Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1218 Council Mtg Packet CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public participation. 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, if any. 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 December 18, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 6:00 p.m. Joint Executive Session - in the Grove classroom with the Parks and Recreation Commission to discuss real property transactions pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes] 1. Study Session of December 3, 2007 2. Special Meeting of December 3,2007 3. Executive Session of December 3, 2007 4. Executive Session of December 4,2007 3. Regular Council of December 4, 2007 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None. VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Does the Council wish to approve an ISP contract between the City and Pure Geek? 3. Does the Council wish to confirm an appointment by the Mayor for the vacancy on the Airport Commission for a term ending April 30, 2009? 4. Will the City Council, a the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public contract with Hughes Fire Equipment for the purchase of a Life Line Paraliner Type 1, Ambulance at a cost of $175,242.00? COUNC'lL MLLTINGS ARE BROAIK'AST LIVE ON CIIANNI-L I) VIsrr T!n~ CITY OF ASIILAND'S \Vj.g SITE: A r W\V\V;\SlIL;\ND.UR.US VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC ~2.04.040}) 1. Should the amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff, which implemented many of the changes described in Phase 1 of the Siegel report and proposes changes to the City's permitting and appeal procedures be approved? IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Does the Council wish to make appointments for the three vacancies on the Budget Committee for terms ending December 201 O? 2. Does the Council wish to adopt the Gentle Person Agreement by resolution? 3. Does the Council wish to adopt the Public Art Master Plan? 4. Should the Council finalize the last step of including within the Ashland City Limits approximately 8A-acres of industrial and employment zoned land, by approving second reading of an ordinance formally annexing the property and withdrawing the property from Jackson County Fire District NO.5? XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council approve a special contract to expand the existing sanitary sewer service to serve a proposed building at the Willow Wind Educational Facility at 1497 East Main Street located outside the urban growth boundary? 2. Does the Council wish to approve a resolution establishing a Public Records Policy? 3. Does the Council wish to approve a resolution to establish fees for Public Records Requests? XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Does the Council wish to adopt the second reading of an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council? 2. Does the Council wish to adopt the second reading of an ordinance approving Declaring the Approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement, including the attached development agreement, land use findings or real property exchange findings? XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT 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). CUI [NUL ivlEETTNGS ARE BROAIJCASI LIVe UN CIJANNLL \j VISIT THE Crry OF ASHLAND'S \VF:J,) \1 J I. ,\ r W\V\V;\SHI.i\ND.OR.US CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 3. ::007 PAGE I 0{3 MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, December 3, 2007 at 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.rn. Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 5:26 p.m. Councilor Jackson was absent. Mayor Morrison presented Paula Brown with a plaque and commented on the appreciation of the community for her service as Public Works Director. Ms. Brown noted her appreciation of the community and presented to the Mayor the National Employee Award. 1. Look Ahead Review City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the Look Ahead with the Council and noted several changes and additions. Council was advised that the appellant scheduled to speak at the Special Meeting was caught in bad weather and would not be in attendance this evening. It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. Staff was directed to re-notice the proceeding since they did not have a date certain at this time. 2. Review of Regular Meeting Agenda for December 4, 2007 City Attorney Richard Appicello noted the following items had been added to the Regular Meeting Agenda: 1) Findings & Conclusions for the Ashland Home Net Franchise, 2) Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement #90G00091 with Oregon Building Codes Division, and 3) Intergovernmental Agreement Contract between State of Oregon, Building Codes Division and the City of Ashland. Ms. Bennett clarified that the Ambulance Service discussion could not happen any sooner than what is scheduled due to staff conflicts. Citizens Budget Committee Appointments Mayor Morrison requested discussion on the Budget Committee appointment process. There was consensus by Council to use the ballot system for the appointments. City Recorder Barbara Christensen acknowledged the difficulty each year when setting a deadline for applications and suggested that in the future the Council determine the process they wish to use prior to noticing. Comment was made noting the Committee's desire to meet earlier in the year. Glenn Street Railroad Crossing Councilor Hartzell requested accident records for the Glenn Street railroad crossing area and traffic counts from N. Main that indicate use of the Glenn Street intersection. Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson indicated that he could provide a turn-count report for this area for tomorrow night. Councilor Hartzell also requested the railroad crossing traffic counts on all railroad crossings in the community and, in terms of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), what the status of safety improvement projects on Laurel Street and Wimer Street or any other related projects are. Mr. Olson noted that the direction of the State is to close this crossing and that this is not designated as an emergency response route. He stated staff would provide a map indicating these emergency response routes. Council discussed the benefit of having staff provide a turn-count report. Consensus was that staff did not need to provide the turn-count report at this time but that the other traffic count reports would be helpful. Verde Village Councilor Hardesty questioned including the appropriate thermal envelope as part of the definition of "net zero energy ready". Senior Planner Maria Harris eXplained the reason this was not included in the condition was because it is included in the applicant's K3 performance standards. Additional concern was expressed regarding the definition of "net zero energy ready" and staff indicated they would review this further and bring back a recommendation at the regular meeting. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SE.S'SION DECEMBER 3, 2007 PAGE 2 013 Council Rules Mr. Appicello commented on the rule governing conversations with the press regarding Executive Sessions. He suggested one option is to separate this provision from the rules and address it in a separate resolution. He clarified there is a section of State law that addresses Executive Sessions, however it does not include penalties. Misc. Ms. Bennett noted she is willing to meet individually with councilors to discuss any concerns they have about the Council Room remodel and the logistics of computer access. Meeting was temporarily adjourned at 6:09 p.rn. in order to open scheduled Special Meeting. Meeting was re-opened at 6:14 p.rn. 3. Does the Council wish to accept or modify the proposed work plan for implementing the 2007- 2008 City Council goals? Councilor Silbiger announced a potential conflict of interest regarding the Council Goal for the Croman Mills site. He stated he has a financial interest in a company that is interested in locating their business to that property. Mr. Appicello advised that Councilor Silbiger not participate in the discussion of this particular goal. Ms. Bennett noted there is not much to discuss in terms of the work plan for the Croman Mills site since it is dictated by the State grant the City received for the project. Ms. Bennett provided a comprehensive report on the 2007-08 council goals. She stated that there are assumptions in regards to phasing and that staff would bring quarterly reports and place them on consent agendas for review and approval. She requested direction from Council on the need to schedule an additional goal setting session. The following was presented with clarification where requested: Given Goals: . Implement Community Policing. . Complete Planning Process for Croman Mill Site. · Complete the Arts Master Plan. · Provide timely response to the AFR w/in the USFS schedule. · Work regionally to resolve funding for library. . Adoption of Riparian Ordinance. Department Goals: · Develop a City-led Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy with an emphasis on local economy, diverse population, risks of over-reliance on single-industry and living wage. · Develop City-Employee Continuity Strategy. · Develop a City-wide Transportation Strategy. · Complete a City-wide Visioning Plan. It was noted that this is an expensive project and includes all principal parties in the community. Several cities were noted as having recently completed a Visioning Plan process. Ms. Bennett stated that this should not be considered "planning only" but CfTY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DECEAfBER 3. 2007 PAGE 3 of3 should be a "broad visioning" process. Brief discussion was had regarding re- allocation of the $80,000 currently in the budget for planning purposes. Comment was made expressing interest in beginning the process earlier by meeting with citizens for input. The importance of determining the "whole process" was noted. · Develop plan to establish fiscal stability, manage costs, prioritize services, and insure key revenue streams. This goal is scheduled to begin next month and determining allocation of staff is being reviewed. · Generate net increase in affordable workforce housing by a minimum of200 units by 2010. Staffrequested discussion and direction on whether the number of units is realistic as well as the City's role in the Housing Program. It was noted that it has not been determined when these discussions will happen. Suggestion was made for this to go to the Housing Commission and for some of the tasks to be done in conjunction with other projects. Ms. Bennett noted staff needed direction from Council on how they would like them to prioritize the actions associated with this goal. · Increase effectiveness in Conservation programs and identify specific targets in Energy and Resource consumption. Staff requested Council's clarification on this goal. · Implement program to provide workforce housing for City employees. It was noted staff believes this should be part of an employee continuity strategy. . Develop a long-term plan for all City facilities and properties. It was noted this goal had been started and should be finished by June 2008. . Develop a strategy for the railroad property. Staff requests Council have discussion with the Planning Department to determine the workload associated with this project. Comment was made that this is an important part of our community and that the timeline should be moved up. It was noted staff needs to determine how much it is going to cost to clean-up this property prior to the City making any decisions to move forward. Comment was made on spending the allocated $80,000 for planning and the options associated with spending this money. Staff indicated they would speak with Community Development and bring this back to Council for review. . Complete Downtown Planning process Staff recommended that this be started after the preliminary visioning steps take place. Councilor Hartzell requested further information on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) prior to beginning the process on the Downtown Planning. Staff stated that the TSP is about how to make the system work over the next 20 years and that any decisions made in the planning process will change the TSP over time. Comment was made on the importance of the Downtown Plan. Additional comment was made to keep in mind that all should be done delicately because they all interact. Staff requested direction from Council on a meeting in January for review of council goals in consideration of the upcoming budget cycle. Support was voiced for Council to meet and provide clarification to staff. It was suggested that this would be confined to clarification rather than revisiting the council goals. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen, City Recorder City Council Special Meeting December 3,2007 Page 1 of 1 MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Monday, December 3, 2007 at 6:00 pm Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 6: 10 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilor Navickas, Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Jackson was absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. After hearing the appeal of the "Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain" Subdivision for Systems Development Charges (SDC) credit allowance, which of the following actions does the Council wish to take; Reject the appeal and affirm the staff calculation of SDC credit at $63,075 or Grant the appeal and award the SDC credits in a greater amount or partially grant the appeal by considering other aspects of the developer's improvements that may be eligible for additional credits? City Attorney Richard Appicello explained that the appellant had been delayed at the coast due to bad weather and had sent an email requesting a continuance of this meeting. Mayor Morrison stated that this would be allowed and the meeting would be re-noticed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 6:14 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor ASfILAND CITY em !NeIL ;\JEET/NG DECEMBER 4. 20(}7 PAC;f~ / 0(8 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 4, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS Minutes of the Study Session of November 19,2007, Executive Session of November 20,2007 and Regular Council Meeting of November 20, 2007 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Does the Council wish to approve a change in ownership for a Liquor License Application from Torsten Hirche dba Apple Cellar at 2255 Ashland Street? 3. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Connie Morris dba Bonsai Teriyaki II at 2305 Ashland Street? 4. Should the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as recommended by the Ashland Audit Committee? 5. Does the Council approve a second amendment to the existing contract for engineering services with Marquess and Associates Inc. for an additional $51,520 in professional services, an increase of 47.6% over the current contract amount of $108,293.00? 6. Does the Council wish to confirm an appointment by the Mayor for the vacancy on the Forest Lands Commission for a term ending April 30, 2009? 7. Does the Council wish to consolidate the legal service contracts with Hurrang Long Gary Rudnick PC and authorize the approval of one contract, exclusive ofMt. Ashland, with a total not to exceed $175,000? 8. Should the Council approve and authorize the execution of the attached amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement #90G00091 with the Oregon Building Codes Division to receive payment for work performed between October 1, 2007 and November 30, 200n Councilor Hardesty requested Item #7 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1-6 and #8. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Comment was made questioning how much of the $175,000 would actually be spent for legal services. City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that Jens Schmidt indicated the "not to exceed amount" is accurate. He clarified the Nevada Street final assessment case is now at $5,000 instead of the $3,000 projected in the memo, and if that case is dismissed, the appellant might appeal the judge's decision, which could result in additional legal costs to the City. Comment was made questioning what portion of the costs is a result of suits filed by Art Bullock. Mr. Appicello indicated Mr. Bullock is involved in 8 of the 14 cases, which accounts for approximately $150,000 in legal costs. Councilor Navickas expressed his discomfort with this line of questioning. Mayor A.';JJL1ND CiTY COUNCiL MEETING DECEMBER 4. 2()()7 PAGE:: of,',' Morrison commented on a citizen's right to appeal, but stated the Council and the citizens need to be aware that these cost the City a lot of money. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted the City had budgeted $95,000 for outside legal counsel. The reason for the increase is due to a higher number of outside legal cases than what was anticipated as well as the vacant position City Attorney position in the Legal Department. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #7. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Does the Council approve a statement of intent to limit the use of the Glenn Street Railroad Crossing to bicycles and pedestrians only? Public Hearing Continued: 7:21 p.m. Those Wishinl! to Provide Testimonv - In Favor or Opposed Ken Lindsay/180 Ohio Street/Stated the Council was not elected to serve the interests of the railroad and recommended they place the long-term interests of Ashland above the interests of other entities. Mr. Lindsay voiced his opposition to closing the Glenn Street crossing and stated it would increase traffic onto previously quiet side streets, degrade property values, and put children at risk. He suggested a new access road be created from Quiet Village to N. Main Street and stated the money used to pave City alleyways would be better spent on improving the Glenn and Hersey/Laurel railroad crossings. Julie Norman/596 Helman StreetNoiced her concerns regarding traffic safety and encouraged the Council to keep Glenn Street open. Ron Elterman/355 Glenn Street/Stated if the Glenn Street crossing is closed, vehicles traveling south on N. Main will use Hersey instead, and this is already one of the most dangerous intersections in Ashland. Mr. Elterman also voiced concerns with the neighborhood not being better noticed on this matter. Rich Rohde/124 Ohio Street/Noted the number of years he has lived in this area and voiced his opposition to the closing of the Glenn Street crossing. Mr. Rohde shared his concerns regarding the safety in this neighborhood and commented on how dangerous the intersection at Hersey Street and North Main is. He requested the Council think about the nature of democratic procedures and stated the entire neighborhood is speaking out against this proposal. Mike Sturgill/477 N. Laurel StreetNoiced his opposition to the closing of Glenn Street and shared his traffic experience in this area. Mr. Sturgill commented on the increase of housing in this area and questioned the motives of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the railroad. David Adams/509 Drager Street/Shared his experience as a retired Fire Captain and Safety Officer and noted the location of fire hydrants in this area. He stated that it would be a grave mistake to cut off fire access to this area and an injustice to the individuals in this area to close Glenn Street. Claire Collins/482 Lori Lane/Spoke on her medical experience and stated if Glenn Street were closed, it would make Lori Lane a thorough lane. She noted the traffic safety issues involving speeding vehicles and its relationship to pedestrians. Leigh Madison/176 Orange Avenue/Spoke regarding safety concerns and the intersection at Hersey Street. Photos were presented that indicated visual clearance at the intersection at Hersey and N. Main. ASJJLAND ClT}' COUNCIL A/FETING DECEMBER 4. )O(}7 PAG[~ 3 (its Ellie Read/398 N. Laurel Street/Transferred speaker time to Mr. Bullock. Mary Y ount/130 Orange A venue/Transferred speaker time to Mr. Bullock. Linda Thomas/843 Fox Street/Transferred speaker time to Mr. Bullock. Carol Starr/546 N. Laurel Street/ Transferred speaker time to Mr. Bullock. Councilor Navickas voiced his opposition to the process of allowing individuals to transfer their speaking time to another person. Councilor Hartzell voiced her support for this process and noted not all individuals are comfortable speaking in this environment. Mayor Morrison commented that if individuals care enough about an issue to attend the meeting, they should be allowed to elect someone to speak on their behalf. Art Bullock/Stated the proposal worsens the safety in Quiet Village and stated the interests ofODOT Rail are not mirrored by the residents of Ashland. Mr. Bullock voiced complaints regarding the public hearing procedures and the involvement of the Public Works Director. He commented on the traffic flow for the Quiet Village area and stated the proposal adds pollution and driving time, and moves traffic to the dangerous Laurel/Hersey intersection. Mr. Bullock voiced his support for councilors who represent the public safety of Quiet Village, neighborhood meetings before Council considers this proposal, notices to affected property owners, open and transparent government, Council working with the School Board, and the safety of children. Margaret Dole/456 Lori Lane/Transferred speaker time to Mr. Gronberg. John Gronberg/470 Lori Lane/Stated he is speaking on behalf of the Glenn Vista Board of Directors and the 92 residents and owners of Glenn Vista. Mr. Gronberg stated the closure of Glenn Street would result in additional traffic on Hersey, exacerbating the already dangerous condition of the Hersey/N. MainIWimer intersection. In addition, it would increase traffic on Lori Lane, which is barely wide enough to allow two cars to pass. He stated additional traffic on Lori Lane would create a dangerous situation for the residents of Glenn Vista and requested the Council do everything they can to prevent this closure from happening. Kindler Stout/130 Orange A venue/Noted on an article in the Mail Tribune newspaper and questioned how the Council could consider this closure when the railroad has such an uncertain future. Public Hearing Closed: 8:06 p.m. City Engineer Jim Olson reviewed the additional materials submitted to the Council, including the grade crossing rankings, vehicle crash summaries, and average daily totals for the Glenn Street area. He commented on the CIP projects that have some level on impact on this proposal, including: 1) the E. Main Street rail crossing which is scheduled for completion this fiscal year, 2) the Hersey/Laurel crossing improvements, which are scheduled for design in FY 07/08 and construction in FY 08/09, 3) the Oak Street rail crossing, which is scheduled for construction in FY 07/08, 4) the Laurel Street sidewalks, which are scheduled for construction in FY 08/09, and 5) the W alker Avenue rail crossing, which is scheduled for construction in FY I O/ll. Mr. Olson also noted that the memo submitted by Fire Chief Woodley indicates the major response corridors for Fire Stations #1 and #2. Comment was made requesting further explanation of the HerseyIWimer/N. Main intersection project. Mr. Olson stated staff has been working with ODOT to identify suitable grant opportunities, and have made two grant requests, but both were denied. He explained this project has two phases, the first is the realignment of Hersey and Wimer streets to make it a standard, perpendicular intersection, and the second phase is the installation of traffic control devices. He noted that ODOT has been reluctant to install a signal at this intersection, but the City is continuing to work with them on this issue. ASJIL4ND C/7T em /NeIL JJFETlNG })fTEMHU? ..t, 2()(}7 PAGE:' 40(8 Mr. Olson clarified he spoke with ODOT Rail after hearing of the closures and was told that the Siskiyou line, which runs through Ashland, is very vital to them and they would find additional carriers if needed to avoid closing this line. Mr. Olson explained that ODOT Rail has refused to allow the City to move forward on the Laurel/Hersey crossing without also addressing Glenn Street. He stated the City no longer has the option of ignoring this issue and must decide whether to improve the Glenn crossing or close it. He clarified ODOT Rail has offered $100,000 for the Hersey/Laurel improvements, however they have also indicated it may be possible, depending on their budget, for them to pay for the four crossing gates, which would be considerably more than $100,000. Mr. Olson noted the City has not received anything in writing guaranteeing the $100,000 and have only received verbal assurance at this point. Mr. Olson clarified the definition of "improvement" means improved to ASHTO standards. He commented on the problem with the visibility of the Glenn crossing and explained that according to ASHTO standards, there are two locations where you judge visibility. The first is at the stop sign, and the second is 150 ft. back. Because of this standard, the City may be required to install crossing gates at the Glenn Street crossing. Mr. Olson stated what we have now does not meet the ASHTO standards and leaving it alone or doing a partial improvement are no longer options. Comment was made questioning if the City decides to improve both crossing, could they expect to receive any grant funding. Mr. Olson stated the City would certainly ask for this. He also clarified it would be difficult to administer a Local Improvement District for the crossing improvements. Mr. Olson clarified if the City received a grant for the Hersey/Laurel intersection, the total cost for the improvements would be much higher due to the red tape and extra requirements. Councilor Chapman shared his observations of the neighborhood and stated the real problem is the Laurel Street crossing. He stated he is not against closing Glenn Street, but recommended: 1) a traffic study to be completed, 2) the Laurel/Hersey and the Hersey/Wimer/Main intersections be improved, and 3) a trend for increased rail service be established before the decision to close Glenn is made. Councilor Navickas/Hartzell mls to improve both crossings and go to ODOT and request financial assistance for both crossings. DISCUSSION: Mayor Morrison clarified the two crossing referenced in the motion are Glenn and Laurel. Councilor Navickas voiced his support for keeping both streets open for the long term. It was clarified the estimated cost to improve both crossings is $1,700,000. Councilor Hardesty suggested the motion include a specific timeframe, such as five years, Councilor Hardesty/Navickas mls to amend motion that in negotiations to specify "over a five-year time period." DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty explained why she proposed the amendment and noted they do not know at this point, what is going to happen with the railroad, Councilor Hartzell questioned how ODOT would react to this type of a proposal. Councilor Jackson commented that this motion moves the City in a direction that ODOT has been unwilling to go, Councilor Hartzell questioned if it is possible to incorporate the actions proposed by Councilor Chapman. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson, YES. Motion passed 6-0. DISCUSSION on amended motion: Councilor Jackson voiced support for a traffic study before any possible closure, but stated at this point, she is hesitant of keeping both crossings open. Councilor Hardesty voiced support for the motion, and in the mean time move forward with a traffic study. Councilor Navickas voiced support for keeping both crossings open. Councilor Silbiger stated improving or closing the Glenn Street crossing has not been a high priority for the City and it is unfortunate that they are being forced to make a decision. He noted the City's severe budget limitations and voiced support for improving the Laurel/Hersey crossing and leaving Glenn Street alone (Option 2). Councilor Navickas noted the consequences ofthis option ASJJL1ND CiTY COUNCiL A4EElJNG DECEMBn? 4, 211li7 PAGE 5 0(8 and stated ODOT Rail would likely declare an impasse and submit the entire issue to arbitration before an administrative judge and most likely, they will rule to close Glenn Street. Councilor Hartzell questioned if they have enough information at this time to make this decision. Councilor Jackson/Hartzell mls to amend motion to add a full traffic engineering study be conducted. DISCUSSION: Ms. Bennett indicated that if the Council decides to keep both crossings open, the traffic patterns are not going to change, and questioned what would be the purpose of the traffic study. Councilor Jackson clarified the Council is struggling with this decision due to the lack of information. Ms. Bennett suggested the Council pass a motion that that tables this issue until staff completes a traffic study. She added her concern is that if they pass a motion to keep both routes open, a traffic study would be a waste of money. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, YES. Councilor Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell, and Hardesty, NO. Motion failed 5-1. DISCUSSION continued on original motion: Councilor Silbiger expressed concern with the costs of improving the Glenn Street crossing, and stated this does not seem fiscally prudent given the limited use of the crossing. Councilor Hardesty motioned to postpone this decision for two weeks. Motion dies due to lack of a second. Councilor Jackson called for the question. Motion dies due to lack of a second. DISCUSSION continued to original motion: Councilor Chapman voiced his support for: 1) conducting a traffic study, 2) designing and improving the Laurel and then the Wimer intersections, and 3) dealing with Glenn Street last. Councilor Navickas stated he does not believe this is a valid option. He stated ODOT is breathing down the City's neck and they will force the City into arbitration if they do not act soon. He stated a traffic study would be costly, and they already know the citizens do not want Glenn Street to be closed. Roll Call Vote on original motion: Councilor Navickas and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman, and Silbiger, NO. Motion failed 4-2. Councilor Silbiger/Jackson mls keep Glenn Street crossing as is and request authority from ODOT Rail to improve just the Laurel/Hersey intersection. DISCUSSION: Mayor Morrison noted this is Option #2. Councilor Navickas expressed concern that this motion defers the decision to ODOT and could result in the closing of Glenn Street. Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger mls to amend motion that in the mean time staff conduct the study as outlined by Councilor Chapman. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson voiced support for the motion, but noted this is a more costly study than staff can do. Ms. Bennett clarified staff will have to contract this out for a consultant and if the estimated cost is outside their ability to spend, staff would return to Council for further discussion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hartzell, Chapman, Silbiger and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Navickas and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2. PUBLIC FORUM Aaron Corbet/423 N Main Street/Commented that the nature of business in Ashland are tourism and real estate, and there clearly needs to be a third leg to stabilize Ashland's economic table. Mr. Corbet suggested the City form an Ad Hoc citizens committee to assess the viability of various green industries, how to recruit these resources and relocate them to Ashland. ASHL4ND efTr COUNCIL A4EETING DfX'EMBER 4, 2()()7 PAGE ri o(S UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Does the Council wish to direct staff to correct, change or modify the Ordinance Declaring the Approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement, including the attached development agreement, land use findings, or real property exchange findings? City Attorney Richard Appicello reviewed the changes that were made to the documents after the packet information was released. Councilor Jackson commented on how the annexations are sequenced and stated her concerns relate to the fact the City is taking voluntary action that it need not necessarily take in order to enable this agreement. She stated the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) could be considered the external boundary and make the properties that back up to it eligible for annexation without having to be "an island". Councilor Navickas voiced concern with the annexation criteria and stated they have an opportunity to require that the houses not back up to the creek. He stated the current design creates security and privacy issues and does not believe it is good planning. He added that he does not believe the applicant has met the requirements for the physical constraints permit for the pathway in the riparian area. Councilor Navickas motioned to deny this, not send it to second reading, and request the applicant come back with a plan that complies with the Street Standard Criteria and protection of the Riparian Area. Motion dies due to lack of a second. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading with the changes discussed this evening. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Chapman, Jackson, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Will Council approve the attached resolution to establish a public hearing date of February 5, 2008, to consider the formation of Assessment District No. 88 to improve both Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Street? Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2007-41. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hartzell, Navickas, Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) 2. Does the Council wish to adopt, by approving first reading of an ordinance, amending the Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council? Don Stone/395 Kearney Street/Commented on confidentiality in Executive Sessions and stated there should not should be a "gag" placed on council members in regards to what they say to the press. Mr. Stone stated sufficient guidelines have been laid down at the state level and does not see the need for the Council to expand on them. He proposed a revision to Section 2.04.080 and stated any contact with staff or concerns with staff should be channelled through the City Adminsitrator's Office. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to adopt Rules of the City Council with the following modifications: 1) Remove paragraph three under Section D - Executive Sessions, and 2) add "in accordance with state law"to paragraph two under Section D - Executive Sessions. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger stated the rights and responsibilities of the media are set forth in state law and does not feel these need to be repeated in the Council Rules. Councilor Navickas stated the wording "must maintain" in paragraph 2 is pretty strong and suggested "should" be used instead. Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to amend motion to change the word "must" to "should" in paragraph two under Section D - Executive Sessions. ASHLAND un COUNCIL ;\"fEEtlNG DECEMBER 4, 20(}7 PAGE 70(8 Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. DISCUSSION on proposed amendment: Councilor Hartzell suggested the following language be used in paragraph two under Section D - Executive Sessions, "Unless authorized by the full Council, the Mayor and City Councilors will act in accordance with state law regarding the confidentiality of the information discussed in executive session." Support was voiced for this modification. Councilor Navickas/Hartzell withdrew motion. Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger m/s to amend motion to modify the second paragraph under Section D - Executive Sessions to read "The Mayor and City Councilors will act in accordance with state law regarding the confidentiality of the information discussed in executive sessions." Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0. Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0. Councilor Hardesty noted the Council had previously discussed using the following wording in Section 2.04.080(c), "They shall not pressure or direct City employees in a way that could contravene the will of the Council as a whole or limits the options of the Council." Council voiced unanimous consent to this change. Councilor Hartzell questioned the first "housekeeping" amendment listed on page 1 of the Council Communication which reads, "Any topic may be added to an agenda by a majority vote of the Councilors present. Generally these items should be limited to items of timeliness or emergencies." Council decided to include this amendment in the Council Rules. Councilor Hartzell suggested the word "other" be stricken from the second housekeeping amendment listed on page 2 of the Council Communication. Council agreed to this change. Councilor Jackson proposed the following modifications: 1) Section 2.04.080, amend to read "The City Council will work with City staff in a spirit of teamwork and mutual cooperation", 2) Section 2.04.080, Section II(d), add "Discussion and disagreements should be focused on the content of the topic at hand", and 3) Section 2.04.040, second paragraph, add "Comments and disagreements should be addressed to the topic at hand and avoid negative personal remarks." Council agreed to the proposed amendments. Ms. Bennett noted one additional housekeeping item is to delete Section 2.04.130 and insert "R"in Section 2.04.100. She also noted the phrase "as a whole" need to be deleted from Section 2.04.080(C) and delete "attempt to" from the first sentence in Section 2.04.080. Mayor Morrison noted Mr. Stone's suggestion for Section 2.04.080(E) and voiced his support for concerns to be expressed to the Mayor, City Administrator or City Attorney, and to delete department head. Council agreed to this change. Mr. Appicello read aloud the proposed changes. Councilor Hardesty/Jackson mls to approve first reading of an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, Rules of the City Council with the changes discussed this evening and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0. 3. Does the Council wish to adopt the Gentle Person Agreement by resolution? ASHLAND un COUNCIl, ;\JEE7ING DECEMBER 4, 2011; PAGf:' 8 0(8 Item delayed due to time constraints, 4. Does the Council wish to adopt the Public Art Master Plan? Item delayed due to time constraints. 5. Should the Council finalize the last step of including within the Ashland City Limits approximately SA-acres of industrial and employment zoned land, by approving second reading of an ordinance formally annexing the property and withdrawing the property from Jackson County Fire District No.5? Item delayed due to time constraints. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. What should the process be for the Mayor and City Council to interview and select a new City Attorney candidate? Item pulled from agenda. 2. Does the Council wish to make appointments for the three vacancies on the Budget Committee for terms ending December 2010? Item delayed due to time constraints. 3. Does the Council wish to approve a video (Cable Television) franchise for Ashland Home Net and Ashland TV? Item delayed due to time constraints. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ADJOURNMENT Meeting as adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor Conservation Commission Meeting November 28, 2008 Community Development Building City of Ashland These minutes will be approved by the Commission on 01/23/08. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:05pm in the Siskiyou room at the Community Development Building. Attendees: Russ Chapman, Stuart Corns, Ross Finney, Jim Hartmen, Jim McGinnis, Tracy Harding and Melissa Schweisguth. Risa Buck was not present. City Council member and Chair-Dave Chapman Staff representative-Cathy Cartmill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson asked for an approval of the October 24, 2007 minutes. Cathy Cartmill noted she had attended the meeting and was not included in the attendees. No further discussion Chairperson declared approval of minutes by anonymous con cent No objections Minutes passed. GUEST SPEAKERS Jared Fuhriman/SOU-Facilities Magmt & Planning Utilities/HV AC Supervisor gave presentation:Steps about energy conservation at the Southern Oregon University Campus. He passed out his presentation: Steps Towards Sustainability. Highlights of his presentation included a 5-year history of utility usage and equipment, statistics, program implementation, goals and projections. He plans to attend quarterly meeting to update the Commission. The members thanked Mr. Fuhriman for udating the Commission and congratulated him and SOU on their achievements. Linda Chesney/North Mountain Park/Nature Center Stewardship Cordinator spoke to the Commission about their upcoming compost class in the Spring. The Commission already sponsors 3-4 compost classes and provides free compost bins to the participants. North Mountain park is sponsoring a class this spring and she asked for the Commission to provide the free compost bins. The members discussesd utilizing another form of bins with chichen wire and posts after the current supply runs out. Risa Buck will check the number in storage and report back to the Commission at the January meeting. PUBLIC FORUM No speakers The Commission decided to move up Sponsorship for the Solar Video under New Business. Don McCoy and Ken Lewis presented sections of a video they produced in regards to Green Homes in Southern Oregon. They are actively seeking funds for the project. The initial cost was approximately $10,000.00. The Commission members were in favor of supporting this project and its expansion into different markets, but have limited resources (funds) to contribute. Commissioner McGinnis made a motion that the Commission contribute $500.00 toward the video production costs and ask Cathy Cartimill to consult Marth Bennett (City Administrator) to support/donate funds in addtion of$1,500.00. Commissioner Finney seconded the motion. Voice Vote: All Ayes Motion passed. Commissioner Chapman asked the Commission at this time to allocate funds for their premier 2008 Earth Day Event. Commissioner Finney made a motion to allocate $800.00 of their budget in support for the 2008 Earth Day Event. Commissioner Hartman seconded the motion. V oice Vote: All Ayes Motion passed. Chairperson Chapman presented Commissioner Schweisguth with a certificate and letter from the City reconizing her work with the Commission. Commissioner Schweisguth plans to move in a few days to Hershey, P A to persue a promotion with her job. The Commission wished her the best of luck, and thanked her for her support and hard work. All other items were moved to the next meeting which will be held on January 23,2008. ASHLAND SANITARY & RECEYCLING UPDATE OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting January 23,2008 7pm. ADJOURMENT The meeting was adjourded at 9:05pm. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number is 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 Title1). CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication PureGeek Internet Service Provider (ISP) Contract Approval Meeting Date: December 18,2007 Primary Staff Contact: Joseph Franell Department: Information Technology E-Mail: franellj@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Approval: City Administrator Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to approve an ISP contract between the City and PureGeek? Staff Recommendation: Approve the contract as presented. Background: PureGeek is a new (start up) internet service provider (ISP) located in Ashland that is being formed to serve the local market. If approved, this will be the first true start up on the Ashland Fiber Network in a number of years. PureGeek is made up of three partners; Martin Rush, Bill Weston, and James Ozone. Related City Policies: The May 2,2006 Council Decision for the Ashland Fiber Network to continue to function as an Open Carrier network. Council Options: Approve or deny the public contract with PureGeek. Potential Motions: Local Contract Review Board moves to approve the public contract with PureGeek. Attachments: ISP Contract with PureGeek. PureGeek business license. Page 1 of 1 Council Communication - Pure Geek ISP Contract.doc r~' c; afnINTERNET ash land fiber network Internet Service Provider CooperatiVe Agreement Cooperative Agreement between the City of Ashland, by and through its, Ashland Fiber Network Department rAFN"), and Internet Service Provider ("lSP") named below for the certification of ISP for afn INTERNET services on AFN's telecommunications system through its fiber optiC network ("the network") liSP Name .t.' , /' l:Ll ~,.. , 1/ Telephone: t J' I.. ' ,,# . Vt \ ..... ~~. ...., ',! . ('d i5 BilHng Address: Fax: , () D . ),,: ..J"lfv""J,t) on It:J Email: l)<)b(+~ ;?h.H't 1. CERTIFICATION PROGRAM. AFN will designate ISP as a and credit or payment requ em en of liSP will certified Internet service provider on the network, A list of connect customers within ten business days from the date all certtfied ISPs wiB be maintained by AFN and provided the customer requests service and otherwise meets the to the public upon request Only certified ISPs will be requirements of ISP for service, or when the necessary listed wifing of the customer's residence or business for 2. GOLD SERVICE STANDARD. AFN may make available a connection to the network is instal1ed, whichever date is premium "Gold Standard" provider designation, Criteria for later ISP will respond to all customer complaints within receiVing the Gold Standard designation will be provided by one business day of the date the complaint is submitted AFN, and may, in AFN's sole discretion be periodically and shall provide a reasonable solution to all valid amended Providers desiring the Gold Standard complaints in a timely fashion, designatJon must provide evidence satisfactory to AFN that 4.3. RATE PUBLICATION. ISP shall publish its rates they meet the minimum customer service criteria levels for for internet service in a manner that allows accurate receiVing the designation, AFN, in its sole discretion shall comparisons for like services from different internet determine whether a provider meets the Gold Standard service providers. ISP shall notify AFN of its rates and criten8. Providers may not advertise that they are a Gold provide 30-day pnor notice of any change In such rates, Standard service provider without express authorization 4.4. CO-BRANDING. All publicity and advertising by from AFN. AFN may offer special incentive and advertising ISP for service utilizing the AFN network shail indicate the programs to providers qualifying for and receiving the Gold integral relationship between ISP and AFN and comply Standard provider designation, AFN may, by written notice with the requirements of AFN's co-branding guidelines to ISP, revoke the Gold Standard deSignation from any ISP 4.5 ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY. ISP shaH comply which fails to maintarn minimum service level standards for with AFN's acceptable use poliCies, These polides apply the designation to ISP and to any other person, organization or entity 3. AFN SERVICE LEVELS. using ISP's services. The acceptable use policies are 3.1. INSTALLATION. AFN will install coaxial cable subject to change at any time by AFN acting in its sole from the network to the residence or business of ISP's discretion, and al! such changes shall be binding upon ISP customer and instal! the interior wiring within the residence upon written notice to ISP by AFN, Caples of such policies or business to the location specified by the customer for will be furnished by AFN upon request the cable modem connection. 5. Term. This agreement supercedes aU previous 3.2. SERVICE CHARGES. Service calls by AFN agreements and shal! be effective upon the date executed requested by ISP shall be billed to ISP at AFN's published by AFN and shall continue for 30 days, unless sooner service rates if it is determined that the problem was not terminated as provided In this agreement In the event the fault or responsibility of AFN, written notice is not given by either party to terminate this 4. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ISP. ISP agrees to agreement at least 30 days prior to the termination date, comply with thefoHowing requirements and procedures in this agreement shall be extended for successive 30 day order to utilize the network as a certified internet service periods on the same terms and conditions, provider. 6. PAYMENT. Amounts required to be paid under thiS 4.1. REQUIRED MODEMS. Retailer shall use only paragraph shall be established by AFN by periodiC those cable modems which meet AFN's cable modem publication of rates. Rates may be changed by AFN upon specifications for use on the network, Retailer shall be 45 days prior notice to ISP, responsible for supplying the cable modem necessary to 6.1. RESIDENTIAL. ISP shaH pay AFN an amount connect its customer to the network, Retailer may supply per month at the published rate for each residential the device through leasing, direct sale, lease/purchase, or internet account of ISP connected to the network A through third-party vendors or contractors, at Retailer's residential internet account is an account limited to one discretion, dynamic IP address, 4.2. ISP SERVICE LEVEL. ISP shall provide internet 6.2. COMMERCIAL. For each commercial Internet services to all Ashland residents or businesses who account of ISP connected to the network, ISP shall pay request servIce and who otherwise meet the hardware AFN an amount per month, at the published rate, for a 1 - VOIP Cooperative Agreement (G\legal\PAUL\telecommunicationsIForms'AFN ISP Contract 120607 dOG)(5f02) single iP address plus an amount for each additional address A commercial internet account is an account with a maximum of eight fixed IP addresses. 6.3. PAYMENT REPORT, DeposIT. At! sums shall be paid monthly by the 15!h of the month for aU of ISP's accounts connected to the network in the previous month and for all service charges. For those modems that were active tess than a full month, the ISP win pay a prorated amount based on the number of days the modem was active. The minimum monthly rate for an ISP is established by AFN by periOdic publication of rates. If ISP fails to pay amounts due by the 15th, ISP agrees to pay a 10% late charge on the unpaid balance plus interest of 1Y2%J per month on such balance. AFN may require ISP to pay a deposit in advance of the provision of any access Any such deposit shall be held by AFN In a nan-interest bearing account and used to satisfy (in whole or in part) any obligation of ISP under this agreement 7. ReCORDS AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS. ISP shall maintain a current customer list, including address, phone number and email address for each subscriber. ISP shatl also maintain fiscal records on a current, monthly basis to support its reports to City as to the number and types of customers. AFN or Its authorized representative shall have the authority to inspect, aUdit, and copy on reasonable notice and from time to time any records of ISP regarding its customer list, reports or services directly pertinent to this agreement All required records must be maintained by ISP for three years. No more frequently than once per month,. ISP shall provide AFN a current customer list within 15 days of AFN's written request for such. AFN agrees to keep allISP's records confidential to the extent permitted by law. 8. Right to Perform. If ISP fails to provide responsive customer service within the time frames set forth in this agreement, AFN shail have the right, but shall not be reqUired to, step in and perform necessary service to meet the customer needs In the event AFN provides such service in response to ISP default, AFN may bill JSP for the actual costs incurred plus fjfteen percent. ISP shall pay such bill no later than 10 days from the date of such Bill. 9. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this agreement for cause, provided written notice is given the other party specifying the cause for termination and requesting correction within 10 days for failure to pay a sum due, or within 30 days for any other cause, and such cause is not corrected within the applicable period. Cause is any material breach of the terms of this agreement mCluding the failure to pay any amount when due, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against I$P or lSP's inability to meet obligations when due, or failure of ISP to cure any violation (other than failure to pay) of the proVISIons of this agreement within 30 days notice by AFN 9.1. AFN may deny ISP access to the network and cease to provide aU or part of any services described In this agreement without notice if ISP (a) violates any provision of applicable acceptable use policies, (b) 2 - VOIP Cooperative Agreement 120007doc}i5iQ2j engages In any conduct or activity that AFN, in its sole discretion reasonably believes causes a risk that AFN may be subjected to civil or criminal litigation, charges or damages; or (c) would cause AFN to be denied access or to lose services by AFN's bandwidth provider 9.2. If AFN ceases to proVide or denies lSP access to the network pursuant to this paragraph, neither ISP nor any of Its customers shall have any right (a) to access the network through AFN (b) to access any materials, including voice or data messages, stored on the network, (c) to obtain any credits otherwise due to ISP, and such credits shall be forfeited, or (d) to access third party services, including but not limited to, security services, emergency services or any other service utilIZing an automatic dialer. AFN shall have no responsibility to notify any third-party providers of services, merchandise or information of any discontinuance of any services pursuant to this paragraph, nor any responsibility for any consequences resulting from lack of such notification 9.3. If AFN terminates this agreement for cause, or if ISP terminates this agreement without cause, ISP shall pay AFN a termination fee equal to the lesser of (a) the remainmg charges applicable through the end of the scheduled term, or (b) SIX months of charges. 9.4. If AFN terminates this agreement for cause, or If ISP terminates this agreement without cause in such a manner that its customers will be left without service, without further notice to ISP, AFN may, in its sole discretion, absorb ISP's customers into AFN's system or may sell ISP's customer list to another VOIP. Any proceeds received by AFN for the sale of the customer list, shaH be considered liquidated damages for the costs AFN incurs in promoting and consummating the sale and transfer of the customers to another provider. 10. ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER. This agreement is unassignable and not transferable. ISP shall not sell, assign, or If1 any other manner transfer its nghts under this agreement or any interest of ISP in this agreement 11. limitation of liability. AFN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO ISP FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY LOSS OF USE. lOSS OF BUSINESS, OR LOSS OF PROFIT REMEDIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ARE EXCLUSIVE AND LIMITED TO THOSE EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED IN THIS AGREEMENT. 12. NO WARRANTIES. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR FOR ANY INFORMATION, SERVICE OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH THE NETWORK. OR ANY TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED ON THE NETWORK. ISP UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES FURTHER THAT THE INTERNET CONTAINS VIRUSES, WORMS, TROJAN HORSES AND OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. ISP AND ISP'S CUSTOMERS ACCESS SUCH COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS AT ISP'S OWN RISK. AFN HAS NO CONTROL OVER AND ACCEPTS (G:'~egal\PAUL \telecommunicatJons\FormsIAFN ISP Contract NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR SUCH COMPONENTS OR MATERIALS. 13. UNCONTROLLABLE CONDITIONS. Neither party shall be deemed in violation of thiS agreement if it is prevented from performing any of the obligations under this agreement by reason of severe weather and storms: earthquakes or other natura! occurrences, strikes or other labor unrest: power failures: nuclear or other civil or military emergencies; acts of legislative, Judicial, executive or administrative authorities; or any other circumstances which are not within its reasonable controL 14. INDEMNIFICATION. ISP shaH hold harmless, defend and indemnify AFN, its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from all claims, damages, losses, liability and expenses arising from the negligent or other tortious acts or omissions of ISP and its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors AFN, to the extent of the Oregon Tort Claims hmitations set forth in ORS 30265, et seq, shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify ISP, its officials, officers, employees and agents, from all claims, damages, losses, liability and expenses arising from the negligent or other tortious acts or omissions of AFN and its officers, agents, employees and independent contractors, 15. ATTORNEY FEES. If this agreement is placed in the hands of an attorney due to a default in the payment or performance of any of its terms, the defaulting party shall pay, immediately upon demand, the other party's actual fees and expenses together with reasonable attorney fees, even though no suit or action is filed, Date) 2 f: {)7 AFN: By. Date, Legal Revlew:_ ate: Ifl'c, "'6';} Departmental Revie 3 - VOIP Cooperative Agreement 120607.doCH5102) (G'\legai\PAUL\telecommunicationsIFormsIAFN ISP Contract CITY OF ASHLAND TAX REGISTRATION (FOR REVENUE PURPOSES ONLY) BUSINESS LOCATION INFORMATION 1908 D ASHLAND ST / STREET ADDRESS NAME MARTIN L RUSH OWNER INFORMATION &-::s PHONE (541 ) 488-4335 PUREGEEK 1908 D ASHLAND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 REGISTRATION NO. Bl-006154 Barbara Christensen crry RECOROERilREASURER REGISTRATION EXPIRES JUNE 30. 2008 TO BE POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Airport Commission Meeting Date: Mecember 18, 2007 Department: City Recorder Approval: Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to confirm an appointment by the Mayor for the vacancy on the Airport Commission for a term ending April 30, 2009? Statement: Confirmation by Council on the appointment by the Mayor of Brittney Wise to the Airport Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2009. Background: This vacancy occurred upon the resignation of Paul Westerman whose term would have ended April 30, 2009. Vacancy notice was placed on the city website and one application was received. Council Options: Choose to approve or not to approve the appointment by the Mayor. Staff Recommendation: None Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Brittney Wise to the Airport Commission for a term to expire April 30,2009. Attachments: Application r~' CITY Of ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name: Brittany Wise Requesting to serve on: AIRPORT (Commission/Committee) Address: POB 3009 Ashland, OR 9750 Occupation: Office Manager Phone: Home: 261-2775 Work: 482-1008 Email: britanywise@mac.com Fax: 482-4887 1. Education Back2round What schools have you attended? Ashland High School, SOU What degrees do you hold? I will graduate Spring Term from SOU with a Business-management undergraduate degree and a Management Information System Certificate. What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? My Uncle owns Brim Aviation, currently located at the Ashland Airport. I have been in and around the aviation industry for the past six years of my life. I currently manage all FAA relations and the managerial tasks. I was the Airport Liaison when I attended Ashland High School and try to actively attend Ashland Airport Commission meetings to keep a valuable working relationship while we operate out of the airport. 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? As stated earlier, I work for Brim Aviation, which operates a commercial helicopter business out of the Ashland Airport. I'm also the treasurer for the Airframe and Powerplant Apprenticeship program through Rogue Community College and the treasurer for Southern Oregon Associated Rotorcraft, a local helicopter organization promoting safety. r.t. , Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Any additional training would be advantageous to myself. The importance of continuing education is crucial to risk management, safety, and improved leadership skills. 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? I love the Ashland Airport and love the aviation industry. The Ashland Airport is going to be a great airport in the future and Brim Aviation is planning on expansion, I feel that I could offer some good suggestions and help the commission with problems that may be in my knowledge area. I feel a strong sense of commitment and really would like to help the airport expansion process. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? I currently attend the meetings and do not have any conflicts. I do not have a preference for day or night meetings. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 6 Years Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position The only thing I would say is that I would really like to be a member of the Airport Commission. This year I had the opportunity to put on the Ashland Airport Annual Open House with the financial support of Brim Aviation and the mentoring support of the Airport Commission and Bob Skinner. This experience was great, I loved educating the community on the Aviation industry and the day was a great success. I would hope that I could bring this same sense of satisfaction and excitement to the commission if I were a member. I am currently planning next years Airport Day, which will be held May 31, 2008. October 11, 2007 'BvLtt~ L W~ Date Signature r.l' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Approval of a Public Contract greater than $75,000 TYPE 1, AMBULANCE December 18, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Fire Department E-Mail: Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: Martha Bennett Keith Woodley wood1evk@ash1and.or.us Greg Case / David Hanstein Consent Agenda Question: Will City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public contract with Hughes Fire Equipment for the purchase of a Life Line Paraliner Type 1, Ambulance at a cost of $175,242.00. This vehicle will replace the 1992 Wheeled Coach ambulance currently in service, and has been budgeted for replacement in the equipment fund of the current fiscal year budget appropriation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the contract for the Type 1, Ambulance be awarded to Hughes Fire Equipment. Background: The purchase of a new ambulance is budgeted for the current fiscal year and scheduled to replace a 1992 ambulance. The amount budgeted for the replacement vehicle is $170,000.00. An "Invitation to Bid" was the sourcing method for the procurement. The Invitation to Bid was sent to 13 potential suppliers. A single bid was received from Hughes Fire Equipment. The specified equipment is essential in order to meet the state construction and equipment requirements for ambulances, and to provide the quality of services expected by our community and uniformity within the fleet. Price recap: Less Ford Government Price Concession - FIN #QA307 Less for deleting option (4-whee1 drive system) $179,798.00 ( 4,402.00) (154.00) Total $175.242.00 Related City Policies: AMC 2.50.015 Authority Unless otherwise expressly authorized by these Rules or by ordinance or order of the Council, all contracts must be approved bv the Council before they can be executed. The Council gives its approval through its Consent Agenda which authorizes the Public Contracting Officer, his or her designee or the contracting Department to execute the contract. The Council may also execute contracts itself. AMC 2.50.070 Procedure for Competitive Bids Page I of2 2007 CC Type I Ambulance 18 Dec 2007.doc rA' CITY OF ASHLAND All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Bidding pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the Attorney General Model Rules, OAR Chapter 137 Divisions 46 - 49, except for the following: Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendation or decline to approve the contract recommendation. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract for the Type 1, Ambulance to Hughes Fire Equipment. Attachments: Contract Page 2 of2 2007 CC Type I Ambulance 18 Dec 2007.doc r~' CITY OF ASHLAND CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT Contract made this 19th day of December ("City") and HUQhes Fire Equipment. Inc. , 2007, between the City of Ashland ("Contractor"). City and Contractor agree: 1. Contract Documents: This contract is made as a result of an Invitation to Bid issued by City entitled "INVITATION TO BID" for a TYPE 1. AMBULANCE, Bid No. #2007-104, Contractor was awarded the bid as the lowest responsible bidder on 12/19/2007 . In the event of any inconsistencies in the terms of this contract, the contract documents defined in the invitation to bid and Contractor's bid, this contract shall take precedence over the contract documents which shall take precedence over the bid. 2. Scope: Contractor shall produce and deliver the equipment described in the contract documents within the time prescribed in the contract documents. The following exceptions, alter- ations or modifications to the contract documents are incorporated into this contract: 3. Price and Payment: City shall pay Contractor the sum of $175.242.00 for the new equipment. Price recap: Less Ford Government Price Concession - FIN #QA307 Less for deleting option (4-wheel drive system) $179,798.00 (4,402.00) (154.00) Total $175.242.00 Delivery shall be 180 days after receipt of order. The City takes exception to the payment terms on page 4 of 5 of the bid exceptions and clarifications. The payment terms will be "Net 20" after the vehicle is delivered to the City of Ashland, and received and accepted by a representative of the City of Ashland. CORPORATE OFFICER CITY OF ASHLAND BY BY Signature Lee Tuneberg Finance Director Print Name REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT: Title: BY Department Head Fed 10 # Date Coding Purchase Order (for city use only) PAGEl of I-CONTRACT CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Confirmation of City Attorney November 6, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Office of the Mayor E-Mail: Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: Mayor John Morrison morrisoj@ashland.or.us consent Question: Will the City Council confirm the Mayor's appointment of Richard Appicello to be City Attorney and approve the attached employment agreement? Mayor's Recommendation Mayor Morrison has appointed Richard Appicello as City Attorney, and Mayor Morrison requests the Council confirm this appointment and approve the attached employment agreement. Background: Mr. Appicello began work as Assistant City Attorney in September 2006. He has been serving as Interim City Attorney since Mike Franellleft the City in May of this year. Prior to working for the City of Ashland, Mr. Appicello served as the City Attorney for St. Helens, Oregon for eight years. He also worked for Benton County, Oregon for two years. Prior to moving back to Oregon, Mr. Appicello worked as Assistant County Counsel for two counties in Florida. Mr. Appicello formally applied for the position as part of the second recruitment to fill this position. His resume and cover letter are attached. The attached contract includes the following provisions: · A two year term, with an option for the Council not to renew ifMr. Appicello is given at least 90 days prior to the termination date. · Salary at Step "B" of the new City Attorney salary range, which is $8,319 per month, or $99,828. This is an 8% increase over the salary that Mr. Appicello has earned as Interim City Attorney. · An initial performance evaluation by the Mayor and Council after 6 months of employment, a second evaluation after 12 months, and annual evaluations thereafter. · Provisions for severance pay and benefits if the Council elects to dismiss or request the resignation ofMr. Appicello. This is consistent with the last four employment agreements offered by the City. Council Options: · Confirm the Mayor's appointment · Deny the appointment and request one of the following options: - Council to interview the two remaining candidates. - Council to reopen the search and look for additional candidates. - Solicit proposals from private law firms for attorney services. CC-City Attorney Appointment-Appicello 12] 807.doc r~' CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: · I move to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Richard Appicello as City Attorney · I move that the Council not confirm the Mayor's appointment and request that the Mayor _ (Add option here) Attachments: Resume and cover letter Draft employment contract CC-City Attorney Appointment-Appicello 121807.doc r~' Mayor John Morrison & The Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street AsWand, Oregon 97520 RE: CITY ATTORNEY POSITION Mayor and Council: I am pleased to submit my resume in application for the City Attorney position with the City of Ashland As you know, I am an experienced local government attorney with nearly nineteen (19) years of public service to local governments in both Oregon and Florida. For the past year I have enjoyed living and working in the City of Ashland. Initially, as an Assistant City Attorney, and later as Interim City Attorney (past six months), I have been privileged to work with your extremely talented professional staff. Similarly, I have enjoyed working with the City's dedicated elected and appointed public officials. Because I value these interactions and relationships, and because I believe I can contribute to this community, I have elected to submit my name for consideration as your City Attorney. I have been a City Attorney, County Attorney or Assistant for my entire legal career. The Council should understand why being a City Attorney is important to me. A City Attorney is a public officer and as much as any elected official, the City Attorney's responsibility is to serve the public, or perhaps more correctly, the public interest. The public interest the City Attorney serves is not his own personal idea of the public interest or even the ideas or beliefs of self-proclaimed public interest groups. The City Attorney's client is only the municipal corporation. As such, the City Attorney serves only the public interest as expressed in the Code of laws and ordinances adopted by the governing body. The City Attorney implements or informs the legitimate administrative, quasi-judicial and legislative acts of the governing body and staff. It is because I believe in serving this legitimate public interest that I am a City Attorney today. For me, service to the public as a government attorney is one of the most honorable choices a lawyer can make. I have never really been interested in using my law degree to advance the economic self interest of individuals, private corporations or special interest groups. As a City Attorney I do not use my position to advance my own goals or those of any special interest. Such actions would be unethical. While lower paid government attorneys are sometimes labeled as inferior to their private counterparts, (i.e. the mentality that if it costs more it must be better) public attorneys receive valuable intrinsic rewards. Specifically, when your client's interest is the public interest, you will never find it difficult to believe in the positions you advocate. I believe very strongly that the role of the City Attorney is not to make the decision, (except for criminal prosecution) but to make sure the City decision maker is well-informed. Prior to a decision being made, the City Attorney must provide discreet and objective legal analysis and an honest appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of available courses of action. In a sense, a government attorney acts like NEP A, the National Environmental Policy Act; the function is not to dictate the decision, but to make sure the decision maker is well informed of the possible consequences. In my government service I have encountered very few pubhc officials that did not understand this attorney role. The City Attorney is not a pawn to be manipulated by specialmterests or politics; the City attorney is not to play favorites. It is simply not appropriate for tlle City Attorney to obscure from the full Council the full array of legitimate alternative courses of action. Of course, after the decision is made, the City Attorney must vigorously prosecute or defend the official decision of the governing body. The ultimate goal for the City Attorney is to pursue decisions that are so utterly defensible, so solid, that opponents of the City will recognize ilie quality of the decision and simply not waste resources ill expensive legal challenges. The City Attorney assists departmental staff in their substant:J.ve endeavors. When litigation occurs it distracts staff and legal counsel from achieving these legitimate governmental objectives. In this respect, I consider litigation to be failure. However, we cannot control the actions of others; some litigatIon is sunply frivolous or the result of unreasonable positions. All we can do is vigorously defend or prosecute the City's position. As a rule, I do not like to react to litigation; I would rather prevent problems before they become court cases.. Often, in private and public practice, legal advicl'9:+>~lY ~~t~w the client when a problem occurs. . This 1S error. It 1S far less expens1ve to have legal st .' , eV1ew,,~ s~t Issues wj#1 proposed departmental actIons than 1t 1S to flX problems after the fact. W~th the egal department under-stiffed, the ability to spot and prevent errors has been significantly diminished. The City needs to move forward with recruitments to fully staff the legal department. As your legal counsel, and in my prior positions as City Attorney, County Counsel and in my local government service in Florida, I have been responsible for providing legal advice to governing bodies, various commissions, boards and departments concerning the full range of municipal law subjects. My experience over nearly nineteen years has been interesting and varied. I have defended Circuit Court declaratory judgment and mandamus proceedings, prosecuted and defended cases before LUBA, prosecuted Municipal Court criminal and violation cases, assisted Building Officials in condemnation of unsafe buildings, drafted mynad ordinances, guided personnel disciplinary actions, and immersed myself in land use proceedings, including drafting findings, orders and development agreements. While I have enjoyed the challenges of local government service, I fully recognize the importance of a balanced professional and personal life. I honestly tend to work too much. It is my hope that when the legal department is fully staffed, I can achieve this long sought after balance and continue to provide meaningful public service to the community well into the future. The City Attorney position presents an opportunity for me to continue to do quality legal work in this extremely beautiful and vibrant City. In sum, I am fust and foremost, a local government attorney. I have maintained a strong professional demeanor and have built a reputation of land use and local government expertise. I have learned much that is invaluable in the practice of law before local governing bodies. My experience and education have been directed toward a career in local government law and I would like to bring my training and enthusiasm to the position of City Attorney for the City of Ashland. If you require any additional information please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard A ppicello RICHARD APPICELLO SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Highly dedicated local government attorney with nearly nineteen (19) years of experience representing Cities and Counties in Oregon and Florida. Significant experience covering the full range of general municipal law subjects with specialized knowledge and strong background in local government land use practice area. Ashland, Oregon: Interim City Attorney, Assistant City Attorney September 2006 - Present St. Helens, Oregon: City Attorney May 1998 - September 2006 Benton County, OR: Acting County Counsel, Assistant County Counsel February 1996 - May 1998 Osceola County Florida: Assistant County Attorney May 1995 - February 1996 Martin County Florida: Assistant County Attorney January 1989 - February 1995 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS City of Ashland -Ashland, Oregon Interim City Attorney Assistant City Attorney September 2006 - Present May 2007 - Present September 2006 - May 2007 Primary responsibility for providing oral and written legal advice and assistance to the City Council for the City of Ashland, the Ashland Planning Commission and other City Boards, Commissions and City Departments including Parks, Planning, Building, Public Works, Police, City Administration, Municipal Court. Legal advice to client covers the full range of municipal law subjects including but not limited to development review, long range planning, public meetings law, public records law, conflict of interest, intergovernmental agreements, public contracting and procurement, public-private cooperative agreements, municipal court prosecution (misdemeanors and violations), code enforcement, real property acquisition and disposition, personnel disciplinary actions, general ordinance drafting and review. Primary responsibility for review or drafting of legal documents associated with development review and comprehensive planning including but not limited to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders for quasi-judicial land use actions, land use ordinances, resolutions, development agreements, security instruments, easements, and deeds. Primary responsibility for review and/ or drafting of City Land Use Regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes. Primary responsibility for defense of the City in administrative proceedings before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals regarding challenges to land use and limited land use decisions. Primary responsibility for prosecution of cases before LUBA on behalf of the City (e.g. City of Ashland v. Jackson County) Primary responsibility for review or drafting of all legal documents for the City including general ordinances, contracts, agreements, deeds, leases, licenses, franchises, hold harmless agreements, waivers, permits, enforcement documents, resolutions and orders. Primary responsibility for defense of the City in Circuit Court proceedings including Declaratory Judgment, Mandamus and other actions before the Jackson County Circuit Court. Assists Insurance Defense Counsel in defense of tort claims. Manage, monitor and assist outside legal counsel. ~ri%ary R~sponsibility for prosecution o?Zusde~~~no~ a_violation cases in Municipal ~~rt, l~duding plea bargaining and trial if necessary. City of St. Helens - St. Helens, Oregon City Attorney May 1998 - September 2006 Primary responsibility for providing oral and written legal advice and assistance to the City Council for the City of St. Helens, the St. Helens Planning Commission and all other City Boards, Commissions and City Departments including Planning, Building, Engineering, Public Works, Parks, Library, Police, City Administration, Municipal Court and Wastewater Treatment. Legal advice to client covers the full range of municipal law subjects including development review, long range planning, public meetings law, public records law, conflict of interest, intergovernmental agreements, public contracting and procurement, public-private cooperative agreements, municipal court prosecution (misdemeanors and violations), nuisance abatement proceedings, compliance agreements, building code enforcement including the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, real property acquisition and disposition, clean water act compliance, including pretreatment regulations, personnel disciplinary actions, general ordinance drafting and review. Primary responsibility for review or drafting of all legal documents associated with development review and comprehensive planning including but not limited to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders for quasi-judicial land use actions, land use ordinances, resolutions, development agreements, subdivision improvement agreements, security instruments, easements, and deeds. Primary responsibility for review and/ or drafting of City Land Development Regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes. Primary responsibility for defense of the City in administrative proceedings before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals regarding challenges to land use and limited land use decisions. Primary responsibility for representation of City before other governmental entities when seeking land use or other regulatory approvals. Primary responsibility for review or drafting of all legal documents for the City including general ordinances, contracts, agreements, deeds, leases, licenses, franchises, hold harmless agreements, waivers, permits, enforcement documents, resolutions and orders. Primary responsibility for defense of the City in Court proceedings including Declaratory Judgment, Mandamus and other actions before the Columbia County Circuit Court. Assists Insurance Defense Counsel in defense of tort claims and other actions involving money damages, especially land use cases. Supervises and assists Assistant City Attorney in prosecution of misdemeanor and violation cases in Municipal Court, (primary responsibility prior to 2004) Primary responsibility for management of City Attorney Office, including Assistant City Attorney and support staff as well as hiring and oversight of outside counsel. Benton County - Corva11is, Oregon Acting County Counsel Assistant County Counsel September 1997 - May 1998 February 1996 - September 1997 Primary responsibility for providing written a~d oral advice and assistance to the Benton County Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission, Technical Advisory Committee, Benton County Development Department, Public Works Department, Environmental Health Department, and Building Division, regarding review of land use decisions, limited land use decisions, expedited land divisions, permits, and enforcement actions for consistency with state and local law, including Oregon Revised Statutes, Department of Land Conservation and Development Administrative Rules, requirements of the Benton County Comprehensive Plan and Benton County Development Code. Primary responsibility for review or drafting of all legal documents associated with development review and comprehensive planning including but not limited to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders for quasi-judicial land use actions, ordinances, resolutions, subdivision improvement agreements, security instruments, easements, and deeds. Primary responsibility for review or drafting of Benton County Land Use Regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan, Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon Revised Statutes. Primary responsibility for defense of the County in administrative proceedings before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals regarding challenges to land use and limited land use decisions. Responsibility for defense of the County in mandamus proceedings regarding land use decisions, zoning and development violations before the Benton County Circuit Court. General research and advice on public records law, public meetings law, conflict of interest, confidentiality, preemption, and other departmental subject matter. County Counsel duties included all the above specified duties as well as primary responsibility for advice to County Human Resources Department concerning personnel actions, including disciplinary actions, review of all county contracts, intergovernmental agreements, attendance at all regular Board of County Commissioner meetings, Board briefings, executive sessions, and oversight of outside counsel. Osceola County - Kissimmee, Florida Assistant County Attorney May 1995 - February 1996 Primary responsibility for providing written and oral advice and assistance to the Osceola County Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Board of Codes and Appeals, Technical Review Committee and Osceola County Planning Department, Zoning Department, Development Department, Building Department, Health Department, Animal Control Division, Welfare/Social Services Division, and BCC Recording Secretary. Primary responsibility for providing written and oral advice to the Planning, Zoning and Development staff regarding review ofland development proposals for consistency with state and local law, including the State Land Planning Agency rules regarding Developments of Regional Impact, requirements of the Osceola County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Primary responsibility for review or drafting of all legal documents associated with development review and comprehensive planning including but not limited to comprehensive plan text amendments, ordinances, development agreements, DR! development orders, resolutions, subdivision improvement contracts, security instruments, easements, and deeds. Primary responsibility for review and drafting of Osceola County Land Development Regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Drafting emphasis on development agreements and provision of public facilities to meet state concurrency requirements. Primary responsibility for prosecution of Unsafe Premises cases under the County Building Code. Primary responsibility for defense of the County in administrative proceedings before the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings regarding challenges to development orders, comprehensive plan amendments or land development regulations. Responsibility for Defense of the County in assigned land use, zoning and development cases before the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court and Fifth District Court of Appeals. Successfully defended County's decision in certiorari action in Circuit Court concerning appeal of impact fee credit award to residential developer. Decision upheld by the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Martin County, Stuart, Florida Assistant County Attorney II January 1989 - February 1995 Primary responsibility for providing written and oral advice and assistance to the Martin County Commission, Local Planning Agency, Planning and Zoning Board, Development Review Committee and Martin County Growth Management, Engineering and Utilities staff regarding land use and environmental regulation; Primary responsibility for review of land development proposals for consistency with state and local law, including the State Land Planning Agency rules regarding Developments of Regional Impact, requirements of the Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and Land Development Regulations. Primary responsibility for review or drafting of all legal documents associated with development review and comprehensive planning including but not limited to comprehensive plan text amendments, ordinances, development agreements, DR! development orders, PUD agreements, master and final development plan resolutions, rezoning, advertised conditional use and special exception resolutions, subdivision improvement contracts, homeowner association documents, conservation easements, deeds, certificates of public facilities reservation, deferral or exemption. Primary responsibility for performing detailed vested rights determination analysis, conduct of vested rights hearing, negotiation of settlement agreements, and drafting orders. Primary responsibility for review and drafting of Martin County Land Development Regulations to implement the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. Drafting emphasis on development review procedures, development agreements and provision of public facilities to meet state concurrency requirements. Primary responsibility for defense of the County in administrative proceedings before the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings regarding challenges to development orders, comprehensive plan amendments or land development regulations. Provide litigation support or act as co-counsel in trial court litigation concerning the approval or denial of development orders and comprehensive plan amendments. Assist Environmental control officer in the prosecution of civil environmental enforcement actions, including appellate proceedings. Supervise and provide evaluations of legal support staff as well as assist County Administration in reorganization of Development Review Procedures. Bonneville Power Administration, Pordand, Oregon October 1986 - March 1988 Power Division Law Clerk Responsibility for research and writing on federal jurisdiction and civil procedure, contract law, environmental law, (emphasis on NEPA, hazardous waste regulation, and water law), as well as international law, (Columbia River Treaty). EDUCATION NORTHWESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW OF LEWIS AND CLARK COLLEGE Portland, Oregon Juris Doctor Class Standing: 28/97 GP A 3.17 Certificate in Envltonmental and Natural Resources Law UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA Tampa, Florida Bachelor of Arts, Political Science and History Magna Cum Laude GP A 3.84 Deans List, Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Alpha Theta, Pi Sigma Alpha, Pi Gamma Mu, Themis Honor Societies GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Washington D.C. Environmental Policy ~ the National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Congressional Affairs...- PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND TRAINING FLORIDA BAR 1988 (inactive) PENNSYLVANIA BAR 1989 (inactive) OREGON STATE BAR 1990 (active) Current with Oregon State Bar Continuing Legal Education Requirements; Current with FEMA / NIMS required training; Academy of Dispute Resolution, Florida Circuit Civil Mediation Training and Special Master Training (hearing examiner); proficient in Microsoft Word, Lexis and Westlaw Computer research. DRAFT CITY OF ASHLAND Employment Agreement City Attorney THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 18th day of December, 2007, by and between the City of Ashland ("City") and Richard Appicello. ("Employee"). R E C I TAL S: A. City desires to employ the services of Employee as City Attorney of the City of Ashland; and B. It is the desire of the Mayor and City Council to establish certain conditions of employment for Employee; and C. It is the desire of the Council to (1) secure and retain the services of Employee and to provide inducement for Employee to remain in such employment, (2) to make possible full work prodlICtivity by assuring Employee's morale and peace of mind with respect to future security; (3) to act as a deterrent against malfeasance or dishonesty for personal gain on the part of Employee; and (4) to provide a just means for terminating Employee's services at such time as Employee may be unable fully to discharge Employee's duties due to disability or when City may otherwise desire to terminate Employee's services; and D. Employee desires to accept employment as City Attorney of City of Ashland. City and Employee agree as follows: Section 1. Duties. The city hereby agrees to employ Richard Appicello as the City Attorney of the City to perform the functions and duties specified in said City Charter and to perform such other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council shall from time to time assign. The City Attorney shall devote full time to the performance of his duties. The City Attorney may hold outside employment so long as it does not impact the ability of the City Attorney to effectively perform his duties. Section 2. Term. A. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council in accordance with the City Charter, from terminating the services of the City Attorney at any time, subject only to the provisions set forth in the section entitled "Severance pay" of this agreement. B. Employee agrees to remain in the employ of City until December 2009, and, except as set forth in Section 1, neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer until this termination date, unless the termination date is affected as otherwise provided in this agreement. PAGE 1 C. In the event written notice is not given by either party to terminate this agreement at least ninety (90) days prior to the termination date, this agreement shall be extended for successive two-year periods on the same terms and conditions as provided herein. This provision shall not restrict Employee from using vacation or personal leave for teaching, consulting or other activities provided these activities do not conflict with the regular duties of the Employee. D. In the event Employee wishes to voluntarily resign the position during the term of this agreement, Employee shall be required to give the City six weeks written notice of such intention, unless such notice is waived by the City Administrator with the approval of the Mayor and City Council. Employee will cooperate in every way with the smooth and normal transfer to the newly appointed individual. Further, the City Attorney will be available for consultation and conferences concerning on-going legal matters and will not in any way jeopardize the legal position of the city. Consultation or further legal services furnished by said City Attorney after term of employment has ended, due to resignation, shall be done on a fee basis which is mutually agreeable to said City and City Attorney. Section 3. Salary. Beginning December 19, 2007, City agrees to pay Employee a monthly salary of $8,319 (Step 2 of salary range) payable at the same time and in the same manner as other employees of the City are paid. In addition, City agrees to annually increase the monthly salary and/or benefits in the same percentage as may be accorded other department heads. Employee shall be eligible for step increases on December 2008, and December 2009, based on satisfactory performance. Section 4. Performance Evaluation. The Mayor and City Council and the City Administrator shall review and evaluate the performance of the employee after six (6) months, or no later than June 30, 2008. After this first evaluation, subsequent performance evaluations by the Mayor and Council, with participation by the City Administrator, shall take place after twelve (12) months of employment and annually thereafter. Said review and evaluation shall be in accordance with specific criteria developed jointly by City and Employee. Further, the Mayor and Council shall provide the Employee with a summary written statement of the findings of the evaluation process and provide an adequate opportunity for the Employee to discuss his evaluation with the Mayor and Council. Section 5. Hours of Work. It is recognized that Employee must devote a great deal of time outside the normal office hours to business of the City, and to that end Employee will be allowed to take compensatory time off as Employee shall deem appropriate during normal office hours, so long as the business of the department is not adversely affected. Section 6. Health, Welfare and Retirement. Employee shall be entitled to receive the same retirement, vacation and sick leave benefits, holidays, and other fringe benefits and working conditions as they now exist or may be amended in the future, as apply to any other department head, in addition to any benefits enumerated specifically for the benefit of Employee as provided in this agreement. With respect to vacation benefits, the Employee will initially accrue vacation leave with pay at PAGE 2 the rate of ten and 2/3rds (10.67) hours per month. Employee shall continue to accrue vacation time at this rate until longevity would afford Employee a higher vacation accrual in accordance with the Management Resolution. Afterward, Employee will accrue additional vacation hours at the same rate as City Department Heads. Section 7. Dues and Subscriptions. City agrees to budget and to pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of Employee necessary for the continuation and full participation in national, regional, state and local associations and organizations necessary and desirable for Employee's continued professional participation, growth and advancement, and for the good of the City. Section 8. Professional Development. A. The City hereby agrees to annually budget and allocate sufficient funds to pay the expenses of the City Attorney's necessary travel and living expenses to represent the City at the annual League of Oregon cities' Conference, International Municipal Lawyers Association, the Oregon State Bar Convention, and conferences or meetings of national and state committees or commissions upon which the City Attorney serves as a member, said membership on said state commissions or committees being subject to the approval of the City Council, and for such other official meetings or travel as are reasonably necessary for the professional advancement of the City Attorney as approved by the City Council. B. City also agrees to budget and to pay for the travel and subsistence expenses of Employee for short courses, institutes and seminars that are necessary for his professional development and for the good of the City. Section 9. Oregon State Bar License. The City Attorney shall maintain throughout the life of this agreement, a valid Oregon State Bar license as required by the State of Oregon in order to practice law and appear before the courts of this State. The City shall pay the City Attorney's annual Bar dues and the annual Jackson County Bar dues. Section 10. Professional Liability. The City agrees that it shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the City Attorney from all demands, claims, suits, actions, errors, or other omissions in legal proceedings brought against the City Attorney in his individual capacity or in his official capacity, provided the incident arose while the City Attorney was acting within the scope of his employment. If in the good faith opinion of the City Attorney, conflict exists as regards to the defense of any such claim between the legal position of the City and the City Attorney, the City Attorney may engage counsel, in which event, the City shall indemnify the City Attorney for the cost of legal counsel. If the City desires the City Attorney to give third party legal opinions for the benefit of the City and it is determined by the Oregon State Bar that City Attorney, in order to do so, shall obtain malpractice insurance, City agrees to cover the costs of such malpractice insurance. Section 11. Severance Pay. A. In the event of the involuntary termination of the City Attorney during the term of this agreement, he shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment equal to six (6) months aggregate salary and benefits. Termination by the City, as used in this PAGE 3 paragraph, means the City Attorney's discharge or dismissal by the Mayor with consent of the City Councilor the City Attorney's resignation following a salary reduction greater in percentage than an across-the-board reduction for all city employees, or the City Attorney's resignation following a formal request to him by the City Council that he resign. Said sum shall be paid to the City Attorney within thirty (30) days of the next regular council meeting after said termination. B. In the event Employee is terminated because of his conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude or illegal act involving personal gain to him, or for the loss of his Oregon State Bar license, then, in that event, City shall have no obligation to pay the aggregate severance sum designated in Section 11.A. Section 12. Other Terms and Conditions of Employment. City shall, by amendments to this agreement, fix such other terms and conditions of employment, from time to time, as it may determine, relating to the performance by Employee with the agreement of Employee, provided such terms and conditions are not inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this agreement. Section 13. Severability. If any part, term, or provision of this agreement is held by the courts to be illegal or in conflict with the laws of the State of Oregon, the validity of the remaining portions of the agreement 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 part, term, or provision. Section 14. PERS Pick-up. Employee contributions to the Public Employees' Retirement system (PERS) shall be "picked up" by the City. Employee shall not have the option of receiving money designated for retirement contributions and directly making the contribution to PERS. Employee's reported salary for tax purposes shall be reduced by the amount of the employee's contribution to PERS. Dated this of ,2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Morrison, Mayor Accepted this _ day of , 2007. Richard Appicello PAGE 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments 12.18.07 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Co unity Development E-Mail: bill@ash1and.or.us Secondary Contact: Maria Harris & Adam Hanks Estimated Time: 1 hour 30 minutes Question: Should the amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff, which implement many of the changes described in Phase 1 of the Siegel report and proposes changes to the city's permitting and appeal procedures be approved? Staff Recommendation: These amendments are recommended by the Ashland Planning Commission and Planning Division staff after considerable discussion, hearings and deliberation. Background: In 2005, two reports were commissioned to address concerns raised by the Council and community regarding conflicting and unclear portions of the land use ordinance and the planning process. The Community Development and Planning Division Operational and Organizational Review by Zucker Systems was completed in February 2006. This Review focused on the planning process and had a short reference to procedural issues. The other report, known as the Siegel Planning Report, was completed in April 2006. The Siegel Report focused specifically on the Land Use Ordinance. From June 2006 until February 2007 a committee comprised ofthree members of the Planning Commission, a City Councilor and a member of the Planning Department staff reviewed the recommendations of the Siegel Report. This committee identified issues within the Land Use Code that needed clarification and could be accomplished. From January through June 2007, past Community Development Director, David Stalheim, worked with the Planning Commission to review the planning program in Ashland, including land use procedures. This review also included an analysis of Oregon statutes and the application of procedures in Ashland. The Director provided the Planning Commission with alternatives and recommendations on procedures to consider. On June 4,2007, the Community Development Director provided an update to the Mayor and City Council on the Planning Commission work program and priorities, including proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. On June 12,2007, the Ashland Planning Commission made a motion to initiate proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance regarding proposed procedural changes. Page 1 of 10 CouneilComm ALVa Amendments Dee 2007 final.doe r~' CITY OF ASHLAND On July 24,2007, Community Development staff completed draft amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that included both procedural changes and substantive amendments partially based on the Siegel report. This draft was presented to and reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission on July 31, 2007. The Planning Commission made a motion that a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance be scheduled on September 11,2007. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 11, 2007 and continued that public hearing to October 4,2007. Public testimony provided orally and in writing was considered by the Planning Commission, and many suggestions were incorporated into the Planning Commission recommendations. (Testimony and minutes of public hearings and deliberation are attached.) At the October 4th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission (the "Siegel" committee) composed of three Planning Commission members (Stromberg, Fields and Morris) meet to review the ordinance in detail and provide recommendations back to the full Planning Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission also voted to make the following recommendation, which is outside this ordinance but is applicable to this amendment: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt fees for appeal of Type I staff decisions to the Planning Commission or Hearings Board. The Planning Commission feels that the new procedures should be given an opportunity to be enacted before the city considers setting any appeal fees. The "Siegel" committee provided recommendations and the Planning Commission deliberated on October 23,2007. At the October 23rd meeting, the Planning Commission voted 8 to 0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance as attached. The Planning Commission also voted to table a decision on the following items until more discussion and alternatives could be pursued. 1. Proposed amendments regarding residential uses on the ground floor in C-I and E-l zones 2. Proposed amendments regarding Vision Clearance SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The proposed amendments can be broken into two areas: 1. Amendments that are considered useful and practical, as well as address interpretation issues or minor policy issues in application of the code. 2. Changes to permit and appeal procedures. Code Chane:es The following are the main areas proposed for amendment in the code. · Lot Coverage - amends definition to make clear what is exempt. · Gross Floor Area and Gross Habitable Floor Area - adds definitions to implement code standards · Site Design Standards - provides clarity to what triggers site design review. Page 2 of IO CouncilComm ALUO Amendments Dee 2007 final r~' CITY OF ASHLAND . Setbacks, Yards and Half Story - add definitions that provide for how to measure multi-story setbacks and define half-story. North Mountain Zones -- Adopts standards for lot coverage or signs. Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones - Allows for ARU in the R-2 and R-3 zones as similarly allowed in R-l. Tree Protection - requires more information and mitigation. Nonconforming Uses and Structures - amends standards to provide clarity. Mechanical Equipment -- Provides standards and exemptions for mechanical equipment, including solar panels. Permit Expiration - allows for just one extension for planning permits of 18 months, and this extension can be approved ministerial by staff Official Maps - Re-adopts all land use maps into an electronic (GIS) mapping system. Adds city property (51 Winburn and Library) to Detail Site Review zone. . . . . . . . Procedure Amendments The changes can be grouped into the following functional areas: · New Expedited Land Division procedures - new land division procedure required under Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) for 3 or fewer parcels. No hearing can be held, but property cannot be located within a historic district or on lands considered as Physical and Environmental Constraints. An appeal of an expedited land division is permissible in accordance with specifically prescribed procedures. · Amended Type I Permit procedures - these are less complex planning actions handled by staff and not subject to public hearing. Amendments would add a notice of application procedure, include a notice of decision and eliminate the Planning Commission Hearings Board review of staff decisions, instead making the staff decision final subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. Note: As discussed above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt fees for appeal of Type I staff decisions to the Planning Commission or Hearings Board. · Amended Type II Permit procedures - these are larger projects subject to hearings before Planning Commission. Changes would amend the appeal procedures to City Council. · Amended Type III Permit procedures - decisions of the Planning Commission on legislative amendments, such as zoning and comprehensive plan map changes, would be recommendations to the City Council, rather than final changes. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Please see staff report dated October 24, 2007 for detailed description of the ordinance amendments. PROCEDURAL - REQUIRED BURDEN OF PROOF The Ashland Planning Commission initiated amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.108.170. Page 3 of 10 CouncilComm ALVO Amendments Dee 2007 final rA1 CITY OF ASHLAND The state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) was noticed of the proposed amendments in accordance with ORS 197.610. In accordance with Oregon State Law, a Measure 56 notice to property owners regarding any change in land use law that "adopts or amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone" was sent to every property owner of record within the city limits. Over 9,000 properties received notice. According to ORS 227.186, all legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning adopted by a city shall be by ordinance. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Related City Policies: City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Council Options: The Council has several options that they can consider. Before proceeding with laying out some of the main policy issues before the Council, staff would like to note the issues that the Council would have to face if only parts of this ordinance were adopted. In drafting this ordinance, considerable time was taken by staff to ensure that references to other sections of the Land Use Ordinance are not broken by this amendment. One of the more important linkages in this draft is the changes to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Chapter 18.108, Procedures. It will not work to adopt one of these chapters and not the other. They have been restructured to have all Procedure issues in the Procedure chapter, and site design standards in the Site Design Chapter. Similarly, removing the Site Design and Procedure chapters from the remainder of the ordinance causes some conflicts in references within the proposed ordinance. However, these conflicts can be overcome with minor difficulty if the Council chose to segregate the Procedure and Site Design chapters from the remainder of the ordinance. Options Ree:ardine: Chane:es to Procedures and Appeals: 1. Take No Action. The first option is to not enact any changes to the procedures. Drawbacks of that option include: · Neighbors will continue to get a Notice of Decision on Type I applications, rather than a Notice of Application AND Notice of Decision (the proposed procedures are required by ORS) · Additional clarity regarding planning actions and applicable procedures would be lost. · Planning Commission Hearings Board would continue to be staffed, and Board members would have to attend. · Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments (Type III planning actions) would continue to be final decisions of the Planning Commission, and not the City Council. The positive aspects of not adopting any changes include: Page 4 of IO CouncilComm ALVO Amendments Dee 2007 final rAl CITY OF ASHLAND · Staff and the community are familiar with the existing procedures. 2. Council Appeals. The proposed changes to the procedures include some fundamental shifts in how land use decisions are heard on review or appeal in front of the council. The first question to the Council is: "Does the Council agree that appeal of Planning Commission Land Use decisions: a) Be addressed by Council? b) Be addressed "on the record"? The Council could choose to not be involved in appeals of Planning Commission land use decisions. Options include appeal directly to LUBA, or appeal to a Hearings Officer. If the Council wants to handle appeals, then the Council could choose either appeal on the record or de novo public hearings. (Current procedures are de novo public hearings.) If the Council chooses to keep the appeal procedures as drafted, it should be pointed out that the Mayor and/or Council should specify rules as to how "on the record" appeals would be handled. This authority is spelled out in Section 18.108.110. It would be very helpful to have those procedures spelled out in advance of any "on the record" appeal. For example, some of the rules that would need to be decided include: · Are appeal arguments limited to written arguments only regarding the record? Or, will oral arguments be allowed before the Mayor and Council? · Will written arguments have to be fully prepared and presented during the appeal window (13 days), or will the notice of appeal suffice with written arguments due at a later date? · Who is allowed to submit written or oral arguments? Just the appellants and applicant? Any party to the action? Or anyone as long as the comments are limited to the record? The second question regarding Council appeals is: "Does the Council want to continue with the ability to either appeal or call up Planning Commission decisions for review?" The ordinance as drafted eliminates the City Council as a party to land use actions that can appeal Planning Commission decisions. The proposed amendments do retain the right of the Council to "call up" items for review (18.108.070 B. 4.), whereby the Planning Commission decisions could be affirmed, modified, reversed or remanded back to the Planning Commission. The Council review, however, would be limited to the record and public testimony would not be allowed (18.108.070 B.S.). An option for the Council to consider include: Page 5 of to CouncilComm ALUO Amendments Dee 2007 final r~' CITY OF ASHLAND 1. The Council could choose not to have authority to "call up" Planning Commission decisions for review. Having the Council "call up" items poses concerns about bias, prejudgment and ex-parte contacts. 3. Tvpe I Decisions. The proposed amendments have the final decision on Type I Planning Actions assigned to the Staff Advisor, with de novo appeals of those decisions to the Planning Commission or Planning Commission Hearings Board. This procedure eliminates the "review" of Type I planning actions by the Planning Commission Hearings Board. The question for the Council is: "Does the Council agree that Type I planning actions should be decided by the Planning Director, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission or Hearings Board?" Options for the Council to consider include: 1. Make no changes. Type I permits would be subject to continuing review and "call up" to hearing by the Hearings Board or others. 2. Appeals of Type I decisions could be assigned to a Hearings Officer. 3. Appeals of Type I decisions could be assigned to City Council, rather than Planning Commission. 4. A two-step appeal process could be put in place, with the first appeal heard by the Planning Commission and an appeal of that decision assigned to City Council, rather than going directly to LUBA. 4. Tvpe I and II Planning Actions. The proposed amendments move some Type II planning actions to Type I. Because the Procedures chapter has been restructured to make it clear which conditional use permits are Type I permits, it is impossible to quantify this change. The most noticeable difference is that the trigger for Detail Site Review applications going to Type II would be based on the same overall floor area of the building, but not on the length or width of the building (100 foot standard). In deliberations, staff and the Planning Commission both felt that there are many other potential triggers for what should be a Type II application, such as proximity to residential uses, visibility along arterials, historic significance, etc. Rather than detail all the potential scenarios for Type II planning actions, the ordinance continues to authorize the Planning Director to refer Type I planning actions to a public hearing as a Type II application. Thus, any projects that should receive an initial public hearing and consideration by the Planning Commission can be sent directly to hearing. This discretion has been used successfully by the city for many years. "Does the Council agree that the list of Type I planning actions decided by the Planning Director is appropriate?" There are many options for the Council to consider. The Council should go through the list in Section 18.108.040 and determine whether any of those planning actions should go automatically to a Type II planning action process. Page 6 of 10 CouncilComm ALUO Amendments Dee 2007 final rAl CITY OF ASHLAND Ootions Ree:ardine: Code Amendments: The Planning Commission considered options on certain parts of the proposed amendments. Several of those topics were withdrawn by the Planning Commission for continued study. The following changes that are proposed had options provided to the Planning Commission: 1. Lot Coverage definition. a. Option to allow up to 5% additional lot coverage for porous solid surfaces, such as patios paths, etc., but NOT including driveways. (This is the option recommended in proposed amendments - 18.08.160.) b. Option to allow up to 10% additional lot coverage for porous solid surfaces, including driveways. c. Do Nothing. This continues to leave the definition vague as to what is considered normal water infiltration and whether gravel driveways are exempt or required to meet lot coverage. 2. Accessory Residential Unit standards in R-2 and R-3. a. Option to allow 500 sq. ft. accessory residential unit without having to meet minimum lot size or density requirements in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Larger units can still be permitted because multi-family zones allow additional units, but would trigger density and lot size requirements. (This is the option recommended in proposed amendments - 18.24.040 & 18.28.040) b. Option to allow 1,000 sq. ft accessory residential unit without having to meet density requirements in the R-2 and R-3 zones. In the R-I zone, you can apply for a 1,000 sq. ft accessory residential unit. Units of this size are not common as they trigger additional parking requirements. c. Do Nothing. This would still allow ARU's in R-2 and R-3, but they would be subject to lot size and density limitations resulting in potentially less density allowed for these multi-family zones than the R-I zone. 3. Items the Planning Commission Chose to Table and Review a. Proposed amendments regarding residential uses on the ground floor in C-I and E-I zones (18. b. Proposed amendments regarding Vision Clearance Chane:es from Plannine: Commission Draft: There were some technical corrections that were made to the draft that the Planning Commission reviewed and approved. These changes do not alter the substantive recommendation of the Planning Commission, but are important for clarity. 1. Section 18.08. Definitions The original draft included the addition of a definition for a daylight basement. Since the draft already includes a definition for both a "basement" and "story", the "daylight basement" Page 7 of IO CouncilComm ALVO Amendments Dee 2007 final rAl CITY OF ASHLAND appears redundant, creates confusion in application and does not appear to be necessary. Consequently, it is recommended that the definition not be included with the proposed amendments. Basem.eat, claylight ~~~~~ ~e.the B1:lilcliftg is simateEl aft a slape 8ftd a perimeter wall more tfl8:R tweaty E~W) feet tn leagtfl IS 6.5 feet or more abo'/e grade. 2. Section 18.12.020. Classification of districts. For consistency throughout the code, the Detail Site Review Zone should be used for the overlay name. DesigB Review Oycrlay Detail Site review Zone DSR 3. Section 18.72.030. Applicability. Mixed uses was added to acknowledge that residential uses are permitted in conjunction with non-residential use in commercial and other employment zoning districts. Additionally, 2c was corrected to make clear that site review standards are applied to the entire development, and is not limited to the evaluation of off-street parking and landscaping. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Desitm Review: 1. Commercial. Industrial &ftd Non-Residential and Mixed uses: 2. Residential uses: the. Residential developments when Qoff-street parking or landscaping. in conjunction with an aDDroved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). 4. Section 18.72.080. Site Design Standards. The existing code requires non-residential development to comply with site review standards regardless of size and does not exempt developments of 2,000 square feet or less. C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No's. 2690. 2800. 2825 and 2900. shall be applied as follows: 2. The Commercial. Employment. and Industrial Development standards in Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development (e.g. public buildings. schools. etc.) greater than 2.000 s't\i8fe feet gress floar area. 5. Section 18.108.040.D.2.f. This section needed to be corrected because you do not have to be adversely affected or aggrieved to file a reconsideration request. Page 8 of IO CounciJComm ALUO Amendments Dee 2007 final rAl CITY OF ASHLAND f. A statement that any person V.iiO is athemely affeeted or aggrieved or who was mailed a written notice of the Staff Advisor's decision may request reconsideration or appeal as provided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2). 6. Section 18.108.050.A.7. This section needs to be corrected to make it clear that anything not designated as a Type I or Type III Procedure is a Type II Procedure. Without this correction, it appears that there might be a loophole in Site Design authority not identified as a Type I. 7. Any other planning action not designated as subject to the Type I or Tvpe III Procedure. 7. Amend Section 18.112.030. Revocation--permit expiration. A reference to "planning action" is added in order to make this section more timeless so that is doesn't necessitate updating when different planning approvals are deleted or added. Any zoning permit or planning action plftBIled1:lfiit develapmeBt pefftlit, site design. review. cOBditioBal1:lse pauuit, ar -rariftftee granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used within one year from date of approval. Said permit shall not be deemed used until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. The Staff Aftdvisor to the Plar~riBg CammissioB may grant an extension to this time periad stibjeet to the Type 1 proeeEltire set furth iB Chapter 18.108 of this Title of the approval under the following conditions: 8. Amend Section 18.112.040. Revocation--conditions violated. A reference to "planning action" is added in order to make this section more timeless so that is doesn't necessitate updating when different planning approvals are deleted or added. Any zoning permit or planning action. plftftBedl:Hlit d€l"/elapmeRt peuuitaatliBe or liRaI ~lan under the ~erfermftftee standards o~tiafts, s1:lodi-/'isiaB approval. site design. appre-;al. ooftditioBal1:lse palmit, ar vanftftee granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such permit or variance are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. Potential Motions: 1. Move to direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for first reading that includes the proposed amendments to the Land Use Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff. 2. Move to direct Staff to incorporate changes as directed by Council and schedule first reading of the ordinance. 3. Move to deny the ordinance as proposed. Attachments: Page 9 of 10 CouncilComm ALUO Amendments Dee 2007 final rAl CITY OF ASHLAND · Staff Report on Amendments dated December 18th, 2007 · Proposed Land Use Code Revisions - Planning Commission Draft 3 - clean version/edits accepted · Previous Packet Materials Page to of IO CouncilComm ALVO Amendments Dee 2007 final r~' ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT December 18,2007 PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01283 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.08 18.12 18.14 18.16 18.20 18.22 18.24 18.28 18.30 18.32 18.40 18.52 18.54 18.61 18.62 18.64 18.68 18.72 18.76 18.88 18.92 18.96 18.108 18.112 REQUEST: Definitions Districts and Zoning Map W-R Woodland Residential District R-R Rural Residential District R-1 Single Family Residential District R-1-3.5 Suburban Residential District R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District R-3 High Density Multiple-Family Residential District NM North Mountain Neighborhood C-1 Retail Commercial District E-1 Employment District M -1 Industrial District HC Health Care Services Zone Tree Preservation and Protection Physical and Environmental Constraints SO - Southern Oregon University (SOU) District General Regulations Site Design Review Partitions Performance Standards Options Parking Sign Regulations Procedures Enforcement The request involves the adoption of a variety of code amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 1 of 9 I. Detailed Description of Proposed Procedural Amendments A. Expedited Land Divisions One of the amendments to the Land Use Ordinance is the addition of the Expedited Land Division procedure required under Oregon statutes. This procedure is required under Oregon statute, but has not been written into the city's code. An expedited land division under ORS 197.360 is an action for land zoned residential in an urban growth boundary that creates enough lots or parcels to allow the building of residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site. The Expedited Land Division allows for the creation of three or fewer parcels and requires compliance with street and other standards of the city. Expedited Land Divisions would not be authorized in historic districts or on lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints review chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (18.62). According to State statute, if an Expedited Land Division is appealed, a "referee" who is not a city employee or official (including Planning Commission members) is required to decide the appeal. Under this proposal, the 'referee' could be hired under contract by the City Administrator. The Expedited Land Division section from ORS 197.360 has been taken basically verbatim from the statute with the exception of authorizing the City Administrator to hire the referee. B. Staff Permit & Type I Planning Action Procedural Modifications The current procedure for Staff Permits is removed from the proposed ordinance. The Staff Permits are currently processed in a manner similar to the Type I Planning Actions but they are on a different timeline and have a smaller notice area. Their incorporation into the Type I process would allow staff to follow common timelines and notice procedures, expand the neighborhood notice area and would allow for the decisions to be reconsidered or appealed. As proposed, Staff permit applications would proceed as Type I permit. C. Staff Decisions Final- Type I The current ordinance has staff approve all Type I permit applications, subject to "review" by the Planning Commission Hearings Board before they become final. This review is done without a public hearing. The proposed changes would make the staff decision final, subject to either a reconsideration process or appeal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. A Notice of Application is added to the process to notify neighbors of pending applications, not just a Notice of Decision. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 2 of 9 D. Type I Planning Actions -- Reconsideration and Appeal A reconsideration process is proposed to be added to the procedures. This reconsideration process is an effort to avoid appeal when a factual error has occurred in the decision making process. The Planning Director would review the request and, if reconsideration is granted, the appeal process is stopped until a revised decision is sent out to all concerned parties of the action. An appeal of the Planning Director's decision on Type I planning actions will be to the Planning Commission. The appeal, in accordance with ORS 227.175, must be a de novo hearing. The amendments propose that the Planning Commission would be the city's final hearing authority and further appeals could be made to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). E. Type II Planning Action Procedural Modifications - Initial Evidentiary Hearing To afford the decision makers with ample opportunity for review, study and preparation of questions, an initial evidentiary hearing is authorized in the new procedures (18.108.050 B). This allows for information to be submitted early in the process that aids the decision makers and allows for the incorporation of the information into the final analysis and recommendations of the planning staff. The initial evidentiary hearing could be likened to a neighborhood meeting, but, the input would be recorded and transmitted to the Planning Commission for inclusion in the public record and their review and deliberation. Staff would develop internal procedures on when such initial evidentiary hearings might be utilized. This is an optional process in the code amendments and do not have to be utilized. F. Type II Planning Actions -- Reconsideration and Appeal Similar to the reconsideration process outlined for Type I Planning Actions, a reconsideration process is also proposed to be added to the Type II Planning Action procedures. When a factual error has occurred in the decision making process at the Planning Commission, a reconsideration request can be made to the Planning Director. The reconsideration request would be limited to factual errors and would not include the failure to raise an issue during the public input portion of the application. The Planning Commission then affirms, modifies or reverses the original decision. Notice of the reconsideration decision would be provided to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be to the City Council. The appeal would be on the record of the Planning Commission. This would allow for the public's concerns to be addressed early in the process, would minimize the introduction of new evidence during an appeal proceeding, and would set limits on when the record should be closed. In the event that there was a factual error in the record, or new information is Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant:' City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 3 of 9 brought up that was not known previously, the new procedures authorize the City Administrator to review appeals to determine whether additional testimony and evidence could be provided at the appeal before City Council. The proposed procedures do not allow the Council to appeal Planning Commission decisions, but does allow for the Council to "call up" an item for review. If the Council calls the item up and there is not any appeal also pending on that action, the call up would be considered on the record and no public hearing would be allowed. The proposed amendments requires the Council, or the Mayor in the absence of Council rules, to set forth the procedure for the conduct of "on the record" appeals. G. Notice Requirements Under current procedures for Staff Permits and Type I Planning Actions, the Staff Advisor shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application within 14 days after receipt of a complete application. The Staff Advisor writes findings and conclusions to justify the decision. Then, a notice of the decision is mailed within seven days of the decision to all property owners compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll within 100 feet of the subject site for Staff Permits and 200 feet ofthe subject site for Type I Planning Actions. A sign noticing the decision is also placed on the subject site. Persons to whom the notice is mailed then have 10 days from the date of mailing in which to request a public hearing. A hearing is then scheduled for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The decisions for Type I Planning Actions become final when reviewed by the Planning Commission Hearings Board. According to state law (ORS 197.195), the city shall provide written notice to owners of property within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which a complete application is made. A 14-day period for submission of written comments prior to the decision is required. Following the 14-day comment period, the city shall provide notice ofthe decision to the applicant and any person who submits comments. The notice of decision must include an explanation of appeal rights and briefly summarize the local decision making process for the land use decision being made. The proposed amendments follow state law requirements for notice of application and notice of decision. The change would eliminate the 100 foot noticing distance currently used for staff permits and would standardize all notice distances at 200 feet. A sign noticing the land use application would be posted on the site and the application would be available for review on the city's website. The proposed notice of application will provide a better opportunity for the public to comment on applications prior to decisions being made. H. Type III Planning Actions The current ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to make final decisions on Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 4 of 9 Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments and Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. However, these types of amendments can only be adopted by ordinance under state law, which is a power reserved to the Mayor and City Council. The amendment would state that the Planning Commission decision would be a recommendation to the Mayor and Council for these types of amendments. If the Council favors this amendment, staffhas identified a minor inconsistency in the proposed language that would need to be corrected. I. Appeal Fees Currently no fees are prescribed in the ordinance though the collection of appeal fees could be authorized by resolution ofthe City Council. According to state law (ORS 227.175) fees may be set for appeals. The maximum fee that can be charged is $250 when there has not been a public hearing on a land use application. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or in subsequent hearings, the fee for the initial hearing must be refunded. The fee would not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site. This fee limitation would only apply to Type I planning actions because the proposal is to have a staff decision subject to a de novo public hearing. This ordinance does not establish fees. Any adoption of fees by the city must be done by action of the City Council. The Planning Commission has made a recommendation that the city not charge fees for appeal of Type I staff decisions to the Planning Commission at this time. They noted that there should be a time period of implementing these changes before any consideration to adopt appeal fees. J. Detailed Description of Proposed Code Amendments Easier to Read · Conditional use permits. The current code has requirements for conditional use permits scattered throughout. The proposed amendments list the conditional use permits by zone, so a reader knows all the potential conditional use permits allowed in each zone. · Site Design versus Procedures. The Site Design chapter (18.72) is currently a blend of both standards and procedures. The procedures are removed from this chapter and put into the Procedures (18.108) chapter. At the same time, an attempt is made to make clear what development is subject to Site Design Review and what is exempt. · Definitions. Definitions are amended and new ones added that were not previously included in the code but are necessary in the application of the code. Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 5 of 9 Every day, planning staff and customers struggle with the meaning or requirements of certain sections of the code. In some circumstances, the intent is clear and a staff decision can be made. In other cases, either the intent is not known or is in question. There are also circumstances where the code can be written to provide better direction. The following are the primary examples of these code amendments: . Lot Coverage. The current definition of Lot Coverage uses words that do not get to the intent of the requirement. Words such as "structure" (could include dog houses, bird houses, etc.), "soil disturbances" and "normal water infiltration" (no definitions). Customers often argue that gravel driveways should be exempt from the requirement, but the question is whether a gravel driveway would allow "normal water infiltration." Staffhas exempted decks with spacing that allows water infiltration, but not patios with concrete pavers. Technically, the ordinance would require staff to measure walkways in gardens. The proposed definition provides an exemption for some porous solid surfaces and makes the definition much easier to administer. Gross Floor Area and Gross Habitable Floor Area. There are several standards in the code based on gross floor area or gross habitable floor area. These standards include accessory residential units, base densities, MPF A in historic districts, residential uses in the C-l and E-l districts, FAR definition in site design, big box ordinance, and parking standards. New definitions are added that are easy to administer and consistent with each other. The definitions measure to outside surfaces of the building(s). Site Design Standards. Some development triggers Site Design Review, but what standards should be applied is not always clear. Examples ofthis include attached single family housing (e.g. townhouses) and non-residential development (e.g. schools) in residential zones. The proposed amendments identify what standards those types of uses should meet. In addition, the applicability of the Site Design standards to other types of development is made clear, including the expansion of impervious surface, alterations which affect circulation, and alterations to historic buildings. Expiration Dates. Site Design Review approvals were never set to expire if not acted upon. A one year limit is proposed. Tree removal permits are the only planning action that had six month permits; these are proposed to change to 1 year permits. Partitions are proposed for 18 months. Maps. Many of the maps that set standards and regulations are hand drawn maps within booklets. As such, these maps were never in an electronic database or applied to parcels. The city's GIS staffhas worked to apply these old maps to current technology. The Detail Site Review map has been amended to include the city's facilities at 51 Winburn (Community Development/Engineering) and the City Library. Finally, there is not an official zoning map that can be found by the City Recorder. As a result, the amendments would readopt the maps in a new electronic format, which will then be available by the City Recorder within the new ordinance. . . . . Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 6 of 9 Amendment to Standards · Flag Drive Turnarounds. The Fire Department indicated that the City Council directed staff to bring an actionable item to them amending the requirement for a fire apparatus turn-around at the end of 150' dead ends rather than 250' dead ends. This change would make the Ashland Land Use Code consistent with the Oregon Fire Code. · Setbacks and Yards. It is standard practice to have building setbacks. The code uses the word "yard", as in a required 15' front yard. The ordinance also did not provide clarity on how setbacks or yards were determined for multi-story buildings. While it would be advantageous to go through the entire ordinance and address the distinction between yard and setback, a simpler route was taken by revising the definition of setback (and adding a new definition of Setback, Special) and by providing clarity as to how setbacks are measured in multi-story buildings. · Story and Half Story. Some zoning districts allow 2 12 stories, or 35 feet in height, whichever is less. However, there is not a definition of "half story" in the current ordinance. The proposed "half-story" definition, along with the definition of "basement" work to clarify the allowable number of floor levels, particularly when structures are adjacent to rear yard setback lines. · North Mountain Zones. When the North Mountain zones were adopted, standards for lot coverage or signs in the commercial areas were unintentionally not included. Standards consistent with the plan are proposed. · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones. Under the current standards, it is possible to have more density and Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) in the R-1 single family district than in the R-2 or R-3 multi-family districts. This is due to the fact that in multi-family zones, there wasn't any such use as an "accessory residential use" (ARU) since multi-family is allowed and not considered "accessory". The proposed amendments define accessory residential use, which extends that definition to R-2 and R-3 zones when associated with a single family dwelling. The proposed ordinance allows an ARU in the R-2 and R-3 zones at 500 square feet or 50% ofthe single family dwelling, whereas in the R-1 zone you are allowed by conditional use permit a 1,000 square foot ARU or 50% of the single family dwelling. There are various reasons the Planning Commission chose to have a different standard, including the fact that in the R-2 and R-3 zones you could still do a bigger unit but would have to meet density and lot size requirements. · Tree Protection. The current ordinance does not offer protection for trees on adjacent properties that might have driplines overhanging the site of proposed development. A requirement to identify those trees is added (18.61.050). The ability to require the installation of larger trees when replacing a visual screen that is removed is added (18.61.084). · Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The existing standards have contradictions and do not properly reference criteria. A nonconforming use may Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 7 of 9 be changed or a nonconforming structure enlarged when authorized in accordance with the "procedure" in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) chapter. It has been argued that the procedures for Conditional Use permit are notice requirements, and not criteria. A reference to two of the three conditional use permit criteria is added. The second problem with this section is that it appears to require a CUP when reconstructing or structurally altering a nonconforming structure. However, there are no definitions as to what reconstruction or structural alteration means, and the third criteria allows this to occur as long as the footprint is not changed in size or shape. The changes proposed would require a CUP only when the structure is enlarged or extended. A nonconforming structure could be structurally altered (enlarged is stricken) without a CUP; however, the use cannot change without a CUP. For example, if a garage had a nonconforming setback, it could be structurally altered unless the use changed, such as to a residential unit. Then, a conditional use permit would be required. · Mechanical Equipment. The existing code does not appear to provide any clear exemption from Site Design Review for mechanical equipment, nor does it provide exemptions for placement into yards, etc. There are several amendments proposed that address this issue. o Definitions. Removes the exemptions from the definition and puts these exemptions into the Site Design Chapter. o Setback Exception. Mechanical equipment and associated enclosures that are not taller than allowed fence heights is proposed to be allowed within required side or rear yards. If this equipment is installed, it must conform to other provisions of the Ashland Code, including noise attenuation. (See 18.68.140) o Site Design Review Exemptions. Three exemptions are provided in Section 18.72.030(B). The first is an exemption for roof-mounted solar collection devices unless within the Employment and Commercial zoned properties in an historic district. The second is the installation of mechanical equipment not visible from the street or adjacent residential property. The third is for the routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment. The other exemptions are required by federal law for amateur radios and satellite dishes. · Permit Expiration. The current ordinance allows two extensions of one year each for planning actions. These extensions must be approved with a Staff Permit procedure requiring notice, etc. The permit approval can only be extended when the ordinance has not changed, or the applicant agrees to abide by any changes in the ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow for just one extension of 18 months, and this extension can be approved ministerial by staff with the same requirement that the code has not changed or the applicant agrees to abide by any code changes. (See 18.112.030) Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 8 of 9 K. Input on Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments were sent to and reviewed by the city's Historic Commission, Tree Commission and Housing Commission. The Historic Commission focused on the definition of half-story and non-conforming structures. Changes to both sections were made as a result of their input. The Tree Commission did not have a quorum, but the amendments were sent to all current members. Only one member sent staff questions, which were resolved in staff responses. The Housing Commission's Land Use Subcommittee and the full commission reviewed the proposal. The Land Use Subcommittee did not raise any specific issues with the proposed amendments. The full commission did support the ordinance provisions applicable to housing, with the following adjustment: · Allow Accessory Residential Units less than 500 square feet to be a permitted use in the single family zones (they are currently a conditional use). Although notices were sent out to all property owners within the city, and although staff received a considerable volume of phone calls, only limited written comments on the draft ordinance were provided (attached). Many of the issues raised in written correspondence have been incorporated into the proposed amendments. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 9 of 9 PROPOSED LAN D USE CODE REVISIONS Planning Commission Draft 3 (This version shows how the sections would read if accepted, excluding revised. graphics) December 18, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1, Amend Chapter 18.08, DEFINITIONS............................................................. 2 Section 2, Amend Chapter 18.12, DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP......................................6 Section 3, Amend Chapter 18.14, W-R WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT .....................6 Section 4, Amend Chapter 18.16, R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT..............................6 Section 5, Amend Chapter 18.20, R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT .................7 Section 6, Amend Chapter 18.22, R-1-3.5 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.................. 7 Section 7, Amend Chapter 18.24, R-2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT................................................................................................ 7 Section 8, Amend Chapter 18.28, R-3 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.............................................................................................. 10 Section 9, Amend Chapter 18.30, NM NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD .....................11 Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT .........................12 Section 11, Amend Chapter 18.40, E-1 EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT ....................................13 Section 12, Amend Chapter 18.52, M-1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT .....................................14 Section 13, Amend Chapter 18.54, HC HEALTH CARE SERVICES ZONE ...........................14 Section 14, Amend Chapter 18.61, TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION ...................14 Section 15, Amend Chapter 18.62, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ........16 Section 16, Amend Chapter 18.64, SO-SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY (SOU) DISTRICT ............................................................................................................ 17 Section 17, Amend Chapter 18.68, GENERAL REGULATIONS .........................................18 Section 18, Amend Chapter 18.72, SITE DESIGN REVIEW.............................................20 Section 19, Amend Chapter 18.76, PARTITIONS ..........................................................25 Section 20, Amend Chapter 18.88, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS ......................26 Section 21, Amend Chapter 18.92, PARKING ...............................................................26 Section 22, Amend Chapter 18.96, SIGN REGULATIONS ............................................... 27 Section 23, Amend Chapter 18.108, PROCEDURES ....................................................... 27 Section 24, Amend Chapter 18.112, ENFORCEMENT .....................................................40 December 18, 2007 Draft - 1 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 1, Amend Chapter 18.08, DEFINITIONS Amend Section 18.08.090. Boardina--rooming house A dwelling or part thereof, other than a hotel or motel, where lodging with or without meals is provided, for compensation, for three (3) or more persons, for a minimum period of thirty (30) days. Amend Section 18.08.160. Coverage. lot or site Total area of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, or other solid surfaces that will not allow normal water infiltration to the ground. Up to five percent (5%) of the lot area having porous solid surfaces, such as paths, patios, decks, and similar surfaces is exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Amend Section 18.08.485. Mechanical equipment Equipment or devices installed for a use appurtenant to the primary use. Such equipment shall include heating and air conditioning equipment, solar collectors, parabolic antennas, disc antenna, radio or TV receiving or transmitting antennas, and any power generating devices. Amend Section 18.05.530. Parking Space A space designed and designated to provide parking for a motor vehicle. See Chapter 18.92 for parking standards. Amend Section 18.08.595. Plannina aoplication: olanning action. A planning application is an application, other than an application for legislative amendment, filed pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance. A planning action is a proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not include a ministerial action or a legislative amendment. December 18, 2007 Draft - 2 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.08.650. Setback The horizontal perpendicular distance from a lot line to the closest part of a building or structure that is subject to a setback or yard requirement. Architectural projections may intrude into required setbacks as set forth in Section 18.68.040. When multi-story setbacks are specified, the setback for a story above the ground floor is measured horizontally from the lot line to the plane of the nearest wall of the upper story. Amend Section 18.08.740. Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top floor and the ceiling above. A basement shall not be considered a story. If the wall face of the upper most floor at the rear or side yard setback line is more than three (3) feet above the floor level below, the upper floor shall be considered a story for purposes of setbacks. Unenclosed decks, porches, balconies and similar features are not considered stories. Amend Section 18.08.750. Structure or buildino That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures thirty (30) inches in height or less, including entry stairs, uncovered porches, patios and similar structures, are exempt from the side and rear yard setback requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. Amend Section 18.08.795. Traveler's Accommodations Any establishment in a residential zone having rooms or dwellings rented or kept for rent to travelers or transients for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for rental or use of such facilities for a period of less than thirty (30) days. Amend Section 18.08.830. Yard An open space on a lot which is unobstructed by a structure. ADD the following definitions: Accessory residential unit A second dwelling unit either attached to a single family dwelling or located on the same lot with a single family dwelling and having an independent means of access. Basement That portion of a building with a floor-to-ceiling height of not less than six and a half (6.5) feet and where fifty percent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls are less than six (6) feet above natural grade and does not exceed twelve (12) feet above finished grade at any point. Floor area, gross habitable The total area of all floors in a dwelling measured to its outside surfaces that are under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above with at least 7' of head room, excluding uninhabitable spaces accessed solely by an exterior door. Floor area, gross December 18, 2007 Draft - 3 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 The total area of all floors in a building measured to the outside surfaces that are under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. Ground FloorThe first floor of a building other than a cellar or basement. Historic District A district identified as historically significant under the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations (e.g. overlay zones). Porch, enclosed/unenclosed Covered porches, exterior balconies, or other similar areas attached to a building and having dimensions of not less than six (6) feet in depth by eight (8) feet in length. "Enclosed" means the porch contains wall(s) that are more than forty-two (42) inches in height measured from finished floor level, for fifty percent (50%) or more of the porch perimeter. "Unenclosed" means the porch contains no such walls, but it may be covered. Porous Solid Surface Porous solid surface is a permeable surface built with an underlying stone reservoir that temporarily stores surface runoff before it infiltrates into the subsoil. Porous solid surfaces include pervious asphalt, pervious concrete, grass or permeable pavers, or decks that allow runoff to infiltrate the subsoil beneath the deck. Reconstruct To re-create or re-assemble a structure or building with a new or replacement structure that re-creates or reproduces its form, shape and location as originally built. Setback, Special The distance between the center line of a street and the special base line setback from which yard measurements are made, measured horizontally and at right angles from said center line. December 18, 2007 Draft - 4 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Story, half A half story is a space under a sloping roof that has the line of intersection of the roof and exterior wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level below and in which space the floor area with head room of five (5) feet or more occupies no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the story directly beneath. 'l" , 'r;.t'_.) 1--'= ~T~tC,.y -L ./'" ~/ .--/.... "'l...od~ A..CCPA .0" Sloping Roof Half Story. If Floor Area "A" is no more than 50% of Floor Area "B" - then "A" is a half story. If the wall face is more than three (3) feet above the floor level below at the rear or side yard setback line, then it shall be considered a full story for purposes of setback measurements. December 18, 2007 Draft - 5 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 2, Amend Chapter 18.12, DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP. Amend Section 18.12.020, Classification of districts For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: Zoning Districts and Overlays Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay Residential - Rural Residential - Single Family Residential - Low Density Multiple Family Residential - High Density Multiple Family Commercial Commercial - Downtown Employment Industrial Woodland Residential SOU - Southern Oregon University Performance Standards (P) - Overlay Detail Site Review Zone Health Care Services Zone North Mountain Neighborhood Residential Overlay Freeway Sign Overlay A RR R-l R-2 R-3 C-l C-l-D E-l M-l WR SOU P DSR HC NM Amend Section 18.12.030, Zoning and Land Use Control Maps A. The location and boundaries of the zoning districts designated in Section 18.12.020, physical and environmental constraints designated in Section 18.62.060, Site Design zones designated in Chapter 18.72 are established as shown on the map entitled "Zoning and Land Use Control Maps of the City of Ashland," dated with the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, and signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and hereafter referred to as the "Zoning and Land Use Control Maps." B. The signed copy of said Zoning and Land Use Control Maps shall be maintained on file in the office of the City Recorder and is made a part of this Title. Section 3, Amend Chapter 18.14, W-R WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.14.030, W-R, add the followina Conditional Uses H. Disc antenna for commercial use. I. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090. J. Temporary uses. K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 4, Amend Chapter 18.16, R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.16.030, R-R, add the followina Conditional Uses December 18, 2007 Draft - 6 - ---.------rr ,---- Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 K. Disc antenna for commercial use. L. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090. M. Temporary uses. N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.16.040. R-R. General Reaulations F. Minimum side yard: There shall be a minimum side yard of six (6) feet, except ten (10) feet along the side yard facing the street on a corner lot. G. Minimum rear yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard of ten (10) feet plus ten (10) feet for each story in excess of one (1) story. Section 5, Amend Chapter 18.20, R-l SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.20.030. R-l, Conditional Uses J. Disc antenna for commercial use. K. Dwellings in the Historic District exceeding the maximum permitted floor area pursuant to Section 18.20.040. L. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090. M. Temporary uses. N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 6, Amend Chapter 18.22, R-1-3.5 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.22.030. R-1-3.5. Conditional Uses H. Disc antenna for commercial use. 1. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090. J. Temporary uses. K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.22.040. R-1-3.5. General Regulations A. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, except that a lot three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet or larger may be created when the lot contains an existing single-family residence which meets setback, density, and lot coverage requirements.. Variances under this Section are subject to Type I procedures. Section 7, Amend Chapter 18.24, R-2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT December 18, 2007 Draft - 7 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.24.030. R-2. Conditional Uses 1. Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District approved by the City Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600) sq. ft. in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (1) half (112) time employee (up to twenty-five (25) hours per week). Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The street shall be a fully improved street of residential City standards or greater. K. Traveler's accommodations, subject to the following: 6. Transfer of business-ownership of a traveler's accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveler's accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. L. Hostels. M. Disc antenna for commercial use. N. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090. O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a designated Historic District which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), subject to the general regulations set forth in Section 18.24.040. P. Temporary uses. Q. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. December 18, 2007 Draft - 8 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.24.040. R-2. General ReQulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions. 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the following standards and exceptions: a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements, provided the unit is not greater than fifty percent (50%) of the gross habitable floor area of the single family residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area. b. Units not considered as an accessory residential unit and less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations. c. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. d. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. e. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. except as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within an Historic District shall be determined by the following: 1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions created within an Historic District. The MPFA shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the building(s), including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. December 18, 2007 Draft - 9 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 8, Amend Chapter 18.28, R-3 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.28.030, R-3. Conditional Uses J. Travelers accommodations, subject to the following: 6. Transfer of business-ownership of a travelers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section and conformance with the criteria of this section. All travelers accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business- ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. L. Hostels. M. Disc antenna for commercial use. N. Enlargement, extension, reconstruction, substitution, structural alteration or reactivation of nonconforming uses and structures pursuant to Section 18.68.090. O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a designated Historic District which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), subject to the general regulations set forth in Section 18.28.040. P. Temporary uses. Q. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.28.040. R-3. General ReQulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-3 zone shall be 20.0 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the following standards and exceptions: a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements provided the unit is not greater than fifty percent (50%) of the gross habitable floor area of the single family residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area. b. Units not considered as an accessory residential unit and less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations. c. Minimum lot area for less than two (2) units shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80' d. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6,500 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. e. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 8000 sq. ft. except as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family December 18, 2007 Draft - 10 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 primary dwellings on individual lots within an Historic District shall be determined by the following: 1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions created within an Historic District. The MPFA shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the building(s), including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. Section 9, Amend Chapter 18.30, NM NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD Amend Section 18.30.020. NM General ReQulations A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. Land uses, streets, alleys and pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in accordance with those shown on the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2800. 2.d. The proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries. E. Density Transfer. Density transfer within a project from one overlay to another may be approved if it can be shown that the proposed density transfer furthers the design and access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a variety of residential unit sizes, types and architectural styles. Amend Section 18.30.030. NM-C Neighborhood Central Overlay G. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be seventy-five (75) percent. December 18, 2007 Draft - 11 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.30.040, NM-MF Neiqhborhood Core Overlav C. 1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to five (5) feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six (6) feet and a minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front building facade and twenty (20) feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent (50%) of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space, five (5) feet for each additional story, and ten (10) feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three (3) foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. Amend Section 18.30.050. NM-R-1-5 Neiqhborhood General Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to five (5) feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six (6) feet and a minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front building facade and twenty (20) feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent (50%) of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space, five (5) feet for each additional story, and ten (10) feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three (3) foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. F. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50%). Amend Section 18.30.060. NM-R-1-7.5 Neighborhood Edge Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to five (5) feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six (6) feet and a minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front building facade and twenty (20) feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent (50%) of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of five (5) feet for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space, five (5) feet for each additional story, and ten (10) feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three (3) foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. G. Lot Coveraae: Maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent (45%). Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-l RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.32.025. C-l Special Permitted Uses December 18, 2007 Draft - 12 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. E. Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows: 1. Drive-up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only, and only in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. 2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria: Amend Section 18.32.030. C-1 Conditional Uses J. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. K. Structures which are greater than forty (40) feet in height, but less than fifty-five (55) feet, in the "D" Downtown Overlay District. Section 11, Amend Chapter 18.40, E-l EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT Amend Section 18.40.020. E-1 Permitted Uses O. Wireless Communication Facilities permitted outright pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.40.030. E-1 Special Permitted Uses E. Residential uses. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. Amend Section 18.40.040. E-1 Conditional Uses O. Temporary uses. P. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. December 18, 2007 Draft - 13 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 12, Amend Chapter 18.52, M-l INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.52.030, M-l Conditional Uses E. Temporary uses. P. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 13, Amend Chapter 18.54, HC HEALTH CARE SERVICES ZONE Amend Section 18.54.030. HC Conditional Uses E. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 14, Amend Chapter 18.61, TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION Amend Section 18.61.020. Definitions A. Arborist means a person licensed by the State of Oregon State Landscape Contractors Board or Construction Contractors Board who is certified as an arborist from the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists or a landscape architect licensed by the State of Oregon. D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the trunk, at its maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above ground level at the base of the trunk. On sloped lands, ~he measurement shall be taken on the uphill side of tree. Amend Section 18.61.035. Exempt Tree Removal Activities The following activities are exempt from the requirement for tree removal permits: E. Removal of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school lands, Southern Oregon University, and other public land, excluding Heritage trees. I. Removal of street trees within the public right-of-way subject to street tree removal permits in AMC 13.16. Amend Section 18.61.042. Approval and Permit Required B. TREE REMOVAL - VERIFICATION PERMIT: 2. Verification permits shall be required prior to the issuance of an excavation permit or building permit and prior to any site disturbance and/or storage of materials on the subject property. D. TREE REMOVAL - PERMIT: 1. Tree Removal- Permits are required for the following activities: a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I, or He. b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots (R- 2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family detached dwelling. December 18, 2007 Draft - 14 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential purposes including but not limited to R-I, RR, WR, and NM zones. d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SOU, on lands under the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of Ashland. 2. Applications for Tree Removal - Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.040 (Type I Procedure). If the tree removal is part of another planning action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely filed, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action. Amend Section 18.61.050. Submittal Requirements A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall include: a. Plans drawn to scale containing the number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan of the property. b. The anticipated date of removal or topping. c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping. d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the trees to be removed, and e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or topping have been clearly identified on the property for visual inspection. f. A Tree Protection Plan that includes trees located on the subject site that are not proposed for removal, and any off-site trees where drip lines extend into proposed landscaped areas on the subject site. Such plans shall conform to the protection requirements under Section 18.61.200. g. Any other information reasonably required by the City. Amend Section 18.61.080. Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. B. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and Amend Section 18.61.084. Mitigation Required An applicant shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 1f2-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees may be required where the mitigation is intended, in part, to replace a visual screen between land uses. "Suitable" species means the tree's growth habits and environmental requirements are conducive to the site, given the existing topography, soils, other vegetation, exposure to wind and sun, nearby structures, overhead wires, etc. The tree December 18, 2007 Draft - 15 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. D. An approved mitigation plan shall be fully implemented within one year of a tree being removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal application and approved in the tree removal permit. Amend Section 18.61.092. Exoiration of Tree Removal Permits Tree removal permits shall remain valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance or date of final decision by a hearing body, if applicable. A 30 day extension shall be automatically granted by the Staff Advisor if requested in writing before the expiration of the permit. Permits that have lapsed are void. Trees removed after a tree removal permit has expired shall be considered a violation of this Chapter. Section 15, Amend Chapter 18.62, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Amend Section 18.62.040. Approval and Permit Reauired H. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring a Physical Constraints Review: 1. The plans shall contain the following: a. Project name. b. Vicinity map. c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at the same scale, excluding detail drawings. The Staff Advisor may authorize different scales and plan sheet sizes for projects, provided the plans provide sufficient information to clearly identify and evaluate the application request. Amend Section 18.62.050. Land Classifications The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them: A. Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. All land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal Flood Insurance Program, and in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Amend Section 18.62.070. Development Standards for Flood olain Corridor Lands For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the International Building Code and International Residential Code, where applicable. G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or supported by pillars that December 18, 2007 Draft - 16 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian vegetation, and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Amend Section 18.62.080. Develooment Standards for Hillside Lands B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to the International Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this Title. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform to the following requirements: 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see 18.61.200) b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. Section 16, Amend Chapter 18.64, SO-SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY (SOU) DISTRICT Amend Section 18.64.010. Puroose This distric;t is designed to provide for the unique needs of SOU as a State educational institution functioning within the planning framework of the City. It can be applied to all areas now or hereinafter owned by the State of Oregon acting by and through the State Board of Higher Education and Southern Oregon University and located within the SOU boundary, as shown on the SOU Comprehensive Plan, adopted by SOU and approved by the City. Amend Section 18.64.020. Permitted Uses December 18, 2007 Draft - 17 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 A. Uses permitted outright are all those which are directly related to the educational functions of SOU, provided that such uses are indicated and located in conformance with the adopted and City approved SOU Comprehensive Plan, and are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property. B. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.64.010, Conditional Uses A. Any use, site design, or construction or alteration of same not agreed upon in advance by the City and SOU in the SOU Plan. B. Any use, site design, or construction within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned property. C. Any construction over forty (40) feet in height. D. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.64.010, General Regulations This Chapter, together with the Site Review, Sign and Off-Street Parking Chapters of this Title, are the only portions of the Title to be effective within the SOU zone, except for areas within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned land, which are subject to the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits. In addition, the creation or vacation of public streets or public ways shall be subject to mutual agreement between the City and SOU and all other applicable laws. Section 17, Amend Chapter 18.68, GENERAL REGULATIONS Amend Section 18.68.040. Yard Reauirements All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest projection. Architectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into required yards. Amend Section 18.68.090. Nonconforming Uses and Structures A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows: 1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(B and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the use is changed to a permitted use within the zoning district. 2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(B and C), a nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or the footprint modified, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title. 3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitated if it is not changed in size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not changed except if in conformance with the procedures of Section 18.68.090.A.l above. December 18, 2007 Draft - 18 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal maintenance and repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting public safety. 5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be restored only if the damage was not intentionally caused by the property owner and the nonconformity is not increased. Any residential structure(s), including multiple-family, in a residential zone damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost by a catastrophe, such as fire that is not intentionally caused by the owner, may be reconstructed at the original density provided the reconstruction is commenced within 2 years after the catastrophe. B. Discontinuance. If the nonconforming use of a building structure, or premises ceases for a period of twelve (12) months or more, said use shall be considered abandoned; and said building, structure, or premises shall thereafter be used only for uses permitted in the district in which it is located. Discontinuance shall not include a period of active reconstruction following a fire or other result of natural hazard; and the Planning Commission may extend the discontinuance period in the event of special unique unforeseen circumstances. C. Reactivation. A non-conforming use, which has been abandoned for a period of less than six (6) months may be reactivated to an equivalent or more restricted use through the Conditional Use and Site Review process. In evaluating whether or not to permit the reactivation of a non-conforming use, the Planning Commission, in addition to using the criteria required for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, shall also use the following additional criteria: 1. That any improvements for the reactivation of the non-conforming use on the site shall be less than fifty (50%) percent of the value of the structure. The value of the structure shall be determined by by an independent real estate appraiser licensed in the State of Oregon. The value of the improvement shall be determined based upon copies of the contractor's bid for said improvements, which shall be required with the Conditional Use permit application. Personal property necessary for the operation of the business or site improvements not included in the structure shall not be counted as improvements under this criterion. Amend Section 18.68.110. Front Yard-General Exceotion A. If there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with front or side yards abutting a public street with less than the required setback for the district, the front yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures. B. If there is a dwelling or accessory building on one (1) abutting lot with a front yard of less than the required depth for the district, the front yard need not exceed a depth one- half (Y2) way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required front yard depth. C. The front yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet on hillside lots where the terrain has an average steepness equal to, or exceeding a one (1) foot rise or fall in four (4) feet of horizontal distance within the entire required yard, said vertical rise or fall to be measured from the natural ground level at the property line. Amend Section 18.68.140. Accessory Buildinas. Structures and Mechanical Eauioment Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: December 18, 2007 Draft - 19 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 C. Mechanical equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical equipment and associated enclosures, no taller than allowed fence heights, may be located within required side or rear yards, provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, including but not limited to noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to an accessory residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Title for accessory residential units, including any required planning action and/or site review. Amend Section 18.68.160. Drivewav Grades. Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with City of Ashland standards and installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. If required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision clearance standards associated with driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to the Variance section of this title. Section 18, Amend Chapter 18.72, SITE DESIGN REVIEW Amend Section 18.72.030. Aoolicability Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. ADDlicabilitv. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial. Industrial. Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-l, E-l, HC and M zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which affect circulation. e. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. f. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. December 18, 2007 Draft - 20 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential developments when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). B. ExemDtions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on anyone lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a, b, c) above or (e) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. Amend Section 18.72.040. Approval Process Development subject to site design review shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.108. Amend Section 18.72.050. Detail Site Review Zone A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.080. B. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards: December 18, 2007 Draft - 21 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 1. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. 2. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. 3. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint alld in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. 4. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. C. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. Amend Section 18.72.060. Plans Reauired The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the project's compliance with this Chapter: A site plan containing the following: C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.) The Staff Advisor may authorize different scales and plan sheet sizes for projects, provided the plans provide sufficient information to clearly identify and evaluate the application request. Amend Section 18.72.080. Site Design Standards C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No's. 2690, 2800, 2825 and 2900, shall be applied as follows: 1. The Multi-family Residential Development Standards in Section II.B. shall be applied to the construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.). 2. The Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development standards in Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.) 4'cAdd Section 18.72.105. Expiration of Site Design Review Aoproval Site design review approval granted under this Chapter shall expire if no building permit or public improvement plan for the project has been approved by the City within twelve (12) months of site design review approval. December 18, 2007 Draft - 22 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.72.120, Controlled access A. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth in s'ection (B) below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. B. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet. C. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. 1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited. Amend Section 18.72.170, Development Standards for Disc Antennas B. Development Standards. All disc antennas shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 2. Disc antennas exceeding one (1) meter in diameter shall not be permitted on the roof, except where there is no other location on the lot which provides access to receiving or transmitting signals. In no case shall any part of any antenna be located more than ten feet above the apex of the roof surface. Antennas mounted on the roof shall be located in the least visible location as viewed from adjacent right-of- ways, and residential structures in residential zones. Amend Section 18.72.180. Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Attached to Alternative Freestanding Zoning Designations Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones1 CUP Prohibited Prohibited 1 Only allowed on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section in residential zoning districts, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast, or tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. December 18, 2007 Draft - 23 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 C-l CUP CUP Prohibited C-l-D (Downtown)(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-l - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-l Site Review Site Review CUP M-l Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic Districe CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-l (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited 2 Permitted on pre-existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet in the Downtown Commercial district. Prohibited in all other districts within the Historic District, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan December 18, 2007 Draft - 24 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 19, Amend Chapter 18.76, PARTITIONS Delete Section 18.76.040. Administrative Preliminary Approval Amend Section 18.76.050. Preliminary Approval An application for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist: Amend Section 18.76.060. Preliminary Approval of Flaa Partitions Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length when taking the following factors into consideration: 1. Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. 2. Physical constraints such as slope, significant trees, cuts and fills. 3. Transportation layout and traffic impacts. 4. Number of units served by the flag drive. Add Section 18.76.075. Expiration of Preliminary Partition Plan December 18, 2007 Draft - 25 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Preliminary partition plans approved under this Chapter shall expire if a final partition plat has not been approved by the City within eighteen (18) months of preliminary plan approval. Section 20, Amend Chapter 18.88, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS Amend Section 18.88.050. Street Standards E. Street Grade. Street grades measured at the street centerline for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be as follows: 1. Street and private drive grades in Performance Standards Developments shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. No variance may be granted to this section for public streets. Variances may be granted for private drives for grades in excess of 15% but not greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Private drives serving structures greater than 24' in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20' by 40' within 50' of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. Private drives and work areas shall be deemed Fire Lanes and subject to all requirements thereof. When required by the Oregon Fire Code, private drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines as provided in 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length when taking the following factors into consideration: 1. Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. 2. Physical constraints such as slope, significant trees, cuts and fills. 3. Transportation layout and traffic impacts. 4. Number of units served by the flag drive. Section 21, Amend Chapter 18.92, PARKING Amend Section 18.92.070. Parking A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty-two (22) feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. D. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. . December 18, 2007 Draft - 26 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 22, Amend Chapter 18.96, SIGN REGULATIONS Amend Section 18.96.070, Residential and North Mountain Siqn Regulations Signs in the residential (R) and North Mountain (NM) districts shall conform to the following regulations: B. Type of Signs Permitted. 4. North Mountain Signs. Signs for approved non-residential uses within the NM- R15, NM-C and NM Civic zones shall be permitted one ground sign not exceeding an overall height of five feet and an area of fifteen square feet, set back at least ten feet from property lines; or one wall or awning sign in lieu of a ground sign. Said signs shall not use plastic as part of the exterior visual effect and shall not be internally illuminated. Amend Section 18.96.150, Governmental Signs. Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use to place a sign that does not conform to this Code when it is determined that, in addition to the criteria for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to further that agency's public purpose. Section 23, Amend Chapter 18.108, PROCEDURES Amend Section 18.108.015. Pre-Apolication Conference An applicant shall request a pre-application conference prior to submitting an application for a Type I, II or III planning action or an Expedited Land Division. The purpose of the conference shall be to acquaint the applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Land Use Ordinance, provide for an exchange of information regarding applicable elements of the comprehensive plan and development requirements and to identify policies and regulations that create opportunities or pose significant constraints for the proposed development. The Staff advisor is authorized to waive pre-application conference requirements and to create procedures which allow for electronic or other alternative forms of conferences. Amend Section 18.108.017, Aoolications A. In order to initiate a planning action, a complete application shall be submitted to the Planning Department as set forth below. 1. Complete applications shall include: a. All of the required information for the specific action requested, b. Written findings of fact, c. Complete and signed application form. The application must be signed by one or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, or their authorized agents. The application shall not be considered complete unless it is accompanied by the appropriate application fee. 2. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The City will inform the applicant of deficiencies within 30 days of application. The applicant then has 31 days in which to provide a complete application. The City will begin the appropriate application procedure when the application is deemed complete, or at the end of the 31 day period. December 18, 2007 Draft - 27 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. The Staff Advisor is authorized to set standards and procedures for application submittal requirements, including the number and type of applications required (e.g. hard and/or electronic copies), size and format of applications (e.g. paper size and electronic format), and dates when applications can be received. The Staff Advisor shall make the requirements for application submittals readily available to the public to review. B. All applicants for Types I, II and III planning actions shall have completed a pre- application conference for the project within a 6-month time period preceding the filing of the application. This requirement may be waived by the Staff Advisor if in the Staff Advisor's opinion the information to be gathered in a pre-application conference already exists in the final application. Amend Section 18.108.020. Types of Procedures. There are three general types of procedures: 1) ministerial actions; 2) planning actions, and 3) legislative amendments. When a project proposal involves more than one application and more than one type of procedure, the applications shall be reviewed together by the same decision body and follow the highest level procedure applying to any one of the applications. A. Ministerial Actions. The Staff Advisor shall have the authority to review and approve or deny the following matters which shall be ministerial actions: 1. Final subdivision plat approval. (18.80.050) 2. Final partition map approval. (18.76.120) 4. Minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions. 5. Boundary line adjustments. (18.76.140) 6. Zoning permits. (18.112.010) 7. Sign permits. (18.96.050) 8. Home occupation permits. (18.94.130) 9. Extension of time limits for approved planning actions (18.112.030). 10. Mechanical equipment exempt from Site Review. 11. Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling units into for-purchase housing. B. Planning Actions. All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the four following procedures: 1. Type I Procedure 2. Type II Procedure 3. Type III Procedure 4. Expedited Land Divisions C. Legislative Amendments. Legislative amendments shall be subject to the procedures established in section 18.108.170. ADD Section 18.108.025. Consolidated Review Procedures An applicant may apply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project. The consolidated procedure shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 227.178. The consolidated procedure shall follow the most restrictive procedure in the development project. Amend Section 18.108.030. Expedited Land Divisions A. Applicability. 1. An expedited land division is an action that: December 18, 2007 Draft - 28 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 a. Includes land that is zoned for residential uses. b. Is solely for the purposes of residential use, including recreational or open space uses accessory to residential use. c. Does not provide for dwellings or accessory buildings to be located on land that is specifically mapped and designated for full or partial protection of natural features that protect open spaces, physical and environmental constraints per Chapter 18.62, riparian corridors, wetlands, designated historic districts or structures. d. Meets minimum standards in the Street Standards Handbook and Section 18.88.050. e. Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80 percent (80%) or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site. 2. A land division that creates three or fewer parcels under ORS 92.010 and ALUO 18.76. 3. An expedited land division as described in this section is not a land use decision or a limited land use decision under ORS 197.015 or a permit under ORS 227.160. 4. All requirements outlined in Chapter 18.76 apply to expedited land divisions except for those provisions modified within this section. B. Procedure and Notice Requirements. 1. Application Completeness. a. If the application for expedited land division is incomplete, the Staff Advisor shall notify the applicant of exactly what information is missing within 21 days of receipt of the application and allow the applicant to submit the missing information. For purposes of computation of time under this section, the application shall be deemed complete on the date the applicant submits the requested information or refuses in writing to submit it. b. If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the requested additional information within 180 days of the date the application was first submitted, approval or denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first su bm itted. 2. The city shall provide written notice of the receipt of the completed application for an expedited land division to any state agency, local government or special district responsible for providing public facilities or services to the development and to owners of property within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application is made. The notification list shall be compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll. For purposes of appeal to the referee under ORS 197.375, this requirement shall be deemed met when the local government can provide an affidavit or other certification that such notice was given. Notice shall also be provided to any neighborhood or community planning organization recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site. 3. The notice required under subsection (2) of this section shall: a. State: i. The deadline for submitting written comments; ii. That issues that may provide the basis for an appeal to the referee must be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment period; and iii. That issues must be raised with sufficient specificity to enable the local government to respond to the issue. b. Set forth, by commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for the decision. c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. d. State the place, date and time that comments are due. December 18, 2007 Draft - 29 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 e. State a time and place where copies of all evidence submitted by the applicant will be available for review. f. Include the name and telephone number of a local government contact person. g. Briefly summarize the local decision-making process for the expedited land division decision being made. 4. After notice under subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the city shall: a. Provide a 14-day period for submission of written comments prior to the decision. b. Make a decision to approve or deny the application within 63 days of receiving a completed application, based on whether it satisfies the substantive requirements of the local government's land use regulations. An approval may include conditions to ensure that the application meets the applicable land use regulations. For applications subject to this section, the city: i. Shall not hold a hearing on the application; and ii. Shall issue a written determination of compliance or noncompliance with applicable land use regulations that includes a summary statement explaining the determination. The summary statement may be in any form reasonably intended to communicate the local government's basis for the determination. c. Provide notice of the decision to the applicant and to those who received notice under subsection (2) of this section within 63 days of the date of a completed application. The notice of decision shall include: i. The summary statement described in paragraph (b)(ii) of this subsection; and ii. An explanation of appeal rights under ORS 197.375 C. Appeals 1. An appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365 shall be made as follows: a. An appeal must be filed with the local government within 14 days of mailing of the notice of the decision under ORS 197.365 (4), and shall be accompanied by a $300 deposit for costs. b. A decision may be appealed by: i. The applicant; or ii. Any person or organization who files written comments in the time period established under ORS 197.365. c. An appeal shall be based solely on allegations: i. Of violation of the substantive provisions of the applicable land use regulations; ii. Of unconstitutionality of the decision; iii. That the application is not eligible for review under ORS 197.360 to 197.380 and should be reviewed as a land use decision or limited land use decision; or iv. That the parties' substantive rights have been substantially prejudiced by an error in procedure by the local government. 2. The city shall appoint a referee to decide the appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. The referee shall not be an employee or official of the local government. The City Administrator is authorized to hire, under contract on an as needed basis, a referee to decide such appeals. If the city has designated a hearings officer under ORS 227.165, the City Administrator may designate the hearings officer as the referee for appeals of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. 3. Within seven days of being appointed to decide the appeal, the referee shall notify the applicant, the local government, the appellant if other than the applicant, any person or organization entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) that provided written comments to the local government and all providers of public facilities and services entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) and advise them of the manner in which they may participate in the appeal. A person or organization that provided written comments to the local government but did not file an appeal under December 18, 2007 Draft - 30 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 subsection (1) of this section may participate only with respect to the issues raised in the written comments submitted by that person or organization. The referee may use any procedure for decision-making consistent with the interests of the parties to ensure a fair opportunity to present information and argument. The referee shall provide the local government an opportunity to explain its decision, but is not limited to reviewing the local government decision and may consider information not presented to the local government. 4. Referee Decision. a. The referee shall apply the substantive requirements of the local government's land use regulations and ORS 197.360. If the referee determines that the application does not qualify as an expedited land division as described in ORS 197.360, the referee shall remand the application for consideration as a land use decision or limited land use decision. In all other cases, the referee shall seek to identify means by which the application can satisfy the applicable requirements. b. The referee may not reduce the density of the land division application. The referee shall make a written decision approving or denying the application or approving it with conditions designed to ensure that the application satisfies the land use regulations, within 42 days of the filing of an appeal. The referee may not remand the application to the local government for any reason other than as set forth in this subsection. 5 Unless the governing body of the local government finds exigent circumstances, a referee who fails to issue a written decision within 42 days of the filing of an appeal shall receive no compensation for service as referee in the appeal. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the referee shall order the city to refund the deposit for costs to an appellant who materially improves his or her position from the decision of the local government. The referee shall assess the cost of the appeal in excess of the deposit for costs, up to a maximum of $500, including the deposit paid under subsection (1) of this section, against an appellant who does not materially improve his or her position from the decision of the local government. The local government shall pay the portion of the costs of the appeal not assessed against the appellant. The costs of the appeal include the compensation paid the referee and costs incurred by the local government, but not the costs of other parties. D. Effective Date of Decision. Unless appealed within 14 days of mailing a notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. Amend Section 18.108.040. Type I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Proced u re: 1. Site Desian Review. The following developments that are subject to the Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I permit procedures. a. Downtown Design Standards Zone. Any development which is less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less. b. Detail Site Review. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone, as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72, which is less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. c. Commercial. Industrial and Non-residential Uses i. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones, not within the Downtown Design Standards zone, that do not require new building area in excess of 20% of an existing building's square footage or 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less. December 18, 2007 Draft - 31 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 ii. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less iii. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters circulation affecting adjacent property or public right-of- way. iv. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. v. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. vi. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. d. Residential i. Two or more residential units on a single lot. ii. All new structures or additions less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, other than single-family homes or accessory uses on individual lots iii. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. iv. Off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). v. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Miscellaneous Actions. a. Amendment or modification to conditions of approval for Type I planning actions. b. Amendment or modification to conditions of approval for Type II actions where the modification involves only changes to tree removal and/or building envelope. c. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62. d. Tree removal permits as required by Section 18.61.042(0). 3. Conditional Use Permits. The following conditional use permits are subject to Type I review procedures: a. Conditional use permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than three (3) residential dwelling units b. Temporary uses. c. Enlargement, expansion, etc. of nonconforming structures in accordance with 18.68.090(2). d. Government signs per Section 18.96.150. e. The following uses in Residential zones: i. Accessory residential units ii. Daycare centers. iii. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses less than 2,500 square feet in building footprint and disturbs less than 7,500 square feet of land. iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone. v. All new structures, additions or expansions that exceed MPFA in historic district up to 25%, but the addition is no larger than 300 sJ. or 10% of the existing floor area, whichever is less. vi. Hostels. vii. Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone. viii.Community Services in the NM-R15 zone. December 18, 2007 Draft - 32 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 f. The following uses in Commercial or Industrial zones: i. Electrical substations ii. Outdoor storage of commodities. g. The following uses in the Health Care Services Zone: i. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as beauticians and masseurs. ii. Professional offices for an accountant, architect, attorney, designer, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor. iii. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property that is not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan. h. Conditional uses in the Southern Oregon University District. 4. Variances for: a. Sign placement. b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in section 18.96.130.D. c. Up to 50% reduction of standard yard requirements. d. Parking in setback areas. e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. f. Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area. g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. h. Up to 20% reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described in section 18.92.055. j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in section 18.72.090. 5. Partitions and Land Divisions. a. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type I procedures. b. Creation of a private way, as allowed in section 18.80.030.B. c. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. 6. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. 7. Prior to the Staff Advisor providing notice of application and making a decision, applicants or the Staff Advisor may request planning actions subject to a Type I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearings Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Hearings Board to be heard as provided in section 18.108.050. B. Notice of Application. 1. Within 10 days of the city's determination that an application is complete, but no less than 20 days before the Staff Advisor makes a decision, written notice of the application shall be mailed to all of the following: a. Applicant. b. Owners of the subject property. c. Owners of properties located within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subject property. d. Neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized by the city council that includes the area of the subject property. e. For final partitions, final subdivisions, and final Outline Plans, to interested parties of record from the tentative decision. f. For modification applications, to persons who requested notice of the original application that is being modified. 2. The written notice shall include all of the following: December 18, 2007 Draft - 33 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 a. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. b. The applicable criteria for the decision, listed by commonly used citation. c. The place, date, and time that comments are due. d. A statement that copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for review, and can be obtained at cost. e. A statement that issues that may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals must be raised in writing and with sufficient specificity to enable the decision maker to respond to the issue. f. The name and phone number of a city contact person. g. A brief summary of the local decision making process for the decision being made. 3. Posted Notice. A notice shall be posted on the subject property in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way. Posting shall occur no later than the date of mailing notice of application. 3. Notices shall allow a 14-day period for the submission of written comments, starting from the date of mailing. All comments must be received by the city within that 14- day period. C. Decision. Within 45 days of the city's determination that an application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, the Staff Advisor shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Type I application. D. Notice of Decision. 1 Within 5 days after the Staff Advisor renders a decision, the city shall mail notice of the decision to the following: a. Applicant. b. Owner and occupants of the subject property. c. Neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized by the city that includes the area of the subject property. d. Any group or individual who submitted written comments during the comment period. e. Those groups or individuals who requested notice of the decision. f. Property owners and occupants of property located within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subject property. 2. The notice shall include all of the following: a. A description of the nature of the decision of the Staff Advisor. b. An explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses which could be authorized. c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. d. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained. e. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. f. A statement that any person who was mailed a written notice of the Staff Advisor's decision may request reconsideration or appeal as provided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2). g. A statement that the Staff Advisor's decision will not become final until the period for filing a local appeal has expired. h. An explanation that a person who is mailed written notice of the Staff Advisor's decision cannot appeal directly to LUBA. December 18, 2007 Draft - 34 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. Unless the decision is reconsidered or appealed according to the procedures in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2), the Staff Advisor's decision is effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed. Amend Section 18.108.050. Type II Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type II Procedure: 1. All Conditional Use Permits not subject to a Type I procedure. 2. All variances not subject to the Type I procedure. 3. Outline Plan for subdivisions under the Performance Standard Options (AMC Chapter 18.88). 4. Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code (AMC Chapter 18.80). 5. Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance Standard Options not requiring Outline Plan approval. 6. Any appeal of a Staff Advisor decision, including a Type I Planning Action or Interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Code. 7. Any other planning action not designated as subject to the Type I or III Procedure. B. Time Limits, Notice and Hearing Requirements. Applications subject to the Type II Procedure shall be processed as follows: 1. The Staff Advisor, acting under the authority of ORS 227.165, may hold an initial evidentiary hearing on Type II applications once they are deemed complete. The Staff Advisor shall transmit copies of the record developed at the hearing to the Commission for additional public hearing, deliberation and decision. The Staff Advisor is not authorized to make decisions on Type II applications. 2. Complete applications shall be heard at a regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the complete application. 3. Notice of the hearing mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. 4. Public hearing(s) shall be held before the Commission and/or Staff Advisor in accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100. Amend Section 18.108.060. Type III Procedures A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be processed as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in 18.108.100. 2. The Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. December 18, 2007 Draft - 35 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in section 18,108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Amend Section 18.108.070. Effective Date of Decision and Appeals. A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and are not subject to appeal. B. Actions subject to appeal: 1. Expedited Land Divisions. Unless appealed within 14 days of mailing a notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed unless reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(c). b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning actions as set forth below. i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Planning Director that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the director, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Planning Director shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. iii. If the Planning Director is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Director shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Planning Director shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Director shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. iv. If the Director is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Director shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. ADDeal. i. Within twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Planning Director's final decision, including any approved reconsideration request, the decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any party entitled to receive notice of the planning action. The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the City Administrator, be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action, and be received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12th day after the notice of decision is mailed. ii. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. The fee required in this section shall not December 18, 2007 Draft - 36 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. iii. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearing required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board decision on appeal shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. iv. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Commission shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Commission on Type I Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair and mailed to the parties. 3. Type II Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless reconsideration of the action is authorized as provided in Section (b) below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A. b. Reconsideration. i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the Planning Commission final decision has been made by providing evidence to the Planning Director that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the director, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Planning Director shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. iii. If the Planning Director is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Director shall schedule reconsideration with notice to participants of the matter before the Planning Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Reconsideration shall be limited to the portion of the decision affected by the facts not raised during the open public hearing and record. iv. Regardless of who files the request for reconsideration, if the applicant has not consented to an extension of the time limits (120 day rule) as necessary to render a decision on the reconsideration, the reconsideration shall be denied by the director. v. The Planning Commission shall decide to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The Planning Commission Secretary shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. c. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council on Type II Planning actions, effective December 18, 2007 Draft - 37 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.l and 2, the decision of the Commission shall be the final decision of the City resulting from the Type III Planning Procedure, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A. The final decision shall be effective 13 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.3 and 4, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 5. The City Council may call up any planning action for a decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required appeal period. Unless the planning action is appealed and a public hearing is required, the City Council review of the Planning Action is limited to the record and public testimony is not allowed. The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, or may remand the decision to the Planning Commission for additional consideration if sufficient time is permitted for making a final decision of the city. The City Council shall make findings and conclusions and cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties of the planning action. C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until the decision is final, as defined in this section. Amend Section 18.108.080. Public Hearing Notice Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor, Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to: 1. The applicant or authorized agent, 2. The subject property owner, and 3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property. C. Posted Notice. A notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the city in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. Failure by the city to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The city shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information: planning action number, brief description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at Ashland Planning Department. F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not mail the notice required in 9 18.108; Amend Section 18.108.110. Aopeal to Council A. Appeals of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in Section 18.108.060.A.l and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. The appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110 must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. December 18, 2007 Draft - 38 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural i rreg u la rity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. The appeal shall be based solely "on the record" established before the Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be subject to a public hearing and additional evidence. However, if in the determination of the City Administrator that a factual error occurred or additional substantive information might affect the outcome of the decision, the City Council may accept additional testimony limited to these facts and information as set forth in a notice of appeal. The Council, or the Mayor in the absence of Council rules, will set forth the procedure for the conduct of "on the record" appeals. 5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Amend Section 18.108.160. Ordinance Interpretations A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is clear doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the planning director is authorized to interpret this land use code and decisions issued pursuant to this land use code. Any person may request an interpretation by submitting such request on a written form approved by the city administrator and accompanied by a fee established by the city council. Within twenty (20) days of receipt of the written request, the planning director shall make a written interpretation and mail or deliver a copy to the party requesting the interpretation, the Planning Commission and City Council. Appeals of these interpretations shall be heard by the Planning Commission in the manner set out in ALUO 18.108.050. B. The Planning Director may refer the interpretation request directly to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. C. Neither the Planning Director's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and December 18, 2007 Draft - 39 - Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. D. Unless the Planning Commission by majority vote chooses to review the interpretation of the Planning Director, or the interpretation is appealed pursuant to Section 18.108.160(A), or the City Council directs the Planning Commission to review the interpretation, the interpretation decision is final. Upon review, the Planning Commission shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Section 24, Amend Chapter 18.112, ENFORCEMENT Amend Section 18.112.030. Revocation--permit expiration Any zoning permit or planning action granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used within one year from date of approval, unless another time period is specified in another section of this Title. Said permit shall not be deemed used until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. The Staff Advisor may grant an extension of the approval under the following conditions: 1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed. 2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completed the development within the original time limitation. 3. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, if requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such changes. Amend Section 18.112.040. Revocation-conditions violated Any zoning permit or planning action granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such permit or variance are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. December 18, 2007 Draft - 40 - FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE HARD-COPY PACKET DELIVERED 12/7/07 BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR SEE E-MAIL PACKET SENT 12/7/07 BY BILL MOLNAR. IF YOU NEED ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL! THANKS! -DIANA 552-2100 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: 1217/2007 TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Council Bill Molnar, Community Development Dired5r:':-t;L,-\.... Upcoming December 18th Council meeting and public hearing concerning Land Use Ordinance Amendments - AMC Chapter 18 RE: On the evening of December 18th, 2007, a public hearing will be held to evaluate possible amendments to Ashland's Land Use Ordinance. Given the nature and content of the information, Staff has prepared a packet in advance in order to enable Council members an earlier opportunity to review the proposed changes. This latest draft (Planning Commission Draft 3) includes some additional technical corrections added after the Planning Commission review. In Staff's opinion, these changes do not alter the substantive recommendation of the Planning Commission, but are important for clarity. These changes are identified in the document by the comments in the right margin. A more in depth Council Communication and staff report will be provided to the Mayor and Council next week. I would encourage anyone with questions regarding the proposed changes to feel free to contact or meet with me to discuss the amendments. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~.t. , CITY OF AS H LAN D PLANNING ACTION 2007-01283 TABLE OF CONTENTS PLANNING ACTION: #2007-01283 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance implementing portions of the recommendations in the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land use decision making procedures will be considered. Proposed changes affect the following chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (Title 18): Definitions, Districts and Zoning Map, Woodland Residential District, Rural Residential District, Single-Family Residential District, Suburban Residential District, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District, High Density Multiple Family, North Mountain Neighborhood, Retail Commercial District Employment District, Health Care Services Zone, Tree Preserwtion and Protection, Physical and Environmental Constraints, Southern Oregon University District, General Regulations, Site Design Review, Partitions, Parking, Sign Regulations, Procedures and Enforcement. J;!il! 1WD Paae # 12/18/2007 Proposed Land Use Code Revisions 1-45 12/18/2007 Maps 46-49 10/23/2007 Planning Commission Meeting 10/23/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 50-52 10/15/2007 Planning Commission Land Use Ordinance Committee 10/15/2007 Memo to Planning Commission from land Use Ordinance Committee with Final Recommendations 53 10/15/2007 City Council Study Session 10/15/2007 Council Minutes 54-56 land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments -PowerPoint Presentation 57-65 10/412007 Planning Commission Special Meeting & Presentation 10/4/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 66-75 10/4/2007 AlUO Amendments - PowerPoint Presentation 76-80 Written Comments 10/26/2007 letter from Brent Thompson 81-83 Planning Commission Chair. John Strombera 84-90 9/11/2007 Planning Commission Meeting Measure 56 Notice of Public Hearing mailed 8/6/07 91 9/11/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 92-95 9/11/2007 Plannina Department Staff Report 96-116 II Written Comments 9/10/2007 Memo from Bonnie Brodersen 117-118 9/9/2007 E-mail from John Schwendender 119 9/10/2007 E-mail from Dennis Goldstein 120-121 9/7/2007 E-mail from David Stalheim to Dennis Goldstein 122 9/7/2007 Letter from Dennis Goldstein 123-125 9/7/2007 Letter from Michael H. and JacQuelyn Youno 126 8/31/2007 E-mail from Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist 127-128 8/30/2007 E-mail from Mark Knox 129-130 8/28/2007 E-mail from Colin Swales 131 8/23/2007 E-mail from Colin Swales 132-135 8/17/2007 E-mail from Mark Knox 137-140 8/8/2007 E-mail from Maroueritte Hickman, Division Chief/Fire Marshal 141-143 8/5/2007 E-mail from John Fields 144-147 8/2/2007 E-mail from Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner 148-150 8/1/2007 E-mail from Pam Marsh, Planning Commissioner 151 8/1/2007 E-mail from David Stalheim to Plannino Commission 152 8/1/2007 E-mail from David Stalheim to Bryan Holley 153-154 7/31/2007 Planning Commission Soecial Study Session 7/31/2007 Plannino Commission Minutes (Draft) 155-158 Land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments-PowerPoint Presentation 159-166 7/24/2007 Memo from David Stalheim to Planning Commission & Interested 167-177 Parties re: Proposed Amendments to Ashland Land Use Ordinance Written Comments 7/31/2007 Exhibit presented by Art Bullock - "Of the People" 178 7/30/2007 E-mail from Colin Swales 179 PROPOSED LAND USE CODE REVISIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT 3 (With corrections identified by margin comments) DECEMBER 18, 2007 PROPOSED LAND USE CODE REVISIONS Planning Commission Draft 3 (with technical corrections) December 18, 2007 (Proposed deletions are 5tFttek through and proposed additions are underlined.) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1, Amend Chapter 18.08, DEFINmONS...........................................................2 Section 2, Amend Chapter 18.12, DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP. ...................................6 Section 3, Amend Chapter 18.14, W-R WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ....................6 Section 4, Amend Chapter 18.16, R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRlCT.............................7 Section 5, Amend Chapter 18.20, R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ................7 Section 6, Amend Chapter 18.22, R-1-3.5 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRlCT.................7 Section 7, Amend Chapter 18.24, R-2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ............................................................................................. 8 Section 8, Amend Chapter 18.28, R-3 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ........................................................................................... 10 Section 9, Amend Chapter 18.30, NM NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD .................... 11 Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ........................13 Section 11, Amend Chapter 18.40, E-1 EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT ...................................13 Section 12, Amend Chapter 18.52, M-1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ....................................14 Section 13, Amend Chapter 18.54, HC HEALTH CARE SERVICES ZONE ...,......................14 Section 14, Amend Chapter 18.61, TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION................... 14 Section 15, Amend Chapter 18.62, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS........ 16 Section 16, Amend Chapter 18.64, SO-SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY (SOU) DISTRICT ........................................................................................................18 Section 17, Amend Chapter 18.68, GENERAL REGULATIONS ........................................19 Section 18, Amend Chapter 18.72, SITE DESIGN REVIEW...... ............... ...................... 21 Section 19, Amend Chapter 18.76, PARTITIONS ........................................................27 Section 20, Amend Chapter 18.88, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS...................... 28 Section 21, Amend Chapter 18.92, PARKING............................................................. 28 Section 22, Amend Chapter 18.96, SIGN REGULATIONS.............................................. 29 Section 23, Amend Chapter 18.108, PROCEDURES..................................................... 29 Section 24, Amend Chapter 18.112, ENFORCEMENT...................................................45 December 18, 2007 Draft - 1 - / Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 1, Amend Chapter 18.08, DEFINITIONS Amend Section 18.08.090. Boardina--roomina house A dwelling or part thereof, other than a hotel or motel, where lodging with or without meals is provided, for compensation, for three (3) or more persons. for a minimum oeriod of thirty (30) days. Amend Section 18.08.160. Coveraae. lot or site Total area of all strtlettlresbuildinas, oarkina areas. ~riveways, or other solid surfaces sail ElisttlrbaFlees that will not allow normal water infiltration to the around. Uo to five oercent (5%.) ~f the lot area ha~ina oorous solid BeratlS su,",:aces. ~~~h ~: ~:~~~ ~~~si: decks. and similar surfaces. BrevlEleEl the',' allew water iFlfiltratlaFl ta fill tI e p from lot coveraae reauirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site, Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. AfPleFlEl (ReeaElifv) ~eetiaFl 18,98.389. Lat aE:Jlth The hafizaFltal aistaFlee ffefPI the fPliEll'aiFlt af the l'E:ar af lat liFle ta the fPliaBaiFlt af the waFlt ~. Amend Section 18.08.485. Mechanical eauipment Equipment or devices installed for a use appurtenant to the primary use. Such equipment shall include heating and air conditioning equipment, solar collectors, parabolic antennas, disc antenna, radio or TV receiving or transmitting antennas, and any power generating devices. The fellawiFlg eEltlil'fPleFlt ar aeviees are eKeFl'll't: A. Pri late, FleFl eefPIFl'lereial MElia aFlEl tele'/isiaFl aFlteFlFlas flet eKeeeaiflg a height af se'/eFlty (79) feet abe'/e gMEle ar thirty (39) feet abe.,e afl eKistiflg strtlettlfe, 'Il'hiehever height is greater. Ha I'art ef stleh aflteflfla shall be 'I.'ithifl the yarEls reEltlireEl by this Chal'ter. A btlilEliflg I'erfPIit shall be reEltlireEl fer aFl'1 aflteflfla fPlast, ar tawer aver fifty (S9) feet aba'.'e graEle ar thift'; (39) feet abave afl eKist:iflg strtlettlre whefl the safPIe is eaflstrtlet:ea afl the raat at the strtlettlre. B. Parabalie aFlteflflas tlFlEler thl'E:e (3) feet ifl aiafPIeter. Amend Section 18.05.530. ParkinQ 50ace A soace desianed and desianated to orovide oarklna for a motor vehicle. See Chaoter 18.92 for oarkina standards. ^ reetaFlgle Flat less thafl eighteefl (18) feet laflg aFlEl FlIFle (9) feet wiae tagether with aeeess aFlEl Fl'laFletlveriflg sl'aee stlffleieflt te I'erfPIit a staFlElSI'EI atltefPIebile te be I'al'l(eEl withiFl the reetaFlgle withetlt the Fleeessity at Fl'laViFlg ather vehieles, saiEl reetaFlgle ta be laeateEl aft at the street right at "tiay. Amend Section 18.08.595. Plannina aoolication: olanninQ action. A olannina aoolication is an aoolication. other than an aoolicatl~~ for leaislative amendment. filed pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance. A planninQ action is a proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not include a ministerial action or a legislative amendment. December 18, 2007 Draft - 2 - 'I ;'"\ , Comment [ul]: Solid porous was : switched to porous solid for , consistency with the definition of porous solid surface. Repetitive language deleted from second sentence. '. -_.~" ----.----------- -- ----._--,--, ,.. -_..._._.~--~---,._----- --,---~._- , Comment [u2]: Incorrect. : incomplete definition Initially used in ALUO amendment document - existing definition is , sufficient. '.- ---.---------..----- Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.08.650. Setback The horizontal Derpendicular distance from a lot line to the closest Dart of a buildinQ or structure that is sul:l1ect to a setback or vard reauirement. Architectural projections mav intrude into required setbacks as set forth in Section 18.68.040. When multi-storv setbacks are sDecified. the setback for a storY above the around floor is measured horizontallv from the lot line to the Diane of the nearest wall of the UDDer storv. The sistaRee betweeR the eeflter liRe ef a street aRs the sl'eeial base liRe setback we", .....hieh 'fars ",eaStlre",cRts are "'ase, "'eastll'es herizeRaslly aRs at right aflgles fre", said eeflter Iifle. Amend Section 18.08.740. Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top floor and the ceiling above. A basement shall not be considered a story. If the flflisheEl fleer level Elireetl'; abe'..e a base",eflt er cellar is ",ere thaR six (6) feet abe\'e greEle fer ",ere thaR fifty BerfeRt (59%) efthe Beri"'der ef the btlilElifllil, the base",eflt er cellar shall be E:eRsidereEl a ster)'. If the wall face of the UDDer most floor at the rear or side vard setback line is more than three (3) feet above the floor level below. the UDDer floor shall be considered a story for Durooses of setbacks. Unenclosed decks. porches. balconies and similar features are not considered stories. Amend Section 18.08.750. Structure or building That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together In some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures eigl=lteeR thirtY (30) fi8t-inches in height or less. includina entrY stairs. uncovered porche~. Datios and similar structures. are exempt from the side and rear yard setback requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. Amend Section 18.08.795. Traveler's Accommodations Any establishment in a residential zone having rooms or dwellings rented or kept for rent to travelers or transients for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for rental or use of such facilities for a period of less than thirty (30) days. Amend Section 18.08.830. Yard An open space on a lot which is unobstructed by a structure we", the gretlRs t11'v;arEl. ADD the following definitions: Accessory residential unit A second dwellinQ unit either attached to a slnale familv dwelling or located on the same lot with a sinale familv dwellinQ and havinQ an indeDendent means of access. Basement That Dortion of a buildina with a floor-to-ceilina heiaht of not less than six and a half (6.5) feet and where flfty Dercent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls are less than six (6) feet above natural arade and does not exceed twelve (12) feet above finished Qrade at anv ~ 8e!lI!...e.IIt. II. :li.hI: A base",eRt where the btlllsiRliI is sittlates el'l a sieBe al'ld a ~eri"'eter 'Nall ",ere thal'l tweRty (29) feet iR lel'lDth is 6.S feet er ",ere abe.'e l!IIr.!llle. COmment [u3]: Definition is confusing because a daylight basement would also qualify as a basement by definition. ~_.- ---',.~ December 18, 2007 Draft - 3- .3 Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18. 2007 Floor area, gross habitable Th~ total area, of ~II floors in a dwelling measure~ ~o ~~ ~~~S~d~;~:~e~~~t :~~ ~~~~r the hOrizontal pr01ectlon of the roof or floor above ~it r ~~~. r. I uninhabitable soaces accessed solely bv an exterio r. Floor area, gross The total area of all floors in a building measured to the outside surfaces that are under the horizontal orQ~ection of the roof or floor above. Ground Floor The first floor of a buildina other than a cellar or basement. Historic District A district identitied as historically sianificant und~ t:)~ City of Ashland Comorehensive Plan and its imolementina regulations (e.g. overlav ;~_e___ Porch, enclose~1 unenclosed Cov~red .oorch~s. exterior balconies.. or other :i,mi~a: :re:~ :~a~~~~ t~ ~ ~Ui~dl~~ and havma dimensions of not less than SIX (6) fe~_1n _ p h _ I_h f....e I, I~n!:!~. "E~c1osed" means the po~ch contains wall(s) tha~ a~: :f 1~a~ f~rt~:~ ~i~~~I~~s in helaht measured from finished floor level. for fifL _J ___t ( 0) _r. . . ~ perimeter. "Unenclosed" means the porch contains no su~h~~II~. b~i: it ~~y b; ~;~ red. Porous Solid Surface Porous solid surface is a oermeable surface built with an underlvina stone rese~~ir ~~t ~emporarily ~tores surface run,off before it infiltra;e~ i~~~ ~:~ib~~il. ~~r~~ ~~~u ~~~ :~~s Include pervious asphalt. pervious concrete. gras r r a ever 0 e t w runoff to infiltrate the subsoil beneath the deck. Reconstruct To re-create or re-assem~le a structure or buildin~ with a ~e~ ~r r~~:~~ement structure that re-creates or reproduces ItS form. shape and locailon as Orl~1 a y Setback, Special Th~ distance between the center line of a stre~ ~~~ ~~:~:~~~b~S~.~i~: se~~~c~~~~ ' whIch yard measurements are made. measure r z t t I an aid center line. December 18, 2007 Draft - 4- If Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Story, half A half storY is either a EI~vllah! BaSefl'leAt er a sDace "lnder a sloDino roof ~hat has th~ line of intersection of the roof and exterior wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level below and in which SDace the floor area with head room of five (5) feet or more occuDies no more than fifty Dercent (50%) af the total floor area of the story directly beneath. -..,..-- , "r (.............~ 7=f'=--::-~ l' ..~.., /' ->k_ _ _ ,.. Slooino Roof Half Storv If Floor Area "A. is no morp than 500/0 of Floor Ar@A "BN thpn "A" is a half storv If th.. wall face is mor.. than three 13\ feet abov.. the floor level below at the rear or side vard ,;..tback line th..n it shall b.. considered a full staN for olJroos@s of s@tback measurements December 18, 2007 Draft - 5 - -5 Comment [u4]: Considering a daylight basement a half-story is not consistent with the existing definition of a story or with the recommended definition of a basement, Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.12.020. Classification of districts Section 2, Amend Chapter 18.12, DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: Zoning Districts and Overlays Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay Residential - Rural Residential - Single Family Residential - Low Density Multiple Family Residential - High Density Multiple Family Commercial Commercial - Downtown Employment Industrial Woodland Residential SO.!.! - Southern Oregon State CallegeUniversity Performance Standards (Pl- Overlay DesisFI Revie':: O';eflayDetail Site Review Zone Health Care Services Zone North Mountain Neiahborhood ResidentialOverlav Freewav Sian Overlav A RR R-1 R-2 R-3 C-1 C-1-D E-1 M-1 WR SO.!.! P OS! H NM Amend Section 18.12.030. Zonina and Land Use Control Maos A. The location and boundaries of the zoning districts designated in Section 18.12.020.. ohvsical and environmental constraints desianated in Section 18.62.060. Site Desian zones deslanated in Chaoter 18.72 are established as shown on the map entitled "Zoning and Land Use Control Maps of the City of Ashland," dated with the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, and signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and I hereafter referred to as the "~Zoning and Land Use Control fflMaps." B. The signed copy of said Z~oning and Land Use Control fl'tMaps shall be maintained on file in the office of the City Recorder and is made a part of this Title. Section 3, Amend Chapter 18.14, W-R WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.14.030, W-R. add the followina Conditional Uses H. "flY feFl'\lWal af N=lree (3) ar Fl'\are IiviFlg tree3 af e.er sil( (S) iFlehe3 iFl l!!iaFl'\der freFl'\ aRY ~~~ !a~ dl:triflg aAY aFle (1) ealeFll!!ar yesr, ar SFlY ferFl'\ af eaFl'\FI'\erelallaggiFlg. S;~h ~e ~~~~ ~e ':.~~~el!! aFl1'1 wheFl, iFl al!!l!!itiaFl ta the CaFll!!itiaFlal Use PerFl'\it flFll!!;;g;, th; f&lle\;ing fiFll!!iFlg3 ha';e "eeFl l!!eterFl'\iFled: 1. TFaFlspaftatiaFl te aFlEl fraFl'\ the site alFI "e aeeaFl'\plisheEl safel'l aFlEl '::itha~t dist~r"aFlee ta resiEleFlts, 2. That aEleEl~ate pra';isiaFls have "eeFl Fl'\aEle fer erasiaFl eaFltra!. 3. That aEleEl~ate pra';isiaFl3 ha'.'e "eeFl Fl'\ade far refafestatiaFl. 4. That appraval has "eeFl a"taiFleEl fraFl'\ all appf"apf"iate Ca~F1~', State aFll!! FeEle1'81 ageReie3. December 18, 2007 Draft - 6 - Go Comment [uS]: For consistency throughout the code including existing Sections, the Detail Site Review Zone should be used for the overlay name. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 S. That there is Ae I3re"a"le ElaA!')er ef wilElflfe. 6. That there is aEle€ltJaoc stJrety "eAElIA!') I3rel/iEleEl te the City te eAStJf€ that aAY fe€ltJifeEl f€fef€statieA aAEI efesieA ceAtrel '.vill "e aCC8ffll3lisheEl. .!::!.... Disc antenna for commercial use. r. Nonconforming use or structure changes reauired by Section 18.68.090. J. Temporary uses. K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 4, Amend Chapter 18.16, R-R RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.16.030. R-R. add the following Conditional Uses K.. Disc antenna for commercial use. L. Nonconformina use or structure chanQes required by Section 18.68.090. M. Temporary uses. N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.16.040. R-R. General Reaulations F. Minimum side yard: There shall be a minimum side yard of 1iYe-.s.ix...(25) feet, except ten (10) feet along the side yard facing the street on a corner lot. G. Minimum rear yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard often (10) feet olus ten (10) feet for each storY in excess of one (1) story. Section 5, Amend Chapter 18.20, R-l SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.20.030. R-l. Conditional Uses 1. Disc antenna for commercial use. K. Dwellings in the Historic District exceeding the maximum permitted floor area pursuant to Section 18.20.040. L. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090. M. Temoorary uses. N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existina structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 6, Amend Chapter 18.22, R-1-3.5 SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.22.030. R-1-3.5. Conditional Uses tL. Disc antenna for commercial use. r. NonconforminQ use or structure chanaes required bv Section 18.68.090. J. Temporary uses. K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to exlstlna structures and authorized oursuant to Section 18.72.180. December 18, 2007 Draft - 7- 7 in . Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.22.040. R-1-3.5. General Reculations A. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet.. for the first ewelliflg l;Jflit afle except that a lot three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet or larQer may be created far eaeh aeeitieflal when the lot witf:t-contains an existing single-family residence which meets-efl--itt beth the existiflg afls flew strl::lettlres ml::lst meet the setback, density, aruLlot coverage afls let size requirements.. aflS crltcria of Chapter 18.76,thc P1ifler Lafls Paftitiefl Seetiafl af the OFEliflaflce, jl::lst as if each ~~~:~~~IS be Iseates Sfl its S",'fl lat, regarsless af whether a flew pam:1 is beifl!) created ar flM. Ifl the Ashlafls Histarie Distriet, all fesisefltial strl::letl::lres shall alsa be subjeet ta these feEjtliremeflts. Variances under this Section are subject to Type I procedures. Section 7, Amend Chapter 18.24, R-2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.24.030. R-2. Conditional Uses I. Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit, within the Railroad Historic District as isefllifies by the Ashlafls '''starie Cammissiafl afls approved by the City Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600) sq. ft. in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (1) half (V2) time employee (up to twenty-five (25) hours per week). Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The street shall be a fully improved street of residential City standards or greater. K. Traveler's accommodations, subject to the following: 6. Transfer of business-ownership of a traveler's accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, aflS sl::lbjeet ta Caflsitisflal Use Permit Jppre'Y'al and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveler's accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. L. Hostels, pra'.ises that the facility be sl::lbjeet ta afl aflfll::lal T'/pe I review far at lea~ the first three (3) ','ears, after 'Ii'hich time the Plaflfliflg Cammissiefl ma'; appreve, l:Iftder a Type II praeeStlfe, a permafleflt permit fer the faeility. M. Disc antenna for commercial use. N. NonconforminQ use or structure chances recuired bv Section 18.68.090. O. Ne~ structures and ad~itions to eX.lsting structu~:s ~~~~; ~~f~~~i~e~ ~i~~O:~~ ~istrict which exceeds the MaXimum PermItted Floor AI' __ (_____. s_______ h_ ____..E_ reQulations set forth in Section 18.24.040, P. Temoorarv uses, O. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180, December 18, 2007 Draft - 8 - g Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Proposed Draft Amendments December 18. 2007 Amend Section 18.24.040. R-2. General Regulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions. 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the followinc standards and exceptions: a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements. provided the unit is not greater than fifty percent (50%) of the cross habitable floor area of the single familv residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area. Lhewe'/er, uUnits not considered as an accessory residential unit and ef-Iess than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, 'Nith the felle'NiAg l'estrietieAs. ~a. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units t:tfIit-+.shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. db. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. ee. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. itFtd-~as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. 1. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within ~an..Historic District shall be determined by the following: 1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and ~e: residential construction In Performance Standards ODtlons land divis:_ s created within the-ilD...Historlc District. The MPFA fer ml:lltl!,le E1....eIllAgs SA a siAgle let withiA the llistsl'ie Distriet shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the !,rimar)' dwelling-.Wlits measured to the outside surfaces of the buildingW, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. December 18, 2007 Draft - 9- 1 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18. 2007 Section 8, Amend Chapter 18.28, R-3 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.28.030. R-3. Conditional Uses ]. Travelers accommodations, subject to the following: 6. Transfer of business-ownership of a travelers accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, aAs s\:Ibjeet ta CaAsitiaAal Use Permit appreval and conformance with the criteria of this section. All travelers accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section. L. Hostels, praYiSes that the faeili~ be s\:Ibjeet ta aA aAA\:Ial Type I review fer at least the first three (3) ',ears, after ..."hieh time the PlaAfliAg Ca"'missiaA "'a)' appra\'e, \:lASer a Type II praeeS\:Ire, a per",aAeAt f)ermit far the facility. M. Disc antenna for commercial use. N. Enlargement. extension. reconstruction. substitution. structural alteration or reactivation of nonconformin9 uses and structures pursuant to Section 18.68.090. O. Ne~ structures and ad~itions to existing structures within a d~f~~~~~~ ~i~~O:i~ ~Istrict which exceeds the MaXimum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA). s~_____ h_ __ _e_a reoulations set forth in Section 18.28.040. P. Temoorarv uses. O. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existino structures and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.28.040. R-3. General Reaulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-3 zone shall be 20.0 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the following standards and exceptions: a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet densitv or minimum lot area requirements orovided the unit is not oreater than fifty pe~~:~~~~~%~~f the gross habitable floor area of the single family residen~~ on ___ _____d _ es not exceed 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area. ~l'Iawe'..er, uUnits not conSidered as an accessorY residential unit and ~Iess than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, 'Nith the falla....iAg festrietiaAs. tit. Minimum lot area for less than two (2) units -i--shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80' db. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6,500 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. .ee. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 8000 sq. ft. ~as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. December 18, 2007 Draft - 10 - /?:J Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within tAe-SI.!l..Historic District shall be determined by the following: I. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Performance Standards ODtions land divisions created within the-m...Historic District. The MPFA far FfltJltll:lle d'oVelliAgs eA a siAgle let withiA the Histerie District shall be determined by the following: 1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the I:lfifflary dwelling ~measured to the outside surfaces of the building.(.s)., including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. Section 9, Amend Chapter 18.30, NM NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD Amend Section 18.30.020. NM General Re9ulations A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. Land uses, streets, alleys and pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in accordance with those shown on the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 2800. 2.d. The proposed modification is necessary to adjust to phYSical constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, ~r similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries. E. Density Transfer. Density transfer within a project from one overlay to another may be approved if It can be shown that the proposed density transfer furthers the design and access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a variety of residential unit sizes. types and architectural styles.a diversity iA size aAd style ef heusiAg trl:les. Amend Section 18.30.030. NM-C Neighborhood Central Overlay G. Lot Coveraae: Maximum lot coveraae shall be seventv-five (75) oercent. December 18, 2007 Draft - 11- II Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.30.040. NM-MF Neighborhood Core Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front vard setbacks s5hall be a minimum of tm.{10} feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25} feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to tiYe.15} feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six Mfeet..awla minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15} feet from the front building facade and twenty (20} feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent .LS.O.?&l..of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards.,-. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive !.Sl..feet ~fQr...the ~story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional story. and-:--=F ten UQl.feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three mfoot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. Amend Section 18.30.050. NM-R-1-5 Neighborhood General Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks s5hall be a minimum of tml10} feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25} feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to ~5} feet for .unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six Mfeet~ minimum width of eiaht (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15} feet from the front building facade and twenty (20} feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent ~of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards.,-. Side vard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive !.Sl..feet ~fQr.1!J.e first.story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional storY. and-:--=F ten UQl.feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three Ql..foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. F. Lot Coveraae: Maximum lot coveraae shall be fiftv oercent (50%). Amend Section 18.30.060. NM-R-1-7.5 Neiahborhood Edae Overlay C. 1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks s5hall be a minimum of tm.{10} feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25} feet, excluding garages. Front yards may be reduced to tiYe.15} feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth of six Mfeet..awla minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15} feet from the front building facade and twenty (20} feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent .LS.O.?&l..of the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or other covered parking space. 2. Side Yards.,-. Side vard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive !.Sl..feet ~fQr..t!le ~story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space. five (5) feet for each additional story. and-:--=F ten UQl.feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three Ql.foot side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall. G. Lot Coveraae: Maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent (45%). December 18, 2007 Draft: - 12 - I;).., Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-l RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.32.025. C-1 Soecial Permitted Uses 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the purpose of density calculations. units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. E. Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows: 1. Drive-up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only. and on Iv in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. 2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. DFi'.'e 1:11' uses Fl'lay eAI, Be allewcd iA the C 1 districts east ef a IiAe dFawA I'erl'eAdiEl:llar te AshlaAd StFeet, at the iAterseetieA ef AshlaAd Street aAd Siski}'eu Bel:llevard. 4.3.. Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria: Amend Section 18.32.030. C-1 Conditional Uses J. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. K. Structures which are greater than forty (40) feet in heiaht. but less than fifty-five (55) feet. in the "D" Downtown Overlay District. Section 11, Amend Chapter 18.40, E-l EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT Amend Section 18.40.020. E-1 Permitted Uses O. Wireless Communication Facilities oermitted outright oursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.40.030. E-1 Soecial Permitted Uses E. Residential uses. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of densitv calculations. units of less than 500 sauare feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. Amend Section 18.40.040. E-1 Conditional Uses O. Temoorary uses. P. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. December 18, 2007 Draft - 13 - ;..... ~ Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 12, Amend Chapter 18.52, M-l INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Amend Section 18.52.030. M-l Conditional Uses E. Temporary uses. P. Wireless Communication Facilities not oermitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 13, Amend Chapter 18.54, HC HEALTH CARE SERVICES ZONE Amend Section 18.54.030. HC Conditional Uses E. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized oursuant to Section 18.72.180. Section 14, Amend Chapter 18.61, TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION Amend Section 18.61.020. Definitions A. Arborist means a person licensed by the State of Oreaon State Landscaoe Contractors Board or Construction Contractors Board who has A'let the criteria for ~certifj.ed....eMieft as an arborist from the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists, and A'laintains his or her accreditation or a landscaoe architect licensed bv the State of Oreaon. I D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the ~, at its maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above ffleaft-ground level at the base of the trunk. On sloped lands. the measurement shall be taken on the uphill side of tree. Amend Section 18.61.035. Exemot Tree Removal Activities The following activities are exempt from the requirement for tree removal permits: E. Removal of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school lands, Southem Oregon University, and other public land..t-Dt:tt excluding Heritage trees and street trees 'uithifl the ~l:JBlie right af 'Na'f. I. Removal of street trees within the public riaht-of-wav subject to street tree removal permits in AMC 13.16. Amend Section 18.61.042. Aporoval and Permit Required B. TREE REMOVAL - VERIFICATION PERMIT: 2. Verification permits shall be required prior to the issuance of an exca~:~~n ~~r;it or building permit and prior to any site disturbance and/or storage of ___Jia _ _n feF the subject property. D. TREE REMOVAL - 5fAFF-PERMIT: 1. Tree Removal-Satff Permits are required for the following activities: a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I, or He. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 14- /+ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots (R- 2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family detached dwelling. c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential purposes including but not limited to R-I, RR, WR, and NM zones. d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SOU, on lands under the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of Ashland. 2. Applications for Tree Removal - Staff-Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.~0 (NetiEe ReEltlifE:ffleAtsType I Procedure). If the tree removal is part of another planning action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely filed, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action. Amend Section 18.61.050. PlaM-Submittal ReQulrementsd A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall be fflade upaA ferffls prescribed by the City. The applicatiaA far a Tree Reffla...al Perfflits include: a. Plans drawn to scale 5hatk:ontainirlg7 a-:-t~he number, size, species and location of the trees proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan ofthe property. b. The anticipated date of removal or topping. c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping. d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace the trees to be removed, and e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or toppinged have been clearly identified on the property for visual inspection. f. A Tree Protection Plan that includes trees located on the subject site that are not proposed for removal. and any off-site trees where drip lines extend into prooosed landscaoed areas on the subject site. Such plans shall conform to the orotection reauirements under Section 18.61.200. 9...-Any other information reasonably required by the City. Amend Section 18.61.080. Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-5&tff._Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborlst's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. B. 1. The tree Is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards.. includina but not limited to . (e.g. ather applieable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints,. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and Amend Section 18.61.084. Mitigation Reauired An applicant ~be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 112-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees may be December 18, 2007 Draft - 15 - .r I ~..J Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 I D. required where, the mltigat!on is intended. in part. to replace a ~~~~I ~~~:e b~~een land uses. "SUItable" species means the tree's arowth habits a v n requirements are conducive to the site. given the existing topoaraphy. SO~I~ ~ther veaetation. exposure to wind and sun. nearbv structures: overhead wires t. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. An aporoved mitigation olan shall be fullv implemented within one ::~r ~f :. ~e~ b~~9 removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal application a p r v d 'n t tree removal permit. Amend Section 18.61.092. Exoiration of Tree Removal Permits Tree removal permits shall remain valid for a period of 180 Elaysone year from the date of issuance or date of final decision by a hearing body, if applicable. A 30 day extension shall be automatically granted by the Staff Advisor if requested in writing before the expiration of the permit. Permits that have lapsed are void. Trees removed after a tree removal permit has expired shall be considered a violation of this Chapter, Section 15, Amend Chapter 18.62, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Amend Section 18.62.040. Aporoval and Permit Reauired H. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring a Physical Constraints Review: 1. The plans shall contain the following: a. Project name. b. Vicinity map. c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at the same scale, excluding detail drawings. The Staff Advisor may authorize different scales and plan sheet sizes for projects. p~~~ided ~~i ~~~~~ provide sufficient information to clearly identify and evaluate the a__-'L_~_ request. Amend Section 18.62.050. Land Classifications The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them: A. Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. All land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal EFl'lefgeA~' ~1aAageFl'leAt AgeAC'fFlood Insurance Program, aru;Lln maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 ofthe Ashland Municipal Code. Amend Section 18.62.070. Development Standards for Flood olain Corridor Lands For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10: A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. Fill shall be designed as required by the UAlferFl'l International Building Code~ International Residential Code, Chapter 70, where applicable. December 18, 2007 Draft - 16 - J / 10 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or suooorted bv oillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters -over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not imoact riparian veQetation. and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and Is s~I'I'erte8 13', I'illars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Amend Section 18.62.080. Develooment Standards for Hillside Lands B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items: 1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for development on HillSide Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chal'ttr 79 ef the UAiferl'l'l International Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this Title. Erosion control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from disturbed areas. D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on HillSide Lands shall conform to the following requirements: 4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection standards: a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. (see ~18.61.200) .. Tree Conservat ion .~ Guideline December 18, 2007 Draft - 17- /1 ; comment [ul]: Graph'ic will be . revised to reflect requirements of 18.61.200. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas. , -- ----"Dripline Tree Ca~P~E>" '{ . , , , \", ",/ ...____._u nou___,... nO___n.' u ....______. To prOllide minimum pr.. eel ion t 0 I he rool aree, I ake I he greel esl radius from I runk I 0 dripline and creel e a regular circle, using I he longesl radius, ral her I hen I o follow an irr8!JJIar, alxNe ground, eas I ing t ree drip/ine, Section 16, Amend Chapter 18.64, SO-SOUTHERN OREGON STAT[ C9LLEQE UNIVERSITY (SOU) DISTRICT Amend Section 18.64.0lD. Purpose This district is designed to provide for the unique needs of 5e5&-SQ1Las a State educational institution functioning within the planning framework of the City. It can be applied to all areas now or hereinafter owned by the State of Oregon acting by and through the State Board of Higher Education and Southern Oregon State Cellege University and located within the 5e5&-SQ1Lboundary, as shown on the 5e5&-SQ1LComprehensive Plan, adopted by 5e5&-SQ1Land approved by the City. Amend Section 18.64.020. Permitted Uses A. Uses permitted outright are all those which are directly related to the educational functions of 59S€SQU, provided that such uses are indicated and located in conformance with the adopted and City approved 5e5&-SQ1LComprehenslve Plan, and are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property. B. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.64.010. Conditional Uses A. Any use, site design, or construction or alteration of same not agreed upon in advance by the City and 5e5&-SQ1Lin the 5e5&-SQJ.LPlan. B. Any use, site design, or construction within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned property. C. Any construction over forty (40) feet in height. D. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized Dursuant to Section 18.72.180. Amend Section 18.64.010. General Regulations This Chapter, together with the Site Review, Sign and Off-Street Parking Chapters of this Title, are the only portions of the Title to be effective within the 5e5&-SQ1Lzone, except for areas within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned land, which are subject to the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits. In addition, the creation or vacation of public streets or public December 18, 2007 Draft - 18 - 18 Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 ways shall be subject to mutual agreement between the City and ses&-SQ1Land all other applicable laws. Section 17, Amend Chapter 18.68, GENERAL REGULATIONS Amend Section 18.68.040. Yard Requirements All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest projection... thereaf aAeI shalll3e I:IAal3strl:ldeel fram the gral:lAell:Il3warel, exeel3t that Aarchitectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into tAe-reauired yards.... reql:liremeAt. Amend Section 18.68.090. Nonconforming Uses and Structures A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows: 1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(6 and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more restricted nature... exceot that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the use is chanaed to a permitted use within the zoning district. 2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(B and C), aft existiAg nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or the footorint modified, ar strl:letl:lrally alteFeel, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained ta eAlarge ar exteAeI a siAgle f~mil"l hame iA the resieleAtial elistrlet, I3ra..ieleel thatwhen the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title. 3. A non-conforming structure may be_ eAlargeel, reeeAstrtleteel restored or rehabilitated er stJ"l:Ietl:lrally alteFeel if its feetl3riAt is not changed in size or shape... provided that the use of the structure Is not changed exceot if in conformance with the orocedures of Section 18.68.090.A.l above. 4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal maintenance and repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe bv any official charged with protectin9 public safety. 5. A leaal nonconformina structure or nonconformin9 use that is damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be restored only if the damage was not intentionally caused by the oroperty owner and the nonconformity is not increased. Any residential structure(s). includln9 multiDle-familv. In a residential zone damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost by a catastrophe. such as fire that is not intentionally caused by the owner. may be reconstructed at the original density provided the reconstruction is commenced within 2 vears after the catastroDhe. B. Discontinuance. If the nonconforming use of a building structure, or premises ceases for a period of s6E-~(612.) months or more, said use shall be considered abandoned; and said building, structure, or premises shall thereafter be used only for uses permitted in the district In which it is located. Discontinuance shall not include a period of active reconstruction following a fire or other result of natural hazard; and the Planning Commission may extend the discontinuance period in the event of special unique unforeseen circumstances. December 18, 2007 Draft - 19 - 19 Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Ie. Reactivation. A non-conforming use, which has been abandoned for a period of ffleFe ~than six (6) months may be reactivated to an equivalent or more restricted use through the Conditional Use and Site Review process. In evaluating whether or not to permit the reactivation of a non-conforming use, the Planning Commission, in addition to using the criteria required for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review, shall also use the following additional criteria: 1. That any improvements for the reactivation of the non-conforming use to aA existlAg AOA eOAferFl'liAg stn:letl:lf'E: on the site shall be less than fifty (50%) percent of the value of the structure. The value of the structure shall be determined by either the assesses ..altle aeeOf'SiAg to the JaeksoA COtlAty Assessor or by an independent real estate app~aiser licensed in the ~tate of Oregon. The valu~ of ;h:~~P.~V~:~r;:.~h~~ be determIned based upon copies of the contractor's bId fo Id I P n which shall be reauired with the Conditional Use permit ap~~~~ti~;' Personal property necessary for the operation of the business or site improvements not included in the structure shall not be counted as improvements under this ef'iteriatb.i.s criterion. Amend Section 18.68.110. Front Yard-General Exception A. If there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with front or side yards abuttina a Dublic street with ef-Iess than the required deJ*ft-setback for the district, the .fi:Qnt..yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures. B. If there is a dwelling or accessory building on one (1) abutting lot with a fr2n.Lyard of less than the required depth for the district, the fr.lmt.yard need not exceed a depth one- half (Y2) way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required fi:Qnt.yard depth. e. The front yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet on hillside lots where the terrain has an average steepness equal to, or exceeding a one (1) foot rise or fall in twirfm.lL(~) feet of horizontal distance within the entire required yard, said vertical rise or fall to be measured from the natural ground level at the property line. Amend Section 18.68.140. Accessorv Build/nos. aA6-Structures and Mechanical Eauipment Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: e. Mechanical equipment shall be stlbjeet to the I'Fe'lisioAS of this SeetioA. Stleh e~tlil'FI'leAt shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that It is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical :~~~p~~n.~ ~:ad . ~~s~f~~t~~ enclosures. no taller than allowed fence helahts. mav be loc____ w hi _ U1r rear yards. provided such installation and oDeratlon is consistent ~'~~ ~~i:~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code. includin9 but not li~it~ __ _ ....:__ ______.0__ Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. Anv conversion of such accessory structure to an accessory residential unit shall conform to other ~~q~~;;;e;t~ ~f ~~~ Title for accessory residential units. includin9 anv reaulred ~I~nnin_ a _~n JL/ J J_ ~ December 18, 2007 Draft: - 20- jI'!/j cI-..V Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Amend Section 18.68.160. Driveway Grades. Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with the eriteria af theQtr.2f Ashland Pl:ll3lie 'Narks De"artl"AeAt:itandards and a""ra'/eEl installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. If required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision clearance standards associated with driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to the Variance section of this title. Section 18, Amend Chapter 18,72, SITE DESIGN AND YS[ s:FANDARDIS REVIEW Amend Section 18.72.030. ApplicabilitvBeFt Site design aAElI:lSe standards shall apply to all zones of the city aAEI shall a""I'; ta all Elevelal'l"AeAt iAElieateEl IA this Chal'ter, exeel't fer thase Elevelel'l"AeAts .,..hleh are regl:llateEl 13'; the SI:lI3E1i...isisAS (18.89), the PaFtitieAiAg (18.76), r1aAtlfeettlreEl Hel:lsiAg (18.84) aAEI PeFferl"AaAee StaAElarEls (18.88).as outlined below. A. ADDlicabilitv. The followina development is sub1ect to Site Desian Review: 1. Commercial. Industrial. -itM-Non-Residentlal and Mixed uses: a. All new structures. additions or exoansions In C-1. E-1. HC and M zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings. schools. churches. etc. ). Be. Exoanslon of imoervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1.000 sauare feet. whichever is less. ed. Expansion of parking lots. relocation of parking spaces on a site. or other chanaes which affect circulation. de. Anv change of occuoancv from a less intensive to a more intensive occuoancv. as defined in the Citv buildlna code. or any chanae in use which reauires a areater number of oarkin9 soaces. fe. Anv chanae in use of a lot from one aeneral use cateaarv to another general use cateaorv. e.9.. from residential to commercial. as defined bv the zoning reaulations of this Code. gf. Anv exterior chanae to a structure which reauires a buildina oermit and is listed on the National Reaister of Historic Places or to a contributlna orooertv within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. ~. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a sinale lot. 13. All "e',v AeA resiEleAtlal strtl~l:lr(;s ar eElElitisAS. ether the" sl"Vle fel"Aily hal"Aes ar aef!f:~s8rv ~~~!i 8" I..elivlft~al t8~ be. Construction of attached single-family housina (e.a. town homes. condominiums. row housesr etc.) in all zoning districts. eEl. Residential developments wh~n 09ff-street oarkinp or landscaoina. in conjunction with an aooroved Performance Standards Subdivision reauired by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.a. shared parking). December 18, 2007 Draft - 21 - d:J./ comment [u7): Residential uses , are permitted in conjunction with i non-residential uses in commercial lones. comment [uI]: Non-residential , uses such as public buildings, , schools and churches are more , appropriate In the non- residential section - previously listed under the following residential uses section. i comment [ut]: Non-residential uS~ITl~~_~_~r~_vi~~S_ section. r C~;;;,;;~t[;;iO]~'The ~it~ ;;~i'e~ , process is applied to the entire : development, and is not limited ! to the off-street parking and , lands~'P!.!1.~__ ......_ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 de. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building oermit and is individually listed on the National Reaister of Historic Places. ef. Mechanical eauipment not otherwise exempt from site design review oer Section 18.72.030(8). B. ExemDtions. The ~ollowlna dev~looment is exemot from Sit;~~~I:~ R~VI:W ~.~~~cation and orocedure reqUIrements provided that the develooment ~___ 1__ wLh _op 1__ Ie standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached sinQle familv dwellings and associated accessorv s~ru~~,:s ~1d uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the followinQ chapters: partit~n~~~~~.7_s Subdivisions (18.80). Manufactured Housina (18.84) and e_____ce _tandards (18.88). 3. The fOllowinQ mechanical eQuioment: a. Private. non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceedin~:. h~a:'t of seventy (70) feet above Qrade or thirty (30) feet above an existina t uct_r "- whichever height is greater and provided no part of such ant~~~= ~~~II ~ ~thin the vards required by this Title. A buildina oermit shall be reQ~i_d _J ~_ antenna mast. or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirtY (30) fe~t above an existina structure when the s~m~ is constructed on ~h~~~~ ~ t~l:~~~~re. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas. each _n __!L C__ ____ n diameter. on anyone lot or dwellina unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collecti.on devices in all ~oning distri~.. wit~ :~ ~:~e~'~~~r.~f Employment and Commercial zoned properties located wlthl~ ~~~~~~ib;d"'~ __1_ districts. The devices shall complv with solar setback standarct __r:___ i_ 18.70 and heiQht reauirements of the respective zoning distri . d. Installation of mechanical eauioment not exempted b~ (;. b: ~) a~e ~~ ~~ below. and which is not ~isible fr?m a public ri~~t-of-way, o~ ~dj;~~i~~i~~ ~~~~IIY zoned orooertv and consistent With other provIsions of thiS TItle. ~'-_______ __!_ access. noise. and setback reauirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mecha~i~~1 ~~~ioment in all ~ Amend Section 18.72.040. Aoproval Process Development subject to site desian review shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.108. A. Staff PerMit. The fellawiAg tyl3es af E1evelal3ffleAts shall Be sl:lBjea ta al3l3raval l:IAEler the Staff Perfflit PraeeEll:lre. AAY Staff Perfflit ffla}' Be I3raeesseEl as a T'il3e I l3erfflit at the aiseretiaft afthe Staff AEI..isar. 1. AA'; chaAge af aee:l:Il3aAcy waffl a less iAteAsi\'e ta a fflare iAteASi\'e ace:l:Il3aAe'" as defifteEl ift the City Bl:IilEliAg eaEle, ar aA',' chaAge IA l:Ise '",hieh re~l:Iires a greater Al:IfflBer at l3arkiAg sl3aees. 2. Aft'i aElElitieA less thaA 2,599 s~l:Iare feet ar teA l3ereeAt at the Bl:IilEliAg's s~l:Iare featage, .....hiehe.ler is less, te a Bl:IilEliAg. 3. AA'! l:Ise "..hleh resl:llts iA three ar less E1welliAg l:IAits l3f:r let, ather thaA SlAgle tafflU'; haffles eA iAEliviEll:lallats. 4. All iAstallatleAs ef ffleehaAieal e~l:Iil3ffleAt iA aA'; ZaAf:. IAstallatlaA et Elise aAteAAas shall Be sl:lBjea ta the re~l:IlreffleAts at SealaA 18.72.169. AAY Elise aAteAAa fer cafflfflereiall:lse ift a resiEleAtlalzaAe shall alse Be sl:lBjea ta a CaAElitieAal Use Perffllt (18.194). (OrEl. 228955, 1984; OrEl. 2457 S4, 1988). December 18, 2007 Draft - 22 - ~:J. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 5, All iFlstallatieFl ef wireless ceFl'lFl'luFlieatieFl s'fsteFl'ls sAall be stlbjeet te tAe reqtlireFl'leFlts ef SectieFl 18.12,189, iFl additieFl te all al'I'licable Site DesigFl aFld Use StaFldards aFld are sl:Jeject te tAe fellewiFlg al'I'reval I'recess: Zoftiftl Besilftotiofts AttaeAed te AlterFlative FreestaFldiFlg ExistiFlg Structl:Jres SUl'I'eFt Strl:Jctl:Jres Strl:lctl:Jres ResideFltial ZeFles alP PreAibited PreAibited E-1 alP alP PreAibited C 1 D (DewFltewFl) alP PreAibited PreAibited C 1 Freewa',' e'ierla'f Site Review Site Re'.iew alP H- Site Review Site Review alP M-l Site Review Site Re'/iew alP sa Site Review alP alP N~1 (NeFtA ~1eI:lFltaiFl) Prehibited Prehibited Prehibited Histeric DistrictR-l alP Prehibited Prehibited A 1 (Airl'eFt O'.erlay) alP alP alP HC (Health Care) alP Prehibited Prehibited f41 ORI, aliened al'l elll3tiRg3trlletllre3 greater theR 45 feet iR height. rer the ll11rIl6!le3 af thl3 3ectian iR resideRtlel EaRiRg distl'iet!l, ellisting stl'lletllres shall iRflllde the rellleeel'fleRt af elli!ltiRg "ale, l'fIilM, ar tSner stl'lletlll'E!!l (slleh a3 3tildilll'fl light taners) fer the eel'fllliRed 1l11l'JlaSeS sf their "re. iall!lllSe aRd nirele33 eal'fll'flllllleatiaR faellities. ~ Perl'fliM:ed aR lire clli!ltiRg 3trlletllrl!!l nith a height greater thaR 59 feet in the De..RtenR Cal'fll'flereial distl'iet. Prehlllited iR all athe;r di3tl'ieG nithiR the 11i3tel'ie Di3trict, e3 dttiRed in the Calt'lllrehcn3i.e PlaR, 6. AFl'j exterier ehaFlge te aFl'j strl:Jctl:Jre listed eFl the NatieFlal Register ef Histerie Places." (ORD 2892, S2 1997) (Ord 2852 S3, 2000; Ore 2858 S6, 2999) B. T-;,e I F"reeelhlre. The fellewiFlg tyl'es ef develel'Fl'IeFlts shall be sl:Jejeet te al'I're,,'al l:JFlder the TYI'e I I'reeedl:Jre: 1. AFl'f chaFlge iFl use ef a let freFl'l eFle geFleral l:Jse eategery te aFlether geFleral I:Ise categery, e.g., fraFl'l resideFltlal ta ceFl'lFl'lerieal as defiFled by the zaFliAg regl:JlatiaAs ef this Cade. 2. AFl',' resideFltiall:lse '.vhich resl:Jlts iFl fel:lr dwelliFlg I:IFlits ar Fl'Iare aFl a let. 3. All Flew strl:Jctl:Jres ar additieFls greater thaFl 2,500 sql::lare feet, exeel't far develal'Fl'IeFlts iFlell:Jded iFl SectiaFl 18.n.9i9(A}. Amend Section 18,12,050, Detail Site Review Zone A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18,12,080. B, AFl'f develal'Fl'IeFlt iFl the Detail Site Re...ievl ZeFle as defiFled iFl the Site Review StaFldards adel'ted I'l:IrSl:JaFlt ta this ehal'ter, which eKeeeds 10,999 sql:lare feet ar is laFlger thaFl 199 feet iFl leFlgth ar width, shall be reviewed aeeardiFlg ta the TYI'e 2 I'reeedl:lre. December 18, 2007 Draft: - 23 - ~ ,,) Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 E,a,Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform wffh-tQ..the following standards: h-la. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. &2, Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. J€. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. Fer the 1'1:Irl'ese: ef this seetieA, baseffleAt ff1eaAS aA)' Reer le'Jel bele'.v the: Fif3t sterr iA a btlilEliAg. rir:st sterr shall ha'/e the: saffle ff1eaAiAg as I're'JiEleEl iA the bl:lilEliAg e:eEle. ~. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. c~. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. Fer the I'tlrl'ese ef this seetieA, baseffleAt ff1e:aAS aAY Reer level btle'lJ the First stery fA a btlilEliAg. rir:st stery shall have: the saffle ff1eaAiAg as I'feviEleEl iA the btlilEliAg eeEle:. Amend Section 18.72.060. Plans Reouired The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the project's compliance with this Chapter: A site plan containing the following: C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.) The Staff Advisor m~v authorize dl!"erent s~ales and olan ,shee~ sizes for ~ro~~~h:r~~~~c~ ~~~ olans orovlde sufficient information to c1earlv Identify a~d ~v Ju______ __I LLn reouest. Amend Section 18.72.080. Site Desion Standards C. The Site Design and Use Standards adooted by Ordinance No's. 2690. 2800. 2825 and 2900. shall be apolied as follows: 1. The Multi-familv Residential Develooment Standards in Section 1I.~~~~all be apolied to the construction of attached sinale-family housina fe.o. t~~n h___. condominiums. row houses. etc.). 2. The Commercial. Emolovment. and Industrial Develooment s~in~~rd~ ~c~::~on II.C. shall be aoolied to non-residential develooment fe.a. oubli~ 1:;;1 La~_ ____ 1_. churches-:-etc.) EIr"eater thaA 2.999 SEll:lare: feet lijress fleer ~rL. December 18, 2007 Draft - 24- ~4 . Comment (uU]: The existing code requires non-residential uses such as public buildings, schools and churches to have Site Review approval regardless of the size, - ..---..- .---..-."-.---~-..--.-~--.- --.--.-" Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 4'cAdd Section 18.72.105. Exoiration of Site Design Review Approval Site design review aooroval granted under this Chaoter shall expire if no building permit or public improvement olan for the oroiect has been aooroved bv the City within twelve (12) months of site desian review aooroval. Amend Section 18.72.120. Controlled access A. Prier te aAny partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall meet ,the controlled access standards set forth in section (B) below. sAa# be a""lieEl aflEl, it fleeeSSal')", If applicable. cross ~easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the "artltiefliflg land division can be made from one or more points. I B. Street and driveway Agccess points in an R-2. R-3. C-1. E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet. C. 'lisiefl e:learaflee staflElarEls. 1. Ne ebstruetiefls greater thafl l:V\'e aflEl efle halt feet high, fieI' aflY laflElse:a"iflg which will grew greater thafl !:v.e aflEl efle half feet high, '.'iith the exee"tiefl ef trees v:hese cafle", heights are at all tiffles greater thafl eight feet, fflay be "laeeEl ifl a ...Islefl c1earaflee area EleterfflifleEl as fellews: The ...isiefl elearafle:e area at the iflterseetiefl ef tv:e streets is the triaflgle farffleEl by a Iifle ceflfleetlflg "eiflts 25 feet freffl the iflterseetiefl ef "re"erty Iifles. If1 the case ef afl iFlterseetiefl iflvah-IAg aA alley aAEI a street, the triaAgle is farffleEl by a IiAe ceAAectiAg "eiAts teA feet alaAg the aile', aflEl 25 feet aleflg the street. ':..hefl the aflgle af ifltersectiafl betweefl the street aflEl the aile', is less thafl 30 Elegrees, the Ellstaflee shall be 25 feet. Ha structure er "ertiefl thereet shall be ereeteEl withifl tefl feet ef the Elriveways. 2. State et Oregefl '''slefl Clearaflee 5taflElarEls. The fellewiflg ste""iflg site Elistaflees shall a""I", te all State Highways withifl the City with the "reseribeEl s"eed lifflits. Vertical ste""lflg sight distaflee te be based efl distaflee freffl three aflEl efle half feet abeve "aveffleflt te a "eiflt six feet abe'/e the "a.-effleflt. (Ord.2544 51, 1989) 39 ffI"h299 feet 35 ffI"h225 feet 40 ffI"h275 feet 45 ffI"h325 feet 55 fflph459 feet 3. The visiefl clearaflee stafldarEls establisheEl by this seetiefl arc flat subjeet te the variaflee sectiefl ef this title. (OrEl. 2695 S2, 1990) I 9C. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. December 18, 2007 Draft - 25 - /'IJ:.'" -:~ .j Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, Is prohibited. Amend Section 18.72.170. Development Standards for Disc Antennas B. Development Standards. All disc antennas shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 2. Disc antennas exceeding 36 iFlches one (1) meter In diameter shall not be permitted on the roof, except where there Is no other location on the lot which provides access to receiving or transmitting signals. In no case shall any part of any antenna be located more than ten feet above the apex of the roof surface. Antennas mounted on the roof shall be located in the least visible location as viewed from adjacent right-of-ways, and residential structures in residential zones. Amend Section 18.72.180. Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be sUbie~ t~ t~~ r~~uir~m~~s of this section in addition to all aoolicable Site Desi/;m and Use St_n ar __ a _ a e $___ect to the followin9 approval process: Attached to Alternative Freestanding Zoning Designations Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones1 rue Prohibited Prohibited U rue rue Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown)(2) rue Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review rue El Site Review Site Review rue M.:.l Site Review Site Review rue SQ.U Site Review rue rue NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District2 rue Prohibited Prohibited A-I (Airoort Overlay) rue rue rue HC (Health Care) rue Prohibited Prohibited 1 Only allowed on existing structures greater than 45 feet in heioht For the ourooses of this section in residential zoning districts. existing structures shall include the reolacement of existino o~~~ ~~~~ ~i~~~; ~~:~:~~~~ ~~~~h as stadium hoht towers) for the combined ourooses of their oreyious u~~ ~~d 'r Iso u' a ' i i i s 2 Permitted on ore-existino structures with a heioht oreater than 50 feet in the D~~:~OWy: ~~a~m~;';;;~1 ~~~~;;~; Prohibited in all other districts within the Historic District. as defined in the c~;;,~ si December 18, 2007 Draft - 26- ~G Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 19, Amend Chapter 18.76, PARTITIONS Delete Section 18.76.040. Administrative Preliminary Approval PreliA'liRar.,. a~~re'/al fer all A'liRer laREI ~aFtitieRs which re~t1ire Re T.t'~e II 'JariaRteS shall be f'retesseEl uReer the Ty~e I ~reteEltlft. Amend Section 18.76.050. Preliminarv Aporoval bv the PlaRRiRfJ CeA'lA'lissieR If the ~re~eseEl ~aFtitieR eees Ret a~~ear te teA'l~I'f with the re~t1ireA'leRt3 fer r6l:ltiRe aeA'liRistrati'/e a~~fe'lal, the ~r6~esal shall be stlbA'litteEl te the PlaRRiRg CeA'lA'lissieR aRe An aoolication for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist: Amend Section 18.76.060. Preliminarv Approval of Flag Partitions Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance. Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon URiferA'l Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. When required bv the Oreaon Fire Code. Fflag drives greater than 1S.CL~feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor. in coordination with the Fire Code Official. mav extend the distance of the turnaround requirement uo to a maximum of 250 feet in length when taking the following factors into consideration: 1. Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. 2. Phvsical constraints such as slope. significant trees. cuts and fills. 3. Transportation lavout and traffic impacts, 4. Number of units served bv the flag drive. December 18, 2007 Draft .27. ,., ,'J ,.... ", Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Add Section 18.76.075. Exoiration of Preliminary Partition Plan Preliminarv partition olans aporoved under this Chaoter shall eXPir~ if ~ fin~'~a~~on plat has not been aoproved bv the Citv within ei9hteen (18) months of rel"min 01 aooroval. Section 20, Amend Chapter 18.88, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS Amend Section 18.88.050. Street Standards E. Street Grade. Street grades measured at the street centerline for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be as follows: 1. Street and private drive grades in Performance Standards Developments shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. No variance may be granted to this section for public streets. Variances may be granted for private drives for grades in excess of 15% but not greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100. Private drives serving structures greater than 24' in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20' by 40' within SO' of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. Private drives and work areas shall be deemed Fire Lanes and subject to all requirements thereof. When required bv the Oregon Fire Code. pprivate drives greater than ~150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines as provided i~ 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor: in coordination wit~ the Fire COd~~f!l~i~1. ~~y ~:~~~ ~~~ distance of the turnaround reqUirement up to a maximum of 250 ~ t I I no w kl the followino factors into consideration: 1. Ore90n Fire Code access exemptions. 2. Physical constraints such as slooe. significant trees. cuts and fills. 3, Transportation layout and traffic impacts. 4. Number of units served by the flag drive. Section 21, Amend Chapter 18.92, PARKING Amend Section 18.92.070. Parking I I D. A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter, Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050. Parking soaces aftd-shall have a 22 faat back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty-two (22) feet. except where parking is angled. and which does not necessitate movino of other vehicles. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. Na sigfls, stn:lcttlFeS aF 'Jegetatiafl ifl exe:ess af twa afld December 18, 2007 Draft - 28- h ,'7 , ,-;11., (..' Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 aAe half feet iA height shall be !,Iaeed iA the '/isiaA clearaAee area. The ...isiaA e:learaAee area is the triaAgle ferA'led b'; a IiAe eaAAeetiAg !,aiAts 25 feet waA'l the iAterseetieA ef !,re!,eFty IiAes. IA the case ef aA iAtcrseetieA iAVel\'iAg aA alley aAd a street, the triaAgle is ferA'led by a IiAe eaAAeetiAg !,aiAts teA (19) feet alaAg the alle't' aAd 25 feet alaAg the street. WheA the aflgle ef iflterseetiefl be~weefl the street afld the alley is less thafl 38 degrees, the distaflee shall be 25 feet. Ne SigAS, strl:letl:lfeS er vegetatlafl ar !,artieA thereaf shall be ereeted withifl tefl (19) feet ef drive'..ia'fs l:If1less the saA'le is less thafl twe aAd afle half fed iA height. The visiafl e1eafBAe:e staAdards established by this stetieA are flat Sl:lB:;e:et te the Variaflce seetiefl af this title. Section 22, Amend Chapter 18.96, SIGN REGULATIONS Amend Section 18.96.070. Residential and North Mountain Sign Reaulations Signs in ~residential (R) and North Mountain (NM) districts ~hall conform to the following regulations: B. Type of Signs Permitted. 4. North Mountain Sians. Sians for aooroved non-residential uses within the NM- R15. NM-C and NM Civic zones fftiW-Shall be oermitted pne ground sian not exceeding an overall heiaht of five feet and an area of fifteen sauare feet. set back at least ten feet from property lines: or one wall or awninQ sign in lieu of a ground sic;m. Said sians shall not use olastlc as Dart of the exterior visual effect and shall not be internallv illuminated. Amend Section 18.96.150. Governmental Slans. Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use to place a sign that does not conform to this Code when the CeA'lA'lissiafl ~determined5 that, in addition to the criteria for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to further that agency's public purpose. Section 23, Amend Chapter 18.108, PROCEDURES Amend Section 18.108.015. Pre-Application Conference An applicant shall request a pre-application conference prior to submitting an application for a Type I, II or III planning action or an Exoedited Land Division. The purpose of the conference shall be to acquaint the applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Land Use Ordinance, provide for an exchange of information regarding applicable elements of the comprehensive plan and development requirements and to identify policies and regulations that create opportunities or pose significant constraints for the proposed development. The Staff advisor Is authorized to waive ore-apollcation conference requirements and to create procedures which allow for electronic or other alternative forms of conferences. Amend Section 18.108.017. Aoolications A. In order to initiate a planning action, three ee!,ies af a complete application shall be submitted to the Planning Department as set forth below. 1. Complete applications shall include: a. All of the required information for the specific action requested, December 18, 2007 Draft: - 29 - .114 .:x I Conwnent[u12):Language correction. Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 b. Written findings of fact, c. Complete and signed application form. The application must be signed by one or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, or their authorized agents. The application shall not be considered complete unless it is accompanied by the appropriate application fee. 2. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The City will inform the applicant of deficiencies within 30 days of application. The applicant then has 31 days in which to provide a complete application. The City will begin the appropriate application procedure when the application is deemed complete, or at the end of the 31 day period. 3. The Staff Advisor is authorized to set standards and orocedures for aDplication submittal requirements. including the number and type of applications reQ~i~~ (:~d hard and/or electronic copies). size and format of applications (e.g. papg_ s' e electronic format). and dates when apolications can be received. The Staff AdviS~; shall make the reQuirements for aoolication submittals readily available to the oublic to review. B. All applicants for Types I, II and III planning actions shall have completed a pre- application conference for the project within a 6-month time period preceding the filing of the application. This requirement may be waived by the Staff Advisor if in the Staff Advisor's opinion the information to be gathered in a pre-application conference already exists in the final application. Amend Section 18.108.020. Types of Procedures. There are three general tvpes of procedures: 1) ministerial actions~;~ P~~~~i~~eactions. and 3) legislative amendments. When a project orooosal involves e application and more than one type of procedure. the applications sha~ b~ ;~v~~;;: tOQether bv the same decision body and follow the hiQhest level oroce ur ao I i to any one of the aoplications. A. Ministerial Actions. The Staff Advisor shall have the authority to review and approve or deny the following matters which shall be ministerial actions: 1. Final subdivision plat approval. (18.80.050) 2. Final partition map approval. (18.76.120) 4. Minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions. 5. Boundary line adjustments. (18.76.140) 6. Zoning permits. (18.112.010) 7. Sign permits. (18.96.050) 8. Home occupation permits. (18.94.130) 9. Extension of time limits for aporoved planning actions (18.112.030). 10. Mechanical equipment exempt from Site Review. 11. Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling units into for-purchase housing. B. Planning Actions. All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the four following procedures: 1. Staff PcrFl'lit PreceElurc l~. Type I Procedure ,23. Type II Procedure 34. Type III Procedure 4. Expedited Land Divisions C. Legislative Amendments. Legislative amendments shall be subject to the procedures established in section 18.108.170. December 18, 2007 Draft - 30- ~:; '-,,) Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 ADD Section 18.108.025. Consolidated Review Procedures An aoplicant may aoolv at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project. The consolidated procedure shall be sub1ect to the time limitations set out in ORS 227.178. The consolidated procedure shall follow the most restrictive procedure in the development project. Amend Section 18.108.030. Staff Perfflits Expedited Land Divisions A. Applicability. 1. An expedited land division is an action that: a. Includes land that is zoned for residential uses. b. Is solely for the purposes of residential use. including recreational or open soace uses accessory to residential use. c. Does not orovide for dwellings or accessory buildings to be located on land that is specifically mapped and designated for full or partial protection of natural features that protect ooen spaces. phvsical and environmental constraints oer Chapter 18.62. riparian corridors. wetlands. designated historic districts or structures. d. Meets minimum standards in the Street Standards Handbook and Section 18.88.050. e. Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80 oercent (80%) or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site. 2. A land division that creates three or fewer parcels under ORS 92.010 and ALUO lS..1..6.. 3. An expedited land division as described in this section is not a land use decision or a limited land use decision under ORS 197.015 or a permit under ORS 227.160. 4. All reQuirements outlined in Chaoter 18.76 aoplv to expedited land divisions except for those provisions modified within this section. B. Procedure and Notice Requirements. 1. Apolication Completeness. a. If the application for expedited land division is incomplete. the Staff Advisor shall notify the applicant of exact Iv what information is missing within 21 days of receipt of the aoolication and allow the aopllcant to submit the missing information. For purposes of computation of time under this section. the application shall be deemed comolete on the date the applicant submits the requested information or refuses in writing to submit it. b. If the application was complete when first submitted or the applicant submits the reQuested additional information within 180 days of the date the apolication was first submitted. approval or denial of the apolication shall be based uoon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the apolication was first submitted. 2. The city shall provide written notice of the receipt of the comoleted application for an exoedited land division to any state agency. local government or soecial district responsible for providing public facilities or services to the development and to owners of property within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the aoolication is made. The notification list shall be comolled from the most recent oropertv tax assessment roll. For ourooses of aooeal to the referee under ORS 197.375. this requirement shall be deemed met when the local government can provide an affidavit or other certification that such notice was given. Notice shall also be orovided to any neighborhood or community olanning organization recoQnized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site. December 18, 2007 Draft - 31 - .. ' "'*. i "",) ! Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. The notice required under subsection (2) of this section shall: a. State: i. The deadline for submitting written comments: ii. That issues that mav provide the basis for an appeal to the referee must be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment oeriod: and iii. That issues must be raised with sufficient specificitv to enable the local government to respond to the issue. b. Set forth. by commonly used citation. the applicable criteria for the decision. c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood geoaraphical reference to the subiect property. d. State the olace. date and time that comments are due. e. State a time and place where copies of all evidence submitted by the applicant will be available for review. f. Include the name and telephone number of a local aovernment contact oerson. Q. Brieflv summarize the local decision-making orocess for the expedited land division decision being made. 4. After notice under subsections (2) and (3) of this section. the city shall: a. Provide a 14-dav period for submission of written comments orior to the d:~~i~n. b. Make a decision to aoprove or denv the application within 63 days of r~~ei_L_ _ completed aoplication. based on whether it satisfies the substantive reauirements of the local aovernment's land use regulations. An aooroval mav include conditions to ensure that the application meets the aoolicable land use regulations. For apolications subject to this section. the city: i. Shall not hold a hearina on the apolication: and ii. Shall issue a written determination of compliance or noncomoliance with apolicable land use reaulations that includes a summarY statement exolaining the determination. The summary statement may be in any form reasonably intended to communicate the local aovernment's basis for the determination. c. Provide notice of the decision to the applicant and to those who received notice under subsection (2) of this section within 63 days of the date of a completed apolication. The notice of decision shall include: i. The summarY statement described in paragraoh (b)(ii) of this subsection: and ii. An exolanation of apoeal rights under ORS 197.375 C. Aopeals 1. An appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365 shall be made as follows: a. An appeal must be filed with the local aovernment within 14 davs of mai~~~ ~ the notice of the decision under ORS 197.365 (4). and shall be acco~p~ _:__ _ y a $300 deposit for costs. b. A decision may be apoealed by: i. The aoplicant: or ii. Anv person or organization who files written comments in the time period established under ORS 197.365. c. An aopeal shall be based solelv on allegations: i. Of violation of the substantive provisions of the aoolicable land use regulations: ii. Of unconstitutionalitv of the decision: iii. That the aoolication is not eliaibie for review under ORS 197.360 to 197.380 and should be reviewed as a land use decision or limited land use de~isiO~:nor iv. That the parties' substantive rights have been substantially prejudiced by __ error in orocedure bv the local government. 2. The city shall appoint a referee to decide the apoeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. The referee shall not be an employee or official of th; lo~al December 18, 2007 Draft - 32 - ~ 4 -"""\ Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Proposed Draft Amendments December 18. 2007 government. The City Administrator is authorized to hire. under contract on an as needed basis. a referee to decide such apoeals. If the city has designated a hearings officer under ORS 227.165. the Cltv Administrator mav designate the hearings officer as the referee for appeals of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. 3. Within seven davs of being apoointed to decide the apoeal. the referee shall notify the applicant. the local government. the appellant if other than the applicant. anv oerson or organization entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) that provided written comments to the local government and all providers of public facilities and services entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) and advise them of the manner in which they mav participate in the appeal. A oerson or oraanization that orovided written comments to the local aovernment but did not file an aooeal under subsection (1) of this section may participate only with respect to the Issues raised in the written comments submitted bv that person or organization. The referee may use any procedure for decision-making consistent with the interests of the parties to ensure a fair opportunitv to present information and araument. The referee shall provide the local government an opportunity to explain Its decision. but is not limited to reviewing the local government decision and mav consider information not oresented to the local government. 4. Referee Decision. a. The referee shall apolv the substantive requirements of the local aovernment's land use regulations and ORS 197.360. If the referee determines that the application does not Qualify as an exoedlted land division as described in ORS 197.360. the referee shall remand the application for consideration as a land use decision or limited land use decision. In all other cases. the referee shall seek to identify means by which the application can satisfy the applicable requirements. b. The referee may not reduce the density of the land division application. The referee shall make a written decision approving or denying the application or aporoving it with conditions designed to ensure that the application satisfies the land use regulations. within 42 davs of the fillnQ of an appeal. The referee may not remand the application to the local government for any reason other than as set forth in this subsection. 5 Unless the governln9 body of the local aovernment finds exiaent circumstances. a referee who falls to issue a written decision within 42 davs of the filing of an appeal shall receive no compensation for service as referee in the appeal. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of law. the referee shall order the city to refund the deooslt for costs to an apoellant who materlallv Improves his or her oosition from the decision of the local aovernment. The referee shall assess the cost of the appeal in excess of the deposit for costs. up to a maximum of $500. includin9 the deposit paid under subsection (1) of this section. a9ainst an appellant who does not materially improve his or her position from the decision of the local aovernment. The local aovernment shall pay the oortlon of the costs of the aopeal not assessed against the appellant. The costs of the appeal include the compensation paid the referee and costs incurred by the local government. but not the costs of other oarties. D. Effective Date of Decision. Unless aooealed within 14 davs of malllna a notice of decision. the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be conSidered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. A. ActleAs IAch:lded. The felle'i\"IAg "laAAiAg actieAs shall Be Sl:lBject te the Staft' Perfflit Precedl:lre: . 1. Site Review fer t-....e er three resldeAtlall1Aits eA a slAgle let. 2. Physical aAd EAvireAffleAtal CeFlstl'aiAts Review Perfflits as allewed iA Cha"ter 18.62. 3. 'JarlaAees descriBed iA SectleA 18.70.060. December 18. 2007 Draft - 33 - -0,::( ....... Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 4, Site Re\"iC",vs iA C 1, E 1, HC aAd Pi zaAes far expaAsieAs ef aA existiAg use that de net reql:Jife Ae'N Bl:JildiAg area iA excess af 2,509 sql:Jarc feet, er A'ladificatieA ef A'lert: thaA 10% af the arca ef the site. 5. ExteAsieA ef tiA'le liA'lits tar appreved plaAAiAg aetiaAs. Twa exteAsiaAs af up te 12 A'laAths each A'la',. BC appre'i'ed I:IAdcr thc tallawiAg caAditiaAs: a. A chaAge af caAditiaAs, fer ',vhieh the applieaAt 'A'as Aat respeAsiBle, preveAred the applicaAt waA'l eaA'lpletiAg the develapA'leAt VJithiA the erigiAal tiA'le liA'litatiaA, afld 1:>. LaAd Use OrEfiAaAce reql:JireA'leAts applieaBle ta the de'lelapA'leAt have Aat chaAged SiACC the erigiAal appraval, AA exteAsiaA A'lay Be graAted, hewe'/er, if reql:lireA'leAts have ehaAged aAd the applicaAt agrees te caA'lply with aAY sl:lch chaAges. 6. The tallewiAg develapA'leAts sl:lBjeet ta the Site DcsigA aAd Usc StaAdards iA seetieA 18.72.940.A: a. AA'i ehaAge af aCCl:lpaAcy traA'l a less iAteAsive te a A'lere iAteAsive eeCl:lpaAC''', as defiAcd iA thc City Bl:lildiAg cedc, ef aAY chaAge iA l:Jse which reql:lircs a greatcr fll:lA'lBer ef parkiAg spaces. b. Afl'" additiafl Icss thaA 2,5ee sql:lare reet ar tCA pereeAt af thc Bl:lildiAg'S sql:Jarc taetagc, whichever is Icss, te a bl:JildiAg. c. All iAstallatieAs ef A'lechaflical cquipA'leAt iA afl'; zeflC. d. IflstallatieA ef disc aflteAAas sl:lBjeet te thc reql:lireA'leAts af Seetiefl 18.72.160. AI'IY disc aAteflAa fer ceA'lA'lereiall:lse ifl a resideAtial zefle shall alse be sl:lbjeet te a CeAditiaAal Use PerA'lit (18.194). c. AAY exteriar chaAge ta a strl:letl:lre listed eA the NatieAal Register ef Histeric PIaEeS; 7, AA', ether plaAAiAg aetieA desigAated as SI:lBjcet te the Staff PerA'lit Preeedl:lre. 8. Othcr plaflfliAg aaieAs Aet etherwise listed er desigAated as a T'T'pe I, II er III precedl:lre. B. TiA'le LiA'lits, Netice aAd HeariAg Reql:lireA'leAts. ApplicatiaAs sl:lBjeet ta the Staff PerA'lit Pracedl:lre shall be precessed as felle'.vs: 1. Withifl 14 days after receipt ef a eeA'lplete applieatieA the Staff Adviser shall appre'ie, appre.'e with ceAditieAs er deA', the applicatiaA l:IAless such tiA'le liA'litatieA is exteflded with the eeAseAt ef the applicaAt. The Staff Ad\'iser shall eAter fifldiAgS afld ceAcll:lsieAS te justify the deeisieA. 2, Netiee ef the deeisiefl shall be A'lailed withiA seveA days ef the decisieA. The Aetice shall cefltaifl the fellev/iflg iflfarA'latiaA: a. The deeisiefl af the Staff Adviser aAd the date af the decisiaA. 1:>. That Aa pl:lblic heariAg ....i11 be held l:IAless specificall'i requested. c. That a reql:lest tar a pl:lblic heariAg A'll:Jst be A'lade b'{ the date iAdicated efl the l'Ietice iA arder far a pl:lblic heariAg ta be schedl:lled. d, Tt-lat a reEjl:lest fer a pl:lblie heariAg shall iAch:lde the AaA'le aAd address ef the persaA reEjl:lestiAg the public heariAg, the filc Al:IA'lber af the plaAAiflg aetiefl aAd the specific gral:lAds fer which the deeisiaA shal:lld be rt:versed er A'ledificd, based 01'1 the applicable criteria ar precedl:lral irregl:llarity. 3. Natice shall be A'lailed ta the falle',viAg persaAs: a. The applleaflt, ar autharized ageAt. 1:>. The sl:lBjeet prapeFty aWfler. c. All a',\"Aers af reeard ef prepel'ty afl the A'last rceeAt prepeFty tax asSeSSA'leflt rail withiA the Aetlee area defiAed as that area 'A'ithiA 1ge feet af the sl:lbjeet I3repeFty . 4. Persefls ta whaA'l the Aatice is A'lailed shall ha'/e 10 da'is weA'l the date af A'lailiAg iA which te reEjl:lest a publie heariAg. ReEjuests fer a pl:lblic heariAg shall A'leet the fellev;iAg reEjl:lireA'leflts: December 18, 2007 Draft - 34 - ,,-t'"' :, .-'.;,.,J, i Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 a. The reqtlest shall be fileEl by the Elate s~eeifieEl iR the Retiee ef EleelsieR. b. The reqtlest shall be iR writiRg aREl iReitlEle the a~~ellaRt's Rame, aElElress, the file Rumber ef the ~laRRiRg attieR aREl the s~eeific gretlREls fer .....hleh the EleeisieR shetllEl be reverseEl er meElifieEl, based eR the a~~lieable criteria er ~receEll:Jral irregl:Jlafity. S. If a request fer a ~l:Iblie heariRg is timel.,. reeei'/eEl, a ~ublie heariRg shall be scheEltlleEl far the Rext regl:Jlar CemmissieR er HeariRgs BearEl meetiRg allewiRg aEleqtlate time te meet the Ratiee reqtllremeRts ef settleR 18.108.080. The ~l:Iblie heariRg shall be iR aeeerEl with the requifemeRts ef settieR 18.108.100. Amend Section 18.108.040. Type I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure: 1. Site Desian Review. The followina develooments that are subiect to the Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I permit procedures. a. Downtown Design Standards Zone. Anv development which is less than 2.500 square feet or ten oercent of the buildina's sauare footage. whichever is less. b. Detail Site Review. Any develooment in the Detail Site Review Zone. as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72. which is less than 10.000 square feet in gross floor area. c. Commercial. Industrial and Non-residential Uses i. All new structures. additions or expansions in C-1, E-1. HC and M zones. not within the Downtown Design Standards zone. that do not reauire new building area in excess of 20% of an existing buildina's sauare footage or 10.000 sauare feet of gross floor area. whichever is less. ii. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1.000 sauare feet. whichever is less iii. Exoansion of parking lots. relocation of parking spaces on a site. or other changes which alters circulation affecting adjacent property or oublic right-of- ~ iv. Anv chanlJe of occuoancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occuoancv. as defined in the City building code. or any change in use which requires a greater number of oarking soaces. v. Anv chanlJe in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category. e.g.. from residential to commercial. as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. vi. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National RelJister of Historic Places. d. Residential i. Two or more residential units on a single lot. ii. All new structures or additions less than 10.000 square feet of gross floor area. other than sinale-family homes or accessory uses on individual lots iii. Construction of attached single-familv housing (e.g. town homes. condominiums. row houses. etc.) in all zoning districts. iv. Off-street parking or landscaping. in coniunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared oarking), v. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. Miscellaneous Actions. 1. FiRat rlaR A~~re'/al fer PeffermaRee StaRElards SubEli'/isieRs. December 18, 2007 Draft - 35- ""'~ ...."'" Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 2. Site Reviews et"'er t"'aFl t"'ese subject te a Staff Permit Preee~h:lre er T';pc II Preeedl:lrc. 3. PaFtitieFls ....."'i('" require Fle variaFlccs er eFlI', variaFlecs sl:lbject te T'/pc I preeedl:lfes. .a.4. Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Tvoe I olanning .a.ctiQns . 5. Creati6Fl ef a 13rl';atc wa'l, as allewed iFl sectieFl 18.80.939.8. b. Amendment or modification to conditions of approval for Type II actions where the modification involves on Iv changes to tree removal and/or building envelope. c. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed in Chapter lB&2.. d. Tree removal permits as reauired by Section 18.61.042(D). .3.6. Conditional Use Permits. The followin9 conditional use oermits are subject to Tvoe I review orocedures: a. Conditional use oermits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than ~31 residential dwelling units~ L -tIemporary uses. c. Enlargement. expansion. etc. of nonconforming structures in accordance with 18.68.090(2). d. Government signs oer Section 18.96.150. e. The following uses in Residential zones: i. Accessorv residential units ii. Daycare centers. iii. Public and public utility buildinas. structures and uses less than 2,500 sauare feet in building footprint and disturbs less than 7.500 square feet of land. iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone. v. All new structures. additions or expansions that exceed MPFA In historic district uo to 25%. but the addition is no larger than 300 s.f. or 10% of the existing floor area, whichever Is less, vi. Hostels. vii, Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone. viii.Community Services in the NM-R15 zone. f. The followin9 uses in Commercial or Industrial zones: i. Electrical substations ii. Outdoor storage of commodities. g. The followina uses in the Health Care Services Zone: i. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as beauticians and masseurs. ii. Professional offices for an accountant, architect. attorney. designer. engineer. insurance agent or adjuster. investment or management counselor or survevor. iii. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property that is not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan. h. Conditional uses in the Southern Oregon Universitv District. 1.;z. Variances for: a. Sign placement. b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in section 18.96.130.D. c. Up to 50% reduction of standard yard requirements. d. Parking in setback areas. e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. f. Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area. g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. December 18, 2007 Draft - 36- ""' ' __::.' Jt{.~ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 h. Up to 20% reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described in section 18.92.055. j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in section 18.72.090. 5. Partitions and Land Divisions. a. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type orocedures. b. Creation of a orivate way. as allowed in section 18.80.030.B. c. Final Plan Aooroval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. 8. The folloY/iAg aew;lopFfteAts subjeet to the Site DesigA aAa Use StaAaaras iA seetioA 18.72.840.B: a. AA'( chaAge iA use of a lot ffaFft oAe geAefill use category to aAother geAeral use category, e.g., frOFft resiaeAtial to coFftFftercial, as aefiAea b', the zOAiAg regl:llatioAs of this Coae. b. AA'( resiaeAtialuse which results iA fel:lr awelliAg l:IAits or Fftore OA a lot. c. All Aev. strl:letl:lres or aaaitioAs greater thaA 2,S80 sql:lare feet, except far ac"elOpFfteAts iACh:laea iA seetioA 18.108.038.A.6. 29. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. 7. Prior to the Staff Advisor providina notice of aoollcation and making a decision. apolicants or the Staff Advisor may reauest plannin9 actions subiect to a Tyoe I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearin9s Board. In such case. the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Hearin9s Board to be heard as provided in section 18.108.050. B. Notice of Aoplication. TiFfte LiFftits, Notice aAa HeariAg Reql:lireFfteAts. ApplieatioAs sl:l!3:ieet to the Type I Proceaure shall be processea as fello.....s: 1. Within 10 davs of the city's determination that an application is complete. but no less than 20 days before the Staff Advisor makes a decision. written notice of the apolication shall be mailed to all of the followina: a. Applicant. b. Owners of the subiect oroperty. c. Owners of properties located within 200 feet of the perimeter of the subiect property . d. Nei9hborhood grouo or communitv organization officially recoanized by the city council that includes the area of the subiect oroperty. e. For final oartitions. final subdivisions. and final Outline Plans. to interested oarties of record from the tentative decision. f. For modification applications. to persons who requested notice of the original aoplication that is being modified. 2. The written notice shall include all of the following: a. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. b. The aoplicable criteria for the decision. listed by commonlv used citation. c. The place. date. and time that comments are due. d. A statement that copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for review. and can be obtained at cost. e. A statement that issues that may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Apoeals must be raised in writing and with sufficient soecificity to enable the decision maker to respond to the issue. f. The name and ohone number of a citv contact person. g. A brief summarv of the local decision making orocess for the decision being made. December 18, 2007 Draft - 37 - "",., ......1 I ~." / I Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 3. Posted Notice. A notice shall be posted on the su~ject prooerty in such a manner as to be c1earlv visible from a oublic riaht-of-wav. Postina shall occur no later than the date of mailinQ notice of aoolication. 3. Notices shall allow a 14-dav oeriod for the submission of written comments. starting from the date of mailina. All comments must be received bv the citv within that 14- dav oeriod. C. Decision. Within 45 days of the citv's determination that an application is comolete. unless the apolicant aarees to a longer time oeriod the Staff Advisor shall aporove. conditionallv aoorove. or deny a Tvoe I aoolication. D. Notice of Decision. 1 Within 5 days after the Staff Advisor renders a decision. the citv shall mail notice of the decision to the following: a. Aoolicant. b. Owner and occuoants of the sublect orooertv. c. Neiahborhood arouo or communitv oraanization officiallv recoanized bv the city that includes the area of the sublect oroperty. d. Anv arouo or individual who submitted written comments durina the comment ~ e. Those grouos or individuals who reauested notice of the decision. f. Prooertv owners and occuoants of orooertv located within 200 feet of the oerimeter of the sublect orooertv. 2. The notice shall include all of the followina: a. A description of the nature of the decision of the Staff Advisor. b. An exolanation of the nature of the aoolication and the oroposed use or uses which could be authorized. c. The street address or other easilv understood aeoQraohical reference to the subiect property. d. The name of a city reoresentative to contact and the teleohone number where additional information may be obtained. e. A statement that a coov of the aoplication. all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and aoolicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. f. A statement that any oerson whe is a~vel'Sel\' affE:E.te~ er aa~rleve~ ar who w~~ mailed a written notice of the Staff Advisor's decision may request reconsideration or aooeal as orovided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2). a. A statement that the Staff Advisor's decision will not become final until the oeriod for fjlina a local aooeal has exoired. h. An exolanation that a oerson who is mailed written notice of the Staff Advisor's decision cannot aopeal directly to LUBA. 3. Unless the decision is reconsidered or aooealed accordina to the procedures in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2). the Staff Advisor's decision is effective on the 13th dav after notice of the decision is mailed. 1. Caffiplete applieatiefls shall Be re\'iewe~ at the first regtllarly sehe~tlle~ Caffiffiissiefl ffieetiflg 'A'hieh is hel~ at least 39 ~a';s after the StlBffiissiefl af the eaffiplete applieatiafl. 2. Withifl 14 ~ays after feeeipt af a eaffil'lete al'I'lieat:iafl, the Staff A~visar shall apprave, appra\'e '1iith eafl~itiefls af ~efl1' the al'plieatiafl tlflless stleh \:iffie Iiffiit:atiafl is extefl~e~ with the eaflseflt af t:he applieaflt. The Staff M\'isaf shall eflter fifl~iflgs afl~ eafleltlsiafls ta jtlstify the ~eeisiafl. 3. Haliee af the ~eeisiafl shall Be ffiaile~ y,'ithifl sevefl ~a'ls af the ~eeisiafl ta the pefsafls ~eseriBe~ ifl seetiafl 18.188.939.8.3. The flatiee shall eafltalfl the iflferffiatlafl feEltlife~ IfI seetiafl 18.198.939.8.2 pltls a stateffieflt that tlflless a ptlBlie heariflg is feEltlesteEl, the aet;afl will Be reviewe~ By the Caffiffiisslafl. Pefsafls \:a whaffi the December 18, 2007 Draft - 38- ~.x ..,.....~ ~J , Comment [u13]: Does not need to be corrected because a per~~-. does not have to be adversel' affected or aggrieved to file a rec~~sidera!ion re.<!~_s~ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 Retice is fAaileEl shall have 19 E1ays frefA the Elate ef fAailiR!! IR which te fe~tlest a I'tll3lic heaflR!! l3efefe the CefAfAissieR. Re~tlest; fer a I'tll3lic heafiR!! shall ceRferfA te the re~l:IirefAeRts ef seetieR 18.198.939.B.4. 1. If a re~tlest fer a I'tll3lic heafiRg is tifAely receiveEl, a I'tll3lic heariRg shall l3e scheEltlleEl fer the Rext re!!tllar CefAfAissie'" er HeariRgs BearEl fAeetiR!! alle',viRg aEle~tlate tifAE: te cefAl'l, with the Retice re~tlifefAeRts ef seetieR 18. Hl8.989. The 1'1:I13lic heafiRg shalll3e !R aceerEl with the re~l:IirefAeRts ef seetieR 18.198.199. S. If Re fe~l:Iest fer a 1'1:I13lic heariRg Is tifAeI'( feceiveEl, the E1ecisieR shall l3e revieweEl l3y the CefAfAissieR ef HeariR!!S BearEl at its first re!!tllarl'f scheEltlleEl fAeetiR!! 30 E1a'fs after stll3fAissieR af the al'l'lieatieR. The CefAfAissieR er Beafe! fAa'(: a. ^fAeREI the aecisisR; iR stleh case, the aetieR shall l3e re RetieeEl as a TYl'e I E1ecisieR, 'Nith a 7 E1a'l l'efiaEl wlth!R which te re~tlest a I'tll3lic heariRg, exeel't that the CefAfAissieR shall Ret re'iie',\' the E1ecisieR agaiR shetllEl thefe l3e Re sl:leh re~tlest fileEl. 13. IRitiate a I'tll3lle heafiRg ef the E1ecisieR, threl:lgh a fAajerit.,. 'Iete ef thase iA atteAElaRet:, te l3e heara at the fallawiR!! fAeRth's re!!tllarly scheEll:lleEl CefAfAissiaA ar BaafEl fAeetiAg. c. Take Re aetiaR at the fAediAg 'NheR the aecisieR is scheEll:llea aA the ageREla. IA Stich ease the E1ecisiaR is fiRal the ReKt E1a)'. 6. Priar ta the StaW Aa'/iser fAakiAg a E1ecisieR, al'l'lieaRts er the StaW AEI','isef fAa.,. re~tlest I'laARiR!! aetieRs stll;)Jeet te a TYl'e I I'receEll:lre l3e hea~ l3y the CefAfAissieR er Beara. IA sl:lch ease, the StaW Aaviser shall Rat fAake a E1ecisieR aRa shall scheatlle a heariRg l3efere the CefAfAissiaR er Baafa te l3e heara as I're'JiElea iR seetleA 18.198.919.B.4. Amend Section 18.108.050. Tvoe II Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type II Procedure: 1. All Conditional Use Permits not subject to a Type I procedure. 2. All variances not subject to the Type I procedure. 3. Outline Plan for subdivisions under the Performance Standard Options (AMC Chapter 18.88), 4, Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code (AMC Chapter 18.80). 5. Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance Standard Options not requiring Outline Plan approval. 6. Any aooeal 1'1:I13lic heaf!"'g of a Staff Advisor decision, including a Tvoe I Plannina Action or Interoretation of the Ashland Land Use Code. festlltiR!! ffefA the StaW PeffAit PfeceEll:ll'e. 7. Any other planning action DQt...designated as subject to the Type.J..gr XII Procedure. B. Time Limits, Notice and Hearing Requirements. Applications subject to the Type II Procedure shall be processed as follows: 1. The Staff Advisor. actinQ under the authority of ORS 227,165. may hold an initial evidentiarY hearina on Tvoe II aoolications once they are deemed comolete. The Staff Advisor shall transmit cooies of the record develooed at the hearina to the Commission for additional public hearing, deliberation and decision, The Staff Advisor is not authorized to make decisions on Tvoe II aoolications. 2.4-. Complete applications shall be heard at a...:the fifst regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the complete application. ~. Notice of the hearing mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. 13. Public hearing{sl shall be held before the Commission and/or Staff Advisor in accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100. December 18, 2007 Draft - 39 - "'1 .,,:.' ~,' t \..__J f Comment [u14]: Needs to be corrected to make it clear than any planning action not designated as a Type I or Type III procedure IS a Type II procedure, Without this i correction, there might be a , loophole for Site Review , applications not identified as a ":')'pe I.~ . H. . Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Proposed Draft Amendments December 18. 2007 Amend Section 18.108.060. Type III Procedures A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure: 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments C. Type III Procedure. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be processed. as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080. c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in 18.108.100. 2. Fer plaAAiA!!) actieAs described iA seetieA 18.108.060.A. 1 aAd 2, the CeffiffiissieA sRallhave thc a~therity te take s~ch aetiaA as is Accessary ta ffialte thc afficAdfficAts to ffiaps aAd zeAes as a res~lt af the decisieA .....ithal;.lt fI:Irther actieA fraffi the Ce~Acil l:IAless thc deeisieA is appealed. The E1ccisiaA ef the CeffiffiissieA ffiay be appealeEl te the CauAeil as previded iA sedieA 18.108.110. 32. Fer plaAAiAg actieAs E1eseribeEl iA settieA 18.198.969.A. 3 aAd 2, tIhe Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Amend Section 18.108.070. Effective Date of Decision and Apoeals. A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and are not subject to appeal. B. Actions subject to appeal: 1. Staff PerMit BeeisiensExDedited Land Divisions. Unless aopealed within 14 d:ls of mailing a notice of decision. the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 0 _th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and _RS 197.375. UAless a retll:lest far a p~blie heariAg is ffiade, the fiAal E1eeisieA et the City fer plaAAiA!!) attieAS resl:lltiAg fraffi the Staff PeFffiit pFaced~re shall be the 5l:aff Adviser E1eeisieA, which shall be effeeti'/e teA days after the Elate af deeisiaA. If heafEl by the CaffiffiissiaA ar BaarEl, the CaffiffiissiaA ar BaarEl deeisiaA shall be the fiAal E1eeisiaA at the City aA s~eh ffiatters, effeetive 15 E1ays after the fiAdIA!!)S adapted by the CaffiffiissiaA are Si!!)Aed b'; the Chair af the CaffiffiisslaA aAd ffiailed ta the parties. 2. Type I Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. UAless a retl~est fer a pl:lblic heariAgIs ffiade, tIhe final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the ~day after notice of the decision is ~sched~led ta be revleweEl b'f the CaffiffiissiaA ar Baard. If a pl:lblie heariA!!) is helEl by the CaffiffiissiaA ar BaarEl, the deelsiaA af the CeffiffiissiaA ar BaarEl shall be the fiAal E1ecisiaA af the City, unless December 18. 2007 Draft - 40- '" ~'-I _. i Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 reconsideration of the action is approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the CeuAcil Commission as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(cl.He.A-.- b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor mav reconsider Tvoe I planninQ actions as set forth below. i. Anv party entitled to notice of the planninQ action. or any Citv Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by orovidinQ evidence to the PlanninQ Director that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration. which in the opinion of the director. miQht affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opoortunity to provide oublic input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of mailing. The Planning Director shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. iii. If the Planning Director is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision. the Director shall withdraw the decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Planning Director shall decide within ten (10) days to affirm. modify. or reverse the oriQinal decision. The Director shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm. modify. or reverse to anv partv entitled to notice of the olanninQ action. iv. If the Director is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision. the Director shall deny the reconsideration reQuest. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. c. ADDeal. LIf a public heariAg is held, tWithin twelve (12) days of the date of the mailing of the Planning Director's final decision. including any aooroved reconsideration reQuest. the decision mav be appealed to the Planning Commission by any oartv entitled to receive notice of the planninQ action. The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary on a form approved by the Citv Administrator. be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to Citv Council action. and be received by the city no later than 4:30 p.m. on the 12th day after the notice of decision is mailed. ii. If an aopellant prevails at the hearlnQ or upon subseQuent appeal. the fee for the initial hearinQ shall be refunded. The fee reQuired in this section shall not apply to aooeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries include the site. iiI. The appeal shall be considered at the next regular Planning Commission or Hearings Board meetinQ. The aooeal shall be a de novo hearing and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearlnQ required under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The Planning Commission or Hearings Board fiftaf-decision on appeal shall be effective 135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties. iv. The aooeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the aopeal will be considered by the city as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. d. Final Decision of City. The decision of the CeuAeil Commission shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the CeuAcilCommission on Type I Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the EettfleH Commission are signed by the Mayer-.cha..ILand mailed to the parties. December 18, 2007 Draft - 41 - ~/ I Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft: Amendments December 18, 2007 3. Type II Planning Actions. a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective 135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless reconsideration of the action is authorized as orovided in Section (b) below or appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.1l0.A. b. Reconsideration. i. Anv oartv entitled to notice of the olannina action. or anv City Aaencv may reauest reconsideration of the action after the Planning Commission final decision has been made bv providina evidence to the Plannina Director that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party askina for reconsideration. which in the opinion of the director. miaht affect the decision. Reconsideration reauests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised bv letter or evidence during the oooortunitv to orovide public inout on the apolication sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an oooortunitv to resoond to the issue orlor to makina a decision. ii. Reconsideration reauests shall be received within five (5) davs of mailin9. The Plannina Director shall decide within three (3) days whether to reconsider the matter. iii. If the Plannina Director Is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision. the Director shall schedule reconsideration with notice to oarticioants of the matter before the Planning Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the Plannina Commission at the next reaularly scheduled meetina. Reconsideration shall be limited to the oortion of the decision affected bv the facts not raised durina the ooen public hearina and rmmL iv. Reaardless of who files the request for reconsideration. if the aoolicant has not consented to an extension of the time limits (120 dav rule) as necessary to render a decision on the reconsideration. the reconsideration shall be denied bv the director. v. The PlanninQ Commission shall decide to affirm. modify. or reverse the oriainal decision. The Plannina Commission SecretarY shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to anv oartv entitled to notice of the olannina action. c. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Cetl"e:i1Council on Tyoe II Plannin9 act/onSi, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 4. Type III Planning Actions. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the decision of the Commission shall be the final decision of the City resulting from the Type III Planning Procedure, unless appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.1l0.A. The final decision shall be effective 135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Council, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.3 and 4, the decision of the Council shall be the final decision of the City, effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by the Mayor and mailed to the parties. 5. The City Council may call up any planning action for a "'t1blie: heaRR!) aREI decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the required ~ttffie-perlod, as etltliReEl belew. Unless the olannina action is aooealed and a oublic hearina is required. the City Council review of the Planning Action I~ ii;;;it~d to December 18, 2007 Draft: - 42- .t.J~ I "~,, Comment [u15]: For consistency in headings and format with Type1~I~nn!ng_ AC~(>n sectior ;- co.;.ment lui6j;F~;-;~~~i;t~-;'c}'- , with language in Type I Planning ,A~t~~ se<:!!()!':____ _______ ___ Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 the record and public testimony is not allowed. The City Council may affirm. modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. or mav remand the decision to the Planning Commission for additional consideration if sufficient time is permitted for making a final decision of the city. The City Council shall make findings and conclusions and cause copies of a final order to be sent to all oarties of the planning ~ C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until the decision is final, as defined in this section. Amend Section 18.108.080. Public Hearing Notice Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor. Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to: 1. The applicant or authorized agent, 2. The subject property owner, and 3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property... lIAless the heariAg has beeA reEJl:lested I:IAder the Staff Perffiit precedl:lre. IA such case the Aetiee shall be ffiaileEl eAly te eWAers "AlithiA 109 feet et the sl:Il3:ieet pf8pel't)'. C. Posted Notice. Except fer Staff Perffiit PreeeEll:lre plaAAiAg actieAs, aA notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the applieaAt ~ in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the CeffiffiissieA ffieetiAgoublic hearing. Failure by the applieaAt ~to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The applieaAt ~shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information: planning action number, brief description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at Ashland Planning Department. F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not mail the notice required in ~ 18.108~; Amend Section 18.108.110. Aooeal to Council A. Appeals of Type I deeisleAs fer ,;hieh a heariAg has beeA helEl, et Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in sSection 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Faill:lre te pa'l the Appeal Fee at the tiffie !the appeal reauirements of Section 18.108.110 must be fullv met or the aooeal will be considered by the city as is fileEl is a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity . 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place ef the heariAg eAto consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the heariAgmeeting. 4. The appeal shall be based solelv "on the record" established before the Planning Commission. The aooeal shall not be subject to a DubUc hearing and additional evidence. However. if in the determination of the City Administrator that a factual December 18, 2007 Draft - 43- ~" , , ~,.,..... Ashland land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 error occurred or additional substantive information might affect t~~ ~u:~~~ae ~f :~~ decision. the City Council may acceot additional testimony Iimlt~d __ h___ __ ~L ___ information as s~t forth in a n~tice of aopeal. The councilt :1' ~~~u~~~r i~ ~~: absence of Council rules. ffiay-wllI set forth the orocedure f~r _h_ c_____ __ "0_ ___ record" apoeals. a Ele Aeve t'/iEleAtiary heaFiAg. 5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. The Cel:lAeil, 13"1 majerit.; ...ete. .34. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Amend Section 18.108.160. Ordinance Interoretations A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is ~doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Qlij irector is authorized to interpret this land use code and decisions i~~~~d Q1.-- this land use code. Any person may request an interpretation by S~b!!C~ g ~l,.' ~5t on a written form approved by the citv administrator and ac~~~:~e~~y r, ---,; <::~tablished by the citv council. Within twenty (20) davs of recei~t __ 1'1 _n -lest. the Dlannin9 director shall make a written interoretation and ma" or d~liv~; a ~.- ; party requesting the interpretation. the Plannin9 Commission and City roeals of these interpretations shall be heard by the Plannina Commissio~ i~ __ 5et out In ALUO 18.108.050. B. I ne Plannlo.-,j Director Staff AElviser may iAteFl3ret the I3revisieA iA writiAg er refer the previsieA interpretation reauest directly to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. ~Neither 'le Staff AElviser'sPlanning Director's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The -pose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in qLition; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. QB. Unless the Planning Commission by maioritv vote chooses to review the ~ interpretation of the Staff t.Elvlser Planning Director. or the interpretation Is a~::'~~ pursuant to Section 18.108.160(A). or the City Council directs the Plannina CO!!Li__i__ to review the interoretation. the interpretation decision is final. shall be ferwarEleEl te the Uoon review. the Planning Commission whe-shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. December 18, 2007 Draft - 44- ! I ....1' ...,.. Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Proposed Draft Amendments December 18, 2007 Section 24, Amend Chapter 18.112, ENFORCEMENT Amend Section 18.112.030. Revocation--permit expiration Any zoning permit or olannina action, "laRReEt t1Rit Etevele"FfleRt "CFFflit, site EteSiElR re\'iew. ceREtitieRal t1se "erFflit, ar variaRee granted in accordance with the terms of this Title shall be deemed revoked if not used within one year from date of approval. unless another time oeriod is soecified in another section of this Title. Said permit shall not be deemed used until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit, and commenced construction thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use of the premises. The Staff Aadvisor te the PlaRRiR~ CeFflFflissieR may grant an extension te this tiFfle "erieEt stlhjeet ta the T'i"e 1 "faeeEttlre set fel"th iR Cha"ter 18.198 ef this Title of the aooroval under the followina conditions: 1. One time extension no lonaer than eighteen (18) months is allowed. 2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a chanae of conditions for which the aoolicant was not responsible orevented the aoolicant from comoleted the develooment within the ori9inal time limitation. 3. Land Use Ordinance requirements aoplicable to the development have not changed since the oriainal aooroval. An extension mav be aranted. however. if reauirements have chanaed and the aoolicant a9rees to comoiv with anv such changes. Amend Section 18.112.040. Revocation-conditions violated Any zoning permit....QLrplannina action. "laRReEt t1Rit Etevele"FflcRt "cfFflitetltliRe ef fiR~1 alaR l:.IREter the aerfefFflaRce staREtarEts eatiaRs, stlhEti...isieR aaareval. site EteSiElR aaare','al. e:eREtitieRall:.lse "efFflit, er variaRee granted in accordance with the terms of this Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such permit or variance are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith, December 18, 2007 Draft - 45 - L) .:- "'.,..; Comment [uI7]: To make this section more timeless so that it doesn't need to be updated as planning approvals are deleted or added to the code. Comment [ull]: A few planning approvals have different time periods (e.g. Outline Plan is 18 months). Comment [uI9]: To make this section more timeless so that it doesn't need to be updated as planning approvals are deleted or added to the code. OFFICIAL CITY MAPS DECEMBER 18, 2007 A larger version of the maps can be viewed on our website: htto:/ /www.ashland.or.us/Page .asp ?Navl D= 10373 ~ ~ ~ . .... :: ~ ~ 1[.. \-~ \ \ / / / / )' / , .. oj " ::! t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ Illt?li II .... ~'.' ~ ,,-'.;1' -- ~~' --<-- -- - ~ - . uuud!*I':" II II~ f ~lftJf r~r'lIl ~ II IJI I 'DIIIl __, 1m 111 [II >fl (.1 iii' g If I i ifi ii' 1.1 1 ~\~ KI\->j ~~\~ 1'(1\->1 ~=.f'\~ j~{~\->I ./M'I'~~~ :. '<I\'lo~\\~ "c. "~\~~\~ "\;if,\~~ '<I\"I'~I'-> 1.,"1',' .,~, \:\ .~;j tl\~I\"I'~I\->'\->" ;:,~\~'\~\~ ~~~,~~~~\~\~~\~~I\~ _~I\''<I\"I'~I\->'''->''\~ :.>.~c..><~~'{i\~.ll:J /"-- / / / ! ____I i ; Iii IIIII '-/-f.o ~ :: .... ~ ...... ~ :: a ..... '=l-S: :: :: l:: E ~ :: ~ ~ .... .... ~ .... ~E =.:;~ ~ ~.. ,-J v \ / / / i, / / / / / / / ../ I _./ .~/ c l i ~ ~ ~ I ^ ! ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ .5 0 + J j i I i DDDI ! .,. :!l ^ + i .5 j ! , i ~ ~ ~ ~ I Iii e ~--II ,.-./ \ ./ '\ " ~ ,// , " -.--r-c-- _ \~''V i ''\ J .(, .... . \\ ,'- . "/ "'- .:, ... - ../ , " -" .,./ .(.;i '". .... '> "- ;. -- '\ -'/,- . -r "'. ,.- ~):\.< / /' (L.r ;<i,; ,'31- ,.- ,.- I-~ ~ I 1/ /r""'T .--', I L'. ~. , D., ,J r---/. ......' / - --T./ -;f: . 1 f 7 "I~- L_ _ -I -1 I / / h::r-.--./ -:":-~;!,-:'7 I / i r - \ ;___. 'ZJ /_- / -' .,,~l_,~' _. ~.=-~~-- /~ /--~ <., .~, / /~_"...J D "-t", 1 , IJ _. . , ~""'--', .r~ ! 1"1 I LcJ ~ ~ i ~ - il i l ~ ~ ~ ~ ' C l!! ~ i !. Iii I ~ i t CD 0 0 = 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ II! .2 ::; ii l! l! !. 5' 5 ~ ~ ii: DO! ! I (tl 'Ii {.I Iii ~ lfJ ~ hi ~ i!i ~ / / // Lf7 '" t/l HI - ts Col :s 'C t/l - ts is II.j '" ts ts Q 'C :Ei ts ,g 1ii t/l :s :s i! ilil .S:! is is t/l t/l is hit .. ~ Gl is l!! :f = C 'C ~ - .s '6 g ~ rIA ,. '" C III == ~ ~ 'C 1ii t"t III 'iij :S< i!h 0 J: 0:: CI) z I I D c {< .- " - c: .c 0 .. ",0 :c-~ ..:t:u <t <Il >~;!"-(,-" ".;,~..",,;;;.;.- "",'. ~:s ::in.. -:::::',-:0 . ( ~ ....." ~ '''.>: ~j; :r~o.. in .J-~.....' ---.'------.- .:.:....::- L/f (-'-j, r.Lr~l i L~J \ ~. '(; ,-1 I I I L_L-l,'J'''~'';:''''':' I ",.: .' ,,'" ,.."c."., ~' I ,j' , . ,"~,-,'" ~,~' }y,; i /' i, I' i. /' ~ ;"~ //;~, " "'irL_~;"'j-___.J..~c" t, '\ 'i.: '7"-" [ (/1 I --.J I I i --__--l /~-~'" ,./ ',__--'1 I r!7' // I t )("":-~------J I //'/ I '\ , ' > 1" '\ \ n y) ,,,,,'\ ": ~ '~"'\ \ I~___ f\ ,,: \'\ \ / /7 /"",.-J--- \ : / /(// /<( "- ~/ / ,//,..--/ 'v"" ,...- /or- '" ," I ' "> '\ L ~-" /"/ ,> " \ /".;V' 7 J "- ;" /,/ ! C--_....../ -.., I' L' / 1 ~ L[ ;' .,:::-1 ,/ Ir~/ ~/..- Z/2~____ __ -;-~' ::-----~ ~ ~ : . . , __J- '\ 2...._-1 ! " I ; 9~ '.:;-JI .{_l ! II l' it r ~t ~t J! Il, Il H ul j t , ~ J I 'I I, ~ ::: rji ~ III 'E CD II >It ~ " ~ ::: II c l.f " .l!! ~ .~ c '" , I~ :::J C 0 ;; ~ al 0> CD j t f 'w .t:: CD a:: II ~ ~ c .!! III i u; nIl ,- ~ E <-' o " ::J c _ CD .... ~ ~ i 'i qfi ~ () ::l 8 ~ ~ illl 0 I C UI_i Ii.. , It~'r--~ I ""':''1: r. I Id~ I , t 'J I , /L,J I,',', ; I. I, ,if I. -----1 / / / , / ! / r--- / ---- I I '"......,--- .... f_. 1 I I , I r---~----'.-! ! " ! j---- I I ! I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I ____--------J .~-=-_J ,..-_:=') ! . " OCTOBER 23, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING II I CITY Of ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2007 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair John Stromberg at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Commluloners Present: John Stromberg, Chair Michael Dawkins Mike Morris Tom Dimitre John Fields Pam Marsh Dave Dotterrer Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Olena Black, excused Council LiaIson: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Sue Yates, Executive Secretary II. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Council ltems- On November 27,2007, there will be a possible report on the Wetland & Riparian Ordinance and the Croman Master Plan. The arterial setback ordinance will be brought to a regularly scheduled meeting. B. Roles and Responsibilities - Stromberg reported that the City Administrator is reviewing newly drafted language. She will decide if it is ready to move onto the Council for their review. Recessed to honor David Stalheim. Tonight is his last meeting. The meeting reconvened at 7:15 p.m. Stromberg thanked Stalheim for his service, his hard work and willingness to push things forward, for bringing an outside perspective to planning along with his dedication and commitment to planning. Stromberg noted how Stalheim has had an appreciation for his staff and their abilities. Dotterrer added his appreciation for Stalheim' s unique organizational ability to listen to lots of people and issues and put it all together into a coherent form. III. PUBLIC FORUM BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, discussed the Safe Routes to School program. The state has $3.7 million in grant money for improving safety on any of the pathways and walkways to school. The program allows for planning of anything within two miles of school to increase the probability of children walking to school. Whoever gets their request in first, gets the cash. He encouraged the Commission to put this item on their list of goals by moving it forward and contacting the program administrator, Julie Yip, 503-986-4196, to find out what we need to do to make this happen. Dotterrer said Traffic Safety has been working on planning for safe sidewalks. Molnar said Derek Severson, Associate Planner, has been working on this too. IV. APPROVE AGENDA - Dotterrer/Dimitre mls to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: The agenda was approved. V. TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS A. PlANNING ACTION: PA2007.o1283 APPLICANT: CIty of AIhIInd DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Un Ordinance implementing portions of the recommendltlonsln the Land Un Ordinance RIYIIw prIpII'Id by SIegel Planning Services. In addition other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land un decision-making procedures will be considered. PropoHd changes affect the following chapters of the Ashland Land Un Ordinance (Title 18): DefInitions, DIstricts and Zoning Map, Woodland Residential DIstrict, Rural Residential District, Single Family Residential DIstrict, Suburban Residential DIstrict, Low Density Multiple Family Residential DIstrict, High Density Multiple Family, North Mountain Neighborhood, Retail Commercial District, Employment District, Health Care Services Zone, Tree Preservation and Protection, Physical and Environmental Constraints, Southern Oregon University District, General Regulations, SIte Design Review, Partitions, Parking, Sign Regulations, Procedures and Enforcement. Note: The public hearing ,nd flcord h,ve been closed. -t,'v Stalheim reviewed his memo dated October 15, 2007 memo outlining the work of the subcommittee. In summary, if there any items on the list that the Commission would like to continue discussing, he suggested tabling those items tonight to a specific time and date. This will allow the items to be continued without requiring re-noticing. Be clear what is being left on the table and what is approved. Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to table I) the proposed changes to residential ground floor in C-I and E-I zones, and 2) the proposed changes to Vision Clearance. These items wiil be discussed at the February 26, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session, 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. With regard to the Procedures revisions, Stromberg noted at the last meeting the sense of the Commission was that the Procedures were acceptable, except they added a recommendation to the Council that the appeal fee should be set at zero. And, wait to see if there are any problems concerning misuse of the appeals process before adding a charge. Marsh clarified it is the appeals process for Staff approval to the Planning Commission and not a recommendation to change the appeal fee for a Planning Commission decision to the City Council. Accessorv Residential Units - Marsh questioned the Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) in R-2 and R-3. It does not make sense to her to allow for an accessory residential unit up to 1000 square feet on a 5000 square foot R-Ilot, and yet in the R-2 (7500 square foot lot minimum) and R-3 zones (5000 square foot lot minimum) not be allowed an accessory residential unit. Morris responded that the committee looked back at what the ARU was intended to do and at the Housing Needs Analysis. We are looking at getting smaller units. R-2 and R-3 are higher density multi-family zones. If apartments are not going to be built on R-2 and R-3 then should 1000 square foot units be built? Marsh argued that it can only be up to 1000 square foot. It could include units less than 1000 square feet. It is clearly secondary to the primary unit on the lot. Morris said parking becomes an issue as two parking spaces are needed for anything more than 500 square feet. He looks at R-2 and R-3 not in density, but in number of units. He believes it's better to have more units at a smaller size. Marsh believes there is more diversity with varying square footages. Units over 500 square feet can be more flexible in size to accommodate more than one person. Dawkins said instead of needing larger spaces, he believes we will be moving to smaller spaces. Molnar agreed it should be lowered to 500 square feet. Historically, most of the accessory residential units that have been built in R-I have been on lots between 7000 and 8000 square feet. The ordinance was set up to allow R-Ilots that are oversized- not big enough to split - to have a second unit. In R-2, once you go over 500 square feet, lot coverage requirements and parking will become an issue. Under a Conditional Use Permit, issues like scale, bulk and coverage can be addressed. In R-2 and R-3 they would be subject to Site Review. Fire Truck Turnaround - StaIheim said the Oregon Fire Code Standard is 150 feet, however, to allow flexibility, wording was added to extend the turnaround to a distance of250 feet in length (bottom of page 27 of Draft 3 - strikeout version) ADD8II Fee .18.1oa.070.B.2.c.l. - Dlae 41 of Draft 3 - strikeout version - Dimitre noted the appeal fee language is still there. He recalled the motion at the last meeting, was that the Planning Commission recommended that there be no fee. It seems the Council should add the language back in if that is what they want. Stalheim said no fees have been established because they are set by separate resolution or ordinance of the Council. It does, however, allow for a placeholder. Dimitre's concern is that someone could read into it that there is a fee. His intention was that the language would not be there. Dotterrer reads it that it authorizes the Council at a later date to establish a fee. It would be better to leave the wording in if we think the Council may want to establish a fee. DlmltrelDawldns mls to delete the last part of 18.1 oa.070.B.2.c.l- ""be accompanied by a fee established pursuant to City Council action..." and c.lI. Roll Call: Dlmltre, Dawkins, Stromberg and Mindlin voted "yes" and Morris, Fields, Marsh and Dotterrervoted "no." The motion failed. FleldslDawldns mls to recommend to the Council passage of this package of ordinance revisions. DISCUSSION Dotterrer referred to page 2 and 4, DefInitions. The definition "Porous Solid Surfaces" should be changed to match the wording in "Coveraae. lot or site" to "solid porous surfaces." Dotterrer asked for an explanation of 18.oa.74. Storv (page 3, Draft 3 - strikeout version). Stalheim said sometimes dormers will come out to the setback lines, but if the dormer is taken out all the way to the edge so it is part of the wall, and if there is a requirement for an increased setback for multiple stories, then that should be considered a story for purposes of setback. He ASHLAND PLANNING CO_SSION OCTOBER 23, 2007 MINUTES 2 , ^~ I "~~';.._" i said they are trying to make it clear that they cannot take advantage of the half-story defInition and create a huge wall face along the setback line. TemDOrary Uses. Molnar explained there has always had a CUP for temporary uses in an E-I and C-I. Often, proposals for temporary uses in other zoning districts have come up; a use incidental, seasonal or subordinate to the permitted use. This revision would allow some flexibility in the other zones to review a temporary use under a CUP process. Retail Commercial DIstrict. SDeclal Permitted Uses In C.1.18.32.025IDaae 13. Draft 3 - strikeout version) - Units ofless than 500 square feet shall count as .75 ofa unit is language that was already in the multi-family zoning districts. Some of the proposals in the Downtown and E-I zones, applicants have been interested in providing smaller units because there was a need, but under our current ordinance, they would get docked for a full unit even if it was a full unit. This won't penalize someone for doing smaller units. AQDeal-18.108.070.B.2.c.lI- This language is out of state law. It is Stalheim's understanding organizations exempted from the fee would have to be bona fide non-profit associations and recognized by the City. Evidentiary Hearina - The purpose is to collect evidence by way of public input to find out what the neighborhood issues are. The issues can get into the record and it allows Staff to respond. It is not a mandated process, but an optional tool. An alternative is a neighborhood meeting. De novo or on the record aDDelI to Councll- Stalheim said sometimes a de novo hearing is selected because with the political process, the elected officials feel citizens can come before the Council unencumbered - they can come before them with no restrictions. On the record, there will be restrictions. De novo hearings can cure any procedural issues that occur at lower hearings. In the proposed revisions there is wording to allow an "out" for the City Administrator if there are any procedural issues so they could do a limited de novo process. The Procedures are written so the mayor or the council can set rules ahead of time regarding how an appeal would be done. Most on the record appeals allow the parties to file written arguments and then allow the parties to the action. Other people do not get to testify. It would limit the action to what is in the record rather than allowing new evidence. Stromberg said if an appeal is on the record, it makes the Planning Commission's decision more important. Dotterrer suggested amending 18.108.11OA.4. by substituting the word "may" with the word "will." RoD Call: The motion carried unanimously. VI. HEARINGS OFFICER DISCUSSION Stalheim gave a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the pros and cons and why he is recommending a hearings officer. Stalheim said the Commission needs to prioritize their work. He reiterated that if the Commission wants to do aggressive long- range planning, they need the time to spend on it. It does not have to be permanent. He believes a Design Review Board would be a positive option. The officer usually charges a flat fee. Dawkins said it's been asserted that if the Commission did not hear all the actions, there would have more time to work on other things. A couple of years ago, at the direction of Council, three members of the Planning Commission worked for over a year on developing a Downtown Plan that was rejected by the Council. There seems to be a fundamental problem with visioning and he's not so sure it's directly related to the fact the Commissioners are reviewing planning actions. By going through the cross-section of projects that come to them, they get the pulse of the community. Planning is an art. However, until we somehow have a clear vision from the Council, he would just rather not have a hearings officer. Marsh lived in a community that had a Hearings Officer, an Architectural Review Board, and a Planning Commission. The hearings officer, a planner (not an attorney), worked very well for their city and she could support that. The recommendations passed tonight regarding Procedures is a baby step. If the commissioners can let go of Hearings Board and put more decisions in the hands of Staff, over time, we will find out how comfortable we are with that. Dotterrer agreed and will also wait and see what the Council does with the Planning Commission's Roles and Responsibilities. Dawkins concurred. VII. MEASURE 37/MEASURE 49 Stalheim put the Measure 49 language in the packet for informational purposes only. ASHLAND PLANNltO CO_SSION OCTOBER 23, 2007 MINUTES 3 ~A ......~;i ,..(., OCTOBER 15, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING LAND USE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS CITY Of ASHLAND October 15, 2007 TO: FROM: RE: Planning Commission David Stalheim Land Use Ordinance Amendments, Draft 3 Please find attached Draft 3 of the proposed changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. This draft reflects the review and recommendations of the "Siegel" committee composed of John Stromberg, John Fields and Mike Morris. Staff was represented by David Stalheim, Bill Molnar and Adam Hanks. The committee made the following changes from the August 28, 2007 draft. Definitions: lot coverage, setback, story, structure or building, accessory residential unit, basement, basement/daylight, floor area (gross habitable and gross), historic district, porous solid surface, reconstruct, story/half. We DELETED proposed changes for hotel, motel and vision clearance area. Standards and Procedures: · Changed the ARU to 500 sq. ft in R-2 and R-3 zones. · Dropped reference to Basement in the Detail Site Review zone (because we have now defined basement) · Provide clarification as to what a jurisdictional defect is for appeals (108.070 and 108.110) · Added new language regarding fire turnaround Deleted from Ordinance: · Deleted proposed additions for Temporary Storage · Deleted proposed changes on Vision Clearance · Deleted proposed changes on residential ground floor in C-l and E-l zones ~: Changed Detail Site Review map to Add the ComDev and library and take out the two lots by Safeway and Mountain View Retirement. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 stalheld(a)ashland .or. us wwwashland.or.us Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,., ,.,.. "'j. j... "'" OCTOBER 15, 2007 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION LAND USE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS PRESENTATION City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 2 of 4 was adopted in December 2006. Council requested boundaries on discussion in regards to Mt. Ashland Association (MAA). Councilor Hartzell clarified that her request is to further discuss the direction that should be given to staff about the implementation of the 2005 Resolution. Mayor Morrison stated the Council should decide at that time if this is an item they want to discuss. Council requested staff provide the language in the resolution relating to the lease with MAA. Councilor Chapman requested direction on the inquiry of investigating potential permit violations as brought forward by Councilor Navickas. Councilor Navickas explained his concern and was curious about an update from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 3. Discussion of adoption of 2007 Oregon Fire Code with Ashland Amendments Fire Division Chief Margueritte Hickman presented the proposed amendments to the 2007 Fire Code and stated that this is the beginning of the normal cycle for adopting the new code. She noted there are some minor changes and that most of the amendments are housekeeping. Ms. Hickman reviewed the following sections: · 15.28.050 Explained that the proposal is based on what is in the current fire code and that there would be no changes based on what is currently happening. · 15.28.060 Noted references adopting the section of the current fire code. · 15.28.070 (a) Deleted -This amends the Fire Code so that it is more restrictive and requires turnaround. Explained that this section was brought to the Planning Commission for their review and noted staff was requested to provide variances for the 150 ft. turn around. Chief Keith Woodley explained that the primary concern by the Planning Commission was that geological barriers could make it difficult to meet the code. The Planning Commission requested staff come back with other alternatives. · 15.28.070 (c) New section that addresses fireworks. · 15.28.070 (d) Modifies appendix and Section 15.28.080, which creates an Appeals Board. ,r-;- Land Use Amendment Ordinance i ~ommunity Development Director David Stalheim, Planning Commissioner Chair John Stromberg and Senior Planner Bill Molnar presented the proposed Land Use amended ordinance. t Mr. Stalheim presented the third drall of the ordinance and noted it will go before the Planning Commission for approval. He reviewed the process of this proposal and the timeline of how it was brought forward since February 2006. He stated the scope of the amendments include the following: 1) '\ Readability, 2) interpretation or internal consistency in application of the code, 3) minor policy issues, usually in concert with interpretation or consistency issues and 4) permit procedures. ~-\ \ Readability Improvements · Conditional Use Permits identified by zone, rather than scattered throughout code · Distinction made between what development triggers Site Design Review (18.72) from procedure or permitting process (918.108) · Definitions amended and added for clarity Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues . Lot Coverage · Gross Floor Area · Site Design Standards · Permit Expiration Date · Maps I c) / S!V("of'} '/ ""(U('i ('~'c'(i'I('1 -' ,,' rj Y' ~. <", I .z . I ; . r __~._ ,. ( I Y , ).' ...~ -r http://ashland.or.us/ Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3188&Print=True 12/6/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of 4 Standards Addressed · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in multi-family rooms · Non-conforming uses and structures · Mechanical equipment · Tree protection · Setbacks and Yards · Permit expiration · North Mountain zones · Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-l zones · Vision Clearance · Temporary storage Procedure Amendments Proposed - 1) New Expedited Land Division procedures, 2) Amended Type I, II and III Permit procedures, 3) Ordinance Interpretations and 4) Application Requirements. Expedited Land Divisions · Required by ORS 197.360 · Land zone residential · Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site Amended Type I Permits · Staff Permits - This permit eliminated and integrated into Type I permits with the same basic procedures associated with Type 1, except the notice area is now expanded from 100 to 200 feet. · Notice Requirements and Decision Process · Proposed process - Two notices, 14-day period to submit written comments during the Notice of Application stage and staff decision final, subject to reconsideration or appeal. No review by Hearings Board. · Reconsideration and Appeals - Adds ability for someone to identify a "factual" error in the decision, reconsideration can be granted; stays appeal period and new notices must be provided. Type I Appeal Process · Appeals would be heard by Planning Commission or Planning Commission Hearings Board · "De Novo" public hearing required with new notice · Planning Commission recommended NOT to have appeal fees for public hearing - Planning Commission felt it was important to try the new procedures out, appeal fees could be added later if necessary - If the council wanted to institute appeal fees, they would be limited by ORS to $250 which must be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal _ fees cannot be assessed to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the City whose boundaries include the site Noted there are costs for simple hearings and provided an example. Type II Permit Procedures · Movement of some Type II permits to Type I permits - Buildings 100 feet in width or length in Detailed Site Review would not automatically be Type II · Add an Initial Evidentiary Hearing - Staff could hold an initial hearing to collect evidence which then becomes part of the record and is transmitted to the Planning Commission ..5S http://ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?DisplaY=Minutes&AMID=3188&Print=True 12/6/2007 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 4 of 4 · Add a Reconsideration Process - Allows the Planning Director to approve reconsideration when a factual error is made (purpose is to avoid appeals when clear errors are made that were not previously discovered) · Change the Appeal to Council Procedures Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures · Council Initiated - Appeal could be "on the record", City Administrator can determine if a limited public hearing is necessary to correct a factual error or address new substantive information · Citizen or Applicant initiated · De-politicizes land use decisions - encourages input to happen through citizen groups _ Encourages input to happen through citizen groups · Procedural errors can still be corrected by this process Mr. Stalheim stated that there are many options and variables that could include a Hearings Officer. Mr. Stromberg explained that the Planning Commission will be hearing this proposal and once they have heard the proposal it will come back again to the council. He explained that there is a small core group made up of staff and citizens that are working on pieces of this proposal to help answer questions to either the Planning Commissioners or City Councilors. He suggested that they submit written questions to this core group. Councilor Hartzell requested that these recommendations are done in steps and to try not to place poliCY changes into the document but to stick with procedural changes. Mr. Stalheim noted that some of the questions brought forward by the council were not addressed by the Planning Commission because it did not relate to them. He clarified that the proposal does include allowing the City Administrator to contract for a Hearings Officer if necessary. Ordinance Interpretations · Current Procedures - current ordinance ahs all interpretations having to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council, there is uncertainty about what constitutes an interpretation, there are no mechanisms for formalizing request for interpretations, including appeal of such decision · Proposed Procedures - Makes Planning Director decision final, but all decisions are still forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council, Planning Commission and City Council could choose to review, but if not, then the decision is final and a formal request for interpretation process is added, which gives the ability to then appeal that interpretation to the Planning Commission. Meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John W. Morrison, Mayor End of Document - Back to Top 5.'. http://ashland.or.us/ Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3188&Print=True 12/6/2007 City Council Presentation October 15th, 2007 Study Session Ashland Land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments 57 1 Evolution of Proposal . Zucker Report (February 2006) . Siegel Report (April 2006) · Planning Commission Siegel Subcommittee (June 2006 -- February 2007) · Community Development Director Report (February 8, 2007) · Planning Commission Study Session (April 4, 2007) · Planning Commission Retreat (June 2, 2007) · City Council Study Session (June 4, 2007) · Planning Commission Study Session (June 26, 2007) · First Draft Released (July 24, 2007) · Planning Commission Meeting - agreed to start public hearing process (July 31, 2007) · Second Draft Released (August 28, 2007) · Public Hearing before Planning Commission (September 11, 2007) · Planning Commission Deliberations (October 4th and 23rd) · Planning Commission Recommendation to Council - Vote of 8 to 0 to approve Scope of Amendments . Readability · Interpretation or internal consistency in application of the code · Minor policy issues, usually in concert with interpretation or consistency issues . Permit procedures ;-.., v II "j :, 2 Readability Improvements . Conditional Use Permits identified by zone, rather than scattered throughout code . Distinction made between what development triggers Site Design Review (18.72) from procedure or permitting process (18.108) . Definitions amended and added for clarity Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues . Lot Coverage . Clarifies what is included and provides some exemptions . Gross Floor Area . Adds definition to answer many code requirements . Site Design Standards . Clarifies what standards to apply for attached single family and non- residential development . Permit Expiration Dates . Sets limit on site design review approval to one year; extends tree removal permits from 6 months to 1 year . Maps . Re-adopts maps based on electronic format . No changes in zoning or designations, but old paper maps had to be interpreted as to where the boundaries actually exist. #. - , ,-l ",.~,; / 3 Standards Addressed: · Accesso Residential Units D nsit and MPFA in multi-famil zones (makes more consls en WI - zones · Non-conformina uses and structures (addresses inconsistencies and provides clarity) · Mechanical eauiDment (provides standards and clarity) · Tree Protection (adds protection to adjoining trees and mitigation) · Setbacks and Yards (defines and clarifies lHlYLto measure - standards not changed) · Permit eXDiration (Moves extension of permit expiration to ministerial while reducing it from 24 months to 18 months) · North Mountain Zones (lot coverage and signs) -----------------------------------------------..---- Items Tabled by Planning Commission subcommittee: · Residential Ground Floor in C-1 and E-1 zones (prohibits ground floor residential. limits on upper floorS) · Vision Clearance (sets standard from curb line rather than property line) · TemDorarv storaae (provides standards for "PODS" Procedure Amendments Proposed · New Expedited Land Division procedures . Amended Type I Permit procedures · Amended Type II Permit procedures · Amended Type III Permit procedures . Ordinance Interpretations 4 ~CJ Expedited Land Divisions . Required by ORS 197.360 . Land zoned residential . Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site . Creates three or fewer parcels and complies with street and other standards of the city . Not authorized in historic districts or on lands designated by Physical and Environmental Constraints Amended Type I Permits . Staff Permits . This permit type eliminated and integrated into Type I permits . Same basic procedures with Type I, except notice area now expanded from 1 00 to 200 feet . Notice Requirements and Decision Process . Reconsideration and Appeals ?~ I 5 Revised Type I Notice Process . Current process: . Staff makes "tentative" decision · Notice sent after tentative decision · Planning Commission Hearings Board reviews the decision, but cannot take any testimony unless they call the item up to hearing and re- notice the hearing · There is not a notice of application and ability to provide comments prior to decisions being made Revised Type I Notice Process, con't. . Proposed Process . Two notices: · Notice of "application" sent out, posted on site and web · Notice of decision sent out to affected parties · 14-day period to submit written comments during the Notice of Application stage · Staff decision final, subject to reconsideration or appeal; No review by Hearings Board . Reconsideration Process · Adds ability for someone to identify a "factual" error in the decision · Reconsideration can be granted; stays appeal period · New notices must be provided ~~ 6 Type I Appeal Process . Appeals would be heard by Planning Commission or Planning Commission Hearings Board . "De novo" public hearing required with new notice . Planning Commission recommended NOT to have appeal fees for public hearing . Planning Commission felt it was important to try the new procedures out; appeal fees could be added later if necessary. . If the Council wanted to institute appeal fees, they would be . limited by ORS to $250 which must be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal . fees cannot be assessed to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by city whose boundaries include the site Costs for Simple Hearing (Recent case of247 OtIs that was called up to public hearing) Staff Time 11 hours $40/hour Mailing Copyina 245 paaes x 14 sets @1 0 cents TOTAL $ 440.00 10.50 343.00 $ 793.50 Notes: Actual costs exceed this amount because full staff costs are higher than $40 per hour and copying charges are 20 cents per page. ORS would limit the amount charged for initial evidentiary hearing to $250. c:'3 7 Type II Permit Procedures · Movement of some Type II permits to Type I permits · Buildings 100 feet in width or length in Detailed Site Review would not be automatically Type II · Adding an Initial Evidentiary Hearing · Staff could hold initial hearing to collect evidence · Evidence becomes part of the record and is transmitted to Planning Commission . Add a Reconsideration Process · Allows the Planning Director to approve reconsideration when a factual error was made · Purpose is to avoid appeals when clear errors are made that were not previously discovered · Change the Appeal to Council Procedures Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures . Council Initiated · Can "call up" Planning Commission decision for review but not appeal · Avoids bias and prejudgment by not having to state reasons for appeal · Call ups, if not appealed by others, would be limited to on the record and no public testimony taken (" lJ f. f 8 Type II Appeal Procedures, con't. . Citizen or Applicant initiated . Appeal could be "on the record" . City Administrator can determine if a limited public hearing is necessary to correct a factual error or address new substantive information. . De-politicizes land use decisions . Encourages input to happen through citizen groups, such as Historic, Tree, Bike and Planning Commission . Procedural errors can still be corrected by this process Ordinance Interpretations . Current Procedures: . Current ordinance has all interpretations having to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council . There is uncertainty about what constitutes an interpretation; hinges on the word "doubt" . There are no mechanisms for formalizing request for interpretations, including appeal of such decisions . Proposed Procedures: . Makes Planning Director decision final, but all decisions are still forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council . Planning Commission and City Council could choose to review, but if not, then the decision is final . A formal request for interpretation process is added, which gives the ability to then appeal that interpretation to the Planning Commission. I ,.- Co I::; 9 OCTOBER 4, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING & PRESENTATION CITY OF A.SHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING October 4, 2007 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair John Stromberg at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR Commissioners Present: John Stromberg, Chair Michael Dawkins Tom Dimitre John Fields Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi-judicial agenda items. Absent Members: Olena Black Dave Dotterrer Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planner Adam Hanks, Permit Manager Diana Shiplet, Executive Secretary II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Stromberg stated Mike Morris will be late, Olena Black and Dave Dotterrer have previous commitments and so have excused absences. Mr. Stromberg stated that Planet Citizen, an organization listed in the most recent Planning magazine, has on-line training programs for Planning Commissioners. There is some money in the budget for PC training. He would encourage commissioner who is interested in participating in the training to talk to Susan Yates in Community Development to get registered. . III. APPROVE AGENDA MarshlDawkins m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved. IV. TYPE III PLANNING ACTIONS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-01283 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance implementing portions of the recommendations in the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition, other recommendations of the City Planning Director concerning land use decision-making procedures will be considered. Mr. Stromberg stated that this is the kind of project where you can easily get caught up in the specific issues but in the big picture we have a very large collection of detailed changes in the land use ordinance. He stated that due to the size of this project often some of the details are not captured in the summary. Staff is much more familiar with all the details than the commission. They are looking at the practical use, efficiency, and customer service. The Planning Commission is more focused on the balance between community interests and private interests. With that in mind, he, John Fields, Mike Morris, David Stalheim, Bill Molnar, and Adam Hanks met for about two and a half hours going over all the non-policy, non- procedural portions of the proposed changes. During that meeting he realized how challenging this task is and how many questions arise from these changes. He stated that to the extent that it is possible to dig into the details tonight will mean the Planning Commission is doing their part more effectively. He reminded the commission that they have until October 12th to make any suggestions or alterations to the ordinance so that staff can make changes in time for the October 23rd Planning Commission meeting. On October 23rd, it is hoped that the Planning Commission will bring this process to completion. Also, on the 23rd he would like to bring back the revised Planning Commission Goals and talk about the strategy for getting everything approved by the City Council. ~ , ',t:) '"", David Stalheim, Community Development Director, stated this process started with the Zucker report and the Seigel report in February and April of 2006. Following that, John Stromberg, John Fields, and Mike Morris met between June 2006 and February 2007 and went through the Seigel report. Mr. Stalheim prepared recommendations based on the reports and the meetings in February of2007. Planning Commission did a study session in April of2007, a retreat in June of 2007, another study session and the end of June 2007, and the first draft of the ordinance was released in July of 2007. Planning Commission agreed to start the public hearing process at the end of July 2007 and the second draft, based on public comments, staff review and Planning Commission input, was released in August of2007. That second draft is the version we are working from tonight. Mr. Stalheim reminded the Commission that they did have a public hearing on this topic which started on September 11 th and was continued to tonight. He stated that the Commission needs to see if there was any public input tonight and then close the public hearing. Mr. Stalheim reminded the Commission that at tonight's meeting they need accomplish 4 things tonight; 1) address any new public input, 2) to discuss the procedure changes in the ordinance, 3) discuss any policy issues identified in the ordinance and 4) determine what the next steps might be in the process. Mr. Stalheim stated he would like to highlight some of the issues he thinks the Planning Commission should focus on during their discussions tonight. The first is the procedures issue. He stated that the real issue is whether or not they should be packaged together for passing on to the Council for approval or if they should be separated. The proposed changes in the site design chapter require changes in the procedures chapter, so they can't really be separated. If the Planning Commission determines they would like the procedures separated out, they much also separate out the site design chapter. Mr. Stalheim stated he went through the ordinance and attempted to identify other sections that would be affected. The first is that in every zoning district there is a reference regarding wireless communication facilities that refers to a specific section in the revised site design chapter. It is the same standard as before but they moved things around and so there is a reference to that section and that would get lost if they didn't update the site design chapter. The second is a small reference to procedures in the tree preservation chapter which needs to be updated in the site design chapter. Mr. Stalheim stated that by not doing the site design chapter there are some things in the site design chapter that are standards improvements in the chapter and staff feels that these improvements will be valuable and last for a long period of time without needed additional updates. Mike Morris arrived at 7:13 pm. Mr. Stalheim stated that he met with planning staff last week to make sure that they are really comfortable with the procedures changes. Staff stated that they believe winter is the best time to implement any procedure changes, due to lower planning permit activity levels. One staff member also recommended a longer timeframe for implementing the procedure changes. Mr. Stromberg stated he also recommends the winter as a good time to implement this, not only with us but also with the City Council as they have fewer things on their agenda during that time as well. He stated that the important thing is that this is very valuable and there is a lot of potential for success with these changes. Mr. Stromberg stated that the group who had met including himself, John Fields, Mike Morris, Bill Molnar, and Adam Hanks would like to become an official committee of the commission in order to continue working on this project and complete looking at all the changes. Mr. Molnar stated that because there already is a land-use committee (Morris, Fields, Stromberg) that had been working on the Siegel report there is no need for a motion to approve this committee. Mr. Stalheim stated that one of the other procedure issues which needs to be discussed is the appeal fees. The ordinance does not prescribe fees, but states that if they are set, need to be paid and notes the ORS requirement to reimburse fees if the appeal is successful. So the question to the Planning Commission is do you wish to recommend to Council appeal fees? The second issue is whether or not the appeals to Council will continue to be de novo or will become on the record appeals. Mr. Stalheim stated that the first policy issues which needs to be discussed includes that the Commission can review the options - including no action. The other "top six" options that need to be discussed include: Residential Ground Floor in C -1 and E-I zonings The options regarding this were outlined in the September 11, 2007 staff report. The first option was No Action. This does not address the problems of interpretation regarding lot area. He reminded the Commission that it currently states that 65% of the ground floor if there is one building, but if there are multiple buildings it calls for 50% of the lot area. The problem PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 ~ 1 is that they don't really know what is the lot area when measuring buildings and square footage. Option two is what is in the current draft of the ordinance and that is to allow one small unit or approximately 500 square feet on the ground floor. Option three is the original draft which prohibited residential units on ground floor. Additional Dwelling units in R-2 and R-3 zonings The options for this were also outlined in the September II, 2007 staff report. The first option is to take no action. The result of that would be that you could have more density in the R-l zone than in the multi-family zones. The second option is in the August 28th draft which would allow units of up to 1,000 square feet. Option three is what was in the original draft of the ordinance which would allow units of up to 500 square feet. And option four has not been drafted but there were some discussions about "splitting the difference" and allowing units of up to 750 square feet. Hotel!Motel definition The options for this were, again, outlined in the September II, 2007 staff report. The first option is to take no action. Option two has a new definition that would require a lobby and on-site staff. The intention of this is to avoid timeshare residential units which were really not hotels or motels. Option three is a new definition without any of the limits on the lobby or on-site staff. Temporary Storage This relates to units like the PODS, which we are starting to see around the city. Again, the options for this were outlined in the September 11, 2007 staff report. The first option is to take no action so there would be no regulation of these within the city. The second option, which is in the current draft, places limits on these facilities. Option three would allow for some longer time periods for active building projects. The fourth option is to set standards that consider size of the sign on the storage building in order to make a distinction between these temporary storage units, because some might have signs that are not that obvious and others have quite a bit of advertising on the sides of them. Vision Clearance Option one is no action. This option does not address the problems with the current standards. However, the details of a replacement standard have not been resolved with Engineering. Option two would be for the commission to direct staff to continue to work on this issue. Fire Turnaround on Flag Partitions Option one is no action. This does not address the Council directive to make the Land Use Ordinance consistent with the Fire Code. The Commission can table this for a later discussion. The second option is to adopt the update as drafted in the ordinance. Mr. Stalheim reiterated that the idea is to come out of this discussion with a clear set of directions on procedure and policy issues. Also, it is hoped that the group will review details and make recommendations for the full Planning Commission action at the October 23,2007 meeting. Also, to perhaps identify which of these issues need to be tabled for discussion at a later time and should not be included in this round of amendments. PUBLIC HEARING No members of the public were present. DimitrelMorris mls to close the public hearing. Voice Vote: aU ayes. Motion passes. Fire Turnaround Mr. Stalheim asked Fire Division Chief, Margueritte Hickman, to discuss with the Commission the Fire Department's concerns regarding the fire turnaround on flag lots issue. Ms. Hickman stated the new 2007 Oregon Fire Code, which was adopted by the City Council, does not match with our current Land use code. In order to get those two aligned they need to amend the Land Use Code. Currently the Ashland City Code states that you don't need a turn around on a dead-end street until 250 feet. However, the Oregon Fire Code requires a turn around after 150 feet. The Council requested that the two codes match. Ms. Hickman stated that the Fire Department did some research and found that in the last 7 months of building permits there were 5 projects that required a turn around and if the 150 foot requirement were in place, an additional 2 turnarounds would have been required. She stated that it is her understanding that, historically, the land use code originally adopted the 250 foot requirement based on the Fire Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 3 ! ./ '~/"'" Ms. Hickman stated that the Council requested that Fire staff change the fire code and to bring to them a different amendment so that Ashland did not amend the fire code in a less restrictive fashion. The reason this is less restrictive is that we are allowing people to have a longer driveway or a longer dead-end before they have a turn around. Rather than requiring it at a shorter length which would be more restrictive. The numbers are bigger but it is less restrictive. The Council wanted this change to be made to the Ashland Fire Code. She stated that the concern they brought to the Council was that this change would be in conflict with the State Fire Code. After bringing this to the Council, the Council decided that they would like the Land Use Code updated to reflect the State requirements. Ms. Mindlin questioned if there were other alternatives in place of the turn around requirement, such as requiring fire sprinklers instead of a turnaround. Ms. Hickman stated that currently the Fire Code does not give such an alternative as an option. That is something they could consider, if necessary. Typically, the requirement for sprinklers is to mitigate a longer response time and the purpose of the update really has more to do with being able to turn the equipment around and not have to back the equipment out. Backing equipment has been proven to be more risky than moving forward. Mr. Stromberg asked if there were any comments from builders regarding this requirement. A comment was made that on a single flag lot, the amount of paving for a turn around is huge. Mr. Stalheim read a previously submitted comment from Mark Knoxs which stated, "... that staff should re-evaluate the standard primarily due to the amount of asphalt associated with the turn around standard as illustrated in the multitude of in-fill parcels this is going to effect. He would hope 250 feet would still remain as long as fire sprinklers were added which are probably far more important than the turn around. This seems to be a better compromise and one he is sure Fire could agree upon. For many years the Fire Department touted sprinklers as the primary safety measure, minimizing fire hazard and the spread of fire." Mr. Stromberg stated fire prevention isn't really the issue here, it is the difficulty of backing out the extra 100 feet and he assumes that could mean slower response time if they have to back out prior to heading to the next call. Ms. Hickman agreed that it certainly could decrease the response time. Mr. Stromberg questioned if there are any insurance issues with the City not adhering to the State Fire Code. Ms. Hickman stated it was researched and determined that City Land Use Code could supersede State Code, as it relates to access. Mr. Molnar also pointed out that the 250 foot requirement is also identified in the performance standards under street standards. We would want to make that consistent with the other parts of the code. He stated that one of the issues over the years has been that often private driveways or flag-lot drives are in areas of slope. This becomes an issue of design in terms of how do you construct these taking into consideration treed areas, cuts, and fill. The issue the Commission needs to look at is if there is some flexibility when determining location of the turnaround. For example, if the turn around could be moved 15 feet in either direction this may preserve trees, etc. In discussions with Fire over the years, they have been flexible and it doesn't seem like this new requirement will be even more restrictive. Ms. Hickman clarified that this does not mean there has to be a turn around every 150 feet. It is one turn around required for any driveway over 150 feet. At the same time, they have interpreted the code to mean that if a driveway is, for example, over 750 feet and a turn around is not possible at the end of that 750 feet Fire will accept a turn around within 150 feet of the end of the driveway. As Mr. Molnar stated, the Fire Department can be flexible as to where the actual turn around is located. Ms. Mindlin stated that she has issues with this, because, having just installed one, it is a lot of lot coverage, especially when you add in the 5 foot clearance for under 18" plants requirement. Mr. Stromberg asked if this code is subject to administrative variance. Mr. Molnar stated that anything in the ordinance, unless it has been specified as not, is subject to a variance. Ms. Hickman stated that she would need to re-read that section of the code, however, there has been discussion in the code that if it is impractical due to physical land features, existing buildings, etc... the Fire code official can make some adjustments. Mr. Morris stated that he prefers the flexibility of working with the Fire Department to determine what is acceptable to them. He does not like seeing rigid numbers in the code. He also questioned why Council would go to the Fire Department and require them to get the land use ordinance changed without directing the Planning Commission to change it. Ms. Marsh asked how much square footage is required to install a turn around. Ms. Hickman stated it was approximately 1500 square feet. Ms. Marsh questioned if the added turn around will significantly effect the lot coverage requirements. Mr. Hanks stated, yes, with smaller rural residential lots those issues do come quicker, however there are many options such as moving the garage closer to the street to limit the driveway length. Ms. Marsh stated that it might be interesting to take a look at the two which would have fallen under this rule and see how this rule would have effected what was developed there. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 4 I ,~? '.0 I . Mr. Stalheim stated that another option, based on Ms. Marsh's comments, is that the Commission could look at exemptions to lot coverage for those smaller lots which require a turn around. Mr. Dimitre asked, since we are currently requiring turnarounds for driveways over 250 feet are we currently having issues regarding lot coverage? Mr. Stalheim stated that recently there have been some variance requests regarding lot coverage in flag lots. Mostly this is due to people not taking into consideration the shared drive when planning the lot coverage. Mr. Molnar stated the most effected areas like lower Clay Street or Tolman Creek, where it is an R-5 zoning, 5000 square foot lot size, and there are some very long, skinny lots with very small total lot size. Mr. Stromberg stated that he doesn't have a clear sense of what direction the commission would like to head in, and asked if anyone wanted to make a motion on this topic. Mr. Dawkins asked for clarification as to what option one (no action) would mean. Does it mean that essentially staff would continue to work with the Fire department to determine when turnarounds were necessary? Mr. Stalheim stated it means that the 250 foot requirement would still be in place and the city code would not match the state code. He stated that we could write an option three which changed it to the 150 foot requirement but grant exemptions for lot coverage and could also write as part of the code that 150 feet is the requirement but that with the Fire Marshall's approval a variance on that requirement could be given. Ms. Mindlin stated that she doesn't think we should make our exemption related to lot coverage. She sees the point in shortening it if there is flexibility and a variance. If we leave it at 250 feet, there is no way to require anyone to put one in at any shorter distance. If we go with the shorter distance and have some flexibility depending upon each individual situation she much prefers that option. Mr. Fields stated that by changing the requirement where it becomes an issue is steepness. If it is a wide open area it is different than a heavily treed area. If it is one house versus 22 houses it can be an issue. He wanted clarification on where a driveway technically ends. Is it where a garage begins? Does it start at the back of sidewalk? If so, his driveway would be more than 150 feet, and he can't imagine a fire engine ever needing to go down his driveway and if they do, he can't imagine them having a hard time backing out. He suggested we table this issue, as there are too many unknown issues. Mr. Dimitre asked if Mr. Fields was interested in recommending any parts of this issue tonight, or if he would prefer that staff take it and re-work the whole thing. Mr. Fields stated that 250 feet is a long distance if it is multiple units, if it is on a steep hillside. There are conditions in which 250 feet is too far and other times where it isn't worth the cost to do a turn around on a shorter distance. He thinks we need to take a look at the real safety issue. We need to take this issue out of this current process or we will never get finished with any other items. Ms. Hickman stated that, in response to Mr. Fields question as to where does a driveway end it ends at the point where the Fire Department can reach within 150 feet of the furthest point of the house. Mr. Stromberg suggested we send it back to staff to bring back to the Commission as part of the October 23rd meeting with something that goes for 150 feet, per Council request, but gives staff and Fire Department the Flexibility to lengthen that per the special conditions of any given situation. Fields/Dimitre m/s that staff follow up and present the Commission with exceptions and conditions for ways to not restrict the requirement to 150 feet but to make something that is a little more balanced. Voice Vote: all ayes. Motion passes. Procedures Mr. Stalheim stated that the two issues the Commission needs to discuss are the appeal fee and the appeal to Council. Mr. Stromberg stated he also has several other issues he would like to discuss, but he will wait until after other have discussed these two appeal topics. He asked if any other members of the commission have any other procedural issues they would like to have discussed. Ms. Mindlin stated she did have a question from page 6 regarding notice requirements. She asked, regarding the staff permits versus Type I permits if anything anyone applies for anything if it meant they would have to wait a month before getting their permit? Mr. Stalheim stated, no there is a tier of permits and some of them are ministerial actions, such as fence permits, home occupations, sign permits, etc. .. those have no noticing requirements and therefore have no delay in processing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 5 -'1 A /U Mr. Stromberg asked that the commission take a look at the staff report and refresh their memory as to what the major changes are that they are going through tonight. The first is the Expedited Land Divisions. Mr. Stalheim stated that the State requires a "referee" for handling appeals who is not a city employee or official and so in the updated land use ordinance it states that the City Administrator has the authority to hire a "referee" if that issue ever came up. The other choice as with may jurisdictions in Oregon we could adopt no procedures, but if someone asked for that type of application that procedure could be available. So the Commission could adopt no procedure but refer to the ORS. Mr. Fields requested clarification on the maximum densities - how is this different than a minor land partition and how you could do incrementally every 12 months to create more? Mr. Stalheim stated that this is a minor land partition and you couldn't create more because you have to put in that density. The intention of the statute was that you couldn't come in and divide up a parcel and do it expedited and then come back in 12 months. Mr. Stromberg stated that the next change is to staff permit and type I planning actions. He stated that the main thing with this modification is a consolidation of these two types of permits into one style - a Type I permit. He asked if the change to Type I permits is being made because it simplifies the noticing requirements. Mr. Hanks stated, yes, the change helps staff because it keeps all permits tracking on the same timeline. Otherwise staff has to notify individual actions which each have different expiration and approval deadlines but all the Type I, II, and III actions have the same deadline regarding notifications. Mr. Fields asked if there were any Type II permits being turned into Type I permits? Mr. Stalheim stated, yes, there are and that this will be discussed further later in the meeting. He stated that in order to increase efficiencies it is important that the Type I permit final action be by the staff. Mr. Stromberg asked if there is a downside for citizens or developers in doing this? Mr. Stalheim stated that the downside would be that with staff permits people can apply at any time. They did write into the procedures the ability for staff to adopt application deadlines so there is the ability for staff to say certain types of applications could be accepted more often than the larger applications. That way staff can still proceed in a timely fashion. Ms. Marsh asked if we have any idea of how many times in the last five years a Type I permit has been pulled by the hearings board for review by the full Planning Commission? Mr. Stalheim stated that there have been two in the last nine months. Mr. Molnar stated that prior to those two there have been fairly few. Ms. Marsh stated that the point is that these are fairly routine kinds of actions. Mr. Dimitre stated the other question is did any of those that came to the Planning Commission get over turned. Mr. Morris asked for confirmation on whether or not staff has taken Type I permits and turned them into Type II. Mr. Stalheim stated that has been done on a lot of occasions over the years. Mostly this is because some of the Type I permits are on the edge of public interest and concern and so staff has bumped those up to a Type II. Both the current and proposed ordinances allow staff to change Type I permits to Type II in order to have a public hearing. It also allows the applicant to request this change. Mr. Stromberg asked if the ordinance allows any Planning Commissioners to request the change. Mr. Stalheim stated the Commissioners need to be cautions with that sort of action because they will run into conflict of interest and ex-parte contact before the action came before the Commission for review. Mr Stromberg questioned if the hearings board sending items to the Planning Commission created ex-parte or conflict of interest problems. Mr. Stalheim stated that as there is no contact because it is not a public hearing and so it doesn't create an e-parte contact. Mr. Dimitre asked for clarification as to whether or not the public can ask for a public hearing on Type I permits. Mr. Stalheim stated that right now they can and with the update to the ordinance they could only by appeal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Molnar stated that one of the key issues is that items which are called up now are often due to property owners who don't have a whole lot of information but with the changes we are making in regard to the notification many of those issues will be cleared up because property owners will have the opportunity to discuss there issues with staff prior to a decision being made. Mr. Morris stated as long as we have the process for reconsideration it is good, because the Commission can focus on factual errors and not be dealing with policy issues. Ms. Mindlin stated the concern she has is lack of public access to even having an initial public hearing without paying a lot of money. She would feel more comfortable with this process if it cost a lot less to call up an item. Ms. Marsh said there are two questions which need to be answered; I) is the process a better process for getting public input and moving the item along and 2) for the piece of it that includes an appeal, should there be a fee. These two questions should remain separate. Mr. Dimitre stated that he believes there is a fundamental change as currently people can ask for a hearing in front of the Commission and it doesn't cost them anything but with the change the only time you can get in front of the Commission is when you pay $250 for an appeal. This is a fundamental shift in how we handle items. Particularly for those folks who don't have a lot of money. Mr. Fields stated that if you look at the net saving of time and paperwork we probably could have no appeal fee and still see a savings in the department. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 #"7 / Mr. Stromberg reiterated his earlier question of what is the downside of this process for the citizen. Mr. Stalheim stated that he can't see any downside other than the issue of appeal fees. In his opinion the improved notification process is nothing but beneficial. Mr. Stromberg asked if staff included anything in the new Type I permits that wasn't in there already or wasn't part of the lower level items which have been brought up? Mr. Stalheim stated, yes, and this has been discussed on several different occasions. He gave a list of those permits. He reiterated that it still is under staff discretion to change some Type I permits to Type II. Mr. Molnar stated that typically all permits in the downtown area are bumped up to Type II, due to the higher levels of public interest. Mr. Stromberg stated he would like to discuss the appeal fee issue. He stated that if the Commission passes this ordinance the way it is structured then the City Council will be the ones who will decide on the appeal fee. The Commission is not required to take a position regarding the fees, however, they can make a recommendation. Mr. Fields would like to recommend that they not add an appeal fee, with the understanding that Council can add a fee later if they need to. Ms. Marsh would like to recommend a Fifty-dollar fee just to make sure the people who are asking for things to be brought forth for a full hearing are serious about it. Mr. Dimitre stated that it seems like the best way to deal with this is to get the process in place, see how it works, and if we are getting too many appeals, the fee could be reconsidered. Mr. Morris stated he would go along with the fifty dollar fee because the reconsideration should be looked at first, which has no fee. If that falls through then an appeal happen but there should be a fee associated with the appeal, even if it is a minor fee. Mr. Stromberg stated that he would prefer to have no fee, see if we have a problem and then the Council could make the decision to have a fee. He believes that for many people fifty dollars is not a small amount. Dimitre/Fields m/s that they recommend to Council that there be no appeal fees. Voice Vote: 5 ayes. 1 no. Motion passes. Mr. Stromberg read the summary of the Type II Planning Action procedural modifications from the Staff Report. Mr. Stromberg stated this was the only Type II procedural modification. He reminded the Commission that they did this process with the Verde Village permit. Mr. Stalheim stated that they did start this process but were unable to complete it because they ran out of time. Mr. Stromberg asked Mr. Stalheim if he had any additional comments regarding this change. Mr. Stalheim stated that he thinks it is a tool that could be used it is not a requirement it is an option. He thinks it will increase the ability to have a different type of hearing which might allow a little bit more participation and might allow the Commission to have more information when they begin their deliberations. The record would be more complete. Mr. Stromberg asked how this would affect the 120 day rule. Mr. Stalheim stated it shouldn't affect the rule because the process gives staff some flexibility on when the hearings take place. Mr. Dawkins asked for some simple examples of the process. For example, with the Northlight permit which is just starting through the process, would the Commission be the ones doing the hearing? Mr. Stalheim stated no, that the initial, evidentiary hearing would be conducted by staff for information gathering only - no decision making. Ms. Mindlin stated she has a concern about requiring the applicant and the public to come to two meetings to do the same thing. Mr. Stalheim stated that they are not required to attend both meetings. Mr. Fields said in public hearings where the public is heard in a more informal setting (rather than in front of the Commission) it allows people to articulate their ideas and concerns without it being such a formal, rigorous setting. Mr. Stalheim stated that additionally, with the informal hearings you have much more time to discuss issues, whereas in the formal public hearings you are limited by the agenda and the constraints of time of the meeting. Additionally, there is the possibility to stop the hearing and allow the parties to work out issues before they go on the record in a formal public hearing. Mr. Morris stated that he likes the idea of an evidentiary hearing to allow all parties the opportunity to work out all the details without wasting time in front of the Commission attempting to do so. All agreed that it would be useful to use this method and see how it works. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 7 j...., " J '..~ Mr. Stromberg read the summary of Type II Planning Actions Reconsideration and Appeal from the Staff Report. He stated that the reconsideration portion seems to be fairly straight-forward it is just that the Planning Director can do it and it is only for factual errors. Mr. Stromberg asked for clarification regarding the appeal changes as to why this allows for a greater public comment period. Mr. Stalheim stated that it has been his experience that for appeals which go to Council as de novo we see entirely new information presented in front of the Council which never was brought in front of the citizen commissions. In some projects it comes before quite a few commissions; historic, tree, planning, etc. and so when you have a de novo process suddenly this whole new body of evidence can be presented to Council so rather than it becoming an appeal it really becomes a whole new public hearing process. On the record appeals really encourage the public to get involved early in the process so that they present all their information in front of the citizen commissions. Mr. Stromberg also noted that the other part of this process is that the City Administrator would be authorized to selectively allow new information in. He questioned how that would work and if the State rules allow this. Mr. Stalheim stated that the State rules state each city has to adopt its own procedures. One of the things that came up was that sometimes there is new information which comes to light, which may not have been available at the original hearing process so it is necessary for those exemptions to be made. The reason for involving the City Administrator is to avoid any pre-judgment on the part of the Council. This also takes away the Council's ability to appeal to themselves but not their ability to call an item up. Ms. Marsh asked what is contained in the public notice for a Type II or Type III permit. Mr. Stalheim stated that they send a notice of application and a notice of public hearing which has all the dates for all the meetings for all commissions the item will be sent to. Fields/Marsh m/s to recommend that appeals to Council be on the record rather than de novo. DISCUSSION: Ms. Mindlin questioned why Mr. Fields think on the record is a good idea. Mr. Fields stated that we go through all the effort to develop a record and then no matter what is decided people can introduce new evidence at the last minute which causes these cases to drag on for months and months and finally a decision is made based on information that the Commission didn't even have the chance to hear or consider. It seems the process, rather than being extended longer and longer, needs to be compressed and clear. The obligation is to make the case, have the hearing, and if the decision is faulty then you appeal that decision but that is different than saying, well we didn't like the decision so we want to do it all over again. At a certain point a decision just has to be made. Mr. Stalheim stated that part of the reason to have a de novo hearing is to cure any procedural problems which occurred during the earlier process but that is why, if we make this change, we need to give the City Administrator authority to review these things to cure any procedural issues. Voice Vote: all ayes. Motion passes. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VI. Other A. Regional Problem Solving: Discussion and overview of population and urban reserve issues Mr. Stalheim gave an overview of the current Regional Problem Solving (RPS) population and urban reserves issues. In 2003 the City of Ashland decided to notify the RPS process that they did not intend to propose and new urban reserves. Mr. Stromberg asked for a definition of urban reserves. Mr. Stalheim stated urban reserves are land that the City identifies in the comprehensive plan as areas which will be urbanized in the future but which are not currently within the urban growth boundary. Mr. Stromberg asked if it were true the City of AsWand can not expand the urban grown boundary unless the City first got approval from the State based on the urban reserves. Mr. Stalheim stated that the RPS regional plan will start affecting that, and he will discuss this more later in the presentation. Mr. Stalheim gave information on the population allocation. In 2006 the County did a population allocation for cities in the county. The consulting firm of ECONorthwest assisted them and sent population allocation information to the cities. They identified that by 2026 the city would have 5,177 more people than currently and 12,260 by the year 2056. Three weeks later they sent responses to the allocations, and noted that Mr. Molnar had sent a memo stating that the figures allocated to Ashland are reasonable. With this response they also re-sent out the population allocation numbers which were still the same as before. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 8 7"1"", .' ,~ Less than 9 days later ECONorthwest sent out preliminary population allocations with no explanation as to why Ashland's figures had changed to 1,439 by 2026 and 2,176 by 2056. As a side note, Ashland population has consumed nearly 50% of the total population allocation we were given for then next 20 years in the last two years. Mr. Stromberg asked for clarification on allocation versus prediction and if it means that, for example, Central Point took some of our growth. Mr. Stalheim stated this is exactly what happened. The total population allocation for Jackson County did not change between the two letters only Ashland's portion of that population. After ECONorthwest's work, the County went through a process to amend their comprehensive plan. They adopted the same population allocation as the later ECONorthwest figures. Ms. Mindlin asked if the lower numbers were the numbers presented to the Commission. Mr. Stalheim stated that the numbers were in the Economic Opportunity Analysis and it was that presentation which first got Planning Staff to start questioning the figures. They particularly questioned why population and employment numbers didn't seem to match up. The Regional Plan is only reviewed every 10 years, with 2012 as the first year of review. There currently is no process in place for review of the population allocation and the county allocations (based on the lower numbers) has now been ratified by the State. If the Regional Plan needs to be amended because there is a new unallocated population the State says Jackson County has grown by more than previously estimated then all the other signatories need to consider the amendment. Basically, Ashland and all the other cities will have to sit down together and agree on the allocation numbers. Mr. Stalheim also reminded the group that the Regional Plan has no specific population allocations - they only have population for the entire region, not specific cities - the only place that does have these figures is the County comprehensive plan. The effect, though, is that the Regional Plan sets aside urban reserves and Ashland has requested none. In order to, in the future, ask for urban reserves to expand the urban growth boundary the population allocation issues then comes back into question. Cities who choose to expand the urban growth boundary into land not designated in the urban reserves will be required to go through the RPS plan amendment process. Since Ashland had no urban reserves if we needed to expand, the City could not make that decision, we would need to go to RPS for approval. This change can only happen during the 1 O-year periodic review and, of course, at that time there will be a question of population allocation numbers. Ms. Marsh asked for clarification on if we had said before that we could handle the 5,177 population growth within our existing UGB. If so, then what is our argument? Even if we get the 5,177 in population increase, we are still on the record as saying we could accommodate that increase. Mr. Stalheim stated that the difference is that Ashland has a higher density standards and he believes RPS is trying to aim for those standards. He thinks that our buildable lands inventory needs to be updated to ensure we still are accurate with our assumptions. Mr. Stromberg asked if, when we do the inventory, we would be using the allocated figures? Mr. Molnar stated that when the County adopted their new population element they did put in a provision that they will review the coordinated population estimates every five years. This was the only concession they could make to us. They didn't say they would change anything, but that they would be willing to look at the numbers in 2012. To answer Ms. Marsh's question, when Mr. Molnar went and spoke to the RPS policy committee months ago, to give updates and to re-affmn the City's position, the one concern RPS had was that almost 3 Y2 years had gone by since the City gave their initial suggestion not to do any urban reserves and two items had come out which could affect that original position. These were, I) we conducted our wetland inventories and one of the chief in-fill areas turned out to be a wetland (south of east main) and 2) Measure 37 was approved, which brings up many impacts on a community that weren't even considered in 2003. The question now is ifthere is more of a tool to the City to have identified urban reserves to accommodate growth within the style of the City rather than be at the unknown hands of Measure 37? Mr. Stromberg asked if the State has other agencies who have told RPS that this draft of their plan is not acceptable and RPS has decided to push ahead anyway? Is there a chance RPS will have to re-work their plan? Mr. Stalheim stated the State submitted a letter to RPS policy group and RPS has reviewed that and has gone to Salem to talk to the State agency. He thinks there have been some adjustments so a change might not be necessary. Mr. Stalheim stated that his recommendations are: 1) Regional Plan should review the population allocation prior to concluding that there should not be any more urban reserves for Ashland. Mr. Stalheim sent a letter to the RPS technical and policy group but has not been put in place. He believes Ashland should have first opportunity to add urban reserves, if Ashland so wishes. 2) Ashland should review the decision about urban reserves perhaps holding those areas while the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed and updated. The 5 or 10 year review in the Regional Plan will greatly limit Ashland's opportunities to consider PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 9 n it' j --#', adding to the Urban Growth Boundary. 3) An alternative would have the Regional Plan fonnally recognize that Ashland could come forward to add urban reserves, if it wishes after our public process, without having to wait for the periodic review of the Regional Plan in 2012. Notes for future meetings: Mr. Morris will be out of town for hearings board, Mr. Dawkins agreed to take his place. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diana Ship let, Executive Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2007 10 H ~ J ALva Amendments October 4, 2007 Evolution of Proposal . Zuckw Report (FebruIry 20(6) . Siegel Report (ApltI2006) . "'-nnina Comm_ Sieael Subc:omm_ (J_ 2006 - FebruIry 2007) · Comm.nty o.wlopment Dnc:lor Report (FebruIry 8. 2007) . ~~m_ SludySeulon . PIennng Comm_ R_(J_ 2.2007) . Planna Comm-. Sludy SeuIon (J_26.2OO7) . FInIt Dr8ft RllIeeIed (July 24. 2007) · It;~~ i&Wr-' M-.g - "ll1Md III IlIIlt puIlIk: hurtng proc:esa . SoIoond DrIft RllIeeIed (Auglal2S. 2007) · Nllic He.mg beIore PWwing Comm_(~ber 11. 2007) Tonight's Agenda . Public Hearing, can't. . Deliberation . Address any new public input . Procedures . Policy Issues . Next steps --7 l ~ 1 Procedures · Should they be packaged together for passing on to council, or separated?"" · !'roPosed C!!8nges in Slte ~ Chepter requ!nIS c:h8noes in PnX:edure 0IlIjil.-. .If Proc:eduiII cherig.s 81'8 seperatecffrom the nlSt d the revisions. the Site Design ch8nges must accompany them. . There lI/'8 some other sections d the Ofdin8nce th8t need amendment W Ofdinence is segregated (winlless convnunication reference and a section In chIipI.. 61) . ImplO\I8lll8IllS to Site Design chapter. such as ~ standards for mechanical 8ClUiIlment ind solar devices, would not be implemented until tIie Procedures are adopted . Planning staff beIieYe th8t winl.. is the best lime to implement procedln chIrlges Procedure Issues · Appeal Fees · Ordinance does not prescribe fees. b~ states that if set, they need to be paid. and notes the ORS requirement to reimburse fees if the appeal Is successful · Does the Planning Commission wish to recommend to Council that they have. or don't haw, appeal fees? (Would be separete ordinance or resollAlon of Council) · Appeal to Council . De novo or Record Appeals Policy Issues to Discuss · Review options, including no action · Topics from input and discussion: · Residential Ground Floor In C-1 and E-1 . ADU's In R-2 and R-3 . Hotel/Motel definition . Temporary Storage . Vision Clearance . Fire Turnaround on Flag Partitions -7 7 I l 2 Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-I · Options OUUlned in September 11" staff report . Option 1 - No Action . Does not address problems of InlIlrprebdion regarding 'lot area' and doesn't address policy i~ of primary use · Option 2 - Small Unit (500 sq. ft.) on Ground Roor · Option 3 - Prohibition of residential on Ground Floor Accessory Dwelling Units in R-2 and R-3 . Options outlined in September 11th staff report . Option 1 - No Action · This would allow more density In R-1 than the multi-family zones · Option 2 - allow up to 1,000 sq. ft. ADUs . Option 3 - Allow up to 500 sq. ft. ADUs . Option 4 - not drafted 750 sq. ft. Hotel/Motel Defmition . Options outlined in September 11th staff report . Option 1 - No Action . Option 2 - New definition that requires lobby and on-site staff . Option 3 - New definition without limits on lobby and on-site staff 7; 3 Temporary Storage · Options ouUined In September 11" staff report . Option 1 - No Action · There wouldn't be any regulation of "PODS" · Option 2 - place limits on storage · Option 3 - allow for longer time periods for active building projects · Option 4 - set standards that consider size of sign on storage building Vision Clearance . Option 1 - No Action · Doesn't address problems with current standards; however, the details of a replacement standard have not been resolved with engineering · Option 2 - Continue to wor1< on issue Fire Turnaround on Flag Partitions · Option 1 - No Action · Does not address council directive to make consistent with Fire Code · Could table for later discussion · Option 2 - Adopt as drafted I' · /.... I "tf 4 Next Steps · Clear Direction on Procedure and Policy Issues · Convene committee to review details and make recommendations for full Planning Commission action at 10/23 meeting · Identify what issues are tabled for discussion at a later time and not included in this round of amendments ?/i 5 WRITTEN COMMENTS Brent Thompson P.O. Box 201 Ashland, Or 87520 IU9WIlaIJ 'lICI AIJInIuao 1JUINII't" AID /1X1l, 9 ~ d3S 26 September 2007 To: Ashland Planning Commission and Staff Re: Planning Code revisions: SecUons 18.08 thru 18.108 Procedure.. CJ3AJ303Y Please see suggested Inclusions or revisions with suggested wording for recommendations 18.08.380 or appropriate section under 18.08. Visioning statement- Ashland has committed to absorbing most growth within the existing city limit ( IntllI). Thus, there may be Incidences with minor land partitions InvoMng one lot only where to fulfill this vision It Is necessary to create lots with a wider dimension In width that depth. For new subdMsIons, the requirement should remain the same. 18.22.040, R-1-3.5, General Regulations In this zone applications for lots above 3500 sq. ft should be approved. Lots In R-1 5, R-1-7.5 and R-1-10 should have provisions for -Substandard In size minor land partitions. where the partition Is allowed for example In a 9000 square foot lot If the new 4000 square foot lot has a coverage restriction or building envelope restriction that shrinks equal to the amount of deficiency of the new lot For example If a lot Is 1000 sq. feet below standard then the coverage allowed should shrink 1000 sq. ft from 2000 square feet of coverage to 1000 square feet so the ensured landscaped area remains what It would have been If the lot wee full size. WIth the extra requirements both the goals of Inflll and relative affordablllty would be attained. because we would have more partitions In close In lots and with extra conditions options are reduced and reducing options reduces market value. Of course no one would be required to create a substandard In size lot but If they did apply they would have to agree to the value reducing restrictions. estimated amount of relatively affordable lots created as a consequence of this alteration - 75-150. 18.24.030, R-2 Conditional Uses The restriction to 600 sq. ft. of commercial uses Is desirable In that It will preserve the RR district for housing while It allows people to conduct business In a centrally located area where here Is a higher probability of non automobile traffic to and from the business. 18.24.040 R-2 General Regulations A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions In 19~1 or so after the new ( at that time Affordable Housing Committee met for two years or so the PC and Council adopted a few measures one of which was the successful Accessory Dwelling Ordinance. But at the same time the PC and Council .- I i I voted to drop R-2 and R-3 densities down from 20 and 30 units per acre respectively to 13.5 and 20 units. Additional units could be permitted providing there were affordable units or energy saving features ( which are now standard) andl or recreational amenities. Mostly what happened with this change is that developers stopped building apartment buildings because the economy of scale was lost. We now have only condominium projects. But if you calculate what can be done on an acre of 43,500 sq. ft the first unit takes 5000 sq. ft leaving 38,500 sq. ft. Dividing that by 2000 sq. ft yields 19 additional units for a total of 20. Similarly the math for Section 18.28.030 R-3 lots calculates out to 38500/1500= 25 units for a total of 26. If the PC and Council find that some retention of density bonuses is advisable, a partial restoration of density could be given due to the fact that all units now meet the energy conservation goals that were bonuses before. Thus, there is a case for automatically giving all projects on R-2 of R-3 lands the density bonus for energy conservation. But it might be just as advisable to scrap all former bonuses and return to former densities. of 20 and 26. This would be an anti sprawl measure. Sprawl is the continual use of more land than is necessary to achieve given development goals. Our low allowable densities in R-2 and R-3 zones contribute to sprawl. Coupled with any increase in allowable densities could be a lessening of lot coverage allowed which would push building heights up a 1/2 story or so while still permitting more density. 18.32.025,C-1 Retail Commercial District Yes, it should be ok to have some residential on the ground floor. The target density is good. It is as it used to be for the R-3 before 1991. Section 18.40.020 E-1 Permitted Uses Add theaters and performing venues as a Permitted Use and delete as a Conditional Use. We all want to support tourism and performing arts. Thus we should out right permit theaters and assembly venues In more than Just commercial zones. . The residential density allowed in an E-1 should be restricted perhaps by a percentage of the parcel or a percentage of the square footage of a project or building. 18.68.090 Non Conforming Uses and Structures The longer period of 12 months before discontinuance is advisable. It often does take time before new occupants can be found or until financing can be procured to continue an existing non conforming use. 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Buildings with a footprint of less than 25,000 sq. feet may be 2,3,41 stories. As I remember the intent of the limitation of size was to reduce footprint not necessarily total square footage. Thus we have Mtn View Retirement Center which exceeds the square footage but perhaps not the footprint size of 45,000 sq. ft. ..... .,1...... 18.76 Partitions Chapter 18.96 Sigh Regulations Eliminate Sign prohibitions for more than two sides of a building. In other words allow signs on any side of a building where there are public entrances. 18.108.020 What is wrong with retaining Staff Permit Procedures? Staff should be able to approve by means of a Ministerial Action with Historic Commission Review new door ways, new windows, wooden awnings without it being a planning action. 18.108.025 Consolidated Review Procedures Can pathways through partitions be included as a condition of approval? Does the pathway need to be part of a transportation plan first? Appeals--The cost is likely to be at least $300, but what is the degree of subsidy we want in an appeal, if any? Type I hearings are still just called up for a public hearing if there is an objection? Do we want the planning commission to hear Type I appeals and the Council to hear Type II and Type III appeals? 18.108.040 Type I Procedure Some things should be staff permits wi Historic Commission Review such as new doors, windows, arbors, bay windows, trash enclosures, stairways. We don't need staff approval, Historic Commission review, and a Planning Commission review. Thank you for considering the above. ~~~ Brent Thompson 488-0407 i} 2 i.J >>...J Hi, Dave Well, trying to be helpful, I have worked through the first seven pages of your latest draft. I had a lot of would-be 'improvements' to suggest for the definitions. We may, or may not, agree on these but I thought I'd send them to you asap. It's just the first seven pages. Ignore the rest; I stopped at page eight. Cheers! John Stromberg Planning Commissioner "Remember: All email sent to this address is in the public domain" Amend Section 18.08.160. Coveraae. lot or site Total area of all structuresbuildings,~ paved driveways, or other seil disb:lrbaFlces~ surfaces that will not allow l"Iormal water infiltration to the groun~ PROV~~E~~ hOW~~~~ that. Permeable surfaces up .to ten percen~ (10%) of t~e .Iot rea wi .( ~tli~ ~~~ ; ~~rf~~~~ s~ch as paths. patios. decks. drlvewavs or similar surfaces fI fI fI driveways) are is -exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Alternative 2nd sentence: "Up to ten percent of the lot area having solid porous surfaces is exempt from lot coverage calculations. Examples includ~: oaths~pa~os. de~ks. driveways and similar surfaces provided they allow water inflitration 0 the gr un . Amend Section 18.08.320. Hotel or Motel A faCility offering transient lodging accommodations to the ~ener:' ~Ubi~ and which may include additional facilities and services. such as restaurant. me ti g roms. entertainment.. personal services. and recreational f:~i1ifi~:. :n~;~if~ ~n~'~~~s a ~~~'~~ lobby and on-site staff. At least 60% of the roo~s al v 0 u _ .ele 0 d y ~builC:liflg ifl ....-hich lodgiflg is pre\'ided to guests for ~~pe~~~;Ofl ~;d ; ~;i;h ~ previsions are made fer ceokiRg in the ledgiRg reoms. Changing these definitions would have significant policv implications for mixed use housing and should not be included in this collection of ordinance revisions. Amend (Recodify) Section 18.08.380. Lot depth The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the rear [of] lot line to the midooint of the front lot line. Extra "of": see above. Amend Section 18.08.485. Mechanical equipment Equipment or devices installed for a use appurtenant to the primary use. Such equipment shall include heating and air conditioning equipment, solar collectors, parabolic antennas, disc antenna, radio or TV receiving or transmitting antennas, and any power generating devices. The fallo'....jng equipmeflt or dC'.ices are exempt: r, (./. J John Stromberg Comments A. Private, non commcrcial radio aFld tclcvisioA tlnteFlFlas FlOt exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade ar thirty (30) feet above an existiRg structl:Jre, whiche~'er height is grcater. No 19art af such aFltcFlFla shall be ...,ithiFl the yards required by this Chapter. A buildiFlg permit shall be required for aFl'( aRteFlFla mast, or tawer over fift)" (SO) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above aFl existiFlg structure '...,heFl the same is cORstructed OFl the FOof of the structure. B. I"arabolic aFlteFlFlas uFlder three (3) feet iFl diameter. "Disc antenna" should read "Disc attenas". Delete Section 18.08.510.~1atel. A buildiFlg or grouD of buildiFl~S OFl the same let caFltaiFliFlg guest uFlits for reFltal to tfilFlsieFlts. with separate eFltraFlces directl'" exterior aFld eOFlsistiFlg of iFldividual sleepiFlg Quarters. detached ar iFl caFlFlccted rows. .....ith or without cookiFlg facilities. This definition should be retained because of the poliCY implications of combining it into a revised definition with "hotel" - see vour changes above. Amend Section 18.08.595. PlanninQ application: planning action. A planning application is an application. other than an application for legislative amendment. filed pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance. A planning action is a proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not include a ministerial action or a legislative amendment. Suggest having separate definitions for these two. similar-sounding terms that are frequently confused. "Planning application - An application for any official action specified by this Chapter except for legislative ammendments (see section 18.108.170." "Planning action - Any proceeding prescribed in this Chapter. in which the legal rights. duties or privileges of specific parties are determined. Ministerial decisions and legislative amendments are excluded but aopeals or reviews of the original action are included provided they are also prescribed in this Chapter. Amend Section 18.08.650. Setback The distance between the building and the lot line. Where increased setbacks are reauired for multiple stories. the setback is measured for each story as set forth in the zoning district standards. For example. if the setback is (10) ten feet plus (10) ten feet for each story in excess of (1) one story, a (2) two story building would have a (10) ten foot setback for the first floor and the second floor must be setback (20) twenty feet from the lot line measured horizontally. Architectural projections may intrude into required setbacks as set forth in Section 18.68.040. ceFltcr IiFle of a street aAd the special base liFle setback from which yard meaSl:JrcmeFlts af"(: made, measured horizoRtally aFld at right angles from said center line. Suggest: "The horizontal perpendicular distance from a lot line to the closest part of a building or structure that is subject to a setback reqUirement. Architectural oroiections may intrude into required setbacks as set forth in Section 18.68.040. When multi-story setbacks are specified. the setback for a story above the ground floor is measured from the lot line to the plane of the nearest wall of the upper story at its perpendicular intersection with the ground." ~5 Page 2 of 7 John Stromberg Comments Amend Section 18.08.740. Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top floor and the ceiling above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or cellar is more than six (6) feet above gradeJQr more than fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of the building, the basement or cellar shall be considered a story. Those utJnenclosed ~e~ks. por~heSt balconies :n~ similar feat~r~ (those without a moft are not considered st ri s. A h If s ory shall b c n:id:r~d a s: . if the wall face at the rear or side yard setback line is more than three (3) fe t b ve th floor level below. Suggestion: Revise the third sentence as follows: "Features without a roof. such as unenclosed decks. porches and balconies are shall not be considered stories." And the fourth sentence is confusing because it introduces the concept of a "half story" without defining it and then says it counts as a full story if it has a wall facing the side or rear yards that is more than 3 feet hiQh. Should this instead follow the second sentence and say something like. ".. .and if it is three feet or more above the floor level below on either side or the back of the building it shall also be considered a story."? Amend Section 18.08.750. Structure or building That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures cightccFI thirty (3~~ fi-8t-inches in height or less. including entry stairs. uncovered porches. patios and similar ructuresr are exempt from the side and rear yard requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. Shouldn't the term "requirements" be "setback requirements"? Also this seems like an extraordinarily awkward definition that also defines "building" in terms of "building". Beaverton defines structure as follows: Structure. AnvthinQ which is constructed. erected or built and located on or under the Qround. or attached to something fixed to the ground. And buildinQ as: Buildin9. Any structure built for the support. shelter or enclosure of persons. animalsr chattels. or prooerty of any kind. So...maybe separating the two definitions would be clearer. ~ for the last sentence. it isn't a definition. Shouldn't it be incorporated into the individu I zone sections where setbacks are soecified so people will have all the rules for setbacks in ;ne place (for each zone)? Amend Section 18.08.820. Vision clearance area A triangular area on a lot at the intersection of two (2) streets or a street and a railroad, two (2) sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection of the curb lines ~~ Page 3 of 7 John Stromberg Comments extended. or edge of pavement if no curb exists. lot IiFles for a distance specified in these regulations. The third side of the triangle is a line across the corner of the lot joining the ends of the other two sides. Where the ~lines or intersections have rounded corners, the tet-curb lines will be extended in a straight line to a pOint of intersection. . First of all. if you're going to redefine how the vision clearance are is determined. in this way. but keep the same numerical specifications in the LUO then that's a ~OIiCY issue because it's reducing the amount of land consumed by the vision c1earanc area. Secondly I can't understand what "...two sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection of the curb lines...". Curb lines are generally parallel to lot lines/right of way lines and the lot/right of way lines may not pass through the intersection of the curb lines. Am I missing something? Thirdly. the primary concern re vision clearance areas is to deal with the safety issue and I don't know who determines that. Aren't there State standards? Once you figure out exactly what areas must be kept open then you figure out how to describe it clearly. That goes in the ordinance and can't be changed by variance because it has to do with safety. This feels like we've had complaints about being too strict with vision clearance definitions and are simply going to loosed them up as a 'clarification' of the LUO. I don't know what's right but the concern is safety and so we need some expert input. Aren't there potential legal issues if we arbitrarily redefine the VCAs? Accessory residential unit A second dwelling unit created on a lot with a single family dwelling which is n~t ~r~~~~r than 50% of the gross habitable floor area of the primary residence on the lot n sf:taH-not exceed 1.000 sQuare feet of gross habitable floor area. This is not a definition. It's a regulation. I think we do need a definition but then should also put the limitations on accessory units in the zoning sections for which they are allowed. Basement That portion of a building with a floor-to-ceiling height of not less than 6.; f:~~ a;~a~~ere fifty percent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls are less than six (6) f~ t v ral grade and does not exceed twelve (12) feet above grade at any point. How about: "That portion of a building with a floor-to-ceiling height of not less than 6.5 feet. with fifty percent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls less than six (6) feet above natural grade and not more than twelve (12) feet above grade at any point."? Floor area, gross habitable The total floor space in a building for living. sleeping. eating or cooking measur~~ ~~ the outside surfaces of the building. including but not limited to ex~erior walls but e tl ~ive of outside courts enclosed by walls. The floor area shall be the useable area under h horizontal prolection of the roof or floor above with at least 7' of head room. No deductions of floor area for any space within the confines of the habitable area are allowed. such as for bathrooms. closets. halls. storage or utility spaces that are accessed from interior habitable spaces. This definition and the one that follows are too convulted and complex to be easily understood (especially the provision about exterior walls. which mav be important but I don't comprehend). Also you introduce terms like "confines" and "useable". which 27 Page 4 of 7 r- , John Stromberg Comments themselves are undefined and subject to multiole interpretations. And you end up having to make lists of uses and types of rooms. which then creates an incentive for creative argument on the part of applicants. So...what about the following (see both defs below): "The total area of all floors in a building measured to its outside surfaces. that is under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above with at least 7' of head room. excluding rooms and spaces accessed soley by an exterior door. " Floor area, gross The total floor space of all floors measured to the outside surfaces of the building. inclUd~ng but not limited to exterior walls but exclusive of outside courts enclosed by walls. The fl or area shall be the useable area under the horizontal proiection of the roof or floor ab~ve with at least 7' of head room. "The total area of all floors in a building measured to its outside surfaces. that is under the horizontal proiection of the roof or floor above. " Ground Floor The first floor of a building other than a cellar or basement. Or "That floor of a building that is closest to. but above. grade. "? Historic District A district rccogAizcd identified as historically sianificant under ~he Cit~ of Ashland Comprehensive Plan and its implementing regulations (e.g. ov rlay z nes). Porch, enclosed/unenclosed Covered porches. exterior balconies. or other similar areas attach~~ to ~ bUildin~ and having dimensions of not less than six (6) feet in depth by eight ( fee in lena h. "Enclosed" means the porch contains wall(s) that are more than forty-~W~ ~4;) in~hes in height measured from finished floor level. for fifty percent (50%) or m r f he orch perimeter. "Unenclosed" means the porch contains no such walls. but can be covered. How about: "A porch shall be a platform structure attached to the front or back entrance of a building and external to the walls of the main building proper. An enclosed porch has a roof and walls that are at least 42" high above finished floor level and extend for 50% or more of the oorch's perimeter. An unenclosed porch has no walls or walls less than 42" high; it mayor may not have a roof."? I don't understand why it's necessary to soecify either the depth or lenght of a porch. Porous Solid Surface Porous solid surface is a permeable surface built with an underlyina stone reservoir that temporarily stores surface runoff before it infiltrates into th;~U~~Oil. :~r~~~ ;~lid surl:~ces include pervious asphalt. pervious concrete and grass or per e Ie 0 ve s P rvious asphalt pavement consists of an open-graded coarse agg;:;g~t;~b"~n~~~ t~ge~~r b; :~~~~ cement. with sufficient interconnected voids to make it highly per~~ t w _ r. P~ i concrete typically consists of specially formulated mixtures of P~rtland ~~';en; ~nifor~. open-graded coarse agareQate. and water. Pervious c~n~~~e h~~ :n~u~h :o~~ ;~~~~ ~ allow rapid percolation of liquids through the pavemen. r s or p_r e bl ~v... r interlocking concrete blocks or synthetic fibrous grids with ~p;n areas th:~ :~~w ~a;~ ~o grow within the voids. Some grid systems fill the voids with sand or gr~v 110 infiltration. ~g Page 5 of 7 John Stromberg Comments You should refer to some official specification (State buildin9 code?) rather than get into a detailed list like this. There isn't enough room to be sufficiently specific. It's inconsistent . with the level of abstraction of other definitions and you introduce terms like. "highly permeable". that are subject to different interpretations. Reconstruct To build anew by re-creating and assembling a structure or building in the same form. shape and location as oriainally built. Or..."To replace an existing or former buildin9 with a new one that reproduces its form. shape and location as originally built (see Section for details)."? You don't want to leave words like "form". "shape" and "location" underspecified but also don't want to put the details in this Definitions section. Setback, Special The distance between the center line of a street and the special base line setback from which yard measurements are made. measured horizontally and at ri9ht angles from said center line. Or... i'The peroendicular distance. measured horizontally. from the centerline of a street to a parallel line that becomes the basis from which yard measurements are made (for example. see 18.68.050)."? GENERAL NOTE: I think it would be Good to eXDress definitions in a consistent way. either "rTerml shall be...." or "rTerml: a blah blah blah...". Story, half A half storY is either: 1. A space under a sloping roof that a) has the line of intersection of the roof and wall face not more than three (3) feet above the floor level below: b) iffid-in which space the pessil:3lc floor area with head room of five (5) feet or more occupies no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area of the story directly beneath: and c) the wall face at the rear or side yard setback line is three (3) feet or less above the floor level below. Or. .."A space under a sloping roof. whose exterior walls are no more than three feet high and whose floor area with at least five feet of head room does not exceed fifty percent of the floor area of the story immediately beneath."? Fe; Page 6 of 7 John Stromberg Comments 2. A basement where 50% or less of the perimeter walls are six ~~~f~et or ~or: a~~~~ natural grade. as commonly found in daylight basements. D~__ _r :nt~t:n~s I___han eiaht (8) feet in length would not qualify as a daylight basem_nt or h_lf _ 0-, "l" ~,.~.) , .T'oc.Y" 1 Slooina Roof Half StOry. If Floor Area "A" is no more than 50% of Floor Area "8" - then "A" is a half story. If the wall face is more than three (3) feet above the floor level below at the rear or side vard setback line. then it shall be considered a full stOry. Or... "A basement whose perimeter walls do not exceed six feet above natural grade for fifty per cent or more of their length. Doorways or entrances less than eight feet in width when viewed facing the building do not satisfy the definition of Half Story."? You can make an interpretation of "daylight basement' if necessary. or a separate definition. but it's not clear what differentiates it from a half-story basement and so invites confusion imho. q,..., i I.J Page 7 of 7 SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING "::." o~~r.:. C.;r; .,.f NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING This Is to notify you that the City of Ashland Planning Commission has proposed a land use regulation that may affect the permissible uses of your property and other properties. On September 11, 2007, the Ashland Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the adoption of ordinance amendments proposed In PA2007-G1283. The City has detennined that adoption of this ordinance may affect the pennlsslble uses of your property, and other properties In the affected zone, and may change the value of your property. Public hearings are held at the Ashland Civic Center, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main, Ashland, Oregon and begin at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as set forth in the agenda. The amendments proposed In PA2oo7-D1283 consist generally of the following: Proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Implementing portions of the recommendations In the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition other recommendations of the City Planning Director concemlng land use decision making procedures will be considered. Proposed changes affect the following chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (TItle 18): Definitions, Districts and Zoning Map, Woodland Residential District, Rural Residential District; Single-Family Residential District, Suburban Residential District, Low Density Multiple Family Residential District, High Density Multiple Family, North Mountain Neighborhood, Retail Commercial District, Employment District, Health Care Services Zone, Tree Preservation and Protection, Physical and Environmental Constraints, Southem Oregon University District, General Regulations, Site Design Review, Partitions, Parking, Sign Regulations, Procedures and Enforcement. PA2007-D1283Is available for Inspection at the City of Ashland Department of Community Development located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Infonnation is also available online at htto:/Iwww.ashland.or.us/Paae.aso?NavID=10373. Copies are also available for purchase at reasonable cost, If requested. For addltlonallnfonnatlon concemlng these amendments, you may call the Department of Community Development at 541-488-5305. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to partiCipate In this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541- 488-5305 (TTY phone Is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). ;t/c+{'c- .e.- Jt}l~f~ ~k(~fl:J ~W trn~ '1/ He has never heard any noise outside Mobius. Most of the events draw only 25 to 75 people and he does not see a parlcing problem. CHRIS BYRNE, 2345 Ranch Rold, said before moving to Ashland, they visited Mobius and it heavily influenced their decision to move to Ashland. Culturally, it has enriched his life. He lives in town, works at Mobius, and rides his bike to and from ' work -Mobius helps one more family live and work in town. RICHARD BROWNE, 822 S. Mountain, said he frequents Mobius two to three times a month and he has never had a parking problem when he drives, parking out in front about 90 percent of the time. This type of venue does not exist anyplace else in town. Fields read the comments from ORIANA SPRATT, 212 Patterson Street, into the record. She supports the project. JEFF FEINBERG, 211 Normal Avenue, said he has never had a parking problem at the Mobius. They are the only venue in town that brings national musicians to town. If anything, he is bothered Mobius has been here four years and they have received little community support. STEVE SCHEIN, 167 Church Street, reported Fourth Street is a ghost town at night. By doing a related study, he has been astonished at the far-reaching vision and implications this business has for such small town. He has asked entertainers that travel through just why they are willing to perform for only 20 people. The answer has been: "it's the room." He does not see a parking problem. The social impact enormously outweighs anything negative. . MARLA WELP, 78 North Mountain Avenue, agreed with all the previous comments in favor. The following persons submitted comments for the record in support of the application. CHRIS VANSCHAACK, 429 Morton Street GENE BURNETT,549 B Street, t3 SAMARRA BURNETT, 549 B Street, t3 STEVE LANUSSE, 320 Oak Street RUSS RODRIGUEZ, 530-B Maple Way SHANTI LOBAUGH, 205 PIedmont Drfve STEVEN M. SIRIANNI, 558 Holly Street LEAH SCHRODT, 1040 East Main Street, Apt. B MITZI MILE8-KUBOT A, 850 Beswick Way ERIC NOVISEDLAK, 309 Harrison Street ED MCGUIGAN, 6306 Adams RoId, Talent, OR 97540 BETSY MCGUIGAN, 6306 Adams Road, Talent, OR 97540 CLAIRE ~RULIKOWSKI, 228 Talent Avenue,t2, Talent, OR 97540 DEBRA THORNTON, 107 Second Street JEFF ALTEMUS, 204 Alicia Avenue ANNIE MCINTYRE, 204 Alicia Avenue MURIEL MORRISON, 849 Pavilion RON ROTH, 6950 Old Highway 99 South BIRGITTE FETTE, 896 Blackberry Lane Rebuttal- Glover emphasized that while the whole business structure isn't completely dependent on the events they hold, the decision, if granted, will very strongly affect their ability to continue what they are doing. Stromberg noted they have been operating without a CUP and asked how the Commission should factor that into the credibility of the other things the applicants have said tonight. Glover said they have spent a lot of time bringing in their media and internet component. They realized the events were valuable and it grew from that. Submitting the application and to get to this point has taken some time. Jacobson didn't realize what constituted a "theater." It has become clear through this process that they need a CUP for a theater and it has taken well over a year to get this point. Stromberg closed the public hearing and closed the record. VIII. TYPE HI PLANNING ACTIONS ASHLAND PlANNING COM\1ISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 4 1"'1... ....r. ;J.,~ A. PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-G0250 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Proposed amendments to the Ashland lind UII 0rdInInce ImpIIrMnIIng portIona of the NCOIMItIIdItlona In the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services. In addition, other I'KOIMI8ndations of the City PIanrHng Dnctor concerning land use decision-making procedures win be COItIIdnd. Stalheim stated the first draft of the amendments was presented at the July 24,2007 Planning Commission Study Session and at the July 31 st, Special Planning Commission meeting, the Commission moved to start the public hearing process on the proposed amendments and set the date for September 11, 2007. A second draft based on some public comments, Planning Commission review and Staff review was prepared and has been included in this month's packet. Stalheim acknowledged Colin Swales and Mark Knox who each submitted detailed comments on the first draft. Their input was greatly appreciated. He also thanked those Planning Commission members who submitted comments that have been included in the record. He noted that comments have been received bye-mail in the last few days from: Dennis Goldstein (dated September 7th), StaIheim's response to Goldstein's, John Schwendener (dated September 9th), Michael Young and Jacquelyn Young, and drawings from the City's engineering staff for vision clearance. The Commissioners should have received an e-mail from Brandon Goldman with the Housing Commissioner's review, from Mark Knox (dated August 30th), Dennis Goldstein (dated September 10,2007), and Bonnie Brodersen (dated September 10th). PUBLIC HEARING DENNIS GOLDSTEIN, 766 Roca Street, said he is an attorney and has been involved in real estate and in that capacity has both drafted, revised and commented on legislation and ordinances relating to housing. After looking at the proposed revisions and the ordinance, he has found the ordinance is extremely difficult to navigate. Also, the language is not as clearly written as it could be. With regard to the policies behind the code, from what he has seen, he would agree with the pwposes, but the difficulty in reading the code undermines the pwpose of the code and wastes staff time and the public's time in locating information in the code. He has not had time to comment on everything but some of his comments are contained in his letter. He believes there is an improvement to the Type I planning actions by lengthening the comment period from ten to 14 days, making it a little earlier in the process, however, he thinks it should be even earlier. The sooner affected property owners can talk to applicant(s) at a time when fewer expenses will have been involved and they are less fixed in their position, the better. The ordinance should require that the notice state the time frame and the requirements for appeal. He does not want the ordinance interpretation politicized. It is a matter for the City Attorney. Interpretations should be included on the website and their location cited in the ordinance: Dawkins/Black m/s to stay until 10 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, has found most of the amendments to be positive changes. He has two issues: 1. Residential in C- I and E-l zones. He liked the original revision much better than the second revision. By prohibiting residential in the E-l and C-l is a good idea. If we want to alIow them in any way, he would suggest they make them a Conditional Use. Allowing only 500 square foot units is like a band-aid. It should either be alIowed or not alIowed at all. He suggested eliminating the residential except with a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Changing the motel/hotel criteria. He thought Option 2 was simple and direct. If you want to outlaw timeshares and fractional uses, we should write a code that outlaws them. To put it in a definition is misplaced and misguided. Hotels and motels are a1readya Conditional Use in the Cl and E-l zones. The other language unnecessarily complicates the process. BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison, suggested passing the simple items and come back and struggle with the more difficult issues. He will pick up a revised draft, review it and submit written comments. Stromberg closed this public hearing, but the record will stay open to be discussed at a Special Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on October 4,2007. At that meeting, the integrated changes will be discussed. Stalheim said some of the changes in the new draft will include: Stromberg's edits to the Definitions Marsh's suggestion to redefine the gross floor area ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 5 9 ~.3 Half-story daylight basement Vision clearance Maps Stalheim will get the revisions out in the next week. FieldsIDawkins mls to continue keeping the record open for further discussion on October 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center. Voice Vote: Unanimously approved. VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS - PA2006-01663, 87 W. Nevada & 811 Helman, Ashland Flowershop & Greenhouse InclGreg & Valrl Williams Ex parte contacts - There were none. Morris had a discussion with his ex-neighbor, but nothing of substance. DotterrerlMorris mls to approve the abov.noted Findings. Roll Call: Unanimously approved. VI. B. (Continuation of PA2007-G0250, 281 Fourth Street, Aaron Glover) COMMIMSSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Stalheim read "Joint Use of Facilities" to the Commissioners. The Commissioners discussed several ways they could work up conditions so this application could be approved. Some argued the applicants did not provide enough information and there is confusion over specifically what the applicants are requesting. The number of parking spaces the applicants have available is still unclear. DawkinsIB/ack m/s to continue the meeting until /0:30 p.m. Marsh said she cannot vote for this project tonight. The driving question is the CUP. Can the application satisfy the criteria for a CUP? The applicants have come up with a list of things for crowd control measures but she has not seen any of this in writing until tonight. The specifics are very relevant for the Commissioners to know the applicants can control the impact of 120 people leaving the venue at midnight. She would like to see their plan to know they meet the criteria of minimizing the impact of the target area. She would agree to a continuation with the details ironed out along with a parking plan and a crowd control plan. Dawkins said he walks through this neighborhood all the time and with or without the venue, parking is not a problem. Weare making everything too complicated. There are other things happening in the neighborhood that are not restricted. He would like to make a motion and work out the conditions. DawkinsIMlndlin mls to approve PA2oo7-G0250. Mindlin said part of what makes this project special is it is a low-cost venue. We have to look at how our planning process interacts with the public. She agrees with Dawkins that the parking is there and to focus on a rejection of this proposed business activity on the basis there is a parking problem, feels legalistic and spurious. Dimitre, Morris and Dotterrer don't believe we have a complete application and it has not met the burden of proof. They are willing to continue it so they can come back with something they can support. Black would like to see the comments they made tonight in writing with the following and then the Commission can move forward. Commit events to a specific time and specify the number of people allowed. Request a Variance based on exceeding the 200 feet. Address bike parking. Come back to the Commission in a year and review. No idling of vehicles in the alley. If the venue is a certain size, they will take care of clean-up. Make sure the building isn't going to be a problem with occupancy and fire. State their plan. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 6 '1 I 1'+ Fields remembered 25 years ago when people in town were asking how we could create a traffic problem in the Railroad District. The parking reductions implemented then was to encourage that level of density. It's rare that Mobius can get a big draw of people. Maybe we can give them another month to work these things out, but he is looking at the level of complexity of what we are creating. It is making it difficult to do anything. In this case, he does not see the neighborhood rising up. Stromberg thought a continuation would be advisable and he doesn't want to compromise our process. Marsh called for the question. Dimltre seconded. The motion failed with Fields, Black, Mindlin, Dawkins and Morris voting 'no" and Dlmltre, Stromberg, Dotterrer and Marsh voting "yes." Roll Call on Dawkins' motion - Dawkins, Black and Mindlin voted "yes" and Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Fields, Stromberg and Dlmltre voted "no." The motion failed. MorrlsJDlmltre mls to continue the meeting to the October 9, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street. MorrlsIBlack mls amended the motion to leave the record open for two weeks. Roll Call: The motion was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 11,2007 7 '9,,5" ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT September 11, 2007 PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01283 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.08 18.12 18.14 18.16 18.20 18.22 18.24 18.28 18.30 18.32 18.40 18.52 18.54 18.61 18.62 18.64 18.68 18.72 18.76 18.92 18.96 18.108 18.112 REQUEST: Definitions Districts and Zoning Map W - R Woodland Residential District R-R RW'al Residential District R-l Single Family Residential District R-I-3.5 Suburban Residential District R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District R-3 High Density Multiple-Family Residential District NM North Mountain Neighborhood C-l Retail Commercial District E-l Employment District M-l Industrial District HC Health Care Services Zone Tree Preservation and Protection Physical and Environmental Constraints SO - Southern Oregon University (SOU) District General Regulations Site Design Review Partitions Parking Sign Regulations Procedures Enforcement Adoption of code amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Planning Action 2007 "()1283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 1 of 21 ,',,\ <....,., -! .0 I. Relevant Facts A. Background. History of Application In 2005, two reports were commissioned to address concerns raised by the Council and community regarding conflicting and unclear portions of the land use ordinance and the planning process. The Community Development and Planning Division Operational and Organizational Review by Zucker Systems was completed in February 2006. This Review focused on the planning process and had a short reference to procedural issues. The other report, known as the Siegel Planning Report, was completed in April 2006. The Siegel Report focused specifically on the Land Use Ordinance. From June 2006 until February 2007 a subcommittee comprised of members of the Planning Commission, a City Councilor and a member of the Planning Department staff reviewed the recommendations of the Siegel Report. This subcommittee identified issues within the Land Use Code that needed clarification and could be accomplished. From January through June 2007, the Community Development Director worked with the Planning Commission to review the planning program in Ashland, including land use procedures. This review also included an analysis of Oregon statutes and the application of procedures in Ashland. The Director provided the Planning Commission with alternatives and recommendations on procedures to consider. On June 12,2007, the Ashland Planning Commission made a motion to move forward on proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance regarding proposed procedural changes. On July 24, 2007, Community Development staff completed a proposed draft amendment to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that included both procedural changes and substantive amendments partially based on the Siegel report. This draft was presented to and reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission on July 31, 2007. The Planning Commission made a motion that a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance be scheduled on September 11,2007. B. Summary of the Proposed Ordinance Amendments The proposed amendments can be broken into two areas: 1. Amendments to address interpretation issues or minor policy issues in application of the code. 2. Changes to permit procedures. Code Chanfles The following are the main areas proposed for amendment in the code. · Lot Coverage - amends definition to make clear what is exempt. · Gross Floor Area - adds definition to implement code standards · Site Design Standards - provides clarity to what triggers site design review. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland q .' 7 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 2 of 21 · Maps - Re-adopts all land use maps into an electronic (GIS) mapping system. · Setbacks and Yards - adds definition that provides for how to measure multi- story setbacks. · North Mountain Zones -- Adopts standards for lot coverage or signs. · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones _ Allows for the same standards in the R-2 and R -3 zones as allowed in R-l. · Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-l zones - proposes standards to prohibit ground floor residential. · Tree Protection - requires more information and mitigation. · Vision Clearance - changes standards to measure from curb lines rather than property. · Nonconforming Uses and Structures - amends standards to provide clarity. · Mechanical Equipment -- Provides standards and exemptions for mechanical equipment, including solar panels. · Temporary Storage - proposes standards for temporary storage containers. · Permit Expiration - allows for just one extension for planning permits of 18 months, and this extension can be approved ministerial by staff Procedure Amendments The changes can be grouped into the following functional areas: · New Expedited Land Division procedures - new land division procedure required by ORS for 3 or fewer parcels. No hearing can be held, but cannot be in historic district or on lands considered as Physical and Environmental Constraints. · Amended Type I Permit procedures - these are minor planning actions handled by staff and not subject to public hearing. Amendments would add a notice of application procedure and eliminates Planning Commission Hearings Board review of staff decisions, instead making the staff decision final subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. · Amended Type II Permit procedures - these are larger projects subject to hearings before Planning Commission. Changes would amend the appeal procedures to City Council. · Amended Type III Permit procedures - decisions of the Planning Commission on legislative amendments, such as zoning and comprehensive plan map changes, would be recommendations to the City Council, rather than fmal changes. Planning Action 2OOHI1283 Applicant City of Ashland 9 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 3 of 21 c. Detailed Description of Proposed Procedural Amendments 1. Expedited Land Divisions One of the amendments to the Land Use Ordinance is the addition of the Expedited Land Division procedure required under Oregon statutes. This procedure is required under Oregon statute, but has not been written into the city's code. An expedited land division under ORS 197.360 is an action for land zoned residential in an urban growth boundary that creates enough lots or parcels to allow the building of residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site. The Expedited Land Division allows for the creation of three or fewer parcels and requires compliance with street and other standards of the city. Expedited Land Divisions would not be authorized in historic districts or on lands subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints review chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (18.62). According to State statute, if an Expedited Land Division is appealed, a "referee" who is not a city employee or official (including Planning Commission members) is required to decide the appeal. Under this proposal, the 'referee' could be hired under contract by the City Administrator. The Expedited Land Division section from ORS 197.360 has been taken basically verbatim from the statute with the exception of authorizing the City Administrator to hire the referee. 2. Staff' Permit & Type I Planning Action Procedural Modifications The current procedure for Staff Permits is removed from the proposed ordinance. The Staff Permits are currently processed in a manner similar to the Type I Planning Actions but they are on a different timeline and have a smaller notice area. Their incoIpOration into the Type I process would allow staff to follow common timelines and notice procedures, expand the neighborhood notice area and would allow for the decisions to be reconsidered or appealed. As proposed, Staff permit applications would proceed as Type I permit. 3. Staff'Decisions Final- Type I The current ordinance has staff approve all Type I permit applications, subject to "review" by the Planning Commission Hearings Board before they become final. This review is done without a public hearing. The proposed changes would make the staff decision final, subject to either a reconsideration process or appeal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Planning Action 2007~1283 Applicant City of Ashland r~ \, :)<1 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 4 of 21 4. Type I Planning Actions - Reconsideration and Appeal A reconsideration process proposal is being added to the procedures. This reconsideration process is an effort to avoid appeal when a factual error has occurred in the decision making process. The Planning Director would review the request and, if reconsideration is granted, the appeal process is stopped until a revised decision is sent out to all concerned parties of the action. An appeal of the Planning Director's decision on Type I planning actions will be to the Planning Commission. The appeal, in accordance with ORS 227.175, would be a de novo hearing. The amendments propose that the Planning Commission would be the city's fmal hearing authority and further appeals could be made to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). s. Type II Planning Action Procedural Modifications To afford the decision makers with ample opportunity for review, study and preparation of questions, an initial evidentiary hearing is authorized in the new procedures. This allows for information that aids the decision makers to be submitted early in the process and allows for the incorporation of the information into the final analysis and recommendations of the planning staff. The initial evidentiary hearing could be likened to a neighborhood meeting, but, the input would be recorded and transmitted to the Planning Commission for inclusion in the public record and their review and deliberation. 6. Type II Planning Actions - Reconsideration and Appeal Similar to the reconsideration process outlined for Type I Planning Actions, a reconsideration process is also proposed to be added to the Type II Planning Action procedures. When a factual error has occurred in the decision making process at the Planning Commission, a reconsideration request can be made to the Planning Director. The reconsideration request would be limited to factual errors and would not include the failure to raise an issue during the public input portion of the application. The Planning Commission then will affirm, modify or reverse the original decision. Notice of the reconsideration decision would then be noticed to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be to the City Council. The appeal would be on the record of the Planning Commission. This would allow for a greater public comment period before the decision has been made, and would allow for the public's concerns to be addressed early in the process. The City Administrator would be authorized to review appeals to determine whether additional testimony and evidence could be provided at the appeal before City Council. Planning Action 2007~1283 Applicant: City of Ashland /,'" ,1 . ... ...' Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 5 of 21 7. Notice Requirements Under current procedures for Staff Pennits and Type I Planning Actions, the Staff Advisor shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application within 14 days after receipt of a complete application. The Staff Advisor writes fmdings and conclusions to justify the decision. Then, a notice of the decision is mailed within seven days of the decision to all property owners compiled from the most recent property tax assessment roll within 100 feet of the subject site for Staff Permits and 200 feet of the subject site for Type I Planning Actions. A sign noticing the decision is also placed on the subject site. Persons to whom the notice is mailed then have 10 days from the date of mailing in which to request a public hearing. A hearing is then scheduled for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission or Hearings Board meeting. The decisions for Type I Planning Actions become fmal when reviewed by the Planning Commission Hearings Board. According to state law (ORS 197.195), the city shall provide written notice to owners of property within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which a complete application is made. A 14-day period for submission of written comments prior to the decision is required. Following the 14-day comment period, the city shall provide notice of the decision to the applicant and any person who submits comments. The notice of decision must include an explanation of appeal rights and briefly summarize the local decision making process for the land use decision being made. The proposed amendments are to incorporate the state law providing for notice of application and notice of decision. The change would eliminate the 100 foot noticing distance currently used for staff permits and would standardize all notice distances at 200 feet. A sign noticing the land use application would be posted on the site and the application would be available for review on the city's website. The proposed notice of application will provide a better opportunity for the public to comment on applications prior to decisions being made. 8. Type III Planning Actions The current ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to make final decisions on Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments and Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. However, these types of amendments can only be adopted by ordinance, which is a power reserved to the Mayor and City Council. The amendment would state that the Planning Commission decision would be a recommendation to the Mayor and Council for these type of amendments. 9. Appeal Fees Currently no fees are prescribed in the ordinance though the collection of appeal fees could be authorized by resolution of the City Council. According to state law (ORS Planning Action 2007 '()1283 Applicant: City of Ashland ./,J / , Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 6 of 21 227.175) fees may be set for appeals. The maximum fee that can be charged is $250 when there has not been a public hearing on a land use application. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or in subsequent hearings, the fee for the initial hearing must be refunded. The fee would not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the governing body and whose boundaries include the site. D. Detailed Description of Proposed Code Amendments Easier to Read · Conditional use permits. The current code has requirements for conditional use permits scattered throughout. The proposed amendments list the conditional use permits by zone, so a reader knows all the potential conditional use permits allowed in each zone. · Site Design venus Procedures. The Site Design chapter (18.72) is currently a blend of both standards and procedures. The procedures are removed from this chapter and put into the Procedures (18.108) chapter. At the same time, an attempt is made to make clear what development is subject to Site Design Review and what is exempt. · Definitions. Definitions are amended and new ones added that were not previously included in the code but are necessary in the application of the code. Interoretation and Internal Consistency Issues Every day, planning staff and customers struggle with the meaning or requirements of certain sections of the code. In some circumstances, the intent is clear and a staff decision can be made. In other cases, either the intent is not known or is in question. There are also circumstances where the code can be written to provide better direction. The following are the primary examples of these code amendments: · Lot Coverage. The current defInition of Lot Coverage uses words that do not get to the intent of the requirement. Words such as structure (could include dog houses, bird houses, etc.), soil disturbances and normal water infIltration (no defInitions). Customers often argue that gravel driveways should be exempt from the requirement. Staff has exempted decks with spacing that allows water infIltration, but not solid decks like concrete patios. Technically, the ordinance would require staff to measure walkways in gardens. The proposed definition provides an exemption for some solid porous surfaces and makes the definition much easier to administer. · Gross Floor Area. There are several standards in the code based on gross floor area or gross habitable floor area. New definitions are added that are easy to administer and consistent with each other. The definitions measure to outside surfaces of the building(s). · Site Design Standards. Some development triggers Site Design Review, but what standards should be applied is not always clear. Examples of this include Planning Action 2007-{)1283 Applicant: City of Ashland ,.. 1"'..~.. Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 7 of 21 rr- -r attached single family housing (e.g. townhouses) and non-residential development (e.g. schools) in residential zones. The proposed amendments identify how these sections should be applied. In addition, the applicability of the Site Design standards to other types of development is made clear, including the expansion of impervious surface, alterations which affect circulation, and alterations to historic buildings. · Expiration Dates. Site Design Review approvals were never set to expire if not acted upon. A one year limit is proposed. Tree removal permits are the only planning action that had six month permits; these are proposed to change to 1 year permits. Partitions are proposed for 18 months. · Maps. Many of the maps that set standards and regulations are hand drawn maps within booklets. As such, these maps were never in an electronic database or applied to parcels. The city's GIS staff has worked to apply these old maps to current technology. Finally, there is not an official zoning map that can be found by the City Recorder. As a result, the amendments would readopt the maps in a new electronic format, which will then be available by the City Recorder within the new ordinance. Amendment to Standards · Setbacks and Yards. It is standard practice to have building setbacks. The code uses the word "yard", as in a required 15' front yard. The ordinance also did not provide clarity on how setbacks or yards were determined for multi-story buildings. While it would be advantageous to go through the entire ordinance and address this issue, a simpler route was taken by revising the definition of setback (and adding a new defInition of Setback, Special) and by providing clarity as to how setbacks are measured in multi-story buildings. There are also standards for "half-stories", but no defInition; a proposed definition for half-story was added. · North Mountain Zones. When the North Mountain zones were adopted, standards for lot coverage or signs in the commercial areas were not included. Standards consistent with the plan are proposed. · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA in Multi-Family Zones. Under the current standards, it is possible to have more density and Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) in the R-l single family district than in the R-2 or R-3 multi-family districts. This is due to the fact that in multi-family zones, there isn't any such use as an "accessory residential use" since multi-family is allowed and not considered "accessory". In the R-l district, accessory residential units that are detached from the house are exempt from MPF A. · Residential Ground Floor in C-l and E-l zones. The current standards for residential uses are not clear when there are multiple buildings in these zones. The existing standard reads" . . . 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings..." The fIrst part is clear (except that gross floor area is not defIned), but how do you calculate 50% of the total lot area when applied to multiple buildings? In addition, the recent Economic Opportunities Analysis points out concerns with Planning Action 2007-01283 Appllclnt City of Ashland / ~:' ;~ ~.~-,. Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 8 of 21 allowing residential uses in our commercial and employment zones. The standards address the multiple floors by placing an overa1llimit on how much residential can be allowed for a 2-story building (50%) or multiple story buildings (66%). Thus, a two story building would have one floor of commercial and the second floor could be residential. A three story building could have one story of commercial and two floors of residential. Four or more stories would be required to have upper floors be partly used for commercial or employment purposes. · Tree Protection. The current ordinance does not offer protection for trees on adjacent properties that might have driplines overhanging the site of proposed development. A requirement to identify those trees is added (18.61.050). The ability to require larger trees when replacing a visual screen that is removed is added (18.61.084). · Vision Clearance. The current ordinance measures vision clearance from property lines. This is a disincentive to wide sidewalks and does not address the purpose of the vision clearance area: for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The proposed changes measure setbacks from curb lines. As a result, an exemption for street utilities is necessary for items such as traffic signs, street lights, etc. The amendments were reviewed by the Public Works Director and City Engineer. The State of Oregon standards are dropped from the code as they are within state law and are stopping distances, not vision clearance. · Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The existing standards have contradictions and do not properly reference criteria. A nonconforming use may be changed or a nonconforming structure enlarged when authorized in accordance with the "procedure" in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) chapter. It has been argued that the procedures for Conditional Use permit are notice requirements, and not criteria. A reference to two of the three conditional use permit criteria is added. The second problem with this section is that it appears to require a CUP when reconstructing or structurally altering a nonconforming structure. However, there are no definitions as to what reconstruction or structural alteration means, and the third point allows this to occur as ,long as the footprint is not changed in size or shape. The changes proposed would require a CUP only when the structure is enlarged or extended. A nonconforming structure could be structurally altered (enlarged is stricken) without a CUP; however, the use cannot change without a CUP. For example, if a garage had a nonconforming setback, it could be structurally altered unless the use changed, such as to a residential unit. Then, a conditional use permit would be required. · Mechanical Equipment The existing code does not appear to provide any clear exemption from Site Design Review, nor does it provide exemptions for placement into yards, etc. There are several amendments proposed that address this issue. o Definitions. Removes the exemptions from the defInition and puts these exemptions into the Site Design Chapter. o Setback Exception. Mechanical equipment and associated housing that is not taller than allowed fence heights is proposed to be allowed within Planning Action 2007-{)1283 Applicant: City of Ashland J .."" !,. i "-1-"- Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 9 of 21 required side or rear yards. If this equipment is installed, it must conform to other provisions of the Ashland Code, including noise attenuation. (See 18.68.140) o Site Design Review Exemptions. Three exemptions are provided in Section 18.72.030(B). The first is an exemption for roof-mounted solar collection devices unless within the Employment and Commercial zoned properties in an historic district. The second is the installation of mechanical equipment not visible from the street or adjacent residential property. The third is for the routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment. The other exemptions are required by federal law for amateur radios and satellite dishes. · Temporary Storage. We are starting to see an increase in the usage of temporary storage containers throughout the city. These storage containers include signage that is incompatible with city standards, and there are currently no limits on how long these can be kept in place. Proposed standards would allow these units on a temporary basis. Anything longer would require a Conditional Use Permit. (See 18.68.170) · Permit Expiration. The current ordinance allows two extensions of one year each for planning actions. These extensions must be approved with a Staff Permit procedure requiring notice, etc. The permit approval can only be extended when the ordinance has not changed, or the applicant agrees to abide by any changes in the ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow for just one extension of 18 months, and this extension can be approved ministerial by staff with the same requirement that the code has not changed or the applicant agrees to abide by any code changes. (See 18.112.030) E. Changes from July 24 draft to August 28'" draft Limited pubic input has been provided at this point in the review of the proposed changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The review that has been received from citizens, Planning Commission members and city staffhas helped draft changes to the ordinance to address issues in the fIrst draft. The following are the changes that are included: · Lot Coverage. Revised defInition that proposes allowing solid surface porous driveways as part of an exemption from lot coverage. Review of the original proposal indicated concerns regarding whether driveways were included or not in the exemption. The defInition of solid porous surface is taken from stormwater manuals of Portland and the EP A. · Hotel or Motel. The fIrst draft meant to combine these defInitions. There were concerns expressed that this could open the door for timeshare or more fractional ownership opportunities in the downtown. The defInition has been modified to make it a requirement that hotels or motels include a lobby, and that the majority of rooms are not long-term accommodations. · Story and Half Story. Review of the amendments by the Historic Commission raised concerns that buildings would be allowed that are taller than intended at the Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland /1 \. .~~" 5' Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 10of21 setback line, or with respect to MPF A. Together with the addition of a definition for basement, the revised definitions provide clarity and protection for the intent of the land use standards. The definition of half-story is also amended to make it clear that some daylight basements would be considered a half-story. · Non-conforming. The intent of the first draft was to allow renovation or rehabilitation of existing structures. The use of the word "reconstruct" was inserted as something that would be allowed without review. Reviewing the dictionary definition of reconstruct identified that this would allow a structure to be tom down and replaced. Staff believes if that is allowed, then a conditional use permit and public review should occur. Thus, a new definition of reconstruct is added and the non-conforming section modified to require a CUP for reconstruction as is currently required in the ordinance. · Accessory Dwelling Unit. Some public testimony and Planning Commission input requested that we set the same standards for accessory dwelling units in the R-2 and R-3 zones as in the R-I zone. In the R-l zone, you can have an Accessory Dwelling Unit that is 50% of the principal dwelling size, up to 1,000 square feet. The proposed standards would make the ADU standards the same in the R-2 and R-3 zones. · Ground Floor Residential in C-l and E-l. We heard and received public input that requested allowing some limited ground floor residential in these zones. One argument was that ADA might require a unit to be accessible. So, if all residential units are required on the upper floors, an elevator would be required. The change would allow a small ground floor unit (500 sq. feet limit), provided that it meets ADA accessibility requirements. One other comment we heard about this section is to allow lobbies and staircases on the first floor to access the residential use. The new changes add the word "dwelling" as part of tb,e prohibition. Thus, staff believes that only the dwelling unit would be prohibited on the ground floor (except the one unit talked about above), with access to upper floors, etc. allowed on the ground floor because it isn't considered part of the "dwelling unit." · Tree Mitigation. One public comment letter requested that tree replacement mitigation be allowed up to a year to allow for construction, etc. Staff agrees that where there is significant construction occurring, a longer period of time is warranted to replace trees. However, there should be authority to require less or more depending on the situation, so the changes set the standard at one year with the ability to modify that standard as needed. · Cantilever into Floodplain. A Planning Commission member pointed out that the standards in l8.62.070(G) refer to cantilever and pillars. Structures that are cantilevered do not have pillars. The intent of the section appears to indicate that either would be acceptable because it refers to a distance of 20 feet, a very long distance for most structures to cantilever. . Vision Clearance. Because the vision clearance standards are currently found in three different places, the ordinance combines these standards into just one place under General Regulations. Because that section exempted the C-I and E-I district from the standards, this would have been a significant change in the ordin~ce. The exemption is stricken in this draft. A Planning Commission Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland /:/ .....,..," "'~::-:" Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 11 of 21 member also identified that it wasn't clear that upper stories that are cantilevered over the vision clearance area would be exempt from the requirement. Thus, an exemption is proposed in this draft. · Site Design Applicability. While we provided some exemptions from site design review for mechanical equipment, we didn't make it clear that what isn't exempt is subject to review. · Street and Driveway Access Points. The first draft proposed to change the distance between driveways on residential streets to 24 feet to be consistent with Street Design Standards. However, review of this section again led staff to believe that the intent was for multi- family and commercial development where more traffic and separation of driveways is warranted. Thus, the standards are proposed to be applicable to the same zones as identified in part A of Section 18.72.120. · Flag Drive Turnarounds. The Fire Department provided planning staff with correspondence that indicated that the City Council directed staff to bring an actionable item to them amending the requirement for a fire apparatus turn-around at the end of 150' dead ends rather than 250' dead ends. This change would make the Ashland Land Use Code consistent with the Oregon Fire Code. · Type III Planning Actions. The current ordinance allows the Planning Commission to make final deciSIOns on zoning and comprehensive plan map changes. However, these amendments are to city ordinances, which can only be done under the authority of the Mayor and Council. · Type I Appeals. There is some concern that appeal of staff decisions of Type I permits might cause an overloading of agenda items before the Planning Commission. The changes would allow the Planning Commission Hearings Board to hear some appeals under the authority granted to them in this code and Title 2 of the Municipal Code. F. Input on Proposed Amendments The proposed amendments were sent to and reviewed by the city's Historic Commission, Tree Commission and Housing Commission. The Historic Commission focused on the definition of half-story and non-conforming structures. Changes to both sections were made as a result of their input. The Tree Commission did not have a quorum, but the amendments were sent to all current members. Only one member sent staff questions, which were resolved in staff responses. The Housing Commission's Land Use Subcommittee and the full commission reviewed the proposal. The Land Use Subcommittee did not raise any specific issues with the proposed amendments. The full commission did support the ordinance provisions applicable to housing, with the following adjustment: Planning Action 2OOH)1283 Applicant City of Ashland / ~j ,......, Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 12 of 21 · Allow Accessory Residential Units less than 500 square feet to be a permitted use in the single family zones (they are currently a conditional use). Although notices were sent out to all property owners within the city, and although staff received a considerable volume of phone calls, only two citizens provided written comments to the draft ordinance: Mark Knox and Colin Swales. Both had detailed comments, questions and suggestions in their review, which is attached to this report. Several of their issues have been incorporated into the second draft of this proposal. G. Options or Alternatives to Consider Options or alternatives that the Planning Commission can consider on some amendments are outlined below. Amend Section 18.08.160. CoveralZe.lot or site. Staff Recommendation: (this ootion orovides an exemotion for oorous drivewavs) Total area of all structuresbuildings,~ paved driveways, or other soil disturbances solid surfaces that will not allow BOfffial water infiltration to the ground. PROVIDED. however. that. Pefffie8ble swfaees UP to ten percent ( 10%) of the lot area with solid porous surfaces. such as paths. patios. decks. drivewavs or similar surfaces.ffie.t iBel1:u:KBf: ElnveV'/avB) are is -exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Staff Recommendation without striIceouts: Total area of all buildings, driveways, or other solid surfaces that will not allow water infiltration to the ground, PROVIDED, however, that up to ten percent (10%) of the lot area with solid porous surfaces, such as paths, patios, decks, driveways or similar surfaces, is exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Qption 2: (this ootion does not provide an exemotion for porous surface drivewavs) Total area of all struemresbuildings, and ~veways, or other soil dismreanees solid surfaces that will not allow 1'I0rmal water infiltration to the ground. PROVIDED. however. that. Pefffieasle stlrfaees up to ten percent ( 10%) of the lot area with solid porous surfaces. exceJlt buildin~s and drivewavs.. sHeh as Baths. Baaes. Eleel{s er similar s1:HfaesB (Bet iBehuHftf: Elrivs'l/ays) are is exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Ootion 2 without strikeouts: Total area of all buildings and driveways, or other solid surfaces that will not allow water infiltration to the ground, PROVIDED, however, that up to ten percent (10%) of Planning Action 2007-01283 Appllclnt City of Ashland ,f . J.? Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 13 of 21 the lot area with solid porous surfaces, except buildings and driveways, is exempt from lot coverage requirements. The coverage is expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage. Amend Section 18.08.320. Hotel or Motel Staff Recommendation: (definition that would limit "timeshare residential" ) A facilitv offering transient 10d2:ing accommodations to the 2:eneral pubic and which mav include additional facilities and services. such as restaurants. meetin2: rooms. entertainment. personal services. and recreational facilities. and which includes a public lobby and on-site staff. At least 60% of the rooms shall have occupancies of 30 days or less. bl:lildiHg ia ','.'hich 10dgiHg is provided to gHests for oompeflSatiofl and iH 'Ilbieh H0 proyisioHS are ffiaae for ooelciag ia (fie 10agiH& roeRls. Ootion 2: (definition as orilrinallv drafted) A facility offering transient 10d2:ing accommodations to the general pubic and which mav include additional facilities and services. such as restaurants. meeting rooms. entertainment. personal services, and recreational facilities. lmilding ia '",bieb lodgia& is provided to guests for eeffipeflsatiofl afld in which no provisions arc made for cooking is tbe 10agiHg mems. Ootion 3: (do nothinlZ) Eliminate definition change of hotel or motel from ordinance. R-2 and R-3. General ReIZUlations Staff Recommendation: (allows ADU exemntion from density and MPF A un to 1.000 SQ. ft. as allowed in R-l ) A. Permitted Density. 1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the following standards and exc~tions: a. An accessory residential unit is not reauired to meet density or minimum lot area reauirements. be. flov,<e':er. l:I!1nits. not considered as an accessory residential unit and ef less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations. with thc fellowiRg restrictions. b. :\n aeeesserv f6siaeBtial \tHit is Bat felil\tirea ta meet aeBsity rea1:liFeHieBts. sreyiaea the \tftit is less tRaB 599 st11:l8fe feet ia J::i'eBB fl()()r 8fea. fi:t. Minimum lot area for less than 2 units tlfItt-+.shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland j ,..., "'\ / V -1 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 14 of 21 minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. ge. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. ~. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. tH*l-except as determined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District. The maximum pennitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within tfle-illLHistoric District shall be determined by the following: 1. The maximum pennitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to ,exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory a seceaa residential units OR ORe let that iEl JesEl thaB 500 S~1:iare feet iB lffi)ElEl fleer area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions created within ~illLHistoric District. The MPFA fer multiple dV/elliags on a single lot '""ithin the Historie District shall be determined by the following: I. The MPF A shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the buildingW, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or ~etached accessory Eleeeft8 residential units OR eHe let that iElless thaB 500 S~1:iare feet iR creElS fleer al'08. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6' , except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. ODtion 2: (first orooosal which allows ADU exemotion from densitv MPF A QO to 500 sa. ft. mID1 A. Permitted Density. l. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development, including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply Planning Action 2007 '()1283 Applicant City of Ashland I ' , ; ~ .,. I ,/ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 15 of 21 towards the total density. Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the followinl.! standards: ~howeYer, u.!1nits of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations, with the followint; restrictions. b. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density requirements. provided the unit is less than 500 square feet in lITOSS floor area. fa. Minimum lot area for less than .2 units lHlit--l--shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'. gb. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. ~. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of 9000 sq. ft. 8fltl-except as detennined by the base density and allowable bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a minimum depth of 80'. I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the IDstoric District. The maximum pennitted floor area for single family primary dwellings on individual lots within tfle-illLHistoric District shall be detennined by the following: I. The maximum pennitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or .!Ldetached accessory residential units on one lot that is less than 500 square feet in grOSS floor area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in Penormance Standards Options land divisions created within tfl.e.-an Historic District. The MPFA for multiple d',wlliRgs on a single lot v;ithin the Historic District shall be detennined by the following: I. The MPF A shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the f1flmary dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the buildingW, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or .!Ldetached accessory second residential units on one lot that is less than 500 square feet in grOSS floor area. Detached garages, accessory structures, or aceeSS0f)' residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6' , except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures. Special Permitted Uses Planning Action 2OOH11283 Applicant City of Ashland l } ~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 16 of 21 Staff Recommendation: (This ootion allows small residential unit on l!1'Ound floor with liJJJiB1. D. Residential uses. 1. Residential dwelling units. and their associated parking ur sturage. are prohibited on the ground floor. exceot as allowed below. Multi-story or multi- unit buildings on a lot. including habitable basement areas. shall not have more than fiftv percent (50%) of the entire gross floor area of the building( s) in residential use for two stOry buildings and sixty-six percent (66%) for three or more story buildings. ,Ait least 65~;, of the total gross floor area of the ground floor. or at least 50~;, of the total lot area if there are multiple bliildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses. excluding residential. a. A residential dwelliDl! unit may be allowed on the ground floor if gross floor area of the dwelliDl! unit is less than five hundred (500) square feet and no more than twentv l'ercent (20%) of the gross floor area of the ground floor. b. Residential dwelling units on the ground floor must meet accessibility (ADA) requirements. c. Residential dwelling units on the ground floor mav not be located along street frontage. exceot allevs. Ootion 1: (This ootion maintains orohibition of residential on l!1'Ound floor) D. Residential uses. 1. Residential dwelling units. and their associated parking or storage. are prohibited on the ground floor. Multi-story or multi-unit buildings on a lot. including habitable basement areas. shall not have more than fifty percent (50%) of the entire gross floor area of the building( s) in residential use for two stor\' buildings and sixty-six percent (66%) for three or more stOry buildings. At-least 6S~\, of the total gross floor area of the ground floor. or at least sm'o of the total lot afea if there arc multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted twes. excluding residential. Amend Section 18.61.084. Miti~tion Reauired Staff Recommendation: (This ootion reauires mitillation within one vear or as set forth in aooroved olan) An applicant ffltty-shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum I 'lS-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees mav be required where the mitigation is intended. in part. to replace a visual screen between land uses. "Suitable" species means the tree's growth habits and environmental requirements are conducive to the site. given the Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant City of Ashland 1/.:;. Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 17 of 21 existing topography. soils. other vegetation. exposure to wind and sun. nearbv structures. overhead wires. etc. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. D. An approved mitigation plan shall be fullv implemented within one Htlftdred eighty (180) days vear of a tree being removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal application and approved in the tree removal permit. Ootion 2: (This oDtion reauires mitipaRon within 180 davs as orip;nallv DroDOsed) An applicant ffiflj'-shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum I Y2-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees may be required where the mitigation is intended. in part. to replace a visual screen between land uses. "Suitable" species means the tree's gro\\1h habits and environmental requirements are conducive to the site. given the existin~ topography. soils. other vegetation. exposure to wind and sun. nearbv structures. overhead wires. etc. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. D. An approved mitigation plan shall be fully implemented within one hundred eighty ( 180) days of a tree being removed. Amend Section 18.62.070. Develonment Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands Sttlff Recommendation: (this ootion allows oillars for 2nd storY construction) G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or supported bv pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian vegetation. and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is StlflfJefte6 ey fJillars tkat will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Ootion 2: (this ootion allows cantilever. but no oillars for 2nd storY construction) G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian vegetation. and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height;-tmtl-ts Stlp~€lfle6 BY pillars tkat '.vill Have miftimal impaet eft fAe flE:r:: ef fleed'.vatefG. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below the flood corridor elevations. Planning Action 2007"()1283 Applicant: City of Ashland J I :,1 f ! Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 18 of 21 Add Section I R.68.170. Temporary Storage. StaffRecolt(1IIend1ltlon: (this ootion as orisrinallv drafted with limits on storalZe) A. Leased or rented temporary storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet i8 f'fess fleer area are permitted in Residential. Health Care Services, North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zoning districts for a period not to exceed 30-davs in anv one vear period provided the storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor mav grant a 30-dav extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the propertv owner was not responsible. B. Temporary. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet i8 ef'ess fleer area and visible from a public right-of-wav. open space or parkland are permitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to exceed 90-davs in anyone vear period provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction, renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor may grant a 30-dav extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the propertv owner or leaseholder was not responsible. Option 2: (this option movides for IonIZer neriods for active buildinlZ moiects) A. Leased or rented temporary storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet i8 eress !leer area are permitted in Residential. Health Care Services. North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zoning districts for a period not to exceed six (6) months 30 SaY3 in anv one year period provided the storage container or structure is associated with ffitr;i8~, building construction, renovation or demolition, or for a period of up to 30-days if associated with moving. The Staff Advisor may grant a ()';()-dav extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner was not responsible. B. Temporary. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet i8 grass !leer area and visible from a public right-or-wav. open space or parkland are permitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to exeeee 90 SaYS nine months in any efle two vear period provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with movin!.!:. building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor may grant a ';90-dav extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner or leaseholder was not responsible. Ootion 3: (this ootian is a hybrid of Ootion 1 and 2 based on visibility ofsimalZe) A. Leased or rented temporary storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet iB ~ss geer area are pennitted in Residential. Health Care Services, North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zoning districts for a period not to exceed 30-days in anyone year period provided the storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor mav grant a 30-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the propertv owner was not responsible. Planning Action 2007-{)1283 Applicant: City of Ashland Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 19 of 21 B. Leased or rented temporary storage containers and structures !!Teater than 90 square feet in cress fleer area are permitted in Residential. Health Care Services. North Mountain Neighborhood and SOU zoning districts for a period not to exceed six (6) months 30 days in anv one vear period provided the storage container or structure is associated with ffie\'iag. building construction. renovation or demolition. provided that any sil!n on the storage container is less than one (1) sauare feet in sil!ll area. The Staff Advisor may !!Tant a 630-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner was not responsible. CB. Temporary. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet iH !::TeSS fleer area and visible from a public right-of-way. open space or parkland are permitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to exceed 90-davs in anyone year period provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with moving, building construction. renovation or demolition. The Staff Advisor mav grant a 30-day extension upon finding extenuating circumstances in which the property owner or leaseholder was not responsible. D. Temporarv. leased storage containers and structures greater than 90 square feet iH ~ess Reer area and visible from a public right-of-way. open space or parkland are pennitted in Commercial. Emplovment and Industrial zoning districts for a period not to ~(eee<:l 90 aays nine months in any 6fte two year period provided the leased storage container or structure is associated with moving. building construction. renovation or demolition, provided that any sil!ll on the stora~e container is less than one (1 ) square feet in sign area, The Staff Advisor may grant a :3-90-dav extension upon finding extenuating: circumstances in which the property owner or leaseholder was not responsible. Ootion 4: (do nothin2-don't add anv nrovisions) II. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof The Ashland Planning Commission initiated amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.108.170. The state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) was noticed of the proposed amendments in accordance with ORS 197.610. In accordance with Oregon State Law, a Measure 56 notice to property owners regarding any change in land use law that "adopts or amends an ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone" was sent to every property owner of record within the city limits. Over 9,000 properties received notice. According to ORS 227.186, all legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning adopted by a city shall be by ordinance. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment on September 11, 2007. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Planning Action 2007-01283 Appllclnt: City of Ashland ,,- Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 20 of 21 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations These changes are in response to several initiatives, including Council Goals, Planning Commission Goals, the Planning Department Audit by Zucker Systems, the Land Use Ordinance Review prepared by Siegel Planning Services, and the review of the city's land use procedures by the Community Development Director and the Planning Department staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance modifications, including changes deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Planning Action 2007-01283 Applicant: City of Ashland l' I '~:J Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ada Page 21 of 21 WRITTEN COMMENTS To: Ashland Planning Commission From: Bonnie Brodersen. 635 Wrights Creek, Ashland, OR Date: September 10, 2007 Re: Comments Concerning Amendments to the ALVO's (Chapter 18, et al) Response to Ashland Land Use Ordinances, Proposed Draft Amendments. Section: 18.08.160 Coverage By removing the word '~ormal" a surface that allows even 1 % water infihration would not be included in the definition of '"coverage." Why is a deck or patio considered a porous surface? Driveways, even permeable driveways do not allow for normal infihration. Permeable driveways, which are relatively new and untested, get clogged with dirt, but even if they aren't clogged, they do not allow for normal infihration. If there is not normal infihration. there will be runoff into our streams and creeks. Runoff, which carries oil, sediment, pesticides, etc. pollute our wetlands, creeks and streams and causes bank erosion. All surfaces on a lot which cause runoff should be included in the definition of "coverage." The definition of coverage as revised, will contribute to flooding and pollution of our waterways and increased destruction of the natural flora on a lot. The proposed revisions violate Ashland's Comprehensive Plan which has as two of its Goals: to "[P]rotect the quality ofriparian resource lands..." and "[t]o preserve and protect significant wetlands, and to mitigate potential impacts on these areas due to development and conflicting uses." (CP page IV-II & 13) 18.12.020 The changes and addition of new "overlays" makes the ALVO's difficuh to interpret. For example, are site design and use standards now only applicable to construction in the DSR overlay? And is the DSR a zoning district? Is the Freeway Sign Overlay a zoning district, because 18.I2.030A implies that these are zoning districts. What is a Residential overlay zoning district? It's unclear. Change/addition of a zoning district requires precise, explicit notice to affected property owners. The general notice sent to owners is not sufficient. 18.20.030 What is the defmition for a ''wireless communication facility"? Would a wireless communication facility include tall cell poles, lattice towers, steahh structures? Has theoexcess radiowaves, EMF's etc. emanating onto the property of city residents been considered? What is a disc antenna for commercial use? Placing cell towers, disc antennas, etc. in residential districts violates the Valdez Principles, to which Ashland is a subscriber (via City Council endorsement in the 1990's) and violates the Comprehensive Plan (CP). 117 18.22.040 R-1-3.5 Variances should be subject to a Type II procedure because a Variance is a discretionary decision. Several Sections Enlargement of nonconforming uses should not be permitted anywhere. 18.61.035 I Why should the City be exempted from meeting Code requirement for tree removal on public land or in ROW's? City controlled property should be held to the same standards as privately owned property. 18.68.020 The proposed additions to Exception (1) and Exception (2) should be eliminated. Applying Exception 1 will require that most trees on comers will have to be trimmed up to 14 feet from the base which will affect the beauty of our city streets. Unless it can be shown that many accidents are caused by tree branches extending below 8 feet, this is an unnecessary proposal, will be difficuh to enforce and will affect the natural beauty of our city. Exception (2) appears to allow public and private utilities in a vision clearance area - part of which will be on a private lot. The City can not place public utilities or permit private utilities (other than those utilities of the lot owner) to be placed on a private lot unless there is an easement for same. 18.108.030 The City does not have to enact local implementation provisions for an "Expedited Land Division" because the expedited land division is available (locally) by state Statute. (The local government will have to enact a fee schedule). Why clutter the Code by adding an ordinance whose provisions are already available under state statute? 18.108.040 Type I Procedure The proposed ALUO removes new structures greater than 2,500 square feet. from a Type I procedure review. In recent years very large homes have been the choice of developers in Ashland. Many of these homes house only two persons. For ecological reasons and for getting the most benefit from the land available for development in Ashland, the City should discourage the construction of large homes. Furthermore, the larger the home, the more impact it has on a neighborhood (greater impact during construction, more impervious surfaces, disturbance of natural area, etc.). More aggressive oversight by the Planning Dept. by way of a Type I review is one means of discouraging larger homes. And it is prudent to allow neighbors to have their say when a home in excess of2500 square feet is built nearby. The Type I procedure offers neighbors an opportunity for notice and to be heard. I I (' Page I of I David Stalheim - Proposed Land Use Ordinance amendments <f ." ,"Ill<- ;''\ "'C>;...... .~.-,."'" _1""i_~:;..o::;'~. ,_ t;.,.,;: "...~."'.:..1- '"', . .:. .,,;.,....-(< ..-;.,>'" '-".:",~ ,,'-.!-l- ....1-....:..'b .'.....' From: To: Date: Subject: "JOHN SCHWENDENER" <jpschwen@msn.com> < Stalheid@ashland.or.us> 9/9/2007 6: 16 PM Proposed Land Use Ordinance amendments David Stalheim/Planning Dept. I'm writing to express my concern over the proposed changes to the Employment Zone (E-1) with a residential overlay. The proposed changes are significant and would effect the use and value of our property. I have some concerns, suggestions and questions. One concern would be not allowing garages or storage on the ground level for residential units. Perhaps limiting the allowed garage area to (1) single car garage per residential unit with a maximum of 3 on the ground level would eliminate the concern over having garage space take up a lot of employment property. Building underground parking on a small project would be cost prohibitive. Another thought might be to allow (3) garages on the ground level instead of a 500 square foot ground level ADA unit. Another concern would be only allowing 50% residential on two story buildings. If a 500 square foot residential unit is allowed on the ground floor at a maximum of 20% coverage, this would be a minimum 2500 sq. ft. foot print. The second floor could have two 1250 sq. ft. units making a nice symmetrical aesthetically pleasing building with 60% of the building being residential. Having the ability to build residential units help make the economics work to build an employment type building. The above proposal regarding garages would also allow for 66% residential on 2 story buildings. Please consider something more that 50% residential on 2 story buildings. Would these proposed changes lead to measure 37 claims? It seems that the changes would reduce the value of the effected properties. In addition is would reduce the existing options that are in the current zoning permitted uses. The current E-1 zoning permitted uses make good sense for small single building projects. There are some wording clarifications that would be helpful but a blanket change to the allowable uses in E-1 may have undesired unintended consequences. Please take the time to make sure this is well thought out before changes are made. Thank you for your thoughts and considerations. John Schwendener E-1 property owner /! 9 fi Ie: C: Documents and Settings ,staIheid' Lm:aI Settings T crop G W f 0000 I. HTM 9, 10:2007 From: To: Date: Subject: Dennis Goldstein <dgoldstein_alas@yahoo.com> David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 9/10/20073:32:47 PM Re: Land Use Ordinance changes Thanks for your quick response. I still have the following concerns. If the Planning Commission decides at this time not to revise the Ordinance more comprehensively, I hope that it will quickly act to overhaul it. In my opinion, the difficulties in navigating and reading the Ordinance are undercutting its laudable purposes and wasting the staff and public's time. The fourteen day response time following a Type I notice is insufficient, given the difficulties with the Ordinance. Also, an affected property owner may need time to arrange for a lawyer or other expert to interpret the Ordinance and determine if its requirements have been met. The Type I decision notices should inform affected property owners about the appeal and reconsideration requirements, including fees and deadlines. This will save time in having to search the Ordinance for these requirements. --- David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us> wrote: > Dennis, > > Thanks for your review of the Ashland Land Use > Ordinance. I just finished reading your letter and > wanted to respond briefly to your comments. > > As I mentioned in our conversation today, these > amendments were largely intended to be a ''finger in > the dike" to address obvious problems in the > existing ordinance. It is clear that the ordinance > has been pieced together over the years, resulting > in chapters that are out of sequence and definitions > in many different places. The Planning Commission > and staff chose to not do the full rewrite of the > ordinance at this time because we felt that the city > should focus on some policy issues first, which > would likely necessitate changes in the land use > code. So, some of the reorganization that you > suggest to make it easier to read is something we > think should be held off to another time. > > Your comments about official city maps, etc. is > something that I need to look at. Again, at times ......"" .~ ,.'J > in the past, maps were "adopted" that had some > official regulatory power, but references to them > were not broadly identified in the ordinance. I > took a quick stab at trying to do that, but know > that we should clean that up. > > The Solar Access Chapter is not proposed for > revision at this time. It is overly complex and can > be simplified. It is a topic that we think should > be addressed in the near future. > > The comment about appeal to council and being a > jurisdictional defect is a legal standard > recommended by our attorney to be included. Perhaps > there is another sentence that can be added to make > it clear to the lay person what that means. > > There are several terms in this ordinance that > cannot be easily separated without a total review of > their applicability in the ordinance. Gross floor > area is one of those terms. I'm not sure that we > can make that change without a ripple effect, but I > will take a look at that as an option. > > Thanks for the comment about parking. I will look > and see if that needs change. > > The Type I notice period is the state standards. > While I probably agree that more time is needed for > notice, the state sets a requirement that we 1) send > out notice AFTER we deem the application is complete > and 2) that we make final decisions, including any > appeals, within 120 days. We have put this out into > a timeline and we are extremely tight on our > timelines to comply with the statute. If we sent > out a notice at the time of application, we would > have to send out another notice when we deemed it > complete. This causes a large workload on our > staff. We do post pre-application conferences on > our web site, so people could peruse that if they > were interested in monitoring what applications are > being looked at. > > The final ordinance before city council would > include the effective date and other standards that > legal would put into the ordinance. The draft is > meant as the review of substantive terms that the > Planning Commission is concerned about. > > Again, thanks for your review. I will send the > Planning Commission your letter and this response. > Please feel free to get in touch with me if you have > any questions regarding my response. > > > David Stalheim, Director ""! ~ ._~ " Page I of2 David Stalheim - Land Use Ordinance changes '"""".....;,','. > ~,'" ..,'- ,~, "''-'~.''\,'';I,.:''''''' :I...M"..;!, "''''1'';;:. .,.;'i.....'......, 1;:';~'~.k..,t-:...._,.;f,.a..,.d-~~......J~_"~,,,.,-r.Jr~~";....t...v"\.h'W:"" From: To: Date: Subject: David Stalheim dgoldstein_alas@yahoo.com 9/7/20075:08 PM Land Use Ordinance changes Dennis, Thanks for your review of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. I just finished reading your fetter and wanted to respond briefly to your comments. As I mentioned in our conversation today, these amendments were largely intended to be a "finger in the dike" to address obvious problems in the existing ordinance. It is clear that the ordinance has been pieced together over the years, resulting in chapters that are out of sequence and definitions in many different places. The Planning Commission and staff chose to not do the full rewrite of the ordinance at this time because we felt that the city should focus on some policy issues first, which would likely necessitate changes in the land use code. So, some of the reorganization that you suggest to make it easier to read is something we think should be held off to another time. Your comments about official city maps, etc. is something that I need to look at. Again, at times in the past, maps were "adopted" that had some official regulatory power, but references to them were not broadly identified in the ordinance. I took a quick stab at trying to do that, but know that we should clean that up. The Solar Access Chapter is not proposed for revision at this time. It is overly complex and can be simplified. It is a topic that we think should be addressed in the near future. The comment about appeal to council and being a jurisdictional defect is a legal standard recommended by our attorney to be included. Perhaps there is another sentence that can be added to make it clear to the lay person what that means. There are several terms in this ordinance that cannot be easily separated without a total review of their applicability in the ordinance. Gross floor area is one of those terms. I'm not sure that we can make that change without a ripple effect, but I will take a look at that as an option. Thanks for the comment about parking. I will look and see if that needs change. The Type I notice period is the state standards. While I probably agree that more time is needed for notice, the state sets a requirement that we 1) send out notice AFTER we deem the application is complete and 2) that we make final decisions, including any appeals, within 120 days. We have put this out into a timeline and we are extremely tight on our timelines to comply with the statute. If we sent out a notice at the time of application, we would have to send out another notice when we deemed it complete. This causes a large workload on our staff. We do post pre-application conferences on our web site, so people could peruse that if they were interested in monitoring what applications are being looked at. The final ordinance before city council would include the effective date and other standards that legal would put into the ordinance. The draft is meant as the review of substantive terms that the Planning Commission is concerned about. Again, thanks for your review. I will send the Planning Commission your letter and this response. Please feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions regarding my response. ,I 'I "~ : ,oo(~, tile;"C:'Documents and Sertings,stalheid' Local Settings'TempGW: OOOOI.HTM 9/ I O/~007 .1 September 7, 2007 City of Ashland Planning Commission c/o Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 (" f ;' ~ ;,r~ '~r'd Cvrrlm,,' :lill U""''''''jjmerC RE: 2007 Proposed Land Use Amendments Dear Planning Commission Members: This responds to the City of Ashland's request for public comments about the proposed amendments to the Land Use Ordinance. After reviewing the amendments and ordinance, I have the following comments. I support the general objectives of the ordinance and commend David Stalheim's goal to make the ordinance easier to read and to resolve its internal inconsistencies. In reviewing the ordinance, I often found it difficult to navigate and understand despite having thirty years experience in drafting and using real estate codes. While the proposed amendments improve the ordinance, it still needs a makeover. Many aspects ofthe makeover would not take a lot of time. To make the ordinance easier to navigate and read, I suggest the following: REORGANIZE THE LIST OF CHAPTERS. Group the Chapters by topic. For example, place the SOU District Chapter with the other districts. Group together the chapters about requirements for individual properties and lump together the chapters on major changes, such as partitions, annexations, etc. PROVIDE A CLEARER DESCRIPTION IN THE CHAPTER HEADINGS. For example, change the Chapter on General Regulations to "Requirements for Yards, Excavations, Utilities, Driveways and Grades". Also, more clearly describe other key terms such as the Type I, Type n and Type ill applications. For example, Type ill procedures would be Zoning Changes, Annexations and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. These changes will enable readers unfamiliar with the ordinance more easily to access pertinent parts of the ordinance. PLACE EACH TOPIC UNDER ONE CHAPTER OR HEADING. For example, place the tree protection sections of Chapter 62 under Chapter 61 and cross-reference them. DEFINE ALL KEY TERMS AND PLACE THEM IN THE DEFINITION CHAPTER. Many key terms, such as "official City maps", "ORS" and "overlay", are not defined. The Ordinance contains six locations with definitions, resulting in much duplication and extra searching for terms. USE UNIFORM CITATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. The ordinance and proposed amendments use several different cite captions, including section, Section and ALUO. Sometimes, no caption is used. Use a uniform caption to avoid confusion. Chapters are also not " ,..., :? > ~~; ,...) uniformly cited. ELIMINATE THE LEGALESE, OVERTECHNICAL TERMS AND OTHERWISE CONFUSING LANGUAGE. For example, parts of the Solar Access Chapter are too technical or obtuse and are unintelligible to the average person. The proposed amendment to Section 18.108.110, Appeal to Council, states that "Failure to adhere to the procedural requirements... is a jurisdictional defect." Lay people will not understand the meaning of jurisdictional defect. ELIMINATE THE REPETITNE LANGUAGE. For example, the proposed amendments add a definition for "gross floor area" but retain language in the definition in other parts of the code, including the amended sections of 18.28.040 I. Eliminating the duplication will shorten the ordinance and minimize inconsistencies. FILL IN THE GAPS IN THE ORDINANCE. The Classifications Chapter omits the Rl _ 3.5 zoning classification, which is described in a later Chapter. The Classifications Chapter lists P, R, FS and DSR overlays, which are not further described in the Ordinance. Perhaps, like the Airport overlay, these other overlays should each have a Chapter description. Also, I have the following substantive comments about the proposed amendments: MAPS. The amendment to Section 18.12.030 is confusing, referring both to a Zoning and Land Use Control map and maps. Section 108.060 refers to changes to the "Comprehensive Plan Map" and to "other official maps". These terms are not defined in the Definitions Chapter, so I would define them. If there are other pertinent City maps that identify hillside lands, flood plains, and other areas with physical and environmental constraints, I suggest identifying them in Chapter 18.12 and indicating where online and hard copy versions of all official maps can be viewed. PARKING. The amended provision on Size and Access, Section 18.92.070, fails to indicate how much back-up maneuvering space is required where the parking spaces are angled. The section refers to a parking layout chart at the end of the Chapter that I did not see online. NOTICE OF TYPE I APPLICATIONS. The proposed notice revisions are an improvement over the current procedure. Still, they may not be soon enough or provide sufficient time for affected persons to comment. Thus, I recommend that the notice be sent at the time of the pre-application conference or when the application is filed. Due to the complexity of the ordinance's requirements, the comment period should be at least thirty days. The notice should inform people of the specific comment requirements, including deadlines. NOTICE OF DECISIONS. These notices should inform affected persons of the specific appeal rights and procedures, including deadlines and fees. ORDINANCE INTERPRETATIONS. The City Attorney, who would have to defend any interpretation in court, can interpret the ordinance and obtain guidance from the planning director when necessary. Eliminating the planning commission and council from the process will be more efficient and less political. The ordinance should indicate the interpretation does not have the / "'..' 'l '.~ ....,.- effect of a law and point out where people can view copies of the interpretations. EFFECTIVE DATE. The revised ordinance should indicate when it takes effect and the extent to which pending matters are subject to the revisions. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed ordinance. I would be glad to answer any questions about the comments. My address, phone number and email address are respectively 766 Roca Street, 482-2135 and dgoldstein alas@yahoo.com. Sincerely, ~ 5}1d!L~ Dennis Goldstein I -', ,~ " . Michael H. Young Jacquelyn 1. Young 930 Beverly Way Jacksonville, OR 97530 Sept. 7,2007 City of AsWand Dept. of Community Development 51 Winburn Way AsWand, OR 97520 RE: Amend Section 18.40.030 E-l Special Permitted Uses As an E-l property owner in the City of AsWand, we are writing to state the concerns we have in regard to the City's above referenced proposal. It seems to us that the proposed changes would have a greater impact on smaller property owners, such as ourselves. The current E-l permitted uses are workable the way they are. By limiting the residential usage to a maximum of only 50% would create an economic challenge. Being able to have more residential space helps to offset the cost of development of the commerciaVemployment space. By reducing the residential percentage, you are also reducing the value of the property. Another major concern is the residential parking/storage issue. If not allowed on the ground floor, where else would it be? Parking underground is not a good option because it is definitely not cost effective, nor is it very practical if residences are not allowed on the ground level. If AsWand wants more business/employment opportunities in the area, then development costs must be kept in check or the purchase/lease prices will not be marketable. We purchased our E-l property under the current permitted uses with the intention of developing it thereby. To change this now would have a severe impact on its development. Could these proposed changes end up in Measure 37 claims? Please don't make it so difficult for the small property owner. A "one size fits all" approach doesn't seem to work here. Thank you for your consideration to our concerns. Sincerely, , ..I Michael H. Young Jacquelyn Young I ~\ ~ ~~ l..-' Page 1 of2 David Stalheim - Ordinance review - Housing Commission - From: To: Date: Subject: Brandon Goldman David Stalheim 8/31/2007 9:59 AM Ordinance review - Housing Commission -.--------.--.- _.__.-._._-~_.__._-- -.----..- ,. -.-----.-..-- David At last nights Housing Commission the proposed changes to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance were reviewed. The Housing Commission essentially isolated their discussion to three of the proposed sections: · Accessory Residential Units in Multifamily zones · Maximum Permitted Floor area exemptions for detached second units less than 500sq ft. · Commerdal ground floor residential Accessory Residential Units in Multifamily zones Regarding Accessory Residential Units in Multifamily zones the Housing Commission moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance changes that allow for accessory units of less than 1000sq.ft. to be permitted outright (subject to site review). All commissioners were in favor of allowing ARUs in multifamily zones. Discussion on this topic included whether it was better to promote smaller unit sizes by limiting its application to 500 sq.ft. but ultimately the majority of the commission (4-1) were in favor of using the definition of ARUs (50% the size of the primary house not to exceed 1000sq.ft.). The discussion did also compare how ARUs are conditionally allowed in SFR zones and would be permitted outright in MFR. In this discussion the Housing Commission felt that small ARU's of less than 500 square feet are consistent with small accessory structures in SFR zones and should also be permitted out right. The commission did distinguish that ARUs larger than this in SFR zones should still be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process due to scale and impact (household size). The Housing Commission requested that their recommendation to allow ARUs less than 500sq.ft. as a permitted use in Single Family zones be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council as part of this ordinance review process. Maximum Permitted Floor Area exemptions for detached second units less than SOOsq ft. The Housing Commission unanimously recommend approval of the proposed ordinance changes that allow for detached second residential units of less than 50Osq.ft. to be exempted from the MPFA calculations. Commercial ground floor residential The Housing Commission unanimously recommend approval of the proposed ordinance changes that limit allowable residential use in commercial zones to 50% gross floor area if the building is two stories, and 66% for three stories including the potential for a 500sq.ft. ADA accessible residential unit on the ground floor. Prior to reaching the above recommendation commissioners discussed whether the 50% limit should apply to both two and three story buildings, citing the need for commercial development consistent with the zones and voicing concern that at 66% gross floor area the building becomes primarily residential. Commissioners also raised the potential of allowing 66% residential only in cases where certain unit types were provided including affordable units, smaller units, and rental units but did not explore this possibility further. Lastly one commission member questioned the need to allow any residential on the ground floor, but ultimately concurred with the recommendation believing such small accessible units on the ground floor would be rare but as an option it may be reasonable and the requirement to locate it away from the street frontage preserved commercial emphasis. I") /-, :" ' file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 8/3 1/2007 Brandon Goldman City of Ashland Planning Dept. 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 GQt<1man~ashland..Q[,MS 541-552-2076 TTY#: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2076. Thank you. I '" , I~, I '.' , I, file:l/C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW) OOOOI.HTM Page 2 of2 8/31/2007 Page I of 2 Susan Yates - Land Use Code Amendments - 2 "'.;-...u.,"." ~".. ,""--,~ ";";"'" f;"";;C~i '..."'1-....f..~.r \w/Ii~~_:..8f<.~"JlljS.:'".,'~.~<"-"',:<'fIIIIj(lG'<"':1'l:t,;~"Ii.j'!.""fJd,..~"_,i"p,..."'".;"",~ .,,~.,..,. -,""'fIIilf'''''-'','l\''''r<,'W'\IIl{~~~,,<~,.(:"\'I:::~.'~'''''.;''''''~_~.M! 11 IU1tii From: To: Date: Subject: "M Knox" <knox@mind.net> "'David Stalheim'" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/30/2007 9:20 AM Land Use Code Amendments - 2 David, I couldn't sleep last night so I read the latest proposed amendments to Chapter 18 and have the following comments: De.finitions -~J:lalf 2. A basement where 50% or less of the perimeter walls are six (6) feet or more above natural grade, as commonly found in daylight basements. Doors or entrances less than eight (8) feet in length would not qualify as a daylight basement or half story. "'erp dpoe;:m, to be a typo:n U,e first .,,8n{ence wh,jre ,t :.;1-:0'1111 ,t,He ill) feAt ()( "',)(e Sfl ryw :',;-Jt:;:;:'If q'd(ie ('I) It c,eerT1S I,i-.e thlS;5 J defifliti,)(1 of d "first" floor A!so in tr1p. "i~Cl}!:d ',8r;tei1Ce 1'(1)10t \.i1fJE;r':)tar,rl,;,y tl18 'r:iatlonqllp vVllt) a door or ;tsv\ridth ,n r eqards to the definition uf a na,;p,; '''!!It Definitions - ~~ That portion of a building with a floor-to-ceiling height of not less than 6.5 feet and where fifty percent (50%) or more of its perimeter walls are less than six (6) feet above natural grade and does not exceed twelve (12) feet above grade at any point. , rn \~)Uln9 '0 vef~fy thiS ',d('r:f,:~tll:"1e rr'I'S ,jften non, blJt '/Jt'dt is n~'e !:It--.i(~JI nf'::yh! cf .:.1" ;;1''jt~rl~U)(~r1d qaL-iqp f!1;U(t IS it. ',fPdTer than 1 ;)') It seen'..:, 'ike the ;:lCCPSS (Jperlll;ljS Jre "llways "round ['\' but t~;e IrJernal re1il',q f"el~Jht::; :,::z)'1CHlica! 8q..'IJrnent >,'1'; )~re r>!!,Jll'lr Section 1 0 D.1&, Residential dwelling units on the ground floor may not be located along street frontage, except alleys. ."\,/h,:1 f ;~t>-)lji' ..J'dl, \;\','.~l;'_~" ~~;p,d.]r to U'll.: f)I~~S y::}u -:;~~(.~ In ;,fi~: ;Jc'V\'r'tl:i'.\lfl ',r~ ~dll/C.'l::lt.(~'.:~]!a ;.~(,)t(:~i. :<r:(;>< ['., 'd(!'il9, de) f .]CF'2P, I dOI,'t ",ant to see '~f)(nh')f1l2 ;~ittliiy ;1\ rhc!r IIlIifH) ")')111 ,;[1 ~1dln Stff::et, hut a ,:t.dif"lh,..1!1 G.l ~~<t~,.. i:,:f Lhe ';L.1t~vV~.llk SEArn() riut ),dy ~c t)f:' tr.jdit~I'/n~d /r'O! .1'":1:,.-:);:.\r,j('I~~.'?', ~)ut L~;("t) ,r-t: l,"~l! /\ I"~lf:l,t 'iitk rl'~i ~h~:~ :':'jd.-~'/j;];k ~lj\_-,'l"~-) (..:.c!j("~nt:.:, >.! hl'/L' (1 Pl.;:~'~ ,jf ',-I! :rl:"J I t~I:':-J!..ir:q\] r!j~,;\ r:,!,f;'ly i;':tt; ''::''l.'-'~' U:, r-f~e '.~rt::".)t) '.t!\th \';1t::: t-';'!Jh".-JI I ~';li1 ..lr',ll' jt"j : /'\;,">.!'1 ":.; ;Jqr-..')t.J "V":'':1;.1 ( ',- '~((--'pt;r:'\i':' f" lr t\'lrt'~ ~'.l. ,'1;-ld E 1 l()f'L~S '1q(J~^'jr!l.J ".;\1'''( ';i-;otj{~N~~lj(:; If ~;.'.';f':) f-1!'i,'j \lif~i~1 \,~"rtl i i~ '" 1 f{ r ''OJ ,:~'lj~t !l! .1;~.t .:),~,; f.:~..}t!i.)n "....',irn r;"dv [" n r "~t..~ !)t I,'V ~.I .' ~ v' --~n; ," ':) L<r.:~ '~ .j . \ ( "t: <; '. J1,i,jfl- ;1.4/; i~~;'j .1(....f"'::'.~.1'-~ ,-jO:~:j .jn ltie jr'(~t, .j ,i-:(/o',JI" S~ction_ll ;,,18,. 68. 020~Gefl~J:g1 Regulation-s B. In all other districts, the minimum vision clearance area distance shall 012 fifteen (5) feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10) feet. When the angle of intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet. : " Se~tlQ 111 8,12,,120, CQotrolled "q~CgS--5 S, Street and driveway Access points in an P-2, R-3, (.1. E-l or M-l zone shall be limited to the tollowing: 1. Distance between driveways, On arterial streets - 100 feet; I~) tile: C: Documents and Settings'yatess Local Settillgs Temp GW:O()OOI.HT\-1 X,31~()()7 Page 2 of2 on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on resJdentiaLstr~ets_~ J5fe~t. ~_. i'!' ", ,J r Ii"!; i '. ( '- L,; H..... .'.:' I : '-. f 1; h r t '.; , '~f"~ l i "~-_": ^ . ~ J t ;.1 Cl:- ~~ f t ! r i! i 'j fJ "..j -1 y'~: l-. J'l/ "J":;:', e r t' ; t.~ I 'r It j ,1 . ", .ejh(.'..:{~ ;~r~der~lr~t-:d ,~"'~l{~ ..~r';'.Ji.i:C! t:e <j"J,.jP(..;t":'f"1. ( ; Section 18.76.060, Preliminary ApproY~of ~artitions Flag drives greater than (250) 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround when required by the Oregon Fire Code as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. I." "3- --3 r-nM!or ':lod!il(c)icn 1 ~edUy :~i';n~. <",tdft ,~)t'i-di:(1 r: ~:':'i,-il('..J:p rh,:~ "~t.~t.;,j.,,~rd OfJn ,tHy dt,ot.: i.n i)'lf) cHT-H'lifli CJt -3'lpr1aH d"'Sl)(\at(-;~l .-vlth )~8 ttjrn ~1(!Jl;n( ,~i3n(~:j(rl ,.j''';' dl !':"Jtrdted .(1 '? .:-38 1;90 a~ld r!'!~ p'j:I'lit;;.-'jp of "j'\flP" !.;(-H~.(~iS thiS S ~./ nng to f~ffect j lv'r'ulri ~hir;~ ~(jpt.) """'){j ')l~!n :ll/H u.:;r';1 -111"" .lS !(;~Iq ;~s ~'ir~ S~)f!! 1}.'~8rs t.c:r<:; ;H ~(18{,j :t~hll:r~ He ~i!{h)AbIY (f1r "n(!r0 j!'>'1r.J)rL:H''\T :har; Ii ie tun~ ~~(n'jn(t n"lIS '~~~_.;n;S ~(I :';0 a ~'(;.~ter ':~,)Ir~..lr'l~,nl~~...,f-'? a;"d \~H~t~ U'<-1f !'rn:':l ire .: rf; ulliirj aqr~p 'l~)()n Fl)r r.','ll'Y j8drs tile dJ ,(jI.tp,d "Orr,lf\'i.':r'S J!:~ th, ,lnr"'-'lry ',;,/..,1'1 ;neJs"n" (P1ilir'j'Zd".J ';'Ie .~ ,'T,rn 'Olf d r;re QTHER: i) Hw' may t)8 rb'soived With Uie Master Pianrl!r,q t::'ffortq (j!SC'_;~:se\.1 D\JbLcly in J"ne, bllt eventl!ai!y sor"'e '-'l.:;t:l~'itl()n to tt'ie :')'9(1 (,rdlnance is j~~Olri(] to lye r 1b' ,t:Sf-,riry f\')( U'e (":rurnan ~~1Iil dr'~~d Currel1tiy; this fin-:;.} I"la~ i H,J 'c':~!nh"j(r;O()d .(1enri~;Ccttion ';i9nS Urlll\e ,YIler 8P'Oiov'rr'ent CPI'ter" drO'Jn(j tuwn, tillS arF~d has little 1O 'IO./''3ic>rlifY ," 'ntp(conr.ecting trapsportritlofi route:; hut t)t~(;au.~e nf It::, '!i(jl..stnai lon:ng it has the iT'O':it prorY'lse of providing '1 itl 11 e er flDlc y'lrent it 3eerns fair to al!()\'V S()fT,e e>',I.~Jpf!O'" ,ll/OW'I'>:;; ~ sm,lll ",;e'leral" nel~jhbor-rl!Jud ':!~;n at tile Ili2i ;"'ief;t~\nts uf T")!nian (.....(eek (j'HJ iv1~sfeu)e ~ \1i.~.tJer")r~ 31'1(] ~-i\/V'y ~:~~ ,Hdj 'NOl.~jO Ot: r;elr~ltul tCl nie ,~"'urfen! drld f.,r,! 'e husln(,sses 'n this '1i')i9hri(lrhuoo 'j \,.''1\;'<1 [r)ere he a ddili'tl,1i] of "'op ot b;'l('k for njJd(.,'lr' :-erbacr\s fu] rllu"ilratll)n wOl,id be very I'eiptul That's it. Thanks again - Mark Knox /.3 ~ tile: C: Documents and Scttingsyatess Local Settings Tcmp'GW:OOOOI.HTM X,31 2007 Page 1 of 1 David Stalbelm - R-213 MPF A ? From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com> "David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/28/20074:23 PM R-213 MPFA ? David. I was a member of the PC when the Max House size ordinance was approved - which I fully supported. Under your "omnibus" changes you have added" new residential construction in PSO land divisions" to the single lot MPF A. (para J pages 9 and 10) Surely such divisions (partitions and subdivsions) create "single lots" which should be bound by the same rules as existing "single lots". The p~f the ordinance was to discourage huge "McMansions" and encourage more smaller detached homes (rather than large apartment blocks) and perhaps increased density in historic districts. Your added wording seems to fly in the face of this reasoning (if the intention is that the parent parcel should be so constrained by the MPFA) - or am I missing something? I would appreciate an explanation of your thinking on this, if possible. thanka Colin I ~./ . - file://C:\Docurnents and Settings\stalheid\Loca1 Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 9/4/2007 Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: David Stalheim Susan Yates 8/23/200710:38:22 AM Fwd: Re: Omnibus >>> "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com>8/23/200710:28:15AM >>> David, (cc PC Chair, PC Council liaison) The following are some more observations referenced to the July 24 "Proposed Land Use Code Revisions" : (feel free to share with others) Page 3 Setback definition Still we have no resolution to the effective ban on flag lots caused by the flawed Reeder opinion.. (per our previous discussion) This needs to be addressed to allow appropriate infill to continue. Page 4 Story-Half. ( Note that 1-1/2 story has been used to allow a 15 ft rear yard setback. Other definitions. Building Height was a problem with the DeBoer BigHouse. Backfilling a 12 ft basement on three sides resulted in a massive walk-out story that was not measured for height calcs.( or MPFA floor area) Perhaps their should be a ceiling ht limit for basements to be so excluded. Also the "gable" for ht. calcs was measured as halfway from eave to ridge. With a 5 ft. eaves overhang this artificially lowed the calculated ht. - yet not the bulk. Perhaps a graphic needs to be added to make sure height of gables, hips, (shed) dormers, mansards, parapets etc. are clearly defined. Page 7 ( and others) the 25 % CUP to exceed MPFA should be a Variance, not CUP ( especially as this can't be revoked - it is permanent) Extra bulk and scale is not a "use" and has always an easy "slam-dunk" to achieve using CUP. It becomes merely an annoying bureacratic necessity (Same with the 55ft. CUP in C1-D see Page 13) ). Make sure CUPs relate only to "Uses"- not physical changes. Page 8 ARUs in R-2 and 3 . I have mentioned this before and pleased to see it is on your list to perhaps increase this to match R-1. So much of our close-in multifamily zones are defacto single family historic. Yet that is precisly where we need extra density (and historic is also exempt from the 80% density reqirement) This carrot rather than the stick approach is good to get affordable units where they are best located. Minimum Lot dimensions at 50' x 80' would be better if not tied to width/depth - thereby allowing possible flag or alley-access lots behind some historic homes presently on large multi-family lots. Pages 12/ 13 C-1/E-1 Residential Uses. Glad to see the PC's unanimous vote to ban residential garages at last (sad about the 5 behind the Jasmine building). Special Permoitted Uses - Residential Good to see some limit per the EOA concerns. Note: some ground floor exemption will be needed to allow for residential access such as lobby, stairwell, garbage storage, etc. Would prefer to see 40% residential in 2 story and 50% in three story. Keep the condos small ( max 1000sf? - not 3.000 +sf per Bemis at Lithia hotel - these are not places for families with children, but for single persons, students, artists etc per our Comp Plan.) and encourage upper floor offices etc. / ,. ~' ,-."" .......<J"'J. . Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus Page 2 Continue to be strict with limiting Drive-Up uses in spite of the lobbying from developers Page 18 Vision Clearance One of the vision/safety problems is the use of narrow downtown alleys for garbage/delivery trucks. With (historic) buildings being right adjacent to these alleys ( e.g alongside Ashland Springs hotel and the First Street coffee shop etc.) then pedestrians can get a nasty shock from exiting trucks who cannot see from their cab what is coming along the sidewalks until the front of already at the curb.. These alleys were not originally made for such large motorised vehicles. ( The final stepback on the 11 First St. design ameliorated this problem). If the measurement is from the curb then perhaps the alley should also be 25 ft.? ( as most commercial sidewalks are at least 1 0 ft.) But there could be a problem with historic compatibility with no varaince allowed.... Page 20 Front Yard exception I'm glad to see this clearly defined as intended (Le. no more "side-yard" work-arounds as with DeLuca project on E. Main) Page 21 Temporary storage On-street storage of "vehicles" is the public ROW is already banned under AMC 11.24.020 Prohibited parking. for more than 72 hrs. Why should these bins be allowed longer on public streets? The same should appy to storage containers without permit. Also, "construction trailers" are often also used as a hideous billboard to advertise the contractor in violation of our sign ordiance. Page 22 Site Design required for 2+ residential units. This seems excessive for a corner duplex in R-1 or multi family. Isn't 4 units the current threshold for requiring Site Review? Why the need to change? Page 24 "BigBox" How do we deal with the "footprint" of a shared basement parking using common retaining walls (per Northlight, OSF New Theatre/Parking structure). Perhaps we need a footprint definition? Page 25 Multi Family DSUS Glad to see mixed use condos in commercial zones coming under this review standard ( per our previous discussion). to ensure livability. But no ALL those provisions need apply ( e.g. residentilallandscaping ) Perhaps there needs to be an exception possiblity ? Page 28 "Electronic" Pre-Apps - good idea Page 29 E-copies could be reqired for Application docs. . good idea to save Staff time scanning ( need to be read-only?) Need to make sure applicant waives "fair-use" copyright. Page 30 Expedited Land Use Given the high proportion of large-lot single family use of our historic multifamily zones, perhaps the "designated historic districts" should not be exempted for these minor partitions? Page 31 "...substantive rights have been substantially prejudiced...". How is this determined? By who? Page 32 " ...an appellant who materially improves his or her position.." I ..." ..:;;:Y Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus Page 3 Often an appellant will be working for the public good, not necessarily for their own benefit. Often an appeal will have the effect of aded "conditions of approval" .. e.g. sidewalk easement given on appeal of recent Kistler project. Is this "material improvement"? Page 34 d.i Residential 2 units ( see previous) Page 35 3e. (v) 25% CUP MPFA in Historic Should be in 4, Variances ( see previous) Page 36 .....persons who requested notice..... Shouldn't this also have persons entitled to receive notice such as "Parties"? Also shouldn't include notice of the decsion (findings) as a Party, not just the application notice? Shouldn't "modification application" be defined ( e.g. time limit since last app?) Page 37 1.e "...requested notice of decision..... (see above) Page 38 B.1 Initial evidentiary hearing Good idea. But also need to formalize proceedures for such private "charettes" such as Norhtlight. e.g. Should decsion-makers attend? Page 39 ( and elsewhere) "Planning Director" - or Community Development Director? "...appel/ant prevails.... ( see above discussion of "improves position" ) Page 40 Commission = Final Decision of the City on Type 1 In the past the composition of the Pc, contrary to State Law, has been heavily weighted with members of the Development/Construction./Architecture community. And they are appointed, NOT elected. Should Council ( who oversee our ALUO, be cut out of the decsion? Page 41 .....May affirm, modify, or reverse.... How about also the possibilty remanding back to PC if applicant waives 120-day rule? de-novo versus on-the-Record needs some serious discussion. We had this previously with Paul Nolte and it was decided to let de-novo remain... Page 42 "...on the record before the Planning Commission.." Could be better phrased as "..based solely on the Record established at the pior Planning Commission hearing on the action.." ? fee for interpretation - Should not be required or only nominal. There should be a databse established for recording legal "interpretations" to supplement the ALUO - so they do not become "abitrary and capricious". Page 43 Extensions - "change of conditions" Recently the hospital foundation was granted an automatic extension for their project on N. Main that included a variance to encroach into the 20 arterial setback. The reason given was that their prospective tenant ( for whom the building was designed) had simply backed out of the deal. This extension was granted immediately subsequent to Council calling up the neighboring Kistler project on the similar I .... . I ;:.,! J.+ Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus Page 4 Variance. Such extensions should not be granted so easily when the "change of conditions" are clearly the responsibility of the applicant. Perhaps this should be made more clear in the wording of this section. Generally Please keep the fee structure within the means of ordinary citizens. Nobody embarks on the contentious and time-consuming appeal process for fun. It is usually because of some genuine neighbor grievance or to protect the general public interest of the "commons". Fairness and equitable treatment under our ALUO should not just be limited to those with deep pockets. ******************* Richard, This is alii have for now. Hope it helps. I know you have had a busy start to your job with the City and I am pleased to see you tackling some of these issues. It is gratifying that so many of the problems brought to light by past citizen involvement (including some of my own) and also their input to Siegel and Zucker have are at last being addressed. But take heart that things are not always this turbulent. You have a good, hard-working Staff, a dedicated PC and an informed, concerned citizenry. Consensus can be achived toward the public good - which is what we all desire. *********************** All the best Colin On 8/22/07, David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us> wrote: I haven't had a chance to start working on / '" t~- ..:j :'.. Susan Yates - Fwd: Re: Omnibus Page 5 amendments, but will start doing that today through next Tuesday. Thus, the sooner the better. Attached is a list of issues we have already identified, so perhaps you might focus on that list or other issues you might see. David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development City of Ashland 541-552-2043 email: stalheid@ashland.or.us This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. >>> "Colin Swales" < colinswales@gmail.com> 8/22/2007 9:52:50 AM >>> David, Like you, I have just returned to Ashland after a vacation. I hope you had a restful break. I am going through all the omnibus changes but due to my absence will not be able to make your Aug 20 deadline for written comments to Staff. I will however try to get them to you ASAP and will send in electronic format for you to pass on the the PC. Colin , ,"" / ." f " '. Page 1 of 4 David Stalheim - Knox comments on Ordinance Ammendments .~'"'~~""'W~~U!f-~.-t'\.~..",~,...".....~~~~..........~ _ ~~ _.., - "" 1 !IRIl.....~'\a~_.&... ~ 1.4.. From: To: Date: Subject: "M Knox" <knox@mind.net> "'David Stalheim'" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/1712007 12:28 PM Knox comments on Ordinance Ammendments AUGUST 16TH, 2007 David, Thank you for the opportunity to participate on this matter. I appreciate the Planning Staff's efforts in trying to eliminate the Land Use Code's many inconsistencies and contradictions. I'm positive the end product will be a healthier atmosphere and better conclusion. The fact that staff is proposing to notice applications submittals to neighbors illustrates how committed staff is to making sure potential "changes" and "impacts" are transparent to those most effected. In the following comments you will see I focused on the basic land use issues and have also spent a considerable amount of time on the procedural portion, but without much written response on the later. Primarily, because I agree with the procedural amendments as they appear to be either pre-regulated by Oregon Statutes anyway or help clarify the complex planning process where our citizen "moms and pops" can hopefully return to and participate in the land use process. Here are my comments, suggestions, questions and complaints: Section 1) Definitions: 18.08.160 Lot Coverage: The removal of the word "normal" is a great start, but I would prefer an overall reduced lot coverage in all zones, but then allow ALL permeable surfaces, including driveways, to be exempt as I believe it would lead to more groundwater recharging and a reduction in water velocity as it enters the waterways. There also seems to be an opportunity here where applying such conservation materials on an "everyday" basis, would then have compounding results (less expensive, more accepted, trained labor, etc). It remains unclear if someone proposes a gravel driveway - is 10% still exempt? I'm hoping "no" as it could be abused and later paved, but it just needs to be clearer. Also. the last sentence in this definition is odd - "not part of the lot". I've never noticed this before, but it probably should be deleted as it doesn't make sense. 18.08.650 Setback: Could we add an illustration for the one and two story option? 18.08.740 Story: Could we add an illustration? The U.B.c. Application Interpretation Manual has some helpful illustrations. 18.08.830 Yard: The removal of the portion "from the ground upward" seems to make the definition even more vague (i.e. - does the ground underneath a cantilevered structure count towards the yard?). file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\LocaI SettingS\~~~~GW}00002.HTM 8/21/2007 Page 2 of4 EJQQIi1I~QSS _hahitable~ What category does a "garage" fall into? My primary concern here is the potential to add an ADU and exempt the garage area creating the possibility of a very large mass within a SFR zone. Maybe this is tempered by the fact it's still a CUP? rQr~h.-~IJdQ~~dll!Ilenclos~d: What about railings and balusters? This may need an example, but we should encourage (if not require) open porches on all houses. Section 7) R-2: J 8.24.1)10 I: Also delete "approved by the City Council" (I st sentence). The Railroad Districts (Local and National Designation) have already been adopted by the Council and the added definition appears to cover this issue. It just adds unnecessary confusion. L~24c040 A.I~; I'm concerned with the result of2 units on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. I'm very "infill" supportive and believe this is a great idea as long as the required parking was either in the back off an alley or parallel to the curb line, but in no case within a front yard or along the side when vehicle access is from the front. My main concern here is its impact on the Historic District areas where no alleys exist. t8.24--!-{HQL1: First, an extra 500 sq. ft. on the MPF A appears to be excessive and beyond the intent of the code. If someone wants to add the extra 500 sq. ft. as an accessory residential unit, their option is to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and the design is then "managed" by the Ashland Historic Commission and then "adopted" by the Planning Commission (as you know, home proposals under the MPF A are not subject to discretion and therefore can look completely out of character from its neighbors). Secondly, this could end up being and "end around" where one applies for a maximum permitted house + 500 sq. ft., builds the home, but never installs the kitchen facilities in the accessory unit - or removes it later. What is the process for someone to remove an accessory residential unit? Well intended, but it just appears to be too confusing, labor intensive and questionable. Section 8) R-3: 1~,-28.0AQ_A,l~ Same as above (18.24.040 A.l.c.) 18.28.040 It Same as above (18.24.0401.1.) 18.28.04{LLL Same as above (18.24.040 1.1.) Section 10) C-l: 18.32.025 D.I: Honestly, I'm struggling with the wording on this one... I'm concerned as to what is determined "ground floor" as we may need a definition and illustration. Overall, I agree we do not want parking on the main floor (level ofthe sidewalk at the primary street grade floor). But, the level below the sidewalk for parking, applicant willing, should be heavily encouraged. I understand the pressure of market forces and the concern that residential uses are creeping into the E-I and C -I zones, but to exclude 100% of the ground floor is not good - especially when the topography of this town often warrants such conditions. Also, not too many businesses can thrive in a daylight basement type of environment, so underground parking in these scenarios should be preferred. In reality, many of these blue collar jobs we're hoping come to town, can't operate with such overhead cost ifit were not for some form of residential market opportunity allowing the property owner to build the office/manufacturing space. I believe underground parking is very important and a valuable tool regardless if if s for residential or commercial. I ,- '-' I ",.".,J'. .;.:' file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\ T emp\GW: 00002.HTM Rn 1 f')()()7 Page 3 of 4 Lastly, assuming some allowance is going to be permitted for residential on the "at street grade floor" (hopefully a 15% minimum), the allocation of percentages seem to be a step in the right direction. However, consideration is needed to make sure we do not unknowingly force a permitted use upstairs in order to allow a small percentage of residential downstairs. Section 11) E-l: 18AQ030_E~ (Same as above) Section 14) Approval and Permit Required LS.6L042 B-.: - Could there be a definition of an Excavation Permit? 18.61~Q84 0: Replacing a tree six months after its removal seems very difficult when typically construction occurs between six months and a year. I would suggest a year. Section 15) Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands llL6.2.050 AJ: What is the definition of "top" of bank? Illustration? 1S-,-62...osn E.,_Z--'.d: The strict interpretation is that this standard applies to all sides of a structure - including the uphill side. This standard was intended to be only for downhill sides similar to the vertical regulations. This was the practice used by staff because it was mistakenly written. Unfortunately, its strict application is causing unnecessary expenses and criticisms without really any public benefit. Section 17) lS.68JIO C; A 2: I vs. a 4: I slope is a significant difference. As written, it appears this will likely encourage many more on-street garages at 10' rather then 20'. On a hillside, like most of Ashland, this will be a prevalent problem. My suggestion is to keep the existing and proposed, but regulate "garages" so that they clearly have be on a 2: 1 slope in order to get the front yard setback exception. L8--,-6S.16.(2;. My experience is the general public does not know that after 50', a driveway is considered a "flag" driveway and subject to flag drive standards. This section would be helpful if it alluded to this fact. Section 18) 18-,-L2.0-81LC~-, In my opinion, the 5,000 square foot public building threshold is too much and should be limited to 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft. I'm remembering the process and discussions that occurred during the Briscoe Music Room expansion in the mid 90's (building facing Manzanita). Initially, the School District was pretty difficult to deal with and didn't want to deal with the City (Historic Commission). However, after realizing they were subject to a Site Review Permit, the discussions improved and the building is now a great asset to the streetscape and district. l~ 72.12013: This has always been confusing. Does Section "B" apply to other zones also? Section 22) 18J08-,04Q~ I would encourage staff to permit a small cafe or restaurant (900 sq. ft. +1-) within the M-I zones as a Type I application. These are great uses that compliment manufacturing and emplOYment / '~, ! file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings'Temp\GW r 00002.HTM S/2112007 n-. Page 4 of 4 areas, by reducing dependency on vehicle miles traveled. Heck, I would even promote that at such a small amount of square footage, they should be "permitted" uses (subject to Site Review and a Type I). Great mixed-use planning! If you have any questions or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to call me. Good luck and thanks again. - Mark Knox tile://C:\ Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW I 00002.HTM I / ~.'~ I .' ~nl'1{){)"7 Susan Yates - Fwd: Land Use Code Amf'-1ments Page 1 From: To: Date: Subject: David Stalheim Susan Yates 8/8/2007 3:34:49 PM Fwd: Land Use Code Amendments Please add to record as comments. >>> Margueritte Hickman 8/2/2007 2:05:28 PM >>> Bill & David - This is to follow up with the conversation I had with Bill earlier this week regarding the AMC revisions. In October 2006, the City Council adopted the Oregon Fire Code. During the adoption, the Council noted that there were two code provisions which Ashland had adopted that were less restrictive than the state, and they directed staff to bring forth amendments that would restore the state minimums. One has been addressed because it was only addressed by the fire code. The one which has not been addressed is the allowable length of a dead-end before a turn-around is required. Several years ago the City of Ashland am mended the Oregon Fire Code from 150 feet to 250 feet. In addition AMC 18 requires a turn-around on dead-ends greater than 250 feet. Fire researched 58 building permits that were processed over a 7 month period and found that there were 5 turn-arounds required under the current code. If a turn-around were imposed on dead-ends greater than 150 feet, then two additional turn-arounds would have been required. During the 2006 adoption, the council directed staff to bring an actionable item to them amending the requirement for a fire apparatus turn-around at the end of 150' dead ends rather than 250' dead ends. After a discussion with Bill at that time, he suggested that the change be brought forward with the AMC revisions that are currently taking place. In order to prevent conflicting requirements between the Oregon Fire Code and the Land Use Code, they directed us to proceed with an AMC Chapter 18 amendment and bring that forward at the same time as the fire code amendment. I am suggesting that this amendment be added to the current revision process. The next fire code adoption will take place this fall. If the intent of the AMC is to require this turn-around when it is required for fire apparatus access, then I would also suggest language in the AMC that reflects that. I raise this because of the Mt. Pines project. It is my recollection that public interpretation of this AMC section required a vehicular turn-around where a fire apparatus turn-around was not required. Please see the attached document for my suggested language. In 2004, Oregon changed from the Uniform Fire Code to the Oregon Fire Code, so I have also made two suggestions related to clean up of the AMC in the attached document. Please let me know if you have questions or want to discuss this further. Thanks. -m Margueritte LR Hickman Division Chief / Fire Marshal Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 541552.2229 1& I w" l f . Ashland Municipal Code Suggested Revisions August 2, 2007 AMC 18.76.060 Partitions involving the creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are satisfied: B. Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the UnifeflH OreS!on Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives greater than ~ 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround when required by the Oregon Fire Code as defined in the Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. AMC 18.94.130 D. Issuance of a home occupation permit under this chapter shall not relieve the applicant from the duty and responsibility to comply with all other rules, regulations, ordinances or other laws governing the use of the premises and structures thereon, including, but not limited to, the specialty codes defined in chapter 15.04, the URifoffil Fire Code aHa URifoffil fire Code StaftElards OreS!on Fire Code defined in chapter 15.28, or any private restrictions relative to the property. f '. "h " ..,.. "... Susan Yates - Fwd: Land Use Code Amp~1ments www.ashland.or.us This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please notify me. / ~-;, Page 2 ~n Yates - RE: Proposed ALUO Ch; es Page 1 From: "John Fields" <goIden-fIelds@charter.net> To: "'David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us>, <p1an@aobfack.com>, "'Adam Hanks" <adam@ashland.or.us>, "'Amy Anderson"' <andersona@ashland.or.us>, "'Richard Applcello" <appicelr@ashland.or.us>, "'Angela Barry'" <barrya@ashland.or.us>, "Martha Bennett"' <bennettm@ashland.or.us>, "'Bill Molnar'" <blll@ashland.or.us>, "Derek Severson" <dereks@ashland.or.us>, "'Brandon Goldman" <GoIdmanb@ashland.or.us>, "'Marla Harris" <marla@ashland.or.us>, 1ft John Morrison" <morrisoj@ashland.or.us>, "'Susan Yates" <sue@ashland.or.us>, "'David Chapman" <davidchapman@ashlandhome.net>, <ahardesty88@charter.net>, "'Pam Marsh'" <pam.marsh@gmail.com>, <Erlcnavlckas@hotmail.com>, "'Cate Hartzell" <cate@mlnd.net>, "'Tom Dimitre" <dlmltre@mind.net>, "'Mike Morris" <msquared@mlnd.net>, "'Melanie Mindlin" <sassetta@mind.net>, "'Dave Dotterer'" <thedotts@mlnd.net>, "'Kate Jackson" <katejackson@opendoor.com>, "'John Stromberg" <pcstromberg@opendoor.com>, "'Michael Dawkins'" <michaeltdawkins@yahoo.com>, "'Russ Silbiger'" <russclty@zlntech.org> Date: 8/5120079:57:19 PM Subject: RE: Proposed ALUO Changes To all the Revisionists, Here are some comments regarding proposed changes. I have provided some comments that will probabfy require additional discussion to clarify what I mean. It Is rather complicated and do to our time constraints, I did not want to go any more work writing this up. John Flefds GoIden-Flefds@charter.net 845 Oak Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-482-8442 Fax 482-3822 I rl-.~" I ALva update comments on revisions John Fields 8/5/2007 I wanted to share more details on problem areas of the ordinance revision. It takes a lot of work to comment in writing so hopefully I have can communicate my concerns in shorthand. 18.08.320 Hotels- The importance of this interpretation (clarification) lies in an appealed decision that denied a daily rental in the C-l D because it met neither motel or hotel definitions. The appeal was successful, although the interpretation before us is a clarification, the issue at point is what kinds of ancillary use of residential in a C or E-l zone is appropriate. We know we have limited commercial zoned inventory and there is high demand for residential (condo) in these zones. Weare failing to create/encourage affordable rental units downtown. Intensive, high-end residential units may come into conflict with the target use. Competing interests of residential use may negatively affect commercial uses such as bars, nightclubs, parking demands, truck deliveries, etc.. We want to be careful in how we encourage residential and especially transient use. Apartments that have short term occupancy may be incompatible with full time residential use. And I would guess that affordable units will not fit in with this kind of hotel, short term rental. Do we have anything limiting time shares? The key to mitigating this ordinance change lies within the permitted OF A ratio of allowable and secondary-conditional uses. Clarifying the ratio and its purpose would help mitigate the concern in changing the hotel definition. We have seen buildings that are as low as 17% OF A of targeted use. We are concerned with this trend. We know it is appropriate to have the majority of the ground floor, accessible retail-public use. But 100% may box us into a comer. Brent Thompson was correct in saying that being able to put an accessible unit on the ground floor may allow a building to not require an elevator for accessibility. This can be an affordability factor in smaller infill buildings. I think the 50% for a two story building and 66% for three stories is a good idea. I think that they are pretty good numbers. Section 10, Amend Chapter 18.32, C-l RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT _.~._.._.I_LJ:~..'~--=-\_";__._~~~~___.___._.____ ..__ ~_~ ~::__ ';_~ \ ._.:._i_,',:;._.~_ '." t... t ! J) l{ni\!.:f1thl \h\'~. i ',- .,itil',j i ,I ~ ' 'f ')' "{] ,'1,., i \. 11 No parking or storage would be allowed anywhere and maybe not be in a habitable basement. "Habitable basement" is a Building code term. If you build something for storage or garage it is it a non-habitable space? I guess we could stop someone from converting from habitable to non-habitable. But otherwise I think it is confusing. I ,.,J t:" ~ ' The definition of "ground floor" is not in our ordinance. We have to be careful about introducing new regulation without defined tenns. We don't want any surface parking for residential in any of our C-I and E-I zones? Handicap and residential visitor parking is important. What about offset uses when parking could be shared? These are all important and complex factors in ensuring that our zoning is not eroded by ancillary uses. Porch enclosure/unenclosed. Is a screen window an enclosure? Ifit isn't enclosed why can't you winterize the space with glass so you can use your porch all year, swapping seasonally? How do you regulate this change? What is the difference if someone uses real windows instead, but does not heat the space- does it come down to the legal definition of habitability? Or is this visuaV architectural problem? _'__'.J..._~-~~~.i~L_-=-._-'_: '\ :~' I : ~.t l; fl ! ,-,I "i_~. ~'. '.';;":'~ J:-t.d 111 '":;;;";..'....1 !\-;-!:r\l'r(.il~' '-~:I!"!~;L' ,_\ .i,l d,' -! \.J 1; ,(~;~l~\._'~ __ ,.,;:\,:1 lj ~~), ,II: ~,,-, Hill.- _,'t in ~jlh.,..., tl\'lfQ" .Ir~.\l ~t1~I..: r1(r:11lrCt.: ill f~,\.."";IJC;I;'l d. ~f(','.:~l1 ( ,In.: .'.,....r\ ;....-\.:.'~. '\...i\!'rh '1: ,,' ,'l~ '\\.'1j_!lt~ 'I-ill 11(1 "I,t "",: 7~ l't';'...~ ,tl'-.t~! ....., ',ll , '\", ,: ;\)1 i,1 1....\'-1..-\...\1 ~,r \l' v '::' ,,!'It',: <di !'cl."jli(i pn!\;l:i"! :h,."~r~~~,i..:\~ ...>tl)(:i: !\..'l i:r":"li.\~t~;),-' '" i<:--'l,~...i;_;;'\...'d \1t1 ".j 1: ol ;'1 !,.~ilJ:..! '..,'l~:--.tn..\.';,i ;L :'\...'tl~,\\ ~f~ )~i 1'1 !(_'::" i~:;~\!'1 : i:l.' \."Y.,fr- \d- ,~.\1r! !'. .. ;';j;ir. ,) -.~ d'l~~ ..:_'\~\~!1'i\,lJ !_ip'.H"t t:lld;!)=-~ \..'\'Cl~li>.-.,j~:l::; ".lr\."li'~"';- ;:h.C..... in '\ j I".::: rli\.;: jr i 'j't...r~> \ .',\ il(T \\ :1:1 :1\ it ;"1..:-""1" Il:""Jhli...-'. II nll\l)r~!l~'. !,.:~:~[...\.j ,..!.t~;~t;.'~: !~' \''It,~:r~.....'!, Jl:d ',r:~ll,,~';\i.l,' :"':1 ,'dI1...'i' f j'1l1 t')f} ....qi!~.i'- ~L\.:l I ._'.1 ! \-..,..... tl;,)pr :U\.d ,:1,t! \, l~lhll' tr~~rn J puhl1\.' r',;:-;ht-11t-\\':\I. .Il'.t"ll "r~;!.,--'t.'> \It I)~:fki,l!:d 'll;~ i1J.:", lli;ttt\J (, i. '{!:i11l ~Tci~_d F!111"';' \:'.;....,It ,.~i~,j i ;L'.~~ i:1 /. il(! :...:.di..f!l\'~~;i I ~ ~\{,-)l:\-~ ',<.1 1 '_'.\..I.:'...\:d l){I..JL1>", d1 ail;. 1,(1<,: >C..i! ;1,.'t l,,~~l ;il()\ ;.,~\..d rh( ll_":~"l\":ll :":r{,,'~l:.21..' l.,;l..iil;JI leI' 1,'r -1'".n..'lUi\...' '') ,1~..-"':{\CLI;l...."d \l. :.t:~ ~j~l .<, \;\:', I!U,~(;' ;~, ,-' ::i ii',;\, LI)! . ".tlt .. >.-!ll\ :1, rC ,!'...;!'1i.difHii ; j-,I...~ .....l.!tf :\tJ\ !:~(\r 111.1\ !}T~li r ;'l~r'~.."d~lY \.-'\i.\,.:li~\li~r~ :"~;':l'~l i~indlli~':' \.)"\h;':! : t!~!~ ~:r'_.:J;.':"';:I;'I...-C',:, 111 \\hl\h lh\.:' r~~"i"i._:.t.\ 11'\!lt'l' '!f' \.',l'cr;\.j\:\~l \. t..... '1tI\ 1\.-.p ,!'1....!}~rC' This gets confusing, 90 days is not enough time for construction projects. It should be concurrent with the building permit. 30 days is pretty worthless in the residential zones. Especially if you are remodeling and you want to store stuff on site. It is not clear that "and structures': excludes temporary offices and job shacks. 50 sq/ft is ridiculous. 90' is not even up to our unregulated size of storage buildings 8 x 12 is 96'. Useable storage needs to be at least 8' x 20' max. To be functional you need up to 9 months and maybe an extention after that. Can you have only 1 unit? It is not clear whether visible from the street. You could be ~ mile away and be visible from the street.. Seems kind of a heavy response to the growing trend's visual blight. Why don't we prohibit advertising on the box if that is a complaint we trying to solve? We do not define "temporary storage". It seems that if you purchase the container (do not rent or lease) it would be exempt. This one needs a bunch of work. 18.62.070 Flood plain. The language talks about allowable cantilevers and then goes on to say support pillars are allowed if they do no impede the flood waters. If there are pillars it is not a catilever. Unless I am misunderstanding this, perhaps we should fix this 1#",/ rr I ,1 .' , ,... '~ \ \. ~ 'I. J - I ! _ .~ .~.! _~:n_":,_ _ . __. ';'r,,' i ;\ i, ': , ...' .' , '.... -' '\ \. t "i (~' ., ! f ~ I think that the changes we made regarding administration and hearing protical are pretty good. I can't tell until we get into actual case that there are any problems with it. I trust staff to make good decisions. Eliminating hearing's board input makes sense. The subsequent appeal rights requirements seem fair to me. $250 is a reasonable fee to call it up. If there is an omission in evidence or fact there is free review that can happen internally. Anyways if you are the prevailing party in the appeal you get your money back. The fee prevents frivolous appeals. I think we had a good presentation of the general regulation changes and procedural amendments. I am hoping we captured a more efficient way of dealing with all of this paperwork. , ., ~ I ""'-1 I" J~~~y A~<!er~~~:_~~~~~Po~~~_?rdlna_"-~ "'''anges ___ -..------.---- ! -. Page 1 ------.-. ---_. .---..- From: <john@rinaldlnet.com> To: "Amy Anderson" <andersona@ashland.or.us>, "Anne Rich" <richa@ashland.or.us>, "Laurie Sager" <Itsager@earthlink.net>, "Kelly Cruser" <cruser@mind.net> Date: 8/212007 9:38:53 AM Subject: Re: proposed ordinance changes That sounds great and well thought out. I appreciate the explanation. I just wanted to be sure that the tree protection standards apply to both hillside and non-hillside development. John .. sent via wireless device -Original Message- From: "Amy Anderson" <andersona@ashland.or.us> Subj: Re: proposed ordinance changes Date: Thu Aug 2,20079:19 am Size: 3K To: "Anne Rich" <richa@ashland.or.us>;"Laurie Sager" <ltsager@earthlink.net>;"Kelly Cruser" <cruser@mind.net>;"John Rinaldi Jr." <john@rinaldinet.com> cc: "Robbin Pearce" <robbln@ashland.or.us> Hello John, The proposal is that instead of having two tree protection sections of the code where the are two different standards, our suggestion is that there only be one Tree Protection requirement section. The Tree Protection requirements in 18.61.200 are more restrictive than those currently In 18.62.080.0.4. Also the Tree Conservation Guideline (showing the protection) shows a 4' fence, secured by metal stakes. The metal stakes are not allowed in 18.61.200 because they go right through the root zone - 18.61.200 requires 6' fencing to be installed at grade. Lastly, the graphic depicts a 3' protection area outside of the fencing. Since the ALUO is the law we need to have clear, objective, enforceable standards and having somewhat vague requirements that never could be monitored or enforced makes that near impossible. So, we are proposing to remove the graphic and going with the 18.61.200 standards. The other graphic of the driplines is also proposed to be removed because again, it is a somewhat arbitrary standard that cannot really be monitored or enforced so we are proposing to just use the language "dripline" that is defined in 18.61. I hope this clarifies things a bit. If not let me know. Thank you! Amy Amy D. Anderson, Assistant Planner City of Ashland Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way 20 East Main St. (mailing only) Ashland, OR 97520 (541 )552-2044 (541 )552-2050 fax I-'~" Amy" Anderson - Re: proposed ordinance ~nanges ~-------~--- - - ---______n ~______ _( ___~____ ~ - I ~-~-- ----~--1 ---- .- Page 2 ~_._-_.--~-_._- --------- >>> "John Rinaldi Jr." <john@rinaldinet.com> 08102107 7:09 AM >>> Just a couple of questions: Shouldn't development under Sec. 18.62.080 (hillside development) be required to conform to 18.62.200 (tree protection)? Instead this section of the code simply makes a parenthetical reference: "(see 18.61.200)" The graphic included in Sec 18.62.080 should be included in 18.62.2oo? John -- Original Message - From: "Amy Anderson" <andersona@ashland.or.us> To: "Laurie Sager" <Itsager@earthlink.net>; "Kelly Cruser" <cruser@mind.net>; "John Rinaldi" <john@rinaldinet.com> Cc: "Robbin Pearce" <robbin@ashland.or.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 11 :59 AM Subject: proposed ordinance changes Hello all, I have attached a link to the City website that contains the proposed Land Use Ordinance changes that will be going to a public hearing on September 11,2007. There are a few changes that pertain to the Tree Ordinance 18.61. If you would like to comment on the proposed changes please feel free to do so. Comments should be made in writing to David Stalheim, Community Development Director by August 20 so as they may be incorporated into a second draft. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Please submit your comments on the proposed changes to stalheid@ashland.or.us. Even though we can't meet we can still do some 'business' that does not need action by the group taken. I was thinking we could begin our changes to the Recommended Street Tree Guide in this manner, if you would like to explore that option. Please send me your ideas for possible changes. This is the link to the proposed ordinance amendments. http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1 0373 Thank you! Amy D. Anderson, Assistant Planner City of Ashland Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way 20 East Main St. (mailing only) Ashland, OR 97520 (541)552-2044 (541 )552-2050 fax I ~~#-i Amy Anderson - Re: proposed ordinancp ""anges --~---------- - -----.. - --"--- -- -----------., -------...- - - -----~. , - -- --- - --~~~~ ~ cc: "Robbin Pearce" <robbin@ashland.or.us> I ".,. '" ."-' ,../ Page 1 of 1 David Stalheim - Re: Proposed Ordinance Changes . .,.'-.r~~~~_~~ItltH',~-.g~~l'J).. ~""_.~~- 1.. :JI!l,,",~. _ n il1';,J 11 .E"pliJI. -.. ll!l_ From: To: Date: Subject: "Pam Marsh" <pam.marsh@gmai1.com> "David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 8/1/2007 12:42 PM Re: Proposed Ordinance Changes - ~. _...... -._,-..- ~+-_..- .-- - - - ---'--~---'--"-'--'-'-'-' ----.-..---- - ---~_._-_._._- --.-------- --_._.~._-,._--_._-_._---- -----.- 1. No options needed. The targeted use should be on the ground floor. 2. Yes, please. 3. No, thank you. Proposal seems more than adequate. Thanks, Pam I "., I ~"- I ~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOO1.HTM 8/1/2007 Page 1 of 1 David Stalheim - Proposed Ordinance Changes ~~',~mt>l\h'!'79,~I:-"'!>{~~""'ifM1_Hs;';'I;T; ~', V1Arllllil.':tY~M:r*~~A!ittt.t~_~~~~.~ ~^"*'_ 1 .....~ ~bi:l I[~ m\W.. From: David Stalheim Planning Commission 8/1/2007 12:27 PM Proposed Ordinance Changes Planners To: Date: Subject: cc: _._._.-.._._---._-_.~..~-_.._._-_._.- -_.,-_.~_. -.-.---. .~--_..._. -_.",-~-_.~~----_. Last night I had hoped that we might have had an opportunity to identify sections of the proposed ordinance where the Commission might request more information or options for consideration at the September 11th public hearing. Unfortunately, our conversation was taken a different direction. So, I'd ask that if the PC members in their review identify sections that they want staff to present options or alternatives, please let me know and perhaps share with the whole group so we get some consensus to be working on that topic. 1. For example, one public comment last night is that perhaps we shouldn't have a 100% ban on residential ground floor uses in C-1 and E-1. Does the Commission want us to bring some options on that topic? 2. Another input was about ADU's in the R2 and R3 zone, and a request that the size allowed be similar to R1. Do you want us to explore that option? 3. We also started into a line of questions about interpretation. Do you want to see some options on that subject? You probably have other topics, but the more we can explore as a group and get those options laid out to the public for input, the better our public process will be. Thanks. David Stalheim, Director Department of Community Development City of Ashland 541-552-2043 emall: stalheid.@a-.S.bJand-,-QI.1!S This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. 15~. file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/1/2007 -----rr-T Page 1 of2 David Stalheim - Re: ALUO Revisions .~;;I', "....,-'..~:l#'~#t.I;A~'~~._.A~..w1ll!lff~.....1r.~~~~~!t'4l-..r.w>>~..,.,:~~_r-_!jft,.~.lI!M':'"'>lV<<-t(l'Vt~~";:~';'.jil}'fI*"l}:~~ From: David Stalheim To: Bryan Holley SUbject: Re: ALUO Revisions ------- --_.._--"_.. - ~.__._.._. - --..--.-.,--- ._-~ . "."------'--"-- .-. .. Bryan, Thanks for your email. I can't really speculate based on what the Tidings or Art Bullock says and your impressions, so it is best for you to look at the proposed ordinance and my transmittal memo that outlines the proposals and draw your own conclusions (or questions). You can find all this information on the following web page. httQ;L!www,~sbJclr1d,-QL!.!sLPgge~~~tSP?N.avIQ:::: 10373 I have also attached the PowerPoint I used last night to summarize the proposal. We are proposing changes in the Type I permit procedures, which are outlined in the PowerPolnt. We are actually increasing the amount of notice provided (notice of application AND notice of decision), and we are adding a recondiseration process. The difference is that staff currently make the final decision subject to review by the Planning Commission Hearings Board (without ability to have any testimony). We are dropping that review step because It doesn't provide any ad~ benefit to decisions or the process. Decisions and a public hearing can be held before the Planning Commission on appeal, after these other steps are achieved. As for our citizen commissions, the intent is stili the same: all applications would be routed through our advisory commissions (Tree, Bike, Historic, etc.) for their comments prior to decision time. I do have a proposal that would make appeals of Planning Commission decisions (Type II permits) to council be "on the record" so that people bring their testimony before the citizen advisory committees rather than provide entirely new testimony before the city council. I believe this will help "de-politicize" land use decisions by requiring the council to review the record and not allow new information to come forward. The proposed ordinance amendments do have some changes In the Tree chapter that proVides better protection. We added a requirement that the dripline of trees on adjoining property be included in site plans and we added a requirement that allows stronger mitigation for tree replacement when the tree served as a screen. We also added a standard for when the mitigation plan must be fully implemented. If you have questions after reading the proposal, please let me know and I will be glad to try and anwer them. >>> Bryan Holley <bholley@musiciansfriend.com> 8/1/2007 1:35:09 PM >>> Hello, Mr. Stalheim, In reading your memo to PC and citizens, I note that you used language that you and your staff had gone through all this work and were now sending it forward. Today's Tidings' article also mentions that you were angling to give planning staff more power, and Mr. Bullock last night used that one point as a warning to the citizenry. The Tree Commission spent considerable time on AMC code that referred to our mission, we worked with Maria Harris at one point to mark up much of 18.61 with our changes, and until the Tree Commission operated an entire year down one or two commissioners (one of the reasons for my departure), we were, individually and collectively, reviewing and making comments on the Siegel report. We all agreed that some of the "housekeeping, spelling" stuff was non- controversial, but I could easily point out to you several sections I ~/~ >..J , about blank 8/1/2007 Page 2 of2 where a lot of controversy, ambiguity, etc. was present on planning actions that happened before you moved here. Your comment made it sound like any and all commission comments have been replacecl by staff comments. Is that true? Or, as I hope, did you honor the work the various commissions might have done and incorporate their comments into the documents you have sent forward? Best, Bryan Holley majJt~hQ!Ley@QPendQQ(J;Qru mailtQ: QI:lQJley@ml!sLCiaJ1Sfri~!ld .com 1,/.iA "-,..~i about blank 8/1/2007 rr 1 JULY 31, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION -- DRAFT '" CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2007 CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chair John Stromberg at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Dotterrer presented a revised agenda. Commissioners Present: John Stromberg, Chair Michael Dawkins Mike Morris John Fields Pam Marsh Olena Black Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present Absent Members (excused): Melanie Mindlin Dave Dotterrer Tom Dimitre Staff Present: David Stalheim, Community Development Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no announcements LAND USE PROCEDUREs/SIEGEL AMENDMENTS Stalheim said the Planning staff has been working on the ordinance amendments for quite some time. It is important to the Planning Staff because they have to deal with the procedures day in and day out at the front counter. Stalheim gave a PowerPoint presentation that has been entered into the record. He discussed: >> Evolution of Proposal- How we got to where we are today. >> Upcoming Process - Next Thursday, August 9th, there will be a public workshop in the Council Chambers to answer any questions from the public. Stalheim has asked the public to submit written comments to him by August 20th. Staff has a list of items they have identified, both internally and from the public. They anticipate having some recommendations for changes that will be at the public hearing. The Planning Commission is welcome to attend the meeting on August 9th and/or meet with Stalheim one-on-one to discuss the changes. The public hearing is scheduled for September 11 tho They will present the original draft with a list of the proposed changes Staff is recommending and perhaps some options for the Planning Commission to consider. >> Scope of Amendments >> How to Read Draft Ordinance >> Readability >> Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues ~ Policy Issues ~ Procedure Amendments ~ Expedited Land Division >> Amended Type I Permits ~ Revised Type I Notice Process >> Type I Appeal Process >> Costs for Simple Hearing >> Type II Permit Procedures }i> Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures ~ Ordinance Interpretations ).> Application Requirements ~ Options - The Commission can choose not to address some of the policy issues. They could add other "trigger" mechanisms for Type II public hearings that were discussed at the June 26th Study Session. The Commission could request that Staff develop options for identified subjects. ,. Action - At this time, it is recommended that we proceed to public input and hearing to get feedback before we deliberate, perhaps with direction to develop options for consideration at the public hearing. Motion requested: "Move to consider the proposed amendments to the Ashland Lane Use Ordinance and set a public hearing date on September 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m." j .&f::- f ,,~/ ,."'. PUBLIC COMMENT ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, said tonight's packet is a classic example of how a small group of people control Ashland's planning process. The packet proposals are not a balanced set of changes nor are they in the public interest. Every substantive change he has reviewed so far has the potential of increasing developer's profits and government power at the expense of the public interest. The packet doesn't show the issues and options for changes to the code. He submitted for the record, Issue #4, "Of the People" which includes articles on the proposal to start charging $250 for public hearings. That has the affect of pushing away public speaking through the hearing process. The proposals, if implemented, would dramatically change the face of Ashland and not for the better. Public hearings on the ordinance changes have been scheduled after the decisions have been pre-made. He suggested rather than charging $1000 for appeals (copying charges), refer people to the web (no charge). Changes should be done based on an updated Comprehensive Plan done in the public interest. Stromberg restated that he thought Bullock was trying to say he would like to see for any given change, the issue articulated and then options for addressing the issue. EVAN ARCHERD, 550 E. Main Street, expressed his appreciation for the work that has gone into this. He has not had a chance to go through the changes in great detail. With regard to Section 10, Drive-Up Uses, he does not believe anyone is in favor of expanding drive-up uses in Ashland, particularly in the Historic District. He is aware of three drive-up uses currently in the Historic District. We will never get anything else on the Wells Fargo site, for example, if we don't allow that drive-up use to be transferred someplace else. The Commission might want to think about allowing for existing drive-up uses to be relocated. If we want to think about a more historic, useful structure being built on probably the most prominent site in Downtown Ashland (corner of Pioneer, Oak, Lithia Way and Main Street), then there may need to be some mechanism by which that drive-up use could be relocated. It would provide encouragement to those users to rebuild their structure that might be more useful to our community. Stalheim said this is a larger issue policy issue than what we are taking on now. Stromberg read the e-mail received from Colin Swales dated July 30,2007. BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison Street, encouraged the Commission to move forward and get done what they can get done - to do the best they can. He believes they have to make incremental changes. If they get majority vote, send it through for the Council to review. Thompson commented on the following: ). 18.40.020 - Permitted Uses - The Commission should discuss if they want to have residential on the first floor in an E-l zone. If there are more than three units above the ground floor, an elevator is required. . );i> Percentage oflot coverage in POO's - Example on the extension of Nevada Street where it seemed the square footage the developer wanted to include could have been achieved if they just kicked more upstairs and shrunk the building envelope. A common complaint he hears is that houses take up too much of the lot; there is no place kids to play. >> Minor Land Partitions in existing parcels - Current language states that no lot can be created that is wider than it is deep. Oftentimes the only way we are going to build a partition is if we end up with a little bit wider lot than it is deep. In general, the intent of the wording was to stop the wide, land-consuming sprawled out parcel. ';> Signs - There are still instances where they can have signs on three sides of a building. ). Credit for on-street parking. Currently it is prohibited in an area where the street width is not up to a standard. Do we really care if the street is slightly narrower? The intent of the credit was to recognize that people are parking on the street and going into that building. Is the street an important criteria for excluding parking? COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION Fields commented on the corner curb setback. He said Stalheim had explained that by changing it, it will allow us to have a broader sidewalk. He thought the problem generally has been that often property lines are further back than the curb. Stalheim responded that they changed the measurement from the curb line rather than the property lines. By allowing for vision clearance of both pedestrians and cars, no one will be penalized for having a wide sidewalk. Stalheim met with the Public Works Director and City Engineers to review the change. He wanted to make sure when we move the line from the property line to the curb line that we have adequate sight distance. Fields is concerned we could be losing vision clearance that we may need in the future. Fields asked if the hoteVmotel definition is in essence saying we are going to allow traveler's accommodations in C-l. Stalheim said they pulled a definition out of a development guide that allows for transient accommodations or hoteVmotel by ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION 2 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2007 IS'. Conditional Use Permit. The criteria will be whether or not it is compatible with the neighborhood, not whether it has an outside entrance or a stove. Fields referred to 18.24.048, Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) and attached accessory structures with a six foot separation and added breezeway. If there is a breezeway, can the separation be less than six feet? Assistant Planner Amy Anderson responded that if structures are six feet away, they can be connected with an unenclosed breezeway, and it is still not counted in the MPF A. Fields will make a list of other comments for Stalheim and send it to him. For example, is it the Historic Railroad District or the Railroad Historic District? Stalheim said the proposal is nothing more than what is here. Marsh noted that she'd met with Stalheim about her list. She believes the biggest challenge is to contain ourselves to what is here and stick with these changes. Morris will meet with Stalheim. Black is confused about making the maps for the Comprehensive Plan official. Stalheim said all the maps are existing and adopted through existing ordinances. They are putting the maps on a parcel database. We want to make sure what is depicted is what was originally adopted. Black said when the Siegel report came back to us, she thought it was agreed it was time to clean up the code and do the housekeeping. What she is hearing tonight is that it is really a nuisance to do the housekeeping because it makes it so onerous. We are not even looking at the low-hanging fruit. We're not even making those nuisance petty changes and bringing in other changes, not even in the Siegel report. Stalheim said the Siegel report contained a lot of things within it. Many of the issues that we are looking at are housekeeping issues. Staff wrestles with these issues everyday at the counter. Siegel came in as an outsider, but he did not spend the amount of quality time that Staff does in dealing with these issues on a daily basis. You can't expect everything in the Siegel report to be the end of things. Most of things Stalheim has pulled out in the memo are the more substantive issues that require some discussion because many of them have options that require discussion. What about the typographic errors, punctuation, etc, Black asked. Stalheim said if we are going to get to that level, maybe we should start over with the code. Black referred to Stalheim's summary memo outlining the changes. She is concerned about R-2 and R-3 having accessory units. She is not sure whether the intent of some of the ordinance changes meets the Comp Plan goals. For example, she is concerned about the R-2 and R-3 having accessory units. These issues need further discussion. Dawkins had no questions or comments. Hartzell said in April of 2006 the Council asked for the Siegel report to come back to them and they had a discussion about whether to include policy changes. They specifically asked for housekeeping changes. If the Commission decides to tackle policy issues as part of this process, she would ask for a public forum first before the public hearing. She would like a forum where Staff/Commission articulates to the public what is being changed. Walk through the changes and give options, schedule meetings that will allow people to attend, and televise the meetings. She wants to make sure the public knows what is happening and trust is built. Stromberg followed up by saying the Commission could think of doing a more active outreach. He would like to do a really good job at the public hearing and clearly distinguish items that have policy implications. It's hard to get the public involved in this because it seems so bureaucratic. Fields said Staff is concretely trying to move forward. We have an existing ordinance that is not perfect, but semi-functional. The shear effort of re-writing the ordinance would require a Comp Plan re-write, but we don't' have the money or the time for it. He sees the bigger picture - the political body has to struggle with defining how it is going to do business with what we have, without the privilege of going back and rebuilding the ideal thing. It requires checking in and reflecting to make sure transparency is there and is it fair. In his experience the process is quite fair in the community and there is a lot of access. The system seems to be harassed by limited people holding the whole process to its detail. The laws now on the books were made by people who were all good intentioned, using their best common sense and experience to solve growth issues. Is this list too ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2007 .' .,;,.,. "'., f __ ( much to handle in a public hearing? He believes there are going to be about a half dozen people who have concerns and those can be addressed. If we throw this out, where will we go from here? Stromberg said we need to remember that we are the Planning Commission talking via our liaison to the Council. Whatever we do here is going to be wasted ifit doesn't make sense at the Council level. Stalheim said the purpose of going to a public hearing is to get the public out first and find the hot spots. After discussions with the public, we can start filtering out. If the Commission wishes to push this to September 25th, that's an option too. Marsh agreed the public hearing is the right place to deal with these changes. When you start reading the document, there is very little in it other than clarification. This is about making it easier for people to understand the code - simplify it and clarify it. The majority of this is just about language. If there is a controversial part that deserves a little bit more focus, that discussion can occur during the public hearing process. She would focus any outreach we do on letting people understand we are talking about some changes to the public hearing process; that is where we will get the most interest from people. She would not support doing the broad kinds of public outreach. Those types of open-ended forums should be reserved for much larger issues such as planning design workshops or things that will really compel people to come and invest their time. Hartzell said she has looked at the section in the Staff memo concerning minor policy issues. The Commission can expedite the process and get through it pretty quickly if it is truly housekeeping. Once they start getting into the policy issues, they are getting into it for the long haul. Stromberg is inclined to move forward. He would like to see some kind of statement telling people what we are trying to do along with using examples. At the public hearing, we need to work hard to give the motivation for every change, and prepare the presentation so it is alive. We want the lay person to be able to understand this. He would like to see a tailored package that goes to the Council. MarshlFields mls to consider the proposed amendments to the Ashland Lane Use Ordinance and set a public hearing date on September 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: The motion carried with Fields, Marsh, Dawkins, Stromberg and Morris voting "yes" and Black voting "no." StaIheim said there will be a second draft after August 28th that will be advertised on the City's website. PLANNING COMMISSION LOOK AHEAD Wetland and Riparian Inventory and Draft Ordinance - August 28th Study Session Economic Opportunities Analysis - Public Hearing Arterial Setbacks - September 25th Wetland and Riparian Ordinance - Public Hearing in October StaIheim mentioned the Planning Commission Goals are on the next Council agenda. He encouraged Planning Commissioners to attend the September 4th meeting at the Council to discuss the Planning Commission Goals. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Susan Yates. Executive Secretary ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES JULY 31, 2007 4 Ashland Land Use Ordinance 2007 Amendments Evolution of Proposal . Zucker Report (February 2006) . Siegel Report (April 2006) . Planning Commission Siegel Subcommittee (June 2006 - February 2007) . Community Development Director Report (February 8,2007) . Planning Commission Study Session (April 4, 2007) . Planning Commission Retreat (June 2, 2007) . Planning Commission Study Session (June 26, 2007) Upcoming Process July 24, 2007 July 31, 2007 August 9, 2007 August 20, 2007 First Draft Released for Public Review and Comment Planning Commission --:- first chance to review and comment before Planning Commission (7 p.m.) 5 p.m., Chambers - Public Workshop to answer questions Written comments du~ to Planning Director for review and incorporation into Second Draft to be presented to Planning Commission for publiC hearing Public hearing on Draft 2 before the Planning Commission Planning Commission deliberation on amendments City Council First Reading and Hearing on Ordinance September 11, 2007 September 25, 2007 October 16, 2007 / . ,'J ..: 1 Scope of Amendments . Readability . Interpretation or internal consistency in application of the code . Minor policy issues, usually in concert with interpretation or consistency issues . Permit procedures How to Read Draft Ordinance . (Proposed deletions are struck through and proposed additions are underlined.) AI,w , .~ '''' 'A OA '~n Co ...... ~ I,.,,, ,.. l,~ ~,~~~~:,,~. ~:d:,-'~~' ~I:;~.:~;:~!,::~!:(~;~~,;:i~~,:~,~~:~,~~q~ 'c:i~o'?:::~ os j ....r..,''''l. Cl ,u~t, "U "' rA'."M to 'M ""ill ~<..< ...80 :)j lh. 10' or .". l~d,' 'p'nq ...h'ch '*'~< no' ""9a'''~I, 'mpKI 'hi ".,"'... ...... '~'.n',,,,, .n" .O~ c~.r... '......r' <>' ,~.. .,,~ .h.~ MI "~~Hm.d p~" of "8 10' 0< .n. <Q'&'"9- Readability · Conditional Use Permits identified by zone, rather than scattered throughout code · Distinction made between what development triggers Site Design Review (18.72) from procedure or permitting process (18.108) · Definitions amended and added for clarity I ~;-'I ~. 'v;,tiI 2 Interpretation and Internal Consistency Issues . Lot Coverage . Clarifies what is inctuded and provides some exemptions . Gross Floor Area . Adds definition to answer many code requirements . Site Design Standards . Clarifies what standards to apply for attached single family and non- residential development . Permit Expiration Dates . Sets limit on site design review approval to one year; extends tree removal pennlts from 6 months to 1 year . Maps . Re-adopts maps based on electronic fonnat (on hold depending on GIS ability) . Street and Driveway Access Points . Distance between driveways made consistent with Street Standards Handbook Policy Issues . ~~n\~":r.Cf::-~:;&~~ Ca1 and E-1 zones (prohibffs ground fkxx . North Mountain Zone. (fat coverage and signs) . =8.S0'\l.",ldlRrJ Units Den.IN and MPFA In multl-familv zone. 68 con n WI - zoneS} . Vision CI..ranc. (sets slsnd8ld A-om cflb line,ather than property line) . :~~~?~Ina us.. and structu.... (addresses inconsistencies and . Mechanical 8QulDmenl (provides stsnd..ds and clwily) . TemDOrarv storaae (provides standenJs for "PODS") T.... Prot8ction (adds protection to adjoining trees and mitigation) ~=. and Yards (dsMes and clarifies .l1m!.to measure - standards not . ~~~ 1f:-~~~~~~ ~~8=sr permit BXpiration to ministerIal while Procedure Amendments . New Expedited Land Division procedures . Amended Type I Permit procedures . Amended Type II Permit procedures . Ordinance Interpretations . Application Requirements I.: 3 Expedited Land Div ,IOns . Required by ORS 197.360 . Land zoned residential . Create~ ";els to allow buH' units a """m perrr' sidentia' . l--~~ ,jesigr ,di ""' .' ! r-.', III ~ . , '';U Type I f.- ~rmits · Same basic procec es, except notice area now expanded fror '00 feet to 200 feet . Notice Requir lents and Decision Process . Reconsideration and Appeals . Type II projects reclassified .= Revised Type I Notice Process . Current process: . Staff makes "tentative" decision . Notice sent after tentative decision · Planning Commission Hearings Board reviews the decision, but cannot take any testimony unless they call the item up to hearing and ra- notice the hearing . There is no notice of application and ability to provide comments prior to decisions ',! I :, I I ,; ,,7;l 4 Revised Type I Notice Process, can't. . Proposed Process . Notice of "application" sent out, posted on site and web . 14-day period to submit written comments . Staff decision final, subject to reconsideration or appeal; No review by Hearings Board . Second notice of decision sent out to affected parties . Reconsideration Process . Adds ability for someone to identify a "factual" error in the decision . Reconsideration can be granted; stays appeal period . New notices must be provided Type I Appeal Process . Appeals would be heard by Planning Commission . "De novo. public hearing required with new notice . Appeal fees for public hearing recommended by staff . limited by ORS to $250 which must be refunded if the appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal . fees cannot be assessed to any neighborhood or community organization recognized by city whose boundaries include the site . the number of public hearin!;ls has a direct impact on allocation of staff and Planmng Commission lime to other pressing planning issues Costs for Simple Hearing (Recent case of 247 Oils that was called up to public hearing) Staff Time 11 hours $40/hour Mailing Coovina 245 oaaes x 14 sets tiIl1 0 cents TOTAL $ 440.00 10.50 343.00 $ 793.50 Notes: Actual costs exceed this amount because full staff costs are higher than $40 per hour and copying charges are 20 cents per page. ORS would limit the amount charged for initial evidentiary hearing to $250. I ;t, ~, ..' 5 Type II Permit Procedures . Movement of some Type II permits to Type I permits . Buildings 100 feet in width or length in Detailed Site Review would not be automatically Type II . Adding an Initial Evidentiary Hearing . Staff could hold initial hearing to collect evidence . Evidence becomes part of the record and is transmitted to Planning Commission . Add a Reconsideration Process . Allows the Planning Director to approve reconsideration when a factual error was made . Purpose is to avoid appeals when clear errors are made that were not previously discovered . Change the Appeal to Council Procedures Type II Proposed Appeal Procedures . Council Initiated · Can "call up" Planning Commission decision for review but not appeal · Avoids bias and prejudgment by not having to state reasons for appeal · Call ups, if not appealed by others, would be limited to on the record and no public testimony taken Type II Appeal Procedures, con't. . Citizen or Applicant initiated . Appeal could be "on the record" . City Administrator can determine if a limited public hearing is necessary to correct a factual error or address new substantive information. · De-politicizes land use decisions . Encourages input to happen through citizen groups, such as Historic, Tree, Bike and Planning Commission · Procedural errors can still be corrected by this process 1'<:1 6 Ordinance Interpretations . Current Procedures: . Current ordinance has all interpretations having to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council . There is uncertainty about what constitutes an interpretation; hinges on the word "doubt" . There are no mechanisms for formalizing request for interpretations. including appeal of such decisions . Proposed Procedures: . Makes Planning Director decision final, but all decisions are still forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council . ~~~7t~~l ?~e~~h~s~~i~~~n 9~tt,n~funcil could choose to review. . A formal request for interpretation process is added. which gives the ability to then appeal that interpretation to the Planning Commission. Application Requirements . Staff can set application requirements with respect to number of copies. format (hard copy or electronic) and size of paper . Staff can set application deadlines . This is necessary to stage potential publiC hearings and to allow for an expedited procedure for some permits that were previously considered Staff Permits . Staff can waive some map scale and paper size requirements for small projects in physical constraints review and tree removal permits Options . Choose not to address some of the policy issues . Could add other "trigger" mechanisms for Type II public hearings that were discussed at June 26th study session · Commission could request that staff J develop options for identified subjects I' . .~; j; 7 Action . At this time, it is recommended that we proceed to public input and hearing to get feedback before we deliberate, perhaps with direction to develop options for consideration at the public hearing. . Motion Requested: "Move to consider the proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and set a public hearing date on September 11, 200T at T:oo p.m." I .y~ / ~>}: ~o:.,,,", 8 CITY or ASHL/\ND July 24, 2007 TO: Planning Commission and Interested Citizens RE: Proposed Amendments to Ashland Land Use Ordinance CC: Mayor and City Council Please find attached proposed amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Ashland planning staff has been working diligently over the past two months reviewing the code for Inconsistencies, missing definitions, contradictory requirements, and minor policy issues. In addition, the proposed amendments address recommendations for revised permit procedures which staff has been discussing with the Planning Commission. These amendments are brought forward based on two initiatives: report from Siegel Planning Services in 2006 and the review of the city's land use procedures by the Planning staff. There is a considerable amount of information and change within these proposed ordinance amendments. I have been reluctant to separate these amendments into distinct packages because that is why the code is now internally inconsistent. It is important to ensure that references from one section to another be accurate. When the ordinance is amended in piecemeal fashion, you will find problems with internal consistency. The second reason that I believe that this package should be reviewed as one document is for customer service and public notice. Due to Measure 56 notice requirements, we are sending notice to over 9,000 property owners that proposed changes are being considered. We also do not want to create a "Code of the Month", so making sure we address all the issues in one package is valuable for customer service. The Planning Commission and City Council has choices in r!=view of these amendments. In the following pages, I will attempt to identify the significant changes that are proposed in these amendments. If the Planning Commission and City Council are not interested in proceeding with some of these amendments, it is possible to set them aside and move forward with others. It is not an "all or nothing" ordinance, although making sure we address the internal references and consistencies remains a significant issue. TIle process for conSideration of these amendments is as follows: July 24, 2007 July 31, 2007 First Draft Released for Public Review and Comment Planning Commission - first chance to review and comment before Planning Commission (7 p.m.) 5 p.m., Chambers - Public Workshop to answer questions Written comments due to Planning Director for review and incorporation into Second Draft to be presented to Planning Commission for public hearing Public hearing on Draft 2 before the Planning Commission Planning Commission deliberation on amendments City Council First Readin,;, and Hearing on Ordinance August 9, 2007 August 20, 2007 September 11, 2007 September 25, 2007 October 16, 20G 7 - -.-------------------___~___.4 , :'.lrr, th6 DESk 01. ='c.,'ic :'::8!he!ITi [Jirector SfjPi:rtmeni cf Commur,jty :'lb,el~pment .....el, S~i ,~~,.::.-L043 ~ ': \'-'~nD;jrn /yay cr.), f11." .~~2. ;-O';C ,,' :-'.:L'1(:: (.reuor. ~~'52C -~ I ~(/ 7="'~r29(JO . ;::',' I I The proposed amendments can be broken Into four functional areas: 1. Amendments to make the code easier to follow and read. 2. Amendments to address on going Interpretation Issues or internal consistency In application of the code. 3. Amendments to address some minor policy issues, usually in concert with Interpretation or consistency Issues. 4. Changes to permit procedures. Easier to Read For planning staff, customers and citizens, It Is very difficult to read the Ashland Land Use ordinance and be clear as to what is required. Some examples of an attempt to make the code easier to read and review are as follows: · Conditional use permits. The current code has requirements for conditional use permits scattered throughout. The proposed amendments list the conditional use permits by zone, so a reader knows all the potential conditional use permits allowed In each zone. · Site Design versus Procedures. The Site Design chapter (18.72) Is currently a blend of both standards and procedures. The procedures are removed from this chapter and put into the Procedures (18.108) chapter. At the same time, an attempt Is made to make clear what development Is subject to Site Design Review and what is exempt. · Definitions. Definitions are amended and new ones added that were not previously Included in the code but are necessary In the application of the code. InterDretation and Internal Conslstenev Issues Every day, planning staff and customers struggle with the meaning or requirements of certain sections of the code. In some circumstances" the Intent is, clear and a staff decision can be made. In other cases, either the Intent Is not known or Is in question. There are also circumstances where the code can be written to provide better dkection:The following are the primary examples of these code amendments: · Lot Coverage. The current definition of Lot Coverage uses words that do not get to the intent of the requirement. Words such as structure (could Include dog houses, bird houses, etc.), soli disturbances and normal water Infiltration (no definitions). Customers often argue that gravel driveways should be exempt from the requirement. Staff has exempted decks with spacing that allows water Infiltration, but not solid decks like concrete patios. Technically, the ordinance would require staff to measure walkways In gardens. The proposed definition provides an exemption for some permeable surfaces and makes the definition much easier to administer. In the long term, the city should consider two standards: one which addresses impervious surfaces or landscaping/open space and a second which considers bulk and scale of buildings. Those types of changes, however, are considered beyond the scope of these amendments. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director OIP1rtmlllt of Community Development 51 Winburn Wwy Ashland, Ollgon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 rA1 :,;_!',J.~I;ii!.l: !;~';L~LL~ '.' .,,; ,nj v, / ~ Page 2 of 11 · Gross Floor Area. There are several standards in the code based on gross floor area or gross habitable floor area. New definitions are added that are easy to administer and consistent with each other. The definitions measure to outside surfaces of the buildlng(s). · Site Design Standards. Some development triggers Site Design Review, but what standards should be applied Is not always clear. Examples of this include attached single family housing (e.g. townhouses) and non-residential development (e.g. schools) In residential zones. The proposed amendments identify how these sections should be applied. In addition, the applicability of the Site Design to other development Is made clear, including the expansion of impervious surface, alterations which affect circulation, and alterations to historic buildings. · Expiration Dates. Site Design Review approvals were never set to expire if not acted upon. A one year limit Is proposed. Tree removal permits are the only planning action that had six month permits; these are proposed to change to 1 year permits. Partitions are proposed for 18 months. · Maps. Many of the maps that set standards and regulations are hand drawn maps within booklets. As such, these maps were never In an electronic database or applied to parcels. The city's GIS staff has worked to apply these old maps to current technology. Finally, there Is not an official zoning map that can be found by the City Recorder. As a result, we wish to readopt the maps In a new electronic format, which will then be available by the City Recorder within the new ordinance. · Street and driveway access points. The distance between driveways on residential streets Is 24 feet In the Street Standards Handbook, but 50 feet In the Site Design Chapter. An interestingly point also Is that you can place a driveway or another street 35 feet from the Intersection, but the driveway separation is larger. Consistency between these two standards Is proposed. (See 18.72.120(6)) Minor Pollev Issues Usually In conjunction with a readability or Interpretation Issue, we have Identified some sections where we work to clarify both the wording and address some policy Issues. The following are examples of these In the proposed amendments. · Setbacks and Yards. It Is standard practice to have building setbacks. The code uses the word "yard", as In a required 15' front yard. The ordinance also did not proVide clarity on how setbacks or yards were determined for multi-story buildings. While It would be advantageous to go through the entire ordinance and address this Issue, a simpler route was taken by revising the definition of setback (and adding a new definition of Setback, Special) and by providing clarity as to how setbacks are measured In multi-story buildings. There are also standards for "half-stories", but no definition; a proposed definition for half- story was added. · North Mountain Zones. When the North Mountain zones were adopted, standards for lot coverage or signs In the commercial areas were not Included. Standards consistent with the plan are proposed. · Accessory Residential Units, Density and MPFA In Multi-Family Zones. Under the current standards, It Is pOSSible to have more density and Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) In the R-1 single family district than In the R-2 or R-3 multi-family districts. This Is due to the fact that In multi-family zones, there isn't any such use as an "accessory From the Desk of: David Stalhelm. Director Department 01 Community Devtlopment 51 Wlnbum W~ Ashland. Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 ITY: 800-735-2900 rA1 , ''''~:.~l':.'~ ," :)'.'~._l~ ,.~. ,~j::,r-i.l_o!lil ~:' _~:.~ I ) Page 3 of 11 residential use" since multi-family Is allowed and not considered "accessory". In the R-l district, accessory residential units that are detached from the house are exempt from MPFA. The same allowance Is proposed in R-2 and R-3, with a limit of just 500 square feet for the second unit. In addition, It Is made clear that the minimum lot area for this second unit can be placed on a 5,000 square foot lot. · Residential Ground Floor In C-l and E-l zones. The current standards for residential uses are not clear when there are multiple buildings In these zones. The existing standard reads "...65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings..." The first part is clear (except that gross floor area is not defined), but how do you calculate 50% of the total lot area when applied to multiple buildings? In addition, the recent Economic Opportunities Analysis points out concerns with allowing residential uses in our commercial and employment zones. The proposed standards would not allow residential uses on the ground floor, which is a common zoning requirement in most cities. The standards address the multiple floors by placing an overall limit on how much residential can be allowed for a 2-story building (50%) or multiple story buildings (66%). Thus, a two story building would have one floor of commercial and the second floor could be residential. A three story building could have one story of commercial and two floors of residential. Four or more stories would be required to have upper floors be partly used for commercial or employment purposes. · Tree Protection. The current ordinance does not offer protection for trees on adjacent properties that might have driplines overhanging the site of proposed development. A requirement to identify those trees Is added (18.61.050). The ability to require larger trees when replacing a visual screen that Is removed Is added' (18.61.084). · Vision Clearance. The current ordinance measures vision clearance from property lines. This is a disincentive to wide sidewalks and does not address the purpose of the vision clearance area: for pedestrian and vehicular safety. The proposed changes measure setbacks from curb lines. As a result, an exemption for street utilities Is necessary for Items such as traffic signs, street lights, etc. The amendments were reviewed by the Public Works Director and City Engineer. The State of Oregon standards are dropped from the code as they are within state law and are stopping distances, not vision clearance. · Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The existing standards have contradictions and do not properly reference criteria. A nonconforming use may be changed or a nonconforming structure enlarged when authorized In accordance with the "procedure" in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) chapter. It has been argued that the procedures for Conditional Use permit are notice requirements, and not criteria. A reference to two of the three conditional use permit criteria Is added. The second problem with this section is that it appears to require a CUP when reconstructing or structurally altering a nonconforming structure. However, there are no definitions as to what reconstruction or structural alteration means, and the third pOint allows this to occur as long as the footprint Is not changed in size or shape. The changes proposed would require a CUP only when the structure Is enlarged or extended. A nonconforming structure could be reconstructed or structurally altered (enlarged is stricken) without a CUP; however, the use cannot change without a CUP. For example, If a garage had a nonconforming setback, it could be structurally altered unless the use changed, such as to a residential unit. Then, a conditional use permit would be required. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director DePlrtmlllt of Community Developrnlllt 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TIY: 800-735-2900 rA1 _ 'ill!:~' " . " Ii. r!.j~~~~ ,: j:j I i'~ I,;J Page 4 of 11 · Mechanical Equipment. The existing code does not appear to provide any clear exemption from Site Design Review, nor does It provide exemptions for placement Into yards, etc. There are several amendments proposed that address this issue. o Definitions. Removes the exemptions from the definition and puts these exemptions into the Site Design Chapter. o Setback Exception. Mechanical equipment and associated housing that is not taller than allowed fence heights is proposed to be allowed within required side or rear yards. If this equipment Is Installed, It must conform to other provisions of the Ashland Code, including noise attenuation. (See 18.68.140) o Site Design Review Exemptions. Three exemptions are provided In Section 18.72.030(8). The first is an exemption for roof-mounted solar collection devices unless within the Employment and Commercial zoned properties In an historic district. The second Is the Installation of mechanical equipment not visible from the street or adjacent residential property. The third is for the routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment. The other exemptions are required by federal law for amateur radios and satellite dishes. · Temporary Storage. We are starting to see an Increase In the usage of temporary storage containers throughout the city. These storage containers include signage that Is incompatible with city standards, and there are currently no limits on how long these can be kept In place. Proposed standards would allow these units on a temporary basis. Anything longer would require a Conditional Use Permit. (See 18.68.170) · Permit Expiration. The current ordinance allows two extensions of one year each for planning actions. These extensions must be approved with a Staff Permit procedure requiring notice, etc. The permit approval can only be extended when the ordinance has not changed, or the applicant agrees to abide by any changes In the ordinance. The proposed amendment would allow for just one extension of 18 months, and this extension can be approved ministerial by staff with the same requirement that the code has not changed or the applicant agrees to abide by any code changes. (See 18.112.030) From the Desk of: David Stalhelm, Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Wrty Ashllncl. Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 FIX: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r&1 :1 ~,:~l..;: . t: ~. !--_'. :. N~~ '.L'~: ~d ./ 1'1; Page5of11 Procedure Amendments There are numerous changes proposed within the ordinance affecting procedures. The changes can be grouped Into the following functional areas: 1. New Expedited Land DIvision procedures 2. Amended Type I Permit procedures 3. Amended Type II Permit procedures 4. Ordinance Interpretations 5. Application Requirements New Expedited Land Division Procedures An expedited land division under ORS 197.360 Is an action for land zoned residential in an urban growth boundary that creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units at 80% or more of the maximum net density permitted by the zoning designation of the site, creates three or fewer parcels and complies with street and other standards of the city. , . These procedures are required under Oregon statute, but have not been written Into the city's code yet. The proposed procedures are taken basically verbatim from the statute. The only deviation is that the City Administrator Is authorized to hire a "referee" under contract if an Expedited Land Division is appealed. (State law requires the referee to be someone other than a city employee or official, which would Include the Planning Commission.) The expedited land division process would not be authorized In historic districts or on lands designated by Physical and Environmental Constraints. It Is anticipated that few partitions would be eligible for this review process. Amended Type I Permit Procedures · Staff Permits. The current procedure for staff permits Is removed from the proposed ordinance. These permits would now proceed as Type I permits. The change Is not significant, provided that the proposed Type I procedures are adopted. Notice requirements are nearly Identical between Type I and Staff Permits. The consolidation makes It easier to administer and should have little affect on customers. The current staff permits In the code are as follows: o Site Review for two or three residential units on a sinale lot. o Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits as allowed In Chapter 18.62. o Variances described in Section 18.70.060. (Solar waiver) o Site Reviews In C-1, E-1, HC and M zones for expansions of an existing use that do not require new building area In excess of 2.500 sauare feet. or modification of more than 10% of the area of the site. o Extension of time limits for approved planning actions. Two extensions of up to 12 months each may be approved under the following conditions: · A change of conditions, for which the applicant was not responsible, prevented the applicant from completing the development within the original time limitation, and From the Desk of: David Stalhelm, Director Deplrtmtnt of Community Dtv,lopmlllt 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 ID: 800-735-2900 -.. ...'1 , I' ~:"':'<['.l~~' '~_'.::. L.- " ,,'...,. ~:::; :-,r;d IJ. \~.; Page 6 of 11 I f7~. \ / · Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted, however, If requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to comply with any such changes. o The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section 18.72.040.A: · Any change of occupancy from a less Intensive to a more Intensive occupancy, as defined In the City building code, or any change In use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. · Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever Is less, to a building. · All Installations of mechanical equipment In any zone. · Installation of disc antennas subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any disc antenna for commercial use In a residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). o Any exterior chanae to a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places. o Any other planning action designated as subject to the Staff Permit Procedure. o Other planning actions not otherwise listed or designated as a Type I, II or III procedure. · Notice Requirements. The current procedures require the city to send notice to adjacent property owners after a tentative decision has been made by staff. Oregon state law requires that we give Notice of Application. The city's current notice procedure might be allowed due to the fact that the notice Is of a tentative decision that does not become final until reviewed by the Hearings Board. This procedure does not encourage public Input at the appropriate stage of the process. The proposed notice procedure allows for a 14-day period to submit written comments. These permit applications will be sent to neighbors within 200 feet, sign posted on site, and the application will be made available for review on the city's web site. The proposed Notice of Application will provide a better opportunity to comment on the application prior to decisions being made. · Type II projects now proposed as Type I. There are some Type II planning actions that are proposed to be moved to Type I. Because the existing ordinance classifies conditional use permits Involving existing structures and not more than 3 dwelling units as Type I permits, It Is not pOSSible to accurately reflect how many of these changes would result in an actual move of Type II permits to Type I. Some of the known changes might include: o The requirement that projects that are more than 100 feet In length or width in the Detail Site Review zone. o Daycare centers, public and public utility buildings less than 2,500 square feet, hostels, and some uses In the Residential and North Mountain zones o Electrical substations, outdoor storage of commodities In the commercial zones o limited personal service providers In the home, travelers' accommodations, and professional offices In the Health Care Services zone. · Staff Decision Final. The current ordinance has all Type I permit applications reviewed by the Planning Commission Hearings Board before they become final. The proposed changes would make the staff decision final, subject to either a reconsideration process or appeal to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. From the Desk of: David Stalheim, Director Departm.nt of Community Dtvtlopmtnt 51 Winburn WrIy Ashlancl, OI1lllOll 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 ffi: 800-735-2900 r.l' "f::~a: ~~:;'<'r I~ :'i f; .-- - "- ~.,.- -- .- ,'v:; - .t,l,J;!Q9.f.:L; Page 7 of 11 / 1 ~. .I This procedure Is projected to save considerable staff time that can be devoted to other issues, as well as saving the Hearings Board from additional meetings. In the past two years, there were 95 Type I decisions that were reviewed by the Hearings Board. For each application reviewed by the Hearings Board, staff must prepare a staff report, copies must be made, and presentations prepared. Conservatively, I would anticipate that this change would result in a savings of almost two hours of staff time per application. That is two weeks worth of staff time per year that could be allocated to other priorities. · Reconsideration and Appeals. In an effort to avoid appeals when a factual error occurred that is brought to the attention of the Staff Advisor, a reconsideration process is added to the procedures. The Planning Director would review the request, and If reconsideration is granted, then the appeal process is stopped until a revised decision is sent out to all parties of the action. The current procedures allow anyone to "call up" an item to public hearing at no cost. The proposed process for having a planning actloh considered at a public hearing would be an appeal of the final decision of the Planning Director. Appeals would be to the Planning Commission and would be a "de novo" hearing under Oregon land use statutes. Since the new process has both a Notice of Application and a Reconsideration process, It is hoped that issues are resolved before an appeal. The proposal would not allow any further appeals to City Council. Appeals of the Planning Commission decision could be made to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). State law is specific In that land use actions made wltl10ut a public hearing. can be appealed and fees set. The maximum fee that can be charged for the initial hearing Is $250. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the Initial hearing must be refunded. Any fee required cannot apply to, appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the city and whose boundaries Include the site. While this ordinance does not set fees, It does authorize the collection of these appeal fees (up to state limit of $250). I am making a recommendation that such fees be established. In the most recent case of the "call up" of the Type I Final Outline Plan approval for Helman Baths without any fees paid, staff calculated the amount of time to transmit this Issue to the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission upheld the staff decision. The following was the expense to the city In that review, which does not account at all for additional expenses to the applicant. Staff Time Mailing CODvina 11 hours $40/hour $ 440.00 10.50 343.00 $ 793.50 245 Daaes x 14 sets @10 cents TOTAL From the Desk of: David Stalheim. Director Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland. Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ...w .,-~ JL~' rr::'~, "~_, .l >.l '! .~\ ~'. ,1 .( ll,~.: ,) . Page 8 of 11 1/""1 ./ '1 ( ) ( "') Amended Type II Permit Procedures Only limited changes are proposed to the Type II procedures. · Initial Evidentiary Hearing. One of my experiences thus far Is that Information is not gathered early In the process In order to afford decision-makers with ample opportunity to review, study and prepare questions. Staff also Is not provided the opportunity to review and incorporate information into analysis or recommendations. Recently, staff held a neighborhood meeting on a project to gather some Input and see If some Issues could be resolved. The neighbors were very pleased with the process because It was less formal, there weren't limits on the length of time they could talk, etc. The proposal Is to be able to formalize these meetings through a public hearing process where the Input is kept, recorded and then transmitted to the Planning Commission for their review and deliberation. The public hearing would not be closed at the staff level, so additional oral and written testimony could stili be received by the Planning Commission. · Reconsideration. Like the Type I procedures, at times there may have been a factual error made during the decision-making at the Planning Commission level that could be cured by the Planning Commission rather than through an appeal procedure before the City Council. An example In the past was advice provided by staff regarding standards for vision clearance. Upon review the next day, It was noticed that the advice was factually Incorrect, which could be cured by a reconsideration process. ' · Appeal to Council. There are two basic changes In the proposed changes to appeal to council procedures. o Council Ability to Review. In a recent case where the Council appealed a Planning Commission decision, It was unclear whether the Council appealed the decision or they wanted to call the decision up for review. The proposal eliminates the Council ability to be an appellant, but preserves their right to call up an action for review. When the council Is the appellant and the hearing body for the appeal, potential bias and prejudgment Issues are created. The proposal would allow the Council to simply call up an Item for review without the requirement to state the reasons normally required In an appeal proceeding. The proposed procedures would also have any Issue that Is "called up" by the City Council to be a review of the record without any public testimony, unless an appeal Is filed by another party. o Appeals could be "on the record". One of my experiences of appeals before the City Council is that new Informatlon,ls proVided that never was provided to the Planning Commission or other advisory bodies, such as the Historic Commission or Tree Commission. In order to place an emphasis on citizen participation and citizen review of development applications, and de-politicize land use decisions, It Is best that the record and Input be provided at the earliest stage In the process. The proposed amendments would state that appeals before City Council be "on the record" before the Planning Commission unless the City Administrator determines that a factual error occurred or additional substantive Information is available that might affect the outcome of the decision. If the City Administrator finds that additional testimony Is warranted, then the Council would limit the public testimony to those facts and Issues only. From the Desk of: Davld Stalheim, Director OIp1rlmtnt of Community Devtlopmlllt 51 WInburn W~ Ashllnd, OIegon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 m. 800-735-2900 r.l' "~ 1-'~'lQ ~~::! '!,f!.:..~'~ ,. ~ r.B ,\1 -N tf~ ~:.;tH!~llg~\~_~}.:;. Page 9 of 11 I .;<111 . , i \ I. ''''\ Ordinance Interpretations One of the concerns expressed by some In the public is the process for interpretations. Every day, planning staff makes judgments on what the code appears or doesn't appear to say or require. Some call these interpretations, which under the current ordinance need to be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and City Council. If every judgment call we made was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, the process would quickly clog up. I believe that such process is only required when there is "doubt" about the provision. When there Isn't doubt, we don't send it forward. The process as written is not necessarily fair to parties that don't agree with the decision. In every jurisdiction that I am familiar with, the Planning Director's decision on interpretation Is final, but that decision can be appealed to some body for review. As such, the process that is proposed is a hybrid between the current system where the Planning Commission and City Council review that interpretation, and a system where the decision of the Planning Director is final, subject to potential review and/or appeal. The system maintains the relationship with the City Attorney providing his or her opinion on the interpretation. I have also faced considerable amount of work and effort answering questions from citizens about what the code appears or doesn't appear to require. Formallzlngcthe process for interpretation requests will benefit staff and others, and will provide .the city with the opportunity if desired to capture any fees for these services. Application Requirements Finally, the proposed ordinance provides some flexibility for staff to set application submittal requirements and deadlines (18.108.017{A){3)}, and to waive some map scale and paper sizes for physical constraints and tree removal permits (see 18.61.050 and 18.62.040). From the Desk of: David Stalheim. Director Department of Community Development 51 Winbum Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: 541-552-2043 Fax: 541-552-2050 ID: 800-735-2900 rA' , II..'.... Q.d~; ::~;i ,',.;~ . ____.._0.__..__...__., '. t" lJ ~':~';:;'jr:1,j '~, _J_:; .' . ---.,- --..-. Page 10 of 11 / 1), I) t ,~ N . II ~ Ii.. Ih~J1*It! h,lll) c ... '" ... co, - un a::&e,C") I Ul ili! w ~ ~ ::> ....... 0 en W ,.. U I ]~- 0 dftill ~ 0.. "C c: 10 W S z :1 w ill ~ - N~~ .... ~ ~-i .... - -;7; - ~iie ~ ~ ;!LL. ~ W ..t!ll! J 0.. I ;i~ - w 0.. 1; II ~ ;1. ~ 0 U!~U ~irl~i, w Ul Z en I -:?I.;: - ~ J I~i ; > .. " -, W Ll. 0 :;; , ii' ~ 10. > ~,-_... ~._._- -- - -- - WRITTEN COMMENTS . . . We HOJ1or Jndept'ndence. Of The People Ex h'[ hii- A t 7 ( f.')<.-<. ( { Voice Of The Majority ~~\I:'~ Democracy 2, --......- %%~~ Oligarchy 0 Majority Reject Council's Charter Model Charter: 77%NO City Manager: 62%NO Those whose actions concen- trate power in the hands of a few suffered a major setback in the May15 election. i\ wide majority of voters reject- ed council's 2 charter measures on the ballot. Both council pro- posals shifted power from the people to the government. Ballot Box Oeba'cle " was worse than a defeat. ! t was a debacle. By an extraordinary margln of 77%-23%. Ashland voters reject- eQ councWs proposed 'model charter'. Ashland's majority voted more than 3 to 1 against. The majority echoed their dis- pleasure with a landslide 62% rejection of council's proposel for a 'city manager' with unilateral decision power to choose depart- ments heads. High Voter Tllrnout--62% Spring elections normally have a low turnout. Not this time. Of Ashland's 13,027 voters, 8.113 votad, a 62% turnout. high due in part to the county library levy. Opposition to council's charter was evenly distributed across the city. Ashland's 5 precincts ranged from 75-79% opposition. Opposition against a city man- ager with unilateral deciSKln power ranged 58-69% across Ashland's 5 precincts. Tax Money Wasted City of Ashland wasted tens of thousands of tax dollars, and 3 years of work, in putting these 2 failed measures on the ballot. Neither measure remotely rep- resented the majority will of the people. AshlandConstitution.org had explained to council and City's charter committee and council that a survey showed a wide majority of Ashlanders opposed the model charter and city manager because the majori- ty viewed both as concentrating power in the hands of a few. Many people see City of Ashland as being run by insiders and wealthy developers, satisfy- ing special interests rather than public interests. Instead of run- ning local government by the majority will of the people, people saw proposed charter changes as making the insider problem worse. What's Wrong With Council? Something fundamental is wrong when tens of thousands of tax dollars produce a ballot measure opposed by a 77% majority. What's wrong with council that they would put such measures on the ballot? The majority of councilors did NOT support these measures. Only half the councilors, Kate Jackson, Russ Silblger, and David Chapman voted to put these measures on the ballot. The resultina 3-3 tie was broken forced the ill-fated charter measures onto the ballot. , The other 3 coun- I cilors voted against I putting these meas- ures on the ballot: I Eric Navickas, Alice Hardesty, and Cate I Hartzell. Election I results show that ! these 3 speak for ' Ashiand's majority, and that the approving foursome I are disconnected from what the majority want. Citizens' Voter Education A Success AshlandConstitu- tion.org, a CitIzens group working on the charter, pre- pared and distrib- uted 1-sheet flyers educating voters about charter issues. The flyers caught the attention of many uninformed about the charter measures. The most common reaction to the fly- ers was "' had no idea this was going on.". The flyers awakened many to the harsh reality that the bid to concentrate power in the hands of the few was not limited to Washington, DC. People copied and distributed to friends and neighbors these VoIer Education flyers, which multiplied like loaves and fishes. City employees said they received literally hundreds of calls about the flyers. Throwing Good Money After Bad City's response to these flyers became a classic case of dys- functional govemment. City staff hired an attorney to rebut the content of the flyers, contracting with attomey Paul Nolte for $7,800 to respond to charter election issues. It's a violation of Oregon law to use taxpayer money to support or oppose a ballot measure, even if city council put it on the ballot. Nolte, a former Ashland city attomey, now works for League Of Oregon Cities, which sells the model charter all across Oregon and thus had an alleged financial interest in the vote outcome of Ashland's charter measures. Nolte's response on City's web site was entitled "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ), though it contained no questions. It did, however, contain 'spin' and false information. Wednesday July 4, 2007 f c (\ ') Public Hearing For Sale .. Only $250 Since the election. many have asked me skeptically, "What will they fry nexf?" We didn't have to wait long to find out. At the first regular PC (Planning Commission) meeting after the May15 ballot, Planning Director David Stahlheim proposed changes in Ashland's plan- ning process. Like council's charter measures, his pro- posals concentrate power. Same Song, , Second Verse I On May15, the Ashland majority rejected a city ! manager proposal to con- I, centrate power In the hands of an unelected staffer. Now City wants to increase staffs power in pianning decisions. Stehlheim proposed an additional layer of bureau- cracy in the planning process--an "evidentiary hearing" conducted by an unetected 'hearings officer'. The hearings officer wouldn't be a Planning Commissioner, or even a 1ooeI~ accustomed to court rules of evidence. Instead, Stahlheim pro- posed that he be the 'hear- ings officer'. Stahlheim's proposal char1er process, had urged coun- would give him direct power cil to make this and other over record eVidence on changes. Franall said that corpo- developers' projects by giv- rations don't 'inhabit', only human ing him control over the evi- beings 'inhabit'. Corporations denli8ry hearing. He has 'reside'. By specifying 'inhabl- already inserted himself in tants' Ashland's charter had limit- public forum testimony to ed Ih8 use of Ashland's water for PC, allegedly illegally, act- people, not corporations [some of ing as self-appointed gate- whom want to bottle it for resale). keeper for what's spoken So Franell wanted the word and presented in writing "inhabitants" changed to "resi- during public forum. ::e~. Mayor and 3 councilors Part 1, Add A Step- g For "Efllclency" Hiding Removal Of The PC already holds an evi- Majority's Right To Vote dentiary heering, the normal The other half of the water pro- public hearing. At public tection sentence, which Nolte hearings, people can speak claimed was copied "verbatim", or submit written evidence was removed entirely. That per- about issues and impacts of tion required a majority vote of the proposed development the people for water and all other on their. neighborhood-:- utility services, By removing the pedestnan safety, parking, majority vote requirement, the water runoff, traffic conges- same 3 councilors and mayor tion, solar access, creek were granting themselves the flow, ete... power to start new utility services Stahlhelm's proposal adds without taxpayer approval. another evidentiary hearing Nolte's FAQ generated contro- before the regular hearing. versy over its legal errors, like By adding this new step, claiming state law protected Planning Depart~ent staff Lithia Park from being sold to would gain additIonal power developers. Staff started chang- by controlling much of the ing Nolte's FAQ without dccu- evidence brought to PC. It menting who changed what or would also \l"ve .steff time to why. Council put it on their agen- prepare thelf spIn on eVI- da, and as usual, ran out of time dence when presenting the without resolving it. staff report to the PC. Thus, when faced with major l rd charter election problems City ontrol ng reco compounded its errors by'throw- evidence is like ing more tax money at the prob- controlling the lem, which only dug a deeper I b rd' hole. Instead of resolving the I score oa In a Issues, legally !Ocorrect claims ,basketball game. and partisan use of tax money : further damaged City's credibility. i ThiS procedural power IS ThiS showed lack of integrity for '[ key. Oregon law reqUires something as fundamental as I that all planning com mls- adopting a new charter, Ashland's I sions, make plann!Og action constitution. I deCISions based stnctly on evidence in the record. Ashland shall have a new birth of freedom" Local government of the people, by the people, for the people, shan not perish from ~ corner of the earth" Human Beings 'Inhabit', Corporations 'Reside' For example, Nolte's FAQ false- Iv claimed Ashland's current water protection language was COpied "verbatim" into the pro- posed charter. ^' Simple, 50-second compari- son of current and proposed charters showed that was untrue, Council had altered Ashland's water language to change the word "inhabitants" to "residents". I.., " ;/ Controlling record evidence is like controlling the score- board in a basketball game. As with the charter com- mittee, who called their power shifts "housekeeping items", Stahlheim discount.. ed the power shifts for plan- ning, calling them "minor adjustments" . Using the same wording as model charter propo- nents, Stahlheim's explana- tion for concentrating power in hiS hands wasefficlen- cy', though his proposal added another formal legal step In an already clogged process. "Efficiency" has become the standard word used to justify concentrating power in the hands of a tew, ",ho argue they could make the decision faster. Part 2. Charge Citizens $250 For The Right To Have A Public Hearing As for the charter, this pro- posal to concentrate power in the hands of the few is accompanied by nftw barri- ers to public involvement. Stahlheim also proposed charging Citizens 5250 to request a public hearing on Type 1 planning applications, Currantly, If someone requests such a public hearing, it's held without charge, following First Amendment ri~hts under the U.S. Constitution. Under Stahlheim's pro- posed rule, the hearing would only be held if Citizens paid 5250 for the right to have a hearing. Type 1 planning applica- tions include large projects, On Ju110, PC has a hearing on the Final Plan for the Helman Springs project, an 18-house subdivision in Quiet Village. This is one of the most complex proj- ects tackled in years, with many underground hot springs, a large wetland, a hot-spring fed swimming pool that overflows onto the street, 100+-year property history, and Wildlife habitat for neighborhood deer. This proposal means affected neighbors would have to pay $250 to have a heanng on the issues. Stehlheim's proposal affects your rights as a Citizen Under hiS proposal. you d still have the right to speak freely on a proposed devel- opment that affects you a"d your family. Though to have a public hearing to speak freely, you'd have to pay 5250. Page 1 of 1 David Stalheim - ALVa cbaaa_ From: To: Date: Subject: "Colin Swales" <colinswales@gmail.com> "David Stalheim" <stalheid@ashland.or.us> 7/30/20071:14 AM ALVO changes David, I like most of the changes you have made to the R-2 and R-3 codes to allow (accessory) residential units on these lots (where there is presently a single home) although I think the SOO Sq. Ft. may be a bit on the small size and could perhaps be more like the less than SOOA. of the main dwelling with a max of 1000 sfper the new definition and in line with the R-I allowance. Also while you are reworking the N.Mountain side yard setbacks have you though of applying this kind of stepped setback to all other zones. It would certainly make the impact of flag-lot type infillless obtrusive in current single-story neighborhoods. And I still think it absurd that the rear yard (setback) should be the same for a property that backs on to a public alley as one which abuts the rear of a neighbor. This is recogni7.ed in the N.Mountain zones that allows only a 4 ft. setback when on an alley. Could this be adopted city-wide? Also it would be better if it was only 3 ft. per the requirements of ALVO 18.68.140 Acceslory BullcUup and Structures and in line with the Building Regs regarding openings in Fire walls (esp. side yards) when adjacent to neighbors. It would also be more similar to existing historic rear facade setbacks along alleys. (often zero) I think the proposed fees to "call-up" a planning action for a public hearing unnecessarily limits the public's opportunity for a hearing before a group of their peers and is anti-democratic. Sorry I will not have time to respond more on these matters as I will be out of Internet range from Wednesday (at sea) until returning to Ashland on 20 Aug. best Colin .. I (1' . , J:,"" .t :_) tj ; /'-- -- ,. ( ....-f ,"- ~ ". 1 _ f , /~. ( / . (/~ /,i ~',/ ."!' ..,/'" /( / (( / '" , c I' t' '" , , I i II , " /" / / JIt'!I - , /" · ,1'< ) file://C:\Documents and Settings\stalheid\Local Settings\Temp\GWlOOO02.HTM 7/11/?M7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Budget Committee Meeting Date: Department: Approval: December 4, 2007 City Recorder Martha Bennett Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen 488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us Estimated time: 10 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to make appointments for the three vacancies on the Budget Committee for terms ending December 2010? Statement: Appointments by the Mayor and Council on three positions to the Budget Committee for a term to expire December 31, 2010. Background: These vacancies occurred upon the term endings of Marty Levine and Lynn Thompson and the resignation of James Bond. Proper notice was made in our local newspaper of the vacancies and a deadline of November 2,2007 was indicated as when applications were due to be submitted to my office. The following applications were received for your consideration: Requested reappointments and applications submitted by deadline Marty Levine Lynn Thompson Applications received by deadline Greg Lemhouse Suzanne Frey Applications received after deadline Don Laws Dennis Slattery Cathy Shaw Allen Douma Council Options: Choose among the eight applications for the three appointments. Staff Recommendation: None Potential Motions: Motion to appoint for a term to expire December 31,2010. Attachments: Applications received r~' MARTIN H. LEVINE CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT Amenc.n IMtltute, California SocIety, Ind 0fe90n Society of Cet1Ifted Public AccCXlntanta October 16, 2007 Ms. Barbara Christensen City Recorder City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 J~@~ OCr~l :1!'~, e >:. _ 7 2001 'I/J -- ~.'. -- ............. -....... Re: City Budget Committee Dear Barbara: In response to your notification of the expiration of my term as member of the Citizen's Advisory Budget Committee for the city of Ashland, please be advised that I would like to be considered again to serve as a member of the Committee and, as well, to continue to serve as the Budget Committee's.!iaison to the Municipal Audit Committee for the city of Ashland. i\lw. Martin H. Levine, CPA ..... \ 187 East Main Street e Post OffIce Box 485 e Ashland, Oregon 97520-0018 Voiu: 541.481.7801e Fax: 541.482.5101 elntentt: www.mblcpl.com e e-lDliI: i.ro@..blc:pa.c:om October 30,2007 J~@rt: Atl!l 1 _ 'It'?P~, 8 r. 2001 '1// . "'."... .... .... .... .... .... ............ Lynn K. Thompson 125 N. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ikthompson@bryancave.com Ms. Barbara Christensen City Recorder{rreasurer City of Ashland Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Citizens Budget Committee Dear Ms. Christensen: This letter confirms my interest in being reappointed to the Citizens Budget Committee. My first three year term expires on December 31, 2007. I served as Chair of the Committee in 2007, and Vice Chair in 2006. During my three year term I have participated on both the Social Services and Economic & Cultural grants subcommittees and have attended several training sessions. The learning curve associated with this service position is significant, and the City currently faces a challenging budgeting environment. I would welcome the opportunity to continue to apply and expand my knowledge of the City's budgeting process during the coming years. Thank you for considering me. CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional fje~a,~ necessary. /i1 ~ t.S:l Jl V!l~ Name GreK A. Lembouse OCT 1 9 2007 YJ By.- '. Requesting to serve on: Citizens Bude:et Committee (Commission/Committee) ........................... Address 2850 Wede:ewood Ln Ashland. OR 97520 Occupation Police Sere:eant City of Medford Phone: Home 482-2507 Work 941-2438 Emailealemhouse~vahoo.com Fax 1. Education Backeround What schools have you attended? Oreeon State University What degrees do you hold? BA - Socioloe:v Minor - Political Science What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? I currentlv hold a Suoervisors Certification from the State of Oreeon and have extensive exoerience in leadine individuals to achievine: eoals. 2. Related Exoerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? As a suoervisor. oroeram coordinator and chairman of various committees. I have direct exoerience in manaldne: and creatine: effective budeets. In addition. I feel mv experience as a police officer over the past 12 years and a supervisor for the oast 5 has e:iven me the ability to make critical and difficult decisions in a timelv manner. The ability to criticallv analvze information and make difficult decisions is crucial for individuals who are responsible for creatine:. aoprovine: and imolementine: bude:ets Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? I feel that I have the reauisite abilities for the iob and will be able to learn further bv beinS!: oart of the committee and throueh aooropriate oreDaration. ~A' 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? It is very imDortant for me to serve mv community in any way that can brin2 Dositive chane:e. CurrentlY. our city is experience a number of fiscal challene:es. I feel mv dedication. work ethic and abilities would be a Dositive addition to the e:rOUD and assist them in addressine: these issues in a responsible and efficient manner. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? I work the weekends. so I am available for any meetine: times durine: the week. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? I orie:inallv moved to Ashland in 1995. Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position I believe it is the duty of all citizens to be involved in helpine: their community in any way that feel they can. Currentlv. there is e:reat animosity amone: the citizenry and a e:eneral mistrust of city 20vemment. It is mv hODe to not onlY contribute mv skills. eXDeriences and abilities to help the city shepherd a responsible and efficient bude:et. but also to help build a bride:e between the city e:ovemment and the memben of the community. I feel I could do this bv communicatin2 openlY with other community memben and educate them about the city's bude:et and fiscal responsibilities and challene:es. Thank yOU for your consideration. October 20. 2007 Date Signature ~.l' Ms. Barbara Christensen Ashland City Recorder 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 J~@ Oc ~Jrf)co.. 11 W~j lJ };-........ S <'17171 '1 .... .... .... .... .... .... October 12. 2007 Dear Ms. Christensen, Attached please find my application for the Ashland Citizen's Budget Committee. I would like the opportunity to serve and make a positive contribution. It also appears that perhaps my background and professional interests may be well- suited to the role of this committee. I thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Suzanne K. Frey 1042 Oak Knoll Drive Ashland, OR 997520 CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Suzanne K Frev Requesting to serve on: Citizens' Budget Committee (Commission/Committee) Address 1042 Oak Knoll Drive. Ashland OR 97520 Occupation Behavioral Health Administrator. retired Phone: Home 488-5867 Work Email Fax 1. Education Back2round What schools have you attended? University of Oregon. Ohio State University What degrees do you hold? M.A. in Psychology What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Considerable management training. with emohasis on planning. program goals. program design. budget construction & monitoring. and program evaluation. 2. Related EXDerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Though my field is behavioral health, most of my work experience has been managerial or administrative, including the following positions: . Education Director, State of Nevada Mental Hygiene Division · Unit Manager, Jackson County Mental Health, Medford, Oregon . Director of Human Services, San Juan County, Washington . Executive Director, Mat-Su Recovery Center, Wasilla, Alaska · Supervisor of Program Certification, State of Alaska, ADA · Management Consultant for behavioral health programs, State of Alaska . Administrative Surveyor, for CARF Accreditation Commission. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? The more you learn and improve your skills. the more capable you are of doing a better iob. I would be happy to take advantage of further training relevant to the Budget Committee. if such became available. r61 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? This fits my background and professional interests. I would hope to be able to make a positive contribution. If appointed. and after becoming more familiar with the city's budget process. I may be able to make suggestions that would be helpful to the process. 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Yes. I can do either. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 14 years (1974-1984 and 2003-present) Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position · Budgets & Fiscal Management: considerable experience with budget planning, managing and reporting, familiar with basic financial statements, multi-source funding, grants, and provided board training on monitoring of financial statements. · Grants: one ofthe top behavioral health grant writers and managers in Alaska, chair of State grant review committees, consultant on grants management & accountability. · Continuous Quality Improvement: As an administrative surveyor for CARF, I led on-site surveys for organizations seeking national accreditation, evaluating managerial systems for best practice standards, and providing consultation for continuous quality improvement. · Work background has included a variety of organizations, including state and local governmental offices and agencies, private for profit, and non-profit organizations. October 12.2007 Date Suzanne K. Frev Signature r61 !;S.!!rt>ara ~1]I!~~!I.!~!l.::~~9get ~Q!!!ml~~_e...QP"!!~~.Q,n..._,.__"..........._.",_..._......,."',."..,',....,_..,_._.,......".._'.""...,_,....~,,..."~,.....".-_.,_."'"...,',.......,.,...,..,,,....._==.:~=~.~g~~I] From: To: Date: SUbject: "Don Laws" <donlaws@mind.net> <christeb@ashland.or.us> 111212007 5:35:55 PM Budget Committee Application Dear City Recorder, I would like to renew by participation in city affairs. I think I still have much to contribute to the city I love and owe it what I can give. You know me well. I am experienced, bring considerable institutional and pOlicy memory with me, a moderate liberal, and have followed city government avidly since I left the Council in 2004. For more information and ideas call me at 482-1845 or e.mail me at donlaws@mind.net. Thank you for your consideration. Don Laws cc: <donlaws@mind.net> CITY Of ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Don Laws Requesting to serve on: Citizens Budget Committee (Commission/Committee) Address: 968 Hillview Dr., Ashland Occupation_Retired college professor Home 482-1845 Phone: Work Email_donlaws@mind.net Fax 1. Education Backe:round What schools have you attended? Ashland High School, Willamette U. U.C.L.A., University of Oregon What degrees do you hold? Ph.D What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? _Taught and practiced political science and public administration for more than forty years. Council and Budget Committee member_for thirty years 2. Related Exoerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Management Analyst for State of Oregon Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Especially when budget law changes. ~.l' 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? I would love to be once again able to contribute to the world's best community 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Yes, either 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? present 1949-55 and 1968 to Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position November 2, 2007 Date Signature Don Laws via e-mail r., November 6, 2007 Mayor John Morrison 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor Morrison and City Counselors: Attached is my application for the Budget Committee. I have given the matter a great deal of thought and I understand the important charge of the committee. I feel I would add a positive and knowledgeable voice to the committee. ~,~ou for your consideration. ,/ .,/ Si?6erel~, ~. Dennis 81 ttery, CPA, MBA 7 CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name_Dennis Slattery Requesting to serve on: Budget Committee (Commission/Committee) Address 1405 Pinecrest Ashland, OR Occupation_Assistant Professor Phone: Home _ 488-0382 Work 552-6491 Email_ slatterd@sou.edu_ Fax 1. Education Back2round What schools have you attended? _Southern Oregon University What degrees do you hold? BS Business Adminsitration Masters of Business Administration What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Certified Public Accountant 2. Related Exoerience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? I have held a number of positions with organizations over the years. In these organizations I have been instrumental in building and deciding budgets. These organizations have spanned the public sector, not-for-profits, and the public sector. I have over 30 years of management experience and I have been in private practice as a CP A as well as teaching the subject at SOU. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? _In the field of budgeting and planning I think more education is always good. I do as part of the certification process for accounting take 12 - 20 hours of continuing professional education every year. r.ll 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? _I want to help. I think we are at an important juncture in Ashland and how we deal with the future by way of community spending issues is vitally important. 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? I am available for special meeting with the only real exception being during my class scheduled times. I prefer evenings. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? Since 1977 Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position / / It, ! try , , Date .:ICoI ~H I W(';. OM I Co;:> t-'Al.:lt:. IH/l::l.:l I~@ 4'01' J '!J:;11f!p~ 8':'........ J ?{J{J? '1 .... .... .... .... .... .... November 9,2007 Honorable Mayor Morrison, Please accept this tetter of intent to be appointed to and serve on Ashland's Citizens Budget Committee. As you may note on my application, I've had 15 years experience as a former budget committee member/Mayor and would be interested in contributing to the budget process On.ce more. Further, it would be nice to serve on the budget committee while you are still in office. Thank you for your consideration. ., , . .....L..I'M 1 UI' .LJH I L.....:J rH1:l1:. tJLltJ,J CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO J CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE @~(Q' Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recc.i~ ~c!{~ City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email ch.tisteba.uashland.~. If you have any ques~, -1 j? , please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheefs-i{.. <"&>0; ~ necessary. ........ f// .... .... .... .... Name_Catherine M. Shaw ...... Requesting to serve on.: XCitizens Budget Committee_ (Commission/Committee) Address_886 Oak Street Ashland I ~ ( ".. r: : " .:. - \ .:, . Occupation_Author/Political' CC,1t\sU1tant::..::.1 Pht:me:' Home ~ 4829843 Work Email_cathyshaw@mind.net Fax _482 1427 . ,; , ;' 1. Education Backe:rounl!. . What schools have you attended? _DC Davis What degrees do you ho.ld? . ~BS : ; What additional training or educati~n have you had that would apply to this position? _1.5 years previous cxperienceton'Ashland Budget:Cominittee_ .."; 'I," ~ '~ '. ~ ',,, ',\' 2. Related EXDerience What prior work experien.ce. b.av,e.you ha~ that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Mayor; small-business o*,ner, Chief of Staff to Dr. Alan Bates in Oregon Legislature "1:' ',;:;-. . Do you feel it would be advantageous fot yo.1.l tp have. further trainin.g in this field, such as attending conferences or semin~s? Why? ~Q. .>' r~' -''--I ,..., I UI.... UM I L..-' I HUL.. tJ"')l tJ..:J 3. Interes~ Why are you applying for this position? ~.,. ... ~ /J. 1II.:~(g1 I/IOJ, <€>.!{1b> S>: ] './ 7 ~ I thought it might be helpful to have a member with previous budget experience. ",..""" <'~.;-"} " '.. " " " 4. Availabilitv Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? _Yes, to a point; either. 5. Additional Information How long bave you lived in this community? 30 years Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have. for this position I. I. .' '. I,. ;. _November 9, 2007 Date ~jyJ~ Sigi1ature ---- CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Record~r City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christcbcro.ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, ~~ ,. please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets . ~~b ~ necessary. ,tOy q ~ Name A !(<er\l \JOl.LI41~ 8~........~ ;> lQQI ~ Requesting to serve on: ~ et (C...",i!llilllliCommittee) ....... Address 8 3 (;~~\ k ~-t. A\.~d ~~~~ Occupation~,-n ~utfDJIIIl@",t Phone: Home I{pj-e't77 1 Work Email Fax 1. Education BaclQ!:round ~ \ I (L C'ltJ J n (\ tf ..PI' A What schools have you attended? ..jl) 10.11/) no I~I ~ s. J Jf/@. , c..l \? 11'fl {J II" What degrees do you hold? J3 &....0 I >II ~..t. ta 'ik. Q A< .lOl "lVt~ W:~~i:onalt~::;~~av:; ili;~~;;I: o~?~ ~~ 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this pos~~.(Vo._ ~ A ~ ,^~d l~ -f{t l 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? ~ (!) tAA 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? y~ ~ 1 ~ O-vHr .(:I~\\ol~ Q~Il.J~ 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 6 t f> 1). ~~ Please use the space below to summarize any additional quali lcations you have for this position { jJ I ( I II f-(ll'tfU, ~-Q.O. ~Q.ci l~ r Date Signature ~.l' , .....~i..,~~ Please consider my appointment to the Ashland Budget Committee. 41" (~~ ~ Throughout my professional career have been involved in and responsible for tHi1 r. "'Op ~ ;> ~~~ development and management of business start-ups, corporate business units and Iit~t ~c? , recently running a multi-billion dollar state Agency (see below). .......... ~ .... .... .... As a past member of the Ashland Planning Commission (which I had to leave to accept .......... an appointment by the Governor as State Medicaid Director) and as an avid TV viewer of the Commission, Council and Budget Committee for the last 6 years I have both learned a lot and increased my desire to serve on the Budget Committee. Professional Positions Allen Douma, MD Oregon State Medicaid Director managed and was responsible for a state agency with a 4 billion dollar budget. 2006-2007 . Health Communications and Business Development Consultant, 1999 to present. Included responsibility, for two years, for a small to mid-sized company's budget. CEO, COO and Co-founder, Health ResponseAbility Systems Inc., 1993-99, an online health communications company which, among other things, built the AOL Health Channel. Medical Director, Health Benefits Division, The Hartford Insurance Company, 1992-93. Member of team of four that developed a multi-billion dollar new business within a large corporation. Medical Director, Disability Services, The Travelers Insurance Company, 1991-92. Medical Director and Informed Care Product Manager, The Center for Corporate Health - a subsidiary of The Travelers Insurance Company, 1989-91. Built and managed a new business within a large corporation. Co-founder and Medical Director, Options & Choices (a health communication company), 1986-89. As member of the senior team ofa start-up company shared responsibility for all aspects of success including budget management. Associate Professor of Continuing Medical Education, The George Washington University Medical Center, 1983-86. Developed and ran a new business with the Medical Center. Medical Editor and New Product Development Manager, The Medical Tribune and Hospital Tribune (medical professional newspapers), 1982-83. CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Public Art Master Plan December 4, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Administration E-Mail: Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: Ann Seltzer ann@ashland.or.us 10 Minutes Question: . Does the City Council wish to adopt the Public Art Master Plan? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the Public Art Master Plan. Background: In June of 2006, the Citizen's Budget Committee approved the expenditure of $1 0,000 for the purpose of developing a Public Art Master Plan. In September of 2006 the City Council discussed the Public Art Master Plan and voiced their support of moving the project forward. The Public Art Commission sought citizen input over a six month period. The Commission conducted the public involvement process using a variety of tools and extensive public outreach. Once the Commission completed the public involvement process in May of 2007 they began to draft the master plan and to develop goals based on citizen input. The Public Art Master Plan includes an overview of public art, the public process, solicitation tools, goals and implementation strategies and an extensive appendix. The Master Plan cost less than $10,000 and the Commission hopes to use the remaining funds to repair the vandalized piece of public art at the comer of Lithia Way and Pioneer Street. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: Council may accept this master plan as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer adoption (takes no action) and give direction to the Public Art Commission. Potential Motions: This item is on the Consent Agenda and can be approved with other items. If removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion the following motions may be used. · I move adoption of the Public Art Master Plan. · I move for refinement of the Plan and ask the Public Arts Commission to consider the following additional items: Attachments: · Public Art Master Plan · Councilor Hartzell suggested changes to Public Art Master Plan Page 1 of 1 12 18 07 cc- Public Art Master Plan 112007.doc rj.' Councilor Hartzell's Proposed Changes to Public Arts Master Plan December 4, 2007 1. Appendix A: As recommended by Asst. City Attorney, the policies are reviewed and codified into ordinance. 2. Page 19: LOCATIONS: Public Art should be located in areas where large numbers of people gather or pass through. This includes not only the downtown area, populated by residents and tourists, but high-use parks and shopping areas throughout the town." (Garfield Park is heavily used and located in a very dense residential area.) 3. Page 21: References are made to funding, but there are no targets or continuums that explain a range of activity and the funding levels necessary to support each level. As proposed, this appears to be an open-ended budgeting goal. I suggest that the Master Plan define a range of potential "service levels," so that budget discussions are grounded in choices. 4. Page 22: · I encourage the Commission to take up Goal 9 before other goals that will involve substantial amount of dialogue, like the sign ordinance. Implementing projects like gateways and functional art around town provide practice in using the principles, build success and public trust on visible, publicly owned spaces. · Changing the sign ordinance, especially on the premise that it's "draconian" (stated in Nov 19 Study Session) underestimates the level of community discussion that can and should occur in the process. While the Commission has facilitated several projects, ifthe sign ordinance is changed to allow murals, overseeing mural content in town could easily challenge the Commission, and its policies and procedures. Council was asked last year to change the sign ordinance to assist local businesses co-locating in large buildings, but chose not to modify the ordinance yet, given the existing work load in Planning Dept. For future discussions on Policies & Procedures · Page A 10. VIILA.2. "The Commission or a selection paneL.." and eliminate after "; or a selection panel. . . " · Page A2: Intent statement: · The stated intent is to "encourage artists..." Ask the commission to discuss a statement that puts the public more central to its purpose, i.e. "engage the public in the promotion of art in public spaces that vitalize the social and economic character, the quality of life in those spaces?" Clarify that this Commission's focus is citizens, not artists. · Consider a statement tht allows the inclusion of art that produces sound or is primarily interactive, rather than a strict limit to visual art. Page A2: Goal number 8: Is there another way to say this to emphasize the focus on the public good? Page A2: Goal number 10. Include "public" in list of collaborators. Page A3: Clarify the operational difference between the Public Works Director making decisions about placement and the "final site approval" by the City Council. Page A3: IILA.2.f. Needs to be finished. Page A3: III.A.2.h. This phrase is unclear to me as stated Page A5: Page 11 Why Public Art?: states that public art serves as a forum for local and regional artists. In the RFP section, it states that RFPs go to "local, regional, national, and global" artists. Was consideration given to confining public art artists to local and perhaps regional? Page A4: IV.A.I. refers to "professional artist;" If interactive art were included in this Commission's focus, this reference would be modified. Page A10. VIII.A3. Clarify that "up or down vote" means majority vote. LEGAL: Page A3: III.A.I.b: is "generally avoid comer clearance areas" consistent with the state laws? What's the effect of using the phrase "unduly" in III.AI.c. and f? Page A3: IILA.2.a. Terminology question: The "leading" vertical edge is less than 1/8" and the interior edge less than 14". Are there edges not being regulated here? Page A3: III.A.2.d" Is there any problem with reference to "women's" shoes? Page A4: Is the section k through p more protective of the City and clearer with "shall not" language? Page A8: has legal and/or CIS reviewed the Maintenance and Risk Management sections? Page AlO. VIII.A states that the Commission is responsible for accepting or declining public art. Given that this art is an asset, is it legal for a Commission to make decisions about acceptance and surplusing or disposing of public assets? Page F2: 2.17.080. This states that the commission can "receive gifts, bequests or devices..." Is this legal? I thought commissions, including Parks, had to establish a separate entity to be able to receIve money. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Resolution Adopting the Gentle Person Agreement December 18, 2007 A inistration I Primary Staff Contact: E-Mail: Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: Ann Seltzer seltzera@ashland.or.us Richard Appicello 2 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to adopt the Gentle Person Agreement by resolution? Staff Recommendation: N/A Background: During the numerous meetings and discussion of council rules, guidelines not included in the draft ordinance were saved as the Gentle Person Agreement. In order to preserve such guidelines it was suggested they be adopted by resolution. Related City Policies: . N/A Council Options: . Adopt the resolution as written. · Identify changes and adopt the resolution. Potential Motions: · I move to approve the Resolution Adopting the Gentle Person Agreement. · I move to approve the Resolution Adopting the Gentle Person Agreement with the identified changes. Attachments: · Draft Resolution Adopting the Gentle Person Agreement. · Suggested changes from Councilor Hartzell Page 1 of 1 12 18 07 communication gentle person resolution. doc r.l' Councilor Hartzell's Proposed Change to Gentle Person's Agreement Section Two: Councilors should ensure that information gathering from staff and applicants in land use Hearings is efficient and balanced with public input and established time constraints. Section Three: All Councilors, commissioners, staff, and members of the public should be courteous and patient with each other, especially when they disagree. RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENTLE PERSON AGREEMENT RECITALS: A. Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council sets forth rules for council proceedings. B. The City Council has identified additional guidelines, not included in AMC 2.04, and desires to adopt such guidelines as a resolution. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS SECTION 1. Draft Ordinances Councilors should try to accomplish any editing of draft ordinances before the meeting by consulting with staff. If council gets bogged down, consider giving staff clear instructions that they should follow in crafting exact wording. SECTION 2. Land Use Public Hearing Councilors should be conscious that extensive questioning of applicants in land use public hearings can delay public input and lead to continuation of the hearing to a later date, with the result that public input can be forgotten and precious time expensed. Try to keep questions as succinct as possible. SECTION 3. Courtesy All councilors, commissioners, staff and members of the public should be courteous with each other, even when they disagree. Everyone should be reminded that it is counterproductive to attack others in public. SECTION 4 Public Positions When dealing with the public or other public agencies, councilors should be clear about when they are speaking for themselves as opposed to representing a position taken by the entire council. SECTION 5 Other Meetings Councilors attending other meetings, either as liaisons or individuals should accord the same respect towards the chair and other members as they do towards one another and the Mayor or presiding officer at council meetings. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code. 92.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED THIS _ day of 2007 John Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Reading of an ordinance Annexing property and Withdrawing an Annexed Area from Jackson County Fire District No.5 (BRAMMO Motorsports, Jefferson Avenue Annexation - #2006-00366) Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: November 20, 2007 Community Development Administration Primary Staff Contact: E-Mail: Secondary Contact: Estimated Time: Bill Molnar bill@ashland.or.us Richard Appicello 10 minutes Question: Should Council finalize the last step of including within the Ashland City Limits approximately 8.4- acres of industrial and employment zoned land, by approving the second reading of an ordinance formally annexing the property and withdrawing the property from Jackson County Fire District No.5? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council approve the ordinance on second reading. Background: At the November 6, 2007 meeting, the Council approved fir~t reading ofthe ordinance formally annexing the Brammo Motorsports property located on Jefferson Avenue and withdrawing the property from Jackson County Fire District No.5, and moved the ordinance to second reading. At the May 16,2006 meeting, the Council approved the application for an Annexation of an 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Avenue. The Council adopted the findings of their decision on June 19t\ 2006, which completed the land use ordinance portion of the annexation process. The applicant has prepared and submitted the required boundary description of the property. The final step for the Council in the annexation process is to approve the ordinance annexing the property and withdrawing the area from the jurisdiction of Jackson County Fire District 5. Related City Policies: Since the Council has already approved the land use ordinance portion annexing the area, it has previously found that the applicable goals and policies of the City have been met by this request. Council Options: Council can choose to approve the ordinance on second reading. Potential Motions: Approve second reading of the ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance Page 1 of2 CC Jefferson Bramscher Annex 2nd reading 11.20.06 r.t. , CITY OF ASHLAND Map of Survey & Legal Description - Annexation Area Irrevocable Consent to Annexation May 16th, 2007 Council Meeting - Public Hearing Notice, Minutes and Findings Page 2 of2 CC Jefferson Bramscher Annex 2nd reading 11.20.06 rA' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING PROPERTY AND WITHDRAWING AN ANNEXED AREA FROM JACKSON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO.5 (Jefferson St. Annexation - # 2006-00366) Recitals: A. The owner of the property described in the attached Exhibit "A" has consented to the annexation of this property to the City of Ashland. There are no electors residing in the tract to be annexed. B. Pursuant to ORS 222.120 and ORS 222.524 a public hearing was held on May 16, 2006, on the question of annexation as well as the question of withdrawal of the property from Jackson County Fire District NO.5. The hearing was held in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The land described in the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to be annexed to the City of Ashland. SECTION 2. The land described in the attached Exhibit "A" is declared to be withdrawn from Jackson County Fire District No 5, pursuant to the provisions of ORS 222.111. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _day of ,2007, and PASSED and ADOPTED the day of ,2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED the _day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Approved as to form: Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney -I ~. -T:== &" JWlM' , ----- .... ~' >~ 1--"- \ r;'\t~ ~ !\ ~I ! ~.fl~( ~ (, I~ IntFJ II ~I ~~ ~~~~g~ ,,'.~' , ~~'~" ~~, -=~~i=~::t~.I~'1 & ~ - ~-------~ ~ .~ \,! I I \;1 ~;I ~ 'I''t' -Y j~1 '~~II" "- ' 'I''i ~.. I ..,.....j ! II "\ .;r ;: . II )- ~ r l i . .. ~ " .. e e lSl $~ ... I i ~ J I 11 5 II ~ l:i i:l ~ J 'I ;, .'3 . .. . 1 I i t l I ~ I ~ ! I · i y I ~ I . ~ ~ I I ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ , ~ '" ~ ~ il ~ ~ ii i I ~ ,~ , ~' ~ ~ ) j ~ ''C 'C I I I II ~ ! I ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~, "~ l g ~ l ~ y . " o t ? :" ~ . 00 ~ :::> ;.. LAND SUR.VEYING, L.L.C + ,.".~..~ui;~'''~oR"".''.:.e-;;,.~......~;Mt~(...-:.::~~:'''''~~~:'''''~~J.Cr: ..:..tM';'~"'i~~~~"':~~~~~'-".M\.:M.::.. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION BRAMMO MOTORSPORTS ANNEXATION TRACT ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. 39 IE 14 A, Tax Lot 1104 That tract ofland described within Instrument No. 2005-032764 of the Official Rec(>rds of Jackson County, Oregon, along with that portion of the Central Oregon & PacifIC Railroad right of way (fonnerly Southern Pacific Company) as shown on Survey No. 19703, on file in the office of the Jackson County Surveyor, said tJact lying situate within the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 39 South, Range I Ease of the WiIlamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, more particularly described and bounded as follows, to wit; Commencing at the northeasl comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 39 South, Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; therJCe South 89"44'33" West (Deed Record South 89"45'16" West), along the northerly boundmy of those parcels set forth in Volume 309, Page: 375, and Volume 335, Page 321 of the Deed Records of said County, 126.28 feet to a 5/8 inch iron pin along the southwesterly right of way oflnterstate Highway No.5, for the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 89044'33" West, along said described parcel, 311.74 feet (Deed Record South 89"45'16" West, 31 1.72 feet) to a 5/8 inch iron pin at the northwest comer thereof; thence South 00"02'07" West, along the west line of said parcels, 692.15 feet (Deed Record South 00"02')6" West, 692.15 feet), to a 5/8 inch iron pin; thence continuing South 00"02'07" West, 66.41 feet to a 5/8 inch iron pin on the northeasterly line of the 100 foot wide deeded right of way of the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (fonnerly Southern PacifIC Railroad). as described within Volume 16, Page 205 of the Deed Records in said County; thence continuing South 00"02'07" West, 135.63 feet to the southwesterly deed n::cord right of way of said Railroad; thence following said southwesterly right of way the following courses: 380.24 feet along the arc of B 28 I 4.93 foot radius curve to the left, having a deha angle of 07044'22" (Chord bearing North 50"24'48" West, 379.95 feet) to a point of spiral curvature; thence along the arc of a spiral curve to the left (Chord bearing North 54.50'53" West, 90.38 feet), to a point of tangency; thence North 55"11'53" West. 643.09 feet 10 the north-south centerline of said Section 14; thence North 00"02'32" East, leaving said southwesterly right of way and along said Section centerline, 182.58 feet to the southwesterly line of Ashland Business Park Subdivision; thence South 550 I I' 53" East, along said southwesterly line, being parallel with and 100.00 feet at right angles to said Railroad centerline, 169.90 feet to B 5/8 inch iron pin at the most southerly comer thereof; thence along the southeasterly lines of said Subdivision the following coones: North 6CJ002'16" East, 298.88 feet to a 5/8 inch iron pin (Deed Record North 60"02'33" East, 298.64 feet); thence North 89"58'49" East. I 59.15 feet to a 5/8 inch iron pin (Deed Record East, I 59.24 feet); thence North 06041 '00" East, 42.30 feet to a 5/8 inch iron pin (Deed Record North 06050'20" East, 42.30 feet); thence North 89"59'3 T' East. leaving said southeasterly subdivision line. 623.10 feet to a 5/8 inch iron pin on the southwesterly line oflnterstate 5 (Deed Record North 8~59'51" East, 622.96 feet) ; thence South 26036'56" East. 47.56 feet (Deed Record South 26041 '00" East, 47.61 feet) to the Point of Beginning. Prepared by: Polaris Land Surveying LLC P.O. Box 459 Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541)482-5009 Ii':[GISTH~ED FROFESSIONAl lAND SURVEYOR sh,-- I JI;~;-:~;.cl;~9~ \." S~AWN KA\'i!'MA~~N O~~:?.)LS ___~4 .... Shawn Kampmann Professional Land Surveyor Renewal Date: 6130109 Date: June 18, 2007 S:1surveys\J55-06I8RAMMO AnIltxllioR u....doe P. O. /lox 459. .....hl~.d, Orlf" 975Z0 Ph.... (54 114&2.5009 f." (541) "&8.0797 Mt'~"'e; (54') 60'-3000 www.Fo.lrj.s..rvty.corrr CITY OF ASHLAND ENGINEERING DMSION IRREVOCABLE CONSENT TO ANNEXATION The undersigned, referred to in this document as "Owner" whether singular or plural, owns or is the purchaser under a recorded land sale contract of real property in Jackson County, Oregon, described below and referred to in this document as lithe property": See attached Exhibit "A" In consideration of the application for annexation and subsequent connections from the property to City of Ashland services, Owner declares and agrees that the property shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following covenants, conditions, and restrictions which shall constitute covenants running with the land and shall be binding on all parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, having any right, title, or interest in the property or any part thereof: Wbenever a proposal to annex tbe property is initiated by tbe City of Asbland or otberwise, Owner shall consent and does consent to tbe annexation of the property to tbe City of Asbland. Owner agrees tbis consent to annexation is irrevocable. Dated thisc.L. day of ~ ,2006. Signature: ~ --.., , Owner S~teofOregon ) ) ss: County of Jackson ) Personally appeared the above named ~ r<.Al9 ~4M.S<!.~d acknowledged the foregoing instrum.. a~, .. ~1It"JSION NO. 372720 M'fCOllllI" __SEPTEMBER 17. 2C~7 (c:\eaPJeer\,doc) P. F.... . . {'-'. ......,... ,........".. .. ..' If.' .'1 ' lit..". ~ '.\ ,~ . l-..~, =:' -~ ~.;.,:-' ~ ";~~.. c: MAY 3 /(Ii!i} City ofA~hland o F'ed 0 UN~t;E; ;_J COt I!J 4. Planning Department, 51 Winbl.. . Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 .... ~ 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00366 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Jefferson Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher DESCRIPTION: Request for Annexation, . Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson A ve. The application Is to develop a specialty automobile design, research, fabrication, and assembly campus in phases. The completion of Jefferson Avenue is required to serve the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN A TION: Industrial and Employment; PROPOSED ZONING: M-1, E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 14 A; TAX LOT: 1104. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: May 16, 2006, 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center Ci Ull ~ e:J o . Noticle Is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the followlng requeet >Mth reepect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CMC CENTER. 1175 East MaIn Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordIn8nce crtterta applicable to this app/icalon are attached to .,. notice. Oregon law etates It1et flIlh.n to I1IIse an objection 001 ~ Ig this appIlcallon. eIth<< In person or by letter, or failUre to provide sufllc:lent specIftclty to aft'ofd the decision meker an opporUlIty to respond to the 1s8ue, precludes your right of appe&I to the Land Use Board of AppeeIs (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance crttericln the objection Is baaed on 8Iao predudes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to I1IIse constItullonaI or other Issu. reIIIlIng to proposed conditions of approval with suftk:Ient speclftclty to alow this Commls8lon to respond to the Issue precludes .... acIon for damages In c1rWt ccut. A. copy of the 8PPIIcatIon. II docl.menls and evidence AllIed upon by'" applIcIInt end IIPJIIk:abIe c:rtterta 8I1lavallable for inIpe<:IIon at no c:oet and wlI be provided at reeeonable cost, If requeeted. A copy of the Slaff Report wlIf be avaII8bIe for InIpectIon .... days prior to the hearing and will be provided at I1I88OlI1b1e c:oet. If requested. All matertlIls are available It the AshIInd PI8l.1Ing Depnnent. ComIlU1lty Development end Engineering Services, 51 WInburn Way, Ashland. Oregon 97520. Dwtng the PublIc Heartng, the Ch8Jr Ih8I1I1tow testimony fIan the appIIc:ant ... thole In attendanc:e ooncemIng this requat. The ChIlr ahaII. have the right 10 Imlt the length of testimony MCl require that comm.. be restricted tQ the IppIIc:IbIe c:rIt8rIa. Unlea there Is . contInuInce, If a pertlclpant 10 requests t>>erore the canclusIon of the heMIng, the reconIlhall remain open for ltleelt .... ct.ya Ifter the heartng. In compliance with the American with DlsabIIIties N;t, If you need epecIaI ~ to pIrtIcIpate In this meeting. pIeIH contact the CIty AdmIllIstrator'l GIIot It 541-488-8002 (TTY phone runbel' 1..soo.73S-29(0). NotIlk:allon 72houra prtor to .... meeIng will enable the CIty to make nMISCInable ....lgements to .... 8CCeaIbIIty 10 the meeting. (28 eFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA. TIle I). If you ..... questions or comm.a conc:emlng this request, plene feet free to conIIc:t the AIhIInd PI8rvq 0epM1ment, at 541-488-6305. I ~:lty ot Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 3 of7 environment. She stilted the main Issue with the dirt rC*IlS the dust, however the residents have been ~e to dol with this on their own and there are alternatives to paving that would solve the problem In a more thf1fty and sustainable way. She stated that paving helts the environment and the ftsaIllmpact ofthls UD would be a....1 burden to some of the property owners. J.reeI Cruce/IOIO hrte atrMt/Steted this project contradICts the Historic Preservation Proclamation presented tonight and noted the majority of the residents do not support this UD. He asked thlt the UD evaluation be completed and commented on the division this has caused In the nel9hbolt1ood. Mr. ervc:e stated the Improvements would not be ftnanclally beneftclal to his property and explained that he purch8sed his property because of the quaint feel. He stilted the dust affects a small mlnonty of the property owners however thIS issue could be solved In other ways and requested the Council not accept this proposal. Pet... Dra,ulll . htrlclll Aguln.../l024 hrte Street/Mayor Morrison read aloud the letter submitted to the COUncil, which voiced obJectIons to the UD. *Wrltten hftInIany w.s sghllllttad Inta the public: _rd. Mayor Morrison noted that written testimony was also received from: Mlch..l. M.....ret Gerrard/lIMO P.rk StrHt/*Wrltten hdllIIGfty WI' .uhlllltDd Into the public: ~ard. Councilor HIIrtzellarrlved at 7:55 p.m. Peter Bemey/l070 Plu./Stated the alley creates an enormous amount of dust and noted the Issue of mud In the wintertime. Mr. Berney voiced his support for the UD and asked the COundl to proceed with this project. Art Bullock/7.1 Cllendower/Submltted written materials to the COuncil and explained that he had surveyed the nefghborhood and the Information submitted shows the results or that survey. He stated he was able to contact III of the property owners and 11 or the 16 object to the UD. He explained this constitutes an official remonstrance and prevents the Council from taking a vote. He stated the owners would like the dust problem solved, but do not feel this UD Is the best way to solve thIS Issue. *Wrltten mIIt.....l. were subllllttM Into the DUbllc: NIl:ard. Thom..lCnu....n/l044 P.rte Street/Mayor Morrison read aloud the letter submitted to the COUncil, which voiced objections to the UD. *Wrltten hlstllllany w.s suhlllltt.d Inta the ,gllUc: rec:ard. Public H..rlnG Claud: 8:01 p.lII. oty Attorney Mike Franellasked to examine the documents submitted by Mr. Bullock. Mr. Olson clarlned the maximum cost per unit Is capped at $4,911. In regards to Mr. Eadie's concem, he danfled the design would match the driveway to the paved street: and they would excavate If necessary. Abshlntlan.. c:anfllds af rm...... b Part. c:ant.a Councilor SlIblger, Amarotlco, Jackson and Chapman declared site visits. COundlor Hartzell Questioned If coming In late would disallow her partiCipation In this decISion. Mr. Franell stated It might not be necessary to make that determination and requested time to review Mr. Bullock's documents. C:agndl D.........tlan Mr. Olson darlfled the storm drain systems of the surrounding area for COuncil. He also commented on the estimated assessment and darlned that staff estimated high In order to compensate for IncreaSing construction costs and stated It Is Impossible to make a precise estimate without it nnal desl(jn. It was Questioned If concrete could be usecllnstead of asphalt. Mr. Olson stated that this has never been done before and explained concrete WOUld be expenSive and dttncult to maintain. Mr. Olson clarified In the event the project costs exceed the estimate, the property owners could not be assessed an additional 1~ because of the cap. Mr. Franell completed his review of the submitted INter1a1s and explained that more than 2/3 of the property owners have objected to the UD and this constitutes a legal remonstrance. He said pursuant to the Ashland Munldpal COde the COundl cannot move rorward with this UD for at least six months. Mr. Franell provided an explanatton of how he determined this to be an etl'ectlve remonstrance and suggested the COuncil move on to the next agenda Item. He also clarified that Ashland Municipal Code 13.20.050(c) allows for a property owner to remonstrate against the UD, even If they had previously signed In agreement waiving their right to remonstrate against Improvements. 2. Pultllc .......... ....nll... ......n... ActIon 2001-003.. - AMexatlon, Com""",,,,,, PI.n ..... zen-. Map ~...e froIn '.cbM CMftty _...... .... (...... ...........) .. CIty ., a.IIIatNI ....... ....t (Indtlmtal) 8M ..1 '~:f S/;b/06G{"~~1 http://www.ashland.or.uslAgendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2631 &Pririt=True 7/2412006 )- X, In I City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 4 of7 (~mploym.nt r.r an a~ a..o acre ~ ...... at.... ......... __1_. of Jefh....n Av......, ..m......., .... of.... ...IINH trIIc:b aMI ... of I........ .. Mayor Morrlson read aloud the publIC heartng procedure for IMd use ,,"rings. Publk: ....rln' 0,-. 8140 p..... .......ntllllln., C8nf1le1l. 11II1 Ifttatwd.. Illl Part. Cllllntad Councilor Jackson declared a SIte vlstt and stIted she was present at the Planning Commission meeting when. this planning action was reviewed. Councilor Hartzell noted several months ago she had a conservation with former CIty Administrator Gino Grimaldi regarding a possible OECOD grant. It was clarified the Council previously voted to support the Oty's application on Mr. BramSCher's behalf to receive grant funds from OECDO. Mayor Morrison stated he had visited the current location of Brammo Motor Sports and talked with Mr. Bramscher, however this visit would not afTecl: his ability to remain unbiased. Sta" .__rt Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar explaIned this IS a request for an annexation and zone change for an approximately 8-acre parcel located off Jefferson Avenue. The property Is located within the CIty's Urban Growth Boundary and IIbuts CIty limits on three sides. Mr. Molnar noted that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the future lonlng of the property as a mix of Industrial (M-l) and Employment (E-l) districts. In April, the Planning Commission reviewed and granted the Site Review and Physical Constraints Permit for the creek on the property. Mr. Molnar explained all CIty facilities are available, are a logical extension along Jefferson Avenue, and stated Jefferson would be Improved to Oty street sQnclards. He noted the street width would be reduced where It aosses the creek and rtparlan IIrea, and rather that culvertlng the creek, a bottomless crossing design would be used. Mr. Molnar stated the Planning Commission found by an 8-to-l vote that the application met the land use approval crtterla for annexation and staff recommendS the Council approve the request for annexation. Mr. Molnar submitted four IIddltlonal condltlons from staff and recommended they be Included If the Council chooses to approve this request. Mr. MoInllr clarified the Applicant considered the proposed chllnges to the Riparian Ordinance In their design and are proposing a 20 ft. buffer from the creek bank and a bottomless design for the crossing In order to maintain the natural creek bed. Mr. Molnar stated the crossing design would withstand a 100-year flood and noted the Applicant has Identified approximately 30 trees to add to the riparian area. .lIlCant C..... ....msc...../7U. H....way ../Explalned his business Is growing rapidly and stated he would like to keep this business and jobs In Ashland. He stated his buslness provides a high range of jobs and explained he Is working with Rogue Community College and has utilIZed State funds In order to train local residents. He explained his business sales are prtmarilv done over the Internet; however they clo-have customers who come and visit Ashland. Mr. Bramseher requested Council's approval and stated If he cannot get this approved, he will be forced to move his buslness out of Ashland IInd does not want to do this. Gary capem./..tzer ~"n/Explalned that he IS part of the design team for this projeCt and stated the design would alleviate the circulation problems on Jef'ferson Avenue. He added thIS project seems like an obvious addition to the Oty. Mr. Bramsher noted he supports the four IIddltlonal conditions proposed by sQff. Councilor Jacbon/ Am.rotIco mI. to extend public ....rlnl to .:30 p.m. Th_ W....lna to Pre"..._ T---y Aaron ....JIImln/740 ~mll"'nt Creek Road/Stilted this Is a wonderful opportunity for the CIty to add new jobs to Ashland and Sb'engthen the CIty's economIC base, but urged the Council to consider the Impact this annexation will have on the City's work force hOUsing Inventory. lIIIul by/1Z34 ....wbeny Lane/Voiced his support for this request and stated the technlCllllntelllgence of the community will be benetlted from this project. He stlted thIS would be a wonderful asset to the community and commented on the work habits and work env~ronment of this company. Mr. Kay voiced hIS support for the Brammo proposal and stated he sees no reason not to approve It. .." .~.... Mr. Molnar cIarlfted the zoning allows for a housing overtay, however neither the ApplICant nor sQff are proposing an overlay at this tlme. ~~ ~:J/I% &u7'<Yt http://www.ashland.or.us!Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2631 &Print=True 7/24/2006 . City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page S of? ADDIIalnt'. ....uttal Mr. 8nImscher stated that the hOUSIng Issue Is I concern tor him IS well and noted he has employees who wlnt to move to Ashlanc:l. He noted he had considered addressing this on the El portion of the parcel, however did not want to cause delays In the application process by requesting a resldentlll overlly. Mr. Ilramscher ItIted this Is something he would consider and stated there are other pieces of land he hes considered Icqulrtng for- employee hoUSIng. He explained the philosophy of the business and noted they are exploring an electric version of their vehicle. He stated this business could bring notoriety to Ashland and noted that GM had recently visited their manufacturing pllnt. Pulllle H_rllIl' e......: .:10 p.m. Councilor Chapman requested a formal way to evaluate the cost/beneflt analysis for annexatIOns; however stated In this case It Is clear this Is. benefit to the Oty. Coundlor Hartzell/Chapman mi. to approve the requ.. for Annox8tlon, Zone Challl" allld withdrawal from Jack_n County Rural III,. DIstrtc:t 5 of an approximately 8.43-acro parcellocatod at the ....u.em tormlnu 0' Jeff.,..on Avonue, Immediately north of the railroad tracks and w.. of Intentat. 5; with tho additional condltton. pro....... by tho mfr. Roll Call Vot.: Councilor Harduty, Amarotlco, Hartzoll, Jackson, 51lblg.r and Chapman, YD. Motton PI.Md. puaLlc PORUM AmbaJa ROHn/Commented on a possible tethering ordinance and asked that the City adopt an ordinance of thelr own. She provided a recap of what she discussed at the previous Council meetings and shared an experience she had with a chained animal at Emlgrllnt Lake. She stated that chained dogs are a blight on Ashland's landscape and explained why she Is campaigning for this ordinance. .lIIlm....on/.O IIIfth Street/Requested he be given time on a future agenda to discuss the Downtown Plaza Area Plan and Items that were not completed. He stated that only a portion of the design was Implemented and many problems the Oty now ~es regarding the Plaza area are a result of this not being completed. Mayor Morrison suggested that Mr. Emerson contact hIm to discuss his request. Tracy Hardlnl/334 arlel,. ...../COmmented on the success of the Bike Swap and noted the money raised WOUld be used for bicycle education. She suggested the Ashland Police Department consider having more omcers on bicycles and commented on the Walking Wednesday program at Walker Elementary. NI!!W AND MIst:II!:LLANI!!OUS .U.IN~ 1. interim Pollee Clllef Contralct. Councilor Hardesty stated he would have preferTed to have been provided with more Information. Mayor Morrison commented on the process and explained that a selectton committee, which Included two councilors, was formed and Interviewed the three candidates for Interim police chief'. He stated the CIty needs to have an Interim chief In place while the search for the permanent replacement Is conducted. Mayor Morrison explained why Mr. Goodpastor was selected and commented on his experience as a successful chief and the communlty-pollclng program he established In Tlg.rd. Councilor Hartzell VOiced her concern with the laCk of clear direction from the Council on where the Police Department needs to be headed. She requested strong communication on behalf of the Mayor regarding a plan and a tlmellne for how to move forward with hiring a permanent police chief' and expressed her Interest In participating In this process. She also requested that the Mayor not accept Mr. Goodpastor's offer to assist In selecting the permanent replacement. Mayor Morrison clarified that both Councilor Hartzell and SlIblger were part of the selection committee, and stated this process was done openly. He explained why Mr. Goodpastor was the best fit of the three and requested Councils approval of this appointment. He added the CIty would have an open process Involving the community for selecting the permanent replacement. COuncilor Jaebon/Sllb"'r m/8 to .ccept the rocom......datlon of the Selection Committee to appoint Ronald 8oodpntor .. Interim Pollee CllIat. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell briefly commented on her request for open communication as this Issue moves forward. Mayor Morrison cIIrff1ed that candidate resumes are conflclentlal, but are always available for viewing by the Council through the Personnel Deplrtment. Ron Call VOU: Coundlor Hardefty, Am.rotlco, Jackson, SlIb..... and CIIapman, Y!S. Councilor Hartzell, NO. MotIon Plued 1-1. Mr. Tuneberg commented on the Items remaining on the agenda and the amount of time left In the meetlng. 2. Adoption of IIIndlnp for Planning Action 2001-00011 - Rur Yard VarlanQl for the Property Locatedltt 758 . Street. Interim Community Development Director BIll Molnar explained this Is the adoption of the findings for the Council's denial of a rear yard variance for the property located at 758 8 Street, applICant PhIlip Lang. He noted the Public Hearing was held on April 18, 2006 and additional deliberations on May 2, 2006 where the Council found the application did not meet the approval CrIteria for the variance. Staff recommends the Council adopt the findIngs are presented. http://www.ashland.or.us!Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2631 &Print=Troe 7/24/2006 City of AShland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes Page 6of7 Counctlor Amlrotlco requested he be allowed to abstain from voting on the FIndings, since he did not vote on the planning actIOn. Councilor J.cIceon/..I.....r mi. to .11ow Coundlor Am.rotlelo to .....In from the vote. Voice Vote: Coundlor J.cIceon, SUblger .nd Ch.pm.n, v--. Councilor H.rdedr, NO. Coundlor IMrtzell was out of the room. Motion P.._ 3-1. Councilor J.cIcson/C.........n mi. to adopt the Plndln.. for ....nnlng Action 2001-000I.. Roll ClII Vote: Coundlor H.rtzell, JlcIcson, SI_.r .nd Ch.pm.n, VI!S. Coundlor H.rd.-ty, NO. Coundlor Am.rotIco, Abstained. Motion PI..... 4-1. O.DINANCIS. .I!IIOl.UnON. AND CONTIlACTS I. R..dlnl by title only of, .."" Ordln.nce Am.ndlnl the A8h1.nd Munldpal Cod. R.latlng to au.ln... Ucen... Amending Ch.... 6.04 s.ctIon. ..04.080, 6.04.01tO, 6.04.120 .nd 6.04.130". Admlnlstnltlve Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained this Is an update to the ordinance for business licenses. He requested Coundl's approval and stated this amendment would provide sumclent funds to cover the work that Is being clone and WOUld also proYlde continuing Information on employment statistics. Mr. Tuneberg darlflecl the Oty uses an honor system regarding the employee counts listed by bUSInesses. He stated the Oty does not have enough statl' to go out and perform audits, however they are considering utilizing the audit ftrm to do samplings. He darlned the amendment would help to cover the Oty's costs of administering the program and stated the Inherent purpose of the program Is to regulate business within the community. Councilor H.rtzell/ Amlrotlco mi. to IPProV. first ,.Idlng and move to second readlnl of ordlnlnce. Ron e.'1 Vote: Coundlor H.rdesty, Amarotlco, H.rtz.II, Chapman, Sllbll.r, YES. Coundlor Jadeson w.. out 0' the room. Motion PI'" 5-0. 2. R..dln, by title only 0', "A Resolution Authorizing the A....ndm.nt of the PI,. Protection Plan. .evlew and In.pectIon Fee SChHule Adopted by Resolution 05-30". Oty Attorney Mike Franell explained that In reviewing the codes, starr recognIzed the current ALUa has the partition section In a separate section from subdiviSIons, and starr has brought forward this resolution to add the review of partition plats as something that a ftre review fee cen be administered on. Mr. Franell noted a correction that needed to be made to the proposed resolutton, and stated It Is missing SectIon 2, which would read "This resolutton shall be etl'ectlve upon signing by the Mayor. _ Staffs recommendation Is to adopt the resolution as amended. Councilor Hartzell/Jack..n mi. to adopt ....,ut,on .2001-09.. .mend_. Roll Call Vote: Councilor H.rdeIty, Amarotlco, Hartzell, Jacbon, IIlbI,er and Ch.pm.n, VIS. Motion P...... 6-0. 3. Authortzatlon to Dlspo.. of SurpJua Property In Ixceu of $10,000. Administrative Services DIrector Lee Tuneberg noted this Item was postponed at the last Coundl Meeting due to time constraints. He explained the requirement that states If the property has a residual value greater than $10,000, the Oty Coundl's authortzatlon Is required. Mr. Tuneberg noted the total value of this surplus property Is just under that amount and requested Council's approval to dIspose of the surplus property. Mr. Tuneberg c1arined the Items listed as -miscellaneous computer equipment- do not have much value and would require repairs to get them In working order. Several suggestions were made regarding the disposal of the computer equipment, Including donating It to the senior Program or hurricane stricken areas, or giving It to a recydlng nrm In Phoenix. CouncIlor Jaclcaon/H.rtzell mi. to .pprove the dlspo..' of .urplu. property. Voice Vote: .11 AnS. Motion Paned. NI!W AND MISCI!LLANIOUS BUSINUS (Cont.) 2. ALUO 1.....050 Interpretation. Oty Attorney Mike Franell explained this Issue arose when a proposed project In the downtown area took advantage of a peculiarity In the code regarding setbadts. He explained 18.68.050 provides for a special setback along arterials and dlvkles the arterials Into two categories. For the two named arterials (East Main Street between City limits and Uthla Way, and Ashland Street between Oty limits and Siskiyou Boulevard), there Is a setback that Is proYlded from the centerline or the road In whICh a person cannot build. All the other arterials fall under a second category and the code states front yards for properties abutting aU arteria' streets shall be no less than 20 ft. with the exception or C-l-D district. Mr. Franell commented on the deftnltlon of "front yard- and stated 18.08.420 provides that In the case of an Interior lot, the lot line 5eP8f'ltlng the lot from the street other than an alley Is the front Yllrd. A comer lot shall have one street line c:onsIcIered the front lot line and the narrower street frontage shall be the front lot line expect when the Stlrr Advisor determines topographical or access problems make such a designation Impractltal. Mr. Franell explained there Is the provision for the StatI' Advisor to make an exception If they determine topographical or access problems exist, however the code does not Indicate whether the -access problem" IS vehicular or pedestr1an. He noted the Transpon.tton System P1en Indicates that vehicular access should be on the lesser traveled road Where possible. Mr. Franell clerlfled for Council they are not making an Interpretation SPeclftcallV to the parcel mentioned lbove; the Interpretation would be applicable tD all properties that fall under this section of the code. He commented that LUBA would likely determine there http://www.ashland.or.uslAgendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2631 &Print=True 7/24/2006 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agf'!l1das And Minutes Page 70f7 was an Intent for USIng the tenn "front yard- when bllklng Ibout the rlOftooMmed .,...,...Is.. this term Is not uSed In the named llrternlls. Mr. Franellltated If the current language does not Ia:OmpIIsh the Intent of the Council, they should direct starr to prepare an ordinance amendment that would .ccompllsh the Intent. Comment was mllde that the yard facing the arterhll should be contIclered the front yard. Mr. Franell stated this could be, although the natural reading or the ordinance does not lend ttseIf to this conclusion. Mr. Franell notecIlf .n application ceme In before manges .re miele, they would hfte to Interpret wMt the ordinance currently me.ns. He also darlfled tor COlIndl that Option 3 listed under potential motions In the CounCIl CGmmunleetion would 8ddress the Issue; however CounCIl would need to darlfy whether the Interpretlltlon refers to commercial properties, resIdentIll properties, or In properties. Councilor J.cbon/.......... mI. to exnnd m....n. to 10:30 p.m. Colin .w....,..1 AlllaDn ...../Sh.red hIs concem of an .ppllCetlon coming through before this Issue Is resolved. He commented on the v.rylng SIdewalk wlclths .Iong Uthla w.y and how this are. Is substandard. Mr. Sw.les noted the recommendattons COnbllned In the SIegel Report regarding Uthla W.y and stated It would be fair to future development projects If this were made de.r. Ron RotII/"1O Old II ./Stated the real question Is what should h.ppen on the north side of Uthla Way. Mr. Roth questIOned Why this language does not apply to old buildings (such as the Post Otnce) and why the new Fire Stlitlon does not have. 20 l't. setback. He offered his suggestion that Uthla Way should not have a setback. John Flelels/841 O.k StnNIt/Commented on the dlmculty In answe~ng this Issue and stated th.t piece meal decJslons can create connlCt and further complicate the Issue. He stated the language Is better being unclear and stated this was an Irresolvable dedslon. He stated the Council could make the language consistent, but does not believe thIS would satiSfy the 1988 Downtown Plan. CounCIl discussed their options and comment was made voiCIng support for making an Interpretation so this problem does not arise In the downtown area again. Comment was made noting that modifying the ordinance would take longer than making an Interpretation. Statement was made that following Optton 3 would reinforce the Intent of the language until an ordinance change could be made. Councilor Hartzell/Amarotlco mI. thllt the Counclllnhrpret ALUO 18.08.4:10 I. referring to peclesb'lan aecu. for all propertl.. when the property I. on . comer lot with one atrHt belnl an .rterial .nd thllt co_latent with downtown ......n. stand...... .11 comer lots In the downtown overt., ..... which .It .dJacent to .n .rterlal street ....N have the front lot line .Iong the .rterlal stnlet. DISCUUIONI COUncilor Hartzell noted that "and" Is Included In the motion and feels this en'ectlvely separates the two statements. Roll Cal' Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Amarotlco, Hartze", and 511......., VIS. Councilor JHbon and Chapm.n, NO. Motion P....d 4-2. Councilor Hartzell/H.rdesty mI. to continue thl. meetl"l to Thund." Ma, 18, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. to dlscu.. the Downtown Plan Update .nd the Request from Councilor Hartzell to dlscu.. the PropoAI for P.rk Malnten.nce of School Dllltrlct PI.yground.. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell noted both Items are budget related and would like to address them prior to the Budget Committee meeting. Roll Call Vote: Councilor H.rdesty, Am.rottco, Hartzell, Jackson, SlIb"er .nd Chapman, YIS. Motion PaSHcf. 3. Downtown Plan - Ph... 1 Council UpcI.te. Continued to May 18, 2006 COUncil Meeting. OTH~. .USIN~ '.OM mUNCIL MI!M.I!RS/R~PO.TS JlROM COUNCIL U&UftNS 1. Request from CouncHor Hartzell to dlScu.. propoul tor Park mainten.nce of Scheol DllItrIct PIay,rounds. Continued to May 18, 2006 COUncil Meeting. AD.JOURNM~NT Meeting was adJoumed at 10:30 p.m. April Lucas, As$~nt to CIty Recorder John W. HorrIson, HIIyor End of Document - Back to TDn http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2631 &Print=True 7/24/2006 CITY OF ASHLAND July 24, 2006 Craig Bl'8D1SCher 7118 Highway 66 Ashland. OR 97S20 RE: Planni"g Action #2006-00366 Dear Mr. Bramschcr: At its meeting of May 16, 2006, the Ashland City Council approved your request for an Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change, for the property located on 1efferson Avenue, Assessor's Map # 39 IE 14 A, Tax Lot 1104. The Findn,gs, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted by the Council on July 19, 2006, is enclosed. Please note the fOIlO~ circl~ems: 1. A final map prepared by a rcgista'cd surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminvy approval; othelWise, approVal becomes invalid. 2. A fiDaI plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomcsinvalid. @ All oftbc conditions imposed by the Ashland City Council must be fully met. ~) Ashland City Council 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-S30S if you have any questions. Interim Planni"g Direction EncloSUl'C cc: Gary Capema, Batzer ConstructiOn, 190 N. Rosa Lane, Medford, OR 97S01 Aaron Beqj~ 740 Emigrant Creek Road, A_hlantl, OR 97S20 Paul Kay. 1234 Stmwbcrry Lane, A_hland, OR 97S20 DEPT.CIF~DEW.UlrEIT 2OE. MIIn... AINInd, 0IIg0n 17520 -.IIhIInd.or... Tel: 541-48WD Fill: 541~.a1158 TTV: 8CJO.135.aOO ,., BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Jackson County, Oregon May 16,2006 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-00366, Request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel located on Jefferson Ave. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS APPLICANT: Craig Bramscher RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 1104 of391E 14A is located at the southern terminus of Jefferson Avenue, immediately north or and adjacent to the railroad tracks and west ofInterstate 5. 2) The applicant is requesting Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel. The application is to develop a specialty automobile design, research and fabrication and assembly campus in phases. 3) An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria described in 18.106.030- Approval Standards. A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this Ashland Council Findings PA 2006-00366 June 20th, 2006 Page lof6 section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or Ashland Council Findings PA 2006-00366 June 20th, 2006 Page 2 of6 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997; ORD 2895, 2003) 4) The Ashland City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on May 16,2006, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Council approved the application for Annexation subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development ofthe site. Now, therefore, City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS Ashland Council Findings PA 2006-00366 June 20th, 2006 Page 3 of6 F or 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, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The City Council finds that the proposed Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-l (Industrial) and E-l (Employment) for an approximately 8.43-acre parcel meets the approval criteria for an Annexation as described 18.108. The property is contiguous to Ashland's city limits as the site is bounded by Ashland's city limits on its west, east and south sides. The proposed zoning is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Designations. Specifically, the portion of the property north of the railroad tracks and south of the Jefferson Avenue street extension will be included within the M-l, Industrial Zoning District, while the portion of the property north of Jefferson Avenue will be included within the E-l, Employment Zoning District. 2.3 The City Council finds that adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Specifically, the preliminary utility plan identifies finds that provisions have been made to adequately serve the project by public facilities. Such public facilities and utilities have been identified on a site plan and discussed in the application's written findings of fact. Specifically, water, sewer, electric and storm drain utilities are currently available in Jefferson Avenue and will be extended in conjunction with the improvements to Jefferson Avenue. Jefferson Avenue will be extended through the property and constructed to City Street Standards, ultimately linking the two existing, improved City Street sections abutting the east and west boundaries of the project site. Full street improvements are proposed, including two travel lanes, on-street parking, curb and gutter, storm drains and public sidewalks. Additionally, a bridge or box culvert will be constructed to span the seasonal creek that bisects to property . Ashland Council Findings PA 2006-00366 June 20th, 2006 Page 4 of6 The final segment of Jefferson Avenue will be constructed to City street standards and extended through the property. This represents the logical routing and completion of the street, ultimately providing a continuous link between its intersections with Washington Street both north and east of the project. The The Council finds that the preliminary bridge or box culvert crossing design will handle flows resulting from a 100-year flood event. Further, the crossing and roadway design will reduce disturbance to the creek and adjacent riparian areas through minimizing the need for large fill slopes normally associated with a standard culvert crossing. The road width at the crossing has been narrowed in order to minimize the overall area of disturbance to the riparian area. The proposed width will comprise two travel lanes and public sidewalks, but curbside, on-street parking will be omitted from this segment of street. 2.4 The City Council finds that a the proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-l or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant has obtained Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request. At its meeting of April 11, 2006, the Planning Commission granted approval of a Site Review, Physical Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards for the construction of the first phase of the project, which includes construction of an industrial building approximately 41,000 square feet in size, parking areas and landscape installation SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the application for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-1 (Employment) for an approximately 8.43- acre parcel 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, the City Council approves Planning Action #2006-00366 with respect to the request for Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning M-1 (Industrial) and E-l (Employment) for an approximately 8.43- acre parcel. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-00366 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That all Planning Commission conditions of approval (P A2006-00366) for Site Review, Physical Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards for the construction of the first phase of the project apply to this decision unless otherwise modified below. Ashland Council Findings PA 2006-00366 June 20th, 2006 Page 5 of6 2. That Talent Irrigation District (TID) facilities be identified on the final civil engineering documents and any changes shall be reviewed by the Talent Irrigation District and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a Building Permit.. 3. That the engineered construction drawings for Jefferson Avenue shall comply with City of Ashland Street Standards including street lights, pavement width and the installation of public sidewalks. Engineered construction drawings for the Jefferson Avenue improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by Ashland Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. The costs associated with the design and installation of street improvements shall be guaranteed through a bond or other means acceptable to the City of Ashland Legal Department. The proposed bridge or box culvert creek crossing shall be engineered and designed to accommodate a I DO-year flood flow. All street improvements shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for a building on the property. That all required street improvements and public utility extensions shall be guaranteed through a bond or other means acceptable to the City of Ashland Legal Department prior to adoption of an ordinance annexing the property. 4. A boundary survey and a written description ofthe property boundaries shall be submitted for review and approval prior to completion of the annexation. 5. That the applicant agrees to construct the project in accordance with the approved plan and City ordinances and waives the right to file a claim under Oregon Statewide Measure 37. The signed waiver shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior to adoption of a ordinance formally annexing the property. Dated: John Morrison, Mayor Ashland Council Findings PA 2006-00366 June 20th, 2006 Page 6 of6 I" ~{1JJt CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Request for Expansion of a Sewer Service to the Willow Wind Educational Facility Meeting Date: December 18,2007 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412 Department: Public Works / Eng' eenng E-Mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will Council approve a special contract to expand the existing sanitary sewer service to serve a proposed building at the Willow Wind Educational Facility at 1497 East Main Street Located outside and the urban growth boundary? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached contract which will expend the existing sanitary sewer service to include an approved barn reconstruction project. Background: The Willow Wind property is located on tax lot 391EIOB-200. The property, owned by the Ashland School District, is outside both the city limits and the urban growth boundary. The 39.83 acre parcel extends from East Main Street northerly approximately 3000 feet. The parcel is bisected by Bear Creek and the Bear Creek trunk sewer line. A 20 foot wide easement was acquired for the trunk sewer in August of 1961 from the previous property owner, Raymond C. Inlow. Although it is not a written stipulation of the easement, it appears to have been common practice in 1961 to offer sewer connections to properties who granted the sewer easements. This appears to be the case with the Willow Wind property as our records indicate that the house was connected to the City sewer system on June 28, 1963 and has been in service since that time. There are several buildings on the property including the house, several accessory buildings and a historic barn, but only the house has been connected to the City sewer system. Previously the properly and buildings functioned for several years as the Waldorf School until it was acquired by the Ashland School District in 2000. The large barn has been unused and since the Willow Wind Educational Facility lacked space for large group and performance events, the School District in 2004 adopted a plan for the renovation of the barn. The renovation would create, within the barn, a multi-use building and performance auditorium. Conceptual plans for the project have been submitted to and approved by Jackson County Planning and Zoning. Prior to approval of the building permit, Jackson County must have a letter from the City authorizing connection of the new multi-use building to the City sanitary sewer system. Page J of 4 CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc C:\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOCALS-1 \Temp\CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc r~' CITY Of ASHLAND The plan for the new facility includes seven toilets and seven sinks in boys and girls bathrooms, bathrooms in the backstage area and a service sink. Since the everyday use of the facility will be to provide improved space for the existing program and will not increase the number of students, this is primarily an offset usage from current sewer use generated from other parts of Willow Wind Educational Facility. However, the facility will also be available to other schools in the District and to the community as a whole on an occasional basis, so some increased use is anticipated. Since the additional use will be at different hours than the hours of use by the existing program, no increase in the size of the sewer connection should be necessary. The Ashland School District and Willow Winds Faculty are requesting that the multiple use building be connected to the existing sewer lateral that currently services the house (school). Charles Greenwood PE has computed the potential sewage flow from the multi-use building and has determined that it could be connected to the existing house service without detriment to either structure (see attached letter of October 30, 2006). If such connection were authorized by Council, there would be no sewer connection fee since this would not constitute a new service, only an expansion of the existing service, and no work would be required of public works crews. Sanitary sewer system development fees would however be applicable as a function of the plumbing permit. Based upon the estimated number of fixture units for the multi-use building, the SDC fees would be approximately $1,540.00. Related City Policies: The Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.031 states that "Premises located outside the urban growth boundary may be connected to the Ashland Sewer System when such connection is determined by the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City and to not be detrimental to the City's sewage facilities." DLCD also provides regulations on how properties outside an urban growth may be connected under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-011-0060. DLCD has interpreted this section by stating that it is NOT a violation of OAR 660-011-0060 to extend that sewer to an additional building on that parcel of land, so long as the parcel is not subsequently partitioned because of the availability of sewer. Sewer service may be provided to the multi-use building upon such terms and conditions as the council deems appropriate, but only after the Council makes a determination that such connection is in the best interest of the City. Under AMC 14.08.031 the City has two options for authorizing connection outside the City limits and urban growth boundary. The first, listed as Option A, assumes that the property is connected to a septic system which is failing or has failed. Option B is more applicable to this situation and states that the City may provide sewer service outside the urban growth boundary by special contract under such terms and conditions the Council may deem appropriate. The attached contract, which has been reviewed by our legal department as well as by the school district, addresses all of the applicable issues listed under AMC 14.08.031 Option A including: a. service to buildings in place prior to 1973; b. service does not require an extension of a sewer main; c. facilities to be served are for school purposes and will remain so as long as the school operates; d. the district agrees to pay SDC fees and monthly sewer service charges; Page 2 of 4 CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc C:\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOC ALS-l \Temp\CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc r~' CITY Of ASHLAND e. future expansion or development will only be allowed by written authorization of the City Council. Council Options: · Council may deny the request for an expansion of the existing sewer service to the Willow Wind Educational Facility, or; · Council may approve the contract as presented to provide an expansion of the present sanitary sewer service to the barn restoration project, or; · Council may approve a modified contract to provide an expansion of the present sanitary sewer service to the barn restoration project. Potential Motions: Council may move to deny the request to expand sewer serve to the barn restoration project. Council may move to approve or modify the attached special contract to expand sewer service to the barn restoration project. Attachments: Photos Vicinity Map Letter from Greenwood Engineering Copy of the Barn Restoration Project Plans Draft Contract Page 3 of 4 CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc C:\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOC ALS-l \Temp\CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc r., CITY OF ASHLAND Page 4 of 4 CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc C:\DOCUME-I \shipletd\LOC ALS-] \Temp\CC Willow Wind Sewer Connect 18Dec07.doc r~' Ot' Y.z~ o-<~ >- ..J ~ I- .,. ~ -.-z uV)u <t> ~ t- V) <Cl~ u,..Z< 0~::E Z~uj Oof' Ci5-J~ Z...:l- <-@j ~~>< ~t-~ Z~...:l <uu ~-< o:>-u.. u..ffi...:l t-cn< f'z3.vZ ~~g g~~ ~~u V)~ fiJ l/l Z -<.iiiii( .91 ~ ~~g~ LO S!" ~ Q) ,.... '" '< 0 ~~~~ .S! ~"Il'ilil 0 0 ~~~ LO 6ii:~~ N LO II 0 J::. 0 .S I ~ Ql ; c: LO 0: :. ~ 0 C\I ~ ..: I I 0 lli: 0 S (j to. 0 ~ ~ ;Y/WYIUX'Od' ff:1PVUX0Vr;P P.O. BOX 1571, CAVE JUNCTION, OREGON 97523, (541) 592-4100 Jim Olson Director of Public Works City Of Ashland Ashland, Oregon 97520 30 October 2006 RE: Willow Wind Barn Proiect Sewer Connection Dear Mr. Olson: The restored Willow Wind Barn, as modified for function as a School Assembly Facility, will contain seven standard flush toilets, six single sinks (including two floor mounted janitor's sinks) and one double sink in the service room. The present facility totals nine flush toilets, one bath tub and eleven sinks. As the Barn Facility will be used instead of the other campus buildings, the total fixture count essentially remains constant - either the fixtures in the main and satellite buildings are in use OR the fixtures in the Barn will be in use. This is true for the vast majority of time, except when there will be some overlap activities. However, no major event will take place in the Barn at the same time school is in session. Thus, while it is possible that some flow will originate at the same time from both the Barn and the other Campus fixtures, the total flow rate into the drain system will not exceed present usage. Surge flow from large crowds (199 maximum occupancy) at the Barn are limited to the combined flow rates of all toilet fixtures in operation, estimated not to exceed fifteen gallons per minute total flow for up to thirty minutes in duration. Plumbing Specifications are found on Sheets P-l and P-2 of the Construction Drawings. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, d j~ V~' / ? I - 1:r~~ /. . ~~ , Charles S. Greenwood, P.E. ~ . -~ I 8i~ ~-~ ~;i r ~ I · .... il <:( ~ ~! .... ....I W z. g' ~ ::J: I~ ! .... ~ . t i- ~ I z c( (.,) ::J ri~~ Q., ~~w 0.. t 6~ < lII1:f ~ ~- J m i~ ~t'- C W ~~~~ 1= l: ~z iE . ~z~ 1&I~ ~~ 5 ~3~ ~ 15w m ~w ' ~ \ j ~~ ::) ,,~ . I- - tn \:'~ : <( ~ ~- : ----......~ 3l - " i~~~ ~b ~'i~~ Zc ~ ~ ~ B ~ .... <:( ru ....I w w I- ~ 'i ~') ~ L5 ~ ~ ~ Q >- ~ ~ ~ z ~t'"- ~l:)~~z w~~~~ ~"'~~~ --- / 'rJ .... " " " :~ :F= !~ + _ ---+ ILl ::t () 3 '1- $J ill ~ I ~11, '-1. ~ ~ Gj id I- : III ILl :I: . ~ .. ~i~ !i~ f I~ ~~ I I, ~ ~ I ~~~ i~h tf iJ iQ~~ ~~ jx Ii ~ :I ~~ !!! ~H~ ~ 'i1 $I ~ h~ ~ ~.J ... " i- Z <( (.) ::i 0.. a., <C >- m c w 1= :E co ::) en; ~ ~ e .. ~ '0 ~ 0- g ~ :; " u rr--- " . n " n II H ,I II II " ,I II " . . n ., . " II 11 II " II " II II II II . ~ = " . " . ,I . II '.A II II ,I II II " ,I . ,I H II U II II II II ,I , .1 If ~ :~U~ ,I . " . ,I . " . = : '" = " .. r. f: :~ II w- -,. Ii .,--11 ~ ::: :~r II tt:-~ ~ u"_: J'j_ ~ I ~ I .. i f j f ~ t--------- I ~ " " .. " " " " _____..1__ .eiols ~~~!i _1 !:! ~il~ ~i~ " " " " " " II::~ ~! :~ .." ~~ii 1'~ \; I ~ : 1i - I ~1: " , ~: I e: I ~: I ~, ~ I '-!!(l L ~~~ ! iS~ .. I I L l-- ~ ~ ~ .. " " : ~ ==========*=::::::::::- - - : ~ :: '~b " , .1 II I ~ It '~ " I II I II I II I II I " I II I II " I ----:t-~- I II ' I f. I I " i · I It I I II f , " 0 I : ::t- ~5 '" h. : :: ~ ~ Ll I " ~ ' : t f II is , I _============~=::=====__ ~ ! ., ., " :: ; " ~ 1'~ :: g :: " " " " ; '! ~ ~ ;,~~ 1 t " U~ ~ .' " ,(~ ~ 5 " " .;.......~ " " I ~ I ..~ I ~ I .. , I , ~ ~i5 I; I tU i=l, ; ~ ~ :i ! 'Ii i Ir ~ ,0- /:i ,~ 1:- I" ~ -J-~- ,; l~ 'i Ow t: 'i I~B ~ \" ~" t t: ~ i ~I~ ~~ ~ " " " " " 1 " . I -T------- ~ ; ~-~-~1I--~~~ ~~ ~ l-- ~ '-!! '0- )jl!! 1;\ -; ~ "'t: h~ ~fi ~ f It I; I Ii j I- Z IS i~ c( U ~~8~ :J a.. i~~~ D.. Ill, <&: >- m 3: !I~ 0 ~~I:! w ~ ~h :IE ~ co ~ 00 en 11 ~ 11 i I ~ II .. " SPECIAL CONTRACT TO EXPAND EXISTING SEWER SERVICES This Agreement is made this day of , 2008, between the City of Ashland, Oregon ("City), and Jackson County School District No.5, aka Ashland School District ("District"). Recitals: A. District owns real property located outside the City's Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") described on attached Exhibit "A" (the "Property"). B. In approximately 1963, a City main sewer line was installed across the Property, and the Property has been connected to City sewer services ever since. C. The Property is currently occupied by the Willow Wind educational facility, which is part of the Ashland School District. Prior to its purchase by the District, it was occupied by a private school facility which also used City sewer services. D. District desires to extend the existing sewer line on the Property to serve new fixtures it wants to include in a Barn Restoration Project on the Property. The Barn Restoration Project is currently approved by Jackson County, with conditions found in file number SIT 2005- 000 17. One of the County conditions of approval is that the City formally approve extension of the existing sewer line to serve the Barn Restoration Project. E. AMC Chapter 14, Section 14.08.031, Paragraph B (Ord 2704, 1993) allows the City Council to provide sewer service outside the UGB by special contract, under such terms and conditions as the Council deems appropriate when such connection is in the best interest of the City. At a City Council meeting on December 18, 2007, the City Council made the following Findings with respect to the District's request for an extension of the existing sewer line to serve the Barn Restoration Project: E.I.) A City main sewer line was installed across the subject Property sometime in the early 1960's. The exact date is unknown, but the City's Public Works Department believes it was in approximately 1963. The Property has been connected to the City's sewer system since that time. No new sewer will be added or extended to serve the Property as a result of this Agreement. E.2.) The exact date of construction of the Barn to be served by the extension is not known, but the Barn and all other buildings on the Property were completed and existing well before July I, 1973. E.3.) As determined by Jackson County in its approval of the Barn Restoration Project, there are no existing sewage systems on the Property except for the City's sewer line, service lateral and the extension of this lateral by the Page I of 4 - Special Contract to Expand Existing Sewer Services District does not conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, support documents, rules or regulations. EA.) The Barn Restoration Project will become part of the AsWand School District's Willow Wind educational facility. It will be used for educational purposes in conjunction with the Willow Wind program, and will also be available to the community for use when the Willow Wind program is not in operation. E.5.) The proposed extension of an existing sewer service line will not create a significant increase on the City's sewer services, and will not be detrimental to the City's sewage facilities. E.6.) The District has agreed by contract not to expand the use of the proposed extension to additional development without written permission from the City, thereby ensuring that the City's sewer facilities will not be impacted by additional development or a change in use without the City's knowledge and permission. E.7.) Based upon the above Findings and the provisions of the Special Contract, the City finds that an extension of an existing City sewer service line as proposed will be in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 1. SDC Charges. District agrees to pay the sanitary sewer Systems Development Charges ("SDC Charges") established by the City Council. 2. Use and Benefit. The extension of the sewer line shall be solely for the use and benefit of the Barn Restoration Project. Should use of the Property change in the future, the owner must reapply to the City to approve the continued use of the extended sewer service line for a different use. 3. Future Expansion. This Agreement shall not prevent District from expanding its facilities on the subject Property for purposes of public or private school uses, in conformance with Jackson County land development and zoning requirements. However, any further extension of the City sewer line, or additional sewer connections, must be approved in writing by the City at the time the owner makes an application to Jackson County for a project which involves additional sewer connections or extensions. 4. Further Development. City acknowledges that the Property may be further developed, subdivided, or partitioned as allowed under Jackson County land use and zoning regulations, provided that in no event shall a higher density of residential development take place than would be authorized without the presence of the City sewer system's connection, and provided further that the City sewer line on the Property shall not be extended to serve additional properties or development without the written consent of the City. Page 2 of 4 - Special Contract to Expand Existing Sewer Services 5. Payment for Service. The City shall bill District for providing sewer services in accordance with the City's standard requirements, and District shall pay all such billings timely. If a bill is not paid by the next billing date, a notice complying with the then-current regulations for utility services shall be given stating that service will be disconnected if the bill is not paid by the date specified. 6. Terms of Service. a.) District shall comply with all ordinances of City related to sewer service and use. City shall have the right to terminate service for failure to comply with such ordinances upon ten (10) days notice to District. b.) Failure to pay charges when due shall automatically become a lien upon the Property. c.) A memorandum of this Agreement shall be recorded in the County Deed Records, with the cost of recording to be paid by District. d.) In the event District buildings legally connected to the City sewer system are subsequently replaced for any reason, the replacement buildings may continue to be connected to the sewer system of City without further agreement, as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works.. 7. Default. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. There shall be a default under this Agreement if either party fails to perform any act or obligation required of that party by this Agreement. a.) Before declaring a breach of this Agreement, the party claiming a failure has occurred shall give written notice to the other party specifying the nature of the breach with reasonable particularity. No default shall occur if the breach is remedied within ten (10) days after the notice is given. b.) If the breach specified in the notice is of such a nature that a remedy cannot be completely performed within the ten (1 O)-day period, no default shall occur if the party receiving the notice begins performance of the act or obligation within the ten (IO)-day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable. c.) If substantially the same breach for which notice was given recurs within six (6) months, the party injured by such breach may declare a default by giving written notice to the other party specifying the nature of the breach. 8. Remedies. In addition to the remedies specified elsewhere in this Agreement, if a default occurs, the party damaged by the default may elect to terminate this Agreement and pursue any equitable or legal rights and remedies available under Oregon law. Page 3 of 4 - Special Contract to Expand Existing Sewer Services JACKSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.5, AKA ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT By: JuIi Di Chiro Its: Superintendent Dated: CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON By: Martha Bennett Its: City Administrator Dated: Page 4 of 4 - Special Contract to Expand Existing Sewer Services CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Resolution Establishing a Public Records Policy December 18, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen City Recorder E-Mail: christeb(ci::ashland.or.us nJa Secondary Contact: nJa Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to approve a resolution establishing a Public Records Policy? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution establishing a policy for records request. Background: Senate Bill 554 - Public Records Requests becomes effective January 1,2008 and requires a city to respond in writing to a public records request in as timely a manner as possible. The written response must formally acknowledge the receipt of the request and include at least one of the following: · A statement that the public body is not in possession of the requested records; . A request from the public body clarifying the request; . Copies of the requested records; · A statement that the public body is in possession of at least some of the requested records, the amount of time the public body needs before the records will be available to the requestor and a cost estimate for providing the records; · A statement that the public body is uncertain if it is in possession of the records and the amount of time the public body needs to search for the records; or · A statement that the public records are exempted from public disclosure under state and federal law. Additionally, the public body is required to publish a written procedure for public records requests that includes the name or names of persons that public records requests may be submitted to, the fees associated with public records, and the manner of their calculation. This policy reflects and expands the procedure that is currently being demonstrated by staff when requests for records are received. Related City Policies: City policy is to be in compliance with all state and federal laws in regards to public records requests. Council Options: Approve or propose amendments to the attached resolution. Potential Motions: The Council moves to approve the resolution establishing a Public Records Policy. Attachments: Resolution Page] of] r., RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC RECORDS POLICY SECTION 1. According to ORS 192.420, every person has the right to inspect non- exempt public records of the City of Ashland subject to reasonable procedures. The City of Ashland recognizes and respects the public's right to public documents and the importance of maintaining orderly files to facilitate public access in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The State Attorney General suggests that public bodies establish protective measures to maintain the integrity of public records or to prevent interference with the duties of the records custodians. The State Attorney General recommends there be a process in which the public has an opportunity to comment on these measures. The City of Ashland desires to adopt a policy addressing the procedure for inspection of public records within the City of Ashland. Oregon State Statutes allow for reasonable fees to be calculated in order to reimburse local government costs for providing those records. SECTION 2. 1. The City shall provide proper and reasonable opportunities for inspection and examination of the records during usual business hours.if such request does not interfere with the regular discharge of duties. 2. All requests to inspect public records shall be in writing when practicable with the date, name, address, and signature of the person making the request or sufficient e-mail metadata for the City to make an appropriate response. 3. The request must contain, if known, a statement of sufficient specificity to determine the nature, content, and probable department in which the record is located. 4. The City shall respond to a person who makes a written request for public records as soon as practicable and without unreasonable delay. The response will acknowledge receipt of the request and include one of the following: a. A statement the City does not possess, or is not the custodian of the public record; b. A statement from the City that it needs clarification of the request; c. Copies of all requested public records for which the City does not claim an exemption from disclosure under ORS 192.410 to 192.505; d. A statement that the City is the custodian of at least some of the requested public records, the amount of time the City needs before the records will be available to the requestor, and a cost estimate for providing the records; e. A statement that the City is uncertain if it is in possession of the records and the amount of time the City needs to search for the records; or f. A statement that the public records are exempted from public disclosure under state and federal law. SECTION 3. The City shall not create any new documents or customize any existing documents in response to a records request. However, the City may prepare and release a condensation from a record as permitted under ORS 192.502(9)(b). SECTION 4. If the public record is maintained in a machine readable or electronic form, the City shall provide a copy of the public record in the form requested, if available. If the public record is not available in the form requested, the City shall make the public records available in the form in which it is maintained. SECTION 5. A person making a public record request may personally inspect the requested document during normal business hours. A City staff member shall be present while any original public documents are being inspected to insure protection of the documents. SECTION 6. Providing nonexempt public records is a governmental activity covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The City will provide an opportunity for individuals with disabilities to request an alternative form. SECTION 7. The Legal Department of the City must review the requested document to make certain the record does not contain any exempt information before releasing the public record for inspection. If a document does contain exempt information, a copy, in lieu of the original will be provided for inspection with the exempt portion redacted. The cost of having legal assistance to redact material can be included in the fees charged. SECTION 8. Original public documents may not be taken out of the City's custody. SECTION 9. FEES. a. The City will establish a fee in its annual fee resolution that is reasonably calculated to reimburse the City for the actual cost of making public records available, including locating the requested records, reviewing the records to delete exempt material, supervising a person's inspection of original documents to protect the integrity of the records, summarizing, compiling, or tailoring a record, either in organization of media, to meet the person's request. A rf''lll~ilt taffi is c"tIaordmaryancrwourJsigcifiCan1IYO~ discharge ef duties will be c,hargea.. wlu:ther rapi~s ~r(' 13rovided 01 ~t. The City may charge for search time even it if fails to locate any records responsive to the request or even if the records located are subsequently determined to be exempt from disclosure. Copies of documents provided by a routine file search will be charged at a copy rate established in the annual fee resolution. b. The City may include a fee established to reimburse for the costs of time spent by the city attorney in reviewing the public records, redacting materials from the public records into exempt and nonexempt records. The City fee may also include the cost of time spent by an attorney for the City in determining the application of the provisions of ORS 192.410- 192.505. c. The City may not establish a fee greater than $25 unless the requester is provided with written notification of the estimated amount of the fee and the requestor confirms that he/she wants the City to proceed with making the records available. d. Prepayment shall be required if the amount of the request is greater than $25. If the actual charges are less than the prepayment, any overpayment shall be refunded. SECTION 10. Fee waivers or Reductions a. Copies of public records may be furnished without cost or at a substantial reduction if the City Records Officer determines the waiver is in the public interest because making the record available primarily benefits the general public. (JPr b. The 98i38rtment HelcuI. will review the waiver or reduction request while also considering the requestor's ability to pay and any financial hardship on the City that might arise from granting the waiver based on the following: (1) whether the waiver or reduction is prohibited by laws, (2) whether the waiver meets the public interest test, because making the record available primarily benefits the general public and (3) whether to grant a fee waiver or reduction. c. Copies of routine materials personal to a requestor will be furnished without charge except for police reports. Any non-routine materials requested will be charged at the fee set by City Council resolution. d. Copies of routine materials requested by any Ashland elected official, appointed Commissioner or Committee member will be furnished without charge if the request relates to information needed to act in one's official capacity. Any other materials requested will be charged at the fee set by City Council resolution. e. Routine materials are defined as those items already regularly produced. SECTION 11. The City will annually review the Resolution that adopts Miscellaneous Fees and Charges that includes the amounts and manner of calculating fees that the City charges for responding to requests. SECTION 12. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 13. 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 day of 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Resolution to Establish Fees for Public Records Requests December 18, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us n/a Secondary Contact: n/a Martha Benne Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to approve a resolution to establish fees for Public Records Requests? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution establishing fees for public records requests. Background: The City of Ashland recognizes and respects the public's right to public documents. The City provides public records requests to citizens throughout the year as part of its regular business. Senate Bill 554 - Public Records Requests - Requires public bodies to publish written procedures for public records requests that include fees associated with public records and the manner of their calculation. The City of Ashland established an annual Resolution to review/update and adopt miscellaneous fees and charges where necessary. The fees associated with public records were not included at that time but will be incorporated into the next annual review/update of this resolution for October 2008. This resolution provides for fees associated with records requests by the public, excluding fees associated with record requests for the Police Department. The Police Department fees have previously been established by Resolution 1994-23 and 2007-34. Related City Policies: City policy is to be in compliance with all state and federal laws in regards to public records requests. Council Options: Approve or propose amendments to the attached resolution. Potential Motions: The Council moves to approve the resolution establishing fees for public record requests. Attachments: Resolution Page 1 of I r~' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Ashland recognizes and respects the public's right to public documents. The City provides public records requests to citizens throughout the year as part of its regular city business. SECTION 2. The proposed fees were not included in the annual resolution adopting miscellaneous fees for services. These fees will be reviewed and incorporated into the next annual resolution when updating miscellaneous fees for services. SECTION 3. The fees and charges established by this resolution are based on actual cost for responding to public records requests. Fees associated with records requests for the Police Department are not included in this resolution as they have been established previously by resolution. 1. Copies of Public Records. Standard Black/White letter/legal single-sided Standard Black/White letter/legal double-sided 11 x 17 Black/White single-sided 11 x17 Black/White double-sided $.20 each $.40 each $.40 each $.80 each Standard Color Copies letter/legal single-sided 11 x 17 Color Copies letter/legal double-sided $1.50 each $3.00 each Audio/Video/DVD Recordings $5.00 each Certified Copies $2.00 per page/item 2. Copies of Maps and other Nonstandard Documents: Charges for maps, large documents, shall be charged in accordance with the actual costs incurred by the City to reproduce them. 2. Research Fees: If a requestor of records requires staff to spend more than 30 minutes searching or reviewing records prior to their review or copying, the fee will be as follows: a. Up to 30 minutes b. Over 30 minutes Copy cost only staff hourly rate plus overhead SECTION 4. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. SECTION 13. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was ready by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of ,2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Meeting Date: Department: Secondary Dept.: Approval: Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, Rules of the City Council December 18 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer Administration E-Mail: seltzera@ashland.or.us e Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to adopt the second reading of an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the second reading the ordinance. Background: At the December 4, 2007 City Council meeting the council approved the first reading of an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council. The Council Committee on Rules has met ten times over the past twelve months. The committee reviewed the current language and studied council rules ordinances from other Oregon cities. The group identified areas to expand upon and new language to add. The ordinance reflects the input and the language agreed upon by the group over the past year. Related City Policies: . Article VIII, City Charter Council Options: . Pass second reading of the ordinance as written. . Identify changes to the ordinance and pass second reading. Potential Motions: . I move to approve second reading of an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, Rules of the City Council. . I move to approve second reading of an ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, Rules of the City Council with the identified changes. Attachments: . Ordinance No. An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.04, Rules of the City Council. Page I of I 12 18 07 Council Rules communciation .doc r;., ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 2.04, RULES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Article 8. Section 3 Council Meetings and Rules of the Ashland City Charter provides: The Council shall hold a regular meeting in the City at least once each month at a time and place which it designates. Other meetings may be called as the Council deems necessary, with notice given the Mayor and Council members and the public as provided by ordinance. Minutes of any such special meeting shall be presented at the next regular Council meeting. The Council shall adopt rules for its proceedings. WHEREAS, the City Council has met ten times over the course of one year to amend Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council WHEREAS, the City Council intends to further amend Sections 2.04.090, 2.04.010 and 2.04.020 of the revised Rules of the City Council at a future date, and WHEREAS, the City Council intends with this amendment to replace Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 as set forth below. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined through and additions are underlined. SECTION 1: Section 2.04, Rules of the City Council, s hereby amended to read as follows: 2.04 Rules of City Council Section 2.04.010 The Municipal Charter of the City, Article VIII Section 3, and the Ashland Municipal Code as well as the Oregon Revised Statutes govern many meeting requirements and actions of the Council. AUTHORITY These operating policies and procedures are established and adopted under the authority granted in the Ashland City Charter, Article VIII, Section 3. Section 2.04.020 MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings. 1 The regular sessions of the Council are on the first and third Tuesday of each month unless otherwise arranged, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Meetings are required to end no later than 10:30 p.m. B. Special Meeting. A special meeting may be called either by the Mayor or two members of the Council. Notice of the time and place of such special meeting and the subiects to be acted upon shall be delivered to all members of the Council at least 36 hours in advance of the time of the meeting, except in the case of an emergency, and the Council may consider and act only upon such matters as contained in the notice. C. Study Sessions. The Mayor or two members of the Council may call a study session at any time with 36-hour notice for the purpose of informing members of the Council as to City affairs. Study sessions are held so that Council can confer with staff and other experts on items under consideration that may eventually require official actions. Council may not deliberate towards a decision but can give staff direction to prepare materials for a regular Council meeting. D. Executive Sessions. All meetings of the City Council shall be held in open sessions, except meetings that may be closed for those purposes specified in the Oregon Public Meetings Law (ORS 192.610 to 192.690). These purposes include, but are not limited to, the employment and dismissal of public employees, the performance evaluation of the City Administrator and City Attorney, labor negotiations, real property transaction negotiations, and consulting with legal counsel on pending or threatened litigation. If any Councilors do not feel that an item should be in executive session they should state so in the executive session. Notice of executive sessions shall be given as required by State law and such notice must state the specific provision of law authorizing the session. The Mayor and City Councilors will act in accordance with State law regarding confidentiality of information discussed in Executive Sessions. At the commencement of each executive session, the presiding officer must state on the record that executive session information is confidential and may not be reported. If it does not so specify, the proceedings may be reported. E. Notice of Meetings. Advance notice of at least 36 hours shall be provided for all meetings. Notice shall be sent to a newspaper with general local circulation and posted prominently on the City's Web site. In the case of an emergency or when a state of emergency has been declared, public notice appropriate to the circumstances shall be provided and reasons iustifying the lack of 36-hour notice shall be included in the minutes of such meeting. 2 F. Quorum. As provided in Article VIII, Section 4 of the City Charter, the Mayor and not less than three Councilors, or four Councilors, constitute a quorum. A simple maiority of the quorum present determines the action on any motion, question, ordinance, or resolution. On questions requiring a two-thirds vote of the Council, as provided in the City Charter, there shall be required an affirmative vote of at least four Councilors to exercise any such special powers. If the roll call shows no quorum present, as defined by Section 4 of Article VIII of the City Charter, the Councilors in attendance may direct the Chief of Police to notify the absent members, except those known to be unavoidably detained, that their presence is required to enable the Council to proceed with business. Should any then fail soon to ap?ear, the members present shall adiourn to a date fixed by them and all agenda items will be continued to the next regular meeting. G. Emergency Meeting Procedures and Quorum. The City Administrator is responsible for implementation of the Emergency Management Plan. When the City Administrator determines that a state of emergency exists, the administrator will make a declaration to that effect and request the Mayor to call a special meeting of the Council in order to ratify the declaration of emergency. The special meeting of the Council will occur as soon as possible after the declaration of emergency. A quorum of the Council may not be possible due to emergency circumstances and is not required for the special meeting. Notice of the special meeting can be made in the most expedient manner determined by the Mayor and need not be 36 hours in advance. H. Robert's Rules of Order. Robert's Rules of Order shall be the authority for the government of the Council during its sessions, when not in conflict with the City Charter and these code rules. Failure to strictly follow Robert's Rules of Order shall not be cause to void or otherwise disturb a decision or action of the Council. The Council will strive to be clear in its proceedings. 1. Voting. When a question or motion is put to a vote by the chair, each member present shall vote for or against the motion unless the Council excuses that member from so doing. If thereafter the Mayor or any member calls for a roll call vote, then each member must vote. The Mayor can only vote in the case of a tie, and then is required to vote. J. Reconsidering a Vote. A motion to reconsider a vote can be made only once and at the session at which the motion or matter was adopted, or at the next regular meeting of the Council, provided that no vote to reconsider shall be made after the ordinance, resolution, or act has been officially recorded, filed or transmitted or otherwise gone out of the possession of the Council. 3 K. Council Deliberation. It is the duty of the Mayor or presiding officer to ensure that each Council member has the opportunity to speak. Councilors should ask the Mayor to be recognized. No member shall speak more than once until every member choosing to speak shall have spoken or waived their right to do so. No member shall speak twice on a motion on the floor without leave of the Mayor or presiding officer. Council members speak only for themselves and shall be open, direct and candid. They work to keep discussion moving, and call for a "process check" if the discussion becomes bogged down. Time limits may be set on topics by the Mayor, by the presiding officer, or by a consensus of the Council. L. City Attorney as Parliamentarian. The City Attorney is designated as parliamentarian for the Council. Questions of parliamentary rules may be referred to the City Attorney through the presiding officer for interpretation. The final ruling rests with the presiding officer. Section 2.04.030 AGENDAS The City Administrator is responsible for the preparation of the Council agenda. A. Topics will be added to a Council agenda based on timeliness of the topic and with consideration of the number of items already scheduled for the Council. Matters to be considered by the Council shall be placed on an agenda to be prepared by the City Administrator from the following: 1. All items considered by the Council during study sessions, which require official action from the Council. 2. All items which are required by law or policy to be presented to the Council. 3. All other items that the City Administrator, City Attorney or Mayor present to the Council for action. 4. Items placed on the agenda in accordance with paragraphs Band C of this Section. 5. Requests of City Boards, Commissions, and Committees. B. A Councilor may request that an item prior to initial Council discussion, that does not involve staff time, policy research, or drafting of an ordinance, be placed on the Council's agenda. The Councilor shall notify the City Administrator no later than noon of the Wednesday prior to the Council meeting. The City Administrator shall determine the order of business of the item. The City Administrator may request that the matter be deferred until a later meeting if the agenda of a particular meeting is already lengthy. Council members will endeavor to have subiects and any materials they wish considered submitted prior to finalization of the Council packet. C. A Councilor who desires maior policy research and discussion or drafting of an ordinance should first raise the issue at a meeting under Other Business from Council members prior to more than two hours of any staff time being spent on the issue. The 4 Councilor may also request that the discussion of this item be formally placed on the agenda in accordance with paragraph B of this Section. The Council should consider items in light of City priorities, including adopted City Council Goals, and workload. The Council must agree to proceed with an issue or ordinance before staff time is spent preparing the matter for Council action. The Councilor may present information or a position paper or ask for a department report or committee recommendation. Councilors who agree that staff time can be spent on a particular item are not bound to support the issue when it comes before the Council for a vote. D. Any topic may be added to an agenda by a majority vote of the Councilors present. Generally these items should be limited to items of timeliness or emergencies. E. Postponing Agenda Items. If a Councilor will be absent from an upcoming regular meeting, the Councilor may request during a regular meeting that consideration of an agenda item be postponed to a future regular meeting. The request will be honored if the majority of the Council votes in favor of postponement and the matter is not time-sensitive. If the request to postpone is made outside a regular Council meeting, the Councilor requesting the postponement shall submit a request to the Mayor or City Administrator in writing or by email as early as possible. The request to postpone will be honored unless the majority of the Council votes not to postpone the item or if the matter is time-sensitive. F. Council Packets. Written materials, from Councilors, staff and citizens, which are related to agenda items to be included in the Council packet, must be submitted to the City Administrator's office no later than 12:00 noon six days in advance of the Council meeting for which it is intended. Materials submitted must include author's name and address. G. Study Session Agenda Preparation. The City Administrator prepares the agenda for the study sessions from: 1. Items requested by the Mayor and members of the Council to be listed on the agenda. 2. Items deemed appropriate by the City Administrator. 3. Business from the Council pertaining to committee reports and other business. 4. Items requested by City Commissions, Committees or Boards. Items appearing on the Council study session agenda shall be assigned a time limit and the Mayor shall hold discussion to within the time frame, unless the consensus of the Council is to extend the time limit until an issue or item is discussed and resolved. Section 2.04.040 CONDUCT OF MEETINGS 5 A. Presiding Officer. The Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence, the Chair of the Council, shall preside at the meetings of the City Council. In the absence of these officers at any meeting, the Councilors present shall appoint a Chair Pro-Tern and proceed with the meeting. The Chair, except the Mayor, may vote on all motions other than appeals from decisions made while acting as presiding officer. The presiding officer shall be responsible for ensuring order and decorum is maintained. Comments and disagreements should be addressed to the topic at hand and avoid negative personal remarks. Attendees and speakers are required to strictly abide by the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions that are unreasonably loud or disruptive shall be cause for removal from Council meetings. Failure to abide by the presiding officer's instructions constitutes "disruption of a lawful assembly" as provided in ORS 166.025(1 )(c). Disruptive behavior includes engaging in violent or distracting action, making loud or disruptive noise or using loud or disruptive language, and refusing to obey an order of the presiding officer. Signs are not permitted and will be considered disruptive. The presiding officer may set time limits on agenda items. Section 2.04.050 ORDER OF BUSINESS At the first meeting in January, after the roll call, the presentation of the Mayor's State of the City address shall be first in order. The Mayor or presiding officer may change the order of business on the agenda. The required order of business has been established by ordinance is as follows: A. Roll Call. B. Approval of minutes of the previous meeting. Ifthere are no corrections or obiections to the minutes, they shall be considered approved; otherwise, to be approved by vote. The minutes as approved shall be signed by the Mayor and City Recorder. C. Special presentations, proclamations and awards. This item on the agenda is used to acknowledge special recognition and awards given to the City or for the Mayor to announce proclamations, which serve to encourage and educate the community. Proclamations shall be made and placed on the agenda at the discretion of the Mayor. Requests for recognition under this agenda item should be submitted in writing to the Mayor. D. Consent agenda. Routine business items may be listed by the City Administrator under this item, which shall be acted upon in its entirety, except that the Mayor or any member of the Council may request that any item be moved to the regular agenda under the appropriate section of business. 6 E. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) for one-half hour until 9:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda. Not more than two land-use appeal hearings shall be scheduled for any regular meeting of the Council. The City Administrator may, in the administrator's discretion, schedule additional legislative hearings depending on the anticipated length of the Council meeting. Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the hearing and deliver the form to the City Recorder. The Mayor or presiding officer is to inform the audience of this requirement to submit the form prior to the commencement of the hearing. No testimony will be accepted on public hearings that have been closed. F. Public forum. Public forum is an opportunity for the public to comment on items which are not included on the agenda. The agenda for public forum is 15 minutes, unless a maiority of the Council votes to extend the time. Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the forum and deliver the form to the City Recorder. The Mayor or presiding officer is to inform the audience on requirements for submission of the form. Members of the public may speak about any topic during the public forum, unless the topic is indeed on the agenda for the same meeting. If a member of the public wishes to speak on an agenda item or public hearing item they may do so at the time set aside for those topics (see Section E. above). Public forum is not to be used to provide or gather additional testimony or information on a quasi-iudicial matter. Public testimony will not be accepted on a public hearing where the record has been closed if the matter is still pending. The Mayor will set time limits for people who ask to speak during public forum. In general the time limits should be set to enable all people who wish to speak to complete their testimony. Time limits shall not be so short as to not allow speakers to address their topic. When possible and feasible, preference will be given to individuals who reside within the Ashland city limits. Persons who do not reside in the City may be placed at the end of the list of those wishing to speak at public forum. G. Unfinished business. H. New business. I. Ordinances, resolutions and contracts. 7 a. Every ordinance is to be enacted in accordance with Article X of the City Charter. Copies of the ordinance shall be e-mailed to Council members and the Mayor at least fourteen days prior to the meeting. Council members may review the ordinance and forward suggestions for changes to the City Attorney for consideration. Minor changes may be incorporated, substantive changes will be considered at the time of first reading. Any substantive changes to the ordinance must be verbally noted at first reading. Council members must submit comments to the City Attorney no later than 12:00 noon on the Wednesday prior to Council meeting. Titles of lengthy ordinances will be published in the local paper at least seven days in advance of the Council meeting thus allowing the ordinance to be read by title only at the Council meeting. b. Resolutions may be placed on the consent agenda and voted upon. Resolutions do not require a roll-call vote. c. The voting on all ordinances may be by roll-call vote and recorded in the minutes showing those numbers voting for and those voting against. J. Other business from Council members. Section 2.04.060 IDENTIFICATION OF FISCAL IMPACT OF POLICY DECISIONS A. When the City Council adopts a program or policy, it shall indicate how it expects that program or policy will be funded: e.g., which existing taxes or fees the Council expects to increase and by how much, or which current City programs or department expenditures the Council expects to reduce to fund the new program or policy. However, if the Council cannot reasonably identify a potential funding source, it shall so indicate. B. As used in this Section the term "program or policy with significant revenue implications" includes an ordinance or a resolution in which implementation may entail expenditures in any budget year in excess of one and one-half percent 0.5%) of the City's annual General Fund budget, and which may require an increase to existing taxes or fees or an imposition of new taxes or fees. C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to extraordinary expenditures in situations of, or necessitated by, public emergencies. Section 2.04.070 RIGHTS OF CITIZENS Citizens may speak on any item not on the agenda during public forum. Any citizen has the right to present an item to the City Council during public forum. On behalf of the City, any Councilor may request the item be placed on a future agenda.Any citizen has the right to present an item to the City Council. On behalf of the City, any 8 Councilor may request the item be placed on the agenda. Citizens may speak on any item not on the agenda during public forum. Section 2.04.080 CONDUCT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES The City Council will work with City staff in a spirit of teamwork and mutual cooperation. A. Councilors may make inquiries of staff to increase their understanding of an issue or action. Councilors should limit requests for information from staff to questions that may be answered with minimal research. Requests that require significant staff time or resources (two hours or more) should be directed to the City Administrator and must be approved by the Mayor, City Administrator, City Attorney or by a maiority vote of the City Council. B. Written information given by the Mayor, Councilors, City Administrator. City Attorney, or City Staff, including materials requested by individual Councilors and the Mayor, generally will be distributed to all Councilors with a notation indicating who has requested that the information be provided. C. Individual Councilors should respect the separation between policy-making and administration. They shall not pressure or direct City employees in a way that could contravene the will of the Council as a whole or limits the options of the council. They must not interfere with work performance, undermine the authority of supervisors, or prevent the full council from having access to relevant information. Notwithstanding this paragraph, nothing shall hamper the Council's ability to evaluate the performance of the City Administrator or the City Attorney. D. The Mayor and council members should strive not to criticize any person in a public meeting or in public electronic mail messages. The same expectation applies to City staff in the exercise of their official duties. Discussions and disagreements should focus on the content of the topic at hand. Nothing should limit a Councilor or staff person's right to report wrongdoing. E. Councilors with a concern about the performance of a particular staff person should express that concern to the Mayor, City Administrator. City Attorney. Section 2.04.090 COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES and BOARDS A. Establishing Commissions, Committees or Boards. B. Council Ad-hoc Committees. C. Membership Appointments. D. Mayor Membership on Ashland Budget Committee. E. Student Membership on Commission and Committees. F. Membership Removal Process. G. Changing or Dissolving a Commission, Committee or Board. 9 Section 2.04.100 OPERATING POLICIES and PROCEDURES COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES and BOARDS A. Public Meeting Law. B. Robert's Rules of Order. C. Deliberation. D. Agendas and Minutes. E. Absences. F. Quorum. G. Code of Ethics. H. Lobbying. 1. Goals. J. Role of Staff. K. Final Decision-Making. L. Number of Meetings. M. Notice. N. Representing the Commission, Committee or Board. O. Budget. P. Expenses. Q. Committees. R. Suspension of Operating Procedures Section 2.04.110 COUNCIL LIAISONS A. Role and Responsibilities of Council Liaisons. B. Attendance. C. Deliberations. D. Respect. E. Council Information. F . Vacancies. G. Vacancies. H. Reporting to the Council. 1. Liaison Appointment Process. J. Removal from a Liaison Assignment. Section 2.04.120 COUNCILOR EXPENSES A. The City will reimburse a Councilor or the Mayor for expenses that are directly related to City business in accordance with the City's reimbursement policy. Councilors are required to submit all statements as required by ORS 244. 2.04.010 Presiding Offieer [This excerpt comes from the }~shland Municipal Code, Title 2 Administration, 10 Chapter 4 Rules of City Council] The Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence, the Chair of the Council, shall preside at the meetings of the City Council. In the absence of these officers at any session the Councilors present shall appoint a Chair pro tern and proceed with the meeting. The Chair, except the Mayor, may vote on all motions other than appeals from decisions made v/hile acting as presiding officers. (Ord. 1511 SSI, 1967) 2.04.020 Quorum As provided in .Article VIII, Section 4, of the City Charter, the Mayor and not less than three (3) Councilors, or four (1) Councilors, constitute a quorum and a simple majority of the Councilors present determines the action on any motion, question, ordinance, or resolution except, howe'ler, that on questions requiring a two thirds (2/3) vote of the Council, as provided in the City Charter, there shall be required a '/ote of four (1) Councilors to exercise any such special powers. If the roll call shmvs no quorum present, as defined by Section 1 of .Article VIII of the City Charter, the Councilors in attendance may direct the Chief of Police to notify the absent members, except those knovlll to be una','oidably detained, that their presence is required to enable the Council to proceed with business. Should any then fail to soon appear the members present shall adjourn to a date fixed by them. (Ord. 1810 (part), 1974; Ord. 1544 SS2, 1967) 2.04.030 Minutes of Proeeedings After the reading of the minutes of the preceding meeting by the City Recorder, if there are no corrections or objections thereto, they shall be considered approved; othenvise, to be approved by vote. The minutes as approved shall be signed by the Mayor and City Recorder. (Ord. 1544 SS3, 1967) 2.04.040 Order of Business f,.. Except as pro','ided in subsection B hereof, the order of business of the Council shall be: 1. Roll call; 2. "^~pproval of minutes of the previous meeting; 3. Special presentations, proclamations and a'.vards; 4. Consent agenda, subject to the limitations of subsection C; 5. Public hearings, subject to the limitations of subsection D and first readings of ordinances that pertain to the public hearing. 6. Public forum for business from the audience not included on the agenda (limited to a total of 15 minutes); 7. Unfinished business; 8. New and miscellaneous business; 9. Ordinances, resolutions and contracts; 11 10. Other business from Council members. B. At the first meeting in January, after the roll call, the presentation of the Mayor's address shall be first in order. C. Routine business items may be listed by the City .^.dministrator under a "Consent .^~genda", \vhich shall be acted upon in its entirety, except that the Mayor or any member of the Council may request that any item be moyed to the regular agenda under the appropriate section of business. D. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 P.M. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council by a two thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) for one half hour until 9:30 P.M. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed 'Nith the balance of the agenda. Not more than two (2) land use appeal hearings shall be scheduled for any regular meeting of the Council. The City Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion, schedule additional legislative hearings depending on the anticipated length of the Council meeting. (Ord. 2611 81 1991; 2729 1991) Eo At any meeting of the Council, the order of business can be changed or any part thereof moved to a future agenda by a majority vote of the Council. F. The City :\dministrator is responsible for the preparation of the agenda for each City Council meeting and, with the consent of the Council, shall determine the deadline by which any matter must be presented in writing by any citizen in order to be included on the agenda. (Ord. 154484, 1967; Ord. 2523(.\) 81, 1989). 2.04.050 Voting v,'hen a question or motion is put to a vote by the Chair, each member present shall vote for or against the same unless the Council excuses that member from so doing. If thereafter the Mayor or any member calls for a roll call vote, then each member must likewise vote. The Mayor can only vote in the case of a tie, and then is required to 'o'ote. (Ord. 1511 885, 1967). 2.04.060 Privileges of Members No member shall speak more than t'.vice on the same question \",ithout leave of the presiding officer, except in informal and interlocutory debate, nor more than once until every member choosing to speak shall have spoken or 'ovaived their right to do so. (Ord. 1511,886, 1967). 2.04.070 Roll Call Vote 12 The voting on all ordinances or resolutions shall be by roll call vote and recorded in the minutes showing those numbers voting for and those voting against. (Ord. 1544 887,1967). 2.04.080 .A..ppointing Committees All committees not required by 8tate la'"" to be appointed by the Council shall be appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council, or in the Mayor's absence, any appointment necessary may be made by the presiding officer, 'Nith the consent of the Council. After the standing committees have been formally announced they cannot be changed except at a regular meeting of the Council and by a majority vote of the members present. All terms of boards, commissions and committees shall be extended to April 30 of each year, beginning with the terms expiring on December 31,1989. (Ord. 1875,1976; Ord. 2523(A) 82,1989). 2.04.081 N otiee of .A..ppointments No person shall be appointed or elected to any committees or commissions established by ordinance until after the City Recorder has caused to be published once, at least ten (10) days prior to the date on '.vhich the appointment or election is to be made, in a nev/spaper of general circulation in the City of Ashland, a notice entitled "NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT", containing the follov/ing information: 1. The position to be filled by appointment or election; 2. That applications \vill be accepted by the City Recorder; 3. The date the appointment is expected to be made; and, 4. That additional information regarding the position can be obtained from the office of the City Recorder. No appointment or election shall be made to any of the aforementioned committees or commissions, unless notice of such appointment or election appears on the agenda for the meeting at which the appointment or election is to be made. Additional procedures regarding application deadlines and notification to the City Council of proposed appointments by the Mayor shall be set forth by Resolution of the Council. (Ord. 1903, 1976; Ord. 2523(A) S3, 1989). 2.01.082 Student Memberships on Commissions and Committees. Seetion 2.04.082 8tudent Memberships on Commissions and Committees. The Mayor v/ith consent of the Council may add to the membership of any city commission, t'.vo positions f-or student liaisons, '.vhether such commission or committee ',vas established by ordinance or resolution. The student liaisons shall be non voting ex officio members of their respective commissions or committees. Once the liaison positions have been added, the liaison from the high school shall be a high school student chosen by the Ashland High School Leadership Class and the liaison from the university shall be a university student chosen by the "^~ssociated Students of 13 Southern Oregon University Student Senate. The requirements of sections 2.05.080 and 2.04.081 shall not apply to the students chosen under this section. 2.04.090 Ordinances and Resolutions Every ordinance shall be enacted in accord "'lith Article X of the Ashland City Charter. Every resolution shall receive one reading previous to the vote on its passage, provided however, that it may be read by title only if no Council member present at the meeting requests to have it read in full. (Ord. 1511 89, 1967; Ord. 1950 SI, 1978; Ord. 2365,1985; Ord. 2691,1992). 2.04.095 Identification of Fiscal Impact of Policy Decisions A. ...^~t such time as the council adopts a new program or policy with significant revenue implications, it shall offer clear direction to city staff and to the budget committee as to how the new program or policy is to be funded. B. When the city council adopts such a program or policy, it shall indicate how it expects that program or policy will be funded; e.g., '.vhich existing taxes or fees the council expects to increase and by hoy" much, or 'Nhich current city programs or department expenditures the council expects to reduce to fund the new program or policy. However, if the council cannot reasonably identify a potential funding source, it shall so indicate. C. As used in this section 2.01.095, the term "program or policy with significant revenue implications" includes an ordinance or a resolution in which implementation may entail expenditures in any budget year in excess of one and one half percent (1.5%) of the city's annual General Fund budget, and which may require increasing existing taxes or fees or imposition of neON taxes or fees. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to extraordinary expenditures in situations of, or necessitated by, public emergencies. (Ord 2851, added, 11/02/1999) 2.04.100 Rights of Citizens All matters of business, propositions, requests, petitions, remonstrances, or any question whatsoever vlhich a citizens, or any society or organization of citizens, se'/erally or by committee, may desire to present for consideration of the Council shall be reduced to writing and filed with the City ...^~dministrator for presentation to the Council. The Council shall accord a hearing to any person in explanation of the matter or business so filed and presented. Provided, ho\vever, when the floor is accorded any citizen for such purpose, the Chair may then or later notify the speaker of the amount of time which the citizen will be allowed. (Ord. 15H, 810,1967) 14 2.04.110 Council Meetings }... Regular Meetings The regular sessions of the Council shall be on the first and third Tuesdays of each and every month, unless otherwise arranged, and shall be held on the days appointed at 7 p.m. Meetings shall end no later than 10:00 p.m. unless the Council by a t'NO thirds vote of those present extends the meeting for one half hour. (Ord. 2729 1991) B. <A..djourned Meetings }..t any regular or adjourned meeting the meeting may be adjourned to a later date by a majority vote of the Council. In the event any regular meeting is adjourned to call of the Mayor, the Mayor may call an adjourned meeting at such time as the Mayor may designate upon having each Councilor notified personally, or in writing, at least thirty six (36) hours in advance of the time and place of such adjourned meeting. Any City business may be acted upon at an adjourned meeting. C. Special Meetings <^~ special meeting may be called either by the Mayor or t\'1O (2) members of the Council. Written notice of the time and place of such special meeting and the subjects to be acted upon shall be delivered in writing to all members of the Council at least thirty six (36) hours in advance of the time of said meeting, and the Council may consider and act only upon such matters as contained in the \'/ritten notice. D. Study Sessions The Mayor or two (2) members of the Council may call a study session at any time for the purpose of informing members of the Council as to City affairs. At such study sessions no decisions may be made or action taken either formally or informally by the Council. (Ord. 1544, 811, 1967) 2.04.120 Reconsidering a Vote }~ motion to reconsider a vote can be made only once and at the session at '.vhich the motion or matter '.vas adopted, or at the next meeting of the Council, provided that no vote to reconsider shall be made after the ordinance, resolution, or act shall have gone out of the possession of the Council. (Ord. 1544,812, 1967) 2.04.130 Conducting a Meeting Robert's Rules of Order shall be authority for the government of the Council during its sessions, when not in conflict 'with the City Charter and these code rules. (Ord. 1544813,1967). 2.04.140 Membership on <-\shland Budget Committee For the purpose oflocal budget la\'/, the Mayor is a member of the governing body of the City of <^~shland. (Ord. 2501, 1989). 15 SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other sections, provisions, clauses or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the Ashland Municipal Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that Sections 2 thru 3, unincorporated Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions need not be codified. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X Section 2 (C) of the City Charter on the day of 2007. and duly PASSED and ADOPTED on this _day of _2007. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder day of 2007. SIGNED and APPROVED this John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney 16 CITY Of ASHLAND Cou ncil' Communication Ordinance Declaring Approval of Verde Village Development Agreement Meeting Date: December 18, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: City Attorney's Office E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Develop Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: Administration/Leg Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: Does the City Council wish to conduct and approve the Second Reading of the Ordinance Declaring the Approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement, including the attached development agreement, land use findings or real property exchange findings? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council conduct and approve second reading. If Council desires changes to the text such changes must be fully and distinctly read into the record. Background: Oregon Statutes require the approval of a Development Agreement by Ordinance. The ordinance and attachments included in the Council packet incorporates all changes as read and discussed at first reading on December 4, 2007. Related City Policies: Ashland City Charter, Section X; ORS Chapter 94. Council Options: (1) Council may direct changes,(if any) to the approval documents, read such changes fully and distinctly, conduct and approve second reading of the ordinance. (2) Council may direct changes to approval documents and delay second reading of the ordinance to a date certain. Potential Motions: [conduct second reading] Move to approve second reading of the Ordinance declaring approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement. Attachments: Ordinance Declaring Approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement with Attachments 1,2 and 3. CC - Verde Village Ordinance 2nd reading] 2] 807.doc Ordinance - Second Reading r~' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE "VERDE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT," AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND OREGON AND ASHLAND FLOWER SHOP AND GREENHOUSES, INC., PURSUANT TO ORS CHAPTER 94 AND THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE Recitals: The City of Ashland City Council after consideration of the staff report, the recommendation of the planning commission, and the comments and evidence presented during the public hearings on the requested Verde Village Development Agreement between the City of Ashland, Oregon and Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc., finds and determines that the proposed Verde Village Development Agreement is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Ashland, meets a public need and provides a public benefit and that said Agreement is consistent with all applicable City of Ashland Laws and Ordinances; and THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are lined through and additions are underlined. Section 1. The above recitations are true and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. . Section 2. The City of Ashland declares the approval and adoption of the Verde Village Development Agreement (together with all Exhibits and documents attached thereto and incorporated therein) said Development Agreement being attached to this Ordinance as Attachment 1 and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 3. The adoption of this Ordinance declaring approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement, together with the conditional approval of the requested real property land exchange, and conditional approval of all land use applications contained in File # PA-2006--01663, (including but not limited to annexation, withdrawal from fire district 5, comprehensive plan map change, zoning map change, outline plan approval, two street exceptions, environmental constraints permit and tree removal permit) are fully supported buy evidence contained in the whole record, including specifically the evidence and application materials supporting the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on PA- 2006-01663, and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Real Property Exchange, attached to this Ordinance as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 respectively, and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 4. The Ordinance shall be effective after execution of the Verde Village Development Agreement by both the City and the Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc., but not earlier than thirty (30) days after the second reading of this Ordinance and signature by the Mayor. Individual approvals shall be effective upon compliance with all terms and conditions as more fully set forth in the Development Agreement, and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders. Section 5. Severability. If any section, provIsion, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other sections, provisions, clauses or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 6. Codification. Provisions of ,this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the Ashland Municipal Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that attachments to the Ordinance, Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions need not be codified. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2007, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2007. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2007. John W. Morrison, Mayor Approved as to form: Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2007, by and between CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Oregon (hereinafter referred to as "City"); and ASHLAND FLOWER SHOP AND GREENHOUSES, INC., an Oregon corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AFSG"). RECITALS WHEREAS, AFSG is the owner of real property located on West Nevada Street in Ashland near the terminus of Helman Street (a portion of which is currently outside City's limits, but within City's Urban Growth Boundary); and, WHEREAS, AFSG desires to develop three (3) Planned Unit Developments (Single Family, Cottage and Townhome Communities) consisting of, inter alia: 68 residences, in a variety of formats: (1) 25 Single Family Homes, approximately 2500 SF maximum, 19 as detached units and 6 attached units, some with attached garages, a common green space, surface conveyance of storm water in constructed treatment wetlands; (2) 24 Cottages, approximate size 800-1200 SF, of which 10 are duplexed, featuring community gardens, units clustered around open space and group parking with no garages; (3) 15 Townhome units, approximate size 900-1200 SF, with common open space and play area, developed as an Affordable Housing Project by Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation; and four additional standard residential lots for individual sale; said development to be known as "Verde Village" more particularly described in the application, including but not limited to Revised Outline Plan Narrative - Book III, with Sub-Exhibits A through U, and Appendices, supporting documents, materials and official plans, in the Planning Department File #2006-01663, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference; and WHEREAS, Verde Village is proposed as a sustainable residential development featuring "Net Zero Energy Homes" (residences which can potentially produce as much energy annually as they consume) and AFSG hopes that Verde Village will serve as a prototype for sustainable development, and concurrently serve as an example of Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -1- economically feasible "green development" for builders in other communities throughout the Northwest; and, WHEREAS, to realize the development of Verde Village, numerous City, County, State and Federal approvals and authorizations are required, including but not limited to: 1. Real Property exchange between AFSG and the City of Ashland, including Federal, State, County and City acceptance of the exchange; 2. Annexation; 3. Comprehensive Plan Map Change; 4. Zoning Map Change; 5. Outline Plan Approval; 6. Street Exceptions; 7. Physical Environmental Constraints Permit; 8. Tree Removal Permit. WHEREAS, efficiency, publiC policy, and community involvement are best promoted if the various public processes and approvals required for the required real property exchange, annexation, comprehensive plan amendment, zone map change, and other land use approvals necessary to approve Verde Village are "bundled" for global consideration; and, WHEREAS, AFSG and City agree that a Development Agreement pursuant to ORS Chapter 94 is the best tool to bundle the required approvals to achieve consolidated review and action on the approvals necessary for the Verde Village Project and, WHEREAS, a decision to enter into a Development Agreement is a negotiated legislative land use decision by the City addressing the orderly and efficient development of land within the City's urban growth boundary; and, WHEREAS, on July 10, August 14, and August 28, 2007, City's Planning Commission considered this proposed Development Agreement at a public hearing held in accordance with the notice and advertising requirements of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the Oregon Revised Statutes, and said Commission then recommended approval of the Development Agreement to City's Council; and, WHEREAS, on November 6, 2007 and November 20, 2007, City's Council considered this Development Agreement at a public hearing held in accordance with the notice and advertising requirements of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, the Oregon Revised Statutes [ORS 94.513(2)] and local policies; and, Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -2- WHEREAS, on November 20, 2007, the City's Council deliberated on the proposed Development Agreement and tentatively approved the requested agreement, land exchange and associated land use actions, WHEREAS, on December 4, 2007 the City's Council conducted and approved the First Reading of an Ordinance declaring the approval of the Development Agreement, and associated approvals; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2007 the City's Council conducted and approved the Second Reading of an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, and associated approvals with an effective date of January 17, 2007; WHEREAS, City's Council finds and determines that this Development Agreement is consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan, the applicable provisions of City's Land Use Ordinance and provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes in effect at the time of entering into the Development Agreement pursuant to ORS 94.508; and WHEREAS, City has authority to enter into this Development Agreement and to adopt a City Ordinance, pursuant to ORS 94.508(2), approving this Development Agreement pursuant to City's Charter, City's Land Use Ordinance, and ORS 94.504 through ORS 94.528. WHEREAS, the adoption of the ordinance approving the Verde Village Development Agreement, land exchange, annexation, comprehensive plan map change, zoning map change, outline plan approval, street exceptions, environmental constraints permit and tree removal permit, [PA #2006-01663], is fully supported by evidence in the whole record, including specifically the evidence supporting the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order(s), attached to the Ordinance approving this Agreement as Attachment 2 and 3 and made a part hereof by this reference. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and performance obligations of each party as set out in this Agreement, the City and AFSG do hereby agree as follows: 1.0 RECITALS. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2.0 INTENT AND PURPOSE. This Development Agreement is intended to facilitate, control and manage the development of the Verde Village project within the City of Ashland. The Ordinance Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -3- approving the Development Agreement "bundles" required approvals for consolidated consideration and approval as well as enumerating the special terms, conditions and requirements of development, including a timetable of development, negotiated and agreed to by the City and AFSG. 3.0 LEGAL AND EOUITABLE OWNERSHIP. AFSG, an Oregon corporation, represents and warrants that it is the fee owner of the following real property located on West Nevada Street in Ashland near the terminus of Helman Street, (a portion of which is currently outside City's limits, but within City's Urban Growth Boundary): (39-1E-4BB, Tax Lots 700, 800 & 900) (39-1E-4B, Tax Lots 800 &1100) City represents and warrants that it is the fee owner of real property adjacent to AFSG holdings, commonly referred to as the City's Dog Park, more particularly described as follows: (39-1E-04BB, Tax Lot 200) City's property is subject to limitations concerning a Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds and Jackson County deed limitations. 3.1 Within the identified AFSG's holdings, AFSG owns a parcel of property which is identified on City's Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Map for long-term acquisition by City (identified as Long-Term Acquisition Area "10" on said Map). A portion of the Dog Park property serves as ingress and egress to City's Dog Park, but said access could be better utilized if that portion of the City's parcel was exchanged for the identified portion of the AFSG holdings and standard street access to the Dog Park was provided. The appraised value of the City's Dog Park access property is less than the appraised value of AFSG's property proposed for exchange. AFSG and City desire to enter into a real property exchange pursuant to ORS 271.300, et seq., in which City will convey to AFSG a portion of real property currently owned by City ("City's Parcel''); and AFSG will concurrently convey.to City a portion of real property currently owned by AFSG ("Williams Property"). This real property exchange is more fully described in Section 10.0 below and in the Findings attached to the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement. 3.2 After the real property exchange is completed with the City as contemplated in the Agreement, AFSG, an Oregon corporation ), its successors or assigns, will be the fee owner of the "Verde Village Property", including specifically the real property described and shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 4.0. DEFINITIONS. 4.1 "AFSG" means Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc., an Oregon Corporation (principals: Gregory D. Williams, President; and Valri Williams, Secretary). Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -4- 4.2 "ALUO" means Chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code, known as the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4.3 "Agreement" means this Development Agreement, entered into between the parties pursuant to ORS 94.504 through ORS 94.528. 4.4 "Applicant" means AFSG, their successors and assigns. 4.5 "City" means the City of Ashland, Oregon. 4.6 "Council" means the City of Ashland's City Council and Mayor. 4.7 "Planning Commission" means the City of Ashland's duly appointed Planning Commission. 4.8 "City Property" means that portion of real property, approximately 1.54 acres in size, which is currently owned by City and proposed to be exchanged for a portion of the "Williams' Property" as part of the real property exchange described in this Agreement. It is generally that portion of real property serving as the current access to City's Dog Park, and is more specifically described in the "Dog Park Property" Appraisal Report as "portion to be traded" in the Appraisal Report for the City Property included in the Record, as well as the June 8, 2007 Revised Outline Plan Narrative: Sub-Exhibits A, 8, C, M, N-l, and Q in the record. 4.9 "Comprehensive Plan" means the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 4.10. "Dog Park Property" means the entire collection of tax lots under City ownership prior to the date of the Agreement and more fully described in the Dog Park Property Appraisal Report for the City Property included in the Record. Only a portion of the Dog Park Property is to be exchanged for the Williams Property pursuant to this Agreement, as described in the Appraisal Report for the City Property included in the Record, as well as the June 8, 2007 Revised Outline Plan Narrative: Sub-Exhibits A, 8, C, M, N-l, and Q in the record. 4.11 "ORS" means the Oregon Revised Statutes, as amended. 4.12 "Owner" means AFSG, their successors and assigns. 4.13 "Verde Village" and "Verde Village Project", and "Project" mean the AFSG residential subdivision project approved by City pursuant to this Agreement, as described in the record, including the June 8, 2007 Revised Outline Plan Narrative. 4.14 "Verde Village Property" means the real property to be owned by AFSG after the herein described real property exchange is consummated. This includes the real property owned by AFSG prior to the date of this Agreement (but not including the "Williams Property" to be exchanged), coupled with the access portion of the City's Dog Park Property ("City Property") to be exchanged for the "Williams Property" pursuant to this Agreement, as more fully described in the Record of this proceeding. 4.15 "Williams Property" means that portion of the real property, approximately 2.78 acres in size, which is currently owned by AFSG, and which borders Ashland Creek. The "Williams Property" is more specifically described in the Williams Property Appraisal Report in the Record as "portion to be traded". The Williams Property is to be Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -5- exchanged for the City Property which currently serves as access to the Dog Park, as more specifically described in the Dog Park Property Appraisal Report in the Record. 4.16 "Real Property Exchange" means transferring or conveying real property currently owned by City in exchange for the reciprocal transfer or conveyance of real property owned by a private party pursuant to ORS 271.310 through ORS 271.330. As used herein, "Real Property Exchange" refers specifically to trading the 2.78-acre "Williams Property" in exchange for the 1.54-acre "City Property", as per the detailed map in the June 8, 2007 Revised Outline Plan Narrative: Sub-Exhibit "N-1" . 5.0 UNIFIED CONTROL. The Owner hereby warrants that he has or will have pursuant to this Agreement unified ownership of all real property included in the Verde Village Property, as set forth in Exhibit A. Verde Village Property" means the real property currently owned or to be owned by AFSG. Documents certifying title are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. A covenant of Unified Control by the Owner is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 6.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN USES. DENSITY. INTENSITY. HEIGHT. [ORS 94.504(2)(b)(c)(d)] The Owner agrees that Verde Village will be undertaken and carried out in accordance with this Agreement and with the following: 6.1 The permitted development uses, maximum densities, intensities, building height, and dimensions permitted for Verde Village shall be those specifically set forth below and as depicted on the approved outline plan, final plan and plat and final civil plans (engineering construction approval) and associated permits: Density or Intensity: Up to 68 residential units; 6.57 units per acre (68 units on approximately 10.37 acres). This Project is subject to a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, pursuant to ALUO 18.106.030(F). Accordingly future development of the Verde Village property shall comply with the minimum density set forth on this agreement and the approved plans. 7/20/07: Revisions to Area and Density Tables Maximum Height: Not to exceed 35 feet Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -6- Maximum Structure Size: (No structure size limit per se). The construction of all structures within the Project shall be governed by the size and dimension criteria (e.g. setbacks) set forth in this Agreement and reflected on the Outline Plan for the Project. When not specifically addressed the coverage limitations and other requirements of the following zones shall be met: R-1-3.5: up to 55% of total lot area R-1-5: up to 50% of total lot area R-1.7.5: up to 45% of total lot area Permitted uses of property: The uses permitted within Verde Village, including three (3) separate PUDs and 4 individual lots shall be those uses indicated on the Outline Plan together with such accessory uses as may customarily be associated with the permitted uses. When not specifically addressed, the uses, standards, regulations, limitations and restrictions of the following zones shall be met in the designated areas: R-1-3.5 R-1-5 R-1.5 R-1-7-5 Townhome Area PUD Cottage Area PUD Single Family PUD & (3) Nevada Lots (1) single family lot on Alameda The permitted uses, density and intensity of uses, and other aspects of the development requirements on the Verde Village Project shall also be governed by this Agreement and the City Council Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order concerning the development. 6.2 It is agreed and understood that, unless otherwise expressly stated herein, the provisions of the City's Municipal Code, City's ALUO, City's Comprehensive Plan, and City's other rules and policies governing development of land were applied by City in considering and entering into this Development Agreement, to the extent such Code provisions, Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan provisions, rules and policies existed on the date of this Agreement. [ORS 94.518]. (a) It is agreed and understood that the development of Verde Village will be undertaken and carried out in accordance with this Agreement, the outline plan approval, final plan and final plat, civil engineering approval (construction plans) and Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -7- applicable construction permits, and associated City approvals, as officially approved or to be approved and adopted by the City, and in strict compliance with the approved timetable of development. (b) It is agreed and understood that the development of Verde Village authorized by the preliminary approval (outline plan) stage, includes no actual physical commencement of construction but only development of detailed Final Plan and Site Review Approvals and Final Civil (Engineering) Plans and Specifications, and that such plans comply with the laws and ordinances, including engineering standards then in effect, and shall also conform with and be accomplished pursuant to this Agreement as well as the outline plan approval, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and made a part hereof by this reference. (c) It is agreed and understood that the development of this PUD at Final Plan and Site Review Approval stage, including but not limited to infrastructure construction, shall be accomplished in accordance with the approved Final Plan and Site Review Approval, as well as the Final Civil Plan Approval, (construction plan authorization) and applicable construction permits to be approved by the Ashland Engineering Department, in accordance with such laws, ordinances and regulations, including engineering standards as were in effect at the time of the final plan application is deemed complete. (d) It is agreed and understood that the remaining development of this PUD must be accomplished in accordance with the final plat or plats to be approved by the City in accordance with such laws, ordinances and regulations as may be in effect at the time the final plat application is deemed complete. (e) When not specifically addressed in this Agreement, and except as provided for subdivision infrastructure construction in ORS 92.040, all permits and authorizations for the development of this PUD project shall be in accordance with the law in effect at the time further development permits or authorizations are sought. 6.3 The special conditions and requirements adopted or imposed by the City in the process of the approval of the outline plan and PUD for the property which requirements are set forth in Exhibit E, attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall be strictly adhered to by the Owner. 7.0 TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND PHYSICAL COMMENCEMENT. [ORS 94.504(4)] Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -8- The timetable for development, including commencement and completion dates, as officially approved and adopted by the City and agreed to by Owner, are described and shown in Exhibit F, attached hereto and made part hereof by this reference. The timetable shall be strictly adhered to by the Owner. Notwithstanding the above, it is expressly understood that all timetables set forth herein shall be tolled during any LUBA or subsequent appeal or remand of the development agreement and associated approvals. 8.0 VESTED RIGHTS. 8.1 Except where specified in this Agreement, the Owner shall have the right to develop Verde Village in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances and regulations, the provisions and requirements of this Agreement, the outline plan approval, the approved Final Civil Plan (engineering construction plan) and permits, and the final subdivision plat. 8.2 There shall at all times be a strict adherence to the provisions of this Development Agreement and the approved outline plan and Final Plan and Site Review Approvals/plats as well as the approved construction plans and permits. Failure to strictly comply with any such provisions or requirements shall be deemed a breach of this agreement. Any change or amendment to this Agreement, the outline plan, final plans, plats, construction plans or permits can only be made in accordance with such laws and ordinances as may be in effect at the time of such Amendment or change. The limitations and restrictions imposed on local governments by ORS 92.040 are expressly understood to be inapplicable to changes or amendments to the above-referenced approvals. 8.3 Notwithstanding the timetable of development, and subject to unilateral amendment by the City to address then current public health, safety and welfare regulations, in the event that all or a portion of the Verde Village project should be destroyed by a storm, fire or other common disaster, the Owner, its grantees, successors or assigns and/or the Association(s), shall have the right to rebuild and/or repair so long as there is strict compliance with the outline plan and Final Plan and Site Review Approval/plat, approved construction plans and permits, as the same may be formally amended from time to time. 9.0 DURATION OF AGREEMENT AND CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS. [ORS 94.504(2)(a)] The duration of this Agreement commences upon Ordinance adoption, execution and effectiveness and terminates on January 17, 2015, (seven years from the anticipated effective date of the Agreement). Termination of the duration of this Agreement only terminates authorization to engage in physical construction and development of the property, excluding vertical construction of (4) single family dwelling units on individual Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -9- lots; this Agreement remains in full force and effect as the development approval and authorization for completed development, including all continuing maintenance obligations. 10. O. PROVISION FOR THE RESERVATION, DEDICATION OR SALE OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. [ORS 94.504(2)(e)] 10.1 Temporary Access Easement. Owner shall maintain safe and free public access to the City Dog Park during the development of the Verde Village Project. Accordingly, prior to physical commencement of infrastructure construction which has the effect of disrupting the existing City access to the Dog Park, Owner shall grant to the City a Temporary Access Easement or Easements for purpose of maintenance of free and unrestricted public access to the City Dog Park. The temporary free access need not be paved but must be sufficiently improved to provide safe access to the Park by the public. Temporary access does not excuse the Owner's obligation to timely complete the Phase I extension of Almeda to Nevada Street and timely complete the construction of "Canine Way" to the Dog Park, so that City standard access is provided at the earliest possible date. Said Temporary Access Easement shall be provided to the City Legal Department for approval prior to acceptance by the City and recording. The easement shall be in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit H. The precise location of such easement area shall be approved by the City Public Works Director, or designee. The Temporary Access Easement terminates only after conveyance of permanent easements and right-of-way dedications, containing City accepted public infrastructure providing improved publiC access to the City Dog Park. 10.2 Subdivision improvements and Offsite Public Infrastructure. Except where the timetable of development expressly provides otherwise, Owner shall make appropriate improvements and dedicate to the City prior to, or concurrent with, the final plat for each respective phase of the Project, all such public tracts, public rights-of-way, permanent easements, dedications, and publiC facility improvements, including specifically but not limited to, utility easements, public streets, rights-of-way, bike paths, recreation parcels, multi-use paths, drainage easements, and other improvements, as are necessary to implement the approved development in PA #2006-016663, including the Outline plan, final plans and civil plans to be approved, to fully address and implement all the public facility and service needs of the development. Said tracts, easements, dedications and improvements shall be in a form approved by the City Public Works Director and City Attorney and shall be recorded after approval and acceptance by the City. The dedications, including but not limited to easements, public rights-of-way and public improvements shall be provided by the Owner at no cost to the City of Ashland. 10.3 AFSG and City Real Property Exchange Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -10- AFSG proposed a real Property exchange with City in order to provide a more rational and efficient use of land within City and its UGB, to preserve the Ashland Creek riparian area and open it to public use, and to provide safe, efficient, and fully improved public access to City's Dog Park and the Bear Creek Greenway. The completed exchange results in AFSG owning the property represented and shown in Exhibit A, and the City will own a tract identified as Long-Term Acquisition Area "10" on City's Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Map. AFSG proposes a real property exchange of IN sum, approximately 2.78 acres of riparian area and field C'Williams Property") as a "quid pro quo" exchange for approximately 1.54 acres of City land, consisting primarily of City's Dog Park access separating the East and West parcels owned by AFSG. See June 8, 2007 Revised Outline Plan Narrative Sub-Exhibit N-1(Map) in the record. The mechanics of the exchange are set forth in Exhibit G to this Agreement, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The findings necessary to approve the exchange under ORS Chapter 271, are attached as Attachment 3 to the Ordinance Declaring the approval of this Development Agreement and are incorporated herein by this reference. For tax purposes, -one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, $150,000.00 shall be the agreed upon value of the gift or donation by AFSG (i.e. the acknowledged difference between the value of the Williams Property and the Value of the City Property exchanged.). 11.0 SCHEDULE OF FEES OR CHARGES. [ORS 94.504(2)(f)] All development authorized in the Verde Village project is subject to payment of applicable System Development Charges (SDC's) and utility fees and charges at the applicable trigger times, usually building permit issuance, as specified in the SDC ordinances and other codes in effect at the time development occurs. This Agreement does not award or grant any SDC credits to any party nor does this Agreement freeze or otherwise fix the SDC charges for development referenced herein. 12.0 RESPONSIBILITY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. [ORS 94.504(2)(h)] The Owner is fully responsible for the construction of all infrastructure development to support the Verde Village project including public facility improvements (street/traffic improvements, water, sewer and storm water) recreation improvements, common area improvements and restoration and enhancement of natural areas, and internal project infrastructure, including private utilities, and amenities, both on-site and off-site and as required by the ALUO, including City Engineering Standards, as more fully set forth in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order attached to the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -11- 13.0 RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMMON AREAS. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance requires that common areas, including shared open space, be shown on the final plan/plat and recorded. The Code further requires that the Owner make adequate provisions for the continuing maintenance and upkeep of common areas by an association or other legal entity. The following common area maintenance provisions shall apply: 13.1 The OWNER shall create a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Verde Village, (hereinafter the "CCR"). As a part of said Covenants and Restrictions, the OWNERS ASSOCIATION shall be established for the maintenance, operation and management of the Common Areas as defined therein. All of the above areas in the PUD are designated and shown on the Outline Plan which is attached hereto as Exhibit "0" and made a part hereof. The CCR shall be part of the first application for Final Plan and Site Review approval and shall be in conformity with the ALUO and Oregon State Statutes. 13.2 It shall be deemed a breach of this Agreement for any land to be conveyed by the Owner by an instrument which does not contain the Covenants and Restrictions or incorporate them by reference. The Association shall not be dissolved nor shall it dispose of any Common Areas, by sale or otherwise, except to an organization conceived and organized to own and maintain the Common Areas, without first receiving approval of the City. The City, as a condition precedent to the dissolution or disposal of Common Areas, may require dedication of common open areas, utilities or road rights-of-way to the public as are deemed necessary. 13.3 In the event that the Association (or any successor organization) fails at any time to maintain the Common Areas of the PUD in reasonable order and condition in accordance with the approved outline plan, final plans and plats, and any preservation area management plan then the City can serve written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon such organization or upon each owner of real property within the PUD, which notice shall set forth the manner in which the organization has failed to maintain the Common Areas in reasonable order and condition, and shall demand that such failure be remedied within thirty (30) days of the sending of such notice or, in the alternative, that such organization appear before the City Council or their designee at a specified time (at least ten (10) days but not more than thirty (30) days after the sending of such notice) either to contest the alleged failure to maintain the Common Areas or to show cause why it cannot remedy such failure within the thirty (30) day period. If such failure has not been remedied within the thirty (30) day period or such longer period as the City may allow, then the City, in order to maintain strict compliance with development authorizations, and Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -12- in order to preserve the taxable values of the real property within the PUD and to prevent the Common Areas from becoming a public nuisance, shall hold a public hearing to consider the advisability of the City entering upon such Common Areas and maintaining them for a period of one (1) year. Notice of such hearing shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the organization involved and (if such organization is dissolved) to each owner of real property within the PUD and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation published in Ashland ,Oregon. Such notice shall be sent and published at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the hearing. At such hearing the City may determine that it is or is not advisable for the City to enter upon such Common Areas, take non-exclusive possession of them and maintain them, according to City standards and the management plan, if any, for one (1) year. Such entry, possession and maintenance when followed in accordance with the above procedures shall not be deemed a trespass. In no event shall any such entry, possession and maintenance be construed to give to the public or the City any right to use the Common Areas. 13.4 The City may, upon public hearing with notice given and published in the same manner as above, return possession and maintenance of such Common Areas to the organization, or successor organization, abandon such possession and maintenance, or continue such possession and maintenance for additional one (1) year periods. 13.5 The cost of such maintenance by the City, including the full administrative cost of the notice and hearing processes identified herein and outlined above, shall be assessed ratably against the real properties within the PUD, the owners of which have the right to the enjoyment of the Common Areas and shall become a charge or lien on said properties if not paid within thirty (30) days after the receipt of a statement therefore. 14.0 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES. [ORS 94.504(6)] AGREEMENT AND CHANGED The assumptions underlying this Agreement, specifically as regards the ability of the City to service the Development with regards to public facilities, are set forth herein, or are included in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, attached to the Development Agreement Ordinance and incorporated into or referenced in this Agreement. In sum, this agreement is based on the assumption that City has adequate capacity to provide necessary services to the Verde Village Project, as determined by the City's Director of Public Works. In particular, the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Agreement as well as the law in effect at the time further development approvals are sought, determine the ability of the development to be served. In the event of changed circumstances, this Agreement provides for permitted amendment, modification or revocation. The parties will work Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -13- together in good faith to find a solution to cure any inability to provide services or otherwise comply with the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement specifically contemplates development of the Verde Village project in accordance with the approved timetable of development. 15.0 BUDGET AND GENERAL DISCLAIMER. [ORS 94.504(5)] All City obligations pursuant to this Agreement which require the expenditure of funds are contingent upon future appropriations by the City as part of the local budget process. Nothing in this Agreement implies an obligation on the City to appropriate any such monies. City acknowledges that following the required review and approval of Final Plan and Site Review s for adequacy of public facilities, and approval of final civil plans (construction plan approval) and associated construction permits, the determination for issuing building permits for the construction of buildings on the Property is not an obligation that would require the expenditure of funds and, therefore, is not contingent upon future appropriations by the City. The City and Owner are entering into this Agreement voluntarily in the spirit of cooperation and coordination to facilitate the Owner's desire to develop a sustainable residential development, with a focus on public recreation and environmental sensitivity. The City desires to facilitate forward thinking development which recognizes environmental constraints, the importance of public recreation and promotes sustainability. However, nothing in this Agreement makes the City or Owner responsible for the contracts or commitments of the other as regards development of the Verde Village or as regards publiC improvements constructed by Owner with the intention of donating such facilities to the City. The Owner is not subject to public contracting rules and regulations and nothing herein makes Owner subject to such public agency requirements. No City funds are provided by this agreement for City construction of public infrastructure in this project. Owner is not the City's agent and City is not the Owner's agent for purposes of any contracts or commitments made by either party. Owner acknowledges and agrees that future final approvals, including final plan, final plat approval, final civil plan (construction plan approval) and construction permits and building permits are subject to compliance with all applicable approved plans, approval conditions and applicable land development regulations in effect at the time the approvals are sought, except as may be provided for infrastructure construction in ORS 92.040 or as otherwise provided in this Agreement. No rights to obtain final development approvals, e.g. final plan, plat, or building permits nor any other rights to develop Verde Village have been granted or implied simply by the City's approval of this Development Agreement, including the donations, dedications and land exchange contained herein, without Owner's full compliance with approved plans, approval conditions and the applicable law in effect at the time such final approvals are Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -14- sought. The Owner, or its successors and assigns, may not attempt to force, coerce or intimidate the City to approve the final plan, plat or other grant other development authorizations, including building permits, by asserting that the City has committed to such approvals for Verde Village based on the theory of vested rights or equitable estoppel or any other legal theory based on the City's approval of this Agreement, or other approval, or acceptance of donations, dedications or land exchange identified herein. City approval of final development orders requires strict compliance with applicable approval conditions and the applicable criterion for approval. 16.0 FUTURE DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS. [ORS 94.504(3)] The following is a list of all discretionary local development approvals (bold) as well as other steps and ministerial actions necessary for the development of Verde Village: 1. Ordinance Declaring Council Approval of Development Agreement, as well as Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for other approvals, including Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map Change, Zone Map Change, Outline Plan Approval, Street exceptions, Physical and Environmental Constrains Permit and Tree Removal Permit, (some approvals have delayed effectiveness while prerequisite approvals, are finalized as stated below). 2. Ordinance Approving Land Exchange by City Council (same as 1 above) 3. Land Exchange Approved by Resolution of Jackson County Board of County Commissioners pursuant to ORS 271.335 (condition of 1 above) 4. Land Exchange Approved by State Parks (condition of 1 above) 5. Land Exchange Approved by Federal Parks (condition of 1 above) 6. Ordinance Approving Annexation and Fire District Withdrawal of Phase I (condition of 1 above) 7. Ordinance Approving Annexation and Withdrawal re: Recreation Tract (condition of 1 above) 8. Ordinance Approving Annexation and Fire District Withdrawal of Phase II (condition of 1 above) 9. Ordinance Approving Comprehensive Plan Map and Zone Changes for Annexed Lands (concurrent with 6-8, condition of 1) 10. Owner prepares detailed Final Plan application and Civil Plans, processes other state, federal and agency permits and approvals. 11. Final Plan and Site Review Approval Phase I (Deadline July 4,2009) 12. Final Civil (Engineering Construction) Plan Approval for Phase I 13. Final City Construction Permits. 14. Approval of all other State, County, Federal Agency permits prerequisite to construction activity. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -15- 15. Commencement Deadline January 17, 2010: Construction of Public Infrastructure, including street extensions, multi-use path, access roads to Dog Park and other Phase I Improvements to facilitate private development. (See Exhibit F) 16. Conveyance of deeds to effectuate land exchange, including acceptance by City of completed public recreation improvements constructed by Owner, or approved contract and security if conveyance prior to construction completion. 17. Final Plat Approval Phase I 18. Conveyance of Parcel from Owner to RVCDC or other approved affordable housing provider for Affordable Housing Project. (must occur prior to vertical construction) 19. Building Permits Phase I for Vertical Construction 20. Final Plan and Site Review Approval Phase II (Deadline July 4, 2011) 21. Final Civil (Engineering Construction) Plan Approval for Phase II 22. Final City Construction Permits. 23. Applicable State, County, Federal Agency permits prerequisite to construction activity . 24. Construction of Public Infrastructure, including street extensions and other Phase II Improvements to facilitate private development. (See Exhibit F) 25. Final Plat Approval Phase II 26. Building Permits Phase II for Vertical Construction 27. Deadline to complete Vertical Construction Phase I: January 4, 2013 28. Deadline to Complete Vertical Construction Phase II: January 4, 2015 The terms, restrictions and requirements of these approvals are set forth in the applicable City Ordinances, including the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, applicable State statutes and regulations, the preliminary approvals, including outline plan approval and this Agreement. Generally, the law in effect at the time of the application is deemed complete governs the review and approval of the decision, when not inconsistent with the Outline Plan approval, except for subdivision infrastructure. All local development approvals and permits identified in this Agreement shall be obtained at the sole cost of the Owner. The failure of this Agreement to address a particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve the Owner of the necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. Any matter or thing required to be done pursuant to the requirements of the ordinances of the City of Ashland shall not be otherwise amended, modified or waived unless such modification, amendment or waiver is expressly provided for in this Agreement with specific reference to the provisions so modified waived or amended. In no event shall delay in obtaining permits from other agencies be deemed as automatically requiring an extension of time to obtain required development approvals or the Development Agreement with City. Nor shall such delay be interpreted as requiring the City to approve an extension of time to any existing development order or development agreement. The following sworn statement shall be submitted prior to commencement of Physical construction: Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -16- Sworn Statement, Verification of Federal, State, and Local Permit Compliance. Prior to any land clearing, alteration, or physical construction (other than survey work or environmental testing) on a site the property owner and developer, if any, shall execute a sworn statement under penalty of perjury and false swearing, that owner/developer has obtained all required Federal, State, and local authorizations, permits and approvals for the proposed development, including any proposed use, or alteration of the site, including also any off-site improvements. Owner/Developer shall be solely responsible for obtaining all approvals, permits, licenses, insurance, and authorizations from the responsible Federal, State and local authorities, or other entities, necessary to use the property in the manner contemplated, including all authorizations necessary to perform land clearing, construction and improvement of property in the location and manner contemplated. This provision includes, but is not limited to, when applicable, a permit or statement from the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or Fish and Wildlife Service that owner's proposed use and/or development will not take or harm any endangered or threatened species as that term is defined in applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations. Further, it is expressly agreed and understood that the City of Ashland has no duty, responsibility or liability for requesting, obtaining, ensuring, or verifying owner/developer's compliance with the applicable state and federal agency permit or approval requirements. Any permit or authorization granted by the City, including any exemption, exception, permit, approval or variance pursuant to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall not in any way be interpreted as a waiver, modification, or grant of any state or federal agency permits or authorizations or permission to violate any state or federal law or regulation. Owner/Developer shall be held strictly liable, and shall hold the City of Ashland, its officers and employees harmless for administrative, civil and criminal penalties for any violation of Federal and State statutes or regulations, including but not limited to the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and regulations and rules implementing such laws. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as restricting or limiting the City from bringing an enforcement action under the Ashland Municipal Code. 17.0 SCHEDULE/PROCEDURE FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEW. [ORS 94.504(2)(g)] Two weeks prior to the anniversary date of the adoption of this Ordinance approving this Agreement, the Owner and City shall submit a written report to the Planning Director for the City, for review and consideration at the next available Council meeting. The report shall address the extent and timing of compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement by both parties. The submission shall be made in letter form to the City Planning Director for placement on the next available agenda. The Council shall review this report and this Agreement at the next available meeting, and if deemed necessary, may direct that a subsequent report be submitted and considered on or about the subsequent Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -17- anniversary date of this Agreement, and likewise thereafter. The Planning and Engineering Departments shall prepare the City's portion of the report. If the Council believes the reports demonstrate failure to comply with the terms of this Development Agreement, the reports and this Agreement shall be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the Council. In accordance with the amendment/revocation procedures the Council shall determine whether the evidence demonstrates that the Owner or City has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement. At such time the Council shall also determine whether this Agreement should be amended, modified, revoked or terminated. 18.0 BREACH OF AGREEMENT IREMEDIES & ENFORCEMENT [ORS 94.504(2)(j)] [ORS 94.522] 18.1 It is the intent of the parties to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement to the mutual benefit of both the Owner and the City. 18.2 In the event either party believes a material breach of the terms and conditions of this Agreement has occurred, whether by action or inaction of a party, the injured party shall serve written notice on the other of the alleged breach and the other party shall have thirty (30) days to cure or respond in writing to the injured party. In the event of a disagreement after the exchange of writings, the City Administrator shall set a time, date, and place for a public meeting of the City Council. The meeting shall give the City and the Owner an opportunity to explain to the Council the facts supporting or disproving the alleged breach, and allow the parties to propose a method of fulfilling this Agreement's terms and conditions. The parties may mutually negotiate an amendment to this Agreement to cure the alleged breach, and approve such amendment, after required notice, hearing and ordinance procedures are followed. Material breach includes but is not limited to any assignment by a party for the benefit of creditors, or adjudication as a bankrupt, or appointment of a receiver, trustee or creditor's committee over a party. Material breach also includes failure to proceed with the land exchange after all approvals are obtained from Federal, State and County approvals. 18.3 Until termination or revocation of this Development Agreement, the terms of this Agreement are enforceable by any party to this Agreement. [ORS 94.522(B)] The parties stipulate and agree that enforcement in Circuit Court is subject to the prerequisite administrative process set forth above. Thereafter, each party shall have all available remedies at law or in equity to recover damages and compel performance of the other party pursuant to this Agreement. The rights and remedies afforded under this Agreement are not exclusive and shall be in addition to and cumulative with any and all rights otherwise available at law or in equity. The exercise by either party of anyone or more of such remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -18- time, of any other remedy for the same default or breach or of any of its remedies for any other default or breach by the other parties, including, without limitation, the right to compel specific performance 18.4 It is expressly agreed by the parties that the appropriate remedy for enforcement of this Agreement in relation to the land exchange is specific performance as it relates to the Owner or City's breach of the obligation to convey; provided however that no action shall be permitted if all City, County, State, and Federal approvals have not been obtained. In no event shall an injunctive order be issued which would require City of Ashland to issue a development approval or permit in violation of Ashland Land Use Ordinances, as they exist at the time of this Agreement, or as otherwise made applicable to the development authorized in this agreement or State Statutes or the terms and conditions of the outline plan approval or subsequent final approvals. This provision does not limit the available remedies for other forms of breach. The parties agree that the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorney fees and costs in the event of litigation, including any appeal, to enforce this Agreement. 18.5 In the event of a material breach by the Owner, City may, but is not required as a prerequisite to legal action, pursue revocation or termination of this Agreement in accordance with the following administrative process: If at the public hearing to revoke or terminate this Agreement, the City finds, based on substantial competent evidence, that the Owner is in material breach of this Agreement, and an amendment to this Agreement to cure the breach is not appropriate, the City may revoke and terminate the Development Agreement and the development authorization for all or part of the Verde Village Project. The breach hearing shall be held concurrent with a revocation hearing held pursuant to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance which may include revocation of final plan, outline plan, change of zoning or other designations on the property. In lieu of revoking this Agreement, and the development authorization, City may agree, in its sole discretion, to modify this Agreement upon a finding that such modification is in the best interests of City and the public. It is further agreed by the Owner and the City that all costs incurred by the City for the breach and revocation proceedings shall be paid by the Owner. However, no costs shall be assessed against the Owner if the result of the hearing or upon review by the Court, is a finding that the City is in material breach of the Agreement, or that the Owner is not in material breach. If assessed costs are not paid by the Owner, the City is empowered to place a lien against the property in the amount of the unpaid costs. This provision shall not be interpreted to provide an exclusive remedy, and either party may pursue any appropriate remedy at law or equity in the event the other party or its successors in interest fail to abide by the provisions of this Agreement. If Owner disagrees with City's decision concerning revocation or termination of this Agreement Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -19- as set forth above, then Owner may file a legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction to review and determine the merits of City's decision and issue an appropriate judgment or decree. 18.6 In addition, any person who violates the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, and development approvals, authorizations and conditions issued pursuant thereto, are subject to the enforcement provisions set out in the Ashland Municipal Code, as amended from time to time, including civil and criminal the penalties set forth therein. Nothing herein shall constitute an exclusive remedy and the City reserves the right to pursue any and all legal and equitable remedies in order to abate a violation of this Ordinance. 19.0 STATE AND FEDERAL LAW CHANGE. [ORS 94.504(2)(1)] The parties agree that this Agreement is based on the proposition that the Verde Village Project will comply with City, Regional, State, and Federal policies, laws, and rules. If Regional Policy, State or Federal laws are enacted after City approval of this Agreement, which are applicable to and preclude either party's compliance with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, or render compliance impossible, unlawful, or inconsistent with such laws or rules, or regional policies, this Agreement shall first be modified or amended, by mutual agreement, as is necessary, to comply or to sever provisions and give effect to the remainder of the Agreement. If such modification or amendment cannot remedy the inconsistency, this Agreement shall be revoked to comply with the relevant State or Federal laws or regional policies and regulations. Accordingly if this Agreement fails in its essential purpose, then the parties shall be placed into their original position to the extent practical. If not practical, such revocation proceeding, caused without fault to either party, shall preserve to the extent possible under the law, an equal balance between the parties, with protection afforded the City and protection for the Owner related to the development authorizations and improvements for which the Owner has expended funds in good faith reliance on the governmental authorization. 20.0 EFFECT OF ANNEXATION [ORS 94.504(2)(L)] Annexation is necessary to authorize the development contemplated in the Verde Village project as described and shown in Planning Action 2006-01663. A portion of the property is located inside the City limits, but not a discrete geographic phase severable from the remainder. Accordingly, this Agreement contemplates that property which is the subject of this Agreement will be fully annexed into City as part of the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. The required public hearings having be held concurrent with the approval of this Agreement, only the normal ordinance processes for annexation and withdrawal from Fire Districts remains to effectuate the approval. The Annexation is more fully described in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -20- of Law and Order concerning the land use approvals, attached to the Ordinance declaring approval of this Development Agreement. This Agreement contemplates and provides for annexation of all portions of the Verde Village Property not currently within City limits as a material term of this Agreement. Therefore, failure to accomplish annexation as contemplated will require amendment, modification, or revocation of the Development Agreement. 21.0 AMENDMENT, TERMINATION OR REVOCATION. [ORS 94.508(2)] [ORS 94.522] 21.1 Owner and City, their successors and assignees may mutually agree to amend, modify, terminate or revoke this Agreement after compliance with the Ordinance amendment procedures identified herein, or as otherwise provided for in this Agreement. In the event of such mutual amendment, modification, termination or revocation, the parties shall be required to mutually agree as to any required allocation, return, or payment for public improvements, dedications or expenditures made in reliance upon this Agreement. In the event the land exchange is not approved by the Federal, State and County, the Parties agree that this Agreement shall be immediately scheduled for termination by Ordinance. 21.2 The parties hereto shall at all times strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Amendment, termination or revocation of this Agreement shall be made by adoption of an Ordinance declaring the action and setting forth the terms and conditions. Unless another procedure specific to Development Agreements is proVided in a City Development Agreement Ordinance, (and such procedure pursuant to ORS 94.513(1) is specifically contemplated and anticipated herein) the procedures and requirements for amendment, revocation or modification of a Development Agreement are the same as for approval of a Development Agreement, currently notice and hearing before the Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Except as provided below, no modification, amendment or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document approved and executed by all the parties hereto. 21.3 Pursuant to ORS 94.518, except as provided in this Development Agreement, the local government law and policies governing this Agreement shall be those laws and policies in effect at the time of approval of this Development Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of this Development Agreement, generally, unless specifically inconsistent with the outline plan, the law in effect at the time of subsequent development approvals governs those approvals. In addition, unless a reservation of legislative power is included in a Development Agreement, the Agreement is subject to a legal challenge as void or voidable for "'contracting away the police power". Accordingly, the following reservation of power is Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -21- included in this and in all City Development Agreements. City may apply subsequently adopted laws and policies to this Development Agreement if the City holds a public hearing proposing imposition of such subsequently adopted laws in an amendment of this Agreement and determines anyone of the following: A. The laws and policies are not in conflict with the laws and policies governing the Development Agreement and do not prevent development of the land uses, intensities or densities in the Development Agreement; or B. The laws and policies are essential to the public health, safety, or welfare, and expressly state that they shall apply to a development that is subject to a Development Agreement; or C. The laws and policies are specifically anticipated and provided for in the Development Agreement; or D. City demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing at the time of approval of the Development Agreement; or E. It is demonstrated that the Development Agreement is based on substantially inaccurate information supplied by the Owner. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City from applying subsequently enacted laws to the Development Agreement in the event an amendment or modification of this Agreement is requested by Owner pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement specifically anticipates applying current health and safety regulations to any reconstruction of the PUD, should destruction occur, (e.g. current regulations will be used to guide re- installation of publiC infrastructure). 22.0 RECORDING AND EFFECTIVENESS. [ORS 94.528] 22.1 Recording. The Owner shall provide the City an executed Development Agreement, unaltered except for changes agreed upon during consideration of the matter, or to correct typographical errors, together with executed and unaltered Exhibits, including legal description, prior to 5:00 p.m. on January 2, 2008. City shall record this Agreement and Exhibits with the County Clerk as required by ORS 94.528 within ten (10) days of the execution of this Agreement by all parties. Owner is solely responsible for recording costs. Any alteration or change to this Agreement not accepted by the City in writing shall render this Agreement and the Ordinance approving it, ineffective and recording shall not occur. If this Development Agreement is amended, canceled, modified, extended or revoked, the appropriate recording shall be made in the County records to reflect the action. The Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -22- burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties of this Agreement. 22.2 Finality and Effectiveness. The Ordinance declaring approval and adopting the Development Agreement is a final City land use decision on the date the Ordinance Second Reading is completed, the Ordinance and Findings are signed by the Mayor and Notice of the City's Decision is provided. Notwithstanding the finality of the land use decision, the decision shall not be effective until the later of the following: the complete execution of this Development Agreement and Exhibits by AFSG and City; and (3) the finality of the Land Use Approvals defined herein. As used herein "finality of Land Use Approvals" means the date upon which the Ordinance is effective if no appeal is filed, and, if an appeal is filed, the date that all appeals are final. All timetables are tolled for the period of delay caused by any appeal; and the parties agree to an administrative addendum to restate deadlines for clarity after the resolution of any appeal. 23.0 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE [ORS 94.508(1)&(2)] City's Council finds that this Development Agreement is consistent with the provisions of the ALUO in place at the time of its adoption, and approves this Agreement by adoption of an Ordinance declaring approval of this Agreement, and supported by Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Orders concerning the actions referenced therein. This Development Agreement is a land use decision under ORS Chapter 197. 24.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement incorporates or references all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein and the parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements or understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement that are not contained in, incorporated into, or referenced in this document. Accordingly, it is agreed that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or agreements, whether oral or written. 25.0 SEVERABILITY. If any clause, section, sentence or any other portion or any part of this Agreement is contrary to, prohibited by, or deemed invalid or null and void for any reason under any applicable law or regulation, such provisions shall be inapplicable and deemed omitted to the extent so contrary, prohibited, invalid or void, however, the remainder hereof shall not be invalidated thereby and shall be given full force and effect to the fullest extent permitted by law. In the even t of such invalidation or prohibition, the Parties shall Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -23- meet to discuss amendments and alternatives to address the deficiency. 26.0 JURISDICTION AND GOVERNING LAW. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement has been negotiated and entered into in the State of Oregon. The parties hereto further agree that any and all suits or actions at law shall initially be brought in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Jackson County, or the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted under the laws of the State of Oregon. 27.0 ASSIGNMENT/SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. [ORS 94.504(k)] This Agreement shall be recorded pursuant to ORS 94.528 in the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon and said Agreement shall run with the land. Such Agreement is binding upon the City and AFSG, their successors in interest, heirs, assigns and personal representatives. This Agreement shall be fully assignable, in whole or in discrete approved part (see the covenant of unified control), by AFSG and shall bind and inure to the benefit of AFSG and its assigns and successors. 28.0 NOTICES. All notices, demands, requests, or replies provided for or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and may be delivered by anyone of the following methods: (a) by personal delivery; (b) by deposit with the United States Postal Service as certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses stated below; (c) by prepaid nationally-recognized overnight courier (such as UPS, overnight mail, or Federal Express), or be by facsimile transmission). Notice deposited with the United States Postal Service in the manner described above shall be deemed effective three (3) business days after deposit with the Postal service. Notice by facsimile or overnight express delivery service shall be deemed effective one (1) business day after transmission or after deposit with the express delivery service. Notice by personal delivery shall be deemed effective at the time of personal delivery. For purposes of notice demand, request or payment: Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc. Attn.: Gregory D. Williams, President 744 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-2699 fax with copy to: Christian E. Hearn Davis, Hearn, Saladoff, Bridges &. Visser, P.C. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -24- 515 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-4455 fax In the case of notice or communication to the City, addressed as follows: City of Ashland Legal Department 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 552-2092 fax with copies to: City of Ashland Office of the City Administrator 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-5311 fax City of Ashland Department of Community Development 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 552-2050 or addressed in such way in respect to a Party as that Party may, from time to time, designate in writing and dispatched as provided in this Agreement. 29.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 29.1 HeadinQs. The titles of the sections in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only, and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. 29.2 Waivers. No waiver made by either Party with respect to the performance, or manner or time thereof, or any obligation of the other Party or any condition inuring to its benefit under this Agreement shall be considered a waiver of the rights of the other Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -25- Party making the waiver. No waiver by City or AFSG or any provIsions of this Agreement or any breach thereof shall be of any force or effect unless in writing; and no waiver shall be construed to be a continuing waiver. 29.3 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 29.4 Calculation of Time. All periods of time referred to herein shall included Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in the State of Oregon, except that if the last day of any period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the State of Oregon, the period shall be extended to include the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or such legal holiday. 29.5 Construction. In construing this Agreement, singular pronouns shall be taken to mean and include the plural and the masculine pronoun shall be taken to mean and include the feminine and neuter, as the context may require. 29.6 Good Faith and Reasonableness. The Parties intend that the obligations of good faith and fair dealing apply to this Agreement generally, and that no negative inferences be drawn by the absence of an explicit obligation to be reasonable in any portion of this Agreement. The obligation to be reasonable shall only be negated if arbitrariness is clear and explicitly permitted as to the specific item in question, as in the case of a Party being given "sole discretion" or being allowed to make a decision in its "sole judgment." 29.7 Cooperation in the Event of Leaal Challenae. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, or Ordinance adopting this Agreement, the parties agree to cooperate in defending such action. 29.8 Enforced Delav. Extensions of Time of Performance. In addition to the specific provisions of this Agreement, a performance by any party shall not be in default where such default or delays is due to war; insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, drought, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, unforeseen governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than the City, enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulation, litigation or similar bases for excused performance which is not within the reasonable control of the party to be excused; provided, however, that the Parties agree to proceed in good faith in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 29.9 No Third Party Beneficiaries. City and AFSG, and their successors and assigns, are the only parties to this Agreement and are the only Parties entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Agreement gives, or is intended to give, or shall be construed to give or provide, any benefit or right, whether directly or indirectly or otherwise, to third persons unless such third persons are individually identified by Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -26- name herein and expressly described as the intended beneficiaries of this Agreement. 29.10 Other Necessarv Acts. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such further instruments and documents and take such additional acts (which in the case of the City, shall require adopting necessary ordinances and resolutions) as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other parties the full and complete enjoyment of rights and privileges hereunder. 29.11 Survival of Representations. The covenants, agreements, representations, and warranties made here shall survive the close of escrow and shall not merge into the deed and the recordation of it in the official records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. The date of this Agreement shall be the date on which this Agreement is effective (i.e. 30 days after it was approved by Ordinance at Second Reading by the City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon.) OWNER ASHLAND FLOWER SHOP AND GREENHOUSES, INC. ("AFSG") Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Gregory D. Williams, President Dated: Witness Name printed: Address: Witness Name printed: STATE OF OREGON) ) ss County of Jackson ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by Gregory D. Williams, as the President and authorized agent of Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -27- Approved as to Form: Davis, Hearn, Saladoff, Bridges & Visser, P.c. Christian E. Hearn, OSB 911829 Attorneys for Ashland Flowershop and Greenhouses, Inc. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON ("City") By: John Morrison, Mayor STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss County of Jackson ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by John Morrison, as the Mayor and authorized agent of the City of Ashland, Oregon, on behalf of said City. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Approved as to Form: Legal Department, City of Ashland Richard Appicello, OSB 904331 Interim City Attorney Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -28- MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT ALL MORTGAGE HOLDERS MUST SIGN A CONSENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT TO INTER ALIA THE PROVISION FOR THE RESERVATION OR DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. [ORS 94.504(2)(e)] The undersigned mortgage holder, , hereby certifies that it is the holder of a certain mortgage lien or encumbrance on the land subject to this Development Agreement and does hereby consent and agree to the foregoing Development Agreement, including the reservations, dedications, donations, sales, and/or exchanges of land for public purposes contained herein and agrees that its mortgage, lien, or encumbrance shall be subordinate to such reservation, dedication, donation, sale or exchange. Dated this day of , 2007 MORTGAGE HOLDER Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Signature of Authorized Agent Name printed: Title: Address: Witnesses: Name printed: Name printed: ......._....................................._ on.. ...... ...............__.__........ ... .........___..............__.........................._........mm....._ ........____..........__ _.........mm.___._......._...__ ............-.-.................... State of County of City of ) ) ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2005, by Name of Officer Name of Corporation corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally State or Place of Incorporation of , a known to me or has produced as identification. Notary Seal Notary Public ~y~~~~i??i()'!m~pi~es: Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Page -29- EXHIBIT A Verde Village LEGAL DESCRIPTION attach legal description of Verde ViI/age as configured after exchange Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit A Page 10'1 EXHIBIT B Title Company Preliminary Title Report Certification Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT C UNIFIED CONTROL We, the undersigned, being the Owners of the property described in Exhibit A to that to that Development Agreement for "Verde Village", dated this day of , 20-, between The City of Ashland Oregon and Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses Inc. , , do hereby covenant and agree that said described parcel shall be held under single ownership, except to facilitate conveyance to the City contemplated in this agreement, and shall not be transferred, conveyed, sold or divided in any unit other than in its entirety; provided, however, (that individual subdivision lots or fully constructed condominium units, if any, may be conveyed to individual purchasers). In addition, the following conveyances shall be permitted: (1) If the PUD is designed and planned to be developed in phases or portions of phases, and each phase or portion of a phase complies with the requirements contained within the Development Agreement and PUD documents, then each phase may be conveyed separately upon final development plat approval of that phase or approved sub-phase. (2) Common elements, common open area open spaces, preservation areas and developed recreation areas, if any, may be conveyed to a property owners' association or other legal entity or governmental entity, so long as such conveyance shall be subject to the express restriction that the subject property will never be used for any purpose other than as common elements, common open areas, open spaces, preservation areas or developed recreation areas, as applicable. (3) Other portions of the subject property that will be used or maintained by governmental, environmental, charitable or other organizations or agencies for such purposes as the City Council of the City of Ashland may deem appropriate. Nothing herein contained shall limit, in any manner, the undersigned, or their successors or assigns, to mortgage or encumber the property or any part thereof. Encumbrances are encouraged to correspond to approved phase or lot lines. The undersigned further agrees that this condition, restriction and limitation shall be deemed a covenant running with the land and shall remain in full force and effect and be binding on the undersigned, its successors and assigns, until such time as the same may be released in writing by the City of Ashland, Oregon. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit C Page 1 of 2 The undersigned further agrees that this instrument may be recorded in the public records of Jackson County, Oregon. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents on the dates indicated below. OWNER ASHLAND FLOWER SHOP AND GREENHOUSES, INC. ("AFSG") Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Gregory D. Williams, President Dated: Witness Name printed: Address: Witness Name printed: STATE OF OREGON) ) ss County of Jackson ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by Gregory D. Williams, as the President and authorized agent of Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Approved as to Form: Davis, Hearn, Saladoff, Bridges & Visser, P,c. Christian E. Hearn, OSB 911829 Attorneys for Ashland Flowershop and Greenhouses, Inc. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit C Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT D Preliminary Development Plan/Plat (The approved Outline Plan must be reduced to a legal sized legible document(s) for recording as Exhibit D) Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit D Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT E VERDE VILLAGE Special Conditions 1) Affordable Housing Requirements. A deed restriction shall be recorded for the town home portion of the development specifying the land is required to be developed as affordable units in accordance with AMC 18.06.030.G(5) and in conformance with the approval of PA 2006-01663. The deed restriction shall require the affordable units to remain affordable per Resolution 2006-13 for a 60 year period from initial occupancy. The town home area shall be serviced with all needed public facilities. The deed restricted land shall be dedicated to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation with proof of the dedication and deed restriction being presented to the City of Ashland Housing Program Specialist prior to issuance of a building permit for the development of the first market rate residential unit. The deed for the land conveyed for affordable housing purposes shall include a reverter to the Owner or deed restriction requiring conveyance of the property to the City of Ashland if the affordable housing development is not fully developed in accordance with the approval of PA 2006-01663 within five years of this approval, unless administratively extended pursuant to Exhibit F. In the event the property reverts to the Owner the Owner shall thereafter convey the property, without encumbrances, to the City of Ashland, for affordable housing purposes. City may accept or reject the offer, but the owner shall not be relieved of the obligation to convey the property to another approved provider of affordable housing. All the affordable housing units shall be Net Zero Energy Ready as provided in Condition 12 below. 2) Annexation Sequence. The sequence is set forth in Section 16 of this Agreement. Property comprising Phase I shall be annexed first. The land dedicated to the City for parks purposes adjacent to Ashland Creek shall be annexed second. Following such Park annexation, Phase II of the project (single-family development) may be annexed. 3) Applicant's Proposals: The applicant agrees that Project shall be constructed to the standards as proposed in the application, and as finally approved by the Council, including supporting documentation as entered into the record. All proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval for purposes of enforcement. 4) Archaeological Artifacts: In the event of discovery of archaeological artifacts Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 1 of 8 during project construction, the Owner shall stop construction in that area and notify the City and the State of Oregon. Proper protection and/or relocation of artifacts, to the satisfaction of State and Local approval authorities shall be provided by the Owner, prior to recommencement of construction. 5) Ashland Creek Riparian Corridor Enhancement and Mitigation. The Owner shall be solely responsible for the restoration and enhancement of the Riparian Corridor to be conveyed to the City as part of the land exchange. A mitigation plan prepared by a riparian biologist or a natural resource professional with training and experience in biology, ecology or related fields for the impact of the construction of the multi-use path in the riparian corridor and to address the 10-foot wide riparian corridor buffer. The riparian corridor buffer is the setback between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25 -39, and is delineated as common area in the application materials. Disturbed areas from the multi-use path construction shall be re-vegetated and an additional area restored and enhanced with local source native plant material including ground cover, shrubs and trees at a 1: 1.5 ratio, erosion control material shall be applied (e.g. mulch, hay, jute-netting, or comparable) and temporary irrigation facilities installed. The mitigation plan shall include but not be limited to a statement of objectives, measurable standards of mitigation, an assessment of riparian corridor functions and values, a statement and detail plan of the location, elevation and hydrology of the mitigation area, a planting plan and schedule, a monitoring and maintenance plan, a contingency plan and performance guarantees. The applicants shall install the mitigation measures in the approved mitigation plan in conjunction with the multi-use path installation. The Final Plan application shall include a mitigation plan (see contract required plant materials) The Contract for Installation of Plant Materials with Security acceptable to the City Attorney and Planning Director shall be submitted for restoration and enhancement consistent on or before the commencement of construction as specified in the Timetable of Development. 6) Boundary Description. A final boundary description and map shall be prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. A registered land surveyor shall prepare the description and map. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monuments established as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. 7) Covenants Conditions and Restrictions. A draft copy of the CC&R's for the homeowners association(s) shall be provided at the time of Final Plan Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 2 of 8 application. Lots 65 - 68 shall be included in a homeowners association and subject to all subdivision requirements. CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common area and open space improvements, parkrows and street trees. CC&R's shall provide reciprocal easements for residents of the various homeowners associations (i.e. cottages, town homes and single-family residential) to access and use all of the project open spaces. CC&R's shall note that any deviation from the Tree Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. That the CC&R's identify the units are which are subject to the City's Affordable Housing requirements and terms of affordability. The CCRs shall include reference to the administrative enforcement provisions of this agreement and the ability of the City to enforce and assess the association for the maintenance of common areas, including the association's responsibilities for maintenance of the storm water areas offsite. The Final Plan submittal shall address the usability, including Verde Village community access, of the private open spaces. Usability shall be specifically addressed for the two small open spaces in the town home area (550 sf and 700 sf), one small open space in the cottage area (1,300 sf) and the one small open space adjacent to the alley 1,310 sf). Layout and landscaping of the open spaces as well as any improvements such as play equipment shall be detailed in the Final Plan submittals. 8) Curb-Cut Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected driveway curb-cuts for units 45 and 46 - spaced at least 24- feet apart as measured between the outside edges of the apron wings of the driveway approaches in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. 9) Easements: Buildings or permanent structures shall not be located over easements, including but not limited to the sanitary sewer pressure line easement. 10) Endangered Species: In the event that it is determined that any representative of a protected plant or animal species pursuant to the federal, state, regional or local law, is resident on or otherwise is significantly dependent upon the Verde Village property, the Owner shall cease all activities which might negatively affect that individual or population and immediately notify the City of Ashland, State of Oregon and the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. Construction may resume when proper protection, to the satisfaction of all agencies, including the City, is provided by the Owner. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 3 of 8 11) Energv Conservation: Earth Advantage Program. A minimum of 53 of the residential units shall qualify in the City of Ashland Earth Advantage program. The applicants shall meet with the Ashland Conservation Division regarding eligible site activities prior to issuance of an excavation permit. The required Earth Advantage documentation shall be submitted with each building permit application. 12) Energy Conservation: Net Zero Energy. 53 residential units, in the subdivision, including the cottages, duplexes and single family units, shall meet the application "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit K-3 of the Revised Outline Plan, Book III Narrative revised October 24, 2007. The Final Plan application shall include systems for measuring and monitoring compliance of the development with the Performance Standard that is administered by the applicants and verified by the city. "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit K-3 of the Revised Outline Plan, Book III-Narrative revised October 24, 2007 shall be be consistent with the following. . That all dishwasher and washing machines shall qualify for the State of Oregon tax credit and be selected from the list of qualified machines maintained by the Oregon Department of Energy. . That each home that would be built to the standards encompassed in the applicant's Exhibit K shall be provided with a Photovoltaic (PV) system that is either 3kW's in size or produces 1.5 Kwh'sjSq. Ft.jYr. whichever is less, and also be provided with enough available south facing unshaded roof space to double the size of the PV system. . . That the homes will meet a minimum requirement of R-49 attic insulation for flat ceilings. . That the passive solar homes shall meet the State of Oregon's minimum requirements for the passive solar home tax credit. That the 15 affordable residential units in the subdivision (i.e. town homes) shall meet the application "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit K-3 of the Revised Outline Plan, Book III - Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 4 of 8 Narrative revised October 24, 2007, except that the photovoltaic (PV) system is not required to be installed in the affordable units. The affordable unit shall be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure (e.g. wiring, conduit, roof structure) so that a photovoltaic (PV) system can be installed at a later date. 13) Intersection Design: Applicant shall design the pedestrian crossing at the new intersection of Helman St., Almeda Dr. and Nevada St. Pedestrian safety and refugee shall be addressed in the intersection design. Design must be submitted with the Final Plan application. 14) LID Non-remonstrance: Prior to Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall execute a document as consistent with ALUO 18.68.150 agreeing to participate in their fair share costs associated with a future Local Improvement District for improvements to Helman Street and to not remonstrate against such District prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat. Executed documents shall be submitted with the application for Final Plan. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by city ordinances and resolutions in effect at the time 15) Lot Coverage Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected lot coverage calculations in square footage and percentage for each development area (i.e. cottages, town homes and single- family/duplex areas). Any area other than landscaping such as structures, driveways, patios and pervious paving that does not allow normal water infiltration shall be included as lot coverage. 16) Measure 49 Waiver. The applicant expressly agrees to construct the project in accordance with the approved plan and City ordinances and waives the right to file a claim under Oregon Statewide Measure 49. The signed waiver shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior to signature of the survey plat or adoption of a resolution or ordinance formally annexing the property, whichever is first. 17) Multi-Use Path Improvements. As specified in the approved Timetable of Development, all the multi-use paths shall be constructed according to City Code standards, specifically, paths shall be paved with concrete, asphalt or a comparable all-weather surfacing. Two to four foot wide gravel or planted strips are required on both sides of the multi-use paths in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. Fencing or retaining Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 5 of 8 walls shall be located two to four feet from the improved edges of the path to provide clear distance on both sides of the path for safe operation. The clear distance areas shall be graded to the same slope as the improved path to allow recovery room for pedestrians and bicyclists. The clear distance areas shall be limited to gravel or landscape materials, and vegetation in excess of six inches in height shall not be placed in the clear distance areas. The transition from Almeda Dr. to the multi-use path, from Canine Way to the multi-use path and from Nevada St. to the multi- use path shall be addressed. Specifically, the preliminary engineering shall address bicycle access from the street grade and provide sufficient turning radius for bicycle navigation. The preliminary engineering plans submitted with the Final Plan application shall include details for the multi- use path improvements and this design. All multi-use path public easements shall be clearly identified on the final survey plat, conveyed, and identified in the project, (with appropriate markings or compliant signage). Easements are required for paths between units 64-65 and adjacent to 39. The project CC&R's shall expressly note that the pathways are for public use and shall not be obstructed or through access restricted unless authorized by the City of Ashland and Ashland Parks Department. 18) Multi-Use Path Revisions: The adjustments to the width and location of the multi-use path in and adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor shall not affect the width or location of the 10-foot wide setback to buildings and structures or riparian corridor buffer between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25-39 that is delineated as common area in the application materials. The 10-foot wide setback to buildings or structures or riparian corridor shall be located and sized as shown on plans S-l dated June 8, 2007, S-4 dated June 8, 2007 and P-2 dated July 17 from the application. 19) Open Space Usability. [Planning Commission Condition]. The Final Plan submittal shall address the usability, including community access, of the open spaces. Usability shall be specifically addressed for the two small open spaces in the town home area (550 sf and 700 sf), one small open space in the cottage area (1,300 sf) and the one small open space adjacent to the alley 1,310 sf). Layout and landscaping of the open spaces as well as any improvements such as play equipment shall be detailed in the Final Plan submittals. 20) Parking Compliance: The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected on-street parking placement so that parking spaces are not Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 6 of 8 counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street in accordance with 18.92.025.0. 21) Sidewalk Construction. A sidewalk meeting the requirements of the Ashland Street Standards shall be installed on the north side of Nevada St. from the eastern project boundary to the intersection of Nevada S. to Oak St. Sidewalk design shall be at the discretion of the Staff Advisor in order to address site constraints such as grade and right-of-way width. These sidewalk improvements shall be included in the preliminary street improvement plan included with the Final Plan application. 22) Solar Ordinance Compliance. The Final Plan application shall demonstrate all new structures comply with the Solar Setback A, or that each home shall receive an equivalent certification by the project architects and mechanical engineers that the shadow height on southern facing exposures will not exceed that allowed under Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Alternatively, the Final Plan application may seek a Variance to solar setback requirements, if applicants can submit architectural and engineering analysis supporting a variance. 23) Storm water Continuing Maintenance Obligation: The Owner, and thereafter, the Association, (or the owners of units in the project in the event the Association is dissolved), shall be responsible for permanent maintenance of both on-site and off site storm water bio-engineered swales and wetland systems. Specifically, the created wetland area and storm water swale system to be constructed with the project and to be located on property exchanged with the City shall remain the maintenance obligation of the Owner, Association, its successors and assigns. Maintenance shall be coordinated and approved by the City Public Works Department and Building Division and shall be performed in accordance with approved plans by licensed contractors, hired by the Association and authorized by City Public Works to enter property for maintenance purposes. 24) Sworn Statement. Prior to any land clearing, alteration, or physical construction (other than survey work or environmental testing) on a site the property owner and developer, if any, shall execute a sworn statement under penalty of perjury and false swearing, that owner/developer has obtained all required Federal, State, and local authorizations, permits and approvals for the proposed development, including any proposed use, or alteration of the site, including also any off-site improvements. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 7 of 8 25) Tree Protection Compliance. The Final Plan application shall address mitigation for the removal of the 25-inch dbh Oak tree (tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T-1, June 8, 2007). Mitigation shall meet the requirements of Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.61.084. A Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved Oak tree(tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T-1, June 8, 2007) and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the tree to be removed and the installation of the tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 26) Vision Clearance Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected delineation of vision clearance areas at the intersections of streets and alleys throughout the project in accordance with 18.92.070.0. Structures, signs and vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in height shall not be placed in the vision clearance areas. Building envelopes shall be modified accordingly on the Final Plan submittals. 27) No Waiver. The failure of this Agreement to address a particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve the Owner of the necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. Any matter or thing required to be done pursuant to the requirements of the ordinances of the City of Ashland shall not be amended, modified or waived unless such modification, amendment or waiver is expressly provided for in this Agreement with specific reference to the provisions so modified waived or amended. 28) Wetland Setbacks. A minimum of five feet shall be maintained between the northern pavement edge of the multi-use path and the wetland. The Final Plan application shall address the full width of the path improvement including the base materials and methods to protect the wetland during construction (i.e. sediment fencing). 29) Zoning Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include demonstration that the buildings in the R-1-3.5 zoning district (cottages and town homes) meet the required front yard for the R-1-3.5 zoning district. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit E Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT F TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT - OUTLINE PLAN PHYSICAL COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION [ORS 94.504(4)] This development will be constructed in phases as shown on Exhibit D to this Agreement. Each phase to be constructed, and the date which Final Plan and Site Review and final plat approval of each phase must be obtained, are as follows: Physical commencement of construction of any phase of development shall occur on or before January 17, 2010. Completion of all infrastructure and vertical construction, except for single family units on individual platted lots, [4 total exempt from vertical construction deadline] shall occur no later than January 17, 2015. Phase Final Plan and Infrastructure Final Plat and Completion Site Review Approval Completion of Vertical Construction I July 17, 2009 July 17, 2011 January 17, 2013 January 17, 2010. Final Civil Plan Approval (construction authorization) and any associated construction permits must be obtained and Contract for Installation and Maintenance of Plant Materials with Security submitted and executed, and construction commenced with respect to Phase I elements within 6 months of Final Plan Approval, no later than specified. July 17, 2011. Complete extension of Almeda to Nevada Street, completion of construction of "Canine Way" access to Dog Park, including installation of water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage power, gas, telephone and all utilities. July 17, 2011. Complete sidewalk on the north side of Nevada Street from the eastern project boundary to the intersection of Nevada and Oak Street. July 17, 2011. Complete Restoration and Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit F Page 1 of 4 Enhancement of Riparian Corridor and Wetland Areas pursuant to Contract for Installation of Plant Materials, Security and Preserve Area Management Plan. July 17, 2011. Complete construction of multi-use path and transfer deed to City of Ashland to effectuate land exchange and acceptance of tendered public recreation improvements. July 17, 2011. Complete construction of subdivision infrastructure to the affordable housing site and complete extension of all needed public facilities to the affordable housing site. (to service 15 town home units). July 17, 2011. Complete construction of "subdivision" Infrastructure for Phase I (R-1- 3.5 portion) of the project inclusive infrastructure for one (1) single family lot, and infrastructure for twenty-four (24) cottage units July 17, 2011. Phase 1. Deadline for final survey to be signed after completion of subdivision infrastructure and before start of vertical construction. July 17, 2011. Deadline to transfer property title to Affordable Housing Tract to Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) or other approved non-profit affordable housing developer. Transfer shall occur prior to vertical construction on any Phase of the project. January 17, 2013. Vertical construction deadline for twenty- four (24) cottage units and vertical construction Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit F Page 2 of 4 deadline for fifteen (15) multi-family units for affordable housing (town- homes). Phase Final Plan and Infrastructure Final Plat and Completion Site Review Approval Completion of Vertical Construction II July 17, 2011 July 17, 2013 January 17, 2015 July 17, 2013. Complete construction of "subdivision" Infrastructure for Phase II (R-1-5 portion) of the project inclusive infrastructure for three (3) single family lots on Nevada Street, and infrastructure for twenty-five (25) single family lots, including Sander Way parkrow. July 17, 2013. Phase II. Deadline for final survey to be signed after completion of subdivision infrastructure and before start of vertical construction. January 17, 2015. Vertical construction deadline for twenty- five (25) single family homes of which 19 are detached and 6 are attached. July 17, 2013. Completion of Maintenance and Security Period for Restoration and Enhancement of Riparian Corridor and Wetland Areas pursuant to Contract for Installation of Plant Materials, Security and Preserve Area Management Plan from Phase 1. Failure to strictly comply with this timetable of development requires an amendment to this Agreement and subjects the Owner to then current laws, Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit F Page 3 of 4 including but not limited to engineering construction standards, contrary to the ordinary protection of ORS 92.040. Notwithstanding this provision, the Director may extend, once, by no more than twelve (12) months, any internal project timetable in accordance with procedures then in effect to extension of outline plan approvals. The title transfer, physical commencement and the 2015 completion deadline shall not be administratively extended. After the construction termination date, no further development as authorized herein (except for building permits for single family units on individual platted lots) shall be allowed on the subject property unless such development is in compliance with applicable development regulations in effect at the time. Any amendment to the extent of the Amendment shall comply with the laws in effect at the time the amendment is sought. Failure of the timetable of development to list an element of the Project does not relieve or excuse the Owner from the requirement to complete that element. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit F Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT G Aareement for Purchase and Sale: Exchanae of Real Property. 1. Definitions Exchange Properties, (as used in this section): For purposes of this Agreement, "Property" shall mean Exhibit A-lor Exhibit A-2 depending upon who is the Buyer and who is the Seller. Exhibit A-1 describes the property to be deeded from the City of Ashland to AFSG. Exhibit A-2 describes the property to be deeded from AFSG to City of Ashland, with completely constructed multi-use path improvements and completion restoration and enhancement of riparian areas. Parties to the Agreement: For purposes of this Agreement, AFSG shall be considered both the Buyer of the property identified in Exhibit A-1 and Seller of the Property in Exhibit A-2. City shall be considered both the Buyer of the Property identified in A-2 and the Seller of the Property identified in A-l. Sell: For purposes of this agreement, "Sell" means a quid pro quo exchange with no monetary exchange. 2. Purchase and Sale. The Seller agrees to sell to the Buyer, and the Buyer agrees to purchase from the Seller, the Property on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 3. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property shall be quid pro quo property exchange, with no financial remuneration to be paid by City Buyer to AFSG Seller, despite any disparity in appraised value of the real property interests being exchanged. The legal requirement is that the value of the Property the City receives is greater than the value of the property the City is exchanging. The difference in values of the real property, established by the City Finance Department after review of the appraisals in the record, shall be considered and acknowledged as a gift or donation to the City by the Williams family. The donation amount will be equal to the difference between appraised values of the two properties. 4. Closing Date. The exchange is approved by the City with the adoption of the Ordinance Declaring approval of the Development Agreement. However, the exchange is delayed until the occurrence of three (3) events outside the control of the parties: (1) approval of the transaction by the Federal Government; (2) approval of the transaction by the State Government; and (3) approval of the transaction by the County government. Accordingly, the transaction shall close on or before the date that is thirty (30) business days following the receipt by the City of written documents reflecting the "Trigger" to closing, that is the occurrence of the last required approval identified above. The City Buyer will provide the Seller AFSG with written notice of the Closing Date at least five business days before that date. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 1 of 12 5. Conditions to Closing (a) Conditions Precedent to Buyer's Obligations. The Closing and the Buyer's obligations with respect to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement are subject to the satisfaction, not later than the Closing Date (unless otherwise provided), of the following conditions, and the obligations of the parties with respect to such conditions are as follows: (i) Title. At closing the Seller shall convey fee simple title to the Property by statutory warranty deed, subject only to non-delinquent real property taxes, items_, _, _, _, and _ of the preliminary title report Order No. , dated , 20_ (the "Preliminary Commitment"), a copy of which is included in the record of this proceeding and such other matters that may be approved in writing by the Buyer. (ii) Within 15 days of the Trigger identified in 10.5.4. above, at the Seller's cost and expense, shall cause to issue to the Buyer its preliminary title report on the Property (the "Preliminary Commitment"), along with copies of all documents that give rise to exceptions listed in the report (the "Underlying Documents"). Within 10 days of receiving the Preliminary Commitment and the Underlying Documents, the Buyer shall give the Seller written notice setting forth the exceptions that are not acceptable to the Buyer (the "Unacceptable Exceptions''). All other exceptions shall be deemed acceptable to the Buyer. The Seller shall have 5-- days after receiving the Buyer's notice within which to give the Buyer its written notice stating whether it will remove some or all of the Unacceptable Exceptions; provided, however, that the Seller must remove all monetary liens and encumbrances to the Buyer's reasonable satisfaction on or before the Closing Date. If the Seller agrees to eliminate the Unacceptable Exceptions, the Seller must do so at its cost and as of the Closing Date. If the Seller declines to eliminate all of the Unacceptable Exceptions, the Buyer has the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice given to the Seller within _ days of receiving the Seller's notice. (iii) Investigation and Review Within 15~ days of the Trigger identified in 10.5.4. above, the Seller shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Buyer the Investigation Documents. The Buyer shall have the right to review and approve each and every Investigation Document to its sole satisfaction within 10 days after the Buyer receives it. The Buyer's failure to respond timely shall constitute the Buyer's approval of the Investigation Document provided. If the Buyer disapproves any Investigation Document, the Buyer shall timely notify the Seller in writing, and the Seller shall have 5-- days in which to cure. If a cure acceptable to the Buyer is not timely achieved, the Buyer may waive the requirement in writing, or elect to terminate this Agreement for failure to satisfy a condition precedent to the Buyer's obligation to close. . As a condition to closing, the documents described herein must be delivered to the Buyer and approved as provided, and the results of the Buyer's site studies identified herein must be acceptable to the Buyer in its sole discretion. A. Records and Plans. Copies of all architectural drawings, construction plans and specifications, "as-built" records of the improvements, environmental studies, inspection reports, and all topographical surveys and soil tests for or relating to the Property in the Seller's possession or reasonably available to the Seller. B. Leases. A copy of each tenant's lease or rental agreement, if any, together with all amendments. Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 2 of 12 C. Permits. Copies of all permits, orders, letters, and other documents available to the Seller relating to the zoning, land development and permitted uses of the Property. E. Tax Notices. Copies of all tax and assessment notices and bills for the Property for the most recent two property tax years. F. Past Uses. Any information in the Seller's possession or available to the Seller relating to the past uses of the Property. G. Service Contracts. Copies of all service or maintenance contracts with respect to the Property. H.. Site Study. Before closing, the Buyer may engage consultants or engineers of the Buyer's choosing to conduct site studies of the Property as the Buyer deems necessary. The Buyer or its agents shall have the right to enter the Property at reasonable times before closing to make such tests, inspections, studies, and other investigations as the Buyer may require, at the Buyer's expense and risk. The Buyer shall indemnify and hold the Seller harmless from any loss, damage, or claim arising out of the Buyer's access to the Property for the purpose of making tests, inspections, studies, and other investigations. It shall be a condition to closing that the results of such studies or analyses be acceptable to the Buyer in its sole discretion. (iv) Representations, Warranties, and Covenants of Seller. The Seller shall have duly performed each and every agreement to be performed by the Seller hereunder and the Seller's representations, warranties, and covenants set forth in this Agreement shall be true and correct as of the Closing Date. (v) No Material Changes. At the Closing Date, there shall have been no material adverse changes related to or connected with the Property, whether directly or indirectly. (vi) Seller's Deliveries. The Seller shall have timely delivered each and every item to be delivered by the Seller pursuant to this Agreement. (vi) Title Insurance. As of the Seller shall have issued or shall have committed to issue the title policy to the Buyer. The conditions set forth above are solely for the benefit of the Buyer and may be waived only by the Buyer. The Buyer shall at all times have the right to waive any condition. Such waiver or waivers shall be in writing to the Seller. The waiver by the Buyer of any condition shall not relieve the Seller of any liability or obligation with respect to any representation, warranty, covenant, or agreement of the Seller. Neither the Seller nor the Buyer shall act or fail to act for the purpose of permitting or causing any condition to fail (except to the extent the Buyer, in its own discretion, exercises its right to disapprove any such items or matters). (b) Conditions Precedent to Seller's Obligations. Closing and the Seller's obligations with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are subject to the each Buyer's performance, and delivery on or before the Closing Date, of the documents and materials described in Paragraph 6, below. (c) Failure of Conditions to Closing. If any of the conditions set forth above are not timely satisfied or waived, or a reason other than the default of the Buyer or the Seller under this Agreement: (i) This Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the Buyer and the Seller shall terminate, except as otherwise provided herein; and (d) Cancellation Fees and Expenses. If this agreement terminates because of Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 3 of 12 the nonsatisfaction of any condition for a reason other than the default of the Seller or the Buyer under this Agreement, the Seller and the Buyer will equally bear any cancellation charges required to be paid. If this agreement terminates because of the Seller's default, the Seller will bear any cancellation charges required to be paid. If this agreement terminates because of the Buyer's default, the Buyer will bear any cancellation charges required to be paid. At this time, the Parties do not contemplate any cancellation charges. 6. Deliveries at closing. (a) By Seller. On or before the Closing Date, the Seller shall deliver the following: (i) Deed. A statutory warranty deed, duly executed and acknowledged in recordable form by the Seller, conveying the Property to the Buyer subject only to nondelinquent property taxes, items _, _, _, _, and _ of the Preliminary Commitment, and other matters that may be approved in writing by the Buyer. (ii) Bill of Sale. A bill of sale, duly executed and acknowledged by the AFSG Seller in favor of the City Buyer, assigning and conveying to the Buyer all of the Seller's right, title, and interest in and to the improvements, and personal property, if any, used in connection with the operation of the Property, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and adverse claims. (iii) Assignment of Leases. There are no leases existing and the Parties agree not to enter into any leases impacting the Property. If leases are discovered, an assignment of leases, if any, duly executed and acknowledged by the Seller in recordable form, assigning to the Buyer, all of the Seller's right, title, and interest in and to all the tenant leases and tenant deposits. (iv) General Assignment. An assignment, , duly executed by the Seller, assigning to the Buyer all of the Seller's right, title, and interest in and to all service contracts accepted by the Buyer and all other intangible property constituting part of the property being sold. (v) Nonforeign Certification. The Seller represents and warrants that it is not a "foreign person" as defined in IRC 91445. The Seller will give an affidavit to the Buyer to this effect in the form required by that statute and related regulations. (vi) Tenant Notification Letter. There are no tenants and the parties agree not to rent or lease the premises. In the event leases are discovered, a letter to tenants, duly executed by the Seller and dated as of the Closing Date, satisfactory in form and substance to the Buyer, notifying each tenant that: A. The Property has been sold to the Buyer; B. All of the Seller's right, title, and interest in and to the tenant leases and tenant deposits have been assigned to the Buyer; and C. Commencing immediately, all rent and other payments and any notices under tenant leases are to be paid and sent to the Buyer. (vii) Changes of Address. Written notices executed by the Seller to taxing authorities having jurisdiction over the Property, changing the address for service of notice and delivery of statements and bills. (viii) Proof of Authority. Such proof of the Seller's authority and authorization to enter into this Agreement and consummate the transaction contemplated by it, and such proof of the power and authority of the persons executing and/or delivering any Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 4 of 12 instruments, documents, or certificates on behalf of the Seller to act for and bind the Seller, as may be reasonably required by the Buyer. (ix) Lien Affidavits. Any lien affidavits or mechanic's lien indemnifications as may be reasonably requested by the Title Company in order to issue the title policy. (b) By Buyer. On or before the Closing Date, the Buyer shall deliver the following to tine Seller: (i) Purchase Price. The purchase price in accordance with Paragraph 8.3 above. The Buyer must complete performance as sellers in order to complete the transaction. (ii) Tenant Lease Assignment. The tenant lease assignment, if any, duly executed and acknowledged by the Buyer in recordable form. (iii) General Assignment. The general assignment duly executed by the Buyer. (iv) Prorations. The amount due the Seller, if any, after the prorations are computed in accordance with Paragraph lO(b) below. 7. Deliveries to Buyer at Closing. The Seller shall deliver possession of the Property to the Buyer at close of escrow. On or before the Closing Date, the Seller shall deliver to the Buyer possession of the following: (a) Tenant Leases, if any. Originals of all of the tenant leases or, to the extent an original tenant lease is unavailable, a duplicate original of it with a certificate executed by the Seller warranting the authenticity of the duplicate original. (b) Service Contracts, if any. Originals of all service contracts or, to the extent an original service contract is unavailable, a duplicate original of it with a certificate executed by the Seller warranting the authenticity of the duplicate original. (c) Personal Property. Possession of the improvements and personal property, if any. (d) Termination Agreements. Executed termination agreements or other evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Buyer that any service contract disapproved by the Buyer in accordance with the terms of this Agreement has been duly and validly terminated effective on or before the Closing Date. (e) Records and Plans. To the extent not already delivered to the Buyer, copies of all architectural drawings, construction plans and specifications, "as-built" records of the improvements, environmental studies, inspection reports, and all topographical surveys and soil tests for or relating to the Property in the Seller's possession or reasonably available to the Seller. 8. Title Insurance. At closing, the Seller shall provide, at its expense, a standard owner's title insurance policy in the amount of the value established in the respective appraisal documents, insuring title vested in the Buyer or its nominees, subject only to nondelinquent real property taxes, items _, _, _, _, and _ of the Preliminary Commitment, and other matters that may be approved in writing by the Buyer. The Buyer has the right, if the Buyer so elects, to cause the title policy to be issued as an extended coverage policy, provided the Buyer pays the additional premiums and all survey costs associated with that coverage. If the Buyer elects extended coverage, it shall be at Buyer's sole cost and expense 9. Adjustments. The Seller shall pay for the standard coverage title insurance Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 5 of 12 policy, AFSG shall pay all recording charges, any other fees or costs, and the Seller's share of prorations pursuant to Paragraph 10 below. The City Buyer shall pay no recording charges, or any other fees and costs, and the Buyer's share of prorations pursuant to Paragraph 10 below. The Buyer and the Seller shall each pay its own legal and professional fees of other consultants incurred by the Buyer and the Seller, respectively. All other costs and expenses shall be allocated between the Buyer and the Seller in accordance with the customary practice in Jackson County, Oregon, except as otherwise set forth herein. At closing, the Buyer shall contribute any funds necessary to pay its share of adjustments. 10. Prorations (a) General. Rental, revenues, and other income, if any, from the Property and presently existing taxes, assessments, improvement bonds, and other expenses, if any, affecting the Property, shall be prorated as of the day following the Closing Date. For the purpose of calculating prorations, the Buyer shall be deemed to be in title to the Property and, therefore, entitled to the income and responsibility for the expenses for the entire day following the Closing Date. (b) Method of Proration. All prorations shall be made in accordance with customary practice in Jackson County, Oregon, except as expressly provided herein. The Buyer and the Seller agree to cause their accountants to prepare a schedule of tentative prorations before the Closing Date. Such prorations, if and to the extent known and agreed on as of the Closing Date, shall be paid by the Buyer to the Seller (if the prorations result in a net credit to the Seller) or by the Seller to the Buyer (if the prorations result in a net credit to the Buyer) by increasing or reducing the cash to be paid by the Buyer at closing. Any such prorations not determined or not agreed on as of the Closing Date shall be paid by the Buyer to the Seller, or by the Seller to the Buyer, as the case may be, in cash as soon as practicable following the Closing Date. 11. Recording and Disbursements At Closing. At closing the Seller and Buyer shall cause the deeds to exchanged and recorded as well as any other documents that the parties may mutually direct to be recorded in the official records and obtain conformed copies for distribution to the Buyer and the Seller. Title Policies shall be issued and Disbursements of Documents to Buyer shall occur. Disburse to the Buyer the bill of sale, the general assignment, the FIRPTA certificate, the tenant notification letters and change of address notices duly executed by the Seller, and any other documents (or copies thereof) deposited into escrow by the Seller pursuant hereto. 12. Seller's Representations and Warranties. In addition to any express agreements of the Seller contained here, the following constitute representations and warranties of the Seller to the Buyer: (a) Representations Regarding Seller's Authority. (i) The Seller has the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this Agreement and the instruments referred to here and to consummate the transactions contemplated here. (ii) All requisite action (corporate, trust, partnership, or otherwise) has been taken by the Seller in connection with entering into this Agreement, the instruments referred to here, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated here. No Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 6 of 12 further consent of any partner, shareholder, creditor, investor, judicial or administrative body, governmental authority, or other party is required. (iii) The persons executing this Agreement and the instruments referred to here on behalf of the Seller and the partners, officers, or trustees of the Seller, if any, have the legal power, right, and actual authority to bind the Seller to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (iv) This Agreement and all documents required to be executed by the Seller are and shall be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against the Seller in accordance with their terms. (v) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement and documents referred to here, nor the incurring of the obligations set forth here, nor the consummation of the transactions here contemplated, nor compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the documents referred to here conflict with or result in the material breach of any terms, conditions, or provisions of, or constitute a default under any bond, note, or other evidence of indebtedness, or any contract, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan, partnership agreement, lease, or other agreements or instruments to which the Seller is a party or affecting the Property. (b) Warranties and Representations Pertaining to Real Estate and Legal Matters. (i) The information contained in the recitals is true and correct. (ii) Except as disclosed to the Buyer in writing, there is no litigation, claim, or arbitration, pending or threatened, with regard to the Property or its operation. (iii) No attachments, execution proceedings, assignments for the benefit of creditors, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, or other proceedings are pending or, to the best of the Seller's knowledge, threatened against the Seller, nor are any such proceedings contemplated by the Seller. (iv) To the best of the Seller's knowledge after due inquiry, the construction, occupancy, and operation of the Property materially conform to and comply with all applicable city, county, state, and federal law, statutes, ordinances, and regulations. (v) To the best of the Seller's knowledge after due inquiry, there are no material structural defects in any building or structure, nor are there any major repairs required to operate the building or structures in a lawful, safe, and efficient manner. (vi) The Seller is the legal and beneficial fee simple titleholder of the Property and has good, marketable, and insurable title to the Property, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, claims, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, rights of way, options, judgments, or other matters, except as disclosed by the preliminary title report. There shall be no change in the ownership, operation, or control of the Seller from the date of this Agreement until the Closing Date. (vii) The electrical, plumbing, heating, and air conditioning systems, if any, and any other utility systems will be in substantially the same condition at closing as when the Buyer conducted its inspection. (viii) The improvements and personal property listed in the inventory is all located at the Property and is all of the personal property used in the operation of the Property, other than personal property owned by tenants. (ix) The Seller has not entered into any other contracts for the sale of the Property, nor do there exist any rights of first refusal or options to purchase the Property . Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 7 of 12 (x) The Seller has not received any notices from any insurance company of any defects or inadequacies in the Property. (xi) Any licenses and permits obtained by the Seller have been fully paid for and are not subject to any liens, encumbrances, or claims of any kind. (xii) The Seller has not sold, transferred, conveyed, or entered into any agreement regarding "air rights" or other development rights or restrictions relating to the Property. (xiii) To the best of the Seller's knowledge, the Property is materially in compliance with applicable local, state and federal environmental standards and requirements affecting it. (xiv) The Seller has not received any notices of violation or advisory action by regulatory agencies regarding environmental control matters or permit compliance with respect to the Property. (xv) The Seller has not transferred hazardous waste from the Property to another location that is not in compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations, or permit requirements. To the best of the Seller's knowledge, no other person has transferred hazardous waste from the Property to another location that is not in compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations, or permit requirements. (xvi) There are no proceedings, governmental administrative actions, or judicial proceedings pending or, to the best of the Seller's knowledge, contemplated under any federal, state, or local laws regulating the discharge of hazardous or toxic materials or substances into the environment. (xvii) To the best of the Seller's knowledge, the Seller has not, during its ownership of the Property, stored, produced, or disposed of any hazardous substance, including asbestos, on the Property. (c) Other Representations. To the best of the Seller's knowledge after due inquiry: (i) The leases, and all other information and documentation to be provided by the Seller to the Buyer in connection with this transaction are complete, true, and accurate, and are presented in a manner that is not misleading. (ii) All leases are in full force and effect with rents paid currently. (iii) With regard to the tenant leases, the Seller knows of no default by it or by any of the tenants, and there have been no verbal changes and no concessions granted with respect to the leases or tenants under the leases, except as indicated in the rent roll. (iv) The only service or maintenance contracts have been provided or disclosed in writing to the Buyer. Except where the Seller has indicated to the contrary, all the service contracts may be terminated without penalty or other payment, except for the current sum then owing by the Buyer on 30 days' or less notice. (v) There is no current default or breach under the terms and provisions of any of the service contracts. The service contracts have not been and will not be amended or modified except as indicated here. (vi) As of the Closing Date, the Seller's interest in tenant leases and rentals due or to become due thereunder will not be subject to any assignment, encumbrance, or liens. (vii) No leasing or brokerage fees or commissions of any nature whatsoever Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 8 of 12 shall become due or owing to any person, firm, corporation, or entity after closing with respect to the tenant leases. (viii) The operating statements provided to the Buyer are true and accurate in all material respects. (ix) The Seller has no employees whom the Buyer will be required to employ after closing. (d) Representations, Warranties, and Covenants Regarding Operation of the Property Through the Closing. (i) The Seller further represents and warrants that, until this transaction is closed or escrow is terminated, whichever comes earlier, it shall: A. Operate and maintain the Property in a manner consistent with the Seller's past practices; B. Keep all existing insurance policies affecting the Property in full force and effect; C. Make all regular payments of interest and principal on any existing financing; D. Comply with all government regulations; E. Keep the Buyer timely advised of any repair or improvement required to keep the Property in substantially the same condition or improved conditions as contemplated. (ii) The Seller hereby agrees that the Seller will not hereafter modify, extend, or otherwise change any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of the tenant leases, or enter into new leases or any other obligations or agreements affecting the Property without the prior written consent of the Buyer, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Without the prior written consent of the Buyer, the Seller shall not terminate any of the tenant leases, unless the tenant thereunder has materially defaulted in the payment of rent. The Seller shall not accept from any of the tenants payment of rent more than one month in advance or apply any security deposit to rent due from any tenant. Nothing contained here shall restrict the right of the Seller to enter into month- to-month leases or grant month-to-month extensions of existing tenant leases in the ordinary course of business at rates consistent with those reflected in the rent roll, nor shall anything here restrict the right of the Seller to enter into service contracts or extend existing service contracts in the ordinary course of business as long as such service contracts can be terminated, without penalty or payment by the Buyer, upon 30 days' or less notice. (iii) The Seller will give the Buyer at least 10 business days' notice before commencing any forcible entry and detainer action or any other action with respect to the Property and will refrain from bringing any such action except on such terms as are mutually acceptable to the Seller and the Buyer. The Buyer shall not unreasonably withhold the Buyer's consent to any action that the Seller wishes to institute before closing, and the Buyer's failure to disapprove any such action within _ business days after the Seller's request shall be deemed to constitute the Buyer's consent. (iv) The Seller will not enter into any new leases until the Buyer has given its written approval of leases submitted to it by the Seller, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. (v) Any lease submitted by the Seller to the Buyer will be accompanied by a statement setting forth in reasonable detail all out-of-pocket costs to be incurred in Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 9 of 12 connection with each such lease during the interim period. This will include the cost of tenant improvements, leasing fees, any tenant concessions, any moving cost allowances, and any assumptions of existing rental or lease agreements. Such costs shall be approved in writing by the Buyer, together with the applicable lease, and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Each of such costs shall be specifically set forth or, if it is not practical to designate a fixed amount, the manner of determining the amount of the cost shall be set forth. (vi) All such preapproved costs that are incurred and paid out by the Seller before the closing date shall be reimbursed by the Buyer to the Seller by payment through the escrow at closing. All such costs that the Seller has incurred and that are payable following the closing date shall be assumed and paid by the Buyer as and when payable. (vii) If the sale does not close because of failure of any of the conditions, it is understood that the Buyer will have no responsibility for payment or reimbursement of any such costs approved by the Buyer. (viii) Except as otherwise provided here, the Seller will not extend, renew, modify, or replace any of the service contracts without the prior written consent of the Buyer. If the Buyer does not disapprove any request of the Seller regarding a service contract within 10 business days of the request, the Buyer shall be deemed to have approved the request. (ix) The Seller will not make any alterations to the Property or remove any of the personal property from it, unless the personal property so removed is simultaneously replaced with personal property of similar quality and utility. (e) General Representation. The Seller's representations and warranties contained here are true and accurate, and are not misleading. The Seller's representations and warranties contained here shall be continuing and shall be true and correct as of the Closing Date with the same force and effect as if remade by the Seller in a separate certificate at that time. The Seller's representations and warranties contained here shall survive the close of escrow and shall not merge into the deed and the recordation of the deed in the official records. 13. As Is. Other than the Seller's representations and warranties contained in this Agreement and those contained in any instrument delivered to the Buyer at closing, the Buyer acknowledges that it is purchasing the Property AS IS. 14. Buyer's Representations and Warranties. In addition to any express agreements of the Buyer contained here, the following constitute representations and warranties of the Buyer to the Seller: (a) The Buyer has the legal power, right, and authority to enter into this Agreement and the instruments referred to here and to consummate the transactions contemplated here. (b) All requisite action (corporate, trust, partnership, or otherwise) has been taken by the Buyer in connection with entering into this Agreement and the instruments referred to here and the consummation of the transactions contemplated here. No further consent of any partner, shareholder, creditor, investor, judicial or administrative body, governmental authority, or other party is required. (c) The persons executing this Agreement and the instruments referred to Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 10 of 12 here on behalf of the Buyer have the legal power, right, and actual authority to bind the Buyer to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (d) This Agreement and all documents required by it to be executed by the Buyer are and shall be valid, legally binding obligations of, and enforceable against the Buyer in accordance with their terms. (e) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement and documents referred to here, nor the incurring of the obligations set forth here, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated, nor compliance with the terms of this Agreement and the documents referred to here conflicts with or results in the material breach of any terms, conditions, or provisions of or constitute a default under any bond, note, or other evidence of indebtedness, or any contract, indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan, partnership agreement, lease, or other agreements or instruments to which the Buyer is a party. 15. Damage or Destruction; Condemnation. Until close of escrow, the risk of loss shall be retained by the Seller. The Seller shall keep the Property fully insured until close of escrow. In the event all or any material portion of the Property is damaged, destroyed, or condemned or threatened with condemnation before the close of escrow, the Buyer may terminate this Agreement. In such event, escrow will be terminated, the earnest money deposit and accrued interest thereon will be promptly returned to the Buyer, and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect whatsoever. If a nonmaterial portion of the Property is destroyed or condemned, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, including, without limitation, the Buyer's obligation to close this transaction as provided for here and to pay the full purchase price to the Seller. In such event, the Buyer shall be assigned all insurance proceeds or condemnation proceeds payable to or for the account of the Seller. 16. Required Actions of Buyer and Seller. The Buyer and the Seller agree to execute all such instruments and documents and to take all actions pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement in order to consummate the purchase and sale contemplated and shall use their best efforts to accomplish the close of escrow in accordance with the provisions here. 17. Entry. The Buyer, its agents, and designees shall have reasonable access to the Property for the sole purpose of confirming that it is in substantially the same condition at closing as it was when inspected. The Buyer's right to access does not negate the warranties and covenants contained here. The Buyer shall indemnify and hold the Seller harmless from any loss, damage, or claim arising out of the Buyer's access to the Property . 18. Statutory Disclaimer. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 11 of 12 REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES, TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRAcrICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352. II THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A FIRE PROTEcrION DISTRICT PROTEcrING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT, IN FARM OR FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUcrION OR SmNG OF A RESIDENCE AND THAT LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRAcrICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE illLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES, THE EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES AND THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER ORS 197.352. IF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER ORS 358.505. ORS 358.515 REQUIRES NOTIFICATION TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY . Ordinance Attachment 1 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR VERDE VILLAGE Exhibit G Page 12 of 12 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON December 18,2007 IN THE MATTER OF AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE APPROVAL OF THE VERDE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING A REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-01663, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF A TOTAL OF 11.64-ACRE SITE (IN THREE PARTS) LOCATED AT 87 W. NEVADA ST AND 811 HELMAN STREET REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP CHANGE JACKSON COUNTY ZONING RR-5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO R-l (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-I-3.5 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL). THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER 18.88 TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS A 68-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. EXCEPTIONS TO THE STREET STANDARDS ARE REQUESTED FOR NOT LOCATING A STREET ADJACENT TO NATURAL FEATURES AND TO USE A PRIVATE DRIVE TO ACCESS THE COTTAGES RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED PUBLIC STREET. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO LOCATE A MULTI-USE PATH IN THE ASHLAND CREEK RIPARIAN PRESERVATION AREA. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE A 25-INCH DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OAK TREE. APPLICANT: Greg and Valri Williams ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )FINDINGS OF FACT, )CONCLUSIONS OF LAW )AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo hearing on a request for an Ordinance declaring the approval of a Development Agreement, land exchange and associated planning actions as identified in P A #2006-01663. Now, Therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. II. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Tax lots 700,800 and 900 of39 IE 04BB and tax lots 800 and 1100 of39 IE 04B are located at 87 W. Nevada S1. and 811 Helman S1. Tax lot 200 of 39 IE 04BB is City of Ashland property and is commonly referred to as the Dog Park. Tax lots 700 and 800 of 39 1 E 04BB are located outside of the Ashland city limits and are Jackson County zoning Rural Residential (RR-5). Tax lots 800 and 1100 of39 IE 04B and tax lot 900 of 39 IE 04BB are partially located in the Ashland city limits. The portions of 39 IE 04B 800 and 1100 and tax lot 900 of 39 IE 04BB in the Ashland city limits are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5) and the portions of the same tax lots outside the Ashland city limits is Jackson County zoning Rural Residential (RR-5). Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 1 2) The applicant is requesting an Annexation for an 11.64 acre site located at 87 W. Nevada St. and 811 Helman St. The application includes a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-S (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning R-1-3.S (Suburban Residential) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential). The application includes a request for Outline Plan approval for a 68-unit residential development under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88. The application includes two requests for Exceptions to the Street Standards for not locating a street adjacent to natural features and to use a private drive to access the cottages rather than the required public street. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is requested to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a 2S-inch diameter at breast height Oak tree. The application includes a request for a land exchange with the City of Ashland. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for an Annexation are described in 18.106.030 as follows: A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards: 1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 2 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included. G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay): 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 3 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. 4) The criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Map Change and Zone Change are described in 18.108.060.B as follows: 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that: Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 4 a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide one of the following: 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project; or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide one of the following: 1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median income; or 2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 100% of median income; or 3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median income; or 4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median income; or 5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 5 subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project. The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions. 5) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in 18.88.030.A.4 as follows: The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. 6) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows: Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 6 An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. 7) The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040.1 as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 8) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in 18.61.080 as follows: An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 7 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The treeis proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval of the permit. 9) The City Council, following proper public notice, held public hearings on November 6, 2007 and November 20, 2007 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, Therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. III. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA AND MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR ANNEXATION 3.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 3.2 The City Council finds that the proposal to annex an 11.64 acre site located at 87 W. Nevada St. and 811 Helman St. meets all applicable criteria for an Annexation. The City Council Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 8 finds that the proposal to change the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map from a Single-Family Residential designation to a Suburban Residential designation for the cottage and town home portion of the development meets all applicable criteria for a Comprehensive Plan change. The City Council finds the proposal to develop a 68-unit single-family residential subdivision meets all applicable criteria for an Outline Plan approval described in the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88. The City Council finds and that the proposed location the multi-use path adjacent to the natural feature rather than a public street, and the proposed use of a private drive to access the cottages rather than the required public street meet all applicable criteria for Exceptions to the Street Standards. The City Council finds the request to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area meets all applicable criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. The City Council finds the request to remove a 25-inch diameter at breast height Oak tree meets all applicable criteria for a Tree Removal Permit. 3.3 The City Council finds that the proposal to annex 11.64 acres meets all applicable criteria for an Annexation. The site is comprised of five parcels and all of the parcels are located in the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. In addition, the land is currently contiguous with the present city limits. The west part of the development is contiguous to the city limits on all sides. The east part of the development is contiguous to the city limits on the west and south. The Annexation approval criteria require the proposed zoning for the annexed area to be in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The entire site is designated as Single-Family Residential on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposal includes a Comprehensive Plan Map Change for approximately 42 percent of the site, for the cottage and town home portion of the development, to modify the Single-Family Residential (R- 1) designation in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map to the Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5) designation. The request for the Comprehensive Plan Map Change is discussed in the following section. Therefore, the ability of the cottage and town home portion of the development to meet this criterion is dependent on the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Change. The remainder of the site, the single-family portion of the development, would remain in the Single- Family designation. Therefore, the single-family portion of the development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map, and satisfies this Annexation criterion. The proposed uses included in the Annexation are required to be allowed uses in the zoning districts. Phase I, or the R-1-3.5 portion of the project to the west of Almeda Dr. and Canine Way includes single-family and multi-family dwellings. Single-family and multi-family dwellings are permitted uses in the R -1.3.5 zoning district. Phase II, or the R -1- 5 portion of the project to the east of Almeda Dr. and Canine Way includes single-family dwellings and duplexes. Single-family dwellings, and duplexes on comer lots are permitted uses in the R-1 zoning district. Adequate city facilities to provide water to the site, to transport sewage from the site, to carry storm drainage to and through the site and to provide electricity to the' site are included in the preliminary utility plan and utility power plan. Eight-inch water lines will be installed to serve the development Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 9 with connections to the existing system in Nevada and Almeda streets. Two existing 12-inch and 18-inch sanitary sewer lines nm through the property and are retained in Almeda Dr. Eight-inch lines will be installed in Sander Way, Canine Way and the cottage driveway to serve the development with connections to the existing lines. Storm drainage is directed to two locations. The southwesterly area of the project is directed to the City's existing demonstration wetlands located north of the project using standard underground pipes. The northeasterly are of the project is directed and treated through a combination of a pipe system and a newly built system of swales and sediment ponds to Ashland Creek. Electric utilities will run through the site from the existing system across Nevada St. The utility power plan delineates the location of new lines, equipment and street lights. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the project and has been included with the application. The study projects that the intersection of Helman, Nevada and Almeda, and the intersection of Oak and Nevada will continue to operate at acceptable levels with build out of the proposed project. Outside of the Exceptions to the Street Standards requested in the application, the proposed streets meet the requirements of the Street Standards. The new streets are connected to Nevada Street which is a Neighborhood Collector. The Nevada St. frontage of the site will be improved with a parkrow and sidewalk. Sidewalks will be installed on all of the new streets running through the site. The new intersection of Helman St., Almeda Dr. and Nevada St. will be an important pedestrian crossing point for residents of the development and for visitors of the Dog Park and Bear Creek Greenway. Bicycle lanes are not required because none of the adjacent or new streets are classified arterials. The application findings state that transit service is not planned to the site. The Annexation approval criteria require that where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. The Oak St. sidewalk system is approximately 450 feet away or less than 1/10 ofa mile away from the project boundary. Sidewalks are in place on Oak St. from Nevada St. to the downtown. As also required by the Annexation approval criteria, the proposal includes the installation of a city standard parkrow and sidewalk on the Nevada St. frontage of the site. This will result in a gap in the sidewalk network on the north side of Nevada St. from the project site to Oak St. The City Council finds installation of the sidewalk on the north side of Nevada St. from the site to Oak St. is required to meet the Annexation approval criteria. The "Revisions to Area and Density Tables" submittal dated July 20, 2007 included in the application includes a table demonstrating that the 90% density is achieved in each housing type and for the project as a whole. The application satisfies the annexation affordable housing requirement by providing title to a sufficient amount of buildable land to a non-profit to develop 25% of the base density to buyers or renters at or below 100% of median income (base density of 58 units * .25 = 14.5 units). The application includes 15 affordable housing units in a town home format in the northwest portion of the site. The project description states that the land will be donated to Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) to develop as 15 affordable units for the range of 80 to 100 Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 10 percent of median income. The western portion of the project is an island surrounded by lands within the city limits, and therefore satisfies Section 18.106.030.H.6 of the Annexation approval standards. This part of the annexation shall occur first and shall be reflected in an Ordinance approving the annexation and withdrawal from the Fire District. The eastern portion of the project must also meet one of the six standards in Section 18.1 06.030.H. Currently, the eastern portion of the project is adjacent to and in the city limits on two sides, to the south and west. The application states that Phase I of the project will be development of the western portion of the project and the dedication of the property adjacent to Ashland Creek to the city for parks purposes. The second part of the annexation is an annexation of the dedicated City property pursuant to ALUO 18.106.040, including annexation to the boundaries of Ashland Creek as permitted by ORS 222. This annexation shall also be reflected in an Ordinance. Finally, as a result of the land dedication and annexation of the approximately 2.78 acres of new City property contiguous to the dog park and located along Ashland Creek in Phase I, the eastern portion of the property will be an island completely surrounded by lands within the city limits, and therefore "through the imposition of conditions", authorized by ALUO 18.1 06.030 (concerning timing) also complies with ALUO 18.106.030.H.6. This part of the annexation shall occur third and shall be reflected in an Ordinance approving the annexation and withdrawal from the Fire District. 3.4 The City Council finds that the request for an Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map change from a Single-Family Residential designation to a Suburban Residential designation for the cottage and town home portion of the development meets all applicable criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Map change. The application includes a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Change for approximately 4.35 acres or 42 percent of the site to modify the Single-Family Residential (R-l) designation in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map to the Suburban Residential (R-I-3.5) designation. The location of the Comprehensive Plan Map Change is for Phase 1, or the cottage and town home portion ofthe project to the west of Almeda Dr. and Canine Way. The remainder of the site would remain in the Single-Family designation. The approval criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Map Change require that the proposed change meet one of five factors and be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council finds that the change to the Suburban Residential Family designation for Phase I of the project (i.e. cottages and town homes) enables a minimum of 53 of the 68 units in the development to be constructed at an energy and water conserving performance standard. Additionally, the Suburban-Residential designation and subsequent R-I-3.5 zoning allows flexibility with the housing types and site design that is well-suited for the cottage and town home areas of the development. The cottage and town homes include attached dwellings that are grouped in clusters around open space. The flexibility in building placement and site design allows all of the proposed buildings to be located on an east-west axis for a true South building orientation so that the optimum solar efficiency is gained for both solar collection devices and for passive solar gain. Finally, the total number of units in the proposed development is comparable to the site Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 11 being developed as a Single-Family Residential development with R-I-5 zoning and the density bonuses permitted in Chapter 18.88 Performance Standard Options. For example, a project could be developed under the R-I-5 zoning and used a density bonus for conservation housing and affordable housing. In this case, the base density of the subject properties developed at a R-1-5 density is 46.67 units (10.37 Ac * 4.5 du/ac = 46.67 units). A 40% density bonus with a 15% density bonus for conservation housing and a 25% bonus for affordable housing would allow 65 units (46.67 units * 1.40 = 65.34 units). In comparison, the proposed number of units in the development is 68 units. The energy and water conservation housing provided by the development will address a public need for energy and water conservation in new homes that is supported by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes the following goals and policies concerning energy and water conservation in Chapter XI: Energy. The City shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community. Water conservation and air quality enhancement should also be promoted. Programs should emphasize greater efficiency in end use, rather than sacrifices in living standards. In general, policies that effect change through a combination of economic incentives and public education shall be considered more appropriate than policies involving strict legal requirements or mandates. The City shall give due attention to energy and resource conservation and air quality enhancement in all planning actions and all city activities. Policy 3) New Housing C) New homes and apartments are being built which do not utilize the latest technological advances in water consuming devices. The City shall use any legal means to insure that only water conserving equipment be installed in new construction. This should be done to accommodate growth with lesser incremental water demand and also to eliminate the need to return to these homes later to retrofit them with water conserving devices. D) Passive solar design and sun tempering are very cost effective in new home construction. They shall be encourage in new housing development and individual houses. E) The City shall address overall energy usage of new developments instead of just looking at houses on an individual bases. Areas to be considered could be transportation energy, recycling, composting, communal gardens, water usage and solar access protection. G) Appliance efficiency shall be encouraged in new housing. This could be done through existing programs (i.e. Super Good Cents), by codes, by education or by incentive programs (i.e. density bonuses). Also of these options shall be considered in trying to achieve this goal. Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 12 Policy 8) Future Considerations B) The future will be quite dynamic and volatile in the energy arena. The City needs to actively keep abreast of new advances in technology and embrace and encourage ones which can benefit water conservation, air quality, energy conservation or production. The City Council finds that the energy and water conservation performance standard as outline in Exhibit K-3 of Book III: Narrative, July 8, 2007, states that the units in the development will be designed to use 50% less energy than a typical code compliant home. Energy efficiency features included in the project performance standard are solar orientation, roofs designed for solar hot water collection systems, passive solar heating, integrated thermal mass, high efficiency heat source, improved thermal envelope (insulation), heat recovery ventilation, fluorescent or compact fluorescent lighting, energy efficient appliances, photovoltaic electric systems and night flush cooling. In addition, the goal of the development is to use approximately 50% less potable water than a typical code compliant development. Water efficiency features included in the project performance standard are water efficient toilets, showerheads and faucets, rainwater capture, water and energy efficient washers, drought resistant plantings and water efficient irrigation. In regards to transportation facilities and amendments to an acknowledged comprehensive plan, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-00060 requires local governments to address amendments that would "significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility." The original proposal was reviewed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in November 2006 and they commented that "ODOT Development Review is generally satisfied no adverse impacts to state facilities will occur as a result of the proposed land use amendments" (see page 494 of the record). The revised proposal was reviewed by ODOT in October 2007 and they had no comment (see page 17 of the record). The City Council finds the proposed Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map change from a Single- Family Residential designation to a Suburban Residential designation for the cottage and town home portion of the development will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility as defined in OAR 660-12-0060( 1). As stated earlier, the total number of units in the proposed development is comparable to the site being developed under the current Comprehensive Plan designation of Single-Family Residential. Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards Options permits density bonuses for conservation housing, common open space, major recreational facilities and affordable housing. Using the density bonus provision, the subject property could be developed at a density close to the proposed 68 units under the current Single- Family Residential designation. In this case, the base density of the subject properties developed at a R-1-5 density is 46.67 units (10.37 Ac * 4.5 du/ac = 46.67 units). A 40% density bonus with a 15% density bonus for conservation housing and a 25% bonus for affordable housing would allow 65 units (46.67 units * 1.40 = 65.34 units). As a result, three additional units result from the Comprehensive Plan Map change from the current Single-Family Residential designation to the proposed Suburban Residential Designation. Three units generate an average of thirty motor vehicle trips per day according to the ITE, Trip Generation Model, 7th addition. Thirty additional trips will not significantly affect the surrounding street network including Nevada St., Helman St. Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 13 and Oak St. The following discussion addresses the requirements of OAR 660-12-0060( 1) and the OAR text is in italics. (1) Where an amendment to afunctional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); According to the Traffic Impact Study submitted with the application, the proposed development will generate 730 trips per day. While the Comprehensive Plan Map change results in a few more residential units as compared to development of the subject site under the current Comprehensive Plan Map designation, even considering the total traffic impact from the proposed development does not change the functional classification of the street network in the vicinity including Nevada St., Helman St. and Oak St. The streets most likely to be impacted by motor vehicle traffic generated by the development are Nevada St., Helman St., and Oak St. Nevada St is identified in a Neighborhood Collector, and Helman St. and Oak St. are identified as A venues in the Ashland Transportation System Plan. The Transportation Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, the Ashland Transportation System Plan and the Ashland Street Standards provide street classification guidelines. The function of a Neighborhood Collector such as Nevada St. is to distribute traffic from Boulevards or Aven~s to neighborhood streets and vice versa, and the average traffic volumes of a Neighborhood Collector is 1,500 to 5,000 motor vehicle trips per day. The function of an Avenue such as Helman St. and Oak St. is to provide concentrated pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle access from Boulevards to neighborhoods and neighborhood activity centers and vice versa, and the average traffic volumes of an Avenue is 3,000 to 10,000 motor vehicle trips per day. Traffic counts for Nevada St. are approximately 1,400 trips per day (2002), Helman St. are approximately 1,450 trips per day (2004) and for Oak St. are approximately 3,500 trips per day (2004). The Traffic Impact Study included in the application projects that approximately 47% of the peak PM hour traffic will use Helman St., 38% will go west on Nevada towards Oak St. and 15% of the traffic will go east on Nevada. All of the trips generated by the proposed by the development could be added to Nevada St., Helman St. or Oak St., and all of the streets would be well within the range of average traffic volumes identified in the Ashland street classification guidelines. Additionally, Nevada St. will continue to function as a Neighborhood Collector distributing traffic from the adjacent neighborhoods to the larger A venue streets in the neighborhood including Helman St. and Oak St. Helman St. and Oak St. will continue to operate Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 14 as A venue streets taking traffic to the Boulevards in the city limits such as N. Main St., Lithia Way and E. Main St. (b) Change standards implementing afunctional classification system; or The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map change does not include a modification of the Ashland street classification guidelines. (c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system plan: (A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; The Comprehensive Plan Map change results in the addition of a few more residential units as compared to development of the subject site under the current Comprehensive Plan Map designation. The approximately 30 additional motor vehicle trips resulting from three additional units allowed by the Comprehensive Plan Map change will be the type of travel and level of travel that is consistent with the functional classification of the surrounding street network including Nevada St., Helman St. and Oak St. (B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or The Ashland Transportation System Plan identifies the minimum acceptable performance standard for intersections as a LOS D. The Traffic Impact Study included in the application projects of LOS B for the intersections of Helman St./Almeda Dr./Nevada St. and of Nevada St. and Oak St. in 20 10 with build out of the project and incorporating an annual average traffic growth rate. (C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The Ashland Transportation System Plan does not identify existing or planned transportation facilities in the vicinity that will have insufficient capacity at the end of the 20-year planning period of2017. 3.5 The City Council finds the proposal to develop a 68-unit single-family residential subdivision meets all applicable criteria for an Outline Plan approval described in the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88. The site is the located at a northernmost section of the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary and there are no other undeveloped parcels located in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the development of the subject site will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 15 Adequate key city facilities and utilities are available and can be provided, and were discussed previously under the Annexation section. Outside of the Exceptions to the Street Standards requested in the application, the proposed streets meet the requirements of the Street Standards. A multi-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists is proposed in the Ashland Creek riparian corridor connecting Nevada St. to the north end of Canine Way. The proposed multi-use path weaves above and below the biologically determined riparian zone and the top of the uppermost slope grade break. A second multi-use path is proposed between units 64 and 65 in the northwest comer of the project. The path would connect Almeda Dr. directly to the Bear Creek Greenway path connection. The subject section of Ashland Creek Corridor is identified for open space in the Long Term Plan on the Parks, Trails and Open Space Program fro 2002-2012. Additionally, the connection from Almeda Dr. to the Bear Creek Greenway path is also identified as a proposed greenway connection on the Parks, Trail and Open Space Program for 2002-2012. A total of 127 off-street parking spaces and 68 on-street parking spaces are required for the proposed development of 68 units. The proposal meets the parking requirements. There are 114 off-street parking spaces proposed in a combination of garages and surface parking areas. The remaining required 13 off-street parking spaces are satisfied by 17 on-street spaces which is the equivalent to 13 off-street parking credits. There are 85 on-street spaces available which results in the 17 on-street spaces that can be used towards the off-street parking credits. The proposed density of 68 units meets the base and bonus density standards of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88. The base density of the property is 58.15 units. The project qualifies for a density bonus of 22% for the 15 affordable housing units that are provided (15 affordable units/68 units = .22). Therefore the permitted density with the affordable housing density bonus is 70 units (58.15 units * 1.22 = 70.94 units). With one exception, the proposed building setbacks meet the requirements of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88. The front yards ofthe R-I-5 portion of the development meet the required 15 feet to the building and 20 feet to garages, and the setbacks along the perimeter of the development meet the required side and rear yards. The front yards of the R -1- 3.5 portion of the development (cottages and town homes) do not meet the front yard requirements along Almeda Dr. and Canine Way. Fifteen feet is shown and 20 feet is required for front yards in the R-I-3.5 zoning district. As a result, a condition has been added that the buildings delineated in the Final Plan meet the required front yard for the R-I-3.5 zoning district. The heights of the proposed buildings and minimum width between buildings appear to be met, and will be verified at the Final Plan and building permit submittals. It is not clear the application if the proposed units meet the Solar Setback requirements of Chapter 18.68 as is required in the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88.070.E. A condition has been added requiring the Final Plan application address the Solar Setback requirements. The entire subdivision is required to provide a minimum of five percent of the lot area in open space for Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options. A total of 21,688 square feet is required in open space, and the proposal includes 25, 230 square feet identified as common open space areas. With the exception of the four standard single-family lots in the Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 16 subdivision, the units also have a private yard space identified for each unit. Since the common open space provides an additional 3,542 square feet in open space beyond the requirements, the application meets the open space acreage requirements. The Outline Plan approval criteria require that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, and that if the development is done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. The application findings state that the development will be done as three separate entities for the cottages, town homes and single-family/duplex groups. The proposal is to have a Planned Unit Development for each of the three groups and provide CC&R's detailing specific maintenance responsibilities for each community. Phase 1 will include the development of the cottages and town homes. Approximately 55% of the open space is included in Phase I. Therefore, the same or higher ratio of common open space would occur in the first phase of the project than in Phase II, and the approval criterion is satisfied. The City Council finds the significant natural features of the site are the wetland in the northern portion of the site, two trees located outside of the riparian corridor, the Ashland Creek floodplain corridor and Ashland Creek riparian corridor. Three of the significant natural features - the wetland, floodplain corridor and riparian corridor - are located in a separate parcel that is proposed to be dedicated to the city for parks purposes as part of the land exchange. As a result, the City Council finds the wetland, floodplain corridor and riparian corridor are included in open space that is an unbuildable area. The two significant trees are a 19-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Oregon Ash (tree 20 on the Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T -1, June 8, 2007) and a 39-inch dbh California Black Oak (tree 21 on T -1). The two significant trees are located near units 28 and 31. The City Council finds the trees are included in the common area of the subdivision, and the common are is unbuildable. 3.6 The City Council finds and that the proposed location of the multi-use path adjacent to the natural feature rather than a public street, and the proposed use of a private drive to access the cottages rather than the required public street meet all applicable criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards. An Exception to the Street Standards is requested to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek riparian corridor rather than locating a street adjacent to natural features as is required. The proposed multi-use path weaves above and below the biologically determined riparian zone and the uppermost top of the slope grade break. The Preserving Natural Features of the Street Standards is as follows. "Streets shall be located in a manner which preserves natural features to the greatest extent feasible. Whenever possible, street alignments shall follow natural contours and features so that visual and physical access to the natural feature is possible. Streets shall be situated between natural features, such as creeks, mature trees, drainages, open spaces and individual parcels in order to appropriately incorporate such significant neighborhood features." Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 17 The City Council finds there are several unusual aspects of the site that make it difficult to locate a street adjacent to Ashland Creek. First, there are two existing main sanitary sewer lines that bisect the site (see Exhibit E-E, Preliminary Utility Plan). The application includes a Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix D, Geotechnical Investigation) which identifies "relatively hard bedrock" comprised of sedimentary rock including siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate at shallow depths throughout the site. As a result, the application identifies the relocation of the main sanitary sewer lines as impractical. The new main street into the development from Nevada St., Almeda Dr., is located over the existing main sanitary sewer lines so the lines can be accessed and do not have to be moved. The second unusual aspect of the site is the location of Ashland Creek is approximately 200 feet east of the existing intersection of Helman St. and Nevada St. The project traffic engineer recommended that the main access to the site be located opposite of the Helman St. and Nevada St. intersection. Locating a secondary street access to the development from Nevada St. and adjacent to Ashland Creek poses safety issues in terms of the close proximity to the Helman St., Nevada St. and Almeda Dr. intersection. The final unusual aspect of the site is the relatively narrow area from the new Almeda Dr. to Ashland Creek. The City Council agrees the existing sanitary sewer lines, the need to align the new street with the existing intersection of Nevada and Helman streets and the narrowness of the area from the new Almeda Dr. to Ashland Creek are significant constraints in the development of the new street network that create a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the Street Standard on Preserving Natural Features. The City Council finds that the multi-use path achieves a similar buffering effect as a street to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor. The multi-use path will provide visual and physical access to the riparian corridor. Although the multi-use path is largely located in the riparian corridor, it is situated at the western edge of the corridor, and will be located between the individual parcels and the riparian zone. The City Council finds that the multi-use path is an equally valuable transportation facility as compared to a city street because it provides a connection to the existing Bear Creek Greenway, thereby increasing the reach of this pedestrian and bicycle off-road transportation system. The City Council finds that by providing a transportation facility in the form of a multi-use path that the proposed exception is the minimum variance necessary to address the site constraints. The City Council finds that Exception to the Street Standards to use the proposed multi-use path rather than a public street to protect and provide access to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor uses the natural features of the landscape to the greatest advantage and will improve the quality of life of the residents of the development as outlined in the Purpose and Intent of Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards Options. An Exception to the Street Standards is requested to use a private drive to access the 24 cottages rather than the required public street. The proposed private drive is a looped system that is approximately 300 feet in length and is connected at both ends to Almeda Dr. The proposed private drive is 20 feet in width, includes 26 head-in parking spaces and has a sidewalk system adjacent to the curb. In contrast, a public street would be required to be 22 feet in width with parkrows and sidewalks on both sides. Additionally, a 22-feet wide public street would allow parallel parking on one side of the street. The City Council finds there is demonstrable difficulty in providing a public street and the Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 18 required off-street parking given the geographic layout of the comer of the property that is proposed for the cottages. A public street does not allow head-in parking adjacent to the street, and the proposal is to allow 26 head-in parking spaces adjacent to the private drive. In addition, by consolidating most of the cottage parking adjacent to the private drive, it allows more of the land area to be used as open space for the cottages rather than to be used for surface parking. In addition, fewer parallel parking spaces would fit on one side of the public street of the length proposed compared to the number of spaces that can be achieved with head-in parking. Residents and visitors will have no reason to travel on this short drive other than to visit the cottage development. As a result, motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians traveling through the development will use Almeda Dr. In terms of sidewalks, pedestrians will have little reason to travel on the cottage drive unless visiting one of the cottages because Almeda Dr. provides a more direct route for moving through the neighborhood. The City Council concurs that a private street is a better fit for the cottage development than a public street because the cottages will function as a multi-family development with a shared surface parking area that is accessed by a driveway. The City Council finds that Exception to the Street Standards to use a private drive to access the 24 cottages rather than the required public street will provide for more efficient land use as outlined in the Purpose and Intent of Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards Options. 3.7 The City Council finds the request to locate a multi-use path in the AsWand Creek Riparian Preservation Area meets all applicable criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit with the attached conditions of approval. The applicants propose to construct a multi-use path located in the Ashland Creek riparian corridor that would connect Nevada St. to the Bear Creek Greenway connection located in the Dog Park. The proposed multi-use path weaves above and below the biologically determined riparian zone and the uppermost top of the slope grade break. The multi- use path itself and the disturbance created by the construction is located largely inside of the biologically determined riparian zone. The City Council finds that the multi-use path in the Ashland Creek riparian corridor itself is a benefit to the general community and that there should be a balance of the environmental resource protection issues and the parks and open space issues. The City Council finds that the multi-use path is located along the upper edge of the riparian corridor in an effort to minimize adverse impacts to Ashland Creek and in an effort to retain the general topography of the riparian corridor. The proposed multi-use path, is except for the first 50 feet, is located outside of the 100-year flood plain for Ashland Creek. The section of path in the flood plain is at grade and will not create a potential flooding hazard. The City Council finds the applicant has not addressed the reasonable steps necessary to reduce the adverse impact on the Ashland Creek riparian corridor including the irreversible actions caused by the construction of the multi-use path in the riparian corridor. A mitigation plan is required as a condition of approval at the Final Plan application. The mitigation plan requires an assessment of the Ashland Creek riparian corridor functions, an assessment of the impact of the Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 19 path construction on the resource functions and mitigation measures to offset those adverse impacts. 3.8 The City Council finds the request to remove a 25-inch diameter at breast height Oak tree meets all applicable criteria for a Tree Removal Permit. One of the eight trees identified for removal requires a Tree Removal Permit due to the size of the tree being 18 inches diameter at breast height or greater. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a 25-inch diameter at breast height Oak tree (tree 39, Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T -1, June 8, 2007). The tree is an Oregon White Oak and located between proposed units 33 and 34. The Oregon White Oak identified for removal is described as stressed because of heavy infestation of mistletoe and as having numerous dead limbs through the crown. Additionally, the arborist predicts that the disruption to the root system due to nearby structures would cause further decline in the tree. The Tree Commission reviewed the proposed tree removal in November 2006, and recommended approval of the plan. 3.9 The proposal includes a real property exchange with the City of Ashland. The proposal is to exchange approximately 2.78 acres adjacent to Ashland Creek to the City for parks purposes in exchange for approximately 1.54 acres of the City Dog Park in the area of the access and to the south of the existing parking area. The Land Exchange is addressed in separate findings attached to the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement. IV. ORDER In sum, the City Council concludes that the requested Ordinance declaring the approval of a Development Agreement, and all associated planning actions contained in Planning Action 2006-01663, including the Development Agreement, Annexation, (in three parts), Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map change from Jackson County zoning RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City of Ashland zoning R-I-3.5 (Suburban Residential) and R- 1 (Single-Family Residential), request for Outline Plan approval for a 68-unit residential development under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88, requests for Exception to the Street Standards for not locating a street adjacent to natural features and to use a private drive to access the cottages rather than the required public street, request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area, and request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 25-inch diameter at breast height Oak tree are consistent with or comply with applicable criterion and minimum standards in the City's comprehensive Plan and applicable land development code, including minimum requirements for annexation eligibility, and are supported by evidence contained within the whole record Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby declares approval of the Development Agreement and APPROVES Planning Action #2006-01663 subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth herein as well as those requirements conditions and restrictions set forth in the accompanying Verde Village Development Agreement and Land Exchange Order. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-01663 is denied. The following are the conditions Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 20 and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That Site Review approval shall be obtained for the cottages, town homes and duplexes prior to any site work, issuance of an excavation permit or issuance of a building permit. 3) That the applicants shall execute a document as consistent with ALUa 18.68.150 agreeing to participate in their fair share costs associated with a future Local Improvement District for improvements to Helman Street and to not remonstrate against such District prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by city ordinances and resolutions. 4) That all easement for sewer, water, electric and streets shall be indicated on the Final Plan application as required by the City of Ashland. 5) The Final Plan application shall identify the sanitary sewer pressure line easement, and buildings shall not be located in the easement. 6) That the preliminary engineering for utility improvements shall be submitted with the Final Plan application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. 7) That the preliminary engineering for storm drainage collection and treatment shall be submitted with the Final Plan application. The permanerlt maintenance of on and off site storm water bio- engineered swales and wetland systems must be addressed through the obligations of the homeowners' association and approved by the Public Works Department and Building Division. 8) That the applicants shall submit an electric distribution plan with the Final Plan application including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to submission of the Final Plan application. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 9) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's residential streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the street improvements. 10) The preliminary engineering for proposed street improvements shall be provided at Final Plan Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 21 application. Street improvements shall be consistent with City of Ashland Street Standards. The sidewalk improvement on Nevada St. shall be a minimum of six feet in width in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. 11) The preliminary engineering for the Final Plan application shall address the treatment of the pedestrian crossing at the new intersection of Helman St., Almeda Dr. and Nevada St. Pedestrian safety and refugee shall be addressed in the intersection design. 12) The Final Plan application shall include revised on-street parking placement so that parking spaces are not counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any comer or intersection of an alley or street in accordance with 18.92.025.D. 13) The preliminary engineering shall include details for the multi-use path improvements. The multi-use paths shall be paved with concrete, asphalt or a comparable all-weather surfacing. Two to four foot wide gravel or planted strips are required on both sides of the multi-use paths in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. Fencing or retaining walls shall be located two to four feet from the improved edges of the path to provide clear distance on both sides of the path for safe operation. The clear distance areas shall be graded to the same slope as the improved path to allow recovery room for pedestrians and bicyclists. The clear distance areas shall be limited to gravel or landscape materials, and vegetation in excess of six inches in height shall not be placed in the clear distance areas. 14) The preliminary engineering shall address the transition from Almeda Dr. to the multi-use path, from Canine Way to the multi-use path and from Nevada St. to the multi-use path. Specifically, the preliminary engineering shall address bicycle access from the street grade and provide sufficient turning radius for bicycle navigation. 15) The Final Plan application shall include a mitigation plan prepared by a riparian biologist or a natural resource professional with training and experience in biology, ecology or related fields for the impact of the construction of the multi-use path in the riparian corridor and to address the 10- foot wide riparian corridor buffer. The riparian corridor buffer is the setback between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25 -39, and is delineated as common area in the application materials. Disturbed areas from the multi-use path construction shall be re-vegetated and an additional area restored and enhanced with local source native plant material including ground cover, shrubs and trees at a 1: 1.5 ratio, erosion control material shall be applied (e.g. mulch, hay, jute-netting, or comparable) and temporary irrigation facilities installed. The mitigation plan shall include but not be limited to a statement of objectives, measurable standards of mitigation, an assessment of riparian corridor functions and values, a statement and detail plan of the location, elevation and hydrology of the mitigation area, a planting plan and schedule, a monitoring and maintenance plan, a contingency plan and performance guarantees. The applicants shall install the mitigation measures in the approved mitigation plan in conjunction with the multi-use path installation. 16) That the multi-use paths shall be constructed by the applicants as part of the required subdivision improvements. Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 22 17) That the Final Plan application shall demonstrate that the driveway curb cuts for units 45 and 46 are spaced at least 24- feet apart as measured between the outside edges of the apron wings of the driveway approaches in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. 18) That the Final Plan application shall delineate vision clearance areas at the intersections of streets and alleys throughout the project in accordance with 18.92.070.D. Structures, signs and vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in height shall not be placed in the vision clearance areas. Building envelopes shall be modified accordingly on the Final Plan submittals. 19) That the street names shall be reviewed and approved by Ashland Engineering for compliance with the City's resolution for street naming prior to submission of the Final Plan application. 20) That a size and species specific landscaping plan for the parkrows, common areas and open spaces shall be provided at the time of the Final Plan application. 21) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the homeowners association(s) shall be provided at the time of Final Plan application. Lots 65 - 68 shall be included in a homeowners association and subject to all subdivision requirements. CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common area and open space improvements, parkrows and street trees. CC&R's shall provide reciprocal easements for residents of the various homeowners associations (i.e. cottages, town homes and single-family residential) to access and use all of the project open spaces. CC&R's shall note that any deviation from the Tree Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. That the CC&R's identifY the units are which are subject to the City's Affordable Housing requirements and terms of affordability. 22) That the Final Plan application shall include lot coverage calculations in square footage and percentage for each development area (i.e. cottages, town homes and single-family/duplex areas). Any area other than landscaping such as structures, driveways, patios and pervious paving that does not allow normal water infiltration shall be included as lot coverage. 23) The buildings in the R-I-3.5 zoning district (cottages and town homes) shall meet the required front yard for the R-I-3.5 zoning district in the Final Plan application. 24) The width between buildings requirement of 18.88.070.D shall be met and identified in the Final Plan application. 25) That the Final Plan application shall demonstrate all new structures comply with the Solar Setback A, or that each home shall receive an equivalent certification by the project architects and mechanical engineers that the shadow height on southern facing exposures will not exceed that allowed under Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 ofthe Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 26) That 53 residential units in the subdivision, including the cottages, duplexes and single-family units, shall meet the application "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 23 K-3 ofthe Revised Outline Plan, Book III - Narrative revised October 24,2007. The Final Plan application shall include systems for measuring and monitoring compliance of the development with the Performance Standard that is administered by the applicants and verified by the city. 27) That a minimum of 53 of the residential units shall qualify in the City of Ashland Earth Advantage program. The applicants shall meet with the Ashland Conservation Division regarding eligible site activities prior to issuance of an excavation permit. The required Earth Advantage documentation shall be submitted with each building permit application. 28) That the hydrant placement and fire apparatus access requirements shall be met and addressed in the Final Plan application. 29) That the Final Plan application shall address mitigation for the removal of the 2S-inch dbh Oak tree (tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T-I, June 8, 2007). Mitigation shall meet the requirements of Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.61.084. 30) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved Oak tree(tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T -1, June 8, 2007) and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the tree to be removed and the installation of the tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 31) That a grading plan addressing preliminary finished grade (i.e. existing contours and proposed contours) and areas of cut and fill shall be submitted with the Final Plan application. 32) That public easements shall be identified on the final survey plat for all multi-use pathways. The project CC&R's shall note that the pathways are for public use and shall not be obstructed or through access restricted unless authorized by the City of Ashland and Ashland Parks Department. 33) That a deed restriction shall be recorded for the town home portion of the development specifying the land is required to be developed as affordable units in accordance with 18.06.030.G(5) and in conformance with the approval ofPA 2006-01663. The deed restriction shall require the affordable units to remain affordable per Resolution 2006-13 for a 60 year period from initial occupancy. The town home area shall be serviced with all needed public facilities. The deed restricted land shall be dedicated to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation with proof of the dedication and deed restriction being presented to the City of Ashland Housing Program Specialist prior to issuance of a building permit for the development of the first market rate residential unit. 34) That the applicant agrees to construct the project in accordance with the approved plan and City ordinances and waives the right to file a claim under Oregon Statewide Measure 37. The signed Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 24 waiver shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior to signature of the survey plat or adoption of a resolution or ordinance formally annexing the property, whichever is first. 35) That a final boundary description and map shall be prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. A registered land surveyor shall prepare the description and map. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monuments established as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. 36) That the land dedicated to the city for parks purposes adjacent to Ashland Creek shall be annexed prior to the annexation of the Phase II area of the project (single-family development). 37) That the Sander Way sidewalks shall provide public access either by being included in the street right-of-way or having a public pedestrian easement as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. The Final Plan submittals shall be modified accordingly. 38) That a minimum of five feet shall be maintained between the northern pavement edge of the multi-use path and the wetland. The Final Plan application shall address the full width of the path improvement including the base materials and methods to protect the wetland during construction (i.e. sediment fencing). 39) That a sidewalk meeting the requirements of the Ashland Street Standards shall be installed on the north side of Nevada St. from the eastern project boundary to the intersection of Nevada S. to Oak St. Sidewalk design shall be at the discretion of the Staff Advisor in order to address site constraints such as grade and right-of-way width. These sidewalk improvements shall be included in the preliminary street improvement plan included with the Final Plan application. 40) That the Final Plan submittal shall address the usability, including Verde Village community access, of the private open spaces. Usability shall be specifically addressed for the two small open spaces in the town home area (550 sf and 700 sf), one small open space in the cottage area (l,300 sf) and the one small open space adjacent to the alley 1,310 sf). Layout and landscaping of the open spaces as well as any improvements such as play equipment shall be detailed in the Final Plan submittals. 41) That adjustments to the width and location of the multi-use path in and adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor shall not affect the width or location of the 10- foot wide setback or riparian corridor buffer between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25-39 that is delineated as common area in the application materials. The 10-foot wide setback or riparian corridor shall be located and sized as shown on plans S-1 dated June 8, 2007, S-4 dated June 8, 2007 and P-2 dated July 17 from the application. 42) That the land being dedicated for affordable housing shall be dedicated to the City of Ashland if it is not fully developed as affordable housing in accordance with the approval of P A 2006-01663 within five years of this approval. Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 25 43) That the 15 affordable residential units in the subdivision (i.e. town homes) shall meet the application "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit K-3 ofthe Revised Outline Plan, Book III - Narrative revised October 24,2007, except that the photovoltaic (PV) system is not required to be installed in the affordable units. The affordable unit shall be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure (e.g. wiring, conduit, roof structure) so that a photovoltaic (PV) system can be installed at a later date. 44) That "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit K-3 of the Revised Outline Plan, Book III-Narrative revised October 24, 2007 shall be revised as follows. . That all dishwasher and washing machines shall qualify for the State of Oregon tax credit and be selected from the list of qualified machines maintained by the Oregon Department of Energy. . That each home that would be built to the standards encompassed in the applicant's Exhibit K shall be provided with a Photovoltaic (PV) system that is either 3kW's in size or produces 1.5 Kwh's/Sq. Ft.lYr. whichever is less, and also be provided with enough available south facing unshaded roof space to double the size of the PV system. . That the homes will meet a minimum requirement ofR-49 attic insulation for flat ceilings. . That the passive solar homes shall meet the State of Oregon's minimum requirements for the passive solar home tax credit. Ashland City Council Approval Mayor John W. Morrison Date Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of ,20_ Approved as to form: Date: Ashland City Interim Attorney Ordinance Attachment 2: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order PA #2006-01663 Page 26 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON December 18, 2007 IN THE MATTER OF A REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE ) SUPPORTIVE OF PLANNING ACTION # 2006-01663, A ) FINDINGS OF FACT EXCHANGE OF APPROXIMATELY 1.54 ACRES OF CITY ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PROPERTY FOR 2.78 ACRES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ) AND ORDER PURSUANT TO ORS 271.310 - 271.350 AND PUBLIC HEARING) PROCEDURES IN ORS 221.725 ) APPLICANT: Greg and Valri Williams ) I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a public hearing concerning a real property exchange pursuant to statutory notice and hearing requirements of ORS 221.725. On November 6, 2007 and November 20,2007, the Ashland City Council, at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street conducted an advertised public hearing on a proposed real property exchange pursuant to ORS 271.310 - ORS 271.350. The public hearing was conducted together with public hearing on an Ordinance declaring the approval of a proposed Verde Village Development Agreement, and several associated land use actions necessary for the development of the Verde Village project. The nature of the land exchange, including appraisal and other evidence of market value were fully disclosed in the staff report and supporting documents entered into the record at the public hearing. At such Public Hearing the City Council received written and oral testimony from interested parties on the question of the land exchange. Based upon the evidence in the record, the City Council for the City of Ashland makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: II. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 2) The City property subject to the real property exchange consists of approximately 1.54 acres of the 10 acre City -owned parcel known as the Ashland Dog Park (TL 20039 1 E 04BB). The specific area of exchange Ordinance Attachment 3- Real Property Exchange Findings Page 1 is the entrance road and lawn area associated with the entrance to the dog park. The exchange does not impact the parking lot or actual dog park itself. The exchanged City property will be incorporated into the Verde Village residential development, located generally at 87 W. Nevada St. and 811 Helman St. (Ashland Greenhouses). The legal description and drawings of the City property is more fully set forth in the record of this proceeding and incorporated herein by this reference. 3) The private property subject to the real property exchange consists of approximately 2.78 acres of property contiguous to the dog park and located along Ashland Creek. The owner of the property is Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc. (AFSG) (Greg and Valri Williams). This property appears on City's Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Map (a part of City's Comprehensive Plan) as Long-Term Acquisition Area "10". The legal description and drawings of the AFSG property (aJkJaJ Williams Property) is more fully set forth in the record of this proceeding and incorporated herein by this reference. In addition to this real property, the City will receive as part of a Development Agreement for Verde Village, a new city standard public street entrance to the dog park and an additional 1300 lineal feet of Bear Creek Greenway Trail. These improvements are not included in the valuation of this exchange. 4) The approximately 2.78 acres of property received by the City will be used for public open space and passive recreation, including the greenway trail. The reasons stated for City Council consideration for the exchange include but are not limited to the added value to the City's Parks and Trails system. 5) The acreage for the land exchange as revised and updated based on an October 2007 survey is set forth in the revised Verde Village application materials in the record. (Exhibits N-I and N-2 in Book III-Narrative, dated stamped October 30,2007). (2.78 acres, up from 2.57 acres) (1.54 acres, up from 1.37 acres) 39 IE 04B TL g()() DR 88-09105 !ii (VIlLINlS) ~ / '-. SCALE. I'. eoo' '\ <>, ~I~ ....1.. il~ I '\ I 1 \ llR n-I332' I : \ VOL. PU. ~".~ ~:~ '\ ~I ~~ :S:/iJ}/!':G I I \ \ \ } / , I / \ I ( <YlLUIIHS) "I / / , I ((]R 67-0<OZO) -. / I ~L'~,:B I I ( \.-. ,VfLITAHSJ -3Ft. IE 04B I ~ Ntu.lAHS> i ~ ! ~ -'-'- - -.?9!I--ia~~ ~ I --'~2" I I ~~ 1 _ __ _' _ -112 - --------L - ----~- TERR PROFES ASHLAND. LEGEN /lCIR/l!Jf OF TRM:T m BE: TRANSFERRED ff9I IIIllIAHS TO CITY OF ASM../lHD (SHCIVN SH<IOCD) CFrICIIIL RCCDRDS. Jil(X$€J'/ COl'/TY, DR!:G{]N CITY or ASHlMD 39 IE 0499 n. 200 DR n-13324 .EOEND ~- L4 ~:t ~ , .r---- 130 r=:----/ I -------l I I \ I .\ I I i \ I ! 39:::OBB \: , (V1l.LIAHS) \ 1 . 39n. IE S::'B \ I I {lo'1LLIAHS~ ,I -/ Ii-J ~ I \ I 39 IE 048 !? , _- rjln.UOO'-' ! (IIILLIAHS> 39 IE: 04BB 1 (llfUIAHS) j I --~: J___~_~ o HCVIlDA STRa:T CR' 66-I028S <<".. oa ":. ~~ ~~ .'" L1 ~ r- eo i ~ l~ flt .. ./ rr NW4S'50'V i ...1. OCYADIl STRfIT 'Jange Findings Page 2 III. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE STATUTORY CRITERIA 1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant statutory criteria to find property eligible for a real property exchange involving City property are found in or referenced in ORS 271.31 O-ORS 271-350 as well as ORS 221.725. 2) The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits and evidence received. 3) The Council finds and determines that this proposal to exchange real property meets all applicable statutory minimum criteria for eligibility to exchange real property, as more fully set forth herein. Further the City Council finds and determines that the proposed disposition of real property in the real property exchange is deemed "necessary or convenient" to the City, and furthers the public interest as incorporated into and made part of the negotiated Development Agreement for Verde Village, approved by City Ordinance declaring adoption of the Development Agreement. This finding is supported by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, as well as those submitted by the Applicant, and incorporated herein by this reference. Minimum Criterion for Eligibility for Real Property Exchange 4) [ORS 271.310], [ORS 271.340] & [ORS 271.350] ORS 271.310. Transfer or lease of real property owned or controlled by political subdivision; procedure in case of qualified title. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, whenever any political subdivision possesses or controls real property not needed for public use, or whenever the public interest may be furthered, a political subdivision may sell, exchange, conveyor lease for any period not exceeding 99 years all or any part of their interest in the property to a governmental body or private individual or corporation. The consideration for the transfer or lease may be cash or real property, or both. *** (3) Unless the governing body of a political subdivision determines under subsection (1) of this section that the public interest may be furthered, real property needed for public use by any political subdivision owning or controlling the property shall not be sold, exchanged, leased or conveyed under the authority of ORS 271.300 to 271.360, except that it may be exchanged for property which is of equal or superior useful value for public use. Any such property not immediately needed for public use may be leased if, in the discretion of the governing body having control of the property, it will not be needed for public use within the period of the lease. ORS 271.340. Property valuation in exchange to be equal. Ordinance Attachment 3- Real Property Exchange Findings Page 3 When property is exchanged under the authority of ORS 271.310 to 271.330, the value of the real property accepted by the political subdivision in exchange for any of its property plus cash, if any, shall not be less than the value of the property relinquished. ORS 271.350. Determining valuation of property in exchanges. The value of the respective properties proposed to be exchanged shall be determined by the governing body of the political subdivision. The governing body shall cause it to be appraised by one or more competent and experienced appraisers. The compensation, if any, of the appraisers shall be borne equally by the respective owners of the property. In case the valuation shall not be mutually satisfactory to the respective owners it shall not be binding upon them. The statutory requirements are summarized herein: In order to sell, conveyor exchange real property, ORS 271.31 O( 1) (3) requires that the Council find either that the property is "not needed for public use" or "that the public interest may be furthered." ORS 271.310(3) also requires that unless there is a finding the public interest may be furthered, if the property is needed for public use, that property may only be exchanged if the property received is of equal or superior useful value for public use. (also a requirement of Land and Water Conservation). ORS 271.340 clearly established that the monetary value of real property accepted by the City must not have a monetary value less than the value of the property relinquished. The valuation must be established by the City pursuant to ORS 271.350 based on appraisal. Other approvals required: County, State and Federal approval of the real property exchange is required. Because the City Property was acquired using Land and Water Conservation Funds, State and Federal Park agencies must approve the exchange. Because the County's deed to the City reserved to the County a reversionary interest, it must be released by Resolution ofthe Board of Commissioners under ORS 271.335. Specifically, City's deed to City's Parcel (recorded as Doc # 77-13325) reflects that the original conveyance of the City's Property from Jackson County to City is subject to City's continued utilization of City Property "for public park and recreation purposes or ... [its maintenance] ... for the benefit of the public as a scenic and open space area. When said property is no longer so used, the interest of the grantee [City], or its assigns, shall automatically terminate and the property shall revert to the grantor (Jackson County)."Accordingly, as a condition of the real property exchange, the Jackson County's Board of County Commissioners must release (by resolution) the reversionary interest. City can provide County with an identical or similar reversionary interest in the deed to the Williams Property being provided to City by AFSG pursuant to the exchange and Development Agreement. City and AFSG have agreed to cooperate in good faith to secure approval from Jackson County for said exchange of Jackson County's reversionary interest, such that the same reversionary interest in favor of Jackson County will similarly burden the Williams Property upon transfer of the Williams Property to City pursuant to the real property exchange; and will no longer burden the City Property being transferred to AFSG pursuant to the real property exchange. Jackson County's approval of the reversionary interest release or exchange concurrent with the actual real property transfer is a material term of this approval and Development Agreement. The Federal, State and County approvals must be addressed as conditions of approval, because the applications cannot be Ordinance Attachment 3- Real Property Exchange Findings Page 4 fully processed until the City approves the exchange under ORS 271.310. Pursuant to ORS 271.310, the City Council finds and determines that the public interest will be furthered by the exchange of the City Property previously and currently utilized as access to City's Dog Park in exchange for the Williams Property owned by AFSG. Verde Village Application Materials Exhibit 1, Sub-Exhibit N-1 (Map). The Williams Property appears on City's Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Map (a part of City's Comprehensive Plan) as Long-Term Acquisition Area "10". The real property exchange allows City to acquire a parcel of property (Williams Property) identified on City's Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan's long term acquisition list since 2002. Acquisition by City ofthe Williams Parcel also provides City with the opportunity to extend City's multi-use path, which is part of the regional Bear Creek Greenway. The real property exchange also provides the public with additional scenic frontage along Ashland Creek. Further, acquisition of the Williams Property provides City with an opportunity to benefit the community by preserving and enhancing the riparian area along Ashland Creek. In contrast, the City Parcel to be exchanged herein currently serves as a sub-standard access for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists from West Nevada Street to City's Dog Park and the Bear Creek Greenway multi-use "bike path". When the Verde Village Project is completed under the Verde Village Development Agreement, access to City's Dog Park will be enhanced via fully improved public streets, approved and constructed to serve the Verde Village Project, while also serving as a safer and more efficient access to the City's Dog Park and the Bear Creek Greenway "bike path". The Bear Creek Greenway "bike path" connects the City of Ashland with the City of Central Point, and promotes the goal of "modal equity", in a time when the financial and environmental costs associated with petroleum resource dependence are under enhanced scrutiny. The real property exchange is also described in Exhibit "1 "[Outline Plan Narrative] (at page 6) and Sub-Exhibits M and N-l appended thereto, incorporated herein by this reference. Because the City Property to be exchanged currently includes access to the City Dog Park, the City cannot find that the property is not necessary for public use. Concerning the monetary value of the exchange, the City Council finds and determines that consistent with ORS 271.350, on January 2, 2007, the City's Council aftrer considering public comment, authorized AFSG to proceed with its land use application including City's Property, and concurrently directed its Staff to commission the necessary appraisal reports, without reviewing or considering the merits of the Verde Village Project application, in compliance with law. Thereafter, City commissioned appraisals reports to determine the fair market value of the respective real property proposed for exchange from a qualified licensed appraiser with experience in similar real estate appraisals under the strenuous "Yellow Book" guidelines required by the National Parks Service. After considering a number of licensed appraisers, City engaged Candence E. Robinson, State Certified Appraiser # C000582, Vesta Real Estate Services, Inc., Salem, Oregon. Exhibit 2-44 and Exhibit 3-44. In June 2007, the City of Ashland received Appraisal Reports reflecting the respective value of the Williams Property and City's Dog Park Property. See Verde Village application materials Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 as revised. These Appraisal Reports were commissioned by City, with the appraisal cost borne equally by City and AGFS. Corrections to the appraisals were made after input from interested citizens were taken into account. The Council finds and determines that appraiser was competent and experienced. The respective Appraisal Reports, as revised, for the Williams Property and the City Property are included in the record and incorporated herein by reference. The Appraisal Reports and supporting documents were made available to the public prior to the public hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council Ordinance Attachment 3- Real Property Exchange Findings Page 5 The City Council is charged with the determination of the value of the exchanged properties pursuant to ORS 271.350. Based upon the revised appraisal documents, the City Council finds and determines that the City Property to be conveyed to AFSG in connection with the real property exchange authorized by the Verde Village Development Agreement is less than the monetary value of the Williams Property to be conveyed to the City in connection with said real property exchange, as reflected in attached Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 in the record, incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to ORS 271.310, ORS 271.340, and ORS 271.350, City finds that the value of the Williams Property to be exchanged is $284,000. City further finds that the value of the City Property to be exchanged is $ 134,000. City finds that the difference in value between the two parcels being exchanged is $150,000 in favor of City, based on the analysis and conclusions contained in the Appraisal Reports commissioned by City, contained in the record and incorporated herein by this reference. AFSG agrees to "gift" the $150,000 difference in value to City. The proposed use of the property received by the City shall be parkland, recreation, open space, or similar uses consistent with Jackson County deed restrictions. Concerning the requirement that the property received have equal or superior useful value for public use (in terms of FL WCF equal or superior public recreational value), the City's Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously endorsed the real property exchange, conceptually, on October 24, 2006 following review of the materials and documents presented. The record of the Parks Commission action is included in the record of this proceeding and incorporated herein by this reference. See. Eg. Verde Village Application Materials Exhibit J, Sub-Exhibit M, (Park Commission Endorsement). Subsequently, on June 25, 2007, City's Parks and Recreation Commission again unanimously confirmed their support of the real property exchange, after reviewing revised materials. See Verde Village Materials Exhibit 1, Sub-Exhibit N-1; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3, and related submittals. IV. ORDER In sum, the City Council finds and determines that the real property exchange is necessary or convenient, that the exchange furthers the public interest, that the exchange will be for property that is of equal or superior useful value for public use, including recreational use, and that the monetary value of the real property accepted is not less that the monetary value of the property relinquished. Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby APPROVES as part of the negotiated Verde Village Development Agreement approved by Ordinance, the real property exchange described herein and in the record of Planning Action #2006-1663, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth herein. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: · The real property exchange is subject to County, State and Federal approval of the real property exchange. Receipt of written evidence of such approvals in appropriate legal form triggers the exchange under the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. City shall record a document restricting use of the exchange parcel for recreational use in accordance with County approval of release on the City property. . · The real property exchange is subject to all applicable conditions and requirements of the Development Agreement and acssociated land use approvals for the Verde Village project. Ordinance Attachment 3- Real Property Exchange Findings Page 6 Ashland City Council Approval Mayor John W. Morrison Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of Approved as to form: Date: Interim City Attorney Ordinance Attachment 3- Real Property Exchange Findings ,20_ Page 7