank them for inclusion. Steele will write the summary for each site that will be included. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Restoration of the Name "Mill Creek" Hauck commented if the Historic Commission decided"Ashland Creek" should be changed back to"Mill Creek", the recommendation would go to the City Council, then that recommendation would most likely go to the State Geographic Board for final determination. This would have to be researched. Skibby stated he favors Ashland Creek and suggested the Commission receive more input on how the citizens feel about the name change. Shostrom noted it was named Mill Creek to begin with, then 16 years later it was renamed Ashland Creek, and has remained so for the past 130 years. Since no one on the Commission was enthusiastic about the name change, it was decided it should be discussed at a later date, after more citizen opinions are gathered. House Move Skibby stated Brad Roupp is proposing to move a house to 287 Oak Street. Skibby presented photographs of the house and Lewis commented the house seems compatible with the area where it will be moved. Skibby noted that after researching the house, it seems to be one of the first houses in the area and could have been the Hargadine cabin. Bandshell Color Shostrom informed the Commission he had spoken with a painting contractor who told him he had been commissioned to paint the bandshell white. Knox said Public Works Director Paula Brown had asked him to research the original color. He had received help from Skibby in the determination it was off-white. Shostrom wondered if off-white would be appropriate now and suggested it be repainted a hue similar to what it is now or an earth tone. Skibby maintained off- white was the original color and Abrahamson added most historic public buildings were originally painted off-white. Skibby was the only member who felt the bandshell should be repainted off-white. Knox will speak with Brown regarding the color. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Shostrom and second by Skibby, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes June 3, 1998 4 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 17, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers IN ATTENDANCE Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer were present. Staff present included: City Administrator Mike Freeman, Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles, City Attorney Paul Nolte, Director of Electrical Utilities Pete Lovrovich, Director of Finance Jill Turner, Public Works Director Paula Brown, Chief of Police Scott Fleuter, and Fire Chief Keith Woodley. THE ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a brief update on the Wastewater Treatment Plant project, explaining both on-site and off-site portions of the project. Looking at the on-site portion of the project, Brown explained that the deadline for construction bids had been extended from July 2nd to July 15th, as noted in her recent "Update on Recent Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrade Issues" memo to Council. Noted that the Environmental Quality Commission(EQC) had approved the City's request for a waiver of the dilution rule for winter time discharges. Discussed concerns of the Ashland Wetlands Coalition as addressed in an issue paper provided to Council. Emphasized that the expressed goal of the Council is to put as much water back into the creek as possible. Discussed replacement water issue. Councilor Laws noted the need to keep track of replacement water. With regard to the Wetlands Demonstration project, Brown explained that construction was completed last July. As such, no growth data is available. Discussed phosphorous levels, with Brown explaining that until there is data from a spring and summer season the results are inconclusive. Brown indicated that at the present, the only data available is for last winter. Brown stated that she would keep Council posted as further results become available. Carl Oates, of the Ashland Wetlands Coalition, stated that it is a mistake for the City to get involved in replacement water. Explained that this is not the City's responsibility, and emphasized that it is irrigation water. Concluded that the City should demand that the state and federal government conduct negotiations to address the issue of spray irrigation. Noted that these concerns are addressed in a letter he has presented to Council. General discussion of water rights and replacement water. Mayor Shaw explained what happens when the City does not have access to water held in the dam. City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that from a legal standpoint, if and when water is used, the water right should be spelled out so that the City knows what its responsibilities are. Councilor Laws emphasized that the City has a moral obligation to replace water in the creek in regard to the fish. Mayor Shaw asked that the project not be done is such a way that the State make spray irrigation a legal responsibility for the City. Brown explained that the DEQ permit recognized that the City is doing a Wetlands Demonstration project, and the permit does not specify how water is to be replaced. Brown discussed the off-site portions of the project. Provided a brief update on the status of controversial pieces of property. Noted that original proposal had been sent to property owners, and that there have been some changes since the original proposal. There are now two stages of bio-processing which had initially been a cause of some concern. Astdand City Council Study Session Minutes 06-17-98 1 Confirmed that the City is meeting with all interested parties and looking at the best re-use methods, and that they do not have all of the answers at this time. Brown emphasized that many county residents don't understand the water quality issues involved and question why this is being done. Explained that the City has various consultants looking at the issues, and design work should be complete in February of 1999, which is within the original time line. Councilor Reid questioned the tertiary costs of making water drinkable. Brown stated that a study has been conducted, and this option has been shown to be very expensive. Councilor Hagen emphasized the need to let both the Department of Environmental Quality and the neighbors know that the wastewater issue is part of the City's Master Water Plan, and stressed the need to understand that effluent is a resource. THE 1998/1999 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Public Works Director Paula Brown made note of the memo she had provided Councilors, and gave a synopsis of the information presented. It was noted that Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street should be added to the list of streets needing improvement. Brown explained that there are no set criteria for putting streets on this list, and that she had looked at unpaved streets, and was seeking direction from the Council as to what streets should be selected for improvement. Councilor Reid stated that she would like to look at the Strawberry Lane neighborhood. Councilor Hagen stated that it was his impression that the Council was not looking for a list of streets, but was looking for a dollar amount to go with the Council Goals that were set regarding alternative transportation issues. Brown pointed out the memo she had sent regarding the LID Committee, and asked Council for clearer criteria from which she could work to bring information back to the Council. Councilor Laws emphasized the need to be careful not to give away money in a manner that other will come to expect. Stated that the Transportation Plan needs to be completed before Council can make decisions. Suggested that this may necessitate waiting until the next fiscal year. Stated that he is willing to wait until the LID Committee has submitted its recommendation. Councilor Reid commented on recycled blacktop and how it seems to be effective. Questioned the costs and whether it could be used on an interim basis. City Administrator Mike Freeman suggested that Council put this issue on hold until the LID Committee's report is complete, and look at shorter term projects in the meantime. Councilor Reid suggested incorporating information on the use of recycled blacktop into continued proposals and alternatives for funding regarding transportation. Councilor Laws stressed the need to look at long term cost effectiveness when considering options. Mayor Shaw stated that the use of recycled blacktop may create problems with LIDS. Noted that proposals should include Council Goals. Noted that she does not see paving as a separate issue from alternative transportation. Also emphasized that paving would take care of potential dust problems, which relates to current air quality control efforts. Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes 06-17-98 / 2 i - THE MARK ANTONY HOTEL City Administrator Mike Freeman noted the seven main issues outlined in his recent memo to the Council. Recommended that the Councilors tour the Mark Antony, and suggested that he could schedule a time for such a tour in the next week. City Attorney Paul Nolte stated that he would make sure a tour by council was acceptable to the current owners. Stated that Councilors could contact Freeman for a tour time. Discussed the possibility of a "video visit", and the City's responsibility with regard to safety issues. Emphasized that the Uniform Fire Protection Code needs to be enforced. THE ISSUE OF BANNERS IN THE CITY City Attorney Paul Nolte noted the types of banners that have been hung in the City, and stated that Council had been provided with copies of the "East Main Street Banner Instruction& Requirements" which are currently in use. Explained that the current issue involves a religious banner that individuals believed was City-sponsored. The issue involves whether the City has created a "limited public forum" which is "content neutral". Stated that the policy may not be "content neutral" if it prohibits advertising. Discussion of the possibility of crafting a policy that would meet constitutional requirements. Suggested tailoring a policy that limits banners to City-sponsored events, or possibly just events. Council discussion of what constitutes an "event". Nolte suggested that current policy continue until a new policy can be crafted and adopted. REVISIONS TO CITY CONTRACTS City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that the proposed Resolution to revise City contracts arose out of frustration over the City's having no control over the actions of its affiliates. Asked for direction from the Council on how they would like to proceed and how far they would like it to go. Explained that Resolution proposed would incorporate adherence to the Valdez Principles as a requirement to contracts entered into with the City. Noted that Section 2 is incomplete at present, as potential wording is still being looked into. Councilor Laws stated his feeling that this is a non-issue. Suggested that Council wait until the issue comes up before taking action. Stated that a Resolution of this nature opens up "a can of worms" because it is too broad and general, and could develop standards that could be challenged. Councilors concurred with Councilor Laws' comments. Staff was directed to discontinue further action on this item. A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FIRE STATION City Administrator Mike Freeman and Assistant City Administrator Greg Scoles noted the recent memo on Fire Station Planning which included a planned schedule for the construction of Fire Station#1. Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes 06-17-98 3 Freeman explained that item N1, a meeting with property owners in the immediate vicinity, had been completed. Also noted that Council may be unaware that item N4, the update of space requirements analysis, has been completed. Noted that Scoles had been asked to coordinate space needs issues. Scoles explained the process involved in going out for an RFP. Noted that this process hinges upon how much property and space is going to be needed. Noted the constriction of space in both fire stations, and explained the areas where they are located. Noted the difficulties surrounding this issue. Councilor Hauck suggested looking at the possibility of reversing which Fire Station is considered the main station, so that Fire Station Nl would be switched to the present location of Fire Station k2. Scoles explained that the memo given to Councilors was for informational purposes only, to explain the processes underway. Emphasized that Council will be kept up to date and provided with additional information as it becomes available. Councilor Laws stated that he was in favor of condemnation if necessary, and noted that the present site has been shown to be an ideal location. Councilor DeBoer suggested that conceptual drawings be provided first, and then proceeding with further design and construction details. Stated that this is the more cost effective approach. Council discussion regarding the possibility of a shared parking lot on lower Mountain Avenue with the Parks Department. Emphasized that this was just an idea to be explored. Councilor Reid stated that she likes leaving the issue open for ideas and concepts. Scoles noted that he would be visiting the new Fire Station just constructed in Corvallis and would bring back photos and blue prints for Council to review. TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUE Councilor Hagen noted that development on lower Tolman Creek Road has created a hazardous traffic problem, and presented a video. Suggested that staff bring back recommendations. Noted that this is a county owned road, and asked that the electric box be moved and landscaped. An area property owner stated that even if the box and landscaping are removed from their present location the problem will not be resolved, and there is a safety issue involved. Discussion of whether a left turn lane is necessary. Councilor Hagen noted that if a five foot bicycle lane were installed, it might help with some of the safety concerns. ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer Ashland City Council Study Session Minutes 06-17-98 4 TRAFFIC/ SAFETY COMMISSION xx. �:::... .:........paa.�:.bee,�....�,ga �F.. ..x�... .Y......x.,..x...,K...... ..................,,,..,K,K ..�. .....o_.pxeax.w_...xe..a....K. ....... ................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................... Minutes of Meeting May 28, 1998 Members Present: J. David Fine, Bob Goeckerman, Don Laws, Michael Savko, John Morrison, William Snell; Staff Present: Ray Smith, Dawn Curtis I. Call to Order Council Member Laws called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM. II Approval of Minutes The April Meeting Minutes were approved with changes to Item 3.4 reflecting that David and Don would meet with Council as representatives to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission to clarify the respective roles of the Commissions. III Items for Discussion: A. PUBLIC FORUM ITEMS: None B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS / PROJECTS PENDING 1. Pedicab Permit Staff informed Commission as to the acceptance of the permit and that staff was presently awaiting a form from Strand signed by the police chief on the acceptance of safety equipment and lighting. 2. Third St. and B Street 4-Way Stop Staff discussed results of traffic study conducted after the request. Staff is reluctant to install a stop on this intersection based on the street being assigned as a collector and because the results of the study did not warrant the need for a stop. Laws called for vote on the denial of this request. Morrison seconded. Vote is unanimous. Request denied. G:Dawn\TraAMay 98.wpd 3. Scenic Drive Stop Sign Request Staff again reported history of street and informed Commission they were negotiable on the installation of the stop sign. Acklin informed Commission that neighbors were delighted at the idea of a stop sign. Laws asked for opinions of the Commission. They were all in favor of the stop sign. Request presented, Snell moved, Fine seconded. Vote was unanimously passed to install the stop sign. 4. Parking Restrictions at 570 Glenwood Commission moved to approved request. Vote passed unanimously. C. FOLLOW-UP ON PREVIOUS TRAFFIC ACTIONS Fine requested update on the ODOT report for the intersection including E. Main, Third Street and Lithia Way. ODOT had informed the Commission in December that they would provide traffic and pedestrian suggestions to the commission within three months. That was six months ago. Would staff please follow up with ODOT as to the status. D. HANDICAP ISSUES - None E. TRAFFIC SAFETY EDUCATION COMMITTE 1. School Safety Program - No report 2. SOU Traffic Safety Committee - No report 3. Traffic Safety Notes - None F. EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES No discussion. G. GOAL SETTING - Commission discussed the possibility of having study sessions focusing on certain topics instead of setting goals for the Commission. Discussion ensued. Study sessions would be beneficial. Suggestion was given to do study sessions in place of regular meeting and attend to urgent requests if they appeared. Study sessions should include the Council. Fine suggested the first study session be centered on crosswalk marking alternatives. Preparation and presentation to include costs of alternatives, literature, reports and guest speakers to the study session. H. Other- None IV. Informational Items - No Discussion G:Dawn\Traf\May 98.wpd VI. For Next Meeting: None. VI. Meeting was Adjourned at 7:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, James H. Olson Assistant City Engineer G:Dawn\Traf\May 98.wpd Ashland Forest Commission June 17, 1998 Council Chambers F MEMBERS PRESENT: William Robertson, Eric Schehen, Richard Brock, Teri Coppedge, Fred Bennewies and Councilor Susan Reid. Staff: Paula Brown; Keith Woodley; Jeff McFarland; Dawn Curtis Guests: Marty Main, William Hicks I. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. H. MINUTES OF April 8, 1998: Minutes were approved as submitted. M. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. SILVACULTURE: Marty Main presentation. B. FORREST COMMISSION GOALS: IV. STATUS UPDATES: A. Forest Lands Contracting- Keith Woodley B. REAL Corps B. Updates on Trail Users Subcommittee -Eric Shehen C. Budget request for Next Year D. Other Subcommittee Reports. II OTHER BUSINESS- Commission Members/Audience A. Next Meeting Date VII. ADJOURN There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. City Council Communication July 7, 1998 Submitted by. yYaul None Approved by: Mike FreemenMf- Title: Request for judge pro tem appointment. Synopsis: I have been asked to perform a marriage ceremony on Saturday, August 1, 1998, in Lithia Park. In order to be appointed judge pro tem, city ordinance requires such appointment to be made by the mayor and confirmed by the council. Recommendation: I would like to be appointed as a pro tem municipal judge for Saturday, August 1, 1998. Background Information: This will be my sixth marriage! aNgWk=vcouxcur. \ s7M.pa MAYORAL APPOINTMENT g By virtue th orio vested u- th City of Ashland, = reg y° y Co § 2.28.200, I appoint l Ashland, �M. pro tempo , fo os rria etween JX Samanthcf Its , Acst 1, 1998. e M. Shaw, Mayor - -_ Confirmed by the City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon, at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on July 7, 1998. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION JULY 71, 1998 Submitted By: Paula Brow Approved By: Mike Freem Approved By: Gre Scole Title: REVISION OF DRAINAGE WAY EASEMENT Synopsis• Mr. Jeff Golden has requested a termination of a portion of a drainage way easement established when the property was partitioned in 1994. A Quitclaim Deed has been prepared(attached) which would terminate approximately 0.107 acres of drainage way easement to accommodate future building plans on the lot. Background Information: Land Partition Plat No. P-74-1994 created the present lot boundaries as shown on the attached map. In addition, the partition created a large drainage way easement extending from Ashland Creek to within approximately 120 feet of Oak Street. The easterly boundary of the easement extends approximately 62 feet beyond the limits of the adopted flood plain boundary. A sale is pending on the property (391E413D tax lot 1304)and the building plans presented by the proposed owner encroach into the easement area. A request similar to this one was approved by the Council on November 5, 1996 for the parcel to the north of lot 1304. John McLaughlin, Planning Director, has reviewed this request and has expressed his approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this request and that authorization be given for the Mayor and Recorder to sign the attached Quitclaim Deed. ATTACHMENTS: letter,vicinity map, easement map, deed CITY OF ASHLAND ,oF ASy Department of Public Works Engineering Division p MEMORANDUM oREGor'.. DATE: June 9, 1998 TO: Paula Brown, Paul Nolte, John McLaughlin FROM: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer RE: Revision of Drainage Way Easement a Mr. Jeff Golden has presented the attached Quitclaim Deed which is intended to revise the limits of an existing drainage way easement along Ashland Creek. The original 100-year flood line, as established by FEMA apparently differs from the later Planning Department re-establishment which has been officially adopted. Although the flood boundary limits were officially altered, the underlying drainage way easement that was created by a land partition plat in 1994 still retains its original limits. The attached Quitclaim Deed is intended to release all of the City's right, title and interest into that portion of drainage way easement as described on attached Exhibit "N'. This request is similar to the request approved by Council on November 5, 1996. Do you have any objections to this proposal? Mr. Golden would like to schedule this action on the July 7u' Council Meeting. Do you foresee any problems in meeting this schedule? Are there any other considerations to be made? CC: Bill Molnar Adam Hanks G:DawntEngineertEasement\Golden Drainage Way Easement.wpd � � ----'--�-��- --`^� ------'~--' -7----- ----� � - __----'-_�-__�-'-'-�-- - � � -_--------_--__--'-_----------__----------__--------__�--'-�_�_�--'�--_--'_--_----' __-_--- -_--__-_--_�-_-�- -'----------'---'-_----_'_---____'-----_-_-__---_-_------_---'�-�--_-_---___-_-_-__'----_�� -_-_'_'___'-'__--____-----_-_-------_--_--__-_-_-_�------__'---_--�_--_�--_---_---_--_---- --- 173 0 Ab Oj � - --'-' _---------'----_-__---_-'____-_--�_---_--_'�--_-_'_--- ,-_--..................... -------------_....'_-'-----'-------'-----__----_--------_--_--__'--__'_--_-_-'-'----_--'---_--��-_ ' 203 ••ii ry H I � OSO ]- \ 1,9 PARTITION PLAT N E V A D A NO P-45-1990 Oi � fat• '` .. C 1900 9012 702 �`0... 2�., 1901 �' Cex 0131 �'ti II w .4 , IP.RU70 4 •V[4CN PM.aY m 7 s73 -R00 f J a21 K W F ..,. I O 3 N�;:.1 , i'w•y az ey ok zgQe (ZI y moi .„l9e A.a w w ..en,l6o�s i 1o6:0l 0 s 0 2x 20 c Q eoo� V+ [. W t 1607 1600 1604 ] 0.2onc 2 0.O4c oux•'.�J �-1 u 0 6 ...5 Ok T.M.. " :•OAK MEADOWS Q ,, 1 �� 1608 °�`� • I � —PLACE y- ' :X: 2 i0.20AC Z. ;a.S' (/�Q A, 001 e CS 14670 : ' 1601 . . 4Q 2002 1 I �� T, 1611 ,-11,1 i.o15m ;� � ~Q 0.. m1 ` 0.W I 9 ! Q V p pqa 1612 J 141, c Ocf) o.oex > c3x 4 2003 I 1501 1 R�9e 5% 0 o" ] C 1O63nc s. Y a 0173 S. i 9 q 11 1 2004 ¢ ,M. Lin• OLG 41 1i a.m:x " , y 1 � u � 4901990 �r.}.,.1 4.1 Mm(Milxxx� a Le • ' ,n, - 2005 -!.*300 4 r..NE G L 0 ...�, I y - z PCL • ,... 1320g54 C9 13300 \••• •~ • .�' PM 1997 i ,111 p I" a-1402 '` - , 1100 1 2006 i 1 )) miiliux0 i - !.°, ::1303 P_74_I994 o.ez x .a. r '•�' ' ADOPTED.100 YR. FLOOD BDRY. P 1 0' IIOI ' ;^ 2007 1 2 1304 P-74-1994 `' 1 [ 0.92ft _14112 ! 130404 TAS�EMBIT TO BE TE.FtJA1NATED 10'.92 ml 1400 . 1200 Y 14_01• �e + I �(O Q �` 2c R Oi1b OO GOLDEN EASEMENT TERMINATION REQUEST CITY OF ASHLAND ENGINEERING DIVISION JUNE 10, 1998 REDUCED SCALE roaY w.m-YmswY uccu pmrvauu w awvo,.�.,. 10 ____City._af_lasbland___________ _ STATE OF OREGON, ________________ ss. ____III_East_Main_Street____________________ County of__________________________ SBLeNp___OB_37320__________________________ 1 certify that the within instrument s.ntore lb.+Yr aaam. was received for record on the ______ day frey_S__Golden__________________________ of______________________________-19_____,at 93Z_.OaJcStreet______________________________ ___________o'clock------M.,and recorded in acnrasn_ 0.97520_________________________ book/reel/volume No. ___________ on page oY"Y.ux.,.Yb xaab.s sPncc axsemao and/or as fcc/Ble/instru- AIM,wvYK.Mon b tMNa.aCa.�M1 rapt: ro't Rent/ds of said County. No. --------------------------------_--------------------- naconoana uss Records o[said County. ----c"^t:ae---------------------------------------- Witness my hand and scat of County ________________________________________________________ affixed. WY wM.W bM,MM bM W W.YYmMN b PNnM.MM4>bI: ________________________________________________________ ---------E---------------------FmS-______ _____Grantee_________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ _,Dc By________ poly. QUITCLAIM DEED KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS that---S_ity_of ------------------------------------ ctrpxir �3 n :.: H Q . a : '' 3 O o `� o CD O CD CD CD CD (ND CD CD CD CD cr W CD CD CD Cr CD 0--i CD CD 14 . E CD CD CL o . . . ........ 1 • • I CAD cn n CD n �• n � • CD cr CD CD m a CD O r-� CD �+ n CD �-, O �. �• CD CD CD • ►� O CD t% CD CD CD 0 o � CD o • CAD M.d' CD �--►. CD CD (D �0 ` �3 • CD CD o n CD o o c *NOW n CD CD CD y CD � n �o �3 N J N CD CDWNW ME" CD CD CD p �s' Pot, N ►� �• O p C• CD O CL C D ~• CD CD R° CD CD ONO • rD O roll- CD A O 8� �.O �3 • CD CD CD CD CD CD ' rD cD CD CD CD CD lot CD CD CD v CL � � rD cr cr � CDp � d o C CD , mw• CrQ O o CIA o $o �o y CD CD O cn CL CD CD , C -' p CD v� CD CD ~• M A� CD CD � � O o CD o CL CD CL CD �3 CD n ~ � CD CD MEW us CD �► • CD O • CD CD CD O �. C CD O CA � CD CZ CD CAD O CD CD 00 CD CD CD � . o CD o $o • CD CD TI CD CD n: W � � CD CD CD CD o' O CD CD� � � O n n CD O n � CD CD CD � A CD (r '--' CD r-+ O �s rr r p 4r-�. � O O � Or `C O � �• O 0 C �. CD 0 o " CD 0 �, � P CD 0 n CD O• CD o CD . �z s s s s n CD 0 0 CD CL �' �-r • v� O v� v� ►-� O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD i.A CD CD ` D ' p CD CD ►� CD CD fIR CD CD C CD • CD n . v1 n r' CD �--r CD CD ri CD 0 CD City Council Communication July 7, 1998 (Continued From June 16, 1998) submitted by. G=Scoles Assistant City Administratof/Y Reviewed by. Paul Nolte.City Attomey " Approved by. Mike Freeman.City Administrator Title: First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Approving the Transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise from TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. to Falcon Cable Systems Company H,L.P." Synopsis: This ordinance approves the transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise to Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. a limited partnership. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance approving the transfer. Background Information: The franchise was originally granted to McCaw Communications of Southern Oregon for a 20 year period beginning on May 3, 1983. The franchise was then transferred in February 1987 to Cooke Cablevsion Inc., a Nevada Corporation and then in November 1989 it was transferred to TCI Cablevision of Oregon, the current owner. The franchise ordinance establishes the following requirements for transferring the franchise: Section 16. Transfer of Franchise The Grantee shall not lease,assign or otherwise alienate this franchise without prior approval of the Qy being granted by ordinance for that purpose,provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld On Friday,May 29, 1998, TCI Sled a revised FCC-394 Form with the city indicating their intention to transfer the franchise to Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. A copy of this form is attached for your review. Once this form has been Sled, the city then has 120 days to act on the transfer request. Although Section 16 establishes virtually no standard of review for such a transfer we did ask Falcon in a meeting held on April 14, 1998, if they wanted the city to consider any amendments to the franchise as part of this transfer. They indicated that they were not interested in any amendments to the current provisions of the franchise, other than the transfer. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE COMMUNICATION FRANCHISE FROM TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC. TO FALCON CABLE SYSTEMS COMPANY 11, L.P., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise as contained in Ordinance no. 2258 and amended by Ordinance nos. 2415, 2536, 2710 and 2737 from TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. ("TCI°) to Falcon Cable Systems Company 11, L.P., a limited partnership, ('Falcon") is approved provided that the closings of the transactions between TCI and Falcon occur as represented in the FCC Form 394 filed in this matter and the package of documents delivered to the city by TCI on May 29, 1998, a copy of which is on file with the City Recorder. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of , 1998, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _day of 1998. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of , 1998. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 1 — ORDINANCE (GATINAWDMINISUdord98.wpd) Fednd Commeniu =Coven W ApproKd by OM washinaroe,D.C.20554 FCC 394 30W-0573 APKICATION FOR FRANCHISE AUTHORITY CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FOR FRANCHISE AUTHORITY USE ONLY SECTION I. GENERAL INFORMATION DATE May 28, 1998 1. Community Unit Identification Number: OR0103 2. Application for: ® Assignment of Franchise ❑ Transfer of Control 3. Franchising authority: City of Ashland,OR 4. Identify community where the system/franchisc that is the subject of the assignment or transfer of control is located: City of Ashland,OR 5. Date tem was acquired or(for system's. nstructed by the transferor/assignor)the date on which service was proven ed to the first subscriber in the fiancluse area 1/10/90 6. Proposed effective date of closing of the transaction assigning or transferring ownership of the system to When all conditions to closing transferee/assignee: have been met. Currently anticipated to be August or September 1998. 7. Attach as an Exhibit a schedule of any and all additional information or material filed with this Exhibit No. application that is identified in the franchise as required to be provided to the franchising authority when N/A requesting its approval of the type of transaction that i fra s the subject of this application. PART I-TRANSFEROR/ASSIGNOR Indicate the name.mallinL address,and telephone number of die transfercir/assienor. Legal name of Transferor/Assignor(if individual,list last name first) TCI Cablevision of Oregon,Inc. Assumed name used for doing business(if any) Mailing street address or P.O.Box 5619 DTC Parkway — —_ City Englewood State CO ZIP Code 80111 T0l hone No.(include area code) 303-367-5500 2.(a) Attach as an Exhibit a copy of the contract or agreement that provides for the assignment or transfer of control Exhibit No. (including any exhibits or schedules thereto necessary in order to understand the terms thereof). If there is only 1 an oral agreement,reduce the terms to writing and attach. (Confidential trade,business,pricing or marketing information,or other information not otherwise publicly available,may be redacted). (b) Does the contract submitted in response to(a)above embody the full and complete agreement between ® Yes El No the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee? If No,explain in an Exhibit. 'Exhibits and schedules related to the agreement containing confidential Exhibit No. business information not otherwise publicly available have been omitted. N/A FCC 394 Segeniba 1996 PART II-TRANSFEREEIASSIGNEE 1. a Indicate the name, mailing address,and telephone number of the transferee/assignee. Legal name of Transferee/Assignee(if individual,fist last name first) Faloon Cable Systems Company II,LP. Assumed name used for doing business(if any) Mailing street address or P.O. Box 10900 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor City Los Angeles State CA ZIP Code 90024 Tel 5824 9990 include area code) W Indicate the name mailing address and telephone number of person to conta If other than transferee/assignee. Name of contact person(list last name first) Turpen,Janet Firm or company name(if any) TCI Northwest, Inc. Mailing street address or P.O. Box 2233 112th Avenue, N.E. City Bellevue State WA ZIP Code 98004 Telephone No. (include area code) (425 462-2799 (c) Attach as an Exhibit the name, mailing address,and telephone number of each additional person who Exhibit 2 No. should be contacted, If any. d Indicate the address where the system's records will be maintained. Street address Faloon Corporate Financial Center, 474 South Raymond Avenue City Pasadena State CA ZIP Code 91105 2. Indicate on an attached exhibit any plans to change the current terms and conditions of service and Exhibit No operations of the system as a consequence of the transaction for which approval is sought WA rCC 394 014.9 a.vb ftw 1w SECTION L TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Transferee/Assignee is: ❑ Corporation a. Jurisdiction of incorporation: 0. Name and address of registered agent in Jurisdiction: b. Date of incorporation: c. For profit or not-for-profit: ® Limited Partnership a. Jurisdiction in which formed: c. Name and address of registered agent in jurisdiction: California The Corporation Trust Company In. Date of formation: Corporation Trust Center 818 West 7th Street May 21, 1996 Los Angeles,CA 90017 ❑ General Partnership a Jurisdiction whose laws govern formation7 Date of formation: ❑ Individual ❑ Other. Describe in an Exhibit. Exhibit No NA 2. List the transfereelassignee,and,if the transferee/assignee is not a natural person+each of its officers,directors,stockholders beneficiallyy holding more than 5%of the outstanding voting shares,general partners,and limited partners holding an equity interest of more than 5%. Use only one column for each individual or en4ty. Attach additional pages if necessary. (Read carefully-the lettered items below refer to corresponding lines in the following table.) (a)Name,residence,occupation or principal business,and principal place of business. (If other than an individual,also show name, address and citizenship of natural Person authorized to vote the voting securities of the applicant that it holds.) List the applicant first, officers,ne.4 then directors and,thereafter,remaining stockholders and/or partners. f e Citizenship. Relationship to the transferee(assignee(e.g.,officer,director,etc.). Number of shares or nature of partnership interest. Number of votes. Percentage of votes. a Falcon Cable Systems Company II,L.P. Falcon Cable Communications,LLC Falcon Investors Group Ltd.,a California 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Limited Partnership Los Angeles,CA 90024 Los Angeles,CA 90024 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Los Angeles,CA 90024 (b) Delaware Delaware California (e) Same General Partner/Limited Partner Managing General Partner (d) N/A General Partner/Limited Partner Managing Genial Partner (e) N/A N/A N/A (f) N/A 990/6 1% FCC I%Pw r Sept.n IM 3. If the applicant is a corporation or a limited partnership Is the transferee/assignee formed under the laws of;or duly qualified to transact business In, the Mate or other jurisdiction in which the system ® Yes ❑ No operates? Exhibit No. If the answer Is No, explain in an Exhibit. 'Transferee/Assignee is or will be qualified in each state WA In which it will transact business by the time the transaction closes. 4. Has the transferee/assignee had any Interest In or In connection with an application which has been 1:1 Yes ® No dismissed or denied by any franchise authority? If the answer is Yes,describe circumstances in an Exhibit Exhibit No, 5. Has an adverse finding been made or an adverse final action been taken by any court or ❑ Yes ® No administrative body with respect to the transferee/assignee In a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, brought under the provisions of any law or regulation related to the following: any felony, revocation, suspension or involuntary transfer of any authorization (including cable franchises) to provide video programming services; mass media related antitrust or unfair competition; fraudulent statements to another governmental unit; or employment discrimination? If the answer Is Yes, attach as an Exhibit a full description of the persons and matters) Involved, Exhibit No. Including an Identification of any court or administrative body and any proceeding(by dates and file WA numbers, if applicable), and the disposition of such proceeding. 6. Are there any documents, instruments contracts or understandings rein ing too 2ership or future [] Yes 19 No ownership rights with respect to any a(tributable Interest as described (Including, but not limited to, non-voting stock Interests, beneficial stock ownership Interests, options, warrants, debentures)? If Yes, provide particulars in an Exhibit WA 7. Do documents, instruments agreements or understandings for the pledge of stock of the ❑ Yes ® No transferee/asslgnee, as security for loans or contractual performance, prorlde that (a)voting rights will remain wwr[hn the appllca�K even in the event of default on the obligation; (b)in the event of defau there will be either a private or public sale of the stock and (c)prior to the exercise of any Ip rights by a purr at a sale described In(b1, any prior consent of the FCC and/or of the franchssi authority If requlred pursuant to federal, state or local law or pursuant to the terns of the franchh agreement will be obtained? If No, attach as an Exhibit a full explanation. Exhl 3 No . SECTION III-TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS commititteed rresoourrcces to consummate the transaction and net liquid assets cilities Tor three months. Yes ❑ No 2. Attach as an Exhibit the most recent financial statements, prepared in accordance with ggenerally Exhibit No. accepted ao�ntinngg principles, Including a balance sheet and Income statement for at least one full 4 year, for the transferee/assignee or parent entity that has been prepared in the ordinary course of business, if any such financial statements are routinely prepared. Such statements, if not otherwise publicly available, may be marked CONFIDENTIAL and will be maintained as confidential by the franchise authority and its agents to the extent permissible under local law. SECTION N-TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS Set forth In an Exhibit a narative account of the transferee'stassignee's technical qualifications, experience Exhibit No. and expertise regarding cable television systems, including but not limited to,summary information about 5 appropriate management personnel that will be Involved in the system's management and operations. The transferee/assignee may,but need not, list a representative sample of cable systems currently or formerly owned or operated. In 'SECTION V-CERTIFICATIONS Part 1-Transferor/Assignor ,II the statements made in the application and attached exhibits are considered material representations, and all the Exhibits are a haterial part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. Signature I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief aWJ are made in good faith. Date PUN`ISUHABLEE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. FORM S. ARE TITLE 18,SECTION 1001. Print full name Check ropriate classification Corporate officer Individual ❑ General Partner ❑ a teTiO� ❑ other. n0 Part II-TransfereelAssignee All the statements made in the application and attached Exhibits are considered material representations,and all the Exhibits are a material part hereof and are Incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. The transfereelassignee certifies that hdshe: 'a)Has a current copy of the FCC's Rules governing cable television systems. (b)Has a current copy of the franchise that is the subject of this application,and of any applicable state laws or local ordinances and . related regulations. (c) VYII use its best efforts to comply with the terms of the franchise and applicable state laws.or local ordinances as related regulations,and to effect changes,as promptly as practicable,in the operation of the system,if any changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing. Signature 1 CERTIFY that the statements in this ap dge an are W re On _ sx9nhplete a correct to the best of my edge and belief and are made in good faith. Date U FD R MNENU. PUNISHABLE HABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. CODE, ll name TITLE 18,SECTION 1001. Print fu u —p. HOWARD GAN Check appropriate classification: Other. Explain: individual General Partner m F-1 u oP. Falcon Holding Gr n FCC 394 bare 51 SECTION V-CERTIFICATIONS Part I-Transferor/Assignor t" 'tie statements made in the application and attached exhibits are considered material representations,and all the Exhibits are a ial part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. Signature I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. Date WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. U.S.CODE, TITLE 18,SECTION 1001. Print full name William R.Fitzgerald Check appropriate classification: ❑ Individual ❑ General Partner ® Corporate Officer ❑ Other,Explain: (Indicate Title) Vice President Part I1-Transferee/Assignee All the statements made in the application and attached Exhibits are considered material representations,and all the Exhibits are a W part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. The transferee/assignee certifies that hetshe: (a) Has a current copy of the FCCs Rules governing cable television systems. (b) Hasa current copy of the franchise that is the subject of this application,and of any applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations. (c) Will use its best efforts to comply with the terms of the franchise and applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations,and to effect changes,as promptly as practicable,in the operation of the system,if any changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing. Signature CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. Date WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001. Print full name Check appropriate classification: Corporate Officer ❑ Other, Explain: ❑ Individual ❑ General Partner (Indicate Title) FCC 3�(PN 5) 6aPlannr 1996 TCI March 5, 1998 Ms. Jill Turner Finance Director City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Turner: As you may be aware,TCI has entered into agreements with several cable television operators over the past year as we strive to provide first-rate cable service to the communities we serve. To that end, TCI has decided to enter into partnership with Falcon Holding Group, an excellent cable company which has been committed to providing quality service to non-urban communities since it was founded in 1975. TCI is excited to be teaming up with Falcon to focus on providing superior service to several of its non-urban communities. While TCI will retain a minority interest in the new partnership to be known as Falcon Communications, Falcon Holding Group will be the majority owner and will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the new partnership's cable systems, including your local cable system. We are now requesting your consent to our proposed transaction. The transaction between Falcon and TCI is quite straightforward. TCI is contributing a number of its cable systems in several states to the new partnership in exchange for a 47%minority ownership in Falcon Communications. We have enclosed a large package of documents, including a completed FCC Form 394, which is the formal FCC approved application for consent to transfer the franchise from TCI to Falcon Communications. As part of the package, we have included a model franchise transfer resolution for your convenience and consideration. . The information contained in the four page FCC Form 394 itself should provide you with all of the basic factual information necessary in order for you to make a determination on our request for approval of the transfer. However, should you wish to go into more depth, all the requisite information and exhibits are included in this voluminous package. Following your review of this information,we would appreciate it greatly if you would place consideration of the franchise transfer resolution on your agenda as soon as possible. Falcon and/or TCI representatives will contact you shortly to discuss any questions you may have. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to call Janet Turpen, the TCI Franchise Director for your community, who can be reached at (425) 462-2799, or Falcon's representative, Howard Gan at (310) 208-3755. Terrace Tower 11 Post Office Box 5630 5619 DTC Parkway Denver,CO 80217-5630 Englewood,CO 80111-3000 (303)267-5500 An Equal opporrumly Employer Ms. Jill Turner March 5, 1998 Page 2 The closing of the transaction is expected to occur in the second quarter of 1998 as soon as all required regulatory approvals have been obtained. I would appreciate your countersigning and dating a copy of this letter and returning the countersigned copy to me so that we have a record of your receipt of the enclosed materials. We believe you will find that Falcon's extensive cable television operating experience and its unique focus on small to medium sized communities will enable them to serve your community well into the next century. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Bickford System Manager Receipt on this day of 1998 of this letter and the FCC Form 394, including attachments, is hereby acknowledged. By: Name: Title: d+y+OF oy�` CITY OF ASHLAND ��ZZ Administration EGO MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 1998 TO: Mike Freeman, City Administrator FROM: Greg Scoles,Assistant City Administrato RE: Status of TCl/Falcon Request for Assignm nt of Franchise The cable television franchise holder TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. has filed a request to assign their franchise rights to Falcon Cable Systems Company II,L.P. Since there has been some confusion as to the status of this request I thought it would be a good idea to give you this summary: 1. On or about March 5, 1998, TCI Sled an application(FCC Form 394)to assign the franchise to Falcon Communications, L.P., a limited partnership. (Note: The city has 120 days to process this request) 2. April 3, 1998, 1 met with the City Attorney to discuss the requested assignment. 3. April 14, 1998, I met with Dan Bickford(TCI), Howard Gan(Falcon), and Michael Waxman(Falcon), to discuss the assignment of the franchise. 4. May 8, 1998, the City Attorney prepared a draft ordinance which would transfer the franchise to Falcon Communications, L.P., a limited partnership. This draft was faxed to Falcon and TCI and the item was to go to the City Council on May 19, 1998. 5. May 13, 1998, Falcon Cable TV faxed a revised ordinance to the City Attorney noting that the franchise was not to be transferred to Falcon Communications, L.P., as indicated in their application, but rather to Falcon Cable systems Company II, L.P. 6. May 21, 1998, we sent a letter to TCI and Falcon noting that the FCC Form 394 appeared to be inaccurate and needed to be amended in order for us to process their request to assign the franchise to Falcon Cable systems Company H, L.P. 7. May 26, 1998, I talked to Howard Gan from Falcon and he indicated he would be overnighting the revised application information to me so we could place this item on the Council's June 2, 1998, agenda. 8. May 28, 1998, Howard Gan called the City Attorney to let him know that the information promised on the 26m would be here on the 29m. 9. May 29, 1998, the revised FCC Form 394 was submitted listing Falcon Cable systems Company II, L.P. as the assignee. (Note: The city has 120 days to process this new request) 10. June 1, 1998, this revised form was forwarded to the appropriate Department Heads for review and comment. It should also be noted that the Cities of Rogue River, Jacksonville and Talent are also dealing with this assignment issue and I was informed yesterday that some of them approved the request but are now having to go back and do the transfer over again because the original application was Sled using the wrong entity as the assignee(i.e., Falcon Communications,L.P.). 05-2 -98 11 :06AM FROM FALCON CABLE TV TO 15414885311 P001/002 FALCON CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone (310) 824-9990 • Fax (310) 824-4824 Falcon. FAX COVER PAGE To: 4-1 Fax No.: From: Howard Gan Pages (excluding cover pg): 1 Date: Fo�c,%0 C14�C(r S� BCg rr�PaN L• 05-29-98 11 :06AM FROM FALCON CABLE TV TO 15414885311 P002/002 Falcon. W DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: File From: Stan Itskowitch Date: May 28, 1998 Re: Falcon Operating Partnership's Financial Capacity Reasons why each of the Falcon lower tier operating partnerships, which arc direct owners of the cable systems, have the financial capacity and capability to meet all of their liabilities and obligations, including those which could result from futuro competition. After the completion of TCI transaction, the Falcon Group of entities will he structured, whereby the operating partnerships will each own specific cable system assets. There will be seven separate operating partnerships in the Falcon Group. Each of these operating partnerships generates substantial cash flow, which is available to the partnership to satisfy its obligations. In addition,the parent companies of said operating partnerships, i.e. Falcon Cable Communications, LLC (direct parent) and Falcon Communications, LP(indirect parent) will be the obligors with respect to the total borrowing capacity of the entire group on a consolidated basis. This borrowing capacity will be available to fund the obligations of all of ._ the operating partnerships, including capital expenditures, and resources to meet future competition. If, for example, one of the operating subsidiaries was undergoing financial pressure due to price competition, or needed funds for capital expenditues to upgrade its plant to meet competition, the full bank lines and debt capacity available to the entire Falcon group, which is in excess of$2 billion, would be available to support the needs of that particular partnership. 'Thus, a particular partnership is not constrained by a debt limitation for that partnership. All of Falcon's financial compliance covenants are measured on a consolidated basis. The ultimate parent companies, Falcon Holding Group, LP and TCL Falcon holdings, LLC are general partners of the parent companies (i.e. Falcon Cable Communications, LLC and Falcon Communications, LP) of the operating partnerships. As General Partners, they are fully responsible on a consolidated basis for the obligations of the lower tier operating partnerships. Therefore,while each lower tier operating partnership has a distinct group of assets,the capital structure for the entire organization is available to support each one of those separate operating partnerships. Thus, in reality the entire Falcon group of companies could be considered from a financial strength point of view as one large entity rather than seven small, separate entities. City Council Communication June 16, 1998 Submitted by. Greg Stoles i� Reviewed by. Paul Nolte J /// Approved by Mike Freeman M Title: First reading of"An Ordinance Approving the Transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise from TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. to Falcon Cable Systems Company 11, L.P." Synopsis: This ordinance approves the transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise to Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. a limited partnership. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance approving the transfer. Background Information: The franchise was originally granted to McCaw Communications of Southern Oregon for a 20 year period beginning on May 3, 1983. The franchise was then transferred in February 1987 to Cooke CableVision Inc., a Nevada Corporation and then in November 1989 it was transferred to TCI Cablevision of Oregon, the current owner. The franchise ordinance establishes the following requirements for transferring the franchise: Section 16. Transfer of Franchise. The Grantee shall not lease, assign or otherwise alienate this franchise without prior approval of the City being granted by ordinance for that purpose,provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld On Friday, May 29, 1998, TCI filed a revised FCC-394 Form with the city indicating their intention to transfer the franchise to Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. A copy of this form is attached for your review. Once this form has been filed, the city then has 120 days to act on the transfer request. Although Section 16 establishes virtually no standard of review for such a transfer we did ask Falcon in a meeting held on April 14, 1998, if they wanted the city to consider any amendments to the franchise as part of this transfer. They indicated that they were not interested in any amendments to the current provisions of the franchise, other than the transfer. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE COMMUNICATION FRANCHISE FROM TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON, INC. TO FALCON CABLE SYSTEMS COMPANY II, L.P., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise as contained in Ordinance no. 2258 and amended by Ordinance nos. 2415, 2536, 2710 and 2737 from TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. ("TCI") to Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P., a limited partnership, ("Falcon") is approved provided that the closings of the transactions between TCI and Falcon occur as represented in the FCC Form 394 filed in this matter and the package of documents delivered to the city by TCI on May 29, 1998, a copy of which is on file with the City Recorder. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of , 1998, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this_day of , 1998. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of , 1998. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 1 — ORDINANCE (GATINA\ADMINIST4c1 ord9B.wpd) Fedaal Communications Commission Approved by OMa Washington D.C.20554 FCC 394 3060.0573 APKICATION FOR FRANCHISE AUTHORITY CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FOR FRANCHISE AUTHORITY USE ONLY SECTION I. GENERAL INFORMATION DATE May 28, 1998 1. Community Unit Identification Number: OR0103 2. Application for: ® Assignment of Franchise El Transfer of Control 3. Franchising authority: City of Ashland OR 4. Identify community where the system/franchise that is the subject of the assignment or transfer of control is located: City of Ashland,OR 5. Date system was acquired or(for system's constructed by the transferor/assignor)the date on which service was provi ded to the first subscriber in the franchise area: 1/10/90 6. Proposed effective date of closing of the transaction assigning or transferring ownership of the system to When all conditions to closing transferedassignee: have been met Currently anticipated to be August or September 1998. 7. Attach as an Exhibit a schedule of any and all additional information or material filed with this Exhibit No. application that is identified in the franchise as required to be provided to the franchising authority when N/A requesting its approval of the type of transaction that is the subject of this application. PART I-TRANSFEROR/ASSIGNOR Indicate the name,mailine address,and telephone number of the tratisfercirlassienor. Legal name of Transferor/Assignor(if individual,list last name first) TCI Cablevision of Oregon,Inc. Assumed name used for doing business(if any) Mailing street address or P.O.Box 5619 DTC Partway City Englewood State CO ZIP Cade 80111 Telephone No.(include area code) 303-267-5500 2.(a) Attach as an Exhibit a copy of the Contract or agreement that provides for the assignment or transfer of control Exhibit No. (including any exhibits or schedules thereto necessary to order to understand the terms thereof). If there is only 1 an oral agreement,reduce the terms to writing and attach. (Confidential trade,business,pricing or marketing information,or other information not otherwise publicly available,may be redacted). (b) Does the contract submitted in response to(a)above embody the full and complete agreement between ® Yes E] No the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee? If No,explain in an Exhibit. 'Exhibits and schedules related to the agreement containing confidential Exhibit No. business information not otherwise publicly available have been omitted. N/A FCC 391 sewnta 1996 PART II-TRANSFEREEIASSIGNEE 1.(a Indicate the name, mailing address,and telephone number of the transferee/assignee. Legal name of Transferee/Assignee(if individual,list last name first) Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. Assumed name used for doing business(if any) Mailing street address or P.O. Box 10900 Wilshire Boulevard, 15th Floor City Los Angeles State CA ZIP Code 90024 Tele one No (include area code) W Indicate the name mailing address and telephone number of person to contact If other than transfereetassi nee. Name of contact person(list last name first) Turpen,Janet Firm or company name(if any) TCI Northwest, Inc. Mailing street address or P.O. Box 2233 112th Avenue, N.E. City Bellevue State WA ZIP Code 98004 Telephone No. (include area code) (425 462-2799 (c) Attach as an Exhibit the name, mailing address, and telephone number of each additional person who Exhibit No. should be contacted, if any. 2 d Indicate the address where the system's records will be maintained. Street address Falcon Corporate Financial Center, 474 South Raymond Avenue City Pasadena State CA ZIP Code 91105 2. Indicate on an attached exhibit any plans to change the current terms and conditions of service and Exhibit No. operations of the system as a consequence of the transaction for which approval is sought WA rcca»Nro.A s. nx+oce SECTION I. TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Transferee/Assignee is: ❑ Corporation a. Jurisdiction of incorporation: d. Name and address of registered agent in jurisdiction: b. Date of incorporation: c. For profit or not-for-profit: ® Limited Partnership a. Jurisdiction in which formed: c. Name and address of registered agent in California jurisdiction: The Corrpporation Trust Company b. Date of formation: Corpora[ion Trust Center 818 West 7th Street May 21, 1996 Los Angeles,CA 90017 ❑ General Partnership e: jurisdiction whose laws govern formation: b. Date of formation: ❑ Individual ❑ Other. Describe in an Exhibit Exhibit No NA 2. List the transferee/assignee,and,if the transferee/assignee is not a natural person,each of its officers,directors,stockholders beneficially holding more than 5%of the outstanding voting shares,general partners,and limited partners holding an equity interest of more than 5%. Use only one column for each individual or entity. Attach additional pages if necessary. (Read carefully-the lettered items below refer to corresponding lines in the following table.) (a)Name,residence,occupation or principal business,and principal place of business. (If other than an individual,also show name, address and citizenship of natural person authorized to vote the voting securities of the applicant that it holds.) List the applicant first, officers,nei!r then directors and,thereafter,remaining stockholders and/or partners. Citizenship. c Relationship to the transferee/assignee(e.g.,officer,director,etc.). d Number of shares or nature of partnership interest. e Number of votes. f)Percentage of votes. a Falcon Cable Systems Company B,L.P. Falcon Cable Communications,LLC Falcon Investors Group Ltd.,a California 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Limited Partnership Los Angeles,CA 90024 Los Angeles,CA 90024 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Los Angeles,CA 90024 (b) Delaware Delaware California (c) Same General Partner/Limited Partner Managing Gcneml Partner (d) N/A General Partner/Limited Partner Managing General Partner (e) N/A N/A N/A (0 N/A 99% 1% FCC 3%Peat r Sryp=b.1996 * �1 3. If the applicant Is a corporation or a limited partnership Is the transferee/assignee formed under the laws of, or duly qualified to transact business in, the State or other Jurisdiction in which the system Yes No operates? Exhibit No If the answer is No, explain in an Exhibit 'Transferee/Assignee is or will be qualified in each state WA In which it will transact business by the time the transaction closes. 4. Has the transferee/assignee had any Interest in or in connection with an application which has been El Yes ® No dismissed or denied by any franchise authority? If the answer is Yes, describe circumstances in an Exhibit. ExhiMNo. 5. Has an adverse finding been made or an adverse final action been taken by any court or ❑ Yes ® No administrative body with respect to the transferee/assignee in, a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, brought under the provisions of any law or regulation related to the following: any felony, revocation, suspension or involuntary transfer of any authorization (including cable franchises) to provide video programming services; mass media related antitrust or unfair competition; fraudulent statements fo another governmental unit; or employment discrimination? If the answer Is Yes, attach as an Exhibit a full description of the persons and matter(s) involved, Exhibit No. Including an Identification of any court or administrative body and any proceeding(by dates and file WA numbers, If applicable), and the disposition of such proceeding. 6. Are there any documents, Instruments contracts or understandings relating ownership or future ❑ Yes ® No ownership rights with respect to any aMbutable Interest as described 2(including, but not limited to, non-voting stock Interests, beneficial stock ownership interests, options, warrants, debentures)? If Yes, provide particulars in an Exhibit WA 7. Do documents, Instruments agreements or understandings for the pledge of stock of the ❑ Yes ® No trareeree/ampnee, as securRy for loans or contractual performance, provide that (a)voting rights will remain wRh the applicant, even in the event of default on the obligation; (b) in the event of default there will be either a private or public sale of the stock; and (c)prior to the exercise of any ownealp rights by.a purchaser at a sale described in(b), any prior consent of the FCC and/or of the franchising authority If required pursuant to federal, state or local law or pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement will be obtained? If No, attach as an Exhibit a full explanation. Exhibiit No. SECTION III-TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. The transfereelassignee certifies that it has sufficient net liquid assets on hand or available from Yes ❑ No committed resources to consummate the transaction and operate the facilities for three months. 2. Attach as an Exhibit the most recent financial statements, prepared in accordance with generally Exhibit No. aooepted accounting principles, including a balance sheet and income statement for at least one full 4 year, for the transferee/assIgnee or parent entity that has been prepared in the ordinary course of business,lt any such financial statements are routinely prepared. Such statements, if not otherwise publicly available, may be marked CONFIDENTIAL and will be maintained as confidential by the franchise authority and its agents to the extent permissible under local law. SECTION IV-TRANSFEREE'S/ASSIGNEE'S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS Set forth In an Exhibit a narrative account of the transferee's/assignee's technical qualifications, experience Exhibit No. and expertise regarding cable television systems, including but not limited to, summary information about 5 appropriate management personnel that well be involved en fie system's management and operations. The transferee/assignee may, but need not, list a representative sample of cable systems currently or formerly owned or operated. e� e° SECTION V-CERTIFICATIONS Part I -Transferor/Assignor VI the statements made in the application and attached exhibits are considered material representations, and all the Exhibits are a 4aterial part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. Signature I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief awJ are made in good faith. Date U STATEMENTS RN U. DPN SHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. CODE, TITLE 18,SECTION 1001. Print full name Check a ropriate classification: Corporate Officer Individual ❑ General Partner ❑ OndiateTide) ❑ Other. Explain: Part 11-TransfereelAssignee All the statements made in the application and attached Exhibits are considered material representations, and all the Exhibits are a material part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. The transferee/assignee certifies that he/she: 'a)Has a current copy of the FCC's Rules governing cable television systems. (b) Has a current copy of the franchise that is the subject of this application,and of any applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations. W Will use Its best efforts to comply with the terms of the franchise and applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations,and to effect changes,as Promptly as practicable,in the operation of the system,if airy changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing. Signature I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true, o complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. W Date ILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE lj c/ PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. U.S. CODE, TITLE 18,SECTION 1001. Print full name HOWARD GAN Check annrGpriate classification: Corporate Officer Individual ❑ General Partner R (indicate Tile) ❑ Other. Explain: V.P. Falcon Holding Group, Inc. KC 394(Pare 5) SECTION V-CERTIFICATIONS Part I-Transferor/Assignor t" tie statements made in the application and attached exhibits are considered material representations,and all the Exhibits are a ial part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. Signature I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. Date WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE 5 8 g PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. U.S.CODE, TITLE 18,SECTION 1001. Print full name William R.Fitzgerald Check appropriate classification: ❑ Individual ❑ General Partner ® Corporate Officer ❑ Other,Explain: (Indicate Title) Vice President Part 11-Tmnsferee/Assignee All the statements made in the application and attached Exhibits are considered material representations,and all the Exhibits are a W part hereof and are incorporated herein as if set out in full in the application. The transferee/assignee certifies that he/she: (a) Has a current copy of the FCC's Rules governing cable television systems. (b) Has a current copy of the franchise that is the subject of this application,and of any applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations. (c) Will use its best efforts to comply with the terms of the franchise and applicable state laws or local ordinances and related regulations,and to effect changes,as promptly as practicable,in the operation of the system,if any changes are necessary to cure any violations thereof or defaults thereunder presently in effect or ongoing. Signature I CERTIFY that the statements in this application are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are made in good faith. Date WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT. U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SECTION 1001. Print full name Check appropriate classification: Corporate Officer ❑ Other, Explain: ❑ Individual ❑ General Partner � (Indicate Title) FCC 3N(P.p 5) Sept 1996 TCl March 5, 1998 Ms. Jill Turner Finance Director City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Turner: As you may be aware,TCI has entered into agreements with several cable television operators over the past year as we strive to provide first-rate cable service to the communities we serve. To that end, TCI has decided to enter into partnership with Falcon Holding Group, an excellent cable company which has been committed to providing quality service to non-urban communities since it was founded in 1975. TCI is excited to be teaming up with Falcon to focus on providing superior service to several of its non-urban communities. While TCI will retain a minority interest in the new partnership to be known as Falcon Communications, Falcon Holding Group will be the majority owner and will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the new partnership's cable systems, including your local cable system. We are now requesting your consent to our proposed transaction. The transaction between Falcon and TCI is quite straightforward. TCI is contributing a number of its cable systems in several states to the new partnership in exchange for a 47%minority ownership in Falcon Communications. We have enclosed a large package of documents, including a completed FCC Form 394, which is the formal FCC approved application for consent to transfer the franchise from TCI to Falcon Communications. As part of the package, we have included a model franchise transfer resolution for your convenience and consideration. The information contained in the four page FCC Form 394 itself should provide you with all of the basic factual information necessary in order for you to make a determination on our request for approval of the transfer. However, should you wish to go into more depth, all the requisite information and exhibits are included in this voluminous package. Following your review of this information, we would appreciate it greatly if you would place consideration of the franchise transfer resolution on your agenda as soon as possible. Falcon and/or TCI representatives will contact you shortly to discuss any questions you may have. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to call Janet Turpen, the TCI Franchise Director for your community, who can be reached at (425) 462-2799, or Falcon's representative, Howard Gan at (310) 208-3755. Terrace Tower II Post Office Box 5630 5619 DTC Parkway Denver,CO 80217-5630 Englewood,CO 80111-3000 (303)267.5500 An Equal Opparlumly Employer Ms. Jill Turner March 5, 1998 Page 2 The closing of the transaction is expected to occur in the second quarter of 1998 as soon as all required regulatory approvals have been obtained. I would appreciate your countersigning and dating a copy of this letter and returning the countersigned copy to me so that we have a record of your receipt of the enclosed materials. We believe you will find that Falcon's extensive cable television operating experience and its unique focus on small to medium sized communities will enable them to serve your community well into the next century. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Bickford System Manager Receipt on this day of 1998 of this letter and the FCC Form 394, including attachments, is hereby acknowledged. By: Name: Title: CITY OF ASHLAND " OF Administration MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 1998 TO: Mike Freeman, City Administrator FROM: Greg Scoles, Assistant City Administrato RE: Status of TCl/Falcon Request for Assignm nt of Franchise The cable television franchise holder TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. has filed a request to assign their franchise rights to Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P. Since there has been some confusion as to the status of this request I thought it would be a good idea to give you this summary: 1. On or about March 5, 1998, TCI filed an application(FCC Form 394)to assign the franchise to Falcon Communications, L.P., a limited partnership. (Note: The city has 120 days to process this request) 2. April 3, 1998, I met with the City Attorney to discuss the requested assignment. 3. April 14, 1998, I met with Dan Blckford(TCI), Howard Gan(Falcon), and Michael Waxman(Falcon), to discuss the assignment of the franchise. 4. May 8, 1998, the City Attorney prepared a draft ordinance which would transfer the franchise to Falcon Communications,L.P., a limited partnership. This draft was faxed to Falcon and TCI and the item was to go to the City Council on May 19, 1998. 5. May 13, 1998, Falcon Cable TV faxed a revised ordinance to the City Attorney noting that the franchise was not to be transferred to Falcon Communications, L.P., as indicated in their application, but rather to Falcon Cable systems Company II, L.P. 6. May 21, 1998, we sent a letter to TCI and Falcon noting that the FCC Form 394 appeared to be inaccurate and needed to be amended in order for us to process their request to assign the franchise to Falcon Cable systems Company II, L.P. 7. May 26, 1998, I talked to Howard Gan from Falcon and he indicated he would be overnighting the revised application information to me so we could place this item on the Council's June 2, 1998, agenda. 8. May 28, 1998, Howard Gan called the City Attorney to let him know that the information promised on the 26'would be here on the 29 . 9. May 29, 1998, the revised FCC Form 394 was submitted listing Falcon Cable systems Company II, L.P. as the assignee. (Note: The city has 120 days to process this new request) 10. June 1, 1998, this revised form was forwarded to the appropriate Department Heads for review and comment. It should also be noted that the Cities of Rogue River, Jacksonville and Talent are also dealing with this assignment issue and I was informed yesterday that some of them approved the request but are now having to go back and do the transfer over again because the original application was filed using the wrong entity as the assignee (i.e., Falcon Communications, L.P.). 05'29-98 11 :06AM FROM FALCON CABLE TV TO 15414885311 P001/002 FALCON CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 10900 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone (310) 824-9990 • Fax (310) 824-4824 Falcon: FAX COVER PAGE To: ?- �� c.o�s ► V Fax No.: From: Howard Gan Pages (excluding cover pg): 1 Date: AQ -9A e ALOA fL C ur S HT S CQMt E14N L 05-29-98 11 : 06AM FROM FALCON CABLE TV TO 15414885311 P002/002 ' Falcon. W DRAFT MEMORANDUM To: File From: Stan Itskowitch Date: May 28, 1998 Re: Falcon Operating Partnership's Financial Capacity Reasons why each of the Falcon lower tier operating partnerships, which arc direct owners of the cable systems, have the financial capacity and capability to meet all of their liabilities and obligations, including those which could result from future competition. After the completion of TCI transaction, the Falcon Group of entities will be structured, whereby the operating partnerships will each own specific cable system assets. There will be seven separate operating partnerships in the Falcon Group. Each of those operating partnerships generates substantial cash flow, which is available to the partnership to satisfy its obligations. In addition,the parent companies of said operating partnerships, i.e. Falcon Cable Communications, LLC (direct parent) and Falcon Communications,LP (indirect parent) will be the obligors with respect to the total borrowing capacity of the entire group on a consolidated basis. This borrowing capacity will be available to fund the obligations of all of the operating partnerships, including capital expenditures, and resources to meet future competition. If, for example, one of the operating subsidiaries was undergoing financial pressure due to price competition, or needed funds for capital expenditures to upgrade its plant to meet competition, the fiill bank lines and debt capacity available to the entire Falcon group, which is in excess of$2 billion, would be available to support the needs of that particular partnership. 'Thus, a particular partnership is not constrained by a debt limitation for that partnership. All of Falcon's financial compliance covenants are measured on a consolidated basis. The ultimate parent companies, Falcon Holding Croup, LP and TC1 Falcon Holdings, LLC arc general partners of the parent companies (i.e. Falcon Cable Communications, LLC and Falcon Communications, LP)of the operating partnerships. As General Partners, they are fully responsible on a consolidated basis for the obligations of the lower tier operating partnerships, Therefore, while each lower tier operating partnership has a distinct group of assets, the capital structure for the entire organization is available to support each one of those separate operating partnerships. Thus, in reality the entire Falcon group of companies could be considered from a financial strength point of view as one large entity rather than seven small, separate ontitics. t. MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 16, 1998 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Chairperson Wheeldon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.,Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws,Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon,Hagen,and DeBoer were present. Mayor Shaw was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilor DeBoer/Laws m/s to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of June 2, 1998 as presented. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS& AWARDS 1. Mayor's Proclamation declaring June 27, 1998,as "Vietnam Veteran's Day." Council Chairperson Wheeldon read the proclamation in its entirety. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's reappointments of Mavis Cloutier and Mary Jane Tilson to the Hospital Board for terms to expire June 30,2002. 3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Carol Nemec to the Audit Committee for a term to expire April 30,2001. 4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Norman Miller to the Senior Program Board for a term to expire April 30, 1999. 5. Application for liquor license for Pilaf, 10 Calle Guanajuato(Applicant: Susan Powell). 6. Authorization to terminate three City easements: A. Termination of old City pipeline easement in vicinity of Corp Ranch Rd.near Emigrant Lake-Applicant Martha Schwarz; B. Termination of public utility easement established on Lot 1,Block 2 of Park Estates Subdivision,Phase I-Applicant Alan Armstrong; and C. Termination of easement created prior to formation of Blossom View Subdivision- Applicant Bob Sullivan. Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to accept the consent agenda. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Planning Action 97-054,Planning Commission Approval of a 25-lot subdivision on upper Strawberry Lane. Council Chairperson Wheeldon read the guidelines and procedures for a Land Use Public Hearing. City Council Meeting 06-16-98 1 EXPARTE CONTACT: Councilors Hauck and Laws noted that they had made site visits. Councilor DeBoer noted that he had been present at the Planning Commission hearing on this item, and had made a site visit. Councilor Hagen noted that he had made a site visit,that he has been involved in the planning process,and that he has friends living in the neighborhood. Councilor Reid stated that she has made several site visits,and has talked with the neighbors. Explained that she lives in the neighborhood, but is not directly affected by this action although she would be involved in any paving decided upon. City Attorney Nolte confirmed that reading this potential conflict of interest into the record was sufficient,and that it was acceptable for Councilor Reid to vote on this issue. Councilor Wheeldon stated that she had made a site visit. Confirmed that while serving as the Council Chairperson in the Mayor's absence a Councilor retains their right to vote on issues before the Council. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:13 p.m. STAFF REPORT: Director of Community Development John McLaughlin read the applicable criteria for approval from the Ashland Municipal Code's Land Use Ordinance and provided background on the history of this action. Explained the zoning and proposed lot layout,and noted that this development would create twenty three new parcels. Noted that City staff worked on the neighborhood plan, and that the area had been under a building moratorium due to water system limitations for ten years. The Hitt Road reservoir made development possible,and prompted a coordinated neighborhood plan. Explained that the City has acquired the Strawberry/Hald twenty-acre parcel, and other properties for connections along the Ditch Road,and now has approximately fifty three acres of dedicated open space land in the neighborhood. Pointed out improvements that would be needed on Hitt Road as part of this development, and that a new road would be needed to connect Hitt and Strawberry. Explained that the three landowners involved are independent, but that they have coordinated the timing of the development and the necessary improvements. Emphasized that primary concerns centered around transportation issues and street improvements. Explained that the application was approved by the Planning Commission because of the connection to Orchard Street. Noted that Council had approved the Hassell development and an LID to furnish the needed improvements for that development. In this case,the applicants propose to continue from the Hassell development to improve sections of Strawberry, Westwood,and the intersection of Strawberry and Alnutt, either by LID or through payment by the developers. Discussion of Alnutt, Strawberry, Scenic and Nutley Street sections which are unpaved and not proposed for improvements. McLaughlin noted that the Planning Commission had made no conditions on their approval,and stated that this was consistent with past approvals requiring only one access be paved for a subdivision. Explained that this allows for further street improvements at a later date at the option of residents or future developers. McLaughlin noted that the issues raised in the appeals process had dealt primarily with fencing requirements and the applicability of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Standards. Noted that these requirements do not necessitate separate land use approval,and the applicant is aware of these requirements. McLaughlin noted that he believes the applicant is willing to allow the extension of the 120-day limit. Stated that he believes there would be adequate time for a council decision to meet this requirement under the 120-day limit, if necessary. City Council Meeting 06-16-98 2 Clarified that as a de novo appeals hearing,the"Applicant" before Council is the actual applicant,not the appellant. Explained that the applicant carries the burden of proof in demonstrating that applicable criteria have been met,and the Council is to decide on this action anew with the Planning Commission's findings merely to serve as a recommendation. APPLICANT: Tom Giordano/157 Morninglight Dr./Agent for the Applicants, representing applicants Paul&Carol Hwoschinsky/Stated that the applicants were in the audience,along with other landowners and their consultants. Provided Council with photos. Briefly noted all those who have been involved in the collaborative process of planning this development to be environmentally sensitive to the unique needs of the area. Stated that the Master Plan,along with a narrative, findings, letters,reports,and responses are in the record with the application. Noted that the design process has been a cooperative one,with the intent to create something special. Emphasized that the development has larger lots with larger homes, in a rural,pastoral setting to reflect the unique quality of the area. Emphasized that the Hillside Development Ordinance was used in planning the design work although it had not been passed when the project began. Concluded that both city and state laws require that development occur within the city limits. The applicants have made every attempt to document their design work,and considerable research has gone into each aspect of the process. Stated that the findings provided will justify the project and the Council can reject the appeal. Wes Reynolds/1265 Munson DrJrraffic Consultant. Stated that this development would not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Explained that the capacity issues addressed in Resolution#91-39 state that a street must be able to handle all possible vehicle traffic,and the proposed project is consistent with that requirement. Emphasized that the paving of Strawberry Lane will adequately address issues of transportation and capacity. Dave Hammond/Civil Engineer with Hammond Engineering/1009 La Loma,Medford,OR 97501/Stated that he had reviewed the plans and assisted in preparing the project,and that there were no problems with the proposed water,sewer or storm drain systems. Kerry KenCairn/147 Central Ave./Noted that she had worked on the conceptual storm water system and vegetation plans as a landscape architect. Explained that in areas of gradual slope they have used swales to convey storm water, with meandering surface drainage through natural vegetation. For steeper slopes there will be a traditional underground storm water drainage. Noted efforts to enhance existing natural vegetation where possible,and thinning that had been done elsewhere to meet Fire Department requirements. Noted that there would be a series of ponds in the central open space area to slow any storm water and allow it to feed into Wrights Creek without increasing its velocity. Councilor Reid questioned the adequacy of the lighting in the plan to provide for child safety. Giordano noted that they had not wanted to light excessively due to the nature of the area,so while all intersections have large,decorative light standards,the paths have low-level lights along the trail. Stated that there are more of these because they are at lower levels. Councilor Hagen questioned why paving had been extended beyond the property line of the applicants. Giordano explained that the applicants wanted to go further than merely meeting the minimum requirements,and would be willing to pay for additional paving if necessary,but would like to work with the City on sharing costs. Emphasized that the applicant is not requesting that an LID be formed. City Council Meeting 06-16-98 3 Councilor Hagen questioned whether the proposal has addressed the cut banks and erosion areas on the upper portions of the road. Giordano confirmed that the applicant will use retaining walls where necessary. IN FAVOR: Gerry Mandell/11I I Strawberry/Emphasized his support of the project,but stated that he feels it is incumbent on the Council to look at safety issues on Alnutt Street. Stated that the street's width will not allow two vehicles to pass one another at any point. Feels that council needs to look at safety for both Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street. IN OPPOSITION: The following were noted on the record as being in favor of the appeal: Patricia Haley/400 Alnutt Street,Nancy Spector/110 Pine Street,Robert& Ellen Wright/97 Pine Street,Vava Bailey/165 Almond Street,Elizabeth Reid/147 Strawberry Lane,Andrew Bartholomew/127 Strawberry Lane,Alex Reid/147 Strawberry Lane, Denise Ewing/144 Strawberry Lane,Tim Brandy/240 Strawberry Lane,and Edward S. Brubaker/197 Nutley Street. Lawrence Bressler/152 Strawberry Lane/Read a prepared statement to be entered into the record. Feels that the applicants have the burden of proof in showing that the application meets all criteria. Stated that application fails to meet the Physical and Environment Constraints Standards. Stated that this appeal was necessary because of the Planning Department's failure to make sure that all application material was complete and that all criteria had been met. Noted that neighbors were never informed or noticed of the applicability of the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter. Noted that Wright's Creek is a riparian/flood plain area,and that the slope and presence of wildfire lands all apply,so the Physical and Environmental Constraints Standards must be met. Stated that the application fails to meet criteria,and it cannot be evaluated until these criteria are met or are proven not applicable. Emphasized that applicant must prove that transportation criteria have been met,and they have failed to due so. While the application asserts that an alternative route is available,by Section 4 of Resolution#91-39 the alternative route proposed has no further capacity due to its slope in excess of eighteen percent. This is not addressed in the application. Further discussed subcollectors,traffic counts and vehicle trips per day. Bressler further discussed the alternative route issue, and voiced his concerns over the fact that approval of development plans has come to be presumed as automatic. Susan Hunt/220 Nutley Street/Continued to read the prepared statement begun by Bressler. Noted concerns regarding transportation issues around street grades in excess of eighteen percent. Noted that applicants have failed to address this in development plan. Noted that no variance has been sought for flag drives. Discussed street classification from Transportation Element and Performance Standards and noted that these would require two sidewalks and a twenty two foot paved lane. This requirement has neither been met,nor has it been given a variance. There is no evidence that the application meets the requirements of the Land Use Ordinance,nor is the effect on the development of neighboring properties considered. There is no consideration of the impact of the number of vehicle trips per day. Presented photos to illustrate the narrowness of the streets. Concerned that paving will be required in the future in the form of a forced LID. Stated that the Physical and Environmental Constraints Standards review process must be applied. Capacity issues are not addressed,and thus the applicant fails to prove that the development will be improved to meet standards. Application also fails to acknowledge impact on or provide improvements for lower street areas. Application fails to meet criteria"a"and"b",and criteria"d"has not been satisfied in the record. Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry/Commended the plan,but expressed concern that due to lot size and zoning,there is a potential capacity for two hundred houses and two thousand vehicle trips per day. Feels that application must address this potential,possibly through a restrictive covenant. Concerned that Alnutt Street will not handle traffic, let alone the equipment needed for construction. Stated that plan could be approved if a restrictive covenant were signed to limit density, and Alnutt,Nutley, Strawberry and Scenic were paved. Expressed concerns about Kneebone City Council Meeting 06-16-98 4 Creek culvert under Orchard Street. Also noted that he has an easement for his driveway through lot seven of the development, which he would consider abandoning if other issues were adequately addressed. Bob KuenzeU98 Pine Street/Noted good things in the proposal,and voiced serious concerns over considerable volume of traffic. Noted that many people use the ditch trail via Alnutt Street,which is very limited in terms of its capacity. An additional two hundred thirty vehicle trips per day will strain this capacity,and construction will strain it further. Presented a petition from neighborhood residents supporting these concerns. Noted that he is concerned with the idea that in-fill is an entitlement, regardless of the consequences. Christine Crawley/124 Strawberry Lane/Read a letter from Jon R Peele/220 Strawberry Lane. Letter states that this development is excellent, and Peele's concern is with inadequate access and safety issues around construction. Peele believes that this will be the preferred route for construction vehicles as it is 1%:miles shorter than the alternative. Feels that the City must retain an expert and conduct a study of access and transportation issues. Requests that Council reverse the Planning Commission's approval of this action on'the grounds that access is inadequate. If the Council elects not to reverse the approval, he feels that the Council should make the finding that adequate access is available via Lower Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street, or require the closure of Upper Strawberry Lane downhill with a gate. At Robins/225 Nutley Street/Concemed that no provision is being made for the possibility of improvements to Alnutt Street or Strawberry Lane,and that the responsibility for these improvements will fall to the homeowners. Gerald F. Taylor/375 Alnutt Street/Explained the location of his property, and stated that cars not making the turn on the dirt road will end up in his front wall. Stated that cars need to wait and/or backup for opposing traffic,and it cannot be assumed that traffic will take care of itself. Noted that cars cannot stop when they hit the dirt road,and the City needs to address paving of other streets at this time. Feels it is not fair to pass on paving costs to the next development or the homeowners. Michael O'Brian/107 Fork Street/Read a letter from CiCi Brown/171 Church Street. Expressed concerns over traffic safety, visual scarring,grading, erosion,and the negative impacts of development. Presented photos. Stated that Strawberry Lane cannot be developed to a point of safety without extreme landscaping,and thus requests that Council view an engineered rendering or computer model of what this extreme landscaping would be before any decision is made. Gloria Stone/153 Sixth Street/Suggests amending neighborhood plan to lessen impact of development. Concerned with the development of a beautiful, natural area. Harry Bartell/365 Strawberry Lane/Transportation Element of Comprehensive Plan notes that the scale and character of a neighborhood street's design should be applicable to the area served. Strawberry Lane will be the access route, and this will disrupt the quality of life and erode the neighborhood. This was not addressed in the Planning Commission's decision. Explained that the right-of-way's are only twelve to fourteen feet,and this will require cutting into hillsides and eliminating vegetation to find the additional eleven to thirteen feet needed for the lane,and this is environmentally improper. Also stated that the effect on existing homes has been disregarded. Patricia Zoline/240 Nutley Street/Feels that safety considerations have not been met. Noted that she sat on the Commission for this issue and it was never resolved. Concerned with the Alnutt/Strawberry intersection, as there are countless close calls with the few residents living there now. Noted that in the past they had considered making it a one-way street, but that has apparently been disregarded. FIVE MINUTE BREAK AT 8:50 p.m. City Council Mewing 06-16-98 5 STAFF RESPONSE: McLaughlin noted that the dedicated open space areas reduced the overall development potential, so that while the original potential would have been the two hundred houses suggested by Paul Kay, it is now approximately seventy. Once developed at the density proposed here, with the open space, further subdivision will not be possible due to the present lot sizes. Explained that it takes a major planning action to alter a subdivision,and that once a subdivision has been approved in this manner the density is locked in. Confirmed that no accessory units would be allowed due to the zoning. Stated that the wildfire land concern raised by Bressler and Hunt is addressed in the application and was reviewed. All houses will have fire sprinklers. Explained that areas subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Standards are those with slopes greater than forty percent as indicated on the zoning map. Emphasized that this proposal is not disturbing any of these areas. Stated that the proposed development is not disturbing the riparian/drainage area as that portion of the plan is open space. With regard to the issue of street capacity,grade concerns do not apply to collectors,so the potential capacity is 3000 vehicle trips per day. Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to extend the public hearing to 9:30. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. McLaughlin continued that Winner Street retains enough capacity to provide an access route. Stated that streets are to be designed to meet the needs of the neighborhood and in respect to the topography. It will be developed in an appropriate manner to accommodate projected traffic flows and neighborhood needs. In regard to the street system, McLaughlin stated that the Kneebone property could be accessed via Orchard Street, and can easily meet its planned densities with Orchard Street access. Emphasized that the slope would make a connection between the Kneebone property and the proposed development difficult,and such a connection would benefit neither Mr. Kneebone nor the City. ' Addressed concerns about storm drainage through the Orchard Street culvert,and noted that the applicant's consultant has proposed design elements to keep flows from peaking,and that this design has been reviewed and found appropriate by Public Works. McLaughlin confirmed that at full build-out with the proposed configuration,there would be less than two hundred vehicle trips per day on Strawberry Lane. This would put it among the quietest streets in Ashland in terms of vehicle conflict and traffic. Councilor Hagen questioned the total number of units that could have been built before the city purchased lands for open space. McLaughlin stated that by the zoning, it would have been about one hundred thirty units, but that it is now at seventy. Emphasized that these numbers include the Wiley, Hassell, and Kneebone properties,and stated that this reduction in the potential lots represents a substantial change in the impact of development on the area. Councilor Wheeldon questioned the appropriateness of using swales as a form of storm drainage. McLaughlin confirmed that when there is not a lot of grade swales are appropriate. Explained that this is because they create an impoundment which cannot be done on steeper slopes. For steep slopes,conventional underground storm drains are used to reduce erosion. McLaughlin confirmed that there had been a traffic study conducted by staff as part of the neighborhood plan. Stated that the study considered traffic in light of current trips and the possibility of full build-out,and looked at the entire area,with the rest of the area street network of Nutley,Granite, Winner, Church,and etc. City Council Meeting 06-16-98 6 McLaughlin explained that an alternate pedestrian route had been considered,and that it could be stairs or even a trail with switchbacks over the open space. REBUTTAL(applicant): John R. Hassen/129 North Oakdale Avenue,Medford,OR 97501/Attorney for the Applicant/Expressed support for Director of Community Development John McLaughlin's comments. Noted that the written record includes traffic counts,traffic capacity information,and all items required of the developer. Stated that they will improve streets to and through the project, and further on along the road than is required. Urged Council to support staff recommendation and that of the Planning Commission. Stated that he has not seen any information on a driveway access easement through lot seven, but that if it exists it will continue. Giordano noted that he also agrees with McLaughlin's comments. Stated that all evidence was submitted to the Planning Commission, and the document presented tonight is merely in response to the appeal. Emphasized that both the staff and the Planning Commission had all application materials in a timely manner. Addressed concerns about fire management,vegetation,drainage,erosion,trees,slopes,and setbacks from natural areas. Building designs are based on information prepared by staff in the Master Plan. Transportation information has been reviewed and is supported by consultant Wes Reynolds. Stated that the number of lots proposed in the design are well under the potential capacity that the zoning would allow. Feels that applicants have more than met all requirements. With regard to streets,they remain under capacity. Noted that the City has approved three developments in the area which had only one access each,and this application is not asking for any more than that. Noted that driveways have had a detailed preliminary grading plan prepared. At the request of City Attorney Paul Nolte,John Hassen,the attorney for the applicants,confirmed the applicants' willingness to extend the 120-day period by the amount needed to allow a Council decision and findings. It was mutually agreed that thirty days should be a sufficient extension. Emphasized that the applicants were present in the audience and willing to answer any questions the Council might have. Councilor Reid asked for a clarification of the need for an extension of the 120-day period. Nolte explained that without an extension,a decision would be required and findings would need to be adopted by council within the next seven days. Stated that the extension would allow sufficient time to prepare and adopt the findings at the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:20 p.m. Brief Council discussion with regard to the late hour and the schedule of the next public hearing,noting that public hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. Councilors indicated that they were hesitant to begin another public hearing without sufficient time to hear all of those wishing to speak,and suggested rescheduling this item to a later date. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to move the next public hearing concerning the CATV assignment to TCl/Falcon Cable to the next Council meeting to be held Tuesday,July 7, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. Voice vote:All AYES. Motion passed. DISCUSSION: Councilors Laws stated that there has been a longstanding problem with development in this area of the City. Noted that he has voted against two previous developments,and that the Council has turned down previous developments in the area due to transportation concerns and issues around water pressure. Emphasized that the City needs to face up to the adequacy of transportation available. Stated that the application under consideration is outstanding,and the efforts of City staff have been excellent. Suggested that realistically, transportation at the south end of the City is inadequate,regardless of what is said about traffic counts or slope. Pointed out that the width of Alnutt Street is inadequate,and that this endangers citizens' safety. Looking at this application in light of the criteria,Councilor City Council Meeting 06-16-98 7 Laws stated that it cannot be approved if it will exceed the capacity of a city facility or if transportation is not adequate. Feels that it would be irresponsible to approve the application in light of existing transportation concerns. Councilor Laws emphasized that the City is responsible for solving these problems,and will need to find a reasonable,responsible manner for approval of this application after the Ad Hoc LID Committee reaches a decision of the future of LID's in Ashland. Suggested that City consider taking the initiative and start an LID without meeting the fifty one percent rule. Reiterated that the application at hand cannot meet the transportation criteria necessary, and he cannot vote in favor of the application for that reason.. Councilor Reid questioned whether the present situation constitutes a de facto moratorium. Councilor Laws stated that any development seen as increasing traffic would need to be denied. Councilor Reid questioned if perhaps a formal moratorium is needed,and if any imposed moratorium would be retroactive. City Attorney Paul Nolte confirmed that there is a statutory process for imposing a building moratorium, and that if this was pursued the City would need to propose a solution to the problems which necessitated the moratorium. Nolte stated that if a moratorium were imposed, it would be retroactive and would affect any pending actions. Nolte continued by stating that he was unsure if a sufficient number of alternatives had been proposed and considered for the present situation to constitute a de facto moratorium if the present planning action were to be denied based on the transportation issues under discussion.. Councilor Reid stated that she feels she has been involved with issues surrounding this area for sixteen years. Stated that the water moratorium previously mentioned was in fact about transportation issues. Meetings went on actively for five years,with many alternatives brought forth. Stated that there were many problems,but that the larger issue centered around a lack of interest in the formation of a local improvement district(LID). Councilor Reid went on to state that the applicants are not developers in the traditional sense of the word, but merely residents wanting to subdivide their personal property for the first time. Stated that many of the neighbors are not interested in an LID. Noted that the City had a arranged a facilitator,set up meetings,and begun public process to consider an LID,but that the facilitator had moved away and the process was left behind. Concerned that the City began the process of finding consensus and then let it be abandoned. Expressed her sympathy for the applicants,but stated that Alnutt Street and the Strawberry/Granite intersection do have problems. Noted her personal observances as a resident of Granite Street,stating that cars do get stuck,and the transportation system is truly inadequate within the neighborhood. Agreed with Councilor Laws that the City does have an obligation to address this issue, irrespective of the proposed development. Emphasized that the streets will be paved,as the City long ago decided to pave all streets within its boundaries,and noted that it only needs to be decided how the paving will be done and who will pay for it. Concluded that this issue has been around for more than fifteen years,and the present application merely brings it to a head. Councilor Hauck feels that the record indicates that transportation to and through the site is adequate by past standards,but stated that the development will cause the city facilities of Strawberry Lane and Aln tt Street o ouerat_�bevond_ ty. Concluded that he cannot vote to approve the a [-cation,but suggested a denial"without prejudice" so the applicants would not need to begin the application process entirely anew. Councilor Hagen feels that the streets discussed are currently beyond capacity,and noted his concern that this situation penalizes the applicants now for previously approved developments which occurred at the lower level. The upper properties are now being saddled with addressing these capacity issues. Based on the letter of law,which requires paving"to and through" a development,the applicants go beyond what is necessary,but the development will force the lower streets to operate above their capacity if the application is approved. Emphasized that this situation was forced long ago. Stated that the current situation's being beyond capacity has been confirmed by those speaking tonight,and this is a good illustration of the need to force improvements at the time development occurs. City Council Meeting 06-16-98 8 U Councilor DeBoer ted that this development is a good one,but feels that requirement B has not been met. Emphasized that a could not approve the application without addressing the situation on lower Strawberry Lane and Alnutt Street. oted that fourteen new homes have been built one at a time in the lower Strawberry Lane area. Suggested that this is unfair,as this development has been planned with lots of effort,and the applicants are then punished for creating a plan,when the Council has requested planned developments. Councilor Hagen questioned the possibility of putting in a gate to close lower Strawberry, with access allowed only for emergency vehicles. This would require other neighbors to use Westwood Street until the lower roads are paved. Councilor Laws noted that this had been seriously discussed in the past,and the idea was rejected due to the concern that the gate would be vandalized. Also stated that a gate would require emergency vehicles to stop and take time in an emergency, when time is of the essence. Director of Community Development John McLaughlin noted that the Westwood neighbors had also expressed their opposition to the idea of a gate in a letter to the City. McLaughlin suggested that the Council may want to consider what has been done in other instances,by granting approval of the application conditional to the formation of an LID for the improvement of Alnutt Street,Nutley Street,and/or Strawberry Lane. This would allow an LID to be brought forward,and it would put the development into a realistic time frame without requiring that the applicants completely restart the application process. This would enable the development to continue moving forward positively. Councilor Wheeldon stated that she agrees with the other Councilors,and feels it is incumbent that this issue be dealt with. It cannot continue to be denied and forgotten. Stated that improvements should be tied with approval of the subdivision. Also suggested that she would like to hear the reasoning from previous discussions. Emphasized that the issue has been put off for fifteen years,and it is time for the Council to deal with it. Councilor Reid discussed the possibility of making a one-way street, but suggested that the necessary orientation would go against slope and the direction of the existing driveways. If the one-way were oriented to the other direction, it would affect Scenic Drive. McLaughlin emphasized that the idea of a one-way street has neither been dropped nor has it been adopted,and that presently it is on hold pending detail work. Stated that a one-way street could still be an option. Discussion of the possibility of a motion which ties development with the formation of an LID. Councilor Hagen noted his concerns with transportation issues around the slope. Councilor Reid noted that street improvements would require money on the part of the community,and suggested that paving be done to the lower end of City standards. Emphasized the need to uniquely develop this one piece of Ashland. Councilor Hagen reiterated that the streets are inadequate as they currently exist. Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve the application contingent upon the improvement of the lower three streets(Alnutt Street,Strawberry Lane,and Scenic Drive),either by the developers or through the formation of a Local Improvement District(LID). Discussion of time constraints. McLaughlin noted that an LID would have to be completed within eighteen months or approval of this planning action would expire. Questioned whether a lesser amount of time,such as twelve months,could be set as a requirement of the approval. McLaughlin noted that the possibility of not involving all three streets immediately would make the applicants' tasks easier. Discussed the possibility of staged development of the streets concurrent with the development. The potential conflict of interest existing for Councilor Reid was again noted. McLaughlin noted that staff could provide Councilors with a list of options to address the possibilities of forming an LID and improving the area streets. City Attorney Nolte noted the need to make the findings address "adequate transportation through the formation of an LID or paving by the developer" as a condition for approval of the application. Discussed whether the vote should be postponed until staff had presented Council with options. City Council Meeting 06-16-98 9 Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to extend meeting the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Councilors Hagen/Reid withdraw the motion and second "to approve the application contingent upon the improvement of the lower three streets(Alnutt Street,Strawberry Lane,and Scenic Drive),either by the developers or through the formation of a Local Improvement District(LID)." Staff was directed to bring options to the next meeting,to be held July 7, 1998. Councilor DeBoer noted that he would be unable to support any LID that was not supported by the neighbors. 2. Consideration of CATV Assignment TCUFalcon. As indicated above,this hearing was rescheduled(due to time constraints)for the regular meeting of the Ashland City Council,to be held Tuesday,July 7, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 1175 E.Main Street. PUBLIC FORUM Public Forum opened at 10:03 p.m. John Huskey/173 Alder Lane/Associated Students of Southern Oregon University(ASSOU)Director of Communications/introduced his supervisor, Matt Stillman,also of the Associated Students of Southern Oregon University. Matt Stillman/220 West Rapp Road, #138,Talent,OR 97540/Representing the Associated Students of Southern Oregon University/Stillman noted that either he,Mr.Huskey or the ASSOU Student Body President would be attending all future City Council meetings,with the expressed intention of improving the way in which the student body is perceived within the community. Stated that the participation of the ASSOU portion of the community should be made known at this forum. Noted that while the City and ASSOU have often been disconnected in the past, many of their efforts coincide and the two could be of service to one another. Councilor Wheeldon suggested that the Council would be interested in hearing about ASSOU student issues and concerns as they relate to the community as a whole. Suggested that this could be a presentation at a future council meeting,and that perhaps it might continue on a quarterly basis. Councilor Laws clarified the need to limit issues presented to those which affect the community as a whole. Stillman confirmed that the issues he had in mind included the Rogue Valley Transportation District's service to Ashland and concerns over parking within the City. Public Forum closed at 10:08 p.m. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. City Administrator Mike Freeman noted that there was a need for a special study session to address issues concerning the Ashland Fiber Network. After discussion, it was determined that this study session would be held at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday,July 8, 1998. It was noted that Councilor Reid would be unable to attend. City Council Meeting 06-16-98 10 2. Discussion regarding "Greenpower." Councilor Reid noted that an informational brochure by Pacific Power along with a glossary on Greenpower had been provided to the Councilors. Briefly explained that this was an illustration on the sort of options that will become available with deregulation. Noted that the Bonneville Power Administration(BPA)will present "Greenpower"as an option to the City,as this power will be available for purchase from a plant that is environmentally friendly. The profits from the sale of"Greenpower"would be split between BPA and environmental causes,with the option of providing some assistance to lower income utility users as well. Emphasized that "Greenpower" is now an option in Klamath Falls,where twenty percent of utility customers have selected it as their preferred option. ORDINANCES.RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Section 9.08.060.J of the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to Trackout Restrictions." Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to adopt Ordinance 42821. Roll call vote: Laws,Reid,Hauck,Hagen,Wheeldon, and DeBoer,All YES. Motion passed. 2. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code(AMC)Chapter 9.24 and AMC Section 10.30.010 by Incorporating the Provisions of the Model Woodheating Ordinance and Repealing Ordinance No.2555." Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to adopt Ordinance#2822. Roll call vote: Wheeldon,Reid,DeBoer,Laws,Hagen, and Hauck,All YES. Motion passed. 3. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Approving the Transfer of the Cable Communication Franchise from TCI Cablevision of Oregon,Inc.to Falcon Cable Systems Company I1,L.P." To allow adequate time for a public hearing,this item was moved to the next regular meeting of the Ashland City Council to be held Tuesday,July 7, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. 4. Reading by title only of"A Resolution to Forward the Nomination of the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places to the State Historic Preservation Office." City Recorder Barbara Christensen noted that the resolution included in the City Council packets had incorrect dates, and noted that this had been corrected. Director of Community Development John McLaughlin briefly noted the background behind nominating the Railroad District to National Historic Registry status,and explained that seeking historic status is a policy set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Councilor Hagen noted that he was very pleased with the packet presented to the Councilors to support this nomination. Councilors discussed the amount of time remaining this evening,and chose to hear the two individuals who wished to speak and then continue. Phillip Lang/758 B Street/Lang noted that he is opposed to the nomination,and feels that major issues have not been addressed. Stated that historic status will devastate neighborhood,as evidenced in the materials he has presented. Feels that the process has been biased and faulty. Discussed the history of historic preservation office and rehabilitation efforts,and referenced his October 5, 1997 paper which is included in the materials he submitted to City Council Meeting 06-1698 I1 Council. Emphasized that historic status saves buildings,but also drives forces which destroy the neighborhoods. Concluded that the Railroad District has already been rehabilitated and is well kept. Also stated that the meetings that have been held were inadequate,and no contrary views or participation were allowed. Asked that Council deny this resolution,and remand it back for further public process. Bill Emerson/Emerson Design,90 Fifth Street/Noted that he has been waiting twenty years for this to happen,and that the process began when he was on the Historic Commission. Read excerpts of minutes from 1979 Historic Commission meetings dealing with this issue,and submitted a copy of the original sign he had designed for a 1979 meeting to gather public input. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to adopt Resolution#98-12. Council discussion: Noted that slideshow would be continued to a later meeting,preferably when RVTV would be broadcasting. Roll call vote: Hauck,Hagen, Laws,and Reid,YES. DeBoer and Wheeldon, NO. Motion passed 4-2. 5. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 1998/99." Councilor Laws noted that he could not vote on this item due to a conflict of interest. Councilor Hagen stated that he could not support such an increase because of the low inflation rates. Emphasized that an increase should be tied to the inflation rate,which was around I%last quarter. Councilor DeBoer asked that the item be pulled until the next meeting,as he had not been able to see background data. Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to adopt Resolution#98-13. Roll call vote: Wheeldon,Hauck,and Reid, YES. DeBoer and Hagen,NO. Motion passed 3-2. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Councilor Reid brought up the issue of temporary restrooms in the Calle Guanajuato area,which was discussed in an Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission memorandum. Noted that these would be semi-permanent,and located on City property. Emphasized that while this is a large project, it is important to both the public and to plaza shop owners. A reminder was given that there is to be a City Council Study Session on Wednesday,June 17, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Barbara Christensen,City Recorder Catherine M.Shaw,Mayor City Council Meeting 06-16-98 12 City Council Communication July 7, 1998 Submitted by: lohn McLau¢hline Reviewed by: Paul Nolte (,,, Approved by: Mike Freeman,y�{t� Title: Council Decision on Appeal of Planning Action 97-054, Planning Commission approval of a 25-lot subdivision on upper Strawberry Lane. Synopsis: At the council meeting of June 16, the Council continued this item to allow for a staff recommendation regarding the final decision, specifically related to street improvements and the possible formation of a local improvement district. Recommendation: The attached memo outlines the staff recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the application, with an additional condition as follows: 21) THAT SECONDARY PAVED ACCESS, PROVIDING THROUGH ACCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT,BE PROVIDED FROM THE INTERSECTION OF STRAWBERRY AND ALNUTT TO A PAVED COLLECTOR STREET L'41 Neuman/Hwoschinsky/Brown Subdivision request on upper Strawberry Lane Staff Recommendation for final decision: From the discussion by the City Council after the close of the public hearing, it appears as if the Council wishes to approve the subdivision, but ensure that a secondary paved access is provided from the intersection of Alnutt and Strawberry towards the downtown. The Council further appears to wish to form a local improvement district involving the unpaved streets in the area which may be affected by the development. But which streets, and what improvement is necessary has yet to be determined. To facilitate this decision process, we suggest the following: L� SWAN \o: APPROVE THE DEVELOPER'S a VES�i IST. `L" " , a = REQUEST,AS SUBMITTED AND . BANDVIEV 0 C I r aC P� f� n mt°. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING 1_NANZ ^Syo COMMISSION, WITH PAVED ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT FROM WESTWOOD c'a a ORCHARD—ST •I•; y�Z `�y as STREET DOWN TO THE INTERSECTION s� OF STRAWBERRY AND ALNUTT,AND ADD THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 21) THAT SECONDARY PAVED nPPI anc v = ACCESS,PROVIDING THROUGH r oeos<a ' ACCESS FOR THE . Gn mvemrnts .�, ■ DEVELOPMENT,BE PROVIDED i NUTLET Si. ,!I• e FROM THE INTERSECTION STRAWBERRY AND ALN TT sr i Unr,.m "gym : Aug 111c' TO A PAVED COLLECTOR f RRt STREET. LANE This condition can be met through different means: Should the applicants wish to have the Council form a local improvement district for the secondary access improvement, they could petition to do so. The Council would then retain the option of which streets to include in the district, and control over the design of the streets; i.e. retaining the option for a one-way design, or other mitigating design features. For example, the Council could form a district, as suggested by Councilor Hagen, that would include Alnutt, lower Strawberry, Scenic, and a small portion of Nutley, which would effectively address the improvement issues for the entire neighborhood. Or, based on neighborhood input for the LID process, the Council may choose to include fewer streets. Another option would allow the applicants to carry out the improvements themselves, such as the full improvement of Alnutt to the improved portion of Nutley. The Council may wish to give additional guidance regarding this issue during your continuation of Council Discussion on this matter. STRAWBERRY NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP JULY 7 , 1998 Re. , Appeal Planning Action 97-054 Honorable Mayor Shaw and City Council Members , There are a number of significant "housekeeping" matters which must to be addressed as a part of this Planning Action. As the Appellants we feel it is important to acknowledge that the draft minutes from the June 16, 1998 hearing on this matter do not fully reflect the Council discussion, as would a transcript or video recording. Specifically, the comments made by each of the councilors regarding the fact that the application and proposed development would cau�-- a city facility to operate beyond capacity. We would also like to confirm that the two communications to the Council regarding Planning Action 98-054 were received by the Council and request that they be made a part of the record. The first of these was from Ellen Wright, 6/29/98 and the second was from Robert V. Kuenzel, 7/2/98 . Finally, we are required to object to the addition of "evidence" which was not a part of the application, staff report or record prior to the initial hearing on this Planning Action. The "evidence" we refer to here is the new condition and comments provided by Staff as requested by the Council . We, further request that we have opportunity to respond to this information, via a continuance and opening of the public hearing, to allow this matter to be resolved at the local level . The added condition is obviously unable to completely satisfy Criteria B, the burden of proof incumbent upon the Applicant and their application, and the stated recognition, by each of the Council Persons, that any added traffic on lower Strawberry, Alnut and Scenic would cause these streets to operate beyond capacity. We hope that the Council gill see that the issues of resolving the transportation needs of the neighborhood are to complex to solve with this new condition, as was stated by the City Attorney at the previous hearing. In other words, the neighborhood transportation issues need to be resolved before an application such as this can adequately meet the Criteria for approval . The Applicants and the Application have failed to meet this obligation and the Council is using this opportunity to accommodate the developers without regard for the process of approval criteria or the limitations f a De Novo evidentiary hearing. Hunt, et al c. c. Paul Nolte, City Attorney Mike Freeman, City Administrator 1 Accurate Quotes of City Council Discussion Don Laws: " . . .Realistically, however, we still don't have adequate transportation on the southern end of this development, when you look at the condition of Alnut and lower Strawberry it ' s evident to me it can't handle anymore traffic. . .we would be exceeding the capacity of these two facilities, these two streets, and we don' t have adequate transportation at the present time. . .There is not au-iyuate transportation into the development. . . " Susan Reid: " . . .You' re right (speaking to & of Don Laws comments) there is not adequate transportation in this neighborhood and to deny that would just be silly because it ' s true . . . " Steve Hauck: " . . . I do happen to agree with Don that the particular development under discussion tonight will cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity, I think there is enough information in the record to show that . . . " Alan Deboer: . . I certainly don' t think that the required burden of proof on B has been met and until we see a plan for Alnut and Strawberry I could not support development. " Ken Hagen: " . . .Well, I believe that these, lower Strawberry and Alnut as well as upper Strawberry are operating beyond capacity currently, and unfortunately, we are talking about penalizing the three land owners up above for improvements that should have been made by developers and Susan, I would define developer as anyone who develops a piece of property. . . we will force these city facilities down below ?n lower Strawberry and Alnut to operate beyond capacity. . . " Carol Wheeldon: " . . . I agree with pretty much everything that ' s been said. . . I do not feel like we can deny this subdivision and wish that this is going to go away because it ' s not . . .I am very interested in tying together the improvements of this street with the approval of this subdivision. . . " Paul Nolte: " . . . If you are going to approve it tonight you have to be fairly specific as to what streets your talking about and improvement by the developer or the formation of LID to make these improvements . . . " 2 ROBERT V . K U E N Z E L 98 Pine Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Telephone: (541) 552-0142 Facsimile: (541) 552-0145 e-mail: Kuenzel @aol.com July 2, 1998 TO THE MAYOR AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: I appreciate the opportunity to submit these additional thoughts for consideration in connection with the continued Council hearing on the Strawberry Development proposal, scheduled for July 7, 1998. At the last hearing, the Council was presented with a proposal that had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. It included no conditions to address the safety issue that the staff's own analysis made clear would be raised by a considerable portion of approximately (or at least) 250 additional vehicle trips a day heading down to the city over lower Strawberry or Alnutt Streets. For whatever reasons, the report presented to the Council by the City's Director of Development attempted completely to gloss over those issues, relying entirely on the fiction that ingress and egress from the other end of the development (ultimately heading down Winter Street) could satisfy the City's standards. But from the Councilors' own experience, and the extensive evidence received at the hearing, it appeared that every Councilor recognized by the end of the hearing that it was not possible to satisfy the City's standards without properly addressing these issues -- because considerable traffic will be forced by the proposed development onto roads and into neighborhoods that cannot safely handle that extra load. As one of the witnesses at the hearing, I found it quite gratifying to see the response of the City Council to these issues -- at least initially. And I believe and would submit, with respect, that the flavor of the Council discussion was right the first time, when members were suggesting that the project (which has many positive elements to it), ought to be denied without prejudice to its renewal, as soon as a proper solution to the traffic safety issue can be demonstrated. After initial discussion, however, the flavor of consideration appeared to shift. Despite having apparently just agreed, without dissent, to the proposition that without known cures, the proposed development would cause real aafety problems for the adjoining neighborhoods, the focus of the Council discussion somehow evolved into consideration of how to find a way to approve the Project, even though no one at the hearing -- not witness. or Council member -- KUENZEL & EWELL LLP To the Mayor and the Members of the City Council July 2, 1998 Page 2 had been able to propose a satisfactory, feasible solution to the problem caused by the fact that the Project will as presently constituted, render existing City facilities unsafe. My central argument in this letter is simply stated: There has apparently been no previous consideration of any alternatives to address the safety issues, because the Planning Commission and the Development Director evidently deemed them immaterial. Respectfully, the Council cannot properly, and should not, rush to force an approval of this Project on the basis of theoretical 'conditions" that have never previously been articulated, on which no public input has been received or, apparently, will be allowed, and the implications of which, respectfully, the City Council cannot in good faith assert that it even now understands. Any one who has walked or driven on the relevant unpaved roads understands that there are obvious practical difficulties in considering their use for increased vehicular traffic. The Council received some testimony on the difficulties that would be caused by having to pave lower Strawberry. But the Councilors are also certainly aware, from their own experience, that very similar issues exist on Alnutt Street, as well. There is no question here of simply smoothing out a dirt road, and laying in some sand, gravel and asphalt. The roadway is simply not wide enough to accommodate any proper street that would allow for cars to pass each other, and for the use of any other form of traffic (pedestrians, bicycles) at the same time. On one side of Alnutt, of course, the land falls off steeply below. To make a wider road bed would require not only cutting reasonably deeply into the adjoining hillside, but also the removal of some lovely old trees, and boulders, and the creation of what would doubtless end up being fairly high and imposing retaining walls. Leaving aside the aesthetic considerations (which I do not for a moment suggest the Council ought to do), is it possible to believe at this point that the City can have any reliable estimate of what it would cost to develop and pave these two roadways? I had no sense from the last = hearing that there was any sentiment in the City Council to commit community funds to pay for such expenditures, nor have I understood the City to have large amounts of excess funds available for such projects. And I certainly heard no offers by the developers to stand the expenses of the improvements in question. Do some of the Council members proceed on the assumption that, to facilitate the desires of a few private developers to sub-divide their land and to develop it, a relatively small number of directly affected neighbors could properly or should be required by a mandatory LID to bear the relatively extraordinary expenses of such development and paving? I do not purport to have the answers to these questions. But I would suggest that it is difficult to imagine why the City Council would want to commit our City to any particular course in seeking solutions for these problems on a rush basis -- without public notice or the opportunity for any input. As an attorney, I also find it impossible to imagine how the City Council could possibly find the necessary support for the requisite findings that an unspecified KUENZEL & EWELL LLP To the Mayor and the Members of the City Council July 2, 1998 Page 3 solution, or concepts loosely sketched out by the Development Director (who at the last meeting was prepared to ignore the issue altogether), will somehow magically avoid the creation of unsafe conditions on these city streets. Turning briefly to the question of LID use in such circumstances, the Council knows better than most of us how controversial LID's have become in recent years. Obviously, their use raises important questions of public policy, which is the reason the Council will soon receive, consider, and in due course, act upon, the report of its LID Commission. As it appeared at the last hearing that at least some of the Council members are considering LID's to be a silver bullet to solve the Strawberry development traffic safety problem, I would ask why the Council would want to push this development through the process before having the opportunity to make a reasoned and thoughtful judgment about the larger questions of how LIDs should be used in our city -- and then applying those new and presumably improved standards to whatever occurs here. An additional element of the last hearing that was troubling to some, including myself, was the effort of the Director of Development, late in the course of the hearing, to suggest a number of ways in which the Council might make it "easier" to push through some (any) mitigation as a supposed cure to the safety issues, including, for example, the notion of paving only one of the two streets that would be fed by development traffic. As a parenthetical, if making things easier was a worthy goal (and it sometimes is), it seems that the easiest way to reduce excessive traffic flow down lower Strawberry and Alnutt got lost in the shuffle, i.e., to close or severely limit (perhaps by card keys) access to those roads from the development area above. It would certainly be easier to enforce that kind of conditional restriction, than to even begin considering how to build and finance the relatively expensive downstream improvements required by the paving of two steep and difficult roads. And the expenses involved in maintaining such a gate from possible occasional vandalism (which, it is assumed, could easily be passed on to the occupants of the development by way of appropriate CC&R provisions, as a condition of development approval), would be not only modest, but minuscule in comparison. More broadly, however, I would like to suggest that the Council's objective in a situation like this one should not be to make it look (or even be) just easier to approve a development, but rather, to do whatever needs to be done to solve recognized city problems in the right way. It may well be that there is a paving solution that would meet that test. But it is hard to imagine that a project critically dependent on such a solution should be rushed to approval without thoroughly (and publicly) examining such a solution, and how it would work, and how it would be constructed, and how it would be financed. It may well be that a restricted access approach would make more sense; but that approach, also, deserves greater consideration than, at present, it seems to have received. K U E N Z E L & E W E L L L L P To the Mayor and the Members of the City Council July 2, 1998 Page 4 I very much hope that the members of the Council will act thoughtfully, thoroughly and properly on this matter. Anyone who was at the hearing can testify that the developer has already gotten "the message" that the Council looks favorably upon many aspects of its proposal. Let them participate, with the Council, and the public, in developing solutions to the one serious problem that the Council has recognized will otherwise flow from it. Very ttr/ul y rs, IvV Robert V. enzel RVK:kmt Fran Berteau-Comments ardin u radio Alnutt Strewbe and Nutle y Streets Pa e 1 i From: Ellen Wright<ewdghtQtdadhc.com> To: Ashland.Maln(Fran) Date: 6/29/98 9:51AM Subject: Comments regarding upgrading Alnutt, Strawberry, and Nutley Streets Fran, When I called last week to find out the email addresses for City Council members,the person I talked to at the Administrative Office mentioned that you could print out letters sent to this address and distribute them. I would appreciate It If you could give a copy of the following to each City Council member and to Mr. McLaughlin in the Planning Department. Would you also send a short return email so that I know this letter was received?? Thank you very much. Ellen Wright An open letter to the members of the City Council and the Planning Department: I live at 97 Pine Street,just a half block from Nutley. I was at the last City Council meeting where upgrading Strawberry Lane,Alnutt, and Nutley were proposed to support the planned development on Strawberry Lane. My children frequently walk along Nutley to visit friends and go to the park. It was clear at the end of the last City Council meeting that simply paving and widening Alnutt to feed the traffic from the Strawberry development and from the houses beyond the _ development onto Nutley was being considered as an easy solution to the problem. I strongly oppose upgrading only Alnutt to route traffic to Nutley. If any streets in that area are to be upgraded,they all must be or the traffic load will be much too heavy on the one street chosen. Nutley is very steep and people using that street tend to drive down It at a high rate of speed instead of braking all the way down. To funnel all the traffic from Strawberry down Nutley Is a very irresponsible way to attempt to solve the problem. I was dismayed at the cavalier way the option of preventing traffic from using Strawberry and Alnutt from the development was dismissed. I urge you to consider it.As I understand ft, emergency vehicles do not use that road anyway as it is,so h does not effect emergency Fran Berteau -Comments ardin u radio Alnutt Strawbe and Nutle Streets Pa e 2 access. That access should be coming from Wimer as the development's primary access road. Promoting pedestrian and bike access only to the ditch walk and the open space on Strawberry Lane is well within the City's stated planning guidelines. If the developers and the Planning Department truly believe that Wimer Is the access the residents on Strawberry will use,then preventing access from Granite and Nutley should not cause a problem for them. Sincerely, Ellen Wright 97 Pine St Ashland, OR 97520 488-3824 a CC: Ann Pollack and Bob Kuenzel<kuenzelQaol.com>,Ara... i City Council Communication July 7, 1998 Submitted by: John McLau¢hlinv Reviewed by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike FreemanM�FF Title: Public Hearing on Planning Action 98-040, a request for an amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.72.1 10 and Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards to establish Downtown Design Standards. This includes the elimination of the 10% landscaping requirement in this proposed area. Synopsis: The adoption of specific design standards for the City's Downtown Area has been part of the City's long term planning strategy. The City's Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue by stating "the City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant." The City's Downtown Plan also encourages specific standards, stating "...buildings will undoubtedly redevelop, and conformance with both the city's historic guidelines and the downtown development criteria should insure that the developments are positive." The land use ordinance specifically allows the Council to adopt design standards. Section of 18.72.080 of the Site Design and Use Standards states as follows: A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These standards may contain: 1. Additional approval criteria for developments affected by this Chapter. 2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout, landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding the site design. 3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific examples. 4. Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable. B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the guidelines, a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearing forwarded to the Council for its consideration. As the downtown has developed, matured, and revitalized itself, procedural and design issues associated with new development and redevelopment have arisen. Concern was expressed to the Ashland City Council and an ad-hoc committee, appointed by the Mayor, was formed to establish a set of design standards for the Downtown Area, clarifying the City's vision for this area. The final product of a year-long process is attached. It represents the efforts of the committee, which included representatives of downtown businesses, Historic Commission, building community, and others who worked towards creating a more precise target for future development in the downtown. These standards embody the vision for the future of the area, and build on the existing successes in the Downtown Area. The adoption of these new standards will result in the replacement of the limited ------standards-presentlyAn-place; adoption of a new downtown design standards overlay-zone-- (indicated on the attached map) and elimination of the landscaping requirements in this overlay zone. Recommendation: Should the Council find that these standards are appropriate, we recommend that you direct the Staff to bring back an ordinance which will: (1 ) amend the Site Design and Use Standards by replacing the existing downtown section with these new standards; (2) add a new Downtown Design Standards Overlay Zone and; (3) modify the land use ordinance (section 18.72.1 10) to eliminate the landscaping requirements within this zone (except as still required for parking lots and service stations). Public Hearings were held before Historic Commission and Planning Commission and they have unanimously recommended adoption of these standards. Background Information: As stated earlier, this process has been on-going for the past year. Included in your packet is a summary of the timeline. Also included are the design standards and supporting information, including a question and answer handout on the need and impact of the standards. City of Ashland Department of Community Development Mark Knox (541)488-5305 Associate Planner Fax (541)488-5311 June 23, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council ---- - FROM: - -Mark Knox, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Downtown Design Standards - Attachments In regards to the development of the Downtown Design Standards, please find attached the following materials: Memorandum - History of Process Downtown Design Standards Exhibit"A" Landscaping Standards Exhibit"B" Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 1998 Historic Commission Minutes May 6, 1998 Staff Report May 12, 1998 Public Hearing Notice May 12, 1998 Questions & Answers Handout Joint Study Session, Planning & Historic Commission Minutes Feb. 24, 1998 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following A copy of the applicat ion,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will applicable criteria are available far inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on July 7, 1998 at inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,either in person the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after Board of Appeals ILUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 552- 2041. ASHLAND DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS �i O O 41 �• ,. - I i I I t I �� I� L , 00 00 v o 0 CITY OF ASHLAND .0 cJ O QQO ^I^ESIDN STANDARDS BOUNDARY CD 8� a o Q p p C�y tAY O� ® yIlA1 IIY pTMrA MAY o O o 00 RA,Yux st. q > O � O O EASTEASS Y O A � O PLANNING ACTION 98-040 is a request for an amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.72.110 and Section VI of the Site Design and use Standards to establish a set of design standards for the downtown area. This includes the elimination of the ten percent landscaping requirement. APPLICANT: City of Ashland Type III amendments may be approved when one of the following conditions exist: A) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. B) The need to correct mistakes. C) The need to adjust to new conditions. D) Where circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action. .,;•pF ASy•• V - City of Ashland GREGGt� Department of Community Development Mark Knox (541)488-5305 Associate Planner Fax (541)488-5311 May 14, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director FROM: Mark Knox, Associate Planner ,n SUBJECT: Downtown Design Standards History - In regards to the development of the Downtown Design Standards, please find below a list of the meetings and other pertinent events that have taken place. If you have any questions or need clarification, please let me know. May 23, 1997 Meeting w/Mayor, Brian, Mac & Alan Sandler June 4, 1997 Mayor Appointed Citizen Committee June 19, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review July 29, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review August 13, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review August 29, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review October 15, 1997 Hired Consultant for Illustrations September 10, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review September 29, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review October 20, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review December 16, 1997 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review January 27, 1998 Draft Review by George Kramer, local Historic Preservation Consultant February 18, 1998 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review February 18, 1998 Draft & Q&A Handouts Available to Public February 18, 1998 Draft & Q&A Handouts Mailed to "Some" Local Architects, Designers, Contractors for Comments February 24, 1998 Study Session w/PC, HC & DTDRC Noticed Meeting March 20, 1998 Notice of Proposed Action to DLCD April 7, 1998 Draft Copies requested by DLCD April 9, 1998 Meeting w/DT Property Owners Noticed Meeting April 29, 1998 Downtown Design Review Committee Committee Review May 6, 1998 Historic Commission Public Hearing Noticed Meeting May 12, 1998 Planning Commission Public Hearing Noticed Meeting EXHIBIT "A" 51TE DE516N AND U5E 5TANDARD5 SECTION VI Downtown Deeign 5tandardo The purpose of the Downtown Design Standards is to respectthe Downtown area's unique heritage and to enhance the appearance and livability of the area as it develops and changes. Based upon common features found in the downtown, the standards provide a foundation for prospective applicants,citizens,and community decision makers to direct change in a positive and tangible way. It is not the intent of the Design Standards to freeze time and halt progress or restrict an individual property owner's creativity, but rather to guide new development or redevelopment to be within the context of their historic surroundings. Personal choice should be and can be expressed within the framework of the standards. While many communities across America are attempting to "create" or "re-create" an urban downtown of their own,the Downtown Design Standards are an attempt to preserve what Ashland already has; a "main street" historical district with diverse individual buildings that collectively create an organized, coordinated and ageless rhythm of buildings. As a collective group, the downtown can retain its "sense of place," its economic base; its history and its citizens' vision. Under the procedures of the City's Site Design and Review Process, an applicant wishing to undertake facade changes must demonstrate the proposal meets all the design standards in order for the decision making body to approve the proposal.As such,the standards should help increase objectivity and reduce subjectivity. The Downtown Design Standards adopts the following standards that shall be used as part of the land use approval process. VI-A) Height 1) Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped"parapets or slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" street scape appearance. An exception to this standard would be having a building that has a distinctive vertical division/facade treatment that"visually"separates it from adjacent buildings (Illustration:Recommend 1, 5& 10; Avoid 3). 2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown (Illustration: Recommend 1,5, 0& 10). 1 decorative parapet slightly dissimilar multiple surface roof n'�- -t S detail's add height 4-- - interest residential clear"visual' or commercial division of groun, uses above level floor flrst floor LI © yl and upper floor awnings break I j at pilasters I I 1 windowe and doors are change of transparent material at (glass) base ILLU576TION 1 RECOMMENDED VI-B) Setback 1) Except for arcades,alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5 & 10). Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard. 2) Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of entry"either through design or use of materials (Illustration: Recommend 2, 5, 6 & 10, Avoid 3). 3) Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation (Illustration:Avoid 4& 7). "surface"details on recessed aceso door sidewalk provide interest for/ entry to upper floors _ pedestrians zero setback at property line public sidewalk street trees II I IIS�TION 2. RECOMMENDED 2 too much height change from adjacent J- „�i .y building no al is / / break ak at at property line — - storefront and upper gtory does not p reflect the tr aditional limited ground symmetry of floor openings transparency -Ak.spacing' (glass) _ rhythm or proportion no base or change of material AVOID ILLI!`.zTRATI0N3 VI-C) Width 1) The width of building Shall extend from Side lot line to Side lot line (Illustration:Recommend 5). An exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining space or rear access for public pedestrian walkways. 2) Lots greater than 50'in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design (Illustration: Recommend 5 & 10). VI-D) Openings 1) Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6, & 10). 2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new windows,doors,entrances,columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the original architectural character of the building (Illustration: Recommend 5 &6,Avoid 4& 9). vertical proportion and lack of rhythm do not reflect the historic structural system of the existing building projecting T-111 siding-undesirable balconies exterior finish material are covers existing prohibited meoanine window and architectural detailo inappropriate "use"of materials removal of storefront no"sen" windows of eft_ a base l5 too high before after 'J ILLU5TRATION AVOID 4 clear vertical well defined cornice or'cap' prominent horizontal rhythms and clear visual division at division between street level and upper floors property line -- .-- - --� windows do not break EM the front primarily .; � Q plane of the vertical r r" r'• — building windows �l, v marquees are OK i . t to cross pilaotere leaves mezzanines; -- y F�windows cx posed pedestrian — { shelters- d maintain horizontal rhythms --•rr recessed entries create / 1LU5.TRATION.5 a"sense of or inviting entry RECOMMENDED 3)Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be.vertical(height greater than width)(Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 6; Avoid 5). 4)Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building(Illustration: Recommend 5). 5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent(Illustration: Recommend 10;Avoid 4). 6)Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk (Illustration: Recommend 1 &5; Avoid 4& 7). Blank walls adjacent to a public sidewalk are prohibited. VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms 1) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's otreetfront shall be maintained (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, 6& 10;Avoid 4& 5). 2)A clearvioual division shall be maintained between ground level floorand upper floors(Illustration: Recommend l, 5, 6& 10). 3) 5uildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength" (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5, & 10; Avoid 4, & 3). VI-F) Vertical Rhythms 1)New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation,either through actual volumes or the use of surface details to divide large walls, oo as to reflect the underlying historic property lines (Illustration: Recommend 5& 6; Avoid 3). 4 vertically porportioned : windows at second and third floors �O' _ well maintained architectural defined detail and Me= mine cornice windows - or"car maintained storefront transparency(glass) added pedestrian shelter before after ILLU.SS�'.A7ION 6 RECOMMENDED 2) 5torefront remodeling or upper-story additions Shall reflect the traditional structural system of the volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing (Illustration: Recommend 6; Avoid 4& 9). VI-G) Roof Forme 1) Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened from the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or"cap"along all primary elevations(Illustration:Recommend 1, 5& 10, Avoid 7). roof farm is Inconsistent with pattern found in y the downtown upper floor t projecting(or .recesaad) balconies are prohibited limited storefront base is window area too high AVOID ILIJlSTRATION 7 VI-H) Materials 1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area including block, brick, painted wood, Smooth stucco or natural Stone (Illustration: Avoid 4& 9). 5 2) In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels (Illustration: Recommend 1, 5 & 10,Avoid 7, 8& 9). no defined top or"cap"� no prominent horizontal alignment windows do not reflect a vertical "no continuity of orientation pening size, pacing, or ertical rhythms di►1 base is too no"sense of of high and not inviting entry" jkhorizonUtal continuous ILLU5TRATION__8 AVOID VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters 1)Awnings, marquees or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building and shall not obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine windows exist, awning or marquee placement shall be below the mezzanine windows. If transom windows exist,awning placement shall be`above or over"the transom windows where feasible (Illustration: Recommend 1,5, 6&10,Avoid 4& 9). 2) Except for marquees, similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between pilasters (Illustration: Recommend 1 & 5, Avoid 9). 3)Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the streetfront shall maintain a consistent horizontal rhythm by their respective sidewalk coverings (Illustration:Recommend 5, Avoid 5). VI-J) Other 1) Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalk of buildings may therefore be fairly simple, e.g., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows. 2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. this shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns,piers,cornices,and other primary structural and decorative elements (Illustration: Recommend 6,Avoid 4& 9). 6 removal of cornice and architectural details ® ® lam' _ non-compatible — -"" '" - flnish material - I rA altered window poportion - -'- --- _ awning covers mezzanine windows removal of architectural details - -- - --- - -- - i � .-, no base -------- l e after IL�JBATJQN-9 AVOID 3) Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over(Illustration: Recommend 0, Avoid 4& 9). 4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited (Refer to Site Design and Use 5tandards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening 5tandard6). An exception to this standard would be paths required for handicapped accessibility. 5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades,porticoes,awnings,and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. well defined"cap" simple details add interest 'balance of symmetry with residential or horizontal and commercial vertical uses above rhythms first floor retail or mezzanine office space windows are not obstructed recessed large storefront entries windows are a create a common pattern sense of or found in the Inviting downtown ILL115TKAWRIQ RECOMMENDED 6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service Stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire Stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses,although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. VI-K) Exception to 5tandards: An exception to the Downtown Design Standards he not subject to the Variance requirements of Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with respect to the Downtown Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: 1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site; 2) There is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard or historical precedent, (Refer to Illustration 11) 3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. zero setback- this small recessed balcony,does not dramatically directly behind deviate from the downtown's existing context-the sidewalk I majority of the facade is at a zero setback - ' —�- recessed balcony with front building t facade having a -- — zero setback I 'horizontal and vertical rythme provide symmetry I ILLU5TR6TIQN II (side profile) sidewalk EXAMPLE- POSSIBLE EXCEPTION DE51GN 8 Definitions: Addition:Construction that increases the size of the original structure by building outside existing walls and/or roof. Alcove: Any small recessed or niched space, Arcade: A covered passageway with a rhythmic series of openings on one or both sides. Awning: A lightweight, exterior roof-like shade that projects over a window or door. Balcony: A railed or balustrade platform that projects from a wall. Bay: 1. A repetitive vertical subdivision of an exterior facade; may be defined by various means, including pilasters and wall openings. 2. A door or window opening in a facade, especially when defined by repetitive columns or arches. Cast 5tone:A mixture of stone chips orfragments,usually embedded in a matrix of mortar,cement or plaster;the surface may be ground, polished, molded, or otherwise treated to simulate stone. Column: A slender, vertical element that supports part of a building or structure. Corbel: A stepped portion of a masonry wall; the steps may be on top, as in a crowstep parapet, or below, as at the edge of an opening or supporting belt course. Cornice: The projecting moldings forming the top band of a wall or other element. Courtyard: An exterior space surrounded on three or four sides by building and/or walls. Decorative: Treatment applied to the surface of a building or structure£o enhance its beauty. Easement: A deed restriction on a property giving someone besides the property owner rights to use or enjoy the property. Elevation: A scaled drawing which illustrates the view of a side of a building. Facade: Any of the exterior faces of a building. False Front: A building facade that extends above the roof or beyond the side walls in order to give the impression of a larger structure. Historic:A structure or site,usual ly over fifty years old,which possesses historical or architectural significance according to the Cultural Resources Inventory(1988-89)of the City of Ashland and/or 9 based on the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Marquee: A permanent roof-like shelter over an entrance to a building; flat in shape. Mezzanine: A partial intermediate floor between two main levels, especially directly above the ground floor; often has a lower ceiling height than the other levels. Mezzanine Window: A window with a greater width than height,especially when used to provide light to an intermediate floor. Orientation:The directional expression of the front facade of a building;i.e.,facing the street,facing north, facing south. Panel: A small plane surface surrounded by moldings or depressed below or raised above the adjacent surface; typically rectangular but may be any geometric shape; may be ornamented. Parapet: A low guarding wall that projects above the roof line. Pier: A member, usually in the form of a thickened section, which forms an integral part of a wall; usually placed at intervals along the wall to provide lateral support or to take concentrated vertical loads. Pilaster: An attached pier or pillar,often with capital and base;may be constructed as a projection of the wall itself. Plaza: An open public space. Rehabilitation: Refer to 5ection IV-A for definition and Section IV-15 1-11 for applicable standards. Remodel: Refer to 5ection IV-A for definition and 5ection IV-B 1-11 for applicable standards. Restoration: Refer to 5ection IV-A for definition. Transom Window: A glazed or clear opening above a door or window. Transparency: A clear opening or window; clear enough to see through. Veranda: An open-sided, raised sitting area with thin columns that support its roof; typically extends along an entire wall, or wraps around a corner. 10 EXHIBIT "B" 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: R-1 - 45% of total developed lot area R-2 - 35% of total developed lot area R-3 - 25% of total developed lot area C-1 - 15% of total developed lot area C-1-D - 4-9%None,-except parkmgg_areas and service"stations shall meet tlie'1"andscapin`g and screenuig-"standards i noted m Section 18 72 1x10 (B-E)and m Sectron D_,; Site Design and Use Standards. E-1 15% of total developed lot area M-1 10% of total developed lot area B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading and wind buffering, and aesthetic qualities. C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the property owner shall replace them. D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all of the landscaped areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen ground cover or by shrubs and shaded by the trees. E. One street tree per 30 feet of frontage shall be required on all projects. PLANNING ACTION 98-040 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 18.72, SECTION VI OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS TO ESTABLISH A SET OF DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT This action would amend Chapter 18.72, Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards and repeal the 10 percent landscaping requirement for areas within the proposed Downtown Design Standard's boundary. The boundary is shown on the map in red and runs from Helman to Siskiyou Boulevard and Lithia Way to Hargadine Street. The area contains approximately 120 tax lots and is 50 acres in size. This action came about mostly because of the process some recent developments have had to go through. There is no vision of what we want our town to look like and once these standards are adopted that will happen. When there are no standards or no direction, one ends up going to Staff, the Historic Commission and/or Planning Commission and it is difficult for an applicant to work on a project based on everyone's"opinion". This document tries to look to the future and what could happen with franchised design. This is not to say they won't come, but if they do, we can make sure it will fit into the context of the downtown. Staff and the Downtown Review Committee came up with nine elements or architectural issues that are incorporated into the document. Since the Planning Commission Study Session in February, there has been one major addition to the draft. That is, incorporation of an exceptions to the standards. For example, if an applicant has an unusual use such as a fire station or movie theater and cannot fit that type of use into a main street building, they could ask for the exception. They would still have to meet certain criteria but can show it is an unusual use and they have an alternative design that is equal or superior to the standards themselves and the minimum necessary is being asked to alleviate the difficulty. The goal is if an applicant cannot work with one or two, they could still work with the other eight. The landscaping change proposes to eliminate the landscaping on private properties except for parking lots and it would not eliminate the street tree requirements. There is really no landscaping on the older (pre-50's) buildings. In some cases it can be a maintenance problem for the owners. Knox named the members of the Downtown Design Review Committee. They are: Jerome White, local architect; Michael Donovan, owner of Chateaulin; Le Hook, Scene Design Manager of OSF; Jim Lewis, Historic Commissioner and historic contractor, Bob Rasmussen, Vice President, US Bank; Dale Shostrom, Historic Commissioner and local designer and contractor. The committee had at least eight to nine meetings in the last year. The standards have been sent to other local architects, State Historic Preservation Office, Livable Oregon, local historic consultants Kay Atwood and George Kramer. Briggs wondered about landscaping/trees (10%)at the service stations and old stations downtown. Knox said they will keep the standards in for that. McLaughlin said they will be kept for anyplace providing parking. The document has been reviewed at a Study Session in detail according to Hearn. There were many recommendations made and he wondered if the recommendations were put into this document. Knox believed he incorporated everyone's comments, even those persons not on the Planning Commission. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12,1998 _, it •. � One thing that came up was the discussion of balconies. The standards have been modified to allow balconies and outdoor spaces and certain design standards that would keep the facades of the building appropriate to the downtown but to allow that without making it prohibitive as it was in the original draft. There is another drawing to support it. Hearn asked with regard to buildings like churches, which are a little different than commercial buildings (Episcopal Church), if there has been any effort for exceptions for churches? Knox said they would fit into the same categories as unusual use. Molnar said that was some of Staffs thinking behind the exceptions language (Criteria 1). Fields wondered if there was any language restricting or regulating demolition. McLaughlin said there is an ordinance on demolitions. There is an inventory of everything in the Historic District. If it is a primary or secondary structure, approval from the City Council has to be obtained in order to demolish a building. Chapman thought on Page 1, the language"multi-story development is encouraged"should be stronger. Why not require it? McLaughlin said we want to use the exceptions language to be used the least. The ordinance language should reflect the direction in which you expect things to go. We have never adopted, as a community, buildings-of a certain.height.to be-built.-The market can decide. We encourage it and _ provide incentives but not mandate. Fields said free parking gives leverage. Chapman noted page 2, #3- recessed or projecting balconies—does that grandfather what is already there? McLaughlin said it does. Chapman also noted on page 7, illus. 10-add residential uses along with retail and commercial uses above the first floor. PUBLIC HEARING ALLEN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect Street, submitted written testimony. He is concerned about procedure by Staff and various commissions. Sandler is speaking mostly of redesigning existing buildings. He would like an approval before getting the building permit. Howe said by having the standards in place that will put the requirements up front. Sandler would like an additional procedure or two that would allow for some approvals ahead of time before going to engineering. McLaughlin explained what Sandler is asking is what the planning process is designed to do. At the pre- app, discussion occurs about design standards and the city's recommendations (comments taken from all city departments). The applicant puts the requests into a design and run through the Historic and Planning Commission for approval. The Planning Commission approves the design. No engineering would be required to this point. The applicant's engineer will then do the structural design of the building. Planning will compare the design with what was approved by the Planning and Historic Commission to make sure they match. If the design is changed, there is a problem and that would start a negotiation process to see if the changes are substantial and need to be brought before the Planning Commission again or if there are minor changes. The final approval is based on what is on file. Sandler said the Historic Commission has said they have a right to change the design beyond that point. McLaughlin said it can be changed up until the Planning Commission gives their approval. Howe wondered if Sandler has had problems with changes after the Planning Commission approval in the past. Sandler responded they have had but they cannot blame Staff for what the problems have been because they have been so convoluted. McLaughlin said he would not need to hire an engineer until after the Planning Commission findings are adopted. Up to that point, the process requires that the plan can be changed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12,1998 Fields said there is a risk factor when coming up with solutions to design and site considerations and tenants, and there is a risk when you come back with your final design that it will be acceptable. He explained to Sandler this should be worked on as a procedural issue. Hopefully the standards presented tonight will be helpful. Sandler said beyond the procedural idea, he likes the document. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Hearn asked the record to reflect the following: The Commission reviewed Hillside standards (another issue but"standards")and he recalls having study sessions and public hearings. He recalls looking Out and seeing vacant rooms at those meeting. Then he recalls later reading in the paper there had been no public hearings but what he saw at the meetings were empty chairs. Tonight, Bemis and Sandler are here but mostly he is looking at empty chairs. Hearn likes the design standards, but if this passes and a bunch of people come back in a few months asking, "where were the public hearings?" he wants the record to reflect not only did we have this hearing, but we have had these groups getting together for months and months and had study sessions too. Howe said page 1, the third sentence, should read"...having a building that'has' a distinctive..." instead of 'have'. Page 2, #3, just leave in 'projecting'. Page 5, illus. 7, should not say 'recessed'either. Knox said he will work on wording. Howe said most of the illustrations are 1896 to 1927 and there is very little art deco. She would like to the middle building drawing as art deco with the 40 foot width so people who are looking at pictures for suggestions see there is a possibility for something other than turn of the century style. Howe continued stating there is a statement on page 6, #1 about placing the awnings below the transom window where feasible. The illustrations 1 and 5 referred to show the awnings over the transoms. Knox suggested dividing it up into two sentences. Howe asked about definitions. Arcade-"a rhythmic series of openings" instead of"archways". Corbel-doesn't explain what a corbel is. Marquee-Varsity marquee? McLaughlin said by definition it is a fixed awning. Pilaster-"engaged pillar". Fields said rather than standing independent of the building, it is "attached", not engaged. Sandrels-what are"extradoses"? Briggs said to eliminate"extradoses". Howe said it seems we need to address the keeping of 10 percent for commercial buildings that is auto related. Hearn moved to approve with recommendations made. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously. OTHER ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12,1998 a j i Planning Action 98-040 Amendment to the Site Design and Use Standards section of Land Use Ordinance City of Ashland Knox briefly summarized the commencement of the Downtown Design Review Committee. Originally, the design standards were so subjective, conflicts resulted, which was not only time consuming, but costly for the applicant as well. The City was in need of something clear for the applicants' designers. Allen Sandler and Ed Bemis had these problems as they were in the design stage and in the construction of their new building on East Main Street, so they went to the Mayor, who agreed better standards needed to be adopted. As a result, a committee was appointed consisting of Lewis and Shostrom from the Historic Commission, former Historic Commission member and OSFA employee Le Hook, architect Jerome White,downtown business owner Michael Donovan, and downtown business person Bob Rasmusson. After numerous meetings, the committee drafted a set of standards. One public hearing has already been held. Tonight the Historic Commission is holding a public hearing, then it goes to the Planning Commission and finally the City Council for adoption. The committee worked out height, setbacks, width, openings, horizontal rhythms, vertical rhythms, roof forms, materials, and exceptions. Basically, the text has not changed since the first public hearing, however, better visual graphics have been added and the text has been clarified. Bailey inquired about the differences between standards and guidelines. Knox related originally the Site Design and Use Standards were guidelines. After the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had ruled guidelines are not enforceable, the City Council adopted the guidelines as standards. Lewis added the standards are still flexible. Allen Sandler, 1260 Prospect Street, stated he has read the new standards and thinks they are fabulous. However, he has the following three concerns: 1)detail-what size scale will be required? 2)which will supercede-design or code? Knox stated fire and life safety requirements will supercede the standards. 3) is there a way to receive Historic Commission consensus prior to plan review stage? Lewis stated it is good to bring in sketches even before the pre-application stage. A real decision can only be made at a full commission meeting. Knox added applicants can start by coming to the Historic Commission meetings in an informal capacity, but reminded Sandler that before the members can make a binding decision, a complete set of plans would be required. Lewis asserted if everyone works together in good faith, the process will work. Ed Bemis, 398 Dead Indian Memorial Road, stated in his opinion, as long as the criteria is met, the standards will be met. Sandler said he wants assurance if he gets an opinion from the full Commission, the decision will stick for the final approval, and he wants it incorporated in the Standards. Steele pointed out what Sandler is seeking is procedure and should not be part of the policies or standards. She suggested Sandler work on this as a separate issue. Shostrom moved to recommend the Planning Commission and City Council adopt the Downtown Design Standards as written. Steele seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of April follow: Ashland Historic Commission Minutes May 6, 1998 3 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT May 12, 1998 PLANNING ACTION: 98-040 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Downtown Ashland ZONE DESIGNATION: Retail Commercial District - Downtown (C-1-D) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: --Downtown Commercial ORDINANCE REFERENCE: C-1 Retail Commercial District 18.32 Site Design & Use Standards ' 18.72 • Exhibit "A", Section VI • Landscaping, Section 18.72.110 • Definitions, Section 18.72.020 REQUEST: A request for an amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.72, Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards to establish a set of design standards for the downtown area. A request is also being made to repeal the 10% landscaping requirement for areas within the proposed Downtown Design Standard's Boundary. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: Acknowledgment of design standards for the downtown area has long been part of the City's long term planning strategy. The City's Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue by stating "the City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant." As the downtown has grown, matured, and revitalized itself, certain "growing pains" have been noticed. Concern was expressed to the Ashland City Council and a committee, chosen by the Mayor, was formed to help staff establish a set of design standards for the Downtown Area. The "Downtown Design Standards Committee" met approximately eight times over the past year and helped staff create a draft plan. A noticed study session with the Downtown Design Standards Committee and the Historic and Planning Commissions was held in February of 1998. A noticed meeting with the Downtown Design Standards Committee and Downtown Area property owners was held in April of 1998. The Site Design and Use Standards were adopted in August of 1992 and the Downtown Plan was adopted in July of 1988. 2) Detailed Description of the Boundary, Proposal and Purpose: Boundary: The general boundaries of the downtown area can be described as being from Helman Street to Siskiyou Boulevard and from Lithia Way to Hargadine Street. -- ------- The blocks and lots are oriented on a grid with-lettered streets-running—north - and south and named streets running east and west. The entire district is contained within Section 9, Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, and includes portions of the Original Town, Railroad Addition blocks, and the Enders Addition. The area is approximately 50 acres in size and accommodates approximately 120 tax lots. Most of the extant buildings date from periods 1879 (the I.O.O.F. Building) to 1937 (the Varsity Theatre) and represent a variety of architectural styles. Proposal: The proposal is for an amendment to Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards to incorporate Design Standards for the Downtown Area. Also, a proposal to repeal the 10% landscaping requirement for areas within the Downtown Design Standard's boundaries. Street trees as well as landscaping within parking lots would continue to be a requirement of development. Purpose: The purpose of the Downtown Design Standards is to respect the Downtown area's unique heritage and to enhance the appearance and livability of the area as it develops and changes. With these changes, the Downtown faces increased development pressures as land values and the desirability of downtown real estate rises. This is largely the result of the areas immediate proximity to the theatres of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the city's "walkable" environment. Increasing demand in recent years have seen incompatible new development and both partial demolition and substantial renovation or remodeling of historically significant structures. PA98-040 Ashland Planning Department— Staff Report City of Ashland May 12, 1998 Page 2 Once in place, the Downtown Design Standards will provide a foundation for prospective applicants, citizens, and community decision makers to direct change in a positive and tangible way. It is not the intent of the Design Standards to freeze time and halt progress or restrict an individual property owner's creativity, but rather to guide new development or redevelopment to be within the context of their historic surroundings. II. Project Impact Downtown Design Standards: The Downtown Design Standards are based upon nine basic architectural elements (standards) commonly found in the downtown. Height, Setback, Width, Openings, Horizontal Rhythms, Vertical Rhythms, Roof Forms, Materials and Sidewalk -- - - Coverings (Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters). A tenth standard called "Other" was added in order to incorporate items not specific to any of the basic architectural elements noted above. A brief explanation of the "ten" standards is provided below: Height: The current height limitation in the (C-1-D) downtown area is 40' and possibly 55' with Conditional Use Permit approval. This standard does not change the current height allowances. However, the standard does say that building heights shall be slightly dissimilar to its adjacent neighbor in order to give the new building its own visual distinction as well as maintain the traditional "staggered" appearance found in the downtown. Setback: One of the most common and most important elements found in the downtown is therconsistent placement of a building's front setback - placed directly behind the sidewalk. In fact, most successful downtowns share this feature. A building with a setback directly behind the sidewalk is one that offers the streetscape "a human scale" appearance. Merchants are able to offer their wares to each potential patron and passing pedestrians are offered an interesting display of merchandise as they pass by - making their walk more pleasurable. This standard applies to upper stories as well. The standard specifically prohibits upper story balconies that are recessed or project outward. This was not a common feature found in the downtown except for on newer developments. It was apparent to the Downtown Design Standards Committee this "newer" element was not appropriate when compared to the downtown's existing context. However, the group did agree this type of design element could work as long as it was appropriately done. This is further explained below under the "Exception to Standards" section and is specifically included PA98-040 Ashland Planning Department-- Staff Report City of Ashland May 12, 1998 Page 3 in the Downtown Design Standards as an illustrative example of what could possibly be approved if the proposed design accomplishes the purpose and intent of the standards. Width: The downtown is laden with 40' and 80' buildings that abut each other at the property line. The standard requires this tradition to continue unless the side area is specifically designed as "people areas" such as a plaza, courtyard, dining area or rear access for pedestrian walkways (Chatauqua Walk). The second provision of this standard is most likely to apply to only four properties within the downtown area (if ever considered for development) - the City's Hargadine and Pioneer parking lots and the Elks and Wells Fargo parking lots off of Lithia Way. Because these properties are large lots, there is a chance an applicant would want to construct one large wide building. Under the provisions of this standard, the applicant could construct one large wide building but would have to incorporate into the building's design a 'rhythmic division" in-the-building's exterior facade. enin s: This standard basically requires ground level windows to be "storefront" style windows (large picture frame) and upper story windows to be primarily vertical (height greater than width). The other items listed under this standard are common features in the downtown area. The illustrations in the plan should provide examples of each. Horizontal Rhythms: Historic "mainstreet" buildings typically have three main body components - top, bottom and middle. Each give the building "horizontal" consistency. The top is usually capped with a cornice and the bottom a base. The middle section includes the area between the cornice and the windows, the area below the window sills and the floor joist and the area above the floor joist and the store front windows. Rarely do these items vertically break the pattern. Vertical Rhythms: Vertical rhythms, in combination with horizontal rhythms, give a building balanced symmetry. The purpose behind the standard is to ensure new and remodeled developments add components that are symmetrical with the rest of the building. For example, a single story building with pilasters framing storefront windows would traditionally have a second floor addition that respects the pilaster's vertical alignment and continues the pilasters upward; framing the new second story windows between the pilasters. Roof Forms: A major difference between residential and commercial buildings is their roof pitch or roof line. The flat roof is the most common roof line found in the downtown. They are usually "capped" by a cornice or are decorated by a distinctive parapet wall. In any case, the Roof Form standard establishes this type of feature as the PA98-040 Ashland Planning Department-- Staff Report City of Ashland May 12, 1998 Page 4 required choice. Materials: A variety of finish materials can be found on the exterior of downtown buildings. The Materials standard basically allows a number of applications, but stops short of contemporary or non-compatible finishes such as aluminum siding, T-111 siding, reflective glass, all glass, cast stone or exposed concrete. Awnings Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters: Sidewalk coverings are very beneficial to the downtown. They shelter pedestrians from rain, protect display window merchandise from sun damage, regulate the amount of heat and direct sunlight, and serve as a sign or identity for a business. Because sidewalk coverings have a major visual effect not only on the building, but also the entire streetscape, a design standard was included. The intent of this standard is to ensure that awnings respect the building's details and are proportionate to the building. In some unfortunate cases, awnings "climb" up the face of a building and eclipse all architectural details. In these same cases, the awnings are so large and out of proportion with the building that they become a visual distraction. Other: As noted above, this standard incorporates items not specific to any basic architectural elements. Six issues are incorporated into this standard and all are relatively straight forward. Some of the items listed in this section are already incorporated in the existing Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards. Exception to Standards: Like any good ordinance, an "exception clause" is necessary in order to "not" prohibit a better idea or dismiss an unusual circumstance. Section VI-K allows for exceptions to the design standards as long as the following circumstances can be found to exist: 1) There io demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site; 2) There is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard or historical precedent; (Refer to Illustration 11) 3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of PA98-040 Ashland Planning Department-- Staff Report City of Ashland May 12, 1998 Page 5 meeting the Downtown Design 5tandards. An example of a possible exception would be for a certain type of use that probably couldn't meet all of the standards (i.e., fire station). Although a design exception could be granted for a fire station with large bay doors in the front instead of a typical "storefront" design, the remaining standards could still be applied. Height, setback, materials, etc. could all be incorporated into the design that allows for the building to conform with its surrounding neighbors. Landscaping: Under current ordinance, developments within the downtown area are subject to a minimum 10% landscaping requirement. The Downtown Design Standards Review Committee felt the requirement was not in keeping with the downtown's existing "main street" theme. Other than public landscaping (street trees, planter beds), landscaping is not usually found in the downtown on private property. With few exceptions (modern ones), buildings are directly behind the sidewalk with no area for landscaping. In the past, staff has worked hard to make sure new developments were in keeping with their surroundings. Unfortunately, the requirement would cause the new building to be "setback" from the sidewalk - breaking the rhythm of building alignment or cause the property owner to place the landscaping in unseen areas. The proposal to eliminate the 10% landscaping requirement does not eliminate the landscaping requirements of parking lots nor does it eliminate the street tree requirements. The elimination only covers landscaping on private property and only within the designated downtown area. Staff has discussed the elimination proposal with the Ashland Tree Commission. The Tree Commission agreed with the proposal considering the circumstances. A letter of support should be available at the time of the hearing. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for a Type III Amendment are as follows: Type III amendments are applicable whenever there exists: A) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan B) The need to correct mistakes; PA98-040 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland May 12, 1998 Page 6 C) The need to adjust to new conditions; or D) Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare requires such an amendment. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Regardless of age, a consistent, organized and coordinated rhythm of buildings allows the downtown to continue as one entity. An entity that has preserved its "sense of place", its economic base and its history. If we are to continue to benefit from this unity, new buildings and changes to existing buildings must respect the repeating parts found in the downtown and incorporate them into the standards. Staff is very confident with the proposed standards. The standards have been put together by a group of very cable people with backgrounds in architecture, design, construction, tourism, history and finance. Each has had a long history with the downtown and have either once served as a local Commissioner/Counselor or are currently serving. The proposed standards have been reviewed by local architects, local designers, the State Historic Preservation Office, Oregon Downtown Development Association - a division of Livable Oregon, and local Historic Preservation Consultants. In addition, three public meetings have been held to date with each property owner within the downtown area receiving a notice. In conclusion, it is staffs opinion the proposed amendments will be extremely beneficial to the Ashland's Downtown and therefore warrant adoption. PA98-040 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland May 12, 1998 Page 7 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 and request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on May inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if 12, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Depanmem,City Hall, East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Main street,Ashland.Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the law states that lailure to raise an objection concerning this application,either in person length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an Unless there is a continuance,if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you Board of Appeals ILUBAI on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact Susan the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, at 552-2041. ASHLAND DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS 'rr�1`1•� `_'_` - e1_ .__l arm-7tt c � it t I III i . l .t r - _ m 00 °O vo CYO° CITY OF ASHLAND o c ° QQO �A DESIGN StMDARDE BOGNDUY ❑ q o Qa o x �Aryr wow ® „ ❑ Q uTYU yfrG Gv D a.Y o � � o0 O CISi Y.UN Si. O O f® L.VT Ma 11 Q O C7 �M® O NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on May 6, 1998 in the Ashland Community Center located at 59 Winburn Way at 7:30 p.m. PLANNING ACTION 98-040 is a request for an amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.72, Section VI of the Site Design and Use Standards to establish a set of design standards for the downtown area. APPLICANT: City of Ashland Questions & Answers o,. '0 asy y! 1y Downtown Design Standards Document Handout for the Ashland Downtown Area O�,,. M ,V Below are "general answers" to some likely questions that will possibly be asked at tonight's meeting. In addition, the City's Planning staff will be available to answer additional questions or clarifications to the questions and answers listed below. 1) Question: Why are Downtown Design Standards necessary? 1) Answer: Ashland's downtown area has a unique identity that is not only historic in appearance, but also multi-functional in form. While many communities across America are attempting to "create" or"re-create" an urban downtown of their own, the Downtown Design Standards are an attempt to preserve what Ashland already has. The adoption of the Standards will enable new development to be built within the context of its surrounding neighbors. As the downtown has grown, matured, and revitalized itself, certain "growing pains"have been noticed. A building designed to reflect a corporate image(Hollywood Video, Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc) rather than the image of downtown Ashland would have significant compatibility problems with the existing area. Under current City ordinances, however, a corporate design could be proposed and constructed. 2) Question: Will the Downtown Design Standards reduce parking? 2) Answer: No. The Downtown Design Standards will not have any impact on the availability of parking in the downtown area. The design standards only address the physical placement of a structure and what design context it should follow. In conjunction with other City ordinances and Comprehensive Plan policies, the Downtown Design Standards require the streetscape to be lined with buildings rather than parking spaces. If parking is proposed with a development, it will need to be placed behind the new building. 3) Question: Why are the Downtown Design Standards proposed as "standards" and not "guidelines"? 3) Answer: Significant investment by property owners, merchants and residents have been made in order to keep the downtown a successful commercial, employment and social environment. As "standards", the community's investment can withstand an inappropriate proposal or worse - a legal challenge. "Guidelines" on the other hand, may not deter an undesirable development proposal or legal challenge. Lastly, guidelines typically do not deter a franchise corporation looking to construct their "standardized design" in a community. Standards will ensure that new development will be designed to support the community's visioned identity. 4) Question: Will the Downtown Design Standards make it easier/quicker to get Planning approval? 4) Answer: Yes. As long as a proposal meets the adopted criteria, design review approval should be straight forward and expeditious. Not only do the applicants have objective criteria to work with, so do the decision makers. Often times it takes many weeks and months to develop a conceptual elevation that may or may not be acceptable. With the adoption of standards, the architect/designer will know exactly what the community's architectural vision is and can complete the work in much less time. NOTE: It has been the City's experience that applicants/developers want to construct what the community desires. Not only do they care what the community values are, they also are business people with little money or time to waste. Without those community values known, no one benefits. 5) Question: Is it an attempt of the Design Standards to falsify history? 5) Answer: No. Attempting to make a building look older than it is by applying decorations from earlier styles falsifies the true history of the structure. It also detracts from the true history of the adjacent buildings and the Downtown Historic District. Moreover, creating a"more historic" appearance can be expensive. Exterior modifications to "historic buildings"however, should be sensitive. Additions and/or remodels to historic buildings should respect the building's proportions, horizontal rhythms, vertical rhythms and materials so that the changes complement the qualities of the old building. 6) Question: What will the downtown area look like in fifty years if the standards are adopted? 6)Answer: Except for some upper floor additions, the Plaza and East Main Street areas should look similar to today. Lithia Way, Hargadine Street(north side), and other undeveloped sites or underdeveloped structures will likely "infill" with similar structures that front the Plaza and East Main Street. These "infill" buildings will probably not have the architectural history as its neighbors, but they will be compatible in height, mass, orientation, symmetry, window openings, etc. NOTE: Regardless of age, a consistent, organized and coordinated rhythm of buildings allows the downtown to continue as one entity. An entity that has preserved its "sense of place", its economic base, its history and its citizen's vision. 7) Question: Did the Downtown Design Standards have community input? 7) Answer: Yes. Over the last year six members of the community met on numerous occasions to help create, define, and edit the standards. The membership consisted of Michael Donovan, Downtown Business and Property Owner; Jerome White, Architect; Le Hook, Scene Shop Manager for Oregon Shakespeare Festival; Jim Lewis, Historic Preservation Contractor, Historic Commission Chair; Bob Rasmussen, Vice President, U.S. Bank, local branch; and Dale Shostrum, Contractor, Designer, Historic Commission member. In addition, members of the Planning staff and an outside architect participated in the discussion and creation of the standards. 8) Question: Were other resources used in drafting the standards? 8) Answer: Yes. A number of books, reports, handouts and ordinances were collected. Each had varying approaches as to what was appropriate for their communities and how they planned to apply the issues. Certain elements were gleaned from these resources and applied where appropriate. 9) Question: What if a non-retail/office building, such as a fire station,was proposed for the downtown area? Would the Downtown Design Standards prohibit it? 9) Answer: No. In these cases a design exception can be applied for. The following criteria will need to be demonstrated in order for an exception to be made: a) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site; b) There is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard; c) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. NOTE: Although a design exception would be granted for a fire station with large bay doors in the front instead of a typical "storefront' design, the remaining standards could still be applied. Height, setback, materials, etc. could all be incorporated into the design that allows for the building to conform with its surrounding neighbors. 10) Question: Are there any other changes proposed that are not specifically noted in the proposed design standards? 10) Answer: Yes. Except for landscaping in parking lots and street trees, elimination of the 10% landscaping requirement in the downtown area is being proposed. The 10%requirement does little to nothing for the"main street'and often causes a number of maintenance problems for the . II property owner. Other than public landscaping (street trees, planter beds), landscaping is not usually found in the downtown on private property. Landscaping typically eliminates floor space and sets a building"back" in order to accomplish the requirement. 11) Question: What's next? 11) Answer: The Downtown Design Standards Steering Committee will meet again to discuss the comments raised at this meeting and for final refinement. A tentative public hearing has been scheduled for the Planning and Historic Commissions in May. If all goes well, the standards will be heard by the Ashland City Council in June. Joint Study Session Planning/Historic Commission "Downtown Design Standards" Feb. 24, 1998 Attendance : Planning Commission: Russ Chapman Steve Armitage Chris Hearn Mike Gardiner Mike Morris Alan DeBoer - Council Liason Historic Commission: Jim Lewis (also Downtown Design Committee) Keith Chambers Downtown Design Committee: Jerome White Staff: Mac Mark Knox - Staff support to Committee Bill Molnar Maria Harris George Kramer, Historic Consultant Meeting began at 7 : 10pm, Ashland City Council Chambers Knox gave history of committee, need for new standards, and development process for new standards . Knox showed map of proposed "Design Standards Boundary" Knox discussed the individual standards, and provided background information explaining the evolution of the standards . Chapman questioned whether multi-story development should be "mandatory" - he likes the idea of two-story buildings downtown, and especially likes having residential on the second stories . Discussion ensued regarding "recessed or projecting balconies" and the whether they should be prohibited or not . Examples were discussed of downtown buildings with recessed balconies which were successful (Fields building, Shostrum downtown building) . SUGGESTION: Allow for opportunities for balconies when appropriate - be careful but not too limiting. Armo recommends that not only balconies be given with an exception, but also many other standards should allow for exceptions . Knox explained the width standard. DeBoer raised concerns that Lithia Way would develop in a similar standard as East Main Street . He stated as a lifelong resident of the community he was concerned in seeing a change in Lithia Way to a downtown-style . White asked DeBoer what an alternative development style could be, if we are trying to develop a pedestrian style commercial area. DeBoer agreed, but said it ' s a major change . Fields said that new development should follow the historic pattern established on East Main Street . Chambers said that he thought the standards needed to be visionary and that these are good standards . Knox explained Openings standard, Horizontal Rhythms standard, Vertical Rhythms. Discussion came on the Materials standard. Should express language be added regarding prohibiting "Tudor" or "Western" designs - generally decided that other portions of the ordinance covered this and no additional language was necessary. Knox explained the Awning, etc . . . Standard. Discussion came on breaking up the awnings around pilasters - White thinks it may not be appropriate . Kramer thought maintaining the breaks is good. Discussion was raised on the requirement of awnings on all new development . SUGGESTION: awnings should be encouraged where appropriate . . . Suggested that signs should be included in the illustrations and maybe addressed in the text (perhaps) . . . adjourned at 9 : 50pm Downtown D - • Standards Ashland, Oregon multi-story with residential or horizontal&vertical dissimilar co mercial use above first floor rythms provide symme roof he his simple C aes I may, n;irlir arco III:`\�1S�1`'ifi��: . • pfOpUlIiU1lalB na'ni11L cicnr�ertir.J Ji�ision at property line �pedc.rriun shcher m CtlIllCal � I I , I I pl'tICSn'la❑ chllllr- � mainmins III . hurin.nml rhelhnly '�_ �cindowS and doomurc_p[uvarily Irmy<pamnl^""�y I decorative columns,denails and cornice-provide interest prominent-hori7ontal I clear vertical division at property line it Change of material at base it Zoo Fool selback at i��i" ,r,j° slrgh.8y dissimilar �. "surface details provide interest "horizontal&vertical (cornice,columns,window moldings,etc.) rythms provide symmetry residential a commerciat ' uses above faso Floor •horizontal&vertical rythms provide symmetry decorative parapet 16 1 architectural cojite.xt iii ••nC{', I, I r l �9 near vertical dlvi&i: respects the not or"cap '�� downtown's vaditional w 1 br eak the front \� plane of the building street tieci accentuate Chan"C of �Ncll defined buildinitts and add niille�ial al base ..,sense ol'cinli-Y" hulliall scale-, defined cornice or"cap" Parapet hitles mechanical©gaipmantY�i� uy,, r vteertical break at propettyi line ,`color':` it-�cro ['not tinge storefront windi,N%s setback at are it connoon leature i i 11, at to c 'original building openines hove been relnined through remodzl symmetrical building-"simple" traditional"flat"roof form Ilivigion ci[ fPut3 EG �^ URWFen fiFstQU �>•yi > ad 5UMMIGH, uonc ur little surl9cc detail i5 OF olf alter stomlrtun rvindo�ss proridc interest — - Rte) i is �L SvE de..d i7 �. KyY .�.{. ( •e. j :��' e �� C, i � i -/./N//./// f ��. � f � � � i '��jr ,�� r}",: ' �F .. ..._ (4 �(�\..r. m.4 City Council Communication July 7, 1998 Submitted by: lohn McLau li Reviewed by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike freeman Title: Council Confirmation of CDBG Funding for Community Works' Family Resource Center Synopsis: Through the City's budget process, approximately $250,000 has been allocated to Community Works through the Community Development Block Grant process for the construction of a Family Resource Center. The City has also provided the land for the development, near the Council Chambers on East Main Street. During this year's budget process, the CDBG budget subcommittee expressed concern about the timeline for this process, and requested an update from Community Works. At the same time, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) notified the City with their concern about the timeliness of this project, and if substantial progress was being made. Staff met with members of Community Works and agreed upon a project budget, time line, and phasing plan, with checkpoints to assure the City that progress was being made. We are pleased to announce that Community Works has met the requirements established by the City for the awarding of this grant, including the securing of additional funding to meet the requirements by June 30. A recent grant from the Meyer Foundation put the - _— project over the top. The funding ensures that Phase One can be completed, and that all programs currently operating in the Pioneer Hall building can be transferred to this site, as well as the implementation of additional programs outlined In their grant application. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council find that Community Works has met the requirements of the agreement for award of their CDBG grant. Background Information: Included with this memo is a Project Description, including Time Line requirements for awarding the grant. A budget for the Ashland Youth and Family Resource Center - Phase One, Is also included. Exhibit A-1 Project Description Project Title: Ashland Youth and Family Resource Center Subrecipient Name: Community Works Subrecipient Contact: David Marshall, Controller Telephone Number: 779.2393 Address: 900 East Main Street Medford, OR 97504 Agreement Amount: $249,850.00 Signatory Officer: Arnie Green, Executive Director STATEMENT OF WORK: ` . Community Works will construct a buildi at 1�allcomply house the Ashland Youth and Family Resource Center. The all respects with that certain lease entered into by Community Works and the City of Ashland dated December 1, 1996, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit G. Community Works will obtain all necessary local, state and/or federal approvals for construction and is responsible for performing all necessary pre-construction, project planning and construction work. The Ashland Youth and Family Resource Center will be a multi-purpose facility, serving different populations at different times. During the school day, services would be available and targeted to address the needs of runaway, homeless, status offender, and drop-out youth - specifically in the form of counseling, drop-in programs, outreach and case management. A"job switchboard" will be developed to line up short-term employment with local business for unemployed or homeless youth. During after-school hours the Center will sponsor programs centered around meeting the needs of latch-key youth such as classes and activities while will be developed to complement those already available in the community. Evening hours will be dedicated to a variety of activities for older youth, counseling for families and parent education/support groups. The project will also be a conduit for extended services through other Community Works' programs, providing shelter, housing ,case management, family mediation and transitional living services. Upon completion of the building by May 1, 1999, the Ashland Youth and Family Resource Center will be operational and provide at minimum, the above described services to a population of clients of which 51% or more are low- and moderate-income as defined by the Department of Housing and Development. Community Works shall operate the building as the Ashland Youth and Family Resource Center in accordance with the Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Program Regulations in 24 CFR 570 until five years after closeout of the City of Ashland's participation in the entitlement Community Development Block Grant program as outlined in 24 CFR 570.505. CDBG SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT G:VAAM%CDBGW7C0NTRIAytr ." 7 28AP98 Exhibit A-1 Project Description TIME LINE: Subrecipient must complete each and all of the following tasks by the date listed. If any of the deadlines are not met, the Community Development Block Grant from the City of Ashland awarded for the project is withdrawn and terminated. In such case, funds previously disbursed to Subrecipient as described in paragraph 5 of the Agreement, shall be returned to City by September 1, 1998. The City of Ashland will not disburse funds until total financing for the project is secured. Task/Milestone Deadline for Task/Milestone I. Total Project Funding Secured by June 30, 1998 II. Obtain Building Permit by July 15, 1998 III. Finalize Contract With Builder by July 15, 1998 IV. Construction Commences by July 31, 1998 V. Facility Finished/Obtain Certificate of Occupancy by March 31, 1999 VI. Center Operational by May 1, 1999 CDBG SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT G'.WAR1A%CDBG%97C0NTR%Ayfrc..PO 8 28APIN JUN ) 1998 COMMUNITY WORKS BUDGET FOR THE ASHLAND YOUTH AND FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER- PHASE ONE AS OF 31 MAY 1998 RECEIPTS and PENDING GRANTS: CDBG (City of Ashland) 249,850 Collins Foundation Grant 100,000 Interest Earned 8,218 108,218 Carpenter Grant 40,000 Jeld Wen 10,000 Meyer Grant 195,000 Capital Campaign 9,032 Foundation Grant-Wells Fargo 5,000 Contributions 6,485 Direct Mail Contribution 100 Other Misc. Construction Grants 3,000 TOTAL RECEIPTS and GRANTS 626,685 PLEDGES (to be received thru 31 DEC98) 78,232 Less: 5% Pledges Uncollectible (6,259) 71,973 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $ 698,658 PROJECTED CONSTRUCTIONIDESIGN COSTS "Hard"Construction Costs 565,000 Remaining Architectural Fees 5,950 Forecast Remaining Architectural Reimbursable Expenses 1,095 Building Permit and System Development Charges 27,798 CDBG Expenditures 41,263 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION/DESIGN COSTS-PHASE ONE 641,106 CONTINGENCY 56,500 TOTAL ACTUAL AND PROJECTED PHASE ONE COSTS(A+ B +C) $ 697,606 RECEIPTS'GREATER"(LESS)THAN PRO IECTEDjPHi4$E ON ',1 053x' 6 17 AM 6/10/98 aq C J. 2y w /< 22d/« . \J \ k } ) \ � m « K EK } \ ff $ ; Lu 2 § [ (/ ) / \ ) ) ui m £ w c , , § c6 a ■ £ k F ƒ 6Q c; \c { mL k§ \ \ 7 §k v m_ , _l5pn. k2 - - # � ° B __ � \ JUN 101 §§ B 20 E . $ yUS ! koel E kf ;} - , ! I § f [ f ¥I) ( JUN tu , { / ) � � l � S ) kk2 06/30/1998 12: 19 5417793317 COMMUITYWORKS, INC. PAGE 02 c. COMMUNITY Medford,,Ore Medford,Oregon,97504 WORKS (541)779-2393 fax:(541)779.3317 ASHLAND YOUTH AND FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER FIRST PHASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS The initial construction on the AYFRC is designed to provide a facility that can be occupied, and run initial program. Initial program consists of the following: • Drop in recreation at least five days/week • Evening program at least two times/week • Group counseling at least one time/week In addition,the much larger space will allow for indoor recreation activities,on-site theater,music and bike repair programs. Our current situation at Winbum Way only allows for limited recreation opportunities. The small space prevents any active physical indoor activities, and we are sometimes denied access to the building because of competing activities(boy scouts, weddings, ARP). Dance and music programs at the current facility have been very problematic, due to the proximity to the Shakespeare Festival, and fire code restrictions. The new facility, even in the limited first phase incarnation,will allow for us to expend the scope of activities and number of participants in our teen center program. We will be able to host dances, music events, and handle a much larger number of youth at these events. Later stage facility development will add the computer section, counseling offices, kitchen, recording/rehearsal studio, and repair shop. We hope to be able to complete all of the facility improvements as one effort,but the phase approach allows us to begin services in the event that the funding.for subsequent improvements comes in at a slower pace than hoped for. A UNMED WAY AGENCY City Council Communication July 7, 1998 Submitted by: lohn McLau¢hli-A� � Approved by: Mike Freeman P v P, Title: Governor Kitzhaber's appointment of Robbin Pearce to State Landscape Contractors Board Synopsis: Attached is a letter from Governor John A. Kitzhaber confirming the appointment of Robbin Pearce to the State Landscape Contractors Board for a three year term. Robbin works in the Conservation Division, is Staff liaison to the Tree Commission, and assists the Planning Department with the review of landscaping plans to ensure compliance, both in terms of planting materials and Irrigation requirements. Robbin is also a Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor and active member of the National Irrigation Association. She Is a member of the Southern Oregon Chapter of the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association, and was the Association's Volunteer of the Year for 1997. We are pleased to make the Council aware of Robbin's recent recognition, and look forward to her representing Ashland on this statewide board. Recommendation: Informational only. F >x JOHN A. KITZHABER, M.D. c GOVERNOR 9 June 17, 1998 Robbin Pearce 250 Tudor Circle Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Pearce: It is with great pleasure that I appoint you to the State Landscape Contractors Board. Enclosed is your Oath of Office which you should sign in the presence of a Notary Public and return to Executive Appointments, 160 State Capitol, Salem, OR 97310. You are not an official voting member until your oath is received and we file it with the Secretary of State's office. Please feel free to call my Executive Appointments office, (503) 378-3123, if you have any questions. The Department of Administrative Services offers a training session for new as well as existing board members. Our office strongly encourages you to take advantage of this free, one day course that offers valuable information for a successful and fulfilling experience as a board member. Even if you have already served as a board member, this training is important. For registration or more information, contact Jan Miller, Department of Administrative Services, (503) 378-6334. Thank you for your time, talent and effort in this important role, and for your willingness to be involved in public service. I am pleased and proud that you, and so many other -_ public-spirited citizens, are helping to shape Oregon's future. Sincerely, e aber, M.D. JK:bf cc: Senator Lenn Hannon Representative Judith Uherbelau STATE CAPITOL, SALEM 97310-0370 (S03) 378-3111 FAX (503) 378-4863 TDD (503) 378-4859 ( i K ToAuL ToWsoMll�sE PxESS�s Sa�L Cow=GxF�xnvs: Njj1111 Y K -_That reposing, e�cial crust and confidence in "the capacity, integrity and fidelity of 67 in Pearce F a citizen of Ashlafid, Oregon;.!, John A. Kitzhaber, Governor Of the State of Oregon, do xn the name and by the authority R� of said state; by these presents Appoint,arid Commission the,. . said Robbtn Pearce as wmember of the State Landscape: Contractors Board for a.term. beginning July 1;:1998, and ending June 30,'2001. x , In'Testimony Whereof I have hereunto set.my hand and caused the great seal o the.State to be`affixed at'; 4; Sale n;.this I'M day of I he 1998. G or Secretary of State ' n J° OJ V J O J° A J O J N J J O J = Om <m A A o S c o o m n -00 ° ..m a N Q Fi O m 0 3 0 ON o m n 3 0 3 a it C6 W j v' 3 3 C _ a c o pl .mom. m c m 0. m 0_ i U3 3 m v y 3r m O O v c m 2 n n Om CD S a n v_ -n v m m to C m ? m V N a s v m W o o 3 o c 3 = G) 5 N O � II n ° � m f7 m N %aea` O 7C Oe 0 0 CD m c f° CL cn f7Wf to N m m �F O 0) 0) v x m x x A o m m 3 � � � � v x O C 0 & O OW N N N In -ul r rt O N O mm 00N 0 n = 0 N N O O (Q r � O N M X y ami ..: � � N C 3 Q 7 A S °O m to q ITI Ub II O v 0 "l7t O v 7 / - - - � - - - - n , � _ � , , , � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 O . r � Iw � § ` m % � 0 M0 -4 & CD0) mE � � � Cl)5 ;5 2 » � , . � - ■ & ° 7 § § f § 2a § ; CD'D U) £ # % age > * ;i m to 2 �L :3 q 77 0to ƒ KKEEGJ# EEg$ ; § Km # ■ ota o £ § eo « . ' % / } & � JE � � 23m 0. g � o � � � # # f � { § § � & 2- g -n 013 �a �� � kE \ JT § « 2 � ' � � � g ® K ° E � § ° ° � I � 2a ® ntiaAi¢ ¥ I § J ■ Ja 2 I � E2a 22PmEao „ �D o = E © ; e , r- ; u015 Z& 0 0 E@ < ® 2 $ or q E , } , 55 • - "a - o $ ; ; a , � < . _ - -n - off . . ® 7« § Ea , a a 9Eo Gr— m30 ( a £ , ( � ± • e�a3E �a # _ cm2 / % 2 ƒ } 2 %] - f I . ƒ v � ■� 3 ( \ 47 ) \ CDK C- § © k� c , o £ c CL a} & .0 n- ' E _0 ,9 ` o } c %I , k a / k § ) to S I (D 2 _ (k o OE \k 0 §° 2 ( a ° CD 0 ■ a 0 � 2 r 9 © k � _ �- . � § ■ k � ( B - > > E > k ■ 20 _ (D 0CL Eam § @mo � CA03- # � aE (Dqo k / 0E # ; § - o = . a R Mf g-00 CD -U SE ; a « - 2 k (D �k kk� / f � c E � $ � « $ � n 0 c � E_ � ■ & � � r 0 0 X - �� ■ ■ CL City Council Communication July 7, 1998 submitted by. Paul Nolte Approved by. Mike Freeman Title: An Ordinance Repealing Merchant Police Regulations, Chapter 6.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code, in Order to Comply with State Law. Synopsis: This ordinance repeals the entire code chapter relating to licensing and regulating merchant police in the city. The repeal is necessitated by the state's preemption of this subject matter. Recommendation: Adopt a motion to approve the first reading of this ordinance. Background Information: In 1995 the legislature adopted extensive licensing regulations for private security officers (ORS 181.870-.899). Section 1 of that bill (1995 c. 510) provides that these provisions preempt any laws of the political subdivisions of this state relating to the regulation of private security officers . . . .." The definition of private security officers under this new statute encompasses what the city code defines as merchant police. The merchant police chapter should be repealed in order to comply with the state's preemption of this field. GVAUL=DPwchwi Pis cmm=a nwn.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING MERCHANT POLICE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 6.12 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are fined ad and additions are Me . SECTION 1. Chapter 6.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety.ME.-a_-n •n raN� _.6.1240 Defined. 6.12.030 Lueen -4-we eation. wiety Bond. License Revoeateen. 6.12.110 - Uniforms Approval required. 6.12.120 Violation Peneffies. persons; provided, however, that the ieFm she" noHnelude any individ only one employer, and whe *9 employe"' guard. of pFateet.only the promises, property, or person a engagedin wateh, guard, at proteet promises, property, or per-sons for sueh 6.12.0 own or operate a merehent )r for a person to be a9-e without having first obtained Imeense from the Ontyr- 6 19 A30 ' 1-- A.vnw r. b Page 1 -ANNOTATED ORDINANCE o:wAX0RM rwaw+nORM NPW" WWr?W- II WE ZL WI-11 L LIP LWI • r the not 11 nse should be eontonued in foree and effect. If the 'meemse 49 lieensee may appeal in writing to the city eouneil within five days 6.12.090 Rules The Gity Gouneil may issue and promulgate rules and Peliee Ghief eeneerming the licensee and these employed by said lieensee. n uniform, eap, badge, or buttons at the time in use by the other Imeensees regulated by this --i-S-0-mr-sheii use me distimetive un form, eap,eep,ta d.ge, or buttons similar to or r design,and ee'ef thereef have been first submitted to and approved by the Police Ghief. lieense issued h---. �issien by the Gity Gouneil of approve' of any person whose n the applaeation for lieense, any person, firm, or lawfully promulgatedirt eee;r�lanee with this ehapter is punishable as preseribed Seetion 4.08.040- The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1998, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1998. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of . 1998. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 3-ANNOTATED ORDINANCE o:+rAazRmrmvhm+vie mpew.