HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-20 Study Session MINASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
May 20, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Graham called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
Mayor Graham and Councilors Hyatt, Dahle, Bloom, Hansen, DuQuenne and
Kaplan were present.
PUBLIC FORUM
15 minutes — Public input or comment on City business not included on the agenda
III. PDMAC Report
1. PDMAC Report
Brandon Goldman, Director of Community Development, and April Lucas, Development
Services Coordinator, provided a presentation of the Development Process
Management Advisory Committee (DPMAC) meetings and its recommendations (see
attached).
Goldman spoke of this temporary committee's purpose to examine how
the development process was working and explore opportunities to improve,
streamline. and potentially accelerate planning actions. Kaplan asked about
means for public participation in the development process.
Goldman offered two generic project examples. Goldman's first example
was annexation into the City. This entails a number of
requirements that must be presented and met up front by the applicant. This provides a
n opportunity for it to be appealed by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which
adds time and can be a deterrent for developers. Goldman's second example was
the tree removal permit process. After the City receives an
application for tree removal, the City sends a notification to residents within
200 feet of the tree for an opportunity to comment within a 14-day waiting period.
After the City approves the permit, there is another 10-day waiting period for residents
to appeal that decision. These processes provide
an opportunity for public input that doesn't exist in other cities.
Bloom asked if there are any penalties for frivolous appeals to LUBA.
Goldman explained with generic examples of reasonable appeals to LUBA and an
example from years ago where an appeal to LUBA was found to be an abuse of
process and the applicant was able to seek legal fees. This was
codified recently into state law: in appeals to LUBA related to affordable or
needed housing that are found to have
no merit. the applicant can seek reimbursement for legal fees incurred.
Goldman continued his presentation reviewing fee comparisons for development in
comparison to other municipalities. Bloom asked why Talent and Phoenix was not
included in the fee comparison. and if it would be legal to lower the multi -family
development fees and offset that cost with single family and commercial fees. Goldman
responded the City reached out to all the neighboring cities for comparison and was
only able to include the information from those that provided it and remains open to
new information if provided. Goldman spoke about the fee development methodology
for System Development Charges (SDC fees) which includes consideration of system
impacts for the related type of development, so SDC's are already less per unit for
multi -family verses single family developments. Bloom inquired if the Council could
change the fees to subsidize lower SDC's for multi -family units by offsetting cost with
higher SDC's for single family units. Goldman responded that the question could be
about how to subsidize that, but that SDC's are related to use and impacts.
Hansen asked what the other fees category includes and if the City could look
at capturing enough revenue with its growth over the next few years
to fund something. Goldman broke down some of the other fees: the community
development fee is 1.1 %, and the engineering services fee is 0.85% of the valuation
of the building and are within the Council's discretion. The third significant other fee is
the construction excise tax with the school board which has already been agreed upon.
Hasen asked if the city wanted to increase revenue to fund a project,
where could it insert fees to do so. Goldman responded that SDC fees are already
prescribed from the State. He went on to describe one of the 15 identified housing
production strategies was to impose an affordable housing construction
excise tax, which would increase the other fees section. Hansen asked how other
municipalities garnered fees to fund projects such as trails. Goldman explained the
City's SDC's are for Water, Sewer, Parks, and Transportation. Goldman expected a
trail project would fall under Parks and that Community Development has not explored
that.
DuQuenne asked what fairly recently
meant for this comparison, and Goldman responded it was the most recently available
data which was December of 2022. DuQuenne asked where SDCs go and
Goldman responded
that the Water, Sewer, and Transportation SDC's go to Public Works for infrastructure.
Goldman continued his presentation with commercial development fees where
the same variations
apply regarding costs. Goldman presented the community satisfaction survey distribute
d to all building permit or planning applicants between March 2018 and December
2022 with 1,200 recipients and 78 respondents using the same survey questions from
the 2011 and 2016
surveys. Goldman spoke to his main concern was the turnaround time question and
explained this covered the pandemic period where staffing was limited. Hyatt asked if
planning could be seen as slow and unresponsive as a result. Hyatt asked
if the City sets expectations up front with applicants of the realistic timeline
on the various pieces of the process. Goldman spoke that staff is directed to respond
within 24 hours, and that most questions are about how to fill out an application,
many of which may not be submitted. Once a pre -application is submitted, the applicant
is given a timeline with expectations. Goldman explained 95% of applications are
approved which indicates staff has done a good job of helping applicants present
a complete application that can be approved as opposed
to the lengthy process that can result in
applications that miss key details. Hyatt spoke of the guide documents to best prepare
applicants for timelines so they don't feel like the process takes longer than it needs to.
Bloom asked about the responses of applicants feeling they were treated differently.
Goldman responded this is an opinion survey with no metric to examine if those
opinions are valid. Bloom spoke of noticing a more negative perception in 2016.
Goldman responded that the 2016 survey included applicants after 2011 up until 2016
which was after the recession when delays were occurring. In 2015 a study was
initiated to explore how to have more clarity and responsiveness, and one of the
outcomes was a total renewing of the land use code. Goldman spoke this was not in
effect during the 2016 survey, and so the gains of positive perception reflected in the
2022 survey could largely be attributed to the work done in 2015.
Dahle thanked staff for their work, and asked for staffs perception on if the public
concerns around long timelines for development were due to a lack of understanding of
timelines and incomplete applications, or if they were simply too long even with a
perfect application. Goldman responded that basic planning applications are approved
within weeks. Type I Applications are typically approved within sixty days which
includes sending out notices which requires a 30-day wait period. Type II applications
are larger commercial developments with a 90-120-day timeline. The Type III
applications take longer due to any necessary legislative changes/actions, Commission
review, or City Council review due to scheduling challenges involved for those
procedures with public meetings. Dahle asked how these timelines stack up against
other municipalities, and Goldman said it was comparable.
Kaplan asked if there were metrics in place to measure staff responsiveness. Goldman
responded that there are not metrics on initial staff responsiveness to questions, but
after applications are received, they are date stamped and entered into the system.
Then each step can be tracked for how long it takes from intake until deemed
complete, or the time from deemed complete until date issued, etc. The planning
software has been an internal means to check responsiveness and requires a phone
call from an involved party to the department to check on status. Goldman hopes the
new software that went live in February with the new website will prove helpful to the
community to check on the permitting status directly. Goldman also explained that after
approval there is still the actual building that takes its own time, often years. Graham
asked if it was possible to capture small surveys along each step of the timeline rather
than asking about the whole process after completion. Graham also asked if the
surveys captured the types of responders in order to differentiate the frustration from
first-time applicants newly adjusting to the complex permitting process verses the more
experienced responders that could indicate more systemic issues. Goldman responded
that was certainly worth including.
DuQuenne spoke about the written responses from a changing demographic and
asked what the next steps are to the written comments to help streamline the permitting
process. Goldman responded that the goal of the group was to meet a certain number
of times and report back to the City Manager and did not delve into demographic
considerations or suggest next steps for attracting younger families with children.
DuQuenne asked if there is going to be follow up for the group to explore meeting
those needs. Goldman responded the group that met to address the housing
production strategy was intended to address those considerations. DuQuenne spoke of
concern around affordability of fees and of builders and developers encouraged to go
to Medford and asked how to address the fees so people want to live here. Graham
spoke of multiple groups considering these issues, such as the housing production
strategy group, and spoke that the specific charter of this group is to find recommended
improvements of the permitting process.
Lucas spoke about the new online permitting tool, the Citizen
Self Service Portal and highlighted the program. The portal is live and provides
operational transparency to applicants, property owners, and citizens. It offers 24/7
access to permitting, review status, inspections scheduling, and project
information. It streamlines permitting, plan review, and record requests. Lucas
provided a tour of the online tool which launched February 20, 2024 and
has issued over 200 online permits. The department saw a drop with over -the counter
permit applications with a majority of users providing positive feedback and preferring
the online features. Recommended next steps include expanding the online permitting
options to include new single-family homes and ADU's,
(Additional Dwelling Units) new multi -family buildings, new commercial buildings,
and commercial tenant improvements. Other recommendations include online payment
and fee estimate features.
Goldman spoke about the DPMAC recommendations which included enhancing the
online process such as explained by Lucas and creating better handouts and guides.
Recommendations that require administrative action included creating clear guides in
response to changing building occupation limits and the City's traveler's
accommodations requirements. Recommendations requiring legislative actions were
noted and included increase in density in multi -family zoning, employment opportunities
analysis, climate friendly areas, and a manufactured park development zone (see
packet). Graham asked Hyatt, as the staff liaison to the Planning Commission, if she
wanted to pass along the request for recommendations moving forward. Hyatt spoke
the Council as a body would set the direction and if the Council wants input from the
Planning Commission that would be reasonable. Graham asked the Council if there
were any concerns with bringing those three recommendations that require legislative
action back before Council for further review. Cotta reminded Council about the current
workplan and the need to keep in mind these can be goals for the 2025-27 biennium.
Hyatt spoke of three previous items the Council already asked of the Community
Development department: Manufactured housing zoning which is first on the housing
production strategy; set plans for Additional Dwelling Units, and Economic
Opportunities Analysis with input from the Planning Commission. Goldman spoke of
work in progress on Climate Friendly Areas also. Graham asked if staff needed
direction with priorities. Goldman clarified the presentation was to inform the Council of
the findings and recommendations of the DPMAC and would seek specific staff
direction from Council as those items come before Council. Goldman wanted to remind
Council that items that require legislative changes will need considerable public
involvement. Graham asked if Goldman's staff needed a priority list, and Goldman
responded some of these changes would be made concurrently so would be brought to
Council at appropriate time.
DuQuenne asked Lucas if the online system was better and Lucas affirmed. Hansen
asked if other permits such as event permits could be added to the online portal. Lucas
responded that existing permits such as special event permits already in the EnerGov
system can easily be added to the online portal. Dahle asked how far back the records
searches go. Lucas respond it goes back to 2018 when the current permitting system
was launched. Bloom asked if there were any indications of changes at the state level
of Oregon Land Use Law to ease restrictions. Goldman said he only knew of the
legislative update he gave earlier. Hyatt asked how best to direct citizens in utilizing the
online portal. Lucas affirmed that for general inquires they can use the portal and can
still ask questions directly of the department. Goldman added that if people want to
comment on a planning action, they should still contact the department for
consideration by the Planning Commission.
Public Comment
Craig Anderson/Ashland - spoke he held high regard for the planning department and
has worked with planners and staff for many of the 25 years he has lived here. He
spoke about a developer who didn't want to build in Ashland due to affordable housing
restrictions. He spoke of his concern about the transportation situation around the
Grand Terra Project and the Rogue Advocates appeal to Land Use Board of Appeals.
IV. New Website Review
New Website Review
Interim City Manager Sabrina Cotta began with the project history on August 15th,
2023, when the Council approved the contract for the Civic Plus website development
team. Cotta spoke of the website transformation, Civic Clerk, and See -Click -Fix
aspects of the project. The goals of the new website were to update the site, improve
navigation for citizens and staff, and transfer records retention from the website to a
better platform.
Dorinda Cottle, Communications Officer for the City, spoke of results from the recent
communications survey and pointed to the City's website as the number one
communications tool with 70% of residents using the site to garner information. Civic
Plus was introduced as the vendor that specializes in websites for municipalities, from
whom the City purchased three modules that work together: Civic Engage is the main
website, Civic Clerk is the public meeting module, and See -Fix -Click is the non -
emergency reporting module. The new URL will be ashlandoregon.gov and goes live
May 22, 2024. Work on the site began last December by surveying other sites and
looking at the analytics of the existing site. Goals for the new site included ease of
navigation for users: residents, tourists, and businesses. Cottle provided a sample of
site navigation that illustrated how various items can be found in various ways through
planned redundancies. Cottle highlighted the Spotlights and City News sections that
cover current news and events, the footer with Quicklinks, and the emergency banner
at the top that will be used for emergency alerts. Cottle reviewed various ways to find
popular searched pages and information including wildfire risk reduction, parks and
recreation, and utility billing. Cottle spoke of a recent focus group that included seven
residents. Mayor Graham, and Councilors Kaplan and Bloom who provided feedback.
The production link was also sent to 60 residents who expressed interest in providing
input.
DuQuenne asked if there were links to maps for public art. Cottle spoke to the links on
the site where one can find that information and described the public art self -guided
tour in the mapping hub with more self -guided tours coming soon. Bloom spoke about
being able to make changes to the site in real-time moving forward for updates and
corrections. Hansen asked how the process of implementation went and Cottle
responded that it was a big project with about 1500 pages to pare down and was easy
to use after learning the platform. Cotta spoke that a website is not simply built and
launched, but will be continually changing and how important it is to manage what is
added and what is removed.
Graham identified one of the problems with the old site was the search function and
asked about its functionality for finding relevant up-to-date information. Cottle
responded that the new search feature will work with the agenda and minutes module
to pull up information in a chronological order. Graham asked about the Utility Billing
module being the same one as used before. Cotta spoke that the finance department is
looking for new software in recognition of the difficulty current customers are
experiencing. The goal is to integrate new software with the new system when
available.
Bloom spoke of how to find archived records in Laserfiche which is searchable, and
Cotta explained how Laserfiche is our records retention tool and that information
available in the Agenda's and Minutes Module will be searchable moving forward.
Alissa Kolodzinski, City Recorder, demonstrated various avenues to access Agendas
and Minutes and related materials such as agenda packets. These will be available
May 22 moving forward with past information stored in Laserfiche. Graham asked what
happens to the archived videos of meetings. Kolodzinski spoke that the City's contract
with Rogue Valley Television (RVTV) is for them to hold those for a year. Historically,
RVTV has held them for about a year and a half to two years after which the videos are
deleted. Graham asked how the City can hold those for as far back as possible for
records retention purposes. Kolodzinski responded that options include contracting with
RVTV for storage and asking for input from the City's Information and Technology (IT)
department. Kaplan asked if a YouTube channel would work for that and Kolodzinski
spoke that was also an option. Dahle spoke that the issue is about who owns the data
and advocated for the City considering how to retain that ownership. Cotta spoke that
by State statute the official records of all meetings are the minutes. Graham spoke that
videos were not historically available, but since we have them now and they catch the
flavor of the conversation it is worth looking into how to hold on to them. DuQuenne
asked if social media would include news about the new website and Cottle affirmed.
Jason Wegner, Director of Innovation and Technology, reviewed the See -Click -Fix
reporting tool for non -emergencies and gave an example of how to report a pothole.
Staff will be notified immediately, and it will integrate with staff workflow. Kaplan asked
if there is a list of submissions that people can see if an issue has already been
reported and Wegner affirmed this was under the City's control to include that. Hyatt
asked if wildlife sightings could be included in that application, whereas now it can be
found under the Maps page to file a report. Wegner spoke this was reasonable and
could look into how to implement that. The planned roll out of options includes potholes
first to see how it goes, then adding streetlight outages, graffiti, and other code
compliance concerns one at a time. Kaplan commented that finding the report button
was unclear and asked about integrating Near Miss Data. Cotta affirmed all aspects of
the website will be monitored and adjusted as necessary as a living document and
thanked all the staff that made it happen. Wegner commented on the move to a .gov
domain which recognizes the City as a government entity. Dahle asked if this would
mean e-mail addresses would change which Wegner confirmed adding that the old
addresses would still send to the new ones during the transition. Graham reiterated the
importance of the public being able to efficiently find information on its City's website,
and thanked staff for moving this forward.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm.
R spectfully submitted by:
A � , I rm � I /L
City eco de A is a Ko zinski
A :: , J,.J,
Mayor Anya Graham
C i T Y
Introduction to the DPMAC
Committee Overview:
• Temporary committee appointed by the City Manager of Ashland.
Composition:
• Includes planners, architects, developers, and real estate professionals.
Primary Objectives:
• Streamline the development process.
• Ensure compliance with Oregon State Law and local participation goals.
Operational Focus:
• Evaluate and recommend ways to accelerate administrative and Type I/II
planning actions.
• Identify and modify cumbersome or conflicting development codes.
Committee Composition
Members appointed by the City Manager
• Christopher Brown - Architect
Brian Druihet - Catherine Rowe Real
Dan Jovick - Builder
Kerry KenCairn - Planning Commission and Landscape
Architect/Planner
Ray Kistler - Architect
Jim McNamara - SOU
participants:
Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director
April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Steven Matiaco, Building Official
Derek Severson, Planning Manager
-Discussion of
committee objectives.
-Consideration of
demographic shifts in
Ashland.
-Examination of 2022
Community
Development Customer
Satisfaction Survey
findings.
DPMAC Meetings V.._
-Review of building
permit fee comparisons
across various
jurisdictions.
-Presentation and beta
testing feedback on the
Permit Self Service
portal.
-Discussion on Types of
Land Use Actions and
their efficiency.
-Updates on the city's
planning and
development processes.
-Further discussions on
streamlining
development processes
through digital tools.
-Recommendations on
simplifying planning
actions and
administrative processes.
-Review and finalize the
committee's
recommendations.
-Final discussions on
the impact of the
Citizen Self Service
portal and other
improvements.
-Preparation of report
to the City Manager.
Key Challenges in Ashland's
Development Process
• Perception of Ashland in the development community
• High applicant legal costs
• Neighborhood opposition leading to delays
• Need for clearer and more predictable processes
Fee Comparisons
• Comparison of Ashland's fees
with other jurisdictions
• City development fees were not
seen as a substantial deterrent to
new development.
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
I
NEW SINGLE FAMILY
2,000 sq. ft. house w/ 500 sq. ft. garage
$269,070 Valuation
$61,505
$SAW
S35,833
$ass
$92,757
$3,339
E7 Building Permit
0 SDCs
E-1 Other Fees
$52,547
$2,920
$e61015 S42,103
$2,900 $36,614
$2y9ao
S26,054
$49,368
$22,682
$24,750
$44A68
$5.,369
S18,957
S17,182 S17,277 530,a35
$2,121
$18,338
52,500
$35,829
$3,17,
$2,373
$"
S15,443 $31,202
$16,924
$u`m
$12,053 $13,892
$15,928
$14,713
$18,679
79
2674
$,
.....- a
a. .A
$4,1.10
$7,050 $U-
$3.22.1
UAW ..431.571
0sum W
Ashland
Medford
Central Point Eagle Point Bend
Beaverton Cottag,
Dallas
Hillsboro Lebanon
McMinnville Oregon City Sherwood Tualatin
Building Permit
NEW MULTI -FAMILY ED SDCs
10 units, 8000 sq. ft. 0 Other Fees
$868,880 Valuation
$350,000
$300,000
$292,275
$11,600
S275,388
$269,140
S253,693
$11,280
$11,600
$250,000
_
S217,502
$2,861
$200,000
$167,087
$11,600
$150,000
$267,497
S131,492
;246,345
5123,214
$221,ti1
$119,135
$10,U00
$248523
$18,487
51091047
$148,448
$114,120
$1,303
$100,000
>14,467
510,080
$77,444
$164,215
567,051
$91,089
$*.a20 $61,690
$891058
$99A W
$110,896
$10,434
$50,000
S86040
549,257 $%047
S52,260
lair1L5l0::
n
e
4AL--1
shlanMedford
Central Point Eagle Point
Bend
Beaverton Cottage
Grove
Dallas
Hdisboro
Lebanon
McMinnville Oregon City
Sherwood
Tualatin
$750,000
$650,000
$550,000
$450,000
$384.378
$350 000
D Building Permit
� SDCs
� Other Fees
NEW COMMERCIAL OFFICE
30,000 sq. ft.
$3,639,600 Valuation
S703,969
$21,000
$627,152
S590,233
$21,600
530.472
S467,653
S417,526
$21,600
$18,600
$630,254
$534,873
S279,242 $SDS,aa3
5250,000 Sd3.675 240,555 S229,615
$33,611 $5.45y $36s,.37a $418,673
$169,056 $307,127 S167,570
5160,471 5159,980 -
$150,000 $17,460 21000 ..
5199,215 $17O,7o8 $120,606 $�,� 5160,136 $ -
$123,746 $128,643 $36,888 $110,475 $98,915
$50,000 546,765
536,352 $36,2.i6 ...$27,$I,y �'M :Sa0.6ae $64,020 $54,318 _ $47,655 $52,71.,
...9
Ashland ',�edford Central Point Eagle Point Bend Beaverton Cottage Dallas Hillsboro Lebanon McMinnville Orion City- Sherwood Tualatin
. Grove -- -- - - - - -- -
Community Satisfaction Survey
(DPMAC reviewed survey results)
• Recipients included all individuals applying for a Building Permit
or Planning Action between Mach 2018 and December 2022.
• 1,200 Recipients / 78 respondents
• Same Survey Questions from 2011 & 2016
• Highlights key areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among
respondents
• Written responses provide direct feedback from respondents
Strongly Agree
Agree
■ Disagree
■ Strongly Disagree
(1) When making an application, 1 (2) In general, the staff has dealt with me
have generally found the in a professional and positive manner,
Community Development staff to providing options where available, and
be responsive and helpful. attempting to help me navigate through
the process.
unx ix:
s roc
61s box
z 6a
Mi
4M
.,-• lox y
rox rrn
ax of
2022 2016 2011 2022 2016 2011
us-.91y Dkagrw yN..Y- „.yew ■Snmyfy Agree •sUa'9M 9na9rea tpzo9rx -w— us-911A9—
(3) Ashland is just as fair, (4) Application review turnaround time is
consistent, and practical in its acceptable. I did not have to wait an
application of regulations as excessive amount of time to get back
other neighboring cities or plans or find out about problems that
counties needed to be corrected.
6xx IMx
em -_
.9. .M
saa
1Cs T7x
zox �
Im rhx
�x at
2022 -16 2011 2022 2016 2011
•srmn9N Dna9rae epso9rwe AT- •srrm9N A9rew ..—j.w Agrw �srr.,gN Agrw
0 Strongly Agree
❑ Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Yes
No
44% 63% 77%
2Ct
ICa 19%
5.5%
ax _ 5%
2022 2016 2011
■ Strongly Disogree .. Dsogree Agree ■ Strongly Agree
20-.
10"
2022
2016
■ No w Yes
(12) 1 found the handouts
supplied by the City to be
useful and informative in
explaining the requirements I
must meet for approval
Was your application
ultimately approved?
Survey Insights
Survey Highlights:
• Improvements in staff responsiveness, professionalism, and process
quality.
• Positive trends observed from 2016 to 2022.
Improvement Strategies:
• Maintain high standards and ethics in staff conduct.
• Enhance clarity and response times in permit processing.
• Improve departmental communication with coordinated reviews.
• Create user guides for clearer application processes.
Program Highlights
Provides operational transparency to applicants, property
owners, and citizens.
Improves customer experience by offering 24/7 access to
permitting, review status, inspection scheduling, and
project information.
Streamlines permitting, plan review, and record requests by
providing users quick, intuitive, self-service access for
achieving their needs.
Program Highlights
APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR FEATURES
F_ 0 Apply for Permits/Plans
• Monitor Review Status
• Review fees prior to payment collection
• Submit revisions or Resubmit documents with corrections
• Request inspections
0 Real-time access to inspection results
MIA
Program Highlights
ONLINE BUILDING APPLICATIONS
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Structural Permits
Renewable Energy Systems
Residential Remodels, Additions, and Decks
Grading & Excavation Permits
Fire Alarm, Fire Sprinkler, and Fire Suppression Systems
Program Highlights
ONLINE PLANNING APPLICATIONS
• Sign Permits
• Fence Permits
• New Addresses
• Pre -Application Conferences
• Zoning Permits (sheds, lot line adjustments, land use
approval extensions, administrative actions)
nr
� TV11h
Program Highlights
ONLINE PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS
• Right -of -Way Closures
• Street & Alley Excavations
• Miscellaneous Concrete Permits
l o $eii Service P
✓� Wtirnnitg ®eullding permits GootlAternan' G.test
cotvnuniry [kwrwgnc�t t�nxanme.,�.
Welcome to Self Service
�oqn to � �a$� «z,eat e a nev
account, VW Can ais hM help it ypa
fx5My bnniitF«nudpt.
0
Use this tad maukldyestlm the
ternunediees0--it. Vt.,
'SUCsntttindudedin eNmate'
poly for Permit - Building: Commercial Electrical
0
Locafl—
CATIONS
Nide the location where the project 1f take place.
SIVANSURNWY
Vote' 391\E0�9S6i�=aIXJ
PERMIT DETAILS
Describe the basics of your project
Permit Type Building Commr,,
lksarioiw
Create Template
CONTACTS
Property Owner and k4icant we required
W i/
Locations Type
MORE INFO
Please answer these key questions about your project.
eneral Info
Branch Circuts with Service
t-atons„_
Atuulunents
Am& uupponirg docu mation ff appkablei
lnotiores
location
PartN NL tv
Brix Into
Type
Appbd 0.0
cants
51 WIN8URN WY Oregon 97520
391[MB1481111
Building Commercial 2c trkal
Tit
I I V. 2023
Next Section I Top I Main Menu
Previous Section I Top I Main Mer L
®
O
Attachments
Renew and Subn it
My Permts •�
F o. n I
Citizen Self Service
•1a Planning & Building Permits GoodAfternom CttyalAshland- r
O&&
Community DevOopn"A Department
MYWO*
MYINVOICES !aYPLANS MYE)OSTRIGR15PECTIONS REQUEST I'15PECTiO'45
Search- i Export to Excel
D WaY All IOacards Updated - in L3st12ODays
Permit Number Project T Address T Permit Type T status T state
ELEC-2023-01194 31 WRdBURN WYAshl2nd ... Bu- ding _Res dent4 Issued Aa-.e_Recent
E'ectrica'
PLL"84023-"7a 51 WIhfBURN WY Ashland.... Bu4inp. Residentia' Issued Act e. Recent
Rumbing
�i
Cltlze i Self Se lce
,` PWnning a eullding Permits CmotlAftm�m Guesc_
Community Dmmmlopment Ixpartanatt
Welcome to Self Service
0
AMN
his todcan to uscd rP WO, hr a
bulldbet Perinha planrim penrvt
0
Calen6r
Olck here tofind out about cenaln
e.ents ibe fdtlars and PrFr
hearing
NeedFrM:'Caa'the earmvwtyLVrraa'+.rrrL7lwrcrwuxrstu+�-s3osa matAlIM uzxn
0
��b�aMWw
loon to w eustlrY a a eate a nnv
icc—Yw can Aw 1htl hdPHyw
fajPt yaa I*n xdamxlm.
0
A,kA tlon toms
Dovnlawane comdete req:lred
awltiarlm rank.
0
FsNnure Fete
Use this tad m au¢Idvestinum the
reared fees fora p-r taban
'SX, not indudedihesgrrW e'
0
k—, Irepettnn
Click hemm reachw lrs iclar
or an aosflnirecaa
Citiren Self Service
• Plannbrq • Pulldirsy Pemsitc CAOd A1teMM. Guest-
_
C—lity L/welopnYnt t>eparonert
,q
Public Inforr adw
warm m ftiii ieO ®®
AkMMsp'GUth cm+an�hLY�eroprenr [kpa':nmtar �iz11 a88 SJDSa7TYar;H[Ye 73i1SCt)
Citizen Self Se lce
Planning • Building Permits
Community U-11.p.—t Uepxtnw-r
Welcome to Self Service
O
4 h F+blk Record'
Attar
tnpn w Alp—
Th+slaolcanb—wtosearchfa
t*tcd can t>e used w au0v la a
Lnpn tc aredstlrea aeateanev
ealsdw numpl—land
acount Ywcan AMfT ohelpifyou
ilnpectiw4
1.v p't Yu+ WS'n iota ll kian.
O
M,n
CAIrdv
ApAiradon k—
k.rcnPxcds.edtaeior.
Cllckhere tofindoutabeut certain
Q-Hmloadand cwnplem ryWre_
esetks MwhcRdvys andwblk
apoliati,xr!arrr;
f'
t—InFL
tieadMM,p.'Cattthe Ccvnav w,,D'Ncmv,tD% nrxnrat154J148SJOJor M at.'8Lt'1)J.i.7900
Dftbi t
District a
M,No«v!M
Ca�ma�,+ry
3 iama�q[mrs
--rU xlwlmr
cmwwna
Center
eMi.we Wxalnx
a'►rdmma NsCCail A w
AOiaM Isgh � 3 .
i
x'er� woos ;.
As+uM Midue
3[>taN
Good Afternom Care--
0
tnimaw tees
Lhe In toot to quickh estimate the
mqui edfeesfprapermit a plan
'SD(:s rat includalin ektimye
O
Rawr%tlnrpe W
Click here w mOuch an insoe lon
on an ezefina,—a
frnren. ♦ v vix„v A't`ti.tir.r, s� ♦! �
Results• 530 Lacancrj
Se e,:t A Records
tral�lY
r `391E09AA160D Coe- - 4 604NR-2022-00179
Parcel.. 391E09AA1600 T
G391E09AA1605 AP* Dlle2.11112022
Parcel 391E09AA3605 i C"Type
391ED9AA1613 Building iNarRevOendali-
Parcel- 391E09AA1613 Stem
= 391E09AA2218 Void
Parch: 391E09AA2218
care Nunber
391E09AA260D M-HR-2022-00206
P-44 39IE09AA2600 Apply Dale
391E09AA9000 3/11/2022
i Parse 39JE09AA.9000 Case Type
i7 Su, di ng {Nan -Residential; - Tenant
_ 391MAA8700 Improvement
Pace: 393E09AA8700 SUAIA
_ 391E09AA9000 Firuled
Parse 391E09AA9000
Number e0-lR-202o-MM
Permit Details I Tab Elements I Main Menu
TYPO RuMn; (Nor,
Residettiali • Tenant
04*W Date O tI2020
Datrl:t
Square Feet 0.00
Descriptkn
Stator Fnaled
Issue Date C-6 IDi2020
Expire Date_ C317.2021
Valuation 5174.0= Flrmhod Oast 09/18+2020
Locatan5 Fees Pare.,: In3P6ams tdta7"rIts Contacts SUTAK010s morfirto
Progress
Workflow
a ConfvmapOkationcomgete-P—d 04iV2o2a
Cmp4tM
DP]artnYn[R2viEV/S✓:sttd OLSI'2G20
a Campkted
. tr. P.eDcs ® Fee cOliectlon Va:eA:C�e 1Q'2020
YGtsuned
0 Issue Permit Pa::ctl:OE: lU:2020
Q Certit-tate 4�QCClfDanb
Fees
0
0
Avaiiabk Actions
• Portal Launch Date: February 20, 2024
• 10 "Beta" Testers to 130 Active Users
• Over -the -Counter permit applications
have dropped with majority preferring
to use online features
• Issued 200+ online permits
• Overwhelmingly positive response
from users
Online Permittinq Next Steps
DPMAC Recommendations
Streamlining
• Enhancing online access
Administrative Actions
• Better handouts /guides
Underway
•Accessory Dwelling Units
• Online PermittingEnhancements
o Change in commercial
• ADU guide and plan
occupancy
availability
o Traveler Accommodations
• Commercial
Occupancy Guide and
Building Permit guides.
Next Steps
Future Legislative Actions
(* to be considered through annual PC and Council goal setting for 2025-2027 Biennium)
• Density Increases in Multifamily Zones
o Housing Production Strategy Action 2027-2028
• Planning Application approval extensions (*2025)
• Subdivision thresholds for Outline and Final Plan (*2025)
• Solar access standards within subdivisions(*2025)
• Fence Permit requirement amendments
• Tree Permit Requirements
• Maximum Permitted Floor Area in Historic Districts
• Hillside Lands evaluation of man-made grades.
* Land Use changes require Planning Commission or City Council
initiation, Public Hearings, and Ordinance review and approval
1 /r
I M I M Z M