Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-1105 Council Mtg PACKET I_portant: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please rise and after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and address. The Chair will then allow you to speak and also inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the Anojh of the agenda. 4[a h_/lam/ AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 5, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:30 P.M. , Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL / III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of October 15, 1991. , IV. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions & Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports. 3 . RVCOG Annual Water Quality Report. 4. Letter regarding vacancy on Parks Commission. 5. Memo from Planning Dir. concerning L.C.D.C. 's proposed rule on planning for urban reserve areas. 6. Appointments to Audit Committee and Bicycle and Traffic Safety Commissions. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Proposed vacation of unopened portion of Lori Lane. 2. P.A. No. 91-100, proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relative to regulations in the forest interface to prevent wildfires. 3. P.A. No. 91-101, proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance concerning standards for conditional use permits. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Approval of reimbursement policy for elected officials. VII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Memo from Director of Community Development relative to timetable for proposed amendments to site review standards for large commercial developments. 2. Acceptance of donation of land for open space purposes from Mr. Jere Hudson. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 15 minutes) I IX. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: ��Qj a(osb 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance of the City of Ashland amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IV - "Environmental Resources". J2. Second reading by title only of an ordinance of the City of Ashland amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Chapter VII - "Economy" . J3 . Second reading by title only of an ordinance of the City of Ashland amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Chapter VIII - "Parks, Open Space, and Aesthetics" . J4. First reading of an ordinance amending Section 4.18.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code concerning vacation of publip easements. 15. Resolution vacating public easement for a water pipeline right of way by quitclaim deed. ✓1� - �6. Resolution vacating half of a 10-foot public utility ✓'� easement for a water pipeline right of way by quitclaim deed. IX. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS X. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 15, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7: 30 P.M. on the above date in the Council Chambers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the Regular Meeting on October 1, 1991 were accepted as presented. CONSENT AGENDA: City Administrator Almquist asked that item 2c be amended by adding the following public hearings to the December 3rd agenda: P.A. 91-085, Modifications to Annexation Criteria, and P.A. 91-143, Street and Driveway Grades. Acklin moved to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: 1. Monthly Dept. Reports - September 1991; 2. Set public hearings for amendments to land-use ordinance as follows: a) P.A. 91-100 Wildfire Lands Or. , and P.A. 91-101 Conditional Use Permit Ord. (Nov. 5, 1991) ; b) P.A. 91-102 Parking Ord. , and P.A. 91-127 Sign Ord. Amendments (Nov. 19, 1991) ; and c) P.A. 91-087 Manufactured Housing Dev. Ord. (Dec. 3, 1991) . Arnold seconded and the motion carried on voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. P.A. 91-099 Appeal (Lloyd Haines) . Winthrop questioned the relevance of a letter from Rose Pessak and City Attorney Nolte said it is not relevant and needn't be considered. Arnold said Appellant Carola Lacy, a friend and former client, contacted him. He did not discuss the appeal with her or read materials she offered, but advised her on procedure. Reid expressed concern about time-share units and said residential units need owners who are available to answer neighborhood concerns which might arise. Planning Dir. Fregonese said it is a form of ownership and time-shares are not addressed in the Code. On a .question from Reid regarding traffic impact from retail use, Fregonese explained that the traffic study uses a worst case scenario and most of the time the impact will be less. Winthrop noted that in Murphey v. Ashland "minimal impact" meant insignificant impact. On a question from Reid, Fregonese said street signing is not required but the applicant will pay for Central Avenue to be improved to one-half width, or full improvements will be made if an L.I.D. is formed, and the Water St. bridge will be widened to 18 ' travel surface as requested by the Fire Department. Arnold noted that an LID for Central Ave. could be formed with the applicant bearing the full cost. Acklin said the CUP process provides that conditions may be. placed on a project which address concerns and mitigate impacts. She stated that the traffic study concludes that neighboring streets will . be impacted little if at all, and that improvements to abutting streets are required. She added that the Public Works Director testified that there is adequate water and sewer and she accepts that expert testimony. Acklin felt the impact issues are adequately addressed in the record. On a question from Arnold, Fregonese said it is the Council 's decision whether to open Central Avenue or not, and Nolte said neighborhood input can be obtained when Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - October 15, 1991 - P. 1 P.A. 91-099 (Continued) that decision is made. Winthrop moved to deny P.A. 91-099 and uphold the appeal and Reid seconded the motion which failed on roll call vote as follows: Laws, Williams, Acklin, and Arnold, NO; 'Reid and Winthrop, YES. Laws said visitors to this project would park and walk downtown, not into nearby residential areas, and the project would therefore reduce impacts on traffic and parking. Laws said the nearest residential structure is several hundred yards away and noise impact would be insignificant. He also stated that traffic impact should be defined as more than minimal only if it raises the service level at least one step, and the traffic study concludes it would not go beyond the current level D. Laws then moved to deny the appeal and approve the application and Williams seconded the motion. Laws amended his motion to include directing staff to prepare findings for Council approval to include Planning Commission conditions, Water Street widened to 201 , traffic impact not raised more than current level of service, and Central St. improved by applicant when Council chooses to open it. Williams amended second to motion, which passed on roll call vote as follows: Laws, Williams, Acklin, and Arnold; YES; Reid and Winthrop, NO. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Reimbursement Policy. After a short discussion, it was agreed that comments will be submitted to the City Administrator and discussed at the next meeting. 2. Standards for Commercial Developments. Jim Ragland, speaking on behalf of Friends of Ashland, requested that Council consider amendments to site review criteria which would minimize adverse impacts of large-scale commercial developments on surrounding properties. He asked that staff be requested to prepare a timetable for this process and submit it at the next Council meeting. Fregonese said all non-residential development will be considered, and he envisions a six-month process. No further action taken. 3. Brevik Property Purchase. City Admin. Almquist reported that the details of the purchase of 120 acres of land from Robert Brevik have been worked out. Ten acres will be purchased by Larry Medinger and i, Vince Oredson at 1/2 the cost of the total purchase price. The property is south of the Superior Lumber Co. land and provides that the Ashland backdrop from Lithia Park to Mountain Ranch Subdivision will now be in public ownership. Laws moved to authorize signing of the documents and placing the transaction in escrow, Arnold seconded, all AYES on voice vote. PUBLIC FORUM: No comment. ORDINANCES . RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. Customer Accounting Polices. Second reading by title only of an ordinance amending Chapter 14. 02 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Laws moved to adopt same, Arnold seconded, all YES on roll call vote. (Ord. 2649) Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - October 15, 1991 - P. 2 2. Adopt Environmental Element. First reading of an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IV. Williams moved same to second reading, Arnold seconded, all YES on roll call vote. 3. Adopt Economic Element. First reading of an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan - Chapter VII. Acklin moved to second reading, Arnold seconded, all YES on roll call vote. 4. Adopt Parks 6 Open Space Element. . First reading of an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan - Chapter VIII. Arnold moved to second reading, Williams seconded, all YES on roll call vote. 5. Street Capacity Standards. Fregonese said these standards will be a guide for the planners and, if adopted, incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Reid asked that the word "unobstructed" be placed in the second line of SECTION 3 between "foot" and "sidewalk" . The resolution was read as amended and Arnold moved to adopt same. Reid seconded, all YES on roll call vote.' (Reso. 91-39) 6. Site Review Criteria. Fregonese explained that State law requires finding of adequate public facilities. Almquist suggested removing the words "police and fire protection" in the third line of the proposed new section 18.72. 050 D. The resolution was read as amended and Williams moved to adopt same. Winthrop seconded, all YES on roll. call vote. (Reso. 91-40) OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: Golden noted that City employees attended a harassment workshop and a section on harassment was included in our Affirmative Action Policy. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Nan E. Franklin Catherine M. Golden City Recorder Mayor Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - October 15, 1991 - P. 3 CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION I�_JLA12 Mi+:F:i'ING M I NCJ'rES September 25, 1991 Chair Adams called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at 340 S. Pioneer Street. ATTENDANCE: Present: Patricia Adams, Al Alsing, Tom Pyle, Lee Howard, Wes Reynolds, Ken Mickelsen, Greg Williams Absent: None I. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA Three additional items were placed on the agenda: Under Bills and Finances, approval of the June 30, 1991 Quarterly Financial Statement and, under New Business, dedication of land for Open Space and the naming of the new park referred to as the Lithia Mill site. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 25, 1991 Regular Meeting. Commissioner Howard seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 2 abstain (Pyle, Adams) III. BILLS AND FINANCES A. . Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Pyle made a motion to approve the. previous month's disbursements as indicated by Payables checks #5487 through #5627 in the amount of $73,181.52 and Payroll checks #4788 through #4924 in the amount of $38,986.97. Commissioner Reynolds seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Approval of June 30, 1991 Quarterly Financial Statement Commissioner Howard made a motion to approve the Quarterly Financial Statement for June 30, 1991. Commissioner Reynolds seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE AGENDA A. Philippa Jenkins on rat population in Lithia Park Philippa Jenkins, 620 Scenic Drive, indicated that she believed that the public needed to be aware that there was a rat problem throughout Ashland as well as in Lithia Park. She indicated that she would encourage the Commission to make the public more aware that feeding the wildlife in the park created a food source for the rats keeping the population large. Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 2 Regular Meeting - September 25, 1991 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON TFIE AGENDA - con't. Rat population in Lithia Park - con't. She also suggested that a notice could be sent out in the electric bill newsletter cautioning people about leaving food in the area. She suggested signs prohibiting feeding the wildlife. After reviewing the steps which the Commission has taken thus far in conjunction with Vector Control , the Commission decided to include a notice in the utility bill newsletter alerting the public to the problem of leaving excess food for the rats now and again in the spring, to develop some positive, informational signs indicating appropriate food to feed the ducks but not .leaving excess food for the "rodent population", and to continue to work with Vector Control to attempt to determine an effective way to curb the population. B. Judie Bunch - Ashland's Marketplace Judie Bunch was present in the audience and made a presentation to the Commission concerning the operation of the marketplace for the 1991 season. After reviewing this summer's operation, Ms. Bunch asked the Commission to consider not decreasing the number of booths for the 1992 season as was outlined in discussion a year ago October, but to grant more space and to . allow for unloading of marketplace vendors up to 8:00 a.m. She said that with less than 25 booths in the space the impression people have is that there is no one there. She also indicated that she would like for the Commission to consider a three year contract instead of just a one year contract. Commissioner Howard indicated that he would prefer to see the Commission follow the guidelines developed by the committee last year in scaling down the size of the marketplace and developing the area into a more aesthetic pedestrian walkway. Commissioner Reynolds commented that he did not see anything compelling about the time line set forth last year. Commissioner Pyle indicated that he did not choose to see any kind of agreement entered into without first surveying the plaza merchants in relationship to marketplace operation this year and the concerns merchants expressed last year. Commissioner Adams indicated that she did not want to vary from the goals set forth by the committee last year for the general long range plans and time frame set forth. She indicated that Midge Maurer would have a tentative design to present to the Commission at the October meeting. MOTION After some discussion as to when the Commission would be ready to accept proposals for the 1992 summer, Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to advertise for proposals for use of Calle Guanajuato for marketplace purposes up to October 25, 1991. Commissioner Pyle seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA None Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 3 Regular Meeting - September 25, 1991 VI. OLD BUSINESS A. .Review and discussion of Open Space survey The Commission reviewed a memorandum from Chair Adams in which she outlined a suggestion for a proposed funding package for the Open Space program. She indicated in the memo that the funding package followed guidelines set forth by the Commissioners concerning their opinions as to appropriate funding sources. The proposal recommended a 2% prepared food and beverage tax, a 3 year serial levy on property taxes, and system development charges. Commissioner Reynolds commented that he would prefer to see the serial levy proposed at 5 years instead of 3 years to indicate to the voters that it is a long ranged program. Commissioner Pyle indicated that he did not like property taxes being included in the proposal because he felt that the monies which would be generated would be small considering the overall scope of the program and the possible antagonism it would generate among property owners. He said he believed that the prepared food and beverage tax proposed would be a clearly identifiable source of revenue from city residents and that a separate component was not necessary. Commissioner Alsing commented that the Western Advocates survey had indicated that there was some support for property taxes helping to pay for the program and that he preferred a "package" approach with revenues coming from more than one source. He preferred a little participation from everyone. For clarification purposes, Commissioner Howard reiterated that the intent of the Commission would be that, if accepted by the voters, it would be a 20 year program with the 2% prepared food and beverage tax not increasing and terminating at the end of twenty years and the serial levy tax being re-approved by the voters every three or five years. Commissioner Adams concurred. Commissioner Pyle also indicated that an entertainment tax was supported in the survey but was not represented in the funding proposal outlined in the memo. He said that he still felt that an entertainment tax was appropriate. Commissioner Adams indicated that she too felt that there was an obvious connection between the Festival and the parks in that Festival patrons heavily used Lithia Park and enjoyed the ambiance of Ashland and its "open spaces". She said that she was aware that the survey indicated that the residents felt that the Festival should in some way contribute. She still had hopes that the Festival would understand that feeling in the community and choose to participate by way of some kind of sizable donation to the parks if not to open space per se. Sheila Drescher, 105 Nob Hill , a member of the O.S.F.A. Board was present in the audience. She indicated that although she was not authorized to speak for the board, she felt that she could say that during board discussion of possibly making a major contribution there was some concern that a ticket tax would also be imposed. Commissioner Howard indicated that if the Festival chose to make a commitment for an annual Ashland Parks and Recreation.Commission Page 4 Regular Meeling - September 25, 1991 OLD BUSINESS - con't. Open Space funding proposal - con' t. contribution to the parks, it could be done in such a manner that the contribution would stop if such a tax were imposed. Commissioner Pyle commented that lie believed that there was a strong enough element among Ashland residents who wanted to see an entertainment tax imposed that, unless the Festival could demonstrate some kind of sizable contribution made in some manner, that any proposal which did not include an entertainment tax would fail . He indicated that unless the Festival came up with some kind of proposal for a substantial contribution to the parks, that he would not be able to support a funding measure which did not include a ticket tax. Commissioner Alsing said that he had an opposing point of view in that he would not be able to support a funding proposal which did include a ticket tax indicating that usually governments support the arts and did not tax them. He also indicated, however, that he felt that he would like to see discussions with the Festival continue and that some kind of contribution from the Festival be eventually made to the parks. Commissioners Reynolds and Howard also indicated that discussions over the past two years and the recent survey have indicated strong public support for an entertainment tax of some kind. Bill Moffett, President of the O.S.F.A. Board, indicated that it was his understanding that the Board had previously strongly rejected the idea of a donation and that that position was generated from the board's understanding that the amount of money that the Commission was looking for was unreasonably high and that the money had to be earmarked for the Open Space program which the Festival did not believe it could closely tie to benefit for Festival patrons. In discussion, the Commission clarified its position in that it felt that a contribution from the Festival earmarked for the park system or Lithia Park would be just as appropriate and that the contribution should be significant but that the Commission had not set a certain minimum dollar amount. Mr. Moffett indicated that he believed it would be very important to the Festival board in considering any kind of contribution for it not to be more than the City's overall contribution to the Festival . He said that in their fund raising efforts it was very important for the Festival to be perceived as having the City's support and that the City was not a net drain on Festival operations. In further discussion of the funding measure which had been proposed, the Commission generally concurred that a five year serial levy would add more stability over the long run than a three year serial levy. The Commission also concurred that the proposal would stipulate that the 2% on the prepared food and beverage and a twenty year time frame would be capped. MOTION Commissioner Reynolds made a motion to recommend to the City Council that it place the following funding package for the Open Space/Park Program on the ballot : a 2% prepared food and beverage tax with stipulation that the tax could not be raised above 2% and would expire in twenty years, a five (5) year serial levy property tax levy, and systems development charges. Commissioner Howard seconded. Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 5 Regular Meeting - September 25, 1991 .OLD BUSINESS - con't. Open Space funding proposal - con' t. In disuussion of the motion, Commissioner Pyle inquired whether or not the expiration in 20 years implied that no more money would be needed after 20 years. Commissioner Reynolds indicated that it did. MOTION Commissioner Pyle made a motion to table the motion until the October Regular Meeting indicating that he would be unable to vote for the motion at this time because there was no opportunity to hear from the Festival concerning the possibility of making a contribution to the park system. He said he would prefer not to act so quickly but to give the Festival an opportunity to consider making a donation which would affect his vote. The motion died for lack 'of a second. After some brief discussion, Commissioner Howard asked to amend the motion to request a response from the Council by November 19, 1991 so that there would still be the opportunity to go the initiative route for the March 1991 ballot. Commissioner Reynolds concurred with the amendment. The vote was: 4 yes - 1 no (Pyle) VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Dedication of land for Open Space Director Mickelsen presented a memorandum and attached drawing to the Commission regarding an additional quarter-acre of land which Mr. Jere Hudson would like to donate to the City for the Open Space program across the ditch road from the half-acre parcel which he is already in the process of donating. By accepting the newly offered quarter-acre parcel , the City would have continuous connection from Nutley Street up to Strawberry Lane that eventually could lead to the Scenic Hill park site which has been identified on the Open Space/Park Plan. In exchange for the donation, Mr. Hudson is asking that the City prepare a legal description of the property and to have the donation accepted prior to December 31, 1991. MOTION After. brief discussion, Commissioner Howard made a motion to recommend to the City Council that it accept Mr. Hudson's proposed donation of the additional quarter-acre of land for the Open Space/Park Program. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Naming of Lithia Mill park site Commissioner Pyle made a recommendation to the Commission that it proceed with officially naming the new park site which is being referred to as the Lithia Mill park site. He said that in recent years the Commission has established a tradition of naming parks after adjacent streets so that their location can be readily identified. Examples are Clay Street Park and Glenwood Park. MOTION Following in that tradition, rather than naming the new park "California Park" or "East Main Park", he made a motion to officially name the Lithia Mill site "Garfield Park." Commissioner Reynolds seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Page 6 Regular Meeting - September 25, 1991 VIII. CORRESPONDENCE, CGWMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Mickelsen reported to the Commission that the department has been administering the Community Center and Pioneer Hall buildings for the City for just over two years now. By keeping accurate records of the actual income and operating expenses incurred by the facilities, the department' is able to present City administration with an accurate picture of the amount of deficit the facilities have incurred over the past two years. Assuming the City's policy is to have the facilities approximately break even, the department has been taking a look at the fee structure for the buildings and will present a proposed new fee schedule to the City Administrator. The department is not necessarily recommending the adjustment in the fee schedule but it is outlining for the City a possible increased fee schedule which may make the facilities more self supporting if the City chooses to do so. IX. ITEMS FROM CCMNISSIONERS None X. NEXT WNTH'S AGENDA The next Regular Meeting was set for Monday, October 28, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. Proposals for the Marketplace for 1992 would be placed on the agenda. XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Adams adjourned the meeting. Resp�ectf)ul l seed, Ann Benedict, Management Assistant ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes October 2, 1991 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 7:05 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Jane Dancer, Lorraine Whitten, Keith Chambers, Jean MacKenzie, Thomas Hunt, Deane Bradshaw and Le Hook. Also present were Senior Planner John McLaughlin, Secretary Sonja Akerman and Council Liaison Susan Reid. No members were absent. 228 "B" STREET Bob and Denise Miller, owners of 228 "B" Street, met with the Commission regarding the status of their house. Denise Miller stated they had met earlier in the day with two members of the 'B Street Association", Mayor Cathy Golden and Terry Skibby. They have been waiting for the insurance claim, which to their knowledge should be a maximum of $70,000. Estimates of repair for the fire damaged portion only have been between $80,000- 90,000. They are not, she explained, in a good position to borrow money. Bob Miller said they have personally had no concrete offers of help, but if there are volunteers, he would like to divide the project into units. At this point, Hook offered to give the Millers 25 sheets of plywood from the Festival. Miller stated he would like to tear off the top story and put on a good roof within 30 days. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hook stated on Page 3, the September 4, 1991 Minutes should read "....preference be other than vinyl or aluminum" - not T-1-11. Chambers then moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Whitten seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. STAFF REPORTS PA 91-135 Minor Land Partition 216 Meade Street Peter and Krystyna Jensen McLaughlin explained this application is to divide the property into two lots, with the new lot being a flag lot. Although there is no proposed new structure yet, he said the ordinance requires that flag drives have an approved driving surface before occupancy. Since the new lot will have frontage on the alley, it is possible to have a garage located off the alley. If this is the case, the owner can use two strips of brick, concrete, grass pavers, etc. rather than asphalt for the flag. Staff has approved this application. When questioned about parking, McLaughlin stated it is nonconforming, but there will be no change. Krystyna and Peter Jensen clarified they have never used the alley for off street parking. Peter Jensen added his lot was originally two, however the house was built right in the middle. Obviously, he can't split the lot as it was, so he is doing it as a flag lot. Bradshaw moved and Whitten seconded to recommend approval of this application. The motion was unanimously passed. PA 91-137 Conditional Use Permit 55 Nursery Street Gail Orell/Lynn Savage This application is for an additional unit for the Hersey House located at 451 North Main Street, explained McLaughlin. This is an existing house on the same property and currently used as a rental. It will be rented on a nightly basis. There will be no change to the property and no exterior change to either house. In as much as the the Hersey House is so attractive, it would be nice to make the cottage more compatible (siding, windows, etc.) in the future. Whitten moved to recommend approval of this application with the above recommendation. Bradshaw seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. PA 91-144 Site Review 345 Lithia Way Ken Crowson McLaughlin stated the applicant would like to modify the existing service bay in order to allow an express lube and oil change center. A very small mini mart will be added. Exterior changes will be minor. The "C' Street portion will have a few added features that will make the building more attractive, including landscaping. The Commission agreed this will be a plus. Bradshaw stated her concerns with traffic on that portion of "C" Street, as she was recently involved in an accident there. MacKenzie moved to recommend approval of this application. Dancer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of September follow: Gloria Boyd 207 Hillcrest Studio Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 2, 1991 Page 2 George Janini 338 Scenic Dr. Remodel First Congregational Church 171 Siskiyou Blvd. Re-roof Rick Landt 487 Rock St. Remodel Charles Case 264 Van Ness Re-roof Kit Larke 247 7th St. Remodel/Addition Mike Uhtoff 154 Oak St. Remodel/Addition Dick McKinney 865 "C' St. Garage Margot Pomeroy 774 'B" St. Carport Michael/Judith Sanford 127 Strawberry Remodel/Addition Ashland Family Practice 935 Siskiyou Blvd. Sign Van Vleet Realty 375 Lithia Way Sign 1st Street Bistro 15 North 1st Sign Diane's Nail Salon 109 Will Dodge Wy Sign Oregon Shakespeare Festival 15 S. Pioneer St. Sign OLD BUSINESS Review Board Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: October 3 Skibby, Lewis, Hunt, Bradshaw and Dancer October 10 Skibby, Dancer, Chambers and Hunt October 17 MacKenzie, Hook, Whitten, Bradshaw, Hunt and Skibby October 24 Hook, Bradshaw, Chambers, Hunt and Skibby October 31 Bradshaw, Dancer, MacKenzie, Hunt and Skibby Mark Antony Hook questioned if the letter had been sent to the Mark Antony regarding the copper marquee. Skibby responded he was working on the draft. NEW BUSINESS McLaughlin reported he will be turning over his Historic Commission duties to Kristen Cochran, Assistant Planner. He added he has finished the historic preservation ordinance and it will be sent to SHPO before local review. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decisions of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 2, 1991 Page 3 ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS' October 29,1991 12:15 p.m A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Finance Committee September 20, 1991 B. Joint Advisory Committee June 21, 1991 C. Executive Committee September 17, 1991 D. Board of Directors September 20, 1991 III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Finance Committee B. Joint Advisory Committee IV. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD V. DECISION ITEMS. A. Accept Auxiliary Quarterly Report B. Approve Medical Staff Rules & Regulations C. Accept & Approve 1990-91 Fiscal Year Audit D. Set Board Sub-Committee Dates E. Approve Home Health Policy & Procedure Manual E. Approve September Expenditures VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ashland Health Coalition Update B. Strategic Planning Update C. Board Fall Retreat - November 1st D. Board Self Evaluation Forms E. Foundation Dinner/Dance - November 16th F. Hospital Christmas Party - December 14th G. Revised Board By-Laws VII. MEDICAL STAFF REPORT VIII. QUALITY ASSURANCE IX. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. Nursing C. Personnel E. Other Issues of B. Financial D. Foundation Interest X. EXECUTIVE SESSION XI. ADJOURN r ASHLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 24, 1991 The regular monthly meeting of the Board of Directors of Ashland Community Hospital was held on Tuesday, September 24, 1991, at 12:15 in the conference room. PRESENT: Steve Lunt, Angus Brownfield, Judy Uherbelau, Jerry Cooper, Tom Reid, Dick Nichols, Bruce Johnson, M.D.; and Frank Billovits, Board Members. Pat Acklin, City Council Representative. Also present: James R. Watson, Administrator; Polly Arnold, Director of Patient Services; Mike McGraw, Controller; Peggy Cockrell, Director of Personnel; Pat Flannery, Director of Development; and Glenda Cole, Administrative Assistant. Absent: B. Doyle Greene and Jerome Nitzberg, M.D. I. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Lunt called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. II. MINUTES Mr. Lunt called for a review of the minutes of the Marketing Committee meeting of March 14, 1991; the Strategic Planning Committee meeting of June 7, 1991; the Ad Hoc Committee meeting of June 14, 1991; the Finance u Committee meeting of July 3, 1991; the Executive Committee meeting of August 20, 1991; and the Board of Directors meeting of August 27, 1991. Following review, Mr. Billovits made the motion to approve the minutes as circulated. Dr. Johnson p seconded the motion and the motion carried. III. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Marketing Committee: Mr. Cooper reported that the Committee met R on September 12th. He stated that the annual highschool physicals were 6 successful and the Cable Access programs were reviewed and discussed. C B. Finance Committee: Ms. Uherbelau reported that the Finance Committee has been researching ways to finance the physician office buildings and hospital construction. The next meeting is October 4th. p C. Ad Hoc Committee: Mr. Lunt reported that the Ad Hoc Committee met and decided to limit the Hospital Zone to a smaller area than originally discussed. D. Strategic Planning Committee: Mr. Lunt stated that the Committee met on September 6th and reviewed updates on all Levels. E. Executive Committee: Mr. Lunt reported that this Committee met on September 17th to reviewed the proposed agenda. IV. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD There was no correspondence. Board of Directors September 24, 1991 Page 2 V. DECISION ITEMS A. October Board Meeting: Mr. Cooper made the motion to move the October Board Meeting to October 29th. Dr. Johnson seconded the motion and the motion carried. B. Adopt Hospital Zone Concept: Mr. Watson reviewed the reasons why a hospital zone would be beneficial and the process that we have followed. He stated that at the last Ad Hoc Committee meeting there was a decision to make the "zone" smaller than originally designed. It was felt that this would be more acceptable to our neighbors. Following lengthy discussion, Mr. Brownfield made the motion that the administrator work with our consultants and the Planning Dept. to adopt an amendment to the comprehensive plan to include a healthcare zone. Dr. Johnson seconded the motion and the motion carried. It was felt by all that we should make sure that all the neighbors are notified early of what we are doing with the hospital zone". C. August Expenditures: Mr. Reid reported that he had reviewed the payables for the month of August, found everything in order, and recommended approval. Mr. Nichols made the mc`tion to approve the expenditures. Mr. Billovits seconded the motion and the motion carried. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ashland Health Coalition Update: Mr. Watson stated that we have had very low utilization of our'services here. Apparently the Clinic has been able to take care of all the patients. B. Strategic Planning Update: Mr. Watson asked if the narrative he prepared and mailed to everyone was sufficient. Everyone felt that this narrative was very informative. Mr. Watson stated that he had been asked by the OB Committee to approach 2 OB/GYNs in Medford who may be interested in moving to Ashland. He will do this after his vacation. C. Picnic-in-the Park: Mr. Watson encouraged everyone to attend the second annual Board/Medical Staff Picnic-in-the-Park on Thursday evening. D. Board Self-evaluation Form: Mr. Lunt asked that everyone to please submit their completed self-evaluation form prior to the next Board meeting. The summary of these evaluations will be a topic at the Fall Board Retreat on November 1st. E. Fall Retreat: Mr. Lunt reminded everyone of the Retreat at his cabin at Lake in the Woods on Friday, November 1st. F. Joint Advisory Committee: Mr. Watson stated that the Joint Advisory Committee will be meeting on Friday, September 27th. G. Auxiliary Quarterly Report: Mr. Watson stated that the President of the Auxiliary, Jimmie Emmons, will be invited to the November Board Meeting to give their quarterly report. H. Medical Staff Rules & Regulations: There were several comments: that on page 1, Section A, #9 be more specific; page 2, Section A, #14, identify the references; page 4, Section B, #8 the addition of "under established guidelines" to the end of the last sentence; page 6, Section C, #3-b dangerous l . Board of Directors September 24, 1991 Page 3 and toxic drugs should be identified or appropriately referenced; and page 10, Section H change the word "should" to "shall". Mr. Lunt requested that all members review these Medical Staff Rules & Regulations as they will be voted on next month. I. 1990-1991 Audit: Mr. Lunt stated that the Audit will be reviewed by the Finance Committee on October 4th and if approved by this Committee, it will come to the Board in October for approval. VII. MEDICAL STAFF REPORT Mr. Brownfield read the following statement agreed upon by the Board regarding Medical Staff Credentialing. "In presenting these names for credentialing, or recredentialing, or other changes in status of a medical staff member, or potential medical staff member, the Executive Committee of the Medical Staff asserts without qualification that the affected persons were afforded due process in accordance with the Medical Staff By-laws and the rules & regulations of the hospital. " In Dr. Nitzberg's absence, Dr. Johnson presented the applications of Steven Cary, M.D. requesting active staff privileges in general/vascular surgery and Patrick Gillette, M.D. requesting active staff privileges in internal medicine. He also- presented the reapplications of Jean Keevil, M.D. requesting active staff privileges in family practice, Charles Walstrom, M.D., Paul Schroeder, M.D. , and Lanita Witt, M.D. all requesting associate staff privileges in OB/GYN. He stated that everything is in order and the Executive Committee recommends approval. Motion was made, seconded, and carried to grant these physicians' requests for privileges. VIII. QUALITY ASSURANCE Mr. Watson reported that the Quality Assurance Committee did not meet in September. He reported that the Joint Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, September 27th to review the quarterly summaries of both medical staff and hospital departmental QA. IX. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT A. Nursing: Ms. Arnold reported that we have 6 RNs that have { registered for our re-entry program. She stated that the ICU positions have been D filled and that we are adding staff to the med/surg unit. B. Financial: Mr. McGraw reviewed the financial statements included in the packet. Mr. Watson stated that Mr. McGraw will present the next Board inservice Tuesday, October 29th at 7 pm. The topic will be "The Balance Sheet". C. Personnel: Ms. Cockrell stated that she has been asked to be the inhouse chairperson for the United Way and Mary Krystine will be the "loan executive". She stated that the Picture Gallery is complete and looks good. D. Foundation: Mr. Flannery reported distributed copies of the Lights for Life campaign. He stated that there will be 5 full page advertisements listing contributors. The dinner/dance is scheduled for November 16th. Board of Directors September 24, 1991 Page 4 X. OTHER ISSUES A. Board Meetings: There was a discussion that all members should schedule 3 hours for board meetings. Mr. Lunt was asked to write a letter to all members regarding this issue. B. Board Listing: Mr. Brownfield requested that a new board member list be mailed to all members. This will be done. XI. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 pm. Respectfully submitted: Jerry Cooper Secretary APPROVED: Stephen B. Lunt, Chairman of the Board C I T Y O F A S H L A N D C I T Y H A L L ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)492-3211 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Al Williams, Director of Electric Utilities SUBJECT: Electric Department Activities for SEPTEMBER,' 1991. THE FOLLOWING IS A CONDENSED REPORT OF THE ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES FOR SEPTEMBER, 1991. INSTALLED 2 NEW UNDERGROUND SERVICES AND 2 OVERHEAD SERVICES. RECONDUCTORED 4 SECONDARY SERVICES DUE TO ELECTRICAL UPGRADES. INSTALLED 2765 FEET OF CONDUIT AND INSTALLED 3235 FEET OF CONDUCTOR. 15 TRANSFORMERS WERE INSTALLED FOR A TOTAL OF 775 KVA AND 9 WERE REMOVED FOR A NET GAIN OF 490 KVA ON THE SYSTEM. RESPONDED TO 65 REQUESTS FOR CABLE LOCATES. HAD 353 CONNECT ORDERS AND 198 DISCONNECT ORDERS FOR A .TOTAL OF 551. THERE WERE 325 DELINQUENT ACCOUNT NOTICES WORKED AND 72 DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS WERE DISCONNECTED. ONE 50 ' POLE AND THREE 45 ' POLES WERE SET IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR POLE TESTING AND TREATMENT PROGRAM. ONE 50 ' POLE AND ONE 55 ' POLE WERE SET IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RELOCATION ON CROWSON ROAD AND TOLMAN CREEK. EMPLOYEES ATTENDED MONTHLY SAFETY MEETING. ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT Monthly Activities for September, 1991 INVESTIGATIONS Detectives Savage and Parlette attended a state medical examiners class in Roseburg on September 7th. On September 18th, three Ashland juveniles were arrested for Criminal Mischief II in connection with 15 incidents of Criminal Mischief where graffiti was sprayed on private property. On September 23rd, an Ashland juvenile was arrested and, lodged in the Juvenile Detention Home and charged with 6 counts of Burglary II after he confessed to burglarizing several Ashland restaurants and taking beer and liquor. Two other juveniles were also charged with attempted Burglary II and Burglary II regarding these cases. Captain Barnard attended a three day class on Oregon Crime Analyses on September 24th - 26th in Bend. On September 26th, a detective arrested a male subject for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and reckless driving, and four additional juveniles for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in connection with the theft of a 1991 Ford pickup from the US Forest Service in Ashland on 091991. During the month detectives arrested 5 fugitives, 2 runaway juveniles and assisted patrol officers in 4 DUII arrests. PATROL A male subject was arrested on the Southern Oregon State College campus after a report was received of a male with a gun at that location. He was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm and carrying a firearm on state protected property. Seven officers assisted the Jackson County Sheriffs Office at the Judd's concert at Emigrant Lake for security purposes. Ashland Police Department sponsored a death investigation class instructed by Detective Smith of the Jackson County .Sheriffs Office, several Ashland Officers were in attendance. A special optional shooting exercise was held during the month, several officers participated. The exercise was designed to create a sense of reality. An intruder call was received in which the prowler actually entered the residence, no injuries occurred as the victim awoke and fled. Two 1 other reports have also been received with similar circumstances and are possibly related. CRIME PREVENTION On September 23, a four-week segment of "Youth and the Law" was begun at Ashland Middle School. Two classes are presented daily. The reception from the students thus far has been outstanding. Our program will progress from a general lecture format dealing with current laws to information on personal safety and drug/alcohol awareness. Several meeting were attended during the month. Quite a bit of interest has been shown for a child fingerprinting program. We are researching the possibility of supplying do-it- yourself print kits for kids. POLICE RESERVE Total hours for reserves was 197, this included patrol, training, meetings and special assignments. EXPLORERS No report for the month. COMMUNITY SERVICE VOLUNTEERS For the month of September 68 volunteers reported, 353 days were worked for a total of 1, 094 hours. MUNICIPAL COURT There were 1, 276 citations filed in the Municipal Court, which includes 294 traffic violations, 80 formal complaints, and 902 parking citations. Cases closed totaled 1, 196 which includes 114 traffic violations, 62 formal complaints, 17 fines suspended, 233 citations dismissed (including 146 completed diversions) . There were 624 parking citations closed, 555 of these were issued in the Downtown Parking District. No parking citations were dismissed. There were 462 appearances, 260 before the Violations Bureau and 202 before the Court. There were 9 trials held, and 0 no show; 123 persons were placed on diversion and 49 placed on probation. COMMUNICATIONS/RECORDS 2 Communications/Records personnel handled 754 Police cases and dispatched 75 fire/medical runs. A total of 3 ,827 phone calls were received in Communications, 629 of those were 911 calls. CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER There were 21 inspections performed this month, 1 warning and 1 citation issued. JACNET Report not received for the month of September. 3 Of a4 •� O . e,marandum October 25, 1991 pREGO O� Brian Almquist, City Administrator rIIm. Steven Hall, Public Works Director �1�QjP RVCOG Annual Water Quality Report Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary for your information. If you wish a full copy of the report, please let Rhonda or me know. I fully support Eric Dittmer's ongoing efforts to improve water quality in Bear Creek. I believe he has done an outstanding job over the years. SMH:rm\R=GFiq.m cc: Eric Dittmer Encl: Report Summary 1990-91 ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I The Rogue Valley Council of Governments supervises monitoring of Bear Creek and selected tributaries for several water quality j parameters. This report summarizes data for 8 tributaries and 6 Bear Creek sites from April 1990 to March 1991 . While fecal coliform levels fell significantly from 1983 to 1990, the 1990-91 data indicate a reversal of that trend. The source increases noted are not enough to explain the overall rise in fecal coliform concentrations. q iDecreasing flows in Bear Creek (approx. 60% of the previous year' s Flow at Main St. ) are a significant factor. Cumulative impacts from over seven straight years of below normal rainfall have resulted in significantly less runoff and less dilution in II receiving waters. The situation is so critical that a region wide i committee has formed to address water resource issues. The �i committee' s priority is 1) evaluating the existing water resource limitations and 2) developing strategies to improve water resource i N supplies in the future. NSediment levels changed little over previous years. Excessive ` temperatures occasionally exceeding 80OF are a growing concern. A P separate study to verify the nature and source(s) of this problem is now underway. r The other critical water issue is the excessive nutrients found in Bear Creek. The Department of Environmental Quality -(DEQ) is _ administering the nutrient reduction program for Bear Creek and has accumulated an extensive database. RVCOG is now working with DEQ to relate nutrient reduction goals with temperature, flow and wildlife impacts so that the overall health of Bear Creek is enhanced. This paper also highlights several special projects which have enhanced the water quality in Bear Creek. Particular thanks should _go to the participating RVCOG agencies and those private organizations helping to fund the water quality program in the Bear Creek Valley. Also, considerable credit should go to the RVCOG Water Quality 'Advisory Committee which helps guide the overall water quality effort. p E Council of Governments SUMMARY RVCOG ANNUAL WATER QUALITY REPORT 1990-91 The Rogue Valley Council of Governments coordinates water quality monitoring of selected streams in the Bear Creek Valley. The Annual Report summarizing the monitoring of fecal bacteria, sediment and temperature from April 1990 to March 1991 . is now ,available and is summarized below. FECAL COLIFORM BEAR CREEK STATIONS Annual Fecal Coliform Averages 5000 + 1983-84 4000 9 1984-85 E 3000 -k- 1985-86 . p -$- 1986-87 2000 j �\ -0 1987-88 0 1000 0 1988-89 U 0 1989-90 0 _ 0 1190=91 � Y L a � -� .. _ O 0 O t . .`� L. in O O C U D Q Y V O W S 0 STATION SUMMARY ANALYSES o Although bacteria levels remain considerably lower than the high levels of the- early 1980's, there was a .significant increase at almost all Bear Creek stations in 1990-91. o Bear Creek met water quality standards for bacteria (using the log mean standard) only at Dead Indian and Valley View (upper end). 1 • Bear Creek tributary bacteria levels also increased last year with only Emigrant and Ashland Creeks meeting standards. • Lazy and Larson Creeks had the highest levels; Ashland and Emigrant the lowest. • A significant factor in the bacteria increases noted above is the decreasing flows in Bear Creek and tributaries. Flows measured at Main Street in Medford were down to 60% of the year before. Rainfall was 70% of "normal" (the seventh straight year of below normal rainfall). According to the data from the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station at Medford, Bear Creek had a minimum flow of 7.7 cfs on September 27, 1990. Nutrients Temperature, Sediment • The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has set interim nutrient levels for Bear Creek and controllable sources. This is a significant problem for Bear Creek which results in inadequate dissolved oxygen for fish and wildlife. The situation is aggravated by decreasing flows from increasing demands and cumulative drought effects. • Bear Creek routinely exceeds maximum temperature allowable for healthy salmonid runs and growth. The situation includes most tributaries and is also aggravated by recent low flows. A cooperative temperature study is now underway to determine the nature and extent of the problem so that remedial steps can be prioritized and implemented. • Sediment levels taken at Kirtland Road and Valley View increased slightly over previous years. Sediment is often a "carrier" of both bacteria and nutrient contamination to receiving waters. • Efforts are underway to look at the overall health of Bear Creek, putting all of the above issues in proper perspective.. • Efforts are also underway to determine the feasibility of importing water from Lost Creek to the Bear Creek Valley. r ANN—WQ91.BC ° 2 ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY HALL ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 488-5340 PARK COMMISSIONERS: KENNETH J.MICKELSEN ' Director PATRICIA ADAMS ALLEN A.ALSING - LEE HOWARD ORfGOa,.•�;= THOMAS W. PYLE „ WES L. REYNOLDS October 30 , 1991 Mayor Golden and City Councilors City of Ashland Ashland, Oregon 97520 Honorable Mayor and Councilors: Ashland Parks and Recreation Commissioner Lee Howard has submitted his resignation from the Commission. The Commission is requesting that the. Council allow the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission to use- the same format as has been used previously when a vacancy has occurred on the Commission. Specifically, the Commission will advertise, take applications and interview for a replacement to the vacant position, and make a recommendation to the Council . If the Council follows this format, the Commission plans to interview individuals who apply for the position in November and to make a recommendation -to the Council in their first meeting in December . Sincerely, /J 4)4R-a—U rL (�tf Patricia Adams, Chair Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Home of Famous Lithia Park SJ AQmorandnm October 31, 1991 �REGO ELI: Mayor and Council Aram: Planning Director Subject: Urban Reserve Area LCDC is proposing a new urban reserve rule, that would allow for better coordination of planning in areas within two miles of the City's Urban Growth Boundary. I would like to give supportive testimony for the rule at the meeting on November 8, and also make a suggestion that Destination Resorts be approved in Urban Reserve Areas only when they are jointly approved by the city and county or counties affected. I have included a draft letter from the Mayor which supports this position. This does not . need a formal motion, but I would be glad to answer questions regarding this at your meeting. CITY OF ASHLAND As CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 October 31, 1991 Land Conservation and Development Commission 1175 Court Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony on the very important issue of Urban Reserve Areas. While Oregon's Urban Growth Boundary has been greatly beneficial to cities in controlling sprawl, it does not adequately recognize that many uses that can occur on rural lands will affect the future efficient urbanization of cities. The City of Ashland recognized this problem, and worked with Jackson county in establishing an area we called "Area of Future Urbanization". This was recognized in our Urban Growth Boundary Agreement established with Jackson County, however the methodology use to establish the boundary was fuzzy, as is the effect of the boundary itself. We believe that while we recognized the need for such a designation, the Commission should act to clearly establish the rational for such boundaries, the methodology for establishing the boundary, and the legal effect of the boundary. The proposal presented by your staff is a good step in this direction. The City of Ashland supports option "B", as presented in the staff report, as it allows for the designation a general area of Urban Reserve, and then begin negotiations on further defining the boundary. This will put the program in effect more rapidly, which we feel h is important at this time. MThere is one area that we believe should be added to the Urban Reserve Rule, and that Gis the issue of Destination Resorts. Jackson County is in the process of approving a Destination Resort south of Ashland, within a few hundred feet of our Urban Growth Boundary. This resort will include 100 units of tourist housing, and 100 or more units of residential housing. Perhaps because Destination Resorts were assumed to be in rural settings, we found in our review of this project that there was no provision in either Goal 8 nor in ORS for an assessment of the effect on cities that are close by. With the possibility of this and other Destination Resorts, both large and small, being approved adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary, we are very concerned that these do not become defacto extensions of the City, providing housing for residents of Ashland, and housing tourists whose primary destination is not the resort, but Ashland. This is certainly a violation of the concept of the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff Draft We request that you amend the proposed rule by adding the following new paragraph: 660-21-020 (7) Destination Resorts authorized under Goal 8 and ORS 197.435 through 197465 may only be located in Urban Reserve Areas when approved by both the city and county. We believe that the Commission has the authority to establish this rule under the provisions of ORS 197.460 (Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses), specifically paragraph 2, which states: (2) Improvements and activities shall be located and designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects of the resort on uses on surrounding lands... We hope that you look favorably on our proposal and include it in the Final Rule. John Fregonese, the City's Planning Director, will be present at your meeting in Medford to answer any questions you have on the City's position. Sincerely, Catherine Golden Mayor Staff Draft 10/30/91 15:50 %23626705 DLCD SALEM ASHLAND PUB WK U W2 l October 15, 1991 DEPART%IENT O LAND TO: Interested Persons CONSEVATIO.N FROM: Craig Greenleaf, Acting Director AND DEVELOPNIE`T SUBJECT: DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE RULE ON PLANNING FOR URBAN RESERVE AREAS Background ' The Land Conservation and Development Commission will be considering a draft administrative. rule '.regarding Planning for rural lands just outside of urban growth boundaries. A draft rule on "Urban Reserve Areas- is attached for your revieV and comment. Comments may be presented ati the Commission meeting on November 8, but must be provided to this department by October .28, 1991, for inclusion in the• department•s. staff report mailed to the Commission. Applicability We are proposing that the rule-be targeted to larger or " faster growing urban areas. -Evidence from the department's Urban Growth Management Study suggests that problems with development near UGBs is most k` pronounced in these areas. Two. options for COm i.ssion Action The enclosed draft rule proposes two dl.fferent options for Commission action. Both are designed to control development just outside of urban growth boundaries and to preserve opportunities for efficient expansion of UGB's. Option A: Urban Reserve Plannincl Rule This option would include detailed requirements for identification and designation of urban reserve areas: . - Urban reserves include areas that are intended for future .urban development`within a 50 year period. All jurisdictions are authorized to establish urban cam reserve areas. - For certain jurisdictions, urban reserve area boundaries must be set within 18 months, and a work 4 plan for urban reserve area planning must be prepared within 6.0 days. i175 Court StreM NE Sa)eM OR 97310-0590 (503)3734050 _ FAX(503)362-6705 r, �lU/JU/ Ol 1J.JV VJVLVIVV YLVY JALf JI +++ AJIII+Al.Y CUU 1111 yJ'. VVJ Criteria are listed for designating urban reserve areas; exception areas are to be included, farm and forest lands are generally to be left out. Cities, counties and special districts must develop management agreements for the urban reserve area; - New land divisions must limit parcel sizes to 10 acres or must require development to be clustered. Option Bs Designate " annin areas" pendino local establishments ol of urban reserve areas Option B also includes the detailed requirements guiding local application of urban reserve areas, and authorizes all Jurisdictions to plan for urban reserve areas. However, this option would require a preliminary task for certain jurisdictions& - Rather than the 18 month time frame in Option A, specific Jurisdictions would be .required to establish ^urban reserve planning areas^, including all lands within a fixed two mile radius of applicable urban growth boundaries. - This option puts preliminary controls in place within 90 days, but allows the specified jurisdictions to designate and plan a different urban reserve area on a locally determined .schedule. When this planning is complete, the locally adopted urban reserve area would replace the urban reserve. planning area. Comments The Commission will review the draft rule at its November 8 meeting in Medford. If .yon have questions about the draft rule please contact Bob Rindy at 373-0067. Attachment Memorandum October 29, 1991 '•.�4EGO `�lj• City Council Members ~ ram: Catherine Golden, Mayor Y_ 1 uPtPtt. Appointments to Various Committees Please approve the appointment of Virginia Vogel to the Audit Committee; and George Hutchinson to the Bicycle Commission to replace John Seligman who recently resigned. I would also like to appoint Kristina Swartout to the Traffic Safety Commission to fill a vacancy left by Richard Moore. She is currently a fifth-grader at Bellview School and, if appointed, will be the youngest Commission member in the history of the City. She served on the TSC's subcommittee on Pedestrian/- Crosswalk Awareness. Thank you. rw .:q,. •,:eiv.,..dU w ,M.w'u�.�p�.iu crosi"wW }Follow the ,law K �,` .am nine Yeats old and com= �plaining'about.the: eopla' and policemen who break the: law.,. i':VJhacI am ttaaIkmmp�about is no one ;stops at crosswalks for kids..Al- qst ev yy mo . when'my dad, drops mbrothe;o at them�d_dlg l: to parked tfuder: 0.pA � stsus s t aid' ythis:very'mornin I saw.-a j, 8 ­ _ s� ' gn¢wo stopp}. to 1 fie pol iceman 'didn't;.do• about it ::;,•.:::.}' n: a1sQ don't Wink`it's fal�,thaF' qua sghool and other schools harp ;40 . 46 crossing guards. lt;brainsr� "down money Sor new books tu:beck ter, 'supplies: And we wooy�{{dd'i` ..kneed crossguards if people'Would'. just jjoil tow y s morning I.was wondering- laws shoµli!'go awe Musa no one follows,the U $ istina Swamvotit 1139 Old Highway 99 S.:. . Ashland "1J OF ASN�9ys . "_ �rutur�n�um October 25, 1991 GREGGa Brian Almquist, City Administrator Steven Hall, Public Works Director uhjett: vacation, Portion of Lori Lane ACTION REQUESTED 1. City Council conduct public hearing on vacation of an unopened portion of Lori Lane. 2 . City Council approve attached ordinance vacating portion of Lori Lane. BACRGROIIND See attached information from Jim Olson. The right of way is not needed for Lori Lane which will be improved under a local improvement district approved by the City Council on June 4, 1991. The origination of the right-of-way is unknown. It has an origination date of around 1900. How it was dedicated is also unknown. The vacation process is thought the easiest way clear up the issue as requested by the property owner. The hearing has been advertised and one petitioner notified as required by State of Oregon statutes. Staff recommends approval of request. cc: John Fregonese, Director of Community Development Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer encl: Ordinance w/Exhibit "A" Olson memo Haines letter Map ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF LORI LANE. WHEREAS, Notice of the Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of Lori Lane has been given in accord with the provisions of Chapter 271 of the Oregon Revised Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is determined that the public interest will be best served by the vacation of the portion of Lori Lane located in the,City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, more particularly described on attached Exhibit "A". SECTION 2. For the foregoing reasons the street located on the land described above is hereby vacated. The foregoing ordinance was first read on the 5th day of November, 1991 and DULY PASSED and ADOPTED this day of November, 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. I Catherine M. Golden Mayor b Lnnv�.sn EXHIBIT "A" Commencing at a point which is 1348.5 feet North 63°45' West from a point situate 733.7 feet North and 526.0 feet West of the Northwest corner of Donation Land Claim No. 42 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 25°35' West 476.0 feet; thence North 15°17' West 436.1 feet to the most Westerly corner of that tract described in Volume 492 page 246 of the Official Records in said Jackson County; thence South 63.°25'.35" East (Record South 63°45' East), along the Northerly line of said tract, 40.26 feet to a point on the. Easterly line of Lori Lane and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, continue South 63°25'35" East along said Northerly line, 38.23 feet; *thence North 25°35'00" East 15.20 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe on the Southerly line of GLENNVISTA ESTATES, a Planned Unit Development to the City of Ashland, according to the Official Plat thereof, now of record; thence North 63°25'35"_ West, along said Southerly line, 51.57 feet to a point on the Northerly projection of the Easterly line of said Lori ,Lane; thence South '15°14'55" East, along said Northerly_ projection, 20.40 feet to the point of .beginning. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR •Dow%-Qt • vu=M1114-MCa o, DAVSD David M. Minneci Hoffbuhr &Associates, Inc. . Haines 91-084 August 1, 1991 ty OF .4Sy�i .. 1, September 6, 1991 G4EGG� Brian Almquist, Steve Hall, John Fregonese, Al Williams, Vic. Lively, Keith Woodley, Dennis Barnts, Jerry Glossop, John McLaughlin rum: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer Vacation of an Unopened Portion of Lori Lane Right of Way A petition has recently been presented by Lloyd Haines requesting Vacation of an unopened portion of the Lori Lane right of way. Would you please review this request to be certain that the vacation would not -affect your responsibilities. Would it be possible to place this request on. .the September 17 Council agenda to set a: public hearing date? This vacation is . required to develop the second phase of Glennvista Estates as . approved. The required signatures and percentages have been acquired. All requirements have, thus far, been. completed. JHO:rm\Law Aaecho j. . GLENNVISTA ESTATES 1257 Siskiyou Boulevard, Suite 232 Ashland, OR 97520 (50.3) 482r 9300 August 28, 1991 Jim Olson City Engineer City of Ashland Ashland OR 97520 Dear Jim: ° Enclosed please find three petitions containing signatures pertaining to the vacating of a portion of. Lori Lane. I believe .that these signatures represent owners of 66 2/3t or more of the surrounding land mass; please confirm and let me know immediately if we need to procure more signatures. . Please place the matter on the City County agenda as soon as possible. Thanks for your cooperation in this and other matters. I remain, Very ruly yours, Llo-yIV Haines LMH:mb yv�/ � r• tr'is•. )/ 4100 39 IE 5DA ;zao 0.l" t a�o7° I zog ' •I. • ttt 0.'1 0 ... •�.. I ... v 203 . :� r°"' ', '• 3-$Om...q. • n5 It ZQ§ A. 3900 co .e 3.01 5 , ,-f. ��1<� J��. .r"8 'JCj�� •fit •:•�<i „• loi LIMIT OF AFFECTED RE ORq ° V GY • � ' l f F z e LIZ. A 1 \.v C� IeO. � • ♦ y f ST. G� e3400 . ®. , 3600 J '•; N I 0 3500 loo• S _ . V ♦ j5. " 2303• ♦,� 70W ♦♦� j pY 110' 300 3000 J \ 2900 ` m♦ 3 GLENNVISTA ESTATES A - i.-.. t'7a0 2 a �4*. loo' Q - r iu PROPOSED VACATION' :., Tan 3 a ♦ b ♦,♦ r ::- �� v a "' o .. : o .. < 301' r °•,'J00 I �a� 2 2701 2700 27tH '• -` a I Rr rw.. �, �d5. 3 V 00 a boo OW F 74ao S zsoo 504 I `� , 7600 G 60 gyp- ST. ' 7700 _ 2400 41 700 , Wo If to 2300 ,.• "�! / �• . V I it row °• ++oM4 2200 a . ` fb11� � Q11<� 1 ,� `e0•` � I . 16W' 700 110(. ..) • /•� I .',• SCALE p . 100' N • si, . If�oo ' °o. '� ro• ! �I000' 7. Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 91-100 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ORDINANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IN WILDFIRE LANDS -- AMC 18.62.090 APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND -- Planning Commission Minutes, 8/13/91 1 -- Planning Department Staff Report 3 COMMISSIONEh CUSSION AND MOTION Benson called for a vote on the density bonus issue. Vote was 6 yes to 1 no for a density bonus for 9 lots. Discussion followed on the location of lot 8. Powell had an additional condition that all houses have sprinkler systems. Jarvis disagreed with the grade, location of lot 8 and the fire protection of the adjoining wildlands. Thompson agrees with condition 1. Bingham agreed with condition 1. Benson did not agree with the proposed location of lot 8. Benson stated that the Commission does not find the grades agreeable; asked for a redesign of lot 8 and suggested a-Continuance of action. Carr moved to continue PA91-035 until the September 10 hearing so applicants can present new plat showing deletion of lot 8, close the hearing and limit the September 10 hearing to lot 8. Jarvis seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. TYPE 111 PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Lane asked for a point of order to readjust the agenda due to a polling of the audience attending primarily in interest for Agenda Item No. IV D and the lateness of the hearing. Benson polled the Commission and it was agreed to realign the order of the Agenda. i PLANNING ACTION 91-100 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL g CONSTRAINTS ORDINANCE REALTING TO DEVELOPMENT IN WILDFIRE F LANDS — AMC 18.62.090. j APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported that Staff requested a modification of the section of the Ordinance dealing with wildfire lands, area around buildings built in wildfire lands be cleared out and submit a fire control plan for the complet subdivision and fire control and protection plan be required to be submitted at time of the plans' submission. It is much easier to enforce this protection and plan for protection at subdivision plan time. Comprehensive plan done by developer. ASHLAND PUNNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 13,1"1 3 Chief Woodley presented two videos: one on a recent fire near Bend, Oregon, in a very wooded subdivision and one showing a recent residential fire in Ashland that was near a lot of tall grasses which also became involved in the fire. Woodley stated that ideally there should be a partnership developed between the Planning and Fire Departments and property ownership prior to building of a subdivision to assure the property is prepared to receive building development. Fregonese requested the Commission add provision to Item 3C to preserve healthy trees to 6" dbh to the greatest extent feasible. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Carr moved to approve this Ordinance as presented by Staff to include the change in the wording cf Item 3C. 'Medinger seconded. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 91-101 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE, INCLUDING MODIFICATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE — AMC 18.104. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Fregonese reviewed CUP history. He requested the audience keep their remarks pointed to ideas rather than personal criticisms. He discussed the changes which included removing value laden language from Ordinance; 'impact area" to address affected area by CUP request; "target use' using basic permitted use in the zone for implementation of the CUP request. PUBLIC HEARING JOHN SULLY, 365 Granite Street, read a letter he requested be made a part of the public record regarding inverse condemnation actions and the affect this change in the Conditional Use Permit ordinance could have on possible property values. [See Attachment A]. CYNTHIA LORD, 710 N. Mountain Avenue, read a letter addressing value-laden word issue and growth rate percentage she believes is affected by CUP ordinance. RICHARD HARTLEY, 508 Evans Street, addressed Commission with several concerns including that 'impact area° is still a vague term. He is not happy with the proposed CUP changes. LUBA does not make recommendations to cities so why note that LUBA suggested one of the changes. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 13,1"1 - 4 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 5, 1991 PLANNING ACTION: 91-100 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands REQUEST: Modification of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance in regards to Wildfire Lands development,requirements. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: This revision has been initiated through concerns raised by the Fire Department and Forest Service about development of residential uses in the urban/forest interface area. Since adoption of the original ordinance, new concepts and information have been learned regarding development in these interface areas, necessitating an update of the ordinance. Additional review of the ordinance has been provided since the Planning Commission Hearings from City Attorney Paul Nolte. k 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: r' The ordinance change is a.complete replacement and revision of the current standards. Currently, the ordinance is limited to requiring a fuel break around structures, and prohibiting combustible roofing materials. The new ordinance requires developments in the interface area, from partitionings to subdivisions, to.consider the impacts of development in these areas. These impacts are addressed through the development of a Fire Prevention and Control Plan that is filed concurrently with the subdivision or partition request. w Essentially, the Plan requires many of the items that have been required informally or through conditions on recent subdivision requests. , but formalizes the process so that a developer will be aware of the concerns and requirements at the beginning of the development process. 3 II. New Ordinance 18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands. A. Requirements for Subdivisions Performance Standards Developments or Partitions 1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission of any application for an outline plan approval of a Performance Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or application to partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard areas. 2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief within 3 days of the receipt of a completed application. The Fire Chief shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days before the scheduled hearing. The Fire Chief's report shall be a part of the record of the Planning Action. 3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall include the following items: a) an analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, as influenced by existing vegetation and topography, b) a map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation, c) a map of the areas that are to be thinned to reduce the interlocking canopy of trees, d) A tree management plan showing the location.of all trees that are to be preserved and removed on each lot. In the case of heavily forested parcels, only trees scheduled for removal shall be shown. e) the areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are required to be installed around each structure, as required 18.62.090 B. f) Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access. and fire suppression activities, including the slope of all roads and driveways within the Wildfire Lands area. .PA91-1.00 Ashland Planning Depart ment — Staff Report City of Ashland November 5,1991 Page 2 1 4. Criterion for Approval The hearing authority shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan when; in addition to the findings required by this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire hazards . present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. 5. The hearing authority may require, through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval, the following requirements as deemed appropriate for the development of the property: a) delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a = formal plan for such thinning; b) clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load; c) removal of all dead and dying trees; d) relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of successful fire suppression; 6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be implemented during the public improvements required of a subdivision or Performance Standards Development, and shall be considered part of the subdivider's obligations for land development. The Plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building permit for structures to be located on lots created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance Standards developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or designee, shall inspect and approve the implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fully implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff Advisor that the Plan was completed as approved by the hearing authority. p 7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for the maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenants, restrictions, and conditions. 8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property in accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority. PA91-100 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 5,1991, Page 3 B. Requirements for construction of all structures 1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel break" as defined below. 2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-burning species. Fuel breaks do not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. 3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 30 feet in all directions around structures, excluding fences, on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by five feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10%. 4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control. 5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roofing materials, as determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire Lands area shall be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code. C. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control measures outlined in Section 18.62.080. D. Implementation. 1. For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the commencement of construction with combustible materials. 2. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section (B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of construction with combustible materials on the lot. ity o f00 C Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 5,1991 Page 4 III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof A revision to the zoning ordinance is a Type III amendment and subject to the criteria in 18.108.060 B) 1) and are as follows: 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 compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action. In Chapter IV of the Comprehensive Plan, Environmental Resources, there is a goal relating to Wildfire Hazards. The goal states: PROTECT LIFE, PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES IN ASHLAND'S URBANIMLDLAND INTERFACE AREA FROM THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF WILDFIRE, LESSEN THE POSSIBILITY OF WILDFIRE SPREADING TO THE ASHLAND WATERSHED FROM THE URBAN/WILDLAND INTERFACE AREA. Following this goal are nine policies to implement the goal. The policies have been minimally implemented by the current ordinance, but due to additional development in the interface area, more clear and comprehensive requirements are necessary to fully implement the above stated goal. Therefore, it is our belief that there is a "public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan" for this new ordinance. The current drought has heightened the City's awareness of the impacts of fire and the devastation it could have on our watershed and City. Therefore, it is definitely in the public interest that a clear and concise ordinance regulating development in the interface area be adopted. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as presented above. The ordinance has been developed by primarily from the advice and input of the Ashland Fire Department, and with additional information provided by the US Forest Service, and the Ashland Planning and Building Departments. PA91-100 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 5,1991 Page 5 There was a consensus to go on a field trip to some Phoneix mobile home parks and take Dick Wanderscheid on June 26, 1991. Thompson noted a change on page 10, item F the word "buy" should be changed to by Thompson moved to continue to the July meeting. Powell seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. OTHER Introduce Resolution for Wildfire Land Carr moved to set a hearing, Jarvis seconded the motion and it was approved. Fregonese said to change 1 from "outline plan" to"final plan° and amew-section 1 that a schematic plan is required if it does not meet these standards at outline plan approval. The Fire Department should be included at the pre-app stage. Introduce Resolution for Conditional Use Permit The uses need to be reviewed in August. It was moved and seconded to introduce a resolution for Conditional Use Permit criteria. This was approved unanimously. Modifications to Parking Ordinance j This would pertain to.on-street parking credits and maximum number of spaces. Thompson moved to approve with Powell seconding. This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. i ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION g REGULAR MEETING - i JUNE 11, 1991 MINUTES Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 91-101 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION AND COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - AMC 18.104. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Department Staff Report Addendum 2 11/5/91 1 -- Planning Commission Minutes 9/10/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 6 Planning Department Staff Report Addendum 9/10/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -- Letter from Debbie Miller 8/29/91 . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 -- Planning Commission Minutes 8/13/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Planning Department Staff Report 8/13/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Letter from Mark Murphey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - Letter from John Sully, 8/13/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 CUP Ordinance Proposal from Friends of Ashland 8/13/91 . . . . . . . . . . . 35 -- Letter from Jim Ragland 8/13/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 -- Letter from Debbie Miller 8/12/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 38 Letter from Debbie Miller, Friends of Ashland 4/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 -- Letter from Rick Landt 1/29/91. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Staff Draft 4 of Conditional Use Permit ordinance 6/5/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 - Staff Draft 3 of Conditional Use Permit ordinance 5/1/91 . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Staff Draft 2 of Conditional Use Permit ordinance 2/26/91 . . . . . . . . . . . 52 -- Planning Commission Minutes 10/11/90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Letter from David Lane 10/90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 - CUP Ordinance Proposal from Friends of Ashland 10/90 . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 -- Staff Draft 1 of Conditional Use Permit criteria 9/11/90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT November 5, 1991 ADDENDUM PLANNING ACTION: 91-101 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: Modification and Complete Replacement of the ordinance regarding Conditional Use Permits I. Additional Information The final draft, including changes, adopted by the Planning Commission has been further reviewed by our city attorney. The suggested modifications, which are relatively slight, are included in bold with any deletions indicated in strikeout. As stated previously, we believe that the key issue in this revised ordinance is the ability to weigh the proposed conditional use against a use which would be permitted outright in the zone. The requirement that the proposed use must be similar in impact to a "target" use allows all parties involved a clear opportunity to address the effects of a proposed use. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. H. New Ordinance Chapter 18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sections: 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally 18.104.020 Definitions 18.104.030 Procedure 18.104.040 Plan Requirements 18.104.050 Approval Criteria 18.104.060 Conditions 18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment . 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. a) Impact Area - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing.authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. b) Target Use - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1) WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use following complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2) R1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use following complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 5, 1991 Page 2 _ a . 3) R2 and R3 Zones: Residential use following complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4) C-1. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, following complying with all ordinance requirements. i 5) C-ID. General retail commercial use, such as those in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, following complying with all ordinance requirements. ' 6) E-1. General office use, such as those in 18:40.020 A., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio,,following complying with all ordinance requirements. 6) M-1. General light industrial use, such as those in 18.40.020 E., following complying with all ordinance requirements. 7) SO. Educational uses at the college level, fellowittg complying with all ordinance requirements. 18.104.030 Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 18.108 of this Title. 18.104.040 Plan Requirements. (1) The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following information: (a) Vicinity map. (b) North arrow. M (c) Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject t property. (d) Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of all lot lines. (e) Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. (f) Location of all parking areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 5, 1991 Page 3 (g) Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed. (h) A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less. (i) Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be disturbed, including, but not limited to, all existing trees of greater than six inch dbh, any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of rocks or boulders. (2) An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18.72. The provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section 18.72.040 for site design approval. 18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland November 5, 1991 Page 4 Ll e) Generation of noise, light, and glare. f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 18.104.060 Conditions. The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Regulation and limitation of uses. (2) Special yards, spaces. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such improvements. (5) Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. (6) Regulation of signs. (7) Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features. (8) Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase compatibility with adjoining uses. (9) Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances. (10) Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain f activities. (11) The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. (12) Duration of use. (13) Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space. . (14) Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design. (15) Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title. 18.104.070 Revocation: Abandonment. Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional use permit approved under this h section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed revoked if the proposed use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of approval. If the permit requires site design approval under Chapter 18.72, the permit shall be deem revoked if the use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is deemed void if discontinued or abandoned fora period of six consecutive months. PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report . City of Ashland November 5, 1991 Page 5 J TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 91-101 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE, INCLUDING MODIFICATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE -- AMC 18.104. STAFF REPORT JF reviewed the changes in the ordinance. 18.104.050(B) — Leave in "and will'. BENSON RE-OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING MARK MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, would like everything in his letter entered into the record from last month and he reiterated those comments. Murphey wanted the words "adequate City facilities" (18.104.050[B]) changed to read: "capacity of key public facilities". Murphey also commented on: 18.104.050(C) - the old ordinance protected neighborhoods better. Now livability would only be compared to the target use. He believes "density" is important as it is tied to livability and he would also like to see "appropriate development of abutting properties" remain. Fregonese suggested deleting from 18.104.050(C) "than the" and insert "compared to". He agreed to add "capacity" to item 18.104.050(B) as well as "development of abutting properties" to (f). RON THURNER, 1170 Bellview, spoke to the target use of the zone. He prefers the wording "surrounding neighborhood" from the existing ordinance. Thurner is concerned that if a person does not live within 200 feet of a development, they would be unable to have standing to appeal. Fregonese said that "neighborhood" is not defined and can include the entire City. Section 18.108.070(C) explains who may appeal. JILL MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, commented that wording in 18.104.050(C), "target use for the zone" is not clear. She.would like to leave the wording as it exists in the current ordinance. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 DEBBIE MILLER, 160 Normal, stated that a CUP should be viewed more stringently than an outright permitted use. She reviewed her letter dated August 29, 1991. Miller asked that consideration be given to Friends of Ashland submitted proposal (f) referring to C-1 and E-1 land, maintaining a percentage of land for the primary zone use. Fregonese agreed and will include in the "Uses" section. MADELINE HILL, 66 Scenic Drive, is involved with Senior Citizens. She was trying to figure out how this CUP ordinance would fit into what she is doing and it was suggested that she might want to return to testify when the CUP uses are addressed. MARA MIKALIS, 394 E. Hersey Street, also wants the appeal process to be broad. She would like the working "adequate public facilities" left in the ordinance. DAVID LANE, 1700 E. Main, wanted to add to 18.1o4.050(A) "and goals". Fregonese. believed "goals" is to general. Lane referencing 18.104.050(8) stated that LUBA has ruled that schools are a key , public facility and would like to see schools added. From Friends of Ashland: Lane stated that fire and police protection do not necessarily cover safety and welfare of those in the impact area, such as a request for an industry that would use potentially hazardous material, thus causing an impact to the area. Lane also wanted to see the effects be considered cumulatively rather than individually when evaluating the impacts of a proposal. With regard to schools as key public facilities, Fregonese explained that if there is a problem with any facility, such as water, sewer, etc. it needs to be addressed in a much more comprehensive fashion than under the CUP ordinance. Lane asked that school capacity be included. Fregonese said before you stop growth because of a public facility problem, a solution has to be in hand even though it may takes years to implement it. THURNER said that what we have now works, specifically CUP's and public facilities, why change it? MARK MURPHEY said LCDC requires that schools are included as a key public facility. ! ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Harris would like to see a sub-committee appointed to decide what is appealable to the City Council and what would be appealable directly to LUBA. For instance, Type I and Type II planning actions would be appealed directly to LUBA, a Type III to the Council. Jarvis agreed to work with Harris and Fregonese said the new City Attorney would also help. The following items were reviewed: 18.104.050(B): add adequate "capacity" and leave "and will" in the last line. 18.104.b50(C): delete "location, size, design and proposed operation of the", and delete "than the" and add "compared to" under C. 18.104.050(C)(0: Change to "appropriate development of abutting properties as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan". Change the existing (f) to (g). Bingham emphasized that there is quite a difference between the amount of scrutiny given to a four-unit motel versus a 97-unit apartment complex in an E-1 zone. He thought CUP's of a certain size should be heard as Type 111's. Harris said that could be considered in his sub-committee's discussion appeals. Jarvis moved to recommend approval to the City Council of Planning Action 91-101 with the above amendments. Harris seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 91-085 ANNEXATION CRITERIA This application was postponed. Harris left the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 91-127 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE SIGN CODE - AMC 18.96. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT McLaughlin gave the Staff Report.. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 8 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 10, 1991 ADDENDUM PLANNING ACTION:: 91-101 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST. Modification and Complete Replacement of the ordinance regarding Conditional Use Permits I. Additional Information After last month's meeting, several of the comments brought forward have been included in this draft. They have been indicated in bold print in the following ordinance. Included in the packet is a letter from Debbie Miller further discussing the issues brought forward by the Friends of.Ashland draft. As shown in the following ordinance, several of those issues have been included in the revised draft. Of note is the addition of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan policies not implemented by ordinance. This was an important point that was raised, and we believe that this modification allows for review and consideration of those policies i; not currently implemented by specific land use ordinances, or other specific laws. Also of note is the change adding specific points that must be addressed by the applicant in terms of determining impacts on livability. Six items have been added regarding this point. As stated previously, we believe that the key issue in this revised ordinance is the ability to weigh the proposed conditional use against a use which would be permitted outright in the zone. The requirement that the proposed use must be similar in impact to a "target" use allows all parties involved a clear opportunity to address the effects of a proposed use. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. 9 II. New Ordinance Chapter 18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sections: 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally •. 18.104.020 Definitions 18.104.030 Procedure 18.104.040 Plan Requirements 18.104.050 Approval Criteria 18.104.060 Conditions 18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally., Certain uses are permitted in . each.zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. . a) Impact Area - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be. materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact urea. b) Target Use - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1) WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2) R1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland September 10, 1991 Page 2 jo 3) R2 and R3 Zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4) C-1. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 5) C-113. General.retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to.area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) E-1. General office use, developed at an intensity of .35 gross " floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) M-1. General light industrial use, following all ordinance requirements. 7) SO. Educational uses at the college level, following all.' ordinance requirements. 18.104.030 Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 18.108 of this Title: 18.104.040 Plan Requirements. (I) The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following information: (a) Vicinity map. (b) North arrow. (c) Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property. (d) Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions Y of all lot lines. (e) Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. (f) Location of all parldng areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. I (g) Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed. (h) A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less. PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland September 10, 1991 Page 3 ' (i) Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be disturbed, including, but not limited to, all existing trees of greater than six inch dbh, any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of rocks or boulders. (2) An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18.72. The provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section 18.72.040 for site design approval. 18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the.following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity,urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the location, size, design and proposed operation of the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area than the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following qualities of the livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target.use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. (increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.) c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e) Generation of noise, light, and glare. PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland September 10, 1991 Page 4 n f) Other qualities found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.. 18.104.060 Conditions. The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Regulation and limitation of uses. (2) Special yards, spaces. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such improvements. (5) Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. (6) Regulation of signs. _ (7) Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features. (8) Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary tb increase compatibility with adjoining uses. (9) Regulation of noise, vibration,dust, odors or similar nuisances. (10) Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities. (11) The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. . (12) Duration of use. (13) Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space. (14) Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design. (15) Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title. 18.104.070 Revocation: Abandonment. Unless a longer.period is specifically ? allowed by the approval authority, any conditional use permit approved under this section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed revoked if the proposed i use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of approval. If the permit requires site design approval under Chapter 18.72, the permit shall be deem revoked if the use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is deemed void if discontinued or d abandoned for a period of six consecutive months. f f , PA91-101 - ADDENDUM Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland September 10, 1991 Page 5 13 C.k pchcu .P n, not wQkr, �LZ. .nL• c9!z�u ..:, rho- ec pc.a�w r o;., LLr.. et..Xcct ai xA.� f tan..u.� Ci,.n.in,.ae,o.•.; ,tyua, noc.tly 15 4h, - 1°'�N�caL ch.cCaaica . ( ,cam `(tAcx ch.! aw �¢�ac.� juk 4. G1tcrCe.n.l c� "ff A (/L ,y,.;�• ,-/Q�i 6Ai cJwwcA;, �„ Ya. ( 0.tt-h.Qu�yl✓ V�L �o..D-e-\. Ulw4 Ct IC c��ou U4�..[aCx..� �.ru lv DD <J GI/ C/La. 6CO.l.; q ..�ycp�pt4i ,-; otChGGC. (y Ilot 4 tl/.f1w✓ 1�7i.sen.c �' �jy�Q.v. Q��.K 1/^ aEcl iU- ath.� CL .C✓; nC& a-U-c t.c(- �'{-�iu @luCt<s.t-.0 On. `119J.1 CaL - y+wCc.(1,OU� (/taC' S 4CM¢• � he f'C:t C- C/�a.t -T -'Ii C 0.Ak-cad.cD .d. (u1 Gt.CQ-(/'[.0 - �J.E9 6ai� 1t n9�aAaL artG_ C Uwt co GWe Cc (/�oCCnYatd_kR J ! GJLJV-0 y a ai .ct �4cEKsrnd dl(. L/l¢..Cl.,p:V� �L G.(ll�l(.�I •F CP. %1.0 C.t C.II,O/ 4A_ l�a�.Od 0 �.O.il11AU. J(27 ann, j/ who �EEQ Q m--..f Ni1',J IMLMR.A.I:� ?00-4 -- C ya l OXMIK1 L4 ck `/I.EQ-l..& 0 . ({iry 'to rlw th.c.Wu c•... Yc!(Qa..) tha• C.�. ,Ci V'ILCCE, -0.Z` . Z. 022!nR¢.q _ ix- __v tha.• QC.cac4 -.9 ��'"'`Y yiK Uw. 'Q, off RC nah,u4. n 'Q-cuu..� ilk, /-,CEh4 �Jk90 ch ci c;cw: Q,�. -CYu. f2 ct , C,-,CL /r toC<c Cc.cni c�u '.7"! n..- . O ab c •h l.nL.<.e on. I�Ciia_nct, R9/w G.masnfwnl tha4 l -l%6.'1 /c.eJ�.c.lu. A<conc m.e ln�e-�ch. � thx� OLiai4.Cunw n..ntt,X. c� Ciw �iu(r2s v �Y elu- 7(Si ,Cn.t nL� �`'d'�. eR,a_GUd ary C1�..d yaaA�.Cs c a.ph.. cJli Q�a(.ccan.G - `a('1QU(Ll `lLQaJi •!J p.VC. �hiA.acJ/, cA/u,�e(sJ.Q�i_oiv I"oa r.{u .J.j!-�!1 c.Ca. o� �/L4, �E �.ti �nd�c.cF LcLa.¢.�ha m�✓D�\e,i.n; o(_pt,(.y lt.✓KU ei EJ�c11-..�.u�. d-v�.1�� uJ- �� L,,k Qc L. aU C- �y�uChrc �J;4 c,._f.�Ci/• pl t�,, as d,.tiR n c,- CAiL�M m.li _ Iha c>;,c/(ttJ r ftJ Id'v.ak.. ch/1.,�.�i 1p,4u ry/1 f�44<Viu, c lv 4 C'koc" (A fes-LC/.u.ck� 4C-Al, ';t-4 OOC.tk c-i La-� �/ ! 1e1.•,� liv�a...n.lna<n a_nd An+u,tt,•,Yi Woo.' A ?QA 6 (flR (LAO—)- s t�-.ca ad,oFte CtH1 O Ut¢, c.O-P auC✓ A QRCbL( G-Vky ta^ok- ck1 nat_aa !V Cfu, Ct C.t�t,,.J«p_ Jo..�w4 r.�cl_�t ALC'c.,, ,plU,�� /n.d.LA UL<ar VCYW 1 (1 •, 4t../ IcP/>1.4t hd. C Cf1W/.�a.f/(.A. YJt.(i'cR /J QL.ICi D. La<a?,� A_e !� r. P6 't Ohw a.,_a MA dw nzaqtc/e�C�o ro0 Y-'C4 f eCPL.4" a.n_ "aaeL Uh Ce wCA n cv�.,r/C. h-�LUJ�u6�&� .Y�t`J(Oti.a/ �kY.uc Ct.ac�a,c ts1.4.�,a x acXU�,..WCn/ I (thta•✓ tU_,J,; ei,all_C'V-d- a-nd. (4uv pzec cCtd. irk Or. C1rt.Ut ASE ,m./oocL.L •t1'u_.li 1�-/x�tr(.� dC llaCc.>: GY�Ltk 0-lr-�cCct,e.. J 4.(tl a fittCE W'C0.� +� Ch.¢. Mrn,m.il V4; SE.bs tan(c hack cU,Octmant. (Uo 4 Pape) - t.,c G_4,c k.n.CtJ rhac Ou< U a- /Jtt!C r n.aL. . Clwx �, � Cty-c.ti.VL a.c�,.txtt, �? rh,c. ��f_o.�M..q �•. t?ws c, L)C&U�.1. UQ'JC ., r) - 400, Oa,, f WC&n. , w/ ULt QCt.dt Lcv..UC'. tn.nlJ.v �•�- nt5 a.f,C ULtx.a_e.n. On. tA:l;-! d.el.,J,V,.:, WO,c,CvL Ce 'k fAAt CE/na.0 /^�POCt. CejbQh{nL.eAlk ACUULk C.t1:, 4I,A a(tOpfAa, no LJG-V &IOLLU u-cdt, i /e ou-OiArAl . L Ch.t. /WLPOcxL q C, P�(f k' "t.CC<...L, a Cop. C`')•a( I 7 Yttctt ��: t.l',c1C� int a.,d t;1u. �h^.194un.L ,j�_�it.a. 4 1/c bCCtf(.ca..D-. /itO,ls ca.�-t.��tC G-�/• Lf'a..) a YrtA/ Ctd, t.xa. . d2� propoat rl'w �Or(OW,.4 POcn12 IA cnaltoc.ttVOL"' r G. Scale a, ,O bu(k. a),, YA—Qbatrt th,,, tc,,.� moax �.-(iecoue. mi4At,Ctelttf_,L , O-no1 t:hl 6_" MQAk r�n�O+Kt.,X�h haa.E.c"p & . Jo ILcC'aa1. rhL a'LaAocr-w a, Ctx.un; bly tec /J eika_t. a 'O not � Cr'w O?nRAO-L 10.(1.41 � )04J4tnt 14t LUCttt" Ghc e.f.-ia cCl.onaU.LU Ce p�Jle.1.. VC,,,n. '/>,.�iLa.,Ln,L, CJ�.L,OCUn.� 4.nal non, ac�ol'a.nw (J ON- V.C.rti2n ct. '/Jv.n/o.t.`4_a.CV WO.tiLB� ail,Cc& btACS.Lre. &A..c, eons .ctiu C 1 (Ata CkO tCy atnc� A-a,j Ve4 haoas) Lto not YLa. a C[a �Gt lw 's Le,. �rfla�-•.a."� C\.a;j,.c L,i:.e cG.: c./(,• �'.ca. 1+ !n c - w frla_<i l..�cAtr cl, /4 ���<. Cc a,•<C «G<;;t. C, ; Chnx Ck.L.A a. Cc unA C.c..J:raC'<< . e. e4T F s (� - c�vi hs_aa�AC ee �� c C� 9Jnue. C, eea. 4he a.,ew r. et. dokp'u e/- c L:4GL 'Al CYQCCt LAL(,-r . ,IJhA. C.cn1 QA.L 71c , .i /,ok GCa t, Q.:atc(co,( .tv, U/ll. cn, W caaueacd u.. C- 6&tcfj 1n,e 45 h,c�ctuax Oct"� PACUtc.,u/ dot Carr C<_, /cu n'- 'r7U. .t�h.eN �fACatnlioN � b�ccA.j�a« LJaf-fA;' :.n:Go d\u Q'CO.eud tr.i, A AiQ.\i..ti 8. -ku... lo,t���,P.p,.,.aA. <a�oF.,rlA.t.• Cl, QUuy cc-.CLLL, 0- -/w.U. tt cn n.C/,x,Ct,�• 4ntl. J?G<n,.11'cvJ ( k,1.0 .C.t_ t,i u,n.t�A.\Ntrt[ . Xa . G' � here cws ine deie.ndcr uF " �r ale cXlai ol- n PC.+i 0.n a.re os` `lh er the cor.�dn� qua - *01 a \reek LJCA\CCt cA3Zt fhern -G'w rrtk Ch money -1 'AL d' cLU I h_t .,V_ IPL O/La (YC,GU.A.-C•v M.ca\,c Vc. LvEAl h1�. 0.24 tra-C_0.��csa . cc+eJJtr��.�q a&0,-(ru•C La,& lyt .4,,.f-- dhac 0.n.i� vJridtAA.cG.O..J on, Pa VJJ, d,c.t„y o�o.en, yip u-U l/e- trritC� C-caA.<,jc.-UAt Lien.alctA.., t-�yU.u.a i(.� Aa C'(Q�ih rn�nL a� Y1'w c.�.t� !]oa,(. �, 9pc•� /k/atxUe/ eJCn<� �4- .nuGa. C.a.n. Ict(tC, fn /n.r. �. G. fmpa_k W'ea valu< 7horec.C,oN ' uhA: 1•.ti6nct 4A4.0 w (,"O'Ctr.(y./ tl (. a.< CL.oAt ' c4.:� LK.I'EcCatrVL� ! chncCc.-..ct0 .<C. o-n, E!',n.c 'vadc.0 dYc e.Ja.nx. C_ondtr aAAaf;tgN C,tve n: h. rhe, c Cf `�ZaA aGC a.pl.; [ QCCG-LC.Y 0.L <,C AtC2Nla/ b V'ohQ.dL.C� c.v . C.ondtl.cccG_on. . - fi.tr plwa<,of 'r.�I-^, txkeO_Lv ��ct C d/ thy-.tivA, OdbfAC,01C Tr,. .Jhh o1_C -f" pL a&wu-o, -Of2hA4 i N rrw.a.e lit, W,91-1 a.. ,{.. (�..,nd.u, lztUA. ML.tiCiar', eh,. 4P"rea -tafPv &,'Uo: r' 'av n-cE &0, aa�ac.u,k [� Luc.. )pCUc(U c scw.ccon Gtete,,,\-Q-CA-✓ev d-c<cr,; k. aC,.tz.eU'.. �7k^-C'�`�ei• �(,t. 41Z cA) ekae.c 6-1`.'Q'CXL'f. a. l X fe (NFSeure 00-tc ' 'ORQULz( nck bl JQLO-Ctrl cti tt.a-�C�en e4au DA, a-n ' con,afia.cryo.v- Chu ✓.-C¢.�,.� �Q...�.�� u tc 4-�L.a i �Yu{.� d-CAA,-(,v Asa.:-ac- 4� t•r.,, Ckk4) +� AA C"W U oU'UMS &ACIM . �'-"..x- �'- � nsx.d,C, Co l..'mn P•rna14. lJtc.�-ncku� 0.nDL iti.Qts.n.4✓i,J 1n o k r w JCut a C� 16 Pax us 0 o.x G- I haxlw- tlp� UC GJa-U11.UC.tI. .*+- •,...•.D.,.� tw.t j-/ e-� (inn L-i •lru.a .s.A o:.1r.L lx. C � aQ es�,:N � ,� w �e-a-ti Of�u•_.�e a3ra..�x drnatL •c�rtac�v • �..>1..w.ti wJ,✓ w `h o nay. CL , �.CA.Ct_ final tpf/�f. .ah a.I.A L u e/ly as c:�.•.q �cecni. q-�- �+,.� �C.a..a. �w.u(.e�� ouXd �Mny1{,i-�, ��nda.) :ciacn(l,� ownsA dr< o n�eaad �, tc� dte0..�[Cl 44,yP2, tom,- &na ,bwxcY<. C.F.. .as-IT-A ew,utwow Ca_N at-0-"'a- L dk eacu. f� uxltu, o,..Gtq�ct Lla- 4itt.a o-t. • cumul¢fitlm e.�ec15 J/ui w elw,G-u4-(xs+�J Cl,c.n.�. i e+•el' /�a�4. � C¢..v . LC (L'v w 'cA,-�e�C ✓�. (..1.O.L.Ct�i.0 N, 4d OA CAN, aQAA-k. r.o/LSJu-fi't._I3d k, .c/w rte.. -AL mc,a t- tic. abet 6 a a, ' a-A-o0. Q_nw. mAo Okar e &j On ealw �l JIIl c cites. L-Jk, 1 y d c , ncti is Ci✓� I. �P ckl )(cA ua l,LP,u. 1.c. dlopp..,.o & ,a, cJ'a-Q'y aide Ow, rhn.L- ana.a ye-a gL l,p, iAP.a .Can1 Pt c au` i ie Au n-w as wlw c cnrIdiel_.laec a - -. _. M.- d•✓y`. �„r..fJU 0.e_r �� L 1bh.Weet Q.nA, C/Lt. a-!!l-of-t,.k � CA.LL•strla,ei,p.J _ J Chief Woodley presented two videos: one on a recent fire near Bend, Oregon, in a very wooded subdivision and one showing a recent residential fire in Ashland that was near a lot of tall grasses which also became involved in the fire. Woodley stated that ideally there should be a partnership developed between the Planning and Fire Departments and property ownership prior to building of a subdivision to assure the Property is prepared to receive building development. Fregonese requested the Commission add provision to Item 3C to preserve healthy trees to 6" dbh to the greatest extent feasible. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Carr moved to approve this Ordinance as presented by Staff to include the change in the wordirig of.ltem 3C. Medinger seconded. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 91-101 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE, INCLUDING MODIFICATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE — AMC 18.104. APPLICANT. CITY OF ASHLAND Fregonese reviewed CUP history. He requested the audience keep their remarks pointed to ideas rather than personal criticisms. He discussed the changes which included removing value laden language from Ordinance; "impact area" to address affected area by CUP request; "target use" using basic permitted use in the zone for implementation of the CUP request. PUBLIC HEARING JOHN SULLY, 365 Granite Street, read a letter he requested be made a part of the public record regarding inverse condemnation actions and the affect this change in the Conditional Use Permit ordinance could have on possible property values. [See Attachment A]. CYNTHIA LORD, 710'N. Mountain Avenue, read a letter addressing value-laden word issue and growth rate percentage she believes is affected by CUP ordinance. RICHARD HARTLEY, 508 Evans Street, addressed Commission with several concerns including that "impact area° is still a vague term. He is not happy with the proposed CUP changes. LUBA does not make recommendations to cities so why note that LUBA suggested one of the changes. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION . REGULAR MEETING - MINUTES AUGUST U.1991 4 lS� JILL MURPHEY, 492 High Street, read a letter from Mark Murphey and herself objecting to changes to the CUP ordinance and the procedures used to affect these changes and this hearing on the proposed ordinance changes. DEBORAH MILLER, 160 Normal, spoke for Friends of Ashland and handed out criteria for CUP changes. RON TURNER, 1170 Bellview Avenue, discussed his concerns with references to legal advice from Eads. He requested name of referee referenced in the staff report. He discussed his opinions on the valud-laden terms. DAVID LANE, 1700 E. Main, requested Commission consider all those impacted by any CUP changes including residents, staff, Commission members. AL TORRES, 1.036 Prospect Street, reviewed objections to CUP ordinance changes. IT WAS MOVED, SECONDED AND APPROVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL MIDNIGHT. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Carr moved to continue PA91-101 with Medinger seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 91-085 f REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ANNEXATION CRITERIA AS PRESENTLY INCLUDED IN THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE — AMC18.108.065 APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Public hearing was opened and closed with no representation from the audience. Carr moved to continue PA91-085 to the September 10, 1991 meeting. Medinger seconded. Motion passed unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 91-087 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE MANUFACTURED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE — AMC 18.84 APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Public hearing was opened and closed with no representation from the audience. Jarvis moved to continue PA91-087 to the September 10, 1991 meeting. Thompson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 5 AUGUST 13, 99 ,1 / lq ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT August 13, 1991 PLANNING ACTION: 91-101 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: Modification and Complete Replacement of the ordinance regarding Conditional Use Permits I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: This ordinance change was initiated by resolution of the Planting Commission. Initial revisions to this ordinance were prepared by Staff several months ago. A study session was held with the Planning Commission and CPAC and concerns over the proposed revisions were discussed. John Eads assisted the City in a revision of the ordinance after that study session, and then acting City Attorney Roy Bashaw also reviewed the modifications. That revision was then presented to the Planting Commission and CPAC at a study session at SOSC on May 1, 1991, where Mr. Bashaw explained some of the concepts and concerns he had in general with Conditional Uses and with their "sustainability". The draft was reviewed in detail by those in attendance, an the recommendations and concerns were addressed as part of this current draft. This draft has also been reviewed by acting City Attorney Richard B. Thierolf, Jr. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: The ordinance as presented is a complete replacement of the current code. The existing conditional use permit ordinance as adopted in the 1970's and . has remained essentially unchanged since its initial adoption. The primary change in the ordinance is its approach to the evaluation of the proposed uses. Under the current ordinance, it is rather an open- ended review and is unclear as to how impacts are measured. Recent LUBA cases from Ashland and other jurisdictions that have similar ordinances have shown the difficulty in evaluating specific conditional use requests. n p<� Historically, the City has evaluated a Conditional Use in relation to the impacts of a permitted use on the site. For example, a.request for a Traveller's Accommodation has been compared to development of the property as multi-family residential, looldng at traffic, noise, etc... However, LUBA as stated that our ordinance does not specifically allow for this type of review. Therefore, this ordinance has included "target uses", which are essentially the most commonly permitted use by zone, developed at the allowable density or coverages. Any conditional uses are compared in relation to those target uses, with the realization that those target uses would be allowed as a permitted use, and therefore if the conditional use is similar " in impact to the target use, it would then be appropriate at that location. The criteria have been changed to reflect this revised approach to evaluating uses. There are now 3 criteria that require that findings be made showing that: a) the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located This is a criterion to ensure that the conditional use is developed in accord with all other requirements of the specific zone. b) adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. This is similar to the current requirement, but more clearly outlines the facilities. The current criterion refers to the "availability and 1 capacity of public facilities and utilities." The proposed criterion addresses the availability of facilities to the subject property, but does not require that the facilities be addressed on a city-wide basis. It has been the previous practice of the Commission and Council to review available facilities in the manner prescribed under the new criterion. However, the old criterion also allowed for city-wide impacts to be considered for conditional uses that would not be considered for.permitted uses. It is the intent of this new criterion to allow for the review of the conditional use in relation to facilities in a similar fashion as that used for permitted uses in the zone. PA91-101 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland August 13, 1991 Page 2 c) the location, size, design and proposed operation of the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the impact area than the development of the subject lot with the target use for the zone. This criterion allows for the "weighing" of the impacts of the conditional use versus the target use, which would be allowed as an outright permitted use. This provides a yardstick to measure impacts, and assumes that impacts similar to the permitted uses in the zone are acceptable. Also, this criterion looks at "adverse material effects" on the "impact area". The "impact area" has been used here rather than neighborhood, as in the previous ordinance. Also, impact area has been defined in the ordinance as that area immediately surrounding a use, the notice area, and including the area materially impacted if the hearing authority so finds. . It is Staffs belief that this revision of the ordinance provides for a clear and objective manner of reviewing uses which have been classified as conditional for particular zones. Of note is that the criterion for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan has been removed. .As discussed during the study sessions, this change was recommended by the legal advisors reviewing the ordinance, and by a LUBA referee during a workshop on ordinance, criteria, and land use law in Oregon. It is a requirement that the uses allowed in a zone under the zoning ordinance, both conditional and permitted, must conform with the Comprehensive Plan. We have been advised that the retention of that criterion is superfluous, and does not provide any additional protection to either the impact area, the City, or the applicant. PA91-101 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland August 13, 1991 Page 3 II. New Ordinance Chapter 18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sections: 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally 18.104.020 Definitions 18.104.030 Procedure 18.104.040 Plan Requirements 18:104.050 Approval Criteria 18.104.060 Conditions 18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment 18.10,.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally, Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use is this chapter. a) Impact Area - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. b) Target Use - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1) WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2) R1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. PA91-101 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland August 13, 1991 Page 4 0 3) R2 and R3 Zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4) C-1. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 5) C-1D. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) E-1. General office use, developed at an intensity of 35 gross .floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) M-1. General light industrial use, following all ordinance requirements. 7) SO. Educational uses at the college level, following all" ordinance requirements. 18.104.030 Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 18.108 of this Title. 18.104.040 Plan Requirements. (1) The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following information: (a) Vicinity map. (b) North arrow. (c) Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property. (d) Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of all lot lines. (e) Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. (f) Location of all parldng areas, parldng spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. (g) Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed. (h) A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less. PA91-101 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland August 13, 1991 Page 5 �� (i) Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be disturbed, including, but not limited to, all existing trees of greater than six inch dbh, any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of rocks or boulders. (2) An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made" concurrently with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18.72. The provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section 18.72.040 for site design approval. 18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located. B. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the location, size, design and proposed operation of the conditional use will have no greater adverse material impact on the impact area than the development of the subject lot with the target use for the zone. 18.104.060 Conditions. The. conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Regulation and limitation of uses. (2) Special yards, spaces. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets @ and sidewalks and bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such improvements. { (5) Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. (6) Regulation of signs. (7) Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features. (8) Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase compatibility with adjoining uses. (9) Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances. (10) Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities. PA91-101 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland August 13, 1991 Page 6 a�s (11) The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. (12) Duration of use. (13) Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space. (14) Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design. (15) Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title. 18.104.070 Revocation* Abandonment. Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional use permit approved under this section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed revoked if the proposed use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of approval. If the permit requires site design approval under Chapter 18.72, the permit shall be deem revoked if the use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is deemed void if discontinued or abandoned for a period of six consecutive months. PA91-101 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland August 13, 1991 Page 7. ab III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof A revision to the zoning ordinance is a Type III amendment and subject to the criteria in 18.108.060 B) 1) and are as follows: 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 compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such,an action. Recent LUBA decisions regarding conditional use permits, such as McCoy vs Linn County Murphy vs Ashland, Miller vs Ashland, and Benjamin vs Ashland have indicated that the conditional use permit ordinance contains very imprecise language, and it is very difficult to develop sufficient facts and findings that show that the criteria have been met. Certain words in the criteria, such as "livability", "neighborhood", "minimal impact" and "appropriate development" are value laden concepts, and mean different things to different people. Therefore, we have attempted to provide a discretionary approval process with more concrete measures of what "livability" should be. Therefore, we believe that the points raised by the decisions of LUBA constitute new conditions regarding the conditional use permit process, and require the City to make adjustments to the CUP ordinance to adjust to these recent decisions. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes that the ordinance, as presented and reviewed by 3 separate legal advisors and a study session by CPAC and Planning Commission, should be I approved. We believe that it provides a clear and concise basis for reviewing conditional use requests. Further, we believe that this ordinance, combined with the upcoming revisions to the uses in each zone, will provide a clear and logical approach to development, for both residents and potential developers, in the City. PA91-101 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland August 13, 1991 Page 8 97 Statement of objection to changes to ALUO 18.104 before the Planning Commission of Ashland August 13,1991 First of all I would like to request that at the close, of thia' public hearing the record be kept open for 7 days for ., additional information to be put in the record. Second, I would like to address the procedural concerns I have before going on to the proposed changes themselves. The process of how the proposed change came about are of some concern to me. In the staff report it states- that the Planning Commission initiated this action by resolution. CI personally have no recollection of this resolution.) I called the Planning Department to find out when that resolution took place, and was told that it happened at the June 11 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting. I would like to request that a copy of that resolution, and minutes of that meeting be submitted into the record of this hearing. I feel it is essential to know exactly what that resolution was, and on what basis the Planning Commission initiated it. One problem I have with the present applicaion is that I do not believe it was initiated properly. Therefore, it is important to my substantial rights that the resolution be a part of the record: Having said that, I would like to address some problems. I A1 Oep z have with how this process took place. In the staff report's history of the application it states that the change was initiated by a resolution. That resolution was allegedly on June 11 , 1991 . However, I note in the staff report history that initial revisions to this ordinance were prepared by staff several months ago. The true fact is that •• this initial revision started nearly a , full year ; ago on September 11 , 1990. It was not initiated by a resolution of the Commission as that resolution did not occur until June , 11 , 1991 . I have here the minutes of that meeting which I would like to quote for you. , (see minutes) I .would like to also submit* this into the record for your perusal . As you can see the initial reasons for changing this ordinance were based on complying with the affordable housing, recent LUBA decisions made it hard to sustain a decision, and that "Staff would like to eliminate the unclear portions of the code and propose adoption of PA 90-165." As you may know it was not adopted, and was to be put off for 'further discussion. It then appears that this process and this application were not originated by a resolution of the Planning Commission, but in fact by the Planning Staff. I still maintain that this application, was initiated improperly. In today's staff report it states that at a study session on May 1, 1991 the original draft was reviewed in detail, and � p�K Y1r uftO�fc� aU that the draft before you tonight is the result of that meeting. In other words, CPAC and the Planning Commission, decided on the complete revision of this Ordinance before there was any resolution to g , it. Let me give you my history of how this process was initiated: 1 . The Planning Staff on .their own . or at the request of other individuals proposed this change. 2. They then spent a full year ., nc�i r selling there proposed changes to the Planning Commission. 3. At the end of that time when everyone had forgotten how it all started, there was a resolution made to initiate the process, after the change had already been discussed. 4. There was no need of a public nature to justify this change, but merely the personal fear of certain individuals that our present CUP criteria was very effective in stopping pet projects which they were in favor of. That is the true history of this application. There are a few other procedural errors connected with this application. It is my understanding that CPAC reviewed this application last night. That CPAC meeting was not given the proper 10 days notice. U Ordinance 18. 108. 060 (C) (4) states that notice of such a review by CPAC shall be included in the public notice. The last procedural error has to do with the burden of proof or the criteria for. approving changes to the land use 30 ordinance. The only criteria addressed in the staff report is that points raised in recent LUBA decisions on our CUP criteria constitutes a need to change to new conditions. This concept is deeply flawed. No new conditions exist. In all of the cases stated LUBA was not asking us to rewrite our Land Use Ordinance, but rather upholding or denying a project based on those ordinances. If we had to rewrite our Land Use Ordinances every time LUBA denied a project we would be spending all our waking hours rewriting our ordinances. What did LUBA do? They merely remanded certain projects in Ashland (and Linn County) because the City of Ashland did not properly apply their CUP criteria. That is not and does not constitute a new condition. The CUP criteria was there for the City to use at any time. This has not changed. The only thing that. has changed is that o- these projects were remanded, and the City is now seeking `pf for a fool proof way of making sure will not be remanded in M the future. That is not a public need nor is it a mistake i that needs to be corrected. . Our current CUP criteria do not need to be changed, they need to be implemented by 'the Commission and the Council. Now I would briefly like to address 'the proposed changes to the ordinance itself. The staff report states that the City s�-ariall� has evaluated a Conditional Use in relation to the .impacts, of. a permitted use on the site. This is not true.. The City rn rntt2 p,k� 31 has historically evaluated Conditional Uses with an eye to the impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. One that comes to mind is in 1978 when the City denied Craig Hoffarth a subdivision on the same site as the Mahar project because of it's impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. It does not appear then that the City has historically taken the Planning Staff's perspective. In fact, it has taken just the opposite view historically. Agiain, no need has been put forward to justify this change. Livability, has been in our Land Use ' Ordinance as long as the Comprehensive plan has been in effect. It is our present CUP criteria which has protected many neighborhoods from having improper development ruining thf�& character. My r4ghbors and I do not wish to see any changes to our current CUP ordinance. LUBA has not requested that we change this ordinance. There is no need to change this ordinance. Of all the cases before LUBA cited by Staff not one of them has resulted in a denial of a project. Of the three cases listed in Ashland, one has been corrected by mediation, one is currently in mediation, .and the other has received final approval . The two that went to mediation went there specifically because of our current CUP, and it`s livability clauses. Three cases being remanded by LUBA. in the history of this City does not demonstrate a need to change this Ordinance. If any change were . to occur, it should happen: 1 . in a proper procedural manner, 2. it should serve to strengthen the CUP criteria not weaken them, and 3. It should serve to make the evaluation of impacts on surrounding neighborhoods easier to judge, not harder or impossible as the proposed . change does. For the above reasons, I request that you deny this application, and retain our CUP ordinance exactly the way it has always existed. Sincerely yours, Mark and Jill Murphey 1� t Gut vs " R p He'/ ` ns'' � �em�ers C� the Plavn�inc, Gesp1te comments,: to `�e contrary by zae P] ann�:9 Director ar tn.e s�uuy session uf proposen c�an;e 'o the Land Use Ordinance , "e nno/hcocl concerns must enter _' n70 d"cis10ns. Cnanges jo Zoning Ordinances , Land e Ordina' xces / or in the 6p1icatioo of conditional Use Perni or any other actions a Cjty may take may have an effect on reAl estate values of properties In the area . These arp economic _, npacts . The impacts can be measured objectively - If the iur3actz reduce the values Of properties , the protests by the owners or neigt--borhood groups arc- riot to he regarded as emotional outbursts. ' he protection of property rig^ts an d values are an impdrLant e} ement f the U . S. Con-titvtiun . The oovernmenL ( tedera1 , state. or local ) is prohiUiteu from taking property wiihzui j Us� conpe/.sation . The taking is c,a 11 ed cnncemnation . When a government, by its actions. reduces the value of adjacent propprties ` it has been ruled by the court in most instances as a taking . There need not be a physir�} taking , only a reduction In value . Ihe --ction by the prolperty owner ic recover the io ss in val us i called and Inverse Condemnation Ac-. on . ' he Ordinance being considered for cha ge has the pot tiala a K� very high probability , of reducing values of properties. Yet, I nave neither- heard nor read of any discussion concerning the posssibil ;,ty of reductions in property values as a result of the proposed changes, . On the contrary' when the subject o/ neighborhood groups , or .ioUividuels , protesting environmental zmpacts ( economic impacts are environmental Impacts ) the Planning 1)i.recior stated that "emotional outbursts rf nechborhood groups need riot be considered in making planning decisions" . { hope the Planning Commission �,,ill carefully consiUer * ihe possibility of Inverse CnUemnation Actions against the City, will consult with the City Attorney and with specialists in the field of Condemnation Law, ( not accept the questionable authority of the Planning Director ) , before voting to approve the changes to the ordinance, result of the investigation , reject the Planning �ohx proposed changes. The Land Use/Zoning Ordinance as K proposed by the Planning ' Inappropriate for the City of Ash}and , v 3V ` F-RIENDS of Afi7l.At CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CRITERIA A. conditional use permit may be granted if the approvai authority finds that the proposal conforms with the following criteria : A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located . . B . The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan . (We propose keeping this criterion until a77 goa7s and policies of the Comp Plan are implemented by corresponding ordinances. ) C . That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water , sewer , paved access to and through the development, electricity , urban storm drainage , public schools , police and fire protection , and adequate transportation ; and that the development shall not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity in the impact area . (Since LUB.A has ruled that public schools are a "key public facility", our ordinance should be in conformance with this ru7ing. ) D . The location , size , design and proposed operation of the conditional use are such that it : r a . will' be reasonably compatible with , and have minimal impact ` on the safety and welfare of those in the impact area , and the value, livability , and appropriate development of abutting properties and the impact area , and b . will have no greater adverse material impact on the impact area that the development of the subject lot with the target use for the zone. 1 . In determining the impact , consideration shall be given to the following : a . Harmony in scale, bulk , coverage and density . b . Generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding and affected streets . C . Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with impact area . d . Minimum impact on air quality, including the generation of dust, odors or other environmental pollutants . e . Minimum impact on water availability and quality - both surface and ground water . f. any safety and welfare issues for those in the impact area g . Conformance with existing ordinances regarding noise levels . This impact shall be judged not solely on decibel level , but on time of day and duration. h . Areas. defined or presently used as open space shall be given additional consideration prior to deve-iopment to assess the impact on the impact area . 2 . To further clarify the above , the following criteria shall apply: a . The project shall protect the value of the surrounding properties and should not contribute to the deterioration of the impact area . b . The cost of all street and utility improvements •. necessitated by the project shall be the sole responsibility of the project developer , .unless the owners of the surrounding properties have previously signed in favor of such . improvements . C . For residential areas , no more than 20% increase irk daily vehicle trips for any given project , and no more than 40% increase in daily vehicle trips over a three year period . For both residential and non-residential areas , level of service "C" should not be exceeded : d . The additional water use shall not result in a decrease of water pressure greater than 10% to existinq users of the applicable water main . e. The capacity of the affected schools , as defined by the Ashland School Board , shall not be exceeded _ f. C-1 and E-1 land , when is utilized for residential purposes,, shall maintain at least 65% of the land for the primary zone uses . g . The effects shall be considered cumulatively rather than individually when evaluating the impacts of the proposal . h . The proposal must conform to all other applicable City, County and State ordinances , regulations and laws . E . Proposals requiring a Conditional Use Permit approval and involving the development of 5 or more acres of land , and/or over 100 , 000 sq . ft - of gross floor area , shall be processed as Type III planning actions and subject to Type II criteria for approval . v p CT je*4nU- IN31NNOnorav 'IA Inl4sul 6uiuuefd uO6eJO -y 83HIO 'A �-� �- 37 �L 4.,tra.�-,G�• d.9-cp.a,,.c�.-,u,,,�. �taPtL G-..a Leeti p�2nd g r e!o eh: 4onA a a W� tA�e4 m �4t iW�leeL �R4h �.� D QAhtce..ar;. rte- a d.o nak Uctk G.lk Cc.�ony q„� '- f✓c csc.i, D 0 4 uC. oxl-aelz� �! cxon:p k c ,� — C-4[C, I dcl,lq-a.aC - nlnk� rift, ci.C,� chlt.,p. ..!a• ✓rte„�" V•"" �Q(4. /� QQaJfa,Q.fi./ Q-44+LfCC t nu (,nit Gild. d.0fLt (.JGAt 1x.nc�l, )beAA,o,la.QLlj, of FOA A . Uc. ACk L3/ cll2t Qatxl CCJ � �`�' _ G..(}CUC Id'C!i tl.�ii L./t �rnA,�I �•R �4 aL� S�IOtl,( con C"A V i/W VI{L1a 1,c...n/. app�_Ld- –�vlL7 C� UOC Ca. l._ SAC Q1 - 0 V r, du A 6tnnL.. p(pI( C�A �A y C1QA4),�1 atJ Own- �QOn\' '�y WC L6.OlQlR((//a ii__6na C .n"C n Gil[, I(i.kq�'4y 0 8 y ✓� 1 JU `CCU f h14<Q4�[y ' Olw Yl4�c 4uc1(t.Q, r}l.ty-/ C V , . 'n'�vl-lb. Zcrn�., ene�leu,✓ a.�a e.�loCw.ui. u. .��„ ndx cut4can d lien /A-J.atole kV CC4, h, . 4-.xa vYl v WA" 0—,t� n« 4tc &At ' WoAk. 0- l�/l°"d` ry !`f^' t9leM °'yal�.• (�la., net nht_OIJ�,e,L[c.. q,C rw �C 44" Coco 191.." Qh 04t"d.., A Ci,LLtia cNvn.�, (wl.ni� Ms tic, dL �Sic'cypf.c t,Jl1P ✓n/Q:1JC.4 �W.t. .38 s . laCcla ii k ea:.C't.% tn.!'�....oc �Iltrn:. a.7ru.�a Oat- 1��Ct. :.Ca.:,na,4 kQq<aQ r,py U TUJ.t Oa}(A ')14) �avA4. � �A (r!S1 of 0 `t(CGS. 4)04t" OA- QI.B. • 4.ta 6C..,�C q CAr�.tJl Q� �J�cxC C,J,4. tf+' dQt^� J ' A2 ch, P opk, . e�� nr hc.i Je�i�nt 041 •5 1CaG,mr ACa(� /^-� l`,c (LC-cca C7 r.&, . 0 t OkI I°Oy -cfw Ot-f-a (anent- cOn-.)'k CXA- , V ice e�.lIAPI • &,-a— C" c Cz l- r -tL&,-c C, Jca ui tea.. Oiy C�7,eCm-e.tia XLa.x_.bW), Jk A L,41ak .d, ub.,.:.C.a, a..e�ye.w :aw C-CY 0A aC. 2at.cn, Ou nar � S.,uat �.�aA,csn� e� itico.rvJ - tcGa LJ0+1c t�Q. `•�¢rracC� - cJar�< ,/oW rc MkiUln..u ,� - oc.ol.c �ezlc�>. .Qa vo..a-Cc�, (,.11to.,t ti fA, h,,C d.�,Lrllaenat L a,a. -,LCnL4- Cyv-f� chi, Q,_.c�lk e.y.,' W K l�� �•� p.� /�}o�� - CYu.,,.l 4ke 1CttR Ru�l�!�„a.,9. iC�a/aal 1'�aac. nR<y.o.e�t"la�ty JaQ3 j ,(ca.` 4J.n a,e. ri..t- tar,��i.cr; u*'aux.L ct.ac tw.an. eK.eCa,.J do..e as.cca lw.,aaal4 Qor aim,./ >E uca Pb.GC - mQnt 9axQJ"-f '�`-a a: ¢nit. al.-�.�C, ,Q20tc.e� cx on net eVCn. y.aX / �rJnC L,G.tie ac teaaa e{,e, vnatae i'J.<. cat( rm . �6 �.. i.�t.-..t_a c.�y a..,a� L: .e,00 L,a.c-1. .M1(CtiJ Ua(-ala aap !_Qh.C)c C�rn.�iWl.c.ta.0 Uj/J4A UCLA. ©o;.a U.IC,. fv 4v Ul npC uU-tA.31�j �ChQkt, dtl.,,b �y, ,e tfjJ cti ar //act4 /, UvCJa a�cf co (/mss a ✓ Meta v��atcv.� aileno aC 4 !note COMrnLJ�44f.<gd(.i.en� �o rlw -aot.on�. �'lluui Vu2ty oLru .tao xL, . O � ..G...C� w laraie rtlah, i . _ 3t 4On'4 J¢ uAn UA�d dj-o z U. 6ak, c.L" tho• . Pnacu&jl &h� COP 4 a�o u Q.o ne-t a-UzJ,a. ,- rlaa , U kQ-d tea.fza, M iQ (Any Oti. U) Y4l COn.dxA.<�c4.c�✓ .0 ,�• U t 3 . CuK t'lll+ CA/4.lMya�.al'u /IllnUq-.L W U,d. L'C o P �heJ ►��..•. onL,y yviZa ,6w. ) na.J Q�QxLAkCi rA, Cop �.,t..f:2h.cc. `c�.c/L /Aq.uC2ft// vn.a..( `hru. <.f.c nCC na_C�CA� t-Aod.a, ,an-�[.iahatJ t.7/ �F,,pyi Y t �Y'cxl.c4,.00."LCO/1�. Jn CJbA cn atd cht, yin,,_ a.odt, ems, A-ea..o,W Wxm DDnec liwk Ck�f�Jhli�, Q�i�,t w.�a� dLnu: <3w AD , dxleCU.a.CI„ r+tt,nJ• v`lavk at rlw ntu..tt�s✓ . `h Co,,t ; . ehne o Piu ¢tt. �6- 7o lux `,L. f_.� �nadcL� !w and. Caw djo c(U.4 'ilo�au-� �lh., �7o(i+Cti.t NAt.t.R. CA-4C L" net $0�,..y ck- AACA ,�In rnou c_, L dt„ �O e W rao 0 � CJ4,�l�wa. % e1w �olOOi(.a, �nwcit�c.a.G�.e IJ� Y u�UO el U v ote e r on . Chat &f fl An, r ILJ6A LJOII_/- poaeue uXCG. a,4, ILUJJ,) Oh. 47ly y" a.ue noti_ 41" Up i "' no anc �`mc.�la Aa.n, Yl6 a ",et"-kaj L OCtti a re � a-ord- Abk n._o_k, 1 it�a a,�n. µ,up, ba. ac n. w CCyl 14'. La"'COtantna 4 11 Cll .J �xt.tir 1� p,o.x e. Qr tkG �w9 6 cC.A.Qha.Od� �'" Q-CL fv-ajj aor+ ack, 24n.de, CCh-Clat., QW,a.2 p.0 i �4c �IIN awL. Q,_o?o.cn tWa Pk k Yo {ruLn, ncc Cc E �+'.uc, cku-<. `..r LUb<.0 a u, 4c-� UCU< Cau ...Y' -. h. f ha" pv iko V t.- , .�,�.A..y • L-ii toes t Cial< f,tint.eh- -/<ti. e.iu C a.t; .� /, rf a-e o a.Lc{.31 not yJ. 4C.V- dQA C<�.L �/ [. �:'CJ... 10,3,01 cr e0 c.kl fA-LuFj�.J (J4.IpdAX 4 l0.Ce(.{ .J f�oF fLa.O_.I.d lu 6l✓• /�.(it.L..Cct.: cCo.tt Yl 0-,x IL. - Gc 4t h..Al_• 4 d.,;ac a.C,, n,' 'Or a.0 G,L' .e<lk<L.1<CJa it ,_lka.t. �EALAj 1,1/1L4.x�:t\• .rkc, J�aa..o...• w Cowes: , noe a a1k4k Gta.,lL m-cA U o<.< ,,ka[ Ictiva.A, <if.'w%C{, l,caA1. 4 u of `kn cc,) elui LeCCw a Qor G ; �! /lQ4t 4 a3 c Li.ac d` � 4 per. (, 4 r a4," o-{a( - A� /�tcL �n a /LO.n c s. f C oiLlf.� Jk ac ?COO a 2.k, U F`; 1 ( l Friends of Ashland JN �`'�" � � �a2Cti..9 t c,,)P• '��h..cnlaw '�' .. �4„�, Ja} CI,W.,.,�CAFtIl�h4G't•'��^ U ' �kl a�d� `�+' •"^^� �� I C..Q��a/,' '1.Fh,t�^� QVQhi •C�ei F-a� . �AR.4l-..}l. A.�O�-li. (i..Q.U.cd>/W Qxd•C.(.�.dQ,tA NJ A app Joe l dw C/uZt/�*a' 4,(,QL tA- plor Lw Wt ' " 0.a t per" �t ct'u, dtd.`rin� aCC�...d.0.hd✓ ...,,....: ;...,;.. k CD n�6-� -.etc-`• may,-nCLV,b . .J4a Wa.ttd_&e Wa LC i+ei ic: `'wCa � qp a1A- rl duik deucinr nt� . �uCy�tian�s.2C1; t�i9.k d-cnK t�{+' 0 . . 4-.LCRJ.eCGn d. 4wd +cd.. �� (Hyt QC[/1-4' /In GAL QC6�t�.lf J�Gtiw; •rh.u+ G/e eorw�ta��a. UYLC�+ the WP v ncct d.uu.usk- _ # q !1 a gp1J-se¢n.c Post Office Box 3010,Ashland.Oregon 97520 . �a January 29. 19C1 I To: Planning Commission & CPAC members From: kick Landt. CPAC member I am unable to attend this Joint meeting due to a previous commitment. I am Interested and concerned about the proposed changes.in the conditional use permit (CUP) process. I can appreciate the need for basing planning decisions on measurable criteria. No doubt, "neighborhood." is difficult to define. I would maintain that "immediate vicinity" is equally difficult to define, though it Is likely to be commonly understood as referring to an area smaller than a."neighborhood." For me, the change In wording begs.:the more Important question. Does the proposed language protect the rights of all citizens affected by the action proposed in the CUP? My observation is that there is not always a direct relationship between distance from the site of the proposed action and the level of effect the planning action will have on citizens and their property. Yet, the proposed changes seem to make this assumption. A CUP on upper Morton St. may have more effect on traffic on Terrace than traffic next door, but downhill on i•1orton. The gravel pit on Granite,(excavation Is an example of a conditional use in a residential zone) may have more effect on property owners across the canyon than It does on property owners a half block further up Granite. It Is my belief that all affected parties are not protected by the proposed language. I Interpret the proposed changes to ordinance 18. 104.020 and 18. 104.050 to mean that real. but more distant Re. out of the "immediate vicinity" whatever that means) effects of the proposed planning actions would be irrelevant to decisions Involving CUPS. i I suggest that "immediate vicinity" be defined. and that wherever the phrase is encountered, it be followed by the words-"or measurably affected area." This would allow citizens who are affected by the proposed CUP, but are outside the "Immediate vicinity" to contribute relevant input during the proceedings. Without an addition similar to the one 1 nave outlined, I believe that legitimate concerns related to effects outside of the "immediate vicinity" will not be aired. �f3 Chapter 18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERNM Sections: 18.104.010 . Conditional Use Permits Generally 18.104.010 Definitions 18.104.020 Intent and Purpose 18.104.030 Procedure 18.104.040 Plan Requirements 18.104.050 Approval Criteria 18.104.060 Conditions 18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment 18104 010 Conditional Use Permits Cenral Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. a) Impact Area - That area which is immediately surrounding a,use, and which may.be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area b) Target Use - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1) WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2)R1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section. 18.88.040. Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — City of Ashland June 5, 1991 Page 1 3) R2 and R3 Zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4) C-1. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 5) C-1D. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) E-1. General office use, developed at an intensity of 35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) M-1. General light industrial use, following all ordinance requirements. 7) SO. Educational uses at the college level, following all ordinance requirements. 18.104.030 Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 18.108 of this Title. 18.104.040 Plan Requirements. (1) The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following information: (a) Vicinity map. (b) North arrow. (c) Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property. (d) Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of all lot lines. (e) Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. (f) Location of all parking areas,parking spaces,and ingress,egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. (g) Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed.. (h) A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — u City of Ashland June 5, 1991 Page 2 _l 5 feet or less. (i) Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be disturbed, including, but not limited to, all existing trees of greater than six inch dbh, any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of rocks or boulders. (2) An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18.72. The provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section 18.72.040 for site design approval 18104 050 Agpmval Criteria_ A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located. B. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to .and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. G That the location, size, design and proposed operation of the conditional use will have no greater adverse material impact on the impact area than the development of the subject lot with the target use for the zone. 18.104.060 Conditions. The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Regulation and limitation of uses. (2) Special yards, spaces. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Dedications,including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such improvements. (5) Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. (6) Regulation of signs. (7) Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features. (8) Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase compatibility with adjoining uses. Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — City of Ashland June 5, 1991 Page 3 �tP (9) Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances. (10) Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities. (11) The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. (12) Duration of use. (13) Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space. (14) Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design. (15) Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title. 18.104.070 Revocation:Abandonment Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional use permit approved under this section, including" any declared phase, shall be deemed revoked if the proposed use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of approval. If the permit requires site design approval under Chapter 18.72, the permit shall be deem revoked if the use or phase is not developed within one year of. the date of site design approval. A conditional use is deemed void if discontinued or abandoned for a period of six consecutive months. 1 I Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department - City of Ashland June 5, 1991 Page 4 �( 7 Chapter 18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sections: 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally 18.104.010 Definitions 18.104.020 Intent and Purpose 18.104.030 Procedure .. 18.104.040 Plan Requirements 18.104.050 Approval Criteria 18.104.060 Conditions 18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment 18.104.010 Conditional Use Perini s Generally Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. a) Impact Area - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any adjacent lot if the hearing authority finds that it .may be significantly impacted by the proposed use is also included in the impact area b) Significant - Having or likely to have a substantial influence or effect. c) Target Use - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1) WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2) R1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements,developed at the density permitted by Section Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — City of Ashland May 1, 1991 Page 1 �l8 18.88.040. 3) R2 and R3 Zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4) C-1. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of . .35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 5) C-1D. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) E-1. General office use, developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) M-1. General light industrial use, following all ordinance requirements. 7) SO. Educational uses at the college level, following all ordinance requirements. 81114 Ttitprtt and 1'uroiss te„ x s7 cia rf��lrixfi cttmptex ncltx #Ang�#lze a Aw. �ntcrta fa�xcutsdrtta �t �pe�nts,���ave��n� zs�s�Cn=t�#Ap"t�td��"� "`"t�tl�' ' m 3 L C t `Yl' .y, 'd'& �"' Y^ f'• d .0 Ry`fi'N S �. "{e"'.�2 ��� t Miternp©sad cttdltttict rsnblspatiSi €t° tt��zde�ca�&�rztt the �r�bit�t�±��Sa attar s���tlt� nmedtats~v� uty `�°��a� { e�� tted�nsesnaTready rstaUs�t:�>vz�° ii��nay, .astabUs��l and='Umuiattt> t� i � 1st Ott:ptirttcular sties. . 18.104.030 Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan i or drawing meeting the requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as d provided in Chapter 18.108 of this Title. 18.104.040 Plan Requirements. (1) The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following information: (a) Vicinity map. (b) North arrow. (c) Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property. (d) Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of t Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — 5fE) City of Ashland May 1, 1991 Page 2 lq all lot lines. (e) Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. (f) Location of all parking areas,parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. (g) Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed. (h) A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less. (i) Approximate location of all existing natural features including but not limited to all existing trees of greater than six inch dbh, ' any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any outcroppings of rocks or boulders. (2) An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently with any required application for site design approval under Chapter. 18.72. The provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section 18.72.040 for site design approval. 1$.104.050 Approval Criteri a. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located. B. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation can be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the location, size, design and proposed operation of the conditional use will have no greater significant impact on the existing or prospective uses of lots in the impact area than the development of the subject lot with the target use for the zone. 18.104.060 Conditions. The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Regulation and limitation of uses. (2) Special yards, spaces. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — WM Wo City of Ashland May 1, 1991 Page 3 50 sidewalks and bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such improvements. (5) Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. (6) Regulation of signs. (7) Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features. (8) Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase compatibility with adjoining uses. (9) Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances. (10) Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities. (11) The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. (12) Duration of use. (13) Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space. (14) Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design. (15) Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title. 18,104.070 Revocation:Abandonment. Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional use permit approved under this section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed revoked if the proposed use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of approval. If the permit requires site design approval under Chapter 18.72, the permit shall be deem revoked if the use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is deemed void if discontinued or abandoned for a period of six consecutive months. Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — #I-I'M City of Ashland May 1, 1991 Page 4 S � Chapter 18.104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Sections: 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally 18.104.010 Definitions 18.104.020 Intent and Purpose ..;t 18.104.030 Procedure 18.104.040 . Plan Requirements 18.104.050 Approval Criteria 18.104.060 Conditions 18.104.070 .Revocation; Abandonment 18104 010 Conditional Use Permits ngraly, Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 18.104.020 Definitions. The following are definitions for use in this chapter. a) Impact Area - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it All land which is within the notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any parcel which will be substantially negatively impacted by the proposed use is also included in the impact area b) Target Use - The basic permitted use in the zone, developed at a commonly used intensity or density. The Target Use is defined as follows for the following zones: 1) WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements;developed at the base density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2) RI (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the base density permitted by Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — My of Ashland February 26, 1991 . Page 1 Section 18.88.040. 3) R2 and R3 Zones: Residential use following all ordinance requirements, developed at the base density permitted by the zone. 4) C-1. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 5) C-113. General retail commercial use, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) E-1. General office use, developed at an intensity of.35 gross floor to area ratio, following all ordinance requirements. 6) M-1. General light industrial use, following all ordinance requirements. 7) SO. Educational uses at the college level, following all ordinance requirements. 18.104.020 Intent and Purpose. The provisions of this chapter, including the approval criteria for conditional use permits, have been chosen to ensure that the proposed conditional use will be reasonably compatible with and will not significantly detract from the quality of life and character of the immediate vicinity in light of other permitted uses already established or which may be established and limitations which may exist at particular sites. i 18.104.030 Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted.by the owner of the subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the requirements of Section .18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 18.108 of this Title. 18.104.040 Plan Requirements. (1) The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following information: (a) Vicinity map. (b) North arrow. (c) Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property. (d) Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department — City of Ashland. February 26, 1991 Page 2 53 all lot lines. (e) Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. (f) Location of all parking areas,parking spaces, and ingress,egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. (g) Schematic landscaping plan showing area and .type of landscaping proposed. (h) A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less. (i) Approximate location of all existing natural features including ... _. but not limited to all existing trees of greater than six inch dbh, any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any .outcroppings of rocks or boulders. (2) An application for a conditional use permit may, but.need not be, made concurrently with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18.72. The provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section 18.72.040 for site design approval 18104 050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all development standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located. B. That adequate city facilities including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation can be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the location, size, design and proposed operation of the conditional use will not result in a significant change adverse to the character of the impact area, compared to the development of the same parcel with the target use for the zone. 18.104.060 Conditions. The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to the following: ' (1) Regulation and limitation of uses. (2) Special yards, spaces. (3) Fences and walls. (4) Dedications,including the present or future construction of streets and Conditional Use Ordinance . Ashland Planning Department — " City of Ashland February 26, 1991 Page 3. 5y sidewalks and bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such improvements. (5) Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. (6) Regulation of signs. (7) Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features. (8) Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase compatibility with adjoining uses. (9) Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances. (10) Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities. (11) The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. (12) Duration of use. (13) Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space. (14) Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design. (15) Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title. 18.104.070 Revocation:Abandonment. Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional use permit approved under this section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed revoked if the proposed use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of approval. If the permit requires site design approval under Chapter 18.72, the permit shall be deem revoked if the use or phase is not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is deemed void if discontinued or abandoned for a period of six consecutive months. r E r r 1 Conditional Use Ordinance Ashland Planning Department City of Ashland February 26, 1991 Page 4 snowy and icy, that the homeowner does not drive he but waits until the snow melts; it is different than a public road. I3organ is not convinced that a grade of 18% for 200 feet is reasonable as it adds to the difficulty of the road. It is not so much of a problem if it is privately owned rather than publicly owned. He would be more comfortable with 125 to 150 feet. Staff could only recall one instance where a street has had 200 feet at 18% grade. (Seitz) Harris reminded the Commission that the grade is controlled by •• the topography in every case. Two hundred feet gives enough flexibility to make it work in most cases. Jarvis moved to approve the ordinance changes ,PA90-175 and include under 18. 08 (Definitions) Driveway - a driveway serves only one house or parcel of land and is no greater than 150 .feet (or similar language) . Add to 18.68. 150: The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the variance section of this title. Add to 18 .76. 060 (C) "to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways or adjoining properties. " Adopt the language by Harris under 18.88 .050 (B) by combining 1 and 2, as stated above. Powell seconded the motion. Morgan will vote. no because of the 200 feet. .He would like 150. feet. Jarvis was more concerned about cuts if the road was only 150 feet and this would give more flexibility and would allow the Commission to rely on engineering reports if a road could be made less than 150 feet. The motion carried with Bingham and Morgan voting "no" . [[FAMILY ANNING ACTION 90-165 QUEST FOR CHANGES TO THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE ECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO IMPLEMENTING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AN. SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE MODIFIED INCLUDE: NDITIONAL USE CHAPTER (18 . 104) , ANNEXATIONS (18 . 108) , RFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS (18. 88) , E-1 ZONE (18 . 40) , SINGLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE (18 . 20, AND C-1) (18. 32 . ) Fregonese said this was a legislative hearing so exparte contacts are not necessary to report. STAFF REPORT Fregonese explained that the reason for the modification of certain ordinances has been prompted by implementation of the Affordable Housing document which involves making provisions and incentives for .af fordable housing in Ashland. The Affordable Housing document is viewed as part of the periodic review system. The ordinances need to come into compliance with State laws that S 10/1 i l I q9b exist. In the letter sent from the State over two years ago, Ashland 's housing standards for needed housing types are required to be clear and objective. In addition to the above-mentioned items, in recent experiences with LUBA, reviewing findings and remands, experiences of other cities with LUBA that have been similar to Ashland, and listening to LUBA referees and what instructions they give planners on how to write criteria for approval, Ashland' s criteria are indefinite, not objective, not measurable, not standards in any way that are clear and objective. He reiterated further that the present wording of Ashland's criteria for any land use action make it difficult to sustain a decision. It should be clear, just by reading the criteria, whether or not the criteria have been met. Fregonese said Staff would like to eliminate the unclear portions of the code__.and. propose adopEion o PA9b=1b5 Zet the Council review and approve and set this aside--Af-'that point, look at the Comprehensivg Plan policies. Two policies are heavily influenced by these documents: housing and economy. Make sure the policies are implemented by the ordinances. Next, rezone the City; make sure the zoning meets the Commission' s expectations. Live with the consequences of those decisions. Make clear decisions about where we are going and what we are doing with our land use ordinance and that the Commission set policies and criteria that will accurately judge our concerns in a clear and objective manner so that when during a hearing it will not be necessary to judge things such as "livability" but other standards that are more easily measured. y In looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there seem to be only three items that need a Conditional Use: quarries, non-conforming uses and commercial uses in a residential zone. Fregonese read from ORS 197 . 303 "Needed housing" defined. If the Comprehensive Plan document is to be consistent with the Affordable I-Iousing document, it will say we need affordable housing, " .thus making it an affordable housing type. The items noted in the ORS 197 . 303 (a) through (d) are items that Ashland f must provide by law. Fregonese explained that it is advisable in the Performance Scandards in providing for condominiums, and Conditional Uses Co have clear and objective standards because it makes the decision- making process more clear-cut. Staff believes that "livability" , V "compatibility with the neighborhood" , and "compliance with the Comprehensive Plan" should be removed. When the Comprehensive Plan is correctly written, it is implemented through the ordinances and much better to do it through ordinances than to go through policy documents that should be guiding the development of ordinances. When an ordinance is re-written, look to the Comprehensive Plan, when making a day-to-day decision, look to the ordinances and standards of criteria that have been 6 10/11//17U 57 established. Molnar reported that CPAC reviewed this planning action but made it to page 8. They felt there was so much information that it required review next month. PROPOSED CHANGES 18. 104 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria (See Staff Report) Jarvis proposed a language change to Staff's change as follows: A. The proposal is similar to permitted uses in the zone City- wide with respect to the following. Bingham wanted D to remain. He remembered that the reason it was added was an attempt to make sure Conditional Use Permits were not used to re-zone large parcels of land. Fregonese said that areas should be zoned appropriately beforehand to save the Council time and if people are unhappy, it could be appealed. , Molnar reported that CPAC had comments on A 4 . They did not mind removing aesthetic compatibility but there was some need for judging architectural compatibility. It would bolster through site design as well . They wished to include public schools in B. Under adequate transportation, include bike and pedestrian: With regard to C, CPAC did not feel altogether comfortable deleting at this time. They would consider deleting if a more comprehensive look were taken at policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the policies could be formed into implementing ordinances. CPAC wanted D to remain. Benson brought up the case with Beaverton where they wanted to stop a development because of inadequate capacity of the schools. The decision was that under Beaverton's ordinance and plans, they had tied it directly to specific standard in the school . Fregonese said it did not have to tie to public school capacity. There is no option by the City if there is a school capacity problem. It puts growth questions in the hands of the school board. The school board and City need to cooperate on growth issues. , Does the Commission want a specific finding made every time there is a .Conditional Use on school capacity. Benson wondered if time will be taken up discussing something the Commission has no control over. Fregonese was concerned abort that also and thus wanted "public schools" deleted. Fregonese did not think public schools should be an approval criteria for a Conditional Use. Accessory. Apartments Staff does not like 5. Possibly consider that the primary residence on the lot be owner-occupied for the first year. CPAC wanted to retain 5, however, they did not discuss the one- �7 I6/fir/ 1 em �g year limitation. Conditional Uses in E-1 and C-1 zones Molnar said CPAC spent a great deal of time on pages 6 and 7 . Site design guidelines would be an appropriate place to address mixed uses. Under F. 2 on page 6, " . . .at least 40% of the total lot area planned for the site be designated for permitted uses. . . ", CPAC felt 40% was too low and that the dominate use should be a permitted use. There was not a clear consensus on this point, but 50% to 60% was discussed. Fregonese said in this area, that flexibility was 'important. Performance Standards Development Page 9, f) should be deleted because it is not measurable. Page 12, B 3) a) should read: . .maximum 15%, b) 10%, c)• 10%, d) 25%" . Page 15, b) 1. should not be lined out. PUBLIC HEARING Benson read letters from COSTER, MILLER AND MURPHEY*. LARRY MEDINGER, CPAC member, felt that much discussion needed to happen regarding Affordable Housing and did not think everything could be decided this evening. He wondered about bringing up more salient issues during .a study session. MARK MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, submitted his written comments for the record. HARRIS LEFT THE MEETING. { " Jarvis told Murphey that the words "livability and compatibility" k' are too abstract with things that mean different things to different people making it difficult to make a decision. Murphey believes that "livability" is quantifiable by using harmony, density, bulk, coverage and scale. MARY WASMUND, 439 E. Hersey, objected to many of the changes for so-called affordable housing goals. She did not want "livability _and compatibility" struck from the land use ordinance. Perhaps set guidelines and define "livability", but don't throw it out. Economic development should be encouraged. The changes outlined, encourage developers to profit from E-1 and Commercial land. Affordability should have to be guaranteed, hassle or not. Why only 25% to be affordable -- this means if 100 affordable units are needed, then 300 expensive units are built. 101 )/1790 17 DEBBIE MILLER, 160 Normal Street, changing these ordinances does not positively effect implementation of the Affordable Housing report. She also agreed that these changes should be viewed after revision of the Comprehensive Plan. She did not see the recommendation put forth by Staff this evening outlined in the Affordable Housing report. She said that she felt that neighborhoods needed to be considered. Aesthetic and architectural compatibility should remain to maintain neighborhood rights to a voice in their future. Livability is a criteria to the neighborhood, not City-wide. Miller talked about accessory structures and the whole intent was to provide housing for one to two people (mother-in-law unit, college student or assistance for existing homeowners who may need an adult nearby) , not to introduce two houses per lot in an R-1 zone. NIKOS MIKALIS, 394 E. Hersey Street, wanted livability and compatibility to remain. MARA MIKALIS, 394 E. Hersey, wanted livability and compatibility to remain. DAVID SEBRELL, 271 N. Mountain Avenue, did not appreciate Murphey's treatment. LISA SEBRELL, 271 N. Mountain Avenue, felt livability and compatibility is of grave concern. DENNIS DEBEY, 2475 Siskiyou Boulevard, wondered if the City wishes to have affordable house, allow two units in an R-1 zone, keep the owner there, he will take better care of it, creating a pride in the environment and ownership and the owner won't be just a speculator and absent from the property and will make two units affordable. JILL MURPHEY, 492 Linn Street, requested the hearing be continued because there was not 30 days prior noticing of the CPAC meeting. She said she received over the period of about a week, three different staff reports. She suggested there be an R-3 zone that does not impact. single family neighborhoods. Annex R-3 land. . If C-1 or E-1 zoning is to be partially residential, make it the same density as the adjacent neighborhood. Murphey felt that by increasing density in the middle of town, it will increase traffic. It is wishful thinking that people will not use their cars. MARIE MOREHEAD, 310 N. Mountain, recalled that at a joint study session there was an idea to implement a plan to have small neighborhood area plans to have some way to measure livability. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Fregonese stated noticing was appropriate. Carr moved to continue Planning Action 90-165 . Powell seconded Cl /IV /q(?b �Q the motion. Morgan thought a time should be set aside to discuss only guidelines for livability. An agenda was suggested and the following items should be included so they will not be forgotten in the future. Livability and compatibility. Architectural and aesthetics. Give people an opportunity to speak on adverse effects in their neighborhood. Public schools - should the need for public schools and land use planning be mixed. Density - make the public aware of the different things the Commission has talked about with regard to density. Powell felt it necessary to make the kinds of modifications brought forth in PA90-165 with respect to the affordable housing document. Fregonese said the Conditional Uses need to be streamlined with perhaps two different kinds. Accessory apartments cannot be subject to the same criteria as large projects such as museums. Carr believed the ordinance is not very well defined. She is against the deletion of the primary residence not being owner occupied. Carr thought that having a Conditional Use in any one site as more important than the permitted use is absurd. She believed that public schools (wording) should be deleted. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11: 30 P.M. JARVIS SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT WAS CARRIED. Jarvis wanted to add to the agenda the following: Should compliance with the Comprehensive Plan be left in or omitted. 40o gross floor area for permitted use. Noise generation. Should the R overlay be eliminated. Owner-occupied accessory structure. R-3 zoning should be annexed. Make E-L and C-1 same density as adjacent land. Under criteria on Page 1 - new wording - leave in harmony, coverage, etc. should remain. .,Bingham wanted to discuss Conditional Use Permit involving the . development of five or more acres of. land or 100, 000 square feet of gross floor area. lU 10/II`1�f 10 � r Morgan wondered at this point how these agenda items would be used. Benson stated they would be used to continue the public hearing next month. Fregonese reminded the Commission that we are entering the third year of periodic review. Environmental resources, affordable housing, economic element, wetlands, traveler' s accommodations, housing element, rezoning and UGB changes are waiting to be approved. It might be time to cut out controversial items at this time and get some things adopted. Pick up the controversial parts at the end of the review such as the Conditional Use. Fregonese suggested dropping the changes to the Conditional Use criteria, stay with the existing criteria, drop the E-1 and C 71 changes', leaving us with accessory apartments., condominiums and performance standards. There seemed to be less controversy over these items. The motion was carried to continue with Morgan and Jarvis voting "no" . PLANNING ACTIN 90-146 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CPAC did not discuss this at last night ' s meeting. Many issues have already been ironed out, however, the committee still wants to meet to formally to adopt the element. Minor changes that were requested: second line from the bottom on the first page should read "poor exposure of rock units. " Page 4-6 will have the tables that exist in tre present Comp Plan. #3 on the right hand side - should read "prohibit" not "prevent". Bingham moved to recommend approval of PA90-146 with the proposed minor changes above and inclusion of the changes from CPAC and the letter from Fish and Wildlife. The motion was seconded an,' carried unanimously. OTHER Mo'aile Home Changes Jarvis moved to direct Staff to prepare mobile home ordinance changes in order to comply with the Oregon Statutes. Bingham seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously. September Retreat The September retreat was. cancelled. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11: 30 p.m: K I eta o� 3Z� ON'v'-atYy� V d-rti� O�'d-iLQ -�%l��etit 6L JtSi-@Q � � . �y Q � � � m � � E . N R �5 . OF ASHZ.9-x'a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA A conditional use permit may be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposal conforms with the following criteria: A. The proposal will further implement the applicable Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Where a proposal may implement some Goals and Policies , but retard others , the approval authority must weigh the benefits verses the liabilities . (The intent of this proposed change is to: 1) move from the word "conformance" which is a passive "going along with" to actively " implementing" the Comp Plan,, and, 2) to ask the applicant to address only the applicable Goals ana Policies , not all of them. ] B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposal are . such .that it will be reasonably compatible with, and have minimal impact on the value, livability and appropriate development of . abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. 1 . In determining the above , consideration shall be given to the following: a. Harmony in scale , bulk, coverage and density. b. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development , electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools , police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development shall not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity in the surrounding neighborhood. c. Generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets . d. Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. e. Minimum impact on air quality, including the generation of dust , odors or .other environmental pollutants . f . Minimum impact on water availability and quality — both surface and ground water. g. Must conform to existing ordinances regarding noise levels . This impact shall be judged not solely on decibel level , but on time of day and duration. h. Areas defined or presently used as open space shall be given additional consideration prior to development to assess the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. prcnC.. ea OJ. 14 med..:9 daeu:..:,,00 11.< nw d.G.<ano.0 n C✓< CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA A conditional use permit. may be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposal conforms with the following criteria: A. The proposal will further implement the applicable Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Where a proposal .may implement some Goals and Policies , but• neta'rd, ot}rers , . the 'approval authority must weigh the benefits verses the liabilities . B. The location, size , design and operating characteristics of the proposal are such that it will be reasonably compatible with, and hay. .- minimal impact on the value ; livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. 1 . In determining the above , consideration shall, be given to the following: a. Harmony in scale , bulk, coverage and density. b. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development , electricity, urban storm drainage , public schools , police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the. development shall not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity . C. Generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding . streets . d. Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding area . e . Minimum quality ,air on impact it p, q y , including the generation of dust , odors or other environmental pollutants . f . Minimum impact on water availability and quality - both surface and ground water. g. Must conform to existing ordinances regarding noise levels . This impact shall be judged not solely on decibel level , but on time of day and duration. h. Areas defined or presently used .as :open space shall be given additional consideration prior to development to assess the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 18.104 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria. The goal here was to make the criteria more clear and objective, while leaving the City some latitude in approvals. Please note that Type I planning actions do not have to address the Comprehensive Plan. In relation to Affordable Housing, Accessory Apartments are proposed to be allowed as Conditional Uses in the R-1 zone and it is believed that the criteria need to be more clear and objective to more easily allow for these accessory units, and their associated affordable rents. 18.104.040 Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted when the hearings body finds that the proposal meets the following criteria: A. The proposal is similar in impact on the surrounding area as the most common permitted uses in the zone City-wide. The impacts.shall be judged by the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development. In judging the proposal in relation to permitted uses in the zone, the hearings authority shall review the project with respect to the following: 1) Percentage of lot coverage by impervious surfaces. 2) The ratio of total gross floor area to total lot size. 3) Generation of traffic, using, where appropriate, traffic generation data produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. 4) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility. 5) Genexation of noise. 6) Emission of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. B. That adequate key public facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, public schools, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a key public facility to operate beyond established capacity.. C:;. in addition to the above criteria; E?ortditienai Uses that are listed in this That the proposa 1 is in cor6irnarice with tire 6ornprehensive Plan. Applications processed undei tire Type 1 procedure and appealed to a Type shall not be subject to this criterioir PA90-165 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report City of Ashland September 11, 1990. Page 2 �� DELETE THIS SECTION .. deveiopment of 5 ot more acres of land, and/ox over 100,000 sq. ft. of gross floo, APP We recommend that 4) and 5)from criterion A. above be deleted due to the fact that it has been our experience that Architectural and Aesthetic Comps are nearly impossible to meet an unchallengeable burden of proof for, and that the Generation of Noise is abeady covered by a separate section of the Municipal Code, and that those requirements are already in excess of the State noise requirements. In B. above, reference is made to Public Schools as a key public facility. The Commission should carefully consider the implications of this addition. The City, in general, has the power to increase the availability of services, whether it be extension of sewer or water lines, or requiring paved street, but that same power does not extend to the school district They are a separate entity that is essentially responsive to the growth patters of the city and surrounding areas. In other areas of these ordinance modifications, public schools will be highlighted meaning that similar concerns as above are made in reference to these sections. We also recommend that the requirement of Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan for Type II conditional uses be dropped Again, it has been our experience that this is a very difficult burden of proof to meet, since there are so many goals and policies. We also believe that the Comp Plan should be a document guiding the development of Ashland, and that it not be used as a "clay-to-day"planning document. The zoning ordinance is the implementing document for the Comp Plan, and if there are problems with the approval process, these should be addressed through the ordinance and not through attempting to comply with the Comp Plan. Staff does not concur with the comments made at the study session which added 'D"above. We believe that the Planning Commission is the appropriate body to decide the land use decisions associated with large project,.when they don't involve annexations, zone changes, etc... The City Council should remain as the appeals body for these issues and should not l replace the Planning Commission as the decision making body for these actions. We recommend deletion of 'D"above. Overall, the Commission may wish to review the list of Conditional Uses allowed in each . zone, and attempt to decide which are truly worthy of review under the CUP process, and which others are perhaps better allowed as permitted uses. Again, we believe that the Site Review requirements can handle many of the concerns raised, and that the Conditional Use . process may not be appropriate in all instances. PA90-165 Ashland Planning Department —Staff Report . City of Ashland September 11, 1990 Page 3 Arm m a 4 N n A u m 111 October 4, 1991 .REGO Honorable Mayor & City Council rum: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator �Uhiert- Reimbursement Policy for Elected Officials p� At its meeting on September 3, 1991, the Council requested that the staff bring back a proposed policy relating to reimbursement for expenses incurred by the Mayor and City Council while representing the City. I contacted Sandy Arp, legal consultant for the League of Oregon Cities, to determine whether other cities have similar policies. She sent me a survey prepared by the City of Springfield which I am attaching for your information. Generally, it appears that most cities have established an allotted amount for the Mayor and for each Councilor. The Mayor's allotment is typically higher than the Council 's, since the Mayor is usually called upon to represent the City at local conventions, etc. In some . cities, a committee of the Council reviews all elected officials' expense accounts whereas in others the City Manager routinely approves them provided they are within the adopted budget. I believe that while the latter policy is less cumbersome, it also could put the administrator in an uncomfortable position if guidelines were not also adopted by the Council. Therefore, please consider the attached policy as a "draft" and feel free to make any additions, deletions or modifications you feel are appropriate. Attachments (2) POLICY FOR TRAVEL & EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT ASHLAND MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Purpose. The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform guidelines for the Mayor and City Council for travel and meeting expenditures, and for other miscellaneous charges. Allotment. Annually, the Mayor and each member of the Council will be allotted a portion of the amount budgeted for travel and meeting expenses as approved by the Budget Committee. For 1991-92 this amount is $1,000 for each Councilor and $1, 500 for the Mayor. All expenditures in excess of this amount will not be reimbursed unless approved in advance by the Council. Authorized Expenditures. 1. OUT OF TOWN CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS. Lodging, registration, conference meals, other meals ($5.00 breakfast, $6. 00 lunch, $14 . 00 dinner) , the lesser of mileage or round-trip airfare including shuttle service or taxi fares, and incidental expenses for the following: a. League of Oregon Cities Annual Conference. b. League of Oregon Cities Regional Meetings. c. Oregon Mayor's Association Annual Conference (Mayor only) . d. National League of Cities Annual Conference. e. NWPPA Annual Conference. f. BPA customer meetings. g. Testifying at hearings of the Oregon Legislature. h. Other conferences or meetings relating to City government approved by the City Council. 2. OTHER MEETINGS. Registration, group meals, other meals ($5.00 breakfast, $6.00 lunch, $14 .00 dinner) and mileage (if out of Ashland) , for the following: a. Meetings of governmental bodies on which the Council member serves as liaison. b. Meetings at which the Mayor or Council member serves as an official representative of the City. C. Meetings of non-profit health and human services organizations for purposes of showing public support (e.g. United Way Kickoff luncheon) but not including any fundraising contributions. d. Presentation of City programs at local service clubs' meetings. 3. PUBLICATIONS AND MAGAZINES. The Mayor and each Councilor is entitled to subscribe to one publication which relates directly to City matters. This includes but is not limited to such publications as Governing, Western City, and American City. Members are urged to share copies with other members. If the City has an institutional membership and receives a publication, personal subscriptions to the same publication are discouraged. 4. MILEAGE. Mileage will be paid [1991 rate is 26C per mile) for activities authorized by this policy outside the City of Ashland. 5. MEMBERSHIP DUES. All membership dues to organizations will be in the name of the City and shall be approved by the City Council. Exclusions. Expenses for personal memberships, dues, contributions, fundraising dinners, or activities of private, non-profit organizations are not authorized unless approved by the Council. do\co\mimbpol ATTACHMENT II - Page 3 M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF SPRINGFIELD March 22, 1989 TO: Judy Boles, Finance Manapr FROM: Kathy Tri, Budget g SUBJECT: Survey of Mayor and Council Expenses ISSUE In order to provide background information for the Mayor's Appropriations Committee, I surveyed eight cities and six local public agencies to learn how their elected officials are reimbursed for expenses they incur in the course of their duties. The eight cities were Eugene, Salem, Gresham, Beaverton, Lake Oswego, Corvallis, Albany and Medford. The six public agencies were Willamalane, Springfield School District No. 19, SUB, Eugene School District 4J, EWEB and SPUD. The following discussion summarizes the survey results. A more detailed tabulation of the results is attached to this memorandum. DISCUSSION There were a number of minor variations among the cities' reimbursement policies. However, some general patterns did emerge. Most of the cities provide an office and furnishings for their mayor but not for their councilors. Most cities provide monthly allotment for expenses Most cities do not separately cover spousal expenses. Allotment of Expenses Five of the eight cities provide a monthly allotment to their mayor and council. One of these has a full-time mayor. Three cities provide nothing. City Mayor's Allotment Council's Allotment Albany $150/mo $100/mo Beaverton $55,290/yr $100/mo (salaried mayor plus fringe Corvallis $100/mo $0 Lake Oswego $150/mo $100/mo - Salem $225/mo $D Su'rvey of Mayor and Council ATTACHMENT II - Page 4 . Expenses March 22, 1989 page 2 This allotment is generally considered to cover travel and incidental expenses that are incurred in the course of performing their responsibilities. Consequently, none of the cities reimbursed the mayor or council members for time off work or for child care expenses; only three cover phone expenses and local travel reimbursement varied. Salem also provides an additional monthly allotment for travel for its mayor ($75) and council ($55). This is to cover local travel and meals expenses. Travel All the cities cover expenses to state-wide or national conferences. It varied on whether or not they covered local travel. Most cities indicated that normally councilors and mayors do not turn in local travel expenses. If they did, :they would be reimbursed. Generally, the city manager approves the reimbursement request. Medford has a Council Finance Committee which reviews all reimbursement expenses. The other cities felt that approval for reimbursement was done through the budget process, and if funds were budgeted, council members could submit expenses for reimbursement. Spousal expenses were generally not reimbursed. However, there were a couple of variations. In Albany, the mayor's spouse would be covered for ceremonial type activities. In Corvallis, spouse expenses to the League of Oregon Cities convention would be covered, and in Eugene spouse expenses are sometimes covered. Office space/furnishings/equipment Most mayors are provided with office space but councilors are not. Lake Oswego and Eugene have a small workroom which is available to councilors if they choose to use ,i.t. Albany does not provide space •for its mayor or councilors. The cities furnish the office space and redecorating must be budgeted. The offices are also equipped with a phone, and other equipment is generally provided through the city manager's office. Telephone Several cities pay the expenses of a home phone. Salem allows the mayor and council members to chose if they want a phone at home or at City Hall. However, an answering machine is not covered. Corvallis covers only the mayor's home phone. Eugene provides for a second line in the home and will cover the expense of an answering machine. Computers Only two cities have the mayor and councilors tied into the city's main frame computer. Gresham provides a terminal and modem and Eugene provides a model for Councilors' with home computers wishing to hook up to the city's computer. Stirvey bf Mayor and Council ATTACHMENT II - Page 5 Expenses .March 22, 1989 page 3 ACTION REQUIRED This memorandum is for your information only. Attachment %9/RNT R / Page G . -�Ein «}�25 -[!!=d !»_@ _ #iii = »if»» iF»» l, l== v - ! - ; � - ir ar j» » iF iF--� r— . = �� �ii ' - | � +2; a �_L» ; . . � -iF!» »! if , . � _� . \ . !� . »if» ' . -`_-» :z . :(iii e . -=e�9: »�if } }» !_! • k / , - if e - ! . & - i � t , i � w o n c . . . < = n n c . • o ; APmaranAnm October 29, 1991 OREOOA City Council r ram: Planning Director '�$-Uhje& Large Scale Commercial Development I have met with Allen Drescher and Jim Ragland and discussed the development of new code provisions dealing with large scale commercial developments. Based on my best estimate of an adequate process to revise the code, I have developed a schedule that will have revisions to the Council ready to adopt by April 7, 1992 . Given the nature and scope of the changes contemplated, this is the minimum time I feel we can give this matter the research, thought, public involvement, and debate it deserves. Our Comprehensive Plan requires that informal public workshops be held for significant changes to the code, and this certainly qualifies. We believe that the work should begin with a look at all commercial development. While scale is the current concern, in our experience there are many controversial developments that occur at a small scale as well, and the concept of scale may be a difficult one to define. It may be that the perceived threat to Ashland by large scale development may be best dealt with by revisions to our current development codes, especially Site Review, that would extend some new requirements that would be beneficial in the review of smaller scale developments as well. Because of the high priority this is being assigned, I would ask that most other long range planning activities be suspended, particularly the formation of the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee and the reactivation of the Affordable Housing Committee. This project will also delay the finalization of the Highway 66 Plan. While there may be some work on these issues that may proceed during this time, I would not want to commit staff to too many projects when the timeframe of this project is of such a high priority. J I suggest titling this the "Commercial P.O.D. Code Project" . P.O.D. stands for "Pedestrian Oriented Development" . I would estimate that this project may require as much as $3, 000 of contracted services, mostly for generation of graphics and publications, as well as expenses for bringing in experts to help with our task. While the department has this item budgeted, it has already been expended on mediation and engineering services for technical plans review. We would need a transfer or some means of accommodating this extra expense. The following would be the steps I would recommend for this revision: 1) Establish an Ad Hoc Steering Committee. The committee should be broadly representative of the community and contain members who have shown an interest in grappling with this problem. I also believe that it should contain at least one or two who are familiar with commercial development, possibly architects that have done commercial development and shopping center owners or tenants. 2) First Committee Meeting. The Committee' s first meeting would be organizational, and staff would discuss where we are in large scale development, what the potential is, and how our current codes regulate development. I would suggest a field trip to acquaint the members with recent developments in Ashland. We would also draft the purpose statement of the project. This would be a one or two sentence description of the goal of the project. This will be used to limit the scope of the project and keep it in focus. 3) Research and Preparation. The staff will perform the necessary research, compiling examples we can find from other cities, and attempting to obtain what work has been done on this subject. A field trip to a successful example may be in order if it is reasonably close. 4) Education Meeting. This Committee meeting would be well publicized, and would possibly be aired on the Ashland Cable Access. It would be mostly presentations by staff of what we have learned, successful examples, and possibly a presentation of one or more guests that have expertise in this area. E 5) Develop Strategy. This Committee meeting would develop an overall strategy as to what the best method to implement new standards and concepts regarding commercial development in Ashland. It would give staff a specific direction to go in code development. 6) Draft Code. The staff, with assistance from the City Attorney, would draft all code: revisions, guideline revisions, and develop the staff report and findings needed for adoption. 7) Public Workshop. This would be an opportunity for the committee listen to public reaction to the proposed modifications, and allow participation of interested parties in an informal setting. 8) Committee Meeting on Workshop. The Committee would make the final mark-up on the staff draft. 9) Final Code Revisions and Staff Report. The staff would make final changes and finalize the staff report, and proceed with the proper notice for hearings. 10) CPAC and Planning Commission Hearings. These bodies would hold their hearings on the final proposal and make their recommendations to the Council. 11) Report to Council. The Council would receive the committee report, recommended changes, and minutes of the CPAC and Planning Commission Meeting. If desired, a hearing could be held on this date, and ordinances adopted. I hope that this schedule is acceptable to the Council, however I know that some of you have expressed an interest in adopting some interim measures that would strengthen our procedures that deal with large scale development. The Planning Commission have had this concern for some time, and have a number of items that are either ready to adopt, or nearly ready to adopt. I believe that the adoption of three of these items would increase control of commercial development, and these could be adopted and in place by .December. These items are: 1) Revision of" the Site Design Ordinance approval criteria, ordered by the Council last meeting, will require a showing of adequate public facilities before approval of a Site Review. This could be adopted and effective by November 19 if desired. 2) Adoption of revised Site Design Guidelines. This project has been underway for about a year, and draft guidelines have been ready since July. These have changed permissive language (should) to mandatory language (shall) , as well as added sections on Drought Tolerant Landscaping, Ashland Street and Downtown. These could be adopted as soon as November 19 if desired. 3) A major revision to the Off-Street Parking Code is now before the Council awaiting action. There are major changes proposed that would reduce off street parking, and establish maximum, as well as minimum amounts of parking that could be provided. As the parking lots associated with large scale developments are an item frequently brought up, I believe that this new code would help a .great deal in minimizing + the impacts. This could be scheduled and adopted on November 19 as well, if desired. i t ry R a r{ \ N N N N h b a q N' 1�1 \ J w \ \ V i Lj \ o va e ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY HALL ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 • 488-5340 .rOF�ASN` PARK COMMISSIONERS: "4� KENNETH J.MICKELSEN - ,` Director PATRICIA ADAMS - ALLEN A.ALSING - r. LEE HOWARD THOMAS W. PYLE GREGO�„•” WES L. REYNOLDS pTTr(�,n��/.{{�N�1VTN���\r�/� i iii iV+Y ii\D i TO : Mayor Golden and City Councilors FROM : Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission DATE : October 28 , 1991 SUBJECT: Recommendation concerning donations of land for the Open Space by Jere Hudson The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission recommends to the Council the acceptance of property which Mr. Jere Hudson has offered to donate to Ashland's Open Space Park Program. The one quarter acre piece of property is located between the ditch road and Nutley Street on the east slope of the hill that overlooks the Plaza and Lithia Park . Mr. Hudson previously has donated a half acre piece of property that is adjacent to the property he wishes to donate. (Refer to the attached diagram. ) With the acceptance of this new parcel , the City would have a direct connection from the top of Nutley Street to Strawberry Lane that eventually could lead to the Scenic Hill park site which has been identified on the Open Space Park Plan. Additionally, the City would have a direct easement for the placement of a new water line to serve this area. (Refer to memorandum from Public Works . ) In exchange for the donation of land, Mr. Hudson would like for the City to prepare a legal description of the property and to pay the cost associated with the deed transfer. City Engineer has indicated that it has the time to prepare the legal description. Home of Famous Lithia Park o� QP� mi 5t f T i i 1 .,k • (P-1965) 5100 5rlp� ��p . gaoo _I jV Lw Proposed open pARC�L �. e 00, s i9`` sow\ Q9pC NUTLEY - —- -STREET- 8 GO soo f •. \ 0.298 0� mm ✓' 7� (P40956) 500 g �nr . / w i 1 1 i ' AS.. H�-�••s Pmoranclum October 29, 1991 �4[ao� ,. Ken Mickelsen, Parks Director Steven Hall, Public Works Director j �rIIm: VVV Subject: Open Space Donation - Jere Hudson ' The project for the resolution of the N.W. Water Moratorium would be simplified for construction if a permanent easement for the water main and possible pump station could be included with the dedication of the property. Initially, it was felt that the 24 inch water main would be constructed on Strawberry Lane from Granite Street to Ditch Line Road and the 10 inch water main in Strawberry Lane from Ditch Line Road to Hitt Road. After reviewing the amount of existing utilities in Strawberry Road and the extremely confined width,- it was decided to use Nutley and easements from Granite Street to Hitt Road. The easements for water lines and a pump station are critical to the construction of the N.W. Water Moratorium project and I recommend inclusion of easements to be defined during the design phase of the project. SMH:rm\E r\mvE ,,„,,, cc: Brian Almquist, City Administrator Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Dennis Barnts, Water quality Superintendent Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND AMENDING SECTION 4 . 18.020 RELATIVE TO VACATION OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 4.18.020 of the Ashland Municipal is hereby amended by deleting the words "public easement" from the first sentence, and shall read as follows: "4.18.020 Application. Any person interested in filing a petition for the vacation of all or part of any street, alley, or other public place, shall submit such petition in the form prescribed by the City Engineer pursuant to ORS 271.080, and upon filing of the petition shall deposit with the City Recorders A ' _ filing fee of $250. 00." The foregoing ordinance was first read on the 5th day of November, 1991, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of November, 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , .1991. Catherine Golden Mayor c F M I RESOLUTION NO. 91- A _RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RELINQUISHING A PUBLIC EASEMENT BY QUITCLAIM DEED. WHEREAS, the public easement described in the attached Exhibit "A" is no longer needed for public use. NOW THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The public easement for a water pipeline right of way as deeded to the City of Ashland in volume 109, page 260, Deed Records of Jackson County, is hereby relinquished by quitclaim deed to Paul and Carol Hwoschinsky. The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the day of , 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor 960 fi 109-260 II Ifind of Instramad STATE OF 011,1'00.1;1 County o/✓acteon (� c. —RIGHT n➢ Why_ t hereby certify that the annexed inatru- . aunt u/ er itiny mux reeeia,d and filed /r record al..._2_o daF_1.V.on the-27th %'// nWwn I Consideration day o%_..Ju1y..A._�.._./y16 Chaunoey.Florey_._. _Rrcorder I �°q CITY OF ASHLAND_. ._.._.___. S_ . 1.90 .. . _ Ry _Oept,!g ' ) THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH. That de. Charles Pope and Charlotte V. Pope, big wife. both '..i of the city of Ashland. Jaokeon county, Oregon, for and in consideration of the gum of $1.00 I ,! and other good and valuable consideration to as paid, the reoeipt of which is hereby aoknow- "'� lodged, including special benefits which may accrue to as and to our property by having ! city water thereon, have granted and dedloated, and by theme preuents do grant, dediaate. bargain. sell and convey unto the city of Ashland. a municipal corporation, is Jackson county, Oregon, an a asemont and right of way. and the right and privilege to the said city. Its of- .+ floera; agents employees and assigns, at all reasonable time hereafter, doing as little :,� da-ngo to our premises as may be, to enter upon. construct. repair, lay and maintain a pipe line for the purpose of carrying water. at any point, or place, along or over a certain thirty '+ foot strip of land extending across our premiaee, the center line of which in pnrtlaularly described as follows, to-wit: 4. Beginning at the quarter section corner between emotions five and eight in township thirty-nine south of range one east of the Willamette meridian, in Oregon, extending thane ' south along or near the quarter section line is said section eight, two thousand (2000) feet. :r Provided,however, and this grant is upon the express understanding and agree meat be- tween the grantors and the grantee that any such pipe line ae aforesaid s hall be laid at such depth in the ground as to in no way Interfere with the proper cultivation of the promises- or with the fren use of same by the grantors, their heirs. executors. administrators or assigns. And we also hereby waive and relinquish any claim for damages by reason of the lay- ing. main:=icing or repairing of said pipe line by the said city of Ashland. . Wi "• - TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the amid premises with their appurtananoaa unto the said city of Ashland no long as the eameare used and occupied as aforesaid. . V' IN WITNESS WHEREOF. we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 24th day of July.1916. i Executed In presence of: Charles Pope....... Seal ,.I W. J. Moore Charlotte V. Pope.. 9ea1 Olaira M. Johnson State of Oregon ) t{ County of Jackson 1 63. On this the 24th day of July. 1916. personally came before me. a l Notary Public in and for said county and state, the within named Oharlee Pope and Charlotte V. Pope, his wife, to me personally known to be the Identical persons described in and who executed the foregoing Instrument. and who acknowledged to me that they executed the same. freely and voluntarily for the uses and purposes therein named, and without fear or oom- - pulsion from anyone. 1ITNE33 my hand and Notarial seal this. the day and year lest above written. W. J. Moore - Notarial seal of Notary Public for Oregon. 4. J. Moore. My Commission Expires Jaffierp 21, 1916. V9 FORM N•.F2I-0OU rCNIM DEED(IMbldwl n CMp..MI. HE QUITCLAIM DEED ,r,l�• KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That......C1TX..AF.. SHIAND,..a._municipal-corporation ............................................................................................................................................................ hereinafter called grantor, he consideration hereinafter stated,does hereby remise,rates"and quitclaim unto...PAUL HWOSCHINSKY and _......................... inafter called grantee,and unto grantee's heirs,suCCOMM and assigns all of the grantor's right, title and interest at Certain real property with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any- appertaining,situated in the County of..........Jackson ,State of Oregon, described as follows, to-wit: A right of way 30 feet in width, for pipe line, granted to City of Ashland, a muncipal corporation, by instnxnent recorded July 27, 1915 in Volune 109 page 260 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon. SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF ** THE PURPOSE OF THIS DEED IS TO EXTINGUISH FOREVER ANY RIGHTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE REFERENCED RIGHT OF WAY. (if SPACE INSUFFICIENT.CONTINUE DOCRIPDON ON REVERSE EIDER To He"and to Hold the same unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs,successor,and assigns forever. The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer,stated in terms of dollars,is$......H](mi'*................ mHowever, the actual consideration Consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is ww/IOIe consideration indicate which ED put of tha ( ). (Th[wafanp Mfw[an tM galbolam,It mtappllcabh,{hoDEd In daLred.S.ORS 93.030.) In Construing this deed, where the Context so requires,the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be made so that this deed shall apply equally to Corporations and to individuals. In Witness Whereof,the grantor has executed this instrument this..._...........day of................................... 19........; it a Corporate grantor,it has Caused its name to be signed and its seal affixed by an officer or other person duly eu- thorired thereto by order of its board of directors. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DE. •••""'-""""""_"'•"""..... --°-••°°°°--^----_........................... SCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING ................................................_......................_.........._...._........._ THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACOUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. ..._....-.........._...._......................_..................................................... STATE OF OREGON,County of..................................................)sa. This instrument was acknowledged before me on..............—_.................... ,/9........, bY..........._...._.............._............_...._.........._............_................................_..__._. . ..._.................._.......... This instrument was acknowledged before me on._.._..........._.... 19 by.............................................................................................................................................................. as.............................__......................................_............ .......................................................................................................... Notary Public for Oregon MYCommission expires.........._...._..........._........................... —O£- �{ -------- STATE OF OREGON, Countyof ....................._................. s OMNTOII'.NAM[wxD wO011tl1 AMIL_ I certify that the within insfru- _.................. ment was received for retard on the ..............day of..............................1/9........, ._.....__.—_ at....................o'clock......M.,and recorded OnwxT[[9 HAM.AND wa..... sPwea Nn{svw M•r N,dln Hmm IN in book/reel/volume No............. on .......... PAUL HWOSCHINSKY aecene[s•s D.. page....................or as document/lee/file/ j -- "—'----- - instrument/microfilm No. ....................... -- ----'-------- Record of Deeds of said county. Witness my hand and seal of u[m.a.,R•N,.[.N,N.nm{nb.,N,n dwn w,ee 1.s,.Nn.a.e ddm,. County affixed. NO CHANGE ___--_- ' xwN{.wooa.[[.zIP By ...................................................Deputy LP-44622 EXHIBIT A A tract or parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, and being more fully described as follows: Commencing at a found 2" iron pipe situated at the quarter corner common to Sections 5 and 8, said Township and Range; thence South 00°13 ' 53" East, 1333 .07 feet to a found 5/8" iron pin situated at a point common to those boundary lines by agreement recorded as Document Nos. 78-07062 and 78-09396, Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon and being the true point of beginning; thence North 89°36142" East along that boundary line by agreement recorded as Document No. 78-07062, said Official Records, 255.775 feet to a found 5/8" iron pin; thence North 00 041117" West, along said agreement line 5.215 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said agreement line South 89°56 '07" East along the east-west center line of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8; said Township and Range, 296.44 `feet i to a 5/8" iron pin; thence leaving said east-west center line, South l 01°56 ' 46" West, 457. 575 feet to a found 5/8" iron pin situated in the northerly right of way of Strawberry Lane as established in the executing of "Minor Land Partition No. M77-327" and filed for record the 25th day" of October, 1978, at 4: 12 P.M. , and recorded in Volume 2, Page 55 of "Minor Land Partitions" in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 84 010 '00" West along said right of way, 270.235 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 83°00 '25" West, 210.275 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence along the arc of a 123. 50 foot radius curve to the left, the radial bearings, "in and out" are South 06°59135" East and North 35°38146" West ( the central angle is 28 039111" ) , 61 .76 feet to a 5/8" iron pin situated in that boundary line by agreement recorded as Document No. 78-09396, said Official Records; thence leaving said right of way North 00°13 '53" West along said agreement line, 525.99 feet to the point of beginning. (Code 5-1, Account #1-65621-7, Map #391E8AC, Tax Lot #101 ) f P Y RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RELINQUISHING A PUBLIC EASEMENT BY QUITCLAIM DEED. WHEREAS, the public easement described in the attached Exhibit "A" is no longer needed for public use. NOW THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The northerly half of a 10-foot wide public utility easement as deeded to the City of Ashland on partition plat no. P- 13-1990 is hereby relinquished by quitclaim deed to Donald A. and Michael E. Thirkill. The foregoing Resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the day of , 1991. Nan E. Franklin City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor