Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-0903 Council Mtg PACKET
1 1 Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and Inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 3, 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 20, 1996. - IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the City of Ashland by the Government Finance Officers Association. V. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Monthly departmental reports for August, 1996. 3. City Administrator's Monthly Report - August, 1996. 4. Request by Senior Program Director for approval to submit a grant application for an addition to the building on Holmes Avenue. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a later meeting.) roving P.A. 94-117, �o5T�aprequest or a Site Review andlOutl a Plan or 7-lottownhouse pro ect on Church Street, west of North Main Street (Norbert Bischoff, applicant). (Continued to September 17 at request of applicant.) 2. Proposed revision of Systems Development Charges. VII. PUBLIC FORUM: (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.) r VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A." Findings, Conclusion and Order for P.A. 96-047 (Evan Archerd). .2 Findings, Conclusion and Order for P.A. 96-080 (Daryl Bonin). IX. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Request of Councilor Reid to discuss the opening and improvement of a pedestrian way between Clay Street and Glendale Avenue as proposed by Carl Oates. n \ 2. Adoption of Herbicide Use Policy. (�1e5&ku- ?Aj ) IX. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: // 1. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to permit signing of plats by staff advisor rather than the Planning Commission Chair." 2 Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance amending Sec. 4.27.020 (0) of the Ashland Municipal Code to delete the exclusion of Roca Canyon Drainageway from the definition of storm drainage facilities." 3. eading b ' e only of "A resolution dedicating property for park purposes pu t to Article XIX, Section 3, of the City Charter (Winburn Way arking Ice Rink)." X. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS l XI. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL August 20, 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, Hagen and Thompson were present, Councilor Wheeldon and Hauck were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of August 6, 1996 and adjourned meeting of August 14, 1996 were approved as presented. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees. 2. Approval of liquor license for Si Casa Flores, 1209 Siskiyou Blvd. Councilors Hagen/Thompson m/s to approve consent agenda. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Carl Oates/776 Glendale Ave/Spoke regarding follow-up on problems he has seen with planning on middle Clay Street. Submitted written information regarding implications brought about by the approval of Planning Action 96-048 which is between Siskiyou Blvd. and the railroad right-of-way. Stated that this area is not maintained by the City, but by Jackson County and is a problem because it is a split jurisdiction. Would like to know how the Planning Staff briefed the hearings officers before the approval decision was done. Submitted his comments to council. Council offered to spend additional time with staff and Mr. Oates discussing this matter at a council study session Wednesday, August 21, 1996 at 4 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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/Appellant) Mayor Golden read the procedure for Land Use appeal process. Council meeting 8-20-96 1 t Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Councilors Reid, Hagen and Thompson reported site visits. Councilor Reid reported knowing individuals living in subdivision, Councilor Thompson reported having sat on past Planning Commissions when development was first outlined. Letter submitted to council by Ken Larson was made available to applicant and entered into the record. Staff Report Planning Director John McLaughlin stated that this subdivision was approved in outline plan by the Planning Commission in August of 1993 and received final plan in February of 1994. The subdivision was approved in three Phases, because Orange Avenue was not improved there was a condition in the approval that said Phase III was not to be developed until Orange Avenue was paved. McLaughlin explained that what happened was when development was done in two Phases in order to get services for the subdivision the developer had to go the full length of the property out to Orange Avenue. The applicant had to extend services from Mountain View Drive to Orange Avenue. At that time the developer found that it was in his interest to build all the infrastructure for the whole subdivision at once. Services were extended and it was understood that Parkside Drive would not be open to vehicle traffic and accessed until Orange Avenue was improved. The conditions still remain concerning the Phase III restrictions. Because Phase II was platted all at once, there was no true separate Phase III done. McLaughlin admitted that the Planning Department made a mistake issuing building permits for Phase III. When the Planning Department became aware of the error, the developer and builders were notified that no further building permits would be issued for Phase III. The developer and builders were instructed that they would need to request modification of the approval would need to be done before permits would be issued. Because the developers were interested in continuing on with development in that Phase, the appeal requesting modification was made. Applicant requested to allow all lots in Phase III, not gaining direct access off of Orange Avenue to obtain building permits prior to street improvement. McLaughlin commented on several issues surrounding this subdivision, including formation of a Local Improvement District and assignment of costs for Orange Avenue LID. Stated that 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 finishing up the preliminary design and cost estimates. The final decision on the assignment of costs for the improvement of Orange Avenue would be done at a future public hearing. Council meeting 8-20-96 2 McLaughlin concluded that council could take one of the following options: 1) approve the developer's request, which would allow building permits on all lots in Phase II, with the exception of the two vacant lots accessing directly onto Orange Avenue; 2) deny request, which 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 "1/2 street" improvement as required by the original approval or 3) follow the Planning Commission's lead by allowing a building permit on lot 22, allow building permits on lots 28 & 23 only after an LID if formed and allowing building permits on lots 24 & 26 only after Orange Avenue is fully improved. Commented that there are a lot of concern over the LID on who will pay what portion, how it would be formed, how it would be assessed. These are not land use issues that can be addressed in the current appeal process. Clarified that the issue before the council, is to look at this condition and determine whether they agree it should be modified or if it should stand as it was originally written. The condition being, that prior to the development of Phase III in the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue, that Orange Avenue would be improved. Improvement being either 1/2 street improvement or full improvement by a local improvement district. McLaughlin clarified for council that it is not necessary to plat land before a city road is built. Discussion by council and city attorney regarding risk to the city if building permits are revoked and building is stopped. Originally Phase III was to be held off until Orange Street was paved. There was question as to why it has taken two years for the city to form an LID. McLaughlin explained that there had been no formal request for an LID until this year, there had been informal discussion with Public Works Engineering. Discussion by council as to how the neighborhood is suppose to know if the 50% level for local improvement districts had been reached. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 8:05 p.m. Carlyle Stout/1080 Otis/Attorney spoke on behalf of applicant. Gave history of process for development which was followed by applicant with the city. Applicant believed that the process for forming a Local Improvement District was completed and that is why he continued to build and sell property. Stated that the staff report indicated that the applicant was not responsible for the problem surrounding the forming of the LID. Proposal is to allow building permits for the last three lots to ensure completing the development. Does not believe the applicant should be punished by holding up the construction on these lots when he had acted in good faith with the city. Council meeting 8-20-96 3 v Stated that the barrier had been moved at times, but dealt with this problem when as it happened. Felt that the true objective is that the applicant pay in full for the paving of Orange Avenue. Requests that council follow original suggestion by staff and overturn modification made by Planning Commission. It was clarified that the applicant was aware that a condition of this subdivision was to have an Local Improvement District formed and that Orange Avenue be paved before the beginning of Phase M. Daryl Bonin/359 Kearney St/Stated that there was no opposition from any city department that said they could not develop this subdivision in three phases. If he had known originally he would not have included them. He was under the impression that the Local Improvement District was being created in the process. IN FAVOR: Steve Asher/1060 Elkader/Purchased lots from applicant in subdivision. Feels there is a completed subdivision with the exception of the three lots. Property owners are concerned about the open lots that are still under construction. Would like to see building continued on the inside perimeter lots. John Schleining/1293 Park St/Reported that he had gone to the Planning Department and had lien searches done on the property. He believed everything had been completed through the process. Reported that he has lost customers over this issue. OPPOSITION: Robert McCoy/160 Orange/Submitted in writing his position in regards to this subdivision. Does agree that the property owners believe the applicant should pay for 1/2 of the paving of Orange Avenue. Believes that this appeal would not be happening if the ordinance dealing with a land partition of three or more lots that required the developer to pave across the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street and all work done prior to construction. Believes that the Planning department should not have approved Phase Two along with Phase Three,because the applicant had not complied with the requirements. Suggested three possible solutions, 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, two is allowing more building permits on any of the five lots in Phase Three and allow no building on the two empty lots in Phase Two, and three is for the applicant to pay 1/2 of the Orange Ave paving and the remaining property owners to pay for the remainder of the cost. The city could issue permits on all lots except the lots fronting on Orange. The property owners would request that the applicant be required to provide a bond guaranteeing that the paving is paid for Council meeting 8-20-96 4 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. Ken Larson/176 Orange/Feels that the city ordinance should be enforced that Orange Street be paved and improved. Complained that the construction workers have repeatedly driven across the dirt fields and through the barrier. Finds it hard to believe that the LID is an oversight. Pointed out statements made by applicant which made him willing to accept the improvements to Orange Avenue whether an LID was formed or not. Jim Dean/395 Helman/Spoke in regards to compliance and how LID's are formed. Requested future clarification on this matter. Spoke at the issue of enforcing covenants and compliance. John Reynolds/505 Hehnan/Complained of unfriendliness by applicant, debris left by construction workers and dust. Kindler Stout/130 Orange/Would agree to sign onto an LID. Staff Response Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified that Lot 22 was left off intentionally and Phase One was released from obligation of a Local Improvement District. Hagen stated that he felt the Planning Commission made a mistake when they agreed to either a 1/2 street improvement on the full length from Laurel Street to Helman Street or waiting until the local improvement district happened. He felt that a developer would not spend the money to pave 1/2 of a street when a local improvement district could be formed by a complete neighborhood sharing the cost of the improvement. Discussion by council trying to determine when original LID began formation. Reid recalled that at the time of the minor land partition, it was determined that there would be more activity in this area and they would want to include this area in an LID in the future. McLaughlin clarified that only Phase One has been released from obligation to the local improvement district. Nolte explained that the Planning Commission imposed a condition that the covenants be changed to reflect how the assessment would be imposed when Phase H and Phase III were developed. The developer complied with those conditions by recording covenants that say only the lots fronting on Orange Avenue will be assessed in the local improvement district. Technically, this complied with the Planning Commission condition, this does not mean that the Council is bound to this, which is a legislation decision. Council meeting 8-20-96 5 REBUTTAL Bonin stated that what was originally approved by the Planning Commission is, that the Orange Avenue assessment would only be applied to three lots. When he agreed to participate in the LID, it was based on the entire 5 acres which was one lot (Tax Lot 600) at that time. His agreement to participate was attached to only one lot. When Phase I was separated off from Tax Lot 600 and made into nine lots it was mistakenly cast onto all of the lots in the subdivision. Clarified that the time limit imposed had nothing to do with construction, only on infrastructure. Applicant stated that he was not trying to get out of commitment to an Local Improvement District. He also does not believe there has been a debris problem. Bonin believed that both the Planning Commission and City Council stated that it only be the three lots off of Orange Avenue involved in the local improvement district. The initial approval included in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions was to address the local improvement district issue of Orange Avenue. In the CC&R when the properties were being sold, the potential owners knew if they were buying a lot which would be part of an LID. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:45 p.m. Councilor Laws stated that if you read item number 12 in the conditions by the Planning Commission, it states that prior to the development of Phase III and the connection of Parkside Drive to Orange Avenue that Orange Avenue be improved. He believes that there was a mistake by both the Planning Commission and Planning Department the city owed the property owners of Orange Avenue an apology. Stated that there is an obligation to the neighbors and the developer to try and straighten out the situation in a way that retains as much as possible the original intent. Believes that the Planning Commission has done the best they could do and that council should support the commissions decision. Councilor Thompson commented that there does not seem to be any benefit in holding up lots under construction. Councilors Laws/Hagen m/s to deny appeal of P.A. No. 96-080. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid and Hagen, YES; Thompson, NO. Motion passed 3-1. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Oral report by Counselor Hagen on progress toward site selection for Community Resource Center for Community Works. Reported on progress in selecting a site for Youthworks. Working on process of city purchasing additional storage space which made available space for the site. Proposed building is approximately 7300 sq.ft. Location of site has many amenities. Council meeting 8-20-96 6 City Attorney Nolte reported to council the status of contracting for lease with Community Works and stated that the council could approve in concept with the understanding it would need to come back to council for final approval. Councilors Thompson/Hagen m/s to approve in concept. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Discussion on request for waiver of fire flow requirements for private hangars at Ashland Airport. City Administrator Brian Almquist presented request by lessees of hangar spaces that the City waive the Uniform Fire Code requirements in the exception of the future construction of a loop feed water line to the Airport, scheduled for 1999-2000. He reported that staff staff pointed out the need to rectify a long-standing fire risk at the airport that needs immediate attention. It is recommended that only the 10" connection and loop feed to the existing 6" main be constructed at this time. Estimated cost is $75,000, of which 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. Staff requested permission to call for bids on the waterline installation this fiscal year. Councilors Laws/Hagen m/s to approve permission to call for bids. Voice vote: all . AYES. Motion passed. 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). Councilors Reid/Laws m/s to approve Ordinance #2786. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid, YES; Hagen, Thompson, NO; Mayor Golden, YES. Motion passed. 3-2. 2. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance to permit signing of plats by staff advisor rather than Planning Commission Chair". City Administrator Brian Almquist read ordinance for first reading. Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call vote: Reid, Hagen, Thompson and Laws, YES. Motion passed. 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". City Administrator Brian Almquist read ordinance for first reading. Council meeting 8-20-96 7 Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve rust reading. Councilor Reid withdrew second to motion. Discussion: Council questioned whether property owners should have been notified by mail and whether these property owners would now be getting a bill that they had not received in the past. City Attorney Nolte explained that when this ordinance was first adopted alternatives were made so that if storm drains were going into natural systems then the storm drain fee would not be imposed on a property owner that did not drain into a improved facility. Significant parts of Roca Canyon are im veloped by the City for storm drain and the city is about to spend approximate) $25,000.00 to ove Roca Con. . aSD , om Almquist clarified that the property owners have been previously billed the storm user fee. But, have not been notified of this ordinance amendment. Nolte explained that this ordinance amendment would not affect these owners because the interpretation of the ordinance has been lower drainage that was brought to the council attention and not part of this exemption. Laws questioned whether the property owner addresses could be accessed and notification sent out. Councilors Hagen/Thompson m/s to approve rust reading and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call vote: Hagen and Thompson, YES; Reid and Laws, NO; Mayor Golden, YES. Motion passed. 3-2. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS City Administrator Brian Almquist reported that the city had received a letter from Access indicating that there is some additional BPA money available for low-income weatherization. Council consensus to approve sending out a letter requesting for $25,000.00 which would be matched with $25,000.00 of Access money and $25,000.00 from CDG money next year to .make a $75,000.00 program in next years budget, this would be subject to budget approval. Almquist explained that this money would not be available until after July 1, 1997. Councilors Thompson/Laws m/s to place on agenda discussion by Cate Hartzel involving the System Development Charges. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Cate Hartzetl/Would like to have public meetings open for comment in regards to System Development Charges, Capitol Improvement Plans and Local Improvement Plans. Feels this would help to deal with key issues. Councilor Laws stated that there have been public meetings on these issues and that maybe there needs to be a different type of meeting. A suggested type of meeting would allow alternative means of participating in an informal seating. Council meeting 8-20-96 8 Council discussion on phone calls Councilor Hagen received from citizens; 1) Whether the city should hire a professional unbiased individual to look at Hillside Development Standards in a comprehensive way; 2) Possible study on for expansion and estimate of cost; and 3) Concern of citizen on the potential removal of rivate property from the tax rolls for the new Fire Department. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Barbara Christensen, Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Council meeting 8-20-96 9 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 9, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice Chair Steve Armitage. Other Commissioners present were Carr, Giordano, Bass, Hearn, Gardiner, Armitage, Howe, and Finkle. Jarvis arrived at the meeting prior to the planning action review. Staff present were Molnar, Knox, Madding and Yates. MINUTES AND FINDINGS Carr moved to approve the Minutes and Findings from the June 11, 1996 meeting. Howe seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. PUBLIC FORUM ROBERT MCCOY, 160 Orange Avenue, talked about time limit rules. He was given the impression at the hearing last month that there was a time limit of 15 minutes for the opposition with a limit of three speakers only. Because of that he changed and limited his presentation. How can the opposition rebut if they are hearing facts that are not true during the applicant rebuttal? McCoy submitted his rewritten version of the hearing rules. Armitage suggested the Commission review McCoy's comments at a study session. He apologized to McCoy if there was any confusion. McCoy realizes that the Planning Commission is not the enforcement body, but he wanted them to be aware of what was happening on Orange and sent them a copy of a letter he sent to the Council. The letter he sent was a request to shut down Bonin's operation. TYPE II PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 96-063 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW FOR THE RENOVATION AND MULTI-STORY EXPANSION (FIRST FLOOR WITH MEZZANINE, SECOND AND THIRD STORY) OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 62-66 E. MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: ALLAN SANDLER & ED BEMIS Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts Site visits were made by all. STAFF REPORT The property lies between the Shakespeare offices (listed on National Register) and on the other side Macaroni's and Martino's. The proposal is for an extensive renovation of the lower floor incorporating a mezzanine and the addition onto the existing Mail Tribune building. The lower floor will be occupied by Playbill along with a retail space. The storefront design along East Main will be renovated with a central main entrance door with stairs to the upper floors. There will be three entrances at the East Main store front elevation. The second floor involves two retail spaces along with a handicap accessible apartment. There will be an entrance from the Shakespeare brick courtyard almost level with the courtyard. The primary entrance to that floor will be there. Above the second floor will be a third story housing two small apartments. Those units will be oriented around a central internal courtyard. The proposed building material will be a smooth red brick, similar to the more recent Tudor Guild store. There will be a granite facing along the first floor on East Main. This will depend on availability of the granite. Staff has recommended approval of this application. The proposal has gone through an evolution since it was first reviewed. The applicant has been willing to go through some design renditions and has listened to the Historic Commission. It is not often there is a project of this magnitude in the downtown and the Commission should give it a thorough examination. Staff did not feel the proposed height varied significantly from the other buildings in that block. The Historic Commission felt the height was appropriate. Six conditions are attached. With regard to Condition 5, the brick courtyard with the phone booths is public property. It appears that in order to have an entryway to the rear second floor, the applicant will have to remove a small portion of the landscaping near the phone booth. Staff thought it would be advisable for the City Administrator to give his approval for any modifications of the public property. The applicant expressed some concern that the City Administrator.would have a final say and wanted to make sure he would have the opportunity to go before the City Council if he felt it was warranted. There are two or three birch trees at the rear that may need to be removed. The applicant has not made it clear what will happen to the trees, but Staff would like them to retain as many as possible. Carr asked for a definition of "substantial conformance" as used in Condition 2. Molnar explained that Staff is pleased with the detailed architectural features the applicant has specified at this time. But since it is a planned view, it is difficult to get a feel for the depth and dimension these materials will be creating. Staff wanted to make sure that going from site review to building permit that the level of detail would not be lost. An additional side elevation may be needed to verify there would be a depth change. Hearn asked about the tree that appeared to be on Martino's property. Molnar thought it was an elm in the landscaped area next to Martino's and would not be disturbed as part of this project. Finkle wondered why the City Administrator would make a decision regarding modifications to public property (Condition 5). Molnar responded that Staff felt the highest ranking City official should approve such modifications. PUBLIC HEARING ALLAN SANDLER, 1260 Prospect, is one of the owners. It is his desire that there not be any misunderstandings on this project and that they plan to conform with their submitted plans. With regard to plantings, they will keep as many trees as possible. He is hopeful there will be an additional planting area. If they decide to use brick on the building instead of granite, they will resubmit details to the Planning Department for approval. Sandler needed clarification of Conditions 4, 5, and 6. They want to verify that they will not be required to conform to any new sign codes. Also, they do not want to have special Fire Department requirements for this building as opposed to other buildings in the downtown. And, when the City Administrator reviews the modifications of the public property, that it is reviewed in the same way other ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 9, 1996 I f applications are dealt with. Sandler wants to be able to have some recourse if a decision is made that is not agreeable to them. Giordano said the Fire Department does have a certain amount of discretion in interpreting their codes. Sandler understands as long as it is what they are asking of everyone else. Gardiner asked Sandler about the elm tree on Martino's property. Sandler said the tree is weak and they may have to replace it but they have no intention of simply removing it. ED BEMIS, PO Box 1018, Ashland, explained the mezzanine would be coming off the entrance wall and follow the outline of the bar, overlooking the dance floor. Molnar clarified that if the Fire Department make any changes to their code then it would apply to Sandler's project at the time of building permit issuance. With regard to sign permits, whenever there is a multi-tenant building, the tenants need to be aware that a separate sign permit will be issued for each tenant. Molnar recommended a Condition 7: That changes in materials to the first floor be reviewed by the Historic Commission and approved by the Staff Advisor. COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTION Jarvis suggested changing Condition 6 to: That sign permits be approved prior to the installation of any signs. Carr moved to approve PA96-063 with the attached Conditions along with the revised Condition 5 and with the added Condition 7. Howe seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. OTHER Liaison Member Reports Finkle reported that after three years of his involvement in TPAC, they are wrapping up completion of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. At the last meeting, there were a few minor changes that needed to be made to the plan and then it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the next couple of months. It has been exciting for various people to come together and look at how the community can grow without getting overwhelmed by cars. The plan encourages people to use alternate modes of transportation. Miscellaneous Armitage asked at the next meeting that a corrected meeting process and order of business statement be made available to the public in the rear of the room. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JULY 9, 1996 J ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JULY 9, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Peter Finkle. The other Commissioner present was Anna Howe. Staff present were Molnar, Knox, and Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The June 11, 1996 Minutes will be reviewed at this evening's meeting TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 96-081 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT LOCATED AT 1609 PEACHEY ROAD. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS TO BE THE ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE TO BE THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. APPLICANT: KATHY COX This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-083 REQUEST FOR A MINOR LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 390 ASHLAND STREET. ACCESS TO BOTH LOTS WILL BE FROM HERBERT AND JENNIFER STREETS. APPLICANT: RICHARD COTTLE This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-084 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL MINI-STORAGE BUILDINGS (2,600 SQ. FT. AND 3250 SQ. FT.) AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2855 ASHLAND STREET. APPLICANT: DONALD WALKER - SECURE STORAGE This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-085 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 702 PRACHT STREET INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. APPLICANT: DAVID & CATHY KATZ This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-086 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW TO MODIFY THE BUILDING DESIGN OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HEALTH SPA LOCATED AT 685 A STREET. MODIFICATION TO INVOLVE THE ELIMINATION OF THE MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM AND REPLACING IT WITH A PRIVATE (MEMBERS ONLY) OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL. APPLICANT: PATRICIA MURPHY This action was called up for a public hearing. PLANNING ACTION 96-087 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BILINGUAL MONTESSORI SCHOOL AND KINDERGARTEN LOCATED AT 144 GARFIELD. APPLICANT: MARIA E. DELEON, CHILDREN'S WORLD MONTESSORI SCHOOL This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-088 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 16-LOT MULTI-FAMILY. SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 955 B STREET. APPLICANT: FRED COX This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 96-089 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE TRAVELLER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 639 N. MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: NANCY TUGGLE This action was approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD JULY 9, 1996 MINUTES ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 31, 1996 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jack Ware called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. Members present were: Medinger Sea, Mahanay, Hill, Hauck, Vaughn and Kenefick. Absent member was Tiffany. Staff present were Madding, McLaughlin and Yates. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Minutes of the June 26, 1996 meeting were approved: SUBCOMMITTEES The subcommittees were rearranged slightly as follows: Education Glenn Tiffany (contact person) Jack Ware Gathering Data Jan Vaughn (contact person) Steve Hauck Beverly Kenefick Larry Medinger Funding Gerry Sea (contact person) Madeline Hill Erin Mahanay Medinger discussed the possibility of inventing another subcommittee, the Implementation Committee. He would like to think of other ways to encourage affordable housing in Ashland at relatively no cost. This would be a continuation of the process from six years ago. Ware thought the purpose of the education committee will be to explore affordable housing for low income housing by talking to banks, builders, etc. Medinger decided to be a part of the education subcommittee. Ware presented a challenge: Can we build a house in Ashland for$100,000? Why can they do it in Talent, Phoenix, and Medford? Several ideas were bandied about such as cost of construction, choice of contractor, modular housing, perceptions of cost of building in Ashland. Interview contractors that do not build in Ashland to find out what prevents them from coming here., Is there a lack of money resources? Is the time right for an energetic non-profit that specifically does housing? How do we go about getting people into existing homes and rentals? Other ideas included forming our own CDC or raising the HUD limit. Vaughn said she would call and find out what avenue to pursue to raise the HUD limit for modest housing in Jackson County. Ware thought for the next meeting (August 28th) each subcommittee could have a work plan. Hauck hoped that each subcommittee could get together before the next meeting. Vaughn reported that she took a whole group to Redding, CA to find out what was happening there with affordable housing. Nothing is happening and they don't want anything to happen. Madding asked that the three contact persons let her know when each committee is meeting so she can also attend. Ware will contact Tiffany. OTHER Sea mentioned the joint study session with the Council and Housing Commission regarding annexations. Kenefick felt the Council could have at least acknowledged the Housing Commission was in attendance. Madding noted that Sea and Hill expressed the same feelings. Madding apologized for not conveying to the Housing Commission how the meeting would be conducted. Hauck said the meeting was not scheduled as a joint meeting but as a Council work session. Kenefick said that was not important. The Council could have taken five minutes to say thank you for being there'. Hill said the Council was struggling mildly with the housing issues and the Council could possibly have benefitted from the Housing Commission's input. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES JULY 31, 1996 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes August 7, 1996 ORIENTATION Members Terry Skibby, Joyce Cowan, Vava Bailey, Larry Cardinale, Keith Chambers, and Curt Anderson, with Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman, gathered at the Community Center at 4:00 p.m. From here, the group toured portions of the Historic District, focusing on new structures which are in the process of being built and some which have been finished within the past few years. At 5:30 p.m., Cliff Llewellyn joined the group at Bailey's house. Knox briefly discussed the history of land use planning, emphasizing historic resources and the role of the Historic Commission. He then examined the process applications go through, beginning with the pre-application conference. He also reviewed the types of planning actions requiring Historic Commission review and stressed the importance of reaching a decision based on criteria. Historic Preservation Consultant George Kramer then spoke to the Commission about recent legislative actions, including the ramifications of Senate Bill 588 and how it affects Statewide Planning Goal 5. He also discussed design review and showed slides of commercial and residential buildings, mostly in the. Rogue Valley. Knox asked the Commission to think about goals it would like to accomplish within the next year. Among the goals which will be considered are: 1) fund raising for purchase of the 1913 City of Ashland fire truck, 2) Railroad District nomination to the National Register, 3) completion of the cemetery nomination to the National Register (Ashland Cemetery and Mountain View Cemetery have already been placed on the National Register), 4) Council adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, 5) Council adoption of the Street Name List, and 6) attainment of Certified Local Government status. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Terry Skibby at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Terry Skibby, Vava Bailey, Joyce Cowan, Keith Chambers, Curt Anderson, Cliff Llewellyn and Larry Cardinale. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Members Bill Harriff and Jim Lewis were absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Skibby clarified Lewis was contacted by the City regarding the Golden Spike Marker, not himself. Cowan then moved and Cardinale seconded to approve the July 3, 1996 Minutes as corrected. The motion was unanimously passed. STAFF REPORTS Planning Action 96-097 Conditional Use Permit 467 Scenic Drive Cynthia Wright and Pete Jaeger Knox explained the applicants are requesting approval to operate a two-unit travellers' accommodation as it had previously been used in the early 1980s.. Since around 1984, it has been a single family residence. The new owners are proposing the same number of units as originally approved and will not be changing the exterior. He noted that although four off-street parking spaces are required, one of the spaces will be.on Scenic Drive, utilizing an on-street credit. This will enable the owners to save a large portion of a nine foot laurel hedge. The hedge, along with a wooden fence will screen the off-street parking on the lot. Staff is recommending approval. Cardinale moved and Llewellyn seconded to recommend approval of this planning action. The motion was unanimously passed. Planning Action 96-098 Site Review 190 Oak Street Doyle Brightenburg This application is for the construction of a two-story, mixed-use building related Knox. There will be 1784 square feet of commercial space on the first floor, and two 500 square foot apartments on the upper floor. Staff is recommending approval with seven conditions. The only concern noted by Knox was that the steps should go directly into the porch area on the Oak Street side of the building rather than off to the side. Designer Doyle Brightenburg stated his clients have owned the property for many years. The lot originally had a fairly large house on it, but it burned quite a few years ago. The owners want to keep a residential character in the design and provide two living units. Economic viability dictated the square footage. When Knox questioned Brightenburg about recessing two steps in order for the steps to directly access the porch, he said the steps would encroach into the handicapped ramp access. Brightenburg clarified the access to both the Oak Street side and 'B" Street side would have wood handrails. He said he was looking for the most straight forward way of doing the porch. Brightenburg agreed to examine this again, however, when Knox said he would like to see a design with the steps leading directly into the porch. Brightenburg then said he had designed the upper story to meet the same setback as the second story on the Ashland Sanitary building and the Northwest Nature Shop. The setbacks are also sensitive to the Old Ashland Armory across the street. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 7, 1996 Tage 2 Skibby commented it is a nice design, but he too would like to see the steps in front go directly to the porch, as it would add more of a sense of entry. Cardinale also agreed and added the sense of entry is lost with the stairs on the west elevation. Skibby also noted the design is similar to existing houses in the area. He likes the mixed use also. Anderson asked how it was determined the primary entrance would be on Oak Street. To him, it looks as though the entry on "B" Street could be the primary one rather than the Oak Street entry. Knox stated on corner lots, property owners try to get the best benefit and can usually orient the structure accordingly. Cardinale questioned the entries off Oak Street for the commercial area. Brightenburg said if there is only one renter, there will only be one door. However, if there ends up to be two renters, two doors will be installed. Chambers said he agrees with the residential look and mixed use. However, he wondered if it will be too "crowded" looking with the narrow setbacks. Brightenburg said he pictured the building as walking down Oak Street toward the Armory and sees it as a transition. The second story is set back the same distance as Ashland Sanitary. Only the commercial area is set forward. Skibby asked what would be lost if the building were to be moved back. Brightenburg said parking would be lost. Knox clarified the units don't require parking because it is a mixed use, but if the building were to be moved back, the site would have only three parking spaces. Too much would be lost. Anderson asked if it would be possible to construct the Oak Street entry the way Knox had suggested so it would be more traditional. He would also rather see the steps lead directly to the porch rather than to the side. Brightenburg said he will check again to see if it would be possible. Anderson moved to recommend approval of this planning action with the condition the applicant explore the possibility of locating the steps so they access the porch directly on Oak Street. Bailey seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. Planning Action 96-086 Site Review 685 "A" Street Patricia Murphy Knox explained the owner is asking to modify the building design of the previously approved spa by eliminating the multi-purpose room and replacing it with a private outdoor swimming pool. The building design will mostly be the same. The only change will be the pool area, in which case the roof will be removed. Overall, Staff-does not see this as a major change, but there will be a loss of significant roof lines. Ornate iron grills will be placed in the six openings on the building wall facing the park. The changes may seem minor, but Staff is seeking advice from the Historic Commission. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 7, 1996 ` "' 7 Owner Patricia Murphy, 159 Laurel Street, explained the changes from the original approval. The footprint will remain basically the same. There will be hipped roof over a small addition for two interior dressing rooms on the front. The pool area will be open on top with a 12 foot wall on the exterior. There will also be a pump room constructed in the rear. She emphasized the need to have some way to keep the building secure so people won't get - in and use the pool at night. She also said she feels the view from the park is an improvement. Architect Joyce Ward, 549 Auburn Street, said she was new to the project so she feels she came in with a fresh approach. She presented elevations of the proposed building with the changes (including two other alternate designs). She related she has kept with a typical Craftsman look while maintaining the same rhythm and size of the openings. The building will not look like walls without a roof, but rather a walled garden, as there will be ample landscaping. The first alternative design employes the use of columns, the second adds a trellis atop the columns at the entrance to the parking lot and to the front courtyard. Ward said the column theme is already existing in the building design. Philip Lang, 758 "B" Street, stated this development is an example of everything that's wrong with planning in Ashland. Nevertheless, it was approved by the Historic Commission and Planning Commission, then appealed to the City Council, whereby some conditions were changed. At the time of the first application, a community meeting room which would be available to the public was proposed. He then quoted from the December 6, 1995 Historic Commission minutes and the December 12, 1995 Planning Commission minutes emphasizing the remarks regarding the community room. Now, Lang said, the developer wants to do all these changes and the community room will become a member only lap pool. The Staff Report states there will be less traffic, but Lang pointed out in his opinion, this is based on . greed. He also stated he and his neighbors fought for the Railroad Park and now they will be looking up to a 12 foot wall. He wanted the Commission to deny the change or build it as it was originally approved. Lang also noted he had talked with someone from the State of Oregon who told him the median income for Ashland is $23,579. Ward acknowledged Lang brought up valid points, but stated issues such as those need to be discussed in committee and it won't serve to deny this application. She maintained the building will not be difficult to look at from the park because of the landscaping, vines on the wall, and openings on the wall. Murphy said Lang used strong language and denied she was being dishonest or trying to con anyone. At first, she wanted the multi-purpose room, but due to Health Department regulations and other things that have happened, it just won't be feasible anymore. Skibby recognized the fact the Review Board has seen all the design variations and he has been following the changes. He related he was most comfortable with the first alternative design using the columns. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 7, 1996 Page 4 Cardinale remarked more landscaping will soften the column lines. Ward said there will be a lot of landscaping, as the columns will be standing out eight to ten feet, making them a little whimsical. Chambers said he likes the free standing whimsical look, and because he had to leave, wanted the Commission to know he was in favor of this alternative. (He left at 10:00.) Anderson remarked the trellis design is for holding plants, while the free standing columns don't serve a function. Bailey stated the owner could put in the columns, then add the trellis later if she doesn't like them. The gate to the courtyard was then discussed. Murphy said she will leave it open during the day and close it at night. It won't be a barricade people can't get through, but she said she hopes that by closing the gate, it will help deter people from entering the area. Anderson moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition the column design be built. He also made note the trellis cap be an option to add to the columns if needed in the future. The Commission also asked the owner and architect to explore the possibility of continuing the rock wall around the southeast elevation. (The Review Board will see the final building plans.) Cowan seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed. At 10:30, Anderson moved to extend the meeting another 15 minutes. Bailey seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. v BUILDING PERMITS Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of July follow: 120 High Street Norbert Bischoff Remodel/Deck 521 North Main Street Scott Young Addition 10 Calle Guanajuato Hal & Barbara Cloer Interior Remodel 88 Granite Street Jed & Celia Meese Demo. Deck/Window 120 North First Street U.S. Post Office Covered Bike Parking 10 Calle Guanajuato Pilaf & Global Pantry Sign 600 East Main Street Rogue's Inn Sign 93 Oak Street Rita's Relics Sign 548 North Main Street Ashland Retirement Center Sign 266 East Main Street Sister Moon Sign 84 Fourth Street Headwaters Sign 250 Oak Street Jungle Taco Sign REVIEW BOARD Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 7, 1996 P;i� • 5 Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: August 8 Bailey, Skibby and Cardinale August 15 Chambers, Skibby and Cardinale August 22 Cowan and Skibby August 29 Cowan and Skibby OLD BUSINESS Project Assignments for Planning Actions Anderson and Lewis were assigned to PA #96-086 and Bailey volunteered to oversee PA #96-098. Street Name List Knox stated he will write a memo to the City Council for adoption of the Historic Street Name List. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. Election.of officers will be held during the September meeting. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Bailey and second by Llewellyn, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:48 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 7, 1996 Page 6 City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES July 22, 1996 ATTENDANCE: Present: Pat Adams, Al Alsing, Bob Bennett, Teri Coppedge, Director Ken Mickelsen. Absent: Commissioner MacGraw I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Coppedge called the meeting to order at Noon,at the Department Office, 340 S. Pioneer Street. H. REQUEST FOR EASEMENTS ACROSS PARK PROPERTY Commissioners reviewed a memorandum dated July 18, 1996 from Director Mickelsen which responded to the questions which the Commission had indicated at its Regular Meeting of July 15, 1996 regarding the sewer easement and storm drain easements which were being requested by the developer of the Ashland Village Subdivision through N. Mountain Park. Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer, and Doug Neuman, developer of the subdivision were present in the audience to elaborate on any questions the Commission might have. In brief discussion with Mr. Olson and Mr. Neuman, Commissioners indicated that they felt that their questions had been answered and thanked the gentlemen for taking the time to respond so quickly. In a related matter, Commissioners reviewed a draft deed restriction which had been drafted by City Attorney Paul Nolte. Essentially the document indicated that in consideration for granting the easements in question, that the developer would accept the deed restriction which indicated that the adjacent property owners would not object to the development of park amenities and normal activities associated with park usage. In discussion, Mr. Neuman agreed that the draft agreement was acceptable. Commissioner Alsing indicated that he believed that a fee for the easements would also be appropriate. He suggested $1,000 and Mr. Neuman concurred that that amount would be reasonable. MOTION Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the two easements requested for a fee of$1,000 to be paid to the Department and with the stipulation that the developer sign the final draft of the deed restriction to be written by the City Attorney. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 0 no III. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, Chair Coppedge adjourned the meeting. Reesspecttffully submitted, C Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 15, 1996 ATTENDANCE: Present: Pat Adams, Al Alsing, Bob Bennett, Teri Coppedge, Laurie MacGraw, Director Ken Mickelsen. Absent: None I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Coppedge called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the. Department Office, 340 S. Pioneer Street. H. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - June 17. 1996 'Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 17, 1996 as written. Commissioner Alsing seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no IV. REVIEW OF FINANCES A. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Adams made a motion to approve the previous month's disbursements as indicated by Payables checks #13513 - #13715 in the amount of$ 27,502.49 and Payroll checks #12716 thru #12763 in the amount of$ 24,705.27. Commissioner MacGraw seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Open Forum None VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Approval of bids for ice skating rink mechanical equipment Commissioners reviewed a bid tabulation form which included three bids for mechanical equipment for the ice skating rink, the lowest from Ice Systems of America for a total bid price of $ 111,228. Director Mickelsen said that he and the Park Superintendent had become very familiar with the company over the past few months and recommended that the Commission accept the bid. Regular Meeting - July 15, 1996 Page 2 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Ice skatine rink - ww"u�a Director Mickelsen elaborated by indicating that after the initial purchase of the mechanical equipment that the remaining balance in the ice skating rink fund would be approximately $64,000. Although tight, this would be adequate to complete the balance of the project. The remaining questions were purchase of an ice grooming machine and a dasherboard system. He said that a new system dasherboard system could run as high as $50,000 but that.the department was looking into a used system or the possibility of building its own plywood system which would not be as professional but would serve the purpose. The ice grooming machine also could cost several thousand dollars but again the department was looking at used machines and alternative means to get the job done. Generally speaking, staff believed that money available for amenities would be minimal but the project can move forward with the existing funds which have been raised. Additional support from the community would be helpful. In coordinating with the City, it was planned that alterations to the parking lot would begin the day after Labor Day and that the rink would be open for business the day after Thanksgiving. MOTION Following discussion, Commissioner Alsing made a motion to accept the bid from Ice Systems of America. Commissioner Adams seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Director Mickelsen expressed his appreciation for all the efforts put forth by the Ice Skating Rink Committee, and in particular to Bow Seltzer who first brought the idea to the Commission and spearheaded the community fund raising efforts. Commissioners seconded the comment indicating that it has been a rewarding experience for them to have the opportunity to participate in such a positive, community based effort. B. Golf Course Master Plan - presentation by Robert Graves Robert Muir Graves, landscape architect for the Master Plan for Oak Knoll Golf Course, made a presentation to the Commission reviewing several conceptual plans for long range plans to improve the facility. He had met earlier in the day with the Golf Resource Committee. Mr. Graves indicated that in approaching the project he had had three major goals in mind: 1) To create a practice range. Mr. Graves indicated that he believed that locating a practice range at the course was extremely important. He said that for 9-Hole courses, a practice range was essential to make it a first class facility. It would give golfers added incentive to play the 9-Hole course vs. an 18-Hole course and would be a money maker for the facility. 2) To make par holes long enough. He said that regardless of the difficulty of a par hole, if the hole was not long enough for both men and women, was not of "legitimate" length, golfers would perceive the course as inferior. He indicated that his goal was to create adequate length for each hole to challenge and make the play interesting for both men and women. 3) To maximize the use of the existing course. Regular Meeting - July 15, 1996 Page 3 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Golf Course - CONnNUED Having briefly reviewed the several options presented by Mr. Graves, Commissioners focused on Option.kC which both he and the Golf Resource Committee had recommended as the superior plan. Commissioners inquired as to separating the various elements of the overall project into prioritized categories so that the project could be completed in phases. Mr. Graves indicated that there were certain items such as developing the driving range and moving the maintenance shop which he believed should be priority items. he said that he was looking for consensus from the Commission on his approach before he developed cost estimates associated with any portion of the project or on the Master Plan as a whole. He said that he was prepared to give the Commission his "budget lecture", however. Indicating that he said he realized that coming up with the dollars to fund the project was a very practical concern and that the overall project was going to be very costly, he none-the-less encouraged the Commission to undertake the entire project in as short an amount of time as possible. He said that costs on a project spread out over multiple years ends up costing more by multiples of dollars; that it would save between 10 and 40 percent to do the whole thing at one time. Also, the frustration of constant construction ends up losing a facility regular players who, once their allegiance has shifted to another facility, are difficult to draw back. Bob Davidson, Men's Club President and member of the Golf Resource Committee, reinforced Mr. Graves comments about trying the complete the project in one season. Commissioner Adams indicated that she would like to see a concerted effort on the part of golfers in the community take the lead in support of the project by working toward a fund raising campaign much like the ice rink supporters have done. Mr. Graves said that he also felt that golfers working to support the project was essential. In discussion, Mr. Graves indicated that one existing element which was still dictating possibilities for improvement to the course was the location of the road. If it was simply his choice, he indicated that he would get rid of it. However, he understood that in just quickly looking as the impact of re-routing traffic through the adjacent neighborhood, that it probably was not a reasonable request. Commissioner Alsing indicated that the committee had taken some time to discuss the possibility of eliminating the road and that he recommended the Commission investigate it further before finalizing the plan. Commissioners concurred that it was worth further investigation. MOMN At the conclusion of discussion, Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to authorize Mr. Graves to proceed with finalizing Option #C and to develop cost estimates associated with the overall project and, in particular, costs associated with priority items such as the driving range, re-location of holes N2 and N3, and re-location and construction of a new maintenance facility. Commissioner Adams seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Regular Meeting - July 15,.1996 Page 4 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for easements across park property Commissioners reviewed a memorandum from the Director and support materials from Jim Olson, Assistant City Engineer, regarding a request by the developers of the Ashland Village Subdivision for two easements located on the south side of N. Mountain Park. The easements related to storm drain runoff and sewer hookup. The memorandum indicated that the subdivision plans had already been approved by the Planning Department and Commission and that the developer was ready to begin construction once the Commission approved the easements. Various Commissioners expressed their concern that the approval process for the subdivision had been completed without the Commission having been aware that there were easements involved which would impact on Park property. They instructed Director Mickelsen to determine where the breakdown in communications occurred and to have staff initiate a procedure whereby such occurrences would not happen in the future. In reviewing the material presented by the Engineering Department, Commissioners had several questions regarding the location of the easements and particularly the possible affect the storm drain runoff would have to "no name creek". They indicated that having devoted considerable time and effort in the planning process for N. Mountain Park, and, having heard a great deal of concern expressed by the public for avoiding negative impact to the creek, that they needed more information before they could responsibly take action on the request. MOTION Commissioner MacGraw made a motion to have the Commission's concerned addressed in writing to City Engineering and/or the developer and to have the responses to the Commission returned as soon as possible. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. In discussion of the motion, Commissioners indicated that it was not their intent to delay the project and would schedule a Special Meeting to make a decision on the request once their questions had been answered. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no MOTION In a related matter, Commissioner Alsing made a motion requesting that the City Attorney draft a deed restriction associated with the easements' request which would prohibit property owners buying into the subdivision from objecting to the development of park amenities and normal activities associated with park usage. Commissioner Adams seconded. In discussion,'Commissioner Alsing indicated that he would like Mr. Nolte to draft an agreement similar to the one currently in existence for the municipal airport. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Regular Meeting - July 15, 1996 Page 5 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Request for easements - CONMUEU MonoN In a related matter, Commissioner Adams made a motion to request that the Commission be placed on a Planning Commission agenda at some time in the near future to discuss the general topic of storm drain runoff related to future development. Commissioner Bennett seconded. In discussion, Commissioners indicated that because Ashland's parks more likely than not have streams or drainage ditches running through them or adjacent to them that the Commission would like to take a pro-active role in addressing long range goals associated with managing storm drain runoff throughout the city. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Request for monies from Youth Activities Levy Commissioners reviewed a letter from Ed Houghton which made a one-time request of $2,000 from Youth Activities Levy monies to assist with the start-up of a Pop Warner football program for youth aged 10 to 12 years of age. The local, volunteer group working to organize the program has currently raised $2,500 in pledges and projects a total cost of $12,000 to enable them to get the program off the ground. MOMON Commissioner Bennett made a motion to contribute from the Youth Activities Levy a one-time funding of$2,000 to assist with start-up costs related to a Pop Warner football program with the stipulation that the program is available to both boys and girls and that the monies are used solely for youth residing within Ashland School District boundaries. Commissioner Adams seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 1 no (Coppedge) VIII. COMMUNICATIONS and STAFF REPORTS MOTION Commissioner Adams made a motion to extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no Jill McClelland, Projects Coordinator, gave a brief rundown on the Garfield Park Playground Program, the Teen Activities Center Program, the new Wilderness Program and swimming programs. IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Bennett inquired as to whether or not a uniform shirt was required for Golf Division employees as well as Parks Division employees. Director Mickelsen indicated that there was no uniform for the Golf Division staff at this point in time. Following a brief discussion, due to professional appearance and easy recognition, consensus among Commissioners was that uniform requirements for the Golf Division staff should be similar to that of the Parks Division staff and requested that steps be taken to adopt a uniform shirt appropriate for the golf course. Regular Meeting - July 15, 1996 Page 6 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission X. UPCOMING MEETING DATES and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS The next Regular Meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 27, 1996. Director Mickelsen indicated that there has been a request to discuss an additional skateboard facility,which will be placed under Public Participation. Study Session for N. Mountain Park site were scheduled for Monday, August 19th and Thursday, August 29th; time a location to be determined at a later date. XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, by consensus, Chair Coppedge adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department City of Departmerit • Coll,1111111 lit)' Development t..REGO shland ............. 4 x Monthly Report m ........ ... ....... September, 1996 ........ .e.............. ............... ... ... . .............. .. .. . LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECTS Planning Division Strawberry/Westwood . . . . ..... . .... Neighborhood Plan ANSI S KU A FIR Staff is still gathering additional information The fist draft of the formal "proof' document regarding the Strawberry/Westwood Neighbor- has been prepared, and was reviewed by TPAC hood Plan. The information gained from the on June 28, 1996. The proof includes full graph- Planning Commission and Council from recent ics, photographs, and final text layout for the study sessions have given us some additional document. A substantial re-write of the intro- direction for finalizing this plan. As the fall duction was requested by TPAC. That has been season appears to be quickly filling up with completed and the document is now being meetings, we are hoping to have another dis- reformated for printing. A joint study session/ cussion of this topic sometime during October. Open House with the Council and Planning Commission to present the document to the HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT public is being scheduled for October. Anews- letter outlining the major portions of the plan The first"official" draft of the hillside standards element is also being prepared to be mailed to received good reviews at the study session on all participants in the public process for the past July 30. Staff has been revising the document two years. based on comments from that meeting, prima- rily as they related to tree protection. The Noa H40� development of a new"tree protection" section of our ordinance may be the result of this ef- Mol fort. A revised ordinance is tentatively sched- uled for review in early October. Staff has been preparing the final zone change and comprehensive plan amendment docu- Annexation Criteria / Vacant Lands ments, as well as finalizing the specific design standards for this new neighborhood. A hear- Staff has prepared a draft for new annexation ing for the adoption of these issues is City Council.sched- uled with the Planning Commission for Sep- criteria, addressing the concerns raised by the o These have been developed in tember 24. The hearings in front of the City conjunction with the Housing Commission Council will follow soon after. and the Transportation Planning Advisory Committee. The Planning Commission held a study session to review these new criteria Dep.rmtnt of Comm.mty Development Monthly Report on June 11, and supported the amendments, BUILDING DIVISION with some recommended changes. Staff is meeting with the City Attorney to review the final language. The formal hearing process The Ashland Building Division has pro- vided educational programs for the local de- for these amendments is scheduled to begin velopment community for the past three years. the Planning Commission on September 10, Most recently, 1996. The vacant lands inventory for the area August 29, 1996, we held a within the city limits was completed earlier meeting with the e design community and HVAC with the results presented at the January Plan- (Heating, Ventilation,Air Conditioning)contrac- with Commission study session. tors to discuss new plan review submission cri- ning and the 1996 Oregon Structural Specialty CONSERVATION DIVISION Code Energy Requirements. We are also orga- nizing a winter code forum (as opposed to a The Conservation Division has spent a great formal) for Fire/Life Safety issues. Ken Prickett deal of time preparing for the start of our so- from ICBO will be the guest speaker. lar water heating program 'A Bright Way to These workshops and meetings have Heat Hot Water'. We have had our meeting been well received by the building/develop- with contractors, begun marketing of the pro- ment community. We are finding that through gram, and hope to get some system installed better education, we are having fewer enforce- in the near future. ment issues and are establishing better com- We continued to work with Ashland munication in all areas. These meetings are Sanitary on development of a compost site unique to Ashland in the southern Oregon area, which can take green waste. We met we and have all been well attended. Oregon Soil in August and learned of their During the 1995-96 fiscal year (ending vermiculture operations in the Portland area. June 30, 1996), we issued 79 permits for new OMECA is in the process of negotiating some single family homes, 30 apartment/attached changes with BPA that will allow us to use units, four accessory residential units, and 112 OMECA funding to begin a revolving loan retirement units. This is very near our average program to fund conservation in customer for residential construction, with the exception homes and facilities. Also, OMECA is work- of the additional retirement units. Total valuatio ing on the development of a strategic plan- of construction was approximately$28 million, ning document to help guide member utili- compared to $22.7 million last year. ties after OMECA funding ceases in October CODE ENFORCEMENT ,1997. We have been very active in all of these efforts. We have hired a new Code Enforcement Of- We also learned that OMECA has just finer — Adam Hanks. Many of received approval to use OMECA funds for a you already heat pump program and also for an efficient know Adam from his work in Finance, both in appliance rebate program. We will present Utilities Account Clerk, and through his more ideas for these new programs soon. assistance e wi th Jill Turner on the budget pro- The conservation commission is active a cess. Adam will begin working for us in later number of fronts. Our shirts are now avai a September,developing our new program. This able for sale to citizens and we are working is exciting time for this new public service, on a number of educational efforts. These and d we look forward to developing an overall include our weekly classes at the recycling enforcement program that encompasses the r and production of a video on goals and objectives of our community. Please center feel free to call Adam (once he starts) with any of your enforcement issues. Deparmentof Community Development Monthly Report MONTHLY ASHLAND R E P O R T POLICE Vol. 1 No.6 Linda Hoggatt, Editor July, 1996 teach classes in Youth and the Law. Crime Statistics: Volunteer rams r0 "January thru July" I� g PART 1 - 1996 1995 continues to devote large Homicide 1 ; numbers of hours to the Rape 0 4 Robbery 4 5 City. Agg. Assault 1 5 Burglary Each month volunteers throughout the City Residential 56 46 devote their time and energies to making Non residential 4 29 our community better. Frank d'Entremont, Shoplifting 110 111 S.R.O CSV coordinator tracks each volunteer, Theft from MV 48 109 the programs/departments they work in MV Parts-accessories 43 19 and the hours their contribute. The Bicycle Theft 54 65 statistics he submits amaze me every Theft from Building 17 59 Grant request for month. Other Thefts 108 145 Motor Vehicle Theft 20 27 School Resource In the first 6 months of 1996, 324 Arson 3 6 volunteers (average monthly) contributed Officer approved 27,397 hours (4566 average per month). TOTALS 469 631 under COPS This is incredible and WONDERFUL! If you took those hours and extended them Every Part I crime category experienced a program. into hourly wage figures ($6.72 per hour), decrease over a year ago with the that is a savings to our city of well in exception of residential burglaries and Last March a joint Grant excess of$184,107. theft of motor vehicle parts. proposal was submitted by Numerous department throughout the city Total crime, Part I, was down 20.7%from the Ashland Police benefit from our city wide volunteer 1995. Department and the program as well as many outreach Ashland Public Schools to programs such as Meals on Wheels and The communications center received 4041 fund an officer on the school countless others. telephone calls in June, of that, 522 were campus. The grant request 9-1-1 calls. Police calls for service for has been approved. I would like to suggest that the city develop June were 956. The grant is for 3 years. Half a volunteer appreciation program (maybe of the annual Sala of a license plate holder for their cars that Investigations take a long identifies them as a volunteer for the City officer will be paid through of Ashland). time from start to finish... the grant, one quarter will be paid by the Ashland School Each month I t to relate to you the City. T one quarter by workings of the PD and cases we have the City. The officer will h completed or handled. This month, while assigned d both the High / interviewing Detectives I realized often school and Middle School � 9 depending on need to times when they finally bring something provide guidance in law forward in their monthly report that has enforcement issues, be a reached conclusion it is anywhere from 8 friend to students, hande to 24 months old. That alone may not be those cases which occur on _/ an impressive statement, but think of the school grounds, and trying to round up witnesses 24 months after the fact to testify or to remember the exacting details necessary to testify in company systems)to the proper problems with them court and obtain a conviction in an dispatching authority. Since then, extremely backlogged court system. US Cellular has modified their system < possible increases in crime to directly route calls to the Ashland both in the adult and juvenile Detective Brown testified this month 9-1-1 center and we are working with systems (families of inmates at trial of an Ashland man for A T&T West Cellular Services to and prison employees) maintaining a place where controlled accomplish the same routing through substances are used. He was their system. < added costs to our County convicted of the charge. This was the health and human services first known trial conviction for this Misinformation can an will cost lives if system already suffering with offense in Jackson County.As an someone does not believe in the 911 budget constraints aside, this case was over 18 months system. The three 911 centers in old. Jackson County (Ashland, Medford < added costs and loads to an and SORC) are connected via hot already overburdened court lines to facilitate any transfer of system *s 3� information or calls necessary to handle any emergency and each is < hiring of local people as t P{ }k prepared to handle that emergency employees is not guaranteed 3 calls from whatever source they come as only"service" positions will in on. be filled locally. By the way, what was his motive? < will a prison have a negative Who provides him only one side of impact on our tourist based the story? If it is to consolidate 9-1-1 Rogue Valley economy? centers, everyone knows about Criticism Unfounded.. recent horror stories from such < Problems associated with combined centers, a la Portland or growth due to a major new In a recent guest column in the Daily Philadelphia. Bigger is not always industry locating here. Tidings the author levied several Better! accusations about 9-1-1 and the I would suggest that a strong look be inadequacy of our system. I have PRISONS.. right here taken at communities/counties that known the author for many years and have experienced a prison location must say he often times writes in River City??? into their area be contacted and editorials without taking the time to asked what impact the prison has had confirm his information and/or hear The news is a buzz over the prospect to their area. The downsides are real the other side. I, like most Ashland of a prison coming into Jackson or issues that can be documented as to citizens, read the paper nightly to stay Josephine Counties. While most of their impact on a County or informed and keep up on Ashland the conversation to date has been community and the questions raised issues. I am most unhappy when the supportive, "there are always two can be answered. information getting before our citizens sides to every issue". is just flat out INCORRECT! The upside, to some, could be NO 9-1-1 call goes unanswered. The economic dollars into our county in Ashland 9-1-1 Center DOES receive added jobs, housing construction and some cellular Calls. Ashland is a full services/goods to new residents. 9-1-1 center participating in county wide dispatching. We are not an But what about the downsides. They isolated system and uncaring about need to be considered too. What the public we serve. about: When cellular first appeared in the < community fear of possible Rogue Valley cellular reception cites escapes were set up in Medford. Naturally, when calls come in they are routed by < residential values declining computer systems to the immediate located near prison locations 9-1-1 Center of the "cell cite". That does not mean the call is dropped. < families relocating to our That simply means the call is community to be near their selectively rerouted (under the family member who is an constraints of the the cellular inmate and bring their ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP $40 FIRE d1E Ashland FireMed Ambulance Membership Program A Service of Ashland Fire & Rescue OREGON 455 Siskiyou Blvd.,Ashland,Oregon 97520-2135 488-6009 LIMITED OPEN ENROLLMENT SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER PLEASE PRINT (Head of Household) LAST NAME I Telephone Street Addressi Apt. #O City I IState OZip 0 Mailing Address (if different than above) City I State Zip I List all family members, including unmarried children under age 25 and other dependents listed on your tax return and regularly living at home. Please list any last name that is different than the name above. Household Members First Middle Relationship to Date of Birth Social Last Name(if different from Head of Household) Name Initial Head of Household Mo. Day Yr. Security No. Head of Household Spouse or Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Please answer the following insurance questions. CHECK APPROPRIATE BOXES: YES NO Does anyone on your FireMed membership have Medicare? ❑ ❑ Medicare#: Head of Household I Spouse Does anyone on your FireMed membership have medical insurance in addition to, or in place of Medicare? ❑ ❑ Company r l Group# 1 ' ID# —'—� Does anyone on your FireMed membership have automobile insurance? ❑ ❑ Company l—_ _ Policy# -- _� As discussed in the terms of agreement, Ashland FireMed will bill your insurance and accept whatever it pays as payment-in-full. You will owe nothing. Please fill this form out completely, sign the signature form on the opposite side (all appropriate family members), and return this form along with the fee by October 31. Membership becomes active 24 hours after acceptance by our Business Office. • : • • ASNIAND ® r. FIB m ASHLAND FIREMED MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT, OREGON SIGNATURE FORM, AND PAYMENT RECORD. Ashland Fire& Rescue Ambulance Services 455 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland,OR 97520 488-6009 FIREMED AGREEMENT (Please read this statement carefully, then sign below.) I hereby apply for membership in FireMed for myself and eligible"family members who live at my address. I understand the enclosed fee provides emergency ambulance care and transportation within Ashland Fire& Rescue Ambulance service areas, and interfacility trans- j fers and non-emergency ambulance service as noted below.Coverage begins 24 hours after acceptance of the application and extends to October 31 of the following year.Non-emergency ambulance service to hospitals and interfacility transport from our local area facilities to other approved facilities is covered when medically necessary. I understand that FireMed is not insurance but will provide ambulance service through Ashland Fire& Rescue Ambulance Services,and will bill whatever insurance or medical benefits I may have and is enti- tled to primary and secondary insurance payment. FireMed is in excess of any insurance or medical benefits which I may have. I further authorize the release of medical information for the purpose of ambulance insurance billing only.Should I or a family member receive pay- ment from insurance or other medical benefits provider for ambulance service rendered by Ashland Fire& Rescue Ambulance Services, I will immediately forward such payment to Ashland Fire& Rescue Ambulance Services. FireMed membership is not solicited from persons who receive welfare medical benefits and such membership constitutes a voluntary contribution only.I understand that violations of the terms of this agreement may result in immediate cancellation.This membership is non-refundable and non-transferable. `DEFINITION OF FAMILY FireMed membership covers immediate family members living in the same household. The member, spouse, unmarried children under age 25 and other persons listed as legal dependents for income tax purposes are covered. Others not included in this definition are required to obtain their own separate membership. MEMBER BENEFITS IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF LOCAL FIREMED SERVICE AREA Member benefits are extended to areas outside of the local FireMed service area.These benefits are limited to the terms of agreement in effect by each individual FireMed participating agency at the time benefits are used. Members who receive ambulance service from any other FireMed participating agency are eligible for benefits offered by that agency provided that: 1) a copy of the ambulance bill is submitted to the local FireMed agency within 30 days of receipt of bill,2)the member agrees to abide by the participating agency's terms of agreement. A current list of FireMed participating agencies is on file in the FireMed business office. I TO THE INSURANCE CARRIER I authorize a copy of this agreement to be used in lieu of the original on file at the FireMed office. The original may be furnished on request. I authorize payment of insurance benefits for ambulance service for myself or family members directly to Ashland Fire& Rescue Ambulance Services,according to the FireMed agreement and as itemized on the attached claims. I have paid the co-payment for ambu- lance service to be rendered and expect your usual and customary ambulance reimbursement on my behalf to be sent directly to Ashland Fire& Rescue. iThis form must be signed by all persons in the household covered by this membership 18 years of age and older. Head of Household(__-___ (Signature) Spouse � -- - _ — - _ __ ----- — - - - � Dependent_ - --- -- --- —, j (Signature) (Signature) � Dependent C -- — - - - - Dependent,— (Signature) (Signature) Dependent - _ _ - Dependent;_ _ -(Signature) (Signature) A check or money order must accompany this application. Please make payable to Ashland FireMed. I have enclosed payment by: ❑ Check ❑ Money Order ❑ Cash I YOUR CANCELED CHECK OR MONEY ORDER RECEIPT IS PROOF OF MEMBERSHIP. Wfflrl i i ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE MEMO _ r August 21, 1996 TO: Mayor Cathy Golden & City Council FROM: Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief do SUBJECT: Ashland Fire & Rescue Ambulance Service Membership Program We are moving forward into the next phase of our business plan for ambulance services, which involves the marketing of our membership program within south Jackson County. The purpose of the program is to insure that our ambulance services program is affordable to our citizens, to encourage proper utilization and discourage misuse, and to overcome patient hesitance to request emergency medical services because of financial concerns. The basic principles of the membership program, called "Ashland FireMed", are as follows: • An annual fee of$40.00 covers all family members living in the residence. • Membership covers emergency and non-emergency ambulance transportation services. Members will have their insurance provider billed for services rendered, and AF & R will accept insurance payments as payment in full. Members will not be billed by AF & R for services that are not covered by insurance payments. * New members may be enrolled at any time during the year, however, the primary open enrollment period will be in September/October each year. Residents may sign up through the mail, or at the AF & R business office. FireMed payments may also be deposited at any of our city utility payment dropboxes. * Advertising will consist of a direct mailing to 13,000 households within our ambulance service area, newspaper ads and radio announcements. Ashland FireMed posters will be displayed at cooperating businesses within our service area. * Enrolled members will be covered under our ambulance service agreement by 49 other FireMed participating ambulance service providers within the state under a reciprocal service agreement. CITY OF ASHLAND Administration office of the Gty Administrator = %' MEMORANDUM EGO�'',� U lI \\4 DATE: August 26, 1996 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator RE: Monthly Report - August 1996 The following is a report of my principal activities for the past month and a status report on the various City projects, and Council goals and notes to staff for 1995-96 and 1996-97. I. PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES: 1. Attended Public Power Council meeting in Portland to receive update on Regional Review process and participated in panel discussion on possible effects on the Region. 2. Attended meeting of LOC Finance and Taxation Committee in Salem on effects of ballot initiatives and other issues. 3. Had coffee with councilors Wheeldon, Hauck and Reid to discuss various city issues. 4. Met with Staff to discuss upcoming sidewalk replacement on Hwy.66 with particular regard to easements for tree replacement behind new walk. 5. With Gary Brown, met with Talent City Councilors Lisa Shapiro and Joy Riley to offer our assistance in their selection of a new City Administrator. 6. Met with Kay Atwood to provide a history of Ashland city government for history project covering all city departments. 7. Attended reception for visitors from Dankook University in Seoul, Korea at SOSC President Reno's residence. 8. Met with Risk Manager Bob Nelson and City Attorney Paul Nolte to review status of claims for spraying incident on Walnut Street. 9. Had coffee with State Representative Judy Uherbelau to discuss various state issues affecting Ashland. 10. Met with County officials Sue Slack and Library Director Ronnie Budge to discuss options for interim Library Services in the event of a failure of the serial levy. 11. Met with Staff to discuss options for airport water line installation. 12. Had coffee with Councilors Thompson, Laws and Hagen to discuss various city issues. 13. Met with staff to discuss formation of a internal task force to prepare Strategic Plan for computer services. 14. Met with Council Committee to review draft of report regarding revision of LID policies and creation of Arterial Street Assistance account. 15. Conducted interviews of eight candidates for Executive Secretarial position for City Administration office. 16. Met with Community Works site selection committee along with City Attorney and Councilor Hagen to discuss process for leasing part of city storage yard on E. Main near Garfield Street. 17. Met with Bill Craven, a property owner adjacent to newly acquired Imperatice property regarding spray irrigation and access to his land. 18. Attended city employees picnic at Lily Glen campground on the weekend. 19. Met with TO to discuss renewal of contract for 795 acre feet of water from Howard Prairie/Hyatt reservoirs. 20. Had breakfast with School Supt. John Daggett to discuss renewal of Youth Activities tax levy, and other issues of mutual concern. 21. Met with Communications Committee member Hal Cloer to review first draft of report to the city council. 2 22. Attended monthly board of directors meeting of the Rogue Valley Civic League at Rogue River City Hall. 23. Participated in Council study session on the future development of Clay Street 24. Participated in Council study session with ODOT on Stakeholders Process, jurisdictional transfers, and other issues. 25. Met with city staff to develop budget and timetable for loop-feed water line at Ashland Airport. 26. Had coffee with Councilors Hagen, Hauck and Thompson to discuss various city issues. 27. Participated in monthly Town Hall on RVTV with Councilor Hagen and Mayor Golden. 28. Had breakfast with Medford City Manager Anderson and County Administrator Raymond to discuss issues of mutual concern. 29. Attended luncheon to meet new BPA account representative. STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS: 1. Capftal Improvement Plan. A study session was held on June 19 to present the preliminary draft of the plan for Council review. We will have to await a Council decision on SDC fee levels before presenting the official draft report-probably in early October. 2. Indiana/Siskiyou Realignment. The preliminary design has been agreed to by the three parties and all have now approved the contract. At a meeting with college and state officials, it was agreed that city electric crews might be used to relocate some of the signals and thereby allow the project to be completed within budget this summer. Plans are now being prepared for bids. 3. WWTP Upgrade/Wetlands Demonstration Proiect. The contract for the demonstration Wetlands/soil treatment was awarded at the June 3 meeting. DEQ has approved our schedule. WE received three bids for Phase 1 to upgrade the Existing plant. A committee of local professionals are reviewing the bids and hope to have a recommendation to the Council on September 17. 3 4. Central Ashland Bikeway Project. Adkins Engineering has been awarded the design contract, and we are hoping to go to bid after the first of the year on the "A" Street to Shamrock Lane portion. The Shamrock to Tolman portion is still the number one priority for CMAC funds. 5. LID/Arterial Street Fund. The committee has requested that the draft of the staff findings and recommendations be sent to all interested parties next week. The report and public input will be scheduled for public discussion at the Council Study Session on September 18. 6. E. Main Street widening-RR to Walker. Bids were opened which were substantially over the engineers estimate. We have decided to re-bid the project in February 1997. 7. Mountain/E. Main Sianalization. We have been awarded a grant from the Gasoline Anti-trust suit proceeds in the amount of $75,000. We are in the process of preparing the signal plan and hope to be ready to begin the project by late Winter/early Spring with most of the work being performed by the Electric Dept. and Street Division crews. 8. Ice Rink Project. The project will begin the day after Labor Day, using city crews to do the asphalt removal, grading and new paving installation. Construction is to be completed by Thanksgiving weekend. 9. Misc. concrete Isidewalk construction. This project includes the first third of sidewalk replacement on Hwy.66 and sidewalk repairs and construction throughout the city, as well as handicap ramps and other facilities. Bids are out and work should begin this month. III. STATUS OF 1995-96 COUNCIL GOALS: 1. Resolve office building/space needs issue. No change from last month's report. 2. Develop and implement a citizen/government communication program which includes citizen input. No change since last month's report. IV. 1996-97 COUNCIL GOALS: 1. Encourage alternative transportation modes through such means as: a. Encouraging streetscape improvements that enhance walkability and 4 code enforcement to remove barriers (dead trees, tall hedges, etc.) b. Completing negotiations for bicycle access from Jackson Road to Crowson Road along the railroad tracks. c. Exploring development of a transportation coordinator position. We have now selected a Code Enforcement officer who will be responsible for barrier removal on sidewalks, easements, etc. 2. Assist in sitino a Teen Center. The Council has given conceptual approval to locate the project on the city corporation yard property near E. Main and Garfield. A lease will be presented the Council on September 3 or 17. 3. Reexamine growth management policles as they affect density, transportation, and city services. 4. Resolve office building/space needs issue. (also see 111 2. above) NOTES TO STAFF 1995-96: 1. Following TPAC adoption of the transportation plan, Staff is to cost out the various "traffic calming" recommendations and to report to the Council. (The draft TPAC plan is now available and should be going to hearing before the Planning Commission soon). NOTES TO STAFF 1996-97: 1. Planning Department to consider CUP criteria when Railroad District neighborhood plan is reviewed. (Underway) 2. The City Recorder will video tape City Council meetings and make them available to interested members of the public. Video tapes will be available for one year. (Underway) 3. Administration will continue to explore purchase of land for a Transportation Center that ensures the option for a future rail link. (Spoke again with Paul Comstock who owns land East of Oak Street Tank. He is now not interested in an equity trade due to the fact that he has been unable to locate a larger site at an affordable price. I also spoke with Oak Street Tank owner Gene Morris who has an interest in moving his business, but who has also been unable to find suitable land in town) 5 4. Administration will work with the School District and RVTD to develop a bus route to E. Main and Walker that serves the Pacific NW Museum of Natural History. (Councilors Laws and Hauck met with RVTD to discuss options. Cost of route is now being evaluated) 5. Police Dept. to consider extending bicycle patrol through the Railroad District. (This new expanded service began on June 1. Compliments have been received from the public about this program) 6. City Administrator to recontact Vogels about viability of purchase. (I gave the Council a memo at the June 18 meeting indicating that the Vogel's are interested, but don't want to be contacted again until after January 1st) 7. Councilor Hauck will study and report back to Council with recommendations for the City's role in economic development. Possibly use SOSC interns to assist. 8. Computer services will evaluate, as part of its on-going assessment, City needs for new technology and present to Council through Administration. Councilor Hauck will continue to review and present broader community needs to Council for consideration. Possibly use SOSC interns to assist. (Dick Wandersheid has agreed to chair a task force of user representatives to develop an RFP, select a consultant and prepare a strategic 5 year plan for our information network. This will begin in August) Brian L. Almquist City Administrator BA:dg 6 Aemorandum �REGO August 29, 1996 111 0: Mayor and City Council r- ram: Sharon Laws, Senior Program Director '�$izbjec#: Approval to submit grant application to Meyer Memorial Trust The Senior Program Board requests permission to submit an application. to Meyer Memorial Trust to. fund a portion of construction costs for the senior activity center to be added to the Hunter Park Center. The request will be in the amount of $15,000. Thank you for your attention to this matter. CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development Planning Division a j MEMORANDUM �."REGO DATE: August 30, 1996 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development RE: Planning Action 94-117 -- Postponed Hearing The public hearing scheduled for this planning action has been postponed until the September 17, 1996 meeting to allow for the clarification of certain items by the applicant. The applicant and most of the neighborhood have been notified of the postponement. However, it should be announced during the meeting that the action will be heard at the next Council meeting scheduled for September 17, 1996 at 7pm. JOHN W. NICHOLSON 1575 GREENMEADOWS WAY ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 August 30 , 1996 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Ashland , Oregon 97520 Re: REVISING ASHLAND"S SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs ) Needs for many current and projected infrastructure expenditures by the City of Ashland have been brought on by growth . Current expenditures are in the millions of dollars and large additional amounts will be needed in the future. Should the general populace bear the brunt of these costs? Or , should individuals and businesses causing the growth bear the costs? Thirdly, should growth costs be shared? The City ' s SDC ordinance states that there should be an equitable sharing of growth costs . One provision in that ordinance reads as follows : "Section 4. 20. 020 - PURPOSE The purpose of the systems devel- opment charge is to impose an equitable share of the public costs of capital improvements upon those developments that create the need for or increase the demands on capital improve- ments . " Recommendations of the SDC Committee do not ( in my view) meet the "equity" objective of the ordinance; they reflect many concessions to pro-growth interests . The SDC structure proposed in a 1.996 report from Moore Breithaupt b Associates and Wes Reynolds comes closer to meeting the "equity" objective . If a decision is to be made on September 3rd , the Council is urged to opt for the MBA-Reynolds SDC structure in preference to that proposed by the SDC Committee. News media reports focus on short-term costs of SDCs to builders and developers; the news media gives little attention to long-term reductions in real estate taxes and user fees that can and should result from an equitable SDC structure . Lack of discernment by the media as to long-term benefits to the general populace of a fair and equitable SDC structure should not influence a Council decision . Page 1 of 2 In addition to the foregoing views on the proposed 1996 SDC revisions , comments on SDC Committee recommendations for changes in the City ' s SDC ordinance follow: Section 4 . 20. 060 Compliance with State Law The following phraseology has been proposed as an addition to paragraph "A" of this section : "Reimbursement fees shall be spent on capital improvements associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed . Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing improvements . The portion of such improvements funded by im- provement SDCs must be related to current or projected devel- opment. " This amendment has little to do with "compliance with State Law" . It has everything to do with hamstringing the City government in its implementation of SDCs . Earmarking SDC monies when collected for specific projects is not a wise policy. In the time that elapses between the collection of SDC monies and their expenditure, City priorities can and will change . The Council should not restrict itself with the proposal cited above. Section 4 . 20 . 070 Collection of Charge The proposed revisions of paragraph I'D" providing for installment payments of SDCs should not be adopted . The City should not get into the small-loan business . Most construction requires outside financing . SDCs are just one of many costs that a builder or developer should cover in his or her financing . If a builder or developer cannot get SDC financing from non-public sources , he or she is probably a credit risk that the City of Ashland should not take on . Section 4 . 20 . 080 Exemptions This section should provide for waivers for capital expenditures by overlapping governmental units when those expenditures are to provide additional school capacity . Some financial problems of the Ashland school district are caused by growth which the district does not create and cannot control . Public schools should not be forced to pay SDC charges to the City , despite the fact that they may be legal . Providing an exemption for school construction is the fair route to take . Sincerely yours, � John W. Nicholson 1575 Greenmeadows Way 1 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Page 2 of 2 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES MINORITY REPORT Though the charge of this committee was to identify the true cost of development, it instead became an effort to minimize any costs that new development might be required to pay, which in effect is a cost shift to current residents. The unbalanced make-up of the committee contributed to this process. In the local media, some committee members were even successful in presenting increasing SDCs as costing current city residents more, when in fact the reality is just the opposite. If the true cost of growth is not paid by growth then it will end up being paid by current city residents through general taxation. WATER SUPPLY: The committee's reasoning is flawed because it makes the assumption that because a future water supply has not been identified at this time, new growth should not be paying for that water supply that it will certainly need. It makes the assumption that new growth will not need water, instead of that its source is still uncertain. In a related matter, the reimbursement fee was dropped on Hosler Dam, even though new growth will be using up any unused capacity. It is difficult to identify who paid for this unused supply, but it is certain that new growth has not. When upsizing the pipeline from Hosler Dam to the water treatment plant the resulting unused capacity will ultimately be used by growth. This additional growth should not be given a free ride by way of only having to pay the incremental cost. This savings should be shared, just as we require that costs be shared. WATER DISTRIBUTION: Again, when upsizing waterlines the resulting unused capacity will ultimately be used by growth. This additional growth should not be given a free ride by way of only having to pay the incremental cost. This savings should be shared, just as we require that costs be shared. TRANSPORTATION: Here again the committee's reasoning is flawed because it makes the assumption that because specific transportation projects have not been identified, there will be minimal cost for added capacity and improvement of transportation systems needed as a result of growth. Also, the committee's report defines an incomplete transportation system, including travel lanes and bike lanes only. Certainly, in addressing growth related transportration issues in Ashland capacity wilt be added using a multimodal approach. PARKS: Donated park land is included in the calculation of average cost of park land, which assumes the same level of donation in the future. Also, the consumer price index is used as the basis for active parks, rather than the actual price inflation of land within Ashland. (over) Memorandum �4EGoa August 27, 1996 Mayor and City Council rum: Jill Turr} , John(!As}�ughlin, Susan Wilson Broadus p Ibigtt: System�/Deevelop mentt Charges (SDCs) Recommendation: The SDC committee recommends adoption of the SDCs as presented in the bound report. Staff recommends the adoption of the SDCs as amended by the minority report and attached as the third page of this memo, effective October 1, 1996. Background: System Development Charges are fiscal impact fees. They are a fee based on the capacity increase needed to serve new growth. As the City grows the need for additional governmental capital facilities also grows. This is especially true in Oregon where a governmental tax base is not increased by new development. SDCs have been used by cities in Oregon since the early 1970s. The 1987 legislative session passed a measure curtailing the use of SDCs which was vetoed by the Governor. A committee was then set up with representatives from the Home Builders Association, the League of Oregon Cities and Portland Intergovernmental Relations. The 1989 legislative session adopted SDC legislation which is the basis for the current SDC laws. On July 1 , 1991 the City of Ashland adopted its present SDC ordinance and methodologies. These were prepared by Moore Breithaupt and Associates. In 1992 the SDC committee made some modifications to the regulations. No changes have been made since that time other than to increase costs based on the Engineering News Record. In April of 1994 the committee was called together to discuss general issues. Staff was directed to come back with an update. In the fall of 1995, Moore Breithaupt & Associates and Wes L Reynolds were hired to complete a "Report and Update of System Development Charges." The SDC committee met eleven times from January to July 1996 to review these recommendations. A bound report outlines the committee work and recommendations. Legislation: ORS authorizes SDCs for capital improvements to water, wastewater, storm drains, transportation and parks. The act requires that the fee be either an improvement fee or a reimbursement fee. An improvement fee is based on future capital improvement projects. An improvement fee can only be spent on the capacity increasing capital project for which it is collected. A reimbursement fee is a repayment for a capital improvement which has been built with excess capacity that will serve future residents. This fee is restricted in that it can be used only for capital within the system for which it is collected. City of Ashland Single Family Residential System Development Charges Updated August 29, 96 ---------------------------------------- -- -------------- ---- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- Waste- Storm Water Water Drain Trans Parks Total ---------------------------------------- -- -------------- ---- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- Current $2,306 $377 $252 $250 $1,236 $4,421 Proposed by Committee $1,600 (1) $2,255 $351 $307 $1,117 $5,630 Additional Charges (2) ---------------------------------------- Water Distribution $1 ,116 $1 ,116 Option B Transportation $302 $302 Option A Transportation $237 $237 Parks . $103 $103 ---------------------------------------- -- -------------- ---- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- Total Recommended Charge $2,716 $2,255 $351 $846 $1,220 $7,388 ---------------------------------------- -- -------------- ---- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- (1) Includes math correction of$400 (2) These amounts are the additional amounts recommended in the minority report. the method of computing the system development charges and recommend such changes as they deem necessary to the City Council. SECTION 5. The Methodology and charges described in Exhibits "A" and " B" shall be in effect October 1, 1996. SECTION 6. Resolutions 92-12, 92-13 and 96-11 are repealed upon the effective date of this resolution. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 1996. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor R ewed as to form: rko� — Paul Nolte, City Attorney SECTION 4. Section 4.20.070D of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. D. A systefas development eharge shall be paid in eash wheft due, or in liett a State law to give stieh undeFtakings, or by eash deposit, letter of eredit, er ethe like seetir-ity aeeeptable to the City Adfniptistrater. SECTION 5. Section 4.20.070E of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: . �4 per-se A owner of prgperEy obtzgated to pay a system de elapffiant ehaige may apply to pay the systems development-charge in semi umdat installments y State Am.-a period tQt exceeding dive years as pr©sided m this sectYari. 1 i lie nib charge subject m payment by: tnstallitittts s1ta11 kre $l,2tll and themmtmurii semi annual instalimenf sliall be $6fl0 Installtnents shill utclude mterest on the unpaid balttce at a rate equal to three;percent per attnuiri aiitive the prime rate 4f,interest quoted by:the Wall Street journal as pf 3`at3uary2 iif the year ut which the etarge is trposed � The inflittent :application shat! state that the applicant waives a1 irregttlartties or:defects,3iirisdictional or otherwise, in the prticeedtngs to cause the systexri de�relopent cltaxge: ......................................................................... 3 The appheatitrn shall alsiacontam a statement, by. tots or blocks, of atlter �anuenietit clescriptiori o1 rite property meeting ttte requirements of Q S 3_i 6tltli subleet to the charge:' ......................................:................. A systems development charge subject to installment payments:shall be chargeable as a hen upau the property subject to the charge pursuant to OItS 93 6430}(cj, tkie city reeoriipr skalt recardnotice af: the tnstailtuettt payment etanttac With die iacsott County Clerk I1ie applicant shall pay the recorduig charges SECTION 6. Section 4.20.070.F of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted. F. During the first year aftef the adoption ef this ehapter-, the ehafges shall flet e*eeed ene third (1/3) of the ametint pr-eseribed by the Fnethadelegy; during the SECTION 7. Section 4.20.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 4.20.080 Exemptions. The conditions under which all or part of the systems development charges imposed in Section 4.20.040 may be waived are as follows: eharge was paid and whieh had a subdivision agr-eement approved prior to the date e the adoption of s-his is eKempt ffem systems development eharges if the development eeeurs within thfee (3) years after- jttiy 1,......................................................... . If the development occulted poor to July I;;1991€ , the transportation, parks, and storm drainage portions shall be assessed in full, and a credit shall be ......................................................................................................... given for the amount water and wastewater charges previously paid, which shall be SECTION 10. Sections 4.20.100.13, D and F of the Ashland Municipal Code are amended to read: B. A person aggrieved by a decision required or permitted to be made by the City Administrator or hisH3efdesignee under Section 4.20.010 through 4.20.090 or a person challenging the propriety of an expenditure of systems development charge revenues may appeal the decision or expenditure by filing a written request with the City Recorder for consideration by the City Council. Such appeal shall describe with particularity the decision or the expenditure from which the person appeals and shall comply with subsection D of this section. D. The appeal shall state: 1. The name and address of the appellant; 2. The nature of the determination being appealed; 3. The reason the determination is incorrect; and 4. What the correct determination should be. An appellant who fails to file such a statement within the time permitted waives his/her any objections, and hi0her shall be dismissed. F. The City Council shall hear and determine the appeal on the basis of the appellant's written statement and any additional evidence heAhe the 3*: IJ:nt deems appropriate. At the hearing, the appellant may present testimony and oral argument personally or by counsel. The City may present written or oral testimony at this same hearing. The rules of evidence as used by courts of law do not apply. SECTION 11. Classification of the Fee. System development charges as set forth in Chapter 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code are classified as not subject to the limits of Section l lb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5) 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 , 19_, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of 19_ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 1996. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor roved, as t rm: Paul Nolte, City Attorney (g:\jill\wpksdc\sdc pdaz.urd) BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 6, 1996 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #96-047, REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL OF SIX-LOT SUBDIVISION ) FINDINGS, UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION LOCATED AT 1452 ) CONCLUSIONS OREGON STREET. ) AND ORDERS APPLICANT: EVAN ARCHERD ) -------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 6600 of 391E 15BA is located at 1452 Oregon Street and is zoned R-1-7.5; Single Family Residential. 2) The applicant is proposing a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options. Site improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at the Community Development Department. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval 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. 0 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 May 14, 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. 5) The action was properly appealed to the Ashland City Council by surrounding neighbors and property owners in a timely manner. 6) The Ashland City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on August 6, 1996, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council denied the application for failure to meet the density bonus requirements for open space. Now, therefore, the Ashland City Council 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 Ashland City Council 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 City Council finds that the proposal for a six-lot subdivision does not meet all applicable criteria for approval under the Performance Standards Options chapter 18.88. Specifically, the Council finds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the open space proposed for a density bonus under 18.88.040.B.3.b meets the purpose as stated in 18.88.040.B.3.b.1. 2.3 Specifically, the Council makes the following findings in relation to the criteria for approval: a) That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. Setback requirements along the perimeter of the project will be identical to those found in the R-1-7.5 zoning district. A rear yard setback of 10 feet per story is required, with a minimum front yard setback of 15 feet, excluding garages and porches. Condition #17 requires that the building envelopes be modified to comply with the above setback requirements. Compliance with the City's solar setback standard will be evaluated at the time of individual building permit submission. All lots with a slope of less than 15 percent in the northerly direction will be required to comply with solar setback standard "A". As indicated on the Outline Plan, the two private flag drives serving the four interior lots will be paved to the widths described under 18.88.050. Neither driveway will exceed a maximum slope of 15 percent. 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. Paved access to the project is provided via Oregon and Windsor Streets which are paved, with curb and gutter. City sewer, water, electric and storm drain facilities are located within the public rights-of-way of Oregon and Windsor Streets. Also, a 15 inch storm drain runs down the west side of the property. A concrete walkway will be installed through the project, providing pedestrian and bicycle access between Oregon and Windsor Streets. 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. An inventory has been compiled of the existing trees on the property. A site visit was conducted by Planning Staff and Don Todt of the Ashland Parks Department to better ascertain the potential impacts on the trees from the development. The project incorporates as many existing trees into the project design as possible, given the underlying zoning. As stated in the applicant's findings, only five out of 58 trees will be removed to accommodate improvements associated with the project. Other than trees, no other significant natural features have been identified on the property. d) That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties west of the project have been developed consistent with the permitted uses of the zoning district. Each property has existing, legal access onto an abutting city street that will not be impeded by the proposal. The two properties east of the project site have legal access on Oregon and Windsor Streets. No evidence has been presented which would infer that the proposal would prevent the adjacent parcels from being developed in accordance with the zoning district. 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. Common areas and mutual access driveways will be maintained through the Homeowner's Association. A copy of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the development, outlining maintenance responsibilities, will be submitted for approval prior to signature of the final survey plat. f) That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. The Council finds that the applicant's request fails to meet the burden of proof regarding the density calculations related to the granting of a density bonus for open space. Density calculations, as proposed by the applicant and modified by the planning staff, are as follows: Base Density = 1.398 acres x 3.6 du/acre = 5.03 units Conservation = 15% x 5.03 = .754 units Bonus Open Space = (7.4% - 2%) x 5.03 = .271 units (4554 sq. ft.) Total = 6.05 units Utilizing the open space density bonus option, the applicant applied for a 0.271 unit increase in the base density. The City Council finds that the open space, as designed and presented by the applicant for this project, fails to provide a "significant amenity to project residents", and that the applicant failed to prove that 'project residents will realistically interact with the open space on a day-to-day basis." Therefore, the Council denies the density bonus for open space, reducing the project density by 0.271 units. This reduces the total number of units to less that six. The project total, as requested by the applicant, is six lots. The proposed density for the project then fails to meet the "base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter." SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Ashland City Council concludes that the six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options, as proposed by the applicant, fails to meet the criteria for approval. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action #96-047. Mayor Attest - City Recorder Date )t� o 1 AUGUST 31 , 1396 To Mayor Golden City of Ashland Subject : Council 's Agenda for the meeting of Tuesday, Sept 3rd. References: (1 ) Agenda item having to do with a pedestrian path. (one of two, IX. agenda items. ) (2) Councils ' study session of August 14th. At no time during the referenced Council Study session did I make any statement regarding the need for a pedestrain path from Clay St to Glendale Ave. I have this date discussed this agenda item with Councilperson Reid who agrees with my recollection. Should this agenda item be brought forward for discussion at the meeting of September 3rd, I will have this letter to read into the record. Respectfully, Car,�at'Ss 776 Glendale Ave. RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN HERBICIDE AND PESTICIDE POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following herbicide and pesticide policy is adopted for all departments and divisions of the City of Ashland. This policy does not apply to the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department which is administered by the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. The Ashland Parks and Recreation Department has a similar policy in place. 1. Purpose. This policy is designed to reduce the risk of illness or injury resulting from employee and citizen exposure to herbicides and pesticides used in the course of performing city operations and also from the accidental exposure of employees and other persons to such herbicides and pesticides. The policy requires workplace practices designed to reduce or eliminate exposure to herbicides and pesticides. 2. Use of Herbicides and Pesticides. Use of herbicides, including but not limited to herbicides, insecticides and growth retardants, shall be minimized. 2.1. Mechanical and cultural methods shall be utilized whenever practicable for control of noxious vegetation and pests. 2.2. When mechanical and cultural methods are not practicable, only the safest, lowest toxicity products available shall be used. No "restricted use" herbicides or pesticides shall be used. 2.3. Primarily, species which do not require high inputs of herbicide shall be used in landscaping. 2.4. Staff shall monitor noxious vegetation and pest populations and rely on biological control when appropriate and effective. 3. Application. 3.1. All herbicides and pesticides shall be applied by, or under the supervision of, an Oregon Certified Pesticide Applicator. The Certified Applicator shall be responsible for overseeing and authorizing all herbicide and pesticide use by city staff. 3.2. If herbicides or pesticides having a greater acute toxicity than table salt (LD 50 = 2,500) are applied, the area of application shall be posted in advance and for the duration of the re-entry time specified on the herbicide or pesticide label or MSDS sheet. PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (oAerd\herbcide.ree) 4. Training and Authorization. 4.1. No employee shall use or apply any herbicide or pesticide without prior training. 4.2. No employee shall use or apply any herbicide or pesticide mechanically or by hand without event specific authorization from a Certified Applicator. 5. Purchase of Herbicides and Pesticides. Herbicides and pesticides shall only be purchased by the City Purchasing Agent after consultation with a Certified Applicator and the approval of the respective Department Head or the Department Head's designee. 6. Storage. All herbicides and pesticides shall be stored in a safe, secure environment. The Park Superintendent, Certified Applicators and Department Heads shall have exclusive access to the storage area. 7. Annual Review. An annual review of policies and procedures regarding the use and application of herbicides and pesticides shall be conducted at the department head level. Attendance at the review is mandatory for all personnel who apply herbicides and pesticides. 8. Violation of Rules. Violation of any of these policies shall be grounds for disciplinary action. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1996. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1996. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor Rolliewed as to f m: F t I Paul Note, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION Ip:\ord\herbdde.,.s