Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-1115 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND lrnportant: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda,unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permining,the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak,please fill out the Speaker Request form located new the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you,if any The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion,the number of people who wish to speak,and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 15, 2011 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 6:30 p.m. Executive Session for discussion of real property transaction pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)0. 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 111. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes] 1. Regular Meeting of November 1, 2011 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Presentation of 2011 Tree of the Year [5 Minutes] VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1 . Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Mark Weir to the Conservation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2012? 2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Brett Ainsworth to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014? 3. Will Council approve a letter of support for Sky Research and their grant application for Connect Oregon IV in order to build a hangar at the Ashland Municipal Airport? 4. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the award of an $184,890 contract to Smith Sheet Metal for the replacement of the Service Center roof? 5. Will Council, acting as the local contracts review board, approve the award of a public contract resulting from a formal solicitation process for Municipal COLINC:II M lElINI SARI 13ROADC.AS I LIVl' ONUTANNFI.9 VISI I I I-IF. CITY OF AS)IL.AND S \V'1113 $I I F AT \V'\VW.ASIILAND.OR.US Audit Services? 6. Will Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation? 7. Will Council approve a letter of support, signed and sent by Mayor Stromberg for the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) Connect Oregon IV grant application for rail tunnel enhancement? VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council (AMC §2.04.050]) None. IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] Please note: Comments or questions from the public that are of a defamatory nature, such as statements directed at individual Councilors' character, intentions, etc., are out of order because they interfere with the work of the Council. The Council will not answer questions posed during public forum but may direct staff to answer such questions later. X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council accept and act on the recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee to improve and expand the existing Police Station by financing Phase I improvements using existing resources? [10 Minutes] 2. Does Council wish to extend the current Fare Reduction Agreement with RVTD and continue the current low-income transit pass program to June 30, 2012 and direct staff to negotiate a new three year reduced fare agreement with RVTD for Council consideration in May of 2012? [10 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Will Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to Adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as Supporting Documentation to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan"? [5 Minutes] 2. Will Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to Add a Pedestrian Places Overlay"? and Will Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Creating a New Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones, Including the Residential Overlay and Airport Overlay"? and Will Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance COL INCH, MI.T1IN('iS ARL BROADCAS'l L(\%I ON ( I IANNIA, 9 VISI1 1'HI CITY OF ASI HAND'S Wli6 SH 1: A1" tV1�'\� ASHI„1Nl�.OR.I_!S Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project"? and Will Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance.titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72,080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.040, 18.108.060 and 18.108.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project"? [15 Minutes] 3: Will Council approve First Reading of ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [15 Minutes] Please note: the-Public Hearing on this item has been closed, no further public testimony will be accepted. XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Report on League of Oregon Cities Conference from Council members who attended. XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title l). COUNCIL. \Ilil 'LINGS AJRI BROADCAS'l- 1.IVF ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT "HIT CITY OF AS111-AND'S \\ EB SH-1 A I iVP \V.A5Il AND.OR LN ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 1 of MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 1,2011 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street ROLL CALL Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. Councilor Morris arrived at 7:39 p.m. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced openings on the Tree, Planning, Historic, and Conservation Commissions, the Audit and the Budget Committees. Jackson County Commissioner Don Skundrick addressed the Mayor, Council, and staff, past, present for their support for the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process over the last 10 years, and explained the next steps. Councilor Slattery introduced Associated Students of Southern Oregon University (ASSOU) Vice President Amanda Stucky, President Hassan Harris,and Volunteer Director of Sustainability Shaun Franks. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of October 17, 2011, Executive Session of October 18, 2011, and the Regular Meeting of October 18,2011 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS& AWARDS(None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Does Council wish to approve already submitted applications and matching funds for two Assistance Firefighter Grant including one for an aerial ladder truck totaling $900,000 of which a $90,000 match would be required from the City and $161,316 for personal protection equipment and radiation monitoring of which $16,131 is required as matching funds from the City? 2. Will Council approve the appointment of Russ Silbiger as the Council Liaison to the Ashland Community Hospital Board? 3. Does Council have any questions regarding the results of sale of General Obligation bonds to fund the Fire Station#2 construction? 4. Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law? 5. Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Kevin Dikes dba Cebolla Bar and Grill,LLC, 1951 Ashland Street? Councilor Lemhouse pulled Consent Agenda item #1 and Councilor Voisin pulled item #4 for further discussion. Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #2, #3 and #5. Voice Vote: .all AYES. Motion passed. Fire Chief John Karns explained the 10% match to fund the ladder truck in the Assistant Firefighters Grant would come from the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg further explained they would determine if there were a surplus in the Fire Equipment and Equipment Fund to meet the match and it could be several years before it went into.the actual budget. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 2 of 9 Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg addressed the transfer of appropriations resolution and allocating funds and clarified the Conservation Management position was not included because it did not pass the budget process. The Police and Fire positions were in the budget but staff had recommended not funding them at the time due to a lack of funds. Given the current the carry forward, this was an appropriate time to reconsider the Fire and Police Department positions. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to appropriate half the salary considered, $40,000 for the Conservation Manager position. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin noted the Conservation Commission and staff recommended the Conservation Manager and during the Budget Committee meeting, the vote was a tie and subsequently failed. Additionally, it was a Council and Conservation Commission goal. Councilor Slattery would not support the motion at this time. The City needed to hire a City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator and fill Department head vacancies first. Mayor Stromberg agreed with Councilor Slattery. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, YES; Councilor Slattery, Silbiger, Chapman, and Lemhouse, NO. Motion failed 1-4. Councilor Chapman suggested the Conservation Manager position go before the upcoming Budget Committee process. Mr. Tuneberg added the positions were in the Budget as held but unfunded since 2008. Council could give direction to use the positions as a placeholder for next year's budget process. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Silbiger,and Lemhouse,YES; Councilor Chapman and Voisin,NO.Motion passed 3-2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Will Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code"and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided the history that resulted in the code amendments. Currently the only locations within Ashland with wireless communication installations were the Holiday Inn Express and the Ashland Springs Hotel. The proposed ordinance included a clearer definition of feasible. It would specify that co-location was the preferred design option with a stepped hierarchy. The collocation feasibility study would require applicants to(1)document alternative sites that were technologically unfeasible or unavailable, (2)demonstrate a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that met the applicants service coverage needs with documented reasons why collocation could or could not be met and(3)require applicants to identify specific circumstances where an applicant may get relief from the collocation. An applicant would need to have one or more of four reasons they were unable to collocate and sought to step down the hierarchy. One, a significant service gap in the coverage area. Two, sufficient height unachievable by modifying the existing building or structure. Three, structural support requirements that could not be fulfilled. Four, collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic obstruction or other radio frequency interference. Citizens involved in tracking the wireless communications ordinances suggested adding language that required applicants to submit a third party verification of the feasibility study when collocation was not feasible. Staff included this in the ordinance with the concern on who would fund the consultant. There was a possibility the City could go through an independent procurement process and obtain the consultant for an independent review. Another concern was how the requirement would work with a complete Land Use application and stay within the timeliness requirement. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1011 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Molnar explained there was one existing building in the downtown C-1-D area greater than 50-feet that could install a wireless communications facility. He did not think the Land Use Code had a requirement where an applicant hired a third party. The definition of a significant service gap was not specific because it was continually being defined through the court systems. City Attorney Dave Lohman researched cases throughout the country and the statute was designed for the community to determine the balance between wireless service and community values. Currently the Ninth Circuit Court was dealing with a case with Metro PC Inc. of San Francisco CA that explained the existing case law amply demonstrated that significant gap determinations were fact and defied any bright line legal rule. A significant gap was more than just a few dead spots. Thurston County in Olympia WA was unable to deny an application using the determination that two to three miles of dead spots created a significant gap. Councilor Morris arrived at 7:39 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:39 p.m. Rod Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Represented the Respect Ashland Coalition who were concerned with the wireless antenna laws. The Coalition wanted a periodic review and update of the City ordinances with two objectives. One was give the City as much control and flexibility as possible locating installations within the limits of the telecommunications act. The other was mitigating the possibility of lawsuits from either carrier or property owners due to decreased property values. The Coalition was interested in collaborating with the City to keep the laws up to date in ways that served the City the best. They supported the current update with some refinements that could occur over time. He explained using an independent consultant was common with wireless communication applications and provided examples. Jim Fong/759 Leonard Street/Expressed concern in finding a fair and balanced approach in locating sites for wireless communication installations. It was important to balance the needs of cellular service with the needs and rights of the citizens of Ashland. He noted the Respect Ashland Coalition was collaborating with City staff and the Planning Commission. This was the best possible ordinance at this time given the challenges of court decisions and determinations by the Council. Respect Ashland strongly supported the third party evaluation to ensure integrity. Timothy Wood/1644 Ashland Street/Explained he was the Senior Vice President of Operations and the Chief Operating Officer of Coming Attractions Theaters. He commented Coming Attractions Theaters had received hundreds of complaints and concerns from Ashland residents under the assumption the company was involved in the placement of the cell tower on 1644 Ashland Street. Coming Attractions Theaters in no way supported or was involved in the cell tower placement. The company submitted into the record a statement stating the same. Coming Attractions Theaters was in the process of converting to digital projection and were concerned the cell tower could cause interference. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:48 p.m. Mr. Molnar commented there was not a standard mechanism in place for periodic reviews of the municipal code. Since staff was in dialog with the community regarding this section of the code, they anticipated,future code revisions over the next two years. Planning Manager Maris Harris explained the definition of feasible in the ordinance was language taken from the Council's decision on 1644 Ashland Street and based on the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) definition. Mr. Lohman added Council would determine what was "substantial" in the context of the definition of feasible and it would require verifiable reasons why an applicant could not collocate. Mr. Molnar addressed third party verification and the possibility of the City having a list of qualified radio ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1011 Page 4 of 9 frequency and structural engineers that would review the study and submit results with the application. Mayor Stromberg thought the consultant should work on behalf of the City. Council requested further clarification on ordinance language regarding third party verification. Mr. Lohman clarified the wireless law partially covered data transmission. Significant gap applied to cell phone usage only. Mr. Molnar added wireless communication facilities were defined in the Land Use ordinance so anything that met that definition would be subject to the same process and ordinance. Council thought the ordinance was a good start and requested clear language that the City selected the consultant for third party verification and the applicant paid for the review. Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to instruct staff to bring back to Council clear procedures on how the third party verification analysis would be implemented. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery,Morris, Lemhouse,Voisin,Silbiger,and Chapman,YES. Motion passed. Councilor Morris/Slattery m/$ not to do the First Reading and move to Second Reading until Council receives an answer from staff. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted the previous motion spoke to implementation and would not change the code. Mr. Molnar thought the third party verification would be an internal policy in terms of how staff went through the third party verification process. Mr. Lohman thought it might be best to table the motion and bring it back to allow public input. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger and Chapman,NO. Motion passed 3-2. 2. Will Council approve first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and move them on to second reading? Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Pedestrian Places project represented a continued commitment by the City to maintain a compact community form in terms of the overall goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Jackson County Board of Commissioners approved the Regional Problem Solving Plan (RPS)that reaffirmed Ashland's position in the region of not identifying growth area. Instead, Ashland would maintain a compact urban form,, and look at innovative land use strategies to encourage infill. Pedestrian Places encouraged more efficient land use within the urban growth boundary and was a way to concentrate housing, businesses, and mixed-use areas while remaining mindful and respectful to the character of the community. Staff recommendations in the ordinances focused on the barriers in the current land use code that prevented a property owner from achieving a greater concentration of businesses and residential densities and what impediments might preclude someone from reaching that effort as well as creating more flexibility in those areas. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the process had two major steps. The first determined the physical qualities of successful Pedestrian Places and included creating a vision for each of the different locations. The second step reviewed the zoning and land use ordinance to look for improvements that would support that type of development. She provided a presentation that included: • Public Process • Series of Three Workshops • Open City Hall • Key Participant Meetings • Study Sessions • . Overlay Map • Sample Concept Plans • Recommended Revisions ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 5 of 9 • Overlay Zone Boundary Revision • Shadow Plan Definition • Intensifying Site Over Time • Map of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Relocated Eastern Boundary • Map of Tolman Creek Road Pedestrian Place Overlay Area &Buildable Lands Inventory Mr. Molnar explained staff changed floor area ratio (FAR) requirements to allow a minimum of.50 instead of .35, removed the maximum to provide flexibility, and allowed for a shadow plan so development could occur in phases to meet the standard. It was a similar tool used in residential developments. Ms. Harris added other provisions were more lenient and flexible and provided examples that included sidewalk and arterial setbacks. The proposed ordinance removed the 20-foot arterial streets requirement. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:37 p.m. Paulena Verceano/265 Murphy Gulch Road, Rogue River/Explained she owned the lot on East Main that had been in her family for many years. The Planning Commission and City Council had assured her that nothing would compromise what she might do with her lot. She strongly opposed the proposed zoning and land use changes in the ordinance. It would affect the integrity of the family home next to the lot as well as the use of the lot itself. Chris Hearn/515 E Main Street/Represented the Brombacher family and their company, IPCO. He submitted a document into the record that addressed moving the boundary to the east on Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street. He explained Ashland had one gateway to I-5 interchange and needed it to accommodate truck traffic to businesses that relied heavily on truck deliveries. Ashland needed an area that supported businesses for freeway and truck oriented businesses rather than pedestrian orientation. Colin Swales/143 8th Street/Explained he supported the original Pedestrian Places project but was disappointed when Tolman Creek Road replaced Bridge Street. The project was about increasing development, not pedestrian places. The local community participated thinking it was pedestrian driven but the project would increase the density of the buildings, move them closer to the street, remove arterial setbacks and encourage high density housing in an area with heavy truck traffic. The project did not consider pedestrians or pedestrian places. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:47 p.m. Mr. Molnar responded to issues raised by Steve Meister in a letter he submitted into the record. The illustrations in the plan and the festival street idea were conceptual and did not dictate actual standards or plans. Someone interested in blocking off a street for a festival would have to go through the permit process and a property owner could object. Ms. Harris addressed the Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street overlay and did not think truck traffic and pedestrian places were mutually exclusive or created a conflict. The plan was recognizing that in the future, the Pedestrian Places overlay would try to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Mr. Molnar added the ordinance changes that focused on pedestrian orientation and environments were already in the Detailed Site Review Zone. Removing Mr. Brombacher's property from the overlay, or reducing it and moving it westward would create a loss in flexibility in two areas. The pedestrian overlay exempted properties from solar access unless they were adjacent to residential. It would provide more flexibility to allocate pedestrian plaza places towards the landscaping requirement. The Planning Commission did not discuss moving the boundary until they were in deliberation. After the decision, staff reviewed the Buildable Lands Inventory and determined most of the development would occur in that area over the next 20-50 years. This conclusion resulted in staffs recommendation to retain the boundary as originally proposed. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 1011 Page 6 of 9 Ms. Harris explained the various methods staff used to contact property owners affected by the changes and met with ten individually. Additionally, staff spoke with Ms. Verzeano's son on several occasions. The regulations would only apply if a property owner initiated development and at this time, staff was unaware that Ms. Verzeano had plans for the property. The area would become mixed use and provide more flexibility. It was an R-3 Zone with a minimum density requirement. She went on to confirm the minimum arterial setback was 13-15 feet in the Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street area. Once the 20-foot arterial setback was removed, buildings could be developed up to 5-feet from the sidewalk. The new overlay chapter had design standards and provisions for residential zones that would apply to East Main and North Mountain and included meeting the .50 FAR and the 5-foot maximum setback from the sidewalk. Plaza requirements for large buildings had not changed. Council could add that requirement to the Pedestrian Places Overlay for smaller scale buildings. The FAR requirement as well as 50% of the landscape could apply to plaza space. Councilor'Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve First Reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places project, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse supported the Planning Commission's recommendation. Councilor Lembo use withdrew his motion with Councilor Silbiger's consent. Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve the first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris had an issue with taking half the intersection away, it would create different sets of FAR and setbacks on both sides of Tolman Creek Road and he would not support the motion. Alternately, the proposal offered a better chance to develop than under the current code. Mayor Stromberg agreed with Councilor Morris. City Attorney Dave Lohman explained there were four different ordinances in the motion and Council needed to vote on each one individually. Councilor Lemhouse withdrew his motion with Councilor Silbiger's consent. Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s that Council accept an ordinance amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to add a Pedestrian Places Overlay proposed by the Planning Commission and First Reading and move to Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin, and Silbiger,YES; Councilor Morris and Chapman NO. Motion passed 3-2. Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s adopt an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones including the Residential Overlay and Airport Overlay including the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Shadow Plan Allowance and Diagram, and approve the First Reading and move to Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse,Voisin,Silbiger, YES; Councilor Chapman,NO. Motion passed 5-1. Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s Council accept an ordinance amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Implementing the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project and adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Shadow Plan for First Reading of the ordinance and return for Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, and Silbiger,YES; Councilor Chapman,NO. Motion passed 5-1. 'Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to approve an ordinance amending AMC 18.08.651, 18.12.020, ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 7 of 9 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.060 and 18.108.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project and the Planning Commission's recommendation for the Shadow Plan Design, for First Reading of the ordinance and brought back for Second Reading November 15, 2011. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Lemhouse, Morris, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Chapman,NO. Motion passed 5-1. PUBLIC FORUM Keith Haxton/Homeless/Explained how he became homeless due to a series of events beyond his control and personal choice. He addressed the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 10.46 Prohibitive Camping and explained how it violated the Eighth Amendment, the United Nations Resolution 217 that the United States was a signatory of and Oregon State Law. He encouraged Council to amend or eradicate AMC 10.46 or establish a homeless shelter. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve`First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to Adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as Supporting Documentation to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Community Development Director Bill Molnar did not think the pedestrian places project would affect the buildable lands inventory. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve First Reading of the ordinance and schedule Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Slattery, Chapman, Morris, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. 2. Will Council approve a resolution replacing the annual budget process with a biennial (or two- year) approach, beginning with the budget for July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015, and for each biennium thereafter until this resolution is repealed? Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained staff recommended starting the biennial budget July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015. The Citizen's Budget Committee role during the off year was not yet determined but the original intent would have the Committee look in depth at various funds, plan for fiscal stability, and address management policies. Interim City Administrator Larry Patterson further explained Oregon Budget law required a supplement budget process whenever there was an overall change in the budget greater than 10% per fund. Mr. Tuneberg clarified the Budget Committee would set the rate for two years and each year Council would levy taxes. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2011-32. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained having a biennial budget would not make things easier in the short term but would make the process more efficient with a cost savings in staff and Council time. The alternate year would provide the opportunity to discuss needed changes. Councilor Slattery would not support the motion and thought a two- year budget would be harder to manage and move away from citizen oversight. He noted the difficulty the State of Oregon was experiencing trying to adhere to a biennial budget. Councilor Voisin was not in support of the motion either. She understood the need to deal with policy issues and thought Council should have Study Sessions with the Budget Committee or half day sessions to deal in depth with those issues instead. She stressed the economic uncertainty, issues with PERs contributions, healthcare, and not having the Budget Committee's role defined as reasons she would not support a biennial budget at this time. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse, Silbiger, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin and Slattery, NO. Motion passed 4-2. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 8 of 9 NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve a contract with JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct additional soil and groundwater sampling,testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property? Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained this was the next step in the process of the Ashland Gun Club site and ecological assessments. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) did not agree with previous studies on lead distribution on the property and required additional testing. Staff worked with DEQ and JBR Environmental Consultants to develop a Site Characterization Work Plan to address the six remaining tasks needed to complete the work. The City would pay for this process as part of the new lease agreement with the Gun Club. Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve the contract with JBR to complete additional soil and groundwater sampling testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,Chapman, Slattery,Lemhouse,Morris and Silbiger,YES.Motion passed. 2. Who will Council designate as the Council Liaison to the Mount Ashland Association Board of Directors? Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve the appointment of Councilor Slattery as the MAA Council Liaison. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Should Council accept the Quarterly Report as presented? Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained changes to the report and noted a correction on page 6 of 6 in the table in the General Fund Carry Forward, it should be $420,000 above projected. Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to accept the First Quarterly Report. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES.RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS(None) OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Does the Council have direction related to a request from Councilor Silbiger for guidelines for Commissions and Committees to sponsor events. Councilor Silbiger noted the Climate Change event hosted by the Ashland Conservation Commission, cited concern the Conservation Commission had no documentation on the event, there were two contradicting requests for reimbursement from Commissioner Jim McGinnis, one for$255, and another for $800-$1200 to cover event costs. He had issues with the lack of guidelines the City had regarding Commissions sponsoring events, potential liabilities of cost disbursements, and the need for written guidelines on spending money for both the City and Commissions regarding sponsorship. He thought the requests for reimbursement was not appropriate, unethical,and a conflict of interest. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s that no money be spent by the City in reimbursements on the Climate Change event. DISCUSSION: Conservation Commissioner Jim Hartman explained one of the goals the Conservation Commission had was supporting education on climate change. He confirmed Commissioner Jim McGinnis asked for sponsorship for the event and the Conservation Commission unanimously agreed to support the event. At the time, Commissioner McGinnis did not think he needed money for the event. At this time, the Conservation Commission was still deliberating whether to reimburse the amount requested. Councilor Voisin added when Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if the Commission could be reimbursed for the posters and the response was no, he found a volunteer to make them free. The request for reimbursement of$255 would cover a hired sound person the Historic Ashland Armory required that the Conservation Commission was unaware of prior to the event. Commissioner Hartman added the community donated over $3,000 worth of services for the event that included the Historic Ashland Armory donating their space. Councilor Slattery agreed the City needed to define their role as a sponsor. He did not think Commissioner McGinnis was ill intended and should not have to pay for the $255 himself. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 9 of 9 Commissioner Hartman clarified the Conservation budget was approximately$3,000. Councilor Chapman was concerned with the Commission's lack of finding out what sponsoring the event entailed prior to moving forward. He agreed it was a conflict of interest. Councilor Morris agreed with Councilor Silbiger that sponsorship, liability, and involvement needed a clear definition. City Attorney Dave Lohman confirmed in Ashland Municipal Code 2.10.090 Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards, the City Council was the final decision maker on all City policies and the use of City resources. Mayor Stromberg clarified Commissioner McGinnis contacted the Mayor with the $800-$1200 request. The Mayor contacted then City Administrator Martha Bennett who said the Commission could reimburse $80- $100. Councilor Lemhouse thought it was well intended but the Commission went about it in the wrong way. Mr. Lohman referenced the State Ethics Rules and could not find the circumstance an ethical conflict. Mayor Stromberg responded that Commissioner McGinnis incurred the liability on his own and was-asking the City for assistance. Councilor Slattery did not think it was an ethical issue either. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Lemhouse, Chapman, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin and Slattery, NO. Motion passed 42. Councilor Silbiger motioned the City Attorney to gather the facts, present them for Council's approval,and send to the State Ethics Commission.Motion died due to lack of second. Councilor Silbiger addressed the City policy of no alcohol at City events. The Climate Change project had alcohol. He referred to the City policy requiring proof of insurance for events. Mayor Stromberg clarified that once the Conservation Commission was aware of the alcohol rule, they did not serve it at the event. He went on to direct staff to bring back possible guidelines that could apply to Commissions and Council in regards to sponsored events. 2. Report from Councilors on attendance at League of Oregon Cities. Delayed due to time constraints. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Tree of the Year - 2011 Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Michael Pina Department: Com. Dev. E-Mail: michael.pina @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Larry Patte Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Question: Does Council have questions regarding the presentation of the 2011 Tree of the Year? Staff Recommendation: No recommendation, this-is-presentation only. Background: The City of Ashland Tree Commission is pleased to announce the 2011 Tree of the Year— The Coast Redwood trees located at 65 Granite Street. Coast redwoods typically range from southern Oregon to central California, extending not more than fifty miles inland. Fog plays a vital role in the survival of these trees, protecting them from the summer drought conditions typical of this area. They also need abundant winter rain and moderate year round temperatures to thrive. In ideal conditions, a coast redwood can grow as much as 2-3 feet annually, but as little as an inch per year when there is a lack of moisture and little sunlight. Redwoods are naturally resistant to insects, fungi, and fire due to their high tannin and do not produce resin or pitch. Their thick, reddish, pithy bark also provides protection and insulation for the tree. Redwood trees flower during the wet and rainy months of December and January, and produce cones that mature the following fall. Redwood cones are about an inch long and produce tiny seeds, about the same size as a tomato seed. While each tree can produce 100,000 seeds annually, the germination rate is very low. Most redwoods grow more successfully from sprouts that form around the base of a tree, utilizing the nutrients and root system of a mature tree. When the parent tree dies, a new generation of trees rise, creating a circle of trees that are often called fairy rings. These two trees have graced the comer of Granite and Baum for many decades as the entrance to the Granite Street neighborhood. Nominated since the beginning of our Tree of the Year contest, the trees were once joked about being "too perfect" to be Tree(s) of the Year. This year's winner is a wonderful example of how a homeowner's care of beautiful trees can capture Ashland residents' hearts. Ashland residents submitted nominations and to voted for Tree of the Year. This year marks Ashland's twenty-fourth Tree of the Year contest. Throughout the year a nomination form is available on the City of Ashland website and in July, the call for nominations was distributed in the City Source newsletter. Residents originally identified many trees for consideration, however after careful deliberation; the Ashland Tree Commission narrowed the field down to four final nominees. Ballots were being accepted from early October to the First of November, and were published in the Locals Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Guide, posted on the City's web site, and made available at City Hall and the Community Development and Engineering Building. A total of 67 votes were submitted this year, with the Southern Magnolia outside the McCall house (153 Oak St.) coming in at second with 17 votes. The Tree Commission will dedicate a plaque at the site honoring the tree next spring during annual Arbor week events. Related City Policies: Chapter IV Environmental Resources, Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter VII Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics, Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2.25 Tree Commission, AMC— Powers and Duties Council Options: Not applicable Potential Motions: Not applicable Attachments: 2011 Tree of the Year Ballot Page 2 of 2 K �r, BALLOT for CITY OF ASHLAND'S .2011 TREE OF THE YEAR This marks the 24nd Tree of the Year contest. In selecting Ashland's Tree of the Year we have the opportunity to pause and reflect on all of Ashland's lovely trees and the many ways they enhance our lives. ; The nominees for the 2011 Tree of the Year are: Giant Sequoia (Sequofadendron giganteum) 965 BellviewAvenue This impressive example of a Giant Sequoia is one of the largest diameter trees on Beilview Ave. Its trunk measures about 10-feet across at the base! It has excellent-buttress roots and a graceful ; form which towers over the 50 foot tall power lines. Giant Sequoias are the largest living things on earth and can grow three to five feet per year. This tree was planted as a seedling from Sequoia National Park by a previous property owner many years ago. : El Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) 153 Oak Street ; Fairly common in the southeastern portions of the US this impressive Southern Magnolia is one of ; the oldest recorded magnolia trees in Jackson County. It was planted by Mrs. McCall, wife of Cap- ; tain John McCall in 1890. The magnolia is a large, striking evergreen with dark green, leathery leaves. Large, fragrant flowers appear on the tree in late spring followed by rose-colored fruit. The timber from the magnolia is hard and heavy and is used to make furniture. Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) • 65 Granite Street ■ Resistance to natural enemies such as insects and fire are built-in features of a Coast Redwood. ■ Diseases and insect damage is insignificant due to the high tannin content of the wood.The red- ; woods' unusual ability to regenerate also aids in their survival as new sprouts may come directly from a stump or a downed tree's root system or even from dormant seedlings on a living tree. Red- ; woods are the tallest trees in the world. These beautiful trees have graced the corner of Granite and Baum for decades, enhancing the neighborhood. ❑ Giant Sequoia (Sequofadendron giganteum) 156 Seventh Street This tree was planted as an Arbor Day sapling by the children of the previous property owner. It has stood watch over the neighborhood for many years and is a beautiful example of a thriving : urban evergreen. The Giant Sequoia is also known as a Sierra Redwood or the"Big Tree". The bark of the sequoia can be more than two feet thick and is the trees main defense. Sequoias can ; also live to 3,200 years and reproduce by seed only. ALL BALLOTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1ST Mail or deliver to: Mike Pina, City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 SUPPORT TIIE TREES! VOTE TODAYI CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Conservation Commission Meeting Date: _ November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christebaashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Mayor's Office Secondary Contact: Mayor Stromberg Approval: City Administra Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Mark Weir to the Conservation Commission with a term to.expire April 30, 2012? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Conservation Commission on application received. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor appointment of Mark Weir to the Conservation Commission. Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Mark Weir to the Conservation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2012. Attachments: Application received Page 1 of 1 02, CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at Citv HaIL 20 E Main Street, or email cr,ri,tch �ashianti.�r.�, . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessan. Name: Mark Alan Weir Requesting to serve on: Conservation Commission (Commission/Committee) Address: 235 Grant St, Ashland. OR 97520 Occupation: Chief Operations Officer Phone: Mobile: 519.980.8220 StrawJet Inc. Work: 541.708 ?022 Email: Markw t;strawjet.com Fax: None 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Cuyamaca College, Rogue Community College, Southern Oregon University (current) What degrees do you hold? Associates in Science. Business, Cuvamaca College What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? I have completed EPA Method 9 visible emissions training. 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? 1 have been the Chief Operations officer of StrawJet Inc.for the last three . ears. StrawJet is a local business focused on Sustainable Building with projects throughout North America and Africa. Additionally I worked with and consulted for A WR Engineering on landfill waste stream projects in Grenada,West Indies 1 have worked on PPM 10 and NOx trading programs in Southern California and monitored compliance using EPA method 9 visible emissions standards. 1 have given presentations about green building and policies to the Southern Oregon Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. California Straw Builders Association. Green Drinks Ashland, Southern Oregon Bioscience Industry Consortium and Rotary Ashland. Additionally I have worked throughout Northern California and Southern Oregon with farmers to develop new uses for waste streams and converter it into useable building products. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why'? I regularly attend conference throughout the US relative to environmental work at nhy own expense. I believe that a major initiative should be to bring such training to Ashland and the Rogue Valley. 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? I have been directly or indirecily involved in the environmental conservation community since 1997. I believe that through long now problem solving we can reduce the environmental impact of our communities while not giving up a high quality of fife. 'ro this end I would like to be part of the solution by providing my insight and help where it N, applicable. a. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings'? I can attend all regular and special meetings.my position as COO affords me a great deal of flexibility. I prefer Mondays and evenings for meetings but am flexible. i. Additional Information How long have you.livcd in this community? 1 have lived in Ashland since January 2009 Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position In addition to niv environmental work I have spent the last three years working with Total Land Care Malawi and United States Agency for hntemational Development to reduce deforestation in Malawi. east Africa. I also am in the process of tutoring a group of young mentors on the importance and international implications of environmental degradation. Attached is a copy of my Resume. f Z2 { ZCD l Date Signature �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Housing Commission Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeboashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Mayor's Office Secondary Contact: Mayor Stromberg Approval: City A 3 Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Brett Ainsworth to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Housing Commission on application received. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor appointment of Brett Ainsworth to the Housing Commission. Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Brett Ainsworth to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014. Attachments: Application received Page I of 1 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christebno ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Brett Ainsworth Requesting to serve on: Housing Commission (Commission/Committee) Address 2305C Ashland St. 4237 Ashland, OR 97520 Occupation Customer Service Manager, SOU` Phone: Home (541)531-2366_ Work (541) 552-6318 Email bwainsworth((Daol.com Fax n/a 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Cal Poly. SLO and University of San Francisco What degrees do you hold? B.A. Communication; M.P.A. What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? I've completed several real estate courses. 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? I've held multiple positions in academic and private organizations. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? I would be willing to attend conferences or seminars. MAI 3, Interests Why are you applying for this position? I have the time and ability to serve, and I've lived in several communities in which I've directly witnessed the impacts of housing decisions- both good and bad. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? I can attend evening meetings. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? Almost 1 year Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position My experience living in the communities of Sonoma. San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Santa Rosa and Chico, California, as well as working in Torrance and San Francisco have allowed me to see how the different approaches to housing, development and consistency in zoning can either retain or significantly change both the demographics and design of communities. I have an open mind and would work to ensure that the character and charm of Ashland is ensured, while simultaneously recognizing that adapting to change is a necessary function of any town. March 19, 2010 Brett Ainsworth Date Signature CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Grant Support for Sky Research Connect IV Application Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Michael A. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Administratio Secondary Contact: Scott A. Fleury Approval: Larry Patter Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will Council approve a letter of support for Sky Research and their grant application for Connect Oregon IV in order to build a hangar at the Ashland Municipal Airport? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve a letter of support for Sky Research to use in their grant application package. Background: Sky Research is a local environmental remediation company that currently employees 34 people at their facility located at the Ashland Municipal Airport. Sky's local operations are conducted out of their current hangar that was constructed in 2000 and is 12,000 square feet. They are proposing to build an additional 18,800 sq-ft hangar onsite. In order to assist in the construction of the hangar they are applying for a Connect Oregon IV grant and are asking for a letter of support from the City Council to use as part of their application packet. Sky Research plans to make the new hangar at Ashland Municipal Airport its new corporate headquarters. As part of this corporate headquarters construction in Ashland, Sky Research also has plans to relocate and hire approximately 100 new employees to work at the facility by 2016. Sky's main area of expertise lies in searching for unexploded ordnance. Sky Research uses technology to define areas of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) contamination. With remote sensing (sensors that are not in physical contact with the target, often on aircraft or satellites) technologies, Sky Research works on projects throughout the United States as well as globally to provide the most complete information in support of environmental remediation and planning. Through the innovative use of advanced geophysical, aviation, engineering and remote sensing technologies, Sky Research has developed an efficient and effective Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) detection methodology. This methodology, known as Wide Area Assessment (WAA) continues to be adopted as an efficient method of detection. The headquarters in Ashland is a hub for contracts administration, flight operations, finance/ accounting, and all other corporate functions. Related City Policies: Council is empowered to approve letters of support for grant applications. Page I of 2 `, CITY OF -ASH LAN D Council Options: • Council may approve the attached letter of support • Council may reject the letter of support Potential Motions: • Move to approve the attached letter of support • Move to reject the letter of support Attachments: Letter of Support Page 2 of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND October 13, 2011 Oregon Department of Transportation Connect Oregon IV Review Committee 555 13'h St., Suite 2 Salem, Oregon 97301-4178 Dear Connect Oregon IV Review Committee Members, This letter is in support of the application by Sky Research, Inc. (SKY) for Connect Oregon IV funding to support the expansion and consolidation of business operations including Part 135 air charter service at the corporate headquarters located at Ashland Municipal Airport. The proposed funding will allow SKY to relocate the accounting, human resource, and business development functions to Ashland from facilities currently located across the country and worldwide. The expansion of the Ashland facility and the consolidation of staff will increase efficiency by allowing engineers and scientists in dispersed locations to work together in conjunction with flight operations, administration and marketing staff to help continue the growth of this successful, high technology company. Sky Research products and services are on the cutting edge of remote sensing and munitions detection technologies. SKY operates air, ground and marine vehicles around the world, locating, mapping and identifying unexploded ordnance, land mines and other munitions and explosives of concern. The corporate headquarters are located in Ashland; however, core science, technology and process development currently take place in locations scattered across the country and abroad. Proposed facilities will be designed to house more than 100 staff that SKY expects to recruit or relocate to Ashland within 4 years. Since 2001, SKY has grown from a start-up business to a successful business with more than $25 million in annual revenue. Demand for Sky Research's services and most recent innovations continues to put pressure on the firm for rapid expansion, with an expected tripling of employment over the coming 6-8 years. Support from Connect Oregon will help SKY stay close to its roots in Southern Oregon while managing rapid growth of a global enterprise. Sky Research is about technology; technology that must be deployed by highly trained and immediate staff. A consolidated base of operations in Ashland will streamline the deployment of staff by strengthening corporate functions for expanded light manufacturing and aircraft value added processes while providing facilities at a critical airport location. Sincerely, Mayor John Stromberg Public Works Engineeering Tel:541488-5587 20 East Main street Fax:541488-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashlantl onus CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Contract to Replace the Metal Roof of the Ashland Service Center Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson Department: Public Works E-Mail: olsoni@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Michael Faught Approval: Larry Patters Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the award of an $184,890.00 contract to Smith Sheet Metal for the replacement of the Service Center roof? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a contract in the amount of$184,890.00 be awarded to Smith Sheet Metal for replacement of the Service Center roof. Background: On October 25, 2011, the Public Works Department received four bids for the replacement of the Service Center roof The results of the bidding are as follows: 1. Smith Sheet Metal Bid $184,890.00 2. Architectural Metal Works Bid $209,000.00 3. Harbert Roofing, Inc. Bid $269,990.00 4. T.T.L., Inc. Bid $406,989.00 All bids received are bona fide and valid bids and each contains a bid bond and other required documentation. Smith Sheet Metal, as the low bidder, is a qualified contractor located in Springfield, Oregon and is fully capable of performing this work. Staff can see no obstacle to awarding them a contract to complete the re-roofing of the Service Center. Project Description: The Ashland Service Center building'located at 90 North Mountain Ave. was constructed in 1980. The original roof was a standard metal roof which was screwed to steel perlins spaced at 5 foot intervals. The screws used to fasten the roof to the perlins are rubber gasketed steel screws, which have begun to react with the metal roofing. The roofing metal has begun to corrode around the screw holes. In some areas the corrosion has expanded beyond what the rubber gasket will cover causing leaks. In consultation with an architect and with several roofing contractors, it was determined that the best solution would be to replace the entire roof. A new roof would provide the following benefits: I. A standing seam roof would be installed that is less prone to leakage and has a superiorjoining system. 2. Clips could be installed on the standing seam roof which would accommodate a future photo electric array. 3. An improved building venting system could be installed that is less prone to leakage and is more efficient. 4. Improved and more efficient skylights could be installed. Page I of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND 5. Three of the five air conditioning units that were mounted on the roof have been removed. The new roof would eliminate these un-needed roof penetrations. 6. An OSHA approved access system would be installed in the new roof to access the remaining a.c. units. 7. The new roof would have a minimum 30-year life expectancy. Project Budget: This project is listed in the approved capital improvement plan and in the 2011-12 budget at $160,000.00. The additional $24,890.00 is available from other delayed roofing projects which cannot be accomplished within the budget year. It is anticipated that the actual work will not commence until June 2012 when more reasonable weather might be expected. Related City Policies: AMC Section 2.50 requires that the Council, acting as the contract review board, approve all material and services contracts in excess of$100,000.00. Council Options: • Council may approve a contract with Smith Sheet Metal, Inc. in the amount of$184,890.00 to, replace the Service Center roof. • Council may reject all bids and award no contract for the Service Center roof replacement. Potential Motions: • Move to approve a contract with Smith Sheet Metal, Inc. in the amount of$184,890.00 to replace the Service Center roof. • Move to reject all bids received and award no contract for the Service Center roof replacement. Attachments: Copy of bid. Page 2 of 2 �r, C"U PROPOSAL Mayor&City Council Ashland,Oregon .The undersigned bidder declares that the bidder has received,read-and understood all bid documents; received,read and understood all addenda; the bidder has taken no exceptions other than those clearly stated in this proposal;.the bidder will be liable for increased costs (and attorney fees) for retaining a replacement bidder if the undersigned bidder is awarded The contract but refuses to sign the contract; the bidder has examined the plans and specifications,has visited the site,and made such investigation as is necessary to determine the character of the materials and conditions to be encountered in the work and that if this Proposal is accepted, the bidder will contract Willi the City of Ashland, Oregon for the construction of the .proposed improvement in a form of contract contained in the bid documents, will provide the necessary equipment, materials, tools, apparatus, and labor, in accordance with the plans and specifications on file at the City Engineering Office, Ashland, Oregon, under the following conditions: I. It is understood that all the work will be performed under a lump sum or unit price basis and that for the lump suit or unit price all services, materials, labor, equipment, and all work necessary to,complete the project in.accordance with the plaits and specifications shall be furnished for The said lump sum or unit price named. It is understood that the quantities stated in connection with the price schedule for the contract are approximate only and payment shall be made at the unit prices named for tine actual quantities incorporated in the completed work. If there shall be an increase in the amount of-work covered by the lump sum price, it shall be computed on a basis of "extra work" for which an increase in payment will have been earned and if there be should a decrease in the lump sun payment, it shall be made only as a result of negotiation between the undersigned and the Owner. Furthermore, it is understood That any estimate with respect to time, materials,equipment,or service which may appear on the plans or in the specifications is for the sole purpose of assisting the undersigned in checking the undersigned's own independent calculations and that at no time shall the undersigned attempt to hold the Owner, the Engineer, or any other person, form or corporation responsible for any errors or onnissions that may appear in any estimate. 2. The undersigned will furnish the bonds required by the specifications and comply with all the laws of the Federal Government, State of Oregon, and the City.of Ashland which.are pertinent to construction contracts of this nature even though such laws or municipal ordinances may not have been quoted or referred to in these specifications. 3. All items for the contract for which forms are provided in the bid documents have been completed in full by the showing of a lump sum price or prices for each and every item and by the showing of other information indicated by the proposal form. The undersigned submits the unit prices set forth as those at which the bidder will perform the work involved. The extensions in the column headed "Total" are made up for the sole purpose of facilitating comparison of bids and if there are any discrepancies between the unit prices and the totals shown,the unit prices shall govern. 4. The undersigned agrees that the "Time of Completion" shall be as defined in the specifications and that the bidder will complete the work within the number of consecutive calendar days stated for each schedule after"Notice to Proceed"has been issued by the Owner. Bidder furtheimore agrees to pay as'liquidated damages, for each calendar.day thereafter, the amounts'shown in Subsection 00150.50 of the Spmial.Piovisions, for.each day the project remains incomplete. 3. The undersigned,as bidder,acknowledges that addenda(s)numbered through 2 . have been received by the bidder and have been examined as part of the 'contract documents. b. If the proposed bid price will exceed. $50,000.60 the undersigned„ as bidder, acknowledges that provisions of ORS 279C.500 —279C.570 relating to workers on public works to be paid not less than prevailing rate of wage shall be included in the contract, or in. the alternative, if the project is to be funded with federal funds and is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §276a)bidder agrees to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act requirements. "Prevailing Wage Rates for .Public Works Contracts in Oregon,"which are incorporated herein by reference,and can be accessed at' 7. Instructions for Fist-Tier Subcontractors Disclosure. Bidders ne required to disclose information about certain:first-tier subcontractors (those subcontractors contracting directly with the bidder) when the contract price exceeds $75,000 (see ORS 279C.370). Specifically, when the contract amount of a first-tier subcontractor is greater than or equal to: (i) 5% of the project bid, but at least 515,000, or (H) $350,000 regardless. of the percentage, you must disclose the following information about that subcontract within two working hours of bid closing: 7.1 The subcontractor's name-and address; 7.2 The subcontractor-s Construction Contractor Board registration number„if one is required,and; - 7.3 The subcontract dollar value. If you will.not be using any subcontractors that ate subject to the above disclosure requirements, you are required to indicate"NONE"on the form. THE CITY MAY.REJECT A BID IF THE BIDDER PAILS TO SUBMIT THE DISCLOSURE FORM WITH THIS INFORMATION WITHIN TWO HOURS OF BID CLOSING. To determine disclosure requirements, •the City recommends that you disclose subcontract information for any sub'contractor as follows: I) Determine the lowest possible contract price. That price will be the base bid amount less all alternate deductive bid amounts (exclusive of any options that can only be exercised after contract award). 2) ProVid'e the required disclosure information for any first-tier subcontractor whose potential contract services (i.e.,subcontractor's base bid amount plus all alternate additive bid amounts, exclusive of any options that can only be exercised alter contract award) are greater than of equal to: (i) 5%of the lowest contract price, but at least$15,000, or (ii) $350,000 regardless of the percentage. Total all possible work for each subcontractor in staking this determination (e.g.,if a subcontractor will provide$15,000 worth of seivices on the base bid and$40,000 on an additive alternate, then the potential amount of subcontractor's services is .$55,000. Assuming that $55,000 exceeds 5% of the lowest contract price, provide the disclosure for both the$15,000 services and the($40,000 services). The disclosure should be submitted on the following form: The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive formalities, or accept any bid which appears to serve the best interests of the City in accordance with ORS 279B.100. The foregoing prices shall include all labor,materials, equipment,overhead, profit, insurance, and all other incidental expenses to cover the finished work of the several kinds called for. Unit prices are to be shown in both words and figures. In case of discrepancy, the amounts shown in words will govern. BASE BID: $184,890 WORDS One hundred eighty-four thousand eight hundred ninety and no/100 Upon receipt of written notice of the acceptance of this bid, Bidder shall execute the formal contract attached within ten days, deliver surety bond or bonds as required, and deliver required proof of insurance. The bid security attached in the sum of five percent of the total price for the bid or combination of bids is to become the property of the Owner ht the event the contract and bond are not executed within the time above set forth as liquidated damages for the delay and additional expense to the Owner caused thereby. The Bidder is xx or is not a resident Bidder as defined in ORS 279A.120//n//�j�` — Webb Industries,Inc.dba Smith Sheet Metal — Firm Name of Bidder "iigAaturLvof Bidder Lloyd R.WEbb Printed Name of Bidder Corporate Secretary Official Title Oregon - 90545 State of Incorporation CCB Number Dated this 21 day of October 2011. Name of Bidder Webb Industries, Inc,dba Smith Sheet Metal Address 253 S 15th St. Springfield,OR 97477 Telephone No. 541-726-9194 1129/City of.Ashland Service Center Re-Roof. 004322-t ...UNIT PRICES FORDO SECTION 004322 UNIT PRICES FORM PARTICULARS 1.01 The following is the list ol'Unit Prices referenced in the bid submitted by: 1.02 (Bidder) "Webb Industries,Inc.dba Smith Sheet Metal City of Ashland 1.03 TO(Owner)..............._..................: 1.04 daled 10-111-2011 and which is an integral part of the Bid Form. 1.05 The following are Unit Prices for specific portions of the Work as listed,and are applicable to authorized variations from the Contract Documents. UNIT PRICE LIST 2.01 ITEM DESCRIPTION----UNIT QUANTITY------UNIT VALUE 2.02 .Batt Insulation_ .......__ .. $1.49/sq ft 1129/City of Ashland Scrvica Center Re-Roof. 004323-1 ALTE11N.ATES FORA4 - SECTION 004323 ALTERNATES FORM PARTICULARS 1.01 The following is the list of Alternatives referenced in the bid submitted by: 1.02 (Bidder) 'Webb Industries,Inc.dba Smith Sheet Metal 1.03 TO(Owner).City of Ashland 1.04 Dated 10-18-2011 and which is an integral part of the Bid Form. ALTERNATIVES LIST 2.01 The following amounts shall be corded to or deducted from the Bid Amount- Refer to Section 012300-Altern2tives: Schedule of Alternatives. _ 2.02 Alternative NJ: Add _ S 158,712-Add BASE BID AMOUNT: $184,890' "(listed here per 10-18-11 conversation with Dale) City of Ashland FIRST-TLLR SUBCONTRACTOR DISCLOSURE FORM (As Required ky ORS 279C.370 and OAR 137=049-360) WAREHOUSE ROOF REPLACENIF PROJECT 2011-09 Bid Closin Date: NAMF,Or SUBCONTRACTOR CATEGORY OF WO1tIG - DOLLAR VALUE 1. (NONE .. .. 3. 4. J. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. •Alnlch additional pages if eecded. BID BO We,the undersigned, Webb Industries Inc. dba Smith sheet hetal as Principal,and Developers Surety and Indemnif,"OnJULUY.as Surety, are held and firmly bound to City of Ashland,Oregon as OWNER,in the penal sum of 107 nf Am lint bid for the payment of which jointly and severally bind ourselves,our successors,and assigns. Signed this 18th _day ofUtobar 2011 . The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas the Principal has submitted to the City of Ashland. Oregon, a certain BID, attached and made a part of this BOND, to enter into a contract in writing,for the proposal of Conducting the Warehouse Roof Replacement Project No.2011-09. NOW,THFRFFORE, (a) If this BID shall be rejected,pr; (b) if this BID shall be accepted and the Principal shall execute and deliver a contract in the Fonn of Contract attaciied (properly completed in accordance with the BID) slid furnish a BOND for the faithful performance of the contract, and for the payment of all persons performing labor or furnishing materials in connection with the contract, and shall in all respects perform the agreement created by the acceptance of the BID, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise the same shall remain in force and effect; it being expressly understood and agreed that.the liability of the Surety for any and all claims under this BOND shall, in no event,exceed the penal amount of this obligation as stated. The Surety,for value received,stipulates end agrees that the obligations of the Surety and its BOND shall be in no way impaired or affected by any extension of the time within which the OWNER may)jTept such 9p;and the Surety waives notice of any such extension. get /Webb Industries, Inc. dba Smith Sheet Metal Principal Developers Surety and Indemnity Company Surety Theresa Logue ✓ Attorney—in—fact 194PORTANT — Surety companies executing F30NDS must appear on the Treasury Department's most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State of Oregon. POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA PO Box 19725,IRVINE,CA 92623 (949)2613300 KNOW ALL BYTHESE PRESENTS that except as expressly Inded,DEVELOPERS SURETYAND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,do salt hereby make,constitute and appoint: "'Linda Cole,Theresa Logue,Christie Montero,Diane M.Davison,Linda Cole,Kelly R.McCorkle,jointly or severally— as their true and lawhd Aaaney(s)-m-Fad,Ie make,execute,deliver and acknowledge,for and on behalf of said corpormons,as sureties,bads,undertakings and cml,ac s of surety ship giving and granting unto said Aflomey(s)-inFad full power and authority to do and to perform every ad necessary,raqu�site a proper to be done to connection therewith as each of said corporations wild do,but reserving to each of said corporations al power of substitution and revocation,and all of the ads of said Adcmey(s}in-Fact,pursuant to these pmsanlS, we hereby ra0fied and confirmed. This Paver of Attorney is granted and is signed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,effective as of January 1st,2008. - RESOLVED.Vat a combination of any two of the Chairman o(the Board,the President,Executive Vice-Presideol,Senior Vice-President a any Vice President of the corporations be,and that each of them hereby is,authorized to execute this Paver of Attorney.qualify ng the a0arney(s)named in the Power of Attorney to execute,on behalf of the corporations,bonds,undertakings and contracts of suretyship;and that the Secretary or any Assistant Secrelary of either of the corporations be,and each of than hereby is,authorized to attest the exea5on of any such Power of Attorney. RESOLVED,FURTHER,that the signatues of such officers may be affixed to any such Pawn of Attorney a to any certificate relating lhemlo by facsimile,and any such Power of Attorney or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures shall be valid and binding upon the corporations when so affixed and in the future with respect to any bond,undedakthg or cenbaa of suretyship to which II Is mached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY and INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA have seveI caused these presents to be signed by their respective officers and arrested by their respective Secretary or Assistant Secretary this January isl,2008. - By. \ I yuA ,•�y RNe/,ti;'•., PANY Daniel Young,Vice-President :yJP�opv ORgto� 00 PONRO IT 4 F`tt y p OCT.S B: 1936 ;oi w 1967 Stephen T Pale,Senior Vice-President ',�J'••• n S D n P 2 ':was•.. /pw'p,.;ail 29CIFOPva, State of California "� ••k �'° County of Orange On January 31,2011 before me,_ Antonio Alvarado Notary Pubic Dale Here Insert Name and True of the Officer personally appeared Daniel Young and Stephen T Pate Name(s)of Signer(s) who proved to me an the basis of sabstactay evidence to be the persen(s)whose names)is/am subscribed to r[ mewithin instrument andacknowledgedtome lhathelshellheyexecutedthesameln Ns/oerAheh authorized - ANTONIOALVARADO I capacily(les),and that by NslnaMdr signature(s)an Me instrument the persuds),or the entity upon behalf of o COMM.d 1880543 which the pefson(s)acted,executed the instrument. 0 N01AW PUBLIC LI COUNTY S I call under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is We and corract. My comet.aspires Aug.B.2013 WITNESS my hand and al l seal. Place Notary Seal Above Signature � . Antonio Alvarado,Notary Pubic - CERTIFICATE The undersigned,as Secretary a Assistant Secretary of DEVELOPERS SURETY AND INDEMNITY COMPANY or INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA,does nereby - cer y that the foregoing Power ofAttamey remains in MI face end has not been revoked and,furthermore,that the provisions of the resolutions of the respective Boards of Directors of said corpoations set forth in the Power of ABUrney are th force as of the date of this Certificate. This CeNF.camisexeuted in the Odyof Wine,Califdmie,this dayol OC7-0,3E� By. egg Door , slslant Secretary ID-1380(Ree01111) CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Approval to Award a Public Contract — Municipal Audit Services Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg . Department: Finance E-Mail: tuneberinaashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Cindy Hanks Approval: Larry Patters Estimated Time: Consent Statement: Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the award of a public contract resulting from a formal solicitation process for Municipal Audit Services? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the public contract be awarded to the highest ranked proposer, Pauly, Rogers and Company, for Municipal Audit Services. Background: The existing contract for municipal audit services is due to expire. Therefore, the City, in accordance with the public contracting rules, is required to process a Competitive Sealed Proposal (Request for Proposal) to acquire Municipal Audit Services. The City received six (6) proposals in response to the RFP. The budget committee, acting as the evaluation committee, scored each of the six (6) proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. Upon the completion of the evaluation process, Pauly, Rogers and Company was deemed to be the highest ranking proposer. Staff is recommending the public contract for Municipal Audit Services be awarded to Pauly, Rogers and Company for a period of three (3) fiscal years, with the option of two one year extensions for a total of five (5) years. Related City Policies: Section 2.50.080 Formal Processes -Competitive Sealed Bidding and Proposals Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, in addition to the requirements of the Model Rules and the Oregon Public Contracting Code: C. The Local Contract Review Board shall approve the award of all contracts for which the Ashland Municipal Code or the Oregon Public Contracting Code require formal competitive solicitations or formal competitive bids. Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the award of a public contract to Pauly, Rogers and Company for Municipal Audit Services. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve (or decline) the award of a public contract to Pauly, Rogers and Company for Municipal Audit Services. Attachments: Evaluation Summary Page 1 of 1 �r, City of Ashland REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL MUNICIPAL AUDIT SERVICES Proposal Evaluation Summary November 8, 2011 + .. t .:t'G ,,'`v i. � ' `"� ,3�S�§ x��. : _, Proposal 1 valuation r La" son AIIen CPAs Jarrard=Seibert Pollard' Meriva Pauly; Rogeran � + Talbot;Korvola f&; ,� Pointsa MichaeliL .Piels Criteria Co. LLC Company LLP. „ Co PC Warwick LLP ' -.CPAs LLP: _. ... Evaluator #1 #2 0 #4 #5 #1 #2 #3 94 #5 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #1 #2 #3 94 #5 I Letter of 5 4 4 3 4 10 3 4 0 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 Introduction Statement of Qualifications 2 and Relevant 40 25 35 30 20 40 20 25 25 10 20 35 40 40 35 30 35 40 40 35 30 35 40 40 35 30 30 25 20 25 30 Professional Experience Contractual 3 Terms and 10 10 10 1 9 10 10 ]0 10 9 10 5 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 9 8 Conditions 40 References 10 5 10 2 3 10 4 5 3 3 2 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 10 5 0 5 Fee Arrangement 35 27 26 27 27 27 17 17 17 17 17 25 24 25 25 25 33 32 33 33 33 14 14 14 14 14 35 35 35 35 35 Worksheet I I I . SUBTOTAL 100 71 85 63 63 97 54 61 55 42 54 79 89 90 80 80 93 97 98 90 88 74 79 79 74 69 84 79 69 78 77 9 Interview 25 Process Not applicable TOTAL 125 71 85 63 63 97 54 61 55 42 54 79 89 90 80 80 93 97 98 90 88 74 79 79 74 69 84 79 69 78 77 RFP Evaluation Summary—Municipal Audit Services CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation for Winter Road Maintenance Meeting Date: November 15, 201 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm rr ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: N/A Secondary Contact: John Peterson Approval: Larry Patter Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation. Background: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reorganized the location of some of their heavy equipment for budgetary purposes. In doing so,they no longer have loader at their Tolman Creek maintenance yard. They have offered to supply the City with cinders in exchange for the use of the City of Ashland's (Public Works/Street Division's) front-end loader to use for loading cinders at their yard. In addition, ODOT will provide de-icing services on Siskiyou Boulevard, Ashland Street and Maple Street when necessary. . The amount of cinders that the City uses for sanding varies from year to year, depending on weather conditions. During a cold winter with lots of ice and snow, the City may use up to 500 yards of cinders. At an average cost of$12.37 per yard, this would amount to an annual savings to the City of approximately$6,185. Savings during a mild winter would be much less, as would the machine hours on the loader. A strong partnership with ODOT is mutually beneficial financially and supportively, especially during inclement weather situations. The Public Works Department desires to continue its cooperative, working relationship with ODOT. Acceptance of this agreement will demonstrate the City's sincerity for continuing its on-going valuable working relationship. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: 1. The Council could approve the attached agreement with ODOT 2. The Council could reject the attached agreement with ODOT 3. The Council may modify the attached agreement with ODOT Potential Motions: 1. Move to approve the attached agreement with ODOT Page 1 of 2 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND 2. Move to deny approval of the attached agreement with ODOT 3. Move to modify the attached agreement with ODOT Attachments: Draft intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT Page 2 of 2 �r, Nov. 2. 1011 1 02P No. 0519 P. 2 De-icing/Sanding and Loader Usage Letter of Agreement For the City of Ashland and ODOT This letter of agreement is being entered into by and between the City of Ashland, OR and ODOT and is effective October 2011 upon signatures by both parties. The purpose of this Letter of Agreement is for ODOT to perform de-icing or sanding on portions of the streets that run through the City of Ashland during winter months when deemed necessary due to slick road surfaces. In return, ODOT will be able to use one of the City of Ashland's loaders to during the winter months. The loader will be parked and used at the ODOT maintenance yard on Tolman Creek Road during the winter months. The City of Ashland and ODOT also agree to share resources as needed during the winter months. ODOT will do their best to de-ice or sand in the City of Ashland but will not be held liable if they are unable to due to unforeseen circumstances. Please retain one copy for your files and return one copy to the Oregon Department of Transportation in Ashland. City of Ashland ODOT By; By:Jerry Marion Date Date 0 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Connect Oregon 1V Grant Support Letter for Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Michael A. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: James H. Olson Approval: Larry Patters Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will Council approve a letter of support, signed and sent by Mayor Stromberg for the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) Connect Oregon IV grant application for rail tunnel enhancement? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve a letter of support for CORP. Background: The Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) is a Class 11 railroad operating between Northern California and Eugene, Oregon. The CORP has a total of 389 miles of mainline in this corridor. Traffic on the CORP is approximately 17,000 cars featuring the following commodities of lumber, logs, and plywood. Being located in Oregon and California, the CORP serves national account lumber companies and provides transportation through interchanges with other line-haul carriers to serve all of North America. Lumber and related products are the mainstay for the CORP. The CORP also was awarded the Silver E H Harriman Award in Group C for the railroad's safety record in 2006. This is a highly coveted award and it truly reflects the commitment and dedication to safety on the CORP. The CORPS Connect Oregon IV grant application project will allow for the increase in clearances for 4 tunnels in Douglas County, north and south of Glendale in order to accommodate high capacity rail cars. Currently customers in the Rogue Valley do not have access to the high capacity cars thus putting them at a disadvantage when competing in today's market place, as well as creating an access for the long term availability of equipment. This improvement will help customers retain and hopefully increase living wage jobs at their facilities, which Southern Oregon desperately needs. The scope of work on the four tunnels includes, notching for taller rail cars, new rails, ties and bridge improvements that will handle the high capacity rail cars. The estimated cost of the project is $5.5-6 mil of which CORP is committing the required 20% matching funds as per the Connect Oregon IV application Due to timeline issues for submittal of the grant application, a letter of support was signed and sent by the Mayor on November 11`h to ensure it becomes part of the grant package. At this time staff is looking for Council approval of the Mayors decision to sign and send the letter of support. Related City Policies: Council is empowered to approve letters of support for grant applications. Page I of 2 �r, CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Options: • Council may approve the attached letter of support • Council may reject the letter of support Potential Motions: • Move to approve the attached letter of support • Move to reject the letter of support Attachments: Letter of Support Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND November 9, 2011 Oregon Department of Transportation Connect Oregon IV Review Committee 555 13`h St., Suite 2 Salem, Oregon 97301-4178 Dear Connect Oregon IV Review Committee Members, I am pleased to submit this letter of support on behalf of the City of Ashland for the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad's (CORP) Connect Oregon IV Rogue Valley Tunnel Enhancement Project. This project will involve improvement to existing rails, ties and tunnel infrastructure between Douglas County on the north and Jackson County on the south. This improvement will open up the Medford/Rogue Valley and allow access to the most modern high capacity rail equipment which customers vitally depend on. The national railroad network is currently moving towards high capacity rail cars and the CORP provides the only connection these areas have with the national railroad network system. If improvements to the tunnels are not done then the Rogue Valley will be essentially shut out of the rail system. Improving the clearances for the tunnels will eliminate a major obstacle allowing customers in the Rogue Valley to compete in the open market with Oregon grown and manufactured products. Business and communities depends heavily on the CORP in concert with the national railroad network system to provide safe and efficient transportation for the shipment of goods while providing living wage jobs to economically distressed areas in Oregon. Rail America's CORP Railroad is an essential transportation source for Southern Oregon and we fully support their endeavors to secure capital for reinvestment into the rail infrastructure customers vitally depend upon. Funding for the Connect Oregon project will support continued, safe, reliable rail service throughout Southern Oregon into the future. Respectfully, John Stromberg, Mayor City of Ashland . 20 Ea of the Mayor Tel:5414188-6002,1 -531 20 East Main Street Fax:541,188-5311 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us C I T Y OF ASHLAND Council Communication First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Dev opment E-Mail: molnarb=•ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: Larry Patt Estimated Time: 30 minutes _404 Question: Will the City Council approve the first reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code" and move the ordinance to second reading? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of•the first reading of an ordinance amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180, and scheduling the second reading of the ordinance for a future Council meeting. Background: The City Council held a public hearing on November 1, 2011, and continued the public hearing and first reading of the ordinances to the November 15, 2011 meeting. The Council directed staff to bring back revisions addressing the hiring of an independent contractor to review collocation studies. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 11, 2011 on the proposed amendments to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities, and recommended approval of the ordinance. The attached ordinance is revised to require the applicant to submit an additional fee with the application submittals that will be used by the City for the cost of having an independent contractor- review the application materials. This provision applies to applications that are requesting approval of new wireless communication facilities that would not be located on a structure used by one or more wireless communication providers. The fee would be established by resolution of the City Council. If the Council decides to include the additional fee for independent contractor review, staff will prepare a resolution to add the new fee to bring back with second reading of the ordinances. Staff's initial research indicates a third party review of a collocation study typically takes 30 to 45 days, and ranges from $3,500 to $5,000 in cost. The process for hiring independent contractors for review to review collocation studies will involve the following steps. • Staff develops a description of the skills and qualifications required for analysis of a collocation study. • Staff identifies and develops a list of qualified contractors. The list may need to be updated on an annual basis. • The additional fee is submitted with a planning action. Page 1 of �r, CITY OF -ASH LAN D • Immediately after submittal of an application, staff initiates the hiring of a contractor from the list of qualified contractors. • The contractor would be selected, and a personal services contract drafted and approved through the city procurement process. • Staff would transmit the application to the contractor. • Contractor would prepare and submit the analysis. • After contract elements are complete, staff would initiate payment to the contractor. • After the project is complete, the contract would be closed. • Staff would initiate refund of any unused portion of the additional fee to the applicant. The impacts of instituting a process in which the City hires and pays for the independent review of collocation studies are: 1) greater confidence in the validity of technical conclusions about the proposed project; 2) lengthening of the time required to reach a decision on applications not involving collocation; and 3) redirection of staff resources form other work to administering the procurement process for potential independent review contractors and ensuring decisions on applications not involving collocation are reached within the required 120 days. ORS 227.178 requires cities to take final action on a land use application within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, and prohibits local jurisdictions from compelling an applicant to waive the 120-day period as a condition for taking action on an application. If the independent review of the collocation study takes longer than 30 days, a decision on the land use application for installation of a WCF would have to wait until completion of the independent analysis. Land use applications that involve continued hearings and/or appeals of Planning Commission decisions occasionally take close to the full 120 days. Adding additional time for an independent review entails some risk that an application might be deemed approved pursuant to state statute simply because the 120 day deadline could not be met. Related City Policies: Ashland Comprehensive Plan: ChapterVIl The Economy, Chapter IX Public Services Council Options: Since the motion to approve the first reading of this ordinance was tabled at the 11/1/11 Council meeting, Council consideration of the ordinance at the 11/15/11 meeting cannot proceed until passage of a motion to take that earlier motion from the table. The Council may approve a motion to take the earlier motion from the table; decline to approve the motion to "take from the table'; or take no action. If no action is taken. the 11/l/11 motion dies. After approval of the motion to "take from the table," the Council may approve, approve with modifications, or take no action on the first reading of an ordinance amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180. Potential Motions: 1. Move to take from the table the question of approving the first reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance, Page 2 of 3 CITY OF -ASH LAN D 2. Move to approve first reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on December 20, 2011. 3. Move to approve first reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance with proposed amendments as noted, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on December 20, 2011. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Page 3 of 3 �r, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN 18.72.180 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold tined4hywdgh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland City Council found AMC 18.72.180.C.2 to be ambiguous on its face, and interpreted this standard in the final decision on November 2, 2010 for the appeal of a Planning Action 2009-01244, a request to install rooftop wireless communications facilities on the existing building located at 1644 Ashland Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances based on the final decision of the City Council on Planning Action 2009-01 244 at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments unanimously; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 1 comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.72.180 [Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities) is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. A. Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but the community as a whole. The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near residential areas. B. Applicability. 1. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited. C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-I-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-I - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 2 Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited AA (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 2. Additional Provisions. a. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast or tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. b. In the Downtown Commercial zoning district (C-1-D), wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet. C. With the exception of the C-1-D zoning district as described above, wireless communication facilities are prohibited in the Historic Districts, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved wireless communication facility components are permitted outright with an approved building permit, and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the preceding subsection, provided that these actions: a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility more than ten feet, and b. Conforms with the conditions of the previously approved planning action, and c. Do not cause the facility to go out of conformance with the standards of Section 18.72.180.D. D C. Submittals - In addition to the submittals required in sSection 18.72.060, the following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility. 1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility as proposed. 2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min I'M). 3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior materials. 4. A site plan indicating all,structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet. 5. A map that includes the following information: a. the coverage area of the proposed wireless communication facility, and An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 3 b_A map showing the existing and approved wireless communication facility sites operated by the applicant, and all other wireless communication facilities within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site. 6. Details and specifications for exterior lighting. 6 7.A collocation feasibility study that adequately indientes eolloeation efffftS Were HI a states the reasons eolleention ean or eannot ,.eetw addressing the Collocation Standards in Section 18.72.180.D.3. 8 For applications requesting approval of installation of new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated on a structure used by one or more wireless communications providers, an applicant shall submit, along with the standard application fee an additional fee to reimburse the City for the cost of having the application materials reviewed by an independent contractor. The contractor must provide objective advice based on professional qualifications and experience in telecommunication/radio frequency engineering, structural engineering, assessment of electromagnetic fields, telecommunications law, and other related fields of expertise. The fee for this independent analysis of application materials shall be in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. 7 9.A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not preclude collocation. 8 10.Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. 9 11.Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable design standards. 40 12.Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility. Documentation to include: a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility. b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the meeting. c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting. d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting. 13. Findings addressing the design standards in Section 18.72.180.D. E D. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. General Provisions a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 4 d. MIC—F Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. e f. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non- illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. €g.Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. 2. Preferred Designs. The following preferred designs are a stepped hierarchy, and the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative. For the purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of being done, executed or effected: possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. a. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing 3AICF sites for new installation shall be eneouraged; Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. Where technically feasible, collocate new facilities on pre- existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place, or on pre- existing towers. b. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, MIC wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. c. Alternative Structure. If(a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed WC F wireless communication facilities. d. Freestanding Support Structure. If (a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e. battiee towers are prohibited as fFeestanding wireless eommuniestion supper- ,tr-uelIIies. 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: . 1) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable; 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applicant's service coverage area needs, and 3) document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 5 b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, if the application and independent third party analysis demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist at prospective collocation sites: i. a significant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference 3 4.1-andscaping. The following standards apply to all MIC wireless communication facilities with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and ,visible from a residential use or the public right-of-way. a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. b. The perimeter of the WC wireless communication facilities shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet. c. The outer perimeter of the WC F wireless communication facilities shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the WC-F—wireless communication facilities. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 4 S.Visual Impacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure. b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its purpose. c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non- reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. d. MIC Wireless communication facilities, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. e. Exterior lighting for a MIC F wireless communication facility is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 6 f. All wireless communication support structures must have a non-reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government agencies. g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual impact of the WC wireless communication facility, additional design measures may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding techniques. a. Eneh additi-n of an antennn to an existing MICF, requires a building unless the nddotional fintenne iner-enses the height of the fneility more than te". , Let-. b. Addition of antennas to an existing MIC-F that inereases the over-all height of th fneility more than ten feet is subjeet to a site r-eview; D. All installation of wireless eommunieetien systems shall be subjeet to the requirem of this seetien in addition to all applienble Site Design and Use Standards and are Zoning Designation Attnehed to A 11" lter- ntive Freestandin fsxistin • Struetures Support Struetures Strnetnre5 Residentin' Zonesm CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-4 CU-R CUP Prohibited C_JP Prohibited Prohibited Site Review Site Review CUP F,4 Site Review Site-Review C-1RR i��i4 (S Site Review Site Review CU-12 sou - Site Review CUP CUP NAI (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited m CU-PP Prohibited Prohibited �_(Ove GAT CUP CU /-���i� ',Gare/ /C��3iP� Prohibited Pre�hobiited CAI NC CUP CUP P CM OE Site T Site Review CUP CA4-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM MU C-UR CUP CUR C-A4 98 Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 7 SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22-23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 8 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee regarding the Funding Strategy for Improvement and Expansion of the Existing Police Station Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administration E-Mail: tuneberl @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Holderness, Seltzer Approval: Larry Patter Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: Will the Council accept and t on the recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee to improve and expand the existing Police Station by financing Phase 1 improvements using existing resources? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council accept the recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee (see the November 14 Study Session Council Communication for more information) and direct staff to use the accumulated fund balance in the Capital Improvements Fund to pay the net amount of Phase 1 of the project after accumulated forfeiture money is used and to include the amount in the FY2012-13 budget process. Background: The City of Ashland Financial Management Policies listed on page A-10 of the FY2011-12 budget document states: Capital Improvements Fund. This fund accounts for revenues from grants, unbonded assessment payments, and other sources, and will account for the construction of special local improvements, usually streets, with revenues from short term borrowing and unbonded assessments. Expenditures are for construction, property and equipment acquisition and replacement, improvements and related purposes, and the repayment of the short-term debt principal and interest incurred in financing improvement. The purpose is to accumulate funds prior to a large construction project; therefore, there is not minimum fund balance. Staff has been monitoring the progress in the CIP fund balance as compared to unfunded projects, expecting to address improvements as part of the FY2012-13 budget process. In the last three years planned project costs have been less than projected, resulting in a growing ending fund balance. An ongoing concern was the high priority projects (Fire and Police facilities) and the many unfunded projects listed in the CIP. The progress identified through this year's audit indicates the City could cash fund the portion of Phase 1 not covered by forfeiture monies. It is estimated that $200,000 in unrestricted funds would still be held by the fund after Phase 1 is completed. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND The above narrative supports staff's recommendation, and the City's practice, to use the CIP Fund to account for capital projects beyond street local improvement districts (LIDS). This has been demonstrated by the CDES Building, Fire Stations No.I and 2, library and airport improvements done through this fund during the last ten years. Most departments contribute to this fund based upon facility use and square footage. Contributing departments benefit from the maintenance work and repairs paid for from these amounts and the accumulation of unused proceeds for future needs. Most projects are reasonably small (less than $100,000) and are addressed in turn through the annual budget. As the policies state, no minimum balance is required and this is a place to save for large improvements. At this time the Police Department building needs are number two in the list of priorities, following Fire Station No.2 which has been resolved by GO Bonds. No major repairs are needed beyond those already accounted for in the budget, thus staffs recommendation is to use the monies accumulated in the CIP Fund to pay for the Police Building, Phase 1 construction costs. Doing so will allow the project to move ahead sooner than any other financing mechanism. Related City Policies: Council Goal Council Options: • Accept the committee recommendation and direct staff to use the accumulated fund balance in the Capital Improvements Fund to pay for the project or • Do not accept the committee recommendation and provide direction to staff. Potential Motions: 1. 1 move to accept the recommendation of the committee and direct staff to use the accumulated fund balance in the Capital Improvement Fund to pay for phase 1 improvements to the existing Police Station and to include the plan in the FY2013 budget. 2. I move to Attachments: • Final Report and Recommendation from the Public Safety Bond Committee • Proposed design improvements to the existing station. Page 2 of 2 11FALAR CITY O F ASHLAND Public Safety Bond Committee Improvements to Existing Police Station Final Report and Recommendation to the City Council November 14, 2011 Recommendation The Public Safety Bond Committee unanimously agrees there is a valid need to make improvements and expansion to the existing Ashland Police Station and supports the design proposed by Straus & Seibert as Phase 1 for a total square footage of approximately 9,300 and a total cost of approximately$1.45 million. The committee recommends improvements to and the expansion of the existing police station be funded with a combination of forfeiture funds and other existing resources. While the committee recognizes the value and the importance of an Emergency Operation Center(EOC) and a police training room, it recommends the City delay that portion of the project(referred to as Phase 2)until a future date when funds are available. The committee recommends using the funds identified by the Chief of Police for building purposes, currently totaling approximately$300,000, with all additional funding, approximately$1.15 million, to come from existing city resources. Background The committee was asked to evaluate two options for a new police station: I) Improvements to the Grove for a total of 13,000 square feet and an estimated cost of$2.8 million 2) Improvements and expansion of the existing Police Station for a total of 1 1,397 square feet and an estimated cost of$2.1 million to be completed in two phases. Phase I is improvements plus the addition of 3,000 square feet for$1.45 million and Phase 2 is a second addition of 2,000 square feet for$600,000 to include of training room that can be quickly converted for use as an Emergency Operation Center when the need arises. Rationale • A police station is an essential facility as defined under Federal law and must meet the strictest seismic design standards. Neither the existing station nor the Grove meets the "essential facility" requirements. • The cost to remodel and expand the existing station is the more cost effective option. I • Three funding options were identified: 1) Voter approved GO Bonds 2) Full Faith Credit Financing(requires a dedicated revenue stream for debt service payment) 3) Internal borrowing from existing funds(enterprise funds such as water or electric, sinking fund such as the equipment fund or the general fund). Given the current economic environment, the recent rate increase for electric and water services and recent tax levy for Fire Station No. 2 the committee did not feel voters would approve GO Bonds to finance the Police Station. Given the fees associated with Full Faith Credit Financing,unknown interest rates,the potential negative impact on the City's financial ratings and the requirement of a dedicated revenue stream for debt services,the committee did not feel this was a viable option. While the committee recognizes the burden of internal borrowing is borne by all departments, the committee feels this funding mechanism is the most cost effective and has the least impact on citizens. • The committee recognizes the importance of a fully functioning EOC and recommends implementation of Phase 2 as soon as additional funds are identified. 2 Architectural Design Services - Police Department City of Ashland Public Works / Engineering Department Project No. 2010-20 "Project Information Handout" November 14, 2011 i IStraus&Seibert Architects, LLP—/DLR Group —A Excellence through Partnerships Index Introduction Existing Conditions Reports Preliminary Staffing Position List Functional Space Program Site Plan Existing Facility Existing Faclity Phase i Existing Facility Phase 2 Existing Facility Function Existing Facility Phase 1 Function Existing Facility Phase 2 Function Existing "Grove" Building "Grove".Building Proposal Probable Cost Statements LEED ChecRBst stress iselben MR CrwP---- -- --- ----^�w� Arch1tachrol Design senkes ------ --- - E'�t AOdWW Poaw DW"MM Lyyi PMJW 16o.2MO-W Excellence through Partnerships Introduction November 14, 2011 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT RELOCATION The following information is provided as an overview of the project to date for preliminary review and comment The information contained in this report was developed from previous meetings with the Police Department Staff and concerned stakeholders at the Kickoff Meeting. The Draft Report contains Information for additions(Two Phases)and remodel to the Existing Police Facility and addition and remodel for a relocation of the Police Department to the adjacent"Grove"building. Existing Condition Reports have been completed for each facility and indicate to what degree building alterations will be required to provide for seismic considerations, The Comparative Cost Estimate allows for direct comparison of like costs for each facility. stmut i.selbrt/ellt Group ---_ .. k �Smim At ----' -- 1q 1 hl"PoUn eeprtment F�iv Roleet No.t07a•20 Excellence through Partnerships Existing Condition SUMMARY, Police.and Grove Buildings General: A visual walk through was conducted for both buildings to assess: 1. General exterior and interior condition 2. Building configurations 3. Fire and Life Safety compliance 4. Structural Condition S. Mechanical and Electrical Condition 6. Seismic(Earthquake) Evaluation 7. No extensive testing or engineering analyses have been conducted Existing Police Department Building: 1. The overall condition of the exterior and Interior of the building Is good with no significant degradation noted except that the existing roofing material should be replaced. 2. The building configuration is four-square at BIY per side(6,400sf),one story, with building services In an accessible attic. Expansion of the building can occur into the existing parking lot. Additional parking can be added adjacent to the existing parking lot. 3. The building floor plan design provides for three exits and is generally in compliance with the building code. The building was originally constructed to meet one hour fire rating standards and appears to still be In general compliance. The building does not have a fire alarm system,only some stand alone smoke detectors. 4. The structural system is a combination of reinforced concrete masonry and wood shear walls. The roof Is a wood beam and rafter system with a wood panel diaphragm. The general structural elements exposed to visual observation appear in sound condition. 5. The mechanical system,fixtures and equipment,have not been well maintained and are In fair condition,are of inconsistent equipment types and have generally outgrown their 25 year life expectancy. The Electrical system is In satisfactory condition. To meet the requirements for a °Critical Operations Power System"changes in the system will required. Duct work and light fixtures are not seismically braced. 6. For Seismic evaluation a FEMA 154'Rapid Visual Screening"was conducted. A structural"Score" (which Indicates the likelihood of collapse)of 2 or lower generally indicates the structure has a greater than i in 100 probability of collapse and that a detailed evaluation should be performed. The Visual Screening assessment results allowed a Score of 2.2 and a detailed evaluation is not a high priority. There are Issues of the building construction that will require assessment and redesign to meet standards. A code mandated seismic upgrade to the existing building would be a function of its proximity and connection to the new addition and to the extent the addition Increases loads to the existing structure. The Police Department Building is defined by code as an "essential facility"and is currently considered an Occupancy IV by virtue of Its °grandfathered° use. There is no code requirement to upgrade the existing building because there is no occupancy change. The new addition will be required to meet current codes. The level of seismic improvement to the existing building will be based on the desires of the owner for an Improved seismic structure and the proximity and connection to the new addition. 14Q 1 fthWW PCOW mro Excellence through Partnerships The "Grove " 1. The overall condition of the exterior and Interior of the building is good with no significant degradation noted. 2. The building configuration is rectangular and averages 100'x 80'(8,380 true),one story,with building services In an accessible attic. Expansion of the building can occur to the north and east Into existing exterior storage areas. Additional parking can be added to the north and east and some of the existing parking in place to the west will need. 3. The building floor plan design Is consistent with current codes for exiting and general compliance. The building Is constructed as a one hour fire rated structure and has a manual fire alarm system. 4. The structural system is a combination of reinforced concrete masonry and wood shear walls. The roof is a conventional framed beam and i-)olst rafter system. The building was constructed In 1997 and is generally detailed as expected in a modern seismic design. S. All systems and components of the mechanical system appear to be functioning normally. The electrical system is satisfactory. To meet the requirements for a "Critical Operations Power Systems changes in the electrical system will be required. 6. for Seismic evaluation a FEMA 154"Rapid Visual Screening°was conducted. A structural °Score" (which indicates the likelihood of collapse)of 2 or lower generally Indicates the structure has a greater than 11n 100 probability of collapse and that a detailed evaluation should be performed. The visual Screening assessment results allowed a Score of 4.9 and a detailed evaluation is not a high priority. There are some connection Issues of the building construction that will require assessment and redesign to meet standards. A Police Department Building is defined by code as an Occupancy Category IV (essential facility). The Grove is an Occupancy Category H. The change in occupancy will require a seismic upgrade of the building to the higher seismic design standard. Additionally,seismic upgrades would also be a function of the proximity and connection of the proposed addition. The new addition will be required to meet current codes. Straus 4albwt DU Group -- —--- -----""ir ArtMmtwral Ddp SaAm -----—— - �01 Mhum Panto 0"Mun M 4► ProJeet am 2019-10 Ashland Police Facility Preliminary Staffing Position List- Now and Immediate Future This departmental area list will be the backbone of the facility space list. Please list existing positions and future positions which are planned for the next(5) years or upon the new facility completion. For instance if the department has Y number of investigators, list those and if one is planned to be added, list that position in the future column. By Department Position Title Current FTE Future FTE 100- Public 200-Administration Police Chief 1 Deputy Police Chief 1 Administrative Sergeant 1 Administrative Assistant 1 300- Investigation Detective Sergeant 1 Detectives 4 Investigations Clerk .5 400- Patrol Patrol Sergeant 4 Patrol Officers 13 2 Traffic Officer 1 Central Area Patrol 1 School Resource Officer 0 1 Community Service Officer 1 500- Booking 600- Evidence Evidence Technician 1 700-Training 800—Staff Support Records Supervisor 1 Records Clerk 3 Volunteer Coordinator .3 900- Building Systems 1000—Site Total Current FTE Positions 34.8 Total with Future Positions 37.8 Ashland Police Department Functional Space Program & SPACE �r QTY NS SF F Remarks 71 110 WeatherVesti6rde 1 65 65 120 Public Lobby 1 200 200 121 Public Display Case,In Lobby 1 130 Public Restrooms,Supportng M.P.Room 2 50 100 140 Finger Print 1 65 65 150 Janitor 1 30 30 160 Interview 1 120 120 170 Vending,2 Units In M.P.Room 1 - 171 Community RoomEoUrraining 1 1,2D0 1,200 172 M.P/iraining&latohenette 1 120 120 Subtotal 1,900 Departments!Grossing Factor 1.25 2375 : . 210 Chief of Poke 1 160 160 211 Deputy Police Chief f 120 120 212 Administrative Sargent 1 120 120 220 Commun0y Outreach h 1 120 120 221 Volunteer Coordinator(3b)+3 Vahmtaers 4 50 200 i FTE et.3 _ 230 Admin.Services Manager/Bus.Files 1 200 200 240 Records Supervisor office T 120 120 241 Records Clarke 3: 50 150 250 Receptimisfl perk 7 50 50 260 Reception Counter 1 0 270 Acth a Records In Clark Area 1 0 - 280 Arddred Records 1 200 200 281 Adminlstrailve Storege 1 120 12D 282 WOrkrcom,Print 1 120 120 Subtotal 1,680 {LL{ �[��[����-,�jjii Departments!Grossing Factor 1.25 2100 C W ff A 310 Private Entry 320 InvestlgalloNSforag&safe 1 50 50 330 Deter Open Office Workstations ( 4; 65 280 340 Detective Sargent,Closed Olflce ;-,. 1 ' 100 100 350 Investigations Clerk Workstation(.5fte) 1 50 50 300 Case RowdCoMerenceltrrteMew 1 120 120 370 Active Has (In locked wokk stollen files) - twbtotal 580 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 725 Straus and Seibert/DLR Group Revised 7-14-2011 1 Ashland Police Department Functional Space Program 410 Weather Vestibula/StaflEntry 1 .65 65 s 420 Charging Case SmregeblaOlForms 1 60 60 430 NOW Roan 1 300 300 431 Brkdng'Sbmge 1 50 50 433 Muster Display,Glass Cabinet 1 440 Pabd Sergerb f 4' ._ 65 260 441 TMft 011 1 65 65 442 Central Area Patrol 1 65 55 443 School Resource Off oar 1 65 65 450 Patrol Reporting Stations 4 30 120 451 Patrol Oliioas -:f5: 0 - 460 Amnory/Ammo. 1 100 100 470 PabolEgwi:awtStorage 1 120 120 Subtotal 1,270 DepaMientel Grossing Factor 125 1,588 volffiffim ., 510 Vehicular Sally Yard 1 511 Vehicular Wily Port,two vehicles 2 520 Booking Counter 1 40 40 521 Offender Processing Area 1 100 100 530 Bmatlr Mw Room,Hard Interview 1 65 65 540 Had MrA w&hold 1 65 65 550 Obsevdm Window,from patrol o8lde area 1 - 560 Offender Tonet 1 50 50 570 Storage Closet or Cabinet 1 20 20 Subtotal 340 Deparanentsl Gmsshg Factor 1.25 425 B wem a Aw•ae 810 Receiving Bag and Tag/Rd%eralor 1 65 65 811 Evidence Lockers,Various sizes 12 1 12 820 Receiving,Processing Work Mellon 1 65 65 S30 Evidence Storage,SaldRehigeralor 2 300 600 640 Drying Room 1 20 20 850 Evidence Technician Workstation I 1 . 50 50 660 Large Evidence Transfer desk(m ffKb) 1 ._ 661 Large EvWW Property Saeae(remote) 1 Sublotal 812 'gam� Departrnentsl Grossing Fedor 1.25 1d 1,015 710 Trainbg Room Storage 1 . 120 120 Subtotal 120 Deparbrrental Grossing Factor 1.25 150 Straus and Seibert/DLR Group Revised 7-14-2011 2 Ashland Police Department Functional Space Program NS.aGft,�WE ANS!GN 810 W.Locker Room,12 lockers 1 300 300 820 M.Looker Room,20lockers 1 400 400 830 Break 1 240 240 831 IGtchenetts 1 20 20 832 Vending,2 Units 2 10 20 831 Break Pallo,Farior and Prhracy Fenced 1 Subtotal 980 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 1225 9� 0,0Z QTY SF NSF © :Q SIGN 910 Mechanical Room,Ind.Small Shop Area 1 130 130 911 Electrical Room 1 100 100 912 IT 1 60 60 913 Radio Room/Security 1 40 40 914 Emergency Power,Fenced or Enclosed 1 - Srmtotal 330 Departmental Grossing Factor 1.25 413 �'I�Q Q'tY SF NSF C�®k� EXPANS N 1010 Security Fence at parking 1020 Patrol Parking 1030 Staff Parking Subtotal Departmental Grossing Factor - Subtotal Departments!Grossing Factor 10,015 Gross Building Area 1.15 11,517 Straus and Seibert/DLR Group Revised 7-14-2011 3 SITE PLAN �'o ° 0 ® 14 1T Straus&SeRrert/DLR Group Architectural Design Services Ashland Police Department �''v Prolect No.2010-20 EXISTING 6,400 SF BUILDING IIL ewer PMI�10 F>� Pi119tII1P TWCFMWWAY.F. earn t4 i3� LOCI03it8$ 3WiY/ <M�8 t 7 �.. UM aiIDERE `" &�es*2 r + �' BU9D010 e0ly0gt?�t 900101Xn ;�' '_ MICYBIf;�• she R L• UtIMA s K 810RMiE� LOe6Y` `cOvm mm w. nRpiNF9 � AOIOl9'IRA7IVE RIXMI (Y� W4r VA Straus&Seibert/DLR Group Archit L*nl Design Services Ashland Poll®Department Projm No.207620 M 50 SF ADDITION FOR 9,550 SF AM �, ,. •, PAmaL �y� }Y 3 � �tt� � 81bjffi � �PA7RON . � 431 g50 , FXIBENO ! F 11RO�M61 �'1 � $t�attD04 OE1E471YE SERSE tf LOMBin E) WMWS BREAK L0a®rs i _�� 0�9 CASE 1 M01 VYO4f Hf017fQE 4 F2-821. 000M ARaov® I a- SECURES III I FMM 221 E2861 f-----1-- t01L NtR coon I i DEPIM WEATHER CHEF Ap@tRID S1P93 —1 I L47 1 I m °a.: VFSRBIRE 811 2401 I 12n A06W 0 2 S FOW 04 ,R ANT OUTREACH 80 2 Straus&Seibert/DLR Group i Architectural Des Services tt Ashland Police Depar6nent �, , Project No.2010-20 1 ,850 SF ADDITION FOR 11 ,400 SF _:,•gut � S .4 � 560' t�:.. _x COMMUN(fYl .'- iRAINVJO - cM ry, —VAULT wift- 6" IfIfCHFNETIE OOBi6R1 a 620 ` Al 65C !r EVD9ICF t 'rROpAg'�-a;:, •�• LOBBY 4W , 160 120 In 6ET6SINE �.... tiERf1EANT -- (SdOt um VYOMM UUM U)CM BREAK CABS [910 ® 1 R(�MM k MW T N610R UWJM vauxln ARC1N® 000161 RECD= i •2780 ! 1 PIU1T - =----T—� TOIL Cm i � amm 221 CtEIF mmm v1PA11m1 AOWN810 BIIP9i ,i iaefir VEUMU 1 ! 1 120, ANN ABWMT ROB B OUIRJIC11 ROOM (� 2ID 166 x212 [� 13388 J Mr J Straus&Seibert/DLR Ce p S- AmhltM=l Derilp Service, Ashlad Police Department V Project No.2010.20 EXISTING 6,400 SF FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT Elf GOVem PAN= EIOBT FARM TOPOFMW+BAFF. ROM VAULT tF.'IEGR4L8 ply .a we BEAU HERB WOMM I LOCIO3t9 ..�;,..n..� L00M III IbIm PAINE BUBDMO 9=119 BOOM K fM .YWIIOII E110FHC€: sFe ,u wa c �'"..',.��, 1 ARMORY '/ J , MM=OElEmwlV r B11HtV&'N ROOM r ,�.. 80011 V2 t&i16� RECEFFION MOM CSY BTORAOE SIF t LOBBY 77 MIME) WAl1I ARf1WE9 ROOM CHEF CDNRFD6OBM 3 CE 1 W- Straus&Seibert/DLR Group e�, Ardriteaiaal Design Sepias 1 Asfiland Police Deparbnent Proles No.2010.20 i PHASE ONE FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT PA7R0L 3 %WW" 18iu1 . .AMM' h t { ml BR9F .[wj" Bros BM eR�wc OfsTE1;Ti4E . SENOCANT 7Y� MEn ROIESIN LOCKWA U)CID:BB 750 BIM] 80061 Ulf,890 JNdIOR VYORK Mum I i PRHr cxm iffi MCFW® i ADIQ98ro EO 2411 i )� =v=emmu WO JAWTMrt f ROOY 98lGENrt oU1REACR ROOK 210 lea- M f7a Straus&Seibef/DLR Group Arddtecheal Design Services k®! Ashland PoliceDeparmret Project Na 2010-20 I • • • A A • I 11 [ 1 �rva© 1 ■■■ i �iuuo■i �.■.■■■■.■, oor Ill�llll�■■■•■E■■M, -� . ■ENOMON■E MEMMEMMEM EMMEEMENIN ap Gl: J u � 1400 OR OFFICE OFFICE TOUT OFFICE n —' MEN WOMEN CLASSROOM CLASSROOM -- I ENTRY I I 4 ENTRY — GYM STORAGE I f c RECORDING STUDIO L MTCMEN § LEGEND USING WALL WALL REMOVED �NEWWALL ALL ITEMS SHOWN DASHED ARE TO BE REMOVED. tim REFERS TO FUNCTTONk SPACE PROGRAM. RTO 480 100 300 tog 5 10, J29 EXIST WALL WITH CLERESTORYWINDOM J AND 47 HIGH ACCESS WALL STAIR r 1 IT E3 SECURITY E 3 v_r FENCF 153.I? AND ADDITION GATE f TgOL KY Omem EP Tim 30 DEPUTY CHIEF EVLD F2171 MENS WOMENS F kTR PATROL SRIEIRNG 60 SO REPORTING 611 47 F45-01 RED, L\ 650 PROCO SERV MG J ADMIN R 4,11 F6201 230- Pm, 4REW� PRINT OUfREACFI I 282 1 sm ,r2720 tz ADMIN Ez SARGEhrr RECORD z MULTHOURPOSE F2121 CLERKS E 471 PATIO F2 RE STOR dPRIVACY FENCI SUPER 12401 CONFERENCE' ROOM PUBLIC 138 LOBBY MEWS NO WALL REMOVED I WALL ALL r!g0SSHOVN DASHED ARE TOBEREMOVED. 2m _ 0 5 ERB TO FUNCTIONAL PACE PROGRAM. . to- 2v Straus Seibert Architects LLP 1175 East Main Street,Suite 2E Medford, Oregon 97504 PROJECT PROBABLE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date: October 10,2011 A ASHLAND POLICE EXISTING FACILITY REMODEL/ADDITION (3,000 +/-SF) ITEM SIZE RATE COST 1. Land Cost None 01 0 $0 [ OTAGLANDCOST 11. PROBABLE Construction Budget (Add 3,000 sf+/-to existing Police Facility) 9,400 $122.40 $1,150,556 (Includes seismic allowance,design contingency&index for one year)EXISTING FACILITY 0 6,400 sf CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,150,556 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $1,150,556 Owner rnntireep[y&Allrwvarre Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement(By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included in the above figure) 0.00% $0 Construction Contingency(Change Orders) 10.00% $115,056 TOTAL OWNER CONTINGENCY&ALLOWANCE $115,056 TOTAL PROBABLE:E DNSTRUCTION with Ctittti _ &5A11oWshgb 1 65 612: 111. PROBABLE ;;;;Prnent Cost Budget c Owner Project Administration 0,00% $0 Owner Construction Manager 0.00% $0 Owner C nsultants(Contracted by Owner) LEED Certification 0,00% $0 Commissioning Agent 0.00% $0 Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 Geotechmcal 0.30% $3,452 Special Inspections 1.00% $11,506 Total Owner Consultant Fees -.$14,957 Architectural/Ere nr esting Fees PreDesign Study,Schematic 1.41% $16,200 Design Development 1.58% $18,225 Construction Documents 3.52% $40,500 Bidding(In ADDITION to Contract) 0.44% $5,063 Construction Administration(In ADDITION to Comracq 1.85% $21,262 Basic Architecture/Engineering Fees 8.80% $101,250 C1Ihe r,an�,ltanr Fern Civil Engineering 023% $2,600 Fire Protection 0.26% $3,000 Communication/Security 0.56% $6,500 Landscaping 0.09% $1,000 Cost Estimating 0.30% $3,400 Total Other Consultant Fees 1.43% $16,500 TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINERING FEES 10.23% $117,750 Supplemental Services Contingency(%ofownercemin ..y&AOwaasa) $115,056 3.520/. - $4,050 Architect/Consultant Reimbursable(ravel,Pinne Povxgq Pd &Etc) 0.17% $2,000 Fctimated Covemmental Pmnits&Tres Han Review&Building Permits $21,822 Nanning site Review $4,542 System Development Charges(SDC) $22,712 BOLT Fee (Minkman Fee$250,Maximum Fee$7,50D) Calculated $1,265.61 0.001 $886 Total Governmental Permits and Fees $49,076 OTAL PROBABLE,:DEVELOPMENT COST - 16%' -087,83$.. TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT BUDGET(1,11,IIO $I t453,445 45 This esiemm e a P(621I4M pqm budge forplambigp rpmemly s ed mayvmy bamdm Bunt pqw pearxem. C.W1,14 MI 5tr ,&SNbvtIAmhN UP Straus Seibert Architect LLP 1175 East Main Street, Suite 2E Medford,Oregon 97504 PROJECT PROBABLE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date: October 10,2011 B ASHLAND POLICE EXISTING FACILITY REMODEL/ADDITION (2,000 +/- SF) ITEM SIZE RATE COST 1. Land Coat Node 01 0 $0 TOTAL LAND COST 11. PROBABLE Construction Budget (Add 2,000 s +/-to existing Police Facility) 2,000 $260.34 $520,688 (Includes design contingency&index for one year CONSTRUCTION COSTS $520,688 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $520,688 Owner Cnnfingmccy&Allowance , Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement(By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included in the above figure) 0.001y. $0 Construction Contingency(Change Orders) 10.00% $52,069 Total Owner Contingency&Allowance $52,069 rOTALPROBABLE CONSTRUCTION with _ &Allawarlibe $572.757 III. PROBABLE Development Cost Budget x Owner Project Administration 0.00% $0 Owner Construction Manager 0.00% $0 Owner Consultants(Contracted by Owner) LED Certification 0.0(1% $0 Commissioning Agent 0.00% $0 Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 C,eotechniml - 0.30% $1,562 Special inspections 1.00% $5,207. Total Owner Consultant Fees $6,769 Architectural/Fngineerinaw Fees . FteDesign Study,Schematic 0.88% $4,582 Design Development 1.94% $10,080 Construction Documents 3.52°* $18,328 Bidding(In ADDRION to Contract) 0.44% $2,291 Construction Administration(In ADDITION to Contract) 2.02% $10,539 Basic Architecture/Engineering Fees 8.80% $45,820 Other Consultant Fees Civil Engineering 1.04% $5,400 Fire Protection 0.19% $11000 C.ommunicatiorV Security 0.19% $1,000 Landscaping 0.58% $3,000 Cost Estimating 0.35% $1,800, Total Other Consultant Fees 2.34% $12,200 TOTAL ARCHITECTURAU ENGiNERING FEES 11.14% $58,020 Supplemental Services Contingency txcxov cmdnw"&Ali mat $52,069 3.52% $1,833 Architect/Consultant Reimbursable rrs,.et Kt Po M R.0%Ft) 0.19% $1 000 Estimated Governmental Pemrits P.Fees Plan Review&Building Permits $9,352 Planning site Review $1,947 System Development Charges(SDQ $9,733 BOLT Fee rAtnbs.Fm$254 At d..F.$7,so0) Calculated $572.76 0.001 $380 Total Governmental Permits and Fees $21,032 TOTALWOBABLE DEVELOPMENT COST'. :` " ' 17% ;,. ,$68.454.. _ ,. -dCanwumoii - TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT BUDGET(1,11,110 $661,41 Thx e&nooe 6*wma4W p ject hndW brpbnn to Pmprnes br urd my very bed m i ml prgm po mem,.. C.Wl&ht 2011 S s&Wwtl Amhi 0P Straus Seibert Architect LLP 1175 East Main Street,Suite 2E Medford,Oregon 97504 PROJECT PROBABLE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date: October 10,2011 C ASHLAND POLICE EXISTING FACILITY REMODEL/ADDITION (5,000 +/- SF) ITEM SIZE RATE COST 1. Land Cost None 01 0 $0 ITOTALLANDCOST " " H. PROBABLE Construction Budget (Add 5,000 Sf+/-to existing Police Facility) 11,400 $146.60 $1,671,244 (Includes seismic allowance,design contingency&index for one year)D(ISTING FACILITY a 6,400 sf CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,671,244 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $1,671,244 Owner C'nrtingeoI4&Allowance Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement(By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included In the above figure) 0.00% $0 Construction Contingency(Change Orden) 10.0D% $167,124 Total Owner Contingency&Allowance $167,124 E UTALIPROBABL CONSYRUC-T10N,_ . __ . ..&'ARaWance, , , .'u 1`838'68� 111. PROBABLE Development Cost Budget %dEW.Wk1 Owner Project Administration 0.00% $0 Owner Construction Manager 0.00% $0 Owner Cnnsultartc(Contracted by Owner) LEED Certification 0.00% _ $0 Commissioning,Agent 0.00% $0 Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 Geotechnical 0.30% $5,014 Special Inspections 1.00% $16,712 Total Owner Consultant Fees $21,726 ArrhlferhlmV F ginm^ro E PreDesign Study,Schematic 1.24% $20,782 Design Development 1.69% $28,305 Construction Documents 3.52% $58,828 Bidding(In ADDITION to Contract' 0.44% $7,354 Construction Administration On ADDITION to CAntraco 1.90% $31,801 Basic Architecture(Engineering Fees 8.80% $147,070 Other i2c m_iltant Fees - Civil Engineering 0.48% $8,000 Fire Protection 0.24% $4,000 Communication/Security 0.45% $7,500 Landscaping 0.24% $4,000 Cost Estimating 0.31% $5,200 Total Other Consultant Fees 1.72% $28,700 TOTAL ARCH ITECIURAVENGINERING.FEES - 10.52% $175,770 Supplemental Services Contingency f%ofower ccrdnprya AU. m) $167,124 3.52% - $5;883.: Architect/Consultant Reimbursable One(,nt.ne P.,LW ntnu.&Et4 0.18% $3,060 Estimated Gnvemmenml Permits&Fees Nan Review&Building Permits $31,174 Nanning site Review $6,489 System Development Charges(SDC) $32,445 BOLT Fee IAWbt.xn F s2sa Ah,amun rm s7,5m Calculated $1,838,371 0.001 $1,266 Total Governmental Permits and Fees $70,108 :$ a. . dfoim7i7 cU%on fTOTALPROBABLEDEVEPMENTCOST ' J' 487 4 x $276; sF,TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT BUDGET(1,11,Rq $2,114,855 Ibis.m�t.b.PmoRA pwimn.det.,P�+ep�mlyad "�ybadmiwlprx"apa„ms,. CnpyrlgM 2011 Strms 8 Sdbwi A.Wtws UP Straus Seibert Architect LLP 1175 East Main Street,Suite 2E Medford, Oregon 97504 PROJECT PROBABLE COST BUDGET SUMMARY for Date: October 10,2011 Q ASHLAND POLICE THE"GROVE" REMODEL/ADDITION (13,070 +/- SF) REM SIZE RATE COST I. Land Cosa None 0 0 $0 TOTAL LAND COST 11. PROBABLE Construction Bud t (Add 5,000 sf+/-to existing Police Facility) 13,070 $151.85 $1,984,741 (Includes seismic allrwance,design contingency&index for one year)EXISTING FACILITY 0 6,400 sf CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,984,741 TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET $1,984,741 (Tuner Cantinge 4&Allnavance Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement(By the City of Ashland) 0.00% $0 Design Contingency(Included in the above figure) 0.00% $0 Construction Conti (Change Orders) 10.00% $198,474. Total Owner Contingency&Allowance $198,474. TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION witli Conti - &'Allowatiee 15 111. PROBABLE Development Cost Budget x Comu"im B Owner Project Administration 0.00% $0 Owner Construction Manager 0.00% $0 _ Owner Consultant,(Contracted by owner) LEED Certification 0.00% $0 Commissioning Agent 0.00% $0 v Environmental-Lead&Asbestos Abatement 0.00% $0 Genhrhnlcal 0.30% $5,954 Special Inspections 1.00% $19,847 Total Owner Consultant Fees $75,802 Arch4erturaV Engineering Eves PreDesign Study,Schematic 1.05% $20,782 Design Development 1.43% $28,305 Construction Documents 2.96% $58,828 Bidding(In ADDITION to Contract 0.37% $7,354 Construction Administration On ADDITION to Contract) 1.60% $31,801 Basic Architecture)Engineering Fees 7.41% $147,070 Other Consultant Fees Civil Engineering 0.40% $8,000 Fire Protection 0.20% $4,000 Communicationt Security 0.38% $7,500 Landscaping 0.20% $4,000 Cost Estimating 0.26% $5,200 Total Other Consultant Fees 1.45% $28,700 TOTAL ARCHITECIURAU ENGINERING FEES 8.86% $175,770 Supplemental Services Contingencymotol,Cmdrwrwy&All.v.<d $198,474 2.96% $5,883 Architect/Consultant Reimbursable mms4 mere,pwmm Pori g,eU 0.15% $3,000 Fstimated Governmental Permits&Fees Plan Review&Building Permits $31,174 Planning site Review $6,489 System Development Charges(513C) $32,445 BOLT Fee IABnimum F.Wo,M w.Fe sy,soo) Calculated F77 $2,183.22 j 0.001 $1,266 Total Govemmental Permits and Fees $70,108 TOTAL PBOBABLE DEVELOPMEN 'COST' ; 14% $280;562 TOTAL PROBABLE PROJECT BUDGET(1,11,III) $2,463,778 T"eNmam b a PmOI&OU Ptom bdo far IWAndpuq�mly and may vary hued m Pouf pjmt panMarr. Copyrl&2011 Sm.6 Se'benl A,,h 2 LLP LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations Ashland Pence Facilities,9-12.11 Project Checklist 16 Sustalna�j@. _ �Possitile P,oinis_�2b__i �Mateflats and Reswfrces toMfliiie�l Y P ene i Constnxtlm Activity Pollution Prevention 1 creme. 1 Cr.mtt Site Selection Recycled Content 1 to 2 1 2 names Regional Materials 1to2 9 r4.eit z Development Density and Community Connectivity 5 x Cramt s Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 X Craan3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 1 cnmt7 Certified Wood 1 X credit 4.1 Alternative Transportatlon—Public Transportation Access 6 1 craa1t4.2 Alternative TremDOrtation—Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms 1 9 hidodr EnvlronmenteliQua Nty 3 Credit a Alternative Transportation—Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 3 2 cnmt4.4 Alternative Transportation—Parking Capacity 2 Y Preen t Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance 1 creme 5.1 Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat 1 Y Prep 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke(ETS)Control 1 credo 5.2 Site Development—Maximize Open Space 1 z coda i Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 x credit 6.i Stormwater Design—Quantity Control 1 1 Credit Increased Ventilation 1 x credit 6.2 Stormwater Design—Quality Control t t tread 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan—During Construction 1 1- cremt7.1 Heat Island Effect—Nonlroof 1 t credit 3.2 Construction IAQManagement Plan—Before Occupancy 1 1 credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect—Roof 1 1 credo 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials—Adhesives and Sealants 1 x ramta Light Pollution Reduction 1 1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials—Paints and Coatings 1 ,v_____ _ 1 tread 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials—Flooring Systems 1 ®water:Eftfcj2ncj! .. �___.7 POSSib1EPOintS 10' 1 Credit4.4 Low-EmtttingMaterials—Composite Wood andAgrlflberProducts 1 1 Craaa s Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 1 FPnnai Water Use Reduction-20%Reduction x crest 6.1 Controllability of Systerns—Lighting 1 2 credit 1 Water Efficient Landscaping 2 to 4 x Cnmt 6.2 Controllability of Systems—Thermal Comfort 1 x Credn2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 1 Credit Y.i Thermal Comfort—Design 1 2 Credn3 Water Use Reduction - 2 to 4 x Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort—Verification 1 _ x Cremta.i Daylight and Views—Daylight 1 ©EtleYgyafldAtmaspbsre Possi6te_Pofnt35; x c.ate.: Daylight and Views—Views 1 Prep i Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems 1 Innovatl(x3 afld' Process -_,� -eP1is'sible VO1M5:. 6__ Y Prep: Minimum Energy Performance Y Prase 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management creek i.i Innovation in Design: Specific Title 1 2 Creak 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 19 Dame i.2 Innovation in Design:Specific Title 1 3 Cr t 2 On-Sete Renewable Energy 1 to 7 credit 1.3 Innovation to Design:Specific Title - 1 x Crean 3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 creme 1.4 Innovation to Design:Specific Title 1 z Cremt4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 credal.s Innovation in Design:Specific Title 1 i creme s Measurement and Verification 3 t credn2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 2 C. 6 Green Power 2 3 Rsglonal Priority Cfedls ;;':;, . Possible Polnts:m 11 AAatel•Ialsprul.Reses"'urces- ."_ °' .: _Possi6tepoints_.,a14w"". 3 Creme 1.1 Regional Priority:Specific Credit 1 HC,Wft Prerp 1 Stora ge and Collection of Recyclables Credit 1.2 Regional Priority:Specific Credit creme 1.1 Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls,Floors,and Roof 1 to 3 cnmt 1.3 Regional Priority:Specific Credit weak l.2 Building Reuse—Malntam 5O%of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 creme l.4 Regional Priority:Specific Credit creme 2 Construction Waste Management 1 to 2 3 Materials Reuse 1to2 donned 4o eo 4o peinr. 611ver 3a to 59 p91nK cow aX m�o paned Piean�.n eo m n6 �-- CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Transit and RVTD Update Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: . Administration Secondary Contact: N/A Approval: Larry Patters Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to extend the current Fare Reduction Agreement with RVTD and continue the current low income transit pass program to June 30, 2012 and direct staff to negotiate a new three year reduced fare agreement with RVTD for Council consideration in May 2012? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council extend the current Fare Reduction Agreement with RVTD and continue the current low income transit pass program to June 30, 2012 and direct staff to negotiate a new three year reduced fare agreement with RVTD for council consideration in May 2012. Background: At the September 6, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council extended the current Reduced Fare Agreement with RVTD through December 31, 2011. In addition, staff indicated that two transit subcommittees, one with Councilor's Chapman and Silbiger and the other a subcommittee of the joint Transportation Commission and Planning Commission developed three alternatives to replace the current fare reduction program, those proposals were as follows: 1. Expand the current transit pass system and increase funding from $10,000 to $50,000 (a portion of the $50,000 to be used for staffing cost to administer the program) for: a) High School fixed-route passes b) Senor fixed-route passes c) Senior Valley Lift passes d) Fixed-route passes e) Valley Lift passes 2. Develop a 50% subsidized employee bus pass program for Ashland businesses including the City of Ashland. Staff recommends funding this project at $20,000, understanding that the details of the program will take time to develop and implement. 3. Locate and subsidize a local private shuttle that would provide service that incorporates hotels and motels. This particular recommendation will take a bit more time to fully develop, however staff supports this concept as this type of service could provide transportation services for the tourist industry which would reduce the amount of vehicular traffic in the downtown area. Page 1 of 4 I=, CITY OF ASHLAND At the October 3, 2011 Joint City Council and RVTD Board Study Session, the Council indicated support of a program that subsidized low-income riders. Following the October 3, 2011 meeting staff and the transit sub-committee began a more detailed evaluation of the sub-committee's proposal to expand the current low income subsidy bus pass program from $10,000 per year to $50,000 for: • High School fixed-route passes • Senor fixed-route passes • Senior Valley lift passes • Fixed-route passes • Valley lift passes One of the concerns related to the proposal to expand the low income bus pass program was the unknown amount of additional time it would take for staff to administer the new program. To that end, staff coordinated a meeting with members of the Department of Health Services (DHS), RVTD, Parks and Recreation, and the transit sub-committee to evaluate the potential staff and financial impacts of the proposed expanded program. DHS indicated a willingness to administer the fixed route and Valley Lift portion of the proposed program, eliminating the increased staffing costs for the City. However, it became clear, given that DHS has 1,800 eligible clients, the cost for DHS to administer the fixed-route and Valley Lift portion of the program could exceed the $50,000 allocated to the entire program. This realization caused staff to back off from the proposed expansion of the low income subsidy bus pass program and to reevaluate the current 50% reduced fare program with RVTD from a low income subsidy perspective rather than a program to increase ridership. With that perspective the annual cost of the existing 50% fare reduction for fixed route ($1 of the $2 fare) and Valley Lift ($2 of the $4 fare) provides a low income subsidy at an annual estimated cost of$76,000. In addition, continuation of the current fare reduction program provides long term continuity to the program that Ashland riders have come to expect. For clarity, the original three year RVTD reduced fare agreement with RVTD included a new Route 15. Route 15 was removed from the agreement at the September 6, 2011 City Council meeting as RVTD added two buses to Route 10 increasing the bus headway from 30 minute to 20 minutes. In addition to removing Route 15 the City Council extended the reduced fare agreement to December 31, 2011. Staff is now recommending that the Council extend the current reduced fare agreement with RVTD (without Route 15) thru June 30, 2012 (at an estimated cost of$110,000 for FY2012) and direct staff to negotiate a new three year reduced fare subsidy program agreement with RVTD at a cost not to exceed $80,000 per year. In addition to the fare reduction program, staff recommends continuing the established $10,000 per year low income subsidy program administered by the Parks and Recreation Department through their Senior Services program. The current transit FY 12 budget is approved at $272,000, so continuing the current fare reduction program minus Route 15 represents a $172,000 savings to the current budget. It is also important to remind the Council that the current transit fare reduction program is no longer eligible for Business Page 2 of 4 Mr, CITY OF -ASHLAND Energy Tax Credit (BETC) credits so 100% of all future program costs would come from street user fees. As a reminder the following graph demonstrates Ashland Ridership from 1997-2010: Ashland Ridership 1997-2010 160.000 140,000 120,000 &00,000 080,000 60,000 40,000 20.000 0 I � 0A A� 00 00 O^ O� 00 Ob O1 Oro 01 00 00' �0 ^N ,°j N N T ,y0 ,y0 ,ti0 rL0 �O ,y0 ,y0 ,LO IV JrtO 10 g Jac )ac )ac )ac lac )ac )ac )ac 1af' )f* )ac )P If' SP )ac Months and Year Total Ashland trips Rt 5&Rt 10-$0.25 Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10-Free Ashland Ridership on Rt 10,No Rt 5 Total Ashland trips Rt 10-$0.50 Total Ashland trips Rt 15&Rt 10-$1.00 As to the remaining new proposed transit subsidy programs recommend by the transit subcommittees, Council could direct staff to continue evaluating the following programs to determine if they could be implemented in the future. • Develop a 50% subsidized employee bus pass program for Ashland businesses including the City of Ashland. Staff recommends funding this project at $20,000, understanding that the details of the program will take time to develop and implement. • Locate and subsidize a local private shuttle that would provide service that incorporates hotels and motels. This particular recommendation will take a bit more time to fully develop, Page 3 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND however staff supports this concept as this type of service could provide transportation services for the tourist industry, thereby reducing the amount of vehicular traffic in the downtown area. Council Options: 1. The City Council could decide to extend the current transit reduced fare agreement with RVTD and continue the current $10,000 low income transit pass program to June 30; 2012 and direct staff to negotiate a new three year reduced fare agreement with RVTD not to exceed $80,000 per year for council consideration at their May 2012 meeting. 2. The City Council could decide to modify ( ) the transit subcommittees recommendations 3. The City Council could decide to end all transit subsidy programs and spend the funds on street maintenance projects. Potential Motions: 1. Move to a) Extend the current RVTD reduced fare agreement to June 30, 2012. b) Continue the current $10,000 transit bus pass program for qualifying Ashland residents.✓ c) Direct staff to negotiate a n three year reduced fare agreement with RVTD not to exceed $80,000 per year. 2. Move to modify ( ) staff recommendations. 3. Move to end all transit subsidy programs and reallocate funds on street maintenance projects. Attachments: FY 2009-11 Agreement between the City of Ashland and RVTD Page 4 of 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND AND THE ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT FOR REDUCED FARE PROGRAM 2009-2011 This Agreement is made and entered into this J-1 day of 2009 by and between ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, ffn Oregon special district, hereinafter referred to as "RVTD," and THE CITY OF ASHLAND, an.Oregon municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as"Ashland." RECITALS A. ORS 190.010 permits units of local govemment to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement has authority to perform; and B. The Rogue Valley Transportation District is an Oregon Special District providing transit services in Southern Oregon; and C. The City of Ashland desires to support RVTD's provision of transit services by, inter alia, subsidizing the cost of fixed route fares through a Reduce Fare Program;and D. The Reduced Fare Program furthers the public interest by making efficient use of Ashland's transportation infrastructure, reducing greenhouse gases and promoting energy efficiency; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2. DURATION. [ORS 190.020(1)(e)]. The term of this Agreement shall commence and the agreement shall be effective on September 8, 2009 and after execution by both parties. The Agreement shall expire June 30, 2010 at 11:59 p.m., unless administratively extended in writing as provided for herein. The Ashland City Administrator may extend this Agreement twice, by twelve(12)months each extension, by indicating in writing to RVTD that an extension of the Agreement is sought under the same terms and conditions, of this Agreement. Provided however, that the rate of compensation set forth in paragraph 4 below is subject to a mutually agreed upon adjustment. The extension shall be effective only upon receipt of a document from an authorized RVTD representative consenting to the extension under the same terms and conditions 3. RVTD FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES:[ORS 190.020(1)]. a. PROGRAM. RVTD shall provide transportation services consistent with its mission, including but not limited to the Reduced Fare Program (hereinafter Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 1 of 7 "Program") as well as other services paid for by the City; the Program includes but is not limited to the following: i. the addition of Route 15, providing 15-minute fixed-route service between the downtown, Ashland St, Tolman Creek Rd and Highway 66/Siskiyou Boulevard; and ii. concomitant Valley Lift service; and iii. reduced fares for Route 10 and Route 15 rides and for concomitant Valley Lift rides. iv. Route 10 service is Ashland's base service provided by RVTD,and its operation(with the exception of fare reduction outlined in this Agreement) is not affected by the Program or this Agreement. v. The City-funded passenger fare subsidy for the fixed route system (Routes 10 and 15)will be$1.00 per ride and the Valley Lift fare subsidy will be$2.00 per ride for passengers picked up and delivered within the City of Ashland. vi. RVTD will provide the City with quarterly ridership accountings showing total Route 10 ridership on Route 10 within the City of Ashland, ridership on Route 15 and Valley Lift ridership within the City of Ashland. vii. In the event that the$251,797 annual allotment from the City will be/becomes exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year,the Program for that fiscal year will end and fixed route and Valley Lift paratransit fares will revert to standard RVTD fares for the balance of the fiscal year. b. LIVING WAGE. RVTD shall comply with Chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal code by paying a living wage, as defined in City Code to all employees performing work under this Agreement and to any subcontractor Who performs 50%or more of the service work under this Agreement. RVTD is also required to post the code required living wage notice predominantly in areas where all employees will see it. c. ACCESS TO RECORDS: The City and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to the records of RVTD and any subcontractors which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts. d. PUBLICITY. i. Any publicity or advertising regarding the Program shall first be reviewed by RVTD and the City for accuracy and must be approved by both parties. ii. RVTD shall establish a marketing plan for a Loop system or any fare changes with through local resources. RVTD will do the following: 1. Replace the removed placards in the shelters; and Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 2 of 7 2. Update the information on all placards with new routetschedule information; and 3_ Provide free bus advertising space on one vehicle; and 4. Continue to promote Ashland's system at local events; and 5. RVTD will post a map and schedule at each designated bus shelter in Ashland detailing the Route 10 and Route 15 bus stops and schedule; and rodtG 6. RVTD will provide information concerning and m m ot,the Ashland Reduced Fare Program and service, at events, at map/schedule distribution points, and at www.rvtd.org. iii. In partnership with the City of Ashland , RVTD will do the following: .1. Create a tri-fold specific to the Ashland system and distribute to local businesses; and 2. Distribute promotional information through utility bill stuffers; and 3. Coordinate a public relations event to launch the new service; and 4. Approach SOU Administration to request ongoing support of a fare buy-down; and 5. Approach the Chamber of Commerce and local employers to encourage employees to use transit,especially in downtown; and 6. Create a bus ad to utilize free ad space offer from RVTD. e. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. RVTD, its subcontractors, and all employers working under this Agreement must comply with Oregon State Laws related to the work perforated including but not limited to laws conceming workers compensation, employment, payroll taxes and required insurances for general liability for loss of property, injury to persons and property. City may require RVTD to demonstrate compliance with applicable insurance requirements, including but not limited to proof of coverages. 4. CITY FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)]. The City of Ashland shall fund the Reduced Fare Program as provided herein and subject to Section 9. Specifically the City shall offset the cost of the fixed-route fares within the City and support more frequent service as outlined under PAYMENT in paragraph 5 below. 5. PAYMENT. [ORS 190.020(1)(a)]. Subject to Section 9, below, City shall promptly pay all bills for services provided by RVTD pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to the following: a. RVTD shall bill the City quarterly$1.00 for each Route 10 passenger picked up and delivered in the City of Ashland during the term of this Agreement. b. RVTD will bill the City416,028.25 per month minus the Route 15 farebox revenue for that month. Imergovemmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 3 of 7 c. RVTD will bill the City quarterly$2.00 for each Valley Lift ride within the City during the term of this Agreement. In addition, City will pay RVTD a fixed amount per Valley Lift ride to cover operating costs for providing Valley Lift rides in Ashland to the extent they exceed 9,800 rides in the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 and to the extent Valley Lift rides in Ashland exceed 9,800 rides per year in each this Agreement is extended. The amount City will pay to cover operating costs for Valley Lift rides in excess of the 9,800 annual Valley Lill rides in the City shall be$18.31 per ride. d. With the exception of Route 15 which shall be billed monthly as noted above, RVTD will bill the City as provided in this section. Specifically, RVTD will send the City invoices on the following schedule: i. October 15, 2009 (services provided 9/8/2009 to 9/30/2009) ii. January 15,2009 (services provided 10/1/2009 to 12/30/2009) iii. April 15, 2010(services provided 1/1/2010-to 3/28/2010) iv. July 15, 2010 (services provided-4/1/2010 to 00/2010) e. Payment is due to RVTD within 30 calendar days of receipt of each invoice. 6. REVENUE. [ORS 190.020(1)(b)]. Except where specifically provided herein to the contrary, no revenues expected to be derived pursuant to this Agreement need to be apportioned between the parties. 7. PERSONNEL. [ORS 190.020(1)(c)]. No employees will be transferred pursuant to this Agreement. RVTD and the City of Ashland are subject employers under ORS Chapter 656, and shall procure and maintain current valid workers compensation insurance coverage for all subject workers throughout the period of this Agreement. This Agreement does not change the status of any employee, contractor or officer of the respective entities. 8. REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. [ORS 190.020(1)(d)]. There shall be no transfer of title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this Agreement. 9. TERMINATION. [190.020(1)(f)]. a. TERMINATION by Mutual Consent: This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. b. TERMINATION for Convenience: This Agreement may be terminated by either party for that party's convenience upon thirty days prior written notice to the other party,'delivered by certified mail or in person. . RVTD shall be compensated for all services performed under this Agreement up to the effective termination date. c. TERMINATION for Default or Breach: Either RVTD or City may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 4 of 7 entirely cured the breach within thirty(30)days of the date of the notice,or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. Notwithstanding the cure provisions above,either party may immediately terminate this Agreement for cause upon delivery of written notice to the other party under any of the following conditions: i. If Federal or state'laws, rules or regulation are modified,changed or interpreted in such a manner that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate under this Agreement; ii. If any license or certification required by law or regulation required for the provision of the services under this Agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. OBLIGATION/LIABILITY OF PARTIES: Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections A, B, and C, above, shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. The rights and remedies of the parties provided in this subsection are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. NON-APPROPRIATION: Notwithstanding the termination provisions above, termination may occur for non-appropriation. Specifically,all City obligations to expend money under this Intergovernmental Agreement are contingent upon future appropriation as part of the City budget process and local budget law,and the failure of the Council and Budget Committee to make the appropriation shall necessarily result in termination of the Agreement, and shall not be considered a breach. f FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be responsible for delay or default caused by fire,flood, riot, acts of God, and/or war which are beyond the party's reasonable control.RVTD may terminate this Agreement by written notice after determining such delay or default will reasonably prevent successful performance of this Agreement. 10. HOLD HARMLESS. To the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims 'Act, RVTD shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Ashland from any and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage that anyone may have or assert by reason of the any error, act or omission of RVTD, its officers, employees and agents, in the performance of their duties under the terms of this Agreement. It is further agrees and understood that neither party is, by virtue of this Agreement, a partner or joint venturing with the other party and neither party shall have any obligation with respect to the other party's debts or liabilities of whatever kind or nature. If any aspect of this indemnity shall be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification. 11. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS, AND MAKING PAYMENTS. All notices, bills, and payments shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices, bills, and payments sent by mail should be addressed as follows: Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 5 of 7 City of Ashland Attn: Martha Bennett City Administrator 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Phone: 541-488-2100 Fax: 541-552-2092 RVTD Attn: .Accounts Receivable 3200 Crater Lake Avenue Medford, OR 97504-9075 Phone: (541) 608-2431 and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made to the names and addresses of the person to whom notices, bills, and payments are to be given by providing notice pursuant to this paragraph. 12. NON-DISCRIMINATION. Each party agrees that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, or age, suffer discrimination in the performance of this agreement when employed by either party. Each party agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Section V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and with all applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. Additionally, each party shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-336), ORS 659.425, and,all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to those laws. 13. ATTORNEY FEES. . In the event an action, lawsuit or proceeding, including appeal there from, is brought for failure to fulfill or comply with any of the terms of this agreement, each party shall be responsible for their own attorney fees, expenses, costs and disbursements for said action, lawsuit, proceeding or appeal. 14. NO WAIVER. The failure by any party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by that party of that provision or of any other provision of this Agreement. 15. SEVERABILITY. Should any provision or-provisions of this Agreement be construed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid or unenforceable, such construction shall affect only the provision or provisions so construed, and shall not affect, impair or invalidate any of the other provisions of this Agreement which shall remain in full force and effect. 16. HEADINGS. The headings of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to construe or interpret any provisions of this Agreement. Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 6 of 7 17. APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 18. ASSIGNMENT/DELEGATION. RVTD shall not delegate the responsibility for providing services hereunder to any other individual or agency. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights granted by this Agreement may be assigned or transferred by either party. 19. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY. Neither the Federal Government, nor any other entity other than the parties named herein are parties to this Agreement and shall have no obligation to any third party. 20. AMENDMENT. The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented or amended in any manner whatsoever without prior written approval of RVTD and the Cily. To be effective, any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and must be signed by authorized representatives of both parties. 21. MERGER. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. 22. BINDING EFFECT. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each of the parties and each of their respective administrators, agents, representatives,successors and assigns. i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two (2)duplicate originals, either as individuals, or.by their officers, thereunto duly authorized. Dated this 4th day of August 2009. ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTICT CITY OF ASHLAND By By Julie Brown John 4tjomberg General Manager Mayor Reviewed as to form: Reviewed as to form: By By David Lohman Richard Appicello Legal Counsel for RVTD City Att Date: Date: r u Intergovernmental Agreement For Reduced Fare Program Page 7 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Buildable Lands Inventory Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman Department: Community Deve pment E-Mail: goldmanb @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Larry Patte Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Question: Will Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to Adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as Supporting Documentation to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan"? Recommendations: The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Buildable Lands Inventory(BLI) at a study session on August 24, 2011, held a public hearing on September 13, 2011, and following public testimony and deliberations the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance and adoption of the Buildable Lands Inventory. Staff recommends the Council adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as a supporting technical document to Chapter XII of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Background: The City Council held a public hearing on this topic at the October 18, 2011 regular meeting. The public hearing on this item is now closed. The purpose of updating the "Buildable Lands Inventory" (BLI) is to quantify the amount of vacant and underdeveloped land in the City of Ashland. The updated BLI and associated Geographic Information System (GIS) database provide a detailed inventory of residential, commercial and employment lands. The BLI consists of a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database that quantifies buildable areas for all tax lots within the City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The attached technical report and associated BLI GIS Database describe: • the aggregate buildable area of parcels within each comprehensive plan designation; • allowable base densities by zone or comprehensive plan designation; • projected population growth and household size; • the size and locational characteristics of each parcel within the City's UGB; • the capacity of each parcel to accommodate future dwellings; and • the cumulative buildable acreage by zoning and comprehensive plan designation. The information assembled and presented in the BLI provides geographically based information regarding the capacity of potential future development locations. This BLI information is integrated into a number of City plans and functions including: • Provides a factual basis to assist in evaluating land use applications relating to annexation and or zone changes; Page ) of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND • Provides information useful to implementing economic development strategies (Economic Opportunities Analysis forecasting, business land searches, etc); • Provides necessary information to compare land availability with projected land needs in a Housing Needs Analysis; • Provides a basis for modeling future traffic generation and transit opportunities (Transportation System Plan and individual traffic studies); • Informs the Water Master Plan, and utility installation efforts to ensure new facilities are sized to accommodate future growth at installation; • Assists the Fire Department in weed abatement and hydrant testing prioritization efforts; • Informs Parks Master Planning efforts to identify future growth areas and neighborhood parks and greenway opportunities. In 1999, the City of Ashland prepared a Buildable Lands Inventory. In January 2005, the BLI was updated. The attached 2011 BLI has been updated to reflect all land availability for both residential and commercial lands current as of July 2011. In order to allow the Buildable Lands Inventory GIS database to be more regularly updated the ordinance presented for consideration includes a provision allowing future updates of the BLI to be approved by Resolution of the City Council. This provision will enable staff to more readily update the BLI and present the revised technical document to the City Council reflecting consumption of buildable land by development, and redevelopment, through the issuance of building permits as well as to make modifications to reflect any changes in residential development potential due to land use or zone changes as approved by ordinance by the City Council Related City Policies: Comprehensive Plan Chapter XII of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix A entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents" Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter ALUO 18.108.170— Procedure for Legislative Amendments. Council Options: Approve or disapprove the proposed ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the BLI as a supporting technical document. Potential Motions: Move to approve second reading of the ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive plan to adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as a supporting document. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Exhibit A - Buildable Lands Inventory Exhibit B—Comprehensive Plan Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents PA#2011-01001 Application Page 2 of 2 C.\ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY AS A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the urbanization of land within the urban growth boundary which are based upon the available inventories of specific land classifications. WHEREAS, in 1999, the City of Ashland passed Resolution 1999-058 which adopted the 1998- 99 Buildable Lands Inventory as the official inventory in support of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and established the methodology for conducting an inventory of available land. WHEREAS, the Buildable Lands Inventory adopted in 1999, and updated in 2005, does not reflect development that has occurred subsequent to its adoption date. WHEREAS, the Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) reflects the supply of developable land within the Ashland City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary based upon specific land classification and constraints to development current as of April 1, 2011. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public Pagel of 3 hearing on September 13, 2011 and, following deliberations, unanimously recommended approval of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents" is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. Previously added support documents are acknowledged on this Appendix. SECTION 3. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory, (2011)," attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference is hereby added to the above-referenced Appendix to support Chapter XII, [URBANIZATION] the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory," maybe updated by Resolution of the City Council to account for consumption of buildable land by development, and re-development, as reflected in the issuance of Building Permits by the City. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. Page 2 of 3 The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Buildable Lands Inventory _ rIIIIII�IIII � �__ 2011 Prepared by the City of Ashland D-.. Development City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 2071 Updated AUgu5t.2gtt CITY OF ASHLAND 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory Update The purpose of conducting an update of the"Buildable Lands Inventory"(BLI) is to quantify the amount vacant and underdeveloped land available within the political boundaries of . the City of Ashland(City Limits,Urban Growth Boundary, and specific zones). In combination with a Housing Needs Analysis, and an Economic Opportunities Analysis, a BLI allows a community to determine whether or not there exists an adequate supply of buildable land to accommodate future housing and business development. If it is determined that future population growth or economic development will require more buildable land than is available, the community's governing bodies can make informed decisions, and implement appropriate measures to provide for the unmet housing and commercial land needs. In correlating the land availability component of a Buildable Lands Inventory to expected population growth, and economic development forecasts, the community can determine if the UGB contains enough land to satisfy demand for a minimum of 20 years. In order to complete a detailed assessment of whether the supply of available residential land is sufficient to accommodate each needed housing types through the planning period, a Housing Needs Analysis is necessary to determine precisely what mix of housing types will be needed. The City did not complete a Housing Needs Analysis as part of this BLI, but will complete such an analysis within the year. The City adopted an Economic Opportunities Analysis in 2010 which provides an estimate of demand for commercial and employment lands through the year 2057. In completing this 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory update the City has now established methods which will enable efficient updates of the BLI. On regular basis the City can now map and calculate available lands in consideration of recent building permit activity- City of Ashland Buildable Lands 0 11 Land Availability In order to determine the actual amount of land available within Ashland's UGB, the 2005 Buildable Lands Inventory Geographic Information Systems (GIS)database and map was used as a primary reference. Aerial photos (taken in June of 2010), the City of Ashland Geographic Information System, and Jackson County Assessor's data(SmartMap.org)were each used to closely examine properties designated as available to identify physical constraints to development and future development potential. Building Permit data, current as of March 31, 2011, was evaluated to map all residential development that had occurred since January 1, 2005, and all commercial development that had occurred since Jan 1, 2001. The purpose for joining the building permit data with the Assessor's data and the City's GIS was to ensure an accurate accounting of lands represented as"vacant" in the Assessor's records, but for which building permits had already been issued. Properties that had received Planning approval for development, but have yet to obtain building permit approval are counted as buildable in this assessment of availability. A parcel specific examination of property considered vacant,partially vacant, or redevelopable, yielded a percentage of each lot that would be suitable for further development. This percentage, multiplied by the parcels gross acreage, was used to determine the `net' buildable acres on each parcel. To verify the accuracy of the draft BLI map, staff conducted site visits to numerous areas throughout the City that had experienced significant development since 2001. The `ground truthing', and examination of an aerial photograph taken in June of 2010, allowed for refinement of the BLI to appropriately represent the consumption of property within the City. The following definitions were used in evaluating land availability: "Buildable Land"means residentially and commercially designated vacant,partially vacant, and, at the option of the local jurisdiction, re-developable land within the urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards(Statewide Planning Goal 7)or subject to natural resource protection measures(Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Land with slopes of 35 percent or greater and land within the 100-year flood plain also were not considered buildable in conducting this BLI. For the purposes of the updating the Buildable Lands Inventory"redevelopable lands" were not included as net buildable area. This is consistent with the methodology used in the 1999 and 2005 Buildable Lands Inventories as in most circumstances "redevelopment" functions to merely replace one structure with a new one satisfying the same use and as such does not represent new development capacity. Properties considered`redevelopable"under the definition provided below that otherwise had further development potential were included instead in the"partially vacant"category in order to capture that net buildable land area. Vacant: Vacant lots were those parcels that were free of improvements(structures)and were available for future residential or commercial development. Alternative designations were assigned to those parcels that, although physically vacant, were not considered Ashland City of Buildable Lands Inventory 201 f k x . suitable for residential or commercial development. Vacant/Undevelopable = Unbuildable acres include vacant areas: 1)with slopes in excess of 35% 2)within the flood way 3)within the 100 year flood plain 4)in resource protection areas Vacant/Airport= land reserved for Ashland Municipal Airport expansion Vacant/Open Space-Parks=land reserved as parks and open space Vacant/Parking=Paved parking lots Partially Vacant: Partially vacant lots were determined to have buildable acreage if the lot size was equal to,or greater than, the minimum lot size requirements set for residential density [in each zone]. In Commercially zoned lands those parcels with additional undeveloped land area yet containing a building on a portion of the property were likewise considered partially vacant. Collectively these partially vacant parcels account for a considerable amount of Ashland's future land supply. For example a five-acre parcel occupied by only one home is considered partially vacant, however the percentage of land that is available may be 80%due to the location of the existing home. Thus in this hypothetical example, the partially vacant property would yield four acres of net buildable land. Redevelopable Redevelopable property is defined as one in which the property's improvements (structures on the property) are worth less than 30%of the combined value of the improvements and the land. For example, were a building valued at $100,000 located on a property with a land value of$300,000 this property would be mathematically defined as redevelopable: $100,000/($100,000+$300,000)=25% Within Ashland, the high land cost relative to the building valuations makes this calculation less of an indicator of supply of land for future housing and commercial land needs, however in mapping such properties utilizing the Jackson County Assessors Department's Real Market Values(RMV) for Land Value (LV) and Improvement Value(IV)the City was better able to identify those properties that were underdeveloped and more appropriately defined as Partially Vacant. Residential Density Density of potential residential development was determined by referencing the City's Comprehensive plan. The number of dwelling units allowed per acre, for each zone, includes accommodations for public facilities. The density allowance coefficient(ie. "13.5" du per acre in R-2)was initially determined to include accommodations for needed public facilities land, thus a"gross buildable acres"-to-"net buildable acres" reduction, for public facilities, has been omitted. City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 0 Table 1. Residential density assumptions: Zone =F� � •nsity R-1-3.5 7.2 units per acre Suburban Residential (SR),Townhouses, Manufactured Home R-1-5&R-1-5-P 4.5 units per acre Single-Family Residential (SFR) R-1-7.5&R-1-7.5-P 3.6 units per acre Single-Family Residential(SFR) R-1-10&R-1-10-P 2.4 units per acre Single-Family Residential(SFR) R-2 13.5 units per acre Multi-Family Residential(MFR) R-3 20 units per acre High Density Residential(HDR) RR-.5&RR-.5-P 1.2 units per acre Rural Residential, Low-Density(LDR) HC 13.5(as R2) Health Care/Senior housing WR Slope contingent Woodland Reserve,Environmental Constraints RRA 0.6 units per acre Rural Residential, Low-Density(LDR) Buildable Acres Within the following tables the amount of`net' buildable acres are provided for both the City Comprehensive Plan Designations, as well as the City zoning types. In aggregate there are approximately 620 net total acres of land within Ashland's UGB that is considered buildable. Within the City Limits alone there is approximately 374 net buildable acres that is considered developable. City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 201 1 .- Table 2 Total Buildable Acreage in each BLI Category 2. 1 Within Ashland's City Limits: Vacant 504 327.1 242.9 Partially Vacant 235 251.6 130.7 Vacant/Airport 8 71.2 Per Airport Plan Vacant/UnDevelopable 69 295.7 0.00(not buildable) Vacant/Open Space or Park 219 473 0.00 (not buildable) Vacant/Parking 57 14.8 0.00 (not buildable) 2. 2 Outside of Ashland's Ci Limits but within the UGB: Vacant 52 145.4 98.2 Partially Vacant 72 300.4 154 VacantlAirport 1 12.7 Per Airport Plan Vacent/UnDevelopable 10 12.6 0.00 (not buildable) Vacant/Open Space or Park 1 1.5 0.00 (not buildable) Vacant/Parking 3 5.5 0.00 (not buildable) 2. 3 All lots(UGS and City combined Buildable Gross Acreage Net Vacant 556 472.5 341.1 Partially Vacant 307 552 284.7 VacantlAirport 9 83.9 Per Airport Plan Vacant/UnDevelopable 79 308.3 0.00 (not buildable) Vacant/Open Space or Park 220 474.5 0.00 (not buildable) Vacant/Parking 60 20.3 0.00(not buildable) City of 0 .x Table 3.1 Buildable Acres within Ashland City Limits only Comprehensive P F--# of Parcels Airport 8 Per Airport Master Plan Commercial 47 14.4 Croman Mill 23 50.6 Downtown 17 2 Employment 88 51.9 HC 10 1.4 HDR 48 8.9 Industrial 3 4.7 LDR 83 38.1 MFR 109 13.2 NM 77 17.72 SFR 500 144.3 SFRR 3 2.1 SOU 19 19.5 Suburban R 27 0.7 Woodland 3G 4.3 Totals 1092 31,18- Build City of Ashland able Lands Inventory 20 1 1 .- Table 3.2 Buildable Acres outside of Ashland's City Limits but within the UGB: Airport 1 Per Airport Master Plan Commercial 5 1.4 Croman Mill 8 12.2 Downtown 0 0 Employment 26 53.2 HC 0 0 HDR 0 0 Industrial 3 7.4 LDR 0 0 MFR 6 17.6 NM 0 0 SFR 52 69.7 SFRR 24 45.9 SOU 0 0 Suburban R 23 41.6 Woodland 0 0 Totals 148 249 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 201 1 .- Table 3.3 Buildable Acres: UGB and City Limits combined fi=nsive Pl. # of Parcels Net Buildable=Accres Airport 9 Per Airport Master Plan Commercial 52 15.8 Croman Mill 31 62.8 Downtown 17 2 Employment 114 105.1 HC 10 1.4 HDR 48 8.9 Industrial 6 12.1 LDR 83 38.1 MFR 115 30.8 NM 77 17.7 SFR 552 214 SFRR 27 48 SOU 19 19.5 Suburban R 50 42.3 Woodland 30 4.3 Totals - 1240 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 201 1 Table 4: Buildable Acres by Zone within Ashland's City Limits onI #of Parcels Net Buildable Acres 11 (Vacant and Partially Vacant) C-1 47 14.4 C=1-D 17 2 CM 21 48.9 E-1 96 51.9 HC 10 1.4 M-1 5 6.5 NM 77 17.7 R-1-10 120 22.9 R-1-3.5 27 0.7 R-1-5 229 83.3 R-1-7.5 151 38.1 R-2 109 13.2 R-3 48 8.9 RR-.5 83 38.1 RR-1 3 2.1 sO 19 19.5 W R 30 4.3 Totals 1092 373.9 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 201 Future Land Needs Future Population The primary indicator of future residential land needs is the projected population growth. In combination with changes in the number of people per household, and the assumed vacancy rates for housing units, these factors can predict the number of total housing units needed. Jackson County's projection of very slow population growth for Ashland has been questioned in the 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis and by the City's planning staff. According to the County's 2006 population forecasts, Ashland would grow at an annual rate of only 0.32%. This rate is far less than historic growth rates, less than the County and State averages, and is less than the growth rate anticipated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan projects an approximate population growth rate of 0.75% annually, equating to approximately 187 new residents per year. Jackson County is currently in the process of revising its coordinated population estimates in part to adjust Ashland's growth rate to better reflect historic trends and expected growth. Table S. Po ulation Growth Proiections Total Avg. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Change WYr Oregon 3,831,074 4,095,708 4,359,258 4,626,015 4,891,225 1,060,151 1.22% Jackson County 203,206 223,464 238,865 253,881 268,385 65,179 1.40% Ashland 21460' 21915 22846 23781 24716 3256 0.75% Sources. US Bureau of Census;Jackson County;City of Ashland;Urban Lend Economics, 2010 PSU Population Estimate for City of Ashland Population forecasts for the State of Oregon, Jackson County and Ashland are shown above in . Table 5. Based on historic growth rates, as well as actual population increases since 2005,the City's forecast appears to be more reasonable than the County's original 0.32% allocated growth rate, and will thus be used in the analysis. Figure 1: Population Projection—City Comprehensive Plan 30000 27500 25000 22500 20000 17500 15000 12500 0 8 0 0 8 N N N N N N N N —Historic Population —Comprehensive Plan Projection City of Ashland - . - Lands Inventory 201 .. o Economic Opportunity Analysis The City of Ashland Economic Opportunities Analysis(EOA) was completed in April 2007 and adopted by the City Council in August 2010. The EOA includes an analysis of land availability and capacity for employment uses in Ashland. Section `V' of the EOA presents an analysis of potential growth industries and the overall employment forecast for Ashland. The EOA provides a comparison of land supply and need in terms of sites and acres. The EOA provided an estimated demand for employment land within Ashland's UGB by land use type, in both the 2007-2027 and 2007-2057 time frames as reflected in the Table below excerpted from the report. Table 6. Estimated demand for employment land in the Ashland UGB Land Need Total New Emp.On Emp.on Emp.Per Land Need (Gross Land Use Type Emp. Refill Land New Land Net Acre (Net Acres) Acres) 2007-2027 Retail and Services 890 178 712 17 41.9 55.8 Industrial 780. 156 624 12 52.0 69.3 Government 443 89 354 12 29.5 39.4 Total 2,113 423 1,690 123.4 164.6 2007-2057 Retail and Services 2,067 413 1,654 17 97.3 129.7 Industrial 1,032 206 826 12 68.8 91.7 Govemment 695 139 556 12 46.3 61.8 Total 3,794 379 3,415 212.4 283.2 Source:ECONorthwest(Ashland EOA, Table 11) Employment growth in Ashland is expected in the each of the categories defined by type of land use: Retail and Services, Industrial, and Government. There are a wide variety of firms within each of these categories, and the required site and building characteristics for these firms range widely. As such, a variety of parcel sizes,building types, and land use designations in Ashland are required to accommodate expected growth. The 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory shows that within the City Limits alone there is a net availability of nearly 125 buildable acres of land with a commercial designation(C-1, C-1-D, E-1, M-1, and CM). In examining all land within the UGB and City Limits with a comprehensive plan designation suitable for commercial development, the amount of employment lands available increases to approximately 199 net acres(exclusive of SOU and Airport lands). The current supply of developable commercial (ands is greater than the EOA projected land need of 123.4 net acres by the year 2027. Subsequent to the completion of the EOA, the City completed a substantial rezone and code amendments related to the future development of the Croman Mill District. A component of the Croman Mill Masterplan was an emphasis on increasing development intensity to accommodate a greater number of employees per acre than the prior industrial (M-1)classification would have provided. Central to the EOA's estimated non-residential land need shown in Table 8 above are assumptions regarding the expected number of employees per acre(EPA). This variable is City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventorya 'r. a defined as the number of employees per acre on non-residential land that is developed to accommodate employment growth. According to the EOA "There are few empirical studies of the number of employees per acre, and these studies report a wide range of results. The " employees/acre assumptions provided in the EOA reflect a judgment about average densities and typically reflect a desire for increased density of development." If the City's Master Planning efforts are successful at accommodating a higher number of employees per acre as is envisioned in the Croman Mill District Plan,the corresponding number of net buildable acres needed to accommodate future commercial development will be reduced proportionally. Additionally, increases in employment in many cases does not require consumption of vacant land. The EOA assumed that 20% of new employees would be located in residential areas as well as employment that locates on land that is already classified as developed. People per Household. The average household size is approximately 2.47 people per household(pph) for the State of Oregon as a whole. Ashland however has an average Household size of only 2.03 according to preliminary 2010 Census data. This difference in pph can be attributed to the large number of single person households within Ashland(37.7%). Roughly a third of these single occupant households are individuals 65 and over. A large senior and student population understandably increases the number of small households given these populations typically do not have children present in their homes. Figure 1. Elderly Population by Age Group, State of Oregon. 600.000 Forecast 500.000 ------------------------------------------------------- 400.000 ------------ ; - - - ------ c O 0 s 65-74 c300.000 ------------ - - --- - --A -- - - - -- -- 0 200.000 ----------- -AM-75-84--- - 100.000 ----------------------------- ------------------------------- Ages 85+ 0 1980 1985 1990 11995 2000 . 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Source:OREGON'S DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS February 2010,State Office of Economic Anaws City of Ashland B uildable Lands 0 .- This trend toward an aging population, and resulting smaller household sizes, is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. According to the State of Oregon's Office of Economic Analysis, rapid growth in elderly age cohorts is expected statewide. Ashland has experienced a significant aging of our population over the last decade in comparing the age demographics from the 2000 and 2010 Census reports (Figure 2).This reflects a national trend due in large part to the increasing number of baby-boomers reaching retirement age. Fi ure 2.Ashland Persons per Age Cohort 2000-2010 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 yj N N N N N N N N N N N W � N N N N N N N N N N N H H N M N n V N a m X2000 US Census X2010 US Census Overall the forecast for Oregon anticipates there will be 53%more elderly in 2020 than in 2010. Given Ashland's desirability as retirement destination such trending indicates Ashland will likely see a continuation of small household sizes (2.03 pph)over the next decade. As the number of"persons per household" has decreased over time,the average square footage of floor area had increased. This inverse relationship of large housing units, occupied by smaller households,results in an increase in the consumption of total acreage relative to the number of people housed. Further the depletion of available land, increasing land prices, and more square feet of housing per occupant increases overall housing costs. However, following the recent economic recession national building trends have shown a slight reversal of this decades long pattern of increasing unit size. According to the National Association of Home Builders the average size of new single-family homes completed declined in both 2009 and 2010. This decline followed home sizes increasing Buildable City of Ashland r 1 1 .- continually for nearly three decades from only 1400sq.ft in 1970. The average size of single- family homes completed in the United States peaked at 2,521 square feet in 2007, it was essentially flat in 2008, then dropped in 2009 to 2,438, and to 2,380 in 2010. As a result new single-family homes were almost 141 square feet smaller in 2010 than in 2007. Figure 3: Average Home Size National Average Single Family Home Size (square feet by year) 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1950 1970 1990 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Sources:National Association of Home Builders(Housing Facts,Figures and Trends 2006)and US Census(http://w .census.gov/mnstIC25Ann/sftotalmedavgsgft.pdf) The current decline in home size can be attributed to various factors including the desire to keep energy costs down, reductions in equity in existing homes available to be rolled over into new ones, tighter credit standards, less interest in buying a home as an investment and a growing presence of first-time buyers seeking smaller units. The chairman of the National Association of Home Builders expects this downward trend to continue, "A new housing market is emerging, and even with the recession in the rear view mirror we expect the popularity of smaller homes to persist," said Bob Jones, "Builders are responding to a new mindset among home buyers that has been shaped not just by a weak economy, and it is transforming the product they deliver." Student Housing The Master Plan for Southern Oregon University for the period 2010-2020 was predicated on projections of enrollment growth to approximately 6,000 students, from a current student enrollment of 5,082. This increase of 918 students would not be comprised entirely of Ashland residents as a number of students travel from nearby communities to attend classes. However the University will utilize its available land to provide new housing and anticipates approximately 25% of all students can be housed on campus. According to the 2010-2020 Plan: The University will pursue construction of new housing to current standards to serve three goals: • replace older housing structures that are near the end of their useful life; • expand the percentage of students housed on campus in order to increase the number of upper division students who live in campus housing and to help improve student retention; • maintain a compact campus with housing within a 5-minute walk of the campus core. New student housing will be constructed on the north campus,but within a walkable distance from the heart of campus. The intent is to create a cluster of housing that will support a more pronounced student life zone on campus,and still contribute to a walkable scale. SOU maintains 1272 existing group housing beds, and 198 family housing units. The SOU Plan states that a reasonable near term goal would be to develop 670 beds of new housing to serve the existing student body. This figure includes an estimated 400 beds to accommodate students that currently commute to campus and 270 to address on campus demand from current students of residence halls. In large part the development of these new housing on the SOU campus is intended to replace older buildings, not necessarily add capacity. The Plan identifies 800 beds of new student housing, but also identifies 692.beds in the Cascade Complex that need to be replaced and 108 beds in the Susanne Homes Complex to be converted to academic use. The SOU Plan identifies that of the 1272 group housing units available only 980 currently function to provide housing, thus there remains capacity to accommodate approximately 292 students in the event this space is again utilized for residential purposes. Lastly the SOU Plan identifies alternative locations for creation of a Faculty Village(pictured next page)to provide housing opportunities (12-48 potential units) for professors and staff. City of Ashland . - . 201 1 `"- Createstron 1 quadt"Noxv 1 \ ■�� os nn WENTEM Ehug d R Greenspdngs as a dearmsidential mne � ' iP�� � N •LL �. n r F1 4 mom� 1 - 1 =0 u,: � StudeMhousinggwlth f. t potendalretalringround :ui level to comp leme, UnN. 7: 4. rF•F Distdcthuslnessef -77: n �� : • 3 � „ii "'Faculty Village// o 9WPM fl housing a r "Facuo Villaye . housing's[edges 9; ofcampus�.' —HENRY-ST 110 s \ ' r____ J_____;3� 1 ` 1 I) „ Images excerptedfrom the 2010-2020 SOUPlan City of • Buildable Lands - 1 1 1 Y.•- f . Dwelling Unit Assessment The number of potential dwelling units as shown in Table 9(pg .19) indicates that a total of 1838 new dwelling units could be accommodated upon lands within the existing City Limits using existing zoning and density assumptions. This estimate does not include future Southern Oregon University group housing developed on campus which is discussed in the preceding section. The estimated number of dwelling units assumes that upon remaining buildable lands within the City's commercially zoned properties, with mixed-use potential (E-1 with a residential overlay, C-1, and C-I-D), that such commercial properties will provide only 501/o of the residential units that are otherwise permitted at the base densities. Ashland has experienced a history of mixed use development on commercial lands given the strong market for housing. However to provide conservative estimates of future housing on commercial lands the 50%reduction from permitted densities is intended to recognize that a number of commercial developments may not elect to incorporate housing into their developments. Efforts taken by the City to promote inclusion of residential development within commercially zoned lands along transit routes can function to accommodate more housing on such lands than is presently projected in this BLI. The City's Comprehensive Plan population projection anticipates approximately 3,256 new residents by the year 2030. Historically the City's linear growth rate projection has proven to be largely consistent with actual population growth(Fig. 1). As the number of occupants per dwelling decreases there are more housing units needed to accommodate that population increase. Table 7. Needed Housing Units b year Impact of People Per Household on Eggded Housing Units by Year Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 New residents expected 455 1386 2321 3256 People per Household h 2.14 2.03 2.14 2.03 2.14 2.03 2.14 2.03 Needed Housing Units 213 224 648 683 1085 1143 1521 1 1604 Population increase per City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Projection(see Table 7). 2000 US Census for Ashland=2.14pph; 2010 Census=2.03 pph As stated previously the buildable lands within the City Limits could accommodate approximately 1,883 units. The table above indicates that with a average household size of 2.03 people 1604 units would be needed over the next 20 years. Further it is unlikely that all buildable lands within the City Limits would be developed during the next 20 years given many of the partially vacant sites are 7,000-9,000 sq ft. multifamily zoned properties, with additional development potential per the zoning designation, but are currently occupied by single family homes. However, substantial developable land exists within the Urban Growth Boundary that is presently outside of the City.Limits. In consideration of these future urbanizable lands and calculating dwelling unit potential for all lands within the UGB, Table 6 identifies a total potential of 2,853 new unit capacity based on the current Comprehensive Plan designations. Therefore outside of the existing City Limits, yet within the current UGB approximately 970 additional units could be accommodated. Using the assumed 2.03 pph figure,the net buildable lands within the UGB could accommodate up to 5,791 new residents. City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 201 1 a 9D According to the City Comprehensive Plan population projection an increase in population of 5700 people is not expected to be reached for approximately 32 years. Modification to base zoning densities, density bonuses, zoning or overlay changes, area master plans, or comprehensive plan changes intended to concentrate development within the UGB,could further extend the supply of buildable lands by effectively accommodating more dwelling units upon less land area. To more accurately project the number and type of needed housing a Housing Needs Assessment should be completed. By carefully examining income and age demographics, household sizes, and local housing costs, a Housing Needs Assessment would help quantify the expected proportions of rental to ownership, household sizes and needed units(Housing type by bedroom number). Table 8. Potential Dwellina Units bv Com rehensive Plan Design tion (UGB and City Limits Airport 0 0 Commercial 849 252 Croman Mill 458 340 Downtown 319 53 Employment 723 221 HC 74 15 HDR 393 162 Industrial 0 0 LDR 140 70 MFR 1331 323 NM na 118 SFR 2276 875 SFRR 260 103 SOU na Per SOU Master Plan(see pg 15) Suburban R 448 311 Woodland na 10 Total• 2853 City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 20 1 1 .- Table 9. Potential Dwelling Units by Zonina Designation (City Limits Permitted units per a - . Dwelling Units Adjusted C-1 30 822 251 C-1-D 60 318 53 CM Master Plan 215 173 (CM-NC, CM-MU) E-1 15 723 221 HC 13.5 74 15 M-1 na 0 0 NM Master Plan na 118 R-1-10 2.4 332 71 R-1-3.5 7.2 49 10 R-1-5 4.5 859 365 R-1-7.5 3.6 806 161 R-2 13.5 887 146 R-3 20 394 162 RR-.5 1.2 140 79 RR-1 1 9 3 SO Master Plan na Per SOU Master Plan (see pg 15) WR Slope contingent na 10 Total . : : 1883 _. Inventory City of Ashland Buildable Lands 201 --. Housing Needs Analysis The City completed a Housing Needs Analysis in 2002 and a Rental Needs Analysis in 2007. A Housing Needs Analysis allows a community to define the supply and demand characteristics for various types of housing, including sales housing, rental needs housing and special needs housing. A comparison of projected housing demand to the existing land availability provides the necessary information to inform decisions, as well as to identify where refinements to land use designations may be necessary to accommodate needed housing types. Ideally, Ashland will have a mix of housing that supports current and future residents as their housing needs and conditions change. Further,having a balance of housing that is affordable and suitable for various income levels plays a supportive role in economic development. The City will complete an update to the Housing Needs Analysis in the coming year to quantify the projected housing needs in consideration of changing market conditions and the demographic profile of the City. The full 2010 Census data will be available in June-Aug of 2011. A limited set of 2010 Census Data has already been released including information regarding population age, gender, race, and general household make up (people per household, vacancy rates). Subsequent data releases will provide detailed information regarding Ashland's housing inventory, rent amounts, and household wages. This data, used in conjunction with the Oregon Housing and Community Services Housing Needs Model,will be valuable in projecting future housing needs. In completing the 2011 BLI, the City reviewed building permit data to summarize land consumption rates by year as shown for residential lands in Table 10 below. Table 10. Historic Land Consurniation Residential Land Consumption, Acres by Zone t0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2005-2010 Total NM 0.32 0 1.42 0.16 0.12 0.3 2.32 R-1-10 0.85 0.45 0.46 0.23 1.2 0.74 3.93 111-3.5 0.98 0.33 0 0 0 0 1.31 R-1-5 6.98 0.89 1.32 1.25 1.38 1.48 13.3 R-1-7.5 3.6 2.82 2.27 1.62 0.95 0.99 12.25 R-2 2.33 0.55 0.31 0.71 0.16 3.94 8 R-3 0.37 0 0.24 0 0.44 0.33 1.38 RR.5 4.05 1.57 3.08 0.79 0.93 5.42 15.84 Wit 5.01 0 0 _ 0 0 0 5.01 _ Ali Zones 24.49 6.61 9.1 4.76 5.18 13.2 63.34 Source:City of Ashland EDEN permit data,City of Ashland GIS Note:Acreage is'gross acreage'of developed parcels and includes Infill on partially vacant lots such as Accessory Residential Units. The gross acreage associated with permits issued for the replacement of dwellings following the Oak Knoll fire is not included in this table. City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 201 1 A housing needs projection exclusively based on projecting past development trends would function to perpetuate any unmet housing needs into the future. For this reason, and in the face of a changing housing market, determining the yearly consumption average and simply multiplying that by 20 to determine a twenty year demand for various housing types would not adequately estimate future housing need. Further changes in the community demographics, including number of"people per household"will have a substantial impact upon the needed land area independent of past consumption rates. The relationship between lot size and square feet of living space is also key in determining how efficiently land will be consumed by future development. In combination an up to date Buildable Lands Inventory and a Housing Needs Assessment can be useful tools in evaluating the appropriate distribution of units by housing type while factoring in income and age information. With this information policy decisions necessary to adequately plan for the housing needs of current and future populations are possible. Buildable City of Ashland (Detailed Figure 4: Buildable Lands Inventory Map '�'�,��. •Via, Figure S. Graphic representation of Table 3.3(Net acreage by Comprehensive Plan Designation) 250 214 200 150 i 105.1 100 62.8 50 38.1 48 42:3 30.8 12.1 15.8 17.7 19.5 6; I 0 ¢`Jam off`\ �o3c QP � FP �I �P QQ• � i J JO Lo Oo 30 111� a cP ooa\a ca Figure 6. Graphic representation of Table 8(Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Designation) 1000 900 s7s 800 700 600 I I 500 i 400 340 297 311 300 25z 221 200 118 103 _ 100 —53— 70— - 11 �.' 10 0 cc¢```a, SOP a�s�i`a\ ��T 'os�p ��S S�Q, S,<P �a Q J` P a\aca City of Ashland Buildable Lands Inventory 201 1 `oF ``ova Oo.1sc�F�` �� SJe moo° .- Definitions (Source: Oregon Administrative Rules, 1998 Compilation,LCDC) (1)A"Net Buildable Acre"consists of 43,560 square feet of residentially designated buildable land,after excluding present and future rights-of-way,restricted hazard areas,public open spaces and restricted resource protection areas. (2)"Attached Single Family Housing"means common-wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a separate lot. (3)"Buildable Land"means residentially designated vacant and,at the option of the local jurisdiction,redevelopable land within the urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by natural hazards(Statewide Planning Goal 7)or subject to natural resource protection measures(Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for residential use. Land with slopes of 25 percent or greater unless otherwise provided for at the time of acknowledgment,and land within the 100-year flood plain is generally considered unbuildable for purposes of density calculations. (4)'Detached Single Family Housing"means a housing unit that is free standing and separate from other housing units. (5)"Government Assisted Housing"means housing that is financed in whole or part by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to 456.720,or housing that is occupied by a tenant or tenants who benefit from rent supplements or housing vouchers provided by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority. (6)"Housing Needs Projection"refers to a local determination,justified in the plan,as to the housing types and densities that will be: (a)Commensurate with the financial capabilities of present and future area residents of all income levels during the planning period; (b)Consistent with OAR 660-007-0010 through 660-007-0037 and any other adopted regional housing standards;and (c)Consistent with Goal 14 requirements for the efficient provision of public facilities and services,and efficiency of land use. (7)"Manufactured Dwelling'means: (a)Residential trailer,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed before January 1, 1962; (b)Mobile home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed between January 1, 1962,and June 15, 1976,and met the construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in effect at the time of construction; (c)Manufactured home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed in accordance with federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards regulations in effect at the time of construction; (d)Does not mean any building or structure subject to the structural specialty code adopted pursuant to ORS 455.100 to 455.450 or any unit identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer. (8)"Manufactured Dwelling Park'means any place where four or more manufactured dwellings as defined in ORS 446.003 are located within 500 feet of one another on a lot,tract or parcel of land under the same ownership,the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the,rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person."Manufactured dwelling park'does not include a lot or lots located within a subdivision being rented or leased for occupancy by no more than one manufactured dwelling per lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190. City of Ashland Buildable Land s Inventory 201 r°�e� (9)"Manufactured Homes"means structures with a Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)label certifying that the structure is constructed in accordance with National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974(42 U. S.C. Sections 5401 et seq.),as amended on August 22, 1981. (10)"Mobile Home Park"means any place where four or more manufactured dwellings as defined in ORS 446.003 are located within'500 feet of one another on a lot,tract or parcel of land under the same ownership,the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. "Mobile home park"does not include a lot or lots located within a subdivision being rented or leased for occupancy by no more than one manufactured dwelling per lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190. - (11)"Multiple Family Housing"means attached housing where each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot. (12)"Needed Housing"defined.Until the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan,"needed housing"means housing types determined to meet the need shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels.On and after the beginning of the first periodic review of a local government's acknowledged comprehensive plan,"needed housing"also means: (a)Housing that includes,but is not limited to,attached and detached single-family housing and multiple family housing for both owner and renter occupancy; (b)Government assisted housing; (c)Mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks as provided in ORS 197.475 to 197.490; (d)Manufactured home on individual lots planned and zoned for single-family residential use that are in addition to lots within designated manufactured dwelling subdivisions. (13)"Redevelopable Land"means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which,due to present or expected market forces,there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. City of Ashland . - . 201 1 Ty es of Housing Defined Definition TYPE For the purposes of this Housing Development Trend analysis,the definitions in OAR 660-007-0005, ORS 197.015 and 197.295 shall apply.In addition,the following definitions apply: MFR "Multiple Family Housing"means attached housing where each dwelling unit is not located on a separate lot. MFR-D "Multiple Family Housing Detached"means detached housing where two(2)or more dwelling wits are located on a single lot. MH "Manufactured Dwelling'means: (a)Residential trailer,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed before January 1, 1962; (b)Mobile home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed between January 1, 1962,and June 15, 1976,and met the construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in effect at the time of construction; (c)Manufactured home,a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,cooking and plumbing facilities,that is intended for human occupancy,that is being used for residential purposes and that was constructed in accordance with federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards regulations in effect at the time of construction; (d)Does not mean any building or strneture subject to the structural specialty code adopted pursuant to ORS 455.100 to 455.450 or my unit identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer. MHP "Manufactured Dwelling'(defined above[MIU)located in a"Manufactured Dwelling Park" "Manufactured Dwelling Park"means any place where four or more manufactured dwellings are located within 500 feet of one another on a lot,tract or parcel of land under the same ownership,the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in connection with securing the trade or patronage of such person."Manufactured dwelling park"does not include a lot or lots located within a subdivision being rented or leased for occupancy by no more than one manufactured dwelling per lot if the subdivision was approved by the local government unit having jurisdiction under an ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS 92.010 to 92.190. MU "Mixed Use Housing"means a housing unit that is attached to a commercial development within a commercial zone SFR "Detached Single Family Housing'means a housing unit that is free standing and separate from other housing units. SFR-A "Attached Single Family Housing"means common-wall dwellings or rowhouses where each dwelling unit occupies a Sep ante lot. GA "Government Assisted Housing"means housing that is financed in whole or part by either a federal or state housing agency or a local housing authority as defined in ORS 456.005 to 456.720,or housing that is occupied by a tenant or tenants who benefit from rent supplements or housing vouchers provided by either a federl or state homing agency or a local homing authority. City of Ashland Buildable Lands I n v e n t o r y 2 09� Exhibit B Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan Periodically,the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public.These studies and reports shall not serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information,data and findings contained within the documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter ll, Introduction and Definitions. 1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan(2008)by Ordinance 3030 on August 17,2010 Chapter IV, Environmental Resources The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV, Environmental Resources. 1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory(200512007) by Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009. Chapter VII, Economy The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII,The Economy. 1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis(April 2007) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17,2010 Chapter XII, Urbanization The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter XII, Urbanization. 1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory(2011)by Ordinance on CITY OF -ASHLAND Planning Application Application for approval of an ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) as a supporting technical document to be included in the Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents". DATE: 7/19/2011 Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner 541-552-2076 or brandon.goldman @ashland.or.us Purpose The purpose of conducting an update of the "Buildable Lands Inventory' (BLI) is to quantify the amount vacant and underdeveloped land presently available within the political boundaries of the City of- Ashland (City Units, Urban Growth Boundary, and specific zones). A BLI ultimately assists the City in determining whether or not there exists an adequate supply of buildable land to accommodate future housing and business development. The Buildable Land Inventory (2011), and proposed Ordinance, are provided as attachments for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration. As proposed the Ordinance would adopt the current BLI and would allow future updates of the Buildable Lands Inventory to be approved by Resolution of the City Council.Upon adoption the updated BLI becomes a supporting technical document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and as such would provide a factual basis for future legislative and quasijudicial land-use decisions relating to available land supply. Background In 1999, the City of Ashland prepared a Buildable Lands Inventory which provided a complete inventory of vacant and redevelopable residential lands n the City's existing UGB. In January 2005, the BLI was updated to account for changes that had taken place on residential landssubsequent to 1999, and to further assess vacant and partially vacant employment and commercial lands. In 2007 the City began an evaluation of its economic land needs as the basis for the 2007 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), which was adopted by the City Council in 2010. The EOA provided information regarding future commercial and employment land needs based on projected economic conditions. In 2007 a Rental Needs Analysis was completed to assess the needed rental housing types based on demographic information on households including size, age, and incomes. This Rental Needs Analysis supplemented information in a Housing Needs Analysis which was completed for the City in 2002. All of these studies project future land needs relative tothe existing supply of land suitable for development. Beginning with the adoption of the City's local wetland inventory in 2009 the City approved the creation of an appendix to the Comprehensive Ran (Appendix A) as a systematic means of incorporating Department of Community Development Tel:501-088-5305 51 Wnbum Way Fax 541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashlund.arms various technical reports and supporting documents into the plan that may be used to assist the community in evaluating policy and local land use decisions. The appendix was expanded in 2010 to include the Croman Mill Plan and Economic Opportunities Analysis.The ordinance presented for consideration adopting the BLI also amends Appendix A to include the BLI by reference as a support document of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan's chapter on Urbanization (Chapter XII). The updated BLI document, and associated Geographic Information System (GIS)database, provides" a detailed inventory of the supply of residential, commercial and employment lands. Methodology The development of the BLI, and subsequent analysis of land use, were completed using a geographic information system (GIS) database. A taxlot-level database containing all tax-lot records within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary was assembled using Jackson County GIS and Assessor's data, the City of Ashland Building Permit data, and the GIS data from the 1999 and 2005 Buildable Lands Inventories completed by the City. Each record included such data as property size, ownership, zoning, Comprehensive Plan designation, real market value, and development type. The data was then supplemented with aerial photos taken for Jackson-County in June 2010. City of Ashland building permit data and land use data was evaluated to ensure that current development activity was captured in the inventory. Based on the type and extent of development on each taxlot, and using definitions of vacant and redevelopable land from OAR 660-008-005 (residential lands)and 660- 009-005 (econoric lands), a development status was assigned to every taxlot(e.g. vacant, partially vacant or redevelopable). Staff was then able to refine this assessment by evaluating constraints to future development such as the presence of floodplains,steep slopes and/or existing development patterns to determine the percentage of each site that retains development potential. By determining the amount of developable land on a given lot Staff was able to estimate the number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on each developable property and thus include this figure in the BLI database. For the purposes of estimating dwelling unit potential Staff assumed that buildable lands would develop according to the densities specified for the existing underlying zone for properties within the City limits, or comprehensive plan designation for properties outside the City Limits yet within the UGB. Through these methods the BLI as presented summarizes the amount of vacant residential and commercial lands available. Further, the potential number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on available lands, given allowable densities, is quantified for all tax lots within the existing UGB by zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. Results The full Buildable Lands Inventory is attached as a technical document. Information has been presented to show buildable landsand dwelling unit potential both within the existing City Limits, and within the UGB by zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation. The 2011 BLI provides a moment-in-time snapshot of Ashland's available land inventory current as of April 1, 2011. The GIS based database created to conduct the inventory can be updated on a regular basis to reflect consumption of land through development(issuance of building permits). Upon adoption the updated BLI becomes a supporting technical document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and as such will provide a basis for future legislative and quasi-judicial land-use decisions relating to available land supply. Attached: 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory Update Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to include the BLI as a technical supporting document Department of Community Development Tel:541-488 5305 51 Winbum Way Fax 541-552-2050 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 , ' www.ashland.or.us C I T Y OF ASHLAND Council Communication Second Reading of Ordinances Amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance for the Pedestrian Places Project Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Primary Staff Contact:. Bill Molnar Department: Community Devel ment E-Mail: molnarbng,ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: Larry Patter Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will the City Council approve the second reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project. Background: The City Council held a public hearing on November 1, 2011, and passed first reading of the ordinances with amendments incorporating the recommended revisions of the Planning Commission. The amendments are included in the attached ordinances. The Planning Commission held a public ' hearing on October 11, 2011 on the proposed amendments, and recommended approval of the ordinances with the revision of the Pedestrian Place Overlay boundary for Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St., the addition of a definition for shadow plan and the addition of a limitation of the shadow plan allowance. Staff has made an additional change since first reading to Section 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. This section was deleted entirely in the ordinances approved for first reading on November 1 by the Council, but staff is recommending retaining and adding to some'of the original language as follows. SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. shall be measured fFGM the special base 1• setbacks lusted b ! instead f the4ot line separating the lot frem the street-. Street Setba@k lapbveon Ci�f limits and It ia Way 36-feet Ashland Stroet (Highway 66T—Hetween city limits and Smskayou Be.-W.Fard 66 feet The setback from an arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, or the width required to install sidewalk and parkrow improvements consistent with the City of Ashland Street Standards in Section Patel of 3 WAR CITY OF ASHLAND 18.88.020.K, whichever is les The Pedestrian Places Project report identified the large building setback requirements of Section 18.68.050 as " not supportive of the desired qualities of this or any other pedestrian place" Staff believes the recommendation assumes a sidewalk is in place, and advocates bringing buildings closer to the sidewalk rather than having a 20-foot wide gap between the sidewalk and building. However, in various locations on arterial streets in Ashland, the sidewalk/parkrow improvement is substandard or has not been installed. After further consideration, staff believes it is necessary to clearly identify the need to secure adequate space along the property frontage for the installation of sidewalks to City standards. The Street Standards were adopted in 1999, and frontage improvements proportional to the impact of a new development are required as part of a Site Review approval. In most cases,the area for future sidewalk/parkrow installation will be considerably less than the previously required 20 feet. The area will be most important in commercial projects where wider sidewalks are required and are considered conducive to pedestrian activity. This change will have little impact on residentially zoned properties which require standard yards ranging from 10 to 20 feet. Related City Policies: The Economy, Housing, and Transportation Elements of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan, and the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications, or take no action on the second reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project. Potential Motions: 1. (No Amendments) • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to Add a Pedestrian Places Overlay. • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Creating a New Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones, Including the Residential Overlay an Airport Overlay • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 18.08.651, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.060 and 18.108.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project • Move to approve the findings of fact to accompany the ordinances for the Pedestrian Places Project. Page 2 of 3 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND 2. (With Amendments) • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to Add a Pedestrian Places Overlay with proposed amendments to • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Creating a New Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones, Including the Residential Overlay an Airport Overlay with proposed amendments to • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project with proposed amendments to • Move to approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC 18.08.651, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.060 and 18.108.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project with proposed amendments to 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements as noted in the November 15 Council Communication. • Move to approve the findings of fact to accompany the ordinances for the Pedestrian Places Project. Attachments: 1. An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to Add a Pedestrian Places Overlay 2. An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Creating a New Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones,'Including the Residential Overlay an Airport Overlay 3. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project 4. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.08.651, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.060 and 18.108.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project 5. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Amendments to the City of Ashland Zoning Map and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING MAP TO ADD A PEDESTRIAN PLACE OVERLAY Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and An Ordinance Adding Pedestrian Place Overlay Page 1 WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Zoning Map at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article X of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Zoning Map in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments,the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning Map, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, is hereby amended to add a Pedestrian Place (PP) Overlay designation to approximately 72 acres of land within the City limits, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning Map, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection,paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, and amendments — including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 2-8, 9-10) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross- references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, An Ordinance Adding Pedestrian Place Overlay Page 2 Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 12011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Adding Pedestrian Place Overlay Page 3 A i14 art —.._ •'1 \ te , g --- - �� 6 ED I ,�jj] -..�..... \ ._._�1'� a •. . I Li All 0 400 800 1,600 2,400 3,200 4,000Feet Key OPedestrian Place Overlay Building /M Pedestrian Place Overlay Areas O Detail Site Review zone •ASHLAND City Council Second Reading 11/15/2011 ---� railroad Property lines are for reference only, not scaleable ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.56 OVERLAY ZONES, INCLUDING THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY AND AIRPORT OVERLAY Annotated to show deletion and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 1 WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article X of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. A new Chapter 18.56 of the Ashland Municipal Code creating an overlay zones chapter [OVERLAY ZONES] set forth in full codified form on the attached Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference, is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.40.030.E [E-1 Employment District - Special Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section, including all requirements of 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Bottling plants, cleaning and dyeing establishments, laundries and creameries. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located to the greatest extend feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging 'objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 2 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. Provided, however, that for the uses specified in subsection A and B above, no deliveries or shipments shall be made from 9pm to lam where the property on which the use is located is within 200 feet of any residential district. C. Recycling depots, provided the use is not located within 200 feet of a residential district. D. Kennels and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200 feet of a residential district. E. Residential uses. As indicated as R-Overlay on the official zonin¢ may, and in conformance with the Overlay Zones chapter 18.56. 1 At least 65'46 of the total gross floor o of the ground floo or at Ienst 501,4 of two uses,total lot or-ea if there are multiple buildings shall be designated foF permitted or speeial permitted __ __-- exeeed 15 dwelling units per- aere. For- the pur-pose &f density ealeniations, units of less thnn 500 squar-e feet of gross habitable floor- oren shall eount iks 0.75 of a unit. 2 Residential ..hall be ....I.eet to the ....41.....1. 1.....7....... Ing and design- . > > stnadards as for permitted uses in the E 1 Distr-iet. J. ReqMpnfin' uses shall only be loented in these areas indiented as R Over4ay within the E 1 Distr-iet, and shown on the offleial zoning map. e If thi. _ _.1..._ ,.c ......:d....tW Units a eed 10, 14 then at least 10 of the residential units shall be affordable for- moderate ineome perqnnq in fleefir-d ivith the stand-fl-r-ads established by resolution of the Ashland City Coune-1 through proeedur-es eentained on thp. rowd-fien. Thp. Hu-M-h-e-F of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. F. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. G. Manufacture of food products, but not including the rendering of fats or oils. For any manufacture of food.products with 200' of a residential district: 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. Odors which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: a. Odors from solvents, chemicals or toxic substances. b. Odors from fermenting food products. c. Odors from decaying organic substances or human or animal waste. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof or the side of a building with the least exposure to residential districts. Provided, however, that it may be located at any other location on or within the structure or lot where the noise emanating from the equipment is no louder, as measured from the nearest residential district, than if located on the side of the building with least exposure to residential districts. Mechanical equipment shall be fully screened and buffered. An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 3 H. Cold Storage Plants, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. I. Automobile and truck repair facilities, excluding auto body repair and paint shops. All cars and trucks associated with the use must be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total sight obscuring fence. Facilities of 3 bays or larger shall not be located within 200' of a residential district. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.60 [Airport Overlay Zone] is hereby deleted as follows: CHAPTER 18.60 AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE SECTIONS., 18.60.010 Purpose. 18.60.020 A 1 Overlay Zone. 18.60.030 General Provisions. SECTION 18.60.010 Purpose. This over-lay zone is intended to be applied to propet4ies whieh fie within elose proximi" the Ashland Airport ...1.ere a ra t are likely to be flying_at—...d..tiyet . low elevations rJ rvr. elevations. areas thr-ough height r-estr-ietions and other land use eentr-ols. Appliefition of the zone do" f the zone is intended to prevent the establishment of air-spnee obstrmetions in not alter- the requirements o f the parent zone e*eept as speeifieftily p yided herein TL.. ever-lay zone is shown on the Zoning Map. SECTION 18.60.020 A 1 Over-lay Zone. A. Permitted uses shn'! not inelude residential uses unless approved under- the pr-oeedur- outlined for eand-tional uses. height of struetures, trees or- other- nir-spikee obstruetions shall he enty 01 feet approval,C. All planning netions will require, as a eondition or- that the applieftnt sign-eft agr-eement with the City agreeing that a ....t noise is likely to iner-ease in the future and that theywaive all rights to eomplain about airport noise. SECTION 18.60.030 General Provisions. A. 18.60.020, or loeate appropriate lights or arike..a An those. trews nq a g to N... operators of nir-er-aft-. R No . ..1.,.11 be made of land o .at.... within a of this zone in ...6 a manner- ., tN er-ente eleetrien! inter-ferenee with navigational signals or radio eommuniestion.between iairpor-t and f make it diffieult for- pilots to distinguish between airport lights a others, airport, impair visibility in the airport,AeWty of the or other-wise er-eate a hazard whieh me), in any way endanger- t f . An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 4 SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 5 CHAPTER 18.56 Overlay Zones SECTIONS: 18.56.010 Purpose. 18.56.020 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. 18.56.030 A-1 Airport Overlay. 18.56.040 Pedestrian Place Overlay. 18.56.050 Residential Overlay. SECTION 18.56.010 Purpose. Overlay zones are intended to provide special regulations and standards that supplement the base zoning district and standards. SECTION 18.56.020 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. Development located within an overlay zone is required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. SECTION 18.56.030 A Airport Overlay. A. Purpose. This overlay zone is intended to be applied to properties which lie within close proximity to the Ashland Airport where aircraft are likely to be flying at relatively low elevations. Further, the zone is intended to prevent the establishment of airspace obstructions in such areas through height restrictions and other land use controls. Application of the overlay zone does not alter the requirements of the parent zone except as specifically provided herein. The Airport Overlay applies to all property where A is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. B. A Airport Overlay. 1. Permitted uses shall not include residential uses unless approved under the procedure outlined for conditional uses. 2. Maximum height of structures, trees or other airspace obstructions shall be twenty (20) feet. 3. All planning actions will require, as a condition or approval that the applicant sign an agreement with the City agreeing that airport noise is likely to increase in the future and that they waive all rights to complain about airport noise. C. General Provisions. 1. The City may top any tree which is in excess of those maximum heights listed in Section 18.60.020, or locate appropriate lights or markers on those trees as a warning to the operators of aircraft. 2. No use shall be made of land or water within any of this zone in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise create a hazard which may in any way endanger the landing, takeoff, or maneuvering of aircraft using the airport. Page i SECTION 18.56.040 PP Pedestrian Place Overlay. A. Purpose of Pedestrian Place Overlay. The Pedestrian Place Overlay is intended to direct and encourage development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of gathering places, housing, businesses and pedestrian amenities situated and designed in a way to encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. B. Applicability. 1. Location. The Pedestrian Place Overlay applies to all property where PP is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. 2. Planning Actions. The Pedestrian Place Overlay requirements apply to proposed development located in the Pedestrian Place Overlay that requires a planning application approval, and involves development of new structures or additions other than single-family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 3. Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. The provisions of the Pedestrian Place Overlay supplement those of the applicable base zoning district and applicable Chapter 18 requirements. Where the provisions of this Chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance or regulation, the provisions of the Pedestrian Place Overlay shall apply. C. Pedestrian Place Concept Plans. Concept plans (i.e. site plan, development summary and building illustrations) are for the purpose of providing an example of development that conforms to the standards, and do not constitute independent approval criteria. Concept plans are attached to the end of this chapter. D. Residential Zoning Districts within Pedestrian Place Overlay. 1. Special Permitted Uses. In addition to the permitted uses in the base residential zoning district, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirement of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. a. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments. b. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services. c. Restaurants. 2. Limitations. a. The maximum gross floor area occupied by a special permitted use shall.be 2,500 . square feet. b. Special permitted uses shall be allowed in a building or in a group of buildings including a mixture of businesses and housing. At least 50% of the total gross floor area of a building or of multiple buildings shall be designated for housing. c. The development shall meet the minimum housing density requirements of the base zoning district. 3. Development Standards. a. A building shall be setback not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. b. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .50. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. The development Projects including existing buildings or vacant parcels of a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. Page 2 ?gcud 11.pbfe K a+e4q.:+ Onawi a•ubry pc'rq O Vemronr I , , ' 1' I Lsnc•ea _ _ Shadow plan 4. Mixed-Use Buildings in Residential Zones. Mixed-use buildings in a residential base zoning district require Site Review approval in accordance with Chapter 18.72, and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.72 and the following Site Design and Use Standards. a. Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development (section II-C-1) b. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (section D) c. Street Tree Standards (section E) ' d. Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards, 18.72.090 E. Development Standards. In addition to the requirements of the base zoning district, the following standards shall apply. 1. Building Setbacks. The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access applies only to those lots abutting a residential zone to the north. 2. Plazas and Landscaping Ratio. Outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may be applied toward meeting the landscaping area requirements in Section18.72.110, but shall not constitute more than 50% of the required area. SECTION 18.56.050 R Residential Overlay. The Residential Overlay applies to all property where R is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. The Residential Overlay requirements are as follows. A. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. B. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. C. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. Page 3 E. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.72.080 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page I WHEREAS, the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article X of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT—II-C-1 BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-1c) Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 2 SECTION 3. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT—II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale I. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of.5035 and shall not exeeed a maximum Floor- Area Ratio of.5 for- at! areas ou*---l- Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor FAR. Projects including existing buildings or vacant parcels of a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. �:gxseE.1ra P`ase dceverarc-r PoMnrC fyR.fY de+1W^erM I 1 f I Shadow plan 2. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets,jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fagade. 3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. 4. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. 5. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 3 6. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. II-C-2b) Streetscape 1. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. 2. A building shall be setback not more than 5 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 5 20 feet of the sidewalk. (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance # 2900) 11 C 2e) Par-king and On site Cireulation 1. Proteeted raised wallcways shall be installed through parking fireas of 50 or more spaees or more then 100 feet in aver-agewidth or depth. 2. Par-king lots with 50 spnees or more shall be divided into separate iweas- and divided by landsesped areas or walleways at least 10 feet in -A,idth-,-ff by a building oF group of buildings-. 3. Developments of one nere or more must proAde a pedestrian and bieyele eireulation plan for the site. One site pedestrian walteways must be lighted to a level where the system eon be used at night by employ entr-anees and to the internal eireulation of the building. II-C-2dLeBuffering and Screening 1. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. 11 C 2e) tight tg Lighting shall inelude adequate lights that are sealed for pedestrians by ineluding light standards or- pineements of no greater- tha" 14 feet On heigh along pedestrian Pathways. II-C 2#2dBuilding Materials 1. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area. 2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 4 SECTION 4. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT—II-C-3 ADDITIONAL STANDAREDS FOR LARGE SCAEL PROJECTS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale I. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. 2. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards: (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance # 2900) a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas locate within the building foot print and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. 3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 5 4. All on site ..lotion sate-s shall ineorporate streetsespe .i hieh ineludes f sidewalks, trees. SECTION 5. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION VIII CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS —B. DESIGN STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-B-2 Parkins Areas and On-site Circulation 1. Primary parking areas shall be located behind buildings with limited parking on one side of the building. 2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. 3. Parking areas shall meet the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of Section II-D of the Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Parking Area and On-site Circulation Standards for Developments Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within NC, MU and OE Overlays: 4. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings. S. ll..oteeted raised walk- ays shall he installed through .narking areas of 50 or more width,spsees or more than— 1_00 &F-t in fiverage width or depth-. 6. Parking lots vMl 50 � re qhn" he divided into separate areas and divided by landseaped areas or-walleways at least ten feet in or-by a building or-group of buildings. 7. Developments of one nere .stn .aide a pedestrian and hieyele_eiretti n plan for the site. On site pedestrian wallovays must be lighted to a level where Ae name. can he used at night by employees, residents and eust. me •_Dalmtria jj walkways shall he direetly linked to entranees and to the internal a ulation of the building. VIII-B-3 Automobile Parkins With the exception of the standards described below, automobile parking shall be provided in accordance with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, Section VIII-C Croman Mill District Green Development Standards, and Section II—D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. I CrMU fAr- A- tomobile Par-king. The amount of required off street parking shall be reduced by not more than 500 a. f through applieation of the following ereditq. An Street Credit One off street parking spaee ..edit for every an street spaee_ b. TDM Plan Credit, Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (T-DAI) plan that demonstrates a r-eduetion of long term piwking demand by a pereentage equal to the er-edit requested. e. "fixed Use Credit Through u mixed use parking arrangement that demonstrates the peak parking demands a offset The ered:t shall reduee the off street parking r nt by a per-eentage equal to the offset parking. demand. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 6 areas,d. Shared Parking Credit., One off street parking spuee er-edit for- every spuee eonstrueted bn designated off gite shared parking or- through payment o in lieu of parking fees fer- a eommon parking str-netur-e(s) upon establishment of n par-king management strategy for the C-r-oman Mill Distriet. 2. 1_Maximum On-Site Surface Parking. After a parking management strategy for the Croman Mill District is in place, a maximum of 50% of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on any development site. The remaining parking requirement can be met through one or a combination of the credits for automobile parking in N1111 3( ) 18.92.025. SECTION 6. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION VIII CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS -B. GREEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-C-4 Design Green Surface Parking A maximum of 25% of the project area shall be used for surface parking Parking-areas shah be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. All parking areas shall meet the following standards, and shall comply with the with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, with Section VIII-B Croman Mill Design Standards, and Section II-D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Use a maAmum of 0 16 of the projeet area for- sui4kee par4dng. 2. ^, or of parking underground. n. Use light eolored paving materials with a high solar refleetanee (Solar- Refleetive index (SPA) of at least 29) to reduee heat absorption for- a minimum of 50,116 a the par-king area sui4aee; 1. Provide porous solid ......!'....:.... .. ..:a pavement system that is at leas 50' petvious O e. ProAde at least years of pr-9jeet oeeupaney. O 16 shade from tree eanop), ever- the SH14flee 10t 114114H VIII-C-5 Manage and Reuse of Stormwater Run-Off Reduce the public infrastructure costs and adverse environmental effects of stormwater run- off by managing run-off from building roofs, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other hard surfaces through implementation of the following standards. I. Design grading and site plans to capture and slow runoff. 2. Design parking lots and other hard surfnee areas in a way that eaptur-es and treats runoff with landseaped medians and swales. 3. 2.Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate the soil. 43.Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities. 5A.Retain rainfall on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through capture and reuse techniques. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 7 SECTION 7. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 8. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 12011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.089 18.12.0209 18.68.0509 18.72.030, 18.72.0809 18.72.0909 18.889 18.88.0809 18.929 18.108.0409 18.108.060 AND 18.108.080 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined-tbrouo and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving(RPS) planning process; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland continues the community's tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on- line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011 involving a three-step process in which participants identified the qualities that make a An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 1 successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location; and WHEREAS,the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which would support the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article X of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. - THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended as follows: SECTION 18.08.651 Setbaek,The distanee between the eenter hne of a street and the speeial base line setbaelf; fr-&M whieh yar-d measurements are made, menstwed herizontally and at right angles from . a G'nRT-fil[r SECTION 18.08.655 Shadow Plan A schematic or conceptual design for future land development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required building intensity standards (i.e. Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 2 SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.12.020 [Classification of Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.020 Classification of Districts. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: Zoning Districts and Overlays Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Single Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - High Density Multiple Family R-3 Commercial C-1 Commercial - Downtown C-1-D Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University SOU Performance Standards _Options Overlay PSO Pedestrian Place Overlay PP Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlay R Freeway Sign Overlay F SECTION 4. AMC Section 18.68.050 [Arterial Street Setback Requirements] is hereby deleted as follows: SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. To permit or- aMr-d better light, nit! and vision on more heavily tr-aveled stFeets and on streets of ubstandaFd width. to ..b...! .n....:..1 streets, ..d to permit the nt....l widening of hereinafter- named streets, every yar f ) shal' be measured from the speeial base line setbeeks listed below instead of the lot separating the lot froin the street. �Ct-_ L'....4 Aii..:.. Street, between Qt3, limits and 7 ithin Way 35-feet Ashland Street (Highway 66) bet-ween 63 feet CitylimitsaudSw An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 3 AIse-,-The setback from an arterial street shall be no less than twenty (20) feet,or the width required to install sidewalk and parkrow improvements consistent with the City of Ashland Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.K,whichever is less with SECTION 5. AMC Chapter 18.72.030 [Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability. Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM and M-1 zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Mixed-use structures or developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay. e d.Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. d e.Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters or affects circulation on adjacent property or a public right-of-way. e f. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b the zoning regulations of this Code. g h.Any exterior change to a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. h I.Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). i. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. . 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. .c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 4 e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). (Ord 2984, amended, 05/19/2009; Ord 295 1,, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 3036, amended, 08/17/2010) f. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on any one lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Installation of mechanical,equipment not exempted by (a, b, c) above or (e) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 6. AMC Chapter 18.72.080 [Site Design Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.080 Site Design Standards. A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These standards may contain: 1. Additional approval criteria for developments affected by this Chapter. 2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout, landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding the site design. 3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific examples. 4. ' Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 5 B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the guidelines standards, a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearing forwarded to the Council for its consideration. C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No's. 2690, 2800, 2825, 2900 and 3031, shall be applied as follows: 1. The Multi-family Residential Development Standards in Section II.B shall be applied to the construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.). 2. The Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development standards in Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development(e.g. public buildings, schools, etc.) SECTION 7. AMC Chapter 18.72.090 [Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.090 Administrative Varianee from Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards. An administrative varianee exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or Q Approval of the varinnee is eonsistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design a Use Chapter-;;and �. B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated Purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 8. AMC Chapter 18.72.120 [Controlled access] is hereby deleted as follows: SECTION 18.72420 Controlled neeess. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 6 A. Any pai4itioning or-subdivision of pr-opef4y loeated in an R 2, R 3, C 1,E 1, CM or M- ! zone shall meet the eantr-olled neeess standards set1farth below. if applieable, er-oss neeess easements shall be requir-ed so that aeeess to all properties er-eated by the land division eon be made fi--om one or-more points. B. Street and dr-* ists in an R 2, R 3, C 1, E 1 or A4 1 zone shall be limited to the following' 1. Distanee between driveways. n.. arterial streets Inn feet, on eolleetor-streets 75 feet-, ) enTesrdenti- streets— 0 .ee't. 2. Distanee from interseetiens. On arterial streets Inn feet-, on eolleeter-streets 50 ) on residential stFpptq 35% feet ) C. Street and dri y-aec2�� po.nts in the CM zone are su ijeet to the requirements of D. Aeeess Requirements for-Multi family Developments. 1. .411 mu-Ite faimily developments whieh -Aill have automobile trip generation in exeess of 250 veWele trips per- day shall provide at least two driveway neeess points to the- development. Trip generation shall be deter-mined by the methods es' institute of Tr-ansper-tation Engineers. 2. Creating an obstr-neted street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, _ehib:...d SECTION 9. AMC Section 18.88 [Sections] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.88 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SECTIONS: 18.88.010 Purpose and Intent. 18.88.020 Definitions. 18.88.030 Procedure for Approval. 18.88.040 Performance Standards for Residential Developments. 18.88.050 Street Standards. 18.88.060 Parking Standards. 18.88.070 Setbacks. 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay Zone. 18.88.090 Performance Standards Guidelines. 18.88.100 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Development Ordinance. SECTION 10. AMC Section 18.88.080 [Sections] is hereby amended to read as follows: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 7 SECTION 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay Zone. A. The purpose of the PSO-overlay zone is to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living units, in the PSO-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts shall be three. (Ord 3036, amended, 08/18/10) C. In a PSO-overlay area, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this Ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the Council. D. If a parcel is not in a PSO-overlay area, then development under this Chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; or 2. That development under this Chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; or 3. The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM. SECTION 11. AMC Chapter 18.92 [Off-Street Parking] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.92 OFF-STREET PARKING,ACCESS AND CIRCULATION SECTIONS: 18.92.010 Generally Purpose. 18.92.020 Applicability. 18.92.028030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parkine Places. 18.92.023050 Credit for On street Automobile Parking Management Strategies. abled Per-son Parking Places. 18.92.040060 Bicycle Parking. �8 93.038 mpeet Car Par-k•_, 18.92.033070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. �8.n' nos 000— stations, r oeatlon, Use of Faelhties. 18.92.878080 Parking,Access and Circulation Design Requirements. 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 8 18.92.080100 Construction. 18.92.090110 Alterations and Enlargements. 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. SECTION 18.92.010 GenerallyPurpose. in a'! distr-iets, exeept those speeffleally exempted, whenever- any building is enlarged, or the use is ehanged, off street par-king shall he provided as set &Rr-th in this , Chapter The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for development of vehicle and bicycle parking, and to ensure developments provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. SECTION 18.92.020 Applicability. In all districts, except those specifically exempted,whenever any building is erected or enlarged, parking or access is reconfigured, or the use is changed, parking, access and circulation shall be provided as set forth in this chapter. The City may require a study prepared by a qualified professional to determine offsets in parking demand, access, circulation and other transportation impacts. SECTION 18.92.028030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. Uses and standards are as follows: A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential units: a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units --1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit. 2. Multi-family dwellings. a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit. e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater-- One space per unit. 3. Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses, dormitories. Two spaces for each three guest rooms; in dormitories, 100 square feet shall be equivalent to a guest room. 4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager. 5. Manufactured housing developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.84. 6. Performance Standards Developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.88. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 9 B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land area; and one per two employees. 2. Bowling Alleys. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business, general retail, person services. General - one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances - one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel. 5. Offices. Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General - one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) 6. Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less. 7. Skating rinks. inks. One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area. 8. Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums and similar uses. One space per four seats. C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Industrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is less, plus one space per company vehicle. 2. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business offices. One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per company vehicle; a minimum of two spaces is required. (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Child care centers having 13 or more children. One space per two employees; a minimum of two spaces is required. 2. Churches. One space per four seats. 3. Golf courses, except miniature. Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for auxiliary uses set forth in this section. Miniature golf courses -four spaces per hole. 4. Hospitals. Two spaces per patient bed. 5. Nursing and convalescent homes. One space per three patient beds. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 10 6. Rest homes, homes for the aged, or assisted living._. One space per two patient beds or one space per apartment unit. 7. Schools, elementary and junior high. One and one-half space per classroom, or the requirements for public assembly areas as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 8. High schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per 10 students the school is designed to accommodate, or the requirements for public assembly as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 9. Colleges, universities and trade schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per five students the school is designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student housing. E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces. SECTION 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parkin¢Places. The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following: Total in Parking Lot Required Minimum Number _ of Accessible Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3_ 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, must be van accessible. A van accessible parking space is required to be at least nine feet wide and have an adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of Oregon, including minimum widths, adjacent aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space designs are included at the end of this chapter. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 11 SECTION 18.92.025050 Credit for On street Autemebil Parking Management Strategies. The amount of required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50% through the application of the following credits. A. On-Street Parking Credit. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every tweone on-street , thereafter-one spsee er-edit for-eneh on street parking space. W.1.Dimensions. On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of existing on- street parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director, taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord with the standards on file with the Public Works Department. The following shall constitute an on-street parking space: 1:a.Parallel parking, each 24 22 feet of uninterrupted curb. b 45 degree diagonal, each 4-312 feet of uninterrupted curb. 2. Location. Ea.CUrb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking. D:b.Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any comer or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or standard of the City or State. &c.Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums established by the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S14, 1999) IF d.Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-1-D or SO zone. G3.Availibility. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that use, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No . signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall be permitted. B. Alternative Vehicle Parking. Alternative vehicle parking facilities may be substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking space on site. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. One off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. 2. Bicycle parking. One off-street parking space credit for five additional, non- required bicycle parking spaces. C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total_requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 12 requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case, the mixed-use credit shall reduce the off-street-parking requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced parking demand. D. Joint Use of Facilities. Required parking facilities of 2 or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not _materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime vs. nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use. E. Shared Parking. One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-site shared parking areas, or through payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking. F. TDM Plan Credit. Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. G. Transit Facilities Credit. Sites where at least 20 spaces are required, and where at least one lot line abuts a street with transit service may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required parking as follows. 1. Pedestrian and transit supportive plazas may be substituted for up to ten percent of the required parking spaces on site. 2. A street with transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit service frequency. 3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. 4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a bus stop along the site's frontage, the plaza must be adiacent to the bus stop. 5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a ten foot by ten foot square will fit entirely in the plaza. 6. The plaza must include all of the following elements: a. A plaza that is open to the public. The owner must record a public access easement that allows public access to the plaza; b. A bench or other sitting area with at least five linear feet of seating; c. A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20 square feet and the plaza must be landscaped. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping or screening required for parking areas by the Code. SECTION 18.92.030 Disabled Per-son Parking Flaees. The total number of disabled per-son parking spaees shall eomply with the fello"ring., Total in Par-king . ed Minimum Numbe of Aeeessibk-Spaees --44o45 } 2630 3 An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Cho 18 Page 13 -51 to 79 3 — 44 101 to 150 J 1 Gam' to 200 0 6 ^ ^� 7 ^�> 1 4000 8 ^mo014o-5W 9 Required Disabled Per-son Parking spnees shall be designed in aeeord with all requirements of the State of Oregon, ineludi – .–.mum ­.dths, adjueent aisles, and per-inn markings. Disabled Per-son Parking spnee designs are ineluded at the end of this ehapter-W SECTION 18.92.040060 Bicycle Parking. A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-1-1) zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces. B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage, shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows: Multi-Family Residential:One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit 1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit 2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit Senior Housine: One sheltered space per 8 units (80%of the occupants are 55 or older) C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord 2697 S1, 1993) D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every five auto, parking spaces. E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered bicycle parking space for every five students. F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking space for every five required auto parking spaces, of which one half is to be sheltered. G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased, however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike parking rental business. H. The required bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing residential building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of dwelling units, or An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 14 when a non-residential use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use. I. . Bicycle Parking Design Standards 1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage. 2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside the building. b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure, underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building. c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department. d. Providing secure storage space inside the building. 3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well-used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right-of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. 4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as well lit as automobile parking. 5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter. 6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. 8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter. 9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. 10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage to either bicycles or racks. Where needed, barriers shall be installed. 11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Facilities should be " incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 15 I. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the Hieyele Transportation Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall conform with all other applicable standards of this section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely. 2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels. b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate: i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel. c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well- drained condition. SECTION 18.92.050 Compaet Car Par-Iiing. Up to 0 of the total automobile par4dog spaees in a par-ldng lot may be designate eompoet ear-s. Minimum dimensions for eempnet spnees shall be 8 x 16 &et. Sueh SpRees Only.—" SECTION 18.92.053070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up to 50% of the required automobile parking may be granted to commercial uses within the Ashland Historic District as a Type I Variance. It is the intent of this clause to provide as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential. Additionally, to identify redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. SECTION 14 92 060 Limitations, 1 ..eats.... Use of 5....:1itie. A. hoefition. E.Neept for single and two himily dwellings, required automobile parldng , , fae..hies m be 1...aced on other per-eel of land, provided said par-eel 7 within Inn feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distanee from the par-ldng lot to the use shalt be measured in waltdng distanee from the nearest parking spaee to an Reeess to thee An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 16 building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from street tr-nffie. Sueh right to use the off site parking must be evideneed by a deed, leftse5 use. automobile par-ldng shall not be loented in n required front and side yard setbaek area • the total requirements for off street automobile paFking shall be the sum of the requirements fer- the qever-al uses eomputed separ-ately unless it ean be shown that th-e peak parking demands are offset. in sueh ease the Staff AdvisoF may r-eduee the total requirements f O but not by more than f uses,D. joint Use of'Faeilities. Required parking fneilities of 2 or more struetufes, oF jointly,piweels of land may be satisfied by the same par-king fneilities used to the ext deed,that it eon be shown by the owner-s or- operators that the need for- the feeilities does not materially over4ap (e.g., uses pr-imar-ily of a daytime v. nighttime nature) and provided that sueh right of joint use is evideneed by a lease, , or similar written only,instrument establishing sueh joint use. E. M,ailability of Feeilities. All automobile and bieyele par-icing she" be available par-icing of residents, eustomers and employees storage or display of vehieles or materials. F. in a'! residential zones, atl off street parking of automobiles, tr-ueks, trailers an' rot rentinnal vehieles in the front yard qh0l, he linike and shall not be ---qpd- f-ar the more then 250/_ of the a of the front ye-.-d, ntig..,.us area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front f and is ineidental to the primary use of the nature,oeeagional in site, no vested rights are deemed to e*ist and- vio-l-ations- of this seetion are not subjeet to the proteetion of the noneonfer-ming use seetions of this or-dinanee. However-, a 24 hour warning notiee o Court, and it shall be r-ebuttably presumed that the vehiele was pariked with permission of the per-son in eontr-ol of the propeily. Subsequent vielations shall not require a SECTION 18.92.070080 Automobile Parking, Access and Circulation Design Requirements. A. Parking Location. 1. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 17 street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use. 2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. 3. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is no more than 25% of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this ordinance. However, a 24- hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttable presumed that the vehicle was parked with permission of the person in control of the property. Subsequent violations shall not require a warning notice. A-.B.Size and AeeessParking Area Design. AlVfRequired parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the parking layout ehart at the end of this Chapterf2flowing standards and dimensions. le Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet, except that 501,1 of the spne.,., may 2. Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." 3_Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty-two (22) feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. 4. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas. Parking areas may be divided into separate areas by a building or group of buildings, landscape areas with walkways at least 10 feet in width, plazas, streets or driveways with street-like features. Street-like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, six-inch curb, accessible curb ramps. street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-oriented lighting. 5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following standards. a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking underground. i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 18 iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The intent of this section is to manage access to land uses and on-site circulation, and to preserve the transportation system in terms of safety, capacity and function. 1. Applicability. This section applies to all public streets within the City of Ashland and to all properties that abut these streets. The standards apply when developments are subject to a planning action (e.g. Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Land Partition, Performance Standards Subdivision). 2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate street-like features as described in Section 18.92.090.A.3.c. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections through large sites, and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must conform to the provisions of Section 18.92.090. 3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing requirements for the street's classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets -35 feet. d. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the Croman Mill District Standards. (Ord 3036, added, 08/1712010) e. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. An Ordinance Amending Misc.Section of Ch.18 Page 19 i. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ii. Creating an obstructed street as defined in Section 18.88.020.G is prohibited. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. i. For shared parking areas; ii. For adjacent developments,where access onto an arterial is limited; and iii For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots. b. Developments subiect to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. II D.Driveways and Turn-Arounds Design. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet. 2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet in width. either 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Developments subjeet to a planning action or divisions of prepel4y,miner land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway inter-seetions with streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots- whp.rw &mehle. In no Lnqp qhall driveways he eloser than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway b. Plans for property being partitioned or- subd 0 *dpd or fnr- multi family. developments shall indicate how d..:....wa interseetions with street, have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indieate all neeessai3, aeeess easements. e. Developments subjeet to a planning netion shall remove all etlFb euts an' driveway appronehes not shown to be neeessar-y for existing improvements o the proposed development. Cuts and appronehes shall be replaved with standard An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 20 eurb, gutter- Fir- qid-eiva"; as appropriate. AH repineement shall be done U"der per-init of the Engineering Division. C-4Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width. D-.5.Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. E. Parking and Access Construction Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, pervious paving, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and tum-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. 3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. 6. Walls and Hedges. a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12 in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians. b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas. 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 21 required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. 8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. A. Site Layout and Design. To ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian circulation, all developments, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and accessory uses and structures, shall provide a continuous walkway system. The walkway system shall be based on the standards in subsections 1-4, below: 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adiacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adiacent streets and to private property for this purpose. 2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets, based on the following definitions: a. Reasonably direct. A route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of- direction travel for likely users. b. Safe and convenient. Routes that are reasonably free from hazards and provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations. C. "Primary entrance" for commercial, industrial, mixed use, public, and institutional buildings is the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance. d. "Primary entrance" for residential buildings is the front door(i.e. facing the street). For multifamily buildings in which each unit does not have its own exterior entrance, the "primary entrance" may be a lobby, courtyard, or breezeway which serves as a common entrance for more than one dwelling. 3. Connections within Development. Walkways within developments shall be provide connections as required in subsections a -c, below: a. Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable, as generally shown in Figure 1; An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 22 b. Connect all on-site parking areas, recreational facilities and common areas, and connect off-site adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable. Topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections, as generally shown in Figure 1: and. Figure 1 Pedestrian Pathway System (Typical) Public Sidewe0m � (Cmdmioua) ' try walkways b9mma Sid *Aft CMMS � PbamT,4wRs Planed An=Batae� . PaMmg and Buftag. Pam s.W60P>ns C. Install protected raised walkways through parking areas of 50 or more spaces, or of more than 100 feet in average width or depth. B. Walkway Design and Construction. Walkways shall conform to all of the standards in subsections 1-4, as generally illustrated in Figure 2: 1. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. Except for crosswalks (subsection 2), where a walkway abuts a driveway or street, it shall be raised six inches and curbed along the edge of the driveway/street. Alternatively, the decision body may approve a walkway abutting a driveway at the same grade as the driveway if the walkway is protected from all vehicle maneuvering areas. An example of such protection is a row of decorative metal or concrete bollards designed to withstand a vehicle's impact,with adequate minimum spacing between them to protect pedestrians. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 23 2. Crosswalks. Where walkways cross a parkine area or driveway, clearly mark crosswalks with contrasting paving materials (ex., light-color concrete inlay between asphalt),which may be part of a raised/hump crossing area. Painted or thermo-plastic striping and similar types of non-permanent applications Figure 2 Pedestrian Walkway Detail may be approved for crosswalks not (Typical) exceeding 24 feet in length. 3. Walkway Surface and Width. Walkway surfaces shall be y concrete, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers, or other durable surface, , V and at least five feet wide. Multi- use paths (i.e. for bicycles and pedestrians) shall be concrete or ?; asphalt, and at least 10 feet wide in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.K. ADA Ramp t� j{—PedesbbnCraWng 4. Accessible routes. Walkways Idlandsomk up shall comply with applicable P&Wng Rows Wheekhafr Ramp Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State of Oregon WA ; requirements. The ends of all Ramp raised walkways,where the walkway intersects a driveway or street shall provide ramps that are ADA accessible, and _ walkways shall provide direct routes to primary building entrances. FWmary Mdun Entry 5. Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian facilities. SECTION 18.92.080100 Construction. The required parking, access and circulations facilities, ineluding design standards, shall be installed prior to a release of a certificate of use and occupancy or a release of utilities, and shall be permanently maintained as a condition of use. However, the Building Official may, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor, release a temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities before the installation of said facilities provided: (1) there is proof that the owner has entered into a contract with a reputable installer for the completion of the parking, including design standards, with a specified time, and that there remains nothing for the owner to do prior to installation; or (2) the owner has posted a An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 24 satisfactory performance bond to ensure the installation of said parking facilities within a specified time. SECTION 18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements. The required parking, access and circulation facilities shall be constructed when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of guest rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use.(Ord 2659, 1991; Ord 2777, 1996) SECTION 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. Required parkin¢, access and circulation shall be available for use by residents, customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. SECTION 12. AMC Section 18.108.040 [Type I Procedure-Actions Included] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.040 Type I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure: 1. Site Design Review. The following developments that are subject to the Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I permit procedures. a. Downtown Design Standards Zone. Any development which is less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less. b. Detail Site Review. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone, as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72, which is less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. c. Commercial, Industrial and Non-residential Uses. i. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones, not within the Downtown Design Standards zone, that do not require new building area in excess of 20% of an existing building' s square footage or 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less. ii. All new structures or additions less than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area in the CM zoning district. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/10) iii. Mixed-use buildings and developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning district with the Pedestrian Place Overlay. ii.- iv.Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less W.- v.Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters circulation affecting adjacent property or public right- of-way. i viAny change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 25 vt viiAny change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. vim viiiAny exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. ix. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. x. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. d.Residential. i. Two or more residential units on a single lot. ii. All new structures or additions less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, other than single-family homes or accessory uses on individual lots iii. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. iv. Off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). v. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. vii.Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Miscellaneous Actions. a. Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Type I planning actions. b. Amendment or modification to conditions of approval for Type II actions where the modification involves only changes to tree removal and/or building envelopes. 'Iaeuing-aetieps. c. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62. d. Tree removal permits as required by Section 18.61.042(D). e. Limited Activities and Use permits as allowed in Chapter 18.63. f. Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions of up to 25% as allowed in Chapter 18.63. 3. Conditional Use Permits. The following conditional use permits are subject to Type I review procedures: a. Conditional use permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than three (3) residential dwelling units. b. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 1). c.Temporary uses. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 26 e. d.Enlargement, expansion, etc. of nonconforming structures in accordance with Section 18.68.090(2). d-. e.Government signs per Section 18.96.150. e.-f The following uses in Residential zones: i. Accessory residential units ii. Daycare centers. iii. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses less than 2,500 square feet in building footprint and disturbs less than 7,500 square feet of land. iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone. v. 'All new structures, additions or expansions that exceed MPFA in historic district up to 25%, but the addition is no larger than 300 s.f. or 10% of the existing floor area, whichever is less. vi. Hostels. vii.Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone. viii. Community Services in the NM-R15 zone. g.The following uses in Commercial or Industrial zones: i. Electrical substations ii. Outdoor storage of commodities. g.h.The following uses in the Health Care Services Zone: i. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as beauticians and masseurs. ii. Professional offices for an accountant, architect, attorney, designer, engineer, - insurance agent or adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor. iii. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property that is not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan. h.i.Conditional uses in the Southern Oregon University District. 4. Variances for: a. Sign placement. b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in Section 18.96.130.D. c. Up to 50%reduction of standard yard requirements. d. Parking in setback areas. e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. f Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area. g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. h. Up to 20% reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described in Section 18.92.055. j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in Section 18.72.090. 5. Partitions and Land Divisions. a. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type I procedures. b. Creation of a private way, as allowed in Section 18.80.030.B. c. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 27 6. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. 7. Prior. to the Staff Advisor providing notice of application and making a decision, applicants or the Staff Advisor may request planning actions subject to a Type I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearings Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Hearings Board to be heard as provided in Section 18.108.050. SECTION 13. AMC Section 18.108.060 [Type III Procedures] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.060 Type III Procedures. A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions. 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in Section 18.106.030(G); or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in Section 18.106.030(G). The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 28 council initiated actions. C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be process as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in Section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in Section 18.108.100. 2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the Commission shall have the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision without further action from the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Council as provided in Section 18.108.110. 3. For planning actions described in Section 18.108.060.A.3 and 2 4, the Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in Section 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in Section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. SECTION 14. AMC Section 18.108.080 [Public Hearing Notice] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.080 Public Hearing Notice. Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor, Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to: 1. The applicant or authorized agent, 2. The subject property owner, and 3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property. B. Mailed notices shall contain the following information, provided, however, that notices for hearings before the Council shall not contain the statements specified in paragraphs 8 and 9: 1. Explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses which could be authorized. 2. List of the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to the application at issue. 3. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. 4. The name of a local government representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 29 .5. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. 6. The date, time and location of the hearing or of the meeting, if no hearing is involved. 7. A statement that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue. 8. A statement that if additional documents or evidence is provided in support of the application, any party shall be entitled to a continuance of the hearing. 9. A statement that unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. C. Posted Notice. A notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the city in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. Failure by the city to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The city shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information: planning action number, brief description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at Ashland Planning Department. D. Additional Requirements for Type II and III Public Notice. In addition to the notice specified in section 18.108.080.A, B and C, notice for Type 11 and III procedures shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing before the Commission. E. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice. F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not mail the notice required in §18.108; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights; and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew of should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board meeting allowing adequate time to comply with the notice requirements of Section 18.108.080. The public hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100. If a hearing is conducted under this section, the decision of the Commission or Hearings Board shall supersede the previous decision. G. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 30 I. The city did not comply with the notice requirements in §I8.108.080.A through E; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights; and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew or should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing before the Board, Commission or Council that heard or would have heard the matter involving the defective notice. a. The Staff Advisor shall notify by mail all persons who previously appeared in the matter and all persons who were entitled to mailed notice but were not mailed such notice. b. The hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100 if it is a hearing before the Board or Commission, except that the record of the previous hearing shall be reviewed and considered b the Board or Commission. If it is an appeal before the Y PP Council, the Council may hear such matters as are permitted in §18.108.110. A decision made after the hearing shall supersede the previous decision. H. Notwithstanding the period specified in subsections F.3 and G.3 of this section, the period for a hearing or appeal shall not exceed three years after the date of the initial decision. SECTION 15. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 16. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22-23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2011. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2011. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 31 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND,JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON November 15,2011 In the Matter of Amendments to the City of Ashland ) Zoning Map and Land Use Ordinance Creating ) A Pedestrian Place Overlay Zone, to Include a New ) FINDINGS OF FACTAND Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones, and to Amend the Site ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Design and Use Standards and Land Use Ordinance to ) Implement the Recommendations of Pedestrian Places ) Project. ) PURPOSE: Implement the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, March 2011. Implementation is achieved by four distinct ordinances: The first ordinance amends the Zoning Map to add a Pedestrian Place Overlay. The second ordinance amends the Land Use Ordinance to add Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones. Ordinances three and four amend the Site Design and Use Standards and other land use section of Chapter to support the development of concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use. PUBLIC HEARINGS: On September 30, 2011, a notice of the Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings was sent by mail to approximately 675 owners of properties located in and within % of a mile (1,320 feet) of the three study area intersections including N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St., Walker Ave./Ashland St. and Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. Additionally, on September 21, 2011, 49 notices were sent to owners of properties located in the Pedestrian Place Overlay that may have the use of the property impacted by the proposed rules in accordance with ORS 227.186. Newspaper notices were published in accordance with AMC 18.108.170.13 in The Ashland Daily Tidings on October 1, 2011 prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and on October 11, 2011, on October 21, 2011 prior to the City Council public hearing and first reading of the ordinances on November 1,2011, and on November 5, 2011 prior to the second reading of the ordinances on November 15, 2011. Notice was also sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on August 25, 2011. A Public Hearing was held at the Planning Commission on October 11, 2011. A Public Hearing was held at the City Council on November 1, 2011. REVIEW CRITERIA The decision of the City Council together with the recommendation by the Planning Commission was based on consideration and findings of consistency with the following factors. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 1 A. Consistency with City of Ashland Requirements for Legislative Amendments in 18.108.170 B. Consistency with City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan C. Consistency with Oregon land use laws and regulations including specifically Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Goal 9 Economic Development and Goal 12 Transportation EVALUATION AND COUNCIL FINDINGS: A. Consistency with City of Ashland Requirements for Legislative Amendments in Section 18.108.170 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions.A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 4,621 residents by 2030, and by approximately 2,100 jobs by 2027. In terms of urbanization, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan goal states "It is the City of Ashland's goal to maintain a compact urban form and to include an adequate supply of vacant land in the City so as not to hinder natural market forces within the City, and to ensure orderly and sequential development of land in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 2 City limits." The City Council reaffirmed this long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process. To this end, the City of Ashland continues to look for ways to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses in an effort to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a distinct boundary and preventing sprawling development. The Pedestrian Places Project zoning and land use ordinance amendments encourage a mix and intensity of uses around three intersections of main travel corridors so that a portion of the future population and employment can be accommodated within the City limits and the areas developed in a manner that will encourage walking, cycling and transit trips. The planning process made efforts to include a wide range of people including neighbors, property owners, business owners, community groups, and the general public, and to provide a variety of ways to learn about the project, participate in the plan development and provide comments. The planning process for the Pedestrian Places Project began in October 2010, and involved a series of three public workshops (10/27/10, 12/9/10, 2/22/11), an on-line forum, key participant meetings, and three Planning Commission study sessions (3/29/11, 8/23/11, 9/13/11). The workshops and on-line forum used a three-step process where participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location. The on-line forum (i.e. Open City Hall) coincided with the public workshops, and was used to provide an opportunity for people to learn about the project and submit . comments without having to attend a public meeting. Individual meetings with key participants including property owners and business owners were held during the public workshop process in October 2010, December 2010 and May 2011. In advance of each of the public workshops, approximately 675 written notices were mailed to property owners and business owners located within '/z mile radius of the three intersections included in the project. Individual letters and phone invitations were directed to approximately 80 key participants including property and business owners inviting them to individual meetings. Community notices for each workshop were advertised in the City Source and on RVTV. Flyers were sent to local service groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Rotary) and hand delivered to businesses in core areas around the intersections. Email messages were sent to approximately 35 people from the public workshops and 47 participants from Open City'Hall that signed up for future announcements. The Ashland Daily Tidings published an article on the project in December 2010, and the Planning Commission Chair participated in a Jefferson Exchange interview to publicize the project. A project web page, www.ashland.or.us/ped In aces has been maintained throughout the project, and includes the most recent draft materials, meeting announcements, an Open City Hall link, an archive of meeting materials, the public meeting schedule and contact information. The City Council finds that the proposed zoning and land use ordinance amendments are consistent with the requirements for Legislative Amendments in Section 18.108.170. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 3 B. Consistency with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan The proposed zoning and land use ordinance amendments are consistent with the goals and policies in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The Economic, Housing and Transportation chapters of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan include goals and policies that establish the basis for revising the land use standards to encourage the development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies address accommodating future population and employment growth, maintain a compact urban form to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle trips, allowing for a mix of uses and housing types, making streets convenient, safe, accessible and attractive for all users, concentrating housing and businesses with 1/4 to of a mile transit routes, and promoting livability in neighborhoods. Economy Goal To ensure that the local economy increases in its health, and diversifies in the number, type and size of businesses consistent with the local social needs, public service capability and the retention of a high quality environment. Policy 2) The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for: c) Specific development guidelines which will ensure that: 2) Development along Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street will not primarily be automobile-oriented, but will also include attractive landscaping and designs that encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit forms of travel. e) Commercial or employment zones where business and residential uses are mixed. This is especially appropriate as buffers between residential and employment or commercial areas, and in the Downtown Housing Goal Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. Policy 3) Regulation of residential uses shall be designed to complement, conserve and continue the aesthetic character of Ashland through use of the following techniques: c) Performance standards shall be used to regulate new development in Ashland so that a variety of housing types built on the site and imaginative residential environments may be used to reduce cost and improve the aesthetic character of new developments . and decrease the use of traditional zoning and subdivision standards. Transportation Street System Goal. To provide all citizens with safe and convenient Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 4 transportation while reinforcing the recognition ofpublic rights-of-way as critical public spaces. Policy 1) Provide zoning that allows for a mix of land uses and traditional neighborhood development, which promotes walking and bicycling. Policy 4) Enhance the streetscope by code changes specific placement of critical design elements such a but not limited to windows, doorways, sigs and planting strips. Policy 7) Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure Ashland Street is developed as a multi-modal corridor including attractive landscaping, sidewalks, bike lanes and controlled access. Development along Ashland Street shall be compatible with and support a multi-modal orientation. Pedestrian and Bicycle Goal L To provide all citizens with safe and convenient transportation while reinforcing the recognition of public rights-of-way as critical public spaces. Policy 8) Require sidewalks and pedestrian access in all developments. Policy 15) Pedestrian traffic should be separated from auto traffic on streets and in parking lots. Pedestrian and Bicycle Goal III. Emphasize environments which enhance pedestrian and bicycle usage. Policy 1) Maintain and improve Ashland's compact urban form to allow maximum pedestrian and bicycle travel. Public Transit Goal. To create a public transportation system that is linked to pedestrian, .bicycle and motor vehicle travel modes, and is as easy and efficient to use as driving a motor vehicle. Policy 2) Zoning shall allow for residential densities and a mix of commercial businesses within walking distance (one-quarter to one-half mile) of existing and planned public transit services which support use of public transportation. The City Council adopted the 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory Update in November 2011 as a supporting technical document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory shows that within the City Limits there is a net availability of nearly 125 buildable acres of land with a commercial designation (C-1, C-1-D, E-1, M-1, and CM). The Economic Opportunity Analysis, also adopted as a supporting technical documents to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, projected land need of 123.4 net acres by the year 2027. The Pedestrian Place Overlay includes lands in commercial designations (C-1 and E-1), and the land use ordinance amendments provide the flexibility to develop sites at a greater intensity by eliminating a maximum Floor Area Ratio, reducing the required building setback from the street, and allowing less land to be used for surface area parking. As a result, the Pedestrian Place zoning and land use ordinance revisions will allow a portion of the 125 buildable acres of commercially designated lands within the City Limits to be used to a greater potential. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 5 The City Council finds that the proposed zoning and land use ordinance amendments are consistent with and implement applicable Ashland Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. C. Consistency with Oregon land use laws and regulations including specifically Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 9 Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 — Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statues require a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans. As detailed in the previous section, the Pedestrian Places zoning and land use ordinance amendments implement a number of goals and policies included in the Economic, Housing and Transportation chapters of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 9— Economic Development requires cities and counties to address providing adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities for residents. The Pedestrian Place Overlay allows neighborhood scale commercial uses including stores, shops and restaurants in the N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St. location, whereas these commercial uses were not previously permitted in the underlying High Density Multi- Family Residential zoning district. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10 — Housing requires cities and counties to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state, including a range of types and price/rent levels, and allowing for flexibility of housing location, type and density. While the properties located in the Pedestrian Place Overlay had zoning in place prior to the Pedestrian Place amendments that allows for residential densities of 20 to 30 units per acre, the ordinance amendments allow for flexibility in site and parking design that may facilitate a multi-story and mixed use housing type that is not currently present in the Overlay locations. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12 — Transportation, as well as OAR 660-012-0000 the "Transportation Planning Rule," require transportation planning to be in coordination with land use planning. Additionally, the rule requires local governments to adopt land use regulations that address a variety of land use and transportation issues, including the following items that are directly related to the proposed Pedestrian Place amendments. • In Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) areas, local governments are required to adopt regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile, specifically by allowing transit—oriented developments (TODs) on lands along transit routes. The Pedestrian Place zoning and land use ordinance amendments are specifically Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 6 designed to provide the flexibility to develop sites at a greater intensity and with a mix of uses by eliminating a maximum Floor Area Ratio, reducing the required building setback from the street, allowing neighborhood scale commercial uses in residentially-zoned properties in the Pedestrian Place Overlay and allowing less land to be used for surface area parking. • In MPO areas, local governments are required to either adopt a parking plan that reduces parking spaces per capita, or revise ordinance requirements to: • reduce minimum off-street parking requirements for non-residential uses, • allow provisions of on-street parking, long-term lease parking and shared parking to meet minimum off-street parking requirements, establish off- street parking maximums in appropriate locations, • exempt structured parking and on-street parking from parking maximums, and • require parking lots over 3 acres in size to provide street like features along major driveways. The Pedestrian Place zoning and land use ordinance amendments promote using land more efficiently by allowing a one-for-one credit for on-street parking spaces adjacent to a project, requiring on-street parking space dimensions in conformance with the state model code requirements, providing parking management strategies such as alternative vehicle parking, shared parking and transit facilities to reduce overall off-street parking requirements by up to 50% closer to the street, requiring pedestrian access and circulation throughout development sites, and requiring parking lots of 50 space or more to be divided into separate areas and provide street-like features. • Adopt regulations requiring on-site facilities which accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from within new subdivisions, multi- family developments, planned developments, shopping centers, and commercial districts to adjacent residential areas and transit stops, and to neighborhood activity centers with one-half mile of development. • Adopt regulations requiring new office parks and commercial developments to provide internal pedestrian circulation through clustering of buildings, construction of accessways and, walkway and similar techniques. The Pedestrian Place zoning and land use ordinance amendments accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access by providing a on-site circulation system addressing pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access and circulation, requiring a walkway system throughout development sites that link building entrances, off-site adjacent sidewalks, parking areas, trails, public parks and open space areas, providing crosswalks in driveways and parking lots and accessible routes, providing pedestrian scale lighting throughout the site, and dividing parking lots of 50 space or more into separate areas with street-like features. The City Council finds that the proposed zoning map and ordinance amendments are consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 7 OVERALL COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS . The City Council finds and determines the approval criteria for this decision have been fully met, based on the detailed findings set forth herein and the detailed findings and analysis of the Planning Commission, together with all staff reports, addenda and supporting materials in the whole record. Specifically the Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with City of Ashland requirements for Legislative Amendments in 18.108.170. The Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The Council finds and determines that the proposed amendments are consistent Oregon land use laws and regulations including Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 Land Use Planning, Goal 9 Economic Development and Goal 12 Transportation. Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the evidence in the whole record,the City Council hereby APPROVES the ADOPTION of the following amendments to the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use as reflected in four distinct ordinances: • The Ashland Zoning Map is amended to add the Pedestrian Place Overlay. • Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones is added to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. • The Site Design and Use Standards in Chapter 18.72 Site Design Review are amended to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project. • AMC 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.040, 18.108.060 and 18.108.080 are amended to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project. Ashland City Council Approval John Stromberg, Mayor Date Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this 15th day of November, 2011 Attest: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Date Approved as to form: David Lohman, Ashland City Attorney Date Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Page 8