Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0816 Regular Meeting Important: Any citizen attending Council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The Chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish t be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 16, 1994 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. .APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of August 2, 1994. IV. PROCLAMATIONS & AWARDS: ' 1. Award for Nelson Lang of City Electric Department as finalist in annual Itron Meter Reader contest. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Monthly departmental reports - June, July, 1994. A. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign agreement with School District No. 5 for Youth Activities Levy. 4. Letter from Joan Hertzberg regarding evacuation of the interface in the event of a fire. 5. Response to Alice Hardesty on issues relating to the Ashland forest interface. 6. Request for approval of agreement for the installation of automatic traffic signals at the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Walker Avenue. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Must conclude by 9:00 p.m.) 1. Planning Action 94-050: Request to amend 18.08.300 of the definitions section of the Land Use Ordinance and adopt a new chapter to the Ashland Municipal Code relating to home occupations. (Applicant: City of Ashland) 2. Planning Action 94-095: Request to amend the procedures chapter 18.108 of the Land Use Ordinance; reconciling other sections of the Land Use Ordinance and the Ashland Municipal Code to these amendments; amending the variance criteria and other sections in the Land Use Ordinance; and repealing Resolutions 78-38 and 88-20. (Applicant: City of Ashland) 3. Resolution adopting storm drainage utility fees. VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda (limited to 3 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total). VIII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Request from the Historic Commission that City Council set a public hearing to appeal a decision of the Planning Hearings Board on Planning Action 94-104, approving a sign variance at 10 Water Street. 2. Request from Councillors Hauck and Winthrop to discuss the concept of a real property transfer tax to fund affordable housing trust fund and/or fire management activities in the forest interface and Ashland watershed. 3. Request from Councillors Phil Arnold and Pat Acklin regarding a repeal vote on Article III, §6 of the Charter of the City of Ashland which provides "Interest in City Contracts". D{. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: �1. First reading of "An Ordinance adding Chapter 13.24 to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish standards for naming or renaming streets." 2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance establishing conditions for the sale of water outside the city limits." V2f —3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of intention to provide improvements to Ann and 6vi a�' Clinton Streets and setting a Public Hearing." 9 �S 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland authorizing reimbursement of expenses from proceeds of Water Revenue Bonds." X. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XI. ADJOURNMENT I a`yof 'U If, ya Aentorandum '•,oftoo August 12, 1994 ZO: Steve Hall, Brian Almquist, Dennis Bamts rum: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer �1I�IjEtt: DEVELOPMENT IN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY & WITHIN 100 FEET OF WATER MAIN Following is a list of residential and/or commercial developments which are outside the cmpocate limits but within 100 feet of a City water main. Vacant lots have not been included,only those with buildings within 100 feet of a City water main. A. Dead Indian Memorial Road: _ 1. 39-lE-13B Tax Lot 200 Hassell Manufacturing (commercial) 2. 39-lE-13B Tax Lot 301 ZA Dmd Tilden Maul Rmd (one&rirffdift 3. 39-1E-13B Tax Lot 2002 2995 Hwy 66 (commercial business&RV storage) 4. 39,1E-13B Tax Lot 2004 2999 Hwy 66 (commercial shops & business) 5. 39-1E-12 Tax Lot 900 380 Dead Indian Memorial Road (residence) 6. 39-1E-12 Tax Lot 800 398 Dead Indian Memorial Road(residence&shop) 7. 39-1E-12 Tax Lot 801 400 Dead Indian Memorial Road (church) B. Crowson Road: 1. 39-1E-13C Tax Lot 1900 200 Crowson Road (residence) 2. 39-1E-13C Tax Lot 1800 252 Crowson Road (residence) 3. 39-lE-13C Tax Lot 1700 308 Crowson Road (residence) 4. 39-IE-13C Tax Lot 2505 620 Crowson Road (residence) 5. 39-lE-13C Tax Lot 2503 624 Crowson Road (residence) 6. 39-lE-14D Tax Lot 300 575 Crowson Road (residence) 7. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 600 647 Crowson Road (residence) C. Benson Way: 1. 39-lE-14D Tax Lot 500 593 Crowson Road (residence) 2. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 400 597 Crowson Road (residence) 3. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 200 595 Crowson Road (residence) D. Siskiyou Boulevard: 1. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 700 2799 Siskiyou Boulevard (mobile home park) 2. 39-113,141) Tax Lot 900 2695 Siskiyou Boulevard (residence) 3: 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 100 2815 Siskiyou Boulevard (residence) E. Mistletoe Road: 1. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 1400 295 Mistletoe Road (residence) 2. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 2000 155 Mistletoe Road (residence) 3. 39-1E-141) Tax Lot 2100 135 Mistletoe Road (School District) 4. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 2200 95 Mistletoe Road (residence) 5. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 2300 35 Mistletoe Road (residence) 6. 39-1E-14D Tax Lot 2301 45 Mistletoe Road (auto repair) F. Fordyce Street: 1. 39-1E-101) Tax Lot 2001 492 Fordyce Street (residence) G. Clay Street: 1. 39-1E-11D Tax Lot 2500 380 Clay Street (residence) 2. 39-1E-11D Tax Lot 1100 300 Clay Street (residence) 3. 39-lE-1 lD Tax Lot 1000 250 Clay Street (residence) H. Tolman Creek Road: 1. 39-1E-11D Tax Lot 801 455 Tolman Creek Road (residence) 2. 39-1E-11D Tax Lot 201 350 Tolman Creek Road (residence) A quick check of possible services shows 32 properties which fall into the guidelines you presented. It is possible that a few of these lots may already have City water services. Please let me know if you need anything further. . 0F �4E 00 June 30, 1994 Brian Almquist, City Administrator �rom: Steven Hall, Public Works Director ,,5ubj9C#: Work Session - Wastewater Treatment Plant Faciltties Plan , ACTION REOMTED City Council select a date for a study session to review: 1. DEQ evaluation of the effect of Ashland meeting established TMD12s on salmon fish habitat and overall biological enhancement of Bear Creek 2. .Reliability and consistency of Howard Prairie municipal and industrial stored water rights. is 3. Determination of DEQ mVirerttents for modcing/p"besting wetlands and sod filtration systems• may include estimated costs.) wetiandslsml 4. DEQ requi.e for simulation of nixid/est flows from wutewater wmxmt p pi filtration tests. vswes. he includes)WL 5. Report from Oregon Water Resouroes Department on water replaoe�t political and practical analysis and conclusions. 6. An evaluation of environmental benefits of each option under consideration. 7. An evaluation of the options based on how "experimental" each may be,based on current information. 8. Reo�atnon of options Fmlm sly rejected because of the Talent Irrigation Districts initial refusal of As d2jes proposal to conmingle heated effluent with TID imgatim wafer.;The TID Board of Directors has... expressed an interest in working with Addand if a Class IV effluent is produced and polished though.a wetland. 9. .Review minutes of meeting in)angeaewith the Governor's office(AnneSghuer),Oregon Departments of Fnvuonmentat Quality,Fish and Wildlife,Water Reswroes and AgomblEe,2050 Cmnmmw,RVCOG and Ashland. established TMDV in 10. Discus pooess to reach a final selection of the preferred alternative to meeting Bear Creek: BACKGROUND See memorandum submitted to City Council at June 21st meeting. A packet of information will be avatilable at the July 5th City Council meeting which will provide a basis for discussion of issues outlined above. If the Council has other items they wish to discuss, please let Caralyn.or I know of your wishes. cc: Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent Dick Marshall, Wastewater Plant Supervisor Jim Ill, Medford Wastewater•Reclamation Administrator Marc Prevost, RVCOG Water Quality_Coordinator Gary Schrodt, Ashland Wetlands Coalition Nancy Abelle, Ashland Clean Air Coalition Elm Van de Pol, League.of Women Voters (c1.woleomaat�c� f MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 2, 1994 6:30 p.m. WATER FILTER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS/FINAN IN Public Works Director Steve Hall introduced Lee Engineering, Inc. representatives Duane Lee, P.E. and Phil Beverly, P.E. They described their proposed upgrades and changes to the Facilities Plan prepared by CH2M-Hill. Complete details have not been finalized on their proposed figures. The increase is estimated to change the present total estimated project cost from $1,911,400 to $3,305,391. Councillor Reid asked if provisions were being made for possible future Federal regulations on the treatment of drinking water. Lee Engineering, Inc. responded that they were incorporating any possible new regulations into their proposed upgrade of the water treatment plant facility. Finance Director All Turner reviewed proposed procedures and schedules needed to increase water revenue bond package. (nMnola\8.2-9l.min-PL•n Councillors Acklin/Reid m/s to accept Consent Agenda with notice made of the GFOA award in Item t/5. Councillor Reid asked that it be noted the Planning Commission minutes were for the June 14 meeting. Voice vote all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Must conclude by 9:00 p.m.) 1. To consider the sale of revenue bonds by the Oregon Municipal Electric Conservation Agency In the amount of$15 million with debt service to be paid by the Bonneville Power Administration. Conservation Manager Dick Wanderscheid reviewed the program with Council. This program has taken two years to bring to this stage. Program will give us one more year of funding for our conservation projects with increased funding coming to the City next year. Mayor opened public hearing at 7:32 p.m. There was no testimony. Public hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. a. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City of Ashland authorizing the City Administrator to execute the Project Implementation Agreement with the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency (OMECA) and approving OMECA's entering into the Conservation Project Agreement with the Bonneville Power Administrator (BPA). Councillors Laws/Winthrop m/s adoption of Resolution 9450. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Acklin, Winthrop, Arnold YES. Motion passed. b. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City of Ashland, Oregon authorizing the issuance of the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency of its Conservation Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000 and related matters. Councillors Acklin/Winthrop m/s adoption of Resolution 94-51. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Acklin, Winthrop, Arnold YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda (limited to 3 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total). Alice Hardesty, 575 Dogwood Way, spoke to Council regarding fire prevention and water conservation. Her written statement was entered into the public record. Council responded that most of the items mentioned by her had been addressed and implemented by Council and city departments. Other items are being implemented through the Water Conservation program. Mrs. Hardesty requested her letter to Council be answered point by point. SPECIAL INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mayor Golden introduced official visitors from the city of Nabari, Japan. Mayor of Nabari spoke to Council and thanked the City for their kind treatment during their visit. Chairperson of Municipal Assembly greeted City Council also. Nabarl officials presented gifts to Mayor and Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Adoption of findings, conclusion and order on P.A. 94-056 for development located on Clark Avenue near Garden Way. Councillors Winthrop/Reid m/s adoption. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Winthrop, Arnold YES; Acklin ABSTAIN. Motion passed. (rWmm%-2-94.mm-pg.3) 3. - Memorandum from Councillor Arnold regarding public consensus on Siskiyou Boulevard future. Councillor Arnold reviewed process used to gather information that establishes criteria and additional considerations for future plans of Siskiyou Boulevard from the public library to Walker Avenue. Consensus was reached after many public meetings which included meetings with neighbors and businesses along Boulevard. Councillors Laws/Reid m/s to continue meeting past 9:30 p.m. Voice vote all AYES. Motion passed. Council applauded process used for consensus building by Arnold. Arnold requested Council approve concept and recommend presentation to Oregon Department of Transportation for their study and implementation. Councillors Acklin/Reid m/s adoption of concept. Voice vote all AYES. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance adding Chapter 13.24 to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish standards for naming or renaming streets." Councillor Arnold stated Ordinance would not allow some names that might be desirable selections. Councillor Acklin stated she had some toponymy information that she would try to provide to the City Attorney prior to the next Council meeting to allow more selections to be available. No action was taken on the item. 2. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance establishing conditions for the sale of water outside the city limits." Councillor Laws reviewed his request for the establishment of conditions for the sale of water outside the city limits. . Cate Hartzell, 881 E. Main Street, stated stipulations of Ordinance had more to do with conditions after a decision regarding water sale had been made by Council. She would hope to see Ordinance that spoke to decision making based more on conditions of resource capacity. Councillor Acklin stated the intent of such an Ordinance would be to define standards to use existing resources. Councillor Arnold moved to extend meeting past 10:00 p.m. for 30 minutes. There was no second. Motion died. Councillor Reid stated she was not sure if she could support a request to sell water outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) except in cases of fire protection or other similar situations. Councillor Hauck stated he had trouble supporting the Ordinance because it allowed sales outside the UGB. Mayor Golden requested Council consider long-range effects this Ordinance would have on future requests for water outside City limits and in the urban growth boundary. Mayor stated that up until one month ago, Council had power to sell water outside city limits and this Ordinance would only serve to establish precedents that may be difficult to deal with in the future. Councillor Hauck stated he voted against the Ordinance to allow water to be sold outside city limits,because it made possible water sales to lots outside urban growth limits. Councillor Acklin stated she objected to being rushed or shouted down during Council meetings when Councillors may yet have a point to make. Mayor Golden stated it was a goal established during the Goal Setting Session to keep the meetings moving along. ADIOURNIVIENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Nan E. Franklin, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor (r.W=t=%9-2-%-in-pg.'s ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other . Commissioners present were Cloer, Armitage, Powell, and Carr. Staff present were Molnar, McLaughlin and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes and Findings of the June 14, 1994 meeting were moved to be approved by Carr and seconded by Powell. All Commissioners favored. Carr moved to approve the Findings for the June 28, 1994 meeting and Powell seconded the motion. All Commissioners voted approval. TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 94-092 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 965 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. ALSO REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THREE OF THE FIVE LOTS. APPLICANT: BILL ROBERTSON Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Jarvis made a second site visit. . She looked at the driveway in the rear near Jaquelyn Street. CONTINUATION OF HEARING FROM JUNE 28, 1994 STAFF REPORT This application was continued because of insufficient information provided by the applicant at the last meeting. The applicant, ten days ago, submitted additional information. Included was a more detailed inventory of the trees located on the property. Two letters have been submitted for the record; one from Susan Hunt, Tree Commissioner, noting her observations on the site; the other from Cynthia Dion who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Molnar addressed the comments in the letters. Hunt spoke of the large tulip tree in the approximate location of the new driveway. Molnar said there appears to be enough room between the tree and existing residence to have the driveway curve around the tree without having to remove it. Staff would recommend something other than paving around the tree. In Dion's letter, she mentioned an 18 inch pine tree on Parcel 1. That tree is more centrally located in a buildable area. Through some creative design, a home could be designed around the tree so the tree could be retained, however, it is questionable what impact construction would have on the tree. With regard to the future thru-street, the City Attorney said a Condition could be attached that the applicant would agree to sign an irrevocable agreement to dedicate the right-of-way to the City. (Condition 13 in the Staff Report). Molnar suggested Condition 14 that temporary fencing be installed around the dripline of the trees to be retained on Parcel 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. In response to Dion's letter, Molnar agreed that it looked like Robertson took Findings from another application, but the Commission needs to see if the application before them meets the criteria for approval. It appears all the issues have been addressed. Cloer sees some uncertainty about the property lines between Lots 1 and 2 and wants to make sure the trees would be preserved on both parcels after construction. PUBLIC HEARING BILL ROBERTSON, said that he would have to run an electric line, cable, etc. that would interfere with the tulip tree. On the neighbor's property there is a very large cedar tree. If he saves the cedar tree, the tulip tree could be lost, or if he saves the tulip tree, the.cedar tree could be lost. He would rather save the cedar tree. He is in agreement about the fencing the trees around the driplines. Robertson did cut and paste from applications to come up with his own. He will have to remove the pine tree. Armitage thought some clarification should be made in Condition 14 that the trees be protected on Parcel 2 also. Robertson had some concerns about the street dedication but decided he would agree to that Condition. Cloer wondered how the trees would be preserved in light of the change in the hydrology,(less irrigation). Robertson did not believe there would be much change .except for the poplar tree in the rear. He said this property has not been irrigated the way it used to be. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 12,1994 Staff Response As part of the Conditional Use Permit criteria, there has to be sufficient information in the record that the buildings will be compatible with the buildings in the area. Robertson might be adjusting floor plans and modifying some exterior components. Staff feels comfortable with the information provided. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Cloer thought it would be problematic to save the tulip tree if the street were to go through. Armitage moved to approve PA94-092 with the attached recommended 14 Conditions (addition of the temporary fencing, as above). Amend that Condition to add Parcel 2. Carr seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER Letter from Don Paul - Altamont access McLaughlin reported that access will be worked out before a building permit is issued and attached to a building permit. No further action by the Planning Commission is necessary. TIMELINE McLaughlin reviewed the projects currently underway by the Planning Department. The Transportation Plan has been about half completed and expected adoption would be early 1995. Work is being done on revising the Historic Resource Inventory and there will be an all day workshop on historic design review on July 20th, beginning at 8:30 a.m. at the Old Armory. The work on the Railroad District (under a grant from the State) should begin in September and take approximately a year to complete. The Department will be looking at the ordinances regarding open space and pathway dedications. After the Dolan decision, questions have arisen about what to do next. The State is willing to provide the City with a grant to work on our,ordinances. This should be complete by next July. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 12,1996 Work will be done for a new Urban Growth Boundary Agreement through a grant provided by the State. This would be complete by next July. The North Mountain Avenue neighborhood plan is in process. In a month or so, the Strawberry/Westwood steering committee will be starting their meetings. Staff will be preparing a specific plan for the Ashland Street Plan and this will need to be completed by next July. The Affordable Housing Committee has been revamped. The Commissioners will be provided with a copy of the timeline in their next packet. There will be no Study Session in July. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 12, 1994 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD JULY 12, 1994 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Armitage and Powell. Staff present were Molnar, Madding and Yates. MINUTES AND FINDINGS Powell moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the June 14, 1994 meeting. Jarvis seconded the motion and the Minutes and Findings were approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 94-104 REQUEST FOR A SIGN PLACEMENT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIGN TO BE MAINTAINED ON AN AWNING NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE CITY SIGN CODE. APPLICANT: GRADY & SUSAN GOLDEN Site Visit and Ex Parte Contact Armitage and Jarvis had site visits. Powell is familiar with the site. STAFF REPORT Molnar stated that the Criteria for a Sign Variance are in the packet and were mailed with the notice. The sign was installed without a permit in the latter half of 1993. Two or three letters from the City were sent to the business owner trying to correct the problem. Those letters are in the packet. The sign ordinance is considered restrictive in the attempt to create an equal playing field for all businesses and cut down on sign clutter. This application involves a request to place a sign on the awning not considered the business frontage. The sign ordinance does not allow for any variance to the area of a sign. A variance can only be allowed for 20-30 square feet and much of the existing sign would have to be removed. The applicants have submitted information explaining their constraints. Historically, sign variances have been hard to come by because it is difficult to show unique or unusual circumstances. Staff cannot support the approval of a Variance for a sign permit. The Historic Commission recommended denial of the variance and the minutes are included in the packet. PUBLIC HEARING SUSAN AND GRADY GOLDEN, applicants, have been trying to work with the City to clarify the sign requirements and have applied for a variance because of their hardship with the way the building faces. The Goldens showed slides of their property from all angles. It is difficult to see their business; it does not face Water Street but the address is Water Street but there is no access from Water Street. They thought the sign contractor was going to obtain all the permits they needed. It is important for the Goldens to stay in business--it is hard enough even with the sign. MIKE of Business Tech Signs, believes the Goldens should be allowed the variance. After measuring the square footage of the sign, he came up with a different figure than the City. He thinks the sign is attractive. GRADY GOLDEN is willing to work with the City for removal of that portion of the sign that is out of compliance in order that the sign be brought into compliance. He needs it for the survival of his business. Armitage wondered if the applicant considered putting a sign on the building. Golden responded that the last business owner had a sign on the building and no one could see it and that is what prompted them to have an awning made. Golden added that according to Mike's (Business Tech Signs) measurements, the logo, business name, and Hair, Skin and Nails are within the allowable measurements for the sign to be legal. • , NANCY ADRIAN, employee at French Quarter said the customers of the salon like the improvement the sign and the awning have made to the community. She would like to see the variance granted. BARBARA, employee at French Quarter, said when the business was Lisa's Main Attraction, she could not find it the first time she tried. She remembers two occasions before the awning and sign were installed that two clients could not find the business and did not come back. TERRY SKIBBY, Historic Commission Liaison, brought to the Commission's attention the minutes of their meeting. They voted to remove the sign because it is too large and out of scale. There are other similar situations in town and he sees a negative impact with the sign. He feels the hardship is because the sign is on the awning. The awning could remain with the sign on the building. ASHLAND PUNNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 12,1994 Staff Response Staff has had no contact with anyone about a conflicting sign measurement. The method the City uses to measure is to frame the whole sign and then measure. Jarvis said that in looking at the sign ordinance and variances, it would seem there could be no variances (18.96.060). Powell did not believe the sign code was intended to make it impossible for people to do business. GRADY GOLDEN, in rebuttal, said they have a hardship because of their location. They are willing to work on the square footage but they do need the sign facing East Main Street. He mentioned that 50 percent of their clients live in town and 50 percent are from out-of-town. Jarvis commented to Golden that to her it seemed inappropriate to approve a variance for a business when that business decided to locate in a certain location, especially when the business before them went out of business. The applicant is asking the Commission to do something unusual because the applicant made the decision to locate their business in a hard-to-see location. She added that even with the awning in place, it is still a problem finding their business. She would have a difficult time approving a variance that would open up the opportunity for everyone else to do similar things with their signs. SUSAN GOLDEN said the reason they applied for the variance is because the awning and the lettering have helped. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Powell read the Historic Commission discussion about other non-conforming signs. Also, if a variance is allowed, it would open it up for others to ask for the same allowances. Armitage said the applicant is willing to make the sign legal. The awning is legal so it will not have to be removed. It is difficult for the applicant because the frontage faces Water Street, has a Water Street address, but no access from Water Street. Jarvis said that people choose where they decide to open a business. The Ashland Wine Cellar, for example, is in the same position as French Quarter. This is not an unusual circumstance. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 12,1994 Powell moved to approve PA94-104 and that the sign will be allowed but will have to be brought into compliance (24 to 30 sq. ft.) as Staff allows. This is a unique or. unusual circumstance because the business fronts Water Street with a Water Street address with no Water Street access. Armitage seconded the motion, noting the applicant's slides show this is a peculiar situation. The motion carried with Jarvis voting "no". TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 94-097 REQUEST FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLEWOOD SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: APPLEWOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 94-099 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR 4-UNITS (PHASE II) OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 81-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS LOCATED ON CLAY STREET, NORTH AND ADJACENT TO THE WINGSPREAD MOBILE HOME PARK. APPLICANT: HANK ALBERTSON The applicant needs to be reminded that the Commission with allow only a limited number of extensions. This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 12,1994 . 1 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 1994 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Thompson, Cloer, Hibbert, Powell, Carr, Armitage, and Bingham. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar and Yates. TYPE 11 PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 93-121 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE CUL-DE-SAC OF IVY LANE. APPLICANT: RAD WELLS Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Thompson had a recent site visit. He walked the property and noticed it was very steep and it had been cleared since his first site visit. Cloer had a site visit and was reminded of Hibbert's suggestion to start thinking about the forest interface and a tree and fire protection ordinance. He also drove the Loop Road and noticed the extreme fire danger. Hibbert had a site visit. He is acquainted with Rad Wells. Hibbert also has a friend that lives in the area, Joe Vasilik, however, they have not discussed the project. He believes he can be fair and objective during this process. Powell did not make a site visit recently. Even though she was not at the November meeting, she did listen to the tapes of that meeting and she believes she can participate in tonight's hearing. Carr had a site visit. She shared Cloer's observations about fire danger. She found her visit unsettling. Armitage had a site visit within the last two weeks. He observed that the property had been logged of dead and dying trees. This is not a natural forest site. Bingham has not been.to the property since the November hearing but he observed that several trees had been cut down. Jarvis visited the site with Don Paul, Keith Woodley, Jim Hibbert and Bill Molnar and they had a discussion of what was going to happen to the trees. She was on the site last week and today and she observed that most of the trees that had been downed were madrone. STAFF REPORT This application was reviewed in November as outlined in the Staff Report. The applicant has hired an arborist who has submitted a tree management plan. A memo has been included in the record to Bill Molnar from Paul Nolte, City Attorney. The Planning Commission can impose a Condition requiring bonding for trees. However, the Findings have to articulate a value to the public for each tree. Last month a site visit was done with Staff, Don Paul, Jarvis, Hibbert and the arborist to go over what type of tree removal needed to be conducted. Molnar showed a video of the property. Cloer wondered how the CC&R's can be monitored. McLaughlin said it could be part of the building permits. The applicant would have to provide copies of the contracts. PUBLIC HEARING RAD WELLS, 1031 Ivy Lane, stated that his lot has 47 trees that are still on the lot and another 33 that have been planted. He is trying to preserve the viewscape. Armitage noticed the granitic soil on the site and had concerns about erosion. He wondered what will happen to the site excavation material. Wells responded that he would like it to remain on-site to protect against run-off problems but if he can't find a place for it, he will remove it. PETE SEDA, was delighted the Planning Commission is so concerned about tree preservation. He was hired to save the trees as much as possible. He will not save a tree that is going to be buried. Protective measures.are outlined in his tree management report. Powell observed that each tree person that has been a part of this application seems to have had a different perspective. Seda said the last tree person did an inadequate job. The approach of urban forestry is a relatively new; doing construction around trees costs more money and takes more care by the building contractors.. Seda has included a contractor's guarantee. Seda is still looking at a way to remove the cut logs. Jarvis mentioned that the Tree Commission Site Review included two conditions that ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 28,1994 MINUTES were somewhat in conflict with each other. She suggested that the applicant plant street trees on the street and native trees on the lot (or a mixture) instead of using the wording of the Tree Commission. Carr asked if Staff agreed that E, G, and H be deleted from the CC&R's. Molnar suggested the following wording for Condition 12: The CC&R's specifically name the City as the beneficiary of the covenants regarding tree removal with the authority to enforce such covenant; and such covenants shall not be amended unless there is consent of the City of Ashland and shall provide for attorney fees for enforcement of the covenants. Sections E, G, and H will remain in the CC&R's. The Commissioners wanted to add a Condition for the language in "B" in the CC&R's. Add "a list prepared by the arborist, as attached". Armitage wondered about adding something about bonding. It is hard to set an arbitrary figure on a tree. Hibbert felt that in light of the improvements that have been made since the last meeting on this application, he felt a bond was no longer necessary. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Cloer moved to approve PA93-121 and that the tree protection issue has been resolved to the Commissioner's satisfaction and the criteria for Final Plan approval was not an issue, and moved to approve with the attached 13 Conditions as modified. Penalties placed in the contract Attorney fees be added in CC&R's The complete re-wording of Condition 12 (Molnar's wording above) The list of trees be added to CC&R's (arborist's list) No requirement for a bond Hibbert seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 94-092 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 965 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. ALSO REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THREE OF THE FIVE LOTS. APPLICANT: BILL ROBERTSON ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28,1994 MINUTES Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Thompson excused himself because of extensive contacts with the applicant. Cloer was not certain of the side yards or lot widths and noticed a number of trees on the property. STAFF REPORT The proposal is for a five lot subdivision with a private drive off Tolman Creek Road. The turnaround would accommodate a hammerhead turnaround. The parcels are in excess of 5,000 square feet. The request is also to allow accessory residential units (400-600 square feet) on three of the five lots. Residences are approximately 1500 sq. ft. Staff discussed with the applicant about talking to the owner of the flag on Jaquelyn to see if a road could go through. The applicant had a couple of discussions, but the owner is not interested in negotiations. Staff counted in excess of 30 trees on the property and concerns have been raised regarding the trees. Staff did not know if all the trees have been located on the site plan. The applicant has shown which trees will be removed. Two trees will be removed because of construction of the private drive. Staff has been concerned about the details of the application. Some the information has been sparse in addressing the criteria for approval. This proposal is being developed under the Performance Standards and there is no minimum lot depth or width requirements. Staff has suggested 11 Conditions if the Commission decides to approve the application. Molnar suggested a Condition that one street tree per 30 feet of private drive frontage be installed along the three flag drives prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Irrigation system for street trees is to be included on the building plans. Also, add to Condition 3 that a five foot wide pedestrian easement on the south property line (left side of private drive) be improved with 3/4 minus crushed rock. Jarvis wondered, since the application was lacking information and none of the criteria have been addressed, why was it accepted? Molnar said since the application is under ten lots, the applicant can apply for Outline and Final plan under one application. If it is approved, there would be no further modification of the layout of the lots. He notified the applicant that he was lacking Conditional Use Permit criteria ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEEnNG JUNE 28,1994 MINUTES and the Commission can ask the applicant why the application is lacking. Staff showed a video of the site. Bingham questioned when the existing flag drive to the left was approved. McLaughlin said it about 1989. There is not a street dedication map that would force a connection. The applicant has tried in this case to make a connection but to no avail. Bingham asked if it could be made an open-ended flag--just a public street that hasn't gone all the way through yet. McLaughlin was not sure a conditional dedication could be made but would check with the City Attorney. Cloer thought the City should sponsor negotiations for getting a street through. PUBLIC HEARING BILL ROBERTSON, 2175 Tolman Creek Road, said the main house will have a 12 foot side yard setback. That will give more yard space for the accessory unit. This is a transitional neighborhood from residential to commercial. With regard to the connecting the flag to a street, both the City and Robertson have been unsuccessful in negotiations. The other neighbors would rather have flag lots than a street. Pete Seda was on-site today talking about the cedar tree. Seda recommended paving of the driveway with an inch of mulch and rocks, allowing aeration. In response to Jarvis' question concerning not addressing the criteria, Robertson said he was under the impression that the Commissioners got remarks made by the Department Heads at the pre-application. He said the application meets all applicable ordinances. He would assume there-are adequate City facilities. Jarvis wondered if Robertson could put this action off for two weeks because he does not address the criteria either orally or in writing. The hearing would be continued until July 12 and the applicant will have to have his additional information in 10 days before the hearing. CYNTHIA DION, 365 Pearl Street, was the previous owner of the property. She is familiar with what happened on the rear parcel. She is particularly-interested in what is happening with the trees on the property. She could find no findings or landscape plan other than a simple drawing. She is concerned that each one of the 30 trees be listed, lined out to see how a paved drive and road cut will effect the trees. She believes property values would be highly decreased if this issue is not addressed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 - REGULAR MEETING JUNE 213,1994 MINUTES Bingham asked if any discussion ever came up about a road in 1978. Dion responded that there was discussion. She believes it would be in everyone's best interest to get a street dedication. Staff will provide Robertson with a list of items he should submit. Robertson said he would waive his 120 time limitation and agreed to continue the hearing to July 12, 1994. Carr moved to continue PA94-092 for completion of the file for the July 12, 1994 hearing. In the event the applicant cannot meet the deadline of July 1, 1994 for submission of materials, the hearing will be continued to the regular August meeting. Powell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Powell left the meeting. Thompson returned to the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 94-050 REQUEST FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 18.08.300 AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT Everything that has been discussed prior to this hearing has been included in the packet. A draft application is in the packet. Cloer moved to approve PA94-050. Carr seconded the motion and it was approved with Hibbert abstaining. PLANNING ACTION 94-095 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES CHAPTER (18.108); MODIFICATIONS TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE; AND AMENDMENT OF VARIANCE CRITERIA (18.100). APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND The shaded areas in the ordinance are the changes for which the Commission has asked.. Please note the alternative sections (Page 8 and 11). Carr moved not to use the alternative sections. Hibbert seconded the motion and all favored. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28,1994 MINMES CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. ARMITAGE SECONDED AND ALL FAVORED. Carr moved and the motion was seconded to recommend approve of the ordinance changes to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28,1994 MINUTES ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes July 6, 1994 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Terry Skibby at 7:35 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Steve Ennis, Chloe Winston, H.L. Wood, Larry Cardinale, and Keith Chambers. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Casey Mitchell, Jim Lewis and Bill Harriff were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ennis moved and Cardinale seconded to approve the Minutes of the June 8, 1994 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS PA 94-104 Sign Variance 10 Water Street Grady and Susan Golden Knox explained this application is for a Sign Code Variance for the placement of signs, the number of signs and the size of the signs for the French Quarter. The awning signs were put up with out permits, therefore, without approval. Knox said the Sign Code Ordinance is very cumbersome, but is a very good ordinance and has done a lot of good for the City as a whole. According to the ordinance, frontage is defined as a single wall surface of a building facing a given direction. These signs are painted on the Water Street, East Main Street and Lithia Way sides. Only the Water Street side sign is legal. The legal number of signs a business can have is two. The French Quarter has five, totalling 77 square feet. Only 24 square feet is allowed because there is only 24 lineal feet of the business. The ordinance prohibits variance approval for size and number of signs, and would need to be changed in order for this to be approved. He also noted the design is similar to others in the downtown area, however, Staff is recommending the variances not be approved by the Planning Commission as submitted. If the Commission approves the variance, the owners would still need to bring the square footage down to 24 feet. Cardinale asked if the awning would have to be removed. Knox answered it would not because it is all on private property, and added the awning is a separate structure because it is not entirely supported by the building. Chambers asked if the sign could go beyond the three..foot limit. Knox said the ordinance was written to accommodate the rights-of-way, which would be public property, but since the awning is on private property, it could remain on the awning provided the square footage was scaled down to what is allowed in the ordinance. When Winston questioned how the owners could not know about the Sign Code Ordinance, Knox stated the owners hired a contractor to make the awning and signs. Knox related the Commission would need to make sure there are extraordinary circumstances if considering approval. There also may be long range impacts of such approval, such as setting a precedence for other businesses to apply for Sign Code Variances. Susan Golden, part owner of the French Quarter, stated the business is not actually facing a street, which has been a big dilemma. The building is at an odd angle in a parking lot. The address is on Water Street, but it is very difficult to find because there is no access off Water Street, only East Main Street. They wanted an awning which would look nice in Ashland and also be visually accessible. Ennis asked if the owners could cut down the number of signs to two and the square footage to 24 feet. Grady Golden, the other part owner, said there is actually 30 lineal feet to their business. Their business faces the beaver slide. He asserted one can't actually see the awning coming down North Main Street until past Munchies because of the espresso cart and the Adventure Center. They hired professional people to design the awning and signs for them and expected the contractor to follow the requirements. He would be willing to remove the sign facing Lithia Way, but for the sake of his business, they need to keep the East Main and Water Street sides. When Chambers questioned his knowledge about the Sign Code Ordinance, Golden answered he relied on the contractor, as they were in the process of moving their business and remodelling at the same time. Grady Golden also called attention to a letter submitted by Jac Nickels in support of the variance. Golden said the frontage can be worked out. They tried to do something tasteful and have received thanks and compliments for their efforts. They have also provided more security for the area with added lighting. The prior hair dresser located in the building went out of business because of the lack of visibility. Their problem seems to be the angle of building vs. street vs..address. Susan Golden noted the reason they are applying for the variance is because of their unique situation. Ted Clay, 219 Meade Street, stated if the real issue is one of recognizing the nature of the building, and if you look at the intent of the ordinance whereby the signs are not too big, since the nature of this sign makes it appear smaller, it would seem logical to approve the variance. Skibby stated the sign is large and it appears larger than the surrounding ones. Grady Golden stated many signs in the City do not comply with the ordinance. Knox replied he and John McLaughlin will be taking care of violations of the Sign Code Ordinance the following week, as everyone should have the same equal share and not compete for the largest sign. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Page 2 Ennis reminded the applicants their request cannot be approved without public bearings and City Council approval of ordinance changes. Chambers stated there is an issue of symmetry here, as the awning looks out of balance. If everyone wanted a bigger sign, we would have what Ashland looked like 30 years ago. He can see, however, a reduction of size. Skibby said he does not feel bound by the fact the awning is already existing. Ennis noted if the sign permit application came in and it were being reviewed from scratch, it simply would not be approved. Skibby then stated a standard awning or sign on the building could be approved. He said he feels the sign should be regulated by the ordinance and the applicants should start over, since it was put up without a permit. Ennis stated he can see a special need for having the sign facing East Main Street, and personally agrees with the variance for facing East Main Street. Cardinale stated he has a similar circumstance with his business (Handyman). His building is located below Ashland Street and people have a very difficult time finding it. He personally feels the ordinance should be more lenient, but he does not have a say in it, so the ordinance should be followed. Winston remarked while she appreciated the applicants efforts, the signs are out of scale and she felt they should have been wiser. She advised the contractor should be financially responsible. Wood moved to recommend denial of the application to the Planning Commission, and Winston seconded the motion: Chambers asked for clarification. Winston stated the intent would be to remove the signs. Chambers said the massing and scale are too large, but he is not against a variance for the placement of a 24 square foot sign. The motion carried with all voting aye except Ennis and Chambers, who both stated they were not in favor of what exists, but felt the owners should be allowed to have a sign facing East Main Street. Ennis suggested the applicants go to the Planning Commission meeting agreeing to reduce the size of the signs and ask for a variance for the side location only. DEMOLITION REQUEST - 168 MEADE STREET Skibby clarified the house is on the Heritage Landmarks List. Ted Clay, new owner of the property, acknowledged he was in error when he stated it was not. Skibby then gave a short history of 168 Meade Street and passed around photos of the property. When questioned by Skibby if the garage would remain, Clay answered it would. Skibby stated he felt the garage had more architectural merit than the house. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Page 3 Clay conveyed he has had several people take a look at the house. One was a house mover and one was an architect, and neither felt the house was worth saving. Because of the fire, the house has been condemned. Everything above four feet on the main floor has been scorched and suffered fire damage. When asked what will occupy the site, Clay said he will be building a single family residence. The design will not be similar, but it will be compatible. Also, it will be one and one-half stories. Skibby stated that by keeping the garage, it will keep the history of the site, and he can understand the request for demolition of the house. Ennis also understands and added the existing house sits much too low. Ennis moved to recommend approval of the demolition request given the condition of the existing house, the recent history, and the fact it is ranked as a secondary structure on the Heritage Landmarks List. Furthermore, as part of the motion, the Commission agreed the garage structure shall be retained. Chambers seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Clay then asked if it would be most important to keep the garage as it is and have it compatible but not similar, or change the windows and siding. The Commission agreed the garage should retain as much of the original siding and windows as possible. If adding on, the siding and windows should match the existing. Proposed Central Avenue/Water Street Railroad Spur Wes Vail presented a railroad slide show. He stated he would like to get the railroad line, at least from Ashland to Shasta, on the National Register because SP is in the process of tearing up the line and taking out the old crossings, etc. He also stated he owns the railroad right-of-way spur between Water Street and Central Avenue. He has three nice old rail cars and needs a building to house them. The designmould be similar to the old depot hotel with a porch, only on a smaller scale and it would be a shed. Eventually, he will probably give the cars to the State of Oregon. The structure will be for storage of the cars, and possible a museum at the most. If and when the railroad ever runs over the Siskiyou Mountains again, his cars can be used. In the meantime, he needs to shelter them. Vail then presented elevations of the proposed building, which would be 250 feet long. He said he chose an Eastlake design because all the depots SP built in the northwest at that time were of this style. Ennis stated and the Commission agreed it would be very important to see drawings of the massing of the building and streetscape. Vail said he is not in a hurry at this point and he will work with the Review Board. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Page 4 BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of June follow: 164 Fifth Street Fred/Laura Perloff Replace Windows 165 Gresham Street Hank/Karen O'Dougherty Remodel/Addition 105 East Main Street Brent Thompson Revisions/Remodel 750 "A" Street Allan Sandler Interior Remodel 499 Iowa Street Tom Marvin Deck 27 Dewey Street Patricia Poe Remodel/Addition 774 "C" Street Myrtle Franklin Skylights 152 Strawberry Lane Laura Dunbar Bressler Remodel 407 Scenic Drive Richard/Dorothy Davis Remodel 407 Scenic Drive Richard/Dorothy Davis Garage Conv to Unit 407 Scenic Drive Richard/Dorothy Davis Garage 165 Gresham Street Hank/Karen O'Dougherty Reroof Garage 561 "C" Street Sandra Simonette Interior Remod/Garage 34 Union Street G.K. Schrock Greenhouse 220 Van Ness Avenue Darrell Boldt Four-plex 399 East Main Street Fussywugs Sign 91 Gresham Street Antique Rose Inn Sign 586 East Main Street Anne Hathaway's Cottage Sign 115 East Main Street Trapeze Sign 258 "A" Street Lot 9 Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday at least from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: July 7 Skibby and Winston July 14 Skibby, Chambers and Wood July 21 Skibby, Winston and Cardinale July 28 Skibby, Winston and Cardinale OLD BUSINESS Goal Setting/Orientation Meeting Skibby stated he felt the Commission should support the re-activation of a railroad line in this area, and offered to write a letter. Goals will be discussed at the next meeting. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Page 5 SHPO Workshop Knox stated the workshop will be on July 20th at the Old Ashland Armory. Agendas will be mailed to the City Council, Historic Commission and Planning Commission members. Also, announcements will be placed in the newspaper. Seismic Retrofitting Brochure The Commission reviewed a memo from Building Official Mike Broomfield that was sent to the Mayor and Council in February. The Commission needs to know how far the City has gotten on this before it proceeds. Graffiti in Ashland Wood reported the City Attorney is keeping an eye on what is happening'with the ordinances in Klamath Falls and Grants Pass. He also noted there is a "graffiti watch", whereby if the Police Department is notified of new graffiti, someone will be sent out to remove it. Knox volunteered to draft an article for the newspaper, then show it to Police Chief Gary Brown before submitting it. NEW BUSINESS Removal and Replacement of Lithia Water Fountains/Spigot on Plaza The Commission felt the replacement of the eight fountains would be fine, however, more information on the design and orientation of the spigot replacement is needed. Sandblasting the Ganiard Opera House. (1t was agreed to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m.) The letter requesting City Council approval for sandblasting the Ganiard Opera House was discussed. Owner Brent Thompson will be contacted and notified of alternative methods, since sandblasting old buildings is not acceptable. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Chambers and second by Cardinale, it was the unanimous decision to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Page 6 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/94 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Building: 3 DECKS (ON UNITS 4, 9,22) 1 3, 600 ACCESS RESIDENTIAL UNIT 1 45,000 ADDENDUM TO 9404085 1 0 ADDITION 3 152 ,322 CONV GAR TO FAMILY RM 1 2 ,000 CONV GARAGE TO ACCESS UNT 1 100,000 CONV GARAGE TO STUDIO 1 600 DECK 3 5,200 DECK & •PATIO 1 8,000 DEMOLITION OF OFFICE 1 1 0 DETACHED OFFICE 1 5,000- EXTENSION TO ADDITION 1 14,632 FENCE (' S 2 ,290 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 4 ,298 FOURPLEX 1 217, 637 GARAGE 1 3,705 GREENHOUSE 1 1,200 NEW STUDIO 1 12,578 REMODEL 4 171,000 REMODEL & ADDITION 6 475,000 REMODEL/SKYLIGHT 1 10,000 REPLACE RAFTERS 1 1,200 REPLACE STAIRWAY 1 200 REPLACE WINDOWS 1 3, 000 REROOF 1 5,300 RETAINING WALL 1 2,000 REVISIONS TO DECKS 1 0 ROOF FOR GARAGE 1 1,200 ROOF OVERHANG 1 350 SFR 21 2, 525,463 SHED 1 1, 430 SKYLIGHTS/FENCE 1 3, 000 Subtotal: $ 3 ,777,205 Electrical: 1 BR CIR FOR AIR CONDIT 1 200 1 BR CIR FOR GAS FURNACE 1 250 1 BR CIR FOR GAS FURNANCE 1 150 1 BRANCH CIRCUIT 1 400 ALARM SYSTEM 2 300 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/94 Page 2 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Electrical: ENTRY VOIDING 9404061 -1 -300 SERVICE CHANGE 3 3 , 500 TEMP POWER 2 245 UPGRADE SERVICE 1 1, 000 Subtotal: $ 5, 745 Mechanical: A/C IN KITCHEN UNIT ONLY 1 3.,367 CONV WATER HEATER TO GAS 1 800 FIREPLACE INSERT/GAS LINE 1 2 ,090- GAS FURN 1 3, 250 GAS LINE/FURN/l BR CIR 2 7, 683 GAS LINE/GAS FURN ONLY 1 2,200 GAS PIPING FOR POOL 1 695 GFAU & A/C + 1 BR CIR 1 2,500 . GFAU + 1 BR CIR 1 3 ,000 INSTALL GAS FURN 1 3 ,250 Subtotal: $ 28,835 Plumbing: IRRIGATION SYSTEM 2 6,200 REPAIR SEWER LINE 1 550 REPLACE ELECT WATER HTR 1 150 REPLACE PLMG FIXTURES 1 3 ,000 SEWER AND WATER 2 2 ,700 SEWER LINE 1 150 SEWER LINE/ELECTRIC 1 500 WATER HEATER 1 120 WATER LINE 1 250 Subtotal: ' $ 13 ,620 ***Total: $ 3 ,825,405 COMMERCIAL: Building: INT OFFICE REMODEL 1 12 ,448 INTERIOR REMODEL 1 5,600 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/94 Page 3 # Units Value COMMERCIAL: Building: OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 1 165, 069 OVEN W/TYPE II HOOD 1 18,000 REVISIONS 1 300 SPECIAL INSPECTION 1 0 Subtotal: $ 201,417 Electrical: 3 BR .CIR FOR COMP/COPIERS 1 550 ALARM SYSTEM 2 260 CHANGE BALLASTS 4 , 500 ELECT-SWITCH CABINET 1 450 ELECTRIC (CANCELLED) 0 EMER LIGHTING-CENTR HALL 1 15, 139 EMERG LIGHTING-ED PSYCH 1 12 ,989 EMERG LIGHTING-MC NEAL HL 1 8, 644 EMERGENCY LIGHTING-LIBRAR 1 8 ,964 SECURITY SYSTEM 1 1, 327 Subtotal: ,$ 52,826 Mechanical: GFAU + 1 BR CIR 1 1,237 INSTALL A/C + 1 BR CIR 1 2 ,141 INSTALL CONV OVEN VENT 1 100 Subtotal: $ 3 ,478 ***Total: $ 257, 721 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/94 Page 4 Total this month: 123 $ 4, 083 , 127 Total this month last year: 111 $ 1,458 , 359 Total year to date: 1130 $22 , 197,759 Total last year: 1170 $21, 533 ,783 This month This month This year last year Total Fees: 48, 764 22 ,795 276,263 Total Inspections: 646 587 6848 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 6/94 . RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 08/01/94 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ACCESS RESIDENTIAL UNIT 796 OAK ST PAIKEN, JAMEY 45000. 00 ** Subtotal ** 45000. 00 ** FOURPLEX 220 VAN NESS AV NORTH PACIFIC 217637. 00 CONSTRUCTION CO ** Subtotal ** • 217637 . 00 ** GARAGE 407 SCENIC DR DAVIS & DOWNEY 3705. 60 CONSTRUCTION INC ** Subtotal ** 3705. 60 ** NEW STUDIO 408 WALKER AV TROXEL, LANE C - 12578. 00 CONSTRUCTION ** Subtotal ** 12578 . 00 **• SFR 804 ROCA ST TURRELL, JON CONSTRUCTION 148000. 00 815 CYPRESS POINT LP NORTHWEST HANDCRAFTED 157320. 00 HOMES INC 1371 EVAN LN DENN, LARRY - 76000.00 CONSTRUCTION 840 CYPRESS POINT LP TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. 110000.00 944 CYPRESS POINT' LP OWNER 146766. 00 195 NO ADDRESS MEDINGER CONST. CO. ' INC. 66000. 00 215 PATTERSON ST MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 61000. 00 191 NO ADDRESS MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 61000. 00 64 MALLARD ST MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 72000. 00 803 CYPRESS POINT LP HAMMOND CONSTRUCTION 116715. 00 607 TERRACE ST FITCH, DAVID 140000. 00 792 ROCA ST THIRKILL, LAURSEN 182760. 00 430 THORNTON WY OWNER 234902. 00 941 CYPRESS POINT LP TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. 140000. 00 2850. WEDGEWOOD LN TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. 142000.00 706 BENJAMIN COURT MORJIG, STEVE 207000.00 198 NO ADDRESS MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 59000. 00 217 PATTERSON ST MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 61000. 00 988 HILLVIEW DR KOSMATKA, VICTOR-BUILDER 90000. 00 834 CYPRESS POINT LP GREENE, 134000.00 DAVID-CONSTRUCTION 828 CYPRESS POINT LP WARREN CONSTRUCTION CO. 120000. 00 ** Subtotal_ ** 2525463 . 00 PAGE NO. 2 08/01/94 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** SHED 343 HERSEY ST E OWNER 1430. 00 ** Subtotal ** 1430. 00 *** Total *** 2805813 . 60 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 6/94 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 08/01/94 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 300 HERSEY ST E TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. 165069.44 ** Subtotal ** 165069. 44 *** Total *** 165069.44 1� A3HliMD-1 10 CE D THE MONTHLY REPORT July, 1994 In looking over the monthly O Also in August there will be a first Aid/CPR statistics Pan 1 offenses recertification class presented by Pam Shrader (major crimes and thefts) from Mercy Flights. were up +3.3% through the month of July. There was an O OSHA will be presenting a class for increase in reports of employers on guidelines to OSHA residential burglaries (45 this inspections.....this will be in August. year-to-date compared to 40 reported during the same time in 1993), however, there has CROSS WALK VIOLATIONS: been a decrease in commercial burglaries (25 this year-to-date compared to 30 reported (year-to-date) during the same time in 1993). There has also Passing stopped 1992 1993 1994 been a noticeable increase in bicycle thefts (70 vehicle in crosswalk reported this year-to-date compared to 42 (811.020) 21 42 10 reported last year). In Pan H crimes, vandalism was up significantly (290 reported (year-to-date) this year-to-date compared to 241 reported Failure to Yield during the same time last year). to Pedestrian (811.010) 22 18 3 The following " crimes" reflected a decrease: Forgery (21 reported this year-to-date (year-to-date) compared to 30 reported during the same time Failure to Yield last year); and Disorderly Conduct (96 to Traffic Control Officer reported this year-to-date compared to 115 (811.015) 1 5 1 reported last year); and curfew/loitering (17 reported this year-to-date compared to 30 reported last year. INVESTIGATIONS TRAINING: O Lynn Parlette arrested a subject for hit & run and O Lindsey Heard presented a defensive driving driving while suspended. class to 19 officers.....total /tours He also arrested another training....152 (tours. The class will be subject for carrying a presented once every three years. concealed handgun. O In conjunction with the defensive driving O Detective Parlette investigated the death of class, officer Kip Thomas will be presenting a a transient at the Vista Motel. high risk vehicle stop class in August. 1 o Lynn Parlette is still continuing the o Detective Rich Walsh indicated four people background investigations of three police on robbery and conspiracy charges. Reserve applicants. O Rich Walsh is continuing the background o The investigation of the Naumes Inc. investigations on the Reserve Officers. counterfeit payroll checks continues as more checks keep turning up in Oregon and O Rich Walsh went on 'parental leave"for California. two weeks due to the adoption of a beautiful baby girl (1N1ILf1 "1CINS i1>~ rllViT o Lynn Parlette is investigating a.stabbing DDRTfIY t! which occurred at the Five Rivers Restaurant on July 18, 1994 and cited two subjects for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana RESERVES: including the suspected cat burglar. The Reserves volunteered a total of 290 hours for the month. COMMUNICATIONS: 1994 1993 Statistics JUNE JULY TUNE JULY Calls For Service 839 1012 802 812 Medical Runs 64 68 58 65 Fire Runs 18 23 7 17 ALS Runs 41 55 37 40 Auto Aid 3 8 4 6 Phone Statistics: Day Shift 871 871 1056 1200 Swing Shift 1188 1188 1374 1450 Graveyard 729 729 679 820 Front Desk 3262 3262 3109 3470 911 Calls 642 642 627 629 Total Calls 6692 6692 6718 7025 ♦ ♦ The brush/grass fire on July 20, 1994 generated 213 "911" calls to dispatch 2 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT PLCIi�01R CRERIED: COUSOLIDATED INCIDENT REPORT 87041,94 8:22:03 JL!LY 1994 CLASSIFICATION + FFPORTED OFFENSES CAIES CLEAFED a + CLEAREWCE RATES t MO. OF ARREST CHARGES OF OFFENSES ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL 1 CHANGE THIS THIS LAST YEAR TO THIS THIS LAS! THIS THIS LAST THIS MUNTN YEAR 10 DATE MONTH YTO 1'TD DAIS 10t1i!{ YTD Y'IP tIOIJ1N 'fT0 YIO JUV ADULT TOTAL JUV ADULT PART I CRIMINAL HOMICIDE MURDER 1 100.0 7, MANSLAUGHTER, P.APE 4 + 25,0 IS I 20.07, 25.0% 1 ROBBERY 1 4 5 - c.D.O % 1 4 25,OX 80.0% 4 AGGRAVATED ASLi 6 ; + 20.0 ;i ( - 4 50.0% 83.31. 820% BURGLARY 2 2 2 RESIDENCE 10 45 40 + 12.5 'd 2 b 5 20.0% 13.3% 12.5% PIDN P.ES(DENCE 6 . 25 30 16.7 8 1 3 4.01 10.OX LARCENY/THEFT 11 18 87 63 SHOPLIFTING 12 94 98 - 4.I % !? 76 83 108,3X 80.s'( 84.7% THEFT FROM MV 19 77 59 + 30.5 % 4 5.2% MV PARTS-ACCESS 3 37 47 - 21.3 % 6 2 16.2% 4.3% BI:ICLE THEFT 10 70 42 + 66.7 % 3 4.31 THEFT FROM ALDG "r 5? 27 + 118.5 R ? TO 1 28.6% 16.?% 3.7X OTHER THEFTS 20 113 163 - 39.7 % 3 23 15 15.0% 20.4„ ?.2% MOTOR VEH THEFT 2 22 32 1 4 6 51).OX 18.2% 27.31 { I 2 2 ARSCN 2 LO 6 + 66.7 IN 1 4 2 50 Al 40.0;{ 33.3% 1 1 - 1 FART I TOTAL 94 567 547 + 3.3 X 23 144 126 24.5% 25.4% 23.0% I2 10 22 96 85 PART it 2IMPLE ASSAULTS 9 61 46 + 32.6 .S 7 43 25 77.Oi: 70,5% 54.3% ? 7 5 52 FORGE COUNTFRFE1T 3 21 30 30.0 % 2 9 I2 66.71 42.7% 49.0% 2 2 1 120 FRAUD 17 CHECKS 4 50 37 + 35.1 X 1 13 4 25.0 25.OX 10.81 CREDIT CARDS 3 - 109.0 % 3 100,0% OTHER FRAUD 8 41 41 5 17,1% 12.2% EHBEIi'EMENT 1 3 2 + 50.0 % I 2 IOO.OY 66.7..^, I 1 2 STOLEN PROPERTY 1 3 18 83.3 X 1 2 7 100.0% 66.71 38.7% 3 3 1 6 13 VANDALISM 33 290 241 + 20.3 % 6 48 25 18.2% 16.6% 10.44 8 8V 70 27 WEAPONS OFFENSES 3 6 + 50.0 X 3 8 4 100.0% 88.?X "66.7% 6 6 2 11 PROSTITUTIOM SEX CRIMES 2 1? 11 + 72.7 % 1 4 6 50.,0% 21.1% .54.5% 1 1 3 1 NARCOTIC/DRUGS 4 52 44 + 18.2 I% 4 46 37 100.0 138.5% 84.1% 6 6 15 71 GAMBLING OFF AGNST FAMILY 2 6 7 - 14.3 % 1 2 50.0%, 33.3% 1 1 2 DRIV UMBER INFLNC 7 64 69 - 7.3 % 7 62 67 77.8% 76.91 7 7.1% 7 7 1 62 LIQUOR LAWS 4 26 97 - 73.7 % 3 21 Of 75.01 80.8% 81.8% 4 3 7 2B DISOFDER CONDUCT 21 96 115 - 16.5 X 3 16 27 14.3% 16.7, 23.5% 13 13 10 59 t;F DIN I 1 100.01 1 TRESPASS 31) 131 127 + 1.6 X 4 32 32 II.8X 24.4% 24.8% 3 3 B 37 ESCAPE ALL OTHER 53 312 265 + 17.7 % 10 98 71 IO.?X 31,47, 34.3% 3 12 15 38 68 THREATS 5 10 50.0 % 1 2 20.OX 20.OX 2 CUFFEW(LO'TERING 1 17 30 - 43.3 % 2 1'.^ 29 200.01 58.87, 96.7% 2 2 47 I R.UNAMAY JUV 2 28 36 - 22.2 9 14 32.11' 38.91 4 PART 11 TOTAL 194 1235 1239 3 % 56 434 471 28.9% 35.1% 38.0;; 12 75 87 240 614 FARI I L PART 11 2131 1302 1788 + 3 % 77 578 5?7 27.4% 32.1'i 33.41 24 25 107 336 697 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT F'LCIPOIR CREATED: C6'NSOLIDAIED INCIDENT REPORT 8104194 8:2208 JULY 1974 CLASSIFICATION + REPORTED OFFENSES T r CASES CLEARED t c CLEAPENCE RATES t + PTO. OF ARREST CHARGES r OF OFFENSES ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL % CHANGE THIS 11,115 LAST YEAR 1,0 THIS 11415 LAST THIS THIS LAST THIS I10'ITH YEAR TO DATE MONTH YTD YiD DATE MOWN YTD YTD NONTH 'YTO ''T0 .T.UV ADULT TOTAL 3UV ADULT PART ll! TP.AFFIC CRIME !ITT L PUN IJ 69 42 64.3 S ? 5 13.0; 4l.9'{ 7 REM ESS DRI'V 2 2 1 c 50.0X 100.0% 1 I 5 ELUD 1116 1 I l�R.. NHILE SUSP 'r: 5 8 - 3'.5 X 2 7 If,0.0% 100.:!% 27.5X 3 3 7 FT DISP DRV LTC I - !01,1,.0 % 1 1001.0% TRAFF ACC.-FATAL TRAFF ACC..-IHJUR', 8 41 17 + 141.2 i 1 1 2.4% 5.9111, TRAFF ACC PRP DAN 28 125 81 + 54,3 2 4 1.6% 4,9X FISH S GAME ( MARINE VIOLATIONS !LLEGO: ALLEN CUSTODY 2 KIM NARRAN1 4 79 31 6.5 % 4 20 30 190.0% 96.6% 76.6% 5 43 ttV REC7RD-OTHER PROP RECYRD-OTHER FUGITIVES 1 73 46 58.7 X 0 61, 46 38.9% 94.5: 100.0% 2 6 R 15 67 HISSING PERSOPS 3 2 r 50.0 1111 SUDDEN OEAIH/DODY 4 10 3 r 233.3 SUICIDE-ATMPT 2 i 71.4 '{ 9THER ACCIDENIO 1 2 2 ANIHAL PROPLENS 50 259 216 + 19.9 PROPERTY OF%C 50 257 247 + 1, X ABANDONED AUTO 35 177 167 + 18.0 LKATE ONLY AUTO THPOUND A'1?0 1 5 it - 54.6 A ASSIST. F.E"ICESEC 131 650 532 < 22.2 '1 2 4N DOMESTIC PROBLEMS 0 36 42 !4.3 % INSECURE PREHISEE 50 52 3.7 % SU3P PEP.lCIPC 57 274 267 + 10,1 PUFLIC SAFETY 16 57 50 + 1.7 X 1 DISTURBANCEiHO1SE 134 557 463 + 20.3 % 1 2% SID,, CARED FOR 26 131 117 + 12.0 1 9% IIAFINE ACTIVITIES TF.AFFIClI;OADS 55 266 280 - 5.A X CIVIL C09PLAINT'n 6 43 55 - 21.8 % 1 2.3% VEH DISFOSITIDM ALAF,NS SOUNDING CONFIRHED 2 1 + 100,0 {1 FALSE 33 165 141 + 17.(: IT ArP_IDE3TAL 5 8 FAULTY 1 3 66.7 X OTHER 1 I 3URPOENAS 4SSLT AG OFFICERS 2 1 + 100.0 % 2 1 109.0% 100.01 OTHER NISC 7 74 97 - 23.7 ti. 1 I.0% PART T11 TOTAL 691 3423 302 + 14.0 % 14 1211 106 2.0% 3.5% 3.5% 2 15 17 17 152 GFAND W AL 977 .225 4770 + 9.1 1111 73 698 703 7.5% 13.4% 14.7X 26 100 126 353 051 149* ASAr, - Pmurandum O4EGOa August 10, 1994 1l1 D. Mayor and City Council r rom: Steven M. Hall, Director of Public Works CSjubject: Monthly Reports Attached are the monthly reports for the Public Works department for the month of July, 1994. Enclosures (c:lpwNmotpt.mcm) ENGINEERING DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT FOR: JULY 1994 1. Issued 18 Street Excavation permits. 2. .Issued 2 Miscellaneous Construction permits., 3. Issued 3 Address Change or Assignment forms. 4. Responded to 15 Certificate of Occupancy reviews. 5. Completed 3 Pre-applications for Planning Actions. 6. Completed 5 "One-Stop" permit forms. 7. Performed field and office checks on 3 partition plats. 8. Performed the following work on the Airport Improvement Project: a. prepared information for easement appraisal. b. discussed project plans with F.A.A. c. prepared and submitted hold harmless agreement to Jackson County Public Works. 9. Prepared a report regarding the size and value of land along 'B' Street near Mountain Ave. 10. Performed the following work on the Bluebird Park handrail repair: a. inspected work performed by contractor. b. approved project & issued final payment. 11. Conducted instrument check of Struve and Clear Creek Subdivisions. 12. Advertised for temporary position. 13. Operated traffic counters at several locations. 14. Met with developer and engineer regarding the completion of Terrace Pines Subdivision. 15. Performed the following work on the Diane's Hill Subdivision: a. reviewed as built data provided by engineer. 1HO:n�me+ Engineering Division Monthly Report for July 1994 Page 2 b. inspected work performed by contractor. 16. Met with engineers to discuss requirements for design of the filter plant improvements. 17. Updated city street index and map. 18. Performed the following work on the North Mountain Avenue Sanitary Sewer Improvement L.I.D.: a. inspected work performed by contractor. b. computed quantities & reviewed wage rates. C. prepared progress payment no. 1. 19. Attended emergency action committee meet at Ashland Hospital. 20. Responded to numerous vision clearance complaints. 21. Performed the following work on the North Main and Ashland Street Water Line project: a. reviewed preliminary location maps. b. transmitted utility and right-of-way information to engineers. 22. Inspected work conducted under the 1994 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair project. 23. Acquired easements for the Railroad Village Subdivision Improvement project. 24. Prepared report and recommendation for traffic signage at Pioneer and Hargadine Streets. 25. Began preparation of a water well permit to install an irrigation well at Oak Knoll. 26. Performed the following work on the Struve Subdivision: a. inspected work performed by contractor. b. checked subdivision monumentation. 27. Performed the following work on the Odor Control Facility: a. inspected work performed by contractors. b. prepared pay estimate no 4. . 28. Performed the following work on the Ashland Audubon Subdivision: a. issued notice to proceed. Jxo:r UtdFrp.jut-� Engineering Division Monthly Report for July 1994 Page 3 b. inspected work performed by contractor. C. reviewed suits report and request for alteration in pavement design. 29. Performed the following work on the Strawberry Lane Sewer project: a. prepared topo map showing contours. b. sent request for lateral locations to property owners. C. began design of sewer and water lines. 30. Held pre-construction conference and issued notice to proceed on Capella Estates Subdivision. 31. Performed the following work on the Parkview Subdivision: a. held pre-construction conference. b. issued notice to proceed. C. inspected work performed by contractor. nto:�wrt�.lw-w�� Water Quality Monthly report for July 1994 Water: Repaired 2 leaks in City owned water mains. Repaired 10 leaks in customer service and or meter. Repaired 2 Uthia leaks. Repaired one water leak in TID line. Changed out 33 water meters 2-1", 1-2" and 1-6". Installed 11 new water meters with hand valves. Installed 2 customer hand valves. Vacuumed valve boots with sweeper. Raised valve boots various locations. Installed new meter vault roof at SOSC. Installed 3 new water services. Changed over water services off old 14" line to newer 16"line. Repaired fire hydrant hit by contractor. Installed 126' of.new 6" water main with service chlorinated and put into service. Chlorinated and installed services and put into service the water mains at Crispin and Patterson. Made water tap and installed 6" water main at Laurel with services and chlorinated and put it into service. Sewer: Installed 120' of new 6" sewer main with a 4" service. Repaired 12 sewers. Responded to 3 service calls. Responded to 4 sewer main plugs. Jet rodded 37,650'of City sewer mains using 110,500 gallons of water. Mechanical rodded 5545 feet of City sewer mains. Miscellaneous: There were 72 requests for Utility locate calls. There was 190.47 million gallons of water treated at the Water Treatment Plant and 51.84 million gallons of water treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Used 50 yards of 3/4" minus rock at various jobsites. ` C ,t . of Ashland ^ ^ ' Street Division � July 1994 Report `SWEEPER: Suept 301 wiles of streets. Collected 77 yards of debris. Responded to 87 utility location requests. Graded several streets and alleys. F^tchQj pot-holes and sunken services. Syw-c"t, removed and patched back ( 10 tons) , Urge area an No. Mountain above Hersey. Continued pre-patching re-surface list: saw-cutting and removing bad sections of asphalt and patching back (207.44 tons) , replacing had s.^ctions of curb and gutter and profiling the streets with the grinder. NOTE: Preparing the streets to be re-surfaced consumes 90% of our time. H�uled 150 yards of old asphalt to our re-cycle yard on Blenview Dr. d,e tu pre-patching- Began re-surfacing: Indiana: Woodland to Madrnne: 410.39 tons. No. Mountain : R/R tracks to the old dairy: 365 tons. ` Re-vamped 3 driveways on Indiana due to re~surfaciog . Patched Van Ness from Water St. to Heiman using 7 tons . ' S70RM DRAINS: Flushed and/or rodded several storm drain systems. Cleaned out catch basins. Continued cleaning the drainage ditch on Mistletoe Rd. - 573= Picked up 90 gallons of yellow paint from the County. Put on a.2nd paint crew to finish the downtown painting for the ^4th. . Re-positioned a no parking sign in the Pioneer parking lot. Replaced the street/stop sign post on Maple at No. Main Sts. .. Replaced the street sign and post on Walker at Ross tn . . Replaced the street sign on Walker at Oregon . Curt . he'dges on Harrison at Iowa for stop sign visability. Installed a Dead End sign on Fox St, at Ashland Mine Rd . . Replaced a faded no parking sign in the Water St. parking lot" Straightened a no parking sign post and trimmed a tree for visahility on Granite St. above Glenview Dr. . Sat sign posts on Lantern Hill at Granite, Oak Knoll at Crhwson Rd , , and on either side of Wightman at Iowa Sts" . Straightened the sign post on Sheridan at No. Main, Trimmed a tree for stop sign `/isability at Sheridan and No. Main" Trimmed tree and brush on Hersey St, at No. Mountain for stop sign visabolity. MISC. - 41-H OF JULY: Picked up cones and delineators from Cantel in Medford" Assembled delinoators and taped appropriate signs to them. Hauled 1O yA�ds of sand from DeYoungs in Talent to Iowa IL. for the Fire-Works . Holped the Police Dept" place all the cones anidelineators early A.M. on the 4th^ .Pickcd them all up on the 5th and returned them to Cantel in Medford" Also on the 5th, we picked up the sand from Iowa St. and ' |u our 8 St . yard. WaLer`kd the trees at our granite pit. Cot weeds on City rights-of-way on Crestview, Fox, a' d Walnut. Swept and removed gravel from sidewalk at 73 Union due to alley erosion. Picked up 725 gallons of tack--coat from Morgan Emultp^ch in- White City . Pyintad over graffiti on Water St. at Van Ness` Watp' SL, xt B St. ` w"S i./ the Pioneer Parking lot. Helped in shop when needed . C;eaned op facility and equipment on a weekly basis. H' \d oonthly safety meeting . Special guest, Peggy Christian5en . ' ` � v / ^ City of Ashland Fleet Maintenance July 1994 Feport 3 mechAnics completed work on 102 wort: orders on various types or City equipment and vehicles. With the new numbering system in effect, wort; order=: wil ! qo lonyor t.e reporteod on an individual department or division basis. The emergency generators at City Hall and the Civic Center were manually tested on a weekly basis. 1 and 4 certificates issued for the Month: City os Ashland : 9 CITY OF ASHLAND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Agreement made this day of , 1994, between the City of Ashland, by and through the Cify of Ashland Park and Recreation Commission ("Park Commission"), and Ashland School District #5 ("School District"). RECITALS: A. The Park Commission has the authority to provide cultural and recreational activities for the people of Ashland and vicinity (AMC 2.16.030); B. The School District may permit the use of school buildings and grounds by residents of the district for civic and recreational purposes, including supervised recreational activities and meeting places for discussion of all subjects and questions which in the judgment of the residents may,relate to the educational, political, economic, artistic and moral interests of the residents (ORS 332.172); C. School District has the facilities, staff and experience to provide certain cultural and recreational activities for the people of Ashland and vicinity. D. Park Commission desires to utilize the facilities and staff of the School District to provide such activities and the School District agrees to so provide. E. Both parties have the authority to reorganize in a manner to better serve the public in a time when resources are limited and programs are being eliminated. F. Park Commission and School District have entered into several other intergovernmental agreements to better serve the public more efficiently and effectively and through this agreement desire to effectively and efficiently provide continuity of services to the community which is in the public interest. Park Commission and School District agree: 1. Youth Activities to be provided by School District: During the 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years, School District shall continue to provide the youth activity programs described in paragraph 2 for School District students and home school students or private school students meeting the eligibility requirements of the School District and furnish all personnel, equipment, materials and facilities required for the proper performance of such activities. The level of activities shall be commensurate with the 1993-1994 fiscal year activities unless the amounts listed in the last column in paragraph 2 are less than the amounts budgeted for such activities by School District in the 1993-1994 fiscal year. As used in the previous sentence, the phrase "amounts budgeted form includes those sums contributed to the School District by individuals or groups such as the Ashland Schools Foundation and Ashland Booster Club for the PAGE 1 of 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (pxchu r�ad".k•bal(F&..y 1.19941 activities listed. Other than the total sum in the last column, sums allocated in the last column are approximate and may vary by ten percent as determined by the School District. 1994-1995 2. Description of activity allocation 2.1. Elementary school programs such as music, $ 16,805.00 including children's choir and strings and intramurals or similar programs. 2.2. Middle school cocurricular programs consisting of $ 39,718.00 band, brain bowl, choir, drama, newspaper and yearbook, orchestra and resident outdoor school. 2.3. The following activities at the middle school level, $119,414.00 designed to provide competitive contests for selected groups or individuals who are trained and coached to play games with similar teams or individuals from other schools: basketball; cross-country; football; track; volleyball and wrestling. 2.4. High school cocurricular programs consisting of $ 67,322.00 the band, choir, orchestra, newspaper and yearbook, debate, drama club, brain bowl, leadership, DECA, Natural Helper, FBLA, VICA, International Club and Math Club. 2.5. The following activities at the high school level, $374,516.00 designed to provide competitive contests for selected groups or individuals who are trained and coached to play games with similar teams or individuals from other schools including Oregon School Activities Association sponsored events and competitions: baseball; basketball; cheerleading; cross- country; football; golf; soccer; softball; swimming; tennis; track; volleyball and wrestling. 2.6. Maintenance of grounds and facilities related to the $230,448.00 above programs. TOTAL: $848,223.00 Provided, however, that no part of the sums specked in this paragraph shall be used for any portion of the above activities which are courses of study prescribed by statute or by the rules of the State Board of Education. Nor shall such funds be used for supplemental courses required by the School District Board pursuant to the authority granted to it in ORS 336.035. It is the intent of the parties that no part of the funds provided for the above programs and activities shall be used exclusively for educational services. In addition, the programs and activities funded by this agreement are to be primarily conducted by the School District outside of regular PAGE 2 of 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (p:..n..n..h-Fa k:W.)(F.I umy 1. 1994) school hours and it is acknowledged that many of them are conducted off the school grounds. 3. Payment by Park Commission for Activities: 3.1. For the 199495 fiscal year, City shall pay School District for services performed, including costs and expenses, a sum not to exceed $848,223 in three payments as follows: 3.1.1. On December 1, 1994, 50% of the total levy, less a sum not to exceed $25,000 for community activities as more particularly described in paragraph 6 (further referred to in this agreement as the "commission fund"). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, Park Commission shall not be required to pay to the School District more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy prior to December 1, 1994, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.1.2. On March 1, 1995, Park Commission shall pay 709/6 of the total levy less the commission fund and those sums previously.paid to School District, but not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy by March 1, 1994, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.1.3. On June 20, 1995, Park Commission shall pay 100% of the total levy less the commission fund and those sums previously paid to.School District, but not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy by June 20, 1995, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.2. For the 1995-96 fiscal year, Park Commission shall pay School District for services performed, including costs and expenses, a sum not to exceed $890,634 in three payments as follows: 3.2.1. On December 1, 1995, 50% of the total levy, less a sum not to exceed $27,500 for community activities as more particularly described in paragraph 6 (further referred to in this agreement as the "commission fund"). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, Park Commission shall not be required to pay to the School District any more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy prior to December 1, 1995, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.2.2. On March 1, 1996, Park Commission shall pay 70% of the total levy less the commission fund and those sums previously paid to School PAGE 3 of 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (P:.aw•n•0-v kJga)(F.hn,my 1.1994) District, but not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy by March 1, 1996, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.2.3. On June 20, 1996, Park Commission shall pay 100% of the total levy less the commission fund and those sums previously paid to School District, but not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy by June 20, 1996, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.3. For the 1996-97 fiscal year, Park Commission shall pay School District for services performed, including costs and expenses, a sum not to exceed $935,166 in three payments as follows: 3.3.1. On December 1, 1996, 50% of the total levy, less a sum not to exceed $27,500 for community activities as more particularly described in paragraph 6 (further referred to in this agreement as the `commission fund"). Notwithstanding the previous sentence, Park Commission shall not be required to pay to the School District any more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy prior to December 1, 1996, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.3.2. On March 1, 1997, Park Commission shall pay 70% of the total levy less the commission fund and those sums previously paid to School District, but not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy by March 1, 1997, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.3.3. On June 20, 1997, Park Commission shall pay 100% of the total levy less the commission fund and those sums previously paid to School District, but not more than the actual amount received by the Park Commission from the levy by June 20, 1997, nor more than the actual amount expended by the School District for the activities and programs conducted under this agreement. 3.4. The sums specified in paragraph 2 for each activity or program shall be increased for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years to maintain a similar level of activities as the 1994-95 fiscal year. Provided, however, that the total amount paid shall not exceed the sum specified in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 respectively unless otherwise agreed by the Park Commission and School District. PAGE 4 of 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT w..hoal.dh P-ug.)(Fehrumv 1. 19941 4. Reports. Prior to each payment to School District, School District shall submit a report to the Park Commission on the activities and programs conducted, and the sums expended, by the School District under this agreement. 5. E995: School District shall establish and collect appropriate fees from participants in the programs and activities listed above who reside outside the city limits of Ashland.. 6. Levy funds: Neither party shall be obligated under this agreement ff the Ashland Youth Activities Levy submitted to the electors by the Park Commission is not adopted on May 17, 1994. Both parties recognize that not all funds from the levy shall be paid to School District, there being some funds allocated from the levy for community activity programs provided to the general public. 7. Mutual indemnifications: Each party (the indemnifying party) shall defend and indemnify the other parties, their officers, agents, and employees (the indemnified parties), from any and all claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other expenses resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage to real or tangible personal property (including loss or destruction), caused by the negligence or other tortious acts of the indemnifying.party (including, but not limited to, acts and omissions of the indemnifying party's officers, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors). The obligations stated in this section,shall be subject to the following conditions: 7.1. The indemnifying party shall be notified in writing of any claim promptly after the indemnified party becomes aware of it; 7.2. The indemnifying parry has sole control of the defense of such claim and of all negotiations for its settlement or compromise; and 7.3. The indemnified party gives the indemnifying parry information reasonably available and assistance necessary to facilitate the settlement or defense of such claim,and, to the extent permitted by law, the indemnified party makes any defenses available to it available to the indemnifying party. The indemnifying parry's indemnity obligation under this section shall be reduced to the extent by which the liability, damage, or expense results from the negligence or other tortious acts of the indemnified parry, the indemnifying party's officers, employees, or agents, or a third party. Park Commission's and School District's duty to indemnify e statutes,l and subject the limitations imposed by the Oregon Constitution, app' Oregon Tort Claims Act. 8, Modification or Termination: The Park Commission may reduce or eliminate amounts for programs or activities specified in this agreement if the State of Oregon PAGE 5 of 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (p:.choon..n-pwkJa.11F.Wu.rV 1. 19941 I distributes funds to the School District which would fund the activities described in paragraph 2. 9. Independent Contractor Status: School District is an independent contractor and not an employee of the Park Commission. District shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract. School District shall provide workers' compensation coverage as required in ORS Ch 656 for all persons employed to perform work pursuant to this contract. School District is a subject employer that will comply with ORS 656.017. ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 CITY OF ASHLAND By. R a By Boar Chairperson Catherine Golden, Mayor CITY OF ASHLAND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION By Pat Adams, Chair PAGE 6 of 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AUG ;. G 1994- ! 766 Palmer Roa Ashland , OR 975�01' .` August 10, 1994---- Members of the Ashland City Council Ashland , Oregon Dear Mayor and Members : Now that it turns out that safe little Ashland is vul- nerable to floods, tornados , and earthquakes , it appears we are really vulnerable to fires - the Berkeley type. This is not news to you. We have heard a great deal about clearing away brush-, being careful with fire, etc. But, at the moment learn that a fire is raging in the forest above the college, I don ' t know what to do except get the hell out of there. There must be a lot of specific things that I should dog assuming I have any time)"do them. What do I do or not do with the house? Remind me of what I should try to take with me. Any ideas on where to go? Q—A -P-aw'G, t. ? . There must be a lot of helpful material out there. Surely the Council , in collaboration with the Fire Departmemt and The Tidings could give the panicked citizen some helpful instructions . Sincerely, 0 Joan Hertzberg Alice and Jack Hardesty 575 Dogwood Way Ashland, OR 97520 Ms. Catherine M. Golden August 8, 1994 Mayor, Ashland 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Cathy,, Thank you for listening to my statement at the City Council meeting last week and for your prompt letter of reply. I will look forward to your more detailed letter around the end .of the week. This letter is to request some time at the upcoming Council meeting on August 16th so that I might respond to your letter and express any remaining concerns and suggestions with respect to the serious fire hazard that faces our beautiful city. I am making this request in advance of receiving your reply because of the urgency of the matter. Also, if the Council wishes to place on the November ballot a levy or any other form of tax relating to. fire prevention, the time is fast approaching to initiate that action. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely yours, Alice S. Hardest �J pF!MTh o L1i« a4 aitAum 4EGO ,. " August 3, 1994 D- Brian, Keith, Ken, Mac, Robbin Aram: Cathy Golden, Mayor ,�$ubjet#: Responses to Alice Hardesty Statement to Council Attached is a copy of the statmnnent read to Cotuxal last night. I would appreciate your responding in letter form to Mrs. Hardesty on the portions of the statement I have highlighted.Please have your responses prefaced with 'This is in response to a request from Mayor Golden...'and rdam your answer to me.I will do a bulk mailing of all the responses when I am in the office next Wednesday. I would appreciate having your response to my office by Thesday, August 9. Thanks for your assistance. (r.Mrym�H�NWy.mem) • .yM.oq City of Ashland ° = OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 20 E.Main 5treet Ashland, OR 97520 . CATHY GOLDEN MAYOR (505)482-3211 August 3, 1994 Mrs. Alice Hardesty 575 Dogwood Way Ashland OR 97520 Dear Alice: This is to let you know that responses are being prepared by various staff to the specific items outlined in your statement read to the City Council last night. I expect to have these responses returned to my office within a few days and will get them to you by the end of next week. Again; thank you for expressing your concerns and suggestions for your community. ' Best re ards, Catherine 611. Golden Mayor tr.MayorVLNaty.Mr) yPEYEM, ' Ashland Fire Department S, iPOiFC! �PEEEMYE 455 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 ' (503)482-2770 FAX (503) 488-5318 August 5, 1994 Ms. Alice Hardesty 575 Dogwood Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Alice, This letter is in response to a request from our Mayor, Cathy Golden, regarding your letter dated August 2 , 1994 to the Ashland City Council . Specifically, I have been asked by Mayor Golden to address issues discussed in recommendations 6. 1, 6. 2 and 7. in your letter. Recommendation 6: Changes In The City's Codes And Requirements. The current fire code requires the clean-up of wildfire fuels prior to the siting of a new structure, so as you have observed, the greater problem lies in existing neighborhoods within the wildfire risk areas of the city. We can re-write the fire prevention ordinance to require all existing lots to be cleaned up. However, before we do that we should consider the economic impact this will place on those residents that do not have the financial means to comply with the provisions of the new ordinance. I believe there are many who would fall within this classification due to financial circumstances. Prior to proceeding with this initiative we need to develop a subsidy program, such as the real estate transfer tax you have suggested, which can be used to assist low income residents in meeting the fire fuel reduction requirement of a new ordinance. If this is not done, we will find ourselves in the position of placing liens on private property in Ashland, and eventually foreclosing on the property. I do not believe that this would be the proper function of local government in Ashland. An initiative for a transfer tax in Ashland, should come from the citizens through their elected representatives. If this is promoted by city staff it will only be viewed by the citizens ' as another effort by Ashland city government to get their hands into the pocketbooks of the voters. A "grassroots" approach would tend to be more successful. Recommendation No. 7 : Public Education Our current public education approach involves an annual "door to door" canvass of all homes within the wildfire lands zone of our city comprehensive plan each spring. This provides us with an opportunity to not only disseminate fire prevention materials, but also to answer specific questions about individual properties. We also teach a class on "Wildfire Risk In Ashland" to all eighth grade students in the Ashland School District every year. We have received more press and television coverage on the wildfire issue than any other local community within the Rogue Valley. .We routinely send press releases on wildfire topics to newspapers and television stations. we have initiated a "fire precaution level" program in Ashland, which parallels that of the Oregon Department of Forestry. We are the only city in Oregon which has implemented this fire safety precaution system, . requires special permits for chainsaws, construction work, etc. , during fire season. We were the first city in Oregon to enter into a comprehensive agreement with the Oregon Department of Forestry for wildfire protection inside a municipal boundary, and now the City of Grants Pass has followed suite. The issue of evacuation routes is being explored, however progress has been fraught with legal liability concerns. So much depends on where .the fire starts, and its direction of travel, that evacuation routes are difficult to post in advance. However, we are taking this issue into consideration in the design of any development on upper Strawberry Lane. This spring the Fire Department initiated a wildfire fuel clean-up project on city property on upper Terrace Street in conjunction with SOSC. We received some excellent television and newspaper coverage on that event. We are looking into providing realtors and insurance agencies with wildfire prevention publications at your suggestion. We have held neighborhood meetings within the wildfire zone to provide fire safety information. In spite of everything we have done, we are not yet satisfied with our community's progress and will continue to search for more successful methods of preparing Ashland for the fire we all know will one day occur. Respectfully, . Keith E. Woodley Fire Chief of c , � Pmnrttn � nm REG", August 10, 1994 11. Mayor Catherine M. Golden (29 rom: Brian L. Almquist, City Adminis?d� ubjert: Sources of Funding for Watershed``Protection This memo is in response to your request for information on the above subject which was one of several raised by Alice Hardesty at last Tuesday's Council meeting. 1. Propose a Tax Levy: A serial tax levy is an option always open to the City Council. Each cent of property tax levy raises about $9,000.00, so it would take a levy of $.11 (eleven cents) per thousand dollars of assessed value to raise $100,000.00. 2. Initiate a Real Estate Transfer Tax: For the past two weeks, Councillors Winthrop and Hauck have been gathering information about such a tax for an affordable housing trust fund. Washington County has had one for several years, and Lake Oswego voters will see a proposal on the September ballot with proceeds dedicated to the School District. It is estimated that a .35 percent tax, such as Lake Oswego's, would raise around $250,000.00 annually. We could argue that there is a rational nexus been a real estate transfer tax and use of the proceeds for either affordable housing programs, or pnxecting property in the forest interface, and our City water supply. The later idea seems to be of greater concern to all Ashland residents. These funds could be used for such programs as loans to homeowners in the watershed for fire sprinklers or fireproof roofing, for additional hydrants and fire flow, assisting honwmiers with fuel reduction and vegetafive management,as well as firebreaks and firs redudion on City-owned toads in the interface area and the municipal watershed. The Forest Comrnissm would be the logical goup to develop pug aims to priontue the use of these funds and to work aggressively towards reducing the fire risk. CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ( � ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(Mode 503)182-3211 August 9, 1994 Ms. Alice Hardesty Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Response to letter before Ashland City Council, August 2, 1994 Ms. Hardesty: This letter is written in response to a request from Mayor Golden regarding your testimony before the Ashland City Council on August 2, 1994. I am responding specifically to the following sections: 2. The City must discourage development in the forest interface in every possible way. You are correct that the City has taken previous actions to reduce the overall amount of development on our hillside areas, specifically through down-zoning and limitations on steep slope development. These have been very effective in reducing the risks associated with development, however, a community built historically on a forested hillside must also recognize that there are some inherent dangers to our general physical location. The balancing of property rights versus development options must also be considered, and I believe that the City has done a good job addressing the overall concerns associated with the dangers of hillside development. Our open space plan has provided funding for the purchase of large areas of hillside property for the benefit of all our citizens. However, the purchase of developable properties is a very expensive option, and one requiring greater funding than currently . available. I believe a stringent review process will continue to ensure safety for all of our citizens. However, in cooperation with the Parks Department, we will continue to examine appropriate properties for purchase by the City. 6. Ban the installation of flammable roofing. Our current ordinances already require that non-flammable roofing be utilized on all new homes, and re-roofed homes, in the defined wildfire lands area. We do not allow new subdivisions to require the installation of flammable roofing material for developments in the wildfire lands area. We are encouraging subdivisions outside of the wildfire lands area to also allow non-wood roofing materials, further limiting risks associated with fire. No building permits should be issued to property owners whose homes would be inaccessible to fire trucks. Our current ordinances require that all new construction be developed such that it is easily accessible by fire apparatus. Limitations on'driveway grades, minimum width requirements, and paving requirements associated with the building permit ensure that all homes will be accessible for emergency vehicles. Education to new owners The Fire Department does an excellent job of visiting homes in the wildfire lands area throughout the year, educating and encouraging fire-smart practices. When new areas are developed that are within the wildfire lands area, specific requirements are imposed on the development, and included with the CC&R's of each home, which transfer and are made available to new owners. Currently, the Planning Department is working with the Fire Department to refine and enlarge the wildfire lands area, and to improve the development standards for construction in these areas. This process will also involve public input and comment, as well as provide an opportunity to further educate our citizens on the issues associated with our forest interface lands. I'm sorry I wasn't at the Council meeting to hear your testimony, but I welcome you to our community, and salute your interest and concern for the well-being of Ashland. Please feel free to call me or make an appointment to further discuss these issues. Sincerely Znl "�g cLaug lin Drr r City of Ashland Memorandum oRECo� , August 9, 1994 0: Cathy Golden, Mayor ram: Pam Barlow, PW Admin. Asst. li�]jEt : Responses to Alice Hardesty Statement to Council As per your inquest for a history of moat activities to mduoe the risk of catastrophic wik =in the wbentforest interface, I am pleased to be able to report the following in r gx)rw to Mrs. Hardesty's questions number 3 and number 5: Four years ago, the City embarked on a multi agency publidpavate partnership to plan'for forest management in the Hamilton Creek Area. In 1990, after the City acquired over 200 acres of additional forest land for open space,we contracted with Ron McConnick and Associates to develop a Forst Mamaganant Plan for City owned forest land. The plan addresses many management objectives for the forest,including reducing the risk of wildfire I have attached the executive summaries of these plans for your reference. Last year, Courcil fomred the Forest Commission to oversee implementation of the Forest Management Plan. Three years ago, the partners in the Hamilton Creek Coordinated Resource Management Plan developed a jointly fimded program utilizing disadvantaged youth from Phoenix High School. Because this project was jcindy funded with grants, private contrrlrudons, and limited Font Service and City support, over$40,000 worth of work was done in the interface in the first year. Since then, with additional funding,and grants from the Aragon Youth Conservation Corp, the Job Council, the Soil Carservadon Service, and the Governors Watershed Dihanoarrerrt Board, there has been a great start on implementing interface fuel reduction plans. I am always on the alert for grant program that could be used to reduoe fuels in the interface. Just last Monday, on behalf of the Forest Commission,I hosted the Oregon Watershed Council Board on a walk in the interface and discussed receiving a grant from them for upland forest management. In cooperation with the Ashland Ranger District, I have also applied for another Federal grant for walenhed health finding for fuel and erosion reduction. Knowing the severity of the problem with fuels, I try to utilize any possible grant funding source I find. Just this month, Bill Robertson, Chair of the Forest Commission, was instrumental in coordinating property owners in the Tolman Creels Road interface area and in obtaining a$25,000 forest management grant for them. Fire Chief Woodley began a great program with students firm SOSC this year,where volunteers removed brush and scotch broom from areas in the interface. The Forest Commission,Parks Commission and the Parks Department are all committed to finding opportunities for volunteers to contribute to fuel reduction programs in the interface. -------------- pulp No ........... .% ... .... ..... ............ . ........ .*.............. ....... ......... ............ ............ .......... ............... ......... ..... ......... ............ ... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and The City of Ashland owns 795 acres within Need Ashland Creek, 150 acres in Rocca Creek, and 130 acres in the Hamilton Creek watershed. The lower portions of each of these blocks is within the Urban/Wildland Interface - a critical wild-fire zone . The community is dependent on the Ashland Watershed for its municipal water supply. This plan focuses on maintaining water quality and quantity, managing vegetation, reducing wildfire fuels , and being compatible with management plans for the adjoining Rogue River National Forest and other properties . This is the first integrated resource management plan for City' s forest lands . The City has recently updated its Comprehensive Management Plan. It contains seven goals applicable to forest lands. This plan incorporates those goals and establishes seven new goals with attendant policies and action items . Existing Eight decades of aggressive fire suppression Condition within both the Ashland Creek and Hamilton Creek watersheds has altered "normal" ecosystem processes that feature fire as a major agent of disturbance . The result is a change from an open grown pine/fir forest with a sparse shrub understory, to a dense fir/pine forest with brush fields occupying areas recently visited by high intensity fire. The volume of vegetation (bio-mass ) has increased, water production has likely decreased. During this same period the City has grown and residential areas have entered the heavily vegetated foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains . There has been a corresponding increase in the recreational use of the adjacent forest lands . This combination of more vegetation, 'residential occupancy of the interface, and heavy recreation use has increased the risk of fire frequency and severity. Summary ISSUES, CONCERNS, OPPORTUNITIES The ICO' S were developed through public meetings , interviews , and interaction with a Planning Advisory Group. The issues are interrealted and complex. Their resolution, and the utilization. of opportunities are the basis for this .plan ' s Goals , Policies and Action items . Ecosystem How to regain and maintain biological Health diversity and resiliency of the City' s forest lands , and the surrounding watershed? This encompasses vegetative management , fuels reduction and old-growth retention. Recreation Use How to manage the increasing hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding and sightseeing on City lands? Stewardship How should the City organize to manage the resources and uses of its growing inventory of forest lands? Fire How to further coordinate .inter-department , Management . inter-agency fire planning,. prevention and suppression activities . How to provide technical assistance to urban/wildland interface residents? Implementa- How to utilize existing programs , grants and tion funding sources , and engage citizen in efficient and practical implementation. Community An opportunity to build community cohesiveness and effectiveness . Further citizen and visitor knowledge and appreciation of City watershed and forest land values . Summary 1y Fish and IMPROVE THE AQUATIC HABITAT IN ASHLAND CREEK Wildlife BELOW REEDER RESERVOIR FOR BOTH ANADROMOUS AND RESIDENT FISH. Policies: (a ) Obtain technical assistance from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife . (b) Develop agreement with Rogue Flyfisher 's for project work. ( c) Retain all snags along the stream and tributaries . Community UTILIZE THE INTEREST, ENTHUSIASM AND KNOWLEDGE OF ASHLAND RESIDENTS THROUGH COOPERATIVE PROJECTS AND VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS . Stewardship PROVIDE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND DEFINE THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WILL ENSURE CAREFUL PROTECTION AND THOUGHTFUL MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY' S FOREST LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES This section of the plan outlines strategies . for implementing Goals , Policies and Action items effectively and efficiently. . 0 CHARTER AN INTER-AGENCY/CITIZEN IMPLEMENTATION TEAM 0 USE VOLUNTEERS AND ORGANIZED GROUPS TO ACCOMPLISH WORK 0 USE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING Summary i GOALS AND POLICIES Ecosystem PROMOTE BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS . Po.licies : (a) Winburn parcel as ecosystem study area in conjunction with Southern Oregon State College . (b) Partnership with Rogue River National Forest and other ownerships . Vegetation PLAN AND MANAGE FOREST LAND VEGETATION AND OTHER RESOURCES IN A MANNER THAT EMULATES NATURAL PROCESSES . Policies : Conduct all logging via helicopter unless analysis indicates otherwise. .Recreation PLAN AND MANAGE RECREATION USE IN A MANNER THAT COMPLIMENTS OR IS COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER WATERSHED AND FOREST VALUES. Policies : ( a.) Manage all public use . (b)Direct. use to lower elevation parcels . (c) Limit to day use . (d) Emphasize non-motorized uses . (e ) Limit access to Reeder Reservoir . ( f ) Establish an Ashland Forest- land Citizens Patrol . (g) Use services of Park and Recreation Department for interim management . Fire REDUCE FUELS IN A MANNER THAT ENHANCES BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND LONG TERM SOIL PRODUCTIVITY. Policies : Retain snags in areas important for . wildlife and not critical to fire control ; use prescribed fire to reduce fuels and emulate ecosystem function. Summary r' HAMILTON CREEK COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Upper Hamilton Creek watershed is a 750 acre area located just south of the Ashland city limits in southern Jackson County. Hamilton Creek, a seasonal Class 2 stream. drains this area that is bounded by ridge lines to the west, south, and east sides, and residential construction to the north. Hamilton Creek itself runs northeasterly for about one and one-haffmiles through this upper water- shed area, dropping in elevation approximately 1100 feet.The creek is deeply incised. particularly in the upper reaches,with many noticeable recent erosional scars.The creek eventually empties into Bear Creek just north and below the city of Ashland. The watershed itself is topographically situated in the first slopes of the Siskiyou Mountains immedi- ately above the southern portion of the Bear Creek Valley. Elevation in the entire watershed ranges from 2400 feet to 4400 feet. Slopes are gentle towards the bottom of the watershed, but are steep in the upper reaches,with gradients of up to 80 percent and more.Soils in the watershed are derived from decomposed granite and are primarily of two SCS soil series-the Shefflein series and the Tallowbox series.These granitic soils are very erosive,particularly the steeper Tallowbox series soils. The entire watershed is covered with may slope failures, both old and more recent. Precipitation in the watershed averages 25 to 30 inches annually,with only 4 to 5 inches of that total occurring during the seasonally dry months of May through September. Most of this precipitation falls are rain although snow can accumulate in the upper elevation of the watershed.Rain on snow events can pose serious erosional problems in the watershed. Vegetation in the watershed is comprised of mixed coniferous forest typical of the area. Douglas-fir is the primary conifer, particularly dominating on more northerly aspects. Ponderosa pine is also common.particularly on ridgetops and more southerly aspects.Incense cedar,sugar pine,and white fir are far less common. Madrone and black oak are the primary hardwoods interspersed in these stands. Whiteleaf manzanita is the most common brush species, particularly on southerly aspects that have been disturbed. Dearbrush ceanothus is the dominant understory brush species on northerly aspects. Coniferous stands in the watershed are currently of two primary types. The U.S. Forest Service land comprising the upper one-thirdof the watershed is an undisturbed old growth forest Fire exclusion. however, has encouraged a number of other problems including significant fuels accumulations. overstocked stands. and major outbreaks of mortality from disease (primarily dwarf mistletoe) and insects.Stands in the remainder of the watershed on private ground are comprised of second growth poles and young sawtimber almost uniformly about 90 years of age. Historical disturbances to the native ecosystem have included mining, logging. road building, and fire. Most of the mining occurred early in this century.and the remains of the old pits and spoils can be found throughout the watershed.Miners may have been responsible for a major fire that occurred around the beginning of the century. based on stand ages throughout the lower two-thirdsof the watershed.This appears to have been a stand replacement type of fire,probably intentionally set and perhaps associated with logging. It is suspected that stream incising increased greatly immediately following this major disturbance. A second major wildfire occurred in 1973 and consumed virtually all vegetation on more southerly aspects-eventually comprising about one haft of the watershed.This major event also greatly increased erosion throughout the watershed.particularly in association with a 100 year storm event in 1974. Periodic logging has occurred throughout this century. but mostly in the lower two-thirdsof the watershed on private ground.The upper one-thirdof the watershed is owned by the U.S. Forest Service and has never been logged.except for a small area along the ridge at the top of the watershed to serve as a fuelbreak.Also, a very light harvest was recently done using helicopters. This harvest was prescribed to remove recent,mortality and individual trees with high amounts of dwarf mistletoe. In addition to these typical resource related disturbances.the area has historically received significant public use for hiking, mountain biking, and off road vehicle use.The Toothpick Trail on Forest Service land in the upper part of the watershed has received heavy public use, as has the Oredson-Todd Woods owned by the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy at the bottom of the watershed. Illegal trespass throughout the other private properties has historically been extensive. Recent forest management activities have occurred primarily on the Epstein property. Fuel reduction, in coordination with sound silvicultural practices has been the primary objective, as the risk from wildfire is acute. Twenty acres of fuelbreaks have been constructed at key locations to prevent the advance of wildfire. These fuelbreaks have all been reforested and will be managed as both fuel- breaks and plantations in the future.Over 80 acres of thinning and stand release has also occurred on the Epstein property. Almost all of the resultant thinnings have been removed and marketed for firewood. Several of the residual stands have been underbumed to further reduce the fuel loading. An extensive fuelbreak has recently been constructed around the home of G.T. (Buck)Smith at the bottom of the watershed.No range or livestock activities have been known to occur in the watershed in recent years. Two major concerns in the watershed are recognized by the owners and are the primary reasons for coordinated watershed management plan. First is the concern for soil and watershed protection in this highly erosive area. The owners feel a need for a coordinated approach to limit impacts to the watershed both over time and space. Perhaps more importantly. however,is a collective concern for the potential of destruction from wildfire. Not ohly are fuels extremely high in the watershed (and increasing yearly),but the likelihood of ignition is also high,particularly with the high amount of public use and proximity to the city of Ashland. A severe fire would not only destroy many valuable forest resources, but would ultimately severely impact the watershed and riparian values as well.A coordi- nated effort to maximize the effectiveness of fuel reduction efforts and other wildfire prevention techniques is of critical importance to the owners. This watershed provides an excellent opportunity to implement a coordinated approach to watershed management. It is a relatively small watershed(750 acres)with a limited number of owners.All of the owners are interested in the concept and have previous education and/or management experience to help understand the importance of such an endeavor. Monitoring and/or rehabilitation of portions of the stream and eroding hillsides would not only be of much benefit to the existing owners, but also to downstream users.Coordinated approaches to wildfire prevention and fuels management. within the context of good forest management, would tremendously benefit not only the owners, but adjacent forest, interface. and urban areas as well. A periodic review of intended management practices by the owners in the watershed can only be positive and to the long-term benefit of all. HAMILTON CRE_,� COORDINATED RESOURCE-MANAGE,.iNT PLAN ',,.-GENERAL INFORMATION Key Participant Acreage (Approx) Private Public Bill Epstein 300 Geoffrey & Jeraldine Schroeder 12 Buck Smith 12 Bruce & Richard Smith 14 Southern Oregon Conservancy 9 City of Ashland 130 U.S. Forest Service 226 Other Participants: Ordeson/Medenger 10 Subtotals: 357 356 Total Planning Unit Acreage: 713 Expert Advisory Participants: Oregon Dept of Forestry/Rogue Valley Fire Prevention Cooperative (Greg Alexander) Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife (Jerry MacLeod) U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Nicola Giardina and Craig Ziegler) Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District (John Billings) Date of Plan: February, 1992 Soil &Water Conservation District: Jackson Location: South of the Talent Irrigation District Canal encompassing the entire Hamilton Creek water- shed. This portion of Hamilton Creek is a Class II stream. Note:The City of Ashland uses FEMA(flood maps)and Hamilton Creek is identified as Clay Creek.Hamilton Creek is in the drainage west'of Tolman Creek Road. Resource Management Emphasis in This Plan: Scenic values, wildfire concern, timber and watershed protection. �J 1 :+ .r I � \ ,�. / J Y r ♦[/1] rt 1. � f ~`t" { y1� �.) • r. �.1 (!J I� 1 r 7 +ti�,/c ���� 7 �rf'k' iv t�� � � r J r .��11 �� f rJ�'' . -i� ✓l r .� 1 `.I r �•�r 'a{ ' er r./!f rr { 1 �I, p. r 4 j y 17.��I�',{ '� � � yt' Gh'•, / t I`�,tiur r ( .t � r•• tit �J r ' . yy , {, �_ � ;i♦ :� 311 � _ f "_ t � k rR' = t1 rt 43 1 / rt � n • \� �r1 FF 1 f � DOCUMENTATION — 0 "Lightning caused fire frequency less than 20 years in Southwest Oregon." Atzet, Thomas and D.L. Wheeler 1982 - Historical and Ecological Perspectives on Fire Activity in the Klamath Geological Province of the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. USDA - For. Serv. , PNW Region, Portland. • "Probably a match higher frequency due to burning by native people.,, Lewis, H.T. 1973 - Patterns of Indian Burning California; Ecology and Ethnohistory. Ballena Press, Ramona, California. Lewis, H.T. 1989 - Reconstructing Patterns of Indian Burning in Southwest Oregon in Living with the Land: The Indians of Southwest Oregon. Hannon, N. and R.K. Oimo (Ed.) • "Lowered fire frequency increases proportion of Douglas Fir in stand vis-a-vis oaks. Thilenius, John F. 1968 - The Quercus garryana Forests of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Ecology 49:1124- 1133. • "Drought conditions combined with stand density has rendered local species susceptible to insect infestation." Bridgewater, Dave 1989 - Causes of Tree Mortality of the Ashland District. Forest service Memo #3420, April 26th. • "Pre-historically, Douglas Fir trees were not as important a carponent' of stands just above the valley floor as they have been recently." Photographs available fran Southern Oregon Historical Society. 2:HORT\DOCUMENT.93 • "If we do not in some way manage fuels, but instead foster a build- up of fuel , the possibility of a particularly severe wildfire is inescapable." Curran, Claude W.. 1978 - Wildfire Hazard Management in the Urban/Wildland Interface in Southern Oregon. • "Both natural processes and Native American land management practices might be used as models for currently managing non-commercial forest land." Biswell, Harold H. 1989 - Prescribed Burning in California Wildlands Vegetation Management. UC Press - available at SOSC Library. taoerUacame.e� , ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 • PARK COMMISSIONERS: 04�0 FcASN4 KENNETH J. MICKELSEN Director PATRICIA ADAMS ALLEN A.ALSING L - TERI COPPEDGE !. LAURIE MacGRAW ! - TEL.:(503)488-5340 ROBERT J. MALONE �',,OREGOa; FAX:(503)488-5314 August 8, 1994 This is in response to a request from Mayor Golden — Regarding item number 4 concerning the creation of a greenbelt: The Ashland Parks and Recreation Department in 1988 initiated a forest management plan for the hillsides of Lithia Park which includes reducing the fire danger and creating firebreaks. The plan was developed in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service and the state Department of Forestry as Lithia Park borders both federal and state forest lands. Since then, the department has removed hundreds of dead trees, removed brush and has created firebreaks at different locations within the park. This is an ongoing program to continue to reduce the fire potential within the park. One of the goals of the Open Space/Park Land Acquisition Program which is funded by the food and beverage tax is to acquire land in the forest interface. The department is actively pursuing several parcels in the forest interface that are essential in preserving Ashland's view shed as well as reducing the fire potential in the interface. For the past two years, in cooperation with the City, the department has reduced the fire hazard and created firebreaks on 160 acres that are now park land within the forest interface. This area is referred to as the Siskiyou Mountain Park and spans area from the Ashland Loop Road to Greenmeadows. As we continue to acquire property in the forest interface, a major emphasis will be on reducing the fire potential of the areas. 1:MISC\ME740S.94 Home of Famous Lithia Park ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CHANCE OF FIRE IS SO GREAT. IT'S LIk _. RUSSIAN ROULETTE .-- SOONER OR LATER THE BULLET IS GOING TO WE WOULD, THEREFORE, LIKE TO MAKE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDAT" MOST OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL TAKE SOME TIME, BUT AS MANLY THEM ARE OVERDUE, THERE IS NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT TO BEGIN. ti F. 1. THE CITY SHOULD BEGIN A WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM' IMMEDIATELY. EVEN THOUGH THE WATER SITUATION MAY NOT BE CRITICAL AT THE MOMENT, WATER SHOULD BE TREATED AS A SCARCITY BECAUSE IT TAKES GREAT QUANTITIES OF IT TO FIGHT A LARGE FIRE. 2 . THE CITY MUST DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN _ THE FOREST INTERFACE IN EVERY POSSIBLY WAY. FOR ONE THING, THESE HOMES INCREASE THE CHANCE OF FIRE CAUSED BY HUMAN CARELESSNESS, BUT ALSO, THEY WOULD DIVERT FIRE FIGHTING EFFORTS FROM THE WATERSHED AND OTHER WOODLAND AREAS BORDERING OUR CITY. WITH RESPECT TO FIRE-HAZARDOUS AREAS THE CITY SHOULD: * PROHIBIT ANY FURTHER PROPERTY DIVISION, * PURCHASE PROPERTIES TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, . * PURCHASE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SO THAT PROPERTIES CANNOT BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, * REZONE THESE AREAS TO PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TAKEN SOME STEPS IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION BY CONSIDERING DOWN-ZONING AND BY REDUCING THE ALLOWABLE BUILDABLE SLOPE. I WOULD URGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO COMPLETE THESE ACTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 3 . AS SOON AS THE WEATHER PERMITS, THE CITY SHOULD EMBARK ON A FUEL REDUCTION PROGRAM. THIS MEANS A MASSIVE EFFORT TO CLEAR OUT THE DEAD AND DISEASED UNDERGROWTH IN ALL OF OUR PUBLIC LANDS. WHILE IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE CITY TO CONDUCT A VOLUNTEER PROGRAM, CHURCHES, SCOUTS, AND OTHER GROUPS CAN COORDINATE THEM. ALSO, THE CITY SHOULD PAY PEOPLE TO DO THIS. IT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE TEMPORARY JOBS TO UNEMPLOYED YOUNG PEOPLE. 4. THE CITY SHOULD INITIATE THE CREATION OF A GREENBELT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A FIREBREAK BETWEEN THE CITY PROPER AND THE y SURROUNDING HILLS. THIS WOULD GIVE THE FIRE FIGHTERS AN IMPROVED CHANCE OF SAVING HUNDREDS OF RESIDENCES. AS IT IS NOW, THE J "FIRELINE" IS CONSIDERED TO BE SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. 5. ACCOMPLISHING THESE ENDS WILL REQUIRE . FUNDING AND A 2 ..................... 01 ASAP, EGO August 9, 1994 Mayor Golden ram Robbin Pearce, Water Conservation Analyst C29 �$UhiC& Response to Alice Hardesty's Statement to Council This is in response to your request for information for Mrs. Hardesty. It takes time as a new resident in a community to become aware of all the programs available through local agencies. Hopefully this will be both inlbrmallve and helpful for the Hardeslys. Also maybe they would be rMrestecl n becoming rKA(ed in one of our boards or commissions an take an active role in Ashland's livability. CITY OF ASHLAND art CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(oode 503 182-3211 August 9, 1994 Mr & Mrs. Hardesty: In response to a request from Mayor Golden and in an effort to educate you as a new resident of our community, the City of Ashland currently has an active water conservation program. In 1992 the City contracted SRC (Synergic Resource Corporation) to conduct a demand side resource study. The results of that study are the basis of our water conservation program. I have enclosed a copy of the summary of that report for your information. Our water conservation program consists of both residential and commercial water audits which include both a showerhead retrofit and a toilet retrofit/rebate programs. A outline of the specifics of this program are included. We are currently working on an water use efficiency in landscaping and irrigation ordinance for both new and existing landscaping in developments. If you are interested in more details regarding any of our programs don't hesitate to call me at 448,8-.5306. Robbin Pearce Water Conservation Analyst pipe.rryry' : J~.., a : �{ emorttndnm °4Eao",,• August 8, 1994 0: Brian Almquist, City Administrator ,� - �TIIllt: Steven Hall, Public Works Director ` 1I�IjEtf: Agreement #11855 - Signal @ Siskiyou and Walker ACTION REQUESTED City Council accept the attached agreement for the installation of automatic traffic signals at the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Walker Avenue. City Council authorize City Administrator and City Recorder to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Ashland. BACKGROUND little has to be said as the City of Ashland has pursued the installation of an automatic signal at this intersection previous to my arrival in December, 1987. It has slid on and off the ODOT 6 year program many times. The agreement binds the City to allow the installation of the signal,to maintain Walker Avenue in a way to not damage the dew loops, and to pay for the power of operation as per the League of Oregon Cities Agrmmmt with the Oregon Department of Transportation. MOT will design, install, test and maintain the signal at no cost to the City. Staff recommends approval. cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Glossop, Street Superintendent Pam Barlow, Administrative Assistant Traffic Safety Commission Transportation Planning Advisory Committee Enc: MOT letter Agreement 1l 11855 (C:VhVd\WAMFM mew I OiWn DEPARTMENT OF j 2W TRANSPORTATION CITY OF ASHLAND REGION 3 August 1, 1994 FILE CODE: Steve Hall Director of Public Works 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Hall: Enclosed for your review and signature by appropriate City officials are three (3) copies of Cooperative Improvement Agreement No. 11855 for the proposed traffic signal installation on Rogue Valley Highway at Walker Avenue project. This agreement shall be authorized during a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. After your review please return the signed agreements to me. Sincerely, Michelle Mock Agreement Specialist MITI Enclosures cc: Program Section 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470 (503) 440-3399 734-1829 (&va) FAX (503) 440-3465 r August 1, 1994 Misc. Contracts & Agreement No. 11855 COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION FINANCE THIS AGREEMENT. is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation; hereinafter referred to as "State"; and. THE CITY OF ASHLAND, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City" . W I T N E S S E T H RECITALS 1 . By authority granted in ORS 366 . 770 and 366 . 775, State may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties and cities for the performance of work on certain types of improvements projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 2. For the purpose of providing acceptable traffic patterns on. public highways, State and City plan and propose to construct a new traffic signal, with fire pre-emption, on the Rogue Valley Highway at Walker Avenue, hereinafter referred to as "project" . The location of project is approximately as shown on. the sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. 3 . Design and construction of this project will be financed with funds available to State. 4. By authority granted in ORS 366. 770 and 366 . 775, State may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties and cities for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the. allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 5. By the authority granted in ORS 810.210, State is authorized to determine the character or type of traffic control devices to be used, and to place or erect them upon State highways at places" where State deems necessary for the safe and expeditious control of traffic. No traffic control devices shall be erected or maintained upon any State highway by any authority, other than the State, except with' its written approval. Traffic ,signal work on the project shall conform to the current state standards and specifications. B1394005/05632' -1- I Agreement No. 11855 1 CITY OF ASHLAND NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties. hereto as follows: STATE OBLIGATIONS 1 . . State shall acquire all right-of-way, conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic investigations, foundation explorations, and hydraulic studies, identify and obtain all required permits, perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, preliminary/final specifications and cost estimates, arrange for necessary utility relocations, advertise for bid proposals, and award contract. 2 . State shall furnish all construction engineering, field testing of materials, technical inspection, project manager services for administration of the contract and "As Constructed" redlined drawings for production of permanent mylar "As Constructed" plans. 3 . State shall lay out and paint the necessary lane lines and erect the required directional and traffic control signing for the project. 4. State shall, upon satisfactory signal turn-on and at its own expense, perform all required signal maintenance and retain complete jurisdiction and control of the timing established for . operation of the traffic signals. CITY OBLIGATIONS 1 . City hereby grants State the right to enter onto and occupy City street right-of-way for the performance of construction and necessary maintenance of the traffic signal equipment, including vehicle detector loops. 2 . City shall identify .and provide State with any and all city required permits for the project. 3 . City shall maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops installed in City Street in such a manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops, and shall adequately maintain the pavement markings and signing on city street installed in accordance with the plans and specifications. 4. City, by, execution of this agreement, does hereby give its consent as required by ORS 373.030(2) to any and all changes of grade within the city limits, if any there be, in connection with or arising out of the project covered by this agreement. 5. City shall, upon completion of the project and at its own expense, provide all power required for operation of the traffic signal. B1394005/05632 -2- Agreement No. 11855 CITY OF ASHLAND 6 . City shall enter into and execute this agreement during a duly authorized session of the City Council . GENERAL PROVISIONS 1 . State and City agree and understand that a mutual review of the traffic signal plans, specifications, and estimates will be conducted prior to advertisement for construction bid proposals. 2 . The Contractor, its subcontractors, if any, and all employers working under this agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656 .017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed thier seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. This project was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on September 15, 1993 'as part of the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. The Oregon Transportation Commission, by a duly adopted delegation order, authorized the State Highway Engineer to sign this agreement for and on behalf of the Commission. APPROVAL RECOMMENDED STATE OF OREGON, by an through its Department of Transportation By Region Manager By State Highway Engineer By Traffic Engineer CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its Elected Officials Date By City Administrator APPROVED AS TO LEGAL . SUFFICIENCY By Recorder By Asst. Attorney General Date Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL THE CITY OF ASHLAND SUFFICIENCY Billing Address: By City of Ashland City Attorney 20 East Main Ashland,- OR 97520 Date B1394005/05632 -3- 1 ROGUE RIVER HIGHWAY @ WALKER ROGUE VALLEY HIGHWAY JACKSON COUNTY KEY NO. 05632 IV u Lg LaLkoL jU Ll�ll_ PROPOSED is boo ®o� . ©a 00 n n%R� =PROJECT fm . 1 1 _ I 1 . 1 - 1 I 1 1 41GMCO. ��• o ASHLAND JACKSON COUMI•. OREGON w.ru.r.r. I�OIe.. • Ir41s SIJ•. _�..�. . w_OR Y.a Mt.w.r.R rw.r.[/YnwR EXHIBIT °� • LLD . • � Lw•{r4wA 41�T� .. Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 94-050 REQUEST TO AMEND 18.08300 OF THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE AND ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Proposed Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1 - Planning Commission minutes 6/26/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - Historic Commission minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Planning Department Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 18.08.300 AND ADOPTING CHAPTER 18.94 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS (PA-94-050) THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 18.08.300 of the Ashland Municipal Code is to read: 18.08.300 Home occupation. A commercial activity permitted in a residential zone as provided in Chapter 18.94. Section 2. Chapter 18.94 of the Ashland Municipal Code is adopted to read as follows: Chapter 18.94 HOME OCCUPATIONS Sections: 18.94.100 Purpose and Intent 18.94.110 Conduct of Home Occupation - Standards 18.94.120 Prohibited Uses 18.94.130 Permit Required - Application 18.94.100 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this chapter is to encourage those who are engaged in small scale commercial ventures which could not necessarily be sustained if it were necessary to lease commercial quarters for them or which, in the nature of the home occupation, cannot be expanded to full-scale enterprises. Home occupations shall also be recognized for their contribution in reducing the number of vehicle trips often generated by conventional businesses. It is the intent of this chapter that home occupations not infringe upon the right of neighboring residents to enjoy the peaceful and safe occupancy of their homes. However, full-scale commercial or professional operations, which would ordinarily be conducted in a commercial or employment district continue to be conducted in those districts and not at home. 18.94.110 Conduct of Home Occupation - Standards. Home occupations shall be subject to the following standards: A. Appearance of Residence. 1. The home occupation shall be restricted to the dwelling unit, accessory structure, or yard area not visible from the public right-of-way and be conducted in PAGE 1-ORDINANCE (mlk:home-occ.ord) S such a manner as not to give an outward appearance of a business. 2. The home occupation shall not result in any structural alterations or additions to the dwelling or accessory structure that will change its primary use. 3. No display of products and or equipment produced or used by the home occupation may be displayed so as to be visible from outside the dwelling or accessory structure. B. Storage. 1. Outside storage, visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties, is prohibited. 2. On-site storage of hazardous materials (including toxic, explosive, combustible or flammable) beyond that normally incidental to residential use is prohibited. 3. Storage of inventory or products and all other equipment, fixtures, and activities associated with the home occupation shall be allowed in the dwelling or accessory structure. C. Employees. 1. Other than family members residing within the dwelling located on the home occupation site, there shall be no more than one full time employee at any given time. As used in this chapter, the term "home occupation site" means the lot on which the home occupation is conducted. 2. Additional individuals may be employed by or associated with the home occupation, so long as they do not report to work at the home. 3. The home occupation site shall not be routinely used as a headquarters for the assembly of employees for instruction or other purposes, including dispatch to other locations. D. Advertising and Signage. No signs shall be permitted on a home occupation site. E. Automobiles, parking and traffic. 1 . One commercial automobile associated with the home occupation is allowed at the home occupation site. Such automobile shall be of a size that would not overhang into the.public right-of-way when parked in the driveway or other location on the home occupation site. 2. There shall be no commercial vehicle deliveries from or to the home occupation site beyond what is normally incidental to residential uses. Normal residential deliveries can be defined as typically being no more than one per day, during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 3. There shall be no more than one client's or customer's automobile at any one time and no more than eight.per day at the home occupation site. F. Clients or customers are permitted at the home occupation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. only. PAGE 2-ORDINANCE (mlk:home-occ.Ord) 2 _ i 18.94.120 Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited as home occupations: A. Any activity that produces radio or TV interference, noise,. glare, vibration, smoke or odor beyond allowable levels as determined by local, state or federal standards. B. Any activity involving on-site retail sales, except as allowed in the Historic Railroad District or items that are incidental to the occupational use, such as the ,sale of beauty products from salons, lesson books or sheet music for music teachers, or computer software for computer consultants. C: Any uses described in this section or uses with similar objectionable impacts because of automobile.traffic, noise, glare, odor, dust, smoke*or vibration: 1 . Ambulance service; 2. Ammunition or firearm sales; 3. Ammunition reloading business; 4. Animal hospital, veterinary services, kennels or animal boarding; 5. Auto and other vehicle.repair, including auto painting; 6. Repair, reconditioning or storage of motorized vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles or large equipment on-site; 18.94.130 Permit Required - Aonlication. A. No person shall conduct a home occupation without first obtaining a home occupation permit from the Planning Department and a valid business license as required under Title 6 of this code. B. The Staff Advisor shall require of the applicant for a home occupation permit such information as is necessary to determine the location and type of business, and the manner in which it will be conducted. If the Staff Advisor finds that the proposed home occupation complies with the requirements of this chapter, the Staff Advisor shall issue a permit. C. The home occupation permit is valid only to the person named on the permit and for the business to be conducted at the location stated on the permit. The permit is not transferable to another location or to another applicant. D. Issuance of a home occupation permit under this,chapter shall not relieve the applicant from the duty and responsibility to comply with all other rules, regulations, ordinances or other laws governing the use of the premises and structures thereon, including, but not limited to, the specialty codes defined in chapter 15.04, the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Fire Code Standards defined in chapter 15.28, or any private restrictions relative to the property. E. The Staff Advisor or designee may visit and inspect the site of a home occupation permitted in this chapter periodically to insure compliance with all regulations and conditions to which the permit is subject, during normal business hours, and with reasonable notice. PAGE 3-ORDINANCE (mlk:home-occ.ord) CITY OF ASHLAND HOME OCCUPATION APPLICATION & PERMIT APPLICANTS NAME PHONE HOME OCCUPATION ADDRESS ZIP CODE MAILING ADDRESS ZIP CODE TYPE OF BUSINESS BUSINESS NAME, IF ANY 1. Describe in detail the type of business which you desire to operate in your residence: 2. Will you do any remodeling, rewiring plumbing, or build any additions to the residence or accessory structure in connection with your home business?If yes,please explain: 3. Specifically list the types of machinery or equipment and materials to be used in conjunction with the home business, and where these will be located, connected, and/or stored: 4. List other persons employed by the business not living in the home who would be reporting to work at the residence: 5. Will your business involve customers or clients coming to your home? _ How many do you expect at any one time? 6. Will there be storage of products or material? If so, where? 7. Will there be any trucks or other commercial vehicles used in conjunction with the home business? If so, How many and what is their approximate size? PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE FOLLOWING I understand that because a business may be permitted to be conducted within my home, garage or accessory structure, I may be required to have the home inspected by the building inspector, fire inspector, a representative of the Community Development Department, or any other department which may have governance or an interest in the health and safety of the occupants or the surrounding residents. Upon the presentation of proper credentials, I agree to any and all necessary inspections. I understand that the Community Development Director or his/her designee may attach specific conditions to my home occupation permit to assure that it conforms with the Ashland Municipal Code, Section 18.08 relating to home occupations. I understand that it is my duty and obligation to comply with all other rules, regulations, ordinances, or other laws governing the use of the premises and structures thereon, including, but not limited to, the.Uniform Building Code, The Uniform Fire Code, and any private restrictions relative to the property. I hereby affirm that the information given above is correct and complete. Signature: Date: have.a 12 foot side yard setback. That will give more yard space for the accessory unit. This is a transitional neighborhood from residential to commercial. With regard to the connecting the flag to a street, both the City and Robertson have been unsuccessful in negotiations. The other neighbors would rather have flag lots than a street. Pete Seda was on-site today talking about cedar tree. Seda recommended paving of the driveway be an inch of mulch and rocks, allowing aeriation. In response to Jarvis' question concerning not addressing the'criteria, Robertson said he was under the impression that the Commissioners got remarks made by the Department Heads at the pre-application. He said the application meets all applicable ordinances. He would assume there are adequate City facilities. Jarvis wondered if Robertson could put this action off for two weeks because he does not address the criteria either orally or in writing. The hearing would be continued until July 12 and the applicant would have to have his additional information in 10 days before the hearing. CYNTHIA DION, 365 Pearl Street, was the previous owner of the property. She is familiar with what happened on the rear parcel. She is particularly interested in what is happening with the trees on the proeprty. She could find no findings or landscape plan other than a simple drawing. She is concerned that each one of the 30 trees be listed, lined out to see how a paved drive and road cut will effect the trees. She believes property values would be highly decreased if this issue is not addressed. Bingham asked if any discussion ever came up about a road in 1978? Dion responded that there was discussion. She believes it would be in everyone's best interestt to get a street dedication. Staff will provide Robertson with a list of items he should submit. Robertson said he would waive his 120 time limitation and agreed to continue the hearing to July 12, 1994. Carr moved to continue PA94-092 for completion of the file for the July 12, 1994 hearing. In the event the applicant cannot meet the dealine of July 1, 1994 for submission of materials, the hearing will be continued to the regular August meeting. Powell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Powell left the meeting. Thompson returned to the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 94-050 REQUEST FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 18.08.300 AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIAPL CODE RELATING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND S STAFF REPORT Everything that has been discussed prior to this hearing have been included in the packet. A draft application is in the packet. Cloer moved to approve PA94-050. Carr seconded the motion and it was approved with Hibbert abstaining. PLANNING ACTION 94-095 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES CHAPTER (18.108); MODIFICATIONS TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE; AND AMENDMENT OF VARIANCE CRITERIA (18.100). APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND The shaded areas in the ordinance are the changes for which the Commission has asked. Please note the alternative sections (Page 8 and 11). Carr moved not to use the alternative sections. Hibbert seconded the motion and all favored. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. ARMITAGE SECONDED AND ALL FAVORED. Carr moved and the motion was seconded to recommend approve of the ordinance changes to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 6 PA 94-061 Site Review Lots 8 & 9 of the Railroad Subdivision on "A" Street Allan Sandler Because he had a conflict of interest, Lewis sat in the audience for this action, and turned the meeting over to Skibby. Knox stated the applicant proposes to build two buildings, one on each lot, with residential units on top and commercial units on the bottom, which will meet the 66% residential criteria. Parking requirements will be met, and Staff is recommending approval.. Ennis said the buildings have grace, but the cooper roof marquee is heavy looking. It adds bulk to the buildings, and he would rather see this area as open rafters. He stated he was unsure how this would affect the signage, however. Lewis related that scale-wise, the buildings will fit in with the property. Harriff said that while the copper marquees add to the entrances and will protect from the rain, he also agreed they are too heavy. He noted that Staff should require drawings of the streetscape, as it is difficult to look at isolated pictures on a page. Chambers concurred about the marquees and stated a huge sign would not be compatible. The Commission agreed the overall design of the buildings was good. Ennis moved to recommend approval of this action with the requirement the applicant work with the Review Board in the redesign of the "A" Street overhangs (cooper roofs) of the buildings so they are less massive and don't appear to look like commercial strip buildings. Cardinale seconded the motion. Ennis amended his motion to state the Historic Commission concern is that if signage is placed on the vertical face, it would detract from the look of the building significantly and not be compatible with the Historic District. Cardinale agreed with the amendment, and the motion, as amended, passed unanimously. Lewis abstained. nth a motion by Skibby and second by Mitchell, it was unanimous the meeting be extended beyond 10:00 p.m.) PA 94-050 Zoning Ordinance Amendment . Home Occupations City of Ashland . Knox related one of the goals set by the City Council was to encourage cottage industries. Reasoning for this was to reduce vehicular trips, reduce overhead, and reduce childcare, in addition to the fact that most people can be more productive at home. This has now been Ashland Historic Commission Minutes May 4, 1994 7 Page 7 ( taken to the Planning Commission twice. The intent was to get hold of the problems the current definition of Home Occupations encompasses. Changes will be that one full time employee would now be allowed (other than family members), no signage will be allowed, and it cannot be used as headquarters for a business. The ordinance will allow the City to get more restrictive and at the same time, be more protective of existing residences. Harriff stated he attended one of the Planning Commission meetings where this was discussed and still does not understand why this needs to be done. He agrees with the intent, but stated it would do more good to get more restrictive and enhance existing ordinances (i.e. the noise ordinance). After discussion of the various aspects of the proposed ordinance, Winston moved and Mitchell seconded to recommend approval of this amendment. The motion passed with all . voting aye except Harriff, who voted nay. (It was the unanimous decision to extend the meeting past 10:30p.171.) BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and.issued during the month of April follow: 586 East Main Street Kate Jackson Porch Demolition 37 Third Street Steven Rowe Remodel 758 "A" Street City of Ashland Restroom 122 South Laurel Street Jeanne Nicks Remodel/Addition 586 East Main Street Kate Jackson Replace Foundation 482 Iowa Street Roane Lyall Porch/Add'n Demo. 758 "B" Street Philip Lang/Ruth Miller Garage Conversion 170 Church Street Isabel Sickels Remodel/Deck 117 North Main Street Gail Barham Remodel 216 Meade Street Michael Sanford Remodel/Addition 234 Vista Street (Garage) Sid DeBoer Interior Remodel/Bath 325 "A" Street Northwest Mortgage Sign 125 East Main Street Paddington Station, etc. Sign 581 East Main Street Ashland Property Management Sign 586 "B" Street Wolfe Manor Inn Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday at least from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: May 5 Skibby, Lewis and Harriff May 12 Skibby, Winston, Lewis and Mitchell Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 6 May 4, 1994 o Page 8 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT May 10, 1994 PLANNING ACTION: 94-050 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Not Applicable ZONE DESIGNATION: Not Applicable COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Not Applicable ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.08 Definitions REQUEST: Adoption of a new chapter 18.94 to the Land Use Ordinance relating to Home Occupations. 1. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: As part of this years goal setting session, the City Council directed staff to continue to explore zoning provisions which encourage "cottage industries". In January, 1994, the Ashland Planning Staff initiated research of.Home Occupation Ordinances by extracting information from planning publications as well as contacting other city's for their home occupation ordinances. Cities contacted were Eugene, Springfield, Bend, Sacramento, Corvallis, Grants Pass, Rocklin (CA), Roseburg, McMinnville, Lake Oswego and Stillwater, Oklahoma. Once the information was compiled, staff generated a "hybrid" draft ordinance specifically for the City of Ashland. Staff then submitted the draft ordinance to the City Attorney for legal review. In February 1994, A publicized study session was held with staff presenting to the Planning Commission the draft home occupation ordinance. At this time, the Planning Commission, planning staff and members of the audience discussed the draft ordinance's intent, content and format. Significant changes requested by the Commission and the public included limiting the number of prohibited uses, adding the word "encourage" to the.Purpose and Intent section, allowing for one full time employee, but no more than one at a time and changing the hours of operation from 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. Staff then submitted the draft ordinance to the City Attorney for legal review. In April; 1994, A second publicized study session was held with staff presenting to 9 j the Planning Commission a revised draft. At this time, no changes were requested other than adding wording to the Purpose and Intent section stating that home occupations shall be recognized for their contribution in reducing the number of vehicle trips often generated by conventional businesses. In addition, firearm sales were added to the prohibited list. Staff then submitted the draft ordinance to the City Attorney for legal review. 2) Detailed Description of the Proposal: Amending Section 18.08.300 (Definition of a Home Occupation) of the Ashland Municipal Code and adopting a new chapter, Chapter 18.94, Home Occupations, to the Ashland Municipal Code. Section 18.08.300 has been redefined to clarify that a home business is a permitted commercial activity as long as all the requirements of Chapter 18.94 will be met. Chapter 18.94 has been added to the Municipal Code that specifically states the purpose and intent of the Home Occupation Ordinance, defines Home Occupation standards, prohibits certain home uses and explains the application process. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof Type III amendments may be approved when one of the following conditions exist. a) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. b) The need to correct mistakes. c) The need to adjust to new conditions. d) Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Overall, it is staff's opinion that the Home Occupation Ordinance will be extremely positive for the City of Ashland. With today's technological advancements, the number of home businesses account for 30 percent of the U.S. labor force. Sophisticated telephone services, personal computers linked by phone lines to central networks and data systems, facsimile machines, and electronic and voice mail systems have dramatically widened the choice of workplace. PA94-050 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland May 10, 1994 /D Page 2 Research has shown that home businesses reduce the demand for peak-period vehicle travel and associated lost time, fewer accidents, reduced emission of pollutants and savings in energy and petroleum consumption. In addition, home businesses have traditionally been the incubators for business which expand and move into commercial space. PA94-050 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report City of Ashland May 10, 1994 Page 3 Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 94-095 REQUEST TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES CHAPTER 18.108 OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE; RECONCILING OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE AND THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO THESE AMENDMENTS; AMENDING THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND OTHER SECTIONS IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE; AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 78-38 AND 88-20. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Proposed Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Planning Commission minutes 6/26/94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 r • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROCEDURES CHAPTER OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE; RECONCILING OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE AND THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO THESE AMENDMENTS; AMENDING THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND OTHER SECTIONS IN THE LAND USE ORDINANCE; AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 78-38 AND 88-20 THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: .SECTION 1. Chapter 18.108 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended in its entirety . to read: Chapter 18.108 PROCEDURES Sections: 18.108.010 Purpose 18.108.015 Pre-application Conference 18.108.017 Applications 18.108.020 Types of Procedures 18.108.022 Ministerial Actions 18.108.030 Staff Permit Procedure 18.108.040 Type I Procedure 18.108.050 Type 11 Procedure 18.108.060 Type III Procedure 18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision 18.108.080 Public Notice 18.108.100 Public Hearings 18.108.110 Appeal to Council 18.108.140 Fees 18.108.150 Council or Commission May Initiate Actions 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments 18.108.180 Resubmittal of Applications 18.108.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures to initiate and make final decisions regarding planning actions. 18.108.015 Pre-Application Conference. An applicant shall request a pre-application conference prior to submitting an application for a Type I, II or III planning action. The purpose of the conference shall be to acquaint the applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Land Use Ordinance, provide for an exchange of information regarding applicable elements of the comprehensive plan and development PAGE 1-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (P:vienrtfne�code%rev10ee.wo)[Auuu:t e, 19941 aa.ogmaaucu.:amnmuav�Ciaeuecaaaaww�.»ceo..u..;�-.n-.::,w'.w..:..:t�...,�..4.:.�.rS.�.n..•.aww 18.108.022 Ministerial Actions<,Md1[;J0*j. A. Within 21 days after accepting an application for a ministerial action the Staff Advisor shall deny or approve the application unless such time limitation is extended with the consent of the applicant. The Staff Advisor shall not accept applications which cannot be acted upon initially in a rational manner within seven days of receipt unless the applicant consents to a longer period for action. B. Within such 21 day period the Staff Advisor shall issue the permit or approval or advise the applicant that the application has been denied. 18.108.030 Staff Permit Procedure. A. AtitirssC„ v:The following planning actions shall be subject to the Staff Permit Procedure: 1. Site Review for two or three residential units on a single lot. 2. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62. 3. Variances described in Section 18.70.060. 4. Site Reviews in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones for expansions of an existing use that do not require new building area in excess of 2,500 square feet, or modification of more than 10% of the area of the site. 5. Extension of time limits for approved planning actions. Two extensions of up to 12 months each may be approved under the following conditions: a. A change of conditions, for which the applicant was not responsible, prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation, and . b. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such changes. 6. The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section 18.72.040.A: . a. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defines( in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. b. Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less, to a building. c. All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone. d. Installation of disc antennas subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any disc antenna for commercial use in a residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). e. Any exterior change to a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 7. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Staff Permit Procedure. 8. Other planning actions not otherwise listed or designated as a Type I, II or III procedure. PAGE 3-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (P:Pig.i.gk odalrev-1oea.ma)tAugmt e, 19941 3 B. vtcKeaaicTiineclM£s,"NOId8di7.ierll'II1E„ @IfE1If8T'iPtn . Applications subject to the Staff Permit Procedure shall be processed as follows: 1. Within 14 days after receipt of a complete application the Staff Advisor.shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application unless such time limitation is extended with the consent of the applicant. The Staff Advisor shall enter findings and conclusions to justify the decision. 2. Notice of the decision shall be mailed within seven days of the decision. The notice shall contain the following information: a. The decision of the Staff Advisor and the date of the decision. b. That no public hearing will be held unless specifically requested. c. That a request for a public hearing must be made by the date indicated on the notice in order for a public hearing to be scheduled. d. That a request for a public hearing shall include the name and address of the person requesting the public hearing, the file number of the planning action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified; based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. Notice shall be mailed to the following persons: a. The applicant, or authorized agent. b. The subject property owner. c. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within the notice area defined as that area within 100 feet of the subject property. 4. Persons to whom the notice is mailed shall have 10 days from the date of mailing in which to request a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall meet the following requirements: a. The request shall be filed by the date specified in the notice of decision. b. The request shall be in writing and include the appellant's name, address, the file number of the planning action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.. 5. If a request for a public hearing is timely received, a public hearing shall be scheduled for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board meeting allowing adequate time to meet the notice requirements of section 18.108.080. The public hearing shall be in accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100. 18.108.040 Type I Procedure. A. ;4nnIretidedj The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure:„ 1. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. 2. Site Reviews other than those subject to a Staff Permit Procedure or Type II Procedure. 3. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type I procedures. 4. Amendments to conditions of approval. 5. Creation of a private way, as allowed in section 18.80.030.8. 6. Conditional Use Permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than 3 residential dwelling units, or temporary uses. PAGE 4-TITLE 18.108 REVISION ta:a1..1nolcodeV�-109e.mouAugm1 9, 19941 '7 7. 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. L 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. 8. . The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section 18.72.040.8: a. 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 by the zoning regulations of this Code. b. Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a lot. c. All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except for developments included in section 18.108.030.A.6. 9. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. B. PFeeedurel tt5,,i[gtfG1Ct.1 tttllet� 118 Applications subject to the Type I Procedure shall be processed as follows: 1. Complete applications shall be reviewed at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the complete application. 2. Within 14 days after receipt of a complete application, the Staff Advisor shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application unless such time limitation is extended with the consent of the applicant. The Staff Advisor shall enter findings and conclusions to justify the decision. 3. Notice of the decision shall be mailed within seven days of the decision to the persons described in section 18.108.030.8.3. The notice shall contain the information required in section 18.108:030.8.2 plus a statement that unless a public hearing is requested, the action will be reviewed by the Commission. Persons to whom the notice is mailed shall have 10 days from the date of mailing in which to request a public hearing before the Commission. Requests for a public hearing shall conform to the requirements of section 18.108.030.B.4. 4. If a request for a public hearing is timely received, a public hearing shall be scheduled 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 in accord with the requirements-of section 18.108.100. PAGE 5-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (n:d�i alcoeetrev-ioee.ane)[Auomc s, 19941 5. If no request for a public hearing is timely received, the decision shall be reviewed by the Commission or Hearings Board at its first regularly scheduled meeting 30 days after submission of the application. The Commission or Board may: a. Amend the decision; in such case, the action shall be re-noticed as a Type I decision, with a 7-day period within which to request a public hearing, except that the Commission shall not review the decision again should there be no such request filed. b. Initiate a public hearing of the decision, through a majority vote of those in attendance, to be heard at the following month's regularly scheduled Commission or Board meeting. c. Take no action at the meeting when the decision is scheduled on the agenda. In such case the decision is final the next day. 6. Prior to the Staff Advisor making a decision, applicants of theta , dursvr may request, eF the Staff AdviseF Fnay FefeF, planning actions subject to a Type I • procedure be heard by the Commission or Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Board to be heard as provided in section 18.108.040.B.4. 18.108.050 Type II Procedure. A. o"m'`i{jc^lei The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type II Procedure: 1. All Conditional Use Permits not subject to a Type I procedure. 2. All variances not subject to the Type I procedure. 3. Outline Plan for subdivisions under the Performance Standard Options (AMC Chapter 18.88). 4. Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code (AMC Chapter 18.80). 5. Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance Standard Options not requiring Outline Plan approval. 6. Any public hearing of a Staff decision resulting from the Staff Permit Procedure. 7. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type II Procedure. B. Type eee � me €mtts;fVcstie anc 3iearuRequrrme Applications subject'to the Type II Procedure shall be processed as follows: 1. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the complete application. 2. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. 3. Public hearing shall be held before the Commission in accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100. 18.108.060 Type III Procedure. A. The following planning actions shall subject to the Type III Procedure: „,,..„„f C„ �.._,. 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Maptrt <olFc € � ep���yi f n r�LtI1r9 ��O.�iS(n.CnC CnrrvSw Rv C�u.�� nS�...vrvv .v 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes . PAGE 6-TITLE 18.108 REVISION t a:plaanino\aadakav-ioae.ananAucust s, 19941 6 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions. 1. Zone changes, amendments to the zoning map or comprehensive plan map changes may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and one of the following conditions exist: a. A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. b. The need to correct mistakes. c. The need to adjust to new conditions. d. Where circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action. 2. Annexations shall be subject to the criteria of chapter 18.106. 3. Urban growth boundary amendments shall be subject to the criteria contained in the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement between the City of Ashland and Jackson County. C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be processed 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.B.1, 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.B.2 and 3, the Commission, within 45 days after the public hearing, 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. 18.108.070 Effective Date of Decision. A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and are not be-subject to appeal. B. Actions subject to appeal: 1. Staff Permit Decisions. Unless a request for a public hearing is made, the final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Staff Permit procedure PAGE 7-TITLE- 18.108 REVISION (r:vi..inoXcod<Gev-ioee.mo)[Auauat e, 19941 . 7 shall be the Staff Advisor decision, which shall be effective ten days after the date of decision. If heard by the Commission or Board, the Commission or Board decision shall be the final decision of the City on such matters, effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties. 2. Type I Planning Procedure. Unless a request for a public hearing is made, the final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the day after the decision is scheduled to be reviewed by the Commission or Board. If a public hearing is held by the Commission or Board, the decision of the Commission or Board shall be the final decision of the City, effective when the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. 3. Type II Planning Actions. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective when the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties. ALTERNATIVE SECTION (Note - This alternative also requires an amendment to 18.108.110.): [3. Type ll Planning Actions. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type ii Planning Procedure, effective when the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.1 10A. The final decision shall be effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties.] 4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actionstdescribed in section 18.108.060.B.1, the decision of the Commission shall be the final decision of the City resulting from the Type III Planning Procedure, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A. The final decision shall be effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.B.2 and 3, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until the decision is final, as defined in this section. 0 PAGE 8-TITLE 18.108 REVISION 1a:a1.n1n9keodeUev-108e.e„e11Au9mt s, 19941 8 18.108.080 Public Notice. Public notice for hearings before the Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A. Notices shall be mailed at least 20 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 unless the hearing has been requested under the Staff Permit procedure. In such case the notice shall be mailed only to owners within 100 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. 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. Except for Staff Permit.Procedure planning actions, a notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the applicant in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 20 days prior to the date of the Commission meeting. Failure by the applicant to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The applicant 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. PAGE 9-TITLE 18.108 REVISION 1p:Planning\oode\rev-10ea.anol[Auguat e. 19941 5 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 II 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. 18.108.100 Public Hearings Procedure. A. At the commencement of a public hearing before the Board or Commission to consider a planning action or before the Council to consider planning actions described in section 18.108.060.6, a statement shall be made to those in attendance that: 1. Lists the applicable substantive criteria. 2. States that testimony and evidence must be directed toward the listed applicable substantive criteria, or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or Land Use Ordinance which the person believes to apply to the decision. 3. States that failure. to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. 4. States that failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes appeal to LUBA. 5. States the presentation and rebuttal time limits for the applicant, proponents, and opponents. 6. Other general rules of conduct for the public hearing as deemed necessary by the Board or Commission. B. After the statement required by section 18.108.100.A is made, the Commission members shall declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest and any ex parte contacts including the substance of those contacts and any conclusions the member reached because of those contacts. 1. No member shall serve on any proceeding in which such member has an actual conflict of interest; in which the member, or those persons or businesses described in ORS 227.035, has a direct or substantial financial interest; or in which the member is biased. If a member refuses to disqualify him or herself, the Board, for hearings before the Board or the Commission, for hearings before the Commission, shall have the power to remove such member for that proceeding. 2. All parties shall be advised that they have the right to rebut the substance of any ex parte communications. C. At such public hearing, after receipt of public testimony, the Board or Commission may approve, approve with conditions or deny the request. The Board or Commission may also continue the public hearing to the next meeting to allow for the submittal of additional information for consideration in the decision. At the public PAGE 10-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (v:pl.nfwlcodeXrev-ioae.eeo)[Aecusc s, 19941 /O hearing, the date, time, and location for the continuance of the public hearing shall be stated. After such statement, no additional public notice shall be required. D. A majority of those members present at the public hearing must vote affirmatively in order to adopt findings. 18.108.110 Appeal to Council A. Appeals of Type III decisions described in section 18.108.060.13.1 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed.is a jurisdictional defect. ALTERNATIVE SECTION (Note - This alternative is to be used only if the alternative to 18.108.070.B.3 is adopted.): (A. Appeals of Type II decisions or Type Ill decisions described in section 18.108.060.B.1 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.) 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. U 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a parry, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. Any party not filing a notice of appeal, may file a notice of cross- appeal within ten days after the notice of the appeal is mailed as provided in section 18.108.110.A.4. The notice of cross-appeal shall contain those matters required in a notice of appeal. The party filing a notice of appeal shall mail a copy of such notice to all other parties. 4. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.. 5. The appeal shall be a de novo review of the record made before the Commission limited to the grounds stated in the notice, if the appeal was initiated by such notice, and in the notice of cross-appeal, if any. 6. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. The Council may remand the matter if it is satisfied that testimony or other evidence could not have been presented at the , hearing below. In deciding such remand, the Council shall consider and make findings and conclusions respecting: PAGE 11-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (P:rl..nolcodalrov-ioae.mo)uu,oust s. 19941 a. Prejudice to parties; b. Convenience or availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing; c. Surprise to opposing parties; d. Date notice was given to other parties as to an attempt to admit; and e. The competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed testimony or other evidence. D. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: . 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. The Council, by majority vote. 4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. 18.108.140 Fees. Fees for applications under this Title shall be set by resolution of the Council. 18.108.150 Council or Commission May Initiate Procedures. The Commission or Council may initiate any Staff Permit, Type I, Type II, or Type III planning action by motion duly adopted by the respective body designating the appropriate city department to complete and file the application. 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations. A. When.in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. PAGE 12-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (a:plannino%oodekrev-108a.mo)(A+6mt 8. 1994] / 2. 18.108.170 Legislative amendments. A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance in order to conform with the comprehensive plan , or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. An amendment to the text of the Land Use Ordinance is, as is original zoning, a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. An amendment to the text of the Land Use Ordinance 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 an amendment to the text of the Land Use Ordinance 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. 18.108.180 Resubmittal of Applications. In case an application is denied by the` Commission, or denied by the Council on appeal, unless that denial is specifically stated to be without prejudice, it shall not be eligible for resubmittal for one year from the date of the denial, unless evidence is submitted that conditions, the application, or the project design.have changed to an extent that further consideration is-warranted. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.345 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 18.08.345. Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map or comprehensive plan map for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships. SECTION 3. Section 18.08.487 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 18.108.487 Minor amendment. An amendment to a subdivision or partition PAGE 13-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (P:PiwninokccdeVev-ioee.mo)(a,ause 8. 1994] /3 plat that: A. Does not increase the number of lots or parcels created by the subdivision or partition; B. Does not enlarge the boundaries of subdivided or partitioned area; C. Does not change the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific land use; or D. Makes only minor shifting of the established lines, location or size of buildings or building envelopes, proposed public or private streets, pedestrian ways, utility easements, parks or other public open spaces. SECTION 4. Section 18.08.595 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 18.08.595. Planning action. A proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not include a ministerial action or a legislative amendment. SECTION 5. Section 18.08.870 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 18.08.870. Zoning permit. An acknowledgement made to the Building Official by the Staff Advisor that the application for a building permit meets the requirements of the Land Use Ordinance. Where applicable a zoning permit may also set forth any special conditions to be met by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or any other planning and zoning related conditions to be enforced by the Building Official. SECTION 6. Chapter 18.106.is added to the Ashland Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 18.106 ANNEXATIONS Sections: 18.106.010 Procedure 18.106.020 Application 18.106.030 Approval Standards 18.106.040 Boundaries 18.106.050 Statutory Procedure 18.106.060 Procedure 18.106.010 Procedure. All annexations shall be processed under the PAGE 14-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (P:pi.inplcodoUev-109e.mo)[Auoun 8, 19941 Type III procedure. 18.106.020 Application. Application for annexation shall include the following information: A. Consent to annexation which is non-revokable for a period of one year from its date: B. Agreement to pay system development annexation charges as required by AMC 4.16.010. C. Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness of Public Service Districts defined in ORS 222.510. D. Boundary description and map prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. Such description and map be prepared by a registered land surveyor. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monumented as required by ORS subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. 18.108.065 E. Written findings addressing the criteria in 18.108.065C. 18.106.030 Approval standards. The following findings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City of Ashland: A. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. C. That the land is contiguous with the City Limits. D. That adequate City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. E. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated; or 1: That the proposed lot or lots shall be residentially zoned under the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has agreed to provide 25% of the proposed residential units at affordable levels, in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council. Such agreement to be filed as part of the initial application and completed and accepted by all parties prior to the final adoption of the ordinance annexing the property; or 2. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 under the City's Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request or within one year of the PAGE 15-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:plaaninok°dove„-108a.a„a)1Auouat e, 19941 �S annexation hearing and prior to the final adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. Failure to obtain subsequent site review approval shall invalidate any previous annexation approval; or 3. That a current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. That the existing development in the County has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. That the area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. 18.106.040 Boundaries. When an annexation is initiated by a private individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of property in the proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of land which are not incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff Advisor, in a report to the Commission and Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcels other than the parcel for which the petition is filed. The purpose of this section is to permit the Planning Commission and Council to make annexations extending the City's boundaries more logical and orderly. 18.106.050 Statutory procedure. The applicant for the annexation shall also declare which procedure under ORS 222 the applicant proposes that the Council use, and supply evidence that the approval through this procedure is likely. NOTE: THE ABOVE SECTIONS ARE EITHER ENTIRELY REVISED OR HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE EXISTING CODE. THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ARE ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING CODE. DELETIONS ARE AND ADDITIONS ARE SHAW0. SECTION 5. Section 2.1 4.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. SECTION 6. Section 18.08.130 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 18.08.130 Commission. The Planning Commission OF Hearings Bea f.the City. PAGE 16-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (,:dmninoXcod"a ioa"."„")[Auoust s, 19941 SECTION 7. Section 18.100.020.13 of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted and the remaining sections shall be renumbered accordingly. 18.100.020 Application. The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That approval of the applieatien as neeessaFy fer the pFeseWatien Of pFepeFty f � 613. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. i3 That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. SECTION 8. Section 18.04.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 18.04.020 Purpose. The purpose of this Title is to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to promote orderly growth; to provide adequate open space for light and air; to conserve and stabilize the value of property; to protect and improve the aesthetic and visual qualities of the living environment; to aid in securing safety from fire and other dangers; to facilitate adequate provisions for maintaining sanitary conditions; to provide for adequate access to property; and in general to promote the public health, safety and the general welfare, all of which is in accordance with and in implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ashland. _WrA., rrtaktr� �_�iecca�urder�e�l�arxi�s�-t�r���ftce SECTION 9. The first sentence in section 18.62.040.E of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: E. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the #eWiRgs OffieeF '$ E ;spl vhen the Applicant demonstrates the following: SECTION 10. Section 15.04.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 15.04.090 Building Permits Generally. Permits shall be obtained as required by the specialty codes. General contractors shall obtain all permits for a given PAGE 17-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (p:plan nin9kodalrov-108a.ano)(Aupuat 8, 19941 /7 job at one time. No building permit that would result in the construction of new structures, or the enlargement or change in use of existing structures shall be issued prior to the presentation of an approved planning AetiGR-M`%0 0r 0--to the Building Official by the applicant. Such il3g ,e hall be issued by the Planning Director, or a designee, and shall verify that the contemplated project is in accord with all applicable zoning and planning regulations. It shall also set forth any special conditions to be met by the applicant prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or any other planning and zoning related conditions to be enforced by the Building Official. The issuance and continued validity of any building permit issued by the City of Ashland shall be contingent on compliance by the applicant with all applicable city, county, state, or other regulations. On properties or in areas designated to be of significant historical value or interest applications for building permits, not requiring review by the Planning Commission pursuant to Title 18 of the Municipal Code, shall be referred to the Ashland Historic Commission for review and recommendations, who shall have a period of time not to exceed seven days to complete such review and recommendations. SECTION 11. Section 18.70.080.0 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 18.70.080 Hearing Procedure. A. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the. hearing on the permit application to the applicant and to all persons originally notified of the Solar Access Permit application, and shall otherwise follow the procedures for a Type I hearing. B. The Staff Advisor shall consider the matters required for applications set forth in Section 18.70.070(B) on which the applicant shall bear the burden of proof, and the following factor on which the objector shall bear the burden of proof: A showing by the objector that the proposed collector would unreasonably restrict the planting of vegetation on presently under-developed property. 1. If the objector is unable to prove these circumstances.and the applicant makes the showings required by Section 18.70.060(B), the Staff Advisor shall approve the permit. 2. If the applicant has failed to show all structures or vegetation shading of the proposed collector location in his application, the Staff Advisor may approve the permit while adding the omitted shading structures or vegetation as exemptions from this Chapter. 3. If the objector shows that an unconditional approval of the application would unreasonably restrict development of the objector's presently under-developed property, the Staff Advisor may approve the permit, adding such exemptions as are necessary to allow for reasonable development of the objector's property. 4. If the Staff Advisor finds that the application contains inaccurate information which substantially affects the enforcement of the Solar Access Permit, the application shall be denied. PAGE 18-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (a:wm,nina\codeNr"-108e.mo)[Augu e, 19941 18 SECTION 14. Section 18.68.090.A of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows: 1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104, a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more restricted nature. 2. When authorized in accordance with.the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104, an existng structure;-eF lard-may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained to enlarge or extend a single-family home in the residential district, provided that the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title. � `R�t'ipl'l Gi3�l��'l7ifl�g �tKL�GtOC�.r��Y �� I�'�Gd,�'�GGl�1Skt'ikCt�d QC I fra tr ralt r tittered, tits fcapt Brant$; nc�£ c e �rats�ze �sr sf tip SECTION 15. Resolution 78-38 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ADOPTING LAND USE HEARING RULES FOR CONDUCT OF QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION" and resolution 88-20 entitled "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LAND-USE HEARING RULES ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 78-38" are repealed. PAGE 20-TITLE 18.108 REVISION (v:vienninokcoda%rav-108a.ano)[Au6uat e, 19941 Zo STAFF REPORT Everything that has been discussed prior to this hearing have been included in the packet. A draft application is in the packet. Cloer moved to approve PA94-050. Carr seconded the motion and it was approved with Hibbert abstaining. PLANNING.ACTION 94-095 REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURES CHAPTER (18.108); MODIFICATIONS TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAND_USE ORDINANCE; AND AMENDMENT OF VARIANCE CRITERIA (18.100). APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND The shaded areas in the ordinance are the changes for which the Commission has asked. Please note the alternative sections (Page 8 and 11). Carr moved not to use the alternative sections. Hibbert seconded the motion and all favored. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. ARMITAGE SECONDED AND ALL FAVORED. Carr moved and the motion was seconded to recommend approve of the ordinance changes to the City Council. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 2/ - pf ASS,'°•� Memorandum �w August 8, 1994 II: Brian Almquist, City Administrator rIIrit: Steven Hall, Public Works Director p�ltDjPL`t: Transportation and Storm Drainage Utility Rates ACTION REQUESTED City Council adopt attached Resolution continuing currant transportation fee rates and establishing new storm drainage utility rates in accordance with Chapter 4.27 of the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC). BACKGROUND The attached Resolution includes the TYansporlation and Storm Drainage utility fees. The Transportation fees are the same as adopted on July 19, 1994 by the City Council. With the total change of the methodology and basis of the Ashland stcam drainage utility fee,new storm drainage utility fees are required. The oornputation of the fee has involved a lot of work by many people,but credit must be giver to Jennifer Gould who works as an engineering technician for the Water Division and Electric Department. With some help,she assembled the impervious area data from actual field measurement and aerial photographs. As required by AMC 4.27,all single family units will be based on an average impervious area of 3,000 square feet The June, 1994 utility report indicated 4,853 single family units within the city limits. For a comparison, I have measured the Hall home impervious area The home is a single story ranch style, typical of those built during 60's and 70's in Ashland. Living Area 1,550 square feet Roof Overhang 320 square feet Garage 480 square feet Driveway 640 square feet Porch 120 square feet Sidewalk 140 square feet Patio 240 square feet Storage Bldg 50 square feet TOTAL 3,540 square feet All multifamily apartments and condominiums with 10 or more units were individually measured. The average impervious area for each apartment unit is 1,309 square feet. Samples of multi-family apartments of 2 through 9 units were measured and the average impervious area is 1,232 square feet. Based on that information, a multi- family unit is proposed to be 1,300 square feet of impervious area per unit. In the June, 1994 utility report, there were 333 multi-family units with 3/4" meters, the majority being duplexes. The rate for a single family and multi-family unit that would have been in effect July 1, 1994 would have been $1.65. I have held the single family figure as a baseline to make the projections as "revenue neutral" as possible. Because of exceptions and challenges allowed for properties, it is assumed that approximately 10 to 15 percent of the properties will be reduced or exempted. The exemptions would be granted if the property, partially or totally, does not utilize City maintained storm drainage facilities. Examples would be property along natural streams that totally or partially discharge into the natural stream. There will also be challenges to the impervious area assigned to parcels of developed land. The percent allowed for exceptions and challenges is 12%. The storm drainage fee is proposed at $0.55 per 1,000 square feet of impervious area or portion thereof. The Resolution continues the use of "indexing" inflation by the use of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. Staff recommends approval of the attached Storm Drainage Utility Rate Resolution. cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Glossop, Street Superintendent Phil Lind, Computer Services Manager Russ Chadick, Account Representative RESOLUTION NO. 94-_ A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-47, AND ADOPTING A STORM DRAIN UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.27.050 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Storm Drain Utility Rate Schedule" marked oExhibit AN and attached to this Resolution is adopted as the storm drain user fees. SECTION 2. The rates adopted on "Exhibit A" shall be increased annually on July 1st, based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index(ENR). The initial ENR is established at 5407.89. The City Administrator will provide the City Council with a review of the rate structure within 5 years from the date of this Resolution. SECTION 3. Three (3) copies of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 4. The rates adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective on or after October 1, 1994. SECTION 5. Exhibit "A" of Resolution 94-47 pertaining to storm drainage fees is amended on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 6. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 1 l of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). This Resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 1994. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder 0 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of August, 1994. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Re " wed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney . . EXHIBIT A. Resu!vtimoY4—___ ^ ____________________________________ ^ §iyofAah\ood Sturm Utility Fees Last Update; 08104/94 ---------------------------------------' DATE 07101194 [NK 5407.09 __________________________________ � PEM FEE UNIT '---------------------------'--------- ST08M DRAIN UTILITY FEES WlTH[N' 7H[ CITY LIMITS A. Shoe FaoilyResidential M15 /mnoin B. UmdoeioiumE $0.71 /mcoflNuei t C. huitiple Family Units $171 /eoo!Wuoit D. Nubile Hues aodTrailers Sk71 /m"xtWuoit [. A|! WrUses $155nN0 square fee. impervious area . or fraction thereof F. Minimum charge per aonunt MA5 loth --------------------------------------------------------------- ' ~ � ' - �ofASAf, `°- �{ Emorttn � ixm '•.ORE00�•.� August 10, 1994 V1 II: City Council ArLI It: Historic Commission �1i�TjPtf: French Quarter Sign Variance The Historic Commission voted unanimously to request the City Council appeal the Planning Commission Review Board's decision approving Planning Action 94104-A request for a sign placement variance to allow for a sign to be maintained on an awning not in accord with the City sign code,for the businees located at 10 Water Street(French Quarter).The Historic Commission concurred with the Staff s recommendation that the application be denied based on the lack of information in support of the criteria for a variance.The Historic Commission believes that if the variance request had been reviewed before the full Commission,rather than the three member Review Board, the application would certainly have been denied. It is our belief that the potential implications associated with this request are of great importance not only for the downtown area,but all commercial areas in Ashland Approval of the variance effects the integrity of the City's Sign Ordinance and sets a precedent for other businesses also'tvanting'more viability. While the Historic Commission necogriZes the challenges the sign code may present to businesses, it wives to provide a level playing field for all. As the Council is aware, the Sign Ordinance has been a major contributor to the improved appearance of Ashland since its adoption in the 19Ws.It is our belief that precedent setting decisions of this land can only facilitate the steady erosion of the goals of the Sign Ordinance and ultimately the character of Ashland. Please consider our request.For your information,the Historic Commission originally denied the request by a 4-2 vote on July 6, 1994.The Planning Commission Review Board voted 2- 1 on July 12, 1994, to approve the application At our last meeting August 3, 1994, the full Commission unaninusly agreed(I- 0) to request the City Council appeal Planning Action 94-104. Molnar restated it is important to make clear how the Commission interprets the design standards. The burden of proof is on the applicant. Harriff moved to direct Staff to develop a paper for scale and lot placement for the development of Fourth and "A" Streets (lots 1, 2 and 3) to follow the tradition of buildings in that area, such as the Peerless Hotel at 243 Fourth Street, 287 Fourth Street (Mitchell- Powell Furnishings), and 215 Fourth Street(Bundini Building), incorporating existing design element standards. Chambers amended the motion to include a clear preference for masonry structures characteristic of the traditional commercial district in downtown Ashland. Cardinale seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. Anneal Skibby reported the Planning Commission Hearings Board approved the Sign Code Variance requested by Grady and Susan Golden (The French Quarter) last month by a 2 to 1 vote. The Historic Commission voted 4 to 2 to recommend denial of the request. He said he is not in favor of the approval and would like the City Council to hold a public hearing on it. Chambers agreed and said it could set a precedence. Ken Hagen related he was at the Hearings Board meeting and he felt Barbara Jarvis, who opposed the request, implied this is the first step in chipping away at the integrity of the Sign Code Ordinance. Bill Emerson acknowledged it is a good ordinance as it is. Skibby moved to direct Staff to write a letter to the City Council addressing Historic Commission concerns. Chambers stated the City spent a lot of effort on the Sign Code Ordinance, and he does not want the variance to set a precedence. He then seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. NEW BUSINESS Mitchell stated she feels strong guidelines with parameters are needed regarding color in the guidelines. This will be discussed at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 3, 1994 Page 6 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT July 12, 1994 PLANNING ACTION: 94-104 APPLICANT: Grady & Susan Golden LOCATION: 10 Water Street ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1-D (Commercial Downtown Overlay District) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.96 Sign Regulations REQUEST: Sign placement, number and size variance not in.accordance with the City's Land Use Ordinance regulating signs. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: The subject awning sign was erected without a sign permit being obtained. Consequently, no benefit of review by staff or the Historic Commission Review Board was ever completed. Three notices were sent to the proprietors of the business asking for the sign to be either removed or a variance application submitted. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: The subject site, part of the Orchard Lane Mall, is located in the rear of the northeast corner parcel on Water and East Main Streets - adjacent and behind the mall's parking lot. The awning extends 14' from the business' front door and is 8' wide. The applicant is requesting a variance from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Sign Regulations, Chapter 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-1-1)), Section A (1), (2) and (4). Section A (1): Frontage. The member and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontage, and no building shall be credited with more than two business frontages. The frontage of a business is defined in Section 18.96.020 #13, as "a single wall surface of a building facing a given direction". The "given direction" of the frontage is further defined in Section 18.96.020 #7 as "a lineal front footage of a building or portion thereof devoted to a specific business or enterprise, and having an entrance/exit open to the general public". The applicants are requesting a variance from this section to allow signage to be located on each side of the awning (facing Lithia Way and East Main Street) where as the actual "legal" frontage is facing towards Water Street. Section A (2):Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each business frontage (a frontage with an entrant%xit open to the general public). The number of signs the applicant has requested a variance for is five. One on the front of the awning and two on each side of the awning. Section A (4): Aggregate area of signs. The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage. The length of the business' "actual' frontage is approximately 24'. The total area of all signs is 77 square feet (French Quarter = 2' X 12' X 2 = 48 square feet), (Hair-Nail-Skin Care = 14" X 11' X 2 = 24 square feet) and (Logo = 28" X 28" = 5 square feet). II. Proiect Imoact As the Commission is aware, Ashland has one of the, if not the, most strict sign code in Oregon. It has been a main contributor to the improved appearance of Ashland since the code was first adopted in the late 1960's and then amended in the early 1980's. Variances have always been extremely hard to obtain for signs. In fact, the Sign Ordinance, Section 18.96.060, General Sign Regulations, strictly prohibits variances from being granted for a sign's size, height or number. A variation from these regulations could only be made by the City Council by amending the Sign Ordinance. Therefore, the only variance possible would be for the allowed frontage or placement. Staff does not believe that there are any extraordinary circumstances on this site warranting a different placement. The applicant's main contention is that the building's orientation doesn't allow for a proper view from East Main Street. Staff does agree a sign located parallel to Water Street is difficult to see from PA94-104 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Grady & Susan Golden July 12, 1994 Page 2 _____ East Main Street. However, it is staff's contention that businesses located along the City's side streets, such as Second or Third Street, have the same visual constraints from East Main or Lithia Way. In fact, it is staff's opinion that the location of the proposed business is much more attractive than the sites noted above because parking is more available and not subject to any time limitations. However, if the Commission makes a determination that the site does warrant an extraordinary circumstance given the building's orientation and/or location, staffs would like to make it clear that all the.signs on the awning, except for either one 24 square foot area sign or the area of two signs equalling 24 square feet, would need to be reduced or eliminated to be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance, specifically Chapter 18.96.060, General Sign Regulations. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for approval of a variance are as follows: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. (3) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent user and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed IV. Conclusions and .Recommendations Once again, staff would like to reiterate the fact that Ashland's Land Use Ordinance regulating signs is strict, but because of its' strictness, it has improved the City's appearance tremendously since its adoption. Furthermore, the ordinance regulating signs within the "downtown" area was designed to be more pedestrian oriented rather than vehicle oriented. Given the applicant's proposal for an extended awning sign and the number and location of the signs, staffs perception of the sign is more of a vehicle oriented sign rather than a pedestrian oriented type of sign. Staff does not believe the Commission should approve the application as currently presented. However, should additional information be.provided and you choose PA94-104 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Grady & Susan Golden July 12, 1994 Page 3 i to approve this request, we would recommend the following conditions: 1) That all signs fronting Lithia Way, East Main Street and Water Street be removed, except that one sign or two separate signs totaling an area of 24 square feet be allowed along the Water Street side or East Main Street Side. mlk:\plan\current\p a94-104 PA94-104 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Grady & Susan Golden July 12, 1994 Page 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD JULY 12, 1994 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners.present were Armitage and Powell. Staff present were Molnar, Madding and Yates. MINUTES AND FINDINGS Powell moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the June 14, 1994 meeting. Jarvis seconded the motion and the Minutes and Findings were approved. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 94-104 REQUEST FOR A SIGN PLACEMENT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIGN TO BE MAINTAINED ON AN AWNING NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE CITY SIGN CODE. APPLICANT: GRADY & SUSAN GOLDEN Site Visit and Ex Parte Contact Armitage and Jarvis had site visits. Powell is familiar with the site. STAFF REPORT Molnar stated that the Criteria for a Sign Variance are in the packet and were mailed with the notice. The sign was installed without a permit in the latter half of 1993: Two or three letters from the City were sent to the business owner trying to correct the problem. Those letters are in the packet. The sign ordinance is considered restrictive in the attempt to create an equal playing field for all businesses and cut down on sign . clutter. This application involves a request to place a sign on the awning not considered the business frontage. The sign ordinance does not allow for any variance to the area of a sign. A variance can only be allowed for 20-30 square feet and much of the existing sign would have to be removed. The applicants have submitted information explaining their constraints. Historically, sign variances have been hard to come by because it is difficult to show unique or unusual circumstances. Staff cannot support the approval of a Variance for a sign permit. The Historic Commission recommended denial of the variance and the minutes are included in the packet. PUBLIC HEARING SUSAN AND GRADY GOLDEN, applicants, have been trying to work with the City to clarify the sign requirements and have applied for a variance because of their hardship with the way the building faces. The Goldens showed slides of their property from all angles. It is difficult to see their business; it does not face Water Street but the address is Water Street but there is no access from Water Street. They thought the sign contractor was going to obtain all the permits they needed. It is important for the Golden to stay in business--it is hard enough even with the sign. MIKE of Business Tech Signs, believes the Goldens should be allowed the variance. After measuring the square footage of the sign, he came up with a different figure than the City. He thinks the sign is attractive. GRADY GOLDEN is willing to work with the City for removal of that portion of the sign that is out of compliance in order that the sign be brought into compliance. He needs it for•the survival of his business. Armitage wondered if the applicant considered putting a sign on the building. Golden responded that the last business owner had a sign on the building and no one could see it and that is what prompted them to have an awning made. Golden added that according to Mike's (Business Tech Signs).measurements, the logo, business name, and Hair, Skin and Nails are within the allowable measurements for the sign to be legal. NANCY ADRIAN, employee at French Quarter said the customers of the salon like the improvement the sign and the awning have made to the community. She would like to see the variance granted. BARBARA, employee at French Quarter, said when the business was Lisa's Main Attraction, she could not find it the first time she tried. She remembers two occasions before the awning and sign were installed that two clients could not find the business and did not come back. TERRY SKIBBY, Historic Commission Liaison, brought to the Commission's attention the minutes of their. meeting. They voted to remove the sign because it is too large and out of scale. There are other similar situations in town and he sees a negative impact with the sign. He feels the hardship is because the sign is-on the awning. The awning could remain with the sign on the building. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD - MINUTES JULY 12,1994 Staff Response Staff has had no contact with anyone about a conflicting sign measurement. The method the City uses to measure is to frame the whole sign and then measure. Jarvis said that in looking at the sign ordinance and variances, it would seem there could be no variances (18.96.060). Powell did not believe the sign code was intended to make it impossible for people to do business. GRADY GOLDEN, in rebuttal, said they have a hardship because of their location. They are willing to work on the square footage but they do need the sign facing East Main Street. He mentioned that 50 percent of their clients live in town and 50 percent. are from out-of-town. Jarvis commented to Golden that to her it seemed inappropriate to approve a variance for a business when that business decided to locate in a certain location, especially when the business before them went out of business. The applicant is asking the Commission to do something unusual because the applicant made the decision to locate their business in a hard-to-see location. She added that even with the awning in place, it is still a problem finding their business. She would have a difficult time approving a variance that would open up the opportunity for everyone else to do similar things with their signs. SUSAN GOLDEN said the reason they applied for the variance is because the awning and the lettering have helped. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Powell read the Historic Commission discussion about other non-conforming signs. Also, if a variance is allowed, it would open it up for others to ask for the same allowances. Armitage said the applicant is willing to make the sign legal. The awning is legal so it will not have to be removed. It is difficult for the applicant because the frontage faces Water Street, has a Water Street address, but no access from Wafer Street. Jarvis said that people choose where they decide to open a business. The Ashland Wine Cellar, for example, is in the same position as French Quarter. This is not an unusual circumstance. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION g HEARINGS BOARD . MINUTES JULY 12,1994 Powell moved to approve PA94-104 and that the sign will be allowed but will have to be brought into compliance (24 to 30 sq. ft.) as Staff allows. This is a unique or unusual circumstance because the business fronts Water Street with a Water Street address with no Water Street access. Armitage seconded the motion, noting the applicant's slides show this is a peculiar situation. The motion.carried with Jarvis voting "no". TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 94-097 REQUEST FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLEWOOD SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: APPLEWOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 94-099 REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR 4-UNITS (PHASE II) OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 81-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS LOCATED ON CLAY STREET, NORTH AND ADJACENT TO THE WINGSPREAD MOBILE HOME PARK. APPLICANT: HANK ALBERTSON The applicant needs to be reminded that the Commission with allow only a limited number of extensions. This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 12,1994 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes July 6, 1994 CALL TO ORDER The.meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Terry Skibby at 7:35 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Steve Ennis, Chloe Winston, H.L. Wood, Larry Cardinale, and Keith Chambers. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Casey Mitchell, Jim Lewis and Bill Harriff were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ennis moved and Cardinale seconded to approve the Minutes of the June 8, 1994 meeting as submitted.. The motion-passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS PA 94-104 Sign Variance 10 Water Street Grady and Susan Golden Knox explained this application is for a Sign Code Variance for the placement of signs, the number of signs and the size of the signs for the French Quarter. The awning signs were put up with out permits, therefore, without approval. Knox said the Sign Code Ordinance is very cumbersome, but is a very good ordinance and has done a lot of good for the City as a whole. According to the ordinance, frontage is defined as a single wall surface of a building facing a given direction. These signs are painted on the Water Street, East Main Street and Lithia Way sides. Only the Water Street side sign is legal. The legal number of signs a business can have is two. The French Quarter has five, totalling 77 square feet. Only 24 square feet is allowed because there is only 24 lineal feet of the business. The ordinance prohibits variance approval for size and number of signs, and would need to be changed in order for this to be approved. He also noted the design is similar to others in the downtown area, however, Staff is recommending the variances not be approved by the Planning Commission as submitted. If the Commission approves the variance, the owners would still need to bring the square footage down to 24 feet. Cardinale asked if the awning would have to be removed. Knox answered it would not because it is all on private property, and added the awning is a separate structure because it is not entirely supported by the building. Chambers asked if the sign could go beyond the three foot limit. Knox said the ordinance was written to accommodate the rights-of-way, which would be public property, but since the awning is on private property, it could remain on the awning provided the square footage ^i was scaled down to what is allowed in the ordinance. When Winston questioned how the owners could not know about the Sign Code Ordinance, Knox stated the owners hired a contractor to make the awning and signs. Knox related the Commission would need to make sure there are extraordinary circumstances if considering approval. There also may be long range impacts of such approval, such as setting a precedence for other businesses to apply for Sign Code Variances. Susan Golden, part owner of the French Quarter, stated the business is not actually facing a street, which has been a big dilemma. The building is at an odd angle in a parking lot. The address is on Water Street, but it is very.difficult to find because there is no access off Water Street, only East Main Street. They wanted an awning which would look nice in Ashland and also be visually accessible. Ennis asked if the owners could cut down the number of signs to two and the square footage to 24 feet. Grady Golden, the other part owner, said there is actually 30 lineal feet to their business. Their business faces the beaver slide. He asserted one can't actually see the awning coming down North Main Street until past Munchies because of the espresso cart and the Adventure Center." They hired professional people to design the awning and signs for them and expected the contractor to follow the requirements. He would be willing to remove the sign facing Lithia Way, but for the sake of his business, they need to keep the East Main and Water Street sides. When Chambers questioned his knowledge about the Sign Code Ordinance, Golden answered he relied on the contractor, as they were in the process of moving their business and remodelling at the same time. Grady Golden also called attention to a letter submitted by Jac Nickels in support of the variance. Golden said the frontage can be worked out. They tried to do something tasteful and have received thanks and compliments for their efforts. They have also provided.more security for the area with added lighting. The prior hair dresser located in the building went out of business because of the lack of visibility. Their problem seems to be the angle of building vs. street vs. address. Susan.Golden noted the reason they are applying for the variance is because of their unique situation. Ted Clay, 219 Meade Street, stated if the real issue is one of recognizing the nature of the building, and if you look at the intent of the ordinance whereby the signs are not too big, since the nature of this sign makes it appear smaller, it would seem logical to approve the variance. Skibby stated the sign is large and it appears larger than the surrounding ones. Grady Golden stated many signs in the.City do not comply with the ordinance. Knox replied he and John McLaughlin will be taking care of violations of the Sign Code' Ordinance the following week, as everyone should have the same equal share and not compete for the largest sign. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Page 2 Ennis reminded the applicants their request cannot be approved without public hearings and City Council approval of ordinance changes. Chambers stated there is an issue of symmetry here, as the awning looks out of balance. If everyone wanted a bigger sign, we would have what Ashland looked like 30 years ago. He can see, however, a reduction of size. Skibby said he does not feel bound by the fact the awning is already. existing. Ennis noted if the sign permit application came in and it were being reviewed from scratch, it simply would not be approved. Skibby then stated a standard awning or sign on the building could be approved. He said he feels the sign should be regulated by the ordinance and the applicants should start over, since it was put up.without a permit. Ennis stated he can see a special need for having the sign facing East Main Street, and personally agrees with the variance for facing East Main Street. Cardinale stated he has a similar circumstance with his business (Handyman). His building is located below Ashland Street and people have a very difficult time finding it. He personally feels the ordinance should be more lenient, but he does not have a say in it, so the ordinance should be followed. Winston remarked while she appreciated the applicants efforts, the signs are out of scale and she felt they should have been wiser. She advised the contractor should be financially responsible. Wood moved to recommend denial of the application to the Planning Commission, and Winston seconded the motion. Chambers asked for clarification. Winston stated the intent would be to remove the signs. Chambers said the massing and scale are too large, but he is not against a variance for the placement of a 24 square foot sign. The motion carried with all voting aye except Ennis and Chambers, who both stated they were not in favor of what exists, but felt the owners should be allowed to have a sign facing East Main Street. Ennis suggested the applicants go to the Planning Commission meeting agreeing to reduce the size of the signs and ask for a variance for the side location only. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members.of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of June follow: Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 6, 1994 Page 3 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 12 , 1994 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #94-104 , REQUEST FOR A ) SIGN PLACEMENT VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIGN TO BE MAIN- ) FINDINGS, TAINED ON AN AWNING NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY SIGN ) CONCLUSIONS CODE. ) AND ORDERS APPLICANT: GRADY & SUSAN GOLDEN ) --------------------------------------------=----------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 10100 of 391E 9BB is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of East Main and Water Streets and is zoned C-1-D; Downtown Commercial. 2) The applicant is requesting approval to maintain a sign upon an awning at a location not in accordance with the City's Sign Code. A site plan and other . pertinent materials are on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for approval of a Variance are outlined in Chapter 18. 100 and are as follows: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. (3) That the proposal 's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Flan of the City. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on July 12, 1994, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to . the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent' s Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2 . CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2 . 1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a ' decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2 . 2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to maintain a sign upon an awning at a location not in accordance .with the City's Sign Code complies with the criteria for approval outlined in the Variances chapter 18 . 100. 2 .3 The Planning Commission finds that there are unusual circumstances which apply to this site which are not typically found elsewhere in the downtown. Specifically, the fact that the business faces Water Street, has a Water Street address, but has no access directly from Water Street, makes it difficult for patrons to find the place. In addition, the slides (Exhibit P-1) presented by the applicant show that the difference in elevation between the business and Water Street limits the visibility of the business from Water Street. SECTION 3 . DECISION 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal to maintain a sign upon an awning at a location not in accordance with the City's Sign Code is supported by evidence contained in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #94-104. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 194-104 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all signs fronting Lithia Way, East Main Street and Water Street be removed, except that one sign or two separate signs totaling an area of 24 square feet be allowed along the Water Street side or East Main Street Side. Planning Commissi Approval Date e...e.rryr ema ran dnm August 11, 1994 �• Mayor and City Council �rom: r_ Councillors Hauck and Winthrop p�1IvjECf- Real Estate Transfer Tax to Fund Affordable Housing and Forest Interface Fire Management The Affordable Housing Committee's report, adopted by the Council in 1990, included as one of its policy recommendations the implementation of a real estate transfer tax in 1994 to fund affordable housing efforts, when the State moratorium on such taxes expired. That time has arrived. Accordingly, we propose that the Council consider adoption of such a tax. Given the problems of drought and wildfire prevention, which have become urgent over the last several years, we propose that the revenues from such a tax be divided between affordable housing and fire prevention efforts in the the forest interface/watershed area. We have had some preliminary discussions with City staff. Based on these, we make the following suggestions and ask that if the Council agrees we request staff prepare an Ordinance which implements the tax along these or similar lines for a Public Hearing at the September 6 Council meeting. 1. How would revenues be raised? The tax would be administered by Jackson County. We suggest that the tax be progressive on residential property, and a fixed percentage on commercial property. One option would be to exempt,the first $50,000 of assessed value, and tax the remainder at 0.4 percent (forty cents per 100 dollars assessed value). Very rough staff projections suggest this would raise approximately $200,000 per year. Stepped rates, excluding the first $50,000 with rates rising in $50,000 increments, would be a fairer method of assessment. 2. How would revenues be used? We suggest that the Council retain some discretion to adjust funding between the two goals of affordable housing and watershed management, with not less than sixty percent of funds received in a given year appropriated for affordable housing efforts. Specifically, we recommend that affordable housing monies be spent exclusively for the acquisition of land (.e., land banking). These could be developed in various ways; either by the City, the County Housing Authority, or by non-profits. In communities with rapidly inflating housing markets such as Ashland, the provision of raw land is frequently the key obstacle to creating affordable housing. Wildfire prevention is an equally pressing problem. These monies could be used for fuels reduction, other watershed/forest interface management efforts, a loan fund to help homeowners in the interface replace flammable building materials, etc. (rca®aTnEhdr.me� DRESCHER & ARNOLD TEL :503-482-4941 Aug 11 .94 14 :35 No .001 P .01 MEMO TO: Mayor and Other Members of the Cou cil / FROM: Phil Arnold and Pat Acklin `, RE: Proposed Ballot Measure Repeal, g Charter Provision Article III, S6 A number of citizens have contacted us concerning a repeal vote on Article III, S6 of the Charter of the City of Ashland which provides: Interest In City Contracts. During the term of hie/her office, no elected officer shall have interest in any contract with the City. We are all familiar with this through the City Attorney' ) opinion letter to Me. Wenker. We would like to give these citizens the opportunity to have a vote on repealing this charter provision. We propose that we request the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate, documents for the September 6 meeting. Post• 'brand fax transmittal memo 7671 vm pm)" A F 7 DOM iho e u 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 13.24 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR NAMING OR RENAMING STREETS ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ORDINANCE MAILED TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS. DELETIONS ARE uNgD-T (ROUGH AND ADDITIONS ARE . THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following Chapter 13.24 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: Chapter 13.24 STREET NAMES Sections: 13.24.010 Criteria for Naming or Renaming a Street. 13.24.020 Procedure for Change of Street Name. 13.24.030 Application Fee. 13.24.040 Council-Initiated Action to Rename Street. 13 24 010 Criteria for Naming or Renaming a Street. A. Streets may only be named after: 1. 4 prominent person who: a. Achieved prominence as a result of his or her significant, positive ;: contribution to the history of the lVtu9dxiUnited States, the State of Oregon, Southern Oregon, or the City of Ashland, b. Is a real person, and c. Has been deceased for at least five years. 2. r geographical place name of prominence. �arYktra nor l�e>r;;a: timezft�pr�iretf�'w'°h •w`�xaa wt �� \@a y �-x a �L` x r b•3.n,`Cx � �. s,t�l ��nvl : t€faf� r�ftifiantnt� S" Zl �V� Z` a"? — '� . s �,'fi`, s s x r 3q k was —sss a M. r E�. r rnr�rict �$dcfitdtee negor�terrrege „t + �anc� mam e5 ttoie& Fct � ` a��na..a�x. ata„V.wa �.,.a...0 w,.m.sa..r.a u..,.s. x.,.a.x.,....0 .w, e•....n B. No street name shall be approved if it is similar to or pronounced the same as the name of any other street within the city. '3 24 020 Procedure for Change of Street Name. The following procedure shall.be used in considering changes in street names: PAGE 1-STREET" NAMING ORDINANCE (p:«moamesM.aa) A. A person who desires a street name change shall submit a written request together with the application fee to the planning department. The request shall state the reasons for the proposed name change and shall include a scale diagram of the street. B. Any proposed name change must meet the requirements of AMC 13.24.010. C. The planning department shall consider the request and may schedule a public hearing before the planning commission. If a hearing is scheduled: 1. Notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to the owners of property fronting the street. 2. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the change of the street name. 3. At the close of hearing, the planning commission shall make a recommendation in writing to the council and identify the factors supporting the recommendations. 4. No recommendation for a name change shall be made unless the commission finds that a public need for the change exists, confusion will be eliminated, or it is desirable for the convenience of the general public. 5. The applicant's request for the name change and the planning commission recommendation shall be submitted to the council for its consideration. The council may, but is not required to, hold a public hearing to gather additional information. If a hearing is held, notice shall be given in accordance with AMC 13.24.020.C.1. The council shall have complete legislative discretion to change the name of any street in the city. D. Street name changes shall be made by resolution. 13.24.030 Application Fee. A street name change application fee shall be established by resolution of the council. 13.24.040 Council Initiated Action to Rename Street. Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, the council may rename a street in order to correct errors, to eliminate confusion or to further the public interest. Actions initiated under this section shall be exempt from the procedure set forth in section 13.24.020. 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 , 1994, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1994. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1994. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-STREET NAMING ORDINANCE (P:.rd%....trt.o.a) RESOLUTION NO. 94- _ A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION.TO PROVIDE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO ANN AND CLINTON STREETS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intention of the Council to make improvements to Ann and Clinton Streets. Such improvements, will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $129,756, of which all will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on a frontage measure of approximately $50.00 per front foot of each lot. SECTION 2. The local improvement district shall consist of all those lots fronting on Ann and Clinton Streets between Hersey Street and Carol Street as depicted on the map attached to Exhibit A (the notice described in section 4 of this resolution). SECTION 3. The Council will meet in the Council Chambers, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on September 20, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., at which time and place the owners of the benefited property are called upon to appear before the Council or to submit written comments and to show cause, if any, why the improvement should not be constructed and why the owner's property should not be assessed for the improvements. SECTION 4. The City Recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by publishing a notice of the public hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than ten days prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by registered or certified mail to the owners of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roll. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of 1994. Nan E. Franklin, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1994. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor IP�ord�"nn-lid 7.res� EXHIBIT W NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on September 20, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District as follows: NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: To improve Ann Street and Clinton Street with paving and a sidewalk. BENEFITED PROPERTY: All those lots fronting on Ann Street and Clinton Street between Hersey Street and Carol Street as shown on the attached map are benefited properties. ESTIMATED COST: The estimated cost of this local improvement is $129,756, all of which shall be paid by special assessment of benefited properties. The specific proposed assessment for each lot and other information may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 271h North Main, Ashland, OR, phone number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing, as to why the streets should not be improved or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. 409 400 1! m ■ aO ~ 9 A G L"� Z Z ACE � > PF ° s97 ifv 111�'IIl1�li11'. llttl : ■■■■B .I1�L!111�1�: ° - 11111 t1 11. ° .ti i illll': ■■■ i ItIL1111t.1 I; ry 1�11llitlli. D ry� i111'i'11l 1 ,iLt 11111111! _ LTI .11t .�11: .ZJ � t L ri CAROL Z STREET ■ :1: 1,111?.I.i � �.ILl�ltl�lti,l!111 a l�lll,i.l.l' ry LI I 1 1 ! ! 1 �. ' 1 I,Lo 11 I t 1 'l 1 11:1; : l Il"1 tllll ; il o ry Rai' `1LN1`ItiIt. •••';.`. 1!. t.1. 2 • A :;t;. :11"11iLlt. m ° Ilt;if �.11lt�a p p .itll :::Iliitl! p 0 p PHELPS STREET • rd zb n Ra ':1 n. C? ly ttt J p 'psi' !IIL,.i 1111'I�IL11I11 p ■ ANN STREET �■eu■■■■■s■■■■■■■■■■s■■■■■■■ep - ° t q � D N x m m �y N M ' N D _ N O 'O 1+C A m 0 LYNN STREET 1i e.� G • � � lil � L Ga 4� K 4� 4L► '•,pREGO August 11, 1994 �- Honorable Mayor and City Council Arum: Brian L. Almquist, City Administra p�1IUjPL'f: Clinton/Ann Street Proposed L.I.D. I wish to alert the Mayor and Council to the possible financial implications that will result of the so-called "7`a Wyer Protearon Initiative"or"Son-of-5"ballot measwe were to be approved in November,and the City had committed itself to the sale of bonds for a Local Improvement District. Attached is an Attorney General's opinion dated February 24, 1994 concerning the above Measure which states that: "...with respect to general obligation bonds issued after the Measure's effective date, the state[City] no longer=0 represent that it would automatically levy a statewide[City-wide] real property tax to cover any shortfall of funds available to pay to bonds." (p.1, B3) Assessment bonds are general obligation bonds, in that the full faith and credit of the City is pledged to the repayment of the debt, in addition to the semi-annual payments by propety owners within the Local Imptovement District. Consequently,the City would be unable to pledge it's property tax authority to cover shortfalls in assessment payments, since voter approval is required. The results of this may be twofold: 1. The City will have increased difficulty in selling the bonds which will now have only the assessment payments for debt service. In addition,the bond market has indicated that interest rates will be higher,due to the increased risk for bond-buyers; and 2. If a default were to occur in which property owners failed to pay their assessments, the City, in order to protect its credit rating, would probably have to look to other General or Sheet Fund resources to satisfy the default. I bring this mattes to your attention in that we could be entering a new ea of uncertainty. The Costal could elect W p ioceed with the public hearing and the formation of the district, but instruct the staff to delay the aTenrditum of any funds on the project,pending the outcome of the November election with respect to the new Measure 5. rrrmB""d.meW THEODORE R. KULONGOSKI _ I00 rusuce Building AT:ORNEY GENERAL 1162 Court Smm NE S*le 1. Oregon 97310 FAX: (503) 378-378: THOMAS A. BALMER Too: (503)378-5938 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Telephone: (503) 378-4620 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION February 24, 1994 Chuck Smith, Director Debt Management Division Office of the State Treasurer 159 State Capitol Salem, OR 97310 Barrett MacDougall Management Services Division Budget Department of Environmental Quality 811 S.W. Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Re: "Taxpayer Protection Initiative" Ballot Measure DO] File Nos. 340-990-TX001-94 & 170-001-TX006-94 Gentlemen: This memorandum reports my conclusions concetning•the.potegW impact of.a. pending ballot measure, called the "Taxpayer Piotearoiilni tiative-(thd-"Mdasdru"),"on the State of Oregon's general obligation bond program. First, I state your questions and . summarize the answers to those questions. This is followed by a more detailed analysis. (1) Question: Would the Measure, if approved by the voters, restrict or prevent the State of Oregon's issuance of general obligation bonds after the Measure becomes effective (i.e., - will the state no longer be able.to represent that any shortfalls in the payment of the bond obligations will be covered by the levy of a statewide real property tax, because the measure would make the levy of such a "new" tax contingent on voter approval)? The most reasonable construction of the Measure leads to the conclusion that, with respect to general obligation bonds issued after the Measure's effective date, the state no longer could represent that it would automatically levv.a statewide real property tax to cover any shortfall of funds available to pay the bonds. Conceivably, the state could secure voter approval of a contingent levy of a statewide property tax before the issuance of new general oblieation bonds. Without that approval. the state could, at best, represent only that the state would attempt to refer such a statewide property tax to the voters- but collection of the tax could be made only upon approval by a majority of the voters in the state. Chuck Smith. Director Paec 2 February 24. 1994 Additionally, if the voters approve the Measure, the state could go no further than to represent, in connection with the issuance of general obligation bonds, that the state would attempt, in good faith, to introduce before the Oregon Legislative Assembly a proposed emergency declaration under Paragraph 1, subsection (9) of the Measure to permit the levy of a tax on real property if necessary to satisfy the bond obligations. The approval of such an emergency declaration would require a three-fourths vote in each house of the Legislative Assembly, and the taxes levied pursuant to such an emergency declaration could remain in effect no longer than twelve months. (2) Ouestio n: If the "Taxpayer Protection Initiative" is approved by the voters, will it restrict or prevent the State of Oregon from levying, without the approval of a majority of the voters, a statewide property tax to cover the payment of principal of and interest on State of Oregon general obligation bonds that were issued prior to the effective date of the measure, if a shortfall in moneys available to pay principal and interest on any previously issued general obligation bonds occurs in the future? No. To apply the requirement for voter approval to the levy of a statewide property tax to pay general obligation bonds issued prior to the Measure's effective date would deprive the bondholders of their security in the bonds in a manner that would violate the Contract Clause, Article I, section 10, clause I of the United States Constitution. Moreover, absent express provisions or other clear evidence of a contrary.intent, constitutional amendments operate prospectively only.- The Measure bears no.indication that its sponsors intended it to operate retrospectively to invalidate prior-lawful commitments.by.. . . the state, made pursuant to express constitutional authority, to commit the state's full faith and credit to the payment of general obligation bonds. In fact, the Measure contains nothing to suggest that the drafters considered the impact of the Measure on the state's previously issued and currently outstanding general obligation bonds. A. The State Could Not Levy, Without the Prior Approval by the Voters, a Statewide Property Tax to Satisfy Bonded Indebtedness Associated with General Obligation Bonds Issued After the Effective Date of the Measure. An initiative measure to amend the Oregon Constitution, entitled the "Taxpayer Protection Initiative," will be placed on the November 8. 1994 State of Oregon General Election ballot. The Measure. if adopted by the voters. would require voter approval of new taxes and increases in existing taxes. Chuck Smith. Director Paee 3 February 24. 1994 The Measure: would define "taxes" as "any state or local government fee or other charge," but also fists exemptions. Fees and charges that would be exempt from the requirement for voter approval include: [U]ser fees charged by Peoples' Utility Districts or port distriw; school, college, or university tuition and fees; incurred charges and local improvements as defined by [the Oregon) Constitution; other user fees paid voluntarily for specific services that are not monopolized by government; increases in charges for monopolized products solely to pass through increased costs of wholesale inputs that are not state or local government labor costs and not otherwise under the charging government's control; frees or forfeitures for violations of law; and earnings from interest, investments, state lottery proceeds, donations, or asset sales. Other provisions of the Measure would permit the Oregon Legislative Assembly, by three-fourths vote in each house and subject to approval by the Governor, to declare an emergency and to enact taxes or authorize particular local taxes without approval of those taxes by the voters. However, the taxes enacted or authorized under this emergency. declaration power could remain in effect for no more than 12 months. The Measure also would give Oregon residents and legal entities doing.business in . Oregon the right to bring actions in the Oregon Tax Court to enforce the Measure. Further, the Measure would permit the resident or legal entity who prevailed in such an action to collect all reasonable expenses of the action; including attorney fees, while no government unit that successfully defended such an action could recover its costs or attorney fees. That portion of the Measure which would directly affect the state's authority to levy a statewide property tax to pay bonded, general obligation indebtedness states: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, any new taxes or tax increases shall require approval by the people, as follows: (1) No new tax shall be levied and no tax or tax rate shall be increased. by the state * * * unless such tax or tax increase is first approved by a majority of the voters voting on the question. The exemptions from the Measure's definition of "tax", quoted above, make no mention of taxes authorized or levied to pay debt service on general obligation bonds. In 45 Op Atty Gen 59 (1986) this office analyzed a comparable tax limitation measure, which stated: Chuck Smith. Director Page 4 February 24. 1994 (5)(a} Notwithstanding subsection (1), the state. each city, county, special district, school district, or other taxing unit of or within the state may levy a new ad valorem (sic] tax rate or increase an existing ad. (sic] tax rate only upon approval of a majority of the legal voters of the taxing unit who vote on the question. 45 Op Atty Gen at 80. Concerning a local government's issuance of Bancroft Bonds, the opinion concluded: . Mhe general taxing authority of a local tax unit is a last resort backup for repayment of Bancroft Bonds. A property owner subject to an assessment for a local improvement may elect to pay it to the local government in installments. The improvement itself is paid for.by the sale of bonds. The bonds are redeemed and interest on them is paid fast from installments paid by property owners. The improved property itself is additional security for the bonds under ORS 223.270. However, the bondholders also have the security of the local government's taxing authority, in case the property owners default, and lien foreclosures are insufficient (or take too much time) to pay, interest on the bonds and retire then as scheduled. A levy for that purpose (assuming the obligation cannot be paid out of other available funds) would be a new levyi requiring voter approval under subsection (5). Accordingly,future bancrofting will require voter approval of an appropriate tax to be Levied on property of the district if necessary. Nothing in subsection (5) prohibits such contingent approval. 45 Op Atty Gen at 82 (Emphasis added: italics in ori ginal: citations omitted). The Measure's requirement for voter approval of new taxes or tax increases cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the requirement in the measure we examined in the 1986 opinion. Therefore, the State of Oregon no longer could issue, after the Measure's effective date, general obligation bonds supported by a promise to levy a statewide property [ax unless the voters of the state previously approve such a tax on the understanding that the levy will be imposed only if other state funds are not available to satisfy the bonds as they come due. Additionally. should the Measure pass, the state could not issue bonds with a covenant that, in the event of a shortfall in funds to pay the bonded indebtedness, the Legislative Assembly would uld exercise (and the Governo r would approve) the authority to r under Paragraph declare an emergency and impose a tax. limited to a duration of one yea . g 1 . subsection (9) of the Measure. A present legislature may not. even by the enactment of a Chuck Smith, Director Page 5 February 24, 1994 statute, require either a future session of the Legislative Assembly or the governor to take any particular fiscal action. See Gibson v. Smith, 20 Or App 264, 270-71 and note 3, 531 P2d 724 (1975). Therefore, if the Measure were approved, the state could not thereafter issue bonds with a commitment that the Legislative Assembly would take any specific course of action to address a shortage of funds to pay the bond obligations when due. If the Measure takes effect, the state could go no further than to represent, in connection with the issuance of what would otherwise be *general obligation' bonds, that the state would attempt in good faith to introduce before the Oregon Legislative Assembly a proposed emergency declaration under Paragraph 1, subsection (9) of the Measure to impose a property tax if necessary to satisfy the bond obligations. The approval of such an emergency declaration would require a three-fourths vote in each house of the Legislative Assembly, and the taxes levied pursuant to such an emergency declaration could remain in effect no longer than twelve months. B. No Retrospective Application to Invalidate Previous General Obligation Bond Commitments to Impose a Statewide Property Tax in Case of Shortfall. You also ask whether the Measure, if approved, would prevent the state from collecting a statewide property tax, as authorized by ORS 291.445, in the event of a shortfall of moneys available to pay state general obligation bonds issued prior to the effective date of the Measure. For the reasons that follow, the answer is To enforce the Measure in a manner that would deprive bondholders of the security inherent in the state's contractual pledge to collect a statewide property tax if the state otherwise is unable to pay the bond obligations, would violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution." Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution declares: - No State shall * * * pass any * * * Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts 45 Op Arty Gen 59, supra, at 82. addressed this issue. holding: To the extent that security for any currently outstanding bonds includes authority of the debtor to levy a tax for their repayment without additional voter approval, and regardless of levy rate. that authority will continue regardless of passage of the 1.5 percent limit measure. The bondholder's contract right to that security cannot be impaired by the measure. US Const Chuck Smith. Director Page 6 February 24. 1994 Art I sec 10, cl l; Or Const Art 1, §21; see 43 Op Arty Gen 16, supra at 79; 39 Op Arty Gen 150, supra at 212-23 (1978). The requirement of an election to authorize a new tax for that purpose therefor cannot be imposed. The United States Supreme Court has considered several cases in which government bodies issued bonds or other forms of indebtedness, after which state or local legislation, such as various limitations on the issuers' taxing powers, unpaired the issuing bodies' ability to pay their preexisting debts. In Von Hoffman v City of Quincy, 71 US (4 Wall.) 535, 18 L Ed 403 (1867), the court invalidated the application of state statutory limits) on a municipality's taxing powers which detracted from the municipality's ability to make payment on bonds issued prior to the enactment of the restriction. The Court stated: It is * * * clear thit where a State has authorized a municipal corporation to contract and to exercise the power of local taxation to the extent necessary to meet its engagementsi the power thus given cannot be withdrawn until the contract is satisfied. The State and the corporation, in such cases, are equally bound. The power given becomes a trust which the donor cannot annul, and which the donee is bound to execute; and neither the State nor the corporation can any more impair the obligation of the contract in this way than in any other. 71 US (4 Wall.) at 554-55. Accord, Hubert v New Orleans, 215 US 170, 175-78, 30 S Ct 40, 54 L Ed 144 (1909). In another case addressing facts that were comparable to the Measure's potential deprivation of the state's ability to collect taxes to satisfy pre-existing general obligations, the Court held: Where the resource for the payment of the bonds of a municipal corporation is the power of taxation existing when the bonds were issued. any law which withdraws or limits the taxing power and leaves no adequate means for the payment of the bonds is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States. and is null and void. Mobile v. Watson, 116 US 289. 305. 6 S Ct 398. 29 L Ed 620 (1886). The qualification in Mobile, that the Contract Clause is violated when the change in law impairs the issuer's taxing power and also "leaves no adequate means" of repayment. understates the seriousness of the proposed Measure's impact. and the force of more modern precedent. if the Measure would apply retrospectively to prevent the collection of a statewide property tax unless the voters approve that tax. that in itself. regardless of the availability of other "adequate means" of payment. would impair the obligation of the state's contract with the bondholders. The nioment that resort to the statewide property tax is Chuck Smith. Director Page 7 February 24. 1994 restricted by the new requirement for voter approval, a significant source of security for payment would suffer serious dilution. At that time, the value of the bonds automatically will decrease. In a more recent setting which involved the legislative withdrawal of certain "tax credits" which had been offered, at the time a city issued bonds, as security for payment on the bonds, the Washington Supreme Court explained: The promise of the tax credit accorded by the act of 1925 entered into and became a substantive portion of the contract between the city of Bellingham and appellant, or appellants' predecessors in interest. The tax credit was intended to, and of course did, enhance the marketability and value of the bonds issued under and enjoying the benefit of that act. The tax credit therein provided for was intended as security for the benefit of the bondholders, and subsequent legislation must be held ineffective in so far as destroying or reducing the value of the tax credit is concerned. State v. City of Bellingham, 8 Wash2d 233, 111 P2d 781, 787-88 (1941). United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 US 1, 27, 97 S Ct 1505, 52 L Ed2d 92 (1977), came to a similar conclusion in prohibiting the retrospective operation of a state's repeal of a covenant not to spend certain port authority revenues or reserves for other than specifically permitted purposes so long as the authority's bonds remained outstanding. United States Trust is significant because it_iavolved the direct repeal, by a state, of a contractual promise made by the state itself. In that case, the Court discussed a determination; made by the trial court, that the state's elimination of the restriction against spending the authority's reserves and revenues did not violate the Contract Clause because it did not totally destroy the contract rights of the bondholders.=! The Court held that it "cannot sustain the repeal of the 1962 covenant simply because the bondholders' rights were not totally destroyed." 431 US at 27. The Court ultimately concluded "that the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the retrospective repeal of the 1962 covenant." 431 US at 32. As in United States Trust, the state's pledge to levy a property tax constitutes "an important security provision" that would be "totally eliminated" by the Measure, in violation of the Contract Clause. 431 US at 19. Therefore, with respect to bonds issued prior to the Measure's effective date, the Measure may not operate retrospectively to make the state's prior. unqualified promise to levy a statewide property tax dependent on voter approval. However, the courts generally avoid federal constitutional questions. such as that presented under Article I. §10. where there is an adequate alternative basis for a decision. Cf. Webb v. Highway Division, 293 Or 645, 648, 652 P2d 783 (1982) (court would not reach constitutional question when the appropriate construction of a statute provided an Chuck Smith, Director Paee 3 February 24. 1994 alternative ground for decision}). Aside from the federal Contract Clause considerations discussed above, the T4easure is subject to a construction by which the Measure would have no retrospective application to previously issued general obligation bonds in any event. Oregon appellate decisions consistently recognize that in the absence of express provisions, or other !trong evidence of intent that an amendment shall have a retrospective effect, amendments t: the Oregon Constitution operate prospectively only: But a constitution always operates prospectively unless it is clearly shown from the language used or the object to be accomplished that the provision was intended to operate retrospectively, and such intent must be clearly established. Darling v. Miles, 57 Or 593, 598, 111 P 702, 112 P 1084 (1911) (Emphasis added). See also people's Util. Dist. et al v. wasco Co. et al, 210 Or 1, 12, 305 P2d 766 (1957) ("A constitutional provision may ratify and validate a previously enacted statute, but it will not so operate unless an intention to do so is clearly manifested ); 46 Op Airy Gen_ (No. 8193, June 15, 1988) at 17 ("A constitutional amendment should be construed to operate retroactively only where there is a demonstrable intent that it so operate."). This presumption of prospective operation of changes in the law has greater vitality where the changes would adversely affect previously established legal obligations, such as contracts, that were undertaken in reliance on the law existing when the obligation was created. In determining whether an amendment to a statute should be applied retrospectively, the Oregon Supreme Court declared: Statutes or regulations which say nothing about retroactive application are not applied retroactively if such a construction will impair existing rights, create new obligations or impose additional duties with respect to past transactions. Derenco Inc. v. Ben". Franklin Fed. Say. & Loan, 281 Or 533, 539 n 7, 577 P2d 477 (1978). The Measure contains no terms which signify that its drafters intended that the Measure would apply retrospectively. To the contrary, the indications of the events to which the Measure would apply strongly suggest that its drafters contemplated only a prospective Operation. Moreover, if the Measure would restrict the state's ability to honor past commitments, expressly authorized by the Oregon Constitution when made, to levy taxes to pay general obligation bonds, that impact seriously ��'ould undermine the rights and justifiable Chuck Smith, Director Page 9 February 24, 1994 expectations of bondholders who purchased those bonds in reliance on the explicit promise that those bonds would secured by the full faith and credit (i.e.. the taxing power)41 of the state. This impact of the Measure, if applied retrospectively, would subtract from the security originally given by the state. Of equal significance, such an application would reduce the present value of the bonds in the hands of the holders, and impair the holders' ability to sell the bonds on the secondary market. Therefore, the doctrine of DerencosI that without clear evidence of a contrary intent, particularly where the amendment would violate contractual expectations lawfully created under prior law, an amendment must operate prospectively, justifies the conclusion that the Measure would have no retrospective effect on previously issued bonds. In construing initiative measures, the intent of the voters is the objective. The universe of information that may shed light on that intent generally is restricted to the text of the measure itself, and materials in the Voters' Pamphlet that were made available to the electorate. See Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Frank. 293 Or 374, 381, 648 P2d 55 (1982); Lipscomb v, State Board of Frigher Education, 305 Or 472, 484-85, 753 P2d 939 (1988). Of course, at this time, the construction of the Measure cannot extend beyond the best evidence of the proponents' intent - the text of the Measure itself. I'llat text demonstrates that the drafters contemplated no retrospective operation of the Measure. The first evidence that the drafters intended the Measure to act in only a prospective manner is the Preamble, which states that the objective of the Measure is to require that new taxes, and increases in existing taxes will, after enactment of the Measure, be subject to the approval of the voters: The purpose of this Act is to ensure that tax increases. which further deprive citizens of income and property, are hereafter directly approved by the people. (Emphasis added). That intent also is demonstrated by the primary operative phrase in the Measure, which states that "any new taxes or tax increases shall require approval by tile people A tax cannot be "new" if it existed before the effective date of the Measure: and a tax "increase" presupposes the previous existence of a lower tax. See also Paragraph l(l) ("No new tax shall be levied and no tax or tax rate shall be increased Paragraph I(S) C'New taxes or tax increases may only he submitted to voters at the following election dates Titus. the Measure lacks any indication that the drafters envisioned retrospective operation. The text of the Measure quite strongly suggests the contrary - that the Measure Chuck Smith. Director Page 10 February 24, 1994 would require voter approval only for "new" taxes proposed after its effective date, and for new increases in existing taxes. Against this background, the question whether the Measure would apply retrospectively to require voter approval of a property tax to make up a shortfall in moneys available to pay state general obligation bonds issued prior to the Measure's enactment must be answered in the negative. To,construe the Measure otherwise would fly in the face of the doctrine, discussed above, that constitutional amendments are presumed to operate only in a prospective manner. Moreover, in this instance such a retrospective operation would have an extreme impact on the pre-established expectations and contract rights of the bondholders, rights that were created pursuant to authority previously granted by express constitutional provisions. Therefore, if the Measure receives voter approval, the state no longer could make a pledge to levy a statewide property tax to cover any inability of the state to satisfy its general obligation indebtedness unless the voters approve the state's commitment state the make such to levy. However, the Measure cannot operate retrospectively to Y the levy such a tax to ensure payment of general obligation bonds that were issued prior to the Measure's effective date. Sincerely, William F. Nessly, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Tax and Finance Section wFN:%-fu:bjs/JGGO8D24 -h c: Mike Clark. Analyst: _ LArry Groth, Analyst; Debt Management Division office of the State Treasurer 159 State Capitol - Salem. OR 97310 Donald C. Arnold. Chief Counsel: Robert W. Muir. Attoruey-in-Charge; Cvothra Bvrnes. Assistant Attorney General: General Counsel Division Article 1. §21 of the Oregon Constitution contains the state's "Contract Clause" which states: RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FROM PROCEEDS OF WATER REVENUE BONDS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ashland that: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Ashland finds: 1.1. The City expects to issue tax-exempt water revenue bonds to pay for capital improvements to the City's water system. 1.2. The City may pay for a portion of the costs of those capital improvements before the water revenue bonds are issued, 1.3. Federal law requires the City to declare its intent to reimburse expenditures, if the reimbursement will be made from the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations. Section 2. Declaration. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects to reimburse any expenditures for capital improvements to the City's water system which the City has made within the last 60 days, and any such expenditures it may make in the future, with the proceeds of the City's proposed water revenue bonds. The City expects that the water revenue bonds will be issued in a principal amount of no more than$3,800,000. Considered and enacted by the City Council of the City of Ashland at a regular meeting held on the—day of August, 1994. Mayor Attest: City Recorder . AS&�`� � Emorttn � ixm �REOC� August 16, 1994 D: Brian Almquist, City Administrator ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Drrector� ,$ubjPCt: Water Report and Curtailment Recommendation ACTION REQUESTED City Council authorize enactment of the Water Curtailment Ordinance with the exception of the"Water Allocation Table". BACKGROUND About a moofk ago, information`.vas presmnted at a regular C,Dural meeting and a press release asking people to reduce the use of water,particularly that used on landscaping and gardens. At the rate of consumption in the City, our available resources and ability to produce water was severely stretched. Along with slightly cooler weather, there has been a reduction in water consumed. Unfortunately, water consumption continues to be at, or over, 5.5 million gallons per day. Sunday, August 14th, was a peak with almost 6 million gallons of water being produced. City crews have repaired the leak in the small west fork dam which has given us a more accurate"read"on the now from the west fork of Ashland Creek. The increase in measured water was about 1/2 million gallons per day. The water was never. "lost" because it flowed into Reeder Reservoir. The Talent Irrigation District will continue flowing water to September 1st. My comfort level has been eroding over the last 2 weeks as ommuription remains abnommlly high and flows in Ashland Creek continue at near-record lows. As the initial phase of mandatory watx curtailment,I am asking the City Council to announce that Phase I of the Cuutaihment Ordinance be enacted tonight with the exception of the"Water Allocation Table". 'this will place the "waste" portion of the Ordinance in effect with the enforcement portions. If this fast step does not reduce consumption of water in the City of Ashland,I will be asking Brian to begin enforcing the "Water Allocation Table" portion of the Ordinance in about 2 weeks. Enc: AMC 14.06.010J. Exhibit "A" Table . Ashland Creek Flow June 1 through August 31 7 6 a p 5 Repaired Leak In West Fork a� w 4 c ; . Vii ; 3 :.y 0 1 0 1 7, 13 19 25 1 7 9 25 31 4 30 59 June Jul Au ust Se tember 1994 ---- 1992 Plant Production June 1 through August 31 6.5 6 . AA v C) 5.5 Of 5 A N I LAI A I 0 4 _ x. Af 3.5 3 2.5 2 Trim 1 7 1319 25 1 7 9 25 31 6 4 30 59 June July August September 1994 -- 1992 Reeder Reservoir June 1 through August 31 100% .„: 95% 90% 85% `. 80% L TI began 7/14/94 m 75% U • �, 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1 7 13 19 25 1 9 25 31 6 12 18 24 30 5 1117 92 2.9 June July August September — 1994 --° 1992 -------• Standard Curve G. "Permanent resident" means a person who resides at the dwelling at least five days a week, nine iths a year. H. "Temporary or Drop-In Guest" means a person who resides at the dwelling less than 3 consecutive months per year. I. "Water Allocation Table" means that table of meter types and sizes and maximum volumes of water set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this Ordinance. J. "Waste" means: 1. To use City water to irrigate outside plants a. between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. May through July or between 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. August through October, except that drip irrigation_systems may be used during.these times. b. in such a manner as to result in runoff on a street, sidewalk, alley or adjacent property for more than five minutes. 2. To use City water to wash sidewalks, walkways, streets, driveways, parking lots, open ground or other hard surfaced areas except where necessary for public health or safety. 3. To allow City water to escape from breaks within a plumbing system for more than 24 hours after the person who owns or is in control of the system is notified or discovers the break. 4. To use City water to wash cars, boats, trailers, aircraft, or other vehicles by hose without using a shutoff.nozzle except to wash such vehicles at commercial or fleet vehicle washing facilities using water recycling equipment. 5. To serve City water for drinking at a restaurant, hotel, cafe, cafeteria or other public place where food is sold, served or offered for sale, to any person unless expressly requested by such person. 6. To use City water to clean, fill or maintain decorative fountains, lakes or ponds unless all such water is recirculated. 7. Except for purposes of building construction, to use City water for construction, compaction,dust control, cleaning or wetting or for building washdown (except in preparation for painting). 8. To use City water for filling swimming pools or for filling toy, play or other pools with a capacity in excess of 100 gallons, provided, however, that water may be added to swimming pools to replace volume lost due to evaporation. 14.06.020 Determination of water shortage. A. The City Administrator is authorized to institute emergency er curtailment measures upon determination that a water shortage emergency condition exists. Such determination shall be based on an analysis of the demand for water in the City, the volume of water in Reeder Reservoir, the standard drawdown curve for Reeder Reservoir, the projected curtailment date for 2 EXHIBIT "A" WATER ALLOCATION TABLE (IN CUBIC FEET) CATEGORY METER METER STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 TYPE SIZE Res Irrig A 0.75 1800 600 100 0 Res Irrig B 1.00 1800 600 100 0 Res Irrig C_ 1.50 1800 600. 100 0, Res Irrig D 2.00 1800 600 100 0 Com Irrig A 0.75 3200 1100 100 0 Com Irrig B 1.00 6100 2100 200 0. Com Irrig C 1.50 10400. 3700 1400 0 Com brig D 2.00 15200 5300 500 0 om Irrig E 3.00 30400 10600 1100 0 Gov Irrig A 0.75 3200 1100 100 0 Gov Irrig B 1.00 6100 2100 200 0 Gov Irrig C 1.50 10400 3700 400 0 Gov Irrig D 2.00 15200 5300 500 0 Gov Irrig E 3.00 30400 10600 1100 0 Gov Irrig F 4.00 48100 16800 1700 0 TID Irrig F 4.00 48100 16800 1700 0 Comm'1 A 0.75 6400 4800 3200 1600 Comm'1 B 1.00 12200 5200 6100 3100 Comm'1 C 1.50 20900 15600 10400 52W wmm'I D 2.00 30400 22800 15200 7600 Comm'I E 3.00 60800 45600 30400 15200 7 �.omm'1 F 4.00 96200 72200 48100 24100 Comm'1 G 6.00 186400 139800 93200 46600 Comm'1 H 8.00 304400 228300 152200 76100 Condo All All 2700 2000 1300 700 Resid'1 A 0.75 3600 2700 1800 900 Resid'1 B 1.00 3600 2700 1800 900 Resid'1 C 1.50 3600 2700 1800 900 8