Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0820 Council Mtg PACKET Importan t: 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 20, 1996 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of August 6, 1996 and adjourned meeting of August 14, 1996. IV. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Approval of liquor license for Si Casa Flores, 1209 Siskiyou Blvd. V. PUBLIC FORUM: 'Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker and all hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a later meeting). 1. Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission, modifying the conditions of approval for P.A. No. 96-080, a 26-lot subdivision north of Orange Avenue. (Daryl Bonin, Applicant/Appecant) VII. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Oral report by Counselor Hagen on progress toward site selection for Community Resource Center for Community Works. 2. Discussion on request for waiver of fire flow requirements for private hangars at Ashland Airport. VIII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance withdrawing an annexed area from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 (Access Annexation). 2. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance to permit signing of plats by staff advisor rather than Planning Commission Chair". 3. First reading of "An Ordinance amending section 4.27.020.0 of the Ashland Municipal Code to delete the exclusion of Roca Canyon drainageway from the definition of storm drainage facilities". IX. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS X. ADJOURNMENT (REMINDER - There will be a Study Session with the Oregon Department of Transportation on Thursday, August 22, at 4 PM in the Council Chambers.) MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 6, 1996 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Thompson and Wheeldon were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of July 16, 1996 were accepted as amended with a change on page 7 first sentence, "charger" should be "charter". Mayor Golden gave brief introduction of Greg Scoles, new Assistant City Administrator. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Monthly departmental reports for June and July 1996. 3. City Administrator's Monthly Report - July, 1996. 4. Appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission regarding amendment to conditions governing Audubon Subdivision on Orange Street (set date for Public Hearing for August 20 at 7:00 p.m.). 5. Memo from City Recorder Barbara Christensen regarding status of initiative ballot measures. 6. Approval of liquor license for Caldera Brewing Company at 2805 East Main Street. 7. Letter from ODOT regarding status of North Main/Siskiyou preservation overlay project and bikeway widening proposal. Councilor Hagen requested that items #5 and #7 be pulled and placed under New & Miscellaneous Business. Councilor Thompson requested that item #3 be pulled and placed under New & Miscellaneous Business. Mayor Golden noted her appreciation of the comments made in item #1, Brice Farwell's comments in the Ad Hoc Citizen's Communication Committee minutes. Councilors Hauck/Hagen nr/s to approve consent agenda items #1, #2, #4 and #6. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99S/Spoke regarding traffic on A Street. Because of the continued commercial development there has been an increase of traffic on A Street. He noted that of the last three out four near accidents he has had have occurred on a tiny short section of A Street between Oak Street and Third Street. He feels the problem is because of failure to plan on the side of the City. He does not feel the street is wide enough to have Council Meeting 8-06-96 1 parking on both sides. He requested that there be an public hearing to talk about the traffic and parking situation on A Street. Mayor Golden suggested that this be put on as a topic for a council study session or side bar issue. Councilor Laws suggested that this be referred to the Traffic Safety Commission. Mayor invited Mr. Roth to meet with her and discuss the problem. Robert Connard/570 Nyla Lane/Spoke regarding community communication and how citizens could have more input to the council. He had recently sent correspondence to Mayor and Council and had no response to his letter or cooperation. He asked what the policy of council was on replying of correspondence. Mayor Golden explained that if on the bottom of letter says "cc:", it indicates that the letter is only a copy for information and is not normally responded to. Whomever the letter is addressed to directly, is whom normally would respond. Councilor Laws explained to Mr. Connard that there is a Citizen's Communication Committee who are trying to develop better means of written communication between citizens and council. Mr. Connard complained that the municipal code is being selectively enforced. This is in regards to a hedge that is in violation of city code. Daniel Rueff/525 Lit Way/Spoke regarding cutting down of blackberry bushes that were possibly cut down by the Fire Department which they did not clean up. Fire Chief Woodley responded that he would check into the matter. Questioned council as to whether they felt there was discrimination based on the fact that working people may not have the opportunity to become a councilman or mayor because of financial status. Council shared their views on this matter. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Proposed withdrawal of recently annexed land from Jackson County Fire District No. 5 (ACCESS Annexation). PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:31 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:31 p.m. Councilor Thompson didn't feel that this annexation met the criteria for adequate transportation. 2. Appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission approving P.A.N96-047, an Outline and Final Plan for a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Option located at 1452 Oregon Street (Applicant: Evan Archerd). Mayor Golden read procedure for Land Use Hearings. Council Meeting 8-06-96 2 PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:35 p.m. Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts _ Councilors Thompson, Wheeldon, Hagen, Hauck, Reid and Laws reported site visits. Councilors Wheeldon spoke to Dorothy Smith; Councilor Hagen spoke to applicant and Ellis Wilson. Staff Report Planning Director John McLaughlin presented criteria for outline plan approval. The request is for a six-lot subdivision. Access to subdivision was explained. He felt that the issue surrounding this development is because it is in an established neighborhood. It is also the best definition of infill. The applicant is proposing that there be a area of common open space along the east side of the property and that there be a walkway that connects the two streets. A public easement is to be granted for this access that will connect and be a short- cut in mid-block for the development. Many of the trees will be retained in the open space area. This action was reviewed by the Planning Commission in two meetings. After the first meeting on the six lot proposal the commission came to a tie vote. One of the members had agreed to change their vote to either deny the project or send it back for re-design and reduce the number of lots. The applicant agreed to a continuance and the commission granted that request for re-design. The applicant came before the commission again with a five lot design, however, also maintained that the six lot design was their preferable option and requested the commission to act on the six lot request rather than the five lot design. The Planning Commission granted that request and approved the six lot design. The commission believed that the benefits of the six lot design were in maintaining a common open space area around the trees, open space to meet density requirements, which is a density bonus issue. Additionally, public pedestrian/bicycle access across the property was an amenity for the site. McLaughlin commented on an additional issue involving calculation of open space and access. He noted the applicants design for the open space and staffs' opinion that the hatched area did not qualify for open space but only that a smaller piece near the center of the project met the open space requirement. Two lots off of Oregon Street are accessed by a flag drive and three lots are accessed by Windsor Street off a private drive. There is not a public street connecting through these properties. Staff believed the Planning Commission approved this design believing it had adequate transportation as defined for automotive access. McLaughlin discussed with council the main issues of open space requirements and access to the subdivision. The proposed open•space and walkway offered multiple benefits not normally seen in proposals. It provides a gentle sloped area for active use, while offering a visual amenity preserving a continues pocket of green space with large mature trees. Council Meeting 8-06-96 3 Councilor Reid clarified that there would be standards that these homeowners would have to meet on maintenance of private drives. That the,city would be able to enforce the homeowners to maintain accessibility for emergency vehicles. McLaughlin explained that in the initial agreements of the property, these drives are also considered fire lanes under city ordinance. McLaughlin explained that there is no provision in our ordinances for developing an alley to allow lots to be created off of it. Alleys only occur now off of flag drives and private drives. Councilor Wheeldon questioned under the performance standards, if the open space is not meant to allow increased density. McLaughlin agreed and explained that it is specifically allowed as one of the ways to gain a density bonus. To take areas which could generally be used for development, as in removing trees and allowing it to be part of the lot or for development and preserving that as specific site on the project. McLaughlin explained for council the flag drive up Oregon Street would be a 15' wide improved surface to allow access for two lots, which is a standard. The drive off of Windsor Street is proposed at 15' serving lots 4 and 5, also lot 6 which has legal frontage onto Windsor Street. He believes that the applicant has agreed to construct a 20' wide driveway to comply with the ordinance requirements. McLaughlin read the ordinance pertaining to open space to council. McLaughlin answered question regarding additional parking on a flag drive. He explained that in performance standard developments it requires that there be an additional space for each home. In this design the applicant showed a two car garage with a two car parking area and then showed four additional spaces for the four interior lots and also a space on Windsor. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:10 p.m. Evan Archerd/120 N Second Street/Applicant. Gave history on the Birnam Woods Subdivision. Worked closely with the City Planning Department to develop a plan that met two primary objectives. First objective was to develop a small subdivision that was sensitive to the site. Second objective was to create a development that was consistent with the existing patterns of development in the neighborhood and to provide a valuable mid-block linkage between Oregon and Windsor Streets. The linkage would promote the use of multi- model transportation in a particular pedestrian and bicycle use not vehicular traffic. Cited the primary natural features of the trees. The goal was to save as many of these trees as possible. It was determined that at the center of the site were the oldest and most beautiful trees, which should be preserved in an open space area. The plan was oriented around a common open space area which included these trees. This idea created an opportunity to create a mid-block linkage while preserving the trees. Council Meeting 8-06-96 4 He explained that the final approved plan includes approximately 11000' sq.ft. dedicated to open space with a lighted public path, additional landscaping, fencing and permanent park benches. Archerd believes that the project is completely consistent with the surrounding development patterns. A map was provided to council to support this consistency. He also stated that in regards to density, the development was developed to specifically conform to the City Comprehensive Plan and read from the Plan, Chapter 6. Minimal street risk was used to accommodate traffic and reduce aesthetic impacts. The city's performance standard ordinance was used to develop small lots and common space and to develop more moderate cost housing. Archerd explained that the open space was designed around the most beautiful grove of trees on the property. By creating this open space and the path that connects Windsor and Oregon Streets this area would become available to not only the residents of Birnam Woods, but to the broader neighborhood as well. He believes the public path is a vital part of the open space because it increases the probability that the area will be used and appreciated. The path will also create a linkage to the SOSC campus facilities. Council was provided with pictures of projects throughout Ashland that use paths as open space areas. He stated that the open space area protects and maintains beautiful wooded areas in the same way that other projects protect riparian areas. Tom Giordano/157 Morninglight Drive/Agent, architect for the project. Felt there was some confusion in the Planning Commission regarding the building envelopes and presented a map to council of the building envelope not the building footprint. The building footprint would be smaller than the envelope. Giordano explained to council that it is in the city's ordinance to provide deed restrictions under the performance standards to create setbacks. Also, there could be no restriction of access to the public pathway by the homeowners. IN FAVOR Andrea Shapiro/186 Morning]ight/Submitted letter into the records recommending approval of subdivision. Diane Beemer/150 E Main/Approves of project. Pokie Roberts/2785 Diane Street/Spoke in favor of subdivision and submitted to council pictures and material that represents available land in Ashland. Spoke on affordability and availability of lots in Ashland. Feels that his project meets needs of the community for affordable housing. Michael Doyle/356 Glen Street/Spoke in favor of subdivision and felt that it was a well thought out plan and met the requirement of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Council Meeting 8-06-96 5 Denton Graham/755 Indiana/Spoke in favor as plan meets criteria involving density. Does not feel that the number of lots is a problem. Feels this project should be allowed to move forward. Hal Dresner/1550 Tyler Creek Road/Spoke in favor of plan and the affordability of the subdivision. IN OPPOSITION Dorothy Smith/708 Indiana/Spoke in opposition of subdivision. Her property is adjacent to proposed plan. Does not feel plan meets all city ordinances and requests that plan be denied. Smith read her comments into the record. She felt that the applicant did not try to make the five lot plan look as good as the six lot plan and felt that the six lot proposal was not compatible with the neighborhood. Did not feel that common use on lot two would meet the criteria for open.space. Feels that with five lots it would allow a greater and preferable sense of open space. Feels that density is being developed that is different than what is there. Felt that if this development was approved it set a precedence for future building in their neighborhood. Mildred Wilson/1475 Windsor/Opposed did not speak. Flora Wallis/756 Frances/Opposed did not speak. Ron Clow/701 Indiana/Did not feel there was proper due process at the initial Planning Commission meeting. Asked that council review minutes of Planning Commission. City Attorney Paul Nolte stated that regardless of the outcome of the Planning Commission meeting, there is a Findings and Conclusions forwarded and approved by the Planning Commission. The appeal before the council this evening gives all parties another chance to state their position from the beginning. Clow believes there is a groundswell of opposition to current codes of infill and development. He also commented on the position of Planning Commissioner by Giordano and feels there is constant conflict of interest as Giordano profits from these decisions. Requests that council use common sense and deny this application. Ellis Wilson/1475 Windsor/Adjacent to the proposed development. Commented on how he had followed direction by city that there be no flag lots developed on his property when he first purchased his property. Trudie Revoir/725 Frances Lane/Has lived in Ashland for 17 years. Is concerned of the loss of open space, familiarity of neighbors and privacy. Council Meeting 8-06-96 6 Dr. Lee Mulling/718 Indiana/Agreed with comments of Dorothy Smith. Gave some history on his background. Questioned whether there would be adequate parking, adequate use of open space and what will happen to Ashland in 50 years. Judith Fine/735 Frances Lane/Provided a sketch to council showing proposed six lots in comparison to what is currently there. She agreed with Dorothy Smith's comments. Does not believe that the proposed open space in the development would be used by the owners in the development. Had concerns regarding neighborhood density. Questioned whether there should be allowed density at a higher rate than what is currently there. Dennis Smith/708 Indiana/Called council to the attention of letter submitted by Don Green. Pointed out the problem with bonus points for open space. Complimented the applicants on the development, only questions the density of this development. Bill Griffin/755 Frances Lane/Put in sidewalks when it was not required, does not feel the sidewalks should be used as an example of pedestrian use. Against extra density. Robert Evens/1484 Windsor/Commented that there are other affordable housing projects happening in Ashland and this is not an issue. Questioned how the process could allow the Planning decision to move forward to council for possible change: Nicole Kapp/1480 Oregon Street/Attended all the Planning Commission meetings plus other meetings. Objected that bonus density was awarded to the applicant because the open space area should not include a part of someone's yard. Does not believe the proposed sidewalk in the middle of the subdivision would be useful to the neighborhood. Neighborhood meetings with applicant was misleading, there was no cooperation by neighborhood. Feels that this development will change the character of the neighborhood. REBUTTAL Giordano stated that there had been more than sufficient evidence showing that the parcel size and character of the neighborhood and is conformance with the density. In comparing the parcel map there is no density change in the neighborhood. Commented that this is a very good density project which is in line with the cities direction toward infill. Commented that they are working with staff regarding meeting the parking requirements. Archerd clarified for comparison of this project, that there are six lots on Frances Street. The open space in this project is centered around a large tree that they did not want to remove but to enhance and protect. Commented on the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding affordability, to reduce the number of lots would only raise the cost of housing. Believes the project meets all the criteria. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 9:20 p.m. STAFF RESPONSE None. Council Meeting 8-06-96 _ 7 COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND MOTION Planning Director John McLaughlin explained to council that this would be in compliance with the solar access ordinance and that the 12,000 sq.ft. addition was not included in the calculation because it was not necessary to meet the density requirements. McLaughlin did not know if further development would be done on the Wilson property. Clarified for council driveway turn-arounds. Reid commented on quotes from a letter from Don Green regarding density bonus and open space. McLaughlin explained that the section of the ordinance is called "density bonuses". It allows density to be increased by doing certain actions, dedicating or preserving certain areas as open space, doing affordable housing and energy efficient housing. These allow for increases in the overall density of the project if these measures are taken. Reid is concerned with putting a sidewalk between the properties because of possible future problems. McLaughlin stated that the plan allows for "eyes" and allows a comfortable zone to walk through but not to loiter. He also explained that there is adequate access for fire and emergency. McLaughlin clarified that tie votes are considered non decisions for Planning Commission actions which allowed the Planning Department to make a land use decision. Thompson agreed with walkway in that it allows for additional public access. Commented on the past discussion of urban sprawl versus infill and where Ashland would be if a choice of urban sprawl is made over infill. Hagen felt that the plan met the standards for the development. Wheeldon concerned with the impact of this development on the neighborhood, did agree that is a good plan. Reid would like to debate on the impact on neighborhoods of these developments. Mayor Golden commented on the nature of the development in relation to alternative modes of transportation and the history and spirit of how the decision was made on infill/density. Also commented on the opportunity to work with neighbors, which did not seem to happen with this project. Laws sympathized with neighbors regarding the loss of privacy and the possible change of character to the neighborhood. Hauck does not believe the plan meets the open space bonus definition according to the city ordinance. Council discussion and debate regarding ordinance defining open space. Council Meeting 8-06-96 8 Councilors Hagen/Thompson m/s to continue after 10 p.m. Voice vote: Laws, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and Thompson, YES; Reid: NO. Motion passed 5-1. Councilors Thompson/Hagen m/s to approve Planning Action k96-047. Discussion: Golden did believe the project met the criteria for transfer of bonus points for open space. Golden suggested that the applicant bring back a plan with one less lot, a walkway and preservation of trees. Voice Vote: Laws, Thompson and Hagen, YES; Reid, Hauck and Wheeldon, NO; Mayor Golden, YES. Motion failed: 3 in favor, 4 opposed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. City Administrator's Monthly Report - July 1996 Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. 2. Memo from City Recorder Barbara Christensen regarding status of initiative ballot measures. It was requested that the budget committee be reconvened for discussion regarding the possible financial impacts. Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. 3. Letter from ODOT regarding status of North Main/Siskiyou preservation overlay project and bikeway widening proposal. Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance adding Chapter 9.18 to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish procedures for dealing with chronic nuisance property." City Attorney Paul Nolte identified for council changes to ordinance since first reading. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 10:15 p.m. Sid Fields/525 Taylor/Questioned definition of all buildings in Ashland, felt the ordinance should not be so broad. City Attorney Nolte explained that the factor of the noise is considered under the ordinance. Suggested that language defining "any law enforcement" should be defined as "Ashland Police". Questioned the prohibiting of all uses from 30 to 180 days and the position the city may put themselves into with a lease/owner situation. Laws suggested that there be better notification to property owners. Steve Pierce/700 Butler Crk Road/Commented on several areas on the proposed ordinance that he felt were problems. Felt the property owners should be notified sooner and brought into the picture sooner. Does feel ordinance is necessary but with some modifications. Public Hearing to be continued at adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. Council Meeting 8-06-96 9 y 2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance repealing Chapter 2.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code entitled Community Hospital Board." Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. 3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending the Fire Prevention Code, Chapter 15.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code." Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution approving the formation of the Oregon Public and Cooperative Utility Association and authorizing membership in the Association. Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. 5. Resolution approving a right of way easement to the Forest Service for a section of Loop Road above Morton Street. Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. 6. First reading of "An Ordinance withdrawing annexed land from Jackson County Fire District No. 5." Moved to adjourned meeting August 14, 1996. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned to 7 p.m. August 14, 1996 Council Chambers. Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Council Meeting 8-06-96 10 MINUTES FOR THE ADJOURNED MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 14, 1996 4 CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Hauck, Hagen, and Thompson were present, Councilors Reid and Wheeldon were absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. City Administrator's Monthly Report - July 1996. Councilor Thompson requested discussion on the funding of the Central Ashland Bikeway Project. He would like the council to take a stand in their position that the consensus letter did not move the city in the right direction and they should not be punished for taking an honest stand regarding the Regional Transportation consensus letter. Public Works Director Susan Wilson-Broadus explained that there has been discussion in terms of what may happen to project funding for the city since the city did not sign the consensus letter. Wilson stated that she has been assured by several ODOT personnel and others that help make priority recommendations, that the city is in no jeopardy of losing funding because the consensus letter was not signed. I Wilson-Broadus proposed to council that the joint study session scheduled with Monte Grove of O.D.O.T. be moved to August 22nd from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and add to the agenda a report on state funding mechanisms. She would be out of town on August 21st and .would like to be in attendance when O.D.O.T. gives their report. 2. Letter from ODOT regarding Siskiyou Blvd. reconstruction/Bikeway. To be discussed at August 22nd council study session. 3. Memo from City Recorder Barbara Christensen regarding status of initiative ballot measures. To be discussed immediately following current council meeting at a Special Meeting with the Budget Committee. Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve consent items #1, #2 and #3. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 1 Council Adjourned Meeting 9-14-96 1 ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance adding Chapter 9.18 to the Ashland Municipal Code to establish procedures for dealing with chronic nuisance property." PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: 7:43 p.m. Sid Field/525 Tucker/Requested that council get statistics from Police Department on the number of incidents of this nature. Appreciated that staff has listened to the onerous on the property owners and other issues surrounding this ordinance. Frank Lang/535 Taylor/Spoke in favor of the ordinance. Felt that even though this may not be a wide spread problem it will take care of the current problem immediately. He is impacted by the problem even though does not live right next door. Keith Moseley/565 Taylor/Noted the high incidence of party nuisance houses. Reported of many problems including garbage, noise, loose dogs, loud profanity, etc. Stated that the owner has not indicated any responsibility to this problem. Robert Connard/570 Nyla/Does not feel ordinance covers the problem, which is the tenant, not the owner. Believes citations should be given to tenants, not the owner. Believes that the city should enforce property leases. Kay Abbett/581 E. Main/Spoke defending property owners. States that property owners do not control the lives of their tenants. Believes ordinance was written for isolated problems. Feels the city should penalize offenders with higher fines. Joe Chez/3932 Pounds Ave/Sacramento, CA/Believes SOSC should consider penalizing students and possible removing them from SOSC student body. l Steve Pierce/700 Butler Crk/Believes ordinance fails to be specific and there is not eviction or citations mentioned in the ordinance. Feels the tenants are the offenders not the property owners. Does not believe property owners are aware of the problem and have not been notified. States that the police have more clout than the property owners. The ordinance is written to penalize property owners not correct the problem of nuisance. Requests that property notification be done before any further action is taken. Steve Flynn/1460 Fields/Spoke in favor of ordinance as Dean of Students at SOSC. Stated that if students are living off campus, SOSC has no legal authority to address problem. Patti Busse/1372 Woodland/Reported that in the last 4 years she has lived next to two party houses. Stated that because of the high rents in Ashland there are usually several people living in one house. Reported on the high level of noise, garbage, fast driving and alcohol. Council Adjourned Meeting 8-14-96 2 James Work/907 Mary Jane Ave/Spoke on incident that happened regarding notification of drug use on one of this units. Stated that because of the notification he received it helped to evict his tenants and supports the proposed ordinance. Suggest that once the eviction process begins would not like to see property owner punished. Virgil Butler/374 Idaho/Lives next to a party house and reported that in the last year it has gotten very bad. Requested that council help stop this problem. Dragomir Vukovic/387 1/2 Scenic/Supports ordinance. Believes that property owners and property managers should be responsible for their tenants. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:45 p.m. Police Captain, Mel Clements stated that these are not isolated cases. There has been a problem of this nature for many years. They have in the past dealt with party houses by first visiting the house and then if visited twice on the same evening, a citation is issued according to the officers discretion. He stated that most of the time a citation issued results in a party shutting down, but there have been incidences where the tenants refuse to answer the door. In the last incidence, the door was answered and no one would admit to being responsible for the complaint. He said that it is necessary to identify the person responsible for the complaint before a citation can be issued. Clements reported to council statistics over the past 3 years in one area, there was 53 noise complaints in one area. In the past eight months, there has been 21 noise complaints. Councilor Thompson was concerned with possible increase of calls on barking dogs in regards to unnecessary noise. City Attorney Paul Nolte stated that there are two provisions in the city's municipal code. One is for unnecessary noise and another more specific one dealing with.dogs and barking. Because there is a more specific ordinance dealing with barking dogs, that ordinance would be followed. Thompson also concerned with other types of noise which may be annoying to public may open the door to many complaints dealing with various noise issues. Clements stated that the way the ordinance is written, the Chief of Police has to make a determination that this is a chronic nuisance. Nolte stated that unnecessary noise is defined as what a reasonable person would determine to be unnecessary noise. Thompson suggested that there be a time period indicated in this ordinance dealing specifically with problematic chronic noise. Council discussion regarding the elements of noise, normal day business noise versus neighborhood disturbances. Councilor Hauck explained that the proposed ordinance does not make any changes in the city's current noise ordinances. Council Adjourned Meeting 8-14-96 3 i Nolte explained to council the time line of eviction of notification of property owners. Stated that the landlord should use the proposed ordinance as a tool to help evict a tenant. Clarified that the ordinance states that the city has to prove three factual incidences that occur on the property before the city can begin the process. Laws felt council should be aware of the possibility of improper discretion used by the Police Chief and Police Department. He noted his confidence in city government, but felt the council should be aware and suggested a possible sunset clause for review on the proposed ordinance. Mayor Golden and council discussed if ordinance should be reviewed with feed back from Chief of Police in one year. She questioned, how the cost of the city of investigating and correcting or attempting to correct the condition, has anything to do with establishing the length of closure of the property. Nolte explained that it doesn't, this language was borrowed from the civil fines at the suggestion of some of the landlords. It does have some connection as to how much the civil fines would be imposed upon a landlord. Golden suggested that this be eliminated under chapter 9.18.030 as it is also included under chapter 9.18.050. Council requested that the ordinance be amended that notices be sent out registered letter with return receipt. Councilors Laws/Thompson m/s to add sunset clause of one year to the proposed ordinance. Roll Call vote: Hauck, Thompson and Laws, YES; Hagen, NO. Motion passed: 3-1. Councilors Laws/Thompson m/s to adopt Ordinance #2784 as amended in the last packet and the following amendments including the sunset clause, notices sent out by registered mail with return receipt and remove civil line language from chapter 9.18.040. Roll Call vote: Hauck, Hagen, Thompson and Laws, YES. Motion passed. 2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance repealing Chapter 2.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code entitled Community Hospital Board." Councilors Thompson/Laws m/s to approve Ordinance #2783. Roll Call: Hagen, Thompson, Laws and Hauck, YES. Motion passed. 3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending the Fire Prevention Code, Chapter 15.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code." Councilors Hauck/Hagen m/s to approve Ordinance #2785. Roll Call: Thompson, Laws, Hauck and Hagen, YES. Motion passed. Council Adjourned Meeting 8-14-96 4 4. First reading of an ordinance withdrawing an annexed area for Jackson County Fire District No. 5. (Access Annexation) City Administrator Brian Almquist read first reading of ordinance. Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading of ordinance. Roll Call: Laws and Hauck, YES; Thompson and Hagen, NO; Mayor, YES. Motion passed 3-2. 5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution approving the formation of the Oregon Public and Cooperative Utility Association and authorizing membership in the Association. Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve Resolution #96-38. Roll Call: Laws, Hauck, Hagen and Thompson, YES. Motion passed. 6. Reading by title only of "A resolution approving a right of way easement to the Forest Service for a section of Loop Road above Morton Street". Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve Resolution #96-39. Roll Call: Hauck, Hagen, Thompson and Laws, YES. Motion passed. 7. Contract with ODOT and SOSC for improvement of Indiana/Wightman/Siskiyou intersection. City Administrator Brian Almquist noted for council minor amendments to the contract. Councilors Hagen/Laws m/s to approve Mayor and City Recorder to sign amended contract. Roll Call: Hauck, Hagen, Thompson and Laws, YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Council Adjourned Meeting 8-14-96 5 'oftisti Q Memorandum �4FQ°.� ' August 6, 1996 (�p, Mayor and City Council rIIm: Susan Wilson Broadus, Public Works Director 1ICljptt. July Monthly Report Attached are the detailed reports from Fleet Maintenance, Street, Water Duality and Fsgin=uig Divisions: ACTIVITY SUMMARY AND COMPARISON Activity 07/96 07/95 07/90 Equipment work Orders 124 108 67 Miles of Street Swept 436 385 405 Water Meters/Services (new & 53 19 18 replaced) Utility Locates 104 90 52 Drinking Water Treated 140 MG* 108 MG* 87 MG* Wastewater Treated 53 MG* 57 MG* 53 MG* Sewer Cleaned 53,366' 84,892' 47,173' Sewer Inspected with Television 4,500' 4,853' 0** Engineering Active Projects 40 38 20 Engineering 4 7 5 Subdivisions/Partitions Engineering Permits Lssued 33 31 3 * Million Gallons ** Not an activity this year cc: Public Works Supervisor `0�a ENGINEERING DIVISION v MONTHLY REPORT July, 1996 1. Issued 22 Street Excavation permits. 2. Issued 1 Miscellaneous Construction permit with inspections. 3. Issued 5 Address Change or Assignment forms. 4. Responded to 10 Certificates of Occupancy reviews. 5. Completed 5 Pre-applications for Planning Actions. 6. Completed 21 "One-Stop" permit forms. 7. Performed field and office checks on 5 partition plats & subdivision plats. 8. Conducted 11 traffic safety site inspections. 9. Conducted 7 vision clearance site inspections. 10. Attended Traffic Safety Commission, Forest Commission, Bicycle Commission, Airport Commission meetings; City Council Meetings; Budget Meetings; and SDC Review Meetings. 11. Performed the following work on the Tolman Creek L.I.D. project: a. Attended study session. b. Prepared draft report on L.I.D.s. C. Prepared map of past L.I.D. improved streets. 12.. Updated City base map. 13. Performed the following work on the Van Ness Improvement project: a. Completed project design. b. Staked centerline and curb locations. C. Placed off-set stakes with elevations for catch basin locations. d. Met with owner of S.O.S. Drain.Service regarding acquisition PAGE 1-c=msr 14. Performed the following work on the proposed skating rink: a. Laid out survey control for survey. b. Conducted topo survey of lot area. C. Met with Parks Department and equipment representative for construction details. 15. Attended Parks Commission meeting regarding acquisition of easements over Park lands. 16. Performed the following work on the Central Ashland Bikeway: a. Reviewed and approved contract with consultant b. Secured proposal for Phase 2 of the Central Ashland Bikeway. 17. Performed the following work for the sale of a portion of the City owned property at Glenview and Hillcrest: a. Performed boundary survey. b. Filed survey in County Surveyor's office. C. Prepared description of area to be sold. 18. Performed the following work on the Ashland Street sidewalk repair project: a. Inventoried tree locations. b. Identified areas of proposed new tree plantings. C. Prepared plans for proposed improvement and repair of sidewalks. 19. Provided AUTOCAD map and/or drawings for the following departments: a. Chamber of Commerce (2) b. Jackson County (3) C. ODOT (2) d. Miscellaneous (3) e. Planning Department (2) f. S.O.S.C. (4) 20. Updated traffic accident data base. 21. Attended monthly Rogue Basin Utility Coordinating Council meeting in Medford. 22. Contacted property owners regarding purchase of right-0f--way on Ann Street. 23. Performed the following work on the Indiana Street re-alignment project. a. Contacted engineering consultant regarding contract for services. b. Reviewed amended tri-party agreement. PAGE 2-(,cata.Rpt) 24. Performed the following work on the 1996 Miscellaneous Concrete Project: a. Began preparation of specifications. b. Began plan preparation for project. C. Computed proposed quantities. 25. Performed the following work pertaining to Mountain Meadows Subdivision: a. Prepared interim progress payment authorizations. b. Inspected work performed by contractor. 26. Provided construction inspection for the following projects: a. Ashland Village Subdivision. b. The Court on Mary Jane Subdivision. C. Railroad Park Cottage Homes Subdivision. d. North Mountain Avenue Improvement. 27. Performed the following work on the East Main Street Improvement Project: a. Prepared report of bid results. b. Sent final notice of construction. C. Sent notice of project delay to owners and utility companies. 28. Performed the following work on the proposed traffic signal at North Mountain and East Main Street: a. Prepared preliminary estimate of project costs. b. Contacted engineering consultant regarding a contract for services. 29. Performed the following work regarding Dogwood Way: a. Prepared Warranty Deed and mailed to owners. b. Began design of street improvements. 30. Performed the following work on the 1996 Street Improvement Project: a. Met with property owners. b. Met with Parks Department staff regarding Mountain Avenue improvements. 31. Operated traffic counts at various intersections. 32. Updated County plat maps and Assessor's list. 33. Prepared easements for storm drain construction along East Main Street. 34. Prepared report on drainage utility fees for the Fordyce Street area. PAGE 35. Compiled 1995/1996 yearly report on subdivision utility improvements for the Finance Department. 36. Updated engineering library files. 37. Prepared report to Council regarding a sewer connection request on Crowson Road. 38. Prepared agreement forms for the above sewer connection request on Crowson Road. 39. Prepared report to Finance Department regarding outstanding contract retainages currently being held. 40. Estimated incremental costs for sewer and storm drain construction for S.D.C. computations. PAGE 4-cc:-gi-�.Aeo Street Division Monthly Report July 1996 Report SWEEPER: Swept 436 miles of streets. Collected 243 yards of debris. Responded to 97 utility location requests. Graded several streets and alleys. Patched potholes and sunken services. Continued with our pre-patch/re-surface program. Completed prepatching Mary Jane, 160.85 tons; and Park Street, 530.87 tons. Moved on to Pinecrest Terrace, 312.85 tons; Walker Avenue, 125.85 tons; Began pro-filing (grinding) Lincoln Street. Patched Indiana Street for the Water Quality Division, caused by a broken water main. Used 86.74 tons of asphalt. Removed weeds, brush, blackberries, etc. from the City right-of--way on Walnut Street between Luna Vista and Wiley. Approximately 1056 feet. Replaced the bits on the asphalt grinder head on the Bobcat. Cut weeds on both sides of Ann Street from Hersey to Patterson. Repaired the driveway approach at 677 Tolman Creek Road. Dug out and patched tha utility ditch and cross-over on North Pioneer above "A" Street. Length of ditches, 244 feet. Asphalt used, 22.78 tons. Repaired wash-outs and cleaned up after heavy storm on July 29th. Began pro-filing (grinding) at the Water.Filtration Plant for up-coming asphalt over-lay. STORM DRAINS: Flushed and/or rodded several storm drain systems. Cleaned off catch basin grates. Cleaned out catch basins. Continued the Oak Street/Van Ness storm drain project. See June report for details. Installed a 15" cross-over storm drain on upper Elkader. Installed a 6" rigid perf and a solid 6" cross-over storm drain on lower Park Street to pick up water from an underground spring. Used 60 feet of pipe, 5 yards of drain rock and fabric. Placed the camera in the storm drain on South Pioneer at Shakespeare. Repaired a large sink-hole at the Airport due to a inefficient storm drain. Plugged off old T.I.D. line on Faith Avenue. y . SIGNS/PAINT• Continued with our painting program. Downtown and Siskiyou Boulevard to Beach Street ready for the "PARADE". Installed a stop sign and painted a stop bar on Benson Way at Crowson. Painted curbs yellow on both sides of Glenn Street at North Main. Painted yellow lines on Church/Scenic Drive. Painted left turn directional arrow in the Post Office parking lot. Painted the East Main Bike lanes and center lines from Fire Station #1 to Walker Avenue. Painted the Bike lanes and center lines on Walker Avenue from East Main to Siskyou Boulevard. Replaced the faded "No Parking" signs on the entrance road to the Airport. Painted the curb yellow on the north side of Maple from North Main up 60 feet. Painted the curb yellow at the fire hydrant on the west side of Faith above Ashland Street. Painted the yellow and white lines on Tolman from Siskiyou to the City limits below Albertson. Painted the yellow and white lines on Hersey from North Mountain to North Main. Painted the yellow center line on Oak from the R/R tracks to the City limits below Nevada Street. Painted the yellow center lines on Mountain Avenue from Siskiyou to Hersey Street. Also the fog lines on lower North Mountain. Painted double yellow lines on Washington Street. Re-set the 25mph sign on lower North Mountain and the R/R sign on East Main at Fordyce. Installed a new loading zone sign and post on Hargadine at lst Street. Installed a new "Stop" sign and stop bar on Taylor at Ashland Street. FOR ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT: 1. Removed bus sign and post on Washington off Ashland Street. 2. Replaced the bus sign and post on the south side of Ashland Street east of Walker Avenue. 3. Re-located the bus sign and post in front of Jade Dragon, Ashland Street, 15 feet to the west. 4. Installed a bus sign on Tolman at Albertsons'. 5. Replaced 3 - 2x4's on the bench on Siskiyou at Mary Jane. _MISCELLANEOUS: JULY 3RD: Sent four employees to Cantel in Medford to pick up 200 delineators and 165 cones. Put the bases on the delineators, hauled a platform to Lithia Park, four barricades to 45 North Main and 10 yards of sand for the fireworks to the Iowa Street ball fields. JULY 5TH: Picked up loose delineators, cones, signs and barricades around town. Removed bases and signs from the delineators and loaded the cones and delineators on trucks and returned to Cantel in Medford. Picked up a woodstove at 1344 Apple Way for the Conservation Department. Removed broken tree limbs from Enders Alley and from the the alley behind 121 Union Street. Cleaned up tree limbs and logs from the Greenway behind 777 Oak Street. Fleet Maintenance Monthly Report July, 1996 Three mechanics completed work on 124 work orders on various types of City equipment and vehicles. 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: 0 MN Water Quality Monthly 0 Report \ \y� � " P � \Z \� ` July 1996 The following is a report of the collective activities of various subdivisions within the Water Quality Division. This report concerns only the significant activity within these subdivisions. WATER Leaks: Repaired three leaks in City main lines. Repaired four leaks in customer service or meter. Meters: Installed ten 'A" meters with hand valves. Installed four new larger meters and changed out three registers on large meters. Changed out ten '4" meters and three 1" meters. Fire Hydrants: Repaired leaking fire hydrant at Meade and Iowa. Installed new hydrant at Mary Jane and installed riser at North Main to finish up the State Highway widening project. Services: Installed 31 'A" water services, 18 in new subdivision off 'B' Street, 10 at Mary Jane plus 1" irrigation service. Installed six other larger services including 8", 3", 2" and '/z". Changed over nine 3i" water services, eight on Tolman, to new main and one on Laurel from galvanized to copper. Mains: Made four large taps, one 8" and three 6" taps. Chlorinated new lines in subdivision off 'B' Street and also in subdivision off Mary Jane. Chlorinated final small section at Mountain Meadows. Tied in new main at Munson for new subdivision. Misc.: Changed out three broken curb stops, removed rock from Water Plant Road, unplugged three TID services, found and uncovered service on Clay Street, installed new Lithia fountain. Pump Stations: Performed weekly inspection and maintenance on four booster pump stations. SEWER Repairs: Made repairs to 13 sanitary service lines/mains. Responded to one service call. Installs: Installed two V sanitary sewer services. Maintenance: Jet rodded 43,927' of City sewer mains using 81,500 gallons of water. Videoed inspection of 3,477' of City sewer mains. TREATMENT FACIIL T The Water Treatment Plant treated 177.70 million gallons of drinking water for our community, and the Water Pollution Control Facility treated 55.56 million gallons of water. MISCELLANEOUS There were 96 requests for location of water and sewer utilities during the past month. CITY OF ASHLAND :- CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 Office of the City Recorder/Treasurer August 7 , 1996 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: �^ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer SUBJECT: 1" Liquor License Application I Application has been received from James Paul Mills for a LIQUOR license for an ESTABLISHMENT, Si Casa Flores at 1209 Siskiyou . Blvd, Ashland. OLCC has completed the necessary background investigation and approval of this application is recommended. Contents of Record for Ashland Planning Action 96-080 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 26-LOT AUDUBON SUBDIVISION (PA94-022) OFF ORANGE AVENUE. MODIFICATION WOULD ALLOW FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION ON SIX OF EIGHT LOTS IN PHASE III PRIOR TO ORANGE STREET BEING PAVED. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1- 5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 4CB; TAX LOTS: (PART OF 600). APPLICANT: DARYL BONIN Public Notice Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Outline Plan Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Letter from Carlyle Stout dated 7/11/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Map showing Phases II & III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Planning Commission Findings dated 6/11/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 Planning Commission Minutes dated 6/11/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-17 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 6/11/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-21 Lots signed in favor of LID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Map showing Phases II & III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Letter from City to Bonin dated 5/14/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Letter from Daryl Bonin to Planning Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-26 Letter from Carlyle Stout dated 6/5/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Planning Commission Findings dated 8/10/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-33 Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/10/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-41 Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/13/93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-49 Notes from Ken Larson testimony 6/11/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Request for LID dated 6/10/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51-53 Letter from George Kramer dated 5/27/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Letter from Robert McCoy dated 5/8/96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55-56 Noticcy 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 20, reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East requested. All materials are 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 are 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 concerning this application, those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit either in 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 least seven days after which ordinance criterion the objection is based 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. MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE ; —s --i;....,.. fi 554 W 5w s x t W '610 7z 602 Y 1 ' 21 t (1) 00 i i fJI ,6p9" m, 603^ A .a rbo' ns.......y{.'..z...s° o xx:.: .iK:. t360B ' � 30 roz EI `'1gR•n' Ue�IJI� p fi6os51 T q 00 103 _ ,•••'"°' l ' � , ni,., y•, 'a a PaK o 5_ 0o roe m 'o ILI jr 0 _ C ,I 51GO m l JSUBUIa .,. F44 / 3X rlc . TBROOK I Nq �\ ON -0?., �t .t 200^ 209 /J'/ o. G o Y 4w a e '300 2V 5100 eop'. /s 500 MOO 4 550 4E� I''9Y 90. hh PLANNING ACTION 96-080 is a request for modification of a condition of approval for the previously approved 26-lot Audubon Subdivision (PA94-022) off Orange Avenue. Modification would allow for home construction on 6 of 8 lots in Phase III prior to Orange Street being paved. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R- 1-5-P; Assessor's Map #4CB; Tax lots (part of 600). APPLICANT: Daryl Bonin 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. Attorneys: LAW OFFICES OF Legal Secretary: Carlyle F. Stout III CARLYLE F. STOUT III Kristi Scales James J. Stout 215 Laurel Street Medford, OR 97501 Secretary: Paralegal: Phone: (541) 776-2020 Capprice Winter Deanna "Dee" Dirks Fax: (541) 776-9841 July 11, 1996 John McLaughlin, Community Development Director JUL r. 2 1996 City of Ashland Planning Department 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re : Planning Action 96-080 Dear John: I represent the owners and developers of the Ashland Audubon Subdivision concerning the request for modification of conditions of approval of PA 94-022 . On June 11, 1996 , the Ashland Planning Commission made a decision concerning this modification. I spoke with Sonia at the Ashland Planning Department and she advised me that the Ashland City Council approved the Planning Commission decision on July 9, but that signatures were not obtained for the approval until July 10 . Sonia indicated she would be mailing out the notices on July 11 , 1996, and that this was the date from which the appeal would commence running. Please consider this letter a notice of appeal on behalf of my clients concerning the above-referenced planning action. Enclosed please find my check in the sum of $250 representing the appeal fee on this matter. I understand that ten days' prior notice is required before the matter can be placed before the City Council, which meets on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. Therefore, I request that this matter be placed on the City Council Agenda for August 20 or September 3 , 1996 . If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me . Yours truly, t Carlyle F. tout III CFS :dd Enclosure CC : John Gossett Daryl Bonin Charlie Hamilton (dee\clients\gossett\mclaugh.ltr) ASHLAND AUDUBON SUBDIVISION PHASES II & III WPgS .. ,. � Found Or �- � \ //yi IN15YB 0S•11 o N.519,3 t2 _-\ .1 6•xe'x2e• 51a m S ' ASHUNO AU 50 25525 /43,82 ; ---_ . PHASE I It T ri + ' / / - \� •! S. S T.'C N \< t' STREET PLUG 154 10 PUE b 51'zo 55 9° -0 4 00' a p50 1 0 19.dE':] o•_9UDUBON 6o st,. �°• 8...dory P., D.. Recorded Jun. 16 o. NO. 9e-22706 0l 10' PUE of Records E'i s 11 N 1 1 — 5TO`65c Ll''o �' #13 I 1 g6 a # U o o.\ u\1 19.9)'y St e'30't 5'E Fence Lim y ...o 't i i t OPEN SPACE i 4 \ fi eB w 0 so -10 \v 20S 1 J m t2 N I FgSjeR'>s6: ., °.0 1 6 `t2 5To96T6'" - a J w I N660",6"v/ N6J.�9��/( .# �53 - 15th.. , o 6Jii' Q ] X06 .: M 17 ru. ..E..y : :" I 187 0<'.0-w 10108+8—�0 ° > r ' '5)'06"E`9 6q 154 iln. etij. 'eG n 20 h 19 J N -3 52"E( \ e0>0. 'i ^ 10 -U1—-t + \I, N6c IS )d.00' PHASE III S6 . 9 1 9J S,Jd w fia 22 y l 00 z0- Iry . 6 d 25'17 15'E 10 J 0 46, 626 SO 1 ] 3: J S 20 00 o27 63 Yw r-,0 S 0/ ' 1OS / o 0' PVE Found 3/d Iron PMr StS SUBDIVISO 6) _ nce t2• D••, In MONUMENT CASE -> �'• r \ 1), 23 e`17 t Found 1/e' Iron pipe/ \10':°UE� Q Ah . she, �.td. per s/N d)oe le• d..v i - .F \ 4 X00 zs 0s, .h Riccol.L per ^� J N6f. 1q9\ ryn M1)' C ,> /F.nc. Line ra'{A tf J WA' Clry of AeNtird \B> a> \ 0s 2 'p/ 25 h Ordinance No 90 66. ag.. / y / �{`$• A h \ \ o /N6j a6J'°z\ W / 03 F..P 1' Pipe 3 de. /\N76'd ' E .13,' ? / a 5/8' Y 30' iron pin with plostic cap/'D.stomped McMahan LS 1913ii am- C 0. ry Se: Brave Disc\ \ Concrete 9' deep BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 1996 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #96-080, REQUEST FOR ) MODIFICATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PRE- ) FINDINGS, VIOUSLY APPROVED 26-LOT AUDUBON SUBDIVISION (PA93-096) ) CONCLUSIONS OFF ORANGE AVENUE. MODIFICATION WOULD ALLOW FOR HOME ) AND ORDERS CONSTRUCTION ON 6 OF 8 LOTS IN PHASE III PRIOR TO ORANGE) AVENUE BEING PAVED. ) APPLICANT: DARYL BONIN ) -------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS : 1) Tax lot 600 of 391E 4CB is located at 133 Orange Avenue and is zoned R-1-5-P; Single Family Residential . 2) The applicant is requesting modification of a condition of approval for the previously approved 26-lot Audubon Subdivision off Orange Avenue allowing for home construction on 6 of 8 lots in Phase III prior to Orange Street being paved. Site improvements are shown on the Outline Plan and Final Plan on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for used to approve the Outline Plan are found in chapter 18 . 88 and 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, 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. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on June 11, 1996, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent' s Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2 . CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2 . 1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2 . 2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for modification of a condition of approval for the previously approved 26-lot Audubon Subdivision off Orange Avenue, allowing for home construction on 6 of 8 lots in Phase III prior to Orange Street being paved meets all applicable criteria for approval outlined in the Performance Standards Options chapter 18 . 88 . 2 . 3 Specifically, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with respect to the following criteria for approval: a) That the development meets , all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The application does not involve any requests for a variance to an ordinance requirement. The Commission finds no evidence in the record which would suggest that an applicable standard has not been met. 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. 6 The outline plan shows where and how City facilities will be provided to the site. Water, sewer and electric service are available from mains located in both Orange Avenue and Mountain View Drive. Storm water runoff will be diverted into the storm drainage main along Mountain View Drive. Paved access to the subdivision is provided by Parkside Drive, via Laurel Street to Mountain View Drive. orange Avenue will be improved as a conditional of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for lots 25 and 26 as designated on Exhibit S-1 (7/11/96) . 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. There is no evidence in the record that would indicate that significant natural features are found on the site. Besides the mature trees and shrubbery situated near the existing residence, which will be retained, the property is covered primarily with native grasses . d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The property to the north of the proposed subdivision has been developed. Properties to the west and east of the site is zoned for residential development at a base density of 4 . 5 dwelling units per acre. The street layout allows for the future extension of streets into the adjacent parcels and development in accordance with 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. Maintenance of the common area will be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. The base density for a parcel 5 . 12 acres in size = 23 . 04 . A density bonus is granted for Conservation Housing and constructing a minimum of one residence in accordance with the City's affordable housing standards. This brings the total allowable density to 26 units . SECTION 3 . DECISION 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for modification of a condition of approval for the previously approved 26-lot Audubon Subdivision off Orange Avenue allowing for home construction on 6 of 8 lots in Phase III prior to Orange Street being paved is supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #96-088 . Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #96-088 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all conditions of PA93-096 and PA94-022 remain valid unless otherwise modified below. 2) That a semi-permanent barricade approved by the Public Works Director be constructed and maintained across the southend of Parkside Drive and lots 25 , 26, prohibiting access onto Orange avenue until the street is paved. 3) That no building permits be issued for lots 24 and 26 until Orange Avenue is paved, and that no building permits be issued for lots 18 and 23 until a Local Improvement District (LID) is formed for the improvement of Orange Street (Exhibit S-1 - 7/11/96) . Planning Comm i�ion Approval Date s ASHLAND AUDUBON SUBDIVISION PHASES II & III °5.49'•\.. 0_<' ' W PY INITIA PSTBR�OK fees _s. e \ e'za�xz4 BrosA Rn. Y� IE OSZ_ o .519431'"E _ \ ASHUND AU NTS OS 2f E 552 .. a}B] � PHASE i f I i 099 -� _ TO6 'L1Tp16, �.54 155y5 SO f p9• o .1,r�_I' STREET PLUG i I 1 ,fo 1 O 19..z' !\ o%Ia�ugON 6D 3. 0.16_0 g1 a Peco d.d June 16 NO 94-22706 I : N �\ 10' PUE of Record. jp 5 m _ N I I 1 3 : 0 # o' ^o \ ➢ S18 30 15 C 199] .fence Lin. As it OPEN SPACE Q 050 So � ,0 5 # o •° I I '\ O Xk :o'�s\ •p\ w 15 a W .. .. ".F a I W 44 STBR9>36, 16 % "p5y15 I N66 pSa-'6 w' N63�eK h y # 751 'S'C' O a l 's< q y 5 ._ .o] ' 6' <s ri 17 B'6\ 75.03 v 167-0340 w As g• 1 O ry 19.80 3 e 11 19 :. V .n 16. 154 1 9 ""\y0 2� `n^, 19 1 N ]a0a2-E� PHASE III °'�' D _� II11 6..S Y� S6f' 22 14 C •1 9J�,�6.1y F'op c N00'j,',1.1 m 2 00 N6e 1x26' ]'15'E 6 1 e �L_2000' N55'?i63:'w t SBO LT..nd 3/4CS \ ?p 4, /9 n P-I� PUE per S&S SUBDIVISIO \ v' 2 ° 12' Deep In uO.U.ENI CASE ->` n0'r�v \ "n" p/'e�.E� / 23 c -�! Per $/N /1- Iran ld deep ` / 10 `- Q �/ti 6y.Z 3 Rpcp 1 Way , 4l BO SOP, e i v led per line y Y5 :' /q'O Clry of Ashland \Bp 63'e y zO n' R 2 C . SA? I Ordnance No 947 ry6`66 W \�h ^• 0 1 o \ O (N63<J.z\ /. S rom 1' Pipe 3" dee \1764 1 Sr 5/e' k 30 Iran pin Min plash[ p nompe0 'D. McMa no LS 1913' co 0 9 1 S< 1...Di- EXHIBIT S-1 9 _ ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Steve Armitage at 7:05 p.m.. Other Commissioners present were Gardiner, Hearn, Bass, Carr, Giordano and Finkle. Staff present were McLaughlin, Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The Minutes of the May 14, 1996 meeting were approved. Finkle amended the Findings for PA96-047 (Archerd) under Condition 8. It should be "trees" (plural) not "tree". Finkle amended the Findings for PA96-068 (Welles) under Condition 2. The wording should reflect some alternative methods of cut banks and fill slopes. Molnar said he would amend to read: "That alternative methods for the treatment of cut banks and fill slopes be reviewed by the Engineering Division and approved by the Staff Advisor. Methods to be considered include: (use wording from Condition 2)". Also, Condition 4, change "(under approval of the Planning Director)" should be changed to (at the discretion of the Planning Director)". Carr moved to approve the Findings as amended. The motion was seconded the Findings were approved. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 96-080 REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 26-LOT AUDUBON SUBDIVISION (PA94-022) OFF ORANGE AVENUE. MODIFICATION WOULD ALLOW FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION ON SIX OF EIGHT LOTS IN PHASE III PRIOR TO ORANGE STREET BEING PAVED APPLICANT: DARYL BONIN Site Visits and Ex Parte Contact Finkle and Giordano had site visits in the past. /0 Carr drove by. Hearn had a conflict of interest with the applicant and stepped down. Gardiner and Armitage had site visits. STAFF REPORT As part of the Final Plan application, the subdivision was to be built in three phases. The modification is dealing with Phase III. A Condition was placed that prior to allowing development on Phase III that either a half street improvement be constructed along Orange or that a local improvement district (LID) be formed for the improvement of Orange. In reviewing the Minutes, there was concern about additional dust and traffic being generated before a suitable surface was applied to Orange Avenue, therefore it was required that Parkside be barricaded, not allowing access onto Orange until it was paved. The final two phases of the subdivision were surveyed and platted at the same time and unfortunately, due to an error on the part of the Planning staff, the survey was signed and approved without compliance with the Condition to do the half street improvement or form a LID. It was only after it was brought to Staff's attention by a neighbor who noticed construction in Phase III that the applicant was notified by letter (May 14, 1996) that some permits were issued in error because of non-compliance with the Conditions. The same letter stated the City would allow construction to proceed on lots 19, 20 and 21 but no further permits would be issued for the remaining five properties. Bonin requested, since not all the lots are still under his ownership that the Condition still apply to the three lots along Orange Avenue, two of which are undeveloped (25 and 26) and one which has an existing residence (Lot 24) on it. He requests continuation of development of the remaining five lots that access onto Parkside Drive. Bonin stated there has been a delay in the formation of the LID and it was assumed by this time the improvement would have been done or the formation of the LID would have been formed. There was a meeting held by the Engineering Division a couple of weeks ago with the neighbors to discuss some preliminary design work for the improvement of Orange Avenue. The earliest that improvement would take place would be the spring of 1997. Since some of the delay was caused by the City, Staff has recommended approval of the request but apply the Condition to the three lots along Orange Avenue that no building permits be issued and that the permanent barrier remain in place until that improvement is constructed. ASH NO PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 MINUTES Armitage asked which properties would share in the cost of the LID. Molnar said the signing in favor has been recorded on lots 24, 25, and 26. McLaughlin said a semi-permanent barrier is needed rather than boulders. Armitage thought something should be done immediately if fire access is an issue. PUBLIC HEARING CARLYLYE STOUT, 215 Laurel Street, Medford, OR, is representing the applicant. He asked that the interior lots be released so building permits can be issued. He is in agreement that an adequate barricade be erected. All access would be by way of Parkside, not Orange Avenue. The developer sent Phases II and III to the City for approval and at the time Phase I was signed, 60 percent of the property owners had signed in favor of the LID. The survey was returned as approved and the applicant assumed everything was agreeable to the City and the applicant thought the LID was in the process of being formed and so he began building. Everyone was proceeding in good faith and an honest mistake happened. As Staff indicated, the Condition fell through the cracks. The applicant is asking for three lots to be released because building permits have been issued on the other ones. When Staff's letter of May 14th was sent, it caused the realtors to stop selling lots. Potential sales have been lost. The remaining lots on Orange Avenue will not be built on until it is paved. Stout met with the applicant, the City Attorney, the Planning Director, the City Engineer, and with some realtors involved to work out a solution and the modification being requested tonight was the ideal compromise. Bass asked Stout if any of the concerned neighbors were included in the meeting. Stout said they were not. McLaughlin said the half-street improvement or LID formation Condition was placed as a way to guarantee to both the City and the developer that there is a way to develop his property and before putting additional traffic on a street, that there are minimal improvements. The unnumbered lot on the map is lot 18. STEVE ASHER, Asher Homes, 1060 Elkader, currently has nine houses under construction. Lot 21, people will be moving in two weeks, lot 22 will be completed in ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 MINUTES four weeks, lot 23 has an interested buyer, lot 20 plans are ready and financing commitments at the bank, and lot 19 is under construction. Lot 18 will be an affordable home. Parkside is paved up to Orange Avenue. Asher favors the application. He does not see a reason to prevent construction on the interior lots that access Parkside and Eastbrook to Mountainview and Laurel. He would like to complete construction because it is good to finish and clean up during the summer months. He has no financial obligations on lots 25 and 26. JOHN SCHLEINING, Box 3216, Ashland, Asher's partner, said when they bought and optioned the lots, they bought in good faith and used credit lines to do financing. It was his understanding that the developer would sign in favor of street improvements and that it was not his job to form the LID. He understands Bonin did everything he was supposed to do. He is assuming they have buildable lots. He would urge the Commission to correct the mistake. KEN WALLACE, 152 Orange Avenue gave his five minutes of testimony to Bob McCoy. BOB MCCOY, 160 Orange Avenue, said Stout is absolutely correct when stating that is it is left to the City Council to form the LID and to make the proper assessments. The neighbors met and it was finally decided to submit the proposal to both the Commission and Council. They are against changing the Condition as it now stands in the planning action. They are anxious to get Orange Avenue paved and the developer out of there too. If the Commissioners would refer to the Minutes, the residents thought Bonin stood to gain the most from this development and felt he should pay a larger share of the assessment. The neighbors are ready to form an LID but they will ask for Bonin to pay for a half-street improvement. McCoy urged the Commission to look at Bonin's past actions. Bonin was required to build a construction fence along the east side of the property and to date no fence has been built. McCoy has had to visit the Planning office on several occasions to keep a barricade in place on Parkside. McCoy submitted a photograph taken four days ago showing workers including Bonin making access off Orange Avenue to where Bonin is building. Trucks continue to go down Orange to make deliveries. There was an occasion that the developer had an open ditch that took some time to cover. Dust abatement measures were not used by Bonin. If the applicant's request is granted tonight, the Commission will lose the "club" they have for Bonin to follow through with what has been required of him. The neighbors would shift their support to Bonin's application if he would sign their petition for an LID and work at getting the street paved as soon as possible. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 MINUTES 3 McLaughlin explained if there is 100 percent concurrence among all property owners to form the LID along with the assessment process, the LID can be formed without a public hearing. McCoy asked if he had spoken sufficiently to issues that would enable the group to appeal to the City Council. Armitage said he had stated his case clearly. KEN LARSON, 176 Orange Avenue, read comments that have been included in the record. He referred to the Minutes and Staff Report of the July 13, 1993 meeting, the August 10, 1993 meeting, and the February 8, 1994 meeting. Bonin has not done the half-street improvement. He is not in compliance on this date as no construction fence has ever been built. Larson also discussed a completion time line of the development and Bonin is building ahead of schedule. The boulders being used as a barrier are not doing any good because trucks can drive between the berms. This is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Conditions of approval. Larson feels if the Commission grants approval for the applicant's request they are exposing themselves to a liability. Bonin can sell the two lots and walk away. BERIT LARSON, 176 Orange Avenue, lives directly across from the development. When Bonin was granted approval for the subdivision, Larson recalled at the meeting Bonin being asked to encourage people 'not' to use Orange Avenue but to re-route the large trucks down paved streets. On several occasions Larson has come home and been unable to enter her own driveway because trucks were either delivering or parked in her driveway. Often the drivers were rude. It is obvious they are using Orange because of the pronounced ruts in the street. There have been times she has not used the end of the Laurel Street end of Orange because you cannot avoid the potholes. She understood Orange Avenue was to be paved prior to construction of Phase III. Bonin was well aware of that fact. By obtaining permits and commencing construction, Bonin was assuming responsibility for the half-street improvement because the LID has not yet been formed. PATRICIA DUNCAN, 490 Parkside Drive, said the Condition states the road will be done either a full street with an LID or half-street from Laurel to Helman. Bonin has made an effort but he has not honored his contract to her. By granting approval of this action, this will set a precedent for other contractors in the city. If the City could find any way to go ahead with the LID, that would be best, but if that cannot be done, honor the half-street. If this is not done, the Council can assess different people, not just those on Orange Avenue. She paid for her street and she does not want to pay for another street. It is not just the residents on Orange Avenue that are suffering from dust but those residents in Phase I and others in the area. There were so many ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 MINUTES trucks and so much rudeness and it could be a safety issue because there is no other way out of the area. HELEN DEAN, 395 Helman Street, supports what those in opposition are saying. TRACY MCCULLOUGH, 101 Orange Avenue, concurred with the neighbors in opposition and she has been witness to events they have described. The following were against the proposal but did not wish to give testimony. NANCY WOODWARD, 480 Parkside RICHARD KATZ, 125 Orange Avenue ELLIE REED, 398 North Laurel DIANE CHUNG, 191 Orange Avenue Staff Response Finkle said several Conditions have been brought up by the neighbors that appear not to have been complied with and he wondered if the enforcement broke down. McLaughlin said when the dust control broke down, the City visited the site and made him comply, but it is impossible to be at the site at all times. The same thing is true of vehicles driving across the property. It is a violation of the intent of the approval and the spirit of the prior meetings for the Bonin to not adhere to his Conditions of approval and those items continue to this day. However, the request is not one where past violations can be judged in a punitive manner. The applicant should speak to the fence problem. It should be made clear to Bonin that he must stop using Orange Avenue or a course of action will have to be taken to cite him. The Commission needs to look at the impacts of the applicant's request. As the neighbors said, these items can be used as a "hammer" but the Planning Commission is not the enforcer. The applicant is not required to keep to the phasing except to not go beyond the time line. Carr suggested rewording Condition 2: That a semi-permanent barricade be constructed and maintained at the south end of lots 23, 24, and 26 prohibiting vehicle access onto Orange Avenue until the street is paved. Rebuttal Stout emphasized said this meeting is to try and fix a mistake that was made. The developer believed he had approval. There appear to be some violations of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 MINUTES Conditions of approval. The barricade and other problems the neighbors have spoken about will be taken care of. Bonin said it is his construction truck that he is driving across the vacant lot on a path that does not lead into the subdivision. It is his property and he can drive across it. He was not the one taking the barricade down. He has replaced it twice and finally put in the rocks. Giordano wondered if Bonin would be willing to put up a barricade in front of the two vacant lots on Orange and across parkside' that would allow for an emergency vehicle to crash through. Stout said they would be willing to erect something approved by Public Works. Bonin said he has been putting up fences along Reynolds property as homes have been built. Reynolds never asked for a mesh safety fence. The only time trucks have travelled Orange is during the road construction and he did provide dust control during road construction. McLaughlin explained the vacant lots on Orange will not develop until the LID is formed or a half-street improvement is done COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION The Commissioners agreed it was Condition 7 from the Findings dated February 8, 1994 that they would be discussing. Finkle mentioned that testimony was also taken regarding construction traffic and lack of a fence. McLaughlin said the fence was to be erected where the development abuts other properties, not a fence to block access to the development. More than anything, Finkle felt the construction needed to be done in a way that was sensitive to the neighborhood. Carr suggested new wording for Condition 2: That a semi-permanent barricade be approved by the Public Works Director and constructed and maintained at the south end of Lots 25 and 26 and across Parkside Drive prohibiting access onto Orange Avenue until Orange is paved. Bass understood some mistakes had been made by the City, however, he believes the applicant, builders or realtors knew there were conditions of approval. To the extent there are innocent buyers, perhaps the lots should be freed. Otherwise, the Commission should require the applicant stay with the conditions of approval. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 1996 MINUTES 14 McLaughlin proposed amended wording to Condition 3: That no building permits be issued for Lots 25 and 26 until the half-street improvement is completed on Orange Avenue. At the time the LID is formed, permits for Lots 18 and 23 (Phase III) can be issued. Giordano wanted Lot 20 to be allowed to obtain a building permit so Asher can move ahead. Giordano moved to use McLaughlin's language and Carr's wording for the semi- permanent barricade. Carr seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION g REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 19% MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 11, 1996 PLANNING ACTION: 96-080 APPLICANT: Daryl Bonin LOCATION: Audubon Subdivision, off Orange Avenue. ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-5-P COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Performance Standards Option 18.88 REQUEST: Modification of Conditions of Approval for the previously approved (PA94- 022) 26-lot Audubon Subdivision. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In August 1993, the Ashland Planning Commission granted Outline Plan approval for a 27-lot subdivision on the subject property. In February 1994, the Ashland Planning Commission granted Final Plan approval for a 26-lot subdivision (total # of lots reduced by one) on the subject property. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: This request involves a modification of a condition of approval for the 26- lot Audubon Subdivision, located north of Orange Avenue. Specifically, the applicant requests that the following condition #7 of Final Plan approval be amended: 7) That prior to the development of Phase III and the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue, that Orange Avenue be improved. Improvement may be either by a half-street improvement from Laurel to Helman on the subdivision side of the street, or full improvement via a local improvement district. The condition requires that Orange Avenue be improved to a half street standard from Laurel to HelmanpStreet, including a minimum 20 feet in / 6 width paved surface, curb & gutter and sidewalks on one side, or that the full improvement of Orange Avenue be completed through the formation of a Local Improvement District prior to development of the eight lots in Phase III (lots 19-26). The applicant requests that home construction be permitted to proceed on five of the eight lots in Phase III, lots 19-23 located along Parkside Drive, before Orange Avenue is improved. No home construction would be allowed on the three remaining lots along Orange Avenue, 24 (existing residence), 25, and 26, until the improvement of Orange Avenue had been completed. Further, a barricade would remain in place at the south end of Parkside Drive, restricting access onto Orange Avenue until it is improved. II. Proiect Imoact In August of 1993, the Commission approved the application for the 26-lot Audubon Subdivision to be developed in three phases. The subdivision request involved the construction of a new city street, Parkside Drive, north to south through the project and connecting to Orange Avenue. One stipulation put on the approval, however, was that no home construction be permitted in Phase III (lots 19-26) until some form of improvement of Orange Avenue had been completed. The developer, Quality Housing Environments, elected to construct the new street, Parkside Drive, in its entirety at one time and combine Phases II and III onto one survey plat. As noted above, Orange Avenue was required to be paved prior to the approval of the final approval of the survey plat for Phase III. Unfortunately, an oversight on the part of the Planning Staff occurred and the final survey for phases II and III was approved without compliance with the requirement. As building permits were issued for three of eight lots in Phase III and home construction commenced, the Planning Department was notified by concerned residents objecting to the development prior to the improvement of Orange Avenue. The developer was notified of the error and informed that no additional building permits could be issued for the remaining five lots, 22-26, until the improvement of Orange Avenue had been completed. Some of the eight lots have been sold and are no longer under the ownership of the applicant, Quality Housing Environments. Consequently, the applicant has requested a modification of the condition of approval, relieving five of the eights lots of the requirement and allowing home construction to continue. In reviewing the history of the subdivision approval, there were concerns raised PA96-080 Ashland Planning Department -- Staff Report Daryl Bonin June 11, 1996 Page 2 19 regarding the impacts (i.e. dust, noise) of additional traffic onto Orange Avenue, an unimproved city street. In order to mitigate these concerns, a barricade was required to be put in place at one end of Parkside Drive to preclude the physical connection of the two streets until Orange Avenue was paved. While the barricade has been removed or knocked down at times as the development of the subdivision has accelerated, the applicant has responded in those cases and reinstated the barricade or some other type of impediment. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for approval of Outline Plan 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, 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. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations As the applicant has discussed in his submittal, including the subdivision's three lots abutting Orange Street, over 60 percent of the frontage along Orange Avenue has agreed to participate in the Local Improvement District (LID) for the improvement of the street. Currently, there are several city streets where PA96-080 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Daryl Bonin June 11, 1996 Page 3 aD improvements are being planned for through the LID process, one of those being Orange Avenue. Due to this backlog, the formation of the LID for Orange Street which had been anticipated has been subject to some delay. Staff believes the applicant's request is reasonable, given that he is not responsible for the delay in the formation of the LID for Orange Avenue. It is Staffs opinion that as long as a barricade is retained in place and access onto Orange Avenue is prohibited, the overriding concern over dust can be mitigated until the LID is formed and the street is paved. No development, however, of the three lots abutting Orange Avenue would be permitted until the improvements had been completed. Staff would recommend approval of the request with the following conditions of approval: 1) That all conditions of PA93-096 and PA94-022 remain valid unless otherwise modified below. 2) That a semi-permanent barricade approved by the Public Works Director be maintained at the south end of Parkside Drive prohibiting vehicle access onto Orange Avenue until the street is paved. 3) That no building permits be approved for lots 24, 25 and 26 until Orange Avenue has been improved to city standards. PA96-080 Ashland Planning Department — Staff Report Daryl Bonin June 11, 1996 Page 4 a � o t C V M .r cu 8m L� n o WPu N why n Mn l z � tC A s > O O 1S NVN13H ., a y. E 9� u c No V A � O 0 a zB x w y Vl O p 6 i� CL a N "N o0 O Mn d Mo � tie No N� g 341SNbdd ,,, > w Q LLJ G a •O N C� N v Z o- 9b a �� 0 0 v LO O co LLI � � x Ng �S J 61 .�-•n �n Q U N C M m6 a 0 c m. o E Mn rn y C > C O C � n d E m — \ CP is �3anvi $a d1 1S 1��n s �m m� M- M= ASHLAND AUDUBON SUBDIVISION PHASES II & III a w } a� 5 49 on 195 t/ 1� . — I Found " Sir I ^_ IIEASig•2!E o 51?' 312E e'xe"xza" smm TB OS _ ? 52 S19 a3 t_"F \. ASHLAND AU S'.IOg sleE 1 - � s 3.��1 5; - \ / PHASE I /6.99' r 4 �O 'N 5 5`n^E o, I' STREET PLUG n e. zo5%D90--er If 16° I•,+m 1 '9.m- `6 e0'� _\• P p Sound., per Boo p � ,Recorded June 6 805 �\ / N0. 94-22706 of cor 1F 10' of Red. - Ste. A1iD 5 205 1 PUE 1 O\� °°•Ue 6 e9 E 10 9"^ 1 On 13 66- # p ° n sle 397' .rend. Lin n a \ u 2 OPEN SPACE 4 A ti \In 't o ." 5o rr` -. F'gsjBR�'sa - �- 16 _ W I N6658<6'W N6J a�6a # �53 8' Qk O 020 , 9 �Y .. 4 y 3 18 5 5.02' P1 .. a 2O6 - 17 9N ° J >> 6 25.03'" V 7q 3 187 ca'IO-w 9 ' m o• 4 .9.80 27.31 9'5 2'0' 6 66q 154 Or , ., onl., anam.nla 1, m 20 h� 19.U" N '34'52'E+ ` v PHASE III �,°. a ' ID PNE D0 LW �S6J. 22 1? ; ' 6 S°° 1� /2 1 o Lo 6p5'S 9" m ZU 1G 6 .- o : J' \ \ x26 I2 5 E 1 3' m A 2000 N55O lfit• w "1 1 SL 00 3C - �J,3.� B oy. by °• 3 \ o found 3/6' Iron '03 \ qc° y T, 10 our r Pence Per Sts SUBDIVI...N �'- \ °j 2`^ ` 2 f'1 bib 23 12 O... In MONUMENT CASE i q. o 4 fauna 3/d ro„ plod / / G`p N Io p_d. Qr e0' she, iN per S/N 6206 u" deep / - \' /,h d ?' W> Raca Iwar ,yo -.F'31`� • 'y e0pb6. y y 9, Ld per ^'s qy\ + ,\, ti G°' r .r.nce uae t /� I Llh al nshl.ne \9> 3a� ?S/� hip b ZJ / Ordinonee Na 962 66' e8. 'f'Our 1" Plpe 3 tlee - \N2 'Ie'C 0 3' 30• Iran pin .LID n mped 0. McMahon LS IT Sal Sr.c� 0 9 cord'��r e \ —5 \ 3 CITY OF ASHLAND # I CITY HALL ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 May 14, 1996 Daryl Bonin Quality Housing Environments 359 Kearney Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Violation of Conditions of Approval for 26-lot Audubon Subdivision Dear Mr. Bonin: I must notify you that all home construction associated with Phase III (lots 19-26) of the Audubon Subdivision is in violation of the conditions of approval for Planning Action 94- 022. Specifically, condition seven noted in the Ashland Planning Commission Findings & Orders states: 7) That prior to the development of Phase III and the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue, that Orange Avenue be improved. Improvement may be either by a half-street improvement from Laurel to Helman on the subdivision side of the street, or full improvement via a local improvement district. It is my understanding that three building permits have been issued and construction started on lots 19, 20 and 21. Unfortunately, those permits were reviewed, approved and issued in error. Construction on those properties may continue to proceed as approved without delay. However, no building permits may be issued for the remaining five lots, 22, 23, 24, 25, & 26, until the obligations of the condition are met. It is clear from the condiiton described above, that construction of residences within Phase III was prohibited until Orange Avenue was adequately improved with pavement, curb & gutter and sidewalk. / P1 contact me a your earliest convenience to discuss this matter. ( _ rely olnar Senior Planner c: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director Paul Nolte, City Attorney Charlie Hamilton Steve Asher a � Planning Commission City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Planning Commission; The applicant requests a modification to Planning action 94-022, a 26-lot subdivision approved by the planning commission in 1994. During the approval process, the commission addressed the issue of construction traffic creating dust along the unpaved portion of Orange Street. One solution proposed the formation of a LID to pave Orange Street, and the commission made a condition of approval that either a half-street improvement be made by the applicant or a full-street improvement be made via a LID. Shortly after this project was approved, Fred Cox submitted plans for the development of a nine-unit subdivision contiguous to 94-022. These two projects provided more that 50% of the signatures required for the formation of LID and it was expected that the LID would be created and Orange Street improved according the the commissions conditions of approval. For more than two years the applicant has inquired, as have a number existing home owners and neighborhood residents, as to the status of the Orange Street LID and the paving of the street. Although a firm date for the improvement of Orange Street has never been mentioned, the intimation has been that improvement was imminent. The understanding of the residents in the area has been that Orange Street would be paved and the lots along Orange Street assessed the costs. Unfortunately, the LID has yet to be formed. The project has been very well received and construction has proceeded. Numerous families have moved into the area; a neighborhood has developed. When it came time to record Phase II, the applicant recorded the remaining lots. The condition regarding the paving of Orange Street was not mentioned, and the applicant assumed the improvement of Orange Street was well underway. Since the recording of the remaining parcel, lots have been sold, construction begun on a number of homes, a house sold, and another lot is Page 1 of 2 in contract. However, Orange Street remains unpaved and residents in the area are concerned that the improvement has not happened. Therefore, the applicant is asking for a modification to the conditions of approval regarding the paving of Orange Street. Because the improvement has not happened for more than two years, during which time the development has proceeded on schedule, the applicant requests that only the two lots along Orange St. be frozen. The applicant agrees no building permits will be issued until Orange Street is paved, provided the LID be implemented as soon as practicable and the improvement made in a timely manner. The applicant requests building permits be issued on the remaining lots. This will not change the intent of the original condition because all traffic continues to be routed via Laurel Street. This also does not change the responsibility of the developer because the LID has been designated to be on the three lots along Orange Street: the two lots the applicant is offering to freeze, and the existing home which has been sold. Dar I Boni Date Applicant Page 2 of 2 Attorneys: LAW OFFICES OF ' Legal Secretary: Carlyle F. Stout III CARLYLE F. STOUT III Kristi Scales James J. Stout 215 Laurel Street Medford, OR 97501 Secretary: Paralegal: Phone: (541) 776-2020 Capprice Winter Deanna "Dee" Dirks Fax: (541) 776-9841 June 5, 1996 Bill Molnar FAX: 488-5311 and by Planning Department First Class Mail City of Ashland 20 East Main 966t Q Ashland, OR 97520 Nnr Re : Planning Action 94-022 Dear Bill : I represent the developers of Ashland Audubon Subdivision and understand that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 7 : 00 p.m. , concerning my clients' application to modify the conditions of approval for Phase 3 of the subdivision. I understand that Daryl Bonin timely filed an application and this matter is the first item on the agenda of the Planning Commission that evening. At a conference on May 20, 1996, with John McLaughlin, Paul Nolte and Jim Wilson, this modification issue was discussed and John indicated the City would recommend approval of the modification because of the circumstances involved. My understanding is that the modification would allow building permits for all lots remaining in Phase 3 , except for Lots 24 and 26, which front on Orange Street . I would like to receive a copy of the staff report prior to the meeting and by this letter am requesting that you please send one to me . This can be done by FAX if it is convenient for you. I would also like to discuss this matter with you and therefore request that you please call me upon your receipt of this letter. Yours truly, i i Carlyle F. Stout III CFS :dd CC : John Gossett Daryl Bonin Charlie Hamilton by FAX: 482-1698 and by First Class Mail (dee\clients\gossett\molnarl.ltr) 27 C I T Y O F A S H L A N D :,r ,' C 1 T Y H A L L ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(Code 503) 4623211 September 16, 1993 RE: Planning Action # 93-096 Dear Quality Housing Environments: At its meeting of August 10, 1993, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for Outline Plan Approval for the property located at 133 Orange Street -- Assessor's Map # 39 1 E 4CB, Tax Lot(s) 600. The Findings of Fact and the Commission's Orders, which were adopted at the September 14, 1993 meeting, are enclosed. . Please note the following circled items: 1 . A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. 3. There is a 15 day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit may be issued. All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit may be issued. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application would have to be submitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. in erel , ill Molnar Senior Planner ;C BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 10, 1993 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #93-096, REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 27-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE ) FINDINGS, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS TO BE LOCATED AT 133 ) CONCLUSIONS ORANGE STREET (BETWEEN LAUREL AND HEIMAN) . ) AND ORDERS APPLICANT: QUALITY HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS ) -------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 600 of 391E 4CB is located at 133 Orange Avenue and is zoned R-1-5-P; Single Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting approval of a 27-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options. Site improvements are shown on the Outline Plan on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are found in chapter 18 . 88 and 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, 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. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on August 10, 1993 , at which time testimony was received a� and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2 . CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2 . 1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2 . 2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a 27-lot subdivision meets all applicable criteria for approval outlined in the Performance Standards Options chapter 18 .88. 2 . 3 Specifically, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with respect to the following criteria for approval: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The application does not involve any requests for a variance to an ordinance requirement. The Commission finds no evidence in the record which would suggest that an applicable standard has not been met. 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. The outline plan shows where and how City facilities will be provided to the site. Water, sewer and electric service are available from mains located in both Orange Avenue and Mountain View Drive. Storm water runoff will be diverted into the storm drainage main along Mountain View Drive. A letter from John E. Jensen, Professional Engineer, is part of the record and describes 30 his familiarity with ground water concerns of the area and that possible solutions will be incorporated into the final design of the subdivision. Paved access to Phase I is available from Mountain View Drive, while Orange Avenue will be improved as a conditional of approval. 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. There is no evidence in the record that would indicate that significant natural features are found on the site. Besides the mature trees and shrubbery situated near the existing residence, which will be retained, the property is covered primarily with native grasses. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The property to the north of the proposed subdivision has been developed. Properties to the west and east of the site is zoned for residential development at a base density of 4 . 5 dwelling units per acre. The street layout for this subdivision will allow for the future extension of streets into the adjacent parcels and development in accordance with 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. Maintenance of the common area will be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. The applicant has stated in the record that improvements to the common area will be completed prior to construction taking place in Phase II . f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. The base density for a parcel 5. 12 acres in size = 23 . 04 . An 18 . 7 percent density bonus is granted for Conservation Housing and constructing a minimum of one residence in accordance with the City's affordable housing standards. This brings the total allowable density to 27 . 35 units. SECTION 3 . DECISION 3 . 1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for a 27 lot subdivision is supported by evidence in the record. S/ Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #93-096. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #93-096 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the revised plan titled as Outline Plan #3 submitted by the applicant, including 11, 152 sq. ft. of open space, become the approved Outline Plan. 3) That the applicant sign in favor of future improvements to Orange Avenue prior to signature of the survey plat for Phase I. 4) That full engineered construction drawings be provided for all streets and utilities as part of the Final Plan for each phase. 5) That sidewalks be indicated on the final plan map, and that they be shown with a 4' parkrow with the remainder of the sidewalk area shown as an easement on the individual lots. No modifications to the building envelopes will be required as part of this condition. 6) That the CC&R's be provided at the time of Final Plan application for review by the City of Ashland. Such CC&R's to include a section referring to the adjacent farm, recognizing that a farm currently operates here and that the homeowner's cannot file complaints regarding standard agricultural practices that have occurred as part of this farm operation for many years. 7) That prior to the commencement of street construction for each phase that a standard mesh construction fence be constructed on the permeter. Property lines to be replaced by six foot solid wood fence on the permeter adjacent prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 8) That the applicant maintain the water rights to down-ditch water users, and in no way preclude the use of water to those with legal water rights. Further, any modifications to the ditch, either by relocation or culverting shall be done under the approval of the State Watermaster. Should the ditch be culverted, the homeowner's association shall assume all responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the culverted section. 9) That hydrant installation be done such that all homes are within 250' of a fire hydrant having adequate flows. Required hydrants to be in and operational prior to the issuance of building permits for individual homes. All other requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall also be met. 10) That a complete landscaping plan be submitted for the open space area as part of the Final Plan application for Phase II. 11) That all necessary easements for sewer, water, streets, electric, and irrigation lines be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. 12) That prior to the development of Phase III and the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue, that Orange Avenue be improved. Improvement may be either by a half-street improvement from Laurel to Helman on the subdivision side of the street, or full improvement via a local improvement district. 13) That the improvements for Phase I (lots 1-9) of the subdivision be completed by December 1994 ; that the improvements for Phase II (lots 10- 18) be Completed by December 1996; and that the improvements for Phase III (lots 19-27) , including Orange Avenue, be completed by December 1998 . 14) That street trees (1 per 30' of frontage) and sidewalks be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any unit. 15) That all subdivision improvements be designed by a registered professional engineer. 16) That the specific conservation measures proposed for each unit to meet the density bonus requirements shall be fully explained and detailed as part of the Final Plan application for Phase I. 17) That the northern street stub for Eastbrook Loop be developed and improved as part of the Phase I improvements. 18) That signatures in favor of the street stub to the Reynolds property be provided prior to the final plat approval for Phase II. Such signatures may either be assigned to the abutting properties, or to all properties within the subdivision as part of the CC&R's. Or the stub may be fully improved as part of the Phase II street improvements. Planning Commi s 'On Approval Date 33 Hibbert moves that approval with the 14 conditions. Powell seconds. Motion carried unanimously. Thompson stated that he would have liked Condition 11 (shortcut from common area to the closest point on Crispin to get to town) left in. Jarvis called Bayuk out of order. PLANNING ACTION 93-096 IS A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 27-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS TO BE LOCATED AT 133 ORANGE STREET (BETWEEN LAUREL AND HELMAN STREETS). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-5-P; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 4CB; TAX LOT: 600. APPLICANT: QUALITY HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Hibbert was not at last months meeting. He had a site visit in July and reviewed packets. No contention from commissioners. Carr visited site after rain to check drainage. Jarvis had another site visit. STAFF REPORT McLaughlin reported the primary concern from last month was the street design and layout of vacant properties adjoining this project. Hayes property (to the west) had since submitted a proposal relating to this proposal. That applicant had previously submitted a similar design. The street stub to the Reynolds' property remains the same. Applicant nor the staff has meet with Reynolds. The street design proposed and the staff proposal were similar in the inclusion of a loop system and amount of asphalt. A benefit to the applicants proposal would be a longer street providing vistas to Mount Ashland and Grizzly Peak area. Applicant had stated his desire for proposed plan to be the one considered for meeting the criteria, not the proposal recommended by the staff. The development of the adjacent properties was staff's primary concern. The property to the west was addressed, but the future development of Reynolds property was unknown. There were better options for the location of the stub and this could be modified in the final plan of phase Il. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 3 � Other issues raised last month involved conservation housing. Applicant presented some options. McLaughlin met with Wandersheid, Conservation Manager, who concurred that proposal complies and his department will enforce compliance. A letter from John Jensen, a professional engineer, addressed concerns about site drainage. Jensen would be responsible. Within the criteria, these concerns should be addressed during final plan. Concerning the fence and covenants to protect the Reynolds property as an agricultural use, applicant has agreed to provide a solid wood fence and provide covenants to prohibit farm related complaints based on standard farm practices. Litter issue is addressed by city on a case to case basis, but applicant had decided that primary contractor would be responsible for maintenance of the site. Street placement and paving of Orange will be under the direction of city engineering division. They will attempt to address all concerns in final design. Applicant has little input into design of Orange Street. Have attached condition that before Phase III can be developed along Orange, the street must be.improved. Pesticide issue is beyond planning commission jurisdiction. Map provided shows how setbacks fit into building envelope. Design is appropriate and meets criteria. Staff recommends approval with 18 conditions. Applicants modified conditions 2 and 3 on their outline plan. Condition 2 assumed they will work in cooperation with property owners to the west in developing open space. Planning commission could not work with this assumption, therefore, applicant must provide all open space required. Applicant had provided for open space in outline plan #3. Powell asked about alignment of street stub with Eastbrook. The centerlines did not appear aligned and were setback 125'. McLaughlin stated that from centerline to centerline is about 100'. The requirement for 125' works as traffic calming. Purpose is to get cars through and not make awkward intersections. In low flow areas, as this, slight jogs make for a better pattern, but according to our ordinance, the jog is required. Medinger stated that his experience with minor streets infills were problem. McLaughlin informed the commission that subdivision code (referring to the 125') has ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 3s the flexibility saying "where practical." Carr wondered if Condition 18 implied that the homeowner is responsible for stub. McLaughlin stated the abutting lots owners could be made responsible, it could be spread between all lots, or it could be approved at the time the subdivision is done. Options were to developer, but must be addressed. Carr believed cost should be the developer's responsibility. Cloer asks about conservation credit package. Applicant proposal stated that package is decided when house plan is submitted for permit. McLaughlin stated that is most practical. Homebuyer wants to chose package, but is must be in compliance with the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING DARRYL BONIN, 359 Kearney St., read a statement addressing concerns. First, the Reynolds' property considerations: Quality Home Environment will build a 6' high fence along the eastern property line (Reynolds family farm) to be completed before any houses are occupied. This solid fence would adequately prevent any trespass on property. As this property will ultimately be developed into a residential development, excessively tall fences or setback buffers would impose expense and inadequate use of the property at 133 Orange. The street stub towards Reynolds' property is to allow the potential improvement of their property and will provide a vehicle and pedestrian connection between the three future neighborhoods. He previously provided a map to commissioners showing this connection and met with Mike Reynolds to physically show him how stub lines up. Applicant would try not to aim stub directly at existing house, but more northerly location would be too close to Mountain View. Applicant proposed a clause within C, C & R's of Ashland Audubon Homeowners Association stating that no complaints of normal sights, sounds and smells of the farm operation shall be tolerated or endorsed. Addressing conservation and energy efficiency measures, applicant reiterated the methods and measures used to satisfy the 15 point total required to qualify for the density bonus requirement. He met with city departments and obtained agreement to work together towards compliance. Applicant researched various combinations available to allow combination best suited to each building lot. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 34 Orange Ave. street improvements: a condition of approval would be to sign in favor of a LID formed to pave Orange, which would not be needed until Phase III. QHE agreed that if the LID had not been created for half street improvement, they would be responsible for cost. Since last month's meeting, the land adjacent to the western property boundary has been under contract of sale. The minor land partition would require LID signatures bringing those in favor to 64% making full improvement more likely. Neighbors testifying July 13 stated desire for improvement of Orange at Phase I. QHE agreed to help. The ground water issue was addressed in a letter from John Jenson, Civil Engineer, and would be further addressed at final plan. Pointing to a map showing the street configuration outline plan, applicant believed this showed optimum design to achieve the best use for property and vacant property to the west. It also showed a suitable street stub to the eastern property. Current street plan used the least amount of paved surface to improve property and conform with Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive plan. Developer of property to west agreed with submitted street configuration provided that Phase I included the northern street stub-out and utility connection to his property. Applicant stated that this request would fit in with construction schedules. The north/south layout of Park Dr. took advantage of view potential for this property and the property to the west. The 4' sidewalk and planting strip added further street appeal. They received the request from Tree Commission to increase the planting strip to 6'. Applicant preferred 4' suggested by staff and will chose compatible approved street trees. Difference between the two plans are 7' of open space. The northern most street stub use to be open space. The lost space was made up by shortening three lots by 7' causing a large impact to those lots. The purpose of open space has not been detracted from and approval of this street plan would automatically create 4300 sq. ft. of open space on neighboring property. Asked commission to approve the 90' Lots at 10, 11 and 13 shown in Outline Plan 2. The open space on applicant's property reduced the open space required to 9900 sq. ft. Inclusion of open space on neighboring property would bring the total open space to over 14,000. Hibbert commented that applicant is predicating some open space to adjoining property owner. McLaughlin said that agreement with adjoining neighbor is likely, but not absolute. Thompson wondered if a transportation plan for the neighborhood could be finalized. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 907 McLaughlin stated that it would have to be adopted by council. Bonin stated that to insure cooperation with adjoining property developer, the water rights from applicant's property could be used to maintain that open space. Purpose of open space is to provide a buffer and pedestrian connection between neighborhoods. Medinger wanted applicant to discuss the alignment of Orange St. with street stub on his property. Bonin agreed to go with the majority of neighbors. He stated he had no jurisdiction over design. He showed an example of a single story floor plan in one building envelopes described, it showed adequate backyard. STEVE JANNUSCH, 1657 Old Stage Rd, Central Point, spoke on behalf of applicant, agreed that no contractual agreement existed with neighbor to the west. He suggested to leave the question of open space open for future agreement with them and amend the final plan to go with longer lots.lengths. On page 3 of staff report, addressing the covenants issue and fence, he wondered if the requirement was for fence to be constructed on perimeter of property or just adjacent to Reynolds' farm. Stated problems erecting fence prior to street construction. Suggested establishing final grade for property and requested fence be required prior to occupancy. Jarvis stated concern about farm animals not being protected from trash. Hibbert suggested that when the stub is being constructed part of fence be removed, then put back. Jannusch was concerned with future installation of utility lines and constant care of fence. He wanted to see fence requirement tied in with occupancy. GEORGE KRAMER, 386 North Laurel, against proposal with reservations. His concerns were addressed by staff, however, still concerned with the density of the proposed development and aesthetics. His neighborhood consists of owner-occupied houses each built at different time by different contractor. This would be the first subdivision. Felt the diversity of the neighborhood and Ashland would be overwhelmed by nature of it being a subdivision (27 lots all built within 3 years of each other). KEN LARSON, 126 Orange St., had his written testimony read into the record. He was against the proposal as described. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION g REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 3 � KINDLER STOUT, 130 Orange St., commented that if LID was initiated for paving instead of waiting, maybe the cost would be less. His neighbors would like to see two diving lanes paved with the remaining right-of-way maintained by homeowners. The most visionary proposal would include islands and curbs to slow down traffic, provide recycling areas and act as a buffer from sound. JIM DEAN, 395 Heiman St., previously submitted letter that was read into record. McLaughlin commented on neighbors willingness to consider narrower streets, islands, etc. Medinger asked about the paving requirement for Orange and street design at Final Plan. McLaughlin stated this would be addressed during Phase III which will be proposed in about three years. Dr. John Reynolds, 505 Heiman St., wanted street stub design left flexible until Phase II. He also wanted fence erected right away and would be in favor of a temporary fence. He was concerned about the dumping of trash. McLaughlin stated the stub could be finalized at Phase II and preferred the flexibility of design. Hibbert asked if open space irrigation (of property to the west) be made a condition. McLaughlin answered no. Staff is working property owners. Jarvis wondered about the width of parking row (4' vs. 6') and staff's position. McLaughlin said that 6' is ideal. In this particular right-of-way it is hard to have 6' park rows and adequate front yard areas. The 4' width is minimum and appropriate. Medinger chose 6' parkrows in his Clearcreek project because their arborist recommended for growth of trees. Carr asked that full engineered construction drawings be required for drainage (Condition 4). REBUTTAL ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 I 39 Bonin reiterates that the wood fence erected before construction of the streets, was not practical, but agreed to mesh safety-net fence. He would consider options to street stub to Reynolds property, although stub would not be finalized until Phase ll, Lot 9 would be impacted by a stub redesign. He agreed with staff that 6' parkrow shortens front yard. Hibbert asked applicant if changing Lot 9 and moving the corner to another lot would be a problem. Bonin answered that proposed street stub was optimum location, open space, pedestrian path, and logical placement of the Reynolds' street. He tried to avoid aiming stub south to avoid existing house. Bonin would consider alternatives, but hadn't heard any. Medinger suggested resolution of issue by final plan (approx 3 mo.). McLaughlin reminded applicant that Condition 5 (sidewalks), applied to both sides of street. Medinger agreed that on a 28' wide street with a 41' right-of-way there was room for parkrows on both sides. Bonin thought that stepping directly from a parked car to a sidewalk was preferable to walking on a planted area. Cloer suggested that applicant's C, C, and R's in regards to complaints about neighboring farm be written by an attorney. Bonin stated that it would. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Medinger felt that a permanent wood fence should not be required during construction phase. A construction mesh fence would be adequate. He commented that parkrows move sidewalk away from traffic and provide shade for parked cars. Powell commented that church on Second and B has a parkrow designed so that you stepped from car to about one foot of pavement, then grass, then sidewalk. She suggested this as another option of a parkrow design. Carr suggested the wording on Condition 7 be changed to: "Prior to the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 11 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 A commencement of street construction for each phase, a standard mesh construction fence be constructed on the perimeter. Property lines to be replaced by six foot solid ✓ wood fence on the perimeter adjacent prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy." Powell remembered from last meeting that Dr. Reynolds requested an eight foot wood fence. Medinger reminded Powell that maximum fence height allowed is 6 1/2' and that 6' would be acceptable. He wondered if Condition 5 needs to be revised. McLaughlin stated that planting of parkrows is individual and diverse. The historic district generally uses grass. Powell wondered if a condition needed to be added to allow for open space flexibility. McLaughlin stated that the applicant still had the option to change open space. Carr moved to approve Planning Action 93-096 as per the revisions in the 18 attached conditions. Hibbert seconded motion. Medinger asked if Orange Street design final plan would go before the Planning Commission. McLaughlin answered yes but the applicant would be required to sign in favor as part of Phase I. The property to the west would also be required to sign before the survey and sale to divide the house from remainder of developable property. When that happens, that frontage would be required to sign bringing total to over 60% of frontage and the LID can be formed independent of this subdivision approval. The Orange Street design will be through Public Works and will not come before the Commission. Planning Commission may have input. Medinger asked staff to let Commission know when design goes before City Council to allow for input. Motion carried unanimously. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 12 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 10, 1993 McLaughlin would like to add a Condition regarding track-out during construction. All Commissioners agreed. Thompson moved to limit testimony to three issues at next month's regular meeting: 1) the redesign of the west side of Crispin and its entrance to Oak Street, 2) a proposal by the owner of Lot 13 on using a driveway off Crispin Street rather than Oak Street, and 3) modification of Condition 12 to include driveways from lots 14 and 15 be shared and exit onto Crispin. All other issues are considered resolved including the deletion of Condition 11. Powell seconded the motion. The motion carried uanimously. The applicant agreed to waive his 120 time period for processing an application. Hibbert left the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 93-095 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 12-LOT SUBDIVISION ON 7.6 ACRES UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION ACCESSED OFF SCENIC DRIVE. PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN THE DITCH ROAD AND SCENIC DRIVE AND BETWEEN NUTLEY STREET AND LOGAN DRIVE. APPLICANT: JOHN BARTON/BRUCE AND POKII ROBERTS Jarvis read a letter into the record from Dan Harris requesting postponement of this hearing until August. Carr moved to continue, Cloer seconded the motion and the motion carried to continue. APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS Carr moved to approve the Findings of 93-053 as amended to conform to the motion on the audio tape. Cloer seconded the motion and it was approved. (Secretary's Note: The audio tape and Minutes corresponded and the Findings were corrected.) Carr moved to approve the Teitelbaum Findings. Thompson seconded the motion and it was approved. PLANNING ACTION 93-096 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL OF A 27-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION TO BE LOCATED AT 122 ORANGE STREET (BETWEEN LAUREL AND HELMAN STREETS). APPLICANT: QUALITY HOUSING ENVIRONMENTS ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 4/a Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Site visits made by all. —Carr had a site visit and noticed several for sale signs. ->Cloer had a site visit and noticed the undeveloped parcel to the west. -->Medinger said there is lots of water coming off this property, almost continually, all year long. The downhill ground water will need to be dealt with. —Thompson was involved with the last few decisions on the property and recollected the struggle the Commission had with the street design. STAFF REPORT The history of this property is included in the Staff report. This is a request for a 27-lot subdivision and the applicant is proposing to gain density bonus through conservation housing and affordable housing to gain the density needed to build 27 units. Staff concerns involve street design and lot layout and the design of the the adjoining properties. Staff does not want cul-de-sacs and inefficient traffic patterns, but want to insure that this design will allow for development of adjacent properties. Staff Map 1 included in the packet might be an ideal situation. This would lay the groundwork for a connected street pattern. Since the time that map was drawn, a buyer has been looking at the Hays property to the west. McLaughlin showed an overhead with another proposed layout that would provide shared open space, still allowing for a street stub to the Reynolds property and ventilation to Heiman Street. This design would also allow for less asphalt too. However, Staff does not believe there is enough information for the Commission to make a final decision and the neighbors should be allowed to comment on the new design. Also, the applicant has not provided sufficient information with regard to conservation housing. Thompson wondered where the pedestrian access routes might be located. McLaughlin explained that if a local improvement district is not formed, Staff has recommended that the developer will be responsible for a half street improvement. Sidewalks have not been indicated on the plan and Staff finds it may be appropriate to put the sidewalk adjacent to curb on the side with parking and a park row established on the side with no parking. The applicant is trying to utilize shared driveways. Private yards are not indicated, but Staff does not see that there will be a problem complying with the 600 square foot minimum private area for each parcel. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 8 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 � 3 Staff believes there needs to be a clear understanding that the Reynolds farm and pond that there is an adjacent farm and it be noted as such in the CC&R's and also, that no complaints will be recognized about standard agricultural practices that take place on the farm. McLaughlin concluded that this application does not yet appear ready for an approval, however, it would be helpful to the applicant if the Commission would give him some direction on what he needs to achieve with this development. Thompson suggested a path through to the corner of Orange and Laurel. PUBLIC HEARING STEVE JANNUSCH, 1657 Old Stage Road, Central Point, speaking on behalf of the applicant, Daryl Bonin, said he was in agreement with what Staff is proposing. They met with the purchaser of the property to the west and they want to work cooperatively on a design. Jannusch would like the design to be compatible with what is happening on the adjacent parcels. The applicant has taken into consideration the Reynolds farm and will try to impact them as little as possible. Jannusch did not believe the density is out of line for this site. The lot sizes are from 5,000 to 7,000 square feet. Each home will meet the Conservation Housing requirements at the time of building permit. The applicant is willing to accept the improvements to Orange Avenue, whether a local improvement district is formed or not. The applicant has tried to use common driveway aprons whenever possible. DARYL BONIN, 359 Kearney Street, explained that the envelopes are a mixture of traditional and zero lot lines to provide a variety and interest. He believes there is enough information to grant an approval this evening. The only real difference in designs is the shifting of one lot. There would be no problem including the language in the CC&R's to address the Reynolds farm. As far as the ground water issue, he has spoken to the engineers and they said it was there and could be dealt with. He believes it occurs because of irrigation. The pedestrian pathway that was suggested is off his property. They plan to use shared aprons, not shared driveways. He wants a clear delineation between the properties. They will be using a lawn substitute in some places. Medinger told Bonin the ground water is not coming strictly from irrigation. Bonin said there will be storm drains. Medinger warned Bonin that there will be a liability to the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 9 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 I downhill neighbors if the subsurface water travels down. Bonin agreed with the sidewalk proposal presented by Staff. Jarvis told the applicant that the density bonus for Conservation Housing asks for specific information and the application needs to be amended to reflect this information to make sure density bonus can be met. Bonin said they have agreed that the houses will comply with energy standards since there might be a different path used for every house. Jarvis wondered if Bonin would have a problem with the Commission attaching a Condition that private yards need to be noted on the site plan. Bonin said he did not have a problem with that. With regard to Conservation Housing density bonus, Jannusch wondered if there needed to be a path given for each house, and Medinger said the information supplied needs to be very specific in order to meet the criteria for approval. McLaughlin told Bonin to identify some measures that are planned to be taken, for example, use the high efficiency furnace in combination with lawn. This requirement is also for the applicant's benefit in knowing compliance will occur. DON KIST, Talent, 260 Joy Drive, supports this project and believes it meets the criteria and he also feels the two parcels work together well. CHRIS HEARN, 505 E. Main Street, was speaking on behalf of Dr. John Reynolds. Dr. Reynolds has grave reservations about co-existing with the proposed development. To mitigate the dichotomy of uses, the inclusion of the restrictions in the CC&R's sound favorable. Also a six foot high solid wood fence would be helpful. Dr. Reynolds would like the Commission to consider a buffer zone of several feet. Dr. Reynolds believes that the two uses may not be able to co-exist and he may need to subdivide. Hearn requested a continuation so Dr. Reynolds can have some input with regard to street design into his property. SARAH REYNOLDS BLEASDELL, 153 Granite Street, opposed the proposal. MIKE REYNOLDS, 505 Helman Street, stated that his main concern is co-existence of agricultural use and new development. His family would like an eight foot fence. They do no want debris in their pasture. They should not suffer because of the development. Street placement is important. They get debris from the Helman School area. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 10 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 MEREDITH REYNOLDS, 420 Reiten Drive, explained that debris is a great concern. She has had a number of friends lose animals from ingesting plastic, etc. Farms are noisy and carry odors. When Iambs are weaned they make a lot of noise, 24 hours a day. She is concerned that neighbor's domestic animals will disturb their animals. A solid wood fence is critical - eight foot - is important. It also seems that covenants have not always worked well in other places. As the City grows and as Orange Avenue grows, it becomes less desirable to carry on a farm on her parent's land. At some point that property will probably be developed. Armitage wondered about the possibility of an eight foot fence. McLaughlin said the ordinance allows for a six foot fence but a variance could be processed with the subdivision asking for an eight foot fence. DALE LYSNE, 536 Parkside Drive, is not opposed to development,.however, wants litter during construction taken care of. The wind will blow any litter to the farm animals. She would like to see something enforced. Contractors should be required to provide dumpsters and emptied at regular intervals. A public walkway was planned at 535 Parkside from the cul-de-sac to Helman Park that has yet to be developed. There is going to be a greater need for that to be completed with 27 homes going in. She would like to require the developer, Bruce Roberts, to get it taken care of. Lysne has agreed and supported Medinger on drainage problems. Carr questioned Staff about the pedestrian path that Lysne referred to and McLaughlin responded that the applicant was required to provide an easement but nothing was spelled out about who is responsible for the path. ROBERT MCCOY, 160 Orange Avenue, prefers Staff Map 1. They have had a neighborhood meeting to discuss neighbors concerns with the developer. McCoy would like to see better use of the land as in Staff Map 1. Instead of single stub bordering Reynolds property, he would like to see a buffer zone provided that has been discussed. He did not know until this meeting that there had been an offer made on Hays property. The neighbors raised $1,000 the night of the neighborhood meeting to make an offer on the property if it hadn't been sold. Raising money shows the concerns of the neighbors. McCoy discussed the centering of Orange Avenue. If they place the street where it is now, it will not impact either side of the street. He is afraid the center of the street will be moved and will ruin some of the work done on the south side of Orange (landscaping, planting, etc.). He believes since the developers will benefit most from paving of the street, they should pay the lions share of paving the street. McCoy would favor a delay to see if the subdividers can work out a common plan. This is an opportunity to make the best use of the property. The ground water is spring water and exists everywhere in that area. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 11 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 McLaughlin indicated Staff would be more than willing to work with the applicants to make the best plan for the area. CAROLINE EADIE, 101 Orange Avenue, has two historic trees (osage orange and maple) she would like saved and is concerned about the development of Orange Avenue. She concurs with an eight foot fence. She believes Reynolds should be allowed to have their farm if that is what they want. Eadie preferred Staff Map 1. She would like Orange paved as a first step in development. KEN LARSON, 176 Orange Avenue, said he pumps water year-round out of his basement with a sump pump. His basement is five feet deep. The proposed development is probably five to ten feet below his. He agreed that the Reynolds need at least an eight foot fence. He was aware of a neighbor of his that complained about noise from the Reynolds farm and he lives.quite a distance from it. Larson agreed that Orange Avenue needs to be taken care of before the construction phase. He also. favors Staff Map 1. He does not like the applicant's pie shaped lots; he prefers the square shape. He favored a half street. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO 11:30 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED,AND APPROVED. McLaughlin read a letter from the Clbvengers into the record. DAVID CHASMAR, 468 N. Laurel, derives enjoyment from the Reynolds farm. He supports Reynolds in his desire to buffer their farm from new development. An eight foot fence is a good start. He would like the same on the Laurel side and buffering as well. If homes are allowed to be built ten to 20 feet from house, he will suffocate. He too has a sump pump in his basement. He would like a requirement that houses built around the periphery of the development be one-story and the taller homes centered toward the middle. He is concerned about construction of debris and management of soil contaminants, pesticides, etc. He would ask to be given notification if they are used, so the neighbors can respond. He does not want to be bathed in street lights. Cloer discussed the conflict between farm and residential. He did not believe a fence would be an adequate buffer. McLaughlin added that it has been rare to have this happen within the City. In the County, a solid wood fence has been acceptable. The buffer would be 200 feet the in County. Cloer wondered if there was anything in the Ordinance regarding impact on adjacent properties that construction has to be the same number of stories as surrounding properties. McLaughlin said there was nothing in the Ordinance. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 12 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 y7 Armitage speculated about trash and litter and McLaughlin said this would be an enforcement issue and the police would handle on a complaint basis. Bringing this issue up to the developer at this point does help. It could not be made a Condition, however, it is clearly a problem with the building process and subcontractors need to be educated and made aware of the problems they can cause in a neighborhood. DARYL BONIN said that he is a builder and in some cities, the building department will not give an inspection if the job site is not clean. He considers the Reynolds farm being an asset. Why would people buying in this development think differently? The farm already has neighbors around ft. He cannot see an eight foot fence stopping the smell of the farm. He would expect the buyers in his development to be considerate neighbors. Again, he said the drainage would be addressed by a civil engineer. These houses will not have basements. Jarvis thought there were a couple of unresolved issues that will constitute a continuance. There needs to be more information with regard to Conservation Housing. Also, during the next month it will provide an opportunity to mitigate some problems with the neighbors. Talk with Dr. Reynolds about the street stub. Also, there might be a plan that could be designed or modified to make a better plan. Jannusch said they were willing to continue. The issues presented to the applicants were: Drainage - how will it tie into the Mountain View drainage system? Fence - buffer between the Reynolds property and the development. Are they agreeable to the covenants? Litter from construction. Paving of Orange - dust control. % Placement of Orange. Pesticides. Setbacks - what will they be? Give the neighbors an indication of what is going to happen. CARR MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO 11:40 P.M. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED THE MOTION CARRIED. Jannusch mentioned that the buffers on Laurel Street will need to be addressed by the developer of the subdivision to the west. The applicant asked for a 30 day extension. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 13 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 �V COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Carr moved to continue this hearing until the August meeting. There will be no limitation on testimony. Cloer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER Oregon Planning Institute Commissioners need their reservations in by the next meeting in order to take advantage of the lower rates. Transportation Issues Carole Wheeldon's letter regarding the problems on Oak Street would be better handled at TPAC. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 14 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 �,l 9 -K,,*)o-FA_ r6 T Quotes taker. f-a-,n. Planning mi—,:t es on those dates . 7113193 Steve jannusch s-oeaI-.I-r; c- Rehal of Bonin saic ann� -- can- "was Wi i ; -,ranae - no tc accen- tne whether an LIEi ::crmea C-- 7%=3i 93 An. --* s--u a citaa f o r s en- a c n o a n-j can Or s= = oa was llpavi-g of 0--ance dus� Con:� ro' " . 81/ 10195 S t a_if rev ocrz sec t i =4 a E a a•7, a before Pn a s e 7 T T atone U,I-a n a street must be i 81- i95 In a rec- qcuz)- - Sort- n spe a ng f— -,-mse� Quality some Env-, ron-en:s wil build a 6 a'- along eastern property � --e Re v n S a m. i COMD' ,�ed be=:)re ar.-,' --ses --e c-cun:. e� - L 'n the same direct q-.=e from Ro=- --n t:,E, m___--`es condition of a-,D::o-.ra- be -to s-- gn -.. _avcr o- a forme6 to pavec- --Iranae . wnicn would no- oe- :ieedea :n I P ease 1 0 e -- 7) - -; - create! fol- ',a� en T. . 0 e n w C- on, rebl`a � -ace was o- an a r 0 e.7. 71 Z a -e MZ --V e may e 0 V 2,3 Bo-in ST— e aj s e. a a n a c c e s:.. .? t _ _ _:0 n,-,1 11:0 i m S -1-rives a'.cross -7 To: ✓Ashland Planning Commission Ashland City Council RE�E1vE © SUN 0 1996 100 Block ORANGE AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT We , the undersigned residents of the 100 Block of Orange Avenue, hereby agree to ask for and be part of a Local Improvement District to be formed for the purpose of paving Orange Avenue in the 100 block. We do, however, ask the City of Ashland City Council to assess the costs of the project in the following manner. Mr. Daryl Bonin, the developer of the 27 unit subdivision at 133 Orange, will be the largest benefactor of this LID project. Without it he would have been unable to subdivide the property. He was required by covenant to either construct a half street on Orange Avenue from Helman to Laurel or participate in a LID. Mr Bonin has apparently chosen the second option. His desires concerning the LID differ substantially from plans we, neighbors residing along Orange Ave, would like to propose. We propose that an Orange Ave LID be created to include: James & Helen Dean, Tracey McCullough, Kindler Stout, Richard Katz, Kathy Stafny, Kenneth and Pamela Wallace, Daryl Bonin, Robert and Marjorie McCoy, Kenneth and Berit Larson, Diane Chung, Jennifer Hall, Fred Cox, Steve and Ellie Read, and Dean Ozimkowski and Nancy Underwood. Residents of the area believe that it is only fair for Mr Bonin to be assessed a share equal to what a half street development would have cost him. This point has been stated in meetings of the Planning Commission throughout the process. We are willing to pay the remainder on the running foot frontage basis usually used in such cases. We are willing to enter a LID proposal with Mr Bonin if he agrees to our proposal and that he post a bond equal to the amount of the half street development as proposed in covenant #7 to guarantee his willingness to accept the terms of the agreement. . If he is unwilling to, we ask that approval of Mr Bonin's requested changes in the covenant #7 for Phase III be denied. Our reasons for requesting an LID based on the proposal above are these: 1. Mr Bonin's proposal shifts the major cost of paving the street to the residents of Orange Ave, though the major users of Orange will be residents of the new sub-division. 2. Those of us who attended initial planning commission meetings recall that there was strong sentiment that the sub- Local Improvement District Page 1 5/ division plan not be approved unless the contractor agreed to half street paving. 3 . Mr Bonin's negligence in meeting several of the conditions of the original covenant do not seem to us to demonstrate neighborliness. We cite the following examples: a. A construction fence bordering Dr. Reynolds property was never installed. b. An open, deep ditch along Orange filled with water presented a substantial hazard to neighborhood children. Mr Bonin was slow to remedy the hazard. c. Construction crews took down a gate at the juncture of Parkside St. and Orange Ave. to access construction sites, in violation of an agreed upon point of access off Mountain View St. If fact, even when the gate was in place large, trucks and in several instances Mr Bonin, himself, choose to drive around the gate from Orange. To this day vehicles drive directly from Orange onto the construction site. d. Dust abatement measures on Orange Ave. were inadequate during the time when heavy equipment was using Orange on a regular basis. e. Movements of huge amounts of topsoil increased dust levels substantially down wind from the project. Vegetation removed with the top soil rotted, creating an unhappy stench for several months. We realize that many of us have signed in agreement to enter a LID for the paving of Orange Avenue. It is because of the special circumstances that we are asking for this condition on this LID action. We, the undersigned, therefore ask that Mr Bonin be instructed to join the neighborhood LID, conform to its plans for street improvement, and post a bond equal to the amount of the half street development as proposed in covenant #7 to guarantee his willingness to accept the terms of the agreement. Respectfully submitted on-11 June 1996_ James Dean Tracey McCullough Kindler Stoht Helen Dean 101 Orange 130 Orange 395 Helman Local Improvement District Page 2 54 Richard Katz Kenneth Wallace Rathy Ska¢ny 125 Orange Pamela Wallace 133 Orange 152 Orange Ro ert A. MCC Kenneth Larson Fred Cox Marjorie McCoy Berit Larson ??? Orange 160 Orange 176 Orange Diane Chung nnif r Hall teve Read 191 Orange 192 Orange Ellie Read 398 Laurel St Deans Zdmkows i� Daryl Bonin Nancy Underwood 133+ Orange 408 Laurel St. Local improvement District Page 3 53 FROM THE DESK OF GEORGE KRAMER 386 NORTH LAUREL ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 May 27, 1996 Barbara Jarvis MAY Chair, Ashland Planning Commission 1 15yb City Hall 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Planning Action 96-080 Dear Ms. Jarvis and Members of the Commission, As a property owner within the area of notification for Daryl Bonin's request for modification of a condition of approval for the Audubon Subdivision, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed changes and to request that the initial terms of approval for this project be upheld. Mr. Bonin has done a fine job in the development of this project. The variety of housing styles and lot placement are far better than I had originally anticipated and the development is one which adds to our neighborhood. He is to be congratulated. Nevertheless, the on-going construction traffic and increased activity have been a large impact, creating dust and other problems for over a year. This has been particularly acute as work on Phase III has begun, the portion of the project nearest to Orange Street. As originally approved, Phase III was not to begin until the street was at least partially paved to avoid exactly these sorts of impacts on the neighborhood. The road was to be blocked off to reduce traffic before paving but this condition as been largely ignored from what I can tell. At the hearings which I intended it was my understanding the development would be required to pay for 50% of the paving of Orange from Laurel to Helman and that is apparently the element of final approval for which he now seeks delay. I see no justifiable reason for this modification. Yes, Phase III has already begun, contrary to the terms of approval, but further delay in paving of Orange will simply compound this apparent error. The Audubon Subdivision has been successful — most of the lots are now sold, including the much of Phase III itself. I see no reason for the neighborhood to be subjected to the impacts of development any longer. The property owners fronting Orange have agreed to form an L.I.D. to contribute the balance required to fully pave the street beyond Mr. Bonin's 50% obligation. I suggest the Planning Commission hold him to the terms of his original approval and that the paving of Orange be completed as soon as possible. Sincerely, I Kr er 5� Voice 541-482-9504 email: gkramerajeffnet.org Fax: 541-482-9438 'Robert A , Mc CO Y - COL . AUS-Retired 160 Orange Ave . Ashland, Oregon 97520 , 503-482-4095 503-482-2202 FAX 503-944-0084 Mobile MAY - g 1996 E-Mail realcoy @aol.com McCoy May 8, 1996 City of Ashland Planning Commission Subject: Daryl Bone Construction. Violation of covenants . It is the opinion of the undersigned that there have been numerous violations of the covenants which were place on the construction project directed by Daryl Bone. 1 . Mr. Bone was supposed to erect a barrier where the Mountain View Road (the main road through the project) enters Orange Ave and that the barrier should remain until Orange Ave was paved. This was to reduce the amount of dust create by construction vehicles entering and leaving the premises . Although the barrier was there for a time, persons enter and left the property by driving around the barrier and now the barrier has been removed and thrown to the side. I hereby request that either Mr Bone construct a new barrier of such type that it can not be easily removed or the City of Ashland construct the barrier and bill Mr Bone. Further Mr Bone should be required to notify all workers on the project of the covenant and prohibit entry by them from Orange Ave. 2 . It was also my understanding that before there could be any improvements on Phase 'III (Lots 19 thru 27 ) that Orange Ave was to be paved. It appears that the planning office has made a different interpretation. Thhave issued building permit on three of the lots in phase III eg I was present when the discussion on this covenant took place and it was intended to be used as an incentive to get Orange Ave. paved. I request that the planning commission re-visit this item and either . 1 . have Mr Bone pave Orange immediately or 2 . issued a cease operations on lots in Phase III or 3 . affirm the Planning department' s interpretation. As I remember the action of the commission it was clearly the intent to forbid and development on Phase III until after Orange was paved. 3 . There was also a covenant concerning the erection of a construc- tion type mesh fence to keep items from the construction project from blowing over onto the neighbor' s property. This covenant is also in violation. It is also clear that there is a weakness in the enforcement of any covenants which might be placed on a construction project. The 5S planning commission may dictate requirements on the project but if there is NO inspection which reports non-compliance until after the neighbors complain then there is a definite weakness somewhere. Sincerely qR rt A. McCoy range Ave Ashland ps : I have given copies of my letter to as many of my neighbors as I could contact, the City of Ashland Planning Office, and Mr Bone (if I can find him) CITY OF ASHLAND •°"°° " Department of Community Development Planning Division a MEMORANDUM REG00" �" ,V"1 DATE: August 20, 1996 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: PA96-080 -- Audubon Subdivision Appeal WHAT'S BEFORE YOU: De novo hearing on a land use request to modify a condition of approval for the subdivision. The condition restricted development in Phase III of the subdivision until Orange Avenue is paved. Applicant's Request: Modify the condition to allow all lots in Phase III not gaining direct access off of Orange Avenue to obtain building permits prior to street improvement. WHAT'S NOT BEFORE YOU: Formation of a Local Improvement District. Formal requests for formation of a local improvement district for Orange Avenue have already been filed by the developer (May 22, 1996) and the neighborhood (June 10, 1996). The Engineering Division has met with the neighborhood on design issues, and is just finishing up the preliminary design and cost estimates. Assignment of costs for Orange Avenue LID. The final decision on the assignment of costs for the improvement of Orange Avenue would be done at a future public hearing specifically dealing with that subject. CONCLUSION: The Council may wish to take one of the following actions: Approve the developer's request. This would allow building permits on all lots in Phase III, with the exception of the two vacant lots accessing directly onto Orange Avenue. • Deny the developer's request. This would restrict any issuance of building permits for the remaining lots in Phase III until Orange Avenue is improved. The developer would retain the option of doing a "half-street" improvement as required by the original approval, which would then allow the city to issue building permits. Follow the Planning Commission's lead and "split the baby". 1. Allow a building permit on Lot 22. 2. Allow building permits on Lots 28 & 23 only after an LID is formed. 3. Allow building permits on Lots 24 & 26 only after Orange Avenue is fully improved. Ken Larson 1 176 Orange Ave . I Ashland , OR 97520 (503) 482-9781 August 16 , 1996 Susan Reid Ashland City Council 171 Granite Ashland , OR 97520 As you know we, the residents of the 100 Block of Orange, have appealed the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the Audubon Subdivision, specifically PA #96-080 . 1 want to quickly present our position in preparation before Tuesday night so that you may do any research or frame any questions you feel are necessary . We feel that at a MINIMUM the original Final Plan approval , PA #94- 022 should stand and BE ENFORCED. Specifically the original planning action Condition 7 states : "That prior to the development of Phase III and the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue, that Orange Avenue be improved . Improvement may be either by a half-street improvement from Laurel to .Helman on the subdivision side of the street , or full improvement via a local improvement district . - [ Underline is mine -- K . L . ] There are several reasons we feel this way , and I will be brief : * The plan as drafted was good . Phase III should be developed via a paved Orange . if Orange is not used for construction , then all or the construction traffic is routed through Phase 11 and Phase I and out via Mountain View through residential neighborhoods with narrow streets and children . If Orange is used for construction but not paved we have a repeat of the dust storm he created in 1994 . * Mr . Bonin (the applicant) clearly stated in the minutes of the August 10 , 1993 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission "QHE [Quality Housing Environments ] agreed that if the LID had not been created for half street improvement [Orange Ave . ] , they would be responsible for cost . " This is important since he will claim the city is dragging their feet . But after reviewing the file , the only written request for an LID I am aware of is OURS . • The members of the Planning Commission did NOT propose the wording of PA 496-080 -- they passed it , but it was worded by McGloughlin . His job is to advise, but it is not worded as it was discussed by the Planning Commission . • There have been numerous planning mistakes and grievous breaches of enforcement . These have been cited many times before the Planning Commission who respond , "We are not in charge of enforcement . " These were outlined by Bob McCoy in his letter to the council (the "Whereas" letter ) and will be reviewed in the testimony . * Lastly and most importantly , he is in violation of a City Ordinance that requires paving to and through a new multi - lot development . I thank you for your kind attention on what to you must be a most tedious issue , but it is of grave importance to us since it is OUR neighborhood . If you would like clarification on any point or just want to know where we are at , please feel free to call me at 482- 978 ? . Thank you . Ken Larson Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council. My name is Robert McCoy and I live at 160 Orange Ave. This entire project has been a series of mistakes and failures which have all worked in favor of Mr. Bonin. Mr Bonin has stated that we want him to be responsible for paving at least 1/2 of Orange Ave. He is correct. In our opinion, Mr Bonin wants out of what is his responsibility for paving part of Orange Ave. City Ordinance 18. 76.050, Para G. Preliminary Approval by the Planning Commission, states that a land partition of three or more lots will require that the developer pave across the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street and all work be done prior to construction. Had that paragraph in the ordinance been enforced we would not be here tonight. However, there is a second paragraph under which the Planning Department allowed Mr Bonin to escape. Instead they placed the lesser requirement that he be responsible for a half street development or enter an Local Improvement District. The planning commission further stated that there was to be absolutely no improvements to the nine lots in Phase Three until this requirement was satified. To us this was the indicator of their intent that Mr Bonin pay his fair share as required by the ordinance. The Planning Commission indicated that only the City Council could decide assessment. We disagree. If it is within the rights of the Commission to impose Ordinance 18.76.050 then it cer- tainly is within their right to impose that Mr. Bonin pay for 2/3 or 1/2 of the costs. Doesn't it seem fair that because of the increased traffic which their subdivision places on Orange Ave. that they should also bear a bigger share of the expense of paving the street. That certainly seemed to be the intent of the Ordinance. When Mr. Bonin went to the Planning dept to gain final approval of Phase Two he combined it with Phase Three. The Planning Office approved both. This was a terrible mistake. When they signed off on this issue this essentially said that Mr. Bonin had complied with all of the requirements imposed by the covenants which he had not. Mr Bonin has stated that he thought someone else would start the LID proposal. You know that this isn't the way it is done. Effected residents usually start LID proposals. The Planning Dept issued three building permits in Phase Three contrary to the covenant they had imposed. Then the neighbors took a complaint to the Planning Department. They send Mr Bonin a letter stating there would be NO more permits issued for Phase III . Mr Bonin appealed to the Planning Commission and won a partial victory. He had sold ten lots to Mr Asher, one of which was in Phase III and the commission felt Mr Asher should not be punished and exempted his lot. Mr Bonin now wants to be allowed to build on all lots except the two actually facing on Orange. He could then argue that his only obligation is for those two lots and at the same assessment level as everyone else. Planning requirements which are not enforced are no requirements at all. Even the Chairwoman of the Planning Commission, Barbara Jarvis, admitted to me in an open Commission meeting that they were dependent on the neighbors bringing violations to their attention and without these complaints then probably there would be little enforcement. There are three possible solutions to this dilemma. One is to enforce the City Ordinance 18. 76.050.and stop all work on all lots in the entire development until the street is paved. Second proposal. Allow more building permits on any of the five lots in Phase Three, this includes Mr Asher's lot, and allow no building on the two empty lots in Phase Two. This will bring the total of lots which are being held to seven. Two of the houses in Phase Three for which permits have been issued have not received a Certificates of Occupancy. Red Tag these houses immediately. This will bring the total to the original nine. This may seem a little harsh but it doesn ' t compare with the manner with which Mr Bonin has treated his neighbors . There is a third solution and it is one that Mr. Bonin can accept tonight. In our LID proposal which we have offered twice to Mr. Bonin and he refused to accept. We proposed that if he paid for one/half of the Orange Ave paving and we paid for the remainder, then the City could issue permits on all lots except the lots fronting on Orange. Currently every effected resident on Orange Ave. except three has agreed to this arrangement. Mr Kindler Stout has been out of town and we were not able to obtain his signature. He is here tonight and can speak for himself. The other two are Mr. Cox who has the other development in the area and Mr. Bonin. With these three signatures there would be 100% participation and there would be no need for a public hearing and engineering work could begin immediately. This would enable him and Mr Asher to continue construction until the street was paved on all but the two lots facing Orange. However we would expect that the City require that he provide a bond guaranteeing that the paving is paid for before he would be allowed to continue or place liens against the two lots fronting on Orange as collateral that the street will be paved and paid for. Mr. Bonin's scheme all along has been to get the requirement down to those two lots and be responsible only for the normal assess- ment on those lots. Our concern is that he be required to comply with the intent of Ordinance 18. 76.050 and the covenants placed on the approval of the application and be required to contribute an appropriate amount to the paving project. Thank you for listening and i will try to answer any questions? OF �H�'"° Am a r a ndum 04F60t� August 20, 1996 a: Honorable Mayor and City Council Aram: Brian Almquist, City Administra o ,�$jUbjit& Supplementto Memo on Fire Fllow` Requirements at Airport Following the preparation of the memomndam last week on the fire flow requirements at Ashland Municipal Airport, the staff has continued to evaluate alternatives to requiring fire sprinklers. The proposed construction of two additional hangars simply points up the need to rectify a long-standing fire risk at the airport that needs immediate attention. The $163,000 airport waterline project in the CIP scheduled for 1999-2000 can realistically be divided into two components. The fast is the 10" loop-feed connection from the water main on E. Main Street to connect to the existing 6" main at the airport. The second is an 8" extension of that loop-feed to serve the 22 acres acquired for f duce indiistrial development The majority of this combiwd project is gmwdrrelated(84%). The balance (16%) is to correct the flow deficiency for the existing buildings. Recommendation: It is recommended that only the 10" connection and loop feed to the existing 6" main be constructed at this time. Estimated cost is$75,300. The source of funds would be $26,000 from water revenues for correcting fire flow deficiencies and $49,300 from SDC revenues. Revenues are available from both sources and will not affect any other construction projects scheduled for 1996-97. Permission is therefore requested to call for bids on the waterline installation this fiscal year. 90 �O 9y .... — ♦ t'�:' p � F 'CONNECT TO EXIST.6'WATERLINE v..e LF .T y B'XB'TEE `4 In � I \\�...e. �\ \\ \ I w \\ I N w]GULVERr B'XB'TEE 'B•XID'REDUCER B•B[B�Nxc . -- u QOLN p,��� OKN MICN 1 .0 VMIFI .. W n 1 . . __ —Y""— ---- rte. --°--- uWi < ��w•�n BORE UNDER RUNWAY O 1 rF f\ �� o � 5 •.. CITY or NsNLNxo weuc vroBBS MET— ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT —NCiL.cncer— UTILITY MAP B'♦5'ELL CREEK CR0551NG ~ REDUCED SCALE PROPOSED WATERLINE EAST MAIN STREET TO AIRPORT os'.. . AlPmnranAnm August 16, 1996 �Q. Honorable Mayor & City Council ram: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrato��^� ,finb Request for Waiver - Airport Private Hangar Request: The successful "winners" of the lottery to secure three available ground leases for hangar construction have requested that the City waive the Uniform Fire Code requirements in the expectation of the future,construction of a loop feed water line to the Airport, now scheduled for 1999-2000. Background: In January of 1995, the Council considered a request from the Airport Commission to waive the requirement to install fire sprinklers as a part of the ground lease provisions for 3 private hangar spaces. These leases were to be offered by lottery to individuals to construct private hangars. Based on a report from the Fire Chief that the Uniform Fire Code requires either the requisite fire flow or, in the alternative, fire sprinklers, the Council voted to concur with the Fire Chief's recommendation. In March of 1995, the Airport Commission again approached the Council with a request to delay the lottery process to explore options to fire sprinklers. The Council granted that request. Subsequently, Airport Commission members met with the Fire Department and reported that they were unable to find an alternative. At the urging of the Airport Commission the final lease agreement does provide that if a waiver is granted the lessee is to pay the sum of $2,000 for future water improvements. The Airport Commission believed that this provision might "encourage" the Fire Department to grant a waiver. However, the current Uniform Fire Code only allows a waiver from the 1500 gpm fire flow requirement if a minimum of 375 gpm is available 4 , and fore sprinklers are provided. There is no discretion for the Chief to grant a waiver beyond these limits. The Code does allow an applicant to appeal to the Ashland Building Appeals Board if he disagrees with the Chief's decision, but the Board is likewise bound by the limitations in the Code. Future Plans for Upgrading the Water System: The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)projects the construction of a new loop-feed water line to the airport in 1999-2000 at a cost of$163,000. The source of funds for this project would be a combination of water distribution SDCs and water revenues. (This date may slip if the Council adopts the SDC Review Committee recommendations to reduce water distribution SDCs.) In addition,there are two projects which precede the Airport water line in priority. They are the re-roofing of the Crowson Reservoir ($200,000) and replacement of the 1916 Ashland Street Water Main ($164,000). In September of 1995, the City made the last payment on the purchase of the T- hangars, which now provides an additional $19,000 in revenue to the Airport Fund. Staff had hoped to use this revenue stream to provide the debt service on an LID to construct the new water line. Unfortunately, the new EPA requirements for the removal of the underground fuel tanks will require an expenditure of$75,000. The 1996-97 budget anticipates an inter-fund loan of$65,000, using this revenue stream to repay the loan over the ensuing 4 year period (by 2001-02). Airport Industrial Park: A second reason for the loop-feed water line is to facilitate the marketing of the 22 acres acquired with FAA funding three years ago. The paved access road to the 22 acre parcel is now complete, but we will be unable to lease any portion of this until water and sewer facilities are available. While the sewer facilities are not an issue for hangar construction, an additional $100,000 to $150,000 will need to be spent to complete either a gravity system or pump system, depending on our success in obtaining the necessary easements for construction. Options for Council Consideration: Based on the clear wording of the Uniform Fire Code, neither the Fire Chief or City Council is in a position to grant a waiver to fire flow requirements beyond substituting fire sprinklers. The options that the Council may want to consider are the following: 1. Suggest that the applicant apply to the State Building Codes Division for an exemption, or an interpretation that the building has been misclassified. 2. Re-prioritize the projects in the CIP to move the airport water line in front of the Crowson Reservoir re-roof and Ashland Street water line. 3. Authorize an interfund loan of $163,000 until 1999-2000, and use water revenues and SDC fees to repay the loan after that time. (Interest would add about $40,000 to project costs.) 4. Require fire sprinklers, but extend the lease period for an additional 5 years in order to allow the lessees to amortize their investment. Attached are copies of reports from the Fire and Planning Departments which provide additional background on this issue. Attachments: (2) CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development s � Planning Division . MEMORANDUM °REGO�,,'' DATE: August 14, 1996 TO: Brian Almquist, City Administrator FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Hydrant/Sprinkler Requirements for Ashland Airport Hangars Issues have been raised by current building permit applicants regarding the necessity of requiring a fire sprinkler system to be installed in new hangars at the Ashland Airport. This requirement comes as an alternative to denying the construction due to inadequate or non-existent fire hydrants at the site. The alternative is allowed by the Uniform Fire Code, which is enforced for new construction under the Uniform Building Code. Both of these codes have been officially adopted by the City. There have been many instances throughout the City, in both commercial and residential applications, where sprinklers have been allowed as an alternative when inadequate fire flows have existed. It should be emphasized that sprinklers are an alternative to requiring the hydrants and water system to be upgraded, or as an alternative to denying a building permit. ` The requirement of adequate water service for fire protection, either through sprinklers or flow at the hydrant is a code requirements and not a discretionary standard of the City. It follows our overall standards for requiring adequate facilities for development, whether those be water, sewer, electricity, or transportation. Many times new development shoulders a heavier burden due to the need to extend services that may be of benefit to later developments. However, these are the standards that are applied equitably to all properties and applicants. While it is understandable of the applicants to request that sprinklers be waived due to future extension of improved water service to the site, I would caution against allowing construction until the improvements are realistically available. Our past interpretations of this have been when a water service project is under construction or within 3-6 months of completion, new construction may be allowed to proceed. I believe this gives the applicants the option of building with sprinklers, or waiting for the services to be constructed. I would strongly recommend that we maintain our current practice of requiring adequate services (in this case, water for fire safety) for all city properties, including the airport. To do otherwise could result in precedent setting action for all developments at worst, or to a lesser degree, an appearance of unequal application of standards for city lands. Our planning and building permit processes are based on the fair treatment of all applicants, and we must ensure that all codes and requirements are enforced equitably. c: Susan Wilson-Broadus, Public Works Director Keith Woodley, Fire Chief Greg Scoles, Assistant City Administrator t ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE MEMO August 13, 1996 TO: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator FROM: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief 4) SUBJECT: Fire Flow Requirements For Ashland Airport The proposed construction of two new aircraft hangars at the Ashland Airport has resulted in a debate over the issue of adequate water to support additional development at the airport. The purpose of this memo is to help clarify the Uniform Fire Code requirements which impact future development at the airport. Attached to this memo are previous documents generated in response to this issue dated December 27 and 29, 1994. Currently, fire protection for airport property is provided from only one fire hydrant, which has a registered flow of 442 gpm. We have been fortunate over the previous years to have not had a significant building fire at the site given the existing fire flow deficiency. The large majority of airport water systems for fire protection that we surveyed previously throughout the state maintained fire flows substantially greater than is currently available at our airport. The Uniform Fire Code, which has been adopted by the City of Ashland as a significant tool in achieving adequate fire protection, requires a minimum of 1,500 gpm to be available prior to the issuance of a commercial building permit. Most commercial buildings would require fire flows in excess of 1,500 gpm, however the code contains a provision for the reduction of the required flow down to 1,500 gpm if buildings are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. This situation provides the City with at least three solid options for resolving the fire protection problem: Option #1 is to cross-connect the airport water system with the fire main on East Main, which should provide approximately 2,000 gpm to the airport. This option will cost the City about 163,000, as indicated in the City Capital Improvement Plan. Option #2 is to fully fire sprinkler all new buildings constructed on the airport property. This option will cost airport developers about $7,000 per aircraft hangar, or an average of $1.00 to $2.00 per square foot of building area. Fire Flow Requirements For Ashland Airport, page 2. option /i3 is to engage in a fire-sprinkler cost-sharing arrangement between the City and future builders at the airport, until such time as the water system is improved. The distribution of costs under this arrangement would be based on the proposed cost of the fire sprinkler system installation and provisions specified in the lease agreement relative to water system improvements. The current aircraft hangar lease agreement refers to the possibility of a "waiver" of the fire sprinkler requirement for new construction. The Uniform Fire Code does not contain provisions for waiving a state law which is legally binding within the City of Ashland. Simply stated, the City is legally obligated to enforce code provisions and does not have authority to waive Uniform Fire Code requirements. The City has the option of repealing the current fire code ordinance, which would allow development to occur at the airport without adequate water or fire sprinkler system installations. I would strongly advise against this action as it would have a wide-spread impact on fire safety efforts at the airport and throughout the city. The water system must be improved at the airport at some point in the future, even if all structures are fire sprinklered. The fire risk to property exists outside of airport buildings also, where the majority of aircraft are tethered. The issue here is not if the water system should be improved, but rather when can water system improvements most easily be financed. The current fire flow requirement within the code for commercial and one/two family dwellings has been evenly applied throughout the city in water system deficient areas, without a detrimental impact on development. In these areas building permits have continued to be issued upon approval of the installation of fire sprinkler systems. In my opinion, this approach has served the best interests of the City, property owners and developers. The Council's strong support of fire flow requirements in the past, has provided the Fire Department with a solid platform from which to insure fire safety in our community. Suspension of that effort would be a major detriment to progress we have made in promoting fire sprinklers within our downtown business district, and throughout the city. December 27, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO Mayor Cathy Golden and City Council FROM Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief SUBJECT Automatic Fire Sprinklers In Airport Hangars In August of 1992, the Council adopted the 1991 edition of the Uniform Fire Code, to improve our ability to provide adequate fire protection for structures constructed within the city. A significant part of this code is Appendix III-A, which provides for adequate water supplies for firefighting purposes. We have had two years of implementation experience with this requirement of the code, and can truthfully state that it has not, in any circumstance, prevented the construction of a building anywhere within the city. The code is flexible, in that it allows up to a 75% reduction of required water flow for fire protection purposes, if the building is equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. This means that building may still continue in certain water deficient areas of the city. We have been applying the sprinkler requirement fairly, and evenly, in numerous situations throughout the city, irrespective of who owned the properties or who was performing the construction. It is vitally important to the integrity of our efforts that our city government follow the same requirements when supervising construction on city-owned property. If we do not, the integrity and effectiveness of the fire department will be severely compromised. A number of years ago I witnessed the loss of an airplane hangar due to fire at the Aurora, Oregon, airport. This complex is very similar to our own small airport in Ashland. The hangar and contents, burned with great intensity due to the fiberglass and resins present in the aircraft in the building. The building was "on the ground" in approximately 15 minutes, and damaged nearby hangars and aircraft due to radiant heat. Given the low fire flows at our airport, we will have difficulty controlling a major hangar fire at the site. We need to fire sprinkler the hangar buildings in accordance with the code requirements. To do less will be a disservice to those other property owners who have met the fire sprinkler requirement, and be viewed as a "do as I say, not as I do" policy on the part of the fire department. December 29, 1994 Memo To: Mayor Cathy Golden and City Council From: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief Subject: Airport Fire Protection Survey' The following airports were surveyed regarding their fire protection features. We believe that they are similar in scale and operation to the Ashland Airport. Oregon Airports: Ashland Airport Water system consists of a 6 inch dead-end main supplying hydrants with recorded flows of 442 gpm. Five hangar complexes on site with additional units planned. Hangars are not sprinklered, but spray painting room is equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. Approximately aircraft are housed in hangars on site. Aurora Airport Water system consists of domestic well. Aircraft hangars are not sprinklered. Airport lies within county area and is serviced by Aurora Fire District. One hangar and 15 aircraft lost in a fire approximately 10 years ago. Fire caused by trouble light left on in aircraft during minor maintenance operation by owner. McMinnville Airport Water system consists of hydrants on 12 inch main with recorded fire flows of 4000 gpm. Hangars are not sprinklered, and house approximately 40 aircraft. Alban Airport Water system consists of hydrants supplied by a looped 12 inch main with recorded flows of 2110 gpm. Hangars are not sprinklered, but office and terminal are. Bend Airport Water supply consists of fire hydrants supplied by a 150, 000 gallon storage reservoir at the site with a 1000 gpm fire pump. Airport has approximately 15 hangars containing a total of 75 aircraft. Hangars are not sprinklered. North Bend Airport Water system consists of hydrants on an 8 inch main with recorded flows of 1500 gpm. Hangars are not sprinklered. Lost one aircraft in fire, but fire department was able to control fire and prevent loss of hangar and surrounding aircraft. Newport Airport Water system consists of hydrants on a 6 inch dead end main with flows recorded at 619 gpm. Six hangars on site without sprinklers. Approximately five years ago fire destroyed the 2, 500 sq ft airport office building. U.S. Coast guard recently constructed a new hangar at the airport with a sprinkler system, and provided a 75,000 gallon water reservoir to supply it. Corvallis Airport Water system consists of hydrants supplied by an 8 inch main with recorded flows of 2400, gpm. Approximately 10 hangar buildings on the airport house around 60 to 75 aircraft. Hangars are not sprinklered. Roseburg Airport Water system consists of hydrants supplied by a 12 inch main with recorded flows in excess of 1500 gpm. Large hangars are sprinklered, but small "T" hangars are not. Klamath Falls Water system consists of hydrants supplied by a large main with recorded flows in excess of 1200 gpm. Only larger hangars are sprinklered. California Airports: Oxnard Airport Fire occurred on October 21, 1994, which destroyed a large unsprinklered hangar. All new hangars are required to be fully sprinklered., Vacaville Water system at Nut Tree Airport consists of hydrants supplied by mains with required flows in excess of 2000 gpm. None of the airport hangars are sprinklered. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO PERMIT SIGNING OF PLATS BY STAFF ADVISOR RATHER THAN PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE LIN€B-THROUGH AND ADDITIONS ARE SHAgEt7. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 18.80.050.E of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 18.80.050.E. Approval. If the City Surveyor and Staff Advisor determine that the final plat is in full conformance with the approved preliminary plat and other regulations, the Ghairman of the Planning Gemmissien shall be so advised. The ................................................ the A€f'#dYtSpt and the City Surveyor may then sign the plat without further action' -by the Planning Commission. If the final plat is not in full conformance or if the City Surveyor elects, the plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. When submitted to the Planning Commission, approval of the final plat shall be by a majority of those present. If the plat is signed without further review by the Planning Commission, the action shall be reported to the Planning Commission by the Chairman of the Commission at the next regular meeting. Provided, however, that prior to certifying its approval on the final plat, the Planning Commission shall require the subdivider to file the agreement and bond or make the deposit required in Sections F and G below. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 1996, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1996. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1996. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 1 - PLAT SIGNING ORDINANCE Ip=ftlesign.o,dl Office of the City Attorney City of Ashland (541) 482-3211, Ext. 59 MEMORANDUM August 8, 1996 TO: The Mayor and Council FROM: Paul Nolte SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to Permit Signing of Plats by Staff Advisor Rather Th an Planning Commission Chair The attached proposed amendment was suggested by Barbara Jarvis, chair of the Planning Commission. There is no legal requirement that the chair of the commission sign a subdivision plat (other than in our own ordinance). Plat signing has been delayed in the past when the chair has been unavailable. Also, the chair signs the plat on the advice from the staff that all requirements have been met. The for of having the chair sign is unnecessary and inefficient. Attachment c: Brian Almquist Greg Scoles Barbara Jarvis John McLaughlin Jim Olson Susan Wilson Broadus Barbara Christensen (s:\cwncigplarsgn.mem) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.27.020.0 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO DELETE THE EXCLUSION OF ROCA CANYON DRAINAGEWAY FROM THE DEFINITION OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES. ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE 64111EB�MRouGH AND ADDITIONS ARE SHAf3Ef). THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 4.27.020.0 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: Storm Drainage Facilities shall mean any structure(s) or configuration of the ground that is used or by its location becomes a place where storm water flows or is accumulated including, but not limited to, pipes, sewers, gutters, manholes, catch basins, ponds, open drainage-ways and their appurtenances. Ashland Creek, Bear Creek, Wrights Creek, Neil Creek, Emigrant Creek, Hamilton Creek, Clay Creek, Tolman Creek, Rees or creeks excluded by action of the Council are not storm drainage facilities. (p:ordWormdrn.ano) CITY OF ASHLAND "'�yq�'-; CITY HAIL i. ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 telephone(code 503)482-3211 August 16, 1996 John Williams Energy Programs Manager DRAFT ACCESS, Inc. Post Office Box 4666 Medford, Oregon 97501 Dear John: The City is very interested in pursuing a joint funding proposal to facilitate the weatherization of electrically heated low-income occupied housing in Ashland. We understand that BPA has set aside $344,000 for use in conjunction with matching utility funding to accomplish low-income weatherization in Oregon. Your proposal of a three-way match of$25,000 each from BPA and ACCESS via DOE- LIEAP funds, and the City of Ashland would produce a $75,000 program which could potentially weatherize a significant number of residences in Ashland. It is our understanding these funds would become available in July of 1997, but you need a commitment of our match now, as these funds will be allocated on a first come first served basis. We hope to be able to use a portion of our next year's commitment of CDBG funds to provide our $25,000 match. It is our understanding that use of these funds have been approved as appropriate by both BPA and the State of Oregon Housing Division which will administer the program in Oregon for BPA. While we cannot formally commit this money until completion of next year's budget process, we will submit a request for these funds and feel fairly confident the request will be approved. Please feel free to give Dick Wanderscheid of my staff a call at (541) 488-5306 if you have questions or need further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Brian L. Almquist City Administrator q0G . 1 �s g Community Action Agency RP.0 3630 Aviation Way • P.O.Box 4666 Medford,OR 97501 August 1, 1996 Dick Wanderscheid City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Dick, As you are aware, BPA has committed a considerable sum of money to enhance low-income weatherization in Oregon. The attached sheet gives a little of the detail on the funds available. At this time, ACCESS does not know how much of the money will come to us. We also provide weatherization services to three other areas served by BPA utilities. As you can see on the sheet there is $344, 808 in matching funds which can be accessed and set aside. These funds are on a first come, first serve basis. If the City of Ashland was able to indicate an intent to commit funds to this match the dollars would then be reserved. ACCESS could also commit to a match of these funds from DOE-LIEAP. So, for example, if the City of Ashland was able to commit $25, 000 to low-income weatherization, we would be able to do $75, 000 in weatherization work. I believe that this is an exciting opportunity for the City of Ashland and ACCESS. I would be willing to get together at your earliest convenience to discuss it further. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, ( , U 1, J hn R. Williams E ergy Programs Manager Office: 779-6691 • Client: 779-9020 • FAX: 779-8886 Aug. 19, 1996 To The Mayor and Council City of Ashland Subject : The Implications of Approval-- Minor Land Partition, Planning Action 96-048 Heard and Approved April 9, 1996. Reference: My letter to the Council of April 12, 1996 The purpose of this letter is to remind the Council of the implications brought about by the approval of this Planning Action. SOME FACTS ABOUT MIDDLE CLAY STREET: 1 . It is that portion of this street which is between Siskiyou Blvd and the railroad-right-a-way. 2. It is not maintained by the City, but by Jackson County_ 3. It is, therefore a split jurisdiction. With some services and fees provided by one government and some by another. 4. The City collects monthly fees for services such as storm drains and street maintenance which it does not provide. 5. Due to the nature of earlier developments into this formerly rural area, there are very deep lots on both Northwest and Southeast sides. Lot depths range from 160 to 300 feet. Some parcels remain vacant, others have been partitioned and developed with flag lots, and still others have single homes. 6. It is flanked on either end by high density, multi-family developments. Some with inadequate off street parking. On-street parking results in a safety-of-the-street factor. 7, It is questionable whether fire fighting equipment accesss is adequate to some deep lot dwellings_ SOME QUESTIONS 1. How thoroughly did the Planning Staff brief the hearings officers on the above facts before the approval decision was taken? 2. Does the Council expect the Planning Staff to adhere to the stated Goals for the Year 1996-7? This question refers to stated goals One and Three which have to do with multi-modal transportation and growth management policies as they affect density. 2 - Implications of Approval, Planning Action 96-048 (cont. ) SOME COMMENTS 1 . Inadequatly developed infrastructure will not support infill or continued density increases. Infill requires the development of all transportation elements. 2. As pointed out to the Planning Commission on August 13th, current city ordinances require paved driveways to the deep lot, flag developments_ This is paving over Ashland with attendant deleterious drainage, erosion, and tributary stream conditions. A serious investigation of pervious paving should be sought as soon as possible with ordinance changes accordingly. 3. Tolman Creek road, to the Southwest has some of the same conditions cited above, and will come at issue if planning changes are not made_ SOME RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To avoid possible future legal action which will cost all taxpayers money, it is recommended that minor land partitions resulting in deep flag lot developments be discontinued until Middle Clay is dedicated, and a plan is in place for upgrading the infrastructure. 2. As indicated in my letter of April 12th, it is recommended that the criteria for approving land partitions be changed to permit neighbors to introduce and discuss neighborhood aspects beyond the plot of land under consideration. Perhaps, this letter and appearance before the Council would not have been necessary if someone in authority in city government had responded to my two earlier communications. Sincerely,& Carl Oates 776 Glendale Ave ccD r�`-' 3 y O O ^. d a '� S �n ?• v �.OQ c v o G y �.a°� s o n n ? n = Mod � Tme p m o Sa a �° i o � moo• SSC=^+ G �' w 'ooy DpQ• p Art �'3iin AQOAA A' p - e 3 � 0o ° ° o' � yona � n ° o'o �°mc � ceoo ? F w w dEc Q `.y° w . o � a• �, m 2 � � a o a? o � olq�t CS - nyvP-' � •vHA F .7ce > y �i " po = aS"ony n a � aoo C _ o d� S G' a .: -� �.; y = 0. c o • m m •� (m„ 0 m y w n � --7 3o4ti £ o _ o _ w w o F o °S wo' 4 m < ? = y O tw�o � mood R on � mo ° ?. o H F p A m m f0 w CL O Oa^ eFe i sp rt s nq u o j �' o a o cc0 " n S n0• a q4 ,^ m 0. O=d• Q A C 3 ^ rt 0. ,? i n ,� m '_^, p _ y A rt 0. • m 2 0 O _ j. O W C n o m m CL a q `^ ao3sie3 � a � g O• O O F m' O l O• ^ C a• n y s a n .'^ n ` y 3 A a a a ° m a �e ti e 3 s m p �+ ft = O a m M — • y CL. } 0. " y a• o n � a z ] o � lam' a m p moo O. O a, p m a 0 E m S 0. w m O m .e O y o n a y o 4`' C n. 4 0 " p ?' d =. ~• c } it p p • Q, �' n V, O C CITY OF ASHLAND I Of f Department of Community Development Planning Division - MEMORANDUM ''=OREGON DATE: August 21, 1996 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Carl Oates letter of 8/19/96 to City Council BACKGROUND Mr. Oates has submitted a letter to both the Council and Planning Commission regarding the approval of a minor land partition on middle Clay Street. This was Planning Action 96-048, a request to divide a parcel into three lots, with a variance to narrow the driveway to save an existing tree. On April 9, 1996, a public hearing was held before the Hearings Board of the Planning Commission. All surrounding properties within 200' of the subject property were properly noticed, including Mr. Oates (copy of the notice map included with this memo). No public testimony was received during the hearing, with the exception of the applicant. From discussions with the Planning Staff, it does not appear as if there were any inquiries regarding the planning action prior to the public hearing, with the exception of a phone call from neighboring property owner Curtis Hayden. I have spoken with both Mr. Hayden and Bill Molnar regarding the conversation, and it appears that it was related to the criteria for approval of a minor land partition. The Hearings Board (members Barbara Jarvis, Jenifer Carr, Ron Bass) received a full written staff report regarding the partition, and conducted a hearing, deliberating towards a decision to approve the application. To my knowledge, no neighbors participated in the hearing, either orally or in writing. MR. OATES ISSUES After the decision was made by the Commission, Mr. Oates submitted a letter to the Ashland Daily Tidings regarding the approval of the action. Further, he appeared before the Planning Commission on August 13 and the City Council on August 20. From his letters the following issues have been raised, and I have responded: 1. How thoroughly did the Planning Staff brief the hearings board on the above facts before the approval decision was taken? The hearings board received a written staff report regarding the request, as well as an oral presentation at the hearing. From the meeting minutes, all members of the hearings board made site visits and were aware of the site, access, and surroundings. If the issues outlined in Mr. Oates letter were to be addressed by the Hearings Board, they would have needed to been raised by someone during the public hearing. The issues (county road, street user fees, historic development pattern) are not normally considered during minor land partition requests and therefore were not raised by the Planning Staff or the Hearings Board. 2. Does the Council expect the Planning Staff to adhere to the stated goals for the year 1996-7? This question refers to stated goals One and Three which have to do with multi- modal transportation and growth management policies as they affect density? While the question is directed to the Council, I believe that the Planning Staff is working towards the goals of the City Council, although perhaps not in the way that Mr. Oates would prefer. The goals of the City Council are not directly applicable to a minor land partition request since they are not independent approval criteria in and of themselves. Rather, we are working at addressing the goals through the adoption of the Transportation Plan as well as future ordinance amendments implementing the goals and policies of the plan. As the Council is aware, individual planning actions must be reviewed in relation to the criteria for approval adopted in the Land Use Ordinance. Especially with minor land partitions, there is little discretion beyond the standard issues of lot size; access requirements, and service availability. The ordinance states that there must be a minimum 20' travel width on the public street accessing the property, and that should the street be less than 10% slope, the street does not have to be paved. For minor land partitions (the creation of three lots or less) there is no bike or pedestrian requirements, other than the requirement to agree to the formation of a future local improvement district. Harmonious relations with the citizenry. Planning Action 96-048 resulted in Saturday visits by Planning Staff and Sunday professional survey parties, intent on meeting a Tuesday night' deadline. A certain amount of neighborhood intimidation was involved. It is possibly the reason no public input was made at the April hearing. I do not know what Mr. Oates is referring to by these statements. The Planning Staff conducted a standard review of this action, including site visits and pre-application conferences. Since there was only one contact with a neighborhood member (Mr. Hayden), it is unclear how any form of "intimidation' could have occurred. Further, this action could have been approved administratively without a public hearing. However, the Planning Staff decided that it would be in the neighborhood's interest to hold a public hearing to ensure an opportunity for input. Every standard opportunity was afforded the neighborhood to participate. Mr. Oates may want to further explain his statements regarding "intimidation". MIDDLE CLAY STREET Middle Clay Street is a county road wholly within the city limits. As a county road, the maintenance responsibilities fall on Jackson County. It has been the City's policy not to accept jurisdiction of county roads until they have been improved to city standards (curb, gutter, and sidewalks). Due to the historic development pattern of middle Clay Street, it has been the policy that this improvement would occur as a local improvement district once approximately 50% of the frontage of the street had signed letters of remonstrance to the formation of a district. It is estimated that approximately 40% of the properties fronting on Clay have signed such agreements. The street, as it currently exists, is a deteriorating chip seal surface without curb, gutter, or sidewalks. Due to the historic development pattern of the neighborhood, new lot creation is through the use of flag partitions. Little development has occurred through the more flexible subdivision process. Where it has occurred, it has resulted in neighborhood opposition due to incompatible densities or design. The neighborhood as been much more willing to accept larger flag partitions as the standard mode of development. CONCLUSION Mr. Oates letter raises the question regarding the minimum access standard for approval of a minor land partition, and to open up the criteria to allow the surrounding property owners to raise other aspects of neighborhood character. Regarding access, the Council may wish to discuss further refinements of our current standards (20' wide travel surface). Past practice by the City has distinguished between the creation of one or two new lots and the creation of a full subdivision in regards the requirements for city facilities. Regarding the modification of the criteria to allow other aspects of the neighborhood to be raised, I would caution the Council regarding this. Oregon law requires that our land use laws be "clear and objective", and this appears to be especially so for minor land partitions. While Mr. Oates concerns are understandable, they may not be able to be fully addressed under Oregon's land use system. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HE, JG on the following A copy of the application, ,cuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at request with respect t0 the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION reasonable cost. if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if HEARINGS BOARD on April 9, 1996 at 1:30 p.m. at the requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department.City Hall. ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, 20 east main street,Ashland.Oregon 97520. Oregon. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant to requests before the either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after HEARINGS maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department,City Hall,at 48& which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of 5305. appeal to LUBA on that criterion. 595°x9?SE �NMr,.,, •.H.,,.„,,r„1. Aa N: 7900 7801 5200 5100 5000 4900 j C314 'nay Q6AC i 0.1°:c o 030AC & 0364 2 p-yh-u 1v-10557) (P-8879) I j '• BLK3 ��°° 1 9a a^ W 5300 5301 Gv95ua- 15 A< 0 2 W eo 2 z ae W -WINE -STREET W ..........� —=7ZO07780- > I Existing Hofcse Q 5400 I 4700 N 03 06iAC IF-4574)W „. Q 7500 "'I 5500 4600 /J, 0334c a Q 025Ac 59Ac v 9 Z W 5600 e 7400 0254 4400 4500 9^ V I it 024Ac 036Ac (P-9405) m` I 7300 5600 --<, ti S 0.28AC o 023ac 24 .e < 7 .YL 9 4300 7200 5900 OSBAC - e ' 026AC �K I I I 0254 1 IECU,efl ia09312� I . 6 4 7100 6000 4200 (P_6021 025Ac 046AC 028AC n (P-8063) '� flE W.t10.4a01i69\ 5 /14 Y PLANNING ACTION 96-048 is a request for a Minor Land Partition to divide a parcel into three lots with the two rear parcels to accessed by a flag drive at 751 Clay Street. A variance is requested to allow for a reduction in driveway width, in order to retain an existing tree. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R- 1-5; Assessor's Map #: 1413C; Tax Lot 4800. APPLICATION: Jonathan Landes TAKELMA v Z/1 RI OR NOVA DIANE ST DIANE- BARBARA