Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0801 Council Mtg PACKET m n : 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 to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 1, 1995 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes available on August 15, due to illness. W. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Departmental Reports for July, 1995. 3. City Administrator's Monthly Report for July, 1995. 4. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign contract amendment with OMECA to delete Canby Utility Board and amend other provisions of the agreement. 5. Approval of liquor license application from Connie and Michael Robbins dba/Outback Cafe, 3070 Highway 66. 6. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign quitclaim deed for sewer easement near Randy Street and Elizabeth Avenue. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Continuation of Public Hearing on request for an of 47.7 acres located east of Interstate 5 and west of East Main; zone change from C-1 to R-1-5; and request for outline plan approval for 173-lot subdivision (Diamond D Corporation, applicants). VI. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total). VII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Draft of ordinance proposed by Councilors Hauck and Thompson setting contribution and spending limits for local elections and recommendation to set public hearing for August 15. 2. Recommendation by ad hoc committee designated by Budget committee to study feasibility of departmental self-studies. 3. Request for Council sponsorship ($200) of Easter Seals Benefit on August 5 (referred by Councilor Reid). t VIII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS: 1. First reading of "An Ordinance amending the A.M.C. Section 9.08.120 to increase ground clearance of trees over roadways from ten feet to twelve feet." 2. First reading of "An Ordinance adding Section 9.16.055 to the Ashland Municipal Code to require removal of dog waste from public areas." IX. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS X. ADJOURNMENT Reminder: Public Hearing on WWTP options at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 9. I July 28, 1995 RE: Departmental Self-Studies Please replace the memorandum from Peggy Christiansen on the above-mentioned subject with the attached memorandum from Don Laws. Thank you. Rhonda Moore ' ,• pf AShr ` o. Memorandum `, - 04EGO July 28, 1995 ��- Mayor and City Council Aram: Councilor Don Laws �$abjCd_* Departmental Self-Studies The City Council will recall that at the end of the budget process, the Budget Committee supported my recommendation that it meet on a more frequent basis during the year to receive in-depth reports from city departments as a means of becoming mote familiar with city operations and to encourage departments to conduct on-going, more formalized internal review processes of their operations. Budget Committee members Levine,Tbompson,Laws and Stepahin volunteered to help develop the guidelines for the reviews. We are recommending the attached process which was drafted by Police Chief Gary Brown "The ABC's of Organizational Review" which basically sets forth a multi-step, strategic planning process to be conducted by each Department every three years. Note that the process will be conducted by a cross-section of all departmental employees. The proposal was reviewed by the sub-committee, the Mayor, City Administrator, Finance Director, Assistant City Administrator and Department Heads. The sub-committee reoommends that we begin this Fall with presentations to the City Council (with Budget Committee members preseht) by the Fire and Community Development departments as these departments have indicated an interest and willingness to be the first"out of the gate" under this new process. This would be followed next year with two or three additional departments from either Public Works, Electric/Conservation, Senior Programs or Admin/Computer Services/Finance/Fleet Maint. The Police Department would likely follow thereafter since that department conducted a thorough operational review in 1992. Training sessions will be conducted for each department during the last week in August Employees at all levels of the organization will be involved in both the training and the planning process. The training will focus on "de-mystifing" the strategic planning process: why plan, change management, process familiarization, etc. Modem organizational theory,and most of us who have been following recent trends in business and goverment, agree that two vital ways to improve productivity and effectiveness are strategic planning and increased employee involvement. In addition to educating the Budget committee, Council and public, we can expect this process to enhance our city's operational performance. Together with the Municipal Audit committee and the efforts of the Ad Hoc Communications Committee, we will have three important new avenues for evaluating and facilitating the effectiveness and achievements of our city government. (r:cw CiRselfawy.M=) Budget Committee Members City Administrator Department Heads ASHLAND BUDGET COMMITTEE THE ABC' s OF ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW A. OBJECTIVES #1 Establish an ongoing, in-depth review of the operations of individual municipal departments in order to identify issues facing the organization today and tomorrow; and to develop (and/or validate) the department' s current mission. #2 Provide the Ashland Budget Committee with a comprehensive report on the inter-workings of the various municipal departments in order to assist them with their budget duties and responsibilities. B. FREQUENCY The detailed organizational reviews will take place every three years (at staggered intervals) with annual updates prior to the submission of the departmental budgets . C. PROJECT TEAM The organizational analysis should be conducted by internal teams comprised of a cross representation of all levels within respective departments. However, the ultimate responsibility for the completion of the review resides with the individual department heads. D. ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PROCESS 1. Identify contemporary issues facing the organization. a. what issues are readily apparent to the department today? b. What is the over all health/climate of the department? 2 . Examine trends to project future issues/concerns. a. Identify those agencies, groups, individuals that utilize services of the department; who provide resources; who oversee or regulate departmental operations, and agencies who may be competitors . b. Project what potential changes/impacts may take place over the next three years . 3,. Develop organizational scenarios. a. Based upon the identified issues and emerging trends, what might the organization/community look like at the end of the planning period (3 years) ? b. Develop both "worst case" and "best case" scenarios . 7 . PLAN REVIEW (ANNUAL REVIEW) a. Is our mission/vision still valid? b. How are we doing in accomplishing our Action Plan items to date? C. Are there new issues since the in-depth review was conducted that need our attention? d. What does all of this suggest in terms of what should be addressed in our annual budget requests . E. PRESENTATION FORMAT 1. A written report not to exceed 20 pages will be submitted 14 days in advance of the organizational review. It should be submitted in a standardized format including an "executive summary" at the beginning of the report . 2 . Each department will meet with the Budget Committee to discuss the organization review process and findings . 3 . The briefing should include overheads (or flip chart) not to exceed 10 transparencies . 4. The presentations should include the key members of the organizational review team. S . Only highlights of the report should be presented. 6 . Verbal presentations should be limited to 30 minutes with an additional 30+ minutes set aside for questions and information exchange (90 minutes maximum) . 7 . The Budget Committee would be able to provide feedback as to whether or not the department appears to be meeting the expectations/needs of the community from their perspective . S. If there are any major issues or policy changes that the Budget Committee feels should be considered, they should be identified and forwarded to the City Council for further consideration and possible adoption. F. ANNUAL REVIEW 1. It is envisioned that 2 to 3 departments will make presentations in the fall each year, prior to the preparation, of the annual budgets . Those departments would not undergo another in-depth review for 3 years, except for annual updates refer to b) . 2 . Prior to the annual budget submission, the entire organizational review team will get together and reassess as to whether or not their plan is still on target; make modifications if need be; and use it as a means for developing recommendations regarding their pending annual budget proposal . CITY OF ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 27, 1995 Chair Alsing called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the department office, 340 S. Pioneer Street. ATTENDANCE: Present Pat Adams, Al Alsing, Bob Bennett, Ken Mickelsen. Absent Teri Coppedge, Laurie MacGraw I . ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - May •22, 1995 Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 22, 1995 Regular Meeting. Commissioner Bennett seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no III . BILLS AND FINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as indicated by Payables checks *10803 - *10963 in the amount of $131 ,248.39 and Payroll checks #8202 through x8280 in the amount of $46,204.44. Commissioner Bennett seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - O no B. March 31 , 1995 Quarterly Financial Statement Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the March 31 , 1995 Quarterly Financial Statement. Commissioner Bennett approved. The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no IV. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION ON THE AGENDA A. Proposed ropes course - Will Hilligoss Will Hilligoss, Ashland resident, was present in the audience to request that the Commission invest Youth Activities Levy monies in a ropes course which he was constructing on his property. He said that the course was being designed along the guidelines of the Boy Scouts Project COPE course and is being enthusiasticly supported by John Daggett, Superintendent of Ashland Schools. He indicated that it is the goal of those developing the course to offer young people, particularly youth at-risk, the "personal challenge of a ropes/confidence course which would provide a safe, challenging outdoor experience for building trust, teamwork, and self-confidence in a fun and supportive environment. " He presented a list of equipment which would be needed for participation in the course and asked if the Commission would be willing to support the purchase of all or a portion of the equipment. Regular Meeting - June 27, 1995 )Page 2 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Ropes course - continued In discussion, Commissioners had questions concerning the overall organization of the program which would be offered by SOAR (So. Oregon Adventure Ropes) Program and its relationship with the Ashland School District. In response to questions by the Commission, Mr. Hilligoss indicated that the course was located on property he owned off E. Antelope Road outside of Medford and that the course itself was being constructed and operated by a not-for-profit corporation with an un-paid board of directors. He envisioned that the course would be operational by this fall. He said that as well as Ashland, other school districts had expressed interest in using the course but that he did not know exactly what percentage of time Ashland students would actually use the course. He also did not know whether or not the program would be part of the Ashland Schools' curriculum but did indicate that Mr. Daggett had said that school buses could be used for transportation of Ashland students. At the end of the discussion, Commissioners indicated to Mr. Hilligoss that they felt they needed more information prior to making a decision as to whether or not Youth Activities Levy monies should be spent on the ropes course. Commissioner Adams said that it was not her intent to discourage the project but that the Commission felt a strong . obligation to allocate the money for "community activities" for Ashland residents, as they were the persons putting up the money. Commissioners primary concerns focused on how the envisioned program related to the Ashland School District and what assurances could be given that whatever monies the Commission chose to invest in the program would be spent on Ashland area youth. Commissioners Alsing and Adams volunteered to meet with Mr. Hilligoss , and Mr. Daggett some time prior to the Commission's July meeting to discuss their concerns. The topic would be scheduled again for the July Commission meeting. V. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION NOT ON THE AGENDA A. Mike Uhtoff - Presentation of letter to City Attorney Mike Uhtoff was present in the audience to present to the Commission a copy of a letter he had written to the City Attorney concerning the proposed development of N. Mountain Park site. Commissioners indicated that they would receive a copy of Mr. Nolte's response. VI . OLD BUSINESS None VII . NEW BUSINESS A. Authorization to advertise for bids Director Mickelsen asked for authorization to advertise for bids for an Irri-net system, part of the central control irrigation system, and for a Sand-Pro. Commissioner Adams so moved. Commissioner Bennett seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no Regular Meeting - June 27, 1995 !Page 3 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission VIII. CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS, DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Report Youth Activity Levy programs Jill McClelland, Projects Coordinator, reported that the Senior Line Dancing classes were proceeding with enthusiasm with approximately 40 people averaging over 60 years old attending each week. She also presented copies of the newly established quarterly Senior Newsletter and the "Summer '95" youth newsletter which outlined recreational activities suitable for young people and how to contact the organizations sponsoring the activities. Ms. McClelland briefly reviewed the drop-in, activities programs at Garfield Park which focuses on elementary school age children and the T.A.C. (Teen Activity Center) which is offered for Middle School age youth at the Middle School . She said that the Garfield Park program was an "overwhelming" success to the point where the department had decided to put on more staff during peak hours. Commissioner Adams complimented staff on the success of the Garfield Park program. She said that she has observed, however, that there are a number of very young children who roam the park for hours on end without parental supervision. She suggested that it was time for another safety "flyer" to be distributed throughout the neighborhood. IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS A. Report on Parks Foundation Commissioner Alsing reported that the Foundation Board was proceeding the with development of a brochure. He also said that the Foundation had received four donations. In a related matter, he inquired as to whether or not the Commission would be interested in having the Foundation administer the monies which are currently allocated for in the Park Trust Fund. The funds were initially donated by the Oregon Shakespeare Festival with the stipulation that the principal be held in trust and the investment interest earned be used for the maintenance of lower Lithia Park. He said that the Foundation Board had indicated its willingness to take over responsibility for the funds. He said that the principal of the monies would be accounted for by the Foundation with the interest earned being given to the Commission for the maintenance of lower Lithia Park, as was originally intended by the Festival . If the Commission chose to have the Foundation administer the money, O.S.F.A. would be contacted to get its approval also. If all three parties agreed in concept, the details of the transaction would then be worked out. MOTION Commissioner Bennett made a motion to transfer the funds from the Park Trust Fund to the Parks Foundation as outlined above. Commissioner Adams seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no Regular Meeting - June 27, 1995 ?Page 4 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission f. i X. NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA Director Mickelsen reported that the landscape architect for the N. Mountain Park site project has indicated that the wetlands consultant would be ready with his report about the middle of July. He suggested that the Commission set a Study Session within that time frame to hear the consultant's report. A Study Session was set for Wednesday, July 19, 1995. The next Regular Meeting for the Commission was set for Monday, July 24, 1995. XI . ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - Land Acquisition XII . RE-CONVENE TO REGULAR SESSION A. Recommendation to City Council to purchase property MOTION Per the Ashland City Charter, Commissioner Adams made a motion to recommend to the City Council to acquire three pieces of property off Strawberry Lane owned by the Hudsons, Ratcliffes, and Snydals according to terms as negotiated. Commissioner Bennett seconded. The vote was: 3 yes - 0 no XIII . ADJOURNMENT With no further business, by consent, Chair Alsing adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Jarvis. Other Commissioners present were Giordano, Armitage, Bass, Cloer, Carr, Finkle, and Bingham. There were no absent members. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Carr moved to approve the Minutes and Findings of the May 9, 1995 Regular Meeting. Carr amended the motion to approve only the Minutes. Armitage seconded the motion and everyone approved. The Findings will be adopted later in the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 95-044 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT 955 B STREET APPLICANT. FRED COX Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Bingham and Bass were not present at the last meeting and will not be voting on this action. Giordano, Armtage,.Cloer, Carr, Finkle and Jarvis had a site visit. STAFF REPORT This proposal is continued from last month. There were several concerns from last month that can be found in the Staff Report. Garages will access from the private drive. There will be a yard area for each unit. The applicant has pursued a larger rear yard and with the exception of the bay window intruding into the space, there will be a 10 foot rear yard. There was a letter last month from the property owner to the north who was concerned about solar access. Both units in that area are proposed to be single story and both comply with solar. Staff has recommended approval of the application with 9 Conditions. PUBLIC HEARING FRED COX, 1280 Kirk Lane, thought the requirement of porches for each unit will work. He spoke to Ann Bass (neighbor) and he will preserve as many trees (three to four) as possible. He might need to remove a couple of spruce trees. He would be willing to put another tree on the other side of the fence to make up for it, if necessary. A one-story home will take up the lot nearest Bass. TERRY SKIBBY, 611 Beach Street, Vice-President of the Historic Commission, stated that the Historic Commission had concerns about the private drive from the railroad area. The railroad addition is on a grid pattern typical of the area and the proposed development is a departure from it. The bottom of "A" Street is a critical place with the location of the Golden Spike and in addition closes the door to the extension of "A" Street to Mountain Avenue. The Historic Commission objects to the visual impact of the private drive and the drive is not compatible with the rest of the area. PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street, is opposed to this development because it adversely affects development use, livability, safety and economic value of the adjacent neighborhood and the development is poorly designed and in conflict with the adjacent developed neighborhood. (Exhibit 0-1.) Staff Response Molnar said Condition 9 states that the trees be retained to the greatest extent feasible and that similar size trees be installed for a buffer if they have to be removed. With regard to the Historic Commission's concerns about the alignment of the private drive and "A" Street, Staff suggested a neighborhood sign be placed at the entrance to the development to set it apart from the Historic District (Condition 10). The applicant has been willing to use porches, build detached units and use materials to make the homes more compatible with the Historic District. A narrower street has been allowed in this development to encourage traffic calming. Rebuttal COX thought it was important to have the private drive from "A" Street so it would not look like an extension of "A", along with the narrower street. He pointed out that 16 units he has proposed will create less traffic that the 23 units that the property could accommodate. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 -- Molnar also recommended adding another Condition. The parking space in the garage on unit 1 (from the "A" Street entrance) is on the west side of the unit. The applicant will mirror this design to put in on the right side so the garage is not what is seen first. (This will be Condition 11.) COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Giordano would like the private drive to look like an extension of "A" Street, however, he does not feel strongly enough about it to vote against it. Carr likes the concept of a drive (and the jog), not a public street. Finkle would hope the private drive will feel like an alleyway in the Historic District. Carr moved to approve PA95-044 as presented with the addition of Condition 10 that will require signing the exit and entrance, and Condition 11 to mirror unit 1 so the parking is on the other side. Giordano seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Bingham and Bass abstained. PLANNING ACTION 95-058 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF 7.96 ACRES AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 43-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED BETWEEN NO. MOUNTAIN AND MUNSON DRIVE. APPLICANT: MARY POWERS/DOUG NEUMAN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Giordano stepped down because he is the agent for the applicant. STAFF REPORT The application is requesting annexation of approximately 8 acres and for a 43 lot subdivision (41 new homes and 2 existing). The Staff Report outlines the details of the project. The section of Mountain Avenue involved in this application is under a five year no cut paving moratorium (about one year ago). A waiver could be granted by the City Council. The applicant complies with ordinances for annexation and outline plan approval with the ten attached Conditions. Armitage noted that if the land is annexed, this will create a piece to the south that will become an island. McLaughlin said the Commission has the discretion to enlarge the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 __ annexation area. The property owner to the south is not interested in annexing at this time. If the proposed parcel is annexed, this would have no bearing on whether or not the unannexed parcel to the south would receive city services. PUBLIC HEARING DOUG NEUMAN has worked to provide a development with amenities and affordable housing. TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent for the applicant, said they are in agreement with the Staff Report. Giordano showed an aerial photo of the property and photos of existing housing in the Historic District and neighboring properties. The homes that will be built will be similar to those in the photos. The development is using a neo-traditional concept with homes ranging from 1100 to 1300 square feet (mix of one and two-story). Giordano said he does not view this application as an annexation, but as in-fill. A portion of the property is within the City limits with interconnected streets between Fordyce and the Mill Pond area as the City's Transportation Plan has outlined. This project will also provide pedestrian and bike access. A proposed park will be located to the north of the project and access from the project will be provided. There is no public transportation to this area, however RVTD is planning a loop that will go along E. Main. The project allows for four types of open space: the village green (at the ends of two streets) providing a focal point of green with a pedestrian path and benches, a pedestrian and bicycle link is provided to the north between lots 23 and 24, a small drainage channel, and a streetscape/parkway on both sides of the street. With regard to the no-cut moratorium, utilities could be redirected from Munson or by a public utility easement on the north property line. Staff reported that transportation is about three-quarters 'of a mile, shopping is about one-quarter of a mile, the bike path is on E. Main, and Munson Drive has sidewalks on both sides. There are no sidewalks along No. Mountain. There is a plan in process for sidewalks along Fordyce. Service levels at No. Mountain and E. Main are B and C most of the time. At some time in the near future, a center left turn lane will be striped on Mountain to turn left on E. Main Street. Bass noticed the biggest problem is getting across Mountain. Carr thought a four-way stop would be helpful. McLaughlin said there would be a light eventually. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 __ Finkle likes the incorporation of pedestrian circulation in the development as well as pedestrian and bike access to the park. Finkle wondered if the gravel walkway would be for bicycles as well as pedestrians. Giordano said they do not want to encourage bike riders on the gravel path because of a conflict between pedestrians and cyclist. MARY POWERS, 248 N. Mountain Avenue, favored the application and her comments were read into the record. CAROLYN EIDMAN, 541 Fordyce Street, is concemed about keeping her irrigation water and the run-off from her Talent irrigation water. WAYNE LEEMAN, 147 Blue Heron Lane, favored the development. The only way to reduce the cost of housing is to increase the supply of buildable land. This proposal does just that and creates competition in the land market. BEVERLY SPJUT, 531 Fordyce, stated that she also irrigates her land with TID and the water drains along the proposed development. She wants to make sure Romeo Drive will go through and connect somewhere in,case she wants to develop her land in the future. McLaughlin said the City wants to work out the best solution with the property owners to make the best connection. The developer is responsible for drainage issues. DICK STRENG, 1255 Munson Drive, President of Meadowhawk Homeowner's Assn explained that the association reviewed the proposal at their last meeting and those in attendance liked the idea of this development, the village green, the route to the city park, turnarounds, and the idea of making a connecting neighborhood. PENNY CURTIS, 264 N. Mountain, said she is concerned with the additional traffic on Mountain and wants to understand the issues of rezoning their property. Curtis is concerned_with the portion of their property that the new street will run along and she does not want to have a sidewalk on that side as a drop-off to their property. They would request a wall or a buffer to protect their property from noise and traffic. What about the back half of her property that is in the County? McLaughlin explained that there would be no impact for them to annex except it would probably make sense in clarifying all the issues. Staff can contact other owners prior to the Council meeting to see if it is feasible to annex that strip behind the lots fronting Mountain. MARIE MOREHEAD, 310 No. Mountain, said she likes the look of development but does not like added traffic to Mountain. She would also favor stop signs at No. Mountain and E. Main. She would like to be included in annexing the rear portion of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 _. her lot. She believes 20 foot streets are too narrow. ANDY COCHRAN, 624 W. Valley View Road, favors the project and believes affordable housing fits nicely. CYNTHIA PARK, 1245 Munson Drive, likes the access to the park, the 90 degree turns to reduce traffic speed. She wondered what will happen with the water easement and her fencing. Will there be two fences with an easement in between? The common areas seem too blockish. With the garages setback, that will create more pavement. Park is also concerned with this high density development. , KELLY MADDING, Affordable Housing Officer for the City of Ashland, explained the program allows for developers to increase density and defers system development charges. She does not believe a home has re-sold within the affordable housing program. Most people purchasing homes sold under the affordable housing program have been earning $28,000. No Staff Response Rebuttal Giordano responded that roof drains will be handled by gutters and downspouts and taken to the street by both surface and underground drainage systems to the north end of the property. He is willing to work with Parks on the irrigation easement. He willing to install a six foot high wooden fence to help buffer the Curtis property. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass thought this would be an opportunity to clean up the City boundaries and that the project encourages in-fill besides meeting the criteria for annexation. Potentially there are some revisions needed in the annexation criteria. Because of the projects coming up in this area that will all feed traffic into No. Mountain and E. Main, the intersection solution needs to be accelerated. Bingham noted many years ago the Commission talked about having a pre-planned grid pattern for this entire area and it never happened. If all of Mill Pond/Fordyce Street decide to start using this area to get to Mountain, because it isn't a straight path, there could be some potential traffic problems. He wants some solution to the E. Main/No. Mountain intersection as soon as possible. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING ' MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 _. _ Bingham moved to approve PA 95-058 with the attached Conditions. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Armitage moved to approve the Findings of the May 9, 1995 meeting. The last Condition (Ivy Lane) needs to be corrected to use Nolte's wording. Armitage moved as corrected. Giordano seconded. The motion carried with Bingham and Bass abstaining. PLANNING ACTION 95-064 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP, SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE BIKEWAY SYSTEM. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Pam Barlow, Public Works Dept., reviewed the bikeway system. Giordano moved to approve of PA95-064, Finkle seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Finkle added that there will be many bike connections that are not shown that will allow connections between neighborhoods and those need to continue be added as small connections to the master plan. PA95-060 from and Kathy Cox) will be continued until next month. PLANNING ACTION 95-057 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN 18-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION. 525 SHERIDAN STREET APPLICANT: SHERUSUL, INC. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Bingham had a site visit and noted the native grasses and brought back many in his shoes. Giordano stepped down because he is the agent for the applicant. All other Commissioners_had a site visit. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMIS NOR - 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 - STAFF REPORT Refer to the Staff Report for a detailed explanation of the proposal. The main concerns are improvements to Sheridan and Schofield Streets. The last 450 feet of Sheridan will be required to be paved. The Schofield connection has occurred in ordered to provide another means of access, not only for emergency vehicles, but also for traffic going to Medford as well as an additional access. Schofield is proposed to be paved through the formation of a local improvement district. Over the years, as development has occurred along Schofield and Sheridan, the City has required property owners to sign in favor of future street improvements. The Engineering Department has indicated that over 50 percent of the frontages of both Sheridan and Schofield have signed in favor of street improvements. Adequate transportation has to exist to the development and because of the City's resolution, it will not cause a City street to function beyond capacity. The applicant has shown a route from Sheridan to Grover to Grant Streets. Another portion of the street capacity resolution states that not only do City residential streets need to be less than 18 percent to have additional capacity, they have to have a minimum width or travel portion of 20 feet wide. There are some sections along Grover Street where . the physical width is less than 20 feet. Staff has recommended approval with the attached Conditions. PUBLIC HEARING BOB SULLIVAN, 525 Sheridan Street, speaking on behalf of SheruSul, Inc., said he and his family have enjoyed the ownership of the property on Sheridan for many years and are sensitive to the needs of the neighborhood. TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent for the applicant, reviewed the exhibits. Giordano explained the process he went through to develop a design for the proposed site. He showed an aerial photo of the site, site analysis which looks at slopes, areas suitable for development, views, solar, etc. They started with 27 lots and ended up with 18. He used the topography of the site to design the streets. He does not believe Schofield should be paved since there will be paved access on Sheridan. He is concerned about the width of Grover because a resident has built a rock garden in the right-of-way. He would prefer to see that remain because it adds to the character of the neighborhood. There are a number of routes from the subdivision to the City, and the routes will depend on weather conditions, time of year, destinations, and driving ability. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 - .. Flowering fruit trees will be planted in the development. There will be a sign to announce the development with open spaces at the entrances to give a sense of arrival. The trees along the easterly boundary will be retained and supplemented on the western boundary. Some trees along the southerly boundary will be retained. Grading on-site will be limited and where grading needs to occur, it will be rounded. The building envelopes will be limited or restricted with setbacks in some cases being 30 feet and some sideyards at 20 feet to allow for green areas, so when the development is viewed from below, it will not look like a mass of houses. They will be imposing architectural restrictions to mitigate the development on a slope. Giordano said they agree with the Conditions but thought they had already provided a fire management plan. They are specific about the plant material that will be used. PUBLIC HEARING The following citizens made favorable written comments: Pauline Sullivan, 525 Sheridan Street Jeri L. Sullivan, 2242 Orchard Home Drive, Medford Martin Reece-Sullivan, 1997 Tolman Creek Road Shawn M. Sullivan, Sr., P. O. Box 749 Julie Brown, 222 Mowetza Drive Letters were submitted from: Gene and Denise Gall, 460 Schofield Street, Arthur Brayfield, 400 Monte Vista Drive Austin Brayfield, 400 Monte Vista Drive Alan Adeleman, 100 Schofield Street E. Kendall and Marylyn L Clarke, 445 Schofield Street Also signed by Lyn Hill, Shawn Wilson, Teri and Vince Littleton, Gene and Denise Gall, Marty Mann, Art Bower, Lila and Jay Quinby, Austin and Art Brayfield, and Frank and Alan Adelman. CLOER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 PM. FINKLE SECONDED THE MOTION AND EVERYONE APPROVED. SID FIELD, 525 Tucker Street, lives above the proposed lots 17 and 18. He supports the project as long as the square footage of the lots is maintained with the side and rear setbacks of 20 and 30 feet. He is concerned about the trees and wants to make sure that the existing oak trees not be cut down. Feld would like the building heights to be no more than 30 feet from grade. He would like to see Grover Street remain as it is now because he does not believe that street will be used. The street grades are a problem for all who live there. He agrees that Schofield should not be paved. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 1% 1995 VAL DUTSON, 735 Prim Street, stated he is concerned about height of trees growing in the future development and would like a deed restriction. He believes Schofield is the most accessible to North Main because drivers can see in both directions on E. Main for quite a distance. VANCE LITIFLETON, 465 Schofield Street, does not want Schofield paved because he likes the rural feel in the area. If.Schofield is extended, he would hope the trees could be retained to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. BOB SULLIVAN, JR, 2242 Orchard Home Drive, Medford, appreciates the work his father has done on this development. He wants the Commission to listen to a request of not paving Schofield. CRAIG SHIPMAN, 731 Grover Street is opposed to the development. MICHAEL G. KNOX, 720 Grover Street, does not object to the development. His only concern is that Grover is a dirt road and he-would like it to remain as such. LINDA SHADDUCK, 731 Grover Street, is the owner of the property that has the gafden, trees, and fence. She is concerned that if Grover is improved, it will accomplish nothing. The applicant waived the 120 days to complete his application. McLaughlin explained that the ordinance requires paved access to and through the development. Conditions have been placed on partitions and developments where many people have signed in favor of paving and the ordinances would seem to encourage that to happen. To do otherwise, a finding would have to be made as to why Schofield is not necessary. Armitage moved to continue the hearing until July 11, 1995. Finkle seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES ' JUNE 13,1995 _, ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Jenifer Carr at 1:35 p.m.. Other Commissioners present were Cloer and Finkle. Staff present were Molnar, Madding, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Cloer seconded Hibbert's idea to have a study session about the solar ordinance. Cloer moved that the Minutes of the May 9, 1995 meeting be approved. Finkle seconded and the Minutes were approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-037 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 1405 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD APPLICANT: SHERRY JOHNSTON Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Staff's concerns with this application are with zoning, the size of the parcel and the fact that the owner owns the two other parcels to the east. Ultimate development could be near 13 units and Staff wants to be certain that planning for the entire property be considered. A transparency showed future development. Staff has recommended approval of the application. The applicant has a concern that Condition 6 is open-ended regarding the shared cost of the bridge. The City Attorney agreed that the wording was vague and has recommended the Condition could be deleted because when the property to the east is developed, the improvement could be required at that time or an assessment district could be formed with the majority of the property owners agreeing to do the improvements. Finkle and Cloer would prefer to have the applicant sign in favor of the future pedestrian/bike connection so future property owners would be aware of an improvement cost. PUBLIC HEARING RON THURNER, 1170 Bellview, is assisting.Mrs. Johnston in her application. He believed that by agreeing to Condition 6, in essence the applicant is signing a blank check. The applicant is willing to plat the easement. The development will not occur until lot 400 develops. By keeping Condition 6, the Commission would define which lots will pay for improvements. DAVID EDWARDS, 816 W. 8th, Medford, OR, reviewed each criteria of approval for Outline and Final Plan approval and discussed how each criteria has been met. Edwards said the owners of lot 3 will have some minimal maintenance of the.riparian area. DON GREENE, 375 Normal Avenue, expressed his concern that this applicant and all applicants be required to sign in favor of future improvements, including in this case, the signing in favor of the formation of a local improvement district for the pedestrian area as this is a high priority of the City Council. Rebuttal THURNER & JOHNSTON, said that the lots in this application will not benefit from a pedestrian/bike path. Johnston does not want to sell the lots and tell the buyers That at some unknown time the buyers will be obligated to pay some unknown amount for a path. Finkle suggested adding to the end of Condition 5, after the word "crossing"..."at the time of development of lot 400". COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Finkle moved to approve PA95-037 with the deletion of Conditions 6'and 7, with the addition of wording on Condition 5. Cloer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 95-039 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO STRUCTURALLY ALTER A NON-CONFORMING APARTMENT BUILDING AND EXPANDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS BY ONE, LOCATED AT 1665 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: RONALD L. DELUCA ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 11,1995 Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT The applicant is asking to convert two existing storage spaces to a one-unit apartment and a laundry facility. Staff has worked with the applicant to bring the site into conformance by increasing the amount of landscaping along the street and eliminating a driveway area to make a circular entrance. The dumpster will be screened and additional bike parking will be provided. Staff has recommended approval with the five attached Conditions. Add Condition 6 that the property owners sign in favor of future . street improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard. PUBLIC HEARING RICK.VEZIE, 94 3rd Street, is representing DeLuca. He believes the applicant would be in favor of improvement along Siskiyou. There are no exterior changes to the building with the exception of screening in the dumpster and adding bike racks. DON GREENE, 375 Normal, favored the application. Greene owns the property across the street and stated that when he came into the office to see a copy of the Staff Report, none was available. He questioned what,criteria were used for putting certain requirements on one property but not on another. On his property across the street, there were no changes made to the restaurant, however, they were required to obtain permits from ODOT, landscape the right-of-way area, and provide handicap parking and remove parking from the front yard setback at Bento's. Molnar explained the basis for conditioning a project. In DeLuca's application, Staff weighed 280 square feet being converted to an apartment as a reasonable means to bring the property into conformance with today's standards. In Greene's case, Bento's was involved in a project with 8,000 square feet of new building along with a zone change. Greene's changes were more formidable than.DeLuca's. Greene did not feel projects are treated equally. He does not want to see signing in favor of future improvements missed on any projects as it has been so many times in the past. ; Carr wondered if the parking on DeLuca's project could be numbered to coincide with the apartment numbers so a handicapped renter could be assigned a particular space. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 11, 1995 Rebuttal VEZIE said he appreciated the discretion Staff has used in balancing the improvements the applicant was requesting and those that the City required. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Cloer moved to approve PA95-039. Finkle seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 95-052 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AT 708 CLAY STREET WITH THE REAR PARCEL BEING SERVED BY A FLAG DRIVE FROM CLAY STREET. APPLICANT: BOB L. BECKER This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-054 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A ONE-UNIT HOTEL/MOTEL LOCATED AT 675 E. MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: HARRY & PAT NICHOLSON This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-056 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT THE EXISTING °GARAGE-WORKSHOP° BUILDING TO A SECOND RESIDENCE AT 107 ALIDA STREET. APPLICANT: TED HOLDEN This application was approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-059 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,450 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING TO BE USED FOR SHEET METAL FABRICATION, LOCATED AT 3171 E. MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: MARTY JACOBSON/CRAIG LOOP ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION' 4 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 11,1995 This action was approved. There will be 11 parking spaces. PLANNING ACTION 95-061 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A LOT INTO TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 348 IOWA STREET, WITH THE REAR PARCEL ACCESSING FROM THE ALLEY. APPLICANT: EVA COOLEY This application was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 95-063 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE ADDITION OF 16 MOBILE HOMES SPACES TO THE 85 EXISTING SPACES IN THE WINGSPREAD MOBILE HOME PARK LOCATED AT 321 CLAY STREET. APPLICANT: DARYN DAVIS This action was approved. Staff will obtain a bicycle easement. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 11. 1995 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes July 5, 1995 ORIENTATION Members Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Chloe Winston, Fredricka Weishahn, Casey Mitchell, Larry Cardinale and Keith Chambers, with Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman, gathered at the Community Center at 4:00 p.m. From here, the group toured the Historic District, focusing on sites and structures that have changed significantly over the past few years or will have in the near future, and also ones that have had recent planning actions. Bill Emerson was picked up during the tour. Discussion of these sites was on-going. Knox then led a discussion on diplomacy, stressing the importance of making owners and applicants feel comfortable with the Review Board during design reviews. Due to time constraints, goals were not discussed. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lewis at 8:50 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Jim Lewis, Chloe Winston, Fredricka Weishahn, Casey Mitchell, Larry Cardinale, Keith Chambers and Bill Emerson. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Member Bill Harriff was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Winston moved to approve the June 7, 1995 Minutes as submitted and Weishalm seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS PA 95-076 Site Review 461 Allison Street Colin Swales Knox explained this application consists of the construction of two studio apartments along the alley and the demolition of the existing garage,which will be replaced with a new garage using the minimum setbacks for an accessory building. Parking for the existing house and the two proposed units will be off the alley. Four spaces are required (two will be in the new garage and two will be uncovered). The application complies with all necessary ordinances and Staff is recommending approval. Skibby asked about the siding. Colin Swales answered it will be tongue and groove cedar, probably five inch. He added he has not checked under the asbestos siding of the existing house yet, but he will try to match it as closely as possible once the siding is removed. When questioned about the condition of the garage, he said the boards have rotted out at the bottom. Emerson asked why he wanted to use the minimum three foot setback. Swales said because he will be keeping more in line with the existing garages and out-buildings which are on the property lines along the alley. He also pointed out his parking spaces are directly across the alley from parking spaces for the Grapevine Bed & Breakfast. Lewis questioned the use of cedar shakes for roofing. He said cedar shingles would be fine but shakes are not recommended in the Historic District. After a short discussion, Swales agreed he should use sawn shingles. Also discussed was the two dormers and the diamond shaped windows they encompass. Swales stated the windows were drawn in to break up the dormers. It is attic space and will be used for storage only. The Commission suggested different treatments for breaking up the space, including louvered vents, gables,use of a different material, and shingles. Swales said he would be willing to work with these alternatives. Weishahn commented she feels Swales' roof design is a nice way to repeat the roof line of the existing house and it works well with the structures on the alley. The Commission agreed this project will provide a good alleyscape. Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application with the following conditions: 1) sawn shingles be used; 2) redesign the diamond shaped windows with vertical windows, louvered vents, or different siding material; and 3) the final design go before the Review Board for approval. Winston seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PA 95-073 Site Review Lot 7 of Railroad Village Subdivision Allan Sandler Knox reported the applicant is using the same design as approved last year; however, only the smaller building will be used and it will be on lot 7 rather than 8. He went on to say the applicant's original approval has expired. He is now proposing to build a structure with 1600 square feet of retail space, 600 square feet of warehouse space, and two units each totaling 1000 square feet. The warehouse area will be located in the rear. Seven parking spaces are required; the applicant is providing eight. Staff is concerned with the water features which are depicted on the original approval but not addressed with this application. Since a different lot is being used and one of the water features was located between the two lots which were originally approved, one of the conditions will be these features and locations be identified and located, including the type, size, height, and shape, before the building permit is issued. The location of the water features shall be located closer to the sidewalk, and will be reviewed by the Historic Commission. Another difference is that there will be no awning sign, which had been a concern last year. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 2 Emerson stated he felt the design is fine as it is and moved to recommend approval with the condition the water features be redesigned and submitted to the Historic Commission for review. Mitchell seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of June follow: 624 "A' Street Jim and Cheryl Lewis Interior Remodel 79 Pine Street Melody and Jeff Jones Guest Cottage 340 "A' Street John Fields Window 34 Union Street G.K Schrock Addition 482 Iowa Street Roanne Lyall Addition/Remodel 101 Alida Street Ted Holden Access. Res. Unit 78 Fourth Street Rogue Environmental Chimney Demolition 358 East Main Street Rogue Ski Shop Sign 77 Oak Street Raw Elements Sign 111 East Main Street Lot 9 Sign REVIEW BOARD Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: July 6 Weishahn, Lewis and Skibby July 13 Cardinale, Lewis and Skibby July 20 Chambers, Weishahn and Skibby July 27 Winston, Mitchell, Cardinale and Skibby OLD BUSINESS Mountain Avenue House Possible uses for the house were discussed. Lewis will keep the Commission informed of the status. Historic Preservation Ordinance Study Session Knox related the study session to review the draft ordinance is still tentatively scheduled for July 25th in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Mmutes July 5, 1995 Page 3 Information Booth on Plaza Weishahn said she submitted her memo because she was under the impression the final decision regarding the expansion of the information booth would be made during her absence. She wanted her concerns recognized and noted she would vote against any plan that would adjoin another structure to the current booth. She is also against a curb extension. She would, however be in favor of removing the existing booth and replacing it with a larger, similar booth at another location on the plaza. Emerson said he was told to not worry about having plans until September. He also said that the moving of the Japanese Maple can only be accomplished during dormancy. NEW BUSINESS Letter from Brian Almauist to Southern Oregon Historical Society The Commission discussed the letter City Administrator Brian Almquist had sent Southern Oregon Historical Society requesting the re-establishment of a presence in Ashland. All agreed it would be beneficial to have another office in Ashland, and Lewis said he would be glad to attend meetings regarding this. Chloe's Letter to the Tidings Winston said she was very disappointed in the Tidings coverage (non-coverage) during National Historic Preservation Week. Since she is on the board, she felt the need to write the letter. Weishahn said she had also called the Tidings to voice her frustration. Letter to Frank Papen Knox said he wanted the Commission to be aware of Staff concerns regarding the proposed building on the alley behind the Furniture Depot. The owner has subsequently made changes and will be submitting revised plans. The new design is more in proportion to other buildings on the street and is also more compatible. It will be a one-story stucco building with brick trim. The windows will also be more in proportion. Chambers noted the need for a master plan for "A' Street and Fourth Street. The Commission concurred. Notes on Historic Commission Meetings Emerson led a discussion on procedure during Historic Commission meetings. The Commission does not want to lose its informality, however, some formality is needed to close public comment, perhaps with a statement at the beginning of the meeting. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 5, 1995 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Skibby and second by Mitchell, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes July 5, 1"5 Page 5 HISTORIC COMMISSION REVIEW BOARD MEETING July 13, 1995 PLANNING ACTION 95-082 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a juice cart (temporary use) in front of the Rain Forest Cafe located at 120 East Main Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1-D; Assessor's Map it 9BC; Tax Lot: 900. APPLICANT: Judd A. Pindell The meeting of the Review Board was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Jim Lewis. Present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby and Larry Cardinale. Also present was applicant Judd A. Pindell. The applicant stated the juice cart would only be set up during the summer months. Lewis stated the green umbrella looks fine, but added he is concerned about the space itself when it is not occupied. Cardinale added his only reservation would be what the site will look like when the cart is not there. Skibby commented the cart fits in the space and looks fine, but also expressed concern about finishing off the space. Cardinale moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition the exposed plumbing be covered and the space be finished off so it will look appropriate when the cart is not in use. Lewis seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Minutes taken by Skibby. Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/95 Page 1 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Building: - ACCESS RESIDENTIAL UNIT 1 38,796 ADDENDUM TO SFR/9504001 1 0 ADDITION 2 12,422 CONV GARAGE TO BEDROOM 1 11,000 DECK & SUNROOM 1 4, 899 DEMOLITION OF GARAGE 1 0 DUPLEX 2 200, 000 FENCE 4 3 ,200 GARAGE 1 11, 048 GUEST COTTAGE 1 40, 000 INTERIOR REMODEL 1 1,500 PATIO COVER 1 -900 REMODEL & ADDITION 2 285,761 REPAIR WATER DAMAGE 1 1, 300 REPLACE DECK 1 1,400 REROOF 1 5,468 SFR 5 505, 337 SPECIAL INSPECTION 1 0 Subtotal: $ 1, 123 , 033 Electrical: 1 BR CIRCUIT FOR PORCH 1 500 2 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 350 ALARM SYSTEM 3 1,825 ALTERED SERVICE 1 750 LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 0 SERVICE + 1 BR CIR 1 1,200 SERVICE + 10 BRANCH CIRS 1 1,200 SERVICE CHANGE 1 400 Subtotal: $ 6,225 Mechanical: GAS FURN/WTR HTR/1BR CIR 1 2,200 GAS LINE/FURNACE 1 2,793 GAS LINE/FURNACE/VENTING 1 2,785 GAS LINE/FURNANCE/1 BR CR 1 6, 007 GAS LINE/GAS FURN/1 BR CR 2 8,262 GAS LINE/GAS FURN/AC 1 2, 347 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/95 Page 2 # Units Value SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS: Mechanical: GAS LINE/GAS FURNACE 3 10,221 GAS LINE/H20 HTR/RANGE 1 1, 136 GAS LINE/LOG LIGHTER 1 350 GAS LINE/LOG LTR/WTR HTR 1 800 INSTALL A/C 1 2 ,391 INSTALL GAS STOVE 1 2 ,200 INSTALL HEAT PUMP 1 4,900 SET AIR CONDITIONING 1 2,382 Subtotal: $ 48,774 Plumbing: ADDITIONAL SEWER LINE 1 0 AUTO SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 2,200 ELECT WATER HEATER 1 300 Subtotal: $ 2,500 ***Total: $ 1, 180,532 COMMERCIAL: Building: 3RD STORY ADDITION 1 110,000 ADDENDUM TO INT REMODEL 1 1,500 DEMOLITION OF CHIMNEYS 1 0 EXCAVATION 1 0 INT. SPRINKLER SYS. 1 10,826 INTERIOR REMODEL 1 7,000 KARATE STUDIO 1 244,608 WINDOW 1 1,500 Subtotal: $ 375,434 Electrical: 2 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 400 TEMPORARY POWER 1 200 Subtotal: $ 600 ***Total: $ 376,034 Monthly Building Activity Report: 06/95 Page 3 Total this month: 67 $ 1,556, 566 Total this month last year: 123 $ 4,083 , 127 Total year to date: 941 $22,752 ,802 Total last year: 1130 $22 , 197,759 This month This month This year last year Total Fees: 17,928 48,764 264, 839 Total Inspections: 514 654 6686 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 6/95 RESIDENTIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/21/95 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** ACCESS RESIDENTIAL UNIT 101 ALIDA ST MCLAREN, KEITH 38796. 00 ** Subtotal ** 38796. 00 ** DUPLEX 248 WIMER ST 2 BANKS, STEVE 200000. 00 ** Subtotal ** 200000. 00 ** FENCE 84 PINE ST RAY'S FENCES 1100. 00 471 PARKSIDE DR OWNER 800. 00 784 A ST OWNER 800. 00 2810 DIANE ST OWNER 500. 00 ** Subtotal ** 3200.00 ** GARAGE 445 LAUREL ST N JND CONSTRUCTION 11048. 00 ** Subtotal ** 11048.00 ** GUEST COTTAGE 79 PINE ST ALBERTSON CONSTRUCTION 40000. 00 CO. ** Subtotal ** 40000.00 ** SFR 772 JAQUELYN ST STURLEE CONSTRUCTION 94869. 00 179 CRISPIN ST MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 87000.00 347 LANTERN HILL DR MORJIG, STEVE 145011.09 158 CRISPIN ST MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 103372.88 1278 ROSE LN DE ASCENTIS, TOM- BUILDER 75084.91 ** Subtotal ** 505337.88 *** Total *** 798381.88 NEW CONSTRUCTION: 6/95 COMMERCIAL PAGE NO. 1 07/21/95 ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION ** KARATE STUDIO 300 HERSEY ST E TONEY, JERRY CONST. INC. 244608. 00 ** Subtotal ** 244608.00 *** Total *** 244608.00 August 1, 1995 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator SUBJECT: Monthly Report - July 1995 The following is a report of my principal activities for the past month, and a status report on the various City projects and Council goals for 1995-96. I. PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES: 1. Participated in hosting luncheon for our official guests from Guanajuato, Mexico. 2 . Attended weekly meetings of WWTP management committee. 3 . Participated in conference call on issues relating to the upcoming bond issuance by BPA for conservation measures funded through OMECA, and dealing with the withdrawal of Canby. 4 . Attended evening meeting of the Environmental Quality commission in Medford with Paula Brown and Councilor Hagen to update commission on Ashland's progress on WWTP alternatives. 5.Attended informal breakfast meeting with EQC and DEQ officials to discuss various Rogue Valley environmental issues. 6. Met with officials of Railtex to discuss acquisition of R/W for Central Ashland Bikeway and took field trip to explain our proposal. Favorable response later received. 7 . Met with staff to discuss whether to adjust fees based on Engineering News Record index. Decided to leave fees at present levels due to small change in index. 8. Had coffee with Councilors Laws and Winthrop about various issues. 1 t 9 . Met with Al Perez, our BPA account representative to review computer runs on the effects of BPA's announced 2 and 5 year rate proposals which take effect on October 1, 1996. 10. Met Councilor Laws, Gary Brown and Peggy C. to discuss our proposed approach to departmental self studies in response to direction from Budget Committee. 11. Met with Dick W. , Peggy C. and Councilor Laws to discuss various .ways to approach Council goal of communicating with citizens. 12 . Met with Lance Pugh to review his plans for two downtown buildings he recently acquired, and the feasibility of undergrounding electric services. 13 . Met with Ken Mickelson, and Dick Cottle and Art Phillips who own property on the open space plan regarding possible acquisition of their 3 . 4 acre parcel. 14 . Attended second meeting of committee studying the structure of Ashland Community Hospital to hear reports on current problems facing the industry. 15. Attended meeting with Oak Knoll property owners to discuss City position on water levels in irrigation pond and to report on status of application for well drilling permit. 16. Met with three individuals interested in golf course development. 17 . Participated in meeting on OSF/City elevator project. Bid date planned for December 15 with construction to begin in late January. 18. Met with OSF officials and City personnel to discuss electrical outage of the previous week,. and to discuss measures which might minimize future occurrences. 19 . Met with representatives of Edward D. Jones to discuss City investment policies. 20. Met with Communications Committee to discuss plans for a citizen satisfaction survey to be published in the Tidings prior to this winter. 21. Met with Paula Brown, Steve Hall, . Peggy C. and Dick W. to review packet on WWTP which was delivered to Council and Press on Thursday, July 27 . 22 . Attended meeting of city personnel to discuss Central Ashland Bikeway project and plan to acquire R/W from Railtex. 2 23 . Met with representatives of Pacific Power to discuss wholesale power options and related issues. 24 . Participated in Council meeting on July 31 to review_. WWTP alternatives and develop consensus on preferred alternative. 31. Took two days of vacation. STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS: 1. Open Space Program. The Beagle property on North Mountain Avenue has been appraised at $925, 000. This could be a possible school/park acquisition. A meeting was held with family members last month to discuss possible purchase but no response has been received back. We also met with owners of property on Ashland Street near Guthrie to discuss possible purchase. Our revenue stream is now fully committed until 1999 and any purchase would need to have principal payments delayed until then. 2 . Capital Improvement Plan. We have assigned a staff member to this project and hope to have a draft plan for the council to consider by early Summer. III. STATUS OF 1995-96 COUNCIL GOALS: 1. Resolve the funding issue for wildfire fuels reduction. Included in 1995-96 Proposed Budget. Keith Woodley has developed a work program. The first project was recently completed off of upper Morton Street. Other projects will recommence this Winter 2 . Commit to an ongoing matching grant program for LID sidewalk construction in existing neighborhoods, not to exceed $30 , 000 per vear. This is included in the 1995-96 Budget. Kelly Madding and Pam Barlow have developed a list of sidewalks where parkrows are feasible. The list of projects has been finalized and bids are to be opened in mid-August. Construction should begin in early September and take several months to complete. 3 . Prepare plan of options for reduction of dependence on electric utility revenues. Staff conducted a retreat on April 26 to begin to develop options for Council consideration. New developments at BPA and falling power prices may make this issue of lesser priority. 4 . Resolve office building/space needs issue. Planning Director MacLaughlin presented the appraisal report on the Hillah Temple together with an update of costs at the June 19' Council meeting. An executive session was requested to further refine our position on an offer on the Hillah Temple. Due to Council 3 f workload on the WWTP, the executive session will be scheduled during October. 5. Develop and implement a citizen/government communication program which includes citizen input. Staff has been meeting with the ad hoc committee to formulate a program. We will begin with a citizen satisfaction survey to be completed before Winter. This will coincide with the first two department self-study reports, and will be followed by the appointment of a formal communications committee which will include citizen representatives. This committee will meet to review the results of these two initiatives and develop an ongoing program for citizen input and information sharing. NOTES TO STAFF: 1. Research the costs and feasibility of building a physical model of the City for demonstration purposes. (Ken Hagen is presented a prototype at the recent Council study session) 2 . Following TPAC adoption of the transportation plan, Staff is to cost out the various "traffic calming" recommendations and to report to the Council. 3 . Complete Management Compensation Study and present to Council prior to 1995-96 salary recommendations. (Council received on July 5, approved 3% COLA, and requested further refinement of survey instrument prior to 1996-97) 4 . Place on future Council agenda , Councilor Thompson's proposal of declaring Ashland a "Multi-modal City" and installing appropriate signage. (At the June 20 study session, Councilor Thompson requested that this idea be referred to TPAC) 5. The Council concurred with Councilor Law's proposal to hold quarterly meetings with the Planning Commission to review one or more Comprehensive Plan elements. (First meeting was held on May 30) 6. The Council agreed to bring up Councilor Thompson's idea of showing off Ashland/Talent products or services, using economic development grant monies to the Chamber, during the Budget Subcommittee presentation by the Chamber. (Staff wrote letter to Chamber requesting that this matter be placed on their Board agenda this coming Fall) 7 . Investigate the cost and feasibility of setting up a store front for "green products" , e.g. energy efficient lighting. items, phosphate-free dishwasher detergent, etc. ( At the June 20 4 t, study session, Councilor Reid requested that this idea be addressed by the newly-formed Conservation Commission) Brian L• Alm/ st City Admini trator BA:ba 5 ' - 7!7/95 10:36:10 aw"Im July 7, 1995 MEMO To: Bob Schmitt, SUB Mike Charlo, Milton Freewater Dave Bouchard, Forest Grove Brian Almquist, Ashland John Harshman, McMinnville Stan Kenyon, Monmouth From: Tom O'Connor Subject: Canby Withdrawal - Follow-up to OMECA Conference Call I reported the results of our conference call to Jim Coleman's office yesterday. Maggie Daly called me back this morning. She said she had reviewed with Jim the proposed terms of withdrawal as I outlined and said that Jim felt they were what we needed. Those terms include: 1. Effective date of termination will be 9/30/95 2. Canby may obligate 1995 Canby funds through 9/30/95 3. Canby agrees to maintain records required under the Project Implementation Agreement until the earlier of three years after the date of the last invoice or notification of final audit completion by BPA. (See Sect. 14, page 12 of the Implementation Agreement) 4. Incorporation of the "hold harmless" language from the Implementation Agreement (See Sect 27, page 19 of the Implementation Agreement) Jim said the format for the amendment should be a simple deletion of Canby with an exhibit attached that would contain the terms. On his own initiative, and I think wisely, Jim called Jack Hammond, the CUB attorney to review these terms. Jim also raised the point about OMECA retaining the "start-up" funds to offset the legal expenses associated with Canby's request. Hammond's response was that he was fine with all the terms including OMECA's retention of the start up funds ($600). I asked Maggie to give me a rough cost figure for the work associated with this amendment. Timing: Jim's office will draft up amendment and exhibit language for us and have it to me by July 21 to send out to you. Jim will review the draft with Jack Hammond to make sure we don't have any problems. The amendment would then need to be approved by your councils or boards before September 30. f `71 7 " 1 r t 1 July 26, 1995 JUL l r5 - LaTCJ"- CJ MEMO To: OMECA Board Members From: Tom O'Connor Subject: Canby Withdrawal Amendment Attached is Amendment 94, finalized by our attorney Jim Coleman, which allows Canby to withdraw from OMECA as they have requested. The amendment needs to be approved by your governing board along with the other amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement prepared for you earlier as Amendment #3 Jack Hammond, the attorney for Canby has signed off on the amendment.. O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W.Hoyt Street Portland,Oregon 97209 e TELEPHONE (503)222-4402 FAX(503)243-2944 . DATE: July 26, 1995 TO: Tom O'Connor - Project Administrator FROM: Maggie Daly - Legal Assistantpl, RE: Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement and Withdrawal Agreement for Canby Utility Board Enclosed are two originals of the withdrawal agreement for Canby Utility Board. I would suggest that you forward them to Canby for signing with the understanding that once they have signed they will return both originals to OMECA. OMECA will then sign both originals and return one original to Canby. Also enclosed are six originals of the fourth amendment to the intergovernmental agreement. One original should be distributed to each city or utility which needs to approve the amendment with a request that the city or utility return the signed original to OMECA. We have faxed McMinnville's version of Amendment No. 3 to Jim Coleman and we hope to hear from him today. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding these documents. AMENDMENT NO. 4 Pursuant to Section 15 of the Intergovernmental C:A4;iauur. .lgrexu;aut (u;e "Agreement") between the Cities of Ashland, Forest Grove, Milton-Freewater, Monmouth, McMinnville, the Canby Utility Board and the Springfield Utility Board(the"Member Utilities") executed January 27, 1994, as amended by Amendments No. 1, 2 and 3; the governing bodies of the Member Utilities hereby agree to the following: . Section 1. At the inquest of the Canby Utility Board and pursuant to Section 15 of the above-referenced Agreement, the Canby Utility Board is hereby withdrawn from OMECA effective September 30, 1995. The Canby Utility Board is hereby deleted as a "Member Utility" on page 1 of the Agreement and the address of the Canby Utility Board is hereby deleted from Section 20 of the Agreement. Section 2. The terms of withdrawal for the Canby Utility Board are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are incorporated herein by this reference. City of Forest Grove City of Monmouth City of Milton-Freewater Springfield Utility Board City of Ashland City of McMinnville j=Xnimd\o a \nmendw4.0 t, wrMRAWAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANBY Unary BOARD, CANBY, OREGON AND OREGON MUNICIPAL ENERGY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY RECITALS 1. The Canby Utility Board has notified the Oregon Municipal Energy and Conservation Agency (OMBCA) of its desire to withdraw from OMEGA. 2. Canby Utility Board's withdrawal shall be effective September 30, 1995, pursuant to Amendment No. 4 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement forming OMEGA. 3. The Canby Utility Board is a party to the Conservation Project Implementation Agreement ("Implementation Agreement") which sets out certain obligations for both OMECA and the Canby Utility Board. 4. OMECA and the Canby Utility Board(the"Parties") wish to clarify the terns of Canby's withdrawal with regard to the Implementation Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: Section 1: The Parties agree to be bound by the terns of the Conservation Project Implementation Agreement until all Work in Progress has been completed. These terms include, but are not limited to, the reporting requirements in Section 11, audits in Section 13, the recordkeeping requirements in Section 14, inspections in Section 15, evaluations in Section 16 and the hold harmless provisions in Section 27. "Work in Progress" means work for which Canby Utility Board has contracted with a Consumer to install Measure(s),but which Measure(s) have not been completed before September 30, 1995. Section 2: Canby Utility Board may continue to contract with Consumers to install Measures through September 30, 1995. Section 3: Canby Utility Board's last opportunity to establish Obligated Implementation Costs pursuant to Section 9 of the Implementation Agreement shall be in Canby's Member Utility Monthly Report for the month of September, to be filed with OMECA on or before October 10, 1995. Section 4: OMEGA shall only reimburse Canby Utility Board for the cost of installing Completed Units up to the amount of the 1994-95 Fiscal Year Budget for Canby Utility Board. Said budget is on file with OMEGA. Section : Canby Utility Board agrees to keep all records required by the Implementation Agreement until the earlier of three years after the date of the last invoice for the Unit to which such records pertain, or notification of completion of a financial audit of such records by Bonneville Power Administration. Section 6: Canby Utility Board recognizes that its withdrawal from OMECA has caused OMECA to incur unanticipated legal expenses. In order to reimburse OMEGA for a portion or all of the legal expenses, Canby Utility Board hereby agrees that OMEGA shall permanently retain the funds given by Canby Utility Board to OMECA for start up costs. Section 7: The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provisions were omitted. Section 8: In the event any suit, action or other proceeding is brought with regard to this Agreement, or to enforce any of the provisions hereof, the prevailing Party in any such suit, action or other proceeding, or any appeal therefrom, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement in counter parts. OMECA By Name (Print/Type) Date CANBY UTIIITY BOARD By Name (Print/Type) Date jmc\mmd\ome \withdmw.egr r t OTONNELL RAMIS CREW L -ir CORRIGAN & BACHRACH r UN 2 C; 1KI5 _ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W.Hoyt Sveet ,-.--- , Pordand,Oregon 97209 ML- TELEPHONE (503)222-4402 FAX (503)243-2944 DATE: June 16, 1995 TO: OMECA Board FROM: James M. Co4an, Legal Counsel RE: IGA Amendments ` At the Board's June 16, 1995 meeting it considered and sent to the agency members for their consideration the attached proposed amendments to Sections 13, 14 and 22 of the intergovernmental agreement which forms OMECA. At the Board's request I have prepared a brief explanation of the effect of each of the proposed amendments. Section 13 Two separate amendments are proposed for Section 13. The fast dealing with revenue bonds brings the IGA into compliance with the provisions of ORS 190.080(1)(a). In order for OMECA to issue revenue bonds it must fast have the governing body of each member utility approve by resolution or order the issuance of the revenue bonds and this proposed amendment makes that a requirement of this intergovernmental agency. The second amendment deals with allocations of debts, liabilities and obligations of OMECA in the event OMECA assets are insufficient to meet the obligation. In the absence of any provision otherwise in the agreement, the debts, liabilities and obligations of OMECA shall be,jointly and severally, the debts, liabilities and obligations of the parties to the intergovernmental agreement. ORS 190.080(3). ORS Chapter 190 allows for the modification of this allocation. The proposed language will alter that allocation of liability based upon the percentage kilowatt hour sales by a member of the total kilowatt hour sales of all members for the calendar year previous to the debt, liability or obligation accruing. This amendment establishes a set formula for the allocation of these obligations prior to their accrual. In the absence of an allocation such as this the obligations are joint and several for each of the parties. In that situation each party is legally obligated for 100;6 of the obligation, subject to any allocation to other parties which may occur by subsequent agreement or judicial proceeding. No entity can say with certainty what the extent of their obligation under a joint and several agreement would be because the outcome of obligation allocation is determined by the facts of each individual case. This proposed amendment establishes a uniform formula for allocation of O'DONNELL RAMIS CREW CORRIGAN & BACHRACH Memo re: IGA Amendments June 16, 1995 Page 2 an obligation that is based upon the kilowatt hour sales activity of each individual member in relationship to the total kilowatt hour sales of all members combined. While a percentage allocation is not certain, and will vary somewhat from year to year, each member may approximate with some certainty its percentage allocation of any obligation should that occur in the future. This debt allocation section activates only if ON ECA assets are not sufficient to meet obligations. It does not preclude a future reallocation, nor does it amend the termination provisions in Section 16. Section 14 Two amendments are proposed to Section 14, both of which deal with financial matters. The fast allows the Secretary-Treasurer to delegate ministerial functions to the OMECA staff. This amendment will bring the agreement into consistency with the agency's bylaws which allow the Secretary-Treasurer to delegate ministerial functions such as check writing within the limitations of the Board approved budget to staff members. The second change eliminates the requirement that OMECA comply with the Oregon Municipal Budget Law. The Oregon Municipal Budget Law by its terns does not apply to OMECA. There are provisions of the budget law, such as the establishment of a budget committee, and following a July 1 - June 30 fiscal year budgeting process which are not practical for OMECA to follow. OMECA has determined that it makes practical sense to coincide its fiscal year with the federal fiscal year beginning on October 1. This change will allow the Board to establish a budget process and a fiscal year coinciding with the federal fiscal year while maintaining financial records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. OMECA remains subject to the Oregon Municipal Audit Law. Section 22 This amendment to Section 22 simply corrects what appears to be a typographical error in the existing Section 22. It makes no substantive change to the requirement that modifications to the agreement be in writing and signed by all the parties. AMENDMENT NO. 3 Pursuant to Section 15 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement (the "Agreement") between the Cities of Ashland, Forest Grove, Milton-Freewater, Monmouth, McMinnville,the Canby Utility Board and the Springfield Utility Board(the"Member Utilities") executed January 27, 1994, as amended by Amendments No. 1 and 2; the governing bodies of the Member Utilities hereby agree to the following: Section 1. Section 13 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "13. Debts of OMECA. No debts of OMBCA shall be incurred without the approval of the governing bodies of each of the Member Utilities. There are currently no debts of OMECA. It is anticipated that OMECA will not incur any debts or liabilities under the Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement or the Bond Resolution with BPA and that BPA will be solely responsible for the debt service payments on any bonds issued by OMEGA No bends unde t7RS X13$$05 stti 2$$945 shad be �asttett artless, � a pablic 1�artttg, governtng bady csf eac,##tsf the�Uteu �apFroves,l�y�or order; OMl3CA, t#tte ra�#ent.that tltey!1, Oine+�te And e?tC+�ed f)t+:;va�e�+f the dfisets of tjA+l'ECA, sltall bs herded amOrtg the }tarttcs;bAsecl ttpmt the i �rau hour sales �y"cam naemlter �►�`;t�te totAt watt � safes trf all tnembers for the calendar year�14tts fib the ob1�a#ron bc�omutg duc, and tis then: shares;beeoute,tie allanats af'alt rtielitUer pa�ies to tats agr�ment mad a1loCate the #leli#s, ttabtli#tes and �lrgattans of�A rrt a cftFfnt mat>ner n ptztlded by ttus,t5ecxrou <throttglt a separate written agrat srtetttxtAF?tpon ter iYmabon Of.tips ag?ean►ent�fhrc+ugls�?e� Set €ortfl in Section 16 crf this aCeement Section 2. Section 14 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "14. Expenditures. No funds of OMECA shall be expended except upon the vote of the Board and in furtherance of the purposes of OMECA; provided however, that expenditures within the limitations of the Board approved budget ma be made b the Secre Treasurer and therY Treasurer maY; Y Y , delegate the numster�al:functwns,taI iCe toriother persott or.pexst�ns who neecuot}�t3A du�ectars Additional authorized signatures shall include the Chair or Vice Chair, in the event the Secretary-Treasurer is unable to perform. �."he ward slEalt austtute a 1wdget pxveess and z�tawtatn fu�ctal records accn�dance with generally a accot�uttrtg principles;_ Section 3. Section 22 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "22. Modification. No fnedifiea6en of this Agfeefnew shall be invedi �1gtj0ethent% T k�e%�raUc�; s' � $ att"� stgneQ tsy' atk�d Settt�tiY4 t�f'�g`ovtsiyt�ttg;bgd�es of tli8 M�nber 1�tiltties, t that `a'u��ttta�ks tt� a�d eritbei �J�ttzttes tn�axe tnuutetpat, ltes ;may be isxeru�ed#ty;�il m ofd Bo�arcl " ,V, .,,.,. City of Forest Grove City of Monmouth City of Milton-Freewater Springfield Utility Board City of Ashland Canby Utility Board City of McMinnville 7011/amend" MiL2(6/16/96) OMECA JUL 19 1995 4; Oregou lv.unicipel Encr&y and Conservation Agency uL� u July 11 1995 Mr.Paul O'Neal Bonneville Power Administration 703 Broadway, Suite 100 Vancouver,WA 98660 Dear Mr. O'Neal: Thank you for the time you and Vicki English spent on the phone conference with me andaTom O'Connor on July 5 regarding Canby's termination of OMECA membership. It was very helpful to review and discuss the areas affected by this action. As I offered during the call, I am writing to summarize the steps necessary to respond to Canby's request. Although OMECA did not anticipate a member termination during such a short contract,we hope we can make this separation as smooth as possible and continue the positive work with Bonneville for the benefit of the remaining members. The following describes the areas needing modification or amendment,and the parties affected. This is based on my research and discussions with our staff,and Terry Regan at Bonneville. Terry was still reviewing the contract to assure there were no other pertinent areas. I Will assume that she agrees with the item specified below unless notified otherwise. Affected Item Action Needed Parties Involved Project Agreement Amend page 3 to delete Canby Amendment to be edited by and redistribute savings to Bonneville and signed by other members as identified by Bonneville and OMECA OMECA Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment deleting Canby Approval by all ovemin and Exhibit specifying terms of bodies of OMECA member withdrawal utilities. Project Implementation Amendment deleting Canby Approval by all governing Agreement and Exhibit specifying terms of bodies of OMECA member - withdrawal utilities. The terms referenced in the above mentioned Exhibit are,for your information: 1. Effective date of termination will be 9/30/95. 2. Canby may obligate 1995 Canby funds through 9/30/95. 3. Canby agrees to submit reports to OMECA as necessary to complete all obligated projects,and to maintain all records required murder the Project Implementation Agreement until the earlier of three years after the date of the last invoice or notification of final audit completion by BPA. 4. Incorporation of the"hold harmless"language from the Implementation Agreement. One Main Place- 101 SW Main Suite 810 phone: 503-796-1850 Portland,Or 97204 fax: 503-294-1250 In addition to the logistics of a member withdrawal,there is the issue of Canby's budget balance. OMECA's current contract with Bonneville assumes that we would retain the full amount of the intended 1996 Canby implementation budget. This will be much easier than adjusting the contract and bond amounts to reflect the elimination of Canby. Still, $346,000 distributed to six small utilities for one year may be less than a blessing. The risks associated with these funds are: • If they are not fully expended the bonus target for OMECA may not be achieved(an estimated $250,000 loss of flexible `non contract"money). or • The bonus amount will be decreased based on the funds not spent(effect would be up to$12,000 based on current performance). We are currently working on ideas to assure we can acquire cost effective conservation with less participants. These ideas are: 1. Establish the starting capital for an Energy Service Charge approach. 2. Eexpand the type of measures and approaches for conservation via Not Projects. 3. Identify large Industrial projects currently funded directly by Bonneville and transfer responsibility to the OMECA utility as mutually agreed. 4. Consider application of Bandon,or others,as new members. 5. Distribute funds to members in need of additional budget. Items 1 -3 directly involve Bonneville support and approval. I am hopeful you will agree with the appropriateness of these approaches based on the need to maintain the targets for OMECA,as well as the intent of both the contract and Conservation Reinvention at Bonneville for flexibility in program design and approach. It will be critical that this perspective be included to staff in their review and timeliness of response to OMECA requests. OMECA looks forward to developing the foundation this next year to succeed in the area of Demand Side . Management services after 1996. We anticipate a strong continued relationship with Bonneville as we work together to accomplish the future goals with new budget constraints. Thank you for your efforts to facilitate the withdrawal of Canby,and to ease the process of use of the additional funds. Sincerely, Cathy Hi Project Manager cc: Vicki English-BPA Terry Regan-BPA Tom O'Connor- OMECA OMECA Board Members REVISED AMENDMENT NO. 3 Pursuant to Section 15 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation 'Agreement (the . - 'Agreement") between the Cities of Ashland, Forest Grove, Milton-Freewater, Monmouth, McMinnville, the Canby Utility Board and the Springfield Utility Board(the "Member Utilities") executed January 27, 1994, as amended by Amendments No. 1 and 2; the governing bodies of the Member Utilities hereby agree to the following: Section 1. Section 13 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "13. Debts of OMEGA. No debts of OMECA shall be incurred without the approval of the governing bodies of each of the Member Utilities. There are currently no debts of OMECA. It is anticipated that OMECA will not incur any debts or liabilities under the Conservation Project Acquisition Agreement or the Bond Resolution with BPA and that BPA will be solely responsrble for the debt service payments on any bonds issued by OMEGA. l+Io reentr0 bonds uncle t)R ,288 8U5;to 288145 shall lae isttnless, after abhc hearing, the governmig body of each rid the M�rber 1;Tt��c+s approves,by rr"ssrlrtt3on Er grderr the ixs►taEttce of the ttvrattte bands 'The:debts, Itabrs aitd obltgadons of tJMiA, to the extent#bat they > 4rome and ex -the Yahre of the assets of fJISECA, shall be divided a#tong the:;frattces based upon the Vintage 141owatt hmrr sales by each mtber c+f the [plat: tt <haur sales of alt memlexs for the calendar year pVrous to the nblipat(oa 1Umm� > and tnsteaz3 of,�outt attd several ltabztity each stilt shag:shall be ttxal vbltgattot pf drat.member;; The partreS tts this agrc8ment inay allocate[tie debts, Iaisrlities and obltgatwtts of C1MEt':A ra a tttl�'erent sitaniter that[pravtdtd by #tus Sedaari through a wrruen agreement, Or ugott terttrtaGor of thrs ageement tJtmugh the praess set forth In section lh of thls ateemtrttt.:" Section 2. Section 14 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 14. Expenditures. No funds of OMECA shall be expended except upon the vote of the Board and in furtherance of the purposes of OMECA; provided however, that expenditures within the limitations of the Board approved budget may be made b the Secre Treasurer and the Secretary Ys+easrer may Y Y Secretary- x detegate the msmsteriat fitrtrdxons;of the uflice to ar tither person or°pets ors wha need not be f>MBCA rlirrctors. Additional authorized signatures shall include the Chair or Vice Chair, in the event the Secretary-Treasurer is unable to perform. Midget Law. The . 3oard shall rnstituEe a btulgrt praoess and maintatrt fancral records to accortlattce watt getteraty a +Yec1 acrxattutttg ptrtxct Owl. Revised Amendment No. 3 Page 1 Section 3. Section 22 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: "22. Modification. unless in writing and signed by the paffies hereto. j of f#tts �rx�stutattu�"' � �� N,�emb�c'�U ex atne�dm �'aad:�mb�r ` '6 r�''i;i/, i�►� �x��d be C7t�EttLCC�'bj!���tit�Of ttte., //�� City of Forest Grove City of Monmouth City of Milton-Freewater Springfield Utility Board City of Ashland Canby Utility Board City of McMinnville 70114\a adno3.fn3p/36ro3> Revised Amendment No. 3 Page 2 Paoo� Ashlanb lJvlice P epar#ment 1155 E. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 Phone(503)482-5211 N; Z F'O4111 MEa r GARY E. BROWN July 19, 1995 Chief of Police TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gary E . Brown, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Liquor License Application Application has been received from Connie and Michael Robbins dba\Outback Cafe for a LIQUOR license, for an ESTABLISHMENT located at 3070 Highway 66, Ashland. A background investigation has been completed on the applicant and approval of this application is recommended. ARY E. BROWN CHIEF OF POLICE MC:kmh ° � Xttrroltce �Ex#meet# OF aFc 1155 E. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 Phone(503)482-5211 iqi 0 m Z OFp a 5° dS � A gTME GARY E. BROWN July 19, 1995 Chief of Police TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gary E . Brown, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Liquor License Application Application has been received from Connie and Michael Robbins dba\Outback Cafe for a LIQUOR license, for an ESTABLISHMENT located at 3070 Highway 66, Ashland. A background investigation has been completed on the applicant and approval of this application is recommended. rARY7 E.0 BROWN CHIEF OF POLICE MC:kmh t � : � -,- a : � ElttrirfYrtTfixm r EGO, .' .. July 21, 1995 - II- Brian Almquist, City Administrator rem: James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer p 11DjECt: Termination of Easement in Family Circles Subdivision General: The recent platting of the Family Circles Subdivision at the intersection of Randy and Ebabeth Streets revealed the existence of an old sanitary sewer easement. The sewer line was installed in about 1931 (prior to the construction of the wastewater treatment plant)and served as an.wer-flow line to Bear Creek, and has long since been abandoned and/or re-routed. The easement was granted to the City on January 24, 1931,by Henry and Rose Bailey and was recorded in Volume 186, page 381 of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon (see attached copy). The easement diagonally crosses the nordreasteriy comer of Lot 8 of Family Circles Subdivision which affects the buildability of the lot summary. Summary: : - t According to Dam Bamts,Water Quality Supervisor, the sewer line and accompanying easement are no longer necessary. There is no foreseeable future need for the easement. Mr. Gerry Mandell, the developer of Family Circles Subdivision, has provided a quitclaim deed,prepared by Jackson County Title by which the section of the eawnerit through Lot 8 can be terminated and all rights reverted to Gerry Mandell. Action Requested: Would you please sd)edule this request under the consent agenda on the August 1, 1995, City Courxal meeting for approval and authorization for the Mayor and City Recorder to sign the attached quitclaim deed. Auch: Map Quitclaim Deed Original Easement (c:Naginc"ubdivuVwcir&.mcm) NL QUITCLAIM DEED LP-64771 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That...... ...................--..............................................................................hereinafter called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated,does hereby remiss,release and quitclaim ........CARQLYN..A...MANXLL.................................................................................................................... hereinafter called grant",and unto grantee's heirs,succesors and assigns all of the grantor's right,title and interest in that certain real property with the tenements, hereditament, and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining,situated in the County of.......Aarkslan.........................State of Oregon,described as follows,to-wif: All right, title and interest in and to that certain right of Way for the looretrUiction and maintenance of a gewsor line, together with agreements and conditions in connection therewith, Wanted to the City of Ashland, a mmicipel corporation, by instrUment recorded in Volume 186 page 381 of the Deed Records of Jackson C=Yty, Oregon, and as set forth to the recorded plat and declaration, only as it affects tot Eight (8) Of FAMILY C113CLES SUBDIVISION to the City of Ashland, Ja6cagon CoMty, Oregon, according to the official "let thereof, rxw of record. JIF SPACE INSUFFICIENT,CONTINUE DESCRIPTION ON REVERSE SIDE) To Have and to Hold the same unto the grantee and grantee's heirs,successors and assigns forever. The frue and actual Consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is$...NO.M..................... Offow.var, the actual cars;d.reion Consists of or includes other property of value given of promised Which is off a Ille We . to which).O(The senteace betleeeln the wrahell.0,it not appliceble,thou)d be deleted.See ORS 93.030.) consideration(ind,ca In construing this deed, where the Context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be made so that this dead shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals. In Witness Whereof,the grantor has executed this instrument this._...._......day of..................................119........; if a corporate grantor, it has Caused its name to be signed and its seal,it any,affixed by an officer or other person duly authorized thereto by Order of its board of directors. CITY OF ASHLAND THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DE. .................................................................... SCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND BY- USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING ............................................................. THIS ENSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACOUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE BY- PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR "COUNTY PUNNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. STATE OF OREGON,County of........ ..............................)ss. II This;.sIru.onf was acknowledged before me on.....................................................J9........, by........... .....:.................................................................................................................................... This instrument was acknowledged before me on.................................................. 119........ by....C.Alli.E.R.I.N.E...GOLDEN....and BARBARA......................C.H.R.l.S.T.IA.N.S-ON......................... ....... ax..._ YOR and CITY....F.Z.EC0RJ.).E.R................................................................... .1. ............................................... ..................................................................... ............................................................j�........................................ 'eery Public for Oregon My commission expires............................................................ CITY OF ASHLAND .................................................................................. STATE OF OREGON, SS. ................................................................................. County of........................*.....­----*----I ........................... ............................. I certify that the within instrument ... was received for record on the....._...day .-..CERRY..,&..C.AMLYri.14ANDELJ........................... of.................................................19........at ..................................................................................... .................o'clock.......M.,and recorded in ............................ .............................. bookIrcellvolumallo...................on page Alft, ..c...I....c .......................•and or as fee lfile tinstru- JACKSON TN� DIVISION mean/microfilm/reception No.................. Record of Deeds of said County. ....................... .......... ..... ....................................................................................... Witness my hand and seal of I..—.A,ll—,V'J'" County affixed. .............................................................................. ................................................................ ........................................................... v;TLC BY-7 ............................._..........,Deputy - ------------------------------------- -------- ------------------- I N I M I I to 1 tD I I co I [ I13 :: 330 11a [ [ ] 32LIli3iJ112 ] Lil ] iiiiit ll : i ] • Jia : : l : . : is ] : I< i L: l iL pp_ _ 2 e eic if;t 1 S c i c S1jf S t 11 ;tl cci 1j ie fil . =,ec:. sai 1e i 4lPeciifeit3i 17cicE siatc tl 6cc { te t1c11sc )jt! ! e; + c] Ic / • 545; i � ill li9 ' 111 � � �� ! l ll � ll i � itl lfil!!!!il iltllll� � 31PPI6 � Itfr� lP111�II33 /, E5s5iSS lLL fiiLltii Y ri S t1 C [C ! P1 tl �C i / 7c C?tl / C/ S f .•./L-+_. � � I Y f . c • Y c c / { ct 1CC r � i ; Il11: ltll3l � � 1 !! liiiFl �� � llillll ! ititi /' __;� \ t �; — . : i: it[I32 JL . I C : 330 :eicii Jiei ] iJeteeit L '3 1 / i • ctl ; src t tl t c c 1 ff + ii tl ]I � f ja ! 1 crt � il5ggtrltc • �+ � „� tirP3l 11ld � itll llll19lI � I # Fiji { 3ii11I711 � — � ' � _ i icLt3 tctici i : :i ,I ~ itltlptli Iti1l iF I l F I; IIl1l3t ! !! 3!s ! 9 � 1 H`���y�j�I3! ��•..w )[ _ ZiR 1 M T F L�l al ` i33 iiii (JOIE It, •` Z ` moo ^ p w(�t L� - It _ 11Iiilfl � I : sr - � -� C }— omiCe` __ - V I F ` � � dCl�-`•'t"'°--'������� :i ]c:: i : tiiie : iii 1 ill k t 0 r tl Sf J R !t �¢i7ci9cll±a it if i7/ '� •Q / L F tdjq +f fq �if FCFtfFic f ) yj' `~_ �a J r '�� i11F1kFiils HIM m . Q I II :333:f: 3 is 111: :] J : : OCitieitcl _ ! f ��--- ljc%I[i 'I'llf+"lit s6tcti t }st gittlltl Q /� itii xee] I!!31!l��1�II1111liI� 11l3IIl� r Q t C tltl _ i is il:i i:: : i: lt LCf9t a tlticl iltl ItlsictltllitltlFlittllttlFtlitlitttitl � fIin li'ld"1111H1l111 ! ! l111l1 ; I N 1 M I 'a I 3A I to I 1 co I Ir 1 1 EASEMENT TERMINATION REQUEST ............... 50.49 41.50 — —� 2 .5 23 5 113.65 O lh \� I I hall. Boni I 7.a of I m 6 .o Iw 'o.� I n � rnl ..Lot 5 I e Lot 4 Im" -0 °i I 6776 sq ft 14 4493 sq ff I A a �P :lE Cb e 0. a I _ 1 I 50'01 *04'W 113.66 to ••' L; ' I K3 — 5' PUE for Irri_jofion Line.— 3 rrj U a1 u I — — — — - - Im: q ft LA I Ln - — — — — — — — - - CI � Lot 6 e 99 J0.05 13.5 23.5 B°�t 519-W. 0: 14 6778 sq ft 19. 95 I I ELIZABETH NAVE. 50'01 '10'W 113.67 � I I � n I I / " Lot .7 I e ot o u n I 1' Iron prp a ./ 5/8' I a I 6778 sq ft I pin insrC� NO'01 '47'E. a n 4 Initial Pt . CEDAR i SUBD. to be replcced iron pi a e/ 2' bress . kd. L. 'FRIAR s ASSOC. I EASEMENT TO BE TERMINATED I tn. case offer nee rccd •ruction. i 23. 5 . 1 23. 5 _ I 111.68 6' Pin to Pin i„ _I SO601 '1W 113.68 to i o I E �I CL Soni fury Se.sr ecser.ent � Z er V. 186. P.381 . JCD.q. I c N ni Pi. eidth stated. �L•` _�•` ' Ca e l L o t 8 ii `j a i I 6779 sq ft S�.S INIy. SE corner of Doc;.;�.:bz1 d� I as- 13830. ORJCO. I 23. 5 73. 5 _ — — — �....... a3—. 1 5 ' PUE _ SCALE: 1"=30' GERRY MANDELL, APPLICANT JULY 24, 1995 RIGHT OF WAY DEED. THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH, That Henry Bailey, and Rose wife, Bailey, hielfor and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR and other good and sufficient consideration. to thempaid and the receipt of which is hereby admitted,have bargained and sold, and by this instrument do. hereby grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the City of Ashland, a municipal corpo- ration of the State of Oregon,. a right of way for the con- struction and maintenance of a sewer line over and across the lands of the Grantor herein on the following course: Beginning at a point on the North line of Donation Land Claim No. 40 in Township 39 South of Range One East of the W. M., in Oregon, which. point is 835 feet East of the.Northwest corner of said D. L. C. No. 40; Thencg North 310 West a dis- tance of 700 feet, more or lose, to an intersection with the South side line of Nevada Street at a point 745 feet East of the East side line of D. L.C. No. 38. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described right=of-way unto the City of Ashland, its successors and assigns forever. The City of Ashland, as the consideration for this right-of-way deed and by the acceptance of the same, agrees that II it will construct said sewer line in a good and proper manner i laying the said sewer line at least three feet in depth at all 1 points in order that the same will not interfere in any respect with the tilling of the land over which it crosses, and the City of Ashland agrees to be responsible for any and all damage to �Icrops caused through the breakage, leakage or maintenance of said sewer line, and the City of Ashland further agrees that the _ 1 construction of said sewer line sball be done in such a manner as will do the least possible damage to the crops growing on the lands over which said sewer line shall pass and agrees that the trench for said sewer line shall be filled and tamped in order jto place the land back again in an even condition. Page 1. I i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantors have hereunto set.t^eir handsand sealsthis 24th day of January, 1931. I STATE OF OREGON ss. JAC%SON COUNTY on this, the 24th.day, of January, 1931, before me, tbe.undersigned, a Notary Public in �Bailey,the histwifef Oregon, Personally appeared Henry Baile,y,and:Rose 1..I., to me personally known and to me known to be the identical personsdescribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and :they,:duly I acknowledged to me thattheyexecuted the same. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal on the date in this I certificate first abofe written. I I. Notary Public for n• Yy coa_ission expires: Parch 18th, 1931. i ,Z1 O > K — to x n E M' 0 tj y. T FROM 641 HIOUERP ST 07.26. 1995 14:42 P. I Crawford ultari & Starr planning • archlt cture public policy i FAX COVER SHEET DATE: J ly 26, 1995 TO: C of Ashland ATTN: M or Golden and City Council FAX 488-5311 r AX No.: ( 3) PROJECT: FROM: L urine Harwell C awford Multarl 8 Starr 6 1 Higuera Street, Suite 202 S n Luis Oblepo, CA 93401 ( 5) 541.3848 T send a FAX, use (805) 541-9260 Original to follo by Next Day UPS. Thank You Number of pages, Including this cover sheet: FROM 641 HIOUERR 5T 07.26. 1995 14:42 P. 2 Crawford Multari t& Starr pinnnin.1 - urn 1 oinks I'tubIIc policy July 24, 1995 Mayor olden and ity Council City of Ashland By fax: 503-489-5311 Dear Mayor Goldei i and City Council, We would like to take this opportunity to respond in writing to key issue.,;raised so far at the ' hearing on the East Main Annexation Request. As we noted in our previous comments, we perceive some dissatisfaction by the Council with rtjgard to the City's affordability standards. Obviously, our prgjuct should not he faulted because we agreed to meet Ashland's adopted standards. However, if the Council wants to devise a molt' aggressive affordable housing program in conjunction with annexations, we are quite happy to work with you to go beyond your adopted standards. Here are a few ideas: 1) We could provide the affordable units at prices even lower than the City's current standards, 2) We could p vide a greater number of affordable units; in fact, the property owners could provide as r itich as 10(1%, affordable units if modular construction (not mobile homes) were.a]lowt id. 3) We could ir iplement continued affordability provisions(restrictions on the re-sale prices and on the i icomes of future buyers). A serious impediment to this in the past has been the reluctance of hanks to finance home loans with deed restrictions, second mortgages or other limits ions on re-sale. The developers are willing to commit up to$4.0 million toward priv ite financing of the affordable units. This is a remarkable program that would give modes income households a truly unique opportunity to buy affordable housing, while still ii riplementing Lite controls that am apparently desired by the City. 4) Then; may v other options the City is interested in. Let's discuss them, 1 have personal experience vith a variety of affordable housing programs;I was on the hoard of di=tors of a non-pr fit housing corporation for several years which built low income for-sale and rental units in small towns in California's Central Coast region. In sum, we utter a unique chance to do something truly innovative for affordable housing in Ashland. To realizz that,however, we need to enter a dialogue with the City to learn about what you really want. As we discussed,our contention has heen that the change to residential from cot nmercial on the southerly eight acres made sense because of the environmental constraints on that bortion of the site: steep topography, riparian and wetlands areas, and oak trees. 'rhis seem to us a basis for finding that retaining these eight acres in C-1 was, in fact, a planning mistake at warranted correction by designation to a lower intensity land use. Although some limited corn ercial uses may be feasible on the site, it is not prime commercial land and its subtraction from thr City inventory will not he a significant loss. FROM 641 HIOUERR 5T 07.26. 1995 14:42 P. S July 24, /yo Mayor and City Couni ii Page 2 Furthermore,condi dons have changed in that the adjacent motel property was subdivided off several years ago, l vtng the steepest,most wooded and most environmentally sensitive area as a remainder in C-1. This argues for re-wining to a less intensive land use. Of course, we have also assumed that the City's desire for affordable housing indicated a public need that could he i iet by the project,facilitated by the re-zoning. Only one of these c 'teria needs to be met. We,staff and Planning Commission believed that the findings could be n ado supporting one or more of the criteria as discussed above. However, this deei ion is strictly the Council's. If you feel that the re-zoning is not appropriate. we can adjust our c itline plan,accordingly. The portion of our site now zcmed C-1 would contain only a relatively fe units (respecting the site constraints noted above) and is not nmessary for a viable residential p oject on the portion designated residential by the comprehensive plan. The issue raised above underscores our rationale for bringing the annexation/re-zon' g questions to the City Council prior to finaliAng the details of the outline plan with the Planning( 'ommission. At the Commission level, we were discussing such plan details as change.~ to the prec se geographic distribution of the affordable units in the project,the numhcrs of units in each phase among some others. A decision by the Commission had to be postponed because of a City noticing mistake(a conditional use permit was not included in the description of the action). While ill these details are important, time,money and effort would be. misdirected if some of the basic p anning parameters were changed (such as keeping the southern eight acres commercial). As C ouncilor Winthrop noted, the annexation decision is the dog wagging the tail of the various other c mponents of this application. Thus,we thought it would be more efficient to got direction on the annexation (and re-zoning)and then return to the Commission to work through the outline plan det dis. We have read the letters from the County and from ODOT. As we mebtioned et the heea�rd'itng,we agree to install the County-requested improvements (even though " your staff and Planning Commission would not require full installation as a condition of approval). Likewise, we unde stand that the East Main - Highway 66 intersection will need to be reconfigured and improved. We fully expect, and agree to, as a condition of approval that we will contribute our proportional sh toward those intersection improvements. (Please six:our previously submitted draft fik ings for more information about road capacities.) Water. The SRC,Inc. report commissioned by the City,lust a few years ago concluded that the City has adequate supplies to serve an increase of over 4000 additional persons,about ten times more residents than would be expected in our project at build out. As you are aware,the treatment capacity of the Cit is being expanded;renovation and expansion is expected to he completed next year,before any ph ise of this project could be built. With regard to pipe ines, the conditions of approval require and we agree to extending the water main in East Main. )serve the project and to install an 8-inch main within the project site itself. We might add that i he City has asked us to oversize the line in East Main because it would help complete the City-N dde looping system...it seems ironic that this situ would be deemed isolated and not a part of the ov tall City, but ask us to oversize the line running long the piopiirty because it would help complc a the system wide plan. (Please sec our draft findings for morointormation.) $ylwar, The project is expected to utilize about one percent of the remaining capacity of the sewer treatment plant. A ewer main with adequate;capacity already runs adjacent it)the property in East Main. (Please sce our draft findings for more information.) FROM 641 HIOUERR ST 07. 26. 1995 14:43 P. 4 July 24, 1995 Mayor and City couno it Page Schools. Based on discussions with school district staff, the project will not"uire the construction of a n w school as some have contended. In fact, the district indicated that there is adequate capacity i i the elementary school and high school. Then;is an overcrowded condition in the middle school, ut the district has a plan to relieve this overcrowding by creating additional 6th grade classes at Ox(elementary schools. The district xuperi tendent does not oppose the project and notes that the schools will in fact receive more fundig from the Stale if the number of students increases Also,City plannin staff indicated that the City demographic profile appears to he shifting to smaller households and older residents with fewer children. Thus,the trend will he an overall decrease in pmssur a on the exisdn&school facilities. This phenomenon has been experienced in other areas where I gher housing pnces coupled with an increasing retirement population reduce the numhers of yo ger families in a community. (Please sec our draft findings for more information.) A3@pn, A portion f the site is in the airport overlay zone. A significant portion of that will be left in open space becai se of trees,riparian areas and steep slopes. We expect as a condition of approval, and agree to,meeting applicable requirements for development within the overlay zone, Furthermore, with egard to noise, there are well known design techniques(extraordinary window overhangs, insulati n)which are used in areas near airports to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Furthermo , all house purchasers will he required to sign acknowledgements of the proximity to the ai on, as required by the overlay zone. We will extend that requirement to the entire project, inclu ling the homes (most of them)outside the zone. Pedestrian and Rik�was- As we have discussed at length in previous correspondence,we are willing to provide i significant contribution toward extraordinary pedestrian and bike access over the freeway it'dccn ed necessary by the City. There appear to be a number of different options worth exploring fu or. We can not give a precise dollar amount at this time because we am unsure what the ful list of requirements imposed by the City (including for example, affordability requirements beyot d those set forth in your adopted standards). As 1 said at the meeting, if the project would he a Qtable provided that such access is accommodated,please so indicate and we will engage in the a drtional engineering feasibility/cost estimates necessary to evaluate the various options. We know that a stark freeway noise wall would he unacceptable. We do not want such a sin cture nor is it what we proposed. There are ways to reduce freeway noise on adjacent properties without resorting to that kind of design; in our plan we have included x landscaped hufi'er (primarily for screening), a combination of berm, wall and garages (although these wil be hidden by the landscaped buffer),and deep lots with the houses located away from the rear roperty lines. In combination,these features will provide comfortable living areas and an aesthc ically pleasing appearance from both inside and outside the project. The "distance analysis" submitted at the last meeting shows the approximate distan es from our site to various commercial facilities (as well as other kinds of services) and comp ims them to statistics for other significant, vacant R-I sites (using the City's draft vacant lands n iap,dated 6/5/95). It clearly shows that the subject site is well within the range o1 distances for oth r properties inside the existing City limits and is actually slightly closer than the average. We also note that rii irsite is immediately adjacent to C-1 property(including two vacant parcels which we are "stuh)ing out" a road to). FROM 641 HIOUERH 5T 07.26. 1995 14144 P. 5 July 24, 1945 Mayor and City Comn4 it Page 4 lastly,although it s not our preference,some have discussed keeping all or it portion of the southerly eight ac s on site to C-1. In sum,compared many other existing, as well as possible future,residential areas in the City, our silt: is relativel close to commercial facilities. x,11 T,_ w_� n Atm We can only reiterate that the site is within the urban growth boundary a d is designated for single family residential in the City's comprehensive plan. Our site plan incluc os innovative (hardly typical suburban)design by minimizing road widths: placing garages at t ie rear of the lots;employing alleys to improve the appearance and neighborliness of d a front yards; including front porches and orienting interior activity areas and windows toward th front of the house to increase the chances for neighborhood interaction. We have include small arks to provide gathering places,play areas for kids and to provide pretty Places within the s t scape. A significant portion of the site is in open space—the density and layout is not "gree ...which will provide a significant environmental and aesthetic benefit. The neighborhood will compact. pleasant,and attractive. The topography an location are such that this new neighborhood will not directly impact existing residential areas wi new street traffic or congestion;the site is above East Main so it will not be visible-- the view ong East Main will be similar to how it looks today because much of the hillsides will he un uched by the project. The project provide s for a mix of housing costs,ranging from the affordable units (offered at below market rates to what we think will he much more expensive homes on lots with views to the east and adjace t to our open spaces, and a wide variety to between. It is not going to be economically ham geneous. In the larger contex of appropriate growth areas,it seems that putting new homes in a well designed, relativel compact neighborhood,adjacent w the existing City,cloy to regional transportation facil •es, proximate to municipal services (water,sewer, transit,eta), near existing urbanized develop ent(eg: the adjacent motels and nearby shopping centers), and yet having minimal impacts o existing cstab$shed neighborhoods makes a lot of sense. The alternative that has been suggested by some -- subdividing the property into large lot "estates" on individual wells and septic -- appea to us precisely the kind of growth that truly threatens the agricultural and rural ambiance in the lar er, regional perspective. There was some discussion about the effect of this development on property values. It is reasonable to expect that if the City prohibits annexations, for whatever reasons, that land v lues within the City limits will increase. This may have a beneficial impact on existing home own rs, but it will also make the possibility of providing more all'ordable housing difficult. Contract Alantexati This was raised as a preferred approach. We have indicated to the staff and to the Planning Co mission that we are open to whatever process the City prefers. SuMmary- 1) We have pr cd on this project in good faith and have carefully met all City eq ruirement s. In many instances we have gone beyond the minimums. FROM 641 HIOUERR ST 87.26. 1995 14s 45 P. 6 Jury 24, 1995 ' Mayor and City Cuum it Page 5 2) Because of he philosophy of the owners and because of their financial situation relative to this propert ,they are willing to work with the City to take extraordinary measures with regard to pr Dject design,public improvements and facilities,and affordable housing. 3) After many months of work and substantial expenditures of time and money,we hope the City will ognize this as an opportunity to work with us to plan a special neighborhood, andwill can ge in a discussion of how we can proceed with a project on this land in a way that truly efits Ashland. Thank you, We a looking forward to resuming the heating next Tuesday. Sincerely, �jvc�rlc Michael Multari (on behalf or Doug and Diamond D) cc: Doug l.ec John Hasse I i *••END•+• Aemorttndum " '• July 27, 1995 a. Mayor and City Council r ram. 11 Councilors Steve Hauck and Brent Thompson �uY�Qtl: Proposed Campaign Finance Ordinance You have in your packets the proposed Campaign Finance ordinance. This rather lengthy (alright, definitely lengthy) ordinance drew upon elements from Measure 9 and other cities in the country that have done something similar. It establishes campaign contribution limits for city elections and proposes a voluntary expenditure limit. The carrot for agreeing to the expenditure limit is an increase in the size of allowable contributions. It lays out enforcement procedures and deals with independent and personal expenditures in candidate campaigns. We feel that we have fully implemented the goals we outlined in our previous memo .on this subject. The ordinance sets contribution levels at $50 per person and $100 for PACS. The voluntary expenditure limits are $2,500 for campaigns for city offices and $5,000 for measure elections. If a campaign agrees to abide by the expenditure limit, contributions that campaign may accept go up to $100 per person and $200 per PAC. A candidate or political committee is not bound by the expenditure limit if an opposing candidate or political committee does not agree to the limit or exceeds the limit. If a candidate spends more than 508 of the established limit from personal funds, all opposing candidates for the same office are freed from contribution limits, but not from the expenditure limit. If independent expenditures are made in favor or opposition to a candidate that exceed 258 of the expenditure limits, all candidates for the same office are freed from the expenditure limit until similar expenditures are made for these candidates. We are requesting that Council review the proposed ordinance, make any changes deemed necessary in the text and then set a public hearing and first reading of the ordinance for the August 15 City Council meeting. We feel this is a positive step forward in ensuring that our elections process in Ashland remains as open to the public as it has been in the past and may serve as a model for other local governments in Oregon. tr:c�;mc�.vs.�m i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 2.41 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING CONTRIBUTION AND SPENDING LIMITS FOR CANDIDATES FOR CITY OFFICES AND FOR CITY MEASURES. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following chapter is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: Chapter 2.41 CONTRIBUTION & SPENDING LIMITS FOR CANDIDATES FOR CITY OFFICES AND FOR CITY MEASURES Sections: 2.41.010 Definitions 2.41.020 Contribution and Expenditure Exclusions 2.41.030 Contribution Limits 2.41.040 Expenditure Limit Definitions 2.41.050 Expenditure Limits 2.41.060 Declaration of Limits on Expenditures . 2.41.070 Expenditures Not Qualifying as an Independent Expenditure 2.41.080 Procedures and Appeals 2.41.090 Penalties 2.41.100 City Recorder Responsibilities 2.41.110 Publication 2.41.120 Definition of Single Political Committee 2.41.130 Personal and Independent Expenditures 2.41.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section unless from the context a different meaning is intended. A. "Candidate" means: 1. An individual whose name is printed on a ballot, for whom a declaration of candidacy or nominating petition has been filed, who requested a tally of write-in votes under ORS 249.007 or whose name is expected to be or has been presented with the individual's consent, for election to public office; 2. An individual who has solicited or received and accepted a contribution, made an expenditure, or given consent to an individual, organization or political committee to solicit or receive and accept a contribution or make an expenditure on the individual's behalf to secure election to any public office at any time, whether or not the office who which the individual will seek election is known when the solicitation is made, the contribution received and retained or the PAGE 1-DISCUSSION DRAFT (F:ord\camvei9n.724) expenditure is made, and whether or not the name of the individual is printed on the ballot; or 3. A public office holder against whom a recall petition has been completed and filed. B. Except as provided in section 2.41.020, 1. "contribute" or "contribution" includes: a. The payment, loan, gift, forgiving of indebtedness, or furnishing without equivalent compensation or consideration, of money, services other than personal services for which no compensation is asked or given, supplies, equipment or any other thing of value: L For the purpose of influencing an election for public office or an election on a measure or of reducing the debt of a candidate for election to public office or the debt of a political committee; or ii. To or on behalf of a candidate, political committee or measure; and b. Any unfulfilled pledge, subscription, agreement or promise, whether or not legally enforceable, to make a contribution. 2. Regarding a contribution made for compensation or consideration of less than equivalent value, only the excess value of it shall be considered a contribution. C. "Elector"means an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article II, Oregon Constitution. D. Except as provided in section 2.41.020, "expend" br "expenditure" includes the payment or furnishing of money or any thing of value or the incurring or repayment of indebtedness or obligation by or on behalf of a candidate, political committee or person in consideration for any services, supplies, equipment or other thing of value performed or furnished for any reason, including in support of or in opposition to a candidate, political committee or measure, or for reducing the debt of a candidate for election to public office. "Expenditure" also includes contributions made by a candidate or political committee to or behalf of nay other candidate for public office or political committee. E. "Independent expenditure" means an expenditure by a person for a communication expressly advocating the election of a clearly identified candidate that is not made with the cooperation or with the prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or authorized committee of the candidate. As used in this subsection: 1. "Agent' means any person who has: a. Actual oral or written authority, either express or implied, to make or to authorize the making of expenditures on behalf of a candidate; or b. Been placed.in a position within the campaign organization where it would reasonably appear that in the ordinary course of campaign related activities the person may authorize expenditures. 2. "Clearly identified" means: a. The name of the candidate involved appears; b. A photograph or drawing of the candidate appears; or c. The identity of the candidate is apparent by unambiguous reference. PAGE 2-DISCUSSION DRAFT (P:ara\ca.Pafgn.724) 3. "Expressly advocating" means any communication containing a message advocating election or defeat, including but not limited to the name of the candidate, or expressions such as "vote for," "elect," "support," .'cast your ballot for," or .,vote against," "defeat" or "reject." 4. "Made with the cooperation or with the prior consent of, or in consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or authorized committee of the candidate": a. Means any arrangement, coordination or direction by the candidate or the candidate's agent prior to the publication, distribution, display or broadcast of the communication. An expenditure shall be presumed to be made so when it is: i. Based on information about the candidate's plans, projects or needs provided to the expending person by the candidate or by the candidate's agent, with a view toward having an expenditure made; or ii. Made by or through any person who is, o'r has been, authorized to raise or expend funds, who is, or has been, an officer of a political committee authorized by the candidate or who is, or has been, receiving any form of compensation or reimbursement from the candidate, the candidate's principal campaign committee or agency; and b. Does not include providing to the expending person upon request a copy of this chapter or any rules adopted by the recorder relating to independent expenditures. F. "Labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and that exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work. G. "Measure" includes any of the following submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at an election: 1. An amendment to the City Charter; 2. A proposed city ordinance; 3. A referendum regarding a city ordinance; 4. A proposition or question. H. "Person" means an individual or a corporation, association firm, partnership, joint stock company club, organization or other combination of individuals having collective capacity. I. "Political committee" means a combination of two or more individuals , or a person other than an individual, that has received a contribution or made an expenditure for the purpose of: 1. Supporting or opposing a candidate or measure; or 2. Making independent expenditures in support of or in opposition to a candidate or measure. J. "Public office" means any city office or position that is filled by the electors. K. "With respect to a single election" means, in the case of a contribution to a candidate for public office: 1. The next election to that public office, after the contribution is made; or PAGE 3-DISCUSSION DRAFT (p:ord\cemveian.7241 2. In the case of a contribution made after an election and designated in writing by the contributor for the previous election, the election so designated. A contribution may be designated for a previous election under this subsection if the contribution does not exceed the expenditure deficit of the candidate or principal campaign committee of the candidate receiving the contribution. 2.41.020 Contribution and Expenditure Exclusions. As used in this chapter, "contribute," "contribution," "expend" or "expenditure" does not include: A. Any written. news story, commentary or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, unless a political committee owns the facility; B. An individual's use of the individual's own personal residence, including a community room associated with the individual's residence, to conduct a reception for a candidate, and the cost of invitations, food and beverages provided at the reception; C. A vendor's sale of food and beverages for use in a candidate's campaign at charge less than the normal comparable charge, if the charge is at least equal to the cost of the food or beverages to the vendor; D. Any unreimbursed payment for travel expenses an individual makes on behalf of a candidate; E. Any loan of money made by a state bank, a federally chartered depository institution or a depository institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration, other than any overdraft charge made with respect to a checking or savings account, if the loan bears the usual and customary interest rates for the category of loan involved, is made on the basis that assures repayment, is evidenced by a written instrument and is subject to a due date or amortization schedule. Each endorser or guarantor of the loan, however, shall be considered to have contributed that portion of the total amount of the loan for which the person agreed to be liable in a written agreement, except if the endorser or guarantor is the candidate's spouse; F. Any nonpartisan activity designed to encourage individuals to vote or to register to vote; G. Any communication a membership organization or corporation makes to its members, shareholders or employees if the membership organization or corporation is not organized primarily for the purpose of influencing an election to office; and H. The payment of compensation for legal and accounting services rendered to a candidate if the person paying for the services is the regular employer of the individual rendering the services and the services are solely for the purpose of insuring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. 2.41.030 Contribution Limits. With respect to a single election: A. A person or political committee shall not contribute an aggregate amount exceeding: 1. For a person, $50 to a candidate or principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of mayor, city councilor, municipal judge or recorder or to any political committee organized exclusively to support or to oppose any measure. PAGE 4-DISCUSSION DRAFT (P:ora\c..Paign.724( 2. For a political committee, $100 to a candidate or principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of mayor, city councilor, municipal judge or recorder or to any political committee organized exclusively to support or to oppose one or more measures. t - B. For candidates and political committees who adopt the expenditure limits as defined in section 2.41.040, a person or political committee shall not contribute an aggregate amount exceeding: 1. For a person, $100 to a candidate or principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of mayor, city councilor, municipal judge or recorder or to any political committee organized exclusively to support or to oppose any measure. 2. For a political committee, $200 to a candidate or principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of mayor, city councilor, municipal judge or recorder or to any political committee organized exclusively to support or to oppose one or more measures. C. With respect to a single election, an individual under 18 years of age shall riot contribute an aggregate amount exceeding $25 to any single candidate. D. A candidate, principal campaign committee or other political committee shall not accept a contribution in excess of the limits contained in this section. E. Nothing in this section shall limit the amount a candidate may contribute from the candidate's personal funds to the candidate or the candidate's principal campaign committee. Subject to section 2.41.050, a candidate may make unlimited expenditures from personal funds. . 2 41 040 Expenditure Limit Definitions. As used in sections 2.41.040 to 2.41.090: A. "Attributable expenditure means an expenditure from contributions, including any loans received, including accounts payable, made or authorized: 1. By the candidate or a person acting for the candidate;L - 2. For the treasurer of the candidate or the candidate's principal campaign committee; 3. For another person or political committee under the direction or control of the candidate or the treasurer of the candidate or the candidate's principal campaign committee. B. "Attributable expenditure" does not include an expenditure that is a repayment on a loan or an independent expenditure. C. "Recorder" means the City Recorder. D. "With respect to the special or primary election" means the period beginning on the date that the name of a treasurer is certified to the recorder under ORS 260.035 or 260.037 or the day following the last day of the accounting period for a previous statement of contributions received or expenditures made if the statement shows an expended balance of contributions or an expenditure deficit, and ending on the 20th day after the date of the special or primary election. E. "With respect to the general election" means the period extending from the date the name of a treasurer for the candidate or the principal campaign committee of the candidate is certified to the recorder and ending on December 31. PAGE 5-DISCUSSION DRAFT (a:ora\cacaian.724) 2.41.050 Expenditure Limits. A. A candidate for public office may file a declaration of limitation on expenditures as described in section 2.41.060 with the recorder stating that the candidate, including the principal campaign committee of the candidate, will not make attributable expenditures in excess of $2,500 for any public office. B. The treasurer of a political committee organized exclusively to support or to oppose one or more measures may file a declaration of limitation on expenditures as described in section 2.41.060 with the recorder stating that the political committee will not make attributable expenditures in excess of $5,000 for any measure. C. For purposes of this section, attributable expenditures made prior to the applicable special, primary or general election reporting period in consideration for goods to be delivered or services to be rendered solely during the special, primary or general election reporting period shall be charged against the expenditure limits described in subsections A and B of this section in the reporting period during which the goods or services are delivered. D. A candidate or political committee described in subsections A and B of this section who have filed a declaration under this section stating that the candidate or committee will not make attributable expenditures with respect to the special, primary and general election in excess of the limits described in subsections A and B of this section shall not be bound by the declaration if any opposing candidate or political committee for the same public office or measure at the same election has not filed a declaration indicating that the candidate or political committee will limit expenditures or has filed the statement but has made expenditures exceeding the applicable limit. E. The recorder is authorized to adjust annually on April 1st of each year the expenditure limits imposed by this section to account for inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumer Portland Index (CPI-U) December to December. 2.41.060 Declaration of Limits on Expenditures. A. The declaration of limits on expenditures filed under section 2.41.050 shall certify that with respect to the special, primary or general election, the candidate or the principal campaign committee of the candidate or political committee will not incur attributable expenditures in excess of the applicable expenditure limit described in section 2.41.050. B. The recorder shall prescribe forms for the filing of the information required by this section. The forms shall also include: 1. The name of: a. The candidate by which the candidate is commonly known and by which the candidate transacts important private or official business; or b. The treasurer and the committee name for any political committee formed exclusively for the support of or the opposition to one or more measures. 2. The mailing address of: a. The residence of the candidate; or b. The treasurer of the political committee. 3. The signature of: a. The candidate; or b. The treasurer of the political committee. C. The declaration shall be filed with the recorder: PAGE 6-DISCUSSION DRAFT (a:wd\camPefan.724) 1. For a candidate, not later than the date the candidate files the name of the candidate's campaign treasurer; and 2. For a political committee, not later than the date that the name of a treasurer is certified to the recorder under ORS 260.035 or 260.037. 2 41 070 Expenditures Not Qualifying as an Independent Expenditure:A. An expenditure not qualifying as an independent expenditure shall be considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate or the principal campaign committee of the candidate or political committee and an expenditure by the candidate or the principal campaign committee of the candidate or political committee. B. For purposes of section 2.41.050, the amount of an expenditure not qualifying as an independent expenditure shall count against the expenditure limits of the candidate or political committee for whose benefit the expenditure was made. C. For purposes of the contribution limitations established by section 2.41.030, the amount of an expenditure not qualifying as an independent expenditure shall count against the contribution limits of the person or political committee making the expenditure. D. No person, including a candidate or political committee, shall report an expenditure as an independent expenditure if the expenditure does not qualify as an independent expenditure under section 2.41.010.E. 2 41 080 Procedures and Appeals. A. With respect to any election, the recorder shall examine each contribution and expenditure statement of each candidate and political committee who filed a declaration of limitation on expenditures under section 2.41.050 to determine whether any candidate or political committee exceeded the applicable expenditure limit. If the recorder determines after any filing that a candidate or political committee has exceeded the applicable expenditure limit, the recorder shall send a notice of the recorder's determination to the candidate or the treasurer of the political committee. If the recorder determines that the recorder or any candidate for election to an office for which the recorder is also a candidate for election has exceeded the applicable expenditure limit, the information shall be sent to the city attorney, who shall be substituted for the recorder in any enforcement proceeding under this section and section 2.41.090. The notice also shall state that the candidate may appeal the recorder's or the city attorney's determination as provided in this section. B. A hearing to contest the determination that a candidate or political committee has violated the declaration of limitation on expenditures as described in subsection A of this section and to consider circumstances in mitigation shall be held before a hearings officer appointed by the city administrator: 1. Upon request of the candidate or political committee, if the request is made not later than the seventh day after the candidate received the notice sent under subsection A of this section; or 2. Upon the recorder's or city attorney's own motion if the motion is filed not later than the seventh day after the candidate received the notice sent under subsection A of this section. C. All parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice, served personally or by registered or certified mail. PAGE 7-DISCUSSION DRAFT (v:ard\campaign.724) 1. The notice shall include: i. A statement of the party's right to hearing, or a statement of the time and place of the hearing; ii. A statement of the authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held; iii. A reference to the particular sections of this chapter involved; and iv. A short and plain statement of the matters asserted or charged. 2. Parties may elect to be represented by counsel and to respond and present evidence and argument on all issues involved. 3. Informal disposition may be made of any case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default. 4. At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings officer shall explain the issues involved in the hearing and the matters that the parties must either prove or disprove. 5. Testimony shall be taken upon oath or affirmation of the witness from whom received. 6. The hearings officer shall place on the record a statement of the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications on a fact in issue made to the officer during the pendency of the proceeding and notify the parties of the communication and of their right to rebut such communications. 7. The hearings officer shall insure that the record developed at the hearing shows a full and fair inquiry into the facts necessary for consideration of all issues properly before the presiding officer in the case. 8. A verbatim oral, written or mechanical record shall be made of all motions, rulings and testimony. The record need not be transcribed unless requested for purposes of rehearing or court review. The city may charge the party requesting transcription the cost of a copy of transcription. D. The candidate or the treasurer of the political committee need not appear in person at a hearing held under this section, but instead may submit written testimony and other evidence, subject to the penalty for false swearing, to the recorder for entry in the hearing record. Such documents must be received by the recorder not later than five business days before the day of the hearing. 2.41.090 Penalties. A. If the recorder or city attorney finds under section 2.41.080 that a candidate or political committee filing a declaration of limitation on expenditures under section 2.41.050 has exceeded the applicable expenditure limit, the recorder or the city attorney may impose a civil penalty in the manner provided in subsection G of this section. B. The recorder or the city attorney may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for any violation of section 2.41.070.D. The civil penalty shall be imposed in the manner provided in subsection G of this section. C. The recorder or city attorney shall exempt any candidate or political committee from the imposition of civil penalties under subsections A and B of this section if the recorder or the city attorney finds the candidate or political committee ' has exceeded the applicable expenditure limit by a minimal amount. The recorder shall adopt by rule standards and procedures for exempting any candidate or political PAGE 8-DISCUSSION DRAFT (p:ord\c.mpaan.724) committee from the imposition of civil penalties under subsections A and B of this section. The rule shall apply in the same fashion to all candidates and political committees for the same office or measure. - D. Except as provided in subsection E of this section, the recorder or the city attorney shall impose a civil penalty in the manner provided in section subsection G of this section for each violation of any provision of section 2.41.030. E. Notwithstanding subsection G of this section, the recorder or city attorney shall impose a civil penalty not to exceed the greater of $100 or two times the amount of any: 1. Contribution made or received in violation of section 2.41.040; or 2. Contribution that exceeds the limit specified in section 2.41.030. F. If a candidate or the principal campaign of a candidate violates any provision of section 2.41.030, the candidate shall be personally liable for the amount to be paid under this section. If a political committee, other than a principal campaign committee, violates any provision of section 2.41.030, the directors shall be jointly and severally liable for any amount to be_paid under this section. G. Civil penalties under this chapter may only be imposed as provided in this subsection. 1. A civil penalty shall become due and payable 10 days after the order imposing the civil penalty becomes final by operation of law or on appeal. A person against whom a civil penalty is to be imposed shall be served with a notice in the form and manner provided in 2.41.080. 2. The person to whom the notice is addressed shall have 20 days from the date of service of the notice to make written application for a hearing. If no application for a hearing is made within the time allowed, the city may make a final order imposing the penalty. A final order entered under this paragraph need not be delivered or mailed to the person against whom the civil penalty is imposed. 3. Any person who makes application for a hearing as provided for in paragraph 2 of this subsection G shall be entitled to a hearing. 4. When an order assessing a civil penalty under this subsection becomes final by operation of law or on appeal, and the amount of penalty is not paid within 10 days after the order becomes final, the order may be recorded with the county clerk in any county of this state. The clerk shall thereupon record the name of the person incurring the penalty and the amount of the penalty in the County Clerk Lien Record. 5. Informal disposition of proceedings under this section, whether by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default, may be made at any time. 6. Upon the recording of an order in the manner provided by subsection 4 of this section, an agency may initiate proceedings to enforce the order by filing in the circuit court for the county where the order is recorded a certified copy of the civil penalty order and a certified copy of the recording made in the County Clerk Lien Record. Subject to any other requirements that may apply to the enforcement proceedings sought by the city, the court shall then proceed as with judgments issued by the court. 7. Enforcement proceedings available to the city after the filing provided for in paragraph 4 of this subsection include: PAGE 9-DISCUSSION DRAFT (v:ord\cemPaian.7s4) (i) Writ of execution proceedings under ORS 23.030 to 23.105 and ORS 23.410 to 23.600; (ii) Supplementary proceedings under ORS 23.710 to 23.730; (iii) Garnishee proceedings under ORS 29.285 to 29.335; and (iv) Renewal of judgment under ORS 18.360. 2.41.100 Recorder Responsibilities. The recorder shall: A. Adopt rules as necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 2.41.040 to 2.41.090. B. Prescribe forms for declarations required by section 2.41.050, and furnish the forms to persons required to file. C. Investigate when appropriate under the provisions of sections 2.41.040 to 2.41.090. 2.41.110 Publication. A. The recorder shall: 1. For each candidate and political committee described in section 2.41.050, publish a statement in a newspaper of general circulation and published in the City, and any other medium the recorder shall deem appropriate, indicating whether or not the candidate has agreed to limit expenditures under section 2.41.050. 2. Include the statement described in subsection 1 on the nominating petitions of all prospective candidates for public office. B. If a candidate or political committee described in section 2.41.050 has agreed to limit expenditures, but is not bound by the agreement because an opponent or opposing political committee of the candidate or political committee for the same office or measure at the same election has not agreed to limit expenditures or has exceeded the applicable expenditure limit, the published statement described in subsection 2.41.110.A.1 shall indicate that the candidate or political committee has agreed to limit expenditures and that the candidate or political committee is not bound by the agreement because an opponent of the candidate or opposing political committee for the same office or measure at the same election has not agreed to limit expenditures or has exceeded the applicable spending limit. C. If the recorder or the city attorney finds under section 2.41.080 that a candidate described in section 2.41.050 filing a declaration of limitation on expenditures under section 2.41.050 has exceeded the applicable expenditure limit, at the next election at which the candidate is a candidate for election to public office, the recorder shall publish a statement, in a newspaper of general circulation and published in the City, indicating that the candidate violated a previous declaration of limitation on expenditures under section 2.41.050. The statement required by this subsection shall identify the date of the election at which the candidate exceeded the applicable expenditure limit. 2.41.120 Definition of Single Political Committee. For the purposes of the contribution limitations established by section 2.41.030: A. Contributions shall be considered to be made by a single political committee if made by more than one political committee established, financed, maintained or controlled by the same person or persons, including any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department or local unit of the person or by a group of those persons. PAGE 10-DISCUSSION DRAFT (G:ord�ce palBa724) B. Under subsection A of this section: 1. All political committees established by a single corporation or its subsidiaries are treated as a single political committee; 2. All political committees established by a labor organization are treated as a single political committee unless the political committee is established by a local unit of a labor organization that has the authority to endorse candidates subject to section 2.41.030 independently of the labor organization's state or national organization and if the local unit contributes only funds raised from its own members; and 3. All political committees established by substantially the same group of persons are treated as a single political committee. C. Contributions shall be considered to be made by a single person if made by any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department or local unit of the same person. D. The recorder shall investigate any alleged violation of this section only upon receiving a complaint filed under ORS 260.345. 2 41 130 Personal and Independent Expenditures. A. With respect to a single election at which a candidate subject to section 2.41.030 seeks election, if a candidate contributes the candidate's own personal funds, makes a loan from the candidate's own personal funds to the candidate's campaign or receives contributions from members of the candidate's immediate family in an aggregate amount exceeding the amount specified in subsection C of this section, any other candidate for the same office and any contributions to that other candidate shall, pursuant to subsection D of this section, be exempt from the contribution limits applicable under section 2.41.030. B. Any person or political committee making an independent expenditure in excess of the amount specified in subsection C on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate subject to section 2.41.030, shall deliver notice as provided in subsection E of this section. The applicable expenditure limit, pursuant to subsection E of this section, shall no longer be binding on any candidate seeking election to the same office, and any candidate running for the same office who accepted expenditure limits shall be permitted to continue to receive contributions at the amount set for such candidates in section 2.41.030. C. This section applies if: 1. A candidate for election to an office specified in section 2.41.030 contributes the candidate's own personal funds, makes a loan from the candidate's own personal funds to the candidate's campaign or receives contributions from members of the candidate's immediate family in an aggregate amount exceeding 50% of the applicable expenditure limits; or 2. A person or political committee makes an independent expenditure on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate specified in section 2.41.030 in an amount exceeding 25% of the applicable expenditure limit. D. Within 24 hours after the contribution or loan is made, any candidate who contributes or loans personal funds to the candidate's campaign or receives from members of the candidate's immediate family in an aggregate amount exceeding the applicable amount specified in subsection C of this section shall give written notice of the fact to the recorder and to all other candidates for the same office at the same election for whom a nominating petition or principal campaign committee has been PAGE 11-DISCUSSION DRAFT (p:ardkampafyn.724) filed. The candidate shall also supply written proof to the recorder that all other candidates for the same office were given notice. The notice shall be given by registered or certified mail or by some other method that provides written proof that the notice was given. From the time the notice is received under this subsection, any other candidate for the same office at the same election, and any contributions made to that candidate are not subject to any contribution limits otherwise applicable under section 2.41.030 until such time as the candidate contributes to the candidate's own campaign an amount exceeding the applicable amount specified. in subsection C of this section. E. Within 24 hours after funds for an independent expenditure are obligated, any person or political committee making an independent expenditure in an aggregate amount exceeding the applicable amount specified in subsection C of this section shall give written notice of the fact to the recorder and to all other candidates for the same office at the same election for whom a nominating petition or principal campaign committee has been filed. The person or political committee shall also supply written proof to the recorder that all other candidates for the same office were given notice. The notice shall be given by registered or certified mail or by some other method that provides written proof that the notice was given. The notice shall describe the amount and use of the expenditure. An expenditure is obligated when an expenditure is made or an agreement to make an expenditure is made. The notice shall specifically state the name of the candidate the independent expenditure is intended to support or oppose. Each new expenditure shall require the delivery of an additional new notice. From the time the notice is received under this subsection, any other candidate for the same office at the same election and any expenditures made by those candidates are not subject to any expenditure limits otherwise applicable under section 2.41.050 until such time as an independent expenditure is made in support of or opposition to all other candidates in an amount exceeding the applicable amount specified in subsection C of this section. F. As used in this section, the "candidate's immediate family" means a candidate's spouse and any child, parent, grandparent, brother, half-brother, sister or half-sister of the candidate and the spouses of such persons. PAGE 12-DISCUSSION DRAFT (C:ard�campafen.724) • d~~`Of �N a emoran4um ?4E ...., ' July 10, 1995 Budget Sub Committee: Laws, Thompson, Stepahin, Levine rile ram: Peggy Christiansec` , Assistant City Administrator 5§11bjed: Departmental Self-Studies Sub-committee members will recall that at the end of the budget process, Councilor Laws recommended, and it was supported, that the Budget Committee meet on a more frequent basis throughout the year to receive in-depth reports from city departments so as to become more knowledgeable about city operations. Committee members volunteered (Levine, Thompson, Laws and Stepahin) to help develop the guidelines. Working with Councilor Laws, staff has developed the attached guidelines for your consideration. It is suggested that we begin this Fall with the Fire and Community Development Departments (these departments have indicated an interest and willingness to be the first 'but of the gate" under this new process). We would follow next year with two or three additional departments from either Public Works, Electric/Conservation, Senior Programs or Admin/Personnel/Finance/Fleet Maint). The Police Department would likely follow thereafter since that department conducted a thorough operational review in 1992. cc: Mayor City Administrator Assistant City Administrator Finance Director Chief of Police ASHLAND BUDGET COMMITTEE THE ABC'S OF ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW A. OBJECTIVES #1 Establish an ongoing, in-depth review of the operations of individual municipal departments . #2 Provide the Ashland Budget Committee with a comprehensive report on the inter-workings of the municipal departments to assist them with their budget responsibilities. B. FREQUENCY The detailed organizational reviews will take place every three years (at staggered intervals) with annual updates. C. PROJECT TEAM The organizational analysis should be conducted by internal teams comprised of a cross representation of all levels. D. ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PROCESS 1. Identify contemporary issues facing the organization. 2. Examine trends to project future issues/concerns. 3 . Develop organizational scenarios . 4 . Assess organizations capabilities . 5 . Establish (or validate) mission/vision statement . 6. Develop an action plan. 7 . Plan review (annual review) . E. PRESENTATION FORMAT - F. ANNUAL REVIEW ASHLAND BUDGET COMMITTEE THE ABC'S OF ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW A. OBJECTIVES #1 Establish an ongoing, in-depth review of the operations of individual municipal departments in order to identify issues facing the organization today and tomorrow; and to develop (and/or validate) the department' s current mission. #2 Provide the Ashland Budget Committee with a comprehensive report on the inter-workings of the various municipal departments in order to assist them with their budget duties and responsibilities . B. FREQUENCY The detailed organizational reviews will take place every three years (at staggered intervals) with annual updates prior to the submission of the departmental budgets . C. PROJECT TEAM The organizational analysis should be conducted by internal teams comprised of a cross representation of all levels within respective departments . However, the ultimate responsibility for the completion of the review resides with the individual department heads . D. ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW PROCESS 1. Identify contemporary issues facing the organization. a. what issues are readily apparent to the department today? b. What is the over all health/climate of the department? 2 . Examine trends to project future issues/concerns . a. Identify those agencies, groups, individuals that utilize services of the department; who provide resources; who oversee or regulate departmental operations, and agencies who may be competitors . b. Project what potential changes/impacts may take place over the next three years . 3 . Develop organizational scenarios . a. Based upon the identified issues and emerging trends, what might the organization/community look like at the end of the planning period (3 years) ? b. Develop both "worst case" and "best case" scenarios . I 7 . PLAN REVIEW (ANNUAL REVIEW) a. Is our mission/vision still valid? b. How are we doing in accomplishing our Action Plan items to date? C. Are there new issues since the in-depth review was conducted that need our attention" d. of what d. What does all of this suggest should be addressed in our annual budget requests . E. PRESENTATION FORMAT 1. A written report not to exceed 20 pages will be submitted 14 days in advance of the organizational review. It should be submitted in a standardized format including an "executive summary" at the beginning of the report. 2 . Each department will meet with the Budget Committee to discuss the organization review process and findings . 3 . The briefing should include overheads (or flip chart) not to exceed 10 transparencies . 4. The presentations should include the key members of the organizational review team. 5 . Only highlights of the report should be presented. 6. Verbal presentations should be limited to 30 minutes with an additional 30+ minutes set aside for questions and information exchange (g0 minutes maximum) . 7 . The Budget Committee would be able to provide feedback as to whether or not the department appears to be meeting the expectations/needs of the community from their perspective. 8. If there are any major issues or policy changes that the Budget Committee feels should be considered, they should be identified and forwarded to the City Council for further consideration and possible adoption. F. ANNUAL REVIEW 1. It is envisioned that 2 to 3 departments will make presentations in the fall each year, prior to the preparation, of the annual budgets . Those departments would not undergo another in-depth review for 3 years, except for annual updates refer to b) . 2 . Prior to the annual budget submission, the entire organizational review team will get together and reassess as to whether or not their plan is still on target; make modifications if need be; and use it as a means for developing recommendations regarding their pending annual budget proposal . Laws noted that in the past, the Chamber had a hard time collecting money from its members. The hotel/motel tax was voted on by citizens and approved. However, it was not originally tied to the grants... Nicholson noted that he supports most of the grants, but would call them something else... Hartzell asked if the completed grant applications are available for public review... Turner said there is a copy at City Hall. 'It can be kept in the City Recorder's office in the future. Jack Blackburn said the equivalent budget contribution is $4,100 for each member of the community. As someone who tries to follow what happens in the meetings, he would appreciate a better public address system. He would also like to have the Budget Committee meetings televised on the cable access station, citing a classic, well done debate that occurred recently between two members as something community members could team from. Winthrop moved to request the City Administrator report to Council about televising the Budget Committee meetings; Bashaw seconded the motion. Ayes all. Hauck moved to approve all the Budget Committee and Subcommittee minutes; Reid seconded the motion. Ayes all, with Laws abstaining. Haworth moved to recommgpd the Budget as amended; Hauck seconded the motion. Ayes all. Golden moved to approve the tax levy; Bashaw seconded the motion. Ayes all. Laws suggested the Budget Committee begin to meet quarterly, with one or two departments reporting each meeting after a period of self-study. He would suggest hearing from all departments over a two year period... Thompson said that would be especially useful to him as a new member. Also, if reductions are required in the future, more in-depth knowledge of departments will be important... Winthrop noted that for such a proposal, "the devil is in the details." We will have to let staff know what we want to know and why so they can proceed... Laws suggested one council member, one budget committee member, Almquist, and Brown meet to discuss the proposal... Almquist said that if more demands are put on the department heads something else will have to give. Some dept. heads are overloaded as it is... Council has traditionally used the Budget Committee to review new programs and help with Council responsibility... Levine, Thompson, Laws, and Stepahin will meet to develop guidelines. The Budget Committee will meet again in several months to discuss this and other issues. The meeting adjourned at 10:07. Budget Committee Minutes -- April 20, 1995 Page 4 From KEON S"D"SCHWARTZ K S D ENTERPRISES Fax:Q5"7/3ffiSS Voice:rO3)n1-I MS To:SUSAN REID at:CITY OF ASHLAND Page I of i Thursday,July 27,1996 11:35:59 AN FAX Date:Thursday, July 27, 1995 Time: 11:17:01 AM 1 Pages To: SUSAN REID From: KEITH & "D" SCHWARTZ CITY OF ASHLAND K& D ENTERPRISES Fax: 488-5311 Fax: (503) 772-8589 Voice: +1 (503) 488-6002 Voice: (503) 821-1446 Comments: ATTENTION: SUSAN REID: As discussed on 27 July, Safeway is putting on an Easter Seals Benefit Car Show at Town and Country Aug. 5th. We are looking for the City of Ashland to show support of the event by sponsoring a trophy to go to the car of their choice. The cost of this donation is $200.00. By supporting this way the city is welcoming a new tourist event into the city to help build commerce. Music will be by the Fabulous Fairlains along with food and refreshment �4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.08.120 TO INCREASE GROUND CLEARANCE OF TREES OVER ROADWAYS FROM TEN FEET TO TWELVE FEET ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE WNED THROUGH AND ADDITIONS ARE SFaAij>3 . THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9.08.120.A. is amended to read as follows: 9.08.120 Trees--Hedges. A. No owner or person in charge of property that abuts upon a street or public sidewalk shall permit trees, bushes, or hedges on such property to interfere with street or sidewalk traffic. addif eR t shall be the duty of an- GY[owner or person to +peep f . uqq f - - any trppq ARIA h- sdeb premises#hat tnrerlang#tip sldewatc Or strecaelg _ ; to a height of not less than eight (8)-feet above the sidewalk and not less than tea {48} urelrrs feet above the Feadway Street Ertr'purpcsse the prer�ding serttenee,�a duty#a�ernaue bt'srt�h��xt�rt�s to trees on Y par{€+n strip atjtHnuu�tfe sfreetc�r slriexs�agt that.its sr propai!ty PAGE 1-ANNOTATED ORDINANCE (p:umWcw u.mo) Office of the City Attorney City of Ashland (503) 482-3211, Ext. 59 MEMORANDUM July 25, 1995 TO: The Mayor and Council FROM: Paul Nolte SUBJECT: An Ordinance Adding Section 9.16.055 to the Ashland Municipal Code to Require Removal of Dog Waste from Public Areas R Mayor Golden has received several requests from citizens asking that the city adopt an ordinance requiring the removal of dog waste from public areas. At the mayor's request, the attached ordinance was prepared and is being presented to the council for first reading at the August 1, 1995, meeting. The ordinance is to be read in full. Attachment c: Brian Almquist Peggy Christiansen Barbara Christensen Is Acouncihdogxamt.meml ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 9.16.055 TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE REMOVAL OF DOG WASTE FROM PUBLIC AREAS. ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE 61N€D—THR9dGH AND ADDITIONS ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9.16.055 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: Anp pe>scn, with the Batccat�ora ct a stghttess pe ��f��rassans�b3ry€deg, sha b fn ptssasslr of tae fer the re�ncral oft ttnd shad rave>cerement destte� Icy the d©g ar�y pubic area not d�Signe(f tt.1 r'D�E�V�,tt'idaS@ wcSt�B, IfitIUdu1g but rlAt �r>'jt�Ct t43 Str�tS,5tdtw�t1�5 parking strips,tfie Plaza rslards, Dlty partcs and trawls tar reads paratteting des, sways, cuterts, carats artd s3rraitat tattes ownct tar aperatad by tl1e. 'fa�rit lrr3gation �w��qtr tf3e pity a€�hland The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of 1995, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 11995. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1995. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney REMOVAL OF DOG EXCREMENT ORDINANCE (p:nrd\dopxcrmt.ord) CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ASHLAND.OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)452.3211 1 _ July 20, 1995 Melinda M. Cauvin Attorney at Law 920 E. Jackson St. Medford, OR 97504 RE: Letter to RVTD regarding bus trespass onto Windmill's Ashland Hills Inn Ms. Cauvin: You have requested in your letter to Rogue Valley Transportation District that they discontinue using the Windmill's Ashland Hills Inn parking lot for turn-around purposes for their Ashland route. The transportation district has complied, effectively discontinuing bus service to the Ashland Hills Inn. This appears to be in direct contradiction to proposals made by Ashland Hills as part of the Conditional Use Permit approval for the 72-unit expansion of their facility. Therefore, the City of Ashland is scheduling a revocation hearing regarding the conditional use permit for the September 12, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, unless transit service to Ashland Hills Inn is restored. Specifically, Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.112.040 provides for the revocation of a conditional use permit when it is found that the conditions of approval have been violated. Regarding the conditional use permit for the 72-unit expansion,`the first condition of that approval by the Ashland Planning Commission states: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. This requires that the applicant is bound to construct and operate the project as presented to the Commission, and should the applicant choose not to follow through with all portions of the project as proposed, they will be in violation of their approval. In the case of PA94-035, CUP for 72-unit expansion of the Ashland Hills motel, the applicant addressed the criteria for approval for "adequate transportation" in the following manner: "Other than private guest vehicles there are two means of transportation currently provided to the site The Ashland Hills Inn provides and will continue to provide a shuttle service to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Box Office, located downtown near the theaters, restaurants, and shops. Additionally, Rogue Valley Transit District i provides a bus line to a stop which is located directly across HWY 66 from the Inn This stop is the end of the line and turn around point for service along the east-west business corridor to downtown. There is no plan to stop either the public bus or private shuttle service. In the event that the RVTD decides to place a stop on the north side of HWY 66 along with or instead of the existing arrangement, the owner will provide, as a part of this project, a shelter matching the prototype design provided to the architect...." (emphasis added.) Further from the application, in response to the generation of traffic: . 'The convenient location of the Rogue Valley Transit District stop in combination with the shuttle service provided by the Inn combine to give guests and employees good opportunities to use transportation other than private autos." The statements to the Planning Commission clearly indicated that Windmill's Ashland Hills Inn would not be taking steps to discontinue RVTD bus service to the site. In response, the Planning Commission specifically found, as part of their decision, that transit was an important part of the project. Those findings of the City of Ashland state as follows: "Further, in order to reduce the number of automobiles arriving and leaving the property, a bus stop/shelter will be installed along the frontage of the property, in cooperation with the City, Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Rogue Valley Transit District. The convenience of the bus shelter in combination with the existing motel shuttle service will provide an inexpensive means for guests to get downtown and employees to go to and from work, resulting in a reduction in the amount of traffic generated by the project." It is clear that the Planning Commission found transit service to be an integral part of the project, specifically stating that in their decision to approve the new units. Further, the Commission attached a condition to the approval requiring that the bus stop/shelter be installed. During the construction of the new units, correspondence was received from the project architect indicating that, with the agreement of RVTD and ODOT, busses would be entering and exiting the parking lot to access the shelter. It is my opinion that had your application before the Planning Commission stated that RVTD would not be allowed to use the Ashland Hills parking lot for a turn around, and that bus service would be discontinued to the site, the Commission would have viewed the application differently. It is my opinion that the proposal of the applicant was to encourage transit, not discourage it. The action taken to not allow RVTD to turn around on Ashland Hills property appears to contradict the application to the Planning Commission, necessitating the revocation process. As I stated, the revocation hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 12, 1995. Public notice will be provided in accord with ordinance requirements. You will be allowed to present evidence and testimony in your behalf at this hearing. However, • should transit service be reinstituted to the Ashland Hills site, and RVTD busses allowed to turn around in the parking lot to access the new shelter, there will be no need for the hearing, and it will be cancelled. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John Mc ghhn Planning Director Ashland Planning Department c: Alike Borwickc, Rogue Valley Transportation District ✓ Ashland City Council Ashland Planning Commission Paul Nolte, Ashland City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND ''�; CITY HALL ( .+" ASHLAND.OREGON 97520 telephone(Code 50,7)482-3211 July 25, 1995 Representative Bob Repine District 49 P.O. Box 1195 Grants Pass OR 97526 RE: Light Rail Dear Representative Repine: The Ashland City Council at its meeting on July 19 requested that a letter be written to all Southern Oregon legislators requesting your support of funding for the new Portland Metro light rail line. While it may seem adverse to our parochial interests, we believe that unless the State makes a commitment to alternative transportation in the metro area,. we are unlikely to ever see any funding of similar programs in Southern Oregon. A second good reason to support the Portland Metro light rail project is the commitment from Senator Hatfield to match the $375 million in lottery proceeds with $1.5 billion in Federal matching funds. It is our hope that the State legislators would be supportive when this project is considered for connection to the Southern region. Very truly yours, Brian L. Alm 1st City Adminis for / (r Cou�tti11Li1nil.11r) cc: Mayor, / Council 1 CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL Mill ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)492.3211 July 25, 1995 Senator Brady Adams District 25 Senate Majority Office S-203 State Capitol Salem OR 97310 RE: Light Rail Dear Senator Adams: The Ashland City Council at its meeting on July 19 requested that a letter be written to all Southern Oregon legislators requesting your support of funding for the new Portland Metro light rail line. While it may seem adverse to our parochial interests, we believe that unless the State makes a commitment to alternative transportation in the metro area, we are unlikely to ever see any funding of similar programs in Southern Oregon. A second good reason to support the Portland Metro light rail project is the commitment from Senator Hatfield to match the $375 million in lottery proceeds with $1.5 billion in Federal matching funds. It is our hope that the State legislators would be supportive when this project is considered for connection to the Southern region. Very truly yours, Brian L. A quist i City Admi istrator (r.CouixilLLi4u1. ) / cc: May ,-And Council C. CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HAIL MIA ASHLAND.OREGON 97520 telephone(code 507)482.9211 July 25, 1995 Representative John Watt District 50 P.O. Box 4661 Medford OR 97501 RE: light Rail Dear Representative Watt: The Ashland City Council at its meeting on July 19 requested that a letter be written to all Southern Oregon legislators requesting your support of funding for the new Portland Metro light rail line. While it may seem adverse to our parochial interests, we believe that unless the State makes a commitment to alternative transportation in the metro area, we are unlikely to ever see any funding of similar programs in Southern Oregon. A second good reason to support the Portland Metro light rail project is the commitment from Senator Hatfield to match the $375 million in lottery proceeds with $1.5 billion in Federal matching funds. It is our hope that the State legislators would be supportive when this project is considered for connection to the Southern region. Very truly yours, Brian L. Almquist City Administrato (r.C.i1\Lieait.er) cc: Mayor and o ncil CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL ASHLAND.OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503(482-3211 July 25, 1995 Representative Judy Uherbelau District 52 P.O. Box 3189 Ashland OR 97520 RE: Light Rail Dear Judy: The Ashland City Council at its meeting on July 19 requested that a letter be written to all Southern Oregon legislators requesting your support of funding for the new Portland Metro light rail tine. While it may seem adverse to our parochial interests, we believe that unless the State makes a commitment to alternative transportation in the metro area, we are unlikely to ever see any funding of similar programs in Southern Oregon. A second good reason to support the Portland Metro light rail project is the commitment from Senator Hatfield to match the $375 million in lottery proceeds with $1.5 billion in Federal matching funds. It is our hope that the State legislators would be supportive when this project is considered for connection to the Southern region. Very truly yours, Brian L. Almquis City AdminI trat (c Camci�Livad.tlr) cc: Mayor Arid Co ncil f t C I T Y O F A S H L A N D C I T Y H A L L ( .+` ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(wde 503)482-321 i July 25, 1995 Representative Eldon Johnson District 51 2712 Jacksonville Highway Medford OR 97501 RE: Light Rail Dear Representative Johnson: The Ashland City Council at its meeting on July 19 requested that a letter be written to all Southern Oregon legislators requesting your support of funding for the new Portland Metro light rail line. While it may seem adverse to our parochial interests, we believe that unless the State makes a commitment to alternative transportation in the metro area, we are unlikely to ever see any funding of similar programs in Southern Oregon. A second good reason to support the Portland Metro light rail project is the commitment from Senator Hatfield to match the $375 million in lottery proceeds with $1.5 billion in Federal matching funds. It is our hope that the State legislators would be supportive when this project is considered for connection to the Southern region. Very truly yours, al Brian L. Almqu�st / City Administrafnr,-' (,C.61\1 -0L1o) cc: Mayor Council 1 CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL \ �` ASHLAND,OREGON 91520 telephone(code 500)492-9211 July 25, 1995 Senator Lenn Hannon District 26 240 Scenic Drive Ashland OR 97520 RE: Light Rail Dear Lenn: The Ashland City Council at its meeting on July 19 requested that a letter be written to all Southern Oregon legislators requesting your support of funding for the new Portland Metro light rail line. While it may seem adverse to our parochial interests, we believe that unless the State makes a commitment to alternative transportation in the metro area, we are unlikely to ever see any funding of similar programs in Southern Oregon. A second good reason to support the Portland Metro light rail project is the commitment from Senator Hatfield to match the $375 million in lottery proceeds with $1.5 billion in Federal matching funds. It is our hope that the State legislators would be supportive when this project is considered for connection to the Southern region. Very truly yours, Brian L. Alm uist i City Adminis for cc: May and Council /1,hla,a G� ear Cot.nc�l Tke hec:.' q on of July I% cv-.a 4( rneei,r.q 4Je t�.'a.n LWv, Ccrtil rK>t lone 'r,q.ncyt 6 ino O, r1nE sill 4e�h.+'+or,yt r.� mltny �`lro Ol bhed K break., I�1Yho...cli, L 065 cO1led t, Pne m,cropihene, 1 C>Gi nor siden 3nY,nufrrs r Orr, YcaSO.;o ,F, deny ent wppi,ccho„ ✓i �ueat On ;p ' �fc�.CA I,ke y,.ym,4 Me ('omplerz Stxech ne.� �°r yOw (tnA ,�or W)Q o04iva,1 fecord . 1f",anC _,Jo� Z.koxe la:.J, Qll de."5.6n= nwu meet the SOa.ls or O;t,• COmP+e hen S✓e . �lan , Wh,ci, include> rne cr:lerta z6 annecelto++ , . a eo,hnu�� 50oA 61.crd�Yy n( 1,- 41 CJcrycne .n e b.lydi v 1ov], b.y lllann,nR an Or'derl� 0." IeAr(.,DDf—J u+h.antzcJ o.; -+ La," (Czcal ktl), Sf ioo much to d eo mony ho.-e:,, an aA.cleo Cno Liutckly, CJtrynne (rnm 1t"0=•c L)v the r j rrt dqe; u.,rlo 1 rer�deny* in cusfom- de>ic�v,ea eaKaXy.s, X11 5u(frr dim�n�shea av r�l�-uA�1y, I,JUre,r Gvu�lalwllCy� cAa5Sroom zf .(c , cAl . Rorc �n�o-ra.,Yly •Me yen>c OS ccmm fy ot'i fie, Lor. Ue need al`s (' leek 'f*r ¢ca.ilVales i, e..lery place -l+�.al kc6 Jrn.Jn Gu.ckly. I,Jlten Qhe CDmP Yuan i.b> ur,{len, Nle C.fy had the uoc oC Mo area 45 rCScde.nti ca (kll -`J�r �)o y'1lC enN rOn Me.n'C4l energy O..nd Sr1Clef Con)X Cbuencei +hi> Prap�,�c,l ha..� not been -"a'd cm 05 r'ne Plan dlre�.45. Look GY ,4erro Mai documev. Scup I,-e +nuor facLdre 35: A. Z5 the Qro ee.t compsfi tale, LY ntG+-loy a9n cr..liw-cl use o' F(Xrmc. d 4reW lands h,uoF be Prole U�ct ,n ,M�� ,taCe {�'>hlnnd U,ne.�¢N> Ij rl&h4 Ci CC055 Ale- rood, eS5en'ka4119 all land ca54 Aa,ri t> Zoned EFJ. otlnte l..G ha.7F man.J Q<p.,v.p.lrto Vl9�lY he1¢e Me JQlley of- rl,e UZU.0i con Se C.uen Cep d dense uab4n use neN a5yt C+Afv aj h ,tCes , Y1-,4t o OlLd be 0 eoncefn U 2 a. the �aaue. � free.,.JCay' R(ii�� r7 Grt dre os<d � chaps e.Y i� pot�cres. f2t.�.ae-nhcil de.xlop.Yrenf i7 dinoxnaged to an r'" to c Am? RN" SO,uce � �ch as L-5. SF lhiy �ry�S.Wuc-fi 01 0CC".: Alen 5irc>Xq M:",JG.i-,..q rnea Lures rnuSf be d,cl'are.a. The prn.,miry L. ,Qohtru,G carport o +ra..hlcsr>vre. . Ar�airi, Me Plan Con�aders One tnca-npah b,li use✓, G,w decreer thy,k nas¢ Eusement7 r .,, be rc+r'0..tife.a S� Trt-,,ve ✓e S..nenb rF- ��'.t.fch 3.rpas crc G,.:.wc cF PoFeni-.cJ �aof�lem�. C. A., palund, IS 6 ae.✓10i3 vimbje<.f x..r(,cc.ia.ly �( a(I nnesc, house-, weref., be. bulls . G.,:d dhe.J Oc:,.Po '4i ay'New an Qn a,,. Thwt 30,4,1 rvt¢nn rr3yD vro, b,t. %axe +ranspc*Cn.F,o%. Sl'a,nct.wd>, Chaptcr t✓ man aerie-, +l' au prop^,cls far ✓n[Llq' Pro�e<7s muenk be, eiam,nerA {Or '6e,t D" O)C Tian PIOJCcIS G (lDp,,,lclt.on 61yyy,Y 3000 (e A Nb PC- clec(,dr- 'that Tvan7L44:, r Lao anqua", Ili (]fqec.c Wn.,.td brig how"9 to on, ho payte. - V1,A G,.)hote tlin CbrpJ6 ri one tP(c.( -' ? menh on Mis be cause t,-r, 1 j(ro.,;5 -AVC( than a•�f+c�al'ea , CC.pc<.f,e'� udi he rec o{ned Jpgn fr, Lf 1'Iv,(e5 ede..eed If, neJly- finneced a Coln 4e Crec,9c the GrrwAl of (e50urc<5 a✓cutahe. 40 Qd<nhal ne,,J homer cl,+h.r) the clq Ilm.b nw-'. KAaf- d.xsne �u..ts 2a0m 4". CCh.11 RAO,-,ys C. 'Ale Cory KA5 no true n✓wl�va^y or lanq aS dirccA¢a by ch. t>• . Arteen.k te*4,,15 the ed;t"Or i„U,cate(l than new k' <0 hwmv nre vr one cd Mu krmo ma"ly I,a...os r7l,l) err a pc,ce 'hc City <mxaen C f+,dahli. The C130,ca.n4 .Tar cMoreahie hr,ao.,.y Fwcjecb mwt ae,r..on a4ala. a need Ml5 pr,ce hotra,.:q , 2 behe vf. a su¢pty ar Mox houses u�A cOnkrnue n 'the c.l� , O,fhov.F fan+r4ctor� 'x,.� wcbwd,Yed, Wk. y ahtaxldne Ca;t.Fu.l, ,f1Fd,UDW kllannmS be Clvhmoea dhnk GaWAO ,.,.Cerg•ai"u nw%cnr,era,yet rwf de ihoy he ,.ae�nh ty and charactev of The Co N, l Fn<s +o ena,re rl,u by rnana ;i q the flDn,Cor,.q or Me 3,ze and rate Of YOZO so rrlo- 6p,n5e5 can be evaluafca G..%a cerrech,i IrWO4.Ji°5 taken. Sto,J, Crdcfly be nw,nlfr,ned U avpcA Iw,ag the+asl , ChS1nk�a,, . . L�e(fpcn. �n.rt<Ah„ TO: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FROM:' DAVID LANE RE: PLANNING ACTION 95-036 DATE: 7-31-95 Please enter the following information into the public record. I attempted to give this as oral testimony at the last City Council meeting , but was denied adequate time . I . The AMC indicates that even if ;riteria for a Type III planning action are met , that the Council still has discretionary power to approve or deny the land use planning portion of the proposed action. Specifically : 18 . 108 . 060 Type III Procedure . 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 : . . . . (Emphasis added . ) C. Type III Procedure . 3 . b. The Council may approve , approve with conditions or deny the application. (Emphasis added. ) 18 . 108 . 100 Public Hearings Procedure . C. At such public hearing, after receipt of public testimony , the Board or Commission may approve , approve with conditions or deny the request . (Emphasis added . ) (Incidentally, this should probably read, "Board, Commission or Council . ) 18 . 106 . 030 Approval Standards . E. That a public need for additional land, . . . etc . If we look at items E, 3-6 , I think it is obvious that even if one of these items exists for a given area, that the City is not forced to annex the land — the City still has the discretion to annex or not annex . If that is correct , then the same discretion should apply to the other items in this section . From the above four examples , it would strongly appear that the Council has the option to approve , approve with conditions or deny a Type III planning action, even if it meets criteria. II . The criteria for a zone change are : • a public need , supported by the Comprehensive Plan : • the need to correct mistakes ; * the need to adjust to new conditions ; * where circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action. I do not think that the proposal meets any of these criteria. Specifically: A. There appears to be no compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare . B. There are no new conditions . C. Further study needs to be done to determine if the 8 acres are appropriately zoned . D. A public need has not been established . The applicant and the planning staff have , I believe , incorrectly interpreted AMC 18 . 106 . 030 (E) , items 1-6 as examples of public need . Because item "E" reads , "That a public need (emphasis added) for additional land, as defined in the City ' s Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated; or . . . . . it has been assumed that items 1-6 are defacto examples of "public need" . It is arguable that items 1-4 may represent public needs , however I am not sure that all of them are listed as such in the Comp Plan. Likewise , I doubt that items 5 & 6 are listed as public needs in the Comp Plan, and it is clear that , by themselves , they do not represent public needs , but rather independent criteria which the City has previously set as desirable for allowing annexation. Following the above argument and combining it with the structure of item "E" where each separate item ends with "or" , it is far from clear that items 1-6 represent , or were intended to represent , examples of "public need" . Thus , an agreement "to provide 25% of the proposed residential units at affordable levels" does not appear to meet the zone change criteria of , "A public need , supported by the Comprehensive Plan. " III . A criterion for an annexation is , "That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City ' s Comprehensive Plan. " I do not think that the proposed project is in conformance with the following sections of the Comp Plan : Policy IX-3 : Prevent urban sprawl and " leap frogging . . . This is clearly a case of sprawl and leap frogging . Goal X : Provide a transportation system which is safe , diversified , cost and environmentally efficient , emphasizes alternate modes of transportation . . . . Policy X-6 , a) : Pedestrian traffic should be separated from auto traffic on streets . . . . Policy X-6 , c) : Provide adequate pedestrian facilities in conjunction with all . . . new . . . residential developments . Policy X-6 , d) : Minimize conflicts between transportation types , especially when those conflicts create a particularly hazardous area . Policy X-9 , a) : Encourage residents of the City to use bicycles and walking as alternatives to the automobile whenever possible . Due to the problems associated with both of the freeway bridges , this project would create conflicts for residents with all of the above Transportation elements of the Comp Plan . Goal XII : It is the City of Ashland ' s goal to maintain a compact urban form . . . . Policy XII-2 : The City shall incorporate vacant land only after showing that land of similar qualities does not already exist within the City limits . . . This proposal certainly does not lend itself to a "compact urban form" , and there is no inventory by the City or showing by the applicant that similar land is not already within the city limits . In conclusion, Planning Action 95-036 does not meet the criteria for either an annexation or a zone change and therefore should be denied. 08/02/1995 09:44 5034888216 Q PAGE 02 August 2, 1995 To the Mayor and the Ashland City Council: Much praise and appreciation to you all for your conscientious efforts in regard to the 01-5" project. Your decision in the matter was, I believe, the "right" one but the open and democratic and careful way in which it occurred is the most impressive aspect of the process. Special recognition to the Mayor for her work in clarifying precisely what the issues were at the various stages of the process, and doing it in a way that enabled the citizens to participate effectively in the debate. Sin � � Ge, errely C�av�sug�h� �� l cavanaaph P 0.Box 247 sh lr;d OR 97520 O U Ashland , Or 0 AUG I � 7/31/95 u Hon . Mayor and members of the City Council : CITY OF ASHLAND Dear Sirs : Re : Ashland Hills Housing tract There has been a number of objections raised against the proposed 175 home housing tract proposed by Diamond D . Here 's one more: the Domino Effect . If you approve the application , the neighboring property owners can 't help but notice Diamond D making millions - yes , millions - converting a little farm land into a housing tract . Like a row of dominos the neighboring property owners will be down to city hall asking for the same consideration . And it is hard to say " no " when you said yes the first time . So you need to consider how this area will look in 20 or 30 years : wall to wall housing tracts or a small city surrounded by mini to small farms , an airport and a variety of other land uses . As you can tell by the tone of this letter I 'm not against the annexation , it 's the housing tract proposal I 'm against . And if diamond D feels the 8 acres zoned commercial is not suitable for commercial development then let them propose swapping an equal amount of their other acreage . Thank You , Russell Whitaker 875 Jaquelyn Street , Ashland aV" _(H2A 10 VT- 10, JJUG ul N i9�y 20, 14995 J To the Mayor and City Council City of Ashland Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re : Planning Action 95-036 - Proposed Annexation , Rezoning, and Subdivision Approval of Property on East Main Street Time ran out on the nubl:ic hearing on Planning Action 95-036 at the Council Meeting on July 18 , 1995 . I was amongst the indiv- iduals who did not have an opportunity to speak. The text of my comments is enclosed. I will not be able to attend the continuation of the public hearing on August 1 , 1995 . It is requested that my comments be read into the record at the continuation of the public hearing . Sincerely --y-ours , f John W. Nicholson 1575 Greenmeadows Way Ashland , Oregon 97520 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION 95-036 Annexation of Approximately 40 Acres, Rezoning of Approximately 8 acres, and Plan Approval for a 173 Lot Subdivision. Statement by John W. Nicholson, 1575 Greenmeadows Way, Ashland , OR At Public Hearing before Ashland City Council on July 18 , 1995 In the interests of all citizens of Ashland , the proposed annexation, the rezoning, and the subdivision plan should NOT be approved by the City Council . Who will benefit from the project and who will be hurt? Waivers of systems development charges for 25% of the housing and density bonuses (granted under City policies ) will provide benefits to the developer , builders, financial institutions , and a limited number of home purchasers . The costs of growth related to the project will be born . over a long period of years by all residents of the community. Those bearing the long- term costs of growth would include low-income and many middle-income people. These categories of residents can ill afford to pay for such subsidies and should not be forced to do so by the City. Ashland ' s systems development charges do not come anywhere near paying for the costs of growth. This, in part , results from provisions in State law and , in part, from pressures on the City government by builders to keep SDCs low. As a consequence, growth in Ashland is financed to a large extent by owners of existing properties and renters . These groups pay for growth (not covered by SDC monies) through real estate taxes, City utility taxes , and City utility fees in excess of utility costs . City "affordable housing" policies and practices further aggravate financial burdens on low-income and middle-income residents by targeting the benefits to a restricted number of home buyers . Federal and Oregon programs provide more than adequate assistance to middle-income people for purchasing a home. The City should get rid of its "affordable housing" program. The City should stop abuses of "affordable housing" concepts that provide official sanction to practices that force low-income and middle-income residents to subsidize more affluent individuals and businesses . Furthermore, the City ' s limited water supplies , problems with waste-water disposal , deficiencies in transportation facilities , and negative socio-economic impacts from urban sprawl that the proposed development would create all need consideration . Overall , the proposed project is NOT in the best interests of Ashland residents . The project should NOT be approved . /OPEN LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASHLAND, OREGON 1 - i From - John W. Nicholson JUL 2 1575 Greenmeadows Way, Ashland, Oregon 9752i0,yr THE RE-ESTABLISHED AUDIT COMMITTEE--ANOTHER PERCEPTION An effective, pro-active , and independent audit committee (as an advisory body to the Council) is essential for financial oversight of the Mayor, the City Administrator, and department heads by the Council . In re-establishing its audit committee on July 5, 1995 , the Council opted (with a 6 to 0 vote) for a lapdog rather than a watchdog. Comments on the audit committee in The Ashland Daily Tidings of July 20th are notable for what they do not disclose; audit matters that need additional consideration follow: (a) The audit committee resolution (as adopted on 7-5-95) was devel- oped by an "ad hoc" panel comprised of the Mayor, one Council member, the City Attorney , a budget committee member , and with some participation by the Finance Director. That panel was subject to Oregon ' s "Public Meetings Law" ; however, the panel did not comply with Oregon requirements for public notice of its meeting nor for making the meeting open to the public. ORS 192 . 610 reads as follows : "The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent . . . that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly. " 1 of 4 / �I (b) The panel apparently had only one meeting on May 24th. Minutes of that meeting were prepared only after compliance with Oregon law was raised by the City Recorder. The minutes are brief and provide little information. (c) On March 7th, a petition (signed by 191 citizens) was filed with the Council . This petition provided for a stronger and more pro-active audit committee than was established on July 5th. Why didn 't the panel contact the petitioners for an exchange of views? On July 5th, the Council member on the panel stated that petitioners ' views were considered. Yet , the minutes for the panel meeting are silent on the matter. Were petitioners ' views really considered or were they given summary, short-shrift treatment? (d) After the filing of the petition on March 7th, the City Admin- istrator appears to have contacted Coopers & Lybrand (the City ' s auditors ) for its views on audit committees; CSL views were set forth in a letter dated 4-11-95 . There is no indication in the minutes that the panel gave consideration to CSL words of advice . Was that because CSL views were close to those of the petitioners? 2 of 4 / (e) A discussion of all differences between the petitioners ' proposal and the resolution that the Council adopted is not practical herein. One important difference was the audit committee ' s responsibility to provide the Council with advise on the scope of audit services . All audits are not the same . Currently, the City has an annual financial statement audit. This type of audit basically provides reasonable assurance that annual financial statements are free of material misstatements; these audits also meet certain legal compliance requirements of the Federal and Oregon governments . Financial-statement audits were designed to protect credit grantors and equity investors in the private sector . They do not provide audit protections which Ashland citizens should have with respect to their City government. Financial-statement audits meet minimum legal requirements for municipal corporations under Oregon law. Nevertheless , for the protection of Ashland ' s electorate, the City also needs performance audits . These include economy and efficiency audits and audits of the effectiveness of City programs . Performance audits often result in significant cost savings in excess of audit fees . In addition , performance audits are strong deterrents to abuse and wrongdoing. In voting for a weak audit committee , was the Council also saying to the public that economy, efficiency, and program effectiveness are not important? 3 of 4 (fy Why was the audit committee resolution scheduled for voting after a reading by title only? The audit committee should be a key factor in the City' s financial controls. Why schedule a vote without provisions for Council discussion or for public participation on a key financial control? (g) Comments at the July 5th Council meeting that the petitioners ' proposal for the audit committee would weaken the Council were nonsense. The petitioners ' resolution would have strengthened the Council vis-a-vis City management and staff--those being audited . The audit committee resolution (as adopted) weakens Council oversight of management and staff . The Council is responsible for ensuring that the City of Ashland has quality audits--including audits for economy, efficiency, and program results . To fulfill its responsibilities , shouldn 't the Council reconsider the audit committee resolution of July 5th? L . U John W. Nicholson 1575 Greenmeadows Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 July 22 , 1995 4 of 4 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM July 18, 1995 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator FROM: Linda Hoggatt, Administrative Services Manager via Gary E. Brown, Chief of Police RE: Monthly Report to Council The computerized data base (part of the Southern Oregon Justice information System) utilized by the Ashland Police Department to compile information for reporting services is in the process of being reconfigured and modified. This modification is due to mandated changes required by the State Law Enforcement Data System in Salem. As with any modification, especially in computers, there is a period of testing, correcting of errors, and refining the changes made. The modifications went into effect in April and the system is still undergoing changes in order work properly for reporting purposes. Because of this change over in reporting, it has been three months since the Police Department has reported to City Council. Some of the changes made consist of reclassifying some crimes categories as well as combining other categories. This makes it impossible to compare year to year data as the structure, upon which the comparison was previously made, has changed. We are still attempting to obtain credible data for reporting. In the meantime, I ask for your patience as we continue to "tweak" this system in order to supply each of you with credible crime statistics for Ashland. The lack of workload data and crime statistics has been an ongoing concern to use. Hoperfully, the county wide CAD project will resolve same. t re T V L.• ^. !s,�.� City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear City Council: Please let this letter serve as notice to the City Council that I strongly support the proposed retirement facility to be built on North I1ain at Maple Street. I am a resident of Ashland and would like to continue to live in Ashland. When I can no longer maintain my own residence, this facility will make an ideal option for me. The proposed facility is close to town and bus service. It is also close to emergency medical care which is very reassuring. Please help the seniors of our community and support this project. Your affirmative action on this project would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Nam Address Phone $ I NSU MNCE PUBLICATIONS I N C O R P O R A T E D 10709 BARKLEY, SUITE 3 / POST OFFICE BOX 11310, OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 6 6 2 0 7-101 TOLL FREE WATS (800) 762-3387 / (913) 383-9191 / FAX (913) 383-1247 July 18, 1995 !r'� JY'lu ac�' r Gary E. Brown /410 Chief of Police A/ ') 1155 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mr. Brown: 9�f �+ kin You_ may ,recall; that. I .wrot to year following a burglaryathat' we experienced'e ;;you�last at"Ba'rd's"Inn on our'last night in''Ashland. As you were kind enough to reply, I thought I would report to you our impressions following our recent stay, June 29 - July 10. ItFzsTvery evident that Ashland_haas�'addressed-the problems assoq� edxwith transient undesirables -' Such .folks are""to/ ,bel�'se'en;in" far fewer numbers 'arid"we''werei not 'panhandled 'or 9o1lCied F1n°a ny way during our stay. Therapparently. newlyy institu£ed patrols ' particula �r rl- ih and'�.around tithio 'Park; a're m t°`evfdent "and -comfortf ussions with several business owners confirmed these impressions. Congratulations! --It is heartening' to ;see:that ,Ashland and [. rtst.Polace;Department;have reaognlzed the need to;,`act while- 1- therd,' st'i'l :.time'.:to`preserve'rthe; inlque 'characters and beauty of'"such"-a�wonderful : pl&d,q ' of course, total transformations cannot be achieved in a short time frame. I am aware of the break-ins the morning of the Fourth and my host at Bard's Inn, John Warren, told me of vandalism in his plantings the morning of the tenth, when we were checking out. Still, the changes we saw are most promising. You )v lia m ry tru ia (y Yv d Wilm S. Howard ' President WSH/lb f Ian : 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 to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 15 1995 I. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 6:30 p.m., Conference Room, regarding ORS 192.660(1)(h) to consider current litigation. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meetings of July 18 and August 1, 1995. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Departmental Reports for July, 1995. 3. Liquor license approval for William and Maureen Sadler dba\The Great American Pizza Co., 1448 Ashland Street. 4. Authorization for Mayor to sign Cooperative Agreement of Urban Services Agreement with BCVSA regarding planning coordination. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Must conclude by 9:30 p.m.) 1. Public Hearing on PA#95-058: request for Annexation of 7.96 acres located on North Mountain Avenue and the westerly extension of Munson Drive, and Outline Plan approval of a 43-lot subdivision. (Applicant: Mary Powers/Doug Neuman) VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total). VIII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Request for sewer connections to properties outside the City Limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary on Highway 66, east of Dead Indian Memorial Road. (Osborn request) 2. Election of Audit Committee members by City Council. 3. Letter of resignation from Councilor Rob Winthrop. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Decision on selection of preferred alternative for upgrade of WWTP to meet new TMDL standards. X. ORDINANCES, L CONTRACTS: 1. econd re-Win o "An Ordinance amending the A.M.C. Section 9.08.120 to increase ground clearance of trees over roadways from ten feet to twelve feet." XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS XII. ADJOURNMENT ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIONS REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION The Ashland City Council met for a six hour study session on July 31, 1995, to develop a preferred course of action on the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) options. During that study session, all of the alternatives and options to those alternatives were discussed. Options Summarized as Presented: "A" Medford Regional tion: Construct a pipeline (interceptor) to transfer raw sewage to the Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility for treatment and further reuse. "B" Treatment Plant Upgrades (with one of the following options): The treatment plant has been surviving on interim "band-aide" fixes and is badly in need of repairs and upgrades. It has been proposed that these upgrades happen in three phases: Phase I: Immediate needs to keep the plant pperating reliably over the next three years. This includes relocating the outfall to Bear Creek; correcting the chlorination/dechlorinization system to meet the chlorine residual limit in Bear Creek; evaluate and modify the exist aeration basins (fine bubble) to correct the ammonia problems; and necessary repairs to the headworks and primary clarifiers. Phase [I: This second phase (years 3-6) corrects associated items to meet the longer term effluent limits as the plant's treatment capacity is further constrained. During this period, plant component upgrades include a nominal growth factor for projected population growth, and will correct for state-of-the-art treatment needs. Components include new aeration basins for full nitrification capabilities; grit removal; evaluation and corrections to the existing secondary clarifiers; sludge treatment and handling improvements; and evaluation of the need for a storage lagoon. Phase III: The final phase of this round of treatment plant upgrades looks at years 6-20, and evaluates redundancy needs, flexibility in plant operations and utilization, and efficiencies. This phase will evaluate and make recommendations for future growth and the longer term needs and resource options. Included in the evaluation will be further modifications to the solids handling; new secondary clarifier; tertiary filtration needs; and other operational needs based on plant efficiencies. The plant upgrades will correct the immediate needs for winter discharge to Bear Creek, but will not correct the phosphorous residual for summer discharge. As such, the plant upgrades are a portion of the correction, but one of the following options would be included in a final decision: ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REV..-Aug 15, 1995 ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIONS-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION SUMMARY PAGE-1 "13-1" Spray Irrigation Without Wetlands: This option allows for treated effluent to be used as irrigation water for grass crops (or other future reuse options) during the summer when the effluent does not meet the stringent standards for release to Bear Creek. This option requires the purchase of irrigation land (approximately 700 acres) and construction of an irrigation system to apply the treated effluent. This option also necessitates the need for an evaluation of water replacement flow agreements for Bear Creek to replace the daily flow of 1.8 million gallons that the treatment plant would not be returning to the creek during the summer. This option allows for future reuse options to be evaluated such as irrigating City parks lands, cemeteries, golf courses and reduce the need / use of drinking water for irrigation, or for sale to other irrigators. "B-II" Spray Irrigation WITH Demonstration Wetlands: This option is essentially the same as the option above, but provides the ability to evaluate wetlands as a treatment option. The difficulty with wetlands is the lack of information and specific success-in-this area. Wetlands have been successful in many geographical - locations, yet the success at reaching and reliably maintaining a phosphorus level of 0.08 mg/I is rare. This option allows for a period of evaluation of wetlands process and the ability under specific circumstances to provide a beneficial part of the treatment plant process. It is expected that the wetlands would begin as a "pilot/demonstration" project under controlled conditions. Initially, 3 acres of wetlands would be evaluated for approximately three years (allows time to purchase and construct the wetlands, establish the plants and approximately 18 months to study the initial results). After the initial three years, the wetlands could be further tested in the same 3 acre site, expanded or incrementally expanded to evaluate results, or it might be determined that the process is not reasonable for this area. Toward the end of the pilot wetlands establishment time, it would be possible to test soil filtration to evaluate the capabilities for phosphorous removal. Until the pilot wetlands is handling a proportionate amount of flow, and the results of that system are measured, the additional affects of the soil filtration would not be known. Throughout the initial testing period the "fall-back" position would be having the treated effluent from both the plant and the wetlands reused through spray irrigation during the summer months. Until reliable results are obtained from the wetlands that would suggest full compliance with DEQ effluent discharge limitations, direct discharge to Bear Creek is not feasible. "B-III" Wetlands Alone with Discharge to Bear Creek Year Round: As explained, this option has high risk of not meeting the DEQ effluent discharge standards for phosphorous. As discussed during the study session, there are several "sub- options" including a soil filtration process or the possibility of using "leaky" wetlands for groundwater recharge. With any of these options, the risks of not reliably meeting the discharge limits for year round discharge to Bear Creek are ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REV-Aug 15. 1995 ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIONS-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION SUMMARY PAGE-2 high, and not recommended without some type of back up system. Should testing provide reliable long term results, then this option could be reevaluated in the future. "C" Full Plant Upgrades to a Tertiary Plant: The final option discussed was the full plant upgrade to a sophisticated tertiary plant capable of meeting all of the DEQ discharge limitations. This option was essentially dropped from earlier discussion as there is still some risk involved, and because the cost was relatively much higher. However, for comparison, this option was explained during the study session. The primary benefit to this option is that all flow from the treatment plant would return to the creek year round. Cost Summary: The costs of each option were discussed and are summarized on the attached sheet. It is important to realize that these are relative costs and depict a general understanding of the conceptual costs. They are built upon assumptions and will provide a means of evaluation and comparison, but will be narrowed down for the final facilities report as the options are more carefully defined. Council Debate/Questions and Direction: The council deliberated and asked a considerable amount of questions regarding the merit of each option. A primary concern remains the need to obtain water flow agreements and the long term capability to retain the agreements. Many expressed the need to further evaluate background phosphorous levels in the creek and surrounding geology. There was unanimous support for a local solution to the wastewater treatment plant issues, and to maintain a potential long term resource with effluent reuse. All supported option "B-II" to use spray irrigation as the ultimate solution, and study wetlands for beneficial effects on the treatment process. Specific comments and discussion items are included in the meeting summary minutes. Public Comment: There was time for public comment built into the study session so that any questions or remaining community concerns could be brought to the Council for their review prior to the actual public hearing and final council decision. There was limited public comment, primarily from the Wetlands Coalition members and a small number of concerned citizens. The undertone was positive and supportive of a natural solution and beneficial reuse through spray irrigation. Direction: Based on the above information, staff has proceeded to pull together a proposed schedule for approval by the City Council on August 15 and to present at the Public Hearing on August 9. It is Eased on Option "B-II", Plant Upgrades and Spray Irrigation wit'-.Demonstration Wetlands. Attached is a very early rendition of the schedule and process that will oe fully developed for the final Facilities Plan to be completed b October 1. ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REV.Aug 15, 1995 ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIONS-COUNCIL STUDY SESSION SUMMARY PAGE-3 ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIONS SUMMARY OF COSTS PLANT UPGRADE PLA NT.UPGRADE ......................................... MEDFORD"REGIONAL" SPRAY IRRIGATION SPRAY MOATION WETLANDS ALONE FULL PLANT UPGRADE ......................................... WITHOUT WETLANDS :7<WTI'Ei1VE'LlANDS ;- FLOW TO BEAR CREEK TERTIARY FILTRATION PHASE I(0-3 years) DESIGN/ADMIN(Plant) $447,400 S4A7,400' 5447,400 CONST/CAPITAL(plant) 521,800,000 $2,387000 52387,000,i 52,387,000 IRRIGATION CAPITAL WETLANDS CAPITAL(pilot) $dS5,464,', 5655,000 PILOT SOIL FILTRATION 580,0001. LAND ACQUISITION $900,000 ,S9QD OODr: OTHER TOTAL"CAPITAL" 521,800,000 S3,734,400 $4,469,400: 53,489,400 OPS/MAINT(annual plant) $581,000 $533,000 $533.040': $533,000 OPS/MAIM'(annual other) ;,545 p00 545,000 REPLACEMENT WATER(annual) 5219,000 PHASE D(3-6 years) DESIGN I ADMBJ(Plant) 51,170400 Sl;l!T0,400!; $1,170,400 CONST/CAPITAL(plant) $6,203,000 .............T6,203,000} $6,203,000 IRRIGATION CAPITAL $2,000,000 E2,OOD,D00; WETLANDS CAPITAL $2,930,000: $2,950,00'.' LAND ACQUISITION OTHER TOTAL"CAPITAL' s0 $9,373,400 $(¢,323,400. $10,323,400 OPS/MAIM'(annual plant) $581,000 $625,000 5625 00. 5625,000 OPS/MAINT(annual other) $125,500 5190,500 $190,500 REPLACEMENT WATER(annual) 5219,000 5219000 $2l4,D60< PHASE IH(6-20 years) DESIGN/ADM@I(Plant) S848,300 $848,300 $848,300 CONST/CAPITAL(plant) 54,750,300 S4,750,300'.: $4,750,300 IRRIGATION CAPITAL SI,000000 51,000,000: WETLANDS CAPITAL ..............!;= UNKNOWN LAND ACQUISITION ..'' .:.: ._......:':..._._ UNKNOWN OTHER !:I _.........:I:I:..._....'.'. UNKNOWN TESTING TOTAL"CAPITAL" $6,598600 56,398,60D.': $5,598,600 OPS/MAINT(annual plant) $581,000 $706,000 $706,000: 5706,000 OPS/MAINT(annual other) $150,000 ....J'......... 5300,000 REPLACEMENT WATER(annual) $219,000 $219,000 $219,000x. $219,000 PRESENT WORTH TOO MANY CAPITAL 521,800,000 519,706,400 527,3 @1,400,.; UNKNOWNS $32,975,000 OPS/MADIT 58,124,000 $9,899,600 SI 1,437,100. TO FULLY $16,729,000 REPLACEMENT WATER $2,976,000 $2,370,000 52,370,000.; EVALUATE COSTS SALVAGE ($1,800,000) ($1,500000) {$2;000,000) ($1,637,000) TOTAL $31,100,000 $30,476000 S35198,500 $48,067,000 Rev: August 15, 1995 RVCOG-ASHLAND a s a s s a s s a a' s f. s a _ a s E _s s o st a 4 a [Fri" a o o a � a 6 0 0 7 S S D A A A F A A A A A 3 A A 4 A A i : 7 7 7 MINUTES FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE OPTIONS PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 9, 1995 CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Golden called the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Upgrade Options Public Hearing to order at 7 : 03 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Councilors Laws, Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop, and Thompson were Present. Councilor Reid was absent. WWTP Project Coordinator Paula Brown presented WWTP options that included a review of the City Council Study Session held on July 31. (See attached. ) A Summary of Costs was presented that projected each option through a 20-year period. Public Hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. : Ron Roth, 6950 Old 99 South: Questioned a point on the handout from Study Session regarding the amount of spraying that would be compiled during one-year of spraying effluent. Roth also questioned the TMDL standard allowed by DEQ. Gary Schrodt, 681 Liberty: Asked that the decision point for the spray irrigation with wetlands process would need to be identified as a Council decision to allow for possible changes in the Council makeup within the next 3 years. Noted that wetlands projects provide a possibility for grant money to be used. John Sully, 365 Granite Street: Stated that wetlands and soil filtration would be more effective than testing either process alone. Brown stated that the benefits will need 1 to 2 years before wetlands testing could provide clear data. Public Works Director Steve Hall noted that by using the 3- year window for evaluation you are able to allow for weather pattern interruptions. Roth suggested exploring the beneficial use of the spray irrigation by actively considering the cost and feasibility of using the effluent as irrigation for the newly-developed Mountain Avenue Park property. Rick Landt, P.O. Box 874: Spoke regarding the cost of different options. Gross costs are reflected, not net costs. Options do not consider gains to the City with different choices in place. (r.Miauw\WwMrg.mia)•Pg. i Councilor Laws responded that the purpose of the Council's decision on the options must pertain to the gross costs only. Net costs that consider each option's benefits remain an unknown and cannot be a part of the Council' s decision. Carl Oates, 776 Glendale: Asked for flexibility to be included in the facilities plan. Suggested our timeline may be too far extended for our own good and would urge City to consider presenting a shorter time frame to DEQ to allow flexibility within the chosen option for the future. Asked for Council to consider variability of water replacement levels over the long term. Councilor Laws stated that Council has committed to replace in the creek as much water as is removed from the creek wherever possible. Hall agreed that the timeline needs to be kept wide open to allow for DEQ's request for a bigger picture. Internal adjustments can be made when necessary or available. Infrastructure to pipe effluent to city lands/parks is expensive, but will definitely be considered over the cost of irrigating those lands with expensive drinking-quality water. Cate Hartzell, 881 East Main Street: Suggested mid-1998 could be used for soil filtration evaluation period. Councilor Hagen asked that a point be included in the timeline that shows soil filtration would begin to be evaluated. ADJOURNMENT Public Hearing was adjourned at 8 : 45 p.m. Submitted by Rhonda E. Moore Executive Secretary (r.Minut \WY'7?H`g.min)-pg.2 Aug. 15 '95 16:33 DH4YOX300 series TEL 5034622?60 i P. 1 To: City of Ashland Mayor and Council 8/15/95 From: Joe Eckhardt, speaking at public forum . Subject: Opposition to City Plan for dealing with waste water treatment up-grading and treatment. I am opposed to the selection by the council and city administration, and study groups formed to select a method of dealing with these problems, that have been known to exist and need for resolution for fifteen years, on the following grounds: I. To summarily dismiss a viable option to pipe the WW to Medford to be treated and disposed of according to already DEQ accepted standards at a much more reasonable cost than that proposed by council at this time, is frlvllous and shows little attention to the financial burden on citizens of Ashland. p yy cltyTothenocosthewould beainuader30hemilliont dollarsl(BEFORE compliance with DEQ tandards for dealing with this effluence, and more than likely will ultimately cost considerablyy more when DEQ standards are met) reflects, to me, poor planning or an intent to stubbornly hold out for local versus regional disposition of WW. We as citizens do not have to accept such a wastefull approch to a chronic problem without furthur study as to cost and impact on our bond rating as a city. III. This short sighted approach to ,lust one of many considerations for future 4rowth of our city, simply furthur demonstrates domination of Administration over city policy, and opens the door for tremendous contract letting, increased staff expenses to implement this unrealistic plan, and loads more rate charges upon citizens that already are barely able to make ends meet now! IV. As our city financial planner. Jill Turner once admonished the council, each additional municipal bond sought, increases our bond rating risk, and may materially increse the Interest rates on this city when seeking money in this fashion. Can we afford , ( by a poorly thought-out fical plan , such as this) risk placing this city in a questionable status for any other emergency need for municipal bonds in the future? There are many other alternatives to be looked at before rushing to a decision ,as so frequently seems to be the case , when administration has its eye on a plan that costs the citizens much money. Joe Eckhardt, 108 Bush St. Ashland OR 97520 1 Emlaraurtum ' .�4F60� •• August 14, 1995 ��• Mayor and City Council ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director p.ut jnt. DEQ Amendment of Facility Plan Selection. Attached is a letter from Iangdon Marsh, Director of DEQ approving Ashland's request to change the preferred option selection for the Ashland Facility Plan to August 15, 1995. cc: Brian Almquist, City Administrator Peggy Christiansen, Assistant City Administrator Paula Brown, WWTP Coordinator Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer Dick Wanderscheid, Regional Affairs and Conservation Dennis Barnts, Water Quality Superintendent (O:wwdeq& ==) on DEPARTMENT OF August 1, 1995 rI ( [�y ENVIRONMENTAL i D QUALITY Steven Hall, P.E. AUG 1 1 I995 Public Works Director City of Ashland CITY OF ASHLAND City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Addendum No. 1 to Mutual Agreement and Order No. WQMW-WR-94-325 Jackson County File No. 3780 Dear Mr. Hall: The Department is in receipt of your letter dated July 27, 1995 requesting an extension of time of the compliance schedule contained in Paragraph 14.A.(1) of Mutual Agreement Order No. WQMW-WR-94-325 to allow for public comment and council deliberation of treatment issues and alternatives. there will be no delay to meeting the October 1, 1995 due date for facility plan submittal. this request was received prior to the required due date, and demonstrated circumstances or events beyond the City's control. Therefore, pursuant to Paragraph 17 of the order, the order is being amended as follows: 1. Paragraph 14.A.(1) is changed as follows: c. By August 15, 1995 the permittee shall select a preferred option for modifying the wastewater treatment facilities. If you have any questions, please contact Jon Gasik at (503) 776-6010 extension 230. Sincerely, don Marsh Director DWB:mr Fn?G- cc: Steve Greenwood, Western Region Administrator, DEQ Van Kollias, Enforcement, DEQ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 311 S1V Sixth Avenue Dennis Belsky, Western Region, DEQ Portland, OR 97204-1391 229-5696 TDD (503) 229-6993 c. DEQ-1 `p+ pRE00N =,��♦ ♦+ pRE00N E,,,t ASHLAND Oz or CITY COUNCIL Study Session Minutes ~`';r 0 EGO 31, 1995 �'�•0REGO �,ftk City Council held a Study Session on Monday, July 31, 1995, Civic Center, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. Council President Susan Reid called the meeting to order at 2:12 p.m. I. Roll Call: Councilor Thompson, present; -Councilor Reid, present; Councilor Winthrop, present; Councilor Laws, present; Councilor Hagen, present; Mayor Golden arrived at 2:14 p.m. Also present: Paula Brown, Wastewater Treatment Coordinator; Jim Hill, City of Medford; Dennis Belsky, Department of Environmental Quality; Jon Gasik, Department Environmental Quality; John Holroyd, Brown & Caldwell; and Marc Prevost, Rogue Valley Council of Governments. II. .Wastewater Treatment Plant Options: Presentation by Paula Brown: Paula Brown, Wastewater Treatment Coordinator was introduced by Mayor Golden. Brown stated the purpose for the meeting was for Council to ask questions and discuss Ashland Wastewater Treatment Options. Brown reviewed the following questions: "What are we trying to accomplish in Bear Creek?" "What is the purpose of the corrections to the Wastewater Treatment Plant?" "Will Wetlands fit in?" She also discussed Council Goals in reference to each question (see attached). Each Councilor had previously received a packet of information containing the following three options: Option A) The City of Ashland would send all of its untreated sewage to Medford's Regional Water Reclamation Facility via a constructed pipeline (interceptor) and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority's regional interceptor for treatment at the Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility for further discharge to the Rogue River or for regional reuse. Eric Dittmer reviewed and discussed this option with the City Council. The pros, cons, and unknowns were also discussed. PAGE 1-0:co cMn.dmin.a) { Option B) The Wastewater Treatment Plant upgraded and repaired to keep operating reliably over the next three years; second phase improvement would include a nominal growth component (3-6 years); last phase would take the plant beyond just meeting the effluent criteria and projects growth for up to 20 years. Brown reviewed and discussed this option with the City Council. Phase I: Immediate needs to keep the plant operating reliably over the next three years. This includes relocating the outfall to Bear Creek; correcting the chlorination/dechlorinization system to meet the chlorine residual limit in Bear Creek; evaluate and modify the existing aeration . basins (fine bubble) to correct the ammonia problems; and necessary repairs to the headworks and primary clarifiers. Phase II: This second phase (3-6 years) corrects associated items to meet the longer term effluent limits as the plant's treatment capacity is further constrained. During this period, plant component upgrades include a nominal growth factor for projected population growth, and will correct for state-of-the-art treatment needs. Components include new aeration basins for full nitrification capabilities; grit removal; evaluation and corrections to the existing secondary clarifiers; sludge treatment and handling improvements; and evaluation of the need for storage lagoon. Phase III: The final phase of this round of treatment plant upgrades looks at years 6-20, and evaluates redundancy needs, flexibility in plant operations and utilization, and efficiencies. This phase will evaluate and make recommendations for future growth and the longer term needs and resource options. Included in the evaluation will be further modifications to the solids handling; new secondary clarifier; tertiary filtration needs; and other operational needs based on plant efficiencies. The plant upgrades will correct the immediate needs for winter discharge to Bear Creek, but will not correct the phosphorous residual for summer discharge. As such, the plant upgrades are a portion of the correction, but one of the following options would be included in a final decision: 1) Spray Irrigation Without Wetlands; 2) Spray Irrigation WITH Demonstration Wetlands; 3) Wetlands Along with Discharge to Bear Creek Year Around. Option C) The City of Ashland would maintain the effluent from the Wastewater Treatment Plant and reuse the flow during the late spring through early fall to lad irrigate and discharge winter flows to bear creek or use constructed wetlands as a functioning part of the wastewater treatment process. Brown reviewed and discussed this option with the City Council. The pros, cons and unknowns were also discussed. The final option is full plant upgrade to a sophisticated tertiary plant capable of meeting all of the DEQ discharge limitations. This option was essentially dropped from earlier discussion as there is still some risk involved, and because PAGE 2-(�:«a,.z .c�) the cost was relatively much higher. The primary benefit to this option is that all flow from the treatment plant would return to the creek year round. Supporting documentation to the above options was in the City Council packet. Brown distributed printed information listing of the options showing "Technical Feasibility Risk", Long-term Risk", "Financial (Cost)" relative to low, medium or high, and "Comments/Concern". She stated time frame for Option "A" is immediate to three years, Option "B" possibly three to five years, and Option "C" would take three years. Brown Distributed information on proposed costs for each option, with corrections (see attached). III. City Council Review & Comments: Brown stated she would walk the Council through the choices and recommendations as per their request. The choices are: returning treated effluent to the creek or replacing that amount of volume in the creek; the choice of going to Medford today or not; the choice of going to Medford later. The Council deliberated and asked a considerable amount of questions regarding the merit of each option. A primary concern is the need to obtain water flow agreements and the long term capability to retain the agreements and also, the need to further evaluate background phosphorous levels in the creek and surrounding geology. The Council agreed to support a local solution to the wastewater treatment plant issues and to maintain a potential long term resource with effluent reuse. Council also agreed the that "spray irrigation" would be the best solution and study wetlands for beneficial effects on the treatment process. IV. 7:00 p.m.: Public Comment Gary Schrodt, 681 Liberty, Ashland, commended Brian on choice of Paula Brown and RVCOG. He stated the idea of focusing on land applications is getting the cart before the horse. He recommended this be approached with testing, as the Wetlands Coalition had recommended. His concern is cost and requirements. The water is being used by the people and needs to be returned to the Watershed. Water shortages may develop into the same situation as Klamath and even more rapidly. DEQ may be looking at the Medford option as a "quick fix". Ron Roth, 6978 Old 99 South: Commended Brown for doing an incredible job in getting things in focus. He questioned the Medford option including future upgrades and Medford receiving the phosphate levels. Jim Hill stated it was estimated at 1 milligram. Current allowed level phosphate has not been set by DEQ for the City of Medford. Belsky stated Medford is currently obtaining data. He questioned whether DEQ would require Medford to do the same as Ashland. Holroyd stated that Medford's fall-back is a spray irrigation. He also highly recommended doing the pilot program because it is an opportunity to do some real research. He said it would be something for DEQ's data base. He said as a community we need the data. Roth stated that the idea of spray irrigation combined with wetlands is trying to get rid of water by spraying. This water PAGE ' r should be used to irrigate existing parks and the golf course. He also recommended taking care of chlorine and ammonia problems right away. His main concern is the process. Replacing the problem has always been a Council concern. His major concern is to have a minimum amount of water in the creek. John McClanden, 105 Bush Street. He stated he has been a biochemist for the past 50 years and one of the things he has learned is that calcium phosphate is the most insoluble. You reduce phosphate before it goes into the plant or before it goes out. The use of alum and lime will reduce the phosphate. Calcium adds more than the alum method does. The research already done is that you can get 90% of the phosphate precipitated. The flow of the sewage through a bed of limestone will remove a very large amount of phosphate. Jim Hill: He stated that the facility plan they looked at, and if the standards changed, cost would be greater, and it is highly unlikely that there would not be a reason for it. The reclamation brought the water back into the valley that was leaving. A viable option is to send it to Sams Valley. There is a back-up reclamation and that is to go to Sams Valley. Gary Schrodt. He stated he has been concerned about what has happened at Tualatin. Gasik stated he has heard that the phosphates have come way down but reduction in water quality violations has not and DEQ is examining the possibility of higher standards. Schrodt stated that if in the testing phases, if Council decides to go that route, that phosphorus is still ambiguous, there are still unknowns. We have limited resources and if we spend money on this, will we be able to have data. Belsky stated that he does not know if there will be a mid-course change in standards. Schrodt asked if Ashland was to look at the issue that 1.8 or less is really going to work would DEQ consider this. Belsky stated if the scientific data is there they will certainly look at it. Dennis Belsky stated that in the past the DEQ has been forward with their opinion but the flavor that they have left is that the choice is up to the Council. V. Other Business: City Council Members Golden stated if Council wants to close the Medford option to state reason. Winthrop stated that based on what is known tonight that he has come to the view to leave the Medford option because he thinks it is a very significant decision. The argument is that we need to hold on to our effluent; too many unsubstantiated elements in the charges laid on the table; SDC's is also an issue; we have good options here. Golden stated she wanted to keep it on the table because she wanted to forward to the Regional Board that the second largest City in southern Oregon would not be invited to be a part. It is difficult to hear from the Medford City Council that they do not want Ashland making their decisions. It is hard, after six years of working, to keep Medford on the table. PAGE 4-(c:�dNgwm,w.Cc) ` • I Hauck stated that what Golden and Winthrop had stated crystallized his decision to not use Medford. The financial part did not sway his decision. Laws stated we need to have guaranteed fall back, and not limit our choices. The two choices we have is the Medford, and spray irrigation and he is not going to let petty politics cut that out. His prejudices is strongly in maintaining control over the effluent of Ashland: Second he thinks the regions options are still uncertainties. He thinks we are led to spray irrigation as the fall back. He would like to see studying on wetlands. He is no longer comfortable with wetlands. His choices are spray irrigation and spray irrigation with wetlands. He thinks the Council should move right away with spray irrigation. Reid stated that she had let go of the Medford option. Because of the unknowns we are not talking about spending more money. She is happy the WWTP is using alum to reduce phosphates and she is proud of staff on this one. Hagen stated he was pleasantly surprised to see how close the costs were. He hopes that the Council will take advantage of the three year study period. The pipe between here and Medford made him uncomfortable. He is prepared to go ahead with the wetlands with spray irrigation. Thompson stated he favors regional approach to things but he is against this one. He wants to maintain control of our resource. Hauck stated that what we need at this time is spray irrigation with wetlands. If we have three years, we need to test out the option with wetlands without spray irrigation. Golden stated Winthrop has done so much work on this issue. Winthrop thanked the Mayor for her comment. He stated he is leaning in the same direction, spray irrigation. He also stated RVCOG has done a tremendous job. He thinks the issue in detail is how quickly should we move with irrigation. He thinks the job of a city government is to be informed and go with the reliable system. He is willing to drop overboard soil filtration. The focus should be getting land that is available for irrigation system and go to a level for treatment and apply it to a City facility. Laws stated that throughout this process that the Wetlands Coalition has been a real informant. Since there is not going to be a tie vote he thinks that Reid should be allowed to vote and proceed with the schedule now set for the Council vote. Golden stated she would like to move to get this done following the public hearing on August 9th. Laws wanted to take a consensus of the Council. Winthrop stated he thought the schedule should be followed. Hauck agreed and thinks we should follow through with the advertised schedule. Thompson stated it doesn't matter if they vote on the 9th. Hagen asked for clarification as to the filtration being basically a mud hole. Brown stated there would be three inches of water. She also stated ideal filtration is to have the smallest amount of water on top. Schrodt commented on placing a marsh on top of the soil infiltration system and that this could be compatible. Plato stated there are a number PAGE 5-(<x.�ii*.&,i..co of ways to place a filtration system that would not require a large amount of land. Hill commended the City Council for their decision and stated the City of Medford supports any decision they make in improving the water that flows into Bear Creek. Brown stated that her thought for the August 9th meeting is to take comments and summarize them for an opening of the Public Hearing. VI. Adjournment: Therd being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully su itted, Caralyn Dusenberry Administrative Secretary PAGE 6-c<:�iI*=idmin.00 ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT ]PLANT OPTIONS WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN BEAR CREEK? ♦ Watershed / Basin Concept . ♦ _ Sufficiently improve flows in Bear Creek to encourage development of salmon habitat ♦ Evaluate the regional implications of Ashland's actions (beneficial downstream uses, . Talent's drinking water, farrhers/growers; fish, Regional Water Reclamation) Council Goals:-,-, 4; Replace the volume of WWTP effluent removed from Bear Creek- ♦ •Support the natural ecology of Bear Creek" WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CORRECTIONS TO THE WWTP? Due to the basin nIDL designation, DEQ standards for point source discharges to Ashland / Bear Creek have become increasingly more stringent. Ashland is under a Mutual Agreement and Order to correct three primary concerns: Chlorine Residual; Ammonia - Nitrogen; and Sludge Management, and a fourth with proposed phosphorous limits. To do so, the WNVTP must be improved and upgraded. Council Goals: ♦ •Satisfy DEQ standards for effluent from the WWTP" ♦ 'Eliminate odors created by the WWTP" ♦ 'Minimize capital and operating costs of the WWTP" WILL WETLANDS FIT IN? Council Intent: .. give full consideration to the possible use of multiple objective open surface wetlands technology to assist in achieving WWTP goals. " CONSIDER: If WWTP effluent discharged to Bear Creek in the summer may not meet DEQ standards, and may cause problems for the salmon, then why not look at removing the effluent from the creek - getting the treated effluent to another beneficial use? Desire to ensure replacement flows in Bear Creek. If the WWTP is not directly discharging into Bear Creek, there must be trades from TID, M&I rights or other water rights to replace the flows the WWTP would have normally placed in the creek. DEQ is currently working on a water rights agreement that would assure 10 cfs (6.5 mgd) in the creek at all times. ASHLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIONS SUMMARY OF COSTS PLANT UPGRADE - PLAN7 UPGRADE MEDFORD-RBGIONAL' SPRAYIRRIGATION �SPRAY IRRIGATIONf- WEf1ANDSALONE RUKANTUPGRADE WITHOUT WETLANDS -_WITH WER-ANDS'V' FLOW TO BEAR CREEK TERTIARY FILTRATION PHASE 1(0-3 years) DESIGN/ADMIN(Plant) 5447400 - 5447400. 5447,400 CONST/CAPITAL(plant) S21 500,000 S2 387 000 52,387 000 52,387,000 - IRRIGATION CAPITAL k.... WETLANDS CAPITAL 5655 000 5655,000 LAND ACQUISITION 5900000 5900000 OTHER TOTAL"CAPITAL" S21^00 S3,734,400 54,389,400. 53,489,400 .. OPS/MAINT(annual plant) 5581,000 $533,000 5533 000 $533,000 OPS/MAINT(annual other) " 545 000 545,000 REPLACEMENT WATER(annual) 819,000 - PHASE It(3-6 years) DESIGN I ADMIN(Plant) $1170400 :3 SI 170100 $1,170,400 CONST/CAPITAL(plant) S6,303,000 [' $6,203,000 $6,203,000 IRRIGATION CAPITAL 52,000,000 = $2,000,000 - WETLANDS CAPITAL 52,950,000 52,950,000 LAND ACQUISMON OTHER I, TOTAL"CAPITAL' S0 59,373,400 . S12,323,400 SI0,323,400 OPS/MAINT(annual plant) 5581 000 5625,000 . 5625,000 5625,000 OPS/MAINT(annual other) 5125,500 5190,500 5190,500 REPLACEMENT WATER(annual) 5219,000 5219,000 5219,000 PHASE 111(6-20 years) DESIGN/ADMIN(Plant) $648,300 5848,300 1648,300 CONST/CAPITAL(plant) 54,750,300 54,750,300 54,750,300 IRRIGATION CAPITAL 51,000,000 SI,000,000 UNKNOWN WETLANDS CAPITAL UNKNOWN LAND ACQUISITION OTHER UNKNOWN TESTING TOTAL"CAPITAL" S6598,600 S6,598,600 55,598,600 OPS/MAINT(annual plant) S5S1.000 5706,000 5706,000 5706,000 OPS/MAINT(annual other) 5150,000 5300,000 5300,000 REPLACEMENT WATER(annual) 519,000 5219,000 5219,000 $219,000 PRFSENT\VORTH TOO MANY CAPITAL 521,800,000 519,706,400 523,311,400 UNKNOWNS 532,975,000 OPS/MAINT SS,124000 S9,899,600 511,437,100 TO FULLY 516,729,000 REPLACEMENT WATER 52,976,000 52,370,000 $2,370,000 EVALUATE COSTS ($1,637,000) SALVAGE (S 1,800,000) (51,500,000) (52000,000) 548,067,000 TOTAL S31,100,000 530,476,000 535,118,500 UNKNOWN! August 8,1995 RVCOG-ASHLAND r OPTION TECHNICAL LONG TERM RISK FINANCIAL COST COMMENTS/CONCERNS TIME' FEASBILITY RISK* FRAMES .. Option A: Medford "Regional" . MINIMAL MEDIUMMIGH - -. LOW • give up long-term resource (Long-Term Unknown) • unknown long-term requirements to Medford's plant/permit • Is this the right solution for " g`YRS Ashland? • member vs contract a long-term relationship with BCVSA and Medford Option B: Plant Upgrades I I ----------------------------------------4---------------------------+---------------------------------+----------------------------+----------------------------------- POSSIBLY ►Spray Irrigate Without Wetlands MINIMAL MINIMAUMEDIUM MEDIUM • Bear Creek exchange winter discharge to Bear Creek ; ; no use of wetland - I I (community impact) t t -----------------------------------------'r---------------------------- ---------------------------------rt----------------------------r�--------------------------------- 3 YRS ►Spray Irrigate WIM Wetlands MINIMAL MINIMAL MEDIUM Bear Creek exchange win^pr discharge to Bear Creek I ' • future ability to irrigate all city park lands- minimise treated drinking water use for irrigation ---------- ' ----------=---------' ----------------------------------1-----; -------------------------_ t T_--_____ ►Wetlands Alone HIGH MINIMAUMEDIUM HIGH ; • maybe technically feasible, but year-round discharge to Bear Creek (Long-Term Unknown) j, has unknown or unproven results 3-5 YRS • if DEQ standard not met,would I have to stop and do something else I j • stringent permit requirements • percent ground water recharge to I Bear Creek • still need exchange Option C: Full Upgrade MEDIUM MINIMAUMEDIUM HIGH • costly; concrete solution 3 YRS s MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 1, 1995 1 CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen were present. Councilors Thompson and Winthrop arrived at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes for the regular meeting of July 18, 1995 will be available at the August 15 Council meeting due to illness. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Departmental Reports for July, 1995. 3. City Administrator's Monthly Report for July, 1995. 4. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign contract amendment with OMECA to delete Canby Utility Board and amend other provisions of the agreement. 5. Approval of liquor license application from Connie and Michael Robbins dba/Outback Cafe, 3070 Highway 66. 6. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign quitclaim deed for sewer easement near Randy Street and Elizabeth Avenue. r Councilors Winthrop/Hauck m/s approval of Consent Agenda. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continuation of Public Hearing on request for annexation of 47.7 acres located east of Interstate 5 and west of East Main; zone change from C-1 to R-1-5; and request for outline plan approval for 173-lot subdivision (Diamond D Corporation, applicants). Mayor Golden reviewed Criteria for Annexation (AMC 18.108.085). Councilor Winthrop asked for an interpretation by Community Development Director McLaughlin regarding criteria pertaining to Comprehensive Plan findings. McLaughlin responded that LUBA has responded using the question: Does the zoning the applicant propose match with the Land Use Ordinance criteria? City Attorney (r.8-1-95.min)pg. 1 Nolte stated that there remains an issue of how a policy is being implemented by the annexation criteria used. Public Hearing opened at 7:23 p.m. In Opposition: Joe Eckhart, 108 Bush - Opposes annexation request on the basis: CPAC noted in Comprehensive Plan to review all annexation hearings. If anything overlooked in Comprehensive Plan, that would be grounds for an appeal to LUBA. Gerald Cavanaugh,483 Euclid -- Opposes annexation request. Read his previously- submitted written comments in reverse numerical order due to the question posed earlier by Councilor Winthrop. Richard Ernst, P.O. Box 1134 -- Opposes annexation request based on not meeting "orderly and sequential growth" criteria noted in Comp Plan. He does not think City needs number of homes noted in proposed development; City should need more commercial property rather than residential. Marilyn Briggs, 590 Glenview Drive -- Opposes annexation request: Burden of proof of need is to be borne by developer and she has not heard that addressed by developer. She thinks more clarity needs to be added to annexation Ordinances and is glad to have the opportunity to "clean up" the Ordinances. Claire Collins, 315 High Street -- Asked for clarification regarding the July 18 meeting when David Lane brought up point that Council "may" approve the project - Council still does have discretion to not approve it. City Attorney Nolte stated that the Planning Commission and Council MUST approve if all criteria have been met just as Planning Commission and Council can NOT.approve if one of the annexation criterium was not met. Letter from Jack Nicholson, 1575 Greenmeadows Way: Letter was read by Mayor Golden to be included in public record at his request. Staff rebuttal: Community Development Director McLaughlin spoke to how annexation criteria was established by Ordinance. He reported that he had not heard from Ashland Hills Inn in response to his letter to them last week regarding their removal of the RVTD bus stop from their property. He expects the issue to be discussed at the August 16 RVTD Board meeting. (r9-1-95.nun)pg.2 Councilor Reid asked if we are mandated by law to use the SRC figures as correct for water planning in the future and can we use the SRC figures to determine if adequate water is available for ,the vacant land within the City limits. City Attorney Nolte explained that if water amounts are used to deny the annexation request, Council would have to state the basis for this decision and if Council said there was not enough water for the current City vacant lands and therefore denied the request for annexation, then a moratorium would have to be enacted and State law would prevail towards the resolution of this problem. Councilor Hagen asked for information on transportation systems to be used by the residents, specifically students that would require transportation to the schools. Councilor Hauck asked for clarification on requirements to approve with conditions to add conditions to intersection that is already in place. We could allow annexation provided these conditions have been met and we could allow the annexation at such time when these conditions have been met. City Attorney agreed with that option. Rebuttal: Doug Lee of Crawford, Multari & Starr, representing developers: Stated sewer increase would be 1% and there is adequate water. There was no problem with road capacity on adjacent roads; improvements agreed upon at East Main and Hwy 66 could be accomplished at their propotionate share; there was a bike lane in the Comprehensive Plan; there is a municipal bus route nearby; they are paying the SDC fees; the development will not trigger a need for a new school; school-age children will feed into existing school bus line; development is within the Urban Growth Boundary; development is surrounded by collector and arterial roads and adjacent to freeway; sewer and electricity are already on East.Main; site is not prime agricultural land; will not infringe on forest land; least impacted location for new growth; believe they meet or exceed criteria established beforehand. Closed public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Councilor Reid stated she was not opposed to subdivisions; town is made up of many subdivisions that have produced many valuable people to our community. Concerned about water availability within development; concerned that transportation needs are not addressed adequately in the proposal. Councilors Laws/Reid m/s deny application for annexation because adequate transportation cannot or will not be provided. Councilor Laws feels that the intersections of East Main and Hwy 66 and East Main and Lithia Way will not adequately serve the traffic flow. (CS-1-95.min)pg.3 Councilor Hauck also is concerned with pedestrian/bicycle access over East Main Street bridge. Asked that request be denied without prejudice so developer may clarify their propotionate contribution if they wish. Councilor Hagen also objects to proposed development because of transportation issues that have not been met within the current City limits and, therefore, will be impacted even further by the proposed annexation plans. Councilor Winthrop has problems with adequate water availability and transportation issues. Does not support suggestion by Councilor Hauck to deny without prejudice. He is particularly pleased that developer addressed affordability issue so completely and adequately. Does not think we have adequate SRC study information to determine water availability within City limits that can be used in proposed annexation criteria. Councilor Thompson has concerns with water availability and transportation issues. Councilor Laws complemented staff and developer on efforts put forth with this request. He also supports time limits set for public hearings. Councilor Hauck stated that the 25% criteria be modified and is being reviewed by Affordable Housing Committee. He is not in agreement with statements regarding infill and Urban Growth Boundary. Mayor Golden responded to CPAC having a determination in this request. The main goal is to involve their citizens in planning issues. There is no technical discrepancy in the Comprehensive Plan. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop, Thompson YES. Motion passed. Regarding the zone change request from C-1 to R-1-5 -- John Hassen, attorney for the applicant: requested Council approve zone change. Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s approval of zone change. Councilor Thompson does not feel the zone change is necessary to the City's further development. Councilor Reid approves request for zone change because transportation issues are better met by this being used as residential. Councilor Winthrop opposes motion because applicant did not meet criteria. (r.8-1-95.mia)pg.4 Roll call vote: Hagen, Winthrop, Thompson NO; Laws, Reid, Hauck YES; Mayor Golden NO. Motion denied. Councilor Hagen/Thompson m/s deny zone change request. Roll call vote: Hagen, Winthrop, Thompson YES; Laws, Reid, Hauck NO; Mayor Golden YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total). Larry Medinger, 95 Mistletoe Road - Sorry to see efforts towards Affordable Housing become part of annexation hearing backlash. Councilor Reid suggested this be discussed at the next Council Study Session. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 5 1. Draft of ordinance proposed by Councilors Hauck and Thompson setting contribution and spending limits for local elections and recommendation to set public hearing for August 15. Mayor Golden asked City Attorney to delve into the 1st amendment issues regarding proposed Ordinance. Councilor Reid stated that the voluntary compliance stated in the Ordinance made the Ordinance ineffective. Councilor Hauck stated that there were severe limitations that would only allow this to be a voluntary action. Councilor Thompson asked that this issue be discussed at a public hearing to explore the issue more fully. Mayor Golden stated that the proposal would make it difficult for the average person to understand the process. Council requested the draft Ordinance be the subject of a Public Hearing on September 19. 2. Recommendation by ad hoc committee designated by Budget committee to study feasibility of departmental self-studies. Council discussed the recommendation. Councilor Thompson/Hauck m/s approval of recommendation. Councilor Winthrop suggested the departments hold Public Forums to gather citizen input. It was recommended by Councilors Reid and Thompson to hold tours and/or open houses in various departments periodically for the public. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Request for Council sponsorship ($200) of Easter Seals Benefit on August 5 (referred by Councilor Reid). Council review request and decided not to take any action on it. (r.8-1-95.min)pg.5 ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS & CONTRACTS 1. First reading of "An Ordinance amending the A.M.C. Section 9.08.120 to increase ground clearance of trees over roadways from ten feet to twelve feet." Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s approval to second reading. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop, Thompson YES. Motion passed. 2. First reading of "An Ordinance adding Section 9.16.055 to the Ashland Municipal Code to require removal of dog waste from public areas." Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to hold public hearing on.September 5 and have first reading at that meeting. Voice vote all AYES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Councilor Winthrop noted the federal court action removing the employee utility discount. Council suggested not appealing the action. Council asked the City Attorney to prepare options for presentation to Council. Councilor Thompson suggested a review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Golden stated she will work with the Community Development Director on the CPAC status. Councilors Hauck/Winthrop m/s to continue meeting past 10:00 p.m. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed: Councilor Thompson asked Council to consider addressing infill recommendations to the Planning Commission. Councilor Laws suggested infill be brought to Council through a public hearing with a staff report. Councilor Hagen asked that the timing device used during public hearings be equipped with a tone that will alert speakers that their time has expired. AD.IOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Rhonda E. Moore, Executive Secretary Catherine M. Golden, Mayor (r.8-1-95.min)pg.6 , ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Steve Armitage AT 7:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Giordano, Bass, Finkle, Howe, Cloer and Carr. Those members absent were Jarvis and Bingham. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Car moved to approve the Minutes of the June 13, 1995 Regular meeting and asked for inclusion of her comments about installing 'Stop' signs at East Main (comer of North Mountain) to aid in the flow of traffic at East Main and North Mountain. Giordano seconded the motion and it carded unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM JIM HIBBERT explained that because of the various shaped lots in Ashland, it would benefit the Commission to look at the solar ordinance and find a way to make it more equitable for each land owner. McLaughlin said it was his hope that Staff would be bringing an amendment to the Commission within the next few months. Armitage presented Hibbert with a certificate and photograph and thanked him for his years of service on the Planning Commission. Armitage Introduced Anna Howe, Hibbert's replacement. TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 95-057 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN 18-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION. 525 SHERIDAN STREET APPLICANT: SHERUSUL, INC. Site Visits and Ex Parts Contacts -+Giordano Is the agent for the applicant and will abstain from voting. -Howe listened to the tapes from the last meeting, had a site visit and will be participating in the discussion and voting. - All other Commissioners had a site visit STAFF REPORT Last month the applicant made their presentation and public testimony was taken. The public hearing was left open and the action has been continued. The applicant will have the opportunity for rebuttal. McLaughlin provided a memo to the Commissioners addressing the unimproved streets that would provide access to the development. Don Paul of the Fire Department included a memo clarifying what the Fire Department would look for In the way of access. Staff showed a video of the three Intersections of Sheridan, Grant and Schofield. Last month, Monte Vista was included as one the streets to be improved. If the local improvement district is formed, it would involve the paving of portions of Sheridan and Schofield and since Monte Vista is in the same area, it would make sense to Include it along with the paving of the other streets since there are enough signatures in favor of paving to form the LID. Cloer said there are ways of paving that do more to retain a rural character than others; for example: no concrete curbs, blacktop forming gutters with no curbs, maintain the banks, contours, etc. Cloer has noticed in some areas, residents have very much wanted to retain the rural quality. Is there a possibility of compromise in paving on Monte Vista? Does Grover need to be paved? Has there been any discussion in an attempt to retain the rural character? McLaughlin responded that Staff has recommended Grover not be paved. As far as other methods of surfacing, slope and storm drainage are a consideration. If a surface is improved with asphalt making the surface Impervious, the runoff goes to the ditches which are granite and granite erodes. Eventually, the edges of the asphalt erode and the water gets undemeath the asphalt and causes it to fail. The amount of granite being collected by the storm drain increases. Very little paving is done in Ashland without the installation of storm drains which is done through a curb and gutter system. A chip seal surface has been applied to Grandview Street from the top to the intersection of Scenic, payers of oil and asphalt-like material, covered with gravel) giving the appearance of a gravel street The improvement Is short-term. Bass wondered how the signatures in favor of paving were obtained. McLaughlin said it was usually a condition tied to a minor land partition. The property owners would not have been able to divide their property without signing in favor. McLaughlin said the final decision for forming a local improvement district and the type of Improvement done is determined by the City Council. The developer can be responsible for a certain share of the street improvement and should be included as a Condition. PUBLIC HEARING AUSTIN BRAYFIELD, 400 Monte Vista, said the previous owner subdivided the property and signed an agreement in favor of street improvements. DR. ARTHUR BRAYFIELD, 400 Monte Vista, wondered If the Commissioner excused himself from the hearing because he represents a party coming before the Commission. Armitage affirmed. BrayFleld asked Staff how the paving of Monte Vista came up for discussion. McLaughlin explained that the Engineering Department noted there are 100 percent signatures in favor along Monte Vista and if the City looks at forming a local Improvement district for Schofield and Sheridan, it would make sense to Include Monte Vista and not have a granite street in between the two Improved streets. Brayfield said they purchased their property In 1966 and the Public Works Director knew of no plans in the near future to Improve Monte Vista Brayfield prefers a quiet, rural, dirt road to an urban street. He would rather characterize Ashland as a diverse community with diverse places to live. DENISE GALL, 460 Schofield, said her property runs the full width of the property. Why was Grandview paved as it Is now? McLaughlin said it was tied to another subdivision approval and the paving is temporary. There are very few signatures in favor of paving along Grandview (about 20 percent). LISA ROBERTS, 1192 Beswick Way, read a letter in favor of the development. Her comments were entered into the record. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING JULY 11,1995 MINUTES GENE GALL, 460 Schofield, said no one in the neighborhood is against the development but against the improvement to the road. Why should the neighbors pay for the development through paving? They were forced to sign in favor. There is still fire protection, ingress and egress. Rebuttal BOB SULLIVAN, 525 Sheridan Street TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morning Light Drive, thought it unfortunate that the controversy has developed over paving the access. This project is in the City of Ashland, an urban area. He is sure Sullivan would rather not have roads paved, but they are willing to pave If necessary. There are many types of paving available. The recommended trees for the development would be 20-24 feet maximum height in order to not Intrude on anyone's view. Howe questioned the parking space shown right off the entrance. If it was moved up further it could Increase the area of the intersection (three-way Intersection). There would be a place for a vehicle to pull off if being approached by an on-coming car. Giordano agreed. Molnar said the distance of the pedestrian crossing should be maintained and not Increased. Cloer asked Sullivan how he gets down the road on Icy days. In the 30 years he has lived on the property, he has chained up his vehicle for a total of sbc to seven days. Otherwise, people have to learn to drive on Icy surfaces. Grant Street Is a good street to travel because when it snows, residents take their cars off the street. Giordano mentioned a half dozen routes in his findings. Carr wanted It clarified that the applicant is NOT making an application for a local Improvement district. Sullivan said he was asked to provide a route to and through the development. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass stated the project has been sensitively designed (landscape, hills and terrain) and he has no problem with the overall scheme of the development. If the roads are to be paved, the approval should be conditioned on the applicant participating in some way in the local Improvement district as well as those landowners that have street frontage. The agreements signed were designed to benefit the future of the city. The Commission's role is to look at the long-term benefits to the city as well as to the consistency to the Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage street Improvement. Bass would approve the development subject to the formation of a local Improvement district. Finkle felt the Commission needs to reduce the dust and increase safety for pedestrians and automobiles, including the roads that access this development. Dust is a source of pollution for Individuals and the community as a whole. He would strongly recommend following up on Cloer's suggestion and not necessarily going with the standard paving. He would like to see provisions made for pedestrians. McLaughlin said If the Commission have paving suggestions for the Council they can send a memo. McLaughlin's suggested wording for Condition 10: ?hat the applicant sign In favor of future Improvement to Sheridan and Schofield Streets, and agree to pay the assigned share of such street, curb, gutter, and sidewalk Improvements. Local Improvement district to be formed by the City Council prior to the signature of the final survey play. In addition, 'Should the LID not be formed, the developer ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING JULY 11,1995 MINUTES shall be responsible for the half-street Improvement of the Improved portion of Sheridan Street and shall complete such Improvement prior to signature of the final survey plat.' Howe mentioned that the reliance on Sheridan as a single access is problematic because of the danger of trying to make left-hand turns onto North Main. It is a dangerous Intersection to make it the only strong access to this site. Schofield is steep at the bottom, faces north, thus the opportunity for Ice in the winter. Is it possible to make a strong statement that the development needs both accesses and to see If there is some type of paving material specific for steep grades that would give greater traction or be less likely to form ice? Cloer thought the area would not have a great deal of through traffic. The city's main concern with paving seems to pertain to stone sewer cleaning. He would like the Engineering Department to look at treating certain areas of the city differently. How much pedestrian traffic is there? Are sidewalks necessary? There could be a compromise in terms of urban and non-urban type of development with regard to road surface and the need for sidewalks. Cloer has seen in poor soils the use of blacktop for gutters with meandering roads with no grading out, leaving a very rural atmosphere. He is disturbed about Resolution 9139. Streets should be planned based on traffic, character, and need and not arbitrarily decide that every street In town Is going to be curbed, guttered, and surfaced exactly the same. If Schofield Is paved, the suggestions In the letters should be reviewed. Carr wanted to see subdivision approval and street paving kept as two separate issues. Under Criteria B, 'That adequate key City facilities can be provided,' has been demonstrated by the applicant that it can be done, therefore making this an appropriate project for the site. Carr agreed that a memo to the Council about paving is Important. There are some areas in the city where routine, unimaginative puerile approach is wrong. There are several options from which to choose. Armitage agreed with Carr. There is future development for another eight to ten lots. He favored the subdivision because paved access can be provided. Staff will draft a memo to the Council for the Commissioner's review. Carr moved to approve Planning Action 95057 with the attached nine Conditions and added Condition 10. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Finkle moved to approve and amend the Findings for Planning Action 95-044 (Fred Cox). Signage for the development will be on 'B' Street as well as 'A' Street. Howe and Bass abstained. Can seconded the approval and amendment and the Findings were approved. PLANNING ACTION 9544 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION NEXT TO 970 ELKADER APPLICANT: TOM AND KATHY COX Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING JULY 11,1995 MINUTES Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT Refer to the Staff Report for details of the proposed development The private driveway is just under 250 feet In length, therefore no turnaround is shown on this plan. Lot 4 will be required to install a residential fire sprinkler system. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan submitted has been preliminarily reviewed by the Fire Department. The property has many notable mature trees and the applicant has provided a tree management plan indicating only a minimal numbers of trees that will need to be removed to'construct the homes. The applicant has been agreeable to record on the deed of each lot that no other trees in excess of six Inches in diameter at breast height be removed. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 13 Conditions. PUBLIC HEARING TOM COX, 450 Guthrie Street, chose not to do elevations because he will probably sell the individual lots. He showed where homes can be built and which trees can be cut. The lots are large. Finkle wondered if Cox considered having Lot 1 access from a private drive. Cox said the lot has 300 feet of access from the street and the TID ditch is in the way. Giordano agreed that elevations are not necessary in this case, however, It was his understanding elevations are mandatory. McLaughlin said the Commission can require elevations If they find it is a detail requirement necessary in order to grant approval of the application. There is probably not a typical elevation that would apply here. Howe asked how the public/pedestrian access will be maintained. Molnar said when the additional links are made, the City will take over the maintenance and liability. Howe noticed that the neighbors have a gate on the lower path and the path coming off the bridge. Cox said TID has the right to have access to the easement. Howe suggested a change to Condition 3: '...easement to be dedicated along the southwestern property line of Lot 4 and adjacent to the private driveway...'. Change Condition 10: 'That prior to signature of the final survey, all subdivision property owner(s) agree...'. Cox did not think sidewalks would be appropriate for the upper portldn because it drops off steeply with a line of oak trees that would screen the Lot. McLaughlin said Cox will be required to sign in favor of sidewalks, even though the city might not want them at this time, and some time in the future, If everyone along Elkader Street decided sidewalks were appropriate, the signatures would be ready. Cloer suggested that the pedestrian paths could be maintained by those who reside in the subdivision Instead of having the Parks Department maintain. McLaughlin said the applicant is allowing public access so the city can reciprocate by maintaining. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Giordano said if there had been any opposition to the project, he would have asked for elevations because the City could not have sustained an appeal. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 1995 MINUTES Bass shared Giordano's opinion and wondered If this would set a precedent by not requiring elevations. McLaughlin said it would not. Carr and Cloer were comfortable with the application, as submitted. Howe was concerned about public access along the pedestrian easements between Lots 2 and 4. She did not think the easement should be maintained open past the end of the driveway. McLaughlin explained that the easement provides a pedestrian link and it is not required to be Improved and until that time, the path will probably not be used because it is not marked. Howe wanted a turnaround at Lot 4. McLaughlin said the turnaround is needed primarily for emergency vehicles. In exchange for not having the turnaround, the applicant has agreed to install residential fire sprinklers. The problem with a turnaround on a 20 percent slope to get it level enough would require additional cut, fill and additional paving that may not be necessary. Howe has found that delivering children at night, she has encountered long driveways with fences across driveways, cars in driveways, and no place to turn around. The driveway proposed in this development is too sloped and too curved to back up easily and Howe believes it should be extended to 250 feet to require the turnaround. Giordano agreed there should be a passenger car turnaround that would be kept dear. Re-Opened Public Hearina Cox gave an explanation on how cars can turn around without a turnaround. He would like to leave it to the builder as to whether a turnaround would be required. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass pointed out this is the last discretionary approval on the proposed subdivision. If it is not shown or In the Conditions of approval, there is no guarantee a turnaround would be built McLaughlin said a Condition could be added that a turnaround be designed at the end of the private drive for Lots 4 and 5 to allow for passenger car turnaround. The turnaround Is not required to meet City/Fire Department standard. Carr could not Imagine anyone building a house at the aril of a drive where they could not get ouL She did not want to disturb the plan because It has been designed for options to be exercised within given parameters. Armitage asked to place a Condition so Lot 4 has to provide the turnaround. Carr did not see a need for a Condition and did not wish to encumber the application. Giordano, Bass, Cloer and Howe would like to see a Condition for a turnaround. Finkle, Carr and Armitage disagreed. McLaughlin's wording for the Condition: 'That a turnaround be designed at the end of the private drive for Lot 4 to allow for passenger car turnaround. Turnaround not required to meet City/Fire Department standards. Turnaround design to be indicated on the building permit for Lot 4.' McLaughlin will clarify to future applicants that elevations are required. Giordano moved to approve Planning Action 95.060 for Outline and Final Plan approval with the 13 attached Conditions with the changes to Condition 3 and 10 and the addition of Condition 14. Carr seconded the motion and it carded unanimously. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 1995 MINUTES PLANNING ACTION 85-074 REOUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE APPLICANT: MADELINE AND HUNTER HILL Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts goer abstained because of his bias in favor of the project. Giordano was involved at the very-beginning of this project and since there is a potential conflict, he stepped down. All other Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported the Commission Is ready to view the specific development patterns for this 20 acre retirement facility. Staff does not have a procedure for processing a retirement development. As Staff has tried to review the application, they have been trying to consolidate the processes Into one and there may have been some unclear communication between the applicant and Staff. The applicant would like specific approval for the single family development (25 unit subdivision). Further, the applicant would like conceptual approval for the remainder of the project, understanding that In order to move forward with any further phases, more specific Information will be necessary such as elevations, mass and scale, particularly with the congregate care building. There are also Issues of streetscape in the multi-famfly buildings and how they relate to North Mountain and the future neighborhood In the North Mountain area. Staff would recommend giving guidance to the applicant for the next phases. Outline Plan (25 single family homes) Staff has recommended approval of the first phase (Outline Plan). The design is appropriate for this size and scale of development. Open Space and Drainage The applicant has presented findings to address the next area which is open space and drainage. At the point of Final Plan, Staff would like to see the revised landscaping plans submitted for Division of State Land approval. Community Building The community building should be located up on North Mountain to help with that streetscape rather than having it away from the street and the parking closer. The building could be an amenity to the street The parking is detrimental to North Mountain as It is proposed. The applicant has said the building does not function well Internally with the way the open space park layout works and it is not conducive to their overall development Staff's assertion is that North Mountain is going to be the focal point of the neighborhood In the future and a community building that is to be used, not only by this development, but perhaps by outside areas, should have a focus toward North Mountain. Duplex/Fourolex The applicant has presented a streetscape design to see Its relationship to the street. Staff believe they are heading in the right direction. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 1995 MINUTES Conareaate Care Staff Is concerned with the massing of the building and how it will relate to the remainder of the project and the other neighborhood. The applicant has tired to show a building that is more fining for the hillside area. Six ex/EfahtDlex/Garden Units and Assisted Living near the freeway The design and parking layouts are detail Issues that would be handled with the detailed site review. Bass wondered If conceptual approval has any legal standing. McLaughlin responded that it did not however, it could be used as a guide for the developer. The Commission could choose not to vote for conceptual approval. Bass wondered why the applicant did not present the whole package at once. McLaughlin suggested asking the applicant. CAM MOVED TO CON11K E 7W WOM LWIX iam TW MOMW was SECONDED AW CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING LESLIE MULDOW, architect representing Dieterlch Mithun In Seattle. LARRY MEDINGER, 695 Mistletoe Road MADELINE HILL, 66 Scenic Drive Medinger explained that even though the Commission may be reluctant to grant conceptual approval, this is a large, complicated project and may take five to ten years to build out and he would like broad parameters set so when the market forces determine a certain need, modifications can be made to fit that need. With this big a target, there is no way in the end to know what will be built The information before the Commission is about as specific as the applicant can get LESLIE MULDOW, reviewed and explained the renderings with the Commission. MEDINGER explained the difficulty with bringing the community center closer to North Mountain. They have looked at the options and the design they have presented is the best they can do. There will be a porch on the rear for residents to look at the park This would not work with the parking lot in front of the porch area. There is a very large oak tree that they don't want to remove to put In the building. Medinger added they are Intending to send their plans to Division of State Lands. They would like to submit building plans for the first house on the six acre loL It already has Its own water and sewer line In the rear along with a functional fire hydrant within the required distance with adequate flow. He would like Condition 7 changed to read 'certificate of occupancy' Instead of'building permfte. The new fire hydrants and the new water lines should be installed by the time they request any new buildings besides the first house. The Fire Department will allow them to build wood structures If they are within 500 feet of a fire hydrant Medinger would favor continuing the conceptual portion of this action until next month. They will bring back more details. He Is asking guidance as to what they should bring to the Commission. Carr asked Medinger If the community center is moved, where would the community access the center, it seemed Medinger was indicating the congregate care area. Medinger answered that it is not his responsibility to provide the community with community buildings. Car responded that it was her recollection that the Commission felt very strongly about some sort of community access and this was ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION e REGULAR MEETING JULY 11,1995 MINUTES not to be a dosed community. This was going to be a threshold over which the community can and should pass. Medinger said it would not be a community center at that point, but an activity center. Carr asked what would happen to the child care facility. Medinger said they have discussed siting it near the assisted living and the child pick-up area would be up dose to North Mountain. Medinger said the shops, etc. would be in the congregate care area. Carr wondered If that meant those would be accessible to the public and Medinger affirmed. Howe questioned Phase I and thought it appeared to be one footprint moved around in different ways. Medinger said there was not a single design but the map Indicates the house/garage relationship to the street Muidow said there would be at least four different footprints. Howe noticed they seemed to all be oriented the same way along roads, indicating they would have all the same setback, frontage, and street exposure. Medinger said it would be similar to the developments he has done in the past by varying the roollines, the use of facades, garages set back, garages up to the street, etc. The drawings presented were strictly schematic. Howe wondered It the Commission would be approving the specific footprints shown tonight. CARRMOVEDTOEXTENDTHEMEETCJDONTXII.WP.M. /OWE SECONDED THE MOTONAND R CARRIED. Howe questioned Medinger as to whether or not he would like approval of the open space at this time. Medinger would like to get as much approved as possible because he would like to begin construction before winter. McLaughlin said the applicant has provided evidence showing the landscape plans and with the other information provided, Staff would feel comfortable granting approval including the crossing. McLaughlin thought for the next phase of development that the applicant should provide full elevations showing each structure's relationship to the street and to each structure. Is the orientation correct in relationship to the elevation and the street and to the way the lots are created? The Commission should also look at the community building. Finkle noted that the community center and housing along North Mountain are oriented into the community. Medinger said in the sense of automobile traffic that it is oriented Into the community and the garages are served from an inside street. Medinger explained that Staff had asked for the facades that face North Mountain to continue the same kind of relationship to the street with porches wrapped around and visible from North Mountain. The articulation is similar to a front yard facing North Mountain. In most cases, it is the side yard that faces North Mountain. Muldow interjected that the buildings are set back from the transmission wires. Finkle again mentioned that some of the Commissioners were hoping this development could happen in conjunction with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. He envisioned and felt very strongly that the applicant's community, not be thought of as a senior retirement community, but as a neighborhood. Across the street will be part of that neighborhood. It can be designed so it is Inward and also so It can be all one neighborhood. It is important to meet the needs of the residents, but not be exclusive. Medinger said they have picket fences, french doors, and amenities other than porches that are front yard type of things that face North Mountain. Finkle expressed the same concerns about the community center and would hope to see some commercial development on the other side of North Mountain and that there would be an exchange of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION - - 9 REGULAR MEETING JULY 11,1995 MINUTES services and residents in the area. Medinger reiterated that by putting the parking lot between the community center and the park would not make sense. Muldow further explained that they visualize the long porch on the rear of the community center to draw residents to the outdoors. Bass wondered df there could be a way to design the building so when driving by, people would not just see the parking lot. BRICE FARWELL, 290 W. Nevada, asked If the community center would be a place where the residents In the area have access to craft shops and a place to conduct retirement functions of all sorts? He would like to have a better Idea about the conceptual Idea of the community center and how'it will Interface with the community at large. DON PAUL, stated he was not sure how the applicant's request for a hydrant ties in with Outline Plan, but he does not have the authority to waive that because it is a City ordinance. It would be better to work it out on a case-by-case basis. Condition 7 can be modified so the applicant will comply with the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department for the issuance of building permits. Staff Response McLaughlin recommended modification of Staff Exhibit A for Phase I to include the open space and creek crossing, excluding the community building so street construction includes the full connection from Nepenthe to North Mountain. Delete Condition 9. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Howe queried about the road going through the development and whether or not there would be a turnaround. Medinger said that would be addressed at Final Plan. Bass emphasized that under the approval of the zone change, he expressed his concern about separating out this plan from the neighborhood plan. He is still not very comfortable with the process being used, but will follow Staffs direction. Carr moved to approve Outline Plan approval for the 25 single family residences as amended by Staff and the conjunctive open space but without the parking lot/community center with the attached Conditions and deletion of Condition 9. Howe seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The remainder of this action will be continued next month. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING JULY 11,1995 MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 11, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Jenifer Carr at 1:30 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Peter Finkle and Hal Cloer. Staff present were Molnar, Knox and Yates. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 95-061 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AT 348 IOWA APPLICANT: EVA COOLEY Site Visits and Ex Parts Contacts All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT This planning action was called up for a public hearing by several neighbors. The applicant proposes vehicular access to the lot from the alley. Staff would like to see only minimal alterations to the alley. Several letters were submitted regarding Improvements to the alley, house size and the flag drive. Staff has recommended approval with the attached 9 Conditions. Finkle was trying to visualize how many other lots could ultimately access off the alley and he came up with two. Knox said every lot could eventually have access N they wished; he would say up to six. Cloer noticed a liquid gas tank on the south side. Knox said the alley is 20 feet wide. Molnar said there would be some difficulty partitioning all the remaining lots because of lot size. PUBLIC HEARING EVA COOLEY, 348 Iowa Street, requested approval by the Planning Commission to have access off the alley. In response to neighbor's concerns, Cooley responded by agreeing to obtain an engineer's report on the alley and she will put In drainage in the low spot in the alley. Damage to private neighboring property has not happened at this point. An initial review of the surface drainage on Meade is being done by Marquess&Associates. A final house plan has not yet been determined. Cooley prefers the alley access off a flag drive. She submitted a letter from Bryan Frazier in support of the application. FRANK PAPEN, 267 Meade Street, expressed his concerns.about the narrowness of the alley and that it would possibly be better to access the rear parcel off a flag drive from Iowa Street. The alley will be difficult for trucks to access during construction. The alley is as narrow as nine feet in some places according to Knox DON PAUL, explained that the distance from the Juncture of Meade and the alley is closer than from Iowa to the new lot It would not be practical for a fire truck to use the flag drive. As an alternative to a structure being located dose to a hydrant, the Fire Department would require an interior fire sprinkler system. DOYLE BRIGHTENBURG, 350 Phelps Street, designer for Cooley, would like the new house to fit Into the neighborhood. The house is in the preliminary design process and open to change. LYNN LEDBETTER, 280 1/2 Meade Street, submitted pictures showing how her property will be Impacted. She has the propane tank In the alleyway. Presently, when the propane tank is filled, the truck backs partially Into the alley and brings a hose to the tank. The alley is narrow and will be difficult to enter even during construction. She is also concerned about fire truck access. She will be highly Impacted by a house on this back lot When asked by Finkle about Increasing the width of the alley from 12 to 15 feet, Ledbetter said she would be opposed. It would require retaining walls on the upper side that would be immense. She would like to see the alley used as a walking path. KAY ABBETT, Ashland Property Management, 581 E. Main Street, represents Phyllis Sturges. She submitted a letter objecting to access from the alley. Sturges has property at the comer of Gresham and the alley and the access is narrow. Car headlights will be aimed at Sturges' bedroom. Abbett is concerned with two cars passing in the alley. There Is not room. CRAIG CHESNUT, 346 Iowa Street, is opposed to the alley access. He would like the Commission to consider vacation of the alley because it is essentially unused. Chesnut reported that the alley is now used by pedestrians. ANN CHESNUT, 346 Iowa Street, does not want to see alley changed. She likes walking and riding her bike in the alley. It is a safe place to play and she is concerned it would no longer be safe If it is Improved. MARIE CHESNUT, 346 Iowa, Is concerned with the dust problem. Increased traffic will make it worse. Would the applicant be required to address dust abatement? Would she be required to put In a culvert in the alley? She is concerned about the cost of paving Meade. Carr mentioned there are many different types of paving materials from which to choose. EVA COOLEY, rebuttal, stated that she would be widening the alley by one foot The are a maximum of five pedestrians and bicyclists who use the alley per day. The culverting will be addressed In the engineer's report. Molnar said there Is a 20 foot wile alley right-of-way. Cooley said she would be commencing constructino in September and that heavy truck deliveries could be made through her property. Knox said a Condition could be added that would include a concrete staging area on Parcel 1 for trucks. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Finkle's main concern is Meade Street, not the alley. He would like to have the property owner sign in favor of an LID on Meade Street. Molnar thought it would be appropriate to add a Condition. RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING Cooley is not completely opposed to the above Condition. Knox suggested adding a Condition that during construction, dust abatement would occur. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD JULY 11,1995 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Finkle said that in looking at the current policies of the Council and Commission with regard to infill, he would not be opposed to this application. He hesitates to put an additional burden on the applicant, however, he would like to see the concrete staging area, dust abatement during construction and the applicant sign in favor of a local Improvement district on Meade. Molnar suggested wording that the applicant perform necessary dust abatement procedures along Meade Street and the alley as required by the Engineering Department during the use of the alley for construction vehicles. Goer moved to approve with the three added Conditions to PA95-061. Finkle seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. PLANNING ACTION 95-078 REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS. APPLICANT. CLEO M. SMITH All Commissioners had a site visit. STAFF REPORT A Minor Land Partition was approved a couple of months ago with a number of conditions. One condition is that parcel 1 use a flag drive. The applicant was not aware of the ramifications of a flag drive/curb cut condition. He has been having trouble finding a suitable house design. Staff still feels that the overall policies of the Comprehensive Plan to reduce additional driveway aprons supersedes the applicant's request. PUBLIC HEARING BILL SMITH is the applicant's son. At time they received approval, they did not have a house design. They want to take advantage of the view to the south and southeast which would be on the comer of the lot. Cloer appreciates Smith's desire for wanting a view, but had he thought of a detached.garage close to the rear property line? Smith has looked at detached garage, however, he thought a breezeway would be Important. He is considering a two-story house. Cloer thought about a garage underneath and living area and deck above tL Finkle said for the Commission to make a decision for Smith to build a house with a view, he is struggling with justifying approval. Cloer sympathizes with Smith's dilemma. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Goer is hesitant to go against Staff's recommendation. Finkle understands the property owner's ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD JULY 11,1995 MINUTES concern, but thinks there may be a way to put the garage in the rear through some simple creative means that would not disrupt the feeling of a nice yard. He would prefer not to see houses with garages right on the street. Cloer moved to deny 95-078. Finkle seconded. The motion was denied unanimously. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 95-062 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OFFICE/SHOP COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 468 OAK STREET APPLICANT: JOHN BAKER/KAREN GIESE This action was approved. Cloer was disappointed that there was no mixed use with this application. It is his feeling that the worse the location for housing, the more affordable. He would like Staff to encourage all applicants to provide mixed use. Finkle would like to see mixed use as a future topic for a Study Session. PLANNING ACTION 95-067 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE REVIEW AND REAR YARD VARIANCE FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL STORAGE UNITS 2315 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD APPLICANT: ASHLAND STOR-A-WHILE This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-066 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT 364 LIBERTY STREET APPLICANT: THE LITHIA GROUP This action was called up for public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 95-070 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 1090 BENSON WAY. APPLICANT: ERV TONEY This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-071 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED 235 E. NEVADA STREET. APPLICANT: DAN BUNN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 HEARINGS BOARD JULY 11,1995 MINUTES This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-072 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT 855 NORTH MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: DON MURRAY This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 95-073 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY 2,607 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR RETAIL/WAREHOUSE/RESIDENTIAL USE TO BE LOCATED ALONG 'A' STREET, LOT 7 OF RAILROAD VILLAGE SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: ALLAN SANDLER This action was approved. 10 o APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Cloer moved to Minutes and Findings of the June 13, 1995. FinMe seconded and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 HEARINGS BOARD JULY 11, 1995 MINUTES MINIITES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL July 48, 1995 CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Winthrop and Thompson were present. APPROVAL OF MINIITES The minutes of the Regular meeting of July 5, 1995 were accepted as presented. _ SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS: 1. Presentation by WWTP Project Coordinator of public hearing process for decision on selection of preferred alternative. Paula Brown, WWTP Project Coordinator, presented proposed process and agenda to Council for public hearing and decision on selection of preferred alternative. The Council will hold a Study Session on July 31 from 2-9pm as they proceed toward making a final decision. Council will hold a Public Hearing on the. issue at a special meeting August 9, 1995 and expects to hear all final concerns prior to conclusion, at which time the Public Hearing will be closed. On August 15, 1995, Council will make a final decision at their regularly scheduled meeting. u It was requested by Council that the August 9 special meeting be made available for public viewing through cable access. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2 . Departmental Reports for June, 1995. 3. Memorandum from Public Works Director on Bear Creek Watershed Council activities. 4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Conservation Commission. 5. Authorization for Mayor and Recorder to sign contract amendment with ODOT for addition of traffic signal at Maple and N. Main Streets. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve consent agenda. ',Voice Vote:— all AYES. (7-18-95.min)-pg. 1 t PIIBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for annexation of 47.7 acres located east of Interstate 5 and west of East Main; zone change from C-1 to R-1-5; and request for outline plan approval for 173 lot subdivision (Diamond D Corporation, applicants) . Mayor Golden read guidelines to Land Use Public Hearings with procedure for participation. LAND USE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:10 p.m. Mayor Golden requested from Council any member who would like to abstain, declare conflict of interest or report any exparte contact. Councilor Laws reported site visit, noted distance from shopping and after judging bridges he questioned pedestrian and bicycle safety. Stated he could be ojective. Councilor Reid reported site visit, noted bridges, had received numerous calls and letters. Stated she could be objective. Councilor Hauck reported site visit, noted bridges, had received letters and phone calls. Stated he could be objective. Councilor Hagen reported site visit, received letters, personal contacts, phone calls, noted access from development to bus stop, inclusion of southeast corner, is a member of Thousand Friends of Oregon and Jackson County Citizen League. Stated he could be objective. Councilor Winthrop reported site visit, noted accessibility issues surrounding development, had received phone calls and letters questioning appropriate urban form; affordable housing; separation from City and I-5; overburdened facilities; etc. Stated he could be objective. Councilor Thompson reported site visit, noted over-passes and intersection of East Main and Greensprings Hwy; had received phone calls concerning overburden of facilities and separation from City; had personal discussion regarding pre-judgement of fact, written letters regarding sprawl and infill and has stated in the past his opposition to annexations, but articles and statements by Thompson were made at time when there was not a current request for annexations. Stated he could be objective. No participant questioned or challenged the reports of the Council members. Planning Director John MacLaughlin presented staff report and the criteria was displayed by an overview for public and Council. He stated that this application was heard by the Planning Commission (1-18-95.min)-pg.2 3 on May 9 at which time they voted to approve the annexation as well as the zone change. Annexation of approximately 40 acres to be zoned R-1-5P (Single Family) . Zone change for approximately 8 acres within the City Limits from C-1 (Commercial) to R-1-5P (Single Family) . Planning Department encouraged the applicants to go with Traditional Development Pattern, with alleys, smaller lots and front porches. Site does allow options for alleys and issues are addressed in staff report. Findings support Planning Commission's decision for approval. Presented criteria for approval of annexation to the City of Ashland: 1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2 . That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3 . That the land is contiguous with the present City limits. 4. 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. 5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated, or; A zone change is a Type III amendment. Type III amendments are applicable whenever there exists: a public need, the need to correct mistakes, the need to adjust to new conditions, or where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare requires such an amendment. Councilor Hauck requested response from applicants as to whether safety was being addressed at the intersection of East Main and Greensprings Hwy. McLaughlin responded that this was not an unsolvable situation but a matter of engineering design and can be solved with the subdivision process. Councilor Winthrop has concern that there is not an outline plan but only an annexation and zone change request. It was clarified for Council that the affordability requirement will run with the annexation for any future development. Also, there will be full streets as it becomes urbanized which would be done all at once instead of putting city requirements on county roads. The County envisions this happening along the frontage of the property as it develops'. It was stated that the applicant will provide a bus stop in the most direct route. (748-95.ntin)-pg.3 Questions regarding current criteria standards for affordable housings was addressed by McLaughlin. He stated that the 25% is the affordable level established by resolution that set housing cost levels. These are not guaranteed over time, and apply to the initial buyer. Initial homes must sell at the affordable cost provided in the resolution. There is high probability of sidewalks on East Main which will be tied to the urbanization of that street. Sidewalks will occur on Tolman Creek Road to the Middle School but the timing is not known. Applicant has checked into cost regarding overpass and sidewalks and will be reporting on this. It was clarified that affordable housing is an option rather than a need. Mike Multari/Representing property owner Diamond-D: Stated that they had checked into the Citiy's regulations and requirements for annexations and found the affordable housing option an incentive. They are willing to work with the community to develop criteria regarding affordable housing. Agreed to share the cost of intersection improvements, county r requirements, and pedestrian and bikeways will be explored. The outline plan, will be done if annexation is approved and he presented highlights of the outline Plan. Addressed issues regarding concern of appropriate site for development which he did not feel were valid concerns. He urged the Council to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and felt they had met the criteria. Regarding the Zone change, they feel they had met the criteria in that the City would be correcting a mistake in zoning. Questions raised by Council were addressed by Multari regarding improvements recommended by the Oregon Department of Transportation; the property owner anticipated sharing in cost of improvements. They are not planning to rely on current transit system but plan to build a new transit stop. The question of cost involving a stand-alone bridge was addressed and was reported that the cost varied from $250, 000 to $1, 000, 000. The property owner stated that they could give a fairly substantial commitment to their share of this cost. PUBLIC BEARING OPEN: 8:40 p.m. IN FAVOR: (7-I8-95.min)-pg.4 Kathy Hauck/500 YMCA: Feels young people are the future and there needs to be a safe environment for raising families. Urges Council to strongly consider affordable housing. Matt Kocmieroski/565 Allison: Involved with affordable housing committee and felt this was a chance to get a large area as designated as affordable housing. Felt that there would be closer shopping than in other areas of the city. Brice Farwell/290 W. Nevada: Felt there were three matters that needed exploring in deciding on the proposal a) Policy; b) Aesthetics; and c) Practicality. Wayne Leeman/147 Blue Heron Lane: The community should not allow short-run resource constraints to dominate decisions that will be beneficial in the long run. The supply of water, wastewater treatment, education, and transportation are in-elastic in the short run. But the long-run supply of these facilities and services is elastic. An increase in price leads to an increase in the quantity supplied. Feels that Ashland needs affordable housing and more middle-level housing. Failure to approve the annexation and development proposed tonight is almost certain to increase the price of buildable land in the city. Questions who are the property speculators. Everyone who owns a home in Ashland can speculate on a rise in the price of his or her property. The best way to promote this speculation is to oppose an increase in the supply of land. IN OPPOSITION: Barbara Bean/510 Terrace: Questions criteria, affordable housing. In past has seen problems with Local Improvement Districts. Would like to see charging developers to have appropriate appraisal done. Feels water supply issue is important. Bob Taber/108 5th street #8: Feels project is ill-fitted and undesirable for development. Notes airport danger and noise potential. Zone change should be addressed, but only as commercial zoning not residential. Jim Moore/1217 Park: Doesn't see that zoning meets criteria and believes there is potential liability with the airport so close. Carola Lacy/140 Third: Feels City of Ashland is on "red alert" . Noted remarks from a letter submitted by John Enders. Urges Council to sustain planning and stop growth before it gets started. Propose charter amendment for a city wide vote on all annexations. (7-19-95.min)-pg.5 s Anne Bodin/119 Cypress Circle: Expressed objection to annexation: 1) site does not adhere to infill, 2) 25% affordable housing has substantially clouded Ashland's unique character, 3) serious questions regarding traffic problems by addition and multi- surfaces; shortage of water and sewer. Feels financial burden will be put on the residents of Ashland. David Allen/ 558 1/2 Iowa: Noted water situation and that the City is a high desert area with no abundance of water. Does not feel we have enough water supply for this size of development. Arthur Brayfield/410 Monte Vista Dr: Suggests Council consider two economic laws: 1) comparative advantage and 2) marginal utility. Russell Whitaker/875 Jacqueline: Feels the lots are too small and that the growth of Ashland is a local problem, affordable housing is national problem. Affordable housing should not be considered. Joan Steele/332 Glenn St: Noted concern regarding water supply. Mary Lou Lucas/11233 Corp. Ranch: Suggests Affordable Housing Plan be reviewed. Marjorie O'Harra/1235 Tolman Creek Road: Mayor read letter into record. Clair Collins/315 High: Would like to see resources and infrastructure addressed. Stated city is semi-desert in a wildfire area. Asks that as part of the vision there be better criteria with more clarity. Mary Ruth Wooding/727 Park St: Feels Ashland is the best place to live and doesn't want to see it change. Does not feel there is enough money to build another school. Barbara Ryberg/373 Vista: Opposes annexations and is a visionary. Questions need and notes the current housing market. David Lane/1700 E. Main: If criteria is met, has to be approved. Disagrees with Type III procedures because of the use of the word "may" not "must" . Questions compliance with comprehensive plan. John Fields/845 Oak: Questions zone change, feels is a "pod" development. Physically cut off from town, traffic criteria problems. Debbie Miller/160 Normal: Important that all annexations follow comprehensive plan. Does not feel criteria from comprehensive plan has been studied closely. Consider EFU issue and air pollution. (1-18-95.min)-pg.6 Johann Fisher/77 Mallard: opposes annexation because of overload on city services and schools. Challenges assumption that it would take 15 years before it is completely developed. Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main: Questions water availability for this development. Feels it is irresponsible to not address problem of intersection at Tolman and Hwy 66. Affordable Housing commission has not set priorities. Asks Council to pursue Cl availability. Should consider traffic load. Vicki Neuwanschander/455 Tolman: Does not feel annexation meets criteria regarding City services. Noted the overcrowding of elementary schools and busing of students. LUBA is not anxious to annex. Lars /183 Vista Street: Does not agree with proposed developers' criteria regarding zone change. Does not feel any of the criteria has been met. Weak arguments. Councilors Hauck/Winthrop m/s to continue Public Hearing until August 1 Council meeting. Voice vote: all AYES. PUBLIC FORUM None Councilors Hagen/Hauck m/s to continue Regular meeting past 10 p.m. Voice vote: all AYES. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Memorandum from Director of Public Works regarding ongoing discussions with Medford and Talent on waterline inter-tie. Public Works Director Steve Hall requested Council to authorize " participation in the Medford Water Inter-tie Steering Committee to evaluate a potential water line to serve Phoenix, Talent and Ashland; appoint Council liaison to serve on Steering Committee. Council appointed Public Works Director as technical representative and Councilor Reid as liaison to serve on Steering Committee. Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve City participation in Inter tie. Voice vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Winthrop, Thompson YES. Hagen No. Motion passed 5-1. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS E CONTRACTS: 1. First reading of "An Ordinance amending the A.M.C. section 9. 08.120 to increase ground clearance of vegetation over roadways for ten feet to twelve feet." (7-I8-95.ntW-pg.7 City Administrator Almquist requested that this ordinance be pulled, Council agreed. 2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance adding Section 15.04. 105 to the A.M.C. relating to Barrier Removal Plans for buildings, and establishing enforcement terms." Amendments from the first reading on July 5, 1995 to broaden the type of security acceptable to the city were read for the public. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve second reading. Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Thompson YES; Winthrop absent. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Councilor Thompson requested Council consider at sometime in the future a second to his previous motion regarding directing the Planning Department to go through the Comprehensive Plan to determine if there are any hardships regarding the A.D.A. Councilor Reid suggested he add this to the now-scheduled third meetings of the Council as a side-bar issue. Mayor Golden noted that O.D.O.T. would be replacing the spruce tree which is to be removed with two 3" maple trees. She expressed her desire that there be more longevity trees planted rather than shorter life span trees. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor (7-I8-95.ntin)-pg.8 of A4 AEmlaranldum EGO.". August 9, 1995 �II• Mayor and City Council rIIm: Steven Hall, Public Works Director ., /I lIC7jPCt: July Monthly Reports Attached are the detailed reports from the Engineering, Street and Water Quality Divisions. I have riot included a summary of activities this month. DIRECTOR'S ACTIVITY SUMMARY July 1 through July 31, 1995 With the holidays, extra meetings were minimal... so... I was able to get a few things accomplished that had been on hold! I have spent quite a bit of time with Paula Brown during our"history transfer" and background information. The history transfer makes me feel like some sort of antique! • July 10 Attended Bear Creek Watershed Council meeting in Medford. Attended initial work session sponsored by the Talent City Council to explore Medford Water Commission inter-tie for water. • July 13 Meeting with Sluicing Alwn-Atives Committee. Anticipate final report with recommendations to City Council within 3 months. • July 18 Discussion of W WTP with Paula Brown, Dennis Bamts and Dick Marshall regarding short and medium term needs for WWTP. • June 19 Attended City Council study session. Tour of filter plant with newspaper reporter. • July 21 Meeting with Hollie Cannon(TID), Paula Brown and myself to disarm W WIP status and issues of TID ocdmnge option. Hollie pntsmted a lethx from Del Monte Foods indicating they did not wish to purchase fruit that had been imgated with reclaimed water. One large TID customer supplies pears directly to Del Monte. High potential to cause problems with TID exchange option and the Regional Reclamation Project. PAGE 1-(=:vav-95..e.Rpo • M • July 24 Meeting with consultant and staff on issues relating to filter plant construction • July 25 Filter Plant monthly review with contractor, consultant and staff. RVTV Town Hall broadcast with Paula Brown on WWTP • July 28 Meeting on strategy for right-of-way, design and construction of Central Ashland Bikepath with Brian Almquist, Jim Olson and Pam Barlow • July 31 Staff discussion of water supply at airport City Council work session on WWTP Enc: Monthly reports PAGE 2-e:vwv-95.«.n,u Water Quality Monthly Report July 1995 Water: Repaired one leak in City owned water mains. Repaired two leaks in customer service and or meter. Repaired one Lithia leak in line on East Main. Changed out nine 3/4" water meters. Installed ten new water meters with hand valves. Installed 18" riser on fire hydrant to bring it up to grade. Raised four valve boots to grade, at Terrace also Morse. Changed over two 3/4" water service from galvanized to copper. Installed three 3/4" water services. Repaired drinking fountain at Iron Mike on the Plaza. Chlorinated and put into service two main lines one at St. Andrews and the other at Randy Street. Installed 2" tap on new line at Westwood for contractor. Relocated and tied in new piping on the Lithia line by the Airport. Repaired 10" overflow line out of Granite St. reservoir hit by contractor. Dug ditch for Electric department at the Water Plant for electric conduit. Changed over the 4" main on Coolidge to the new 12" main. Sewer: Installed 2 new 4" sewer laterals. Repaired seven sewer mains. Responded to four sewer service calls. Videoed 1284' of City Sewer mains. Did root control on 1542' of sewer mains. Jet rodded 34,934' of mains using 78,000 gallons of water. Miscellaneous: There were 84 requests for Utility locate calls. There was 132.426 million gallons of water treated at the Water Treatment Plant and 55.6 million gallons of water treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. City of Ashland Street Division July 1995 Report SWEEPER: Swept 385 miles of streets. Collected 152 yards of debris. Responded to 84 utility location requests. Graded several streets and alleys. Patched pot-holes and sunken services. Completed pre-patching Laurel Street: 259.50 tons. Graded the Dauenhauer Road, leveled off the high center and added 20 yards of 4-inch and 20 yards of llh-inch rock. This was a four day project. Swept up excessive rock from Grandview Dr. due to the chip-sealing (5 loads) and began repairing the ditch road with this rock. Hauled 20 yards of sweeper debris from "B" St. yard to the dump site. Pre-patched Pine Street: 49.99 tons. Pre-patched Catalina Street: 11.91 tons. Filled tack-trailer several times. Hauled 50 yards of granite from pit to B St. yard for stock-pile. Raised the vault in front of 1000 Clay St. to future re-surface grade. Took a tour of Quality Rock's asphalt plant to better understand the making of asphalt. Blowing out cracks on Clay St. for filling and/or taping prior to re-surfacing. This is a continuing experiment in trying to prevent the cracks from reflecting back through the new asphalt. Patched around the recently raised vault at 1000 Clay Street. Ran a second sweeper on Wednesday, the 26th. due to the mess created by the heavy rains on Tuesday afternoon. Began filling cracks on Clay Street with slurry. Completed pre-patching Bridge Street: 53.27 tons. Completed pre-patching Harmony Lane: 46.27 tons. Completed pre-patching Lit Way: 46.17 tons. Removed and repaired asphalt failure on Idaho at Iowa. Repaired the alley between Hargadine and Vista: washed out due to heavy rains. Began final keying in (pro-filing) on streets to be re-surfaced. STORM DRAINS: Rodded and/or flushed several storm drain systems. Cleaned off catch basin grates. Cleaned out catch basins. July 6th.: Due to heavy rains, worked with storm drains all day. Responded to several calls on Sunday the 8th. also. Removed the boards from an irrigation box off Otis at Willow to allow storm water to flow freely. Placed rip-rap at the ends of the culverts on Tolman Creek Road from Siskiyou to the R/R tracks using 36.39 tons of pit run shale. Also repaired one driveway. Checked out flooding complaint at 722 Normal: T.I.D. problem. Began Sylvia Street storm drain project in conjunction with the paving project. Storm drain project includes: calling for utility locations, exposing utilities, saw-cutting 290 feet of pavement, installing 460 feet of 12 inch P.V.C. pipe and 4 catch basins. SIGNS and PAINT: Began painting cross-walks on Siskiyou Boulevard. Every other cross-walk will be painted with a water-born (base) paint for experimental reasons. Cleared numerous signs of vegetation for visibility. Installed a 25mph sign on Oak Knoll Drive at Cypress Circle. Replaced street signs at: 7th at A Streets, Cambridge at York, Cambridge at Kent, Cambridge at Tudor, Randy at Cypress, Van Ness at Heiman, Ashland Mine Road at Cedar Way, Oak Knoll at Spring Circle, Catalina at Chestnut, Orchard at Westwood, Orchard at Sunnyview, Replaced no parking signs on Nevada at Oak Sts., 3 on Lori Ln., 3 on Wimer, Maple at Scenic, 63 Granite Street. Replaced a 25mph sign on Wimer. Replaced stop signs on Orange at Nevada, Skidmore at Van Ness, Van Ness at Heiman, Maple at N. Main, High at Church, Straightened numerous sign posts. Removed several abandoned sign posts. Removed graffiti from several signs. Extended the Dead-end sign post on Maple Way at Chestnut. Painted the curb blue in front of 14 B Street for Handi-Cap parking space. Returned 40 gallons of borrowed white paint to the City of Medford and picked up 10 gallons of Handi-Cap blue paint from Rodda paint in Medford. Picked up a knocked down sign post on Winburn Way by Pioneer Hall. MISCELLANEOUS: Delivered 20 yards of sand on July 3rd to Iowa Street for the fireworks. Installed 8 road-markers on Grandview Drive: 5 at Alta Street and 3 at the ditch road. Also re-set the guard rail at Alta. Cut weeds on City rights-of way at: Ross Lane off Walker, Grover, north of Sheridan and Walnut from Lori Lane to Wiley, N. Mountain at the R/R Tracks, Van Ness from Water St. to Helman and Fox Street. Swept Grandview Drive in-conjunction with the chip-seal project. Re-attached gate to the gate post at the concrete yard that was removed by a contractor. Replaced the cross-rails and re-set the barrier in concrete on Alta and Grandview Dr..Also placed reflective tape on the new cross-rails. Entire crew attended a class on gas detectors for confined spaces. Chipped up all the brush that we had stock-piled at our B Street yard. Picked up a rental back-hoe from Hessel Tractor in Medford. Picked up a wood stove from 1000 Terra Avenue. Four temporary employees attended a "Flaggers Certification" class. Dug, formed and poured a footing for extending the hand-rail by 2909 Diane. Exposed a PRV manhole on Grandview Drive for the Water Division. Helped in shop when needed. Cleaned up facilities and equipment on a weekly basis. Held monthly safety meeting. City of Ashland Fleet Maintenance July 1995 Report Three mechanics completed work on 168 work orders on various types of City equipment and vehicles. With the new numbering system in effect, work orders will no longer be reported on an individual department or division basis. The emergency generators at City Hall and the Civic Center were manually tested on a weekly basis. I and M certificates issued for the month: City of Ashland: 1 ENGINEERING DIVISION MONTHLY REPORT FOR: July, 1995 1. Issued 13 Street Excavation permits. 2. Issued 0 Miscellaneous Construction permits. 3. Issued 2 Address Change or Assignment forms. 4. Responded to 12 Certificates of Occupancy reviews. 5. Completed 7 Pre-applications for Planning Actions. 6. Completed 8 "One-Stop" permit forms. 7. Performed field and office checks on 6 partition plats. 8. Performed the following work on the Granite Street Sanitary Sewer Project: a. Inspected work performed by Contractor. b. Negotiated extra costs for rock excavation. C. Reviewed and adjusted pipeline grades. 9. Prepared letter of thanks for right-of-way dedication on Strawberry Lane. 10. Performed the following work on the DeGroodt Subdivision: a. Met with Contractors to discuss utility & sidewalk locations. b. Inspected work performed by contractor. 11. Acquired agreements and covenants from two owners on East Main as a condition of sewer connection. 12. Performed the following work on the Central Ashland Bikeway: a. Met with railroad personnel. b. Computed area of right-of-way acquisition. C. Estimated cost of proposed land purchase and improvements. d. Researched alternate routes. 13. Performed the following work on the Scenic Heights Subdivision: a. Met with developer in regards to alternatives to rock walls. b. Inspected work performed by Contractor. PAGE 1-c=:..emu,x..tmr Rrt> 14. Performed the following work regarding the Family Circles Subdivision: a. Inspected work performed by Contractor. b. Prepared final punch list'of items of work to be completed. C. Finalized agreement for joint sharing of costs for storm drains construction. d. Acquired storm drain easement. 15. Performed the following work on the Plaza Kiosk remodel project: a. Surveyed Plaza in the area of the Kiosk. b. Provided maps of area in several different scales. 16. Performed following work pertaining to Oak Knoll Meadows Subdivision Phase IV: a. Inspected contact work. 17. Met with S.O.S.C. and O.D.O.T. officials regarding the redesign of the Indiana Street/Wightman Street intersection. 18. Prepared a report regarding the termination of a sanitary sewer easement in Family Circles Subdivision. 19. Prepared a memo to City Council regarding connection of a sewer service on Hwy 66. 20. Reviewed applications for part-time help. 21. Prepared a report with supporting documentation for a request for sewer connection on Hwy 66. 22. Attended monthly Rogue Basin Utility Coordinating Council meeting in Medford. 23. Performed the following work on the Water Plant Improvement Project: a. Inspected contract work. b. Prepared progress payment No. 3. C. Attended monthly progress meeting. d. Prepared a detail of a shallow bury sewer line. 24. Performed the following work on the Oak Street Local Improvement District (LID): a. Prepared bid report. b. Awarded Contract 25. Performed the following work on the 1995 miscellaneous concrete project: a. Began preparation of plans. b. Inventoried areas of needed repairs. C. Mapped sidewalk installation areas. PAGE 2-(,:WsmK,%--urRPt) 26. Performed the following work regarding a sewer relocation at 725 Beach Street: a. Prepared final payment to Contractor. b. Inspected work performed by Contractor C. Met with owner regarding project. 27. Filed survey of the monumentation of the right-of-way centerline on Beach Street. 28. Attended Bear Creek Water Quality Advisory Meeting in Medford. 29. Updated City base maps by adding new subdivisions and tax lots. 30. Researched right-of-ways on Clover Lane. 31. Met with property owners, Parks Department, and Golf Course personnel regarding the irrigation pond in Oak Knoll. 32. Operated traffic counters at various intersections. 33. Performed the following work on the Oak Knoll Golf Course Parking Lot construction project: a. Conducted bid opening. b. Prepared bid report. C. Awarded Contract. 34. Completed a survey at the Ashland Recycle Center in preparation for a description of the area. 35. The following work was completed regarding the improvement of East Main Street: a. Acquired contract for services for Hardey Engineering. b. Acquired "as-built" and utility information for use by engineer. 36. Performed the following work at the Ashland Municipal Airport: a. Inspected contract work. b. Prepared first progress payment. C. Approved material submittals. d. Surveyed, staked and computed grades for the access road. e. Surveyed, staked and computed grades for the tie-down area. 37. Performed the following work on the Railroad Village Subdivision L.I.D. a. Inspected work performed by Contractor. b. Surveyed and re-established alignment and grade stakes. 38. Met with Billings and W.P. Natural Gas Company regarding the construction of an irrigation canal. PAGE 1155 E. MAIN ST. ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 Phone(503)482-5211 FjOA R'f r GARY E. BROWN July 31, 1995 ''' ' Chief of Police TO: Mayor and Council i FROM: Gary E. Brown, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Liquor License Application Application has been received from William and Maureen Sadler dba\The Great American Pizza Company for a LIQUOR license, for an ESTABLISHMENT located at 1448 Ashland Street, Ashland. A background investigation has been completed on the applicant and approval of this application is recommended. 2 GARY E ROWN CHIEF POLICE MC:kmh Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 95-058 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION FOR 7.96 ACRES AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 43-LOT SUBDIVISI.ON UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED BETWEEN MUNSON DRIVE (TO THE EAST) AND NORTH MOUNTAIN (TO THE WEST). A PORTION OF THE SITE IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS WHILE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE COUNTY BUT WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (CITY), RURAL RESIDENTIAL (JACKSON COUNTY); ZONING: R-1- 5-P (CITY), RR-5 (JACKSON COUNTY); ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 10BB; TAX LOT. 3700. INCLUSION OF ASSESSOR MAP #: .9AA; TAX LOTS: 900, 800, 700 AND 600 AS PART OF THE ANNEXATION REQUEST-ADJOINING. APPLICANT: MARY POWERS/DOUG NEUMAN - Public Notice Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -- Critria for approval for Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -- Criteria for Outline Plan Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -- Letter from Planning Dept. to neighboring properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 -- Minutes of June 13, 1995 Planning Commission meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11 -- Planning Department Staff Report 6/13/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-19 -- Letter from Jackson County 5/26/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 -- Applicant's Utility Plan and Design Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23 -- Applicant's Project Narrative 5/12/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-32 TopographyMap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 -- Letter to Council from Whitman/Joyer 7/1/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-36 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for will be held before the ASHLAND CRY COUNCIL on August 15, Inspection sawn days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if 1995 at 7:00 P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hell, Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Main Street,Ashland,Oregon 97520. The ordinance criteria-applicable to this application am attached to this notice. During the Public Hearing,the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concaming this application, those In attendance concerning this request The Mayor shall have the right to limit either M person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of criteria. Unless there Is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that Issue. Failure to specify conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at bast town days after which ordinance criterion the objection is bawd on also precludes your right of the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel appeal to LUBA on that criterion. free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488• 5305. Apps I - �EeiIES T'o Bi= IA7G�Uf?¢.Q . \ LwxrtoN OF TFIRM-pp5>=p „a.oa c�{wH>rxa-noN * �f3—oN[r JU Bpi V IS 16N �. 5-8 sat _ Z ' MNr+sa'v w , LU a 5 - 1 : Q DRIVg Sy 'x Z \— \2 '0 p Purr oa 5-1 Q �xao p K K RR-5 j ]iI ..,.......,.__�. vim• a o e Wt PLANNING ACTION 95-058 is a request for Annexation of 7.96 acres and Outline Plan approval of a 434ot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located between Munson Drive (to the east) and North Mountain (to the west). A portion of the site is within the city limits while the majority of the property is in the county but within the Urban Growth Boundary (to the north and south). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (city), Rural Residential (Jackson County); Zoning: R-1-5-P (city), RR-5 (Jackson County); Assessor s Map #: lOBB; Tax Lot: 3700. Inclusion of Assessor Map #: 9AA; Tax Lots: 900, 800, 700 and 600 as part of the annexation request-adjoining. APPLICANT: Mary Powers/Doug Neuman / 18. 108 065 Annexation The following Findings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City: 1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2.- That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City Limits. 4. 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. 5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan can be demonstrated; or a. 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 b. 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 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 c. that a current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or d. that the existing development in the County has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or e. 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 f. that the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. ,, a CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. CITY OF ASHLAND '" 1 -`��1" 4 CITY HALL �" ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(Code 509)482-9211 August 2, 1995 Mark and Marie Morehead Beatrice L. Ridgley P.O. Box 808 292 North Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 900 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 800 Margie Mae Merwin Michael J. Joyner 274 North Mountain Avenue 264 North Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 700 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 600 RE: Inclusion of Tax Lots 39-1E-09AA 900, 800, 700, and 600 as part of the annexation request of Doug Neuman - adjoining. Dear Property Owner: The City of Ashland is including the rear portions (approximately 50') of each of your properties in the annexation request of Doug Neuman to be heard before the Ashland City Council on August 15, 1995. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance states the following regarding annexations: When an annexation is initiated by a private individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of propeny in the proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of land which are not incorporated but are partly or wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff Advisor, in his/her report to the Commission or 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. It is clear that the rear 50' of your properties provide an unusual city limit situation, as well as a unique lot configuration for you. The split jurisdiction of your lots between Jackson County and the City of Ashland is confusing, at best. Through the inclusion of your properties as part of this annexation, should the Council approve it, the City's boundaries will become more logical and orderly. As I stated, this annexation is scheduled for a hearing before the City Council on August 15, 1995. You will receive additional notice of this hearing. This letter is to officially inform f. you of your inclusion in this annexation. Should you wish to comment regarding your inclusion, you may do so either orally or in writing at the hearing before the Council Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, at the Ashland Planning Department, 488-5305. Sincerely, c ohn McLau in Planning Director attachments: Tax Lot Map c: Bill Molnar, Senior Planner 5 W ` � a v W W O ! - V ` r U 1 ' v m � A O it E s 0 co 77TT 8 T T c � a 91 . ; . . Z k O � Apo c ocnl rn �y I b Molnar also recommended adding another Condition. The parking space in the garage on unit 1 (from the "A" Street entrance) is on the west side of the unit. The applicant will mirror this design to put in on the right side so the garage is not what is seen first. (This will be Condition 11.) COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Giordano would like the private drive to look like an extension of "A" Street, however, he does not feel strongly enough about it to vote against it. Carr likes the concept of a drive (and the jog), not a public street. Finkle would hope the private drive will feel like an alleyway in the Historic District. Carr moved to approve PA95-044 as presented with the addition of Condition 10 that will require signing the exit and entrance, and Condition 11 to mirror unit 1 so the parking is on the other side. Giordano seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Bingham and Bass abstained. PLANNING ACTION 95-058 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF 7.96 ACRES AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 43-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED BETWEEN NO. MOUNTAIN AND MUNSON DRIVE. APPLICANT: MARY POWERS/DOUG NEUMAN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Giordano stepped down because he is the agent for the applicant. STAFF REPORT The application is requesting annexation of approximately 8 acres and for a 43 lot subdivision (41 new homes and 2 existing). The Staff Report outlines the details of the project. The section of Mountain Avenue involved in this application is under a five year no cut paving moratorium (about one year ago). A waiver could be granted by the City Council. The applicant complies with ordinances for annexation and outline plan approval with the ten attached Conditions. Armitage noted that if the land is annexed, this will create a piece to the south that will become an island. McLaughlin said the Commission has the discretion to enlarge the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 annexation area. The property owner to the south is not interested in annexing at this time. If the proposed parcel is annexed, this would have no bearing on whether or not the unannexed parcel to the south would receive city services. PUBLIC HEARING DOUG NEUMAN has worked to provide a development with amenities and affordable housing. TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent for the applicant, said they are in agreement with the Staff Report. Giordano showed an aerial photo of the property and photos of existing housing in the Historic District and neighboring properties. The homes that will be built will be similar to those in the photos. The development is using a neo-traditional concept with homes ranging from 1100 to 1300 square feet (mix of one and two-story). Giordano said he does not view this application as an annexation, but as in-fill. A portion of the property is within the City limits with interconnected streets between Fordyce and the Mill Pond area as the City's Transportation Plan has outlined. This project will also provide pedestrian and bike access. A proposed park will be located to the north of the project and access from the project will be provided. There is no public transportation to this area, however RVTD is planning a loop that will go along E. Main. The project allows for four types of open space: the village green fat the ends of two streets) providing a focal point of green with a pedestrian path and benches, a pedestrian and bicycle link is provided to the north between lots 23 and 24, a small drainage channel, and a streetscape/parkway on both sides of the street. With regard to the no-cut moratorium, utilities could be redirected from Munson or by a public utility easement on the north property line. Staff reported that transportation is about three-quarters of a mile, shopping is about one-quarter of a mile, the bike path is on E. Main, and Munson Drive has sidewalks on both sides. There are no sidewalks along No. Mountain. There is a plan in process for sidewalks along Fordyce. Service levels at No. Mountain and E. Main are B and C most of the time. At some time in the near future, a center left turn lane will be striped on Mountain to turn left on E. Main Street. Bass noticed the biggest problem is getting across Mountain. Carr thought a four-way stop would be helpful. McLaughlin said there would be a light eventually. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 - Finkle likes the incorporation of pedestrian circulation in the development as well as pedestrian and bike access to the park. Finkle wondered if the gravel walkway would be for bicycles as well as pedestrians. Giordano said they do not want to encourage bike riders on the gravel path because of a conflict between pedestrians and cyclist. MARY POWERS, 248 N. Mountain Avenue, favored the application and her comments were read into the record. CAROLYN EIDMAN, 541 Fordyce Street, is concerned about keeping her irrigation water and the run-off from her Talent irrigation water. WAYNE LEEMAN, 147 Blue Heron Lane, favored the development. The only way to reduce the cost of housing is to increase the supply of buildable land. This proposal does just that and creates competition in the land market. BEVERLY SPJUT, 531 Fordyce, stated that she also irrigates her land with TID and the water drains along the proposed development. She wants to make sure Romeo Drive will go through and connect somewhere in case she wants to develop her land in the future. McLaughlin said the City wants to work out the best solution with the property owners to make the best connection. The developer is responsible for drainage issues. DICK STRENG, 1255 Munson Drive, President of Meadowhawk Homeowner's Assn explained that the association reviewed the proposal at their last meeting and those in attendance liked the idea of this development, the village green, the route to the city park, turnarounds, and the idea of making a connecting neighborhood. PENNY CURTIS, 264 N. Mountain, said she is concerned with the additional traffic on Mountain and wants to understand the issues of rezoning their property. Curtis is concerned with the portion of their property that the new street will run along and she does not want to have a sidewalk on that side as a drop-off to their property. They would request a wall or a buffer to protect their property from noise and traffic. What about the back half of her property that is in the County? McLaughlin explained that there would be no impact for them to annex except it would probably make sense in clarifying all the issues. Staff can contact other owners prior to the Council meeting to see if it is feasible to annex that strip behind the lots fronting Mountain. MARIE MOREHEAD, 310 No. Mountain, said she likes the look of development but does not like added traffic to Mountain. She would also favor stop signs at No. Mountain and E. Main. She would like to be included in annexing the rear portion of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 9 her lot. She believes 20 foot streets are too narrow. ANDY COCHRAN, 624 W. Valley View Road, favors the project and believes affordable housing fits nicely. CYNTHIA PARK, 1245 Munson Drive, likes the access to the park, the 90 degree turns to reduce traffic speed. She wondered what will happen with the water easement and her fencing. Will there be two fences with an easement in between? The common areas seem too blockish. With the garages setback, that will create more pavement. Park is also concerned with this high density development. KELLY MADDING, Affordable Housing Officer for the City of Ashland, explained the program allows for developers to increase density and defers system development charges. She does not believe a home has re-sold within the affordable housing program. Most people purchasing homes sold under the affordable housing program have been earning $28,000. No Staff Response Rebuttal Giordano responded that roof drains will be handled by gutters and downspouts and taken to the street by both surface and underground drainage systems to the north and of the property. He is willing to work with Parks on the irrigation easement. He willing to install a six foot high wooden fence to help buffer the Curtis property. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass thought this would be an opportunity to clean up the City boundaries and that the project encourages in-fill besides meeting the criteria for annexation. Potentially there are some revisions needed in the annexation criteria. Because of the projects coming up in this area that will all feed traffic into No. Mountain and E. Main, the intersection solution needs to be accelerated. Bingham noted many years ago the Commission talked about having a pre-planned grid pattern for this entire area and it never happened. If all of Mill Pond/Fordyce Street decide to start using this area to get to Mountain, because it isn't a straight path, there could be some potential traffic problems. He wants some solution to the E. Main/No. Mountain intersection as soon as possible. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 /D Bingham moved to approve PA 95-0.58 with the attached Conditions. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Armitage moved to approve the Findings of the May 9, 1995 meeting. The last Condition (Ivy Lane) needs to be corrected to use Nolte's wording. Armitage,-moved as corrected. Giordano seconded. The motion carried with Bingham and Bass abstaining. PLANNING ACTION 95-064 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP, SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE BIKEWAY SYSTEM. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Pam Barlow, Public Works Dept., reviewed the bikeway system. Giordano moved to approve of PA95-064, Finkle seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Finkle added that there will be many bike connections that are not shown that will allow connections between neighborhoods and those need to continue be added as small connections to the master plan. PA95-060 (Tom and Kathy Cox) will be continued until next month. PLANNING ACTION 95-057 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN 18-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION 525 SHERIDAN STREET APPLICANT: SHERUSUL, INC. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Bingham had a site visit and noted the native grasses and brought back many in his shoes. Giordano stepped down because he is the agent for the applicant. All other Commissioners had a site visit. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13,1995 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 13, 1995 PLANNING ACTION: 95-058 APPLICANT: Mary Powers/Doug Neuman LOCATION. West of Munson Dr., between Munson Drive and North Mountain Ave. ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-5 (County); R-1-5-P (requested). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Annexation 18.108 Performance Standards 18.88 REQUEST: Annexation of 7.96 acres and Outline Plan approval for a 43-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: There are no other planning actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: Refer to "Site Description" found in the applicant's findings. The applicant's are requesting annexation of 7.96 acres and Outline Plan approval of a 43-lot subdivision. Twenty five percent (11 residences) of the homes will comply with the City's resolution establishing affordable housing levels, as required under the requirements for annexation. The project will involve the extension of Munson Drive to the west and connecting it to North Mountain Avenue. This will not involve a straight shot across, but rather the neighborhood will be developed around a modified grid street design. This will reduce neighborhood driving speeds by providing an indirect route from Munson Drive to North Mountain Avenue. Additional "traffic calming" techniques have been proposed to reduce vehicle speeds and improve the pedestrian environment, including traffic circles, textured concrete crosswalks and reducing lane width ("necking down") at all intersections. �a The applicant's findings state that the project architecture will be "reminiscent of the Railroad District with either small Victorian Farm House homes or Craftsman Cottages". Each home will have a porch and the garage will either be detached or setback 30 feet from the sidewalk. A 4 to 5 foot planting strip/parkrow will be located between the curb and sidewalk, and will be planted with street trees and ground cover. .' A "village green" has been located in the center of the project, with a pathway connecting it to other areas of the neighborhood, as well as to the City park to the north. A total of 15.5 percent of the total project area will be in private open space. In addition to the "village green", this includes the small creek at the southwest comer of the property and the adjacent riparian area. Public facilities are located within Munson Drive and are proposed to be extended to serve the project. Both water and sewer service will be extended from Munson Drive, loop through the project, and connect to existing mains in North Mountain Avenue. An underground storm drainage system will be installed within the new streets and connected to the existing system in North Mountain Avenue. II. Project Impact Annexation This property is portion of the peninsula of county zoned land, situated west of Fordyce Street, east of North Mountain Avenue and surrounded on three sides by the City of Ashland. The site is located within the urban growth boundary (UGB), and is contiguous with the City Limits on its east and west boundaries. A small percentage of the property located along North Mountain Avenue is currently within the City Limits. The proposed project zoning of R-1-5-P, which allows for residential development at a density of 4.5 units per acre, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map designation for this area of Single Family Residential. The proposed project density is approximately 5.4 units per acre. Availability of city facilities City sewer, water, electricity and storm drainage facilities are located within Munson Drive and North Mountain Avenue and will be extended to and through the project. The small creek at the southwest comer of the project may be used PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 2 13 to accommodate additional runoff as well. Vehicular access to the project is provided from North Mountain Avenue and Munson Drive. Munson Drive is a residential street, currently providing access to a limited number of residences. It is fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides. North Mountain Avenue is a designated arterial and is paved with curb and gutter, but has no sidewalks. North Mountain Avenue is planned to accommodate in excess of 3000 vehicle trips daily. The 41 new homes should generate a approximately of 410 vehicle trips daily. Around 35% or 144 trips will travel to Medford daily, while the other 267 trips will be distributed throughout the local street system - eastbound to the Walker Avenue area via Fordyce Street or North Mountain Avenue to East Main, to Siskiyou Boulevard and the College via North Mountain Avenue, to the Railroad District commercial area via 'B" Street, and to the Downtown via East Main Street. The existing public sidewalk along Munson Drive will be extended through the project and along the property's 160 feet of North Mountain Avenue frontage. Street improvements to Fordyce Street, which include the installation of sidewalks, are currently being planned through the formation of a local improvement district, and with the involvement of property owners in the area. The proposed pathway through the "village green" will provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the North Mountain Park. This will allow access to the park without having to go out to North Mountain Avenue. The nearest transit stop is located along Siskiyou Boulevard. The current loop will likely be expanded to include service along East Main and North Mountain Avenue. Public need This project proposes to meet the requirement for demonstrating a public need for additional land by offering 25% of the homes at affordable levels, in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Council. Consequently, 11 of the 43 homes would be required to comply with this standard. Subdivision Approval Neighborhood design PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 3 � T Staff believes that the applicant has done a fine job in presenting a project design which will ultimately mature into a neighborhood having its own unique character. The streets entering into the neighborhood have been laid out in a modified grid pattern and directed toward a central open space area. Tree-lined planting strips will be placed between the curb and sidewalk, buffering pedestrians from the travel lanes. Intersections will be narrowed ("neck down") to reduce automobile travel speed and provide shorter crossing distances for people. Traffic calming measures such as roundabouts (i.e. traffic circles) have been proposed to further reduce travel speeds. The application states that the architecture of the homes will be "reminiscent of the Railroad District with either small Victorian Farm House homes or Craftsman Cottages". All homes will have a porch, and the garage will be either detached or be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the sidewalk. Private driveways will be a minimum width to minimize the length of interruption to the sidewalk system and reduce the overall area of impervious surface. Natural features A small creek meanders through the southwest comer of the property. The riparian area adjacent to the creak is proposed to be enhanced by planting additional trees, shrubs and ground cover. Rocks and gravel may be added to enhance the definition of the waterway. A final landscaping plan for the area will presented for review at the time of Final Plan approval. The only large mature trees are located around the existing house and barn. These are noted on the plan as being preserved on lots 42 an 43. Development of adjacent land The City's recently amended Transportation Plan map designates two street connections to the property south of the project. One street connection has been shown at the southeast comer of the project. Staff has examined the feasibility of providing an additional north/south street connection and is of the opinion that a pedestrian and bicycle connection should be sufficient, given the proximity of the large barn structure to the south. Staff anticipates that a similar street design to that which is proposed will be used to develop the vacant land south of this proposal. The street configurations will compliment each other and provide short and convenient access between neighborhoods. PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 4 Project Density The proposed R-1-5-P zoning allows for a base density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre. With a total of 43 lots, the project's density is approximately 5.4 dwelling units per acre, well within allowable levels permitted by the zoning district. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The following findings shall be required for approval of annexation to the City of Ashland: 1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2 That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the land is contiguous with the present City limits. 4. 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. 5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated; or a. That the proposed 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 b. 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 annexation hearing and prior to the fowl adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. Failure to obtain subsequent site review approval shall invalidate any previous annexation approval; or PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 5 /6 C. That a current or probable public health hazard exist due to the lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or it That the existing development in the County has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become. inadequate,within one year; or e. That the area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland .water or sanitary sewer service extended, connecter, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation"agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or f. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an 'island"completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. The criteria for Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Option are as follows: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance,requirements of the City of Ashland b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation, and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, ifrequired orprovided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 6 /7 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations In Staffs opinion, the proposal involves a logical incorporation of land into the City Limits. The project is centrally located and bounded by the City limits on two sides:The properties east and west of the project are relatively urbanized, while a master park plan is currently being developed for the area to the north. Staff believes the application complies with the requirements for annexation. The property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary, is contiguous to the City Limits and the proposed zoning is accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Public facilities are available to serve the site and 25 percent of the proposed residential units will be sold at affordable levels, in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Council. Lastly, Staff commends the applicant's efforts to present an innovative design that incorporates a central open space ("village green'), focuses on elements aimed at enhancing and linking pedestrian spaces while reducing automobile travel speeds, and which strives to create a unique neighborhood character. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a public pedestriauyasement be shown on the Final Plan linking the project site to the property to the north. 3) That hydrant installation be done such that all homes are within 250 feet of a hydrant having adequate flow. Required hydrants to be in and operational prior to issuance of building permits for individual homes. All other requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall also be met. 4) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets be indicated on the final survey plat a required by the City of Ashland. 5) That the property owner enter into an Aggement with the City of Ashland guaranteeing that 25 percent of the units (11 units) comply with the resolution establishing affordable housing income and purchased cost levels. Agreement to be recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. 6) That a boundary description and map be prepared by a registered land surveyor prior to the Council approving the annexation. PA9"58 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 7 7) That full engineered construction drawings be provided for all streets, crossings and utilities as part of Final Plan approval. 8) That a copy of the CC&R's indicating responsibility for maintenance of open space and common areas be submitted at the time of Final Plan for review and approval by the City of Ashland. 9) That the subdivision as a whole, sign in favor of a local improvement district for future street improvements to North Mountain Avenue, including curb & gutter, storm drainage facilities and sidewalks. 10) That a site, size and species specific landscaping plan for neighborhood open spaces, planting strips and riparian areas be submitted for review at the time of Final Plan. �p � J WAR) U PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 8 /9 t JACKSON COUNTY OREGON PLANNING AND IIIIIII` - 10 S.OAKDALE. MEDFORD,OREGON 97501 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES „ (503) 776-7554 FAX: (503) 776-7384 May 26, 1995 MAY 3 0 1995 City Planner Planning Department City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Your File 95-058 Annexation and Subdivision by Mary Powers/Doug Neuman Dear Planner: The above parcel proposed for annexation and subdivision abuts land zoned Exclusive Farm Use to the north. We encourage the following conditions be included in the approval of this subdivision: 1) A restrictive covenant be recorded on the parcels within 200 feet of the Exclusive Farm Use zoned properties which acknowledges that agricultural uses could occur which could subject residents to normal and ordinary agricultural visual, odor and noise pollution. 2) The new dwellings should be placed as far south as feasible on the parcels adjacent to the Exclusive Farm Use property to further reduce the potential conflicts with farm activities. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dody T ott Planni g Technician II �O ® fi I /ally■! ® y -' — 4■ 1mi.; ► , �Via; , +e.-°I �iP 1111®I•ale.L ell • w�CjP7�a�1IG1 ■11®!�IA116 PIO118R':r � ' •6 4+ III �� !l/f♦ �t:n��� ®�If,ORsw1B �w!"°: � �'`�"a /!' 1//yl .',1 I//IIf j�w�"�� � � rn'n. ° •�a i_ t �♦♦�0,/// + !r/!l �fi :IQ : �,� ` vi I 1 ss.. A ' vm i °P ♦ �Iw" O� //Q� .i�l. V 1r P/Q!: ■ ��� ii,fu 1. 9 q1° i � �Ya1+ ' �� �� .�.�� ��. �/S� � I/I/!: '6 :�� �� amsn®me .:` •l`id 4 •'+11♦" `�� I!s • f!f!i � �! ll� IRi; 1^ m AC•I Yax vS k •I �,+e ♦ �' mil♦. 1 r, e/P / / ••• 11L s/ :.j"t i .� k AO?� ;f� S��L ^� � � /1�Q .! Bill �/.In! �1 : P ✓, acF � L' ql• „r, a Ir �a � e♦�.' • ®® sa>• m; � � rig Q. .,a.�yA ♦ .e �a + � ?! �a mi!1r117 °.:. Pq. 161® ______ _ _—_� �/ �� ♦ h Anm ,Inii 11.N�1 wpr �//,11� i°°� ® — -- � ► Ill�re ►� 1: -lid 1 11gw I/!fi�!F Mil Of- Fa (III / 9 /II ♦ �I/i .rl� � �°nP e . f AI/ r ■r in ■s �060n'S .mom ®® le •�E I a ® ,[ � s ■ a elic !ms ® m■1111 Il±e ®111. h E — ®fie �Rf��l�l old ■le�nl LI■ ®11 11 it °I I. u!° 'Coln, r. ® sa q! eeB nr 1■C- � v �r �IJ�®1: fR1 rt °v® 'w��/ I'm®� ■�e �s i o , ■ 7 G�.� L �'1� 111 °o — 1 �. ■ C.= ■ '44C vv- � e iP 011�� s F 14. -/S4 all■ m o � I �®'^ °1 a ® ®' + I►' :111111AI1° ° 'll C�iltll� �+IS■e or.� s►�®ilk■711° CI1Q ® m4i�l■ � �1 ���+het at WA f ��i=itllut 1Lr ■ ■■ i® 16 P"! •8 R.�_.s 1r AM e►�P� ° p®r amm 1 _ Rli�T s sa ■o a m ® 11 ■1 !1!1� e■ va Ie�1 ■ no `'�' ®d® '\ _!i 7: :.S o 0�d` vIs� «°� ■a°r. �■®I!'of r.os►m .®A � ��®� as . ® .oWI ■■Jei�gP .. .� ■a-T 0®i � ►. _ `�� / ®a®p9a rP '1• t ° 11 IBS ��0 r e 7 ° ati�v.A°ate 0e! ttltls S� °;� v � e vm■ \ ®111✓ a>0e1 O� B■■ .rs r.. — ®77ef e.° 1 ar ■i® ® ! ♦<�.r _ ® s ° - mw ' �� • _� �� +■. m � ■ a►�A� Jim..�`, ... .��a■■ aA�,li os o��, ®`_, °.■ �® /•�� V ®.:Ion 11 we ® i r m.■ /�Yf1i1® a®-.ei s _ ■er eu same w ■®tram_ R47e RTm L U rO-� iiss ■■tlaaa s my°® ►�` ° B s!, ��[iN■oa1 set1� �° ■®I■ifeiOl de�R aee o®�°°�M Ce �® in o� / gym. -..- .' vs now, �� �'"1!ICBI► a�� � e■ 1° !q 6 �;has��j °s�e ° e®®®!® so® ■■ m�■■am °■ Iv v� ♦�.�1:® i®I®147�Y9� ,.. so a■r s n ew oms ■� Ivor, e°°D�il �r►s ®® 1® r■F of • • E E".R.®1► not ® mF���'e im s®0• ii it �� mC 1 all In ®i INN awRFj Mal loin AMA �It■ ti , - A 5661 I ; },qW p?h13�3b . w� q' 39V-1-11/14NV-lHSd p P � r R,�l31��.�RR�ap,R�GARP:pp f �fig� }F.. �,S L ^`u."C o:5 fi{Y: +e:.•�...,' 9iS38 T��7� 5!g.l�.9sA.7.1l.9�w�!.l��.1B9S�:99lCL1lga9�9g�!R!RLLl919LR9��i93R99i 5� � `�5A� I Will 19 9 11 29 a 1 @ i i s fill . sm E L � uxrwrvro un / i Q I I o I I l Q • I T % I I I I U) 1_ __� I �1_ (p C _1J LL_ SI s�' rruo�:rrwu •� _ —_ rwa urw F' I i .nl I etl M CO; i NI I T _ — I 11 C9 M. MI Y I tq r°+il 3 a°ii ani i - -� f u' C% 8 11 I I I I I tt el C -bR ''� IIIN Q 1YY11p�i1111, I O I ICNQ 1- — M I Go I g % I ..� I I -- NI NI N I F w, 8 a E . IW,M YGN WeIrrYpllj I I' filar.-r.-r! a�i t J I xnm�------� ,nx.•r wru,ro�------F _ a as ��r0 p" _ F ! ?SJ f�r ■ tl1 . Itl� e Ct` K: �IyyICI�'A • •°• 511 1;/�. i!/ IQv � �ji:pl u� iil 1°i �I1•�/vljl a 101 - �9' 1. ;7Ai 111i3T1I�III, 0' 1`1 ........ .. i. �o�■ �gE�'l1F ��� i , 1� 141 ■!!- {��=� � 2:•::••1.4 E7) it 01 1 p • i0a 1 /iy ■ ■ � 10;x_._ a 1°i• .1(w 10I ` 1°2 ® .e Q Ije ad li), RECEWL-D ;�;�- 1 1 1995 LAND PLANNING NARRATIVE LAND PLANNING AND FINDINGS 12 MAY 1995 PROJECT NAME: Ashland Village Subdivision TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for annexation (Chapter 18.108.190) and a 41 lot site plan review (Chapter 18.72) for a subdivision utilizing the performance zone overlay (Chapter 18.88). PRO.iECT INFORMATION: OWNERIAPPLICANT: Mary Powers Mountain Park Development 4240 Clayton Road Ashland, OR 97520 (503) 482-5968 ARCHITECTIAGENT: Tom R. Giordano 157 Morninglight Drive Ashland, OR 97520 (503) 482-9193 SURVEYOR: Hoffbuhr & Associates Inc 1062 E. Jackson Street Medford,OR 97504 (503) 779-4641 PROJECT ADDRESS: North Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N.W. 1/4 of Section 10, T 39S, RIE, WM Tax Lot 3700 157 Morninglight Drive ♦ Ashland, OR 97520 ♦ Phone and Fax (503) 482-9193 a4/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-5 (Jackson County)/ R-1-5-P (City) BASE DENSITY OF PROJECT: 4.50 DU Per Acre PROJECT DATA: Total lot area: 350,969 S.F. 7.96 Acres Approximate individual lot area: Lot IA 4,950 S.F. Lot 23 4,675 Lot 2 4,500 Lot 24A 4,240 Lot 3 7,700 Lot 25A 3,600 Lot 4 7,900 Lot 26A 5,300 Lot 5 6,500 Lot 27A 4,505 Lot 6 5,400 Lot 28A 4,950 Lot 7 5,700 Lot 29 4,675 Lot 8 5,700 Lot 30 5,050 Lot 9 5,400 Lot 31 4,850 Lot 10 6,500 Lot 32A 4,500 Lot 11 7,900 Lot 33 4,860 Lot 12 6,050 Lot 34 5,225 Lot 13 6,600 Lot 35 5,225 Lot 14 4,785 Lot 36A 4,675 Lot 15A 4,785 Lot 37 4,675 Lot 16A 4,785 Lot 38 4,675 Lot 17 41785 Lot 39 4,675 Lot 18 6,270 Lot 40 4,845 Lot 19 6,270 Lot 41 4,845 Lot 20 6,270 Lot 42 14,859.25 Lot 21A 4,655 Lot 43 12,433.25 Lot 22 4,675 *A equals affordable housing units TOTAL 1 - 43 = 2451417.50 S.F. as Common Open Space 54,511.50 S.F. 15.5% Streets 51,040 S.F. 1.17 Acres Allowable Density: 35 Lots Bonus Density Requested: 25% for Affordable Housing and Openspace= 11 Lots Requested Density: 43 Total Lots Parking Required and Provided: 86 Covered 43 On-street SITE DESCRIPTION: Within the general vicinity of the site there is a mix of rural and urban features. Due to recent developments,the area is making a transition from a rural setting to an urban type character. Both new housing developments and pastureland is present in this area. The city has recently completed a neighborhood plan for the North Mountain area and a transportation amendment for this area. A new city park will be developed just north of this property. A new electrical sub station has been completed also to the north of this property. The subject property (one parcel, tax lot 3700) is located between Munson Drive to the east (city land) and North Mountain to the west (also city land). A portion of the site is within the city limits while most is in the county but within the Urban Growth Boundary (to the north and south), see Vicinity Map. The terrain gently slopes down to the north (approximately 5%), see Utility Plan. The only trees on the site are located adjacent to the existing home and barn, see photographs and aerial photograph. The existing home and barn are simple wood sided structures. The remainder of the site is pasture land, see photographs. There are distant views (360' of mountains and hills from the site. Access to the site is from North Mountain Avenue, a proposed arterial and Munson Drive, a local or residential street (City Comprehensive Plan). Traffic flow for arterials are usually in excess of 3,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) while local streets have flows of 800. a6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has had a preapplication meeting with City Staff. The present application package addresses the issues which were discussed at this meeting. The density allowed under present zoning is 35 lots. The applicant is requesting an additional 8 lots for bonus density for openspace and affordability. This density is consistent with existing residential developments throughout the area, see aerial photograph. The applicant will provide 15.5% of the site for openspace. This openspace will be used for: 1. A "Village Green" in the center of the development; 2. A riparian/retention pond located adjacent to the existing creek; and 3. Linear paths linking the development to the new city parks and the parkways buffering the sidewalk from the street. See the Design Site Plan for the location of this openspace. All common openspace will be maintained by a homeowners association and controlled by CC & Rs. The streetscape design utilizes traffic calming techniques to slow and discourage through traffic, see Design Site Plan. These calming techniques are: 1. Traffic circle ("Roundabouts") which direct traffic without the necessity of a stop sign; 2. Concrete textured crosswalks at all crossing points; and 3. An indirect traffic route from North Mountain Avenue to Munson Drive. Further, the streetscape design includes a narrow traffic lane (10' each way), parking on one side of the street and a parkway between the street and sidewalks, see Site Design Plan. The overall design utilizes a modified "neo-traditional" concept. The street pattern is a grid and a Village Green is located in the center of the development. Each new home will have a porch and the garage either detached or set a minimum of 30' to the rear of the front yard, see Utility and Design Site Plans. The architecture will be reminiscent of the Railroad District with either small Victorian Farm House homes or Craftsman Cottages. The homes will be one and two story. Homes will be affordable, under the City of Ashland's guidelines. The project is owned by Mary Powers and Mountain Park Development. The 47 applicant will provide both private and bank financing. It will be built in one phase. FINDINGS: CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL A. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city of Ashland. The proposed development will require review of chapters 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards, 18.88 for the Performance Standards Option and 18.108.065 for annexations. The application package consists of drawings, narrative and photographs which delineate both the scope of the proposed project in detail and existing conditions of the site. The applicant has met with city staff and has received preapplication review. the applicant has addressed each issue mentioned by staff and has provided a response to these issues within the application package. The provided information in the package includes: 1. Aerial photo, photographs of the area, topographic data, exterior elevations, Design Site Plan and Utility Plan; 2. A narrative describing the project's data, description of the site and description of the project and; 3. Findings required by the city. As illustrated in the application package the proposed project meets or exceeds the city's Development Standards including density, coverage, parking, height, setbacks, lot dimensions, and grading. B. That adequate key City facilities can be provide including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Water- The applicant intends to provide water for fire control, domestic usage and irrigation of landscaped area. A new 8" line is proposed to serve the development. This new line will connect to the existing 8" line on Munson and the existing 6" line on North Mountain. This will create a continuous loop system which should improve present flow rates and pressure, see Utility Plan. - as The two closest existing fire hydrants are located at the end of Munson and on North Main, see Utility Plan. These hydrants have flow rates of 560 GPM and 1300 GPM respectively. Six new fire hydrants are proposed, see Utility Plan. These new hydrants should have a flow rate greater than 750 GPM. For water conservation, the project will conform to city standards regarding use of domestic water fixtures and irrigation systems. Sewer- The subdivision will provide a new 8" sanitary sewer line, see Utility Plan. This new line will connect to the existing 10" line in North Mountain and the existing 8" line in Munson. The new sewer line will be located within the street right-of-way. New manholes will be provided per city standards. Electricity, Telephone and CTV- All these services will be underground and connected to existing services on Munson and North Mountain. An 8 foot wide PUE will be provided at the road frontage of all lots. Storm Drains- All new homes will have gutters and downspouts and on-site run off will be directed to the streets. Street run off will be directed to the north and west by both surface drains and underground storm sewer system, see Utility Plan. The runoff will be directed toward existing city storm sewer system (to the north). Detailed drawings will be provided prior to final plan approval. Transportation- The proposed development will generate 420 Average Daily Trips(ADT). The majority of these trips will utilize North Mountain Avenue, a proposed arterial. Arterials have capacity which exceed 3,000 ADT. The proposed street system for the development is in concert with the city's transportation plan for this area. This system will provide limited access to Fordyce/Millpond area but discourage direct access. Traffic calming techniques have been incorporated into the design to discourage through traffic. These techniques include: 1. Traffic circles ("Roundabouts"); 2. An indirect route for traffic flow; and 3. Textured concrete paving crosswalks at all crossing points. See Design Site Plan. To encourage pedestrian usage the design includes sidewalks and a path through the openspace, see the Design Site Plan. The plan will also provide pedestrian and bicycle paths to the new city park via a 20 foot wide access route, see Design Site Plan. �9 All streets will meet or exceed City of Ashland Design Standards, see Utility and Design Site Plans. Grading- Due to the flatness of the site, 5% slope, grading impacts will be minimal. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. As mentioned in the narrative, the site is mostly flat pasture land. The few trees are located adjacent to the existing home and barn. These trees will be included in.lots 42 and 43. The creek is to be enhanced with riparian vegetation and utilized as openspace and runoff retention pond, see Design Site Plan. A "Village Green" is to be created at the center of the project. This green will be utilized for passive recreation and as a focal point for the development. A path will connect this space with the new city park. D. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will enhance adjacent land for uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan by providing access to the property's to the south. The project will connect to Munson Drive to North Main as recommended in the City's Transportation Plan for this neighborhood, see Utility and Design Site Plans and the City Transportation Plan. Further, the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as single family residential. E. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. All the openspaces (Village Green, Riparian and Pedestrian paths) will be maintained by a homeowners association. A homeowners association agreement will be provided prior to final map approval. F. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. As shown in the project data section of this narrative the allowable base density for this development is 35 lots (4.5 X 7.96 acres). Bonus density of 8 additional lots is requested for both affordable housing and openspace. This results in a total development density of 43 lots. ANNEXATION A. That the land is within the City's Growth Boundary. The city zoning map and the applicant's vicinity map shows the land to be within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area as single family residential. The proposed project is a single family residential development and conforms to the R-1-5P zone designation. C. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. The existing tax lot (3700) is contiguous with the present city limits on the east and west boundary, see the Vicinity Map and Utility Plan. In fact, a portion of tax lot 3700 is within the city limits (proposed lots 42 & 43). D. That public services are available or can be made available to the site. Public services are available to the site, see the Utility Plan. Also, Finding B, under criteria for outline plan approval discusses each service's availability in detail, see that item. E. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated as defined in 18.108.065 C. Under an annexation resolution adopted by the city in 1992, if 25% of the homes are at affordable levels, in accord with the standards established by this city council resolution, the proposed project meets the public need for additional land. The proposed development will have 11 lots (25% of the 43 proposed) which are designated as affordable and will meet city requirements for affordability; therefore this application is in compliance with the need requirement (Chapter 18.108.065 Q. The need for affordable housing in Ashland is critical. The city instituted the above resolution to encourage development of affordable housing and to meet the demand for this housing. In conclusion, I believe the City Planning Commission and City Council can find the proposed development consistent with comprehensive plan policies and zoning ordinance requirements. 3a - �ECEIVEQ `r ; 2 .995 r° ` \ 1 a w 4\ r July 1, 1995 TO: ?(ann �J %AC �o/a is��sJa !'/P'r+ 6e* / As a neighbor of the potential Ashland Village Subdivision, I am concerned about how the development is to occur, and the impact to our property at 264 N. Mountain both during the construction process itself and the eventual character of the property after the completion of development Our property is situated on what would be the comer of the entry road coming off of N. Mountain, and as such would bear the majority of impact of development This concern is heightened by the fact that further development directly across Mountain Avenue is a likelyhood and therefore, in addition to absorbing the impact of the continuously increasing traffic levels on Mountain Ave., we face the impact of development on three sides of our property. We believe that this much development contiguous to our property is an undue pressure on our property, and we would like the city to consider the impact and to work with us to insure that development occurs in a way that mitigates the unusual pressure facing us as neighbors of this abnormally fast pace of development in this section of Ashland. (I refer to the development in this area as'being abnormally fast because of the exceptions that were granted for the annexation county land before the development of similar lands that were already within the city boundaries.) Our main concern is with the impact of the new road that is to be cut for the new development on the southern edge of our property. This road crosses a creek that has been culverazed and filled over The enclosed diagrams and narrative illustrate the particular buffering that we feel would be appropriate along the side of our property. We no longer live in Ashland, but are very concerned about what is happening in our N. Maintain neighborhood, so we would appreciate if any information or correspondence is scat to us at oust new address at 1031 Hearst Ave. Apt C Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: 510-848-0707 Thank You, Elizabeth Whitman & Mike Joyer 3� `�& wQ at-- cxkm. i JZr-ir c e,/� 4 1 i n�c rc azj rY JR 1 z,4P i cr on N. l�bwc��n1, O. a 'en'clro1 rnc^i 0." oLUComcet+ ?, Two. Ga6'4'� So�nTl.v, a, 1� avev�MU!(y }o '{i_c laeo+ -�•a'� ri x.r�C mm��,1.c.� l 1a5 aki we -qmr-) m csurt. , need 4O !x 4a,�-rn - o Lwc-eK r w km.v. -tea w.dkC Jcmo,.n+ o-C at1,�l�1y o� dwcloPnneA1 t�,0.� �� �y 1 (� (� {� T W2- "�'D��Ot..lt(�C ��Glt r�r � G�X�ia^ bT 1 IlLLY456/7 a.ZI 14 cm.,5,3 -9 cmcL ara tocz. P"j4 2b`F A41. M7l i. /-o�U s�eyo drake a{ . occu.3 �lon5 . . wa/l a5 . . Z• /1�o STdcc-.xc��c .o.. �¢ /70/� src(c a-F.�i_ .6�r«-t . Siddj-ao./LG is /la r /lccr3sc `� on ry--77� ... /tW SJve o and w,l(/ 6e. oeff acccm oAd 6V &L 3. /VD /Jc✓��.� on ho/IS� 5•c(e o� �h�e� - c _NEE .I n = m p 0 O - - fA N U F-1 I _ rghrw 1 C Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 95-058 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION FOR 7.96 ACRES AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 43-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.OPTION LOCATED BETWEEN MUNSON DRIVE (TO THE EAST) AND NORTH MOUNTAIN (TO THE WEST). A PORTION OF THE SITE IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS WHILE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE COUNTY BUT WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (CITY), RURAL RESIDENTIAL (JACKSON COUNTY); ZONING: R-1- 5-P (CITY), RR-5 (JACKSON COUNTY); ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 10BB; TAX LOT. 3700. INCLUSION OF ASSESSOR MAP #: 9AA; TAX LOTS: 900, 800, 700 AND 600 AS PART OF THE ANNEXATION REQUEST-ADJOINING. APPLICANT: MARY POWERS/DOUG NEUMAN - Public Notice Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Critria for approval for Annexation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -- Criteria for Outline Plan Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 — Letter from Planning Dept. to neighboring properties . . . . . . . . . . . . `. . . . . . . . 4-6 Minutes of June 13, 1995 Planning Commission meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11 -- Planning Department Staff Report 6/13/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-19 - Letter from Jackson County 5/26/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 - Applicant's Utility Plan and Design Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-23 -- Applicant's Project Narrative 5/12/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-32 -- Topography Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 -- Letter to Council from Whitman/Joyer 7/1/95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-36 I UFS 1.' 44-w. -r ,DBES ?we- CURB' CUT �10/�p-17r,Q1!/pl /t9Epjd! fYAfE�'�1E1vEff� hSPvx,/9 ,"Aiv/ ✓,vD&�e—e0?'0&wlP NOW /S sefor-ri/w4. P ,�r�Ecrit/GAL � /9N�/Ef,' CAdL��lpAS I 1 l B �2c�G iLG 3 . bo / i-Axec iS Me r AC P- s . y,- wHR-r /s T/l6 6liAie'A,vr�� oG w�+�� �oe� B✓icr Ovr 01teAJ %A! Me- Ciry WFrN me 04"'Vow OF' Ina S,Lm����wPr�r�ria�+ A�AEQ wFrE rr/,r/ .ti,AE�tS pit e�eyoc�- Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following A copy of the application,all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE and applicable criteria are available for Inspection at no cost and will be provided at will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on August 15, reasonable tort, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for Inspection sewn days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable tort,If 1995 at 7:00 P.M. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East requested. All materials en available at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall, Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. 20 East Main Street,Ashland,Oregon 97520. The ordinance criteria-applicable to this application an attached to this notice. During the Public Hearing.the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and Oregon law states that falum to raise an objection concerning this application, those In attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall haw the right to limit sufficient either In"non or by letter,or failure to provisufficient specificity to afford the the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of criteria. Unless them is a continuance, U a participant so requests before the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that Issue. Failure to specify conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least sewn days after which ordinance criterion the objection Is based on also precludes your right of the hearing. H you haw questions or comments concerning this request,please feel appeal to LUBA on that criterion. free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 488. 5305. Apps � �a,r {�"OPEEtIES 7o BE uaciVlael2 LocATim of 1F'F4VP08E0 MneyA-06m * -43—ourr JU SD!V IS laN 5-8 -- - 23 110AMS . 7 MuNs w z ON W 5 - 1 ` a : DRIVI-. " . x z 5- 2 = O Wr •roc — roves t Q ainn 5-1 a Bev c RR-5 . j}tj{•17117 e+k coo• 9Z 1—Z,♦]1I e0,0 V`7 PLANNING ACTION 95-058 is a request for Annexation of 7.96 acres and Outline Plan approval of a 434ot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located between Munson Drive (to the east) and North Mountain (to the west). A portion of the site is within the city limits while the majority of the property is in the county but within the Urban Growth Boundary (to the north and south). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential (city), Rural Residential (Jackson County); Zoning: R-1-5-P (city), RR-5 (Jackson County); Assessor's Map #: 1OBB; Tax Lot: 3700. Inclusion of Assessor Map #: 9AA; Tax Lots: 900, 800, 700 and 600 as part of the annexation request-adjoining. APPLICANT: Mary Powers/Doug Neuman / 18. 108 065 Annexation The following Findings shall be required for approval of an annexation to the City: 1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City Limits. 4. 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. 5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan can be demonstrated; or a. 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 b. 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 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 C. that a current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or d. that the existing development in the County has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or e. 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 f: that the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. " CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings; etc. , have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not. prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ""� ,q�,�, .�, CITY H A L L ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)492-3211 August 2, 1995 Mark and Marie Morehead Beatrice L. Ridgley P.O. Box 808 292 North Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 900 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 800 Margie Mae Merwin Michael J. Joyner 274 North Mountain Avenue 264 North Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 700 TAX LOT 39 lE 09AA 600 RE: Inclusion of Tax Lots 39-1E-09AA 900, 800, 700, and 600 as part of the annexation request of Doug Neuman - adjoining. Dear Property Owner: The City of Ashland is including the rear portions (approximately 50') of each of your properties in the annexation request of Doug Neuman to be heard before the Ashland City Council on August 15, 1995. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance states the following regarding annexations: 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 partly or wholly surrounded by the City of Ashland. The Staff Advisor, in his/her report to the Commission or 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. It is clear that the rear 50' of your properties provide an unusual city limit situation, as well as a unique lot configuration for you. The split-jurisdiction of your lots between Jackson County and the City of Ashland is confusing, at best. Through the inclusion of your properties as part of this annexation, should the Council approve it, the City's boundaries will become more logical and orderly. As I stated, this annexation is scheduled for a hearing before the City Council on August 15, 1995. You will receive additional notice of this hearing. This letter is to officially inform 4 you of your inclusion in this annexation. Should you wish to comment regarding your inclusion, you may do so either orally or in writing at the hearing before the Council Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Bill Molnar, Senior Planner, at the Ashland Planning Department, 488-5305. Sincerely, c ohn McLau in Planning Director attachments: Tax Lot Map i c: Bill Molnar, Senior Planner 's W ` � a V W W O I! 1 Cn Ir • 'ice� �` \ V^I w D � r Fn OD m v u E ,1 8 8 8 o r C n '. Ht co '9 y O Vi CA) I S �y t# i 0 ri V2 J U Molnar also recommended adding another Condition. The parking space in the garage on unit 1 (from the "A" Street entrance) is on the west side of the unit. The applicant will mirror this design to put in on the right side so the garage is not what is seen first. (This will be Condition 11.) COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Giordano would like the private drive to look like an extension of "A" Street, however, he does not feel strongly enough about it to vote against it. Carr likes the concept of a drive (and the jog), not a public street. Finkle would hope the private drive will feel like an alleyway in the Historic District. Carr moved to approve PA95-044 as presented with the addition of Condition 10 that will require signing the exit and entrance, and Condition 11 to mirror unit 1 so the parking is on the other side. Giordano seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Bingham and Bass abstained. PLANNING ACTION 95-058 REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF 7.96 ACRES AND OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 43-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED BETWEEN NO. MOUNTAIN AND MUNSON DRIVE. APPLICANT: MARY POWERS/DOUG NEUMAN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. Giordano stepped down because he is the agent for the applicant. STAFF REPORT The application is requesting annexation of approximately 8 acres and for a 43 lot subdivision (41 new homes and 2 existing). The Staff Report outlines the details of the project. The section of Mountain Avenue involved in this application is under a five year no cut paving moratorium (about one year ago). A waiver could be granted by the City Council. The applicant complies with ordinances for annexation and oudine plan approval with the ten attached Conditions. Armitage noted that if the land 'is annexed, this will create a piece to the south that will become an island. McLaughlin said the Commission has the discretion to enlarge the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION j/✓ 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 annexation area. The property owner to the south is not interested in annexing at this time. If the proposed parcel is annexed, this would have no bearing on whether or not the unannexed parcel to the south would receive city services. PUBLIC HEARING DOUG NEUMAN has worked to provide a development with amenities and affordable housing. TOM GIORDANO, 157 Morninglight Drive, agent for the applicant, said they are in agreement with the Staff Report. Giordano showed an aerial photo of the property and photos of existing housing in the Historic District and neighboring properties. The homes that will be built will be similar to those in the photos. The development is using a neo-traditional concept with homes ranging from 1100 to 1300 square feet (mix of one and two-story). Giordano said he does not view this application as an annexation, but as in-fill. A portion of the property is within the City limits with interconnected streets between Fordyce and the Mill Pond area as the City's Transportation Plan has outlined. This . project will also provide pedestrian and bike access. A proposed park will be located to the north of the project and access from the project will be provided. There is no public transportation to this area, however RVTD is planning a loop that will go along E. Main. The project allows for four types of open space: the village green (at the ends of two streets) providing a focal point of green with a pedestrian path and benches, a pedestrian and bicycle link is provided to the north between lots 23 and 24, a small drainage channel, and a streetscape/parkway on both sides of the street. With regard to the no-cut moratorium, utilities could be redirected from Munson or by a public utility easement on the north property line. Staff reported that transportation is about three-quarters of a mile, shopping is about one-quarter of a mile, the bike path Is on E. Main, and Munson Drive has sidewalks on both sides. There are no sidewalks along No. Mountain. There is a plan in process for sidewalks along Fordyce. Service levels at No. Mountain and E. Main are B and C most of the time. At some time in the near future, a center left turn lane will be striped on Mountain to turn left on E. Main Street. Bass noticed the biggest problem is getting across Mountain. Carr thought a four-way stop would be helpful. McLaughlin said there would be a light eventually. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 Finkle likes the incorporation of pedestrian circulation in the development as well as pedestrian and bike access to the park. Finkle wondered if the gravel walkway would be for bicycles as well as pedestrians. Giordano said they do not want to encourage bike riders on the gravel path because of a conflict between pedestrians and cyclist. MARY POWERS, 248 N. Mountain Avenue, favored the application and her comments were read into the record. CAROLYN EIDMAN, 541 Fordyce Street, is concerned about keeping her irrigation water and the run-off from her Talent irrigation water. WAYNE LEEMAN, 147 Blue Heron Lane, favored the development. The only way to reduce the cost of housing is to increase the supply of buildable land. This proposal does just that and creates competition in the land market. BEVERLY SPJUT, 531 Fordyce, stated that she also irrigates her land with TID and the water drains along the proposed development. She wants to make sure Romeo Drive will go through and connect somewhere in case she wants to develop her land in the future. McLaughlin said the City wants to work out the best solution with the property owners to make the best connection. The developer is responsible for drainage issues. DICK STRENG, 1255 Munson Drive, President of Meadowhawk Homeowner's Assn explained that the association reviewed the proposal at their last meeting and those in attendance liked the idea of this development, the village green, the route to the city park, turnarounds, and the idea of making a connecting neighborhood. PENNY CURTIS, 264 N. Mountain, said she is concerned with the additional traffic on Mountain and wants to understand the issues of rezoning their property. Curtis is concerned with the portion of their property that the new street will run along and she does not want to have a sidewalk on that side as a drop-off to their property. They would request a wall or a buffer to protect their property from noise and traffic. What about the back half of her property that is in the County? McLaughlin explained that there would be no impact for them to annex except it would probably make sense in clarifying all the issues. Staff can contact other owners prior to the Council meeting to see if it is feasible to annex that strip behind the lots fronting Mountain. MARIE MOREHEAD, 310 No. Mountain, said she likes the look of development but does not like added traffic to Mountain. She would also favor stop signs at No. Mountain and E. Main. She would like to be included in annexing the rear portion of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 9 her lot. She believes 20 foot streets are too narrow. ANDY COCHRAN, 624 W. Valley View Road, favors the project and believes affordable housing fits nicely. CYNTHIA PARK, 1245 Munson Drive, likes the access to the park, the 90 degree turns to reduce traffic speed. She wondered what will happen with the water easement and her fencing. Will there be two fences with an easement in between? The common areas seem too blockish. With the garages setback, that will create more pavement. Park is also concerned with this high density development. KELLY MADDING, Affordable Housing Officer for the City of Ashland, explained the program allows for developers to increase density and defers system development charges. She does not believe a home has re-sold within the affordable housing program. Most people purchasing homes sold under the affordable housing program have been earning $28,000. No Staff Response Rebuttal Giordano responded that roof drains will be handled by gutters and downspouts and taken to the street by both surface and underground drainage systems to the north end of the property. He is willing to work with Parks on the irrigation easement. He willing to install a six foot high wooden fence to help buffer the Curtis property. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Bass thought this would be an opportunity to clean up the City boundaries and that the project encourages in-fill besides meeting the criteria for annexation. Potentially there are some revisions needed in the annexation criteria. Because of the projects coming up in this area that will all feed traffic into No. Mountain and E. Main, the intersection solution needs to be accelerated. Bingham noted many years ago the Commission-talked about having a pre-planned grid pattern for this entire area and-it=de_��happened. If all of Mill Pond/Fordyce Street decide to start using this area to/get to Mountain, because it isn't a straight path, there could be some potential traffic problems. He wants some solution to the E. Main/No. Mountain intersection as soon as possible. � J A ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION�! 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 13, 1995 /D A!o pD 170AI 4 sv n'fE coWimAC Bingham moved to approve PA 95-058 with the attached Conditions. Bass seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS Armitage moved to approve the Findings of the May 9, 1995 meeting. The last Condition (Ivy Lane) needs to be corrected to use Nolte's wording. Armitage.-moved as corrected. Giordano seconded. The motion carried with Bingham and Bass abstaining. PLANNING ACTION 95-064 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP, SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE BIKEWAY SYSTEM. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND Pam Barlow, Public Works Dept., reviewed the bikeway system. Giordano moved to approve of PA95-064, Finkle seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Finkle added that there will be many bike connections that are not shown that will allow connections between neighborhoods and those need to continue be added as small connections to the master plan. PA95-060 (Tom and Kathy Cox) will be continued until next month. PLANNING ACTION 95-057 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF AN 18-UNIT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION 525 SHERIDAN STREET APPLICANT: SHERUSUL, INC. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Bingham had a site visit and noted the native grasses and brought back many in his shoes. I Giordano stepped down because he is the agent for the applicant. All other Commissioners had a site visit. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 1% 1995 I ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 13, 1995 PLANNING ACTION: 95-058 APPLICANT: Mary Powers/Doug Neuman LOCATION: West of Munson Dr., between Munson Drive and North Mountain Ave. ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-5 (County); R-1-5-P (requested). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Annexation 18.108 Performance Standards 18.88 REQUEST: Annexation of 7.96 acres and Outline Plan approval for a 43-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: There are no other planning actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: Refer to "Site Description" found in the applicant's findings. The applicant's are requesting annexation of 7.96 acres and Outline Plan approval of a 43-lot subdivision. Twenty five percent (11 residences) of the homes will comply with the City's resolution establishing affordable housing levels, as required under the requirements for annexation. The project will involve the extension of Munson Drive to the west and connecting it to North Mountain Avenue. This will not involve a straight shot across, but rather the neighborhood will be developed around a modified grid street design. This will reduce neighborhood driving speeds by providing an indirect route from Munson Drive to North Mountain " " techniques have been proposed to Avenue. Additional traffic calming q p p reduce vehicle speeds and improve the pedestrian environment, including traffic circles, textured concrete crosswalks and reducing lane width ("necking down') at all intersections. �a The applicant's findings state that the project architecture will be "reminiscent of the Railroad District with either small Victorian Farm House homes or Craftsman Cottages". Each home will have a porch and the garage will either be detached or setback 30 feet from the sidewalk. A 4 to 5 foot planting strip/parkrow will be located between the curb and sidewalk, and will be planted with street trees and ground cover—' A "village green" has been located in the center of the project, with a pathway connecting it to other areas of the neighborhood, as well as to the City park to the north. A total of 15.5 percent of the total project area will be in private open space. In addition to the "village green", this includes the small creek at the southwest comer of the property and the adjacent riparian area. Public facilities are located within Munson Drive and are proposed to be extended to serve the project. Both water and sewer service will be extended from Munson Drive, loop through the project, and connect to existing mains in North Mountain Avenue. An underground storm drainage system will be installed within the new streets and connected to the existing system in North Mountain Avenue. II. Project Impact Annexation This property is portion of the peninsula of county zoned land, situated west of Fordyce Street, east of North Mountain Avenue and surrounded on three sides by the City of Ashland. The site is located within the urban growth boundary (UGB), and is contiguous with the City Limits on its east and west boundaries. A small percentage of the property located along North Mountain Avenue is currently within the City Limits. The proposed project zoning of R-1-5-P, which allows for residential development at a density of 4.5 units per acre, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map designation for this area of Single Family Residential. The proposed project density is approximately 5.4 units per acre. Availability of city facilities City sewer, water, electricity and storm drainage facilities are located within Munson Drive and North Mountain Avenue and will be extended to and through the project. The small creek at the southwest comer of the project may be used PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 2 /3 to accommodate additional runoff as well. Vehicular access to the project is provided from North Mountain Avenue and Munson Drive. Munson Drive is a residential street, currently providing access to a limited number of residences. It is fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalks on both sides. North Mountain Avenue is a designated arterial and is paved with curb and gutter, but has no sidewalks. North Mountain Avenue is planned to accommodate in excess of 3000 vehicle trips daily. The 41 new homes should generate a approximately of 410 vehicle trips daily. Around 35% or 144 trips will travel to Medford daily, while the other 267 trips will be distributed throughout the local.street system - eastbound to the Walker Avenue area via Fordyce Street or North Mountain Avenue to East Main, to Siskiyou Boulevard and the College via North Mountain Avenue, to the Railroad District commercial area via "B" Street, and to the Downtown via East Main Street. The existing public sidewalk along Munson Drive will be extended through the project and along the property's 160 feet of North Mountain Avenue frontage. Street improvements to Fordyce Street, which include the installation of sidewalks, are currently being planned through the formation of a local improvement district, and with the involvement of property owners in the area. The proposed pathway through the "village green" will provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the North Mountain Park. This will allow access to the park without having to go out to North Mountain Avenue. The nearest transit stop is located along Siskiyou Boulevard. The current loop will likely be expanded to include service along East Main and North Mountain Avenue. Public need This project proposes to meet the requirement for demonstrating a public need for additional land by offering 25% of the homes at affordable levels, in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Council. Consequently, 11 of the 43 homes would be required to comply with this standard. Subdivision Approval Neighborhood design PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 / Page 3 � T Staff believes that the applicant has done a fine job in presenting a project design which will ultimately mature into a neighborhood having its own unique character. The streets entering into the neighborhood have been laid out in a modified grid pattern and directed toward a central open space area. Tree-lined planting strips will be placed between the curb and sidewalk, buffering pedestrians from the travel lanes. Intersections will be narrowed ("neck down") to reduce automobile travel speed and provide shorter crossing distances for people. Traffic calming measures such as roundabouts (i.e. traffic circles) have been proposed to further reduce travel speeds. The application states that the architecture of the homes will be "reminiscent of the Railroad District with either small Victorian Farm House homes or Craftsman Cottages". All homes will have a porch, and the garage will be either detached or be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the sidewalk. Private driveways will be a minimum width to minimize the length of interruption to the sidewalk system and reduce the overall area of impervious surface. Natural features A small creek meanders through the southwest corner of the property. The riparian area adjacent to the creak is proposed to be enhanced by planting additional trees, shrubs and ground cover. Rocks and gravel may be added to enhance the definition of the waterway. A final landscaping plan for the area will presented for review at the time of Final Plan approval. The only large mature trees are located around the existing house and barn. These are noted on the plan as being preserved on lots 42 an 43. Development of adjacent land The City's recently amended Transportation Plan map designates two street connections to the property south of the project. One street connection has been shown at the southeast comer of the project. Staff has examined the feasibility of providing an additional north/south street connection and is of the opinion that a pedestrian and bicycle connection should be sufficient, given the proximity of the large barn structure to the south. Staff anticipates that a similar street design to that which is proposed will be used to develop the vacant land south of this proposal. The street configurations will compliment each other and provide short and convenient access between neighborhoods. PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 4 15— Project Density The proposed R-1-5-P zoning allows for a base density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre. With a total of 43 lots, the project's density is approximately 5.4 dwelling units per acre, well within allowable levels permitted by the zoning district. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The following findings shall be required for approval of annexation to the City of Ashland: 1. That the land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. 2 That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. That the land is contiguous with the present City limits. 4. That adequate City facilities for w�sewer, paved access to and through the I r� development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. 5. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated; or That the proposed lots shall be residentially zoned under the City's Comprehensive Plan and that the applicant has agreed to provide 25 I % of the proposed residential units at affordable levels, in accord with f Y 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 b. That the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-I 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 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 PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 5 C. That a current or probable public health hazard exist due to the lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or d. That the existing development in the County has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year; or e. 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 f. That the lot or lots proposed for annexation are an 'island"completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. The criteria for Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Option are as follows: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the . S ' City of Ashland N b) That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm iY drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c) That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, jloodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuddable areas. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e) That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. ) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 6 /7 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations In Staff's opinion, the proposal involves a logical incorporation of land into the City Limits. The project is centrally located and bounded by the City limits on two sides. The properties east and west of the project are relatively urbanized, while a master park plan is currently being developed for the area to the north. Staff believes the application complies with the requirements for annexation. The property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary, is contiguous to the City Limits and the proposed zoning is accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Public facilities are available to serve the site and 25 percent of the proposed residential units will be sold at affordable levels, in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Council. Lastly, Staff commends the applicant's efforts to present an innovative design that incorporates a central open space ('village green"), focuses on elements aimed at enhancing and linldng pedestrian spaces while reducing automobile travel speeds, and which strives to create a unique neighborhood character. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That a public pedestri a> easeme t be shown on the Final Plan linldng the project site to the pAroperty tdd the-�iYYo''rth. d /'�3`�1? 71 F S✓9PACO Of ?71& �Lt NP&, *rl SI r090Y6N rNE C-011 WA-14W +"4x •06 mr.&Y&D BY h✓t' 3) �af by(franY mst2atti/on be done such that all homes are within 250 feet of a hydrant having adequate flow. Required hydrants to be in and operational prior to issuance of building permits for individual homes. All other requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall also be met. 4) That all easements for sewer, water, electric, and streets be indicated on the final survey plat a required by the City of Ashland. 5) That the property owner enter into an agreement with the City of Ashland guaranteeing that 25 percent of the units (11 units) comply with the resolution establishing affordable housing income and purchased cost levels. Agreement to be recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance annexing the property. 6) That a boundary description and map be prepared by a registered land surveyor prior to the Council approving the annexation. PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 7 7) That full engineered construction drawings be provided for all streets, crossings and utilities as part of Final Plan approval. 8) That a copy of the CC&R's indicating responsibility for maintenance of open space and common areas be submitted at the time of Final Plan for review and approval by the City of Ashland. 9) That the subdivision as a whole, sign in favor of a local improvement district for future street improvements to North Mountain Avenue, including curb & gutter, storm drainage facilities and sidewalks. 10) That a site, size and species specific landscaping plan for neighborhood open spaces, planting strips and riparian areas be submitted for review at the time of Final Plan. f-o4 - Mt ' AftO tG9M%d! /d AeOI/'I/Y?"eddA, nWr !Z. 0 s cam- Bry a, /"fart VA1771� AW. ,VO X12® 41 vh tjD6WAICr OF lr1/,�976#0- 'i roe AWS VICmr7OA) Vie, oo 4 7N ii5s�9'd�cycc� S re 047 Cb/r ,s�evnR i G•tid PA95-058 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Mary Powers/Doug Neuman June 13, 1995 Page 8 /9 JACKSON COUNTY OREGON PLANNING AND IIIIIII1� 10 S.OAKDALE. MEDFORD,OREGON 97501 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • (503) 776-7554 FAX: (503) 776-7384 May 26, 1995 MAY 3 Q 1995 City Planner Planning Department City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Your File 95-058 Annexation and Subdivision by Mary Powers/Doug Neuman Dear Planner: The above parcel proposed for annexation and subdivision abuts land zoned Exclusive Farm Use to the north. We encourage the following conditions be included in the approval of this subdivision: 1) A restrictive covenant be recorded on the parcels within 200 feet of the Exclusive Farm Use zoned properties which acknowledges that agricultural uses could occur which could subject residents to normal and r ordinary agricultural visual, odor and noise pollution. 2) The new dwellings should be placed as far south as feasible on the parcels adjacent to the Exclusive Farm Use property to further reduce the potential conflicts with farm activities. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, IiPlanni ody ggTechnician ttt II 40 MR, vr-. NINE 1 FIR Mill Eli RISEN ---siorw .No t Mills "no Mill 2 NO goo W. ZEN r am 1. mm MARM.- 11111 will MEN' Him 911111211 mnm;; -mills MR WE w 0 —Mc S M. T vim Ell is ji 111ar Mill ENRON mm "mass = =aw ark x1i w mic low" Miss, mm Mill 5561 l ! )VW g3A13036 z 3E)e- -111 ONd-lHSV . WV p gg ggggppgggg ®epp[p,ppgg ��••ggq66 !' C� �a• �'.t.1�77377�7.T.T3i�77}3,� L N o �a a R9aiiF�RRSSRSR�ERAAP:OL e • � � � 9!99999!!!!9!9!!!!99! � c IL - 1! � y ! '41�R3 � 3R�l5gRg9354�i slsld �� +ROO 11513 It IR �X S. � 09dl199999919999999999919 Jill� URI rri •• i LO f Div CO lb I L/ ' L'_'.. _ _ Ik I I I I T t T p I p l /e i o � t-•-I i r, i I I I I T LL I ' I i� mwoaa�inm 'O wraa nrn -' ><, Ill I gp I p 1 1 I M MIfn7i BB _ -N co s I _�' I • �� I r T A6 w I 5 a 4— --- I •g -j i `gM - e `cy I �.0w -- j TV I 0) 0 MI �I __ _� 1 I{ OIL" _ N I S li I I I co: i M I S I I I Q.1 Q I Q 1 J • I M I� I n _ _ I Ni N i N 1 e n. aminr�o uu •�+ cm .. mAY ' aawr,om I •••1 S . I8 y LL �I Ai,t/J lL'!W Ol YYYO I 1 l � � ImWb---�--- amur wru,non__—_--E _ a , as � �: I. C tI- .�5;.��4;:•:� - �� - F �� .,-�� �..Y� ' . pr. Ip; eL Y: zol� le s� tee.; .r;�Eiu bra...�......)DJ �:'. .> 1 bp4...;!.toi��;? @i 4'�f � ei-,.. � pper°- 9 �1 e� ■ 0� �� '� �'9 HL�^H �Y�rA�.�. ,A. a �pi,� .J r'rs..}��e���� �y` Ci :��U�1�'; •p• 111 I�'�. �:: �OQ ���,�Ii i �'1 Hr c'i} i���l��� 0 eQl 1'p �^�y'Al 'a Ip. I�r._S�Cpl.. (� �,Q ir+i �n-r,�'� �, r.RawDr ��Il��ll � ISM �. n,��l � I� �i41[�)�I�JI��r,.�. �� UtUlO1N1...14 ��� 01 �. . �E�B���! a 1�,, i01 IC -".�.y i�� 1� iY ) ii Y \� �S Iii •�C � ! 19 t3,. 0> ° � to O Ip: F boa O �' i � � �°? ■� F �� `_i a® /o� mow: Ip; � /� 1� Ip¢ - e F l0� I� a3 /1" RECEIVED ;;Ay 1 1 1995 ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING PROJECT NARRATIVE AND FINDINGS 12 MAY 1995 PROTECT NAME: Ashland Village Subdivision TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for annexation (Chapter 18.108.190) and a 41 lot site plan review (Chapter 18.72) for a subdivision utilizing the performance zone overlay (Chapter 18.88). PROTECT INFORMATION: OWNERIAPPLICANT: Mary Powers Mountain Park Development 4240 Clayton Road Ashland, OR 97520 (503) 482-5968 ARCHITECTIAGENT: Tom R. Giordano 157 Morninglight Drive Ashland, OR 97520 (503) 482-9193 SURVEYOR: Hoffbuhr & Associates Inc 1062 E. Jackson Street Medford,OR 97504 (503) 779-4641 PROJECT ADDRESS: North Mountain Avenue Ashland, OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N.W. 114 of Section 10, T 39S, RIE, WM Tax Lot 3700 157 Morninglight Drive ♦ Ashland, OR 97520 ♦ Phone and Fax (503) 482-9193 a41 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: RR-5 (Jackson County)/ R-1-5-P (City) BASE DENSITY OF PROJECT: 4.50 DU Per Acre PROTECT DATA: Total lot area: 350,969 S.F. 7.96 Acres Approximate individual lot area: Lot IA 4,950 S.F. Lot 23 4,675 Lot 2 4,500 Lot 24A 4,240 Lot 3 7,700 Lot 25A 3,600 Lot 4 7,900 - Lot 26A 5,300 Lot 5 6,500 a Lot 27A 4,505 Lot 6 5,400 Lot 28A 4,950 Lot 7 5,700 Lot 29 4,675 Lot 8 5,700 Lot 30 5,050 Lot 9 5,400 Lot 31 4,850 Lot 10 6,500 Lot 32A 4,500 Lot 11 7,900 Lot 33 4,860 Lot 12 6,050 Lot 34 5,225 Lot 13 6,600 Lot 35 5,225 Lot 14 49785 G-- Lot 36A 4,675 �- Lot 15A 4,785 Lot 37 4,675 Lot 16A 4,785 Lot 38 4,675 Lot 17 41785 Lot 39 4,675 Lot 18 6,270 Lot 40 4,845 Lot 19 6,270 Lot 41 4,845 Lot 20 6,270 Lot 42 14,859.25 Lot 21A 4,655 Lot 43 121433.25 Lot 22 49675 *A equals affordable housing units TOTAL 1 - 43 = 245,417.50 S.F. as Common Open Space 54,511.50 S.F. 15.5% Streets 51,040 S.F. 1.17 Acres Allowable Density: 35 Lots Bonus Density Requested: 25% for Affordable Housing and Openspace = 11 Lots Requested Density: 43 Total Lots Parking Required and Provided: 86 Covered 43 On-street SITE DESCRIPTION: Within the general vicinity of the site there is a mix of rural and urban features. Due to recent developments,the area is making a transition from a rural setting to an urban type character. Both new housing developments and pastureland is present in this area. The city has recently completed a neighborhood plan for the North Mountain area and a transportation amendment for this area. A new city park will be developed just north of this property. A new electrical sub station has been completed also to the north of this property. The subject property (one parcel, tax lot 3700) is located between Munson Drive to the east (city land) and North Mountain to the west (also city land). A portion of the site is within the city limits while most is in the county but within the Urban Growth Boundary (to the north and south), see Vicinity Map. The terrain gently slopes down to the north (approximately 5%), see Utility Plan. The only trees on the site are located adjacent to the existing home and barn, see photographs and aerial photograph. The existing home and barn are simple wood sided structures. The remainder of the site is pasture land, see photographs. There are distant views (360' of mountains and hills from the site. Access to the site is from North Mountain Avenue, a proposed arterial and Munson Drive, a local or residential street (City Comprehensive Plan). Traffic flow for arterials are usually in excess of 3,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) while local streets have flows of 800. ab PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has had a preapplication meeting with City Staff. The present application package addresses the issues which were discussed at this meeting. The density allowed under present zoning is 35 lots. The applicant is requesting an additional 8 lots for bonus density for openspace and affordability. This density is consistent with existing residential developments throughout the area, see aerial photograph. The applicant will provide 15.5% of the site for openspace. This openspace will be used for: 1. A "Village Green" in the center of the development; 2. A riparian/retention pond located adjacent to the existing creek; and 3. Linear paths linking the development to the new city parks and the parkways buffering the sidewalk from the street. See the Design Site Plan for the location of this openspace. All common openspace will be maintained by a homeowners association and controlled by CC & Rs. The streetscape design utilizes traffic calming techniques to slow and discourage through traffic, see Design Site Plan. These calming techniques are: 1. Traffic circle ("Roundabouts") which direct traffic without the necessity of a stop sign; 2. Concrete textured crosswalks at all crossing points; and 3. An indirect traffic route from North Mountain Avenue to Munson Drive. Further, the streetscape design includes a narrow traffic lane (10' each way), parking on one side of the street and a parkway between the street and sidewalks, see Site Design Plan. The overall design utilizes a modified "neo-traditional" concept. The street pattern is a grid and a Village Green is located in the center of the development. Each new home will have a porch and the garage either detached or set a minimum of 30' to the rear of the front yard, see Utility and Design Site Plans. The architecture will be reminiscent of the Railroad District with either small Victorian Farm House homes or Craftsman Cottages. The homes will be one and two story. Homes will be affordable, under the City of Ashland's guidelines. The project is owned by Mary Powers and Mountain Park Development. The 47 applicant will provide both private and bank financing. It will be built in one phase. FINDINGS: CRITERIA FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL A. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city of Ashland. The proposed development will require review of chapters 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards, 18.88 for the Performance Standards Option and 18.108.065 for annexations. The application package consists of drawings, narrative and photographs which delineate both the scope of the proposed project in detail and existing conditions of the site. The applicant has met with city staff and has received preapplication review. the applicant has addressed each issue mentioned by staff and has provided a response to these issues within the application package. The provided information in the package includes: 1. Aerial photo, photographs of the area, topographic data, exterior elevations, Design Site Plan and Utility Plan; 2. A narrative describing the project's data, description of the site and description of the project and; 3. Findings required by the city. As illustrated in the application package the proposed project meets or exceeds the city's Development Standards including density, coverage, parking, height, setbacks, lot dimensions, and grading. B. That adequate key City facilities can be provide including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Water- The applicant intends to provide water for fire control, domestic usage and irrigation of landscaped area. A new 8" line is proposed to serve the development. This new line will connect to the existing 8" line on Munson and the existing 6" line on North Mountain. This will 'create a continuous loop system which should improve present flow rates and pressure, see Utility Plan. ag The two closest existing fire hydrants are located at the end of Munson and on North Main, see Utility Plan. These hydrants have flow rates of 560 GPM and 1300 GPM respectively. Six new fire hydrants are proposed, see Utility Plan. These new hydrants should have a flow rate greater than 750 GPM. For water conservation, the project will conform to city standards regarding use of domestic water fixtures and irrigation systems. Sewer- The subdivision will provide a new 8" sanitary sewer line, see Utility Plan. This new line will connect to the existing 10" line in North Mountain and the existing 8" line in Munson. The new sewer line will be located within the street right-of-way. New manholes will be provided per city standards. Electricity, Telephone and CTV- All these services will be underground and connected to existing services on Munson and North Mountain. An 8 foot wide PUE will be provided at the road frontage of all lots. Storm Drains- All new homes will have gutters and downspouts and on-site run off will be directed to the streets. Street run off will be directed to the north and west by both surface drains and underground storm sewer system, see Utility Plan. The runoff will be directed toward existing city storm sewer system (to the north). Detailed drawings will.be provided prior to final plan approval. Transportation- The proposed development will generate 420 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The majority of these trips will utilize North Mountain Avenue, a proposed arterial. Arterials have capacity which exceed 3,000 ADT. The proposed street system for the development is in concert with the city's transportation plan for this area. This system will provide limited access to Fordyce/Millpond area but discourage direct access. Traffic calming techniques have been incorporated into the design to discourage through traffic. These techniques include: 1. Traffic circles ("Roundabouts"); 2. An indirect route for traffic flow; and 3. Textured concrete paving crosswalks at all crossing points. See Design Site Plan. To encourage pedestrian usage the design includes sidewalks and a path through the openspace, see the Design Site Plan. The plan will also provide pedestrian and bicycle paths to the new city park via a 20 foot wide access route, see Design Site Plan. a9 All streets will meet or exceed City of Ashland Design Standards, see Utility and Design Site Plans. Grading- Due to the flatness of the site, 5% slope, grading impacts will be minimal. C. That the existing and natural features of the land, such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. As mentioned in the narrative, the site is mostly flat pasture land. The few trees are located adjacent to the existing home and barn. These trees will be included in lots 42 and 43. The creek is to be enhanced with riparian vegetation and utilized as openspace and runoff retention pond, see Design Site Plan. A "Village Green" is to be created at the center of the project. This green will be utilized for passive recreation and as a focal point for the development. A path will connect this space with the new city park. D. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will enhance adjacent land for uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan by providing access to the property's to the south. The project will connect to Munson Drive to North Main as recommended in the City's Transportation Plan for this neighborhood, see Utility and Design Site Plans and the City Transportation Plan. Further, the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as single family residential. E. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. All the openspaces (Village Green, Riparian and Pedestrian paths) will be maintained by a homeowners association. A homeowners association agreement will be provided prior to final map approval. �D e F. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. As shown in the project data section of this narrative the allowable base density for this development is 35 lots (4.5 X 7.96 acres). Bonus density of 8 additional lots is requested for both affordable housing and openspace. This results in a total development density of 43 lots. ANNEXATION A. That the land is within the City's Growth Boundary. The city zoning map and the applicant's vicinity map shows the land to be within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). B. That the proposed zoning and project are in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area as single family residential. The proposed project is a single family residential development and conforms to the R-1-5P zone designation. C. That the land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. The existing tax lot (3700) is contiguous with the present city limits on the east and west boundary, see the Vicinity Map and Utility Plan. In fact, a portion of tax lot 3700 is within the city limits (proposed lots 42 & 43). D. That public services are available or can be made available to the site. Public services are available to the site, see the Utility Plan. Also, Finding B, under criteria for outline plan approval discusses each service's availability in detail, see that item. E. That a public need for additional land, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, can be demonstrated as defined in I8.I08.065 C. Under an annexation resolution adopted by the city in 1992, if 25% of the homes are at affordable levels, in accord with the standards established by this city council resolution, the proposed project meets the public need for additional land. The proposed development will have 11 lots (25% of the 43 proposed) which are designated as affordable and will meet city requirements for affordability; therefore this application is in compliance with the need requirement (Chapter 18.108.065 Q. The need for affordable housing in Ashland is critical. The city instituted the above resolution to encourage development of affordable housing and to 'meet the demand for this housing. - In conclusion,'I believe the City Planning Commission and City Council can find the proposed development consistent with comprehensive plan policies and zoning ordinance requirements. 3a RECEIVEp ;235 0 6� I July 1, 1995 To: ��annincJ �o�;ss/unb� As a neighbor of the potential Ashland Village Subdivision, I am concerned about how the development is to occur, and the impact to our property at 264 N. Mountain both during the construction process itself and the eventual character of the property after the completion of development Our property is situated on what would be the comer of the entry road coming off of N. Mountain, and as such would bear the majority of impact of development This concern is heightened by the fact that further development directly across Mountain Avenue is a likelyhood and therefore, in addition to absorbing the impact of the continuously increasing traffic levels on Mountain Ave., we face the impact of development on three sides of our property. We believe that this much development contiguous to our property is an undue pressure on our property, and we would like the city to consider the impact and to work with us to insure that development occurs in a way that mitigates the unusual pressure facing us as neighbors of this abnormally fast pace of development in this section of Ashland. (I refer to the development in this area as being abnormally fast because of the exceptions that were granted for the annexation county land before the development of similar lands that were akeady within the city boundaries) Our main concern is with the impact of the new road that is to be cut for the new development on the souther edge of our property. This road crosses a creek that has been culvertized and filled over The enclosed diagrams and narrative illustrate the particular buffering that we feel would be appropriate along the side of our property. We no longer live in Ashland, but are very concerned about what is happening in our N. Mountain neighborhood, so we would appreciate if any information or correspondence is xnt to us at our new address at 1031 Hearst Ave. Apt. C Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: 5104848-0707 Thank You, Elizabeth Whitman & Mike Joyer 3� e%c rcioz i it . I tx4P T C.. .on �. rnow�-a;n , a...d encroo.ct+ rnen{ o� dcuc�Mcn'�" 'v c1,aa-{ � ca'elf� , we. r{'ee��l soMt mch 1 kht Mea-%ufYJ Ylcccl kx 4a--Ci't 4m bwc r- Lv prerrn -I� w,dke arno�nn� o� tit o� deaclaPMV.� t{.a� oD 14 cro=ws -tt. cmcL and. c°�°� P"j4 2b'F &i. m7e,. a/„d �S./a��aJ�f /� debe w y 1%4 . alcc"ez dons . 7%2- 1il .4a a// a-5 . AL �3 ) 2• /�o s?du-�al�c .c.. �n. ho//� sz�c s�.l�i .6�•ee.-� . -/2- ire dweloyMew and 6,0,lt/ 6e. wdl accar ,daAd 6r A :0adeU& 3. Ma F7�,�c�r.� an 7� ho/Ih S.cLe o� /)(,,L 7a Z 'NUE ,I n a = m p 0 O i O N N CA 4 Z °o i o 1 F� —_ — 911 '1 . � of Ash,'••a AEmorandum i6o , July 12, 1995 4Jf 0� Brian Almquist, City Administrator rum: James H Olson, Assistant City Engineer p�Uajptf: REQUEST FOR SEWER CONNECTION TO PROPERTIES OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS - (OSBORN REQUEST) BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Mr. Virgil Osborn has requested that properties that he owns along Highway 66 be provided City sewer service (39-1E-13B Tax Lots 900, 1000, 1100, 1400). The properties currently consist of four tax lots with two houses, one located on lot 900 and one on lot 1000. The remaining two lots are vacant. The existing houses are currently served by septic systems however, the applicant indicates that while the drainfields were recently renewed the septic tanks are now failing. The properties are within the Urban Growth Boundary but do not have current access to a sewer main. The applicant is prepared to build the sewer main. Three of the properties (Tax Lots 1000, 1100 and 1400) are bounded on the north by Neil Creek, making septic system installations somewhat more difficult. The fourth lot, 900, is a very small lot and has little room for additional septic improvements. REQUEST: Mr. Osborn, as a co-owner of the four lots, requests that these lots be provided with City sewer service. He is willing to pay for the extension of the sewer main in Hwy 66 from the proximity of Dead Indian Memorial Road to the access way to the four lots (approximately 800 feet). Public Works would pay for the difference in up-sizing the mainline from an 8-inch to a 10-inch main. This would provide the basis for a possible future mainline extension to the Crowson Road area to service those properties within the Urban Growth Boundary area. PAGE 1 Date: 20-Jun-95 16: 31 From: PAUL (Paul Nolte Attorney) To: JIMO,STEVE Copies-to: MAC Subject: sewer service outside city, inside UGB Message-id: F8F7E62FO1DEDEDE Re your memo of April 4 , 1995 - Request by Osburn for connection of two existing houses and two additional lots with no houses. I interpret the code provisions to permit connections to sewer for properties outside the city to only existing buildings. The provisions do not allow for future connections to buildings yet to be built. In Mr. Osborn's letter (see attached) he also states that he would like to retain the option of dividing lot 1000 in half and provide service to the new lot as well. This portion of his request is somewhat redundant in that he could only divide the property if it were annexed to the City and with the property being within the City limits he would be entitled to free sewer service since he would have paid for the sewer main itself. The current County zoning of RR-5 would not allow further division of the lots. FOR DISCUSSION: In a recent response to an inquiry by Steve Hall (see attached memo and E-mail response) Paul Nolte suggests that judging from previous ordinance wording and Council actions and discussions that connections for vacant lots is not specifically provided for under Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Section 14.08.030. There have been several instances where connections have been given for future constructions. The previous wording of that section contained limitations as to connection to existing buildings built prior to 1973. In later revisions this wording was dropped but there still exists some confusion as to the actual intent. Council may wish to consider the purpose of the code in this section. Is it intended that no vacant lands be granted sewer connection privileges? Is it intended that Council have some discretionary authority where special circumstances can be considered? Does the current AMC section require revision as it relates to connections outside the City limits? DECISION CONSIDERATIONS: PRO: 1.) Approval of the Osborn request would provide 800 feet of public sewer main for future use toward the Crowson Road area. 2.) Connection would generate revenues for sewer service. 3.) Connection to the City would reduce the likelihood of sewer infiltration into Neil Creek. 4.) Several applications for connections for vacant lands have been granted in the last two years. CON: 1.) Connection to the City system adds additional load to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. PAGE 2*:cnZmcc4Ambomrq.M=) 2.) There are questions as to whether a connection to an existing vacant lot is allowed under current code. The decision may require an ordinance change or clarification. 3.) If only two lots are allowed to connect, the mainline construction, at approximately $18,000.00, would not be economically feasible. 4.) The sewer main does not currently exist but would be installed by the applicant. SUGGESTED ACTION: May this request be placed before the Council at the earliest opportunity? It is recommended that Council also consider the subject of connecting vacant lands within the Urban Growth Boundary in relationship with connecting existing homes, and that AMC Section 14.08.030 be revised if necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Public Works Makes no recommendations as to the approval of this request. cc: Steve Hall Paul Nolte Attach: Map Osborn Letter AMC 14.08.030 PAGE CITY OF ASHLAND .' CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(00(10 503)482-3211 July 12, 1995 Mr. Virgil L. Osborn 4770 Glendale Avenue N.E. SALEM OR 97305 Re: SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION TO OSBORN PROPERTY Dear Mr. Osborn: Enclosed is a copy of the memo which was prepared for the presentation of your request to the City Council. I thought you may wish to review this before it is actually scheduled. Would you please call me at 488-5347 with your thoughts on the memo. Have we presented your request adequately? It does appear that the sewer line extension may be longer than expected unless you have actually measured the distance. Sincerely, am es H. Olson Assistant City Engineer Enc: Memo g:1��«.1oho�n.ty) • N.W. 1/4 SEC. 13 T39S RIE W.M. SCALE 1*•20V 39 1E 13B SUMNER PARKER 39 IE 12 •i••• FIELD I 00 2001 c zoo 2000 (ASHLAND MUNIC. p 212 .7L2 a�, AIRPORT), P•37-90 j • (cs-w56) . .' 2006• . 5-15 <15 •tt. W c P•37-94 f �.� 0 (CS-0956) ` RR-00 EFU y 2003 i 0 30, •- t''W to ... .._-. ' 24 RR 5 = nZ 163" to v V D C Yr• •,• ' s.�i3!• INT ELL DLS •• 300396C .'303 z 1, ,�•,1 1 o.•oAa .• � . r•- P.•am i• .e8 , 300 3 ` 3 03ft y 1200 " 5- 4 ' COMMON AREA C ' CITY LIMITS . 6 _ NO;LL '' •` 2 COURSE • • CITY LIMITS 5 -15 RR•s :,_ ::. AS ••'�; €' ,� OSBORN PROPERTY :!0, ♦ � '< UGB ' PARTITION PLAT P-125-1992 \a y sv ) ! C.513259 9�•r i00 / (P_teftJ . TOO ,�•_. -- 'ROPOSED SEWER EXTENSION 1 600 / • •n •'� L•N' j . •j t,2 N •cut � MAYWOOD WAY REDUCED SCALE I March 29 , 1995 DD APR 1995 Ashland City Council RECOVER % Jim Olsen, Asst. City Engineer yBDN. 27k N. Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re : Sewer connection/Hwy. 66 Dear Council : I am a joint owner of certain property located within the urban growth boundary on Hwy. 66 , This property is located on Neil Creek, across the highway from the Oak Knoll Golf Course. There are two houses on two of the lots and two additional lots containing no houses . A plat map is enclosed for your convenience, with the properties in question, outlined. The two houses are currently serviced by septic tanks . The drain fields were renewed a few years ago , but now the septic tanks are failing. Rather than replace the septic tanks so close to the creek, we are petit- ioning you for permission to connect to the city sewer. In order to do this we would need to extend the existing sewer line on Hwy. 66 , approx- imately 500 ' . To defray our expenses in so doing we would like to have a minimum of four connections granted, Additionally , we would like to request a fifth connection in the event lot No. 1000 is divisible , but only in that event/ 1 I have r' Iu a highlighted dotted line to mark the sewer line route . Ios a pre d ate your consideration of this matter. If you need or desire fuft r/of m please advise. Si c r ly urs rgi Osborn 4770 Glendale Ave N. E. Salem, OR 97305 (503) 370-8114 t • t Of NHL••; gntIIrn �fnm �qFG� ..•' April 4, 1995 Paul Nolte, City Attorney ram: Steven Hall, Public Works Director �uhjgd.- Sewer Service - Outside City Limits,.Inside UGB I would appreciate your interpretation of AMC 14.08.030. I have been interpreting it as allowing City Council to only consider those properties which have an existing building or home on the land. Conversely, if then;is no building, or house on the property, City would not grant a sewer stub for future development. I have highlighted sections of the AMC 14.08.030 that I believe indicate that a building must be in existence to receive sewer service outside the City limits and inside the UGB. Attached is a request from a property owner requesting connection of two existing houses and 2 or 3 future houses depending on the ability to partition one of the existing lots. The AMC is very specific that partitioning will not occur until after annexation if the City would then allow the lot to be partitioned. Thanks for your help. cc: Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer John McLaughlin, Planning Director Enc- AMC 14.08.030 Osborn letter 3/29/95 PAGE 1 c :Kw•umon�.*+�� td 08 030 Connection - Outside City. Inside Urban Growth Boundary. Premises located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's sewage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions: A. The applicant for sewer service pay the sewer connection fee and the systems development charges established by the City Council. (Ord. 1954 S3, 1978; Ord. 2019 S3, 1979; Ord. 2092 S3, 1980; Ord. 2147 S1, S2, 1981; Ord. 2263 S3, 1983; Ord. 2316 S3, 1984; Ord. 2322 S1, 1984; Ord. 2449 S3, 1988) B. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the sewer system are subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may continue to be connected to the sewer system of the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works. C. There is an existing Ashland sewer main or line to which the premises can be connected. D. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the land. E. The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness previously contracted by a public service district, such as Jackson County Fire District No. 5, multiplied by the number o years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be withdrawn from such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or future expense to the City. (Ord. 1820, 1974; Ord. 2147 S2, 1981; Ord. 2314 S2, 1984; Ord. 2322 S1, 1984) F. The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to annexation to the City. G. That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary. (Ord. 2322 S2, 1984; Ord. 2704, 1993) AEmorandum ' ,ORf00�.• August 10, 1995 City Council Members ram: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator �lI�IjPCf: Audit Committee Appointments Applications were ceive individuals for -at-large positions on the Audit Committee. Your selections were . Dozier Odved 4 votes; W. Amarotioo ved 4 votes and Mr. Nighom received 2 votes. Their appli ers are attached for you mvieoi. (r.co 'App int.m=) Attachments ­-'0* AS#,, a , rmaranidum c� ,.R o°`' • August 1, 1995 X110: Mayor and City Council rom: Rhonda Moore, Executive SecretarGAv—) ,�$ubjCd.- Audit Committee Applicants Enclosed are the applications received from three individuals during the recent recruitment for the Audit Committee citizens-at large positions. The recruitment closed July 29. There are two positions available with the initial appointees serving terms of two and three years. Future appointments will be for three-year terms. please return your selections for the two positions to me by Wednesday, August 9. We can make the appointments at the August 15 Council meeting. tr.C�ewudi�pL�> Enclosures cc - enc: Brian Almquist Barbara Christensen Richard L. Nighorn, CIA 1768 Crestview Drive Ashland OR 97520 July 26, 1995 Ashland City Council City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Dear Council Members: Responding to Mr. Martin H. Levine's thoughtful commentary upon the establishment of a municipal audit committee as outlined in the Ashland Daily Tidings dated July 20, 1995, I hasten to add my assis- tance to the matter of its implementation. Mr. Levine quite accurately described the general charter of an audit committee, its purpose and function, be it associated with government or private industry. The objective is clearly defined, and to that end, in order to assist you in your decision, you will find attached a brief outline of my qualifications and vocational experience. Very truly yours, R. L. N' horn, CIA Enc. RICHARD L. NIGHORN, CIA 1768 Crestview Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 503-488-5929 QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY Degreed BSA Certified Internal Auditor, Certificate No. 7305 1975-1982 QUASAR CORP., subsidary of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. of Japan Director of Internal Audit 1968-1974 MOTOROLA, INCORPORATED Assistant Director of Internal Audit 1966-1967 MAREMONT CORPORATION Automotive Division Audit Manager 1954-1965 UNION OIL OF CALIFORNIA Supervising Senior Auditor Public accounting in a firm whose clients were of diverse nature formed a part of my earlier business background. A fair amount of foreign and domestic travel, audit involvement and administration on a department level was a part of my latter career employment. Close working relation- ships were maintained with both foreign and domestic external audit rep- resentation as to fee structure and areas of singular and/or mutual audit interest. Departmental reporting was to either an audit committee of board of directors or to the level of managing director of the organiza- tion. The form of the reporting structure ensured that management policies and directives were adhered to and deviations brought to attention. Equally important was the assurance that governmental requirements were complied with as to scope and reporting frequency. JUL 181995 Robert Dozier Certified Public Accountant 482-364 108 5th Street, #1 Ashland, OR 97520 July 13, 1995 City Council c/o City Recorder's Office City Hall 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Sirs: I am enterested in serving as a volunteer on your Municipal Audit Committee. In addition to being a licensed CPA(Oregon #6793), 1 have over four years city and county government audit experience in California. If the education and experience on my attached resume interest you, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, L) Robert Dozier Robert Dozier Certified Public Accountant-Certified Internal Auditor-Certified Information Systems Auditor Semi-retired with a tax practice 482-3646 108 5th Street, #1 Ashland, OR 97520 Summary of Qualifications General: Over eleven years accounting,audit and EDP systems development experience in government and private industry. Ability to reconstruct records and data; prepare financial statements and tax returns; recommend improvements in internal controls; and assist in the development of automated information systems. Computers: Working knowledge of IBM/DECNAX mainframe environments as well as mini-computer and PC systems. Have worked with a wide variety of automated accounting systems from small contractors to multi-billion dollar aerospace firms. Education: Received Bachelor of Science degree with honors in business administration and accounting concentration in 1974 from California Polytechnic State University. Subsequent formal training in report writing, EDP systems controls and auditing, flexible budgeting, cost accounting standards, and quantitative methods. Affiliations: Member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants,the EDP Auditor's Association,and the Institute of Management Accountants. Employers: Defense Contract Audit Agency,Northrop Corp., Lockheed Corp., the City of Anaheim, and the Auditor/Controller of the County of Santa Barbara. Prior Two Employers Contract Auditor Defense Contract Audit Agency-Santa Barbara, California Dec 1987 to Aug 1990 Performed audits to determine adequacy of contractor accounting, procurement and estimating systems, and compliance with Federal acquisition regulations (FAR) and cost accounting standards (CAS). Expressed audit opinions on financial forecasts, incurred costs and labor/overhead billing rates. Recommended improvements in contractor internal controls. Implemented new techniques for downloading mainframe data to PC's for analysis. Managed computerization of audit office administrative activities. Created custom PC applications for Lotus 123 and dBase III that were used in various DCAA offices in the western United States. Senior Internal Auditor Northrop Corporation -Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 1980 to 1982 and 1984 to 1986 Perforated operational and financial audits of business functions and accounting systems with emphasis on improving internal controls, as well as compliance with FAR, CAS and contract requirements. Performed fraud investigations and supervised the reconstruction of subcontractor's financial records. Participated in establishing systems controls for a distributed data processing payroll and general ledger branch accounting system in four cities driven by mini-computers interfaced with a headquarters IBM mainframe computer. (1,i EMILE JOSEPH AMAROTICO, CPA S9S5 t 195 RANDY STREET I ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 _ .._.. ... tii . (503)4825498 V � i i U L✓ s ---------------- , July 20, 1995 City Council c/o City. Recorder's Office City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland,Oregon 97520 Dear City Council Members: ° Thank you for considering me as a"citizen at large on the City's Audit Committee. The position appeals greatly to me as an opportunity to apply my unique set of skills in a community service environment My background includes a broad array of experience, focusing on finance,business systems design and implementation and on hospitality management Specific highlights include: • Certified Public Accountant • Four years of business systems and operational consulting with Arthur Andersen&Co., the international accounting and consulting firm • Consulting Chief Financial Officer and Assistant General Manager with a seasonal resort serving Glacier National Park in Montana. • B.S. Business Administration-Accounting and Computer Information Systems • Fifteen years of experience in the food service industry, including managing operations,cooking,baking, and catering • A.O.S.Culinary Arts and Hospitality Management, Culinary.Institute of America My wife Karen and our two young children are delighted to have recently returned to Ashland, having been in Portland since completing our studies at Southern Oregon State College in 1990. Indeed it is great to be back among our family and friends! Thank you for this opportunity.to submit my attached resume. I welcome the chance to discuss this opportunity with you in detail. Sincerely, Emile Joseph Amarotico t EMILE JOSEPH AMAROTICO, CPA 195 Randy Street Ashland,Oregon 97520 (503)482-5498 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE O Independent Contractor,Ashland& Portland,Oregon. November 1994- Present Management&Financial Consultant Offering expert assistance with a broad range of management and financial solutions including computer network security enhancement and procedure development for a large community bank, financial presentation and planning for individuals, and recruiting executive team members for a closely held corporation. o O St. Mary Lodge and Resort,St.Mary,Montana. April 1994-November 1994 Consulting Chief Financial Officer and Assistant General Manager Executive position with this $4.7 million, 180 employee seasonal resort bordering Glacier National Park Operations include lodging,five food and beverage facilities, four retail outlets and automotive gas and service centers. Significant activities Finance • Developed multi-variable lease expense pro formas as key component of new lease plan • Analyzed capital project financing variables to determine optimum performance • Reviewed monthly financial statements for reasonableness and enhancement opportunities • Compiled allocated cost schedules to facilitate informed product pricing decisions Operations Management • Counseled executive team on day to day operating issues • Supervised and coached multiple department managers • Handled customer service issues on a routine as well as exception basis • Trained managers, supervisors and staff in operating procedures, system processes, and organization/time management • Organized and coordinated management team recruiting efforts =_ Proiect Management • Developed detailed workpla is and timelines for major functions and projects • Coordinated multi-department effort in vendor demonstrations,system selections and conversions • Organized major effort to identify,prioritize and complete facilities maintenance backlog • Coordinated estimating,scheduling and kickoff for$500,000 capital improvements • Directed layout and documentation of department operating manuals System Design,Implementation and Training • Selected and implemented networked POS system for fast food facility • Designed and prepared Request for Proposal(RFP)for retail security system • Converted manual bookkeeping process to automated accounting system for parent corporation • Created facility maintenance database for consolidating material and work requirements • Set up executive personal finance system for Managing Director • Conducted training in PC DOS,Windows and Macintosh software Strategic Planning • Facilitated long term business planning to align with resort site plan • Initiated development of comprehensive business systems plan • Compiled and analyzed compensation scheme to reflect ongoing management upgrade � � f EMILE JOSEPH AMAROTTCO, CPA Page 2 O Arthur Andersen &Co., Portland,Oregon. 1990-1994 Senior Business Consultant Specialized in process re-engineering and business systems enhancement. Took on significant responsibility for project development,planning and management. Specific experience in. • Business and operational process and • Business and operational policies and productivity improvement procedures development • Management information systems • Computer software and hardware selection and enhancement implementation Certified Public Accountant Financial audit and review, model analysis and design,and financial control reviews. Reviewed and enhanced automated accounting systems and related controls. 0 Body Support Systems Inc.,Ashland,Oregon. 1989-1990 Business Systems Manager Planned, selected and implemented automated accounting and telemarketing systems to improve financial management and customer service for this soft goods manufacturer. Developed manufacturing and product costing application to support profitable pricing strategies. Processed accounts payable and payroll,and prepared monthly financial statements. O Various restaurants,institutions,resorts,and merchant/research ships. 1975-1989 Operations Manager Responsible for all aspects of food service and hospitality management including • Strategic planning • Productivity enhancement • Facilities development • Human resources management • Payroll and inventory control systems • Scheduling and supervising up to 30 development employees Executive Chef,Pastry Chef, Cook and Baker Full responsibility for developing menus and procedures as well as preparing an extensive range of entrees, pastries and accompaniments. Additional responsibilities included budgeting, purchasing, bookkeeping, staff development and supervision. Extensive experience planning and executing special events. EDUCATION B.S.Accounting and Computer Information Systems -Magna Cum Laude Southern Oregon State College,Ashland,Oregon. 1990 A.O.S. Culinary Arts and Hospitality Management-Honors Culinary Institute of America,Hyde Park,New York 1983 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT S.M.A.R.T. Tutor. One on one reading and mentoring with high risk first and second grade students in the Portland school environment. 1992-1994 Junior Achievement Councilor: Coordination of a group of 40 high school students in a manufacturing and distribution business simulation. 1992-1993 . Oregon Maritime Center and Museum Guide: Conducted public tours aboard the steam powered sternwheeler"Portland". 1995 08/08/1995 13: 13 503-482-8004 CULTURAL SOLUTIONS PAGE 02 CULTURAL SOLUTIONS social impact asumment 6 conflict resolution a culturally-mediated change P.O. Box 401 Ashland, OR 97520, U.S.A. Phone/fax S03-482-8004 August 8, 1995 Mayor Catherine M. Golden City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Cathy: Please accept my resignation from Position 5 of the Ashland City Council, effective September 30, 1995. As you arc aware, for several months I have felt unable to devote the time to the city council that the position demands. The requirements of my business, my family, and other professional commitments have become too extensive to combine with my obligations to Ashland's citizens and city government. Because I've been heavily involved with the planning for our wastewater treatment improvements, I wanted to stay on board until that issue was decided. The results of our last study session suggest that we will have a facility decision by the end of August, hence this letter. It has been a privilege to serve on the Ashland city council. I want very sincerely to thank you and my council colleagues—past and present—for the friendship and support I have enjoyed for the past seven years. Sincerely yours, ` o Rob Winthrop ' JUL 25 '95 04:4981 AT&T FAX 9015PF P.2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT i.. .. URBAN SERVICES AGREEMENT City of Ashland- Boar Creek valley Sanitary Authority and Jackson County Draft July 20, 1995 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 1995 by the City o77—agland, a political •ubd v • on o the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "City", Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, hereinafter referred to as "District", and Jackson County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "County". WHEREAS, Statewide Planning goal 2, Land Use Planning,. requires that City, County, State and Federal agency and Special District plans and actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 197; WHEREAS, ORS 190.101 provides that unite of local government may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; WHEREAS, ORS 195.020 requires special districts providing an urban service within the county shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the county, and if the special district's boundary falls within and urban growth boundary, a cooperative agreement shall also be made between the special district and the city; WHEREAS, The Parties have a mutual interest in coordinated land use planning, compatible comprehensive plans, and coordinated planning and provision of urban services and facilities; and, WHEREAS, The Parties consider it mutually advantageous to establish a cooperative agreement to promote coordination of activities and efficient delivery of services to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, CITY, COUNTY AND DISTRICT AGREE AS FOLLOWS: The City of Ashland, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority and Jackson County agree that the following Cooperative Agreement policies shall be the basis for comprehensive planning, plan implementation actions, and decisions relating to development in the District Service Area. Definitions For the purpose of this agreement, the following words, terms and phrases are defined: BCVSA/JackCo.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp 1'` JUL 25 '95 04:50PMAT&T FAX 9015PF P.3 A. Area of Concern - Mutual Area - Roughly the area north of the Rail road tracks as marked on "Attachment A" . B. City and County - City or County - refering to units of local government the City of Ashland acting individually and Jackson County acting individually. C. Comprehensive Plan - A land use ,planning document adopted by local government and special districts as described by State statute and Statewide Land Use Planning Goals. D. Cooperative agreement �- A coordination agreement required by ORS 195.020 between counties, cities and special districts which provide "urban services" including sanitary sewer; water; fire protection; parka; open space; recreation; and streets, roads and transit. . E. Coordination - the result of coordinating so as to act together in a smooth concerted way to bring in to a common action, movement or condition. P. District Service Area - The land area which is within the District boundary as shown in attachment "A". G. Urban Services - As Defined by ORS, urban services means Sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation and streets, roads and mass transit. ------------------------------------------------------------ SECTION I. City and County Methods for District Involvement in Comprehensive planning a. When preparing new or revised provisions to any public facility plan, Comprehensive plan amendments, land use regulation or periodic review documents, the City, when these items affect the mutual area, and the county shall coordinate with the District by inviting input, and providing the District notice of meetings and hearings where the matter will be considered. b. The City and County will provide the District access to available information concerning economic growth, building activity, and population trends and projections; location and characteristics of areas intended for future development; planned transportation improvements; opportunities for joint development or use of sites; and availability of public services. c. The District, City and County shall use the following process for review and action on legislative amendments and BCVSA/JackCo.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp 2 x i . JLL 25 '95 04:50PM AT&T FAX 9015PF P•4 major land use activities specified below which affect land use within the District Service Area and the Mutual Are a• 1, c`o+n y or City Actions. The City and County shall coordinate with and seek comments from the District regarding the following 'items. The District's comments may address consistency of the proposal with the City and/or County Comprehensive Plan and the District's Comprehensive Plan, this agreement and other issues or topics the District feels relevant: * Legislative amendments to the County or City Comprehensive Plan and/or implementing ordinances; * Major public works projects; * Proposals for significant sewer, water improvements; * Proposals for formation of, or changes of organization, boundary or function of special districts, as these terms are defined in ORS 198.705 to ORS 198.710; and, * Recommendations for designation of an area as a health hazard or probable health hazard: * Policies relating to approval of septic systems. 2, ray or County Anions. The review process for all Comprehensive Planning actions or proposals and land use permit applications listed above is outlined below. A. When the City or County determines there is an opportunity for joint staff level pre-application conference with affected parties, the District will be invited. The conference will be held within the time frame set forth in the applicable ordinance. Such meetings shall be scheduled after consultation with District staff. If the District chooses to attend a pre-application meeting, the meeting shall occur at a mutually agreeable time. In the event that a mutually agreed time cannot be achieved, or in the event the District indicates that it does not wish to attend a Pre-application meeting, such meeting may occur without the District and with other affected parties. ,_ B. Once &- complete application is filed or comprehensive planning proposal is prepared, the City or County shall notify the District, and afford an opportunity to participate, review, and comment. C. The City or County shall mail a copy of the hearing notice to the District at least 10 daps prior to the date of the public hearing or decision date if no hearing is required. D. Comments submitted by the District shall be BCVSA/Jackco.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp 3 JUL 25 '95 04:51PM AT&T FAX 9015PF P.5 given consideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. B. If a timely response is received from the District, the district shall have standing as a party to appeal decisions consistent with the appeals process specified in local Ordinances. F. The City or County shall notify the District in writing, as prescribed in their respective Ordinances, of all land use decisions listed above, for which the District has attained party status. G. Ti=ly Res onee. The failure of the District to respond in a timely manner to a properly sent notice of pending land use action described.in this Section shall mean no comment regarding the proposal. SECTION 2. Comprehensive Planning Responsibilities of District a. when preparing new or revised provisions to any public facility plan or its Comprehensive Plan, the District shall coordinate its efforts with the City, when the items affect the Mutual Area, and County by inviting input from both, and providing both with notices of meetings and hearings where the matter will be considered. The District, City and County shall use the following process for review and action on legislative amendments and major land use activities specified below . 1. District Actions. The District shall coordinate with and seek comments from the City and/or County regarding the following items. City and County comments may address consistency of the proposal with their Comprehensive Plan and the District Comprehensive Plan, this agreement, and other relevant issues or topics; • Development of or amendment to the District Comprehensive Plan, District Service Area boundaries, and/or development standards; • Major public works projects sponsored by the District for significant sewer or drainage improvements; • Proposals for significant changes in the capacity of facilities: • Facility closures; • Proposals for significant extension of any District service, utility or facility; and, • Proposals for joint development or use of facilities. 2. The District will provide access to available HCVSA/JackCO.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp 4 JUL 25 195 04:52W AT&T FAX 9015PF P.6 information to the City and County concerning service needs; level of use; service capacity; new site acquisitions, facility needs; availability of facilities for community use; and planned construction or closure of facilities; 3. A. The failure of the City or County to respond in a timely manner to a properly sent notice of pending land use action described in this Section shall- mean no comment regarding the - proposal. SECTION 3. Party Roles and Responsibilities for City or County Approval of Now Development. a. The City and County shall coordinate with and seek comments from the District regarding the following items which affect land use within the District Service Area and Mutual Area. * Conditional Use Permits; * Planned Developments; * Subdivisions; * Major Partitions; and, * Variances. b. In making the decision, the City and County shall rely on the relevant portions of their Comprehensive Plan and implementing Ordinances. In addition, the City and County shall consider all comments made by the" District with regard to the notice and the proposed land use action. c. The County is responsible for issuing building permits for new construction within County and for most areas within the District. Building permit applications which would result in hookup to the District service will require confirmation of service availability from the District to determine whether service can be provided or service non availability. d. Timely Response. The failure of the District to respond in a timely manner to a properly sent notice of pending land use action described in this Section shall mean no comment regarding the proposal'. SECTION 4. Roles and Responsibilities 1. The City and the District are providers of sewer and wastewater management systems affecting the City and its Urban Growth area. The City and District are projected to continue their respective roles providing urban sewer service. BCVSA/JackCo.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp 5 JUL 25 '95 04:52PM AT&T FAX 9015PF P.7 SECTION R. . Parties to Urban Service Agree"at a. The County provides urban services such as Police protection, roads and parks and open space within the vicinity of Ashland and within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. The District provides sewer service in close proximity to Ashland and within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary in the area of the North Ashland I-5 Interchange and Sighway 99. -The City provides a full range of urban services. The City and'County, through mutual aid agreements, coordinate'and cooperate together for 'ppoolice and fire protection-and other emergency sirvice communications. The County administers park and open space service along Bear Creek. b. Because the City, County and District each provide urban services in the Urban Growth Boundary and cooperate with each other to provide urban services outside City jurisdiction the parties mutually agree they should each be a party to this agreement for the purpose of cooperation and coordination in the provision of urban services. B6CTiOfi 6. Future Urban Service Providers and Future Service Areas. e. The City shall continue to provide the full range of urban services it has historically provided to territory within the existing City limits pursuant to this agreement and an provided by law. b. The District shall continue to provide Sanitary Sewer Services it has historically provided to territory within the District's existing limits pursuant to this agreement and as provided by law. c. The City and District may agree to joint provision of service to areas within the City or its UGB by contract, mutual agreement or other method as may be provided by this agreement and as provided by law. SBCTIGS 7. Role of Urban Service -Providers. a. The functional role of the City of Ashland is to provide a full range of minicipal services, and to prepare a coordinated public facilities plan pursuant to ORS 197.712(2) (e) and OAR 660 Division 11. b. The functional role of the County is to provide overall coordination of planning throughout the County; the County is not generally a provider of full urban services or sewer service as defined at ORS 195.065(6) except as indicated herein. BCVSA/JackCo.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L (PLUS/Capp 6 - Jla 25 195 04:53PM AT&T FAX 9015PF _ P.8 C. The functional role of the District is to provide the rural and urban level sewer and/or stormwater service. it has historically provided to properties within the District' s boundaries and in proximity to the City as shown on "Exhibit A" attached hereto. d. The District may provide its urban service to properties within its boundaries, as shown on "Exhibit An attached hereto; or, the provision of its service may be expanded according to law, except as otherwise restricted by the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan. e. when preparing a coordinated public facilities plan pursuant to ORS 197.712(2) (e) and OAR 660 Division 11 affecting the District, the City shall conduct staff level meetings inviting appropriate County and District staff during initial concept, draft and final draft phases of plan preparation. Such meetings shall occur at least monthly during plan preparation phases. f. The District shall plan, construct, and maintain service facilities, and manage and administer provision of services to urban users, consistent with any coordinated public facilities plan adopted pursuant to ORS 197.712(2) (e) and OAR 660 'Division 11 affecting the District. SaCTrog 8. Responsibilities of Service Providers. a. The County shall continue its role as the agency responsible for overall coordination of planning throughout the County as assigned by statute. Further, the County has adopted policies and procedures for determination of extensions of sanitary sewer service which are contained in its comprehensive plan and land use ordinances; and, 'which the County shall continue to administer as those policies and procedures may be amended. . b. The District shall continue to be responsible for .planning, construction and maintenance of sanitary sewer service facilities within its district boundaries. The District shall continue managing and administering provision of its service within its' District boundaries and may enter into mutually acceptable agreements with the City. The City shall continue to be responsible for planning, construction and maintenance and shall continue managing and administering provision of its sewer service within its' corporate limits as allowed by law. BECTZON 9. Terms of interparty Cost Efficiency Measure. a. Operating Agreements between the City and District, signed before the initiation of this agreement and governing existing facilities, shall continue in full force and effect BCVSA/JackCo.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp 7 JUL 25 '95 04:53PM AT&T FWC 9015PF P.9 until amended under the terms of this Coordination and Urban Service Agreement. b. The City, county and District express interest in negotiating cooperative agreements to further efficient local government operations. Such agreements may include sharing of equipment. Such agreements may be particularly beneficial to and users and parties to this agreement during times of emergency. ' 8EC2ION 10. Agreement Review and Amendment. a. This agreement may be amended by mutual consent at any time. If amendment is sought by one party the following procedures shall be followed. 1. The party which seeks the amendment shall submit a formal request for amendment to the responding agency. The request shall clearly describe the proposed change and why the change is necessary. 2. The responding agency shall schedule a review of this request within 45 days from receipt of the request. Coordinated review of any such proposal shall be as set forth above for consideration of a major planning action. 3. The parties shall make good faith efforts to resolve requests to amend this agreement if necessary. The responding agency may respond by approving or rejecting the proposed amendment, or it may suggest modifications to the amendment. b. The parties will jointly review this agreement every 5 years to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth and consider amendments. BXCTiog il_ Tema of Agreement a. This agreement replaces any prior formal or informal agreements the City, County and District may have had with respect to the coordination of comprehensive planning issues or urban services covered by this agreement. b. This agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated by any party to this agreement. c. Termination of this agreement does not relieve parties of the responsibility under Oregon Statute to enter into and maintain such agreement. d. In the event the parties are unable to agree on any issue or in the event any other dispute under this agreement occurs, both parties agree to proceed with binding BCVSA/JackCo.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp e JUL 25 '95 04:54PM AT&T FAX 9015PF - P. 10. arbitration within thirty (30) days as allowed under ORS 36.300 36.365. The attorney of each party shall choose a neutral third party to arbitrate. IN WITNESS THEREOP, the respective parties have caused to be signed in their behalf to make and enter into this agreement this day of 1995 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL By Date Mayor BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY By Date Chair, Board of D rectors Attest: Date JACKSON COUNTY BOARD or COMIISSIONERS By Date Chair, Board of Commissioners By Date Commissioner By Date Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Date County Counsel BCVSA/JackCo.Coop/UrbSAgrmt L WLUS/Capp 9 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.08.120 TO INCREASE GROUND CLEARANCE OF TREES OVER ROADWAYS FROM TEN FEET TO TWELVE FEET THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9.08.120.A. is amended to read as follows: 9.08.120 Trees--Hedaes. A. No owner or person in charge of property that abuts upon a street or public sidewalk shall permit trees, bushes, or hedges on such property to interfere with street or sidewalk traffic. In addition, it shall be the duty of such owner or person to remove, from any tree on such property, all branches that overhang the sidewalk or street to a height of not less than eight feet above the sidewalk and not less than twelve feet above the street. For purpose of the preceding sentence, the duty to remove branches extends to trees on any parking strip adjoining the street or sidewalk that abuts such property. PAGE 1-ANNOTATED ORDINANCE (p:om&Uectri .=o) 6(1 112 Members of the City Counsel Ashland City Council Ashland, Oregon 97520 Honorable Council.Members Re: Ashland Village Eight (8) acre annexation I am writing in support of the approval of the Ashland Village annexation. The annexation of this parcel of county land into the city does not compromise the city's laudable goals of preventing urban/suburban sprawl. The infill nature of this properties location makes its annexation a logical and practical way to satisfy growth and improve the efficiency of city services. The benefits of infill annexation exceed its costs. Infill annexation is far more defensible than annexing parcels on the outskirts of town. Additionally, the project itself appears to exceed substantially all of the city's guidelines for infill urban development. The design characteristics, particularly the front porches, detached garages and the neighborhood feeling of the street and open space layout will serve as models for other subdivision approvals. The character of Ashland Village and the reliability of Mr. Doug Newman will ensure a quality project which is a positive addition to the cityscap . Yours tru Rob and M 1 olman 237 Granite treet Ashland, Oregon 97520 BEST-WAY REAL ESTATE 503 488 4627 P. 01 MAYOR'S AND CITY COUNCILORS INFORMATIONAL PACKETS AUGUST 15, 1995 MEETING Please discuss at your next meeting, the possibilities of the following solution to our sewage treatment plant problems. 1. We join Talent and joint venture in the Lost Creek water line project. 2. We then dump our allocated water into the Talent Irrigation Canal system. 3. T.I .D. then gives us water from the Emigrant lake canal, which is used to increase the Bear Creek stream flow during the summer months. 4. If we replace the Bear Creek stream water normally supplied from our sewage treatment plant, we can now effectively send our sewage to Medford, which I feel is the best solution. . 5. The City retains the sewage treatment plant to treat storm drain run off when it is required by D.E.Q. . I do not feel that the City should completely reject the Medford solution. Sincerely, David W. Fadden 326 N. Main St. Ashland, Or. 97520 488-0025 Faked to Rhonda, 08/12/95 Martial E. Henault ATTORNEY AT LAW TONIA L MORO 244 SOUTH GRAPE STREET - (50.7)779.5858 Associate Atf r" y MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 __ , - FAX:779-0254 - August 11, 1995 TORT CLAIM NOTICE TVZ CRTIFIEDMAIh RET[JRN+_REGEIPTREQUESTED ' i --'VIA`SURFACE MAIL Paul Nolte, Esq. City Council City of Ashland City of Ashland - 20 East Main Street 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Tort Claim Notice ORS 30.275 Date of Tort: Ongoing Water Trespass Discovered: On or about March 3 , 1995 Claimants: Ashland Investment Group (Owners of Ashley Garden Apartments) C.B.M. , Inc. (Managers of Ashley Garden Apartments) Dear Mr. Nolte and Council members: Pursuant to ORS 30.275, you are hereby notified that Ashland Investment Group and C.B.M. , Inc. (hereinafter-referred to as "Claimants") have and make claims against the City of Ashland and its respective officers, employees, and agents. This letter sets forth a statement of claims and/or injuries arising out of the conduct of the City of Ashland through its Public Works Department and other agents. The following is a description of the times, accounts, places, and circumstances giving rise to claims so far as are presently known to Claimants. Some time in 1992, only approximately 1-1/2 years after construction of the Ashley Garden Apartments, located at 245 Tolman Creek Road, Ashland, Oregon 97520, Claimants discovered that parking lot pavement was failing due to water inundation. The parking lot was repaired in late 1992 . Subsequently Claimants experienced continuing problems with the integrity of the parking lot pavement. It is believed said structural failure is due to underground and/or above ground water sources impeding the integrity of the improvements. Since July 1994 , Claimants have attempted to determine the source of water on its premises. Claimants were assured by the City through several conversations with the City's agents that the City's storm run-off was piped underground to Tolman Creek Road. i Paul Nolte, Esq. & City Council, City of Ashland Re: Tort Claim Notice ORS 30.275 Claimants: Ashland Investment Group & C.B.M. . Inc. August 11, 1995 Page 2 By way of letter dated February 27, 1995 from Steve Hall, Ashland Public Works Director, Claimants became aware that the City is actually causing water to be diverted to the Ashley Garden Apartments property. Because the City has been less than fully cooperative in assisting to locate the source of the water so that a solution could be fashioned, Claimants are required to put the City on notice that they will pursue their legal rights and remedies with regard to the City's continuing water trespass. The estimated damages due to the water trespass is approximately $49,000. 00, which constitutes costs of improvements which have been determined necessary to address the problem. Therefore, demand is hereby made upon the City of Ashland and its agents to: Provide payment of money damages suffered by Claimants as a result of the water trespass and nuisance. Claimants are willing to negotiate to resolve this claim and have, on more than one occasion, requested assistance by way of City of Ashland engineering suggestions as to how to solve the water problem. If no settlement of these claims for damages is negotiated and the City's assistance continues 'to be withheld, Claimants intend to file a complaint in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Until further notice, please direct all further correspondence and communication concerning this claim to: Tonia L. Moro, Esq. Law Offices of Martial E. Henault, P.C. 244 South Grape Street Medford, Oregon 978501 Telephone: (503) 779-5858 Yours truly, onia L. Moro TLM:kas Copy: Client LBM\TORT.810 - CITY OF ASHLAND 1 ;� CITY HALL �" ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 lelephone(Code 50.1)492-3211 August 8, 1995 Ben Benjamin 323 Maple Street Ashland, OR 97520 The Board of Trustees of Ashland Community Hospital has asked me to respond to the comments made by you to the Ashland City Council on June 20 of this year regarding the removal of a fence. The Board of Trustees discussed your concerns and comments during its July board meeting. After reviewing correspondence from you, past City Councilor Phil Arnold, City Risk Manager Robert Nelson, Mediator David Schieber, and me, the Board decided that some form of security barrier was necessary. Numerous accidents involving vehicles coming onto hospital property from Chestnut have damaged the fence, and in one instance, a vehicle hit the hospital. Estimates to replace the fence with earthen berms,.appropriate landscaping, and fence removal costs were perceived as too costly to pursue. The Board is sensitive to the visual appearance of the fence and to neighbors' concerns about it appearance. Toward that end, hospital management was directed to pursue the planting of appropriate vegetation that would improve the aesthetics of the fence. I further understand a section of fence deemed not necessary to maintain hospital security will be removed. This section of fence is closest to your property. I trust the above is clear. If you have any questions, please contact Peggy Cockrell, public relations director, at the Ashland Community Hospital. Paul Nolte City Attorney c: Catherine Golden, Mayor Brian Almquist, City Administrator Peggy Cockrell, Public Relations Director, ACH (a Ahoepite06eniemfn.ltr)