Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0720 Council Mtg PacketHo m° AGENDA Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATUS OF ASHLAND COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE SERVICES BOARD REPORT OPERATIONAL/FINANCIAL UPDATE Vo VI. ITEMS OF INTEREST ADJOURNMENT Copies to Hospital Board Members ASHLAND COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE SERVICES ANNUAL REPORT ~ July 20th, 2004 · New Chief Executive Officer, Mark Marchetti- June · New Chief Operating and Financial Officer, Ron Telles - April Increase in number of physicians in Ashland 1- New Orthopedist l-New Physiatrist 1-Plastic Surgeon 1-Neurologist 1- Podiatrist 1- Ear, Nose & Throat Over the year approved recruitment of an Integrative Oncologist, an Internist and a Family Practice Specialist Approved Plans for Surgery Expansion - $13 - 14M when all complete Agent of Record for Employee Health Insurance Outpatient Hospice Program Outpatient Physical Therapy Successful Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations · Successful Computer Conversion accomplished over two phases · Opening of Med/Surg Expansion in May-7,000 sqft. & 10 private rooms plus support spaces · Two New Hospital Directors, Linda Butler replacing Helen Smith and Dr. Diane Williams, replacing Dr. Jean Keevil · Approved Board Slate of Officers o Paul Nicholson, Chair o Dave Bernard, Chair-Elect o Doug Morrison, M.D., Secretary o Marilyn Hanna, Treasurer · Grants · La Clinica del Valle, $15,000 for capital campaign · Community Works - $2,500 for Dietary Education · Fire District #5, $7,500 for thermal Imager · Ashland Community Health Center- $20,000 for operations Received Annual Auxiliary Report in October, 15,000 hours, donated $13K to hospital Approved purchase of 4th hospital-owned property adjacent to hospital campus Respectfully Submitted, Bernard, Chai Ashland Community Hospital City Council Presentation Ashland Community Hospital had a even with substantial reductions from Medicare and Medicaid. ...... - - Other 8.0 M Utilization continues to increase: ~~er°wth in utilization we have .~'tegl~'~gt~4a,~ over the same period of time. Last year the hospital had ~~ ,~t~~g"4t~J~r.~t'ta*:~l~M~/r//r~'t~- - Needed equipment to keep pace with technology and replacement. · Laboratory Analyzer, ~ · High Speed Surgical ~ · Surgical Microscope, ~ · Other t~O~:~t$r~9[lllJli, Examples: Vitrectomy Equipment, $41,95&19. Microdiscectomy System, $2 7,3 79. 65. Operating Table, $25,000.00. SDl lnverter, $22,959.20. Digital Recorder, $16,330. O0 Battery Powered Drill and Saw, $15,09& 00. Defibrillator, Heart Start XL, $14,724.40. In addition, the hosifftal invested in new brick and mortar to ~irmn~Tre~ttm~drgp~tts,.4tgai ~~1)1~~ The hospital has also undertaken the conversion to a ~ ~Ji~Allf.4~~ to keep pace with information storage and financial management. The hospital h~s ~ttem£ted to ~ir~~tgl,:r~~ Today the only debt tke hospital is s its ~'~ll~?l~ WhiCh has yet to be determined but is expected to be quite Article 3 Section I. 6.3 of the Definitive Agreement requires the ho~tal's WC to be maintained at a ~a~'~ttm~r~,~i~i.~'~L At the present time its ratio is ~ Changes to this WC ratio next year are expected to be quite minimal as the Board continues solid management and investment practices. After 25 years at Ashland Community Hospital this will be my last presentation. Retirement - Kept promise of no debt and a viable institution. Thank the cormcil for the opportunity to serve. Ashland Community Hospital Services Annual Member Report to the Ashland City Council July 20, 2004 As we look into the future, we have several areas to focus on and several areas of concern. Speaking to concerns first, reimbursement by the federal government for Medicare remains our gravest concern. The federal budget has no opportunity to provide any significant increase in payments to healthcare providers and write-offs for Medicare will continue to consume precious resources that are needed to offset these growing underpayments. Our state government likewise struggles with financial issues and its ability to pay healthcare providers for their services will continue to provide challenges, especially following the defeat of Ballot Measure 30. Commercial insurance costs for employers and self-employed persons continue to escalate. Ashland Community Hospital has witnessed nearly a one hundred percent increase: in premiums over the past four years. With the failure of Ballot Measure 30 and with the very high cost of commercial insurance, our community hospital is providing charity care and experiencing bad debt at an unprecedented rate. These financial issues are again, our primary concerns as we look into the future. These issues are obviously not unique to Ashland nor to Oregon. Another concern we in healthcare are facing is the rapidly approaching entry of the major bolus of Baby Boomers into Medicare. Funding to pay for this increased demand is not there, nor will there be sufficient healthcare workers to meet this expected service by tens ,of millions of Americans. We in healthcare refer to this moment in time as the major "train wreck." As an example of Medicare funding concerns, we currently have four people paying into Medicare for every recipient. By 2015, we will have 2.5 people paying into Medicare for every recipient. Our third major concern is the current and worsening healthcare worker shortage. For example, nationally our registered nurses average age is 47. This is exhausting work and nurses are opting to work fewer hours. We are way behind developing our programs to expand the nursing and technician and technologist training to meet this huge need in just a few years. Of equal if not greater concern to me is the projected shortage of physicians, especially primary care physicians, especially Internal Medicine specialists. These highly trained physicians most often care for the elderly with major multiple-system medical problems and they are reimbursed the least by Medicare. We are aggressively recruiting Internists but so is everyone, and then when we include the "Oregon factor" of very low reimbursement in comparison to states in the east and northeast, we have a challenge before us to meet community need. These combined shortages in medical professionals and underpayments create an access issue. The fourth major concern we in healthcare are facing pertains to medical liability insurance. In Oregon, because there are no limits on pain and suffering awards, few companies will write in Oregon. St. Paul has dropped its entire medical liability product line. Farmers Insurance has pulled out of Oregon. Insurance companies are determining what they will cover and that equates to reduced services. Our preliminary medical liability premium increase that will take effect on August 1st for our next insurance year is projected to be a 115 percent increase. One does not pay increased premiums with Medicare payments of 35 cents paid on a dollar charged. On the bright side, we in Ashland remain successful in recruiting needed physicians and recruiting and retaining nurses and technologists, especially in those specialized areas. We continue to manage our resources carefully and invest in new services carefully to yield solid financial performances. We have a very talented and dedicated Board of Directors, medical staff and employee workforce who have not lost sight of our mission. With continued success in recruiting the next generation of physicians in the right specialties and in the right numbers, they and our new generation of management and staff will continue to enjoy meeting our mission in service to our patients and their Families. We look forward to continued support by our Foundation and our Auxiliary and we: look forward to finding solutions to our challenges, not the least of which is the lack of parking. We cannot build parking structures with Medicare payments. I want thank you for continuing to provide us with bright, energetic and truly selflessly dedicated hospital directors. This remains a most critical factor in our continued success. Respectfully Submitted, (___e_ministrat°r .~--"/ CITY OF -AS H ]LAN D 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. The Public Forum is the tirne to speak on any subject not on the printed agenda. 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 July 20, 2004 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street 7:00 p.m. Hospital Board -Annual General Meeting 7:15 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: II. ROLL CALL: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2004, and Special Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2004. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. Bicycle Friendly Community Designation. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Alice Hardesty to the Housing C;ommission for a term to expire April 30, 2005. Authorization for the City Administrator to Sign and Execute ODOT Agreement No. 21888 - Fund Exchange Agreement; E. Main Street (Dewey to N. Mountain Avenue), City of Ashland. Approval of Oregon Department of Aviation Financial Aid to Municipalities (FAM) Grant Application in Support of the Ashland Municipal Airport 2004 Airport Improvement Program; and Reading by Title only of "A Resolution Accepting the Grant Offer of the State of Oregon Through the Oregon Department of ,Aviation in the Maximum Amount of $25,000 to be used under the Financial Aid to Mu~nicipalities Program Project No. 5-7-0012-0 in the Development of Ashland Municipal Airport." 5. Annual Liquor License Blanket Approval. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject ora Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting.) 1. Public Hearing regarding Appeal of Planning Action 2004-052,904 Garden Way, Ashland. ¢'()[ :\('Ii. N, II.iI.,'I'INt ~,% ,,\RI. I~l~(),,\l)t':\,~ I liN'l, \'1%11' Ifil. ('l'l'~'()l, .,X%III,.,\NI)'% \\'1..1{~111' \1 \\'\\'\\'..\,~111 VII. VIII. IX. X= PUBLIC FORUM' Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowecl for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) Xl. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Su~mmary of Council Goals for FY 2004-2005 and Timeline. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS' 1. Mount Ashland - Report and Update. ~. Ag~reement for Services between the City of Ashland and the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. Fiber Network." ~ Reading by title onll~f "A Resolutio_~uthorizing Interfund ,,Loans to the Community Development Block Gran~'fit~nd Telecommunications Funds. QEDI~FANC~S, "'"'°"~' ,,,..,.,,..~--~-~,.,,,,,= AND CONTRACTS: ~Jl~Fir,st and Second Readin~f "An Emergency Ordinance Levying Taxes for the P'~r-'['od Juiy i, ;'004 to and including June 30, 2005, such taxes in the sum of $8,388,000 upon all the Real and Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, and ~Repea_ling Ordinance ~ Reading by title only (~'A_Hesolution~uthorizing the Sale of Bonds for the Ashland OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIl Xll. LIAISONS: ADJOURNMENT: REMINDER A Study Sess;iOn will be held at noon on Wednesday, July 21 in Council Chambers: Topics of discussion will include: 1) Update of Railroad Crossing Evaluation. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). ('()l!lXi('ll. MI'iI('I'IN(iX /\1~(I t~I,~()AI)('AXI'I I\'1' ()N ('tI..\XNI'.I () \'11-;11 1111(('I'I'~'()1 .\XlII,.\NI)'S \\'1'1~,.sI'II'.,\I \V\V\~,'.,\XlII .\XI).()I~.I'S ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2004- Page 1 of 7 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 15, 2004 - '/:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 11'/5 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Couni:ilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of Regular Council Meeting of June 1, 2004, and Executive Meeting of June 4, 2004 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Councilor Hartzell recognized the Community Emergency ResPonse Team (CERT) graduates. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Goa Lobaugh to the Airport Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2005. 3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Pamela Garrett to the Ashland Fiber Network Programming Committee for a term to expire April 30, 2005. 4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments of: Hal Cloer, John Enders, Laurie MacGraw, Keith Massie, Carole Wheeldon, Pam Marsh, Kate Culbertson, Alfred Willstatter, Roy Bashaw and Don Montgomery to the Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee. 5. Deed Exchange - Liberty Street Open Space. Councilor Hartzell requested Consent item g4 is pulled for discussion. Councilor Jackson/HartzeH m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-3 and #5. Voice Vote: ail AYES. Motion passed. Council discussed the possibility of having 10 voting members, as opposed to 9 voting members with a non- voting alternate. Mayor DeBoer stated it would be difficult to select the non-voting member. Council discussed the age demographics represented on the committee and comment was made regarding the need for a mixture of participants. Suggestion was made to place Michael Riedeman on the committee,, Mayor DeBoer stated he was comfortable making substitutions recommended by the Council. Councilor Jackson/Morrison m/s to allow the Mayor to consider replacing Al Willstatter with Michael Riedeman. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Mayor DeBoer revised his recommendation to replace Al Willstatter with Michael Riedeman and recommended 10 voting members with' no alternate. - ...... Council Laws/Hearn m/s to confirm the Mayor's appointment to the Charter Review Committee. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2004 - Page 2 of 7 1. Continuation of Appeal of Planning Action No. 2004-02, a request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit to construct a multi-floor, 8,325 sq. ft. mixed use building at 88 North Main Street. A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is requested to permit "development" within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Applicant: Lloyd Haines. Mayor DeBoer explained the public hearing process and re-opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. EX PARTE CONTACT Mayor DeBoer received several emails and conducted a site visit. Councilor Heam also conducted a site visit. 'Assistant City Attorney Mike Franell explained Randall Hopkins had challenged Councilor Laws ability to make a fair decision, based on comments that were made at the June 1 st, 2004 Council Meeting. Councilor Laws assured the Council that he was able to make an unbiased decision based on the information and evidence presented. APPLICANT REBUTTUTAL cont. Applicant Lloyd Haines stated he is accompanied by the buildings architect, the landscape architect, two engineers from OTAK, and Attorney Craig Stone, who are all available to answer Council's questions. Council noted the building plan had been redesigned to move one comer of the building out of the 1872 elevation. Mr. Haines explained that contrary to what Staff had previously stated, he has now been informed that Section G does not permit the building to be located within this floodplain elevation. It does however, allow for decking is this area. As such, the plans have been revised to comply with this new criterion and the interior space within this area has been converted to outdoor dining space. Mr. Haines explained that because this area will now be deck space, there is no longer the need to disturb the critical root mass of the Maple tree. Mr. Haines commented that the changes to the building plan is not the fault of the applicant, but rather has come from Sta:tTs attempt to reconcile the different and competing sections of the Ashland Municipal Code. Mr. Haines clarified for Council that they had taken a conservative approach in deciding the placement of this building, placing it at 1 ~ feet above the Ashland Floodplain elevation. He explained the two floodplains do not match up, nor do their flow rates, so the building has been designed to sit at an elevation that is higher than both plains. Architect Dave Richardson noted the first floor will have a foundation that is approximately 1½ feet thick. He also explained that the two buildings within the single tax lot would share a ramp to the elevator for handicap access, as the applicant wants to make the existing structure ADA accessible. OTAK Engineers Greg Weston and Kevin Timmins were called forward for questioning; Council questioned how the concrete deck would fair in the event of a flood, specifically regarding debris. Mr. Timmins explained that in the event of a flood, this area would become more of a "water pool" than an area experiencing "water flow". If there happened to be debris that could make it that far, it would just sit in the pool. Mr. Timrnins also stated that in regards to how the deck would affect debris flow, there is no difference between a wood and concrete deck. Mr. Haines noted that he has always intended for the deck to be made of concrete. In regards to the public space issue, Mr. Haines stated that although he does not believe this requirement applies to this application, the building plans include opening up the space next to the creek for the use by the public.. ..... ' " PUBLIC HEARING cLOSED: 8:05 p.m. COUNCIL DELIBERATION Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained the Ashland Floodplain Corridor map came out after the FEMA map, and was created because the FEMA map contained inaccuracies with certain areas of ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2004 - Page 3 of 7 the creek. The City of Ashland conducted it's own analysis and adopted a broader floodplain corridor. Mr. MeLaughlin explained Staff established the building pattern by taking the most conservative numbers of each plain. Council asked the AsSistant City Attomey if a decision in favor of this application could result in an interpretation of the development issue. Mr. Franell explained that, since this issued has been raised by thc opponents, any action that Council takes will result in an interpretation of this particular provision. By approving this project they are resolving that Staff's interpretation is correct, by denying the application the Council would be creating their own interpretation of thc code. Mr. Franell stated it is his interpretation that as long as the buildings are built separately under different planning actions (down'town area only), they are considered separate developments. Comment was made that if Council is concerned about the repercussions of interpreting this ordinance, than amending the ordinance would be the best way to address those concerns. Councilor Jackson's suggested conditions were noted. Councilor Morrison/Amarotico m/s to approve the request for Site Review and Tree Removal Permit with the conditions as stated in the Findings on pages 71-78 of the record, and the additional conditions drafted by Councilor Jackson, excluding condition #3. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson recommended an additional condition that the applicant has already agreed to, which is the creation and donation of the resulting sculpture to the City of Ashland. Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to amend motion to add a 13 condition of approval which states the building sculpture shall be donated to the City of Ashland. Voice Vote: all AYES. M~,tion passed. Roll Call Vote on original motion as amended: Laws, Hartzell, Amarotico, Hearn, Jackson and Morrison, YES. Motion passed. 2. Public Hearing and First reading of "An Ordinance Vacating a Public Alley between Oregon Street and Madrone Street." Public Hearing Open: 7:25 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:25 p.m. Councilor Morrison/Hearn m/s to approve first reading of Ordinance and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: Council requested additional information on possible bike access before this item comes back for the second reading. Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Morrison, Hearn, Laws, Amarotico and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. 3. Public Hearing and Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations Within the 2003-2004 Budget." Finance Director Lee Tuneberg stated at the end of the fiscal year it is the City's responsibility to make the necessary adjustments to the 2003-2004 Budget. Mr. Tuneberg noted these changes are allowable under Oregon Budget Law and are necessary to keep the City in compliance. .. .. .. Public Hearing Open: 7:21 p.m, Public Hearing Closed: 7:21 p.m. Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2004-20. DISCUSSION: Council asked for clarification regarding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund. Mr. Tuneberg explained the City received a sizable amount from HUD for the purchase of properties, and as a result this eLdditional funding needed to be recognized in the budget. Jackson, YES, Motion passed. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2004 - Page 4 of 7 Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Hearn, Morrison and PUBLIC FORUM Carl Tappert/591 Chestnut/Spoke regarding the proposed Jackson House where the Jackson County Health Department is planning on housing the criminally insane. Mr. Tappert feels the proposed use is totally inappropriate for this residential area, and expressed his disappointment with the Ashland Community Hospital and Jackson County Health Department for their lack of judgement and disregard for the community. Mr. Tappert stated the use of this facility goes far beyond residential care, and noted the people occupying this facility are convicted felons. Mr. Tappert submitted his statement into the record. Deltra Ferguson/345 Maple Street/Spoke opposing the proposed Jackson House to house the criminally insane. Ms. Ferguson stated the proposed use of the Jackson House is not compatible with a residential area and is in violation of the zoning requirements. She explained this property has been leased to Jackson County for use as a residential care facility, not a lock-down facility for the criminally insane. Ms. Ferguson stated the residents of this neighborhood are demanding that the Council delay occupancy until it can be proven that incarcerating a population of mentally ill felons meets the criteria for a residential care facility. Wil Thomson/360 Maple Street/Spoke opposing the proposed Jackson House to house the criminally insane. Mr. Thomson noted the neighborhood was not informed of this buildings intended use until last week. He explained that this is a lock-down facility, which has undergone various precautions to prevent patients from escaping. Mr. Thomson noted the various types of crimes that have been committed by the proposed tenants, which include robbery, attempted murder, and rape. Councilor Hartzell/Hearn m/s to place on Agenda for discussion. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. UNFINISHED 'BUSINESS 1. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-118 Approving a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the Purpose of Constructing a Single Family Dwelling on Land Zoned R-1-7.5, Classified as Hillside Lands and Within a Residential Historic District in Ashland, Oregon. Aoollcant: Sidney and Karen DeBoer. Mayor recused himself due to direct conflict of interest. Councilor Hartzell brought forward 12 proposed changes to the Findings: 1) Page 49, Conclusions of Law, Remove "As to previous plantings on the subject and adjacent lots, ALUO 18.68.010 is an ordinance which has nothing to do with a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit.", 2) Page 50, Conclusions of Law, Remove "term 'tree protection areas' is not a term of art in the ALUO.", 3) Page 51, paragraph after 7, Remove "(which the Board has found should be subject to this ordinance)", 4) Page 52, 2na paragraph, Remove "That ordinance requires native trees to be sufficiently thinned or pruned to prevent ~m interlocking canopy.", 5) Page 52, 2., Insert "informal" in front of consultation in sentence "As to whether the mistaken removal of trees has a bearing on this application, the Hearings Board concluded and the Council affirms that Applicants removed the trees after consultation with the Planning Department...", Page 52, 2., Remove "...which incorrectly believed at the time that removal of trees from this property was not regulated under ALUO 18:62" (rest of the sentence amended above), - Page 52, 2., 'Remove "However, as cOncluded above, the trees removed by mistake may have had to be thinned or pruned to satisfy the requirements of ALUO 18.62.090." (last sentence), Page 54, Conclusions of Law, Remove "As earlier found, this project has maximized the conservation/preservation of significant trees (and, if applicable all trees on the property) pursuant to Criterion 29", 6) '7) 8) ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2004 - Page 5 of 7 9) Page 67, Conclusions of Law, Remove "...finds it difficult to understand this objection, but...", 10) Page 79, 7., Change "a few short..." to "a few days", 11) Page 79, 12, Remove "As vetted at great length during the Proceedings...", and 12) Page 79, 12, Eliminate last sentence "Finally, that the trees were removed in violation of the Hillside Ordinance is not a matter of consideration in this application." Council consensus to accept the proposed changes #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Council also consenses to remove the word "First" at the beginning of the second Conclusions of Law listed on page 76. Comment was made regarding the tax lot boundary adjustment, which needs to be completed before the building permit is issued. Council also questioned the possible construction of a pool house, which was noted in the Findings. Mr. Franell clarified the pool house was mentioned in the Findings because it was included on some of the initial plans. Mr. Franell further clarified that the pool is not being included as part of this application. Comment was made regarding Council's desire to create a "perfect document" and attempting to insert language that reflects their personal position. It was noted that it's Staffs responsibility to write Findings and it is the Council's role to ensure there are no obvious mistakes or policy implications. Opinion was expressed that these are new Findings which can change the interpretation of the Code, and therefore should be thoroughly reviewed. Councilor Morrison/Hearn m/s to adopt Findings for PA 2003-118 with the accepted changes. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison, Hearn, YES, Hartzell, NO. Motion passeq 5-1. 2. Quarterly Financial Report -- Jan - March, 2004. Postponed due to time constraints. 3. Summary of Council Goals for FY 2004-2005 and Timeline. Postponed due to time constraints. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None) ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by'title only of "An Ordinance Creating a Prohibition Against Public Nudity." Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer St/Explained he is opposed to legislating morality, and stated that people do not respond to this type of enforcement. Mr. Copeland suggested alternate language, and submJitted his wording into the record. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave/Stated this ordinance discriminates against a certain group of people, and refered to it as an "anti-hippie ordinance". Mr. Navickas feels this ordinance would destroy Gte character of the town, and explained that nudity isn't something that we should hide or be ashamed of. Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. .. Police Chief Mike Bianca stated that the proposed ordinance would be beneficial for the community. Mr. Franell noted the language "acts of artistic or political expression" as suggested by Mr. Cope. land would make the ordinance unenforceable. Comment was made that the Council needs to support the Police Department and ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2004 - Page 6 of 7 by adopting this ordinance it will give the Police the tools they need to negotiate. Opposing comment was made that there is already a law against lewd and indecent behavior, and there has not been an outcry from residents requesting this ordinance. Mayor DeBoer disagreed, stating he has received many complaints and fully support this ordinance. Council discussed limiting the enforceable area to the park and the Downtown Plaza Area. Councilor Hartzell/Laws m/s to approve Ordinance #2908 with the foil#wing amendment: "It is unlawful for any person to expose his or her genitalia while on public property in the downtown zone and public parks. This provision..." Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hartzell, Amarotico, Jackson and Hearn, YES. Morrison,'NO. Motion passed 5-1. 2. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, Authorizing the Issuance of Bonds to Finance the Ashland Fiber Network." Councilor Jackson/Laws m/s to approve Ordinance 02909. Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Laws, Morris#n, Amarotico, Hearn and Hartz,H, YES. Motion passed. . Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for period July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005, such taxes in the sum of $8,483,000 upon all the Real and Personal Property subject to Assessment and Levy within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon." Councilor Lmvs/Hartzell m/s to approve Ordinance 02910. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Jackson, Hearn, Hartz,H, Morrison and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed. 4. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the 2003-2004 Budget." Councilor Hal~zell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2004-21. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Amarotico, Laws, Morris#n, Hartzell and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. 5.' Reading by title only of "A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidentiial Employees for Fiscal Year 2004-2005." Councilor Laws declared a potential conflict of interest and requested that Council allow him to abstain. Councilor Jackson/Morrison m/s to allow Councilor Laws to abstain from voting on this issue and the following resolution regarding clarifying certain conditions of employment for Management and Confidential employees. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Morris#n/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2004-22. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Amarotico, Jackson, Mon~son and Hartzell, YES. Motion passed. 6. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City of Ashland Clarifying Certain Conditions of Employment for Management and Confidential Employees and Making such Conditions Consistent with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act by Repealing Resolution No. 97-18" · . Councilor Amarotico/Morrison m/s t'o 'approve Resolution #2'004-23. 'DISCUSSION: Comment Was made that the City should update their policy to become more proactive in regards to affirmative action. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Hearn, Amarotico, Morris#n, and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. 7. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Dedicating Property for Open Space Park Purposes ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 2004 - Page 7 of 7 pursuant to Article XIXA, Section 2, of the City Charter Oliver Wslk by Nomoeo, LLC)," and Anthorizstion to accept deed donating River Walk to City. Council questioned if the City should take into consideration the costs associated with accepting this type of property. Parks and Recreation Director Don Robertson explained that this park has been in the works for some time, and it would be a mistake for the City to not accept this property. However Staff will take the costs into consideration for any future properties. Mr. Robertson clarified for Council that this property is in the general area of the Bear Creek Extension Trail. Comment was made that this will result in an enhancement for our community and that there is tremendous community support for these types of actions. Suggestion was made to have a Study Session. with the Parks Department regarding this issue. Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Resolution #2004-24. DISCUSSION: iMayor DeBoer commented that the Parks Department is already dealing with this and does not know that a Study Session is needed. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Motion passed. 8. Discussion regarding the proposed Jackson HoUse by Jackson County Health to ho,use the criminally insane. Suggestion was made to look at the resolution establishing the Hospital Board and to dedicate at least one seat to a neighborhood representative. Mr. McLaughlin stated this property is located within a Health Care Zone, however the ordinance does not define the nature of residents being cared for. Mr. Franell explained the State of Oregon has defined several different residential care facilities, and this particular one falls under the definition of Residential Treatment Facility. Mr. Franell explained the State of Oregon can pre-empt the zoning laws, and they have indicated that they have the authority to place these facilities where ever they so choose. Mr. Frani:ll asked for additional time to fully research this issue. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor DeBoer noted there will be a Study Session at noon tomorrow in the Council Chambers regarding the Downtown Plan and a Presentation by Mike Cavallaro of RVCOG. Mayor DeBoer also noted there may be a Special Meeting on June 29th at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers for the purpose of a public hearing and approval of a Resolution to adopt a Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor ASHLAND CITY COU'NCIL - SPECIAL MEETING .RJNE 29, 2004 - Page 1 of 1 MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 29, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Michael Franell as City Attorney. Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing and Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations Within the 2003-2004 Budget." Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained that Staff is seeking Council's approval of the Supplemental Budget and Transfer of Appropriations. Mr. Tuneberg stated there have been several changes in Ashland's capital projects and noted the work going on in the Street Fund, which includes the Siskiyou Boulevard, Tolman Creek, and Strawberry Lane improvements. Mr. Tuneberg explained that he is proposing the City lend money from the Wastewater Fund to the Street.Fund, in order to give the City the spending authority necessary to complete the year and also be compliant with Oregon Budget Law. Mr. Tuneberg stated the City' would only borrow the amount necessary to complete the projects. Mr. Tuneberg clarified for Council that money would be paid back to the Wastewater Fund starting next fiscal year, Julyl, 2004. Public Hearing Open: 7:05 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:05 p.m. Councilor Hartzeli/Amarotico m/s to approve Resolution #2004-25. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Morrison, Hartzell, Jackson, Hearn and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the 2003-04. Budget." Mr. Tuneberg commented on the June 15th Council Meeting, at which time a Supplemental Budget was presented for the additional monies received from HUD for the purchase of property. This money was put in the Capital Outlay Fund, but it was later recognized that the City does not own this property. In order to meet Budget Law, the money needs to be moved out of the Capital Outlay Fund and back into Materials and Services where it will be expended. Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2004-26. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Hartzell, Laws, Amarotico, Jackson and Laws, YES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor CITY OF - SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: .. APPROVED BY: Bicycle Friendly Community Designation Community Development July 14, 2004 ' John McLaughlin, Director of Commupit~Development Maria Harris, Associate Planner ~-:ff~-/J) Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ]VJ~ Synopsis: Recommendation: Fiscal Impact: Background: The City of Ashland received the bronze-level Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of American Bicyclists earlier this year. Lexi Delgado, Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, and David Chapman, also a member of the Commission, will be presenting the award to the Mayor and City Council. No action is necessary. No fiscal impact to the City of Ashland. The League of American Bicyclists is a national education and advocacy organization that works to bring better bicycling to communities throughout the country. Their mission is to "Promote bicycling for fun, fitness axed transportation and works through advocacy and education for a bicycle-friendly America." The League represents the interests of the nation's 57 million cyclists with a current membership of 300,000 affiliated cyclists, including 40,000 individuals and 600 affiliated organizations. ~.- .- The Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign is an awards program that recognizes municipalities that actively support bicycling. A Bicycle-Friendly Community provides safe accommodation for cycling and encourages its resiclents to bike for transportation and recreation. The League of American Bicyclists administers the Bicycle Friendly Community Campaign. The application asks for information on engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation/planning initiatives that encourage bicycling and make the activity safer. The attached information further describes the award and recipients. One of.the Bicycle'and Pedestrian commission's goals for the 21)03.-2004 year. was to apply for the 'Bicycle Friendly Community designation. David Chapman was largely responsible for compiling the application submittal with assistance from several volunteers from the general public and staff. . . . League Honors Eleven New Bicycle-Friendly Communities to Kick Off National Bike MonthTM FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 29, :2004 Contact: Patrick J. McCormick Communications Director League of American BiCyclists. Phone: 202-822-1333; Fax: 202-822-1334 Email: pa~trick@bikeleague.org Washington, DC--The League of American Bicyclists kicks off National Bike Month TM by awarding 11 communities its prestigious Bicycle Friendly Community designation. Among the communities receiving the League's Bicycle Fdendly community (BFC) designation, the standouts are Boulder, colo.--which was granted the League's gold- . level BFC award~nd silver-level award winners Gainesville, Florida, Olympia, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona. The League has yet to bestow its highest-level platinum award to any communities. Bronze level awards were awarded to Ashland, Oregon.; Aubum, Alabama.; Carrboro, North. Ca~rolina; Longmont, Colorado; Mountain View, California; Portage, Michigan and Rockville, Maryland. An Honorary Mention was given to Milpitas, Califomia. The newly designated communities join 27 others previously given the designation to recognizE; their commitment to providing safe accommodation and facilities for bicyclists, and for their efforts to encourage bicycling for fun, fitness and transportation. Please visit www. bicyclefriendl¥community, or.q to learn more about the awards process and view the recently published highlights on the 2003 award-winning communities, as well as the results of the League's recent International Symposium on Bicycle Friendly Communities. Andy Clarke, ExecUtive Director of the League of American BicyclistS, congratulated the winners and said, "What better way to kick off this year's National Bike Month than celebrating cities such as Boulder, Colo., that show what's possible. Given the choice, people will and do ride their bikes. Bicycle Friendly Communities are special places, with a heightened sense of community spirit and an uncommon devotion to improving their quality of life. With political commitment, focused investment in infrastructure and policies, and broad community involvement, cities and towns can become better places not only to bicycle but also to live. The rewards for residents are huge: greater opportunities to lead active lifestyles; improved air quality, and increased travel choices." League staff and reviewers consider several factors before granting a community BFC status, including: · · .. · · .. .. . .- ... . . · T[ie' physical'environment for bicycling - on-street facilities, trails, parking etc. · Education programs to promote a "share the' road" ethic among bicyclists and drivers · Promotional initiatives to persuade people to'ride or ride more'often Enforcement of traffic laws for both motorists and bicyclists Future plans and evaluation techniques to improve conditions further In Boulder, an extraordinary ten percent of all resident tdps are made by bicycle,, as are 16 percent of all commuting trips. Neady seven percent of residents view bike commuting as their pdmary mode of travel to work, according to the Census. Boulder recognizes and supports its bicyclists by investing $4.5 million (19 percent)of its approved 2003 transportation budget on bicycle mode operations/maintenance and enhancement initiatives. Thanks to many years of political and financial support, 78% of Boulder's artedal streets are equipped with bike lanes and multi-use paths receive formal inspections twice a week. In terms of educational and promotional efforts, the "Courtesy is Contagious" public outreach campaign, launched by GO Boulder/City of Boulder in June 2002, has been a tremendous success. The campaign employs pdnt media and a team of ambassadors to exchange ideas and information with the community.. The program's goals are to reduce the number of bike and pedestrian-related injuries, and to create more active and livable neighborhoods in Boulder by increasing bicycle and pedestrian tdps. The League anticipates a rapidly growing list of BFC award winners as addition~al communities apply for the honor. Communities wishing to be considered for thE; award should visit www. bicyclefdendlycommunity.om to view the application and learn more about the program. Applications received on or before August 20, 2004 will be considered in the next application review cycle, with announcements of winning communities scheduled for October 2004. The League's Bicycle Fdendly Community Campaign is a national grassroots effort to increase the number of tdps made by bike, promote physical fitness, and help make communities more livable..The Campaign works in the most effective way possible-town by town, city by city-to encourage bicycling and achieve a bicycle-friendly Ame~dca. The Campaign is supported by generous grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (www.rwif. or.q)and Bikes Belong Coalition (www.bikesbelon.q.org). For more information on National Bike MonthTu, visit www.bikemonth.com for cycling 'tips, event listings and more. The League of American Bicyclists promotes bicycling for fun, fitness and transportation, and works through advocacy and education for a bicycle-friendly America. The League represents the interests of America's 50 million bicyclists, including its 300,000 members and affiliates. For more information or to suppc~ the League, visit www. bikeleaeue, ore and www. bicyclefriendlycommunitv, ore. All Awarded Bicycle-Friendly Communities 2003-2004 Platinum None Gold Boulder, Colorado Corvallis, Oregon Palo Alto,. California Portland, Oregon Silver: Denver, Colorado Folsom, California . Fort Collins,-Colorado Gainesville, Florida Missoula, Montana Olympia, Washington Santa Barbara, California Stanford University, California Tempe, Arizona Tucson, Arizona Bronze: Arlington, Virginia Ashland, Oregon Auburn, Alabama Beaverton, Oregon Bloomington, Indiana Boca Raton, Florida Brentwood, California Brunswick, Maine Carrboro, North Carolina Cary, North Carolina Chattanooga, Tennessee College Station, Texas Gilbert, Arizona Longmont, Colorado Mesa, Arizona Miami Beach, Florida Mountain View, California Portage, Michigan The Presidio of San Francisco, CA Redmond, Washington Rockville, Maryland Schaumburg, Illinois Shawnee, Kansas Washington, DC CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 16, 2004- Page I of 3 ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Wednesday, June 16, 2004 at 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. ATTENDANCE City Council: Kate Jackson, Alex Amarotico, Don Laws, Cate Hartzell and Chris Hearn. Councilor Morrison was absent. Staff: Gino Grimaldi, John MeLaughlin and Mike Franell. Discussion of the Downtown Plan Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that addressing the Dowmown Plan is a goal that was adopted by the City Council and the purpose of this Study Session is to determine the steps necessary to complete this goal. Vicld Dugger, Executive Director of the Oregon Downtown Development Association. (ODDA) was introduced. Ms. Dugger provided a brief background of this issue. She noted the original Downtown Plan was adopted by the City of Ashland in 1988, and in 2001 this issue was further addressed in the Ashland Downtown Plan Phase II. The original plan focused more on providing a vision, while the Phase II document was largely focused on circulation issues. It has been determined that these two plans should be integrated, while readdressing the overall downtown vision. Ms. Dugger explained the Oregon Downtown Development Association has been contacted by the City to assist in creating the framework of components that address this issue. The following are the steps recommended by ODDA: 1. Revisit and Update Downtown Vision 2. Review and Update of Transportation/Circulation Projects Ms. Dugger noted that many of these projects have been addressed through the implementation of the Phase II Plan. 3. Fine Tune Parking Management Plan and Develop Process for Public Review Ms. Dugger noted that due to the complexity of the Parking Plan, the Council may wish to addresses this item separately. 4. Review Streetscape Appearance and Amenities Ms. Dugger stated that she conducted a site visit and was surprised by the condition of the streetscape. She noted there appeared to be a lot of "band-aid" treatments and recommends the City look at this area in a larger context, as opposed to addressing it piece by piece. She also commented that Ashland is seen by 'other communities as an example of a vibrant downtown and therefore needs to held to a higher standard. 5. Lithia }gay Design Workshop It was noted that Lithia Way is regarded as the "weak leg" of the couplet and the idea is remove the highway feel and bring it more into the downtown atmosphere. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 16, 2004 - Page 2 of 3 6. Review of t~isting Land Use Policies and Codes Ms. Dugger stated that when a community undertakes a project such as this, code updates are typically needed. 7. Explore Innovative Partnerships to Help Move Efforts Forward 8. Explore Funding Options and Opportunities for Downtown Projects Urban Renewal was noted as a possible option for funding. .. Ms. Dugger stated the following products will serve as final outcomes for this project: i) Updated Downtown Vision and Plan, 2) Downtown Parking Plan, 3) Lithia Way Redevelopment Strategy, 4) Recommended Updates to Codes and Policies Report, 5) Partnership Oppommifies Report, and 6) Funding Opportunities Report. Ms. Dugger's recommendation is to work on the individual pieces systematically and simultaneously, so that they can build off of each other. Mr. McLaughlin noted the City would not be starting at ground zero, as certain projects have already been completed. He also clarified that Staff has not assigned a timeline or dates to these tasks and they are willing to extend the process for public input if needed. It was also noted that a timeline could not be produced until the Council determines which components they want included in the process. Ms. Dugger clarified her role in this project is to create the framework; it is then handed over to Staff for implementation. Council discussed whether the Parking Plan should be handled separately. Mr. McLaughlin clarified this is a key component that will be addressed in the overall plan, however the more technical issues (loading zones, parking zones, additional parking spaces, etc.) will need to be discussed in greater detail. Mr. McLaughlin noted there are different ideas throughout the community on what the Downtown Plan should be. It will be necessary to hold a series of public meetings for the City and the public to come to an agreement. ,Once this is complete, Staff can move forward with implementation. Council questioned whether they wanted to revisit some of these controversial issues. Suggestion was · made for Staff to review Council's decisions on recent planning appeals, and to reflect their judgement in the updated vision. Mayor DeBoe:r stated the citizens of Ashland deserve a break from the heavy construction. He noted there are small improvement projects that can be accomplished, but he would advise the Council and Staff to not undertake any major construction projects for several years. Mayor DeBoer also expressed concern regarding the funding, explaining Urban Renewal takes money away from the schools and the other option would result in increased taxes. Mayor DeBoer stated he would like to see the area in front of Washington Mutual Bank addressed, noting there was a fatal accident at this location. He also suggests that the City Council allow Staff to undertake smaller improvement projects as they see fit. Council noted the recent string of planning appeals and questioned if the Planning Department had adequate resources to undertake this major project. Mr. McLaughlin stated this project has been a council goal for several years, which is why it is before the Council at this time. If Council feels that Staff should prioritize this project differently, they are open to those suggestions. CITY COUNCIL ST[FDY SESSION JUNE 16, 2004 - Page 3 of 3 Mr. McLaughlin explained that there has been a shift in community views over the past few years, which is why so much time will be focused on meeting with the public. It could take substantial time before all parties come to an agreement. Comment was made that it is difficult to maintain public inw)lvement over a long period of time, and summer might not be the best time to address this issue. Council agreed to allow audience members to participate in the discussion. Colin Swales/Stated the 1988 Downtown Plan is very outdated, and noted there have been changes within the community since it was adopted. He believes the overall' "vision" needs to be readdressed, and believes there are members of the community who are willing to invest the time needed to work on this project. Mr. Swales noted the substantial amount of tourists who visit Ashland and suggests the Council establish an Ad Hoc Committee for the Downtown Plan. Eric Navickas/Stated too much emphasis has been placed on the parking issue and does not believe that this should be a priority. Mr. Navickas suggests that the Council address the Affordable Housing issue. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi noted that if the Council does not act on this project at this time, they will end up reacting to situations instead of moving forward. He believes that this project is a good investment of Council and Staffs time. Council consensus to not form a committee and agreed to have Staff continue to work on this project. Presentation by Mike Cavallaro of Rogue Valley Council of Governments Mike Cavallaro presented information on: 1) Changes in Fund Equity, 2) Assets to Liability, 3) Accounts Receivable, 4) Cash in Bank to Current Liabilities, and 5) RVCOG Budgets. (Mr. Cavalilaro submitted this information into the record) Mr. Cavallaro explained that they are competitively priced, however many people are nqt aware of the professional services that they offer. He provided the Council a comprehensive list of professional services and asked that the City keep them in mind when contracting work out. Meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, April Lucas CiTY OF kSHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on May 11, 2004 in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ABSENT MEMBERS: COUNCIL LIAISON: HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON: SOU LIASON: STAFF PRESENT: Russ Chapman, Chair Mike Morris Kerry KenCairn John Fields Marilyn Briggs Allen Douma Olena Black Michael Dawkins Dave Dotterrer No absent members Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) None None Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chapman announced the Planning Commission retreat would be held June 18, 2004 at the Community Development and Engineering Services building from 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There will be a Planning Commission study session on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. The topic will be announced. Briggs suggested a discussion of accessory residential units. The drop-in "Chat" will be held on June 22, 2004 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development :and Engineering Services building. Dave Dotterrer volunteered to be available. III. JULY AND AUGUST HEARINGS BOARD ASSIGNMENTS Kerry KenCairn, Dave Dotterrer and Marilyn Briggs will serve from July through August. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Douma/Morris m/s to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of the May l 1, 2004 meeting. Voice vote: The motion passed. The Minutes of the May 25, 2004 study session were reviewed. May 11, 2004 Findings for the Regular Meeting -. PA2004-025, Oregon State Board of Higher Education, intersection of Indiana and Madrone Streets were approved by voice vote. Chapman/Briggs m/s to approve the Findings for PA2004-031, City of Ashland, Strawberry & Westwood. Voice Vote: The motion passed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2004 KenCaim/Morris m/s ilo approve PA2004-030, Archerd and Dresner, LLC, 795 Orchard Street. Voice Vote: The motion passed. Briggs/Chapman m/s to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 2004 Hearings Board. Voice Vote: The motion passed. KenCaim/Briggs m/s to approve PA2004-043, Dr. Rodden, 530 Catalina. Voice Vote: The motion passed. Chapman/Briggs rn/s to approve PA2004-054, Lucinda Patterson, 610 Orchard Street. Voice Vote: The motion passed. KenCairn/Dotterrer nv's to approve PA2004-052, Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke, 904 Garden Way. Voice Vote: The motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORLIM No one came forth to speak. VI. OTHER General Discussion: With reference to Barbara Christensen's presentation at the study session, Briggs said she is not going to save her notes for four years. Molnar said he would check on it. There was continued discussion of the role of the Planning Commission. Retreat: The Commissioners were asked to let Staff know if they had any requests for site visits at the retreat. VII. ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2004 CITY OF kSHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES JUNE 8, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Dave Dotterrer called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. at Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. Commissioners Present: Absent Members: Council Liaison: High School Liaison: SOU Liaison: Staff Present: Dave Dotterrer Marilyn Briggs Kerry KenCairn* None Alex Amarotico ((Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) None None Mark Knox, Associate Planner Maria Harris, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Derek Severson, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary *KenCaim left the meeting after the first Type II hearing. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS - The Minutes and Findings will be adopted at the Regular Meeting. III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2004-070 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AT 363 HELMAN STREET INTO THREE PARCELS. APPLICANT: MARK SlLBERSTEIN This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-071 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND ADDITION OF A SEVENTH UNIT TO THE EXISTING HOTEL (TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATEr} AT 438 NORTH MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: DERMOT O'BRIEN This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-072 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INVOLVING THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 134 SECOND STREET. APPLICANT: MARY NELKE This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-062 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FOR A TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION (ASHLAND MAIN STREET INN) CONSISTING OF THREE GUEST UNITS PLUS THE OWNER'S UNIT LOCATED AT 142 NORTH MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: DENNIS & ALMA GAY This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-078 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 499 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 572 HOLLY STREET. APPLICANT: MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-081 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A FOUR LOT, 13-UNIT PROJECT AT 954 B STREET. THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THREE, FOUR-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM BUILDIIqGS. APPLICANT: ARCHERDIDRESNER, LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-074 REQUEST PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW "DEVELOPMENT" (I.E. INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY) ON THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS HILLSIDE LANDS AT 327 GRANITE STREET. ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS ARE REQUESTED TO PERMIT THE DRIVEWAY ON LANDS GREATER THAN A 35 PERCENT SLOPE IFOR A LENGTH GREATER THAN 100 FEET, TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY GRADE IN EXCESS OF 15 PERCENT, AND TO PERMIT A VERTICAL CUT SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. APPLICANT: CARLOS REICHENSHAMMER This action was approved. IV. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 904 GARDEN WAY INTO AN! ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. APPLICANT: DENNIS GRAY AND JANE CORY.VANDYKE Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by Dotterrer and KenCaim. STAFF REPORT Harris said the proposal is to use 475 square feet of existing space for an accessory residential unit. One parking space is being added next to the driveway. The application meets all the requirements of the R-1 zone. Harris said there is 46 feet of uninterrupted curb, close to the number of feet required for one on-street parking space. PUBLIC HEARING SUSAN REID, 171Gramte Street, is representing the applicant. Reid was a Council member that helped develop the ordinance allowing accessory resi[dential units with a Conditional Use Permit. Fifteen years later, she thinks it still holds tree that the only way to develop snmll apartments in Ashland is through this ordinance. Banks are not encouraging people to build studio and one-bedroom aparlments. This was an early attempt to provide affordable housing for single people. A small duplex is better than renting a single house to several individuals. JEAN CRAWFORD, 923 Harmony Lane, believes this area is unsuitable for accessory units. Most homes have one car garages. Most of the garages have been convened into living spaces. Often a unit comes with two to four vehicles. She is concerned about traffic and parking impacts as well as limited privacy and no open space. GWEN DAVIES, 860 Harmony Lane, read a statement in opposition. She referred to the R-1 definition and described their neighborhood. There a~re no sidewalks, as well as additional parking pressures and traffic congestion. There are children at play, erosion of the family atmosphere with the increase in the number of accessory residential units. Ken Cairn explained that part of the purpose of the CUP for an accessory residential unit has been to allow aging parents to live on the same property under the care of their adult children. By denying the CUP, we might never allow parents to live on the same property as their children. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD 2 JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Davies said she would support a family arrangement. Knox said what dictates the use of the accessory unit is the size. The proposal is for 475 square feet. This is a one person space. JOAN BALLINGER, 911 Harmony Lane, concurred with Davies' remarks. She is opposed to the application. She has college students living next door to her. The problems she has had relate to noise and the tenant's disorderly conduct. The neighborhood has changed and it is not a positive change. There is no more room on Harmony Lane for cars. She is concerned about landlord accountability. CHRIS ROBINSON, 891 Garden Way, read comments from the letter he submitted urging denial of the applic, ation. KAREN FIEGUTH, 850 Garden Way, submitted photos and read a letter in opposition. JOANNE COSTANTINO, 892 Harmony Lane, asked why the construction on the proposed property was almost finished before they received notice. It's different if you own the house and live there versus the owner living off-site. She read a letter from PATTY KNAPP, 902 Harmony Lane. JANIE BROWN, 932 Garden Way, said there is not enough room for parking on the street. She is concerned about more traffic, speeding cars and more residents in the neighborhood. LYNN COSTANTINO, 904 Harmony Lane, feels the Planning Commission has a fight to put certain conditions on this action. He is not opposed to accessory units. This is going to be a duplex that is non-owner occupied. He would like to see a limit to the number of people able to live in a house. It is unrealistic to believe only one person will live in 475 square feet. The unit deserves a front door entrance. They should have a rule they can't have entrance less than six feet from the property line. A landlord should have to pay a license fee for the CUP of $250 to $300 a year and have an annual inspection. The money generated can be put into affordable housing. There should be a limit on the number of accessory residential units in a neighborhood. Harris added a potential new Condition. Staff believes the second parking space is accessible as shown, but it would be better to reconfigure it so the driveway apron is centered so both parking spaces are accessible. That also achieves the required 48 feet of frontage for an off-street parking credit. Reid said she is agreeable. Rebuttal Reid said there was no removal or closing of a garage door. There have been no changes to the faqade of this house. All permits were aPplied for through the City in an appropriate manner. The goal is to have a legal unit. The trait is close to transportation, a park, and entertainment. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs asked if the electrical box went in before the applicants obtained a permit. It is Harris' understanding they obtained the necessary permits. She thinks there was internal work done on the property for things that may not have required building permits. Knox added that there are situations where someone intends to do just a studio. Briggs felt the criteria have been met, however, she felt the applicants need to be in full compliance with the parking requirements. Harris said by changing the driveway apron to the middle, the applicants would have three off-street parking spaces, thereby meeting the requirement. Harris understood the addition (closing of the garage) was done in the 1970's and has been in place. She checked on the number of approved accessory residential units on Harmony Lane, Garden Way, Sunset and Ross Lane. There is only one on file that has been approved. If there are second units out there, they have not gone through the City's approval process. A Condition has been added that they sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for sidewalks on Garden Way. Briggs/KenCairn m/s to approve PA2004-052 with the attached Conditions. Add Condition 13 that the driiveway apron shall be reconfigured and centered to provide access to both off-street parking spaces and to provide the adjacent 48 lineal feet of street frontage necessary for one off-street parking credit. The driveway apron shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. A permit for work in the street fight-of-way shall be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 HEARINGS BOARD JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Dotterrer said he is opposed to the application based on the following Conditional Use Permit criteria: The Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. He sees this as a single family residential area and he believes single family areas should be left single family areas. Roll Call Vote: Briggs, KenCairn, YES. Dotterrer NO. Motion passed. KenCairn left the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 200,4-058 REQUEST FOR A LAND. PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AT 1167 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD INTO THREE PARCELS, WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL. A VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS REQUESTED TO PERMIIT A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD,' RATHER THAN 15 FEET AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. APPLICANT: MICHAEL AND MARY JACOBSON STAFF REPORT Knox explained the proposed partition as outlined in the Staff Report. The plan shows the proposed building envelopes and proposed parking areas. Staff has had some reservations about the proposed parking. They are asking the standard setbacks be shown. The applicants have proposed a setback variance in the front yard. The variance is warranted because it is an existing house and an oversized, property for the zoning (R-1-7.5). There are attached Conditions. On Lot 2, the applicants are proposing to address the lot coverage issue. Some of the driveway may need to be cut out of the middle parcel in order to provide the right amotmt of impervious surface. PUBLIC HEARING MICHAEL AND MARY JACOBSON are the owners of 1167 Tolman Creek Road. Dotterrer asked if they are willing to move the parking area on Lot 3 e,ffthe lot line. Michael Jacobson affu-med. LUCY EDWARDS, 1130 Tolman Creek Road, expressed her concern for the larger houses going up in the neighborhood with the footprint being filled in. She would rather see the parcel divided into only two lots. If we are going to triple the density, she is concerned about safety as there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks along Tolman Creek Road and no traffic signal at the corner of Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou. She would like to see the impacts diminished. DEBRA NEISEWANDER, 1159 Tolman Creek Road discussed her concerns regarding congestion, traffic and density. The thought of two large homes built on each lot is overwhelming. HOLLY FREEMAN, 1215 Tolman Creek Road, stated that upper Tolman has a more rural feeing. The building of their neighbor's home last year completely changed their lifestyle. It looms over her back yard and she has no privacy. The approval of this application will further diminish the privacy of the neighborhood. Paving of Black Oak will diminish the rural feel. Rebuttal Michael Jacobson said their intent is to sell off only Lot 1. They do not intend to build on Lot 3. Mary Jacobson said eliminating a driveway should cut down on traffic congestion. One of their conditions of approval is to install sidewalks. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2004-058 with the attached Conditions. The motion passed. V. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMI,~;SION HEARINGS BOARD JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES CITY OF kSHLAND Ashland Tree Commission Regular Meeting June 3, 2004 Minutes II. Ill. IV. V, VI. Call to Order: Chair Ted Loftus called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. on June 3, 2004 at the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winbum Way. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison: Youth Liaison: Staff Present: Ted Loftus, Chair Bryan Holley Bryan Nelson Mary Pritchard Fred Stockwell January Jennings Laurie Sager Cate Hartzell (late) None Maria Harris, Associate Planner Approval of Minutes: The minutes of May 6, 2004 were approved with corrections. The corrections were as follows: 1) page 2, sixth paragraph the addition to the last sentence as follows "Holley concurred and Loftus determined that discussion would continue during old 'business.", and 2) page 7, last paragraph the first two sentences were amended as follows "Holley expressed his thoughts over Tree Commissioners' concerns over trying to do too much. He distributed a list of action items separating out education items from everything else." Welcome Guests & Public Forum: There were no guests in attendance, and no public comments were received. Commissioner Trainin!l: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder and Paul Nolte, City Attorney gave a presentation on public meeting law, conducting meetings and public ethics rules. Public Hearinfls: The pubhc hearing for Planning Action 2004-075 for 550 Mistletoe'. Road was postponed due to incomplete information. 0Id Business: Items D. Heritage Tree Process and E. Design Professional Ordinance Amendment were moved up to allow Paul Nolte, City Attorney to participate in the discussion. D. Heritage Tree Process: Draft revisions of the 18.61, Heritage Tree Designation and 'Tree Preservation Agreement and the Nomination Form were discussed. The suggestion was to require a Tree Removal Staff Permit for the removal of a heritage tree by adding "e. Removal of a heritage tree." to 18.61.042. The discussion of the agreement involved adding language to the agreement that definitively spells out the responsibility of the property owner for care of the tree, and adding language designating a process to easily remove a heritage tree from list if the property owner chooses to do so. It was explained that the removal ofthe agreement from the title was by filing a quitclaim deed. It was suggested that the removal process by quitclaim deed should also be included in Chapter 18.61. The discussion of the Nomination Form included editing including moving the Tree Description section under "For City Use", and deleting the line above the signature line "Report by the Tree Commission is attached." Holley/Pritchard m/s to add the June 3, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 VII. quitclaim deed language to the agreement and ordinance. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. E. r~esign Professional Ordinance Amendment: The status of the amendment was discussed. It was established that Tree Commission members had drafted language that was given to Staff. The item was tabled until the next meeting to allow Staff to determine status of the project. There was discussion of the tree account referred to in Chapter 18.61 for mitigation for tree removal (payment in lieu of planting) and for unauthorized tree removal penalties. The suggestions were to include the account in the adopted 2004-1005 budget, establish the fees and estimate the annual amount which will be collected. A. Goals 1) Staffing: The announcement was made that Maria Hams, Associate Planner has been assigned as Staff Liaison to the Tree Commission. 2) Education/Outreach: There was discussion of waiting until Fall to move forward since Commissioners are on vacations. It was suggested that the project list be prioritized and reduced to 1-3 items to make it more workable. Also concern expressed about lack of forward movement and concern about having the full commission regularly review the full laundry list. B. Liaison Reports 1) City Council: Cate Hartzell suggested once the planning application for the Shasta building (88 N. Main) is completed, examining what was learned by that. 2) Forest Lands: No report. 3) Parks Department: No report. C. I~lemorial Tree List: Indefinitely tabled. The current Capital Improvements Project list was requested from Staff. D. Type I Planning Actions: There was a discussion of the process currently being used for Type I Planning Actions which is Staff conducting an in-house review. The possibility of bringing Type I planning actions back on the agenda for review by the full Tree Commission was discussed. It was also suggested that the Tree Commission might consider being part of the pre-application cont~rence review. There was concerned expressed that things are happening with administrative approvals (Staff Permits and Type I Planning Actions) that the Tree Commission should know about. It was suggested that a monthly report on the administrative approvals be prepared by Staff for [he Tree Commission. New Business A. Revolving Chair: There was discussion and agreement that the annual election of the Chair should be a regular item on the January agenda as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code. B. Root Pruning Brochure: There was agreement that a root priming brochure' does not need to be deve, loped because the material is existing in the rune tree brochures that have recently been acquired. Commission Items Not on the Aqenda: The Commission members discussed the possibility of not having an August meeting, and requested that Staff make this happen if possible. June 3, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 IX. Xl It was agreed that the continuation of the review of Chapter 18.61 be an agenda item fo,r the July meeting. Announcements: It was announced that the next Tree Commission meeting will be on July 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. June 3, 2004 Tree Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Office of the Mayor Alan ~. DeBoer MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: July 15, 2004 City Council Members Mayor Alan DeBoer Appointment to Housing Commission July 20, 2004 Council Meeting This will confirm my appointment of Alice Hardesty to the Housing Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2005. The vacancy was created when Jonathan Uto recently resigned his seat from the Housing Commission. A copy of Alice Hardesty's application and the advertisement as it appeared in the Ashland Daily Tidings is attached. Previous applications on file were also taken into consideration. Attachments City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street · Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Email: awdb@aol.com The City of Ashland has a vacancy on the HOUSING COMMISSION for a term to expire Apd130, 2005. The Housing Commission typically meets on the 4th Wednesday of each month at 4:00 p.m. If you are interested in being considered for a volunteer position on the Housing Commission, please submit your request in writing, with a copy of your resume (if available) to the City Recorder's office. Additional information regarding this position can be obtained from the office of the City Re- corder or the City's Web site at www.ashland.or, us. APPLY TO: The City Recorder, City HalI, 20 East Main St., Ashland. APPLY BY: Fdday, July 2, 2004. CITY OF kSHLAND Please publish: Tidings - Th~xrsday, June 17, Saturday, June 19 and Tuesday, June 22 Please refer to Purchase Order No.: 65202 Questions: Call Fran at 488-6002 Alice Hardesty Honorable Alan DeBoer Mayor, City of Ashland 575 Dogwood Way Ashlancl, OR 97520 (541)488-8076 ci,,,o, rhcr. ,,x June 16, 2004 Dear Alan, This letter is to state my interest in becoming a member of the Housing Colramssion, as I understand there is currently a vacancy. Although my background is not directly related to the field, the majority of tny career has been devoted to public service, and I think that I have a feeling for the importance of housing issues. My father was an architect, as is my nephew, and I have worked with architects through my profession. I believe that affordable housing is one of the major problems facing Ashland over the next few years. I understand that the escalation of housing costs is inevitable, and as a homeowner, I am not unhappy about the increase in value of my own property. However, I feel that it would be a shame if the people who work in Ashland can no longer afford to live here, and that time is fast approaching. I am also aware that this is a very complex isSue, replete with problems. An architect friend has provided me with information on several successful "green" affordable housing projects in the Portland area, and another friend who lives on Bainbridge Island has provided me with information on the many pitfalls that can accompany a community's attempts to create affordable housing. I would be happy to share this information with the Housing Commission and City staff. With respect to my background, I have a Ph.D. in audiology, and my specialty is the effects of noise on people, particularly on hearing. I worked for several years for the D.C. government, then for three different federal agencies, and finally as an independent consultant. I still work about half time in my consulting practice. I have always been quite active in my various professional organizations, and, needless to say, I am well acquainted with committee work, with all of its rewards and frustrations. Ashland is, without a doubt, the most wonderful place I've ever lived. Its ambience and cultural life are second to none, friendships are easy to make, and the range of activities is enormous. In that regard I've been on the board of Chamber Music Concerts for 7 years (with terms as president and development committee chair), a member of the Siskiyou Singers, a gallery owner for 3 years, and I have organized writing workshops and poetry readings. Recently, as my workload has tapered off somewhat, I've thought about how I can give back to the cilty I love. I have thought about running for City Council, but decided that the timing is not good at this point and would rather be considered for the Housing Commission. I hope you will consider this application favorably. If there is any more information that I could supply, please feel free to contact me at 488-8076.' Sincerely, Alice Suter Hardesty CITY OF -AS H LAN D Council Communication Title: Authorization for the City Administrator to Sign and Execute ODOT Agreement No. 21888 - 2003 Fund Exchange Agreement; E. Main Street (Dewey to N. Mountain Avenue) City of Ashland Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Public Works Department July 20, 2004,. Paula Brown Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: The City has participated in the State's federal fund exchange program through the Oregon Department of Transportation for many years. This year staff proposes that the federal funds for the 2003 federal transportation funding allocation go toward the E. Main Street, Dewey Street to N. Mountain Avenue resurfacing project. This is consistent with the Capital Improvement's Program outlined in the budget document. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Administrator to sign and execute ODOT Agreement No. 21888 - 2003 Fund Exchange Agreement; E. Main Street (Dewey to N. Mountain Avenue) City of Ashland obligating Federal Funds in the amount of $107,969 in exchange for State funds of $101,491. Fiscal Impact: Through the federal fund exchange program, the City in essence looses 6% of cash for a benefit of being allowed to use the state's system of project management. The gain from a contract flexibility and construction management stand point is well worth the minor reduction in funds. This project is in the Capital Improvements Program for FY05 construction. It is one of four projects in the 2005 Street Projects and is in design. It is estimated that the total construction will be approximately $125,000. The street fund will provide the difference between the fund exchange and the total cost. Background: The ODOT Fund Exchange Program is an extension of the Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP).. Cities with population in excess of 5000 people receive an annual allocation of funds based upon actual population. The State provides'these funds at a reduced rate (94% of the federal allocation) for City projects. By using the funds through the State's exchange program, the funds can' be used for a wider variety of projects, and work can be completed by City crews or contracted directly through the City. The State's requirements and controls are not as stringent as Federal CC ODOT FundEx E Main 20Jul04 Page 1 of 2 controls. ODOT has approved the project prospectus and found the project eligible for the fund exchange program. Prior year's fund exchange dollars have been used to fund the reconstruction of Union Street (FFY 98), reconstruction of Sherman Street (FFY 97) and Wightman Street Realignment (iFFY 96). The past four year's of allocation (FFY 99 through FFY 02) have been dedicated to thee Water Street Bridge replacement project now scheduled for construction start in May 2005. With the City now a part of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, we will no longer receive a direct federal allocation after this year's.project. We have however, negotiated with the MPO to protect our street project interests through at least 2008 and perhaps longer as there are prior funding commitments ~that extend past 2008 for the original MPO cities. At that time, the City will need to compete for street projects with the entire MPO. Attachments: ODOT Agreement No. 21888 - 2003 Fund Exchange Agreement; E. Main Street (Dewey to N. Mountain Avenue) City of Ashland CC ODOT FundEx E Main 20Jul04 Page 2 of 2 Oregon Theodore R. Kulongoski, Govemor Department of Transportation Region 3 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470 (541) 957-3500 FAX (541) 957-3547 June 21, 2004 FILE CODE: City of Ashland Attn: Paula Brown, Public Works Director 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Agreement No. 21888- E. Main Street Fund Exchan{ Dear Paula: ieCiTY OF "'": ...... Enclosed for City signature are four (4) originals of the above referenced agreement. Once you have obtained all required signatures, please return all four copies for further processing to: Oregon Dept. of Transportation Attn: Elizabeth Stacey 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, OR 97470 Please give me a call if you have any questions or need further clarification. Elizabeth Stacey Region 3 Agreement tor 541.957.3635 Enclosure Cc: Ken Norton Region 3 Local Agency Liaison Form 734-1829 (1-03) Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 21888 2003 FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT E. Main Street (Dewey to N. Mountain Avenue) City of Ashland THIS AGRIEEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as"State'~, and THE CITY OF ASHLAND, acting by and through' its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "Agency". RECITALS . By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs .on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT . Agency has submitted a completed and signed Part 1 of the Project Prospectus, or a similar document agreed to by state, outlining the schedule and costs associated with all phases of the East Main Street (Dewey to N. Mountain Ave.) pavement reconstruction, hereinafter referred to as "Project". . To assist in funding the Project, Agency has requested State to exchange 2003 Federal funds, which have been allocated to Agency, for State funds based on the following ratio: $94 State for $100 Federal Based on this ratio, Agency wishes to trade $107,969 Federal Funds for $101,491 State funds. , State has reviewed Agency's prospectus, considered Agency's request for the fund exchange, and has determined that Agency's Project is eligible for the exchange funds. 4..This Agre. ement .shall be for two years beginning.on.the date all required signatures. .a-re obtained and shall terminate two Calendar years'later on the same month 'and day, unless OtherWise extended' Or renewed by formal agreement of the parties. 5. The parties agree that the exchange is subject to the following conditions: City of Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21888 A. The Federal Funds transferred to State may be used by State at its discretion. B, State dollars transferred to Agency must be used for the E. Main Street (Dewey to N. Mountain Ave.) Project. This fund exchange is to provide funding for specific roadway projects and is not intended for maintenance. Ce State funds may be used for all phases of the Project, inclu~ding preliminary engineering, right of way, utility relocations and construction. Said use shall be consistent with the Oregon Constitution and statutes (Section 3a of Article IX Oregon .Constitution). Agency shall be responsible to account for expenditure of State funds. De This Fund Exchange shall be on a reimbursement basis, with State funds limited to a maximum amount of $101,491. All costs incurred in excess of the fund exchange amount will be the sole responsibility of Agency'. Eo State certifies at the time this Agreement is written that suffiCient f,unds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within State's current appropriation or limitation. Fe Agency shall be responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement, including but not limited to retirement contributions, workers' compensation, unemployment taxes, and State and Federal income tax withholding. Ge Agency shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320 and 279.555, which hereby are incorporated by reference. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Agency expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 196.4; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. H..Agency, or its. . consultant, shall conduct .the necessary preliminary · engineering and. design work required to produce final plans,- specifications and cost'estimates; purchase all necessary right of Way'in accordance with current'State and Federal laws and regulations; obtain all required permits; be responsible for all utility relocations; advertise for City of Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21888 bid proposals; award all contracts; perform all construction engineering; and make all contractor payments required to complete the Project. Agency shall compile accurate cost accounting records. Agency shall bill StatE; in a form acceptable to State no more than once a month for costs incurred on the Project. State will reimburse Agency at 100 percent of the billing amount not to exceed $101,491. The cost records and accounts pertaining to the work covered by this Agreement shall be retained for inspection by representatives of State for a period of three years following final payment. Copies shall .be made available upon request. J. Agency shall upon completion of Project maintain and operate the Project at its own cost and expense. K, All employers, including Agency, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ors 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Agency shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. L. This Agreement may-be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties. 1. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a, If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b, If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as State may authorize. , Eiither party may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to the other party, or at such later date as may be established by the terminating party, under any of the following conditio..ns: If either party fails to receive funding,' appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient' to allow either party, in the" City of Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21888 exercise of their reasonable administrative discretion, to contiinue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. bo If Federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or either party is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 3. Any :termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. M. State and Agency hereto agree that if any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid. 6. Agency shall enter into and execute this Agreement during a duly authorized session of its City Council. , This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. The funding for. this fund exchange program was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 17, 2003, as a part of the 2004-2007 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. The Program and Funding Services Manager approved the fund exchange on May 28, 2004. The Oregon TranspOrtation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delegation Order No. 2, which authorizes 'the Director to approve and' execute agreements. for day-to-day operations when the work is related to a project included 'in the Statewide City of Ashland/ODOT Agreement No. 21888 Transportation Improvement Program or a line item in the biennial budget approved by the Commission. On September 16, 2002, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, in which the Director delegates authority to the Executive r)eputy Director for Highways to approve and execute agreements over $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, other system plans approved by the Commission such as the Traffic Safety Performance Plan, or in a line item in the approved biennial budget. CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its elected officials STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation By By Title Date Deputy Director, Highway Division Date APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By By Title Technical Services Manager/Chief Engineer Date Date By By Title Date Region Manager Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By By. Agency Counsel Date Agency Billling Address: City of Ashland Attn:-Paula Brown 20 E.Main Street' - · Ashland, OR'97520 Assistant Attorney General Date CounCil Communication CITY OF -ASHLAND Title: Approval of Oregon Department of Aviation Financial Aid to Municipalities (FAM) Grant Application in Support of the Ashland Municipal Airport 2004 .Airport Improvement Program Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Public Works Department July 20, 2004 Paula Brown~~ Mike Franell Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: The attached Oregon Department of Aviation, Financial Aid to Municipalities (FAM) grant application is in support of the.Ashland Municipal Airport 2004 Airport Improvement Program. The City of Ashland is requesting this eligible 2004 grant be provided to offset the costs of the City's match for the Federal Airport Improvement Project that is currently in the construction bidding process. The FAM grant's are provided to municipal airports to assist with airport operation and development, and will provide up to $25,000 toward _~the City~' s 5% match-for theAirport-ImprovementProject~--The-AIP-isestimated-at-approxiimately$922~000 and includes the design, base bid and two bid alternates. The AlP will provide medium intensity runway iighting,'reconstruct and overlay the aprons, construct an airport washdown area and install runway retro- reflective markers. The attached resolution will provide the City's approval to accept this FAM grant. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the grant offer of the State of. Oregon through the Oregon Department of Aviation in the maximum amount of $25,000 to be used under the Financial Aid To Municipalities Program Project No. 5-7-0012-0 in the development of Ashland Municipal Airport. Fiscal Impact: The 2004 Airport Improvement Project is a federal assistance grant to the City from the Federal Aviation Administration. Those programs fund 95% of a local project and require a 5% match. This year's project is approximately $921,718 requiring a $46,086 match from the City of Ashland. The Oregon Department of Aviation can assist the City through the FAM Grants with up to $25,000. That will leave 'the City with a combined cash and "soft,' match for the remaining $21,086. Soft-match are typically attributed to staff oversight time and are accounted for as a part of the Airport's central service fees. All funds-will go to support only'public use areas. .. .' Background/Attachments: Resolution FAM Grant Application Cover Sheet for the FAA AIP Project CC Approval of FAM Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 1 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE GRANT OFFER OF THE STATE OF OREGON THROUGH THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF.AVIATION IN THE MAXIMUM · AMOUNT OF $.25,000 TO BE USED UNDER THE FINANCIAL AID TO MUNICIPALITIES PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 5-7-0012-0 IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. 'rhat the City of Ashland shall accept the Grant Offer of the State of Oregon in the amount of $25,000 for the purpose of obtaining State Aid under Project No. 5-7-0012-0 in the development of Ashland Municipal Airport; and SECTION 2. 'That the City Administrator of the City of Ashland is hereby authorized and directed to sign the statement of ACceptance of said Grant Offer on behalf of the City of Ashland, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest the signature of the City Manager and to impress the official seal of the City of Ashland on the aforesaid statement of ...... Acceptance;- an, d. - .... : SECTION 3. A true copy of the Grant Offer referred to herein is attached hereto and made a part hereof. This resolution 'was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code '{}2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this .: day of ,2004. -Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor CC Approval of FAM ,Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 2 of 8 July 9, 2004 CITY OF -ASHLAND Mr. Tom Franklin Aviation Program Specialist Oregon Department of Aviation 3040 25th Street SE Salem OR 97302-1125 RE: FAM GRANT FORASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Dear Tom: Enclosed is a FAM Grant application to help support the costs of the 2004 Airport Improvement Project 3-41-0002-06 for installation of medium-intensity runway lighting (MIRL), rehabilitation of the existing asphalt apron, construction of an airplane wash facility and installation of retroreflective markers. The AlP project for which the funds are being requested is listed as Project No. 2000-18 and is supported by the Airport Master Plan adopted in 19192 and is currently under state contract for ALP update. Included with the application are: A) FAM Grant Application ...... B)-AshlandMunicipatAirport-MasterPlan(AIP) C) Negative Environmental Declaration' D) Draft Resolution No. 2001-06 with Certification (to be adopted 7-20-04) E) Project Narrative Sketch of Project Area Site Plan Preliminary Construction Estimate F) Proposed In-Kind Hourly Labor Rates Thank you for your consideration. If you need anything further or if you have questions concerning the application, please feel free to call at 541/488-5347. Sincerely, //s// Paula C. Brown P.E. Director of Public Works CC: Jim Olson. CC Approval of FAM Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 3 of 8 NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF FAM GRANT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TAXILANE AT THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SCOPE OF PP, OJECT: The project inclludes the items under the 2004 Airport Improvement Program Project AlP 3-41- 0002-06. The following items of work constitute this project and are necessary to complete the airport improvements: - 1 2 3 4 Installation of Medium-Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) Rehabillitation of the existing asphalt apron Construction of an airplane wash facility Installation of taxiway retroreflective markers PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: 1. Medium-Intensity Runway Lighting - The existing Iow intensity runway lights were installed in 1969 with thE; original airport constructiOn. The original lamps are still in place and have serviced continuously since that time. Both the ALP and FAA standards require that the exiting runway edge lighting system be upgraded to medium intensity. 2. Tie-Down Apron Overlay - Although much of the older tie-down aprons at Ashland Municipal Airport have received surface treatments such as fOg~ealingandcracksealing,~the .......... S-[idace continues to degrade. An asphalt overlay is required to preserve the structural · integrity of the apron. Under this AlP project, approximately 20,600 square yards of as halt -tie-down apron.,; will be overlaid. P 3. Airport Wash Facility- Due to the restrictions of the Non-Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit, the Airport is under very strict guidelines for any storm water runoff at the airport. The Department of Fnvironmental Quality sets the regulations for the. proteCtion of Neil Creek whiCh is in very close proximity to the airport. 4. Install Retro Reflectors Along the Taxiway As a safety measure it is proposed that retro reflective markers be installed along both sides of the taxiway. FUTURE BENEFIT: The ability to safely serve the aeronautical needs of the community will be enhanced by the addition of improved runway edge lighting and taxiway edge marking. These safety improvements have been recommended by FAA and are further supported by the ALP. These improvements along with the recently installed and improved fueling system are expected to increaSe the demand on the airport facilities even further. ' ' ' CC Approval of FAM Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 4 of 8 STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION Financial Aid to Municipalities (FAM) Grant Application Fiscal Year 2004 FINAL DATE FOR FLUNG: DATE OF 7112/04 REQUEST: 7/9/2004 Municipality: City of Ashland Name, 'l-~le, Address of Person to Contact: Paula C. Brown P.E. Director of Public Works 20 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520 Airport Name: Ashland Municipal Phone: 541/488-5587 Fa,,c 541/488-6(X)6 Email: Brownp~ashland.or. us Short descriptions of projects and proposed funding (to nearest dollar): Projec~ provides the required 5% Use add~ sheets if necessary, match ($37,500)for AlP Project f~3-41-0002-06. Priodty Applicant's Project . No. Project Description Funds AlP Funds FAM' Fund~ Cost Installation of medium-intensity runway lighting I '(MIRL), rehabilitation of the existing asphalt apron, $12,500 $712,500. $25,000 $750,0(X) construction of an airplane wash facility and ,. installation of taxiway retroreflective markers. -- __ i TOTAL Date No Sicmature of Authorized O1 ficiah Airport Layout Plan Oct-92 Environmental Statement 3/30/2(X)1 Airport Oveday meets req. Oct-92 SEE ATTACHED SPONSOR SIGNATURE: DATE: CC Approval of FAM Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 5 of 8 21-220 NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION The City of Ashland has submitted a request for Federal/State financial assistance under the Airport Improvement Project authorized by the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1976 at the Ashland Municipal Airport. . D_escription and Purpose of Proiect a) Description. The proposed project consists of installation of medium-intensity runway lighting (MIRL), rehabilitation of the existing asphalt apron' construction of an airplane wash facility and installation of taxiway retroreflective markers. b) Purpose. The purpoSe of this project is to improve the safety of the airport operations and to bring the airport up to current FAA standards. 2. Probable Impact on Environment The project development will not result in or cause any pdmary or secondary significant consequence for the environment. The project involves asphalt overlays and drainage improvements, lighting and retroreflective markings - all within the existing airport footprint.' The addition of a wash rack will improve the environmental affects by deflecting wash water into the sanitary sewer system. There will be no change in airport configuration or current mode of.airport operations as a result of this project. No qreater area of the airport environs will be affected by or as a result of the proposed ............................ development.- The conclusions reached or actions considered significant in connection with the proposed airport development are as follows: a) The improvements are not controversial and are not likely to generate controversy. b) Installation will not stimulate airport usage that will noticeably affect the ambient noise level for a significant number of people. c) The project work does not involve and will not require displacement of persons. d) The project work will have no significant aesthetic or visUal effect on the environs. e) it will not alter the airport's current impact on surrounding areas. · f)- It will not alter, destroy,· or derogate important recreational areas. g) It will not alter the pattern of behavior of any species of wildlife. CC Approval of FAM Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 6 of 8 . . . h) It will not interfere with important wildlife breeding, nesting, or feeding grounds. i) It will not adv.ersely affect the water table of the area. J) It does not require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site under Federal, state or local jurisdiction. The unavoidable, probablel adverse environmental effects of the airport will not be affected by this project. Alternatives were not considered in view of the absence of significant impact on the environment as a result of the project. There will be no change in relationship between short and long-term uses of the environment resulting from this project. The project will effect no change in commitment of resources. Date: 719104 //signedfl Gino Grimaldk. City_Administrator CC Approval of FAM Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 7 of 8 DRAFT EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, HELD ON / ------ The folJowing Resolution was introduced by Councilor___, read in full, considered, and adopted: RESOLUTION NO, 04- ACCEPTING THE GRANT OFFER OF THE STATE OF OREGON THROUGH THE OREGON DEPARTME~'T OF AVIATION IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $25,000 :ro BE USED UNDER THE FINANCIAL AID TO MUNICIPALITIES PROGRAM PROJECT NO, $-7-0012-0 IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Thai: the City of Ashland shall accept the Grant Offer of the State of Oregon in the amount of $25,000 for the purpose of obtaining State Aid under Project No. 5-7-0012-0 in the development of Ashland Municipal Airport; and SECTION 2; That: the City Manager of the City of Ashland is hereby authorized and directed to sign the statement of Acceptance of said Grant Offer on behalf of the City of Ashland, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest the signature of the City Manager and to impress the official _s_._ea !_o_f_t_h_e- Ci_ _ty 01[_~.S~!_a_ n_d__on _the` a_f_o_r_esaid s_t_at_e_ment_of Acceptance;..and .... SECTION 3. A true copy of the Grant Offer referred to. herein is attached hereto and made a part hereof. CERTIFICATE I, City Clerk of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do hereby certify that the foregoing (or attached copy) i-s a full, true, and correct/copy of Resolution No. 84 adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Ashland held on the day of ,2004, and that the same is now in full force and effect. .IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and impressed the official seal of the City of Ashland this day of ~ 2004. (SEAL) Signed- City Clerk · . CC Approval of FAM Grant Ap 20JUL04 Page 8 of 8 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION:. [] Non-Construction [-I Construction $. APPUCANT INFORMATION DATE SUBMii I ~ 3. DATE REGEIVED BY STATE 4. DATE REC, EJ-V~,.D BY F~.uERAL AGENCY ~can~ Iden~r State ~ IdenCi~ Federal ~ AlP 3-41-0002-06 Version 7103 Legal Name: Ashland Municipal Airport Opgar~__-a[;~-~; DUNS: Address: Street: 20 E Main Street City: Ashland County: Jackson State: OR Country' USA ] Zip Code: 97520 6. EMPLOYER IDENI-iFiCATION NUMBER (EIN): 19 131-1,61 olol 21 11 71 1 8. TYPE OF APFiJCATION: If R~; ~ ~ ~s) ~ ~): (~~~~~) I I 10. CATALOG OF FI::DERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTAHCE NUMBER Organizational Unit: Depar~enC City of Ashland Division: Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters involving this application (give ama code) Prefix: Ms. I F:.~t Name: Paula Middle Name: Last Name: Brown Suffix: Email: Phone number (give I Phone area code): I number (give area code): 541-488-5347 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (See back of form for Applicatbm Types) Other (spec~) 12. AREAS AFFECie. D BY PROJECT (cities, counties, a~ates, etc.): City of Ashland, Jackson County, State of Ore,Ion 13. PROPOSr=n PROJECT 15. ESTIMATED FUNDING a. NAME OF FEUERAL AGENCY F(~lera! Aviation Administration 11. DESCRiPYiV'E i { { ~ OF APPMCAN-T'S PROJECT: 2004 Airport Improvements : . 7104 10104 t P~,~,-am inccaTe 14. CONGR_I=-_e, SlON_A~ DISTRICTS OF Second b. Projeot Second 16. IS APPUCATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE DRDER 12372 PROCESS ~. Yes. O THIS PREAPPLICATIOf~APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON 875,632 46,086 [] PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E. O. 12372 [] OR PROGRAM HAS NOT Bi-'EH SELECTED BY STATE FOR 'RENEW 17, IS THE APPLICANT DEUNQUENT C)N ANY FEDERAL DEBT? g. TOTAL $ 921,7t8 .w "]Yes If'Yes' attach an eXr.r~_qation [] No 18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEEEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPECATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT, THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY -THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPUCANT AND THE APPEClU~IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED a. Aul~ized Represe~..a~e P[efix Ms. I First Name Paula Middle Name Last Name Brown b. T~le Public Works Director d. Signature of Authorized Represe nra ,tivy~.~...~,~~ Previous Editions Not Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Suffix c. Telephone number (give area code) 541-488-5347 e. Date Signed Standard Form 424 (Rev. g-2003_) Proscribed by OMB Circular A-102 CITY OF - SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Annual Liquor License Blanket Approval City Recorder/Treasurer . July 20, 2004 Barbara Christensen Gino Grimaldi Synopsis: Annual approval of renewals on liquor licenses as requested by Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Recommendation:Endorse the renewal applications with the following recommendation: "The city has determined that the location of this business compl,ies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC now proceed in the matter." Fiscal Impact: Required fee of $35 will be collected at time of renewal. Background: There are approximately 85 applications that will need to be renewed between August and September 2004. Each application will have been reviewed to prove that they meet the city ordinance requirements for business licen~ses, registered as a restaurant, and filed for city's food and beverage tax, if applicable. The following is a list of businesses that will be renewing their liquor licenses: 7-Eleven Store Allyson's Art Attack Theater Ashland Creek & Bar Ashland Hills Shell Azteca Rest. Bi-Mart BreadBoard Rest. Chevron Food Mart Elks Lodge Greenleaf Rest. House of Thai Jazbo's Lounge Lela's Bakery Los Gordos Albertson's Food Store Amuse Rest. Ashland Arco Ashland Creek Inn Ashland Springs Inn Beasy's on the Creek Brother's Rest. Boudashary Comic Pizza Global Pantry Great American Pizza I1 Giardino Katwok Lithia Fountain Louie's Bar & Grill Alex's Rest. Apple Cellar Ashland Bakery & Caf6 Ashland Food Coop Ashland Wine Cellar Beau Club/Geppetos Black Sheep Chateaulin Rest. Cucina Biazzi New Golde, n Dynasty Hong Kong Bar Jade Dragon Rest. La Casa Del Pueblo Lithia Springs Inn Lumpy's Saloon Macaroni's Rest. Minute Market #5 Moming Glory Natural Caf6 Omar's Panda Garden PC Market Pizza Hut Quinz Senor Sams SOU Thai Pepper Vic's Mongolian Wiley's World Pasta McCall House Minutes Market #6 Munchies O'Ryans Pub Oregon Cabaret Pangea Peerless Rest. Plaza Inn & Suites Rite Aid Shop N Kart Standing Stone Three Rivers Cuisine Vinyl Club Winchester Inn Mihama Teriyaki Monet NW Pizza Oak Tree NW OSF Pasta Piatti Pilaf Q's Bar & Grill Safeway Siskiyou Micro Pub Tabu Tom's Golf Shop Wild Goose Caf6 CITY OF -ASHI. AND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Appeal of Planning Action 2004-052, 904 Garden Way Community Development JulYl5, 2004 · - - John McLaughlin, Director of CommuniJq Development ~ Mafia Harris, Associate Planner ~kg[. J~ } Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator /~g/~ Planning Action 2004-052 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to convert 475 square feet of the existing residence into an accessory residential unit for the property located at 904 Garden Way. In April 2004, the application was administratively approved by Staff. Subsequently, a public heating was requested by neighboring property owners. The Heatings Board held a public heating at the June 8, 2004 meeting and approved the application with thirteen conditions. A timely appeal of the Hearings Board decision was filed and the action is now before the City Council. Recommendation: Background: The Heatings Board received testimony regarding this action, and approved the request. Staff supports the decision of the Heatings Board, with the attached 13 conditions. While the neighborhood has provided numerous issues and comments regarding the request, Staff believes that this request is not dissimilar from the many other accessory residential units approved, and encouraged, throughout Ashland. These units provide a different housing option for resiqents, while maintaining the scale and appearance of existing neighborhoods. They have been a successful tool for housing and accommodating growth within the community. Planning Action 2004-052 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to convert 475 square feet of the existing residence into an accessory residential unit for the property located at 904 Garden Way. The existing house contains 1,574 square feet of living area. The proposal is to modify the structure resulting in a 1,099 square foot primary residence and 475 square foot accessory unit. All residential uses are proposed to be within the existing building footprint. The following bulleted items are issues raised in the appeal request and subsequent information submitted by the appellant at the time of writing. Staff's comments follow each bulleted issue.. · Increase traffic, parking and pedestrian safety concerns. PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 1 The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates that a residential unit of 500 square .feet or less will generate 6.7 automobile trips per day. Given the proximity of the site to a park, shopping, and Siskiyou Boulevard, the applicant has argued that non-motorized trips are a viable option. Garden Way is classified as a Neighborhood Street with the latest street counts (July 1992) show average daily trips to be 520 per day. In general, Neighborhood Streets have relatively low automobile vehicle trips with up to 1,500 trips a day. Harmony Lane, Ross Lane and Clark Street are also classified as Neighborhood Streets with average.daily trips of 643 (October 2001), 47 (July 1992), and 484 (June 2000) respectively. A recent survey of on-street parking on two weekdays at approximately 7:00 am counted a total of seven motor vehicles parked on Garden Way in the section from Sunset Avenue to Garden Way. There are 17 parcels fronting on Garden Way in this same section of street. Garden Way does not contain sidewalks. The street was built in the early 1950's, and sidewalks were not a typical element during this era. Installation of sidewalks is generally not required with a Conditional Use Permits for accessory residential units so these smaller projects are not discouraged and because of the issue of the level of improvement in relation to the actual impact of the additional unit. Lack of "to and through" improved streets in the development. The Conditional Use Permit criteria require "adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property." This has been interpreted by the Planning Commission and City Council to be an improved street from the existing street system up to the property, and then if a new street is required to be built (i.e. subdivision) through the property that this improvement will be installed to city standards. In this case, all streets are in place and a new street is not required. Garden Way is a paved city street that is connected to an existing system of streets below it that eventually connect to the main arterial being Siskiyou Boulevard. Inadequate off-street parking for the subject property. The Hearings Board felt the entire site should be brought up to date in meeting the current off-street parking space requirement of three spaces (1.75 spaces for the two-bedroom primary residence and one space for the one-bedroom accessory residential unit). A condition was added to the approval requiring the driveway approach to be shifted to the south so that an off-street parking credit could be PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 2 obtained by providing 48 feet of adjacent uninterrupted curb adjacent to the property frontage (see condition 13 of the attached findings dated June 8, 2004). The applicant has submitted a plan titled "Parking Detail" (date stamped July 12, 2004) outlining the change in the driveway apron location so that an off-street parking credit can be obtained. Section 18.92.025, Credit for On-street Automobile Parking, of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is as follows. A. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off- street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-street parking space. Diminished "livability" of the single-family residence characteristics of the neighborhood. The Conditional Use Permit criteria require that the proposal "will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone" (18.104.050.C). Seven factors are to be considered when evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area including: 1) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, 2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial- regardless of capacity of facilities, 3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area, 4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants, 5) Generation of' noise, light, and glare, 6) The development of adjacent properties as ,envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, and 7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Since the exterior of the building will not be significantly altered, the general appearance of the residence will not change. In terms of the scale, bulk, lot coverage and architectural compatibility of the structure, Staff felt it was most appropriate to have the site and structure continue to appear as a single-family residence given the low profile of the Ranch Home architectural style as well as the general development pattem of the neighborhood. The parcel is within 1/3 of a mile from Siskiyou Boulevard and the bus route which makes walking, bicycling and transit viable options for residents of the accessory residential unit. It is not anticipated that the proposed use .would create more dust, 'noise light and 'glare than the wide range of occupants that can reside in a larger single-family residence. In Staff's opinion, the proposed accessory residential unit wilL1 have no greater PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 3 adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood than the target use of the property. Misreprestantion by the applicant's representative at the June 8th heating of the procedural path followed by the applicant. Further explanation on this item has not been provided by the appellant. Staff understands there were concerns regarding interior remodeling, installation of an exterior door and installation of an electric subpanel prior receiving a Conditional Use Permit for the accessory residential unit. Two building permits were applied for and received. An electric permit was issued in Feb.ruary 2004, and a permit to add a small deck at the rear of the house was issued in June 2004. The installation of the exterior door may have required a building permit if a window or door was not already in place in this location. There is no record of a recent permit issued for the installation of the exterior door on the south side of the building. A number of residents submitted written and oral testimony for the Heatings Board review of the application. Comments not already addressed above included concern regarding the change in the character of the single-family neighborhood, number of rentals and multi-unit conversions in neighborhood, and the desire to have the primary residence required to be owner-occupied. Regarding the multi- unit conversions in the neighborhood, there is one approved accessory residential unit in the area at 869 Garden Way (PA 2002-073). There are no other approvals on record for Garden Way, Harmony Lane, Sunset Avenue or Ross Lane. PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 4 CITY OF ,-ASHI. AND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Appeal of Planning Action 2004-052, 904 Garden Way Community Development July 15, 2004 ' John McLaughlin, Director of Commun~v Development ~ Maria Harris, Associate Planner ~k/I,. 4~ } Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~/( Planning Action'2004-052 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to convert 475 square feet of the existing residence into an accessory residential unit for the property located at 904 Garden 'Nay. In April 2004, the application was administratively approved by Staff. Subsequently, a public hearing was requested by neighboring property owners. The Hearings Board held a public hearing at the June 8, 2004 meeting and approved the application with thirteen conditions. A timely appeal of the Hearings Board decision was filed and the action is now before the City Council. Recommendation: Background: The Hearings Board received testimony regarding this action, and approved the request. Staff supports the decision of the Hearings Board, with lthe attached 13 conditions. While the neighborhood has provided numerous issues and comments regarding the request, Staff believes that this request is not dissimilar from the many other accessory residential units approved, and encouraged., throughout Ashland. These units provide a different housing option for residents, while maintaining the scale and appearance of existing neighborhoods. They have been a successful tool for housing and accommodating growth within the community. Planning Action 2004-052 is a request for a Conditional Use Penmit and Site Review approval to convert 475 square feet of the existing reside,nee into an accessory residential unit for the property located at 904 Garden Way. The existing house contains 1,574 square feet of living area. The proposal is to modify the structure resulting in a 1,099 square foot primary residence and 475 square foot accessory unit. All residential uses are proposed to be within the existing building footprint. The following bulleted items are issues raised in the appeal request and subsequent information submitted by the appellant at the time of writing. Staff's comments follow each bulleted iSsue. '" · Increase traffic, parking and pedestrian safety concerns. PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 1 The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates that a residential unit of 500 square .feet or less will generate 6.7 automobile trips per day. Given the proximity of the site to a park, shopping, and Siskiyou Boulevard, the applicant has argued that non-motorized trips are a viable option. Garden Way is classified as a Neighborhood Street with the latest street counts (July 1992) show average daily trips to be 520 per day. In general, Neighborhood Streets have relatively low automobile vehicle trips with up to 1,500 trips a day. Harmony Lane, Ross Lane and Clark Street are also classified as Neighborhood Streets with average daily trips of 643. (October 2001), 47 (July 1992), and 484 (June 2000) respectively. A recent survey of on-street parking on two weekdays at approximately 7:00 am counted a total of seven motor vehicles parked on Garden Way in the section from Sunset Avenue to Garden Way. There are 17 parcels fronting on Garden Way in this same section of street. Garden Way does not contain sidewalks. The street was built in the early 1950's, and sidewalks were not a typical element during this era. Installation of sidewalks is generally not required with a Conditional Use Permits for accessory residential units so these smaller projects are not discouraged and because of the issue of the level of improvement in relation to the actual impact of the additional unit. · Lack of''to and through" improved streets in the development. The Conditional Use Permit criteria require "adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property." This has been interpreted by the Planning Commission and City Council to be an improved street from the existing street system up to the property, and then if a new street is required to be built (i.e. subdivision) through the property that this improvement will be installed to city standards. In this case, all streets are in place and a new street is not required. Garden Way is a paved city street that is connected to an existing system of streets below it that eventually connect to the main arterial being Siskiyou Boulevard. · Inadequate off-street parking for the subject property. The Hearings Board felt the entire site should be brought up to date in meeting the current off-street parking space requirement of three spaces (1.75 spaces for'the two-bedroom Primary.residence and One space for the one-bedroom accessory residential unit). A condition was added to the approval requiting the driveway approach to be shifted to the south so that an off-street parking credit could be PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 2 obtained by providing 48 feet of adjacent uninterrupted curb adjacent to the property frontage (see condition 13 of the attached findings dated June 8, 2004). The applicant has submitted a plan titled "Parking Detail" (date stamped July 12, 2004) outlining the change in the driveway apron location so that an off-street parking credit can be obtained. Section 18.92.025, Credit for On-street Automobile Parking, of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is as follows. A. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced. by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off- street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-street parking space. Diminished "livability" of the single-family residence characteristics of the neighborhood. The Conditional Use Permit criteria require that the proposal "will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the su~.ject lot with the target use of the zone" (18.104.050.C). 'Seven factors are to be considered when evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area including: 1) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, 2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities, 3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area, 4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants, 5) Generation of' noise, light, and glare, 6) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, and 7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Since the exterior of the building will not be significantly altered, the general appearance of the residence will not change. In terms of the scale, bulk, lot coverage and architectural compatibility of the structure, Staff felt it was most appropriate to have the site and structure continue to appear as a single-family residence given the low profile of the Ranch Home architectural style as well as the general development pattem of the neighborhood. The parcel is within 1/3 of a mile from Siskiyou Boulevard and the bus route which makes walking, bicycling and transit viable options for residents of the accessory residential unit. It is not anticipated that the proposed use would create more.dust, noise light and glare than the wide range of occupants that can reside in a larger single-family residence. In Staff's opinion, the proposed accessory residential unit will have no greater PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 3 adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood than the target use of the property. Misreprestantion by the applicant's representative at the June 8th hearing of the procedural path followed by the applicant. Further explanation on this item has not been provided by the appellant. Staff understands there were concerns regarding interior remodeling, installation of an exterior door and installation of an electric subpanel prior receiving a Conditional Use Permit for the accessory residential unit. Two building permits were applied for and received. An electric permit was issued in February 2004, and a permit to add a small deck at the rear of the house was issued in June 2004. The installation of the exterior door may have required a building permit if a window or door was not already in place in this location. There is no record of a recent permit issued for the installation of the exterior door on the south side of the building. A number of residents submitted written and oral testimony for the Hearings Board review of the application. Comments not already addressed above included concern regarding the change in the character of the single-family neighborhood, number of rentals and multi-unit conversions in neighborhood, and the desire to have the primary residence required to be owner-occupied. Regarding the multi- unit conversions in the neighborhood, there is one approved accessory residential unit in the area at 869 Garden Way (PA 2002-073). There are no other approvals on record for Garden Way, Harmony Lane, Sunset Avenue or Ross Lane. PA 2004-052 904 Garden Way Page 4 From: To: Date: Subject: Maria Harris Gino Grimaldi; John McLaughlin; Kate Jackson; Mike Franell 07/20/2004 4:15:06 PM Re: questions about appeal Kate, please see my response following each question. I'll pass out a hard copy at the meeting tonight too. Maria >>> Kate Jackson <KateJackson@opendoor.com> 07/19/2004 9:11:04 PM >>> 'Dear staff, Here are some questions that I have about the planning appeal (2004-052) at Council July 20: - is a zoning or other map generated by staff to show the subject property and surrounding streets and properties with street numbers, other than those submitted by applicant and the one used for the notice? [City of Ashland ~ Planning Exhibit i Exhibit # ~-,~, ' J _ The area surrounding the subject property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5) - this includes the area between Clark and Ross Lane, and Walker to beyond Hillview. The area north of Ross Lane is also Single-Family Residential, but with larger lot sizes required (R-1-10). A map with properties by address will be provided at the meeting tonight. - a background report on the street width of Garden Way, traffic counts or estimates, Ross Lane or other likely LID/!mprovement work in the next 5 years, parking concerns noted by the appellants and neighbors Garden Way is classified as a Neighborhood Street and is 30 feet wide curb-to-curb. Though the street was built long before current standards, the minimum curb-to-curb width for a Neighborhood Street with parking on both sides is 25 feet. The latest traffic count from July 1992 shows average motor vehicle trips to be 520 per day. Ross Lane is not scheduled for improvements in the next 5 years. - have there been complaints about other rental properties for trash, poor upkeep, too many cars or too much noise on the street? There have been complaints regarding 903 Harmony Lane, the property directly east of the .,subject parcel (the back yards of the lots abut each other). The complaints were regarding noise and parties, property maintenance, number of motor vehicles and abandoned vehicles. There was also a complaint received regarding an unapproved second unit. Since the complaint was filed, the property owner wats contacted and has submitted documentation stating that a second unit is not in place. Recently 968 Garden Way was reported to be advertiSing a second unit, also not approved. The property owner was contacted to verify and explain the requirements. A letter was also prepared to this effect for prospective buyers and the planning file. -- what does the planning code say about orientation of the front door to the front of the property?. The Basic Site Design Standards require buildings to have the primary orientation toward the street, and the entrance is required to be oriented toward the street and accessed from the public sidewalk. Typically, the Planning Commission has considered this requirement satisfied in a multi-family attached situation if a true building front faces the street and there is one front door facing the street. In this situation, the house was originally built with orientation to Garden Way and has a front door facing the street. -- what does the building code say about front door access, distance to property line, width of ingress and egress for emergency purposes? Each unit has to have a door with a minimum width of 36 inches. Distance from the property line is not an issue unless tl~e structure is less than 3 feet from a property line. -- does a remodel of this kind trigger bringing the remodeled portion of the structure up to current code for energy, electrical, other? A remodeled portion of the building must be brought up to current building code. -- I underst'and the?strategy of fixing a violation by obtaining the requir~d'P~rmi~!"A~ there penalties paid for acting without permits oth~ than sto~.~wOrk~ders and standard permit costs? ~.~...Boildi..n.g Official .c~n charge a minimum of double fees for a permit if it is applied for after the work ..... has been e.,om~ed,i. In addition, the plans would have to submitted for review and approval. If anything was done incorrectly, it would be required to be redone to meet building code. - The property owner states the smaller unit is only for one person. Does Fair Housing Law allow that decision to be made based solely on the size? The guideline '[or number of residents of a rental unit is 2 people per bedroom plus one. So for a · 1-bedroom uniit, three people would be considered "reasonable." My understanding is that this is not specifically spelled out in the Fair Housing Act, but rather a guideline provided by the Fair Housing Council of Oregon in training for rental property owners. The guideline was developed so that people would not be discriminated against for familiar status (a single parent with children) or for cultural differences in the number of people living together. I'll let you know if I think of other questions that I may ask during the hearing. Thanks for your hard work and dedication. Sincerely, Kate Kate Jackson Ashland City Councilor 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 541-482-2612 ~kateiackson~opendoor.com CC: Council City; Maria Harris 89 935 ~45 UNSET AVE ~=~:' '""'~ ~ __ 924 e923 0 ~45 - - 957 68 - 961 2 2 932 ~ 942 5O 96 964 164 1655 City of Ashla~ Planning Exhibit # PA# 7 ]10 832 AVE 932~ 964 Property lines provided for identification only, not scalable CITY OF ASHLAND 1 oo o 1 oo 200 Scale: t' = 200' 300 Feet J Contour interval Christopher Robinson 891 Garden Way Ashland OR 97520 July 20, 2004 City Administrator City of Ashland 51 Winbum Way Ashland OR 97520 ~ity of Ashland - Planning Exhibit Exhibit #~; '^ os )ate~_...._ RE: Planning Action 2004-052 (904 Garden Way~ Ashland) In the following the phrase, "Applicant" refers collectively to Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-Van Dyke, who are the property owners of the subject: property, 904 Garden Way. I object to the conditional use application on the following grounds: 1) There is inadequate paved access to and through the Garden Way tract of homes as required in Chapter 18.104 for the requested conditional use at this address. There is only a single paved access route to this property. If blocked in any way, access or egress to and from this property would not be served. More detailed testimony about the issue of "to and through" and traffic circulation in the subdivision will be presented by Karen Fieguth. 2) Additional living quarters will yield additional traffic, averaging 6.7 additional vehicle journeys each day according to the City's findings. The generation of additional traffic is not in the best interest of this neighborhood. Garden Way and Harmony Lane are difficult streets to transit at best. One frequently must "slalom" up or down the streets, weaving to avoid the cars parked on both sides of the street, and either yielding or accelerating when meeting oncoming traffic to get through. 3) (see exhibit CR- 1) Parking for the subject property is inadequate tbr additional vehicles. The required 48' of uninterrupted curb for an on- street parking credit does not exist. The present tenant chooses not to park on the driveway a great deal of the time, as the driveway/carp, on is used instead as a storage area and playground. (see exhibit CR-2) The proposed zoning amendment calls for additional parking to the south of the driveway area. Extending the curb cut to the south will cause occupants to maneuver within one foot of the existing utility pole with its inherent dangers. 4) The issue of additional noise, light and glare represent a major concem for the immediate neighbors of this property. The entrance created specifically for this accessory unit is just feet away from the bedrooms of the closest neighbor. You will hear more about the concerns of Paul Giancarlo regarding this. s) The citizens opposing this conditional use application view this as a precedent-setting application. According to the CUP criteria: "The Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area." We feel that the material impact on. the livability of the neighborhood is entirely at stake! Many of us chose to purchase homes in the Garden Way tract 15, 20 or more years ago because of its relative quiet and low density living. We understood that the zoning designation of Single Family Residential, or R-1, meant just that, a neighborhood consisting of one residence per tax lot. Now, after the fact, it seems that the rules have changed. The City of Ashland seeks to increase urban density through its so-called "in-fill" policy. If the City of Ashland plans to make a mockery of Single Family Residential R-1 zoning, then get honest about it and call it what it will become: High Density Urban Living. Since there is no provision requiring that the occupants of a property be either the property owners or related to one another, there is nothing to prevent the accessory dwelling unit from becoming a common rental property with all of the problems associated with non-owner occupied dwellings. Joanne Costantino and Curt Bacon will elaborate on the many problems with this type of situation. 6) If this application is granted, what is to stop everyone in the area from splitting their single-family residences into two units? Increasing the density will eventually destroy the character and livabili _ty standards of this neighborhood. It will also serve to diminish the property values of the homes that we have invested so much in. A duplex is not as enticing to families looking to purchase real estate as a true single family home, nor is a high density neighborhood as appealing as a lower densi~? one. 7) (see exhibit CR-3). Page 2 of the Ashland Planning Department-Staff Report issued for this application incorrectly states that, 'No exterior changes are proposed to the home,' and on Page 3 that, 'the building will not be altered except for interior remodeling.' (see exhibit CR-5) In fact, the exterior of the structure was modified by the applicant prior to application for a CUP, by cutting in an exterior access door, two windows, and (see exhibit CR-6) French double doors, specifically to serve the accessory dwelling unit. A structural permit for these renovations has never been applied for. 8) Municipal Code Section 18.104.010 states that, "No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit." At the June 8th Planning Commission hearing, the applicant's representative, Susan Reid, stated that this project was done "In the light of day," and that all permits were applied for before the project commenced. (see exhibit CR-4) In fact, an examination of the project timeline will clearly show that the applicant did not apply for a conditional use permit until the bulk of the renovation work was completed and the project had been tagged by the City's Code Compliance Specialist, Adam Hanks. He created his file on this project on February 19, 2004, after being notified of the remodeling activities by myself and others some weeks earlier. On March 8th, 2004, a letter was issued to the applicant advising him to obtain the necessary building and zoning permits. On March 1 lth, 2004, in a letter to Mr. Hanks, the applicant claims not to have been aware of needing any permits, despite having "owned several homes in town and spent considerable capital and energy in their improvements during our 28 year residence in Ashland." In this same letter, the applicant omits any mention of the doors or windows cut into the extemal framing of the accessory unit, nor the interior wall established to divide the units. The same letter goes on to state that "our proposed use of the property meets all requirements" for an ARU, and that he has now applied to the City for an ARU permit. In my opinion, failure to obtain the necessary permits before largely finishing the project was not an oversight by the applicant, but an attempt to circumvent the City of Ashland's zoning and building permit process to avoid Systems Development Charges, and to slip in the duplex "under the radar." If this application is approved, what signal does it send to the rest of the city? Is this the kind of behavior the City feels should be rewarded after the fact? What it says to me is, if you own a single family residence in Ashland, go ahead -- carve up your house to get a little extra income. Ignore the required process. There's no penalty, and you'll only have to apply for needed permits and pay the standard fees, after the fact -- i__f you ever get caught! In summary, this isn't just a case about 904 Garden Way, but the larger question of the accessory residential unit as a conditional use in R-1 zones in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. In subdivisions such as ours, without a home owners association or CC&R's to limit development, we must rely on the City to protect the character of a neighborhood. When you take an established, pleasant, quiet neighborhood of single family residences:, such as the Garden Way tract of homes, and allow people to purchase and carve up those homes into duplexes, you forever alter the character of the neighborhood. Traffic, noise and light are increased, while individual human living space is reduced. You will end up with a higher densi .ty of population than the area was established for. The livabili _ty that we each sought by purchasing and moving into neighborhoods of single family residences in Ashland is destroyed. Property values decline as rental units are developed, and the peaceful and desirable nature of the Ashland home evaporates. It's all a matter oflivability- Reinstate the meaning of Single Family Residential in R- 1 zoning! On behalf of 49 neighbors who oppose this action, I urge you to deny this Conditional Use application. Exhibit CR-5 904 Garden Way City of Ashland -- Planning Exhibit Exhibit ~CC.- ~ PA #~.OC~-O~'Z. - NO PERMIT obtained for door and windows on building's south side Exhibit CR-6 904 Garden Way City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit# PA # Date'/~/o~_Staff .... __ Permit obtained for deck and stairs. NO PERMIT obtained for french doors cut into framework From: "eve terran" <eve_terran@hotmail.com> Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:27:08 PM US/Pacific To: alex@standingstonebrewing.com, cate@mind.net, cehearn@aol.com, katejackson@opendoor, com, donlaws @ mind. net, jmorrison @ rvcog.org Subject: Planning Action 2004-052 Dear City Coucil, Below I have pasted and attached my statement regarding Planning Action 2004-052. I am in support of the auxiliary unit standing, and I oppose the Garden Way neighborhood protest. I am a resident of Garden Way, and live next door to the house in question. I am planning to attend the meeting on Tuesday at 7PM to present my statement. Thank you. Eve Terran July 19, 2004 Re: Planning Action 2004-052 city of A~hland Planning Exhibit Dear City Councilperson, I oppose the protest against the auxiliary unit at 904 Garden Way. I have received two or three flyers from the protesting neighbors (one illegally placed in my mailbox), encouraging me to join in the fight. I feel that their arguments are flawed and discriminatory, and would like to present my position on the issues they presented to me. The group is concerned about a precedent being set, which would turn our street into a renter s neighborhood. It has already been set. This is not the first auxiliary unit on our block. There is one just a few doors up at the end of the block, and others farther down. There are also many renters on our street, and, as in the case of our home, more than one family residing in one single-family home. There is no way to stop these homes from being rented out, whether or not they have two units. The case on Harmony Lane with the problem renters was a single-family home with no auxiliary units. This suggests to me that an auxiliary unit does not guarantee undesirable neighbors. There is simply no way, in a free society, and on this block, where neighbors could have this kind of control. However, we can rest assured that the owner of the house in question has very good judgment, having rented the larger unit to a responsible mother of high character, who is also a lawyer. I couldn't t be happier with my neighbor and the 2-unit affordable home, right next-door to me. The issue of increased traffic is not realistic. There is now one car at the house in question. Considering the small size of the rental unit, it seems logical that we could expect one more car, totaling two cars. The house directly across the street has 3 cars, we have 3, and I have counted up to five at homes on our street, and none of these have auxiliary rental units. The auxiliary unit wa,s not a garage before the remodel, but was a part of the living space of the house. The new door is not, as the flyers stated, a distance of 8 feet from the window of the neighbors, and is not positioned directly across from the window either. The window is 180 inches (15 feet) down, and 78 inches (6 1/2 feet) across from the door. The direct distance is 196 inches (16 1/3 feet). Given the faulty information by the neighborhood protest, I can only conclude that there is a personal motivation at play. Given the history of the Ashland City Council s decisions on matters such as these, I feel confident that you will decide in favor of allowing the rental unit to stand. It is my feeling that providing affordable housing in Ashland is important, especially if we want actual families, with children, to be able to afford to populate our single-family neighborhoods. Any effort to thwart affordable housing feels discriminatory to me and I oppose it. Sincerely, Eve Terran 892 Garden Way Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-1662 Planning a family vacation? Check out the MSN Family Travel guide! http://dollar, msn.com letter to c:it~/council,doc (22.~)_.IJ_B_) Kerry and Janice Lay 965 Garden Way Ashland, OR 97520 July 11, 2004 Ashland City Council City Hall Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action 2004-0520 for Council consideration on July 16. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council: Obligations in Portland make it impossible for me to attend your hearing in person, so I would appreciate your providing time for a neighbor to read my letter into the record. My wife and I have resided at 965 Garden Way, across and five houses up the street from the subject property for nearly 29 years. We oppose the subject application. It seems useful to this discussion to revisit the basic tenants of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance that provide for the Single Family Residential Zone, which is relied upon by most members of the community to preserve their way of life and protect their property Values. The Housing chapter of the plan makes the assumption on page VI-11, that: "Existing, older residential neighborhoods will be preserved and will experience relatively few shifts in housing types and styles." Goal 2, item a) on page VI-12 states: "Using the following techniques, protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development and encourage upgrading. Do not allow deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses and developments." Here, then, is the heart of the matter: Most residents in this "older residential neighborhood" feel that the creation of duplexes froTM existing single family homes without consideration of density and cumulative effect will assuredly "allow deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses ..... " In consideration of the above and other plan goals, the zoning ordinance states: "That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the "target use" of the zone." Of course the "target use" of the R- 1-7.5 zone is Single Family Residential dwellings at a density of 7,500 square feet per dwelling. Based on this alone, it would not seem possible to make findings for approval, as in this case, of two dwellings on 8,125 square feet. Most residents in this neighborhood feel that beginning with the first accessory dwelling approval a "greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area" occurs, and that this effect is cumulative with every subsequent approval. The zoning ordinance, however, provides no standards for measuring and judging this cumulative effect. As you know, Oregon planning law demands that the burden of proof for any zoning application rest solely with the applicant. The livability issue is not discussed in any meaningful way by this application, and the law does not require the neighborhood to make the case that there will be adverse impacts. However, we believe the long-standing home owners who have invested greatly and have everything to lose in terms of livability and property values, are in the best position to advise you conceming these matters of law in our neighborhood. My wife and I urge that you deny this application. If approval is granted, please condition it for one resident only, and one associated vehicle, in addition to the other conditions recommended by staff. S~nc Lay To: Ashland City Council Re: Planning Action 2004-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden Subject: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria. In addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of this neighborhood of single family homes. To: Ashland City Council Re: Planning Action 2004-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden Way Subject:: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria. In addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of this neighborhood of single family homes. .,,7 _ .............. v-lc ' I ~ . ' To: Ashland City Council Re: Planning Action 2004-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden Way Subject:: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria. In addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of this neighborhood of single family homes. I I II II ( I II I II I I II III II I I . J I I III ..... ....... I I I I I I I I I I I I I II] I IIII Ii. .11 I I I I I III I I. Il I I I I I I I I I I I Il I Il Ill To: Ashland City Council Re: Planning Action 2004-052 Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, 904 Garden Way Subject: OPPOSITION to granting of the permit We, the undersigned residents of Garden Way and Harmony Lane, strongly oppose the granting of a conditional use permit at 904 Garden Way. We believe that a number of the criteria established for the granting of such a permit are not met, and that the development of this particular accessory residential unit would result in substantial violations of those criteria. In addition, the changes would be irrevocably detrimental to the character of this neighborhood of single family homes. CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT FOR LAND USE HEARINGS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL GUIDE FOR PARTICIPANTS AND CITIZENS This guide is provided for the benefit of participants and citizens interested in city council land use hearings. This guide also contains the statements required by statute to be made to those in attendance at such hearings. 1. INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the headng the Mayor will announce the land use hearing set for this evening and will review the following matters. 2. PROCEDURE The council will use the following procedure in conducting this headng: 2.1. The public headng will be opened, and those interested in stating their positions regarding the rnatter being considered will be invited forward to speak at the podium. During the public headng portion all who wish to give testimony regarding the specific application are encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak for, against, or comment in any way, please fill out a speaker request form located in back of the room and deliver it to the city recorder when completed. Then come forward to the podium at the appropriate time, give your name, address and make your statement. 2.2. At the beginning of the public headng, the planning department staff will present its report on the action, and state the applicable standards. 2.3. After the-staff report, the applicant and the applicant's representative will have 1 5 minutes to present the proposal. At 14 minutes, they will be asked to conclude their remarks. Other members of the audience who wish to speak in favor of the application may then do so. They will be limited to five minutes each. 2.4. Opponents and their representative, if any, shall then have 15 minutes to present opposition to the appliCati°n. At 14 minutes, they will be asked to conclude their remarks. Other members of the audience who wish to speak in opposition to the application may then do so. They will be limited to five minutes each. 2.5. The planning staff will then be given an opportunity to respond to any questions from the council or any other matter raised in the headncl. 2.6. The applicant will then have 5 minutes of rebuttal time, after which the public headng portion will be closed. 3. APPLICABLE STANDARDS Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the standards of approval stated by the staff, or other standards in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure of an issue to be raised in a headng, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the city council an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue. 4. FAILURE TO PARTICIPATF Failure of persons to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes that person's right of appeal to the city council' or LUBA. Please do not repeat testimony. If you wish, you may choose merely to agree with a previous speaker's statements for the record. 5. CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING Any party who has participated in the public headng, either orally or in writing, shall be entitled to a continuance of the hearing if evidence or documents in.support of the applicant are submitted less than 10 days pdor to the hearing. Such request for a continuance must be requested prior to the closing of the public testimony portion of the public hearing. (G:~IegaI\PAUL\PLANNING~headng dtizen's guide.wpd)(10/00) Joanne Costantino Post-W Fax Note 767! Date t~t;~ l~J ] # ot I~ lPa~s From: To: Sent: Subject: "Jack Ware" <fjware@msn.corn> <gardenway@yahoogroups.com> Sunday, June 20, 2004 6:01 PM [gardenway] My 2 cents worth Co. Phone # I joined this group because I thought I might have something to offer. I live at 8¢59 Garden Way and 7 years ago I used the Accessory Housing ordinance to help my daughter and her husbandlanc my wife and kdevelop a wonderful living arrangement. We moved ou~{ of our home o~n (]arden Way and into a much smaller home that we built so that we could ail live here. We have never regreted that move. / e have om grandchildren next door and they play m our yard. j We could have subdivided and built the same house and we can still 1 do that since we have more than enough land to meet zoning l requirements but there are economic and family advantages to the \ Accessory Housiing ordinance. It's~ is to help family members\ live in this comnmnity which is very expensive, as we all know. Also, it is meant to help families meet the very high cost of living here by sharing expenses with someone else.in o,~ler could t~e in a boarder. In other words, a live- I have been an active proponent of affordable housing for many years in Ashland. As a matter of fact, I was on the Affordable Housing Committee for a few years and served as its Chair for two years. I've seen a lot of people that work herq and have family herexbut cafft afford to live here. That's too bad and its not a healthy situation for Ashland. That said, I am concerned about whether the Affordable Housing ordinance is being properly utilized in this case. As I understand it, the owner lives elsewhere and does not intend to live in this house. In fact, they may have bought it with the idea of developing it into a double rental. If that is the case, I am opposed and I don't think the City should have approved the Accessory Housing request. ICity oi~shl;nd Planning Exhibit Exhibit # PA# Data/Zo]o'/_Staff._ I do realize that the owners daughter is an occupant but I would not want to see that used as a ruse to get the house developed into a double rental. What if she decides to leave? Will the parents keep the house and rent it out to two families? That may not increase traffic flow above what it would be with Accessory Housing but it could lead to deferred maintenance and a lack of pride of ownership. I think homes used as rentals can be less well-cared for. Anyway, I hope I'm not offending anyone and that is not my purpose. I want to be a good neighbor and I want my neighbors to have the right to enjoy their homes and neighborhood as well. J.~k and Patty Ware 869 I/2 Garden Way Karen Fieguth I've lived at 850 Garden Way for 23 years Mr. Mayor and Council members I am resl~anding to the Council Communication, Titled: Appeal to planning action 2004-052, 904 garden way, Dated 7/15/04 Regarding increases traffic, parking & pedestrian concerns. City of Ashland ' Planning Exhib.,it Exhibit #_~ d_., lO tDateT~ ,Staff~ _ page 2 paragraph 2, reads "Garden Way is classified as a neighborhood street with the latest street counts (July 1992) show average daily trips to be 520 per day." 1992 was 12 years ago, a lot has happened in our neighborhood in that time. 3 new homes constructed on Ross Lane, 2 within the last year & one of which is operating a business that requires a UPS truck to travel Ross Lane & Garden way daily. (I presume they are operating a business because residences do not normally display a UPS YES or UPS NO :sign in their windows) There are 2 vacant lots on Ross Lane that no doubt will eventually have homes on them. There are 3 or more "Unapproved" accessory units in our neighborhood. Each one of these situations significantly multiply vehicle trips. 12 years ago my son was 5 years old, he was not driving then, but he is now.., these are a few of the many changes since 1992 that these figures do not take into consideration page 2 paragraph 4 reads. "Garden Way does not contain sidewalks" and basically states that installation of sidewalks was not a requirement. This issue was brought up not as a money issue but as a SAFETY issue. Pedestriamand bicyclists must use the street and are put at greater risk by ANY increase in traffic. Within our neighborhood there are 2-day care centers that use Garden Way park and must cross Clarke to get there. There is a foster home for the mentally impaired on Clark that uses Garden way as a portion of their exercise route. With the lack of sidewalks there is no buffer between yards and the street. Children playing, pets& homeowners are at a greater risk. ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IS A SAFETY HAZARD. Lack of to and through improved streets in the development Page 2, paragraph 5 "adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property" I agree with staff that this criteria is met in regards to the subject property, however there are two separate requirements within criteria B. The later part of the sentence refers to the subject property and that criteria is satisfied. The first part of the sentence of criteria B reads 'The adequate capacity of city facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development." I would like to direct your attention to the overhead. According to the Jackson County Planning department these slashes indicate a [and partition and everything inside of these slashes is considered part of that particular development. The subject property lies within the Garden Homes Tract. Ross Lane is included in the Garden Homes tract. Ross Lane is not paved.. Therefore the applicant and/or the.. subject property does not meet this criteria. ALSO, The applicant must reconfigure his driveway to receive an "off street" parking credit. In order to access that off street parking space, a vehicle must travel Ross Lane. The only direct route is Harmony Lane or Hillview to Ross Lane and down garden Way. Once again, Ross Lane is part of the development and is not paved. In reference to diminished livability, page 3 the last sentence of paragraph reads, "In staff's opinion the proposed accessory residential unit will have no greater adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood." "Staff" may or may not have done a site review, a one time visit. When determining the livability '.your best resource for information would be the people who live in this neighborhood, many of us for 20 years or more. In closing', I would ask the council to adhere to Ashland City Municipal code 18.20.010 that reads, "The purpose of the R-1 district is to stabilize and PROTECT the suburban characteristics of the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life." Because our home was built in the 50's CC&R's or homeowners associations, that now protect NEW subdivisions from these types of actions, do not protect us. We must rely upon you, our City council people to PROTECT us. I ask that you consider the criteria that has not been met and obvious concern for our neighborhood and deny this planning action. i, , 74OO 6 7 7coo t4 CS 17Mo d - JACK...q0N GOUNTY ~ ~ 1,5AC 'i 7 7101 4 7500 2 t AVE. ~om mo · . . .; ~ -.- · ,. dB. 2180 t40 JM' tit' I,J/M. 401 IMo 7OO 0.44 dr,. IJ Il. · 1100 I,~ M. 1200 =Ill July 20, 2004 To the City Council: C~ ~ _C~yof Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit # CC - I have lived 2 houses up fi.om, and behind, 904 Garden Way for 29 years and received notification of the conditional use application. I suggest that the Garden Way-Harmony Lane-Ross Lane neighborhood is inappropriate for conditional use accessolw dwellings and request denial of this application. I believe the conditions of traffic, noise, light and air quality will be negatively impacted by this accessory dwelling. In addition, I believe similar negative impacts will occur with any further development of the entire neighborhood This neighborhood was developed in the late 1940's, with most homes being completed prior to 1958. Ross Lane, at the top of the neighborhood is a single lane dirt road. Of the 66 homes in the neighborhood, 14 have 2 car garages, 26 have a one car garage and 19 have no garage at all. Since most households now have 2 or 3 vehicles, clearly there ~[s inadequate off-street parking for current residents. On a recent evening there were 32 cars parked by homes on Harmony Lane. The street, with cars parked on both sides, becomes one-way making pedestrian passage dangerous. There are no sidewalks, and sloping lawns make walking on someone's property impossible as well as inappropriate. It is frequently my challenge to successfully get my car out of my driveway when the area I must maneuver into is a narrow one lane. The situation on Garden Way is much the same. Additional dwellings, without adequate oil-street parking for 2 vehicles each will only add to congestion, noise, air pollution and decrease the safety of pedestrians who already must walk up the middle of the street. A neighborhood created from scratch with larger houses and small accessory' dwellings could be a good way to add small rentals to Ashland. This neighborhood is inappropriate because it was designed to be single homes facing the street. Thus, access to any accessory_ dwellings must go along the side of existing homes. If we were truly talking about multi- generations sharing space, they could all use the same front door and the "in-laws" could have a private part of the same house. This modest R-1 neighborhood, where most lots are <.2 acres, does not have adequate access to allow side or rear accessory dwellings. For both the main home, and most importantly the neighbors, access to an additional dwelling space that passes directly by or is directly opposite bedrooms of existing dwellings is not acceptable. These modest sized homes were designed to be entered from the front, thus assuring neighbors that the sides and back of their lots would be private space. Rooms were placed accordingly. This neighborhood has a few homes that were built in the middle of what must have been 2 original lots. Most are much smaller lots, about 65' wide and <.2 acres. Measuring with a steel tape, from the street, I discovered the distance from wall to wall of adjc,ining homes to be as little as 9'. Neighbors can almost hold hands leaning out their windows! i- ~ ~,~.~ . . . , , Th.e ~al!to~h?:house m question is 15 from its neighbor s wall Peo le oin in or o · ~r ~,..~, . · p g g ut al mghtJ~/open ~nd close doors, have lights on, and talk, 10' from their neighbors bedroom. This is unacceptable poor design. A neighborhood created to have dense housing would not do this. On Garden Way there are 9 homes < 15' a_gag_with 7 more that _are < 20~ Many homes have bedrooms facing neighbogs bedrooms· On Harmony lane, 17 homes are < 15' apart with 8 more < 20'. In our close fitting neighborhood we are already tolerant of each others cars, comings and goings on diverse schedules, music, parties and backyard enjoyment. We strive to close our windows when we don't need the neighbors to hear our personal or intimate conversations. My then young-teen daughter learned a lot about adult behavior being 15 feel: from the neighbors bedroom. '5~¢' Recently, I walked the block to discover the source of backyard music that was too loud. It came from workers 3 or 4 homes be__On~ 904 Garden Way. Additional persons'., enjoying their backyard at 904 Garden Way has potential to impact the livabili _ty of m:~ backyard ..... its not that you aren't tolerant of neighbors, its that there can be too many of them! That is why some people prefer R-1 areas to high density. I think that encouraging accessory dwellings on ~ R-1 lots destroys what is also valuable in Ashland, the modest-home-and-lot-sized single family neighborhood. Please deny this conditional use permit. Sincerely, e ajlqM. Crawl'ord ~ 923 H~ony L~e To: As h I a n d 4~~,~~~n From: Gerald & Denise Hauck 30 year resident homeowners of 847 Garden Way "Clark's Addition" (most homes built in early 1950's) ] C~ty of AshJamd · ! Planning Exhibit I Exhibit # -- Re: Conditional Use Permit Application for duplex by purchasers of 904 Garden Way Please consider " Most families had one car when the homes in this subdivision were first built/Thus, the majority of garages are single car and the driveways are narrow by today's siandards. In many cases it would be impossible for residents to widen driveways due to utility pole placements and property lines. Homes built in the 1950's era were small when compared to homes being built today. Some owners have converted garages into additional living space (bedroom/family room) which translates into even less "off-street parking." Today the majority of residents have at least two vehicles. Many of these vehicles are parked on the street making it impossible for two cars to pass each other unless one car pulls over to the curb and stops. Emergency vehicles, delivery and construction vehicles, garbage trucks, the street sweeper, etc. have difficulty negotiating these streets. Two new homes have been built on Ross Lan~!,~,the very narrow "unpaved" street connecting Garden Way and Harmony,.J_ane. There is space for two possibly three additional homes on Ross Lane. (Will-~lane be widened and paved?) Residents of Ross Lane travel down Garden Way and Harmony Lane to connect to Siskiiyou Blvd. There is danger to children, pedestrians, bicyclists, skate boarders, runners, the elderly, pets and wildlife due to the volume and speed of the traffic in our neighborhood. One neighbor places her own "children at play" sign on the side of the street in an attempt to slow traffic. New subdivisions often have "homeowner associations" with guidelines so these r ' p oblems don t occur. What can a long time .nei,g. hborhood do except bring tJhe~ problems to the planning commission~J~ ,¢~/of C,/~y-c~:~,~c,:/, ~erore'~~ d~!~'"-_--:-,c.-c.T~,.?=~cd;.; does anyone from the planning department visit the neighborhood and talk t(~/l~h~o~l~eowners to gain information as to how a Conditional Use Permit may affect the area? This has been and is a family oriented neighborhood of owner occupied homes. Those of us whose children had wonderful experiences growing up here want ~ young families with children to have those same experiences today. CITY OF -ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 904 GARDEN WAY INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #:39 1E 15 AC; TAX LOT: 15100. APPLICANT: DENNIS GRAY AND JANE CORY-VANDYKE 6-22-04 7-13-04 7-12-04 7-12-04 3-8-04 7-1-04 6-30-04 6-30-04 6-30-04 6-15-01 6-8-04 6-8-04 6-8-04 6-8-04 5-20-04 5-20-04 5-20-04 5-11-04 5-11-04 5-3-04 4-29-04 4-28-04 4-21-04 4-21-04 4-21-04 4-8-04 Notice of appeal of PA 2004-052 from Christopher Robinson 1-2 Photos submitted by Lynn Costantino 3-7 Photos submitted by Christopher Robinson 8-13 Response to Staff from applicant 14-16 Letters to applicant from Adam Hanks, Code Enforcement Officer & Case Detail Report: 04-001255 along with related permits 17-24 Fax to applicant from Maria Harris 25 Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing before Council 26 Notice of Public Hearing before Council and related criteria 27-28 Affidavit of Mailing & mailing list 29-31 Findings, Conclusions & Orders for PA2004-052 & mailing list 32-37 Planning Commission Minutes 38-40 Planning Dept. Staff Report 41-46 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibits Letter from Gwen Davies - Ex. 1 47-51 Letter from Jean Crawford - Ex. 2 52-53 Letter from Patty Knapp - Ex. 3 54 Letter from Paul Giancarlo - Ex. 4 55 Letter from Jim & Karen Fieguth - Ex. 5 56-61 E-mail from Molly Erwin - Ex. 6 62 Letter from Denise & Gerald Hauck - Ex. 7 63 Faxed letter in opposition from Chris Robinson 64-66 Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission Hearings Board 67 Notice of Public Hearing and related criteria 68-69 Affidavit of Mailing and mailing list 70-72 Minutes of the Planning Commission Hearings Board 73 Letter from applicant in response to neighbor's appeal 74-75 Request for public hearing from Jim and Karen Fieguth 76 Request for public hearing from Christopher Robinson 77 Request for public hearing from Joanne and Anthony Costantino 78 Notice of Hearings Board meeting, related criteria and mailing list 79-82 Newspaper Notice of meeting before the Planning Commission Hearings Board 83 Newspaper Notice of meeting of landscape review 84 Planning application and applicant's findings 85-101 Christopher Robinson 891 Garden Way Ashland OR 97520 June 22, 2004 City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main St. Ashland OR 97520 ,liE,: ,Notice of Al~l~eal ret~a,rdin~ planning,,Action 2,,IN}4-, 052 (904 (;arden Way, ,Ashland) As the owner-in-residence of the property directly across the street fi'om the subject property, I hereby request an appeal of planning action #2004-052 as decided by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2004. In this request for appeal I also represent a group of 26 concerned neighbors who oppose Planning Action 2004-052 (names available upon request). The specific grounds for appeal: 1) Increased .traffic, parking and pedestrian safety concems; 2) Lack of "to and through" improved streets in the development; 3) Inadequate off-street parking for the subject property; 4) Diminished "livability" of the single family residence characteristics of the neighborhood; 5) Misrepresentation by the applicant's representative at the June 8th hearing of the procedural path followed by the applicant. A check in the amount of $264.00 in enclosed as the Standard Appeal Fee. Sincerely, Christopher Robinson , CITh' OF ASHLAND Received from ///~~ For i , Account Numb~ / ~mount By Date Cash Check Account Number TOTAL $ 88437 / Amount This is a broken down copy of the poster submitted to the planning commission on Mon. July 12t~ by Lynn Costantiino. It is in regard to: SECTION 18.104.050 APPROVAL CRITERIA C-3 ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY WITH THE IMPACT AREA The first three houses pictured are examples of accessory units which aesthetically meet the criteria. The individual photo is the subject property located on Garden Way, which was referred to as a duplex three times by S~san Reid in her testimony. The final three photos are questionable properties located on Garden Way and Harmony Lane. JUL 1 3 '7 J U L !P 3 200& Christoph~ Robinson 891 Garden Way Ashland OR 97520 July 12, 2004 Planning Department City of Ashland 51 Winbum Way Ashland OR 97520 RE:,P!anninll Act, i0n,2004-052 (904 Garde ,n Way, Ashland) The following exhibits are for the City Council hearing on July 20 regarding planning action 2004-052. CR- 1' Photograph showing tenant's car blocking existing driveway CR-2: Photograph showing close proximity of utility pole to proposed driveway extension CR-3' Photograph showing external door and window added to structure in January 2004 CR-4: Case Timeline detailing in chronological order the events of the case and supporting notes from Ashland Code Compliance Specialist JUL 1 2 lO0~ Exhibit CR-1 904 Garden Way, May 2004 Tenant's car parked facing wr'ong way in street and completely obstructing driveway Exhibit CR-2 904 Garden Way, May 2004 Note narrow curb cut and close proximity of utility pole to proposed driveway extension J U L 1 2 200/t Exhibit CR-3 904 Garden Way Ext:erior door and window c, ut into framework in January 2004 to allow access to ARU // ~ ~J L ! 2 Exhibit CR-4:904 Garden Way Case Timeline January 2004: Applicant began remodeling construction on property including cutting in a door and window to external framing. On or before February 9, 2004, neighbor Chris Robinson notified Adam Hanks at City of Ashland of the construction, and that no building permit was displayed. The door construction was visible from the street. February 11, 2004: Electrical permit BD-2004-00247 issued with incorrect owner information. February 19, 2004: Inspection of property by Adam Hanks. March 8, 2004: Letter sent by Adam Hanks to applicant informing him of need for structural and Conditional Use permits. March 9, 2004: Pre-application filed by applicant. March 11, 2004: Applicant wrote letter to Adam Hanks stating ignorance of the need for permits, yet at the same time stating that they had already applied ~ for an ARU permit. March 24, 2004: Applicant has pre-application conferences with City of Ashland officials. Project is clearly labeled as a "two family dwelling." April 2004: Applicant applies for Conditional Use Permit, paying standard filing fee of $529. May 13, 2004: Structural Permit BD-2004-00863 issued for deck and stairs at rear of building, again with incorrect owner information. June 8, 2004: Planning Department Staff Report issued on the day of the public hearing, including errors regarding external changes to the dwelling. June 8, 2004: Hearings Board issues decision in favor of applicant over the objections of many neighbors. SuPporting attachment: City of Ashland Case Detail Report: 04-001255 J U L ! 2 ~O~B Case Detail Report' 04-001255 Jul 7, 2004 Case Information Case #: 04-001255 Address: 904 GARDEN Ashland OR OF', Status: Closed Neighborhood: Approx. Location: Priority: Normal Open Date: Feb 19, 2004 Ciose Date: Apl' 2, 2004 How Received: Phone Description: duplex use/no permits Categories Land Use Code Citizens Name Home Address Home Phone Business phone Associ~ion CHRISTOPHER', ROBINSON Activities Date Activity 891 GARDEN WAY 5418642067 Complainant Assigned To/By Due Complete Feb 19, 2004 Inspection Comments · letter from owner, pre-app filed, close case Violations Violation Code Status Adam Hanks,Adam Feb 20, Mar 22, Hanks 2004 2004 Open Date Closed Date Comments Documents Date Type Source Description Mon Mar 08 09:10:47 MST 2004 Notes Date Note Type application/octet-stream Description Letter Sent Thu Feb19 15:01:10 MST 2004 Thu Feb 19 Detailed Description Citizen Attached New owners: Dennis Gray 668 Leonard Citzen "CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON" was attached to the case. /Z 07/01/2004 THU 11:02 Fax FAX 5415522050 City of Ashland Planning 001/002 4 k HLAND DATE: 7.1.04 TO: 3ane Cory-VanDyke FROM: Maria Harris RE: appeal request for 904 {]arden Way, PAGES: 2 Ja~e., attached is a copy of the appeal letter. The appellants may submit additional information for the Council bewaring- you may want to check with me oa July 12. I r~eomm~d submitting the following additional materials for the public hearing at the City Council - I need this iaformation by the morning of Monday, July 12. v~ site plan which calls out s~backs flora all sides of thc building to property lines. The scale usexl 1" - 15' is not a standard scale - e. ggher-~'ig~acks need to be called out or the plan redrawn using an engineering scale ~ architectural scale (i.e. 1/:8" = 1'). ~ a driveway plan demonstrating that condition #13 add~l by the Hearings BOard can bc met- show full length of front property line along Garden Way. One "off-street parkJng cr~lit' required 48 feet of uninterrupted curb is required c~ntiguous to the lot which c~)ntains the use which requires the parking (18.92.025). Condition #13 reads: That the driveway apron shall be removed and replaced with a new driveway apron by shifting the location to the south and centering a new apron to provide access to the two off- street parking spaces and to provide 48feet of adjacent uninterrupted curb necessary for one off-street parldng credi~ zt driveway apron plan shall be submitted for review ,and approval of the Staff ~tdvisor prior to installation, z~ permit for work in the street right-qf-way shall be obtained prior to installation from the Ashland Engineering Divislan. The new driveway apron and curb replacement shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance ora certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. a~Unam of Commurdty I~v~lopmen! 20 East MsJn Street Ashla< Oregon 97~0 www,asttand,or.as Utility Pole i 9ravel_. Parking Detail Proposed ARU: 904 Garden Way April 20134 Scale: .1/8"= 1 foot _Garden way_ COncrete ~h'W~ter ~ete~ ~ New Dri~ay Apr°n' i Proposed 2~,RU, House _. . Catch basin at corner of Garden Way and Clark St., Fire hydrate 200 feet to the north Lawn 65 Feet Tax Lot Number 5100 Zone R-1-7.5 Lot Size 8,125 Sq. Feet Scale: I" = 20 feet Proposed Accessory Unit 904 Garden Way, Ashland Property Lines Concrete Slab ' ~ Bath Kitchen a~~ Living Bedroom I Two Bedroom House (I 100 Square Feet) Lawn. Laundry Carport _ -- -- -- Water Meter ~. Electric Meter Utility Pole Garden Way 6 inch sewer line 6 inch water line CITY OF SHLAND March 8, 2004 Dennis Gray 668 Leonard St Ashland, OR 97:520 Dear Mr. Gray: This letter is in reference to a concern that has recently been brought to my attention regarding recent construction activity and potential use of the property under your ownership located at 904 Garden Way in Ashland. It appears that some remodeling work is being done on the residence, some of which requires building permits. In reviewing recent permit activity, no permits were issued for this address. Additionally, concern was raised regarding the modifications to the residence being done in such a manner that a second, separate unit is created. As you are probably aware, the zoning classification for this area is R-l, single family residential. Acceessory Residential Units (ARU's) can be potentially approved through, a conditional use permit process, where the additional parking demands, size of the unit relative to the primary and other issues are :reviewed. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so we can determine what permits are needed and what already completed work needs to be inspected. The permit process will also resolve the second unit potential for the property. Sincerely, Adam Hanks Code Compliance: DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVI-'LOPMENT 20 East Main St Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 March 11, 2004 Adam Hanks Code Compliance City of Ashland Dear Mr. Hanks, I just received a letter that you sent to me regarding a concern over remodeling activity and potential use of the property that my wife and I recently purchased at 904 Garden Way in Ashland. We did not realize that permits were required for the kind of repairs we have been m.aking on this property. We have recently removed the old roofing and put on a new roof, which was installed by John Minter Construction of Central Point. We have painted and taken out the existing carpet. We are remodeling a bathroom: changing the shower surround and removing a funky sink cabinet that was in disrepair. We have had Rogue Valley Electric install a 200 amp rain- tight panel for which we obtained a permit from the City of Ashland Electric Department. It is my understanding, after an informal meeting with a City of Ashland planner, that our proposed use of the property likely meets all requirements for an accessory unit. We have applied to the city for a permit for an Accessory Residential Unit (Permit # PL-2004-00416). Of course we will have a better idea of this at our pre-application conference. It is our understanding that our closest neighbor is unhappy about having a potential rental property next door. We wish to assure the City of Ashland that we will do everythintg in our power to be good neighbors by protecting existing neighbors' privacy through appropriate' screening and a commitment to improve the visual appearance of the property through landscaping and a sensitivity to the existing streetscape. My wife and I hope to be able to meet with you early next week to clear up any misunderstandings and of course obtain the required permits for these repairs. Dennis J. Gray 482-5735 Case Detail Report · 04-001255 Jul 7, 2004 Case Information Case #: 04-001;!55 Address: 904 GARDEN Ashland OR OR Status: Closed Neighborhood: Approx. Location: Priority: Normal Open Date: Feb 19, 2004 Close Date: Apr 2, 2004 How Received: Phone Description: duplex use/no permits Categories Land Use Code Citizens Name Home Address Home Phone Business phone Association CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON Activities Date ,Activity 891 GARDEN WAY Feb 19, 2004 Inspection Iletter from owner, pre-app filed, close Comments - case Violations · Violation Code Status Open Date 5418642067 Complainant Assigned To/By Due Complete Adam Hanks,Adam Feb 20, Mar 22, Hanks 2004 2004 Closed Date Comments Documents Date Type Source Description Mon Mar 08 09:10:47 MST 2004 Notes Date Note Type application/octet-stream Description Letter Sent Thu Feb 19 Detailed 15:01:10 MST Description 2004 Thu Feb19 New owners: Dennis Gray 668 Leonard Citizen Attached Citzen "CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON" was attached to the case. /'7 15:01:10 MST '2004 Thu Feb 19 15:01:11 MST 20O4 Mon Mar 08 09:10:47 MST 2004 Tue Mar 09 12:04:13 MST 2004 Fri Apr 02 08:16:28 MST 2004 Inspection - Activity Document Attached General Case Information General Case Information Activity - Inspection - Assigned to Department Code Enforcement Document "904Garden.doc" was attached to the case. Pre-app filed 3/8/04. Notified complainant 3/9/04 Letter returned from Dennis Gray, property owner. Also pre-app submitted. Made comments on pre-app included both letters. Will be resolved through land use process Job Address: 904 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 Contractor: Address: Owner's Name: Customer #: Applicant: Address: MANN DONALD J/LARA K 01846 DENNIS/JANE GRAY/CORY-VAN DYKE Phone: Applied: 05/13/2004 Issued: 06/11/2004 Expires: 12/08/2004 Maplot: 391E15AC5100 DESCRIPTION: Phone: State Lic No: City Lic No: Sub-Contractor: OWNER CONTRACTOR Address: Phone: State Lic No: City Lic No: exempt Occupancy Type Construct:ion Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description .qam.qe carprt 80.00 15.60 1,248.00 lotal for valuation: 1,248.00 Building Valuation 1248 Use Code Sfr Occupancy Groups R-3 Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Building Permit Fee 22.00 Community Development Fee 11.23 State Surcharge-Building (7%) 1.54 Plan Check- Structural 14.30 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www. ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF : kSHLAND I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, understood and agreed to the following: 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code or regulation previsions relating to time lapse and revocation (180 days). 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. 3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in advance to the department. 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Applicant Date Fee Summary Paid Amounts · Building: $ 36.30 $ 36.30 State Surcharge: $ 1.54 $ 1.54 Development Fees: $ 11.23 $ 11.23 Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Planning Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Sub-Total: $ 49.07 Fees Paid: $ 49.07 Total Amount Due: ~; 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www. ashland.or, us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF LAN D Job Address: 904 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 Contractor: Address: Owner's Name: Customer #: Applicant: Address: MANN DONALD J/LARA K 00022 ROGUE VALLEY ELECTRIC Phone: Applied: 02/11/2004 Issued: 02/12/2004 Expires: 08/11/2004 Maplot: 391E15AC5100 DESCRIPTION: Phone: State Lic No: City Lic No: Sub-Contractor: Address: ROGUE VALLEY ELECTRIC 137. NOB HILL ST ASHLAND OR 97520 Phone: (541) 488-1937 State Lic No: City Lic No: 51466 Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: Electdc Svc\Feed under 200an 1 . I Use Code sfr I I Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Electric Service\Feeder Fee 63.00 State Surcharge - Electric 7% 4.41 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-5,52-2080 CITY OF -ASHLAND I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, understood and agreed to the following: 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation (180 days). 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. 3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in advance to the department. 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Applicant Date Fee SUmmary Building: State Surcharge: Development Fees: Systems Development Charges: Utility Connection Fees: Public Works Fees: Planning Fees: Paid Amounts $ 63.00 $ 63.00 $ 4.41 $ 4.41 $ o.oo $ o.oo $ o.oo $ o.oo $ o.oo $ o.oo $ o,oo $ o.oo $ o, oo $ o.oo Sub-Total: :$ 67.41 Fees Paid: :$ 67.41 Total Amount Due: ',$ 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 20 East Main St. Fax: Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: www. ashland.or, us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 541-488-5305 541-488-5311 800-735-2900 CITY OF :AS FI LAN D CITY OF SHLAND Fax DATE: 7.1.04 TO: Jane Cory-VanDyke FROM: Maria Harris RE: appeal request for 904 Garden Way PAGES: 2 Jane, attached is a copy of the appeal letter. The appellants may submit additional information for the Council hearing- you may want to check with me on July 12. I recommend sub:mitting the following additional materials for the public hearing at the City Council - I need this information by the morning of Monday, July 12. site plan which calls out setbacks from all sides of the building to property lines. The scale used 1" = 15' is not a standard scale - either the setbacks need to be called out or the plan redrawn using an engineering scale ,(i.e. 1" = 20') or architectural scale (i.e. 1/8"= 1 '). a driveway plan demonstrating that condition #13 added by the Hearings Board can be met - show full length of front property line along Garden Way. One "off-street parking credit" required 48 feet of uninterrupted curb is required contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking (18.92.025). Condition #13 reads: That ttie driveway apron shall be removed and replaced with a new driveway apron by shifting the location to the south and centering a new apron to provide access to the two off- street parla'ng spaces and to provide 48feet of adjacent uninterrupted curb necessary for one off-sm;et parking credit. A driveway apron plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to installation. A permit for work in the street right-of-way shall be obtained prior to installation from the Ashland Engineering Division. The new driveway apron .and curb replacement shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. Department of Community [~evelopment Tel: 541488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 F~l~'~ Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us , O,~ ~'"" ATTN: JODY-CLASSIFIED PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. will be held before the Ashland City Council on July 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the public hearing portion of the review has been closed dUring a previous meeting. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing residence at 904 Garden Way into an accessory residential unit. Publish: 7/8/04 P. O. No. 60645 Barbara Christensen City Recorder Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HE~ ,~G on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held befor.e the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL .on July 20=, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordipance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA bn that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application,. )cuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development~ and Engineering Services, at 541-552-2041. Our TrY phone number is 1-800-735- 2900. PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to Convert a portion of the existing residence at 904 Garden Way into an accessory residential unit. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 'IE 15 AC; Tax Lot: 5100. APPLICANT: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke !8.72.070 Criteria for ^pproval. The following criteria shall b6 used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by llhe proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been .met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) .CONDITIONAL USE pERMITS $8.104.050 ApDroval Criteri-. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the~use would be in conformance with all standards. within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance-with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State or Federal law or program. ' B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportatiOn can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: le · · 7 · Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity. of facilities. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other.~environmental pOllutants. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF .OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97,";20, in the Community Development Department. 2. On J.~e 30. ?004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planniing Action Cf 2004-052. Signature of~L;/m ployee SIGNED AND SWORN TO ' befoire me this ~day of . ~,~...~.,--~ SONJA N AKERMAN ~.'..I~..~ NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON (~ \~...'~,~.Y/ COMMISSION NO. 355829 Comm-Dev~Planning\Templates '" :391E15ACS100, PA#2004~052 , .'ALSING ALLEN A/IC&~E~ M - 970 WALKER- AVE ' '"ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC3900, PA#2004-052 BACON CURTIS J/SUSAN E 891 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 lEI 5AC41.00, PA~2004-052 BALLENGER JOAN W/MARTIN AMA 911 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7500, PArt2004-052 BATTERS J'ON L 935 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 3 91E 15AC3800~ 'PA#2004-052 BAZE LOUIS CAL/BAZE MONIQUE 88'1 HARMONY LN ASHLAND', OR' 97520 39 lEI 5AC4800, PA#2004-052 BRO'WN JOE A/JANIE 932 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15AC2200, PA#2004-052 COSTANrl~NO ANTHONY L/JOANNE 892 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC2000, PArt2004-052 CRAFt C A/CLAIRE G.: 910 HARMONY LN "'ASHLAND, OR ' 97520 391E 15ACA200, PA~2004-052 CRAWFORD J VERNON TRUSTEE 923 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR' 97520 391 E15AC2300, PA#2004-052 CURRY ROGER SCOTT 882 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC4300, PA#2004-052 .'DEMERRITT ER-AtqE IdHAMNETT D 935 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC 1900, PA#2004-052 ERWIN MOLLY 922 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5~X)0, PA#2004-052 GIANCARLO PAULZMAKY SHAFFER 916 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7400, :PA#2004-052 · GROSSMAN HEIDI P' 923 GARDEN WAY -ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15AC2100,-PA~2004-052 'KNAPP MICHAEL E/PATRICIA A "'.. 902 IIARMOI~W' LN .~, · 'ASHLAND, OR '.97520 391E15AC3700, PA#2004-052 HILLIGOSS L O/L KUZMIC 869 ItARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC5300, PA#2004-052 :' KRANCEVIC STEPHEN/J~~y J '882 GARDEN WAY .ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC7300, PA#2004-052 JONES GARY D/DEBORAH M 1163 BELLVIEW AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC7100 & 7102, PA#2004-052 LINDSAY C H TRUSTEE 889 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 · 391E 15AC7000, PA#2004-052 WARE PATTY JO/FKANK J 8.69 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15ACA000, PA#2004-052 MALLANIK JUDY L TRUSTEE 21 CREST RD :FAIRFAX, CA' 94930 391E15AC5100, PA#2004-052 MANN DONALD J/LARA K 904 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 · 391 E15AC5200, PA#2004'-052 Y' ' MEYERS WILLIAM/KAREN BOLDA 892'GARDEN' WAY .. ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 lEI 5AC4700, PA#2004-052 RAPP WILLIAM JOSEPHJDOLLY 950 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4900, PA#2004-052 RESCH RACItAEIJR L SEIDMAN 924 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15A07101, PA#2004'-052 ".ROBINSON CHRISTOPHER : PO BOX. 3555 · ';'ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5400, PA#2004-052 391E 15ACA400, PA#2004-052 SALDANA CONSTANCE A SKLAR MAiDELEINE/KENT HARRIS 1650 SUNSET AVE 810 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 3~ ASHLAND, OR 97520 DENNIS GRAY & JANE CORY-VAN DYKE 668 LEONARD ASHLAND OR 97520 .JIM & KAREN FIEGUTH 850 GARDEN! WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 GWEN DAVIES 860 HARMONY LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 JIM & KAREN FIEGUTH 850 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 DENISE & GERALD HAUCK 847 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 SUSAN REID 171 GRANITE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 Jun~2004 CiTY OF ,-ASHLAND Dennis Gray and Jane Cory VanDyke 668 Leonard Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #2004-052 Dear Dennis Gray and Jane Cory VanDyke: At its meeting of June 8, 2004, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for the property located at 904 Garden Way -- Assessor's Map # 39 1E 15 AC, Tax Lot 5100. The Findings, Uonclusio~n~~ document, adopted at the June 8, 2004 meeting, is enclosed. Please note the follow~: 1. A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. . A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. There is a 15-day appeal period which must elapse before a building permit may be issued. All o.f the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before art occupancy permit may be issued. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application would, have to be submitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. ~ncerely Bill M01nar Senior Planner cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.or.us BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD June 8, 2004 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-052, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 904 GARDEN WAY INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT.: APPLICANT: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke ) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS ) AND ORDERS ) ) ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 5100 of 39 1E 15AC is located at 904 Garden Way and is zoned R-1-7.5; Single-Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to convert 475 square feet of the existing residence into an accessory residential unit. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104 as follows: : A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards Within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that m'e not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. g. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the develOpment of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livabilityof the impact area shall be ~considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. , o 4. 5. 6. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. Architectural compatibility With the impact area. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. PA 2004-052 June 8, 2004 Page 1 . Other factors found to be relevant by :the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. Further, the criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 18.172 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. Ce The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. De That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject Property. 4) The Hearings Board, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on J~me 8, 2004 at which time testimony was recdved and exhibits were presented. The Hearings Board approved the apPlication subject to conditions perm'.ming to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Hearings Board of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Hearings Board 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 Hearings Board finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for a Conditional Use Permit described in the Conditional Use Permits Chapter 18.104, and[ the criteria for Site PA 2004-052 June 8, 2004 Page 2 -. Review approval described in the Site Design and Use Chapter 18.72. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Heatings Board concludes that the proposal to oonvert 475 square feet of the existing residence into an accessory residential unit is supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2004-052. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2004-052 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the driveway and edging for the second parking space on site shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 3) That the property owners shall sign in favor of a local improvement district to install sidewalks on Garden Way prior to issuance of the building permit for the accessory residential unit. 4) That a separate electric meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5) The lands, caping plan shall be revised to eliminate additional plantings other than ground cover in the street riOa-of-way (area behind curb), and to include street trees at 1 per 30 feet of street frontage prior to issuance of the building permit. That a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval ,of the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of the building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 6) The street trees shall be installed behind the location of a future sidewalk prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the primary residence. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. 7) That the irrigation plan shall be submitted with the building Permit for the accessory residential unit for review and approval by the Ashland Conservation Division. 8) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met including, but not limited to installation of smoke alarms complying with current O.R.S. requirements, prior to issuance of the certificate, of occupancy. PA 2004-052 June 8, 2004 Page 3 9) That an opportunity to recycle site shall be located on the site, or an individual :recycle bin shall be provided to the accessory residential unit in conformance with 18.72.040 prior 'to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. 10) That all requirements of the Ashland Building Division shall be met including, but not limited to separation reqUirements. A building permit shall be obtained as required by the Ashland Building DiVision for modifications to create the accessory residential unit. 11) That the Systems Development Charges (SDC's) for transportation, parks, water and sewer shall be paid in full with the building permit or prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever is issued first. 12)That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. 13)That the driveway apron shall be removed and replaced with a new driveway apron by shifting the location to the south and centering a new apron to provide access to the two off-street parking spaces and tO provide 48 feet of adjacent uninterrupted curb necessary for one off-street parking credit. A driveway apron plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to installation. A permit for work in the street right-of-way shall be obtained prior to installation from the Ashland Engineering Division. The new driveway apron and curb replacement shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. Date PA 2004-052 June 8, 2004 Page 4 use' Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® PA2004---52 904 GARDEN WAY ACCESSORY RES. UNIT JEA .N M CRAWFORD 923 HARMONY LAN[*. ASHLAND OR 97520 JIM & KAREN FIEGUTH 850 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520' DENNIS GRAY JANE CORY VANDYKE 668 LEONA~ STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 PATTY KNAPP 902 HARMONY LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 MOLLY ERWIN 922 HARMONY LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 A~RY® ,. GWEN DAVIES 860 HARMONY LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 5160® PAUL GIANCARLO 916 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ~.,, DENISE & GERALD HAUCK 847 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 CHRISTOPHER ROB1NSON 891 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 ANTHONY & JOANNE COSTANTINO 892 HARMONY LANE JOAN BALLINGER 911 HARMONY LANE ASHLAND OR 97520 JANIE BROWN 932 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 SUSAN REID 171 GRANITE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 Jam Free Printing AVERY® www. avery, com 1-800-GO-AVERY (462-8379) PLANNING ACTION 2004-078 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 499 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 572 HOLLY STREET. APPLICANT: MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-081 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A FOUR LOT, 13-UNIT PROJECT AT 954 B STREET. THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THREE, FOUR-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS. APPLICANT: ARCHERD/DRESNER, LLC This action was approved. PLANNING ACTION 2004-074 REQUEST PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW "DEVELOPMENT" (I.E. INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY) ON THE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED. AS HILLSIDE LANDS AT 327 GRANITE STREET. ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS ARE REQUESTED TO PERMIT THE DRIVEWAY ON U~,NDS GREATER THAN A 35 PERCENT SLOPE FOR A LENGTH GREATER THAN 100 FEET, TOi PERMIT A DRIVEWAY GRADE IN EXCESS OF 15 PERCENT, AND TO PERMIT A VERTICAL CUT SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. APPLICANT: CARLOS REICHENSHAMMER This action was approved. IV. TYPE II PLANNING ACTION~ PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 904 GARDEN WAY INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. APPMCANT: DENNIS GRAY AND JANE CORY-VANDYKE Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacls - Site visits were made by Dotterrer and KenCairn. STAFF REPORT Harris said the proposal is to use 475 square feet of existing space for an accessory residential unit. One parking space is being added next to the driveway. The application meets all the requirements of the R-1 zone. Harris said there is 46 feet of uninterrupted curb, close to the number of feet required for one on-street parking space. PUBLIC HEARING SUSAN REID, 171Granite Street, is representing the applicant. Reid was a Council member that helped develop the ordinance allowing accessory residential units'with a Conditional Use Permit. Fifteen years later, she thinks it still holds tree that the only way to develop small apartments in Ashland is through this ordinance. Banks are not encouraging people to build studio and one-bedroom apartments. This was an early attempt to provide affordable housing for single people. A small duplex is better than renting a single house to several individuals. JEAN CRAWFORD, 923 Harmony Lane, believes this area is unsuitable for accessory units. Most homes have One car garages. Most of the garages have been converted into living spaces. Often a unit comes with two to four vehicles. She is concerned about traffic and parking impacts as well as limited privacy and no open space. GWEN DAVIES, 860 Harmony Lane, read a statement in opposition. She referred to the R-1 de£mition and described their neighborhood. There are no sidewalks, as well as additional parking pressures and traffic congestion. There are children at play, erosion of the family atmosphere with the increase in the number of accessory residential units. Ken Cairn explained that part of the purpose of the CUP for an accessory residential unit has been to allow' aging parents to live on the same property under the care of their adult children. By denying the CUP, we might never allow parents to live on the same property as their children. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD 2 JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES Davies said she would support a family arrangement. Knox said what dictates the use of the accessory unit is the size. The proposal is for 475 square feet. This is a one person space. JOAN BALLINGER, 911 Harmony Lane, concurred with Davies' remarks. She is opposed to the application. She has college students living next door to her. The problems she has had relate to noise and the tenant's disorderly conduct. The neighborhood has changed and it is not a positive change. There is no more room on Harmony Lane for cars. She is concerned about landlord accountability. CHRIS ROBINSON, 891 Garden Way, read comments from the letter he submitted urging denial of the application. KAREN FIEGUTH, 850 Garden Way, submitted photos and read a letter in opposition. JOANNE COSTANTINO, 892 Harmony Lane, asked why the construction on the proposed property was almost finished before they received notice. It's different ffyou own the house and live there versus the owner living off-site. She read a letter from PATTY KNAPP, 902 Harmony Lane. JANIE BROWN, 932 (}arden Way, said there is not enough room for parking on the street. She is concerned about more traffic, speeding cars and more residents in the neighborhood. LYNN COSTANTINO, 904 Harmony Lane, feels the Planning Commission ha~ a right to put certain conditions on this action. He is not opposed to accessory units. This is going to be a duplex that is non-owner occupied. He would like to see a limit to the number of people able to live in a house. It is unrealistic to believe only one person will live in 475 square feet. The unit deserves a front door entrance. They should have a rule they can't have entrance less than six feet from the property line. A landlord should have to pay a license fee for the CUP of $250 to $300 a year and have an annual inspectiom The money generated can be put into affordable housing. There should be a limit on the number of accessory residential units in a neighborhood. Harris added a potential new Condition. Staff believes the second parking space is accessible as shown, but it Would be better to recontigure it so the driveWay apron is centered so both parking spaces are accessible. That also achieves the required 48 feet of frontage for an off-street parking credit. Reid said she is agreeable. Rebuttal Reid said there was no removal or closing of a garage door. There have been no changes to the fagade of this house. AU permits were apPlied for through the City in an appropriate manner. The goal is to have a legal unit. The unit is close to transportation, a park, and entertainment. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION · Briggs asked if the electrical box went in before the applicants obtained a permit. It is Harris' understanding they obtained the necessary permits. Shoe thinks there was internal work done on the property for things that may not have required building permits. Knox added that there are situations where someone intends to do just a studio. Briggs felt the criteria have been met, however, she felt the applicants need to be in full compliance with the parking requirements. Harris said by changing the driveway apron to the middle, the applicants would have three off-street parking spaces, thereby meeting the requirement. Harris understood the addition (closing of the garage) was done in the 1970's and has been in place. She checked on the number of approved accessory residential units on Harmony Lane, Garden Way, Sunset and Ross Lane. There is only one on file that has been approved. If there are second units out there, they have not gone through the City's approval process. A Condition has been added that they ·sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for sidewalks on Garden Way. Briggs/KenCaim m/s to approve PA2004-052 with the attached Conditions. Add Condition 13 that the driveway apron shall be reconfigured and centered to provide access to both off-street parking spaces and to provide the adjacent 48 lineal feet of street frontage necess~ for one off-street parking credit. The driveway apron shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. A permit for work in the street right-of-way shall be obtained from the Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMUISSION HEARINGS BOARD 3 JUNE 8, 2004 Dotterrei: said he is opposed to the applicatibn based on the following 'Conditional'Use Permit criteria: The Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. He sees this as a single family residential area and he believes single family areas should be left single family areas. Roll Call Vote: Briggs, KenCairn, YES. Dotterrer NO. Motion passed. KenCaim left the meeting. PLANNING ACTION 2004-058 REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY AT 1167 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD INTO THREE PARCELS, WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THE MIDDLE PARCEL. A VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD, RATHER THAN 15 FEET AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. APPLICANT: MICHAEL AND MARY JACOBSON STAFF REPORT Knox explained the proposed partition as outlined in the Staff Report. The plan shows the proposed buil¢ling envelopes and proposed parking areas. Staff has had some reservations about the proposed parking. They are asking the standard setbacks be shown. The applicants have proposed a setback variance in the fi'ont yard. The variance is warranted because it is an existing house and an oversized property for the zoning (R-1-7.5). There are attached Conditions. On Lot 2, the applicants are proposing to address the lot coverage issue. Some of the driveway may need to be cut out of the middle parcel in order to provide the right amount of impervious surface. PUBLIC HEARING MICHAEL AND MARY JACOBSON are the owners of l 167 Tolman Creek Road. Dotterrer asked if they are willing to move the parking area on Lot 3 off the lot line. Michael Jacobson aWn'med. LUCY EDWARDS, 1130 Tolman Creek Road, expressed her concern for the larger houses going up in the neighborhood with the footprint being filled in. She would rather see the parcel divided into only two lots. If we are going to triple the density, she is concerned about safety as there are no curbS, gutters or sidewalks along Tolman Creek Road and no traffic signal at the comer of Tolman Creek Road and Siskiyou. She would like to see the impacts diminished. DEBRA NEISEWANDER, 1159 Tolman Creek Road discussed her concerns regarding congestion, traffic and density. The thought of two large homes built on eaCh lot is overwhelming. HOLLY FREEMAN, 1215 Tolman Creek Road, stated that upper Tolman has a more rural feeing. The building of their neighbor's home last year completely changed their lifestyle. It loomS over her back yard and she has no privacy. The approval of this application will further diminish the privacy of the neighborhood. Paving of Black Oak will diminish the rural feel. Rebuttal Michael Jacobson said their intent is to sell off only Lot 1. They do not intend to build on Lot 3. Mary Jacobson said eliminating a driveway should cut down on traffic congestion. One of their conditions of approval is to install sidewalks. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Briggs/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA2004-058 with the attached Conditions. The motion passed. V. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ASHLAND PLANNINC COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD JUNE 8, 2004 MINUTES ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 8,2004 PLANNING ACTION: 2004-052 APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: April 21, 2004 APPLICANT: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke LOCATION: 904 Garden Way ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 18.72 18.104 Single-Family Residential Site Design and Use Standards Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to convert a portion of the existing residence located at 904 Garden way into an accessory residential unit. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In April 2004, the application was administratively approved. Subsequently, a public hearing was requested by three neighboring property owners. The concerns raised were the generation of additional traffic, the potential number of occupants of the proposed accessory residential unit, and the potential for the property to be non-owner occupied. There are no planning actions of record for this site. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: Site Description The parcel is 8,125 square feet in size, and is located on the east side Garden Way. Planning Application 2004-052 Applicant: Demais Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report April 13, 2OO4 Page 1 The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). There is an existing single-family residence located on the parcel. There is an existing carport providing one off-street parking space. The parcel is landscaped with primarily lawn with a few trees around the perimeter. Proposal The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to convert 475 square feet of the existing residence into an accessory residential unit. No exterior changes are proposed to the home. An off-street parking space will be added to the south of the existing driveway. The landscaping in the front yard will upgraded with the addition of a variety of ground cover and shrubs, and the installation of a sprinkler system. II. Project Impact An accessory residential unit is a conditional use in the R-1 zone. As a result, the proposed accessory residential unit requires a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval. The existing house contains 1,574 square feet of living area. Accessory residential units are limited in size to a maximum 'of half of the gross habitable floor area of the primary residence. The proposed accessory residential unit contains 475 square feet of living space. Since the residence is being modified internally to allow for the accessory residential unit, 1,099 square feet of the original total square footage will be dedicated to the primary residence. The proposal meets the size requirement because the accessory residential unit is less than half the size of the primary residence. One off-street parking space is required for the accessory residential unit. One space is provided adjacent to the existing carport. The primary residence currently has one off-street parking space on site. In addition, on-street parking is available along the frontage of the property on Garden Way. The current parking requirements require two off-street parking spaces for a single-family residence. However, the subject residence as well as many of the adjacent homes were built in the 1950's prior to this requirement. As a result, most of the homes were originally built with one off-street parking space in the form of a one-car garage. Therefore, the off-street parking configuration of the primary residence predates the requirements of Chapter 18.92, and the property is considered "grandfathered in." A total of 30% of the site covered with impervious surface which is below the maximum of 45% allowed in the zone. The footprint and height of the structure will not be altered, and as a result the setback will not change. Adequate public water, sanitary sewer, storm drain and electric facilities exist in Garden Way to serve the proposed unit. Garden Way is a Planning Application 2004-052 Applicant: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report April 13, 2004 Page 2 III. Neighborhood Street improved to City standards without continuous sidewalks. A condition has been added requiring the applicant to sign in favor of a local improvement district to install sidewalks at a future date. The property is a slightly oversized being 8,125 square feet with the minimum lot size in this zone (R-1-7.5) being 7,500 square feet. The parcel is within 1/3 of a mile from Siskiyou Boulevard and the bus route which makes walking, bicycling and transit viable options for reside, nts of the accessory residential unit. Since the building will not be altered except for interior remodeling, the appearance of the residence will not change. As a result, the scale, bulk, lot coverage and architectural compatibility will not change. In Staff's opinion, the proposed accessory residential unit will have no greater adverse affect on the livability of the neighborhood than the target use of the property. The application includes a landscape plan. Most of the existing landscaping on the site is mature and will remain in place. New plantings with an irrigation system are proposed in the front yard area. The proposal does not include the removal of any trees on the property since the footprint of the residence will not be changed. In 1991, accessory residential units were added as a conditional use in the R-1 zone in an effort to provide the opportunity to create affordable rental units to implement the Ashla~ad Affordable Housing Plan. During this process, the issue of owner occupancy was diiscussed. HOwever, the decision at this time was not to include this factor as an approval criteria. For this reason, Staff believes the ownership status of the potential future residents should not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal against the approval criteria. Procedural- Required Burden of proof The.criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Partitions Chapter 18.104 as follows: That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or ,program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of ~!he impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the Planning Application 2004-052 Applicant: Den~ds Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report April 13, 2004 Page 3 following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless ,of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for Site Review approval are described in Partitions Chapter 18.72 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. Bo All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilitfes for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject pr'operty. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff has prepared two sets of findings, for approval and denial, which are attached. Staff recommends adopting findings for the decision at the June meeting. Staffbelieves the proposed accessory residential unit meets the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and for Site Review approval. The proposed unit is relatively small and acCommodated within the square footage of the existing building. The site is within walking distance of Siskiyou Boulevard, shopping and services. Off-street parking is provided on site, and landscaping and irrigation improvements are proposed fbr the front yard. In 1991 during the process of adding the accessory residential unit as a conditional use in the R-1 zone in the Ashland Land Use OrdinanCe, the issue of owner occupancy was Planning Application 2004-052 Applicant: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report April 13, 2004 Page 4 discussed. However, the decision at this time was not to include this factor as an approval criteria. For this reason, Staff believes the ownership status of the potential future occupants should not be considered in the evaluation of the proposal against the approval criteria. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions. 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the driveway and edging for the second parking space on site shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupanCy. 3) That the property owners shall sign in favor of a local improvement district to install sidewalks on Garden Way prior to issuance of the building permit for the accessory residential unit. 4) That a separate electric meter for the accessory residential unit shall be installed in accordance with Ashland Electric Department requirements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5) The landscaping plan shall be revised to eliminate additional plantings other than ground cover in the street fight-of-way (area behind curb), and to include street trees at 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, prior to issuance of the building permit. That a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of the building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 6) The street trees shall be installed behind the location of a future sidewalk prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the primary residence. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. 7) 'That the irrigation plan shall be submitted with the building permit for the accessory residential unit for review and approval by the Ashland Conservation Division. 8) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met'including, but not linfited to installation of smoke alarms complying with current O.R.S. requirements, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 9) That an opportunity to recycle site shall be located on the site, or an individual recycle bin shall be provided to the accessory residential unit in conformance with 18.72.040 Planning Application 2004-052 Applicant: Derails Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report April 13, 2004 Page 5 prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the accessory residential unit. 10) That all requirements of the Ashland Building Division shall be met including, but not limited to separation requirements. A building permit shall be obtained as required by the Ashland Building Division for modifications to create the accessory residential unit. 11) That the Systems Development Charges (SDC's) for transportation, parks, water and sewer shall be paid in full with the building permit or prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever is issued first. 12)That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. Planning Application 2004-052 Applicant: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report April 13, 2004 Page 6 City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit# ! P~ Patty Knapp 902 Harmony Lane Ashland, Oregon To Whom It May Concern, City of Ashlancl Planning Exhibit Exhibit # --~ 'I'PA #~¢'- ¢~''='% Date-~-/~/~taff_ }, I am writing to share my concern that the Accessory Residential Unit proposed for Garden Way be denied. I have always loved my street and neighborhood. We know each other. Neighborhood Christmas and Halloween parties have been a tradition for years. Recently the house across the street was turned into a multiple dwelling. My safe place has changed. I don't know the six or seven or more kids who live across the street. It has turned into a turnstile of young adults, broken down cars, and parties. 'We can barely find a place to park my son's car. Garbage is strewn across the lawn for days on end. We have been unable to do much about our current problem. I would hate to see our neighborhood further changed. This is a family neighborhood. I sincerelY hope that our neighborhood can stay' that way. Less crowded quieter with people who stay awhile to get to know one another. ~ Sincerely, Patty Knapp june 8, 2004 To: City of Ashland Planning Department Re: Planning Hearing for 904 Garden Way (2004-052) To Whom It May Concern: I would like to register my concerns regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit for the above property. As the neighbor to the south and the one most affected by the addition of a second unit, I am worried about the intrusion of a separate living Space oriented directly into my backyard. - I'also have some concerns about how the parking arrangements will meet specifications due to the small area available for two cars in the driveway. The street parallel to us (Harmony Lane) has many rental and duplex units that leave that street full o{ cars and congested most of the day. I question the wisdom Of the infill pohcy if increased parking congestion in the streets cannot be dealt with effectively. I do not want to see this neighborhood begin t° look like that. ~ While I think the applicants are trying to be good neighbors and are very good people, I am unhappy about the way this process was handled including the fact that all the work was done before applying for variances and permits which then puts neighbors in the position of commenting on a project that has essentially been given a stamp of approval before having hada chance to be heard. The city of Ashland building and planning departments knew of the work being done and did nothing, to my 'knowledge, to investigate. I would also like,, to ask the department to consider having these hearings in the evening so that anyone who wishes to allend would not have to miss work and bear that financial burden. SincerelY, Paul Giancarlo 916 Garden Way Ashland, OR OPPOSITION TO Planning Action 2004-052 18.104.050 Approval Criteria .,,.,.-~~.~.. City of Ashland Planning Exhibit ~, Exhibit# ITEM A--...within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located... This application refers to a "proposed" use, by observation from the street it looks as of the "proposed" changes, i.e.: exterior door on side, 2nd electrical box, etc. have already been completed. That leads me to the questions of "Building permits". Were the changes allowed by the city before the conditional use permit was in place? OR if no permits were issued, was the construction done to code? ITEM B--The adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the develop- ment. PAVED ACCESS--(see Exhibit 1) In order to park in front of 904 Garden Way without a vehicle pulling into a driveway & backing out to tum around, the only access is unpaved, single fane Ross Lane. ITEM C #2--Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. When looking at the traffic concerns we need to take into consideration the travel route to and from Garden Way. Siskiyou Blvd, Walker St, Clark, Sunset, Ross & Harmony Lanes all are impacted by existing Garden Way traffic. The city has just narrowed Siskiyou Blvd at Walker to two lane traffic-in an attempt, I would presume, to ,decrease traffic flow. Any added traffic defeats this intended purpose. All of the above mentioned streets are impacted from traffic generated by the use of Garden Way Park. (See Exhibit 2 & 3) There are no parking spaces for Garden Way Park, all vehicles must park on the streets. Vehicles parked uphill on Garden Way must travel Garden Way to Sunset or Ross L~me & Harmony Lane to return to Siskiyou Blvd. One MAJOR SAFETY concern is existing pedestrian traffic being put at greater risk by any increase in vehicle trips. There are two child care centers across Clark from Garden Way Park (Lil' Rascals on Siski,. you & Memory Lane Preschool Walker/Siskiyou) There is an Adult Foster Care home on Clark that uses Garden Way, Sunset & Harmony Lane as an exercise route. This bring us to another major SAFETY con- cern, no sidewalks or bike paths on Garden Way or Harmony Lane. (See Exhibit 4 & 5) Pedestrians & bicy- clist must use the street. Also with no side walks or bike paths there is no buffer between yards & the street. Children playing, pets & homeowners would be at greater risk with any additional traffic. This existing single family home residential neighborhood was built in the 50;s when grid street de- signs were used. This design is no longer used for new subdivisions as it is proven the straight stretches allow for increased speeds and in this case, multiplied by the slope. This is an obvious safety hazard. Street parking creates traffic problems. (See Exhibit 2 & 5) when vehicles are parked on the street, two traveling vehicles cannot pass on Harmony or Garden Way. Let alone make way for pedestrians or bicy- cles. The City MuniCipal COde 18.20.040 siates" The Purpose of the R-1 disir/ct is to stabilize and Protect the suburban characteristics of the d/strict and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life. Our hope is that the planning commission will adhere to the code and protect us as homeowners by not allowing any accessory units & keep the Garden Homes Tract a single family residential neighborhood as it was or/g/naily intended to be and as it was when my husband and I purchased our home 23 years ago. Respectfully Subnfitted, Jim & Karen Fieguth 850 Garden Way Ashland, OR C ,URRENT CONDITIONs OF ROSS LANE A~(ING ON GARDEN WAY DURING EVENTS AT GARDEN WAY PARK Top photo: please note traveling vehicle EXHIBIT 2 PARKING ON CLARK DURING EVENT AT GARDEN WAY PARK £q EXHIBIT 3 CURRENT CONDITIONS ON GARDEN WAY EXHIBIT 4 CURRENT CONDITIONS ON HARMONY LN EXHIBIT 5 Page 1 of 1 From: 'ro: Sent: Subject: "Molly" <merwin@mind.net> <fieguth123@charter. net> Monday, June 07, 2004 8:56 PM conditional use permit City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit # ~ Karen-Thank you fOr bringing my concern to the Ashland Planning Commission. ! have been a resident of Ashland for 30 years, working all this time as a nurse at Ashland Community Hospital. I live at 922 Harmony Lane, and have lived in this house for 7 years. As each year goes by, there are more and more cars parked on the street, with increased car traffic. Also, I notice that as homes are being sold on this street, many are being used as rentals. For these reasons, I would like to voice my opposition toward the request for an accessory residential unit at 904 Garden Way. Sincerely, Molly Erwin 6/8/2004 To: Ashland Planning Commission From: Gerald & Denise Hauck 30 year resident homeowners of 847 Garden Way "Clark's Addition" (most homes built in early 1950's) i City of Ashland Planning Exhibit Exhibit # "7 Dat~/¢~/~'~tafl~ - ~ (,' , Re: Conditional Use Permit Application for duplex by purchasers of 904 Garden Way Please consider: Most families had one car when the homes in this subdivision were first built. Thus, the majority of garages are single car and the driveways are narrow by today's standards. In many cases it would be impossible for residents to widen driveways due 1Io utility pole placements and property lines. Homes built in the 1950's era were small when compared to homes being built today. Some owners have converted garages into additional living space (bedroorn/family room) which translates into even less "off-street parking." Today the majority of residents have at least two vehicles. Many of these vehicles are parked on the street making it impossible for two cars to pass each other unless one car pulls over tO the curb and stops. Emergency vehicles, delivery and construction vehicles, garbage trucks, the street sweeper, etc. have difficulty negotiating 'these streets. Two new homes have been built on Ross Lane; the very narrow "unpaved" street connecting Garden Way and Harmony Lane. There is space for two possibly three additional homes on Ross Lane. (Will this lane be widened and paved?) Residents of Ross Lane travel down Garden Way and Harmony Lane to connect to Siskiyou Blvd. There is danger to children, pedestrians, bicyclists, skate boarders, runners, the elderly, pets and wildlife due to the volume and speed of the traffic in our neighborhood. One neighbor places her own "children at play" sign on the side of the street in an attempt to slow traffic. New subdivisions often have "homeowner associations" with guidelines so llhese problems don't occur. What can a long time neighborhood do except bring tl~e problems to the planning commission? Before these decisions are made does anyone from the planning department visit the neighborhood and talk to the homeowners to gain information as to how a Conditional Use Permit may affect the area? This has been and is a family oriented neighborhood of owner occupied homes. Those of us whose children had wonderful experiences growing up here want the young families with children to have those same experiences today. FAX to SUSAN YATES, Ashland Planning Department Fax: 541-552-2050 From: Chris Robinson Phone: 864-2067 REi Letter in opposition to planning action 2004-052 scheduled for public hearing today, June 8, 2004. 2 pages follow, 3 pages total including this cover sheet Susan, please distribute to appropriate staff and commissioners prior to today's 1:30 meeting. Thank '.you, Chris Page I of 2 City of Ashland Planu/ng Action 2004-052 Citizen comment for public hearing June 8, 2004 Christopher Robinson 891 Garden Way Ashland OR 97520 June 7, 2004 Planning Department City of Ashland 51 Winbum Way Ashland OR 97520 .RE: Planning Action 2004-052 (904 Garden Wa¥,_.A..s._h!and) Due to my work at the scheduled hearing time, I am_ unable to be at tire June 8th hearing concerning Planning Action 2004~052. I request that the following be read into the record: I object to the conditional use application on the following ~ounds: 1) The applicant did not apply for a permit until the bulk of the renovation work was completed, and the City had notified them of the need to obtain building permits. In my opinion, this was not an oversight, but a deliberate attempt to circumvent the City of Ashland's zoning and building permit process to avoid Systems Development Charges. 2) The proposed conversion of the single-family residence into a two,-unit dwelling will increase the population density and traffic in this quiet neighborhood. Many of us chose to purchase homes in the Garden Way area because of its lack of traffic and noise. If this application is granted, what is to stop everyone in the area from splitting their single-family .residences into two units? Increasing the density will eventually destroy the character and livability standards of this neighborhood. Page 2 of 2 City of Ashland Planning Action 2004-052 Citizen comment .for public hearing June 8, 2004 3) Page 12 of the Ashland Planning Department Staff Report issued for this application incorrectly states that, 'No exterior changes are proposed to the home.' In fact, the applicant modified the exterior of the home prior to applying for a CUP by cutting in an exterior door on the building's south side purposely to allow access to the second unit. 4) Specifically on the issue of parking, the present tenant of the property chooses not to park on the driveway a great deal of the time, as the driveway/carport is being used instead as a storage area and playground. The proposed zoning amendment calls for additional parking to the south of the driveway area. However the curb Cut is insufficient to gain access to this proposed gravel parking area, hence the second tenant will most certainly park on the street instead of off-street. At the very least the curb cut needs to be extended to the right to accommodate off-street parking access. On these grounds, and on behalf of several neighbors who asked me to convey their concerns and opposition, I urge you to deny this CUP application. Sincerely, Christopher Robinson ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board on June 8, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, .Ashland, Oregon. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existin~g residence at 904 Garden Way into an accessory residential unit. Request for a Land Partition to divide the property at 1167 Tolman Creek Road into three parcels, with the existing residence located on the middle parcel. A Variance to front yard setback requirements is requested to permit a 10 foot front yard, rather than 15 feet as required by ordinance. In compliance with the Americans with DisablliUe$ Act, if you need spedal assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (1-1'Y phone number 1-800-735-2900). NoUficaUon 7'2 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dry to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102~35.104 ADA T~e I). By order of the Planning Director John McLaughlin Publish: 5/27/04 Date e-mailed: 5/20/04 PUrchase Order: 60627 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC ~RING on the following request with respect to th(; ASHLAND L ..~D USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on June 8, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an obje;tion concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to Sl:~fy which ordinance criterion the objection is based on al~o precludes your right of appeal 'to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues rela,[ing to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. , A copy of the applicati¢i ~ocuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable cdteria are ~a,,~dable for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing end will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Dudng the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the dght to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning Ibis request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing residence at 904 Garden Way into an accessory residential unit. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 15 AC; Tax Lot: 5100. APPLICANT: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke 18.72.070 Criteria fo, .,pproval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been .met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) .CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ,18.104.050 Approval Criteri-. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition .of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the~use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is propoSed to ibe located, and in conformanCewith relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of 'the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: I · · · · . Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities· Architectural compatibility with the impact area· Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other.~environmental pollutants· Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On May 20th~ 2004 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such address as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2004-052. Derek D. Severson City of Ashland, Planning Division SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this I III II I IlJl I NANCY E SLOCUM NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 371650 _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18, 2007 Nob~'y ~Sublic~or State of Oregon My Commission Expires: .c2/./,~,.- 527 P~4 #2004-052 Gray/Cory-Van Dyke 904 Garden Way 391E 15AC8100, PA#2004-052 ALSING ALLEN A/KATHERINE M 970 WALKER AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC3900, PA#2004-052 BACON CURTIS J/SUSAN E 891 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4100, PA#2004-052 BALLENGER JOAN W/MARTIN AMA 911 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7500, PA#2004-052 BATTERS JOiN L 935 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15AC3800, PA#2004-052 BAZE LOUIS CAL/BAZE MONIQUE 881 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4800, PA#2004-052 BROWN JOE A/JANIE 932 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2200, PA#2004-052 COSTANTINO ANTHONY L/JOANNE 892 HARMOWY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2000, PA#2004-052 CRAFT C A/CLAIRE G 910 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4200, PA#2004-052 CRAWFORD J VERNON TRUSTEE 923 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2300, PA#2004-052 CURRY ROGER SCOTT 882 HARMOb~[ LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15AC4300, PA#2004-052 DEMERRITT DIANE L/HAMNETT D 935 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC 1900, PA#2004-052 ERWIN MOLLY 922 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 lEI 5AC5000, PA#2004-052 GIANCARLO PAUL/MARY SHAFFER 916 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15AC7400, PA#2004-052 GROSSMAN HEIDI P 923 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC3700, PA#2004-052 HILLIGOSS L O/L KUZMIC 869 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7300, PA#2004-052 JONES GARY' D/DEBORAH M 1163 BELLVIEW AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2100, PA#2004-052 KNAPP MICHAEL E/PATRICIA A 902 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5300, PA#2004-052 KRANCEVIC STEPHEN/JANUARY J 882 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC7100 & 7102, PA#2004-052 LINDSAY C H TRUSTEE 889 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7000, PA#2004-052 WARE PATTY JO/FRANK J 869 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4000, PA#2004-052 MALLANIK JUDY L TRUSTEE 21 CREST RD FAIRFAX, CA 94930 391E15AC5100, PA#2004-052 MANN DONALD J/LARA K 904 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5200, PA#2004-052 MEYERS WILLIAM/KAREN BOLDA 892 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4700, PA#2004-052 RAPP WILLIAM JOSEPH/DOLLY 950 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4900, PA#2004-052 RESCH RACHAEL/R L SEIDMAN 924 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15AC7101, PA#2004-052 ROBINSON CHRISTOPHER PO BOX 3555 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5400, PA#2004-052 SALDANA CONSTANCE A 1650 SUNSET AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 7/ 391E 15AC4400, PA#2004-052 SKLAR MADELEINE/KENT HARRIS 810 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 DENNIS GRAY & JANE CORY-VAN DYKE 668 LEONARD ASHLAND OR 97520 JIM & KAREN FIEGUTH 850 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND OR 97520 CiTY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MAY 11, 2004 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Russ Chapman called the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on May l l, 2004 at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: ABSENT MEMBERS: COUNCIL LIAISON: HIGH SCHOOL LIAISON: SOU LIAISON: STAFF PRESENT: Russ Chapman, Chair Marilyn Briggs Kerry KenCaim None Alex Amarotico ((Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) None None Mark Knox, Associate Planner Maria Harris, Associate Planner Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS The minutes of the April 13, 2004 Hearings Board were approved. III. TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS A. PLANNING ACTION 2004-049 IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRAVELER'S ACCOMMODATION LOCATED AT 115 NORTH MAIN STREET. APPLICANT: JESSICA AND BRUCE CAPP This action was approved. B. PLANNING ACTION 2004-051 IS A REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION AND BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT TO DIVIDE TWO EXISTING PARCELS INTO THREE PARCELS (I.E. NET INCREASE OF ONE PARCEL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 705 CLAY STREET. APPLICANT: MERLIN NUSS This action was approved. C. PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 904 GARDEN WAY INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. APPLICANT: DENNIS GRAY AND JANE CORY-VANDYKE This action was called up for a public hearing. D. PLANNING ACTION 2004-053 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR A TEN-UNIT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFOFiLMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE 2.4 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 940 CLAY STREET (EAST SIDE OF CLAY STREET, SOUTH OF SlSKIYOU BOULEVARD). APPLICANT: COTA HOMES, LLC This action was approved. May 11,200,4 City of Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board RECEIVED 14 200 RE: Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) Application, 904 Garden Way, Ashland Board Members: The applicants, Jane Van Dyke and Dennis Gray, regret being unable to attend the public hearing on June 8. Jane's father is being honored as a "Father of the Year" by the American Diabetes Association in San Diego, California and our travel plans for this family occasion have been in place since the begivming of the year. Representing our application is our daughter, Erin Van Dyke, a co-owner of the property on Garden Way, and Susan Reid, a long time family friend. Susan will endeavor to answer any questions you may have regarding our ARU application. First, 'we would like to reassure the surrounding neighbors that the proposed ARU will be actively managed by Ashland residents who live in an adjacent neighborhood not more than five blocks distant. During our 28 year residence in Ashland we have owned several homes in town and have spent considerable capital and energy in their improvement. We purchased the property on Garden Way with our daughter in the hope that when she completes her professional training, she and her daughter will be able to afford to reside in Ashland. The creation of an ARU at the property is intended to enable her to live in the city of her birth, a city that has become increasingly unaffordable. Our intention is to enhance the physical appearance of the Garden Way property and to insure that the overall character of that neighborhood is maintained. The proposed ARU is to be created within~ an existing (1970's) addition to the original home, thus the exterior appearance of the existing property and the street scape will not be modified. Due to the relatively small size of the proposed ARU, a single adult is the maximum occupancy. Any potential increase in neighborhood automobile traffic generated by the proposed ARU will certainly not be any greater than if a third driver, for example a teenager, were to reside in a single family home. Off-street parking issues have been addressed in the previously submitted Conditional Use Permit Application and will be met as part of the conditions if our application is approved. It is to our benefit, as well as the neighborhood's, to sustain a high standard of property maintenance and to effectively manage a rental property. We also intend to work with our neighbors to address concerns regm'ding issues of privacy. It is our understanding that the City of Ashland for the past decade or more has encouraged the development of ARU's for several reasons, including: to limit urban sprawl by increasing housing in-fill, to provide affordable housing options, and to increase the stock of available rental units within the city. As noted in the Ashland Affordable Housing Action Plan (May 20, 2003) "These units [ARU's] provide an excellent source of affordable housing, RECE/ bu particularly for elderly or single residents..." Also, according to the recommendations in this recent Council- adopted Ashland Affordable Housing Action Plan, addition steps could be taken to further encourage the development of ARU's, including making them an outright permitted use in R-1 zones. This suggests to us that the City is interested in increasing the number of ARU's to meet affordable housing goals. According to a study (ECONorthwest:2002) cited in the same Ashland Affordable Housing Action Plan (May 20, 2003), Ashland has, in recent years, fallen short in providing rental housing. "Between 1990 and 2001, single-family housing accounted for about 85 percent of all residential housing units." Historically in Ashland, however, single family homes have averaged just 52 percent of new housing construction, while building of rental units 'was nearly equivalent at 48 percent. Thus, it would appear that the addition of ARU's to the inventory of housing within the City of Ashland would advance the land use planning goals of thc: City and increase the stock of needed rental !~ousing, thereby adding to the economic and demographic diversity of the Ashland population. Through the Conditional Use Permit Application process we have addressed all of the relevant planning criteria as requested by the City staff. We believe our application demonstrates that our proposed ARU will not have an adverse material effect on the livability of the area and we therefore request that the Planning Commission approve the application for an Accessory Residential Unit at 904 Garden Way. Respectfully, Jane Van Dyke and Dennis Gray May 3, 2004 City of.Ashland Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Attn: Planning Commission Re: 904. Garden Way request for Conditional Use Permit Dear Commissioners: We request a public hearing regarding the application for a Conditional Use Permit at 904 Garden Way. There are a number of concerns' off street parking, generation of traffic, two non-owner occupied dwellings, accessory units in a single-family home neighborhood, existing conditions on Garden Way & Harmony Lane, just to name a few. Please let us know when the public hearing has been scheduled. Respectfully, Jim and Karen Fieguth 850 Gm'den Way Ashland, OR 541-482-1270 Christopher Robinson 891 Garden Way Ashland OR 97520 April 28, 2004 Planning Department City of Ashland 51 Winbum Way Ashland OR 97520 RE: Planninu Action 2004-052 (904 Garden Way~ Ashland) I hereby request a public hearing concerning Planning Action 2004-052. The proposed conversion of the single-family residence into a two-unit dwelling will materially affect the livability of the neighborhood. In addition, it is my personal opinion that the applicant's approach was intended to circumvent the City of Ashland's zoning and building pexxnit process, and that such methodology should not be rewarded. Sincerely, Christopher Robinson cc: Homecker Cowling Hassen & Heysell LLP RECEIVED The Ashland Planning Department pr 'inarily approved this request on April 21, 2004. This actioi. .tl be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1:30 p.m. on May 11, 2004 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. No [~ublic testimony is allowed at this review Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this action. To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on May 3, 2004. The written request for the public hearing must include your name, address, the file number of the planning action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria. If you do not SPEGIFIGALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above, there will b~, no public testimony permitted. If you have questions or comment:s concerning this request, please feel free to .contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Plan~,ing Department, at 541-552-2041. If a hearing is req ~.d, it will be scheduled for the following month. Unless ther= ~s a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. SUNSET AVE Subject Property NOT .'E: Public comment concerning the project's landscaping plan will be taken on May 3, 2004 between 2:00 and 4:00p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering building located at 51 Winburn Way. PLANNING ACTION 2004-052 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing residence at 904 Garden Way into an accessory residential unit. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 15 AC; Tax Lot: 5100. APPLICANT: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-VanDyke ,, -'"'~- StT E R E V I E W , . t: _18.72.070 Criteria fo~ Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been .met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_~ ~8.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the Proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition ,of conditions, with the following approval criteria· A. That the:use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to ]be located, and in conformanCe-with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State or Federal law or program. ' B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: · · · · o Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other.~environmental pollutants. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. ¢~ 391E 15AC8100, PA#2004-052 ALSING ALLEN A/KATHERINE M 970 WALKER AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC3900, PA#2004-052 BACON CURTIS J/SUSAN E 891 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4100, PA#2004-052 BALLENGER JOAN W/MARTIN AMA 911 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7500, PA#2004-052 BATTERS JON L 935 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 39 lEI 5AC3800, PA#2004-052 BAZE LOUIS CAL/BAZE MONIQUE 881 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E15AC4800, PA#2004-052 BROWN JOE A/JANIE 932 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2200, PA#2004-052 COSTANTINO ANTHONY L/JOANNE 892 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2000, PA#2004-(}52 CRAFT C A/CLAIRE G 910 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4200, PA#2004-052 CRAWFORD J VERNON TRUSTEE 923 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2300, PA#2004-052 CURRY ROGER SCOTT 882 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4300, PA#2004-052 DEMERRITT DIANE L/HA3VINETT D 935 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC 1900, PA#2004-052 ERWlN MOLLY 922 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5000, PA#2004-052 GIANCARLO PAUL/MARY SHAFFER 916 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7400, PA#2004-052 GROSSMAN HEIDI P 923 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC3700, PA#2004-052 HILLIGOSS L O/L KUZMIC 869 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7300, PA#2004-052 JONES GARY D/DEBORAH M 1163 BELLVIEW AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC2100, PA#2004-052 KNAPP MICHAEL E/PATRICIA A 902 HARMONY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5300, PA#2004-052 KRANCEVIC STEPHEN/JANUARY J 882 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E15AC7100 & 7102, PA#2004-052 LINDSAY C H TRUSTEE 889 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7000, PA#2004-052 WARE PATTY JO/FRANK J 869 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4000, PA#2004-052 MALLANIK JUDY L TRUSTEE 21 CREST RD FAIRFAX, CA 94930 391E 15AC5100, PA#2004-052 MANN DONALD J/LARA K 904 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5200, PA#2004-052 MEYERS WILLIAM/KAREN BOLDA 892 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4700, PA#2004-052 RAPP WILLIAM JOSEPH/DOLLY 950 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4900, PA#2004-052 RESCH RACHAEL/R L SEIDMAN 924 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC7101, PA#2004-0:52 ROBINSON CHRISTOPHER PO BOX 3555 ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC5400, PA#2004-052 SALDANA CONSTANCE A 1650 SUNSET AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E 15AC4400, PA#2004-052 SKLAR MADELEINE/KENT HARRIS 810 GARDEN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 DENNIS GRAY & JANE CORY-VAN DYKE 668 LEONARD ASHLAND OR 97520 ATTN: LEGAL. PUBLICATIONS (MEL) MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBy GIVEN that the Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved the following requests. The actions will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1:30 p.m. on May 11, 2004 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. No public testimony is allowed at this review. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to make a written request for a public hearing before, the Ashland Planning Commission prior to 3:00 p.m., May 3, 2004 to the Planning Department, 51Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for -Transfer of Ownership of a previously approved Traveler's Accommodation located at 115 North Main Street .Request for a Land. Partition and Boundary Line Adjustment to divide two existing parcels into three parcels (i.e. net increase of on(; parcel) for the property located at 705 Clay Street. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existing residence at 904 Garden Way into an accessory residential unit. Request for Final Plan approval for a ten-unit residential subdiVision under the Performance Standards Option for the 2.4. acre property located at 940 Clay street (east side of Clay Street, south of Siskiyou Boulevard). Request for Site Review to construct a two-story, 1800 square foot addition to the existing commercial building located at the corner of Pioneer and 'A' Streets at 322 Pioneer Street. The building addition is located on the east side of the existing Gathering Glass Studio (and associated manufacturing area) and consists of 1,050 square feet of commercial space and a 750 square foot one-bedroom apartment. By order of the Planning Director John McLaughlin Publish: 4/29/04 Purchase Order: 60622 ATTN: MEL- LEGAL PUBLICATIONS PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Public comment conceming the project's landscaping plan will be taken on 'May 3, 2004 between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520. Request for a Land Partition and Boundary Line Adjustment to divide two existing parcels into three parcels (i.e. net increase of one parcel) for the property located at 705 Clay Street. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert a portion of the existin~g residence at 904 Garden Way int° an accessory residential unit Request for Final Plan approval for a ten-unit residential subdivision under the Performance Standards Option for the 2.4 acre property located at 940 Clay Street (east side of Clay Street, south of Siskiyou' Boulevard). Request for Site Review to construct a two-story, 1800 square foot addition to the existi~ng commercial building located at the comer of Pioneer and' 'A' Streets at 322 Pioneer Street. The building addition is located on the east side of the existing Gathering Glass Studio (and associated manufacturing area) and consists of 1,050 square feet of commercial space and a 750 . square foot one-bedroom apartment. By the order of the Planning Director John McLaughlin Publish: 4/.2-61'04 purchase Order: 60622 Date Received Zoning .-~- ~Y OF ASHLAND PLANNINC' ' PPLICATION - Type Filing Fee Comp Plan Designation 529. Receipt#, g/Z(~ APPLICATION IS FOR: [] Minor Land Partition oddance itional Use Permit (/~f~t.) [] Boundary Line Adjustment [] Outline Plan (# Units [] Final Plan [] Site Review [] Annexation IF] Zone Change [] Comp Plan Change [] Staff Permit [] .Solar Waiver Application pertains to chapter, section, subpart of the Ashland Municipal Code. APPLICANT Name Address - ~a~ 5~Phone PROPERTY OWNER Name ~-~.- Phone Address SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (may need to use back page) Name ~ ~' ~ Phone Address DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address q'O q Assessor's Map No. 39 1E J~5 A C Tax Lot(s) When was the above described property acquired by owner? On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of property or improvements contemplated, as well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date saki restrictions expire. FINDINGS OF FACT Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact .and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence which supports it. I hereby certify that the statement, .,d information Contained in this ap, ,tion, including the enclosed · drawings and the required findingSof fact, are in all respects true and c°rroct.· I understand that all propertj/ pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, 'the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to es'tablish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the' hearing to support this request; that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; that the .findings of fact fumished by me are adequate; and further that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in any structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed army expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance, ~ / ~ '~licants's/~~e ~,_)/ ~ -'~"~" Date . ok/~ /t>~ As own_er of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the cornplete application and its consequen/ge~me as a property owner. Prop erty ~ Signat~_~// -~ t~,- Date NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a buihting Or:a release of utilit!es prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division,AND the completion of all zoning reqmrements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satiSfactory performance bond has been pOSted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION for an Accessory Residential Unit at 904 Garden Way, Ashland, Oregon Owners: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-Van Dyke April 2004 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION for an Accessory Residential Unit at 904 Garden Way, Ashland, Oregon Owners: Dennis Gray and Jane Cory-Van Dyke April 2004 This Conditional Use Permit application is for a studio-size accessory residential uni[t to be located in part of existing, ground floor level single family home at 904 Garden Way. The proposed unit will be within the original garage (c. 1954) and an existing addition to the garage built in the 1970s. A separate entrance with a path from the drive way to the door will be created on the south side of the structure. Parking will be provided on the existing driveway, an adjacent, expanded gravel apron, and the allowed credit of one on-street parking space. No changes are planned to the current exterior of the existing structure. Criteria for the approval of this permit is found under the R-1 and Conditional Use Permits section of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Specifically: Section 18.20.30 Conditional Uses H (Accessory residential units) o Lot coverage and setback requirements: The existing structure (including the proposed accessory unit) covers 19.4 percent of the subject property, less than the 45 percent required in the R1.75 zone: no additional coverage well be added. The existing setbacks meet standard yard setbacks. . Number of dwelling units' Two dwelling units are proposed for this lot, the maximum allowable. , , Maximum size/area: The gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the existing house is 1,574 square feet of which 475 square feet (43 percent) would become the GHFA of the proposed accessory unit, and thus, below the 1,000 square foot and 50 percent GHFA requirements of the ordinance. Parking: A total of three parking spaces will be provided: one on the existing driveway, one on an expanded adjacent gravel apron, and the allowed credit for one on-street parking space (see attached parking plan detail). Section 18.20.040 General regulations mo Minimum lot area: The minimum lot area in the R-1-7.5 zone is 7,500: The subject parcel is 8,125 square feet. B. Minimum lot width for interior R-1-7.5 lots is 65 feet: The subject parcel is 65 feet wide. Co Lot Depth: Minimum lot depth for interior R-1-7.5 lots is 80 feet: the subject parcel has a lot depth of 125 feet. Do Yard requirement: Set backs of 6 feet on each side and 15 feet to the street and 20 feet to the rear are the minimum requirement. The subject parcel meets or exceeds these requirements (see attached plot plan). E, Maximum building height: No structure shall be over 35 feet high. The current structure is single story was built in 1954 with a addition, the same height as the original garage, added in the 1970s. F. Maximum lot coverage: In an R-1-7.5 district the maximum allowed is 45 percent. Total impermeable surface coverage presently existing (structure and concrete slabs) covers 30 percent of the lot. Section 18.104.050 Approval Criteria The proposeq accessory residential unit in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan goal: To insure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. A studio-size accessory unit would provide a residence for a single person. Given the growing number on one-person households in the city, the proposed accessory unit would help meet the need for smaller dwelling units for a significant percent of the city's population. A neighborhood that contains a variety of primary and secondary residences adds to the richness and diversity of the life in an 'urban setting. The proposed accessory unit also serves the goal of residential in-fill. mo The proposed accessory unit will have a negligible affect on the "character and appearance of the city." The proposed changes to the existing dwelling consists of an extension of an existing gravel parking area, and the creation of a side entrance, not visible from the street. An extension of a decorative fence along the south boundary of the property will shield the entry :from the house next door. Landscaping improvements to the property will be in accordance with City regulations (see attached plan). The existing yards will be retained and improved; no significant landscaping elements (e.g. trees) will be removed. Bo The Conditional Use permit is contingent on adequate capacity of City Facilities. The subject residence has been in place and used City utilities since the 1950s. Garden Way is a paved street, there is overhead electrical service, and the house is connectecl to all City services. C° Material effect on the livability of the area: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk and coverage: The proposed accessory unit is within a an existing structure, thus, scale, bulk, and coverage would remain unchanged. 2. Generation of traffic: The proposed accessory unit, according to current planning data, would potentially added six vehicle trips per day, no more than the addition of a third driver in a family household (e.g., a teenage driver). With only a single resident in this small studio-size unit, and the proximity of shopping and mass transit (within three to four blocks), it is likely that even fewer than six vehicle trips per day may be generated when an allowance is made for a potential increase in bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 3. Architectural compatibility: The proposed accessory unit is in the :former garage and a rear addition to that garage; the rear addition to the garage was constructed in the 1970s. The former garage fronts on Garden Way. Nearly fifty percent of the garages on Garden Way have been converted into living spaces. The subdivision was created in the early 1950s when homes were of a lesser square footage than today, and one car ownership was standard. The street appearance of the primary residence will not be changed by this proposed accessory unit. 4. Air quality: Air quality for the proposed accessory unit and the main residence is related to the potential increase in vehicle trips per day, which is likely no more than a family of four with three drivers in the household. The access t.o the structure is on paved roads; dust should not be a concern. The proposed accessory unit and the primary dwelling are both residential, thus odors or other environmental pollutants are not a factor. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare: Changes proposed from the existing dwelling are the addition of an outside, low-wattage porch light near the entrance to the accessory and possible glare from additional daily vehicle trips. Since the proposed accessory unit adds only one resident to the property, any added noise, light, or glare would be the equivalent of adding one more person to a household. 6. All adjacent properties are in the R-1-7.5 zone and have been developed, therefore the proposed accessory unit would have no effect on future development. 7. Other relevant factors noted by the Planning Department: The gravel in the expanded gravel area providing the second off-street parking space will be contained by the existing concrete drive way, a concrete retaining wall footing, and wood Or masonry barrier between the gravel and the remaining landscaped area. The front yard will be upgraded through regeneration of the grass yard, the installation of a sprinkler system, and replanting with the existing flower beds. A street tree from the approved list (a red maple) will be planted in the front yard, east of the five foot street right-of-way. The owners will sign in favor of a local improvement district to install sidewalks on Garden Way. On-street parking credit: One-street parking credit is allowed for every two on-street spaces. Spaces are defined as 24 feet of uninterrupted curb, and the curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking (Municipal Code Section 18.92.025: A, B, and C.) From the north edge of the driveway apron at 904 Garden Way to the south edge of the abandoned driveway cut apron next door (to the north) is the uninterruped contiguous 48 feet required for one on-street parking credit. Chapter 18.72 for Site Review Approval A. All applicable City ordinances will be met by the proposed residential accessory unit. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter (see below) will be met. C. The proposed accessory residential unit complies with the Site Design Standards, specifically: Landscaping: Seventy percent of the lot is not covered by structures or impermeable surfaces, greater than the required 45 percent of landscape coverage (see attached landscape plan). Basic :Site Review Standards for Multi-family Development: Existing orientation, set back, and access of the structure from the street remain unchanged. The current front yard is similar to neighboring yards. Landscaping will be improved with the regeneration of the front lawn and curb- side planting bed, and the addition of an irrigation system. Significantly more than the required eight percent of the lot area is dedicated for recreation use by the tenant. Street Tree Standards: An approved street tree (a red maple) shall be planted east of the five foot City right-of-way to allow for the future construction of a sidewalk. All criteria of section II E 1-4 will be followed. D. Adequate City facilities for water, sewer, overhead electrical service, storm drainage and paved access have been in place since the 1950s on Garden Way. According to the City Engineering office there exists: A six inch water line in Garden Way A six inch main sewer line in Garden Way A catch basin at the intersection of Clark St. and Garden Way A fire hydrant located three lots (200 feet) north of 904 Garden Way. The owners proposing this accessory residential unit have endeavored to comply with all the applicable standards of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. We therefore respectfully request approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit at 904 Garden Way. Front (West) Elevation South Elevation 904 Garden Way Rear (East Elevation) North Elevation 904 Garden Way I Borrower/Client Gray&Cory-VanDyke P[..~_operty Address 904 Garden Way Ashland I Lender Mortgage Market~ Inc. I Page#11J Plat Map Counh/ Jackson State OR Zip Code 97520-3475 Proposed Accessory Unit 904 Garden Way % SW1/4 NEI,/4 SB2 15 '['2~ R1E WM. JAC~DN COUNTY ;~ iE 15AC ..... ASI[LAN t' - 39 1E 15AC ASHLAND Form MAP.PLAT-- "TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a la mode, inc. -- 1-800-ALAMODE ,01/05/',200'4 1.1.' 42 'FAX 5417348750 " k ~,. dO. · ~ ~ Proposed Accesso~ Unit :904 Garden Way~ O ~ ~ 0 '>,2 · Joc:l{son County Tlrle ~oo8 o ._.., Subject Property .. u') ~) This .qubdlvislon SJ~Own her~n ~re ti~e o~iginal iot lines ~ ,. may not conform to current pr~'~ line~." This sketch Is ,provided for ~nfo~onal purpos6s on~v. and r,d liability is,assumed ~ ~n~on nemwi~. . . ., ,. Parking Detail Proposed ARU: 904 Garden Way April 2004 Scale: 1/8''= 1 foot Utility Pole Grass / ? ? -Existing GraveI- . Concrete :~ , I , Proposed ARU i Garden WaY ~<water ~-et'e~' , · Lawn House . -Key: A Nandina B. Mugo pine C Rosemary D. Forsythia E. Blue fescue F. New Zealand Flax G. Bamboo H. Lavender I. Butterfly bush J. Juniper K. Fotinia L. Oregon grape M. Ponderosa Pine N. Crab apple O. Red maple (planned) APril 2004 . ... :., 6.5 .Feet , ': o t Number 5100 Z .... R-I-7.5 Lot Size 8,125 Sq. Feet· .." Slope: Street 5 %; lot-0 %'" Scale: 1"= 15 feet .. Existing Trees . Lawn Existing Tree Landscaping Plan Proposed Accessory Unit . 904'Garden Way, Ashlnnd Concrete Slab Bath Bedroom~ room Two. Bedroom House (1100 Square Feet) Existing Planting , Existing Fence !i . ]?edestrian Path I<.itchen Ele'6'irii} ~[e~er . ! Carport' Existing Planting . Utility Pole _Water Meter Gm-den 'Way i' Catch basin at corner of .. Garden Way and Clark St.' Fire hydrate 200 feet to the north . April 2004 : 65 Feet Proposed Accessory Unit 904 Garden Way, Ashland T' ')t Number 5100 · . Z &-1-7.5 :' Lot Size 8,125 Sq. Feet SloPe: Street 5 %; lot 0 % ' Scale: 1.'~ = 15 feet Lawn Bedroom dC.. Bedroom Concrete Slab Bail! ' Kitchen Livh~g Two Bedroom House (11 O0 Square Feet) L~twn Water Meter. ,~. 'Garden Way Laundry [1 [~¢x-' Ele:¢iric ~ter I ~. ]Trash/Recycle area Cmort /. '~ il J 'Utility Pole 6 inch water line Pro.Dosed Accessory Unit 904 Garden Way Irrigation Plan Z-''~,.~ Z ~~ Z Z Z Z Z Z ~" Z Z Z l CIT~¥ OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Mount Ashland - Report and Update Administration July 20, 2004 Gino Grimaldi Gino Grimaldi Synopsis The City of Ashland owns the Mt. Ashland Ski Area's fixed assets and is the holder of the special-use permit issued by the United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service., The Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) leases the permit and the fixed assets from the city for $1.00 per year. The Mt. Ashland Association has requested time on the city council agenda to provide an annual report to the Mayor and City Council and discuss some of their plans for next year. Recommendation No action is needed. This item is for information purposes only. Fiscal Impact None. Background The Mt. Ashland Ski Area lease (Attachment I) was entered into on July 9th 1992. It is terminates on June 30, 2017 but may be extended until June 30, 2042. The lease establishes the relationship between the City of Ashland and the MAA. This item has been placed on the City Council agenda due to the unique relationship between the City of Ashland and the MAA. Attachments: · Mt. Ashland Ski Area lease (Attachment I) · Attached is an Annual Report to the City of Ashland prepared by the MAA (Attachment II) MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE This Lease Agreement is made and entered into this ~ day of ~, 1992 (hereinafter the "effective date of this Agreement~and between ~'CITY OF ASHLAND ("Lessor") and the MT ASHLAND ASSOCIATION, an Oreg.on flbt-for-profit corporation ('Lessee"). · In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the Lessor and Lessee agree as follows: 1. Term. The Initial term of this Lease shall begin on the .date Indicated above and shall terminate on June 30, 2017. At any time on or before June 30, 2017, Lessee shall have the right, if the Lease has not theretofore been termlnated by e'dY~er party and if Lessee :is not then in default with respect to any obligation under thls Agreement, to notify Lessor in writing that the term of the Lease shall be ex~en,cled for' an additional twenty-five (25) years, until June 30, 2042, in which case the LeaSe term shall be so extended. Notwithstanding the two preceding sentences, Lessee's leasehold rights under this Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration or other termination of Lessor's fights under the Permit. 2. Definite: Descdmbn of Leased ~o~: Permit;. and Leese Agreement. 2.1. J~pfln~: Descriotion of Leased Prooertv. the following terms shall have the indicated meanJngs~ As. used in this Agreement, 2.1.1. 'Permit' shall mean and refer to that certain United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Special Use Permit which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 'A', and any subsequent permit which may be issued as a replacement or renewal of the permit attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'. :)_1.2. 'Permit Property' shall mean and refer to that certain real property located on Mt. Ashland, In Jackson County, Oregon which is described in and is subject: to the 'Permit, together with all improvements owned by Lessor and now or hereafter constructed or existing thereon. :.>.1.3. "Equipment" shall mean and refer to all personal property, fixtures, furnishings, inventory and items of equipment owned by Lessor which are now attached to or located on or about the Permit Property, including but not limited to the Items of personal property identified on Exhibit "B" attached hereto. As soon as practicable after the execution of this Agreement, Lessor and Lessee shall cause to be taken a physical inventory of all personal property, fixtures, furnishings, inventory and items of equipment owned by Lessor which are now attached to or located on or about the Permit Property, and shall amend Exhibit 'B" to conform with that physical inventory, it being, the intention of .the.parties that this Agreement apply only to .those items of personal property verified by the physical inventory and listed on Exhibit 'B' as so amended. . . PAGE 1-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:d~/\~d~h\n~-~d~#) v 2.1.4. 'Leased Property' shall mean and refer to the Permit PrOl~rty and the Equipment. 2.1.5. 'Index' shall refer to the following Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor: Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI-Ail Items ('standard reference base period' 1982-84 = 100). "Base CPI Index Figure" shall refer to the Index number indicated for the month of January, 1992, and .the 'CPI Index Rgur'e" for any other month shall refer to the Index number for that month. If the 'Index' is no llonger being published as of a particular date, then the "CPI Index Figure' for that date shall be the figure, reported in the U.S. Department of Labor's most recent comprehensive official index then in use and most nearly answering the description of the Index', (or, ff the-U.S. Department of Labor is not then publishing any such similar Index, shall be determined under another comparable, authoritative, generally recogn*~.ed Index to be selected by mutual agreement of Lessor and Lessee). If the Index is calculFtet:l from base different from the base 1982-84 = 100, then the figures to be used in calbulating any adjustment mandated under this Agreement first shall be converted (if possible, under a formula suppr~d by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor) to account for that difference. 2.1.6. For purposes of this Agreement,-the 'Minimum Uquldatlon Value' for the Leased Property with respect to any particular calendar year shall be determined as follows: 2.1.6.1. With respect to the 1992 calendar year, the · Minimum Uquidation Value" shall be $200,000.00. 2.1.6.2. W'~h respect to the 1993 calendar year and each subsequent calendar year throughout the Lease term, the "Minimum Uquidation Value" for a particular calendar year shall be determined by multiplying $200,0(X).00 ~/a fraction, the numerator of which is the CPI Index Figure for the month of January of tt-~[tsubject calendar year, and the denominator of which Is the Base CPi Index Figure. To Illustrate the preceding sentence, ~he 'Minimum Uquidation Value' for the 1998 calendar year will be equal to the product determined by multiplying $200,000.00 by a fraction, the numerator of which is the CPI Index Figure for the month of ,January, 1998, and the denominator of which is the Base CPI Index Figure. 2.1.6.3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 2.1.6.2, the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property shall never decrease, regardless of any decline in the Index. "- 2.1.7. "Ski Area Trust Fund' shall mean and refer to a segregated trust fund which shall be held, invested and maintained by 'the City of Ashland, as lrustee, and shall be administered and distributed for the benefit of the Lessee and the Lessor. in accordance with the provisions of this AgreemenL The Initial principal of the Ski Area Trust Fund shall be contributed to the Fund by the .City of Ashland on the PAGE 2-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:daily\~Jda~h\m~a-ffd.lse) effective date of this Agreement, and shall consist of those assets which are identified on Exhibit "C" attached to this Agreement. 2.2. P_.{prmit. The terms, covenants, provisions and conditions of the Permit are incorporated into this Lease and Lessee assumes responsibility for payment and. performance of all obligations of the City of Ashland under the Permit. Lessee agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify Lessor from and against any loss, claim or liability suffered by or asserted against Lessor as a result of Lessee's. failure to fully pay and perfc, rm the obligations of the Permit. 2.3. I~ase Agreement. Lessor hereby leases the Leased Property to Lessee, and Lessee leases the Leased Property from Lessor, subject to all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. :2.3.1. Lessee is thoroughly familiar with the Leased Property.and its Condition and state of repair, and agrees to take the Leased 'Property in its ~e~,ent condition, ancl specifically agrees that all of the Leased Property is in an acceptable condition for the purpose for which leased. Lessor makes no warranty of merchantability or fitness of the Leased Property for any purpose. Ne'~d~er Lessor nor its agents have made any representations with respect to the Leased property except as expressly ~t forth in this Lease, and no rights are acquired by Lessee by accepts the Leased Property 'as is' and 'with any and ail faults'. 3. Use~of Leased prooerty. Lessee shall have sole and exclusive possession and use of the Leased Property during the entire term of this Lease for the purpose Of ~ng, improving, maintaining and operating year-round educational and/or recreational .facilities for the benefit of the general public (including but not limited to a ski area and/or winter sports resort). 4. Con~tderation. Lessee Is a not-for-profit corporation, all assets of which will devolve to Lessor in the event of Lessee's dissolution and liquidation. In addition, Lessee has assisted Lessor in obtaining the funds necessary to purchase the Leased Property. Under these circumstances the parties have determined that a lease payment of $1.00 per year is full and adequate consideration for this Lease. 5. 'I-;tie to As=sets. Throughout the entire Lease term the Permit Property and the Equipment shall be and remain the property of the Lessor. 5.1. AJtl buildings, structures, facilities and improvements of whatever kind and nature erec{ed upon or made to the Permit Property by Lessee dudng the term of this Lease, together with any and all additions or alterations thereto and any permanent fixtures now or hereafter affixed or attached thereto, shall upon termination of this Lease become the property of Lessor. .~ PAGE 3-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE 5.2 Lessor shall not acquire any ownership, title or interest in any machinery, equipment, appurtenance or fixture hereinafter placed by Lessee in or upon the Permit Property which is not so affixed as to become an integral part of the buildings structures, facilities or Improvements located on the Permit Property; provided, however, that if any machinery, equipment, appurtenance or fixture replaces a portion of the Permit Property or the Equipment or serves a similar function to the Permit Property or the Equipment, or is necessa~ to preserve the value specified in Paragraph 7.1, then such machinery, equipment, appurtenance or. fixture shali become. and remain .the property of the' Lessor. 6. Alterations. Lessee shall have the right to make changes to and alterations, of the Leased Property, subject to the following conditions: 6.1. Except as herein provided, Lessee may at Lassee's expense make, such alterations, Improvements, additions and changes to the Leased Property as it may · ~- deem necessary or expedient in the operation of the Leased Property, prowoea that Lessee, without the wr'Rten consent of Lessor (which consent shall not be, unreasonably withheld) shall not tear down or materially demolish any of the improvements upon the Permit Property or make any material change or alteration in such Improvements, which, when oompleted, would substantially diminish the value or substantial~ alter the use of the Leased Property. 6.2. At all times When any change or alteration is in progress, them shall be maintained, at Lessee's expense, workers' compensation Insurance in accordanca with laws covering all persons employed in connection with the change or alteration, and general liabaity Insurance in accordance with laws covering ali persons employed in connection with the change or alteration, and general liability insurance for lhe mutual benefit of Lessee and Lessor expressly covering the additional hazards due to the change or alteration. 7. Reoair and Maintenance. Lessee shall not cause or permit any waste, darnage or inju~ {o the Leased Property. Lessee, at its sole expense shall keep the Leased Propeity as now or hereafter constituted (with all improvements made thereto) clean and in good condition (reasonable wear and tear excepted) and shall make all repairs, including all structural repairs, necessary to maintain the Leased Property. Alt repairs, replacements, and renewals shall be at least equal in quality of materials and workmanship to that originally existing in the Leased Property. Lessor shall in no event be required to make any repair, alteration, or improvement to the Leased Property. Any fixture, equiPment or materials replaced by Lessee shall belong to Lessor, and all proceeds from the disposition thereof shall belong to Lessor. Lessee shall indemnify Lessor against all costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages., suits, claims and'demands because of Lessee's failure to comply with the requirements of this Paragraph 7, and Lessee shall not call upon Lessor for any disbursemerrt or outlay whatsoever in connection therewith, and hereby expressly releases ancl discharges LeSsor of and from' all liability therefor. .,o PAGE 4-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASI5 (p:dally~kla~h\mu,-fld.lse) 7.1. b~ssee shall perform its obligations for maintenance and repair, shall make improveme~ to the Permit Property, and shall replace portions o[ the £quipmont, as required to ensure that tho actual liquidation value of the Leased Property is not loss than the Minimum Liquidation Value of tho Loased Property. 7.1.1. Lessee shall not be required under this Paragraph 7.1 to.replace any portions of the Equipment which are not needed in Lessee's operations, except that this provision shall not operate as a waiver of Lessee's obligation to maintain the 'actual liquidation value of the Leased Property. at a level not less than tl'e Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property. ff for any reason the acl~al liquidation value of the Leased Property declines below the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property, then Lessee shall depose into the Ski Area 'l"rust Fund a sum of money ("the Restoration Sum") equal to the difference between the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property and the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property. The Restoration Sum shall be so ,deposited within ni.nety days after delivery to. Lessee from .I.~r"of written demand therefor, ff Lessee disputes the Lessor's determination of deficie~ncy, then Lessor shall proceed as provided in Paragraph 7.1.3, Except as provided in Paragraph 7.1.2 or as otherwise agreed in writing by Lessor and Less~, amounts deposited by Lessee into the Ski Area Trust Fund pursuant to this Paragraph shall be used only for costs of restoration of the Permit Property as required under the Permit, and the trustee shall not use or permit the use of the as, sets of the Ski Area Trust Fund for any other purpose. 7.1.2. In recognition and support of Lessee's intention to provide educational and recreational programs to residents of the City of Ashland end to operate the Leased Property in a manner which will stimulate the economy of the Cit'.y, and in recognition of Lessee's inability to commence ski area operations for the 1992 - 1993 ski season without financial support from the City, Lessor a~ the trustee to pay and distribute to Lessee, within 30 days after the eff~ date of this Agreement, the entire principal of the Ski Area '['rust Fund. During 1993 and all subsequent years throughout the Lease term, 1he trustee shall distribute to Lessee, promptly upon demand from Lessee, all amounts of principal theretofore deposited by the Lessee to the Ski Area 'rrust Fund pursuant to Paragraph 7.1.1, but only if and to the extent that the sum of the value of the assets remaining in the Ski Area Trust Fund (after making that withdrawal) plus the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property at that time exceeds the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property at that time. Lessee shall not under any circumstances be entitled to receive any Income earned with respect to the Ski Area Trust Fund. All income earned with resp~_. ,'t to the Ski Area Trust Fund shall be credited to (and shall be deemed for all purposes to have been earned by) the City of Ashland, but shall be held and retained by the trustee in the Ski Area Trust Fund for use in connection with the eventual restoration of the Permit Property. All income and principal remaining in the'Ski Area Trust' Fund.upon termination of the Lease shall be distributed by the trustee to the City of Ashland. PAGE 5-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:d~lly~kla~h\maa41d.l~e) 7.1.3. Whenever Lessor reasonably determines that the sum of the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property plus the amounts then held by the City of Ashland in the Ski Area Trust Fund is less than the Minimum Uquidation Value of the Leased Property, Lessor may request an appraisal of the Leased Property by an independent qualified appraiser chosen by Lessee from a list of not fewer than three submitted by Lessor in conjunction with the request. If Lessee does not make the choice within five days, Lessor may do 'so. The appraiser shall have access to ali of Lessee's records as nebe~sary for the appraisal and shall take such steps as the.appraiser deems necesseury to make a competent appraisal. The appraiser shall report to the parties within 30 days after being chosen. The report shall be final and binding upon both parties. The cost of the appraisal shall be borne by the Lessee if the sum of the actual liquidation value of the Leased Property plus the amounts then held by the C~ of Ashland in the Ski Area Trust Fund is less than 110% of the Minimum Liquidation Value of the Leased Property. Otherwise the c?t ,of the appraisal shall be bome by the Lessor. ' 7.2. Lessee shall be solely responsible for any improvements, alterations or repairs to the Leased Property required pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. 8. ~. Lessee shall be responsible for, and shall pay all charges for janitorial services, garbage removal, gas, electricity, light, heat, power, telephone, sewage disposal and domestic water used, rendered or supplied upon or In connection with the Leased Property. 9. Fire and casualty_ Insurance. Lessee covenants and agrees to keep the Leased Property Insured against loss by fire with extended coverage endorsement, incJuding risk of loss resulting from collapse of the structures, lightning, vandalism and malicious mischief. Such insurance policies shall at all times be maintained in force in ari amount equal ;to the full insurable replacement value of the premises and propgrties Insured. It is a condition o'f payment of such insurance premiums by Lessee that the proceeds of any such insurance shall be applied to the repairing or restoration of the property damaged whether the loss is partial or total. The City of Ashland shall be named as an additional insured on such policies. 10. I_iebilitv. insurance. Lessee shall procure, and during the term of this Leas. e shall continue in force, at Lessee's cost, public liability and property damage insurance, including ski operators liability coverage, issued by a responsible company with limits of not less than $500,C)CX) per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $1(30,000 per occurrence for property damage. Such insurance shall cover all risks arisiing directly or i~directly out of Lessee's activities on, or as 'a result of'the condition of, the Leased Property and shall protect Lessor and Lessee against all claims of third · persons. Certificates evidencing such insurance and bean.'.ng endorsements r(~uiring 30 days written notice to Lessor prior to any change or cancellation shall be furnished to Lessor. It Is agreed that the Lessor shall not be liable to any third persons as a result of the use of the Leased Property by the Lessee, its. employees or agents, and PAGE 6-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dally~sk¼~h\maA-ffd.be) the Lessee covenants and agrees to save the Lessor harmless from the claims of said third pemons by reason of the use of said premises by the Lessee herein. 11. Real .oro!:)erty texas. In the event any property subject to this Lease shall be assessed for property taxes, such taxes shall be paid by the Lessee on or before the 15th day of November of the taxable year. 12. Default or.breach. In the event the Lessee commits any default or breacl~ of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement and fails or neglects to correct the same within six months after notice thereof by the Lessor, then and in such eVent, the Lessor shall t~ve the right to immediately expel the Lessee from the Leased Property and declare this Lease terminated. In the event the Lessee fails to operate the Leased Property as a ski area and/or winter recreation resort at any time during a period of twelve consecutive months, except for war, catastrophe, natural causes (including but not limited to lack of sufficient snow for reasonably profitable operations), or other · 'circumstanoes beyond the control of the Lessee, the Lessor shall have the )tg~ to immediately terminate this Lease. 13. Le _ssee_Compliance with Environmental L~ws,. 13.1. Jl:)efin~ of "hazardous material'. As used is this Paragraph, the term 'hazardous material' means any hazardous or toxic substarme, material, or waste, Including, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. § 172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 C.F. FL Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205, 466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Depamsent of -Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other substances, materials and wastes es become regulated or subject to cleanup authority under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means those laws cited In this subparagraph. 13.2. jLessee's compliance with laws and oermits. Lessee shall cause the Leased Property and all operations conducted on the Leased Property (including operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental laws. 13.3. lUmitation on uses of hazardous materials. Lessee shall not use or allow any agents, contractors or subtenants to use the Leased Property to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle, recycle, release or dispose of any hazardous materials, other than as reasonably necessary, for the operation of Lessee's aclA~es as~_contemplated under this Agreement. 13.4. JLessor's Rights. Lessor shall haVe the right to conduct reasonable .. · - inspections and investigations of the Leased Property and the operations conducted on the Leased Property at any time and from time to time, and Lessee' shall cooperate fully with Lessor during such inspections and investigations. PAGE 7-MT. ,ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE 13.5. Indemnification. Lessee agrees to defend (with counsel approved by Lessor), fully indemnify, and hold entirely free and harmless Lessor from and against all claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities, or losses (including, w'~thout limitation, diminution in value of the Leased Property, damages for the loss or restriction on the use of rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Leased Property, damages adsing from any adverse impact on marketing of space, sums paid in settlement of claims, attorney fees, consultant fees, and expert fees) which .~ise during or after the lease te.rm and which are imposed on, or .paid by or asserted against Lessor by reason or on account of, or in connection with, or arising out of Lessee's generation, manufactUre, use, transportation, refinement, treatment, storage: or disposal of hazardous materials, or any release of hazardous materials as a~ result of Lessee's use or activities, or of Lessee's agents, contractors, or subtenants. 14. Umitation On Assignment Or Sublease Bv Lessee. Lessee shall not assign this Lease or sublease any portion of the Leased Property without obtaining in each instance the written consent in advance of Lessor, which consent shall not be 'withheld unreasonably, and which consent shall be deemed for all purposes to have been given by Lessor if not expressly given or withheld within thirty (30) days after receipt by Lessor of Lessee's written request for that consent. In determining whether consent is reasonable, Lessor may consider any and ali relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the finandat staI:HT~y of the proposed sublessee or assignee and the extent to which the public interest is affected by the sublease or the assignment.' Consent by Lessor in any one Instance shall not constitute a waiver or consent to any subsequent instance. ' 15. Miscellaneous. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create between the parties hereto, or shall be relied up~3n by any other person as creating, any relationship of partnership, association, joint venture, principal and agent, or otherwise. The Sole relationship of.the parties hereto shall be that of landlord and tenant. There are no oral agreements or representations between the .parties hereto which affect this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotlatlons, arrangements, agreements, warranties, representations and understandings, if any, between the parties; The paragraph headings set fortlh in this Agreement are set forth for convenience purposes only, and do not in any way define, lime or construe the contents of this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be void by any court of competent jurisdiction, then that determination shall not affect any other-provisions of this Agreement, and all such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. It is the intention of the [)ar'des that if any provision of this Agreement is capable of two constructions, only one of which would render the provision valid, then the provision shall have the meaning which renders it valid. If suit or action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out ~)f this Agreement, the prevailing party in that suit or action or any appeal therefrom shall be entitled to recover, in addition to.. any other .relief, the sum which the... court may judge to be reasonable attorney fees. Any notice required or'permitted under this 'Agreement shall be deemed to have been given and delivered..when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mail, as certified mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the last-known address of the party being PAGE 8-MT. ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (p:dally~-Ia~h\m~a-ffd.lse) ! I provided with the notice. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs and personal representatives of Lessor and Lessee. This Lease Agreement is being executed in two counterparts, each of which shall I~ an original, and.both of which shall constitute a single Instrument, when signed by both of the parties. Waiver by either party of strict performance .of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of, and shall not prejudice the party's right to subsequently require strict performance of, the same provision or any other provision. The consent or approval of either party to any act by the other party of a nature requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed.to waive or render unnecessary 'the consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act. This lease shall be governed and performed in accordance with the laws of the state of Oregon. Each of the parties hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of Jackson County, Oregon, and agrees that any legal proceedings with respect to this Agreement st~dl be filed and heard in the appropriate court in Jackson County, Oregon. !6. Nondiscrim!nati0rl. In connection with any operations of Lessee under this lease, Lessee shall [Not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Lessee shall not discriminate by segregation or otherwise against any person on the basis or race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability by curtailing or refusing to furnish accom~~~, facilities, services, or use pri~leges offered to the publio generally. Lessee: Lessor: MT. ASHLAND ASSOCIATION BY Its CITY OF ASHLAND Nan Franklin, City Recorder PAGE 9-MT. ,ASHLAND SKI AREA LEASE (.o:daily~sklash\maa,-ffd.lse) Preparatory information for Mt. Ashland Association Annual Report to the City of Ashland July 20, 2004 MAA Organizational Overview The Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) is a non-profit, 501(c) 3 charitable organization organized under the laws of the State of Oregon exclusively to provide educational and recreation opportunities to the general public. The MAA operates and manages the ski area through a SI/year lease from the City of Ashland, the owner of the ski area's fixed assets and holder of the special-use permit from the Rogue River National Forest. The City ownership of the assets on the mountain was made possible through private donations from the general public raised during the community campaign in 1992. No tax dollars were used to purchase the facilities nor have any been used to operate and manage the ski area since its formation. The MAA is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors composed of 11 individuals from all walks of life who live, work, and raise families in the Rogue Valley. The Board oversees an equally diverse staff team which brings years of professional ski area management and outdoor-environmental education experience to the operation of the area. Over 300 volunteers generously give of their time and[ talent each season that is critical to the ski area's operation. The MAA is also comprised of approximately 500 members who actively support the mission of the organization. Association Strategic Plan Mission Statement The Mission of the Mt. Ashland Association is to provide a quality, affordable winter recreation experience that renews and enhances the lives of people in Southern Oregon and Northern California. Vision Statement The Mt. Ashland Association's Vision is to be a vital community asset recognized throughout the region for providing a variety of welcoming and fulfilling recreational experiences in an alpine environment. Values Statements Community · We are respectful, honest and conscientious in our dealings with each other and our communities. · We are a staffthat works as a team to include our recreation partners and our guests as part of the Mt. Ashland community. · We provide a stimulating and supportive work environment, emphasizing common sense, flexibility and compassion for one another in our policies so that our staff's needs are met. · We maintain a safe work environment, providing proper tools, equipment and training. · We are an integral part of our local and regional communities. Strategic Plan / Values Statements, continued Guest Service · We are community owned recreational resource, providing excellent value for our guests. · Our business is providing superb guest service. We strive to be helpful, patient, and accommodating as we provide programs and solutions to meet our guest's needs. ° We provide "Gemtitlichkeit"- a courteous, caring, friendly and fun atmosphere. · We strive to provide a safe and stimulating recreational experience. Stewardship · As caretakers of the environment and the facilities on Mt. Ashland we recognize its importance to our regional communities. We strive to be resourceful, informed and active as we care,' for this remarkable and noteworthy place. · We are financially responsible. We make efficient use of the resources entrusted to us and make sensible improvements to provide the infrastructure and services needed for the future:. · We provide educational opportunities and programs to foster understanding and stewardship of the environment by future caretakers of the area. Goal Statements 1. We will seek to improve the qualilly of the guest experience by anticipating and being responsive to their needs. 2. We will increase revenue and control costs to generate sufficient revenues to fund ongoing capital needs. 3. We will increase utilization of the ski area's capacity from 35% to 45% over the next five years by encouraging new visits and retaining existing guests. 4. We will maintain a board-designated capital reserve to ensure future operating stability. 5. We will provide a work environment for staff that is supportive, rewarding and fun. 6. We will strive to ensure that our directors, staff and volunteers are skilled, informed, diverse and active. 7. We will enhance our guest experiences and our vitality by improving facilities ami terrain balance. 8. We will work to build awareness of the positive role of the Mt. Ashland Ski Area in the community. 9. We will create and implement a development program to fund program enhancements and planned expansion and related improvements. 10. We will expand and enhance our educational programs. Fiscal Year 2004 Review National and Regional Context - Snowsports Business Overview and Trends · The demand for snow sports is strong with three of the last four seasons setting nationwide visitation records. Visits for 2003-2004 are currently projected at 56.8 million visits. · Growth in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington) has exceeded the national average. Ski area operators enjoyed the third best season by tallying a combined 4.71 million skier visits. · The 2003-04 season was the third best ever for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. · As the population of the Pacific Northwest grows, so does the interest in snow sports. Demographically, a significant number of"early retirees"(i.e., 50-65 year olds) are en. joying the sports of skiing and snowboarding. "Echo-boomers" are moving through grade school, coming of age and picking up snow sports in noteworthy numbers. Northwest ski area operators are preparing for an unprecedented opportunity to enhance visitation by youth 15-25 years old over the next decade. · Challenges in the snow sports business include rising insurance, labor and fuel costs. Liability insurance costs have risen nearly 75% in the last two years. ° The business, nationwide, is experiencing a seasonal labor pool shortage and a trend of recruiting employees from other countries has emerged. IVlAA 2003-04 Highlights and Season Overview · The ski area opened on December 12, 2003 with a 29" base at the lodge and 39" at the summit. · The ski area received 350 inches of total snowfall this season, with more than 50 days with fresh snow. The snow pack peaked on March 2 with and 134" at the base of the lodge and 172" at the summit. · Wintry weather was followed by a sunny spring that had skiers and riders basking in 21 straight days of sun. Due to long spell of warm weather, visitation was down at Mt. Ashland and throughout the western United States during this period. · The area had 115 days this season, and was closed for two days, December 29, and January 1, due to closed roads due to exceptionally heavy snowfall. Other ski areas in the state were also closed during the same periods. For the first time in our history we exceeded over 100,000 skier visits two years in a row, hosting 102,239 for the '03-'04 season. · Over 6,400 season pass holders enjoyed the ski/snowboard season. · Over 2,400 youth participated in the Mt. Ashland After School Ski/Snowboard Program at a highly discounted cost. Many participated via scholarships offered by the Association and the individual programs. · Mt. Ashland's national award winning environmental education program, the Youth Summer Service Program, celebrated a decade of operation, with over 330 alumni. MAA 2003-04 Highlights and Season Overview (continued) · Tickets, services and programs with a value of over $300,000 were donated to community youth and charitable organizations. · The Snow Science program completed its second season. Over 700 school age youth participated in the program. Effort from the Medford Rotary and MAA enabled 150 kids from Washington Elementary School in Medford to participate in the program on full scholarship. · Mt. Ashland partnered with ACCESS by hosting the 3rd Annual Ski and Ride Against Hunger Day on April 4, generating over 1,800 meals to low income families and donating over $10,000 in lift tickets. · On March 6 we hosted our 40th anniversary birthday bash. Activities included our Ski Patrol Demo Days, Ski Party 1964 with music and dancing, the baby boomer buffet, a birthday card and retro fashion contest. Financial Reports FY '2004 Results A CPA review is currently being conducted on the financial statements for the 2004 fiscal year. Available information will be provided verbally on July 20, 2004, with complete financials to follow upon completion of the review. Economic Impact Report This economic impact report utilizes fiscal year 2003 data. Destination Visitor Expenditures - off mountain $ 932,456 Payroll (including Benefits & Taxes) $1,226,515 Goods & Services Expendit. ures $ 875,776 Capital Investments $ 257,835 Total Direct Impact $3,292,582 Oregon Multiplier 2.9 Total Economic Impact $9,548,48 7 Planning The planning process looks forward five years, with a more detailed focus on the next fiscal year. Components include, among others: o annual strategic plan review and update, with Conceptual ha,sc Ihcilitics dc.q? prioritizatio n of action programs under each goal heading. Extensive guest surveys. For instance this season we received, reviewed and incorporated over 400 comments from mountain suggestion boxes, and another 100 from a mailing of an extensive facilities survey mailed to over 600 guests. Professional training through the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and the Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association (PNSAA). Project research. For instance this season extensive research was performed on parking and shuttles and base area facilities improvements. · Selected improvements planned for FY '05 o Lodge improvements including expanded food service, new furnishings and carpeting, lighting and fireplace heating. o Parking lot plowing equipment for maintaining maximum parking space. c> Continued discount season pass program o New programs designed to improve the quality of the experience for new guests and to improve retention. o Improved event and program information and management systems o Improved and consistent terrain feature offerings for freeestyle skiers and snowboarders. o As always, extensive maintenance and facility upgrades. · Regulatory Actions o The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is in the process of issuing a renewal permit for operation of our wastewater treatment system. Each permit is valid for five years. The DEQ is planning a public hearing on the permit application; date, time and location TBA. · Expansion planning and preparation o We are anticipating a Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on the expansion plans later this summer. o Our primary work at this time is continuing extensive dialog with users toward improved services, developing detailed base area facility plans, and assisting the Forest Service with baseline monitoring. Mt. Ashland Association Management Board of Directors Greg Williams, President Owner/Operator, Ashland Greenhouses Thomas W. Pyle, Vice-President Professor of Journalism, Emeritus, SOU retired Kurt Austermann, Secretary BLM, retired William Little, Treasurer Consulting Engineer Blair Moody, Past-President BLM, Forester Douglas McGeary Attorney, Jackson County Debbie Ameen V.P. Asante Foundation Thomas Reid, CPA Accountant, Owner Reid-Hanna & Co. Ron Roth Owner/Operator Geppetto's Restaurant Pat Acklin Assistant Professor, Geography, SOU Joan Thorndike Owner/Operator, LaMera Gardens Professional Staff Jeff Hanson General Manager Debbie Jones Administrative Operations Director Rick Saul Marketing and Snow Sports Director Bruce Meek Mountain Manager Ray Havira Mountain Maintenance Director Ty Hisatomi Development Director John Cerini Skier Services Manager John Heinz Vehicles Manager Doug Knudson Lifts Manager Doug Volk Ski Patrol Director Chris VanNess Learning Center Supervisor Ada Rivera Rental Shop Supervisor Marshall Kinkead Food and Beverage Manager shland 40 yetis of a/p/ne inspkation Mt. Ashland Association 693 Washington St., P.O. Box 220 Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-2897 fax (541)482-3644 info~mtashland.com http: www.rntashland.com CITY OF LAIN D Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: An Emergency Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005 and Repealing Ordinance No. 2910 Finance Department July 20, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: Ordinance No. 2910 levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2004 to and including June 30, 2005 included $84,000 for debt service that is no longer needed in that the final payment on that bond issue was made in FY 2003-04. All other tax rates for General Fund, Parks and Recreation Fund, the Youth Activities Levy and bonded debt levies (1982, 1997 and 2000 bonds) remain the same. Recommendation'. Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance under emergency conditions with first and second readings performed at this meeting. Fiscal Impact: There is no material fiscal impact. No tax revenue or debt expenditure for the 1992 bonds was included in the detail of the budget document so correcting the ordinance will not affect resources,, requirements or fund balances. Background: The Finance Department included in the ordinance establishing taxes brought to the Budget Committee in May and then to'Council on June 1 an amount of $84,000 to pay for debt service related to 1992 Water Bonds. The 1992 bonds were retired as of September 1, 2003, thus no levy should be made for FY 2004-05 in that there is no corresponding debt service. Oregon Budget Law allows Council to levy less than the amount approved by the Budget Committee but requires the amount(s) to be levied agree exactly between the adopting ordinance and the forms certifying the amounts and rates that are submitted to the County. Staff certifying a lesser amount is not .allowed. This correcting ordinance will make the amounts agree and keep the City compliant with Oregon Budget Law. ... ORDINANCE NO. AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1,2004 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2005, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $8,399,000 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 2910. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS 'FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $3.5647 per thousand an amount estimated to be $5,696,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $1.3800 per thousand an amount estimated to be $2,205,000, as well as $498,000 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2004, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: General Fund Parks and Recreation Fund Youth Activities Levy 1982 Water Bond Levy 1997 Flood Restoration Bond Levy 2000 Flood and Fire Station Bonds Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $1,000 $ 2,352,000 1.4719 3,344,000 .. 2.0928 $ 2,205,000 1.3800 83,000 105,000 310,000 $ 5~696~000 $ 2r205~000 $ 498~000 The foregoing emergency ordinance was read on first and second readings in full in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 20th day of July, 2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 20th day of July, 2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Michael W. Franell, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. ~-q ~0 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2004 TO AND. INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2005, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $8,483,000 UPON ALL THE! REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS' Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levieS the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $3.5647 per thousand an amount estimated to be $5,696,000, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $1.3800 per thousand an amount estimated to be $2,205,000, as well as $582,000 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1,2004, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $1,000 General Fund $ 2,352,000 1.4719 Parks and Recreation Fund 3,344,000 2.0928 Youth Activities Levy 1982 Water Bond Levy 1992 Water Bond Levy 1997 Flood Restoration Bond Levy 2000 Flood and Fire Station Bonds $ 2,205,000 ' - '. 1.3800 $ '83,000 · 84,000 105,000 310,000 $ 5,696,000 $ 2,205,000 $ 582~000__ The foregoing ordinance was first READ by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 1st day of June, 2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this /.~"- day of June, Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this /~ day of June, 2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Resolution Authorizing the Sale of BOnds for the Ashland Fiber Network Finance Department 20, 2004 . JL;leY Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: This resolution authorizes and empowers staff to scl1 bonds to refinance AFN's internal and external debt. It follows a first reading of Ordinance 2909 on July 1 and second reading and signing on June 15 and a 30 day referral period ending July 15, 2004, with no petitions requesting referral to a public vote. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: Enables the City to sell bonds replacing the existing debt including $7.5 million in bank ]Loans and $7 million in interfund borrowing. The total amount of thc bonds will include issue costs ~d extend the debt service over a twenty year period. Background: The debt restructure has been discussed many times at internal and public meetings and this is the next appropriate step in the accepted process for refinancing. Staff is still considering a negotiated sale rather than bid in that it will provide the City the most flexibility in getting the lowest rate and terms necessary to structure this debt to the City's benefit. Upon approval staff will: 1. Issue a Preliminary Official Statement. 2. Sell bonds in a bid or negotiated process. 3. Receive proceeds to liquidate outstanding debt and pay issuance costs. 4. Deposit remainder in Telecommunications Fund reimbursing for costs incurred fbr year-to-date operations, financing costs and in anticipation of related costs in FY 2004-05. The bond sale is expected for mid August. No further action'will needed from Council. Staff will submit a report to Council in September on the sale disclosing interest rate, fees and the distribution of proceeds. Any budget adjustment caused by the sale will be presented to Council in October. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, ~ OREGON, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF BONDS FOR THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ashland that: Section 1. Findings The City Council finds as follows: 1.1 The City Council enacted Ordinance No. 2909, authorizing the City of Ashland (the "City") to issue up to $16,000,000 of bonds under ORS 288.805 to 288.945. Ordinance No. 2909 authorizes the bonds to finance costs of the Ashland Fiber Network, including costs of refinancing existing bank loans and interfund loans for the Ashland Fiber Network (the "Projects"), and costs of issuing the bonds. 1.2 No petitions were filed to refer Ordinance No. 2909 to the voters and the City is now authorized to issue the bonds described in that ordinance. 1.3 The City now desires to sell the bonds described in Ordinance No. 2909, and adopts this resolution to authorize the sale and delivery of those bonds. Section 2. Bonds Authorized; Security 2.1 The City hereby authorizes the sale and delivery of its Ashland Fiber Network Full Faith and Credit Bonds, Series 2004 (the "Series 2004 Bonds") in accordance with City Ordinance No. 2909 and this resolution to finance the Projects. The aggregate principal amount of the Series 2004 Bonds shall not exceed Sixteen Million Dollars ($16,000,000). The Series 2004 Bond may pay interest which is includable in gross income under Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 2.2 The Series 2004 Bonds shall be secured by the full faith and credit of City. Revenues of the Ashland Fiber Network System that remain after payment of costs and expenses of that system shall be used to pay the Series 2004 Bonds before other funds of the City are used to pay llhe Series 2004 Bonds. Section 3. Delegation 3.1 The Finance Director, the City Administrator, or the person designated by the Finance Director or the City Administrator to act on behalf of the City under this Resolution (any of whom is referred to in this resolution as a "City Official") may, on behalf of the City: (i) Participate in the preparation of, authorize the distribution of, and deem final the preliminary and final.official statements and any other disclosure documents for the Series 2004 Bonds. (ii)' Establish the final principal amounts, maturity schedules, interest rates, sale prices, redemption terms, payment terms and dates, record dates and other terms for the Series 2004 Bonds, and either publish a notice of sale, receive bids and award the sale of that series to the bidder complying with the notice and offering the most favorable terms to the City, or select one or more underwriters and negotiate the sale of that series with those underwriters. (iii) Undertake to provide continuing disclosure for the Series 2004 Bonds :in accordance with Rule 15c2-12 of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (iv) Apply for and purchase municipal bond insurance, reserve sureties or other forms of credit enhancements for the Series 2004 Bonds, and enter into related agreements. (v) Finalize the terms of, execute and deliver a Series 2004 Bond Declaration, which describes the terms of the Series 2004 Bonds. (vi) Appoint and enter into agreements with paying agents other professionals and service providers. (vii) Execute any documents and take any other action in connection with the Series 2004 Bonds which the City Official finds will be advantageous to the City. Section 4. Effective Date This resolution shall take effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code {}2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 20th day of July, 2004. Reviewed as to form: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 ORmS e C SO. 7 qoq AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO FINANCE THE ASHLAND FIBER NETWORK. The people of the City of Ashland do ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds: A. The City is authorized to issue revenue bonds for any public purpose under Oregon's Uniform Revenue Bond Act (ORS 288.805 to 288.945 or the "Act"). Revenue bonds issued under the Act may be payable from all or any portion of the "revenues" of the City, as defined in the Act. The: Act defines "revenues" to include all fees, tolls, taxes, and other income available to the City. B. The Act permits the City to authorize revenue bonds by enacting a nonemergency ordinance. The City may not sell those revenue bonds for thirty days after the nonemergency ordinance is enacted. If the nonemergency ordinance is referred to a vote during that thirty day period, the City may not sell the revenue bonds described in that ordinance unless the voters approve the ,ordinance. C. The City enacts this nonemergency ordinance to authorize the issuance of up to $16,000,000 of bonds to finance the Ashland Fiber Network. D. The City will cause a plan to be prepared showing that the estimated revenues that are pledged to pay the bonds will be sufficient to pay those bonds. Section 2. Revenue Bonds Authorized. The City hereby authorizes the issuance of not more than Sixteen. Million Dollars ($16,000,000) in aggregate principal amount of revenue bonds under the Act to finance costs of the Ashland Fiber Network, including costs of refinancing existing bank loans and interfund loans for the Ashland Fiber Network, and costs of issuing the revenue bonds. The bonds shall be payable from the revenues of the Ashland Fiber Network, and the City ma~ pledge ~ose revenues~nues of the City's electric system, and any other "revenues" l,as defined in the Act) to pay the-b'onds authorized by this ordinance. Prior to selling the bonds the City Council shall adopt a resolution or ordinance establishing the terms and condition~ of the bonds pursuant to ORS 288.520, or delegating the authority to establish those terms and'conditions. Section 3. No Additional Taxes Authorized; Bonds Payable Solely from Revenues. Neither the authorization nor the issuance of the bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance shall authorize the City to levy any additional taxes. Section 4. Procedure. The bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance shall not be sold until the period of referral of this nonemergency ordinance has expired. If this ordinance is referred, the city may not sell 'the bonds described in Section 2 of this ordinance unless the voters approve this ordinance. The foregoing ordinance was first READ by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 1st day of June, 2004, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this t/5~ day of June, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this //(~ day of June, 2004. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor CITY OF kSHLAND Cou.ncil Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved: A Resolution Authorizing Interfund Loans to the Community Development Block Grant and Telecommunications funds. Finance July 20, 2004 Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Synopsis: This resolution permits the City to borrow money from one fund and to transfer to another. The budget for FY 2004-05 identified several loan needs and approval of the attached resolution accomplishes the anticipated loans needed during the year. The Telecommunications Fund will need interim borrowing authority until such time as bonds are sold refinancing all of the AFN debt. The proceeds of the bond sale will be used to pay off the bank loans, internal borrowings, financing costs and any interim or near future debt serVice related to AFN and this interim borrowing, The amount needed to be borrowed will not exceed $8,500,000 and will be repaid in August. Another anticipated borrowing is the amount that the Community Development Block Grant Fund must pay to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as part of the Grove conversion to City use. The payment of $214,877.33 was promised by the end of August yet the Strawberry Lane property that is being used to provide fimds for repayment will probably not be sold until months later. The CDBG fund will need to borrow $215,000 and the amount will be repaid as soon as the Strawberry property is sold. In both cases, the repayment will be made with interest calculated at the higher rate recorded for the Local Government Investment Pool on the date of borrowing or as of the date repaid. This is consistent with the City's previous borrowing terms. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: Approval of the reSolution funds operations in the. TelecommunicatiOn Fund until bonds are. Sold and makes good the Cify's pledge to HUD to repay monies related to the reversion of the Grove to unrestricted use. BackgrOund: ORS requires the City Council to authorize a loan from one fund to another. If a loan is not repaid by the end of the fiscal year, it must be budgeted and repaid in the following year's budget. The borrowing fund will pay interest based on the Local Government Investment Pool interest rate at the date of the loan, or the date of repayment, whichever is higher. The Telecommunications Fund loan of $8,500,000 will provide cash flow for the accumulated operating losses and for operating costs during a portion of FY 2004-2005 for the Ashland Fiber Network. This amount will be repaid when bonds are sold. In FY 2003-04 the Grove reverted to City unrestricted use and the payment to HUD for the City's ownership, restoring granted monies, is $215,000..A pledge was signed promising payment by August 31, 2004, with the intent to sell surplus Strawberry Lane property to fund the conversion. It is anticipated that the, property to will not be sold until after the due date. A loan will allow the city to comply with the pledge. In both cases, no budget change is necessary unless the payback does not occur before June 30, 2005. RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOANS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUNDS Recitals: A. ORS 294.460 reqUires an ordinance or resolution t© permit a loan from one fund to another; and B. A loan cannot be made from a debt service fund to any other fund, and C. If the loan will not be repaid by the end of the fiscal year, it must be a budgeted requirement in the following year's budget. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to borrow up to $3,000,000 from the Water Fund, up to $4,500,000 from the Wastewater Fund and up to $1,000,000 from the Electric Fund for the Telecommunications Fund as interim financing for capital project and operating costs to date in anticipation of selling bonds to refinance said costs. SECTION 2. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to borrow up to $215,000 from the General Fund for the Community Development Block Grant Fund for repayment to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Grove property in anticipation of selling other City assets to pay this debt. SECTION 3. The loans will be made prior to July 31, 2004, or as needed throughout the fiscal year and will be repaid with accrued interest-prior to June 30, 2005. SECTION 4. Interest will be charged at the Local Government Investment Pool i~nterest rate at the date of the loan or the date of repayment, whichever is higher. Interest shall be paid quarterly. 1- Resolution Authorizing Interfund Loan- 2005G:~legal\PAUL\FORMS\resolution form.wpd SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2004. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 20th day of July, 2004: Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Franell, City Attorney 2- Resolution Authorizing Interfund Loan- 2005G:\legal\PAUL\FORMS~resoluti°n form.wpd CITY OF SHLAND February 13, 2004 Joy Hirl HUD Public Trust Specialist US Department of Housing and Urban Development 400 South West Sixth Ave. Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97204-1632 Dear Ms. Hirl: Thank you and thanks to your colleagues for taking the time to speak with us via the conference phone call on February 3, 2004. This letter serves as the pledge to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by the City of Ashland to reimburse $214,877.33 to the City of Ashland's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) line of credit no later than August 1, 2004. The City has determined that "the Grove" building no longer meets the CDBG requirements and has requested to reimburse the CDBG program the current fair market value of the CDBG investment in the building. As was clarified in our phone conversation, this pledge removes all HUD restrictions currently placed on activities in the facility known as "the Grove". Director Doug Carlson's letter of January 12, 2004, included instructions for transferring :funds to Ashland's Line of Credit in the US Treasury. The transfer will occur no later than August 1, 2004. If the transfer of funds does not occur, HUD reserves the right to reduce the City of Ashland's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) line of credit by $214,877.33 to satisfy the repayment. Sincerely, Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator City of Ashland The Department of Housing and Urban Development acknowledges receipt of this pledge and approves of it as a formal commitment on behalf of the City to reimburse the CDBG contribution to the Grove facility. Doug Carlson, Director Community Planning and Development US Department of Housing and Urban Development CITY HALL Tel: 541 488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us CITY OF SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Agreement for Services/City of Ashland and Chamber of Commerce Administration July 20 2004 Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst~ Gino Grimali:li, City Administrator SynoPsis: The attached is the Agreement for Services between the City of Ashland and the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and Visitor and Convention Bureau for your review. Recommendation: Authorize the City Administrator to sign the Agreement for Services. Fiscal Impact: Economic and Cultural Development Grant Allocation $160,000 Ashland Chamber of Commerce $80,432 Ashland Visitor and Convention Bureau Background: Earlier this year, a sub-committee of the council was formed to review the transient occupancy tax and the distribution of funds through the Economic and Cultural Development Grant process. In addition, due to changes at a state level, the committee also reviewed the distribution of TOT funds for tourism related activities, which included allocations to the Visitor and Convention Bureau (VCB) and expressed interest in creating a contract with the Ashland Chamber of Commerce that elaborated on the City's expectation's of the Chamber. In past years, the contract between the City of Ashland and the Chamber of Commerce was generic and did not clarify the city's expectations of the Chamber as grant recipients. This agreement identifies the overall objectives of the city, the accountability and reporting requirements of the chamber to the council and the general provisions that appear on contracts with all grant recipients. This Agreement for Services has been reviewed and reflects input from the TOT comnfittee, the Chamber Director and Executive Board, the Chamber's Attorney, the City Administrator, the .City Attorney and the Finance 'Director. . .... CITY OF -ASHLAND Agreement for Services between City of Ashland and Ashland Chamber of Commerce Agreement between the City of Ashland (City), the Ashland Chamber of Commerce (CoC) and the Ashland Visitor and Convention Bureau (VCB) for fiscal year 2004-05. Recitals A. The VCB shall receive $80,432 for promoting tourism in Ashland. That amount will be adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the budget process. Expenditures of these funds must meet the requirement of ORS 320.300 through ORS 300.350. B. The CoC shall receive $160,000 for the purpose of economic development in Ashland. That amount will be adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation established in the budget process. C. The City, CoC and VCB now enter into .this Agreement to identify their roles and responsibilities. D. Fund allocations are based on Ashland City Council resolution 2004-11. Purpose The City relies on the VCB to promote Ashland to visitors travelling from more than 50 miles to Ashland and/or visitors who stay overnight in Ashland. Promotion includes advertising, publicizing, distribution of printed materials, marketing special events and festivals, conducting strategic planning and research necessary to stimulate tourism development. The City of Ashland has established a system of shared responsibility with the CoC to handle typical economic development types of needs. Currently the Chamber provides the following kinds of services: coordinated marketing, rapid response team to inquiries, relocation services, point-of-contact management and information services, general inquiries, visitor center management, training for local business and coordination with the Small Business Association. CITY HALL Tel: 541 488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us The City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document for all development within the community. The plan incorporates ten specific elements related to development. The economic development element is identified in Chapter 7. The CoC will strive to emphasize, in its economic development activities, the importance of maintaining Ashland's small-town feel and portraying Ashland as a family friendly community that supports its schools and places great value on the quality of education offered. Overall Objectives . . Retention and Expansion of Existing Business The CoC will develop and implement on-going strategies on retaining and expanding existing businesses, particularly those businesses that are non-tourism related, in Ashland with an emphasis on creating additional family wage jobs. Methodology: Adopt an aggressive and focused business retention plan, which is research and relationship based. II Promotion: Offer assistance to all City of Ashland cultural and economic development grant recipients to make them aware of the wide array of business support resources in Ashland, southern Oregon and the State of Oregon. III Service Delivery: Organize processes by which any existing business interest may acquire accurate and timely information with regard to making a business expansion decision to stay in Ashland. Advocacy: Establish multiple pathways in which a local business may acquire specialized support in growing their, business, to include conduits to other agencies, governments, applicable organizations or existing community leadership for the purposes of retaining jobs in Ashland. New Business Development The CoC will develop and implement on-going strategies with emphasis on creating new family wage jobs by attracting new businesses to Ashland. The strategy will focus on non-tourism related businesses. Methodology: Adopt an aggressive and focused new business recruitment plan, which is research and relationship based. II Promotion: Attract the attention of potential new businesses through networking, making personal or telephone contact, organizing special events. 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us III Service Delivery: Organize processes by which any outside business interest may acquire accurate and timely information with regard to making a business location decision in favor of Ashland. Advocacy: Establish multiple pathways in which a potential new business may acquire specialized information on which to base their decision to locate in Ashland, to include conduits to other agencies, governments, applicable organization or existing community leadership for the purposes of retaining jobs in Ashland. Tourism The VCB will develop and implement a year-to-year strategy to maintain current levels of tourism in Ashland and increase tourism from November through February. Methodology: Adopt an aggressive and focused tourism promotion plan, which is research and relationship, based. II Promotion: Focus on promoting visits to Ashland during the shoulder season. III Service Delivery: Organize processes by which visitors may acquire accurate and timely information with regard to making a trip to Ashland and by which once in town, visitors can acquire accurate information about the community. Accountability Develop mechanisms for tracking progress, measuring success, auditing finances and reporting to the Ashland City Council on a yearly basis. Present a progress report on current fiscal year activities at least annually during a council study session. General Expectations I Retain or create jobs through business assistance programs measured by job retention or expansion. II Create new business and employment opportunities measured by job creation. III Maintain. or increase the number of outside dollars spent in Ashland retail, service and lodging businesses as measured by increased revenues and transient occupancy tax revenue. IV Reach out to other City of Ashland cultural and economic development grant recipients to explain how the chamber can assist them with their efforts. cITY HALL 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or, us Teli 541-488-6002 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 Specific Requirements The COC shall review and update its economic development strategies every three years and shall provide an annual report to the Ashland City Council no later than January 31 on its previous year's activities which shall at a minimum consist of the following: Provide a report of Ashland businesses, which received direct assistance from the CoC for the purposed of retaining or creating new family wage jobs in Ashland. II Provide a report of prospective businesses the CoC made presentations to for the purpose of at/racting new jobs to Ashland. III Provide .a report of local and regional parmerships developed and maintained for the CoC for the purpose of business retention and development including but not limited to: SOWAC, SOREDI. AGA. Include documentation of supportive efforts including but not limited to offering educational workshops, cross promotion and web links. The VCB shall review an update its tourism promotion strategies every three years and shall provide an annual report to the Ashland City Council each spring which shall at a minimum consist of the following: Provide a report on the variety of specific promotion activities executed for the purpose of attracting visitors to Ashland.' Include samples of advertising which include family, quality of live and educational opportunities. General Provisions 1. Amount of Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement and in reliance upon Grantee's approved application, the City agrees to provide funds in the amount specified above. 2. Use of Grant Funds. The use of grant funds are expressly limited to the objectives identified in this agreement. 3. Unexpended Funds. Any grant funds held by the Grantee remaining after the purpose for which the grant is awarded or this agreement is terminated shall be returned to the City within 30 days of completion or termination. 4. Financial Records and Inspection. Grantee shall maintain a complete set of books and records relating to the purpose for which the grant was awarded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Upon reasonable notice to Grantee, City shall have the right to inspect said books and records and supporting'documents relating to the. Use Of grant funds at Grantee's business premises, provided.that City CITY HALL Tel: 54~1-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us shall not copy or remove said books, records or documents from Grantee's premises without the consent of Grantee, which consent shall not be unreasonable withheld. The data and entries in any such books, records and supporting documents that are copied by City shall remain the confidential information of Grantee and shall not be made public records by City. City shall protect the confidentiality of such data and entries and shall not disclose or permit the disclosure of the same except as required to enforce the terms of this agreement in the event of a breach of this agreement by Grantee. 5. Living Wage Requirements. If the amount of this agreement is $15,713.00 or more, and if the Grantee has ten or more employees, then Grantee is required to pay a living wage, as defined in Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 3.12, to all employees and subcontractors who spend 50% or more of their time within a month performing work under this agreement. Grantees required to pay a living wage are also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 6. Default. If Grantee fails to perform or observe any of the covenants or agreements contained in this agreement or fails to expend the grant funds or enter into binding legal agreements to expend the grant funds within twelve months of the date of this agreement, the City, by written notice of default to the Grantee, may terminate the whole or any part of this agreement and may pursue any remedies available at law or in equity. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, termination of the agreement, stop payment on or return of the grant funds, payment of interest earned on grant funds or declaration of ineligibility for the receipt of future grant awards. 7. Amendments. The terms of this agreement will not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or amended in any manner except by written instrument signed by the parties. Such written modification will be made a part of this agreement and subject to all other agreement provisions. 8. Indemnity. Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this agreement by Grantee (including but not limited to, Grantee's employees, agents, and others designated by Grantee to perform work or services relating to Grantee's obligation under the terms of this agreement). Grantee shall not be held responsible for damages caused by the negligence of City or anyone acting in behalf of City. 9. Insurance. Grantee shall, at its own expense, at all times for twelve months from the date of this agreement, maintain in force a comprehensive general liability policy. The liability under such policy shall be a minimum of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000 per occurrence for property damage. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" not "claims" basis. The City of Ashland, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insures. Certificates of insurance acceptable to the City shall be filed with the City's Risk Manager or Finance Director prior to the expenditure of any .grant funds, -- · . · . .. CITY HALL Tel: 541-488-6(X)2 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 10. Merger. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified in this agreement regarding this agreement. Grantee, by the signature below of its authorized representative, acknowledges that it has read this agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. 11. Notices and Representatives. All notices, certificates, or communications shall be delivered or mailed postage prepaid to the parties at their respective places of business as set forth below or at a place designated hereafter in writing by the parties. CITY of Ashland: Gino Grimaldi City Administrator 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland Chamber of Commerce Sandra Slattery 110 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 This Agreement constitutes the Entire Agreement between the parties. There are no understanding, agreement, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. No amendment, consent, or waiver or terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by all parties. Any such amendment, consent or waiver shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The parties, by the signatures below or their authorized representatives, acknowledge having read and understood the Agreement and the parties agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. City of Ashland By Title. Date Ashland Chamber of Commerce and Visitor and Convention Bureau By Title Date CITY HALL 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashlarx:l.or, us Tel: 541488-6002 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 July 20, 2004 To: Ashland City Council From: Kate Jackson Re: suggested revisions to Agreement for Services between the City of Ashland and the Ashland Chamber of Commerce/VCB Page 3 Tourism The VCB will develop and implement a year-to-year strategy to maintain current levels of tourism in Ashland and increase tourism from November through February. known as the shoulder season.: Methodology: Adopt an aggressive and focused tourism promotion plan, which is research and relationship, based. II Promotion: Focus on promoting visits to Ashland during the shoulder season. III Service Delivery: Organize processes by which visitors may acquire accurate and timely information with regard to making a trip to Ashland and by which once in town, visitors can acquire accurate information about the community. Page 4 The VCB shall review and update its tourism promotion strategies every three years and shall provide an annual report to the Ashland City Council each spring which shall at a minimum consist of the following: Provide a report on the variety of specific promotion activities executed for the purpose of attracting visitors to Ashland. Include samples of advertising which include family, quality of liYfe and educational opportunities. II Provide a report on the variety of specific promotion activities executed for the purpose of attracting visitors to Ashland durin< the shoulder season. Include samples of advertising, which include family, quality of life and educational opportunities.