HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-10 Planning PACKETNote: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to
speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for
the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the
Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting
2. January 24, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street
APPLICANT: Housing Authority of Jackson County
DESCRIPTION:
A request for modification of the previously approved Planning Action
#2004-00141 for the Willowbrook Subdivision to allow a Land Partition creating three lots
and Site Review to construct a 60-unit multi-family residential affordable housing
development for the property located at 380 Clay Street. A previously approved request for
an Exception to Street Standards to allow a portion of the sidewalk on Clay Street to be
installed at curbside to accommodate a cedar tree on the southwest corner of the site
remains unchanged, and the application also includes a request for a tree removal permit to
remove 12 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater where only eight
trees were previously approved for removal. (This property is owned jointly by the City of
Ashland and the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The 2004 Annexation and
Performance Standards Subdivision approval for Willowbrook Subdivision was for 107
residential units. The required minimum density of the site can be met through future
development of the remainder of the property.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density Multi-Family Residential;
ZONING:ASSESSOR’S MAP #:TAX LOT #:
R-2; 39 1E 11C; 2500
1. Adoption of Findings for PA #2009-00043, 380 Clay Street
VI. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-02013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION:
Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation
Chapter (18.96) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, relating to changes in the type, size,
number and materials of signage allowed within residential and commercial zones.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
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).
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Mike Morris Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Debbie Miller Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Michael Church
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the public hearing on the Water Resource Protection Zones
Ordinance has been rescheduled to the March 3, 2009 City Council meeting. He also noted staff would be presenting a brief
update of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan at the February 3, 2009 Council meeting.
Commission Chair Dawkins requested the Commission save a few minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss absenteeism
on the Planning Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1. December 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
B.Approval of Findings for 232 Vista Street, PA #2008-01517
Commissioners Church/Mindlin m/s to approve the December 9, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote:
Commissioners Dawkins, Morris, Miller, Marsh, Mindlin and Church, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer,
ABSTAINED. Motion passed 6-0.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners in regards to 232 Vista Street.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for 232 Vista Street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Church, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris, and Dawkins, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer, ABSTAINED. Motion
passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Commented on the increased amount of cigarette butts discarded on City streets now that
smoking is banned in restaurants and bars. Mr. Roth recommended the City provide and maintain outdoor cigarette
receptacles in the downtown area and stated these could be emptied each week along with the regular trash pickup.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 1 of 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01984
DESCRIPTION: Consideration of the City of Ashland entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement, the “Greater
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement”, (the “Agreement”), for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which provides for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan.
Mr. Molnar explained the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to determine whether the Participant’s Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute, and issue a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not they should sign the
Agreement. He provided a brief overview of the Regional Problem Solving process and noted five of the other communities
involved have already signed the Agreement. He clarified that by signing, the City is not adopting the Regional Plan, but rather
is agreeing to send the Plan through Jackson County’s Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mr. Molnar noted a
recommendation from the Planning Commission is required because this is a land use decision and therefore needs to go
through the City’s normal process, which includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the elements in the Agreement and stated it is Staff’s opinion that the Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute. He noted the City did not identify any urban reserve areas and instead plans to accommodate
increased population by utilizing existing lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Molnar commented on his experience
with the Ashland Planning Department over the last 20 years and noted the importance of Ashland being a participant in
regional planning. He commented that Ashland’s approach to planning has often been viewed as different from the rest of the
valley, and noted at times there has been frustration within the community when the City’s accomplishments are diluted by
other actions occurring in the region. He stated this is Ashland’s opportunity to not just influence change within our community,
but also among the other jurisdictions in the valley.Mr. Molnar stated the Agreement represents the City’s solidarity with the
other participants in letting the Plan go through the County’s process. He added there would be an opportunity for the City and
the other participants to present comments and concerns during the County’s land use process.
Mr. Molnar introduced City Councilor Kate Jackson, who is also the Chair of the RPS Policy Committee. Councilor Jackson
elaborated on her involvement with regional planning and expressed her hope for the City to continue its current level of
involvement. Jackson explained tonight’s decision is whether the City should sign the Agreement and remain a participant with
the project. She noted the Regional Plan will need to go through the County’s land use adoption process, and individual cities
that have identified urban reserves will need to take those changes through their own Comprehensive Plan amendment
processes. Jackson clarified this Agreement would coordinate these land use changes into a standard timeframe.
The Commission opened the discussion and shared their preferences and concerns regarding the signing of the Agreement.
Miller applauded Councilor Jackson for her efforts, but expressed concern with the wording “agree to abide by a Plan” which is
contained on page 3 of the Agreement. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the Planning Commission is charged with
reviewing the Agreement for consistency with the RPS statute. He stated the Agreement does not adopt the Draft Plan, but it
does agree to submit it through the County’s land use process and agrees that Ashland will abide by and make consistent
Comprehensive Plan amendments to what is adopted by the County. Jackson added that any group or City can testify for or
against the elements of the Plan at the County’s public hearings. If the adopted Regional Plan is found to be unsatisfactory to
a particular City or group, they can appeal the County’s decision under the standard land use law.
Council Liaison Navickas noted the comments that were submitted by the City Council in November 2007 and expressed his
disappointment that they have not received a response. Councilor Jackson indicated the Council’s comments were addressed
and are available for review on the Rogue Valley Council of Government’s website.
Dawkins questioned what would happen if Council signs the Agreement and the City ends up disagreeing with the outcome.
Mr. Appicello clarified the City has not designated any urban reserves, and signing the Agreement empowers the City to have
a place at the table and a say in the process. He stated if the City signs the Agreement, we will need to participate in the
public hearings in order to protect our point of view. He added participation in this process is the only way the City will be able
to influence what is going on in the other jurisdictions.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 2 of 7
Dimitre noted “Section XII: Termination of Participation” on page 15 of the Agreement. He stated the City of Jacksonville
decided not to sign the Agreement and asked for clarification of that decision. Councilor Jackson indicated the City of
Jacksonville took the position that the Agreement did not need to be signed until after the Regional Plan is adopted. She
provided a brief overview of how the Agreement was developed and stated a signed Agreement is necessary at this point to
identify which groups are participating. She added it is her belief that this is the best way to submit the Plan to a public process
and to make further adjustments.
Comment was made that because Ashland did not identify any reserves, they have nothing to lose. Navickas disagreed and
stated if the City ever wanted to expand its Urban Growth Boundary, they could not do so without going through an
amendment process.
Miller noted the Council has already expressed their support and asked if there was any legal reason why this Agreement had
to be signed prior to the Plan being developed.
Trish Bowcock/705 East C Street, Jacksonville/She stated she does not oppose Regional Problem Solving or the draft
version of the Plan, but opposes the process. Ms. Bowcock said the City is being asked to sign a legally binding contract and
at this point nobody knows what the Final Plan will be. She stated if they do sign the Agreement and are unsatisfied with the
Final Plan, the only way to avoid implementing it is to abide by Section XII, which subjects the City to strong disincentives. Ms.
Bowcock claimed the statue does not suggest that this Agreement needs to be reached before the Plan is finalized, but rather
is only needed prior to the adoption of the Plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She added if a
Participants Agreement is needed at this stage in the process, a much simpler agreement should be drafted.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Expressed concern with the City signing the Agreement and questioned what they were
agreeing to. He disagreed with the inevitable doubling of population and stated the Agreement before the City is too vague.
Mr. Roth voiced his appreciation for Staff’s optimism that Ashland’s values would rub off on the rest of the County, but does
not think this will happen. He stated regional planning is conceptually a good idea, but does not believe it is a good idea for
Ashland to sign the Agreement.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Allocated his time to Greg Holmes.
Greg Holmes/235 NW 6 Street, Grants Pass/1,000 Friends of Oregon/Expressed concern with the process and the
th
Agreement itself. Mr. Holmes voiced his objections to agreeing to the outcome of a process that has not been completed yet,
and noted once the Agreement is signed, they would not be able to remove themselves from the process without sanctions
being imposed. He noted two other RPS processes in Oregon that made it further along in the process than they are now, and
neither one had an agreement in place before they started their hearings. He indicated there is nothing in the statute that
states the Agreement needs to be signed at this point in the process, and stated they can go forward with the regional
planning process without this Agreement in place. Mr. Holmes stated there are significant flaws in the Agreement and feels
that it incorporates the Regional Plan. He stated the goal is not to try and stop RPS, but rather for the public hearings to be
held before the participants agree to abide by what is ultimately decided.
Mr. Holmes clarified his belief that the statue indicates agreement needs to be reached by the participants prior to the Plan
being adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. He also claimed some of the cities who have already
signed the Agreement did so because they would be getting things out of this Plan that they would not get from the normal
process.
Councilor Jackson disagreed with Mr. Holmes assessment that the Agreement does not need to be signed until the Plan is
ready for adoption by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She clarified this Agreement sets forth the “how”
and the structure for implementation, and the details of the Plan will be decided through the County’s land use process. She
added any City can and likely will appeal the County’s decision if they do not find it satisfactory.
Commission Chair Dawkins closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 3 of 7
Comment was made questioning when the Policy Committee anticipated individual cities would hold their public hearings. Mr.
Appicello clarified the official process is the County’s land use process, and the City could hold hearings at any time to decide
what they would like to present at the County hearings.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris m/s to recommend the City Council approve the RPS Participants Agreement.
DISCUSSION: Dotterrer clarified the Regional Plan will only address the three problems that have been identified. Miller
expressed her concern that the Agreement is too binding on the individual jurisdictions and feels the Plan should be finalized
before they agree to it. Dotterrer commented that this is a two-way street, and voiced his support for the City being involved in
this process. He stated he agrees with the intent of the Agreement, and noted the need to have general consensus before you
enter a planning process. Marsh voiced her support for regional planning and although there is some risk, she stated
Councilor Jackson’s involvement with this process provides her a level of comfort. She recommended if the Council approves
the Agreement, that they schedule a public hearing in order to gather input on the Plan, and that they insert into the regional
process an affirmation by the participants at the end. Dawkins noted his opposition to the draft Plan in regards to the City of
Central Point. Church noted that each city is giving up some level of autonomy and stated it makes sense to have this type of
Agreement in place at this point in the process. He added the process needs to have some momentum going forward and
thinks this process would self destruct at the end if they all waited until the Final Plan was completed before they agreed to
participate. If the Agreement is signed, Morris encouraged the City to push their concepts, otherwise Ashland will be stuck with
what everyone else decides. Dimitre stated he has a problem agreeing to this because it is not clear what they are agreeing
to. He stated he is not against the idea and the process, but feels this Agreement is premature.
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to amend motion to include recommendation that the City Council hold a public
hearing on the substance of Plan in order to prepare input for County’s planning process, and that the Council
recommend to the Regional Planning Process that they incorporate a process for explicit affirmation by the
participants at the end of the process. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the public hearing would be for citizens to provide
input on the substance of the Plan itself. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Dawkins, Morris, Church and Marsh,
YES. Commissioners Mindlin, Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-3.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Church, YES. Commissioners
Miller, Dimitre, Mindlin, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
Commissioners Dimitre/Mindlin m/s to recommend the City Council not sign the RPS Participants Agreement. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Church, Dotterrer, Marsh and
Morris, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
B.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01986
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2915 Highway 66
APPLICANT: Myles Comstock
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of a previously approved Site Review (PA#2008-01315) for a
Variance to exceed the maximum 20-foot height limitation in the Airport Overlay Zone. The proposed structure is
26.5 feet in height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39
1E 13B; TAX LOT: 2005
Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson presented the Staff Report. She explained in September 2008, Staff administratively
approved a request to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. single-story building, which was proposed to be 20-feet in height. This is a
modification of that approval to allow the building to have an average height of 26.5 ft. Ms. Anderson noted all other aspects of
the previous approval will stand, however there would be a few small changes to the storefront entry in regards to the doors
and windows. She explained the height limitation imposed by the Airport Overlay Zone is 20 ft., however the City’s Airport
Master Plan and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would allow for a much taller structure in this location. She noted
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 4 of 7
the City’s Airport Commission has reviewed this modification and their letter of approval is included in the record. Ms.
Anderson stated Staff feels the height modification would result in a positive change to the buildings design and they are
recommending approval of the request.
Ms. Anderson provided a brief overview of the FAA’s calculation for building heights, and clarified this is determined case by
case based on the structures height, elevation and proximity to the runway. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
commented briefly on the Airport Overlay Zone and explained this provision has not been revisited since the Municipal Code
was codified in 1982. He noted the original intent may have been for the 20 ft. height restriction to only apply in an approach
zone, but this clarification no longer exists in the Code. He added it may be beneficial to modify this section of the Code to
make it more site specific and calculated closer to the way the FAA does it.
Applicant’s Presentation
Steve Shapiro and Myles Comstock addressed the Commission. Mr. Shapiro explained this site is the location of Valley
Equipment Rental and the modification to the buildings height would allow them to store their taller equipment in a safer
environment. He noted the Staff Liaison to the Airport Commission indicated that based on the FAA calculations, they could
have a 40 ft. building at this location. He stated this property is 2,000 ft. from the runway and they are nowhere near where the
planes circle. Mr. Shapiro clarified the nearby towing company could have a building height of 35 feet and the building
adjacent to this property has a building height of 28.5 feet.
Dawkins closed the record and the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Public Testimony
None
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dotterrer/Mindlin m/s to approve Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Dawkins, Morris, Church, Mindlin, Dimitre, Miller, Dotterrer and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Dimitre, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to continue to meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A.Discussion of possible changes to the City’s Sign Code based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations.
Commissioner Dawkins noted there are two components to the Downtown Task Force’s Recommendations: 1) possible Sign
Code revisions, and 2) issues with public right-of-way encroachments. He clarified the Planning Commission will not be
discussing the right-of-way issues and this will be handled by the City Council. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
noted tonight’s discussion will include an overview of the proposed Sign Code revisions, and the Planning Commission will
hold a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief summary of the charge given to the Downtown Task Force, which included addressing concerns
raised by local business owners. He stated a number of recommendations came out of the Task Force meetings, however
there was general consensus that the Sign Code has been a benefit to the City. He noted Ashland’s downtown area is a
nationally registered historic district and it is common to have regulations for signs in these districts. Mr. Molnar clarified the
Planning Commission is being asked to focus on the Sign Code recommendations, and the second phase to this process
which includes review of encroachments on public property will be handled by the City Council at an upcoming meeting. He
noted the goal is for the Commission to have a recommendation ready for the Council by March so the Council can hear these
two issues jointly.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the recommendations that came from the Downtown Task
Force. These recommendations included amending the Sign Code to permit the following:
An additional exempt incidental sign allowance (3 sq. ft)
Small three-dimensional (3D) signs in the Downtown area (3 cubic ft.)
Larger 3D signs outside the Downtown area (20 cubic ft.)
Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs
City installed identification signs
Increased projection distance for signs
The Task Force also recommended the Sign Code include a definition for “public art”, and allow additional business frontages.
Mr. Goldman’s presentation provided examples of different sign types, as well as further clarification of exempt incidental
signs, the 3D sign provision, and the portable sign provision. He also clarified how the proposed ordinance would treat signs
consisting of block letters or irregular shapes and stated the square footage would be determined by measuring the entire
area within the perimeter of the sign.
Dimitre requested Staff provide examples of what the maximum signage amount looks like now, and what it would look like
with the proposed revisions. Mindlin questioned if there was any deviation from the Task Force recommendations to what is
proposed in the draft ordinance. Mr. Goldman noted George Kramer, who was a member of the Task Force, had spoken to
him earlier this evening and indicated it was his recollection that if a business wanted a 3D sign in the Downtown area (3
cubic ft.), this would be subtracted from their incidental sign allowance.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Written statement was read into the record by Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Thompson’s
concerns related to additional frontages and he asked the Commission to cease the discrimination to businesses that have
their main entrance on the 3 or 4 side of a building.
rdth
John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Provided input from his service on the Downtown Task Force and commented on how the
Commission should link the work of the Task Force to the Council, so that the City Council does not have to start over when
this issue comes before them. Mr. Stromberg suggested they ask George Kramer to provide input during their discussions and
also recommended they conduct a walking tour so that they can get a good picture of the issues they are dealing with. He
listed some specific businesses that have signage issues and stated he has come to the conclusion that different areas of
town deserve different treatment. He shared his hope that the Commission will look into these issues in detail so that they can
feel confident with their recommendation to the Council.
Mr. Molnar clarified staff is attempting to keep a fairly expedited timeline and the goal is to have these amendments in place
before next summer’s season. Comment was made that the Sign Code can be very difficult to understand and requesting Staff
provide ideas of how they would illustrate the requirements. It was stated that the City should have a user’s guide, or
something that makes these provisions easy for people to understand.
B.2009 Hearings Board Assignments
Mr. Molnar clarified the Hearings Board no longer meets every month and only convenes when needed. Commissioners
Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin and Miller all volunteered to serve on the Hearings Board when needed.
C.Planning Commission Attendance
Commissioner Dawkins noted the attendance provision in the “Planning Commission Rules” and requested the Commission’s
input on how strictly they would like these requirements enforced. He noted Commissioner Church is planning a four month
vacation and asked how the group would like to handle this situation. Dimitre commented on his absences in 2008 and
indicated this will change. Marsh stated that she is not bothered by the occasional absence, and because there are nine
Planning Commissioners, even if some are absent they still have enough members to carry on. She stated that Commissioner
Church’s situation is a legal issue and should be left to the Mayor to decide. City Attorney Richard Appicello suggested the
Planning Commission consider amending the Ordinance to allow the Commission to excuse absences that exceed the 2/3
attendance provision. Comment was made that they may also want to further define “excused” and “unexcused” absences.
Dawkins requested the commissioners submit any further thoughts on this topic to staff.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 6 of 7
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 7 of 7
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Planning Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Tom Dimitre Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Deborah Miller Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
David Dotterrer
Michael Church
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
None Eric Navickas
POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE (Based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations)
Dawkins noted the public hearing for this item is scheduled for the February Planning Commission meeting. He stated this is
the time for the Commissioners to get their questions answers and to raise any issues so that staff knows what needs to be
addressed before this ordinance comes back for approval.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the packet includes a letter from the Public Arts Commission outlining
their issues with the 3D sign provision. He added members from that Commission are here tonight to provide testimony. Mr.
Molnar provided a brief explanation of the Sign Code and stated it is based on where the property is zoned, and then there is
a formula for the overall amount of signage allowed. Then there is a breakdown for wall signs and ground signs, and an
allotment for incidental signs.
Mr. Molnar stated the public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for the February 10th Planning Commission meeting and
noted Staff is in the process of scheduling a combined walking tour with the City Council that will likely be held on February 5
th
at 4:30 p.m.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation to the Commission. The presentation included several depictions of
what permitted signage with the current Sign Code looks like, and what it would look like with the proposed changes. He also
displayed several photos of what the downtown area and Siskiyou Boulevard used to look like before the Sign Code was
adopted. He stated the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to gather input from the Commission and asked if they had any
questions or comments on the draft ordinance.
Mr. Goldman provided a brief explanation of internal illuminated signs and indirect illuminated signs. He stated internal
illuminated signs can be used outside the downtown area and the sign can have lighting within it, but the lighting mechanism
itself cannot be visible. He added indirect illumination is when light is directed onto the face of the sign, but is not part of the
sign itself. Mr. Molnar commented on neon signs and noted the Sign Code was amended to recognize neon represents the
character of a certain period in time, and locations such as the Varsity theater and Palm Motel could maintain or bring back
their neon signage.
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 1 of 4
Staff was asked to clarify in what ways the proposed ordinance differs from the Downtown Task Force recommendations. Mr.
Goldman stated the provision to limit the use of vehicle signs was added by staff (vehicles parked exclusively for the purpose
of displaying business signage). Another change not recommended by the Task Force but requested by the City Council was
the opportunity for additional business frontages. Lastly, staff is recommending the ordinance include a distinction between
real estate signs and construction signs. Mr. Goldman stated one last item that staff needs clarification on is whether the 3D
sign (3-cubic feet) inside the downtown area is a separate allocation or whether it should be subtracted from the 7-sq. ft.
allotment. He stated the current draft of the ordinance has this as a separate allocation.
Commissioner Morris asked for clarification on the public art provision. Mr. Goldman explained the ordinance removes public
art from consideration as a sign, and it would no longer be regulated under the Land Use Code. He added public art would fall
under a difference process and different chapter in the Code. Morris questioned which section of the Code would apply if the
Planning Commission required public art as part of a large scale development. Mr. Molnar did not have an answer, but stated
he would consult with the City Attorney.
Morris questioned the 35-ft width provision on page 3 of the ordinance, under “Shopping Center or Business Complex.” He
also questioned the language regarding temporary construction signs on page 4, item G, and asked if there was a limit on the
number of signs or just the maximum square footage. Mr. Goldman stated the intent was to limit this to one larger sign per lot.
Comment was made suggesting this language be revised to allow multiple signs so long as they do not exceed the total
allowable square footage. Morris suggested the language on page 5, “Strings of Lights” also be clarified. Comment was made
that they may want to remove the word “incandescent.”
Mr. Goldman presented some sign area calculation examples and noted the different options and formulas that could be
utilized. He requested the Commission provide input on which option they prefer. He noted what they are currently doing is
looking at the rectangular shape that bounds the sign, and while a circle or triangle shape could be used as well, staff is
hesitant to expand much beyond this.
Dana Bussell/Public Arts Commission/Noted she was also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell stated the
Public Arts Commission supports the exemption of public art from the Sign Code, but they are opposed to 3D signs outside
the downtown area. She expressed their concerns for 3D signs of significant size and stated it is likely that many businesses
would take advantage of this change. Ms. Bussell stated the object that the Task Force hoped to bring into compliance was
the Alfredo statue outside Wiley’s Pasta. She questioned how the size of these objects would be configured and questioned if
the Alfredo statue was too big to fit within the proposed size limit. She noted the desire of businesses located near Exit 14 to
be noticed and urged the Commission to be cautious. She stated once these items are in place it will be difficult to have them
removed. Ms. Bussell suggested an alternative is to recognize the item that prompted this amendment (Alfredo) is not a sign
and should not be treated as such.
David Wilkerson/Public Arts Commission/Noted he is also a local architect and is familiar with the City’s Sign Code. Mr.
Wilkerson voiced his concerns with the unintended consequences that the Task Force recommendations would allow. He
stated the City is not allowed to limit the sign content and stated the current ordinance is what has prevented the visual clutter
that you see in Medford. He stated the Sign Code has helped to maintain Ashland’s charming environment and encouraged
them to take another path. Mr. Wilkerson suggested if these items are considered public art, they could be subjected to a
separate process and thinks this is a much safer approach. He concluded by urging the Commission to consider the
alternative presented by the Public Arts Commission.
Council Liaison Navickas indicated that the City Council was reluctant to the 3D allowance outside the downtown area, but
wanted the Planning Commission’s opinion before they moved forward.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUSTAINABILITY WORK GROUP
Commissioner Mindlin presented an update of the Sustainability Work Group. She commented on the Planning Commission’s
decision to make sustainability a priority this year and stated the two paths the Group wanted to look into were: 1) what is
going on in the community, and 2) what are the other local governments doing. Mindlin commented on how they went about
gathering this information and their decision to not take the public hearing approach. She noted the ongoing meetings that
were held at the Ashland Library and noted some of the regulars who attended those meetings are also here tonight.
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 2 of 4
Mindlin reviewed the questionnaire that was used by the Work Group during their telephone interviews and clarified most of
the interviews took 30-45 minutes and the individuals were anxious to share their input. Mindlin commented on the different
sustainability frameworks that are utilized and commented on how her contacts were formed. She noted they ended up with
300 contacts and were able to inventory 150 of them.
Mindlin stated that Ashland has been considered a leader in sustainability for a long time, and a lot of this has to do with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. She noted some of the cities who are working on sustainability plans, and clarified a lot of this
reference material has come from California. Mindlin commented on Portland, Oregon and noted the recent merging of
Portland’s Bureau of Planning with the Office of Sustainable Development. She shared some information from the City of
Portland’s website and what they are doing to support sustainability.
Mindlin provided an overview of the information gathered by the Work Group, which was submitted to the Commission at the
beginning of the meeting. The sustainability inventory submitted by Mindlin was separated into the following categories: 1)
Nature Stewardship, 2) Built Environment, 3) Transportation, 4), Recycling & Reusing, 5) Energy, 6) Education and Culture, 7)
Health & Spirituality, 8) Economics and Business, 9) Local Government, 10) Community Connections, 11) Food Resources,
and 12) Youth.
Mindlin noted the work of Triple Bottom Line for the 21 Century and THRIVE. She stated Ashland has a program for certifying
st
Green Businesses which is administered through the Conservation Department. She also commented on the efforts of the
Ashland Chamber of Commerce. Mindlin noted the Work Group prioritized contacting Ashland based businesses and stated
80% of those inventoried are Ashland based.
Mindlin provided a brief overview of the work being conducted by Lomatski. She also commented on Willow Winds, the
Wilderness Charter School, and stated Southern Oregon University is listed as one of the Top 20 Green Colleges by the EPA.
She noted the Sentient Times, Plan-It You, Heart Circles, and Transition Town. Mindlin commented on the need for
intergenerational dialogue. She stated there are a lot of young people in the community that want to make a difference in the
world and stated Ashland needs to think about what it can do to keep our young people here.
Mindlin commented on how this inventory might be accessed, including a possible database housed on the Chamber of
Commerce website. She commented on how the information is organized and noted a lot of things did not fit within the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, including food security and sustainable food resources. Mindlin commented on the huge upwelling of
sustainability projects that were started in the past year and stated people are really concerned and want to find out what they
can do. She stated when individuals were asked what three issues were of most concern, she received a variety of responses.
However the most common responses were: 1) solar orientation, 2) rainwater catchment and infiltration, 3) food security, 4)
city land for community gardens, and 5) clustering housing on farms.
Comment was made questioning what the next undertaking is for this Work Group. Mindlin stated that her sense is that the
Planning Commission as a whole needs to take this issue up at a future meeting and discuss where they would like to go from
here. She noted the City Council usually sets their annual goals in the spring and this might be something that comes up in
that context.
CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Draft Plan. The presentation
outlined the elements in the Plan, including the following:
Locations of the Office & Employment District, Compatible Industrial District, Neighborhood Center, and Open Space
Traffic Circulation
Street Framework
Pedestrian & Bicycle Framework
Transit Framework
Parking
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Harris indicated the next steps for this project includes an update to the City Council on February 17, 2009, and then the City
will take the Plan through the local land use process for adoption. She noted this project is similar to the North Mountain Plan
and the City will need to draft a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance. She noted if any of the Commissioners wish to look at
the full Draft Plan, it is available on the City’s website.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 4 of 4
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARINGS
r.,
Planning Department, L . .nburn 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: 2009-00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street
APPLICANTS: Housing Authority of Jackson County and The City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request for modifications and change to the phasing of the previously approved Planning Actions #2004-
00141 and #2007-00802 for the Willowbrook Subdivision to allow a Land Partition creating three lots and Site Review to
construct a 60-unit multi-family residential development for the property located at 380 Clay Street. The application includes a
request for a tree removal permit to remove 12 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater where only
eight trees were previously approved for removal.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39
1 E 11 C; TAX LOT #: 2500
NOTE: The AsWand Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on February S, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: February 10, 2009, 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center
U I
~D,II
~..7
~
IKl Feet
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection
concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to
the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the
objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating
to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit
court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost
and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering
Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the
right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so
requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American 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).
If you have questions or comments conceming this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-5305.
G :lcomm.devlplanninglNotices MailedI2009\2009.00043.doc
MINOR LAND PARTITION CRITERIA
Section 18.76.050 Preliminary Approyal
An application for a preliminary partition shall be approyed when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The deyelopment of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded,
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
(ORD 2836, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be proYided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified
by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improyed collector or arterial street, as
designated in the ComprehensiYe Plan. Such access shall be improyed with an asphaltic concrete payement designed for the use of the
proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpayed street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improyed collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpayed street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpayed street and paYing is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waiye the
rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street
improyements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improyement district to coyer such improyements and costs thereof. Full
street improyements shall include paYing, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities, This requirement shall be precedent to
the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be proYided from the alley and prohibited from the street. (ORD 2951,
2008)
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approyal
The following criteria shall be used to approye or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances haye been met or will be met by the proposed deyelopment.
B. All requirements of the Site Reyiew Chapter haye been met or will be met.
C. The deyelopment complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, payed access to and through the deyelopment, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be proYided to and through the subject property. All improyements in the street right-of-way shall comply with
the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (ORD 2655, 1991; ORD 2836, 1999)
TREE REMOVAL
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Remoyal- Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Remoyal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Adyisor may require an arborist's report to
substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Adyisor shall issue a tree remoyal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and
warrants remoyal.
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 priyate facilities or seryices and
such facilities or seryices cannot be relocated or the damage alleyiated. 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 alleyiated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the remoyal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approyal of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree remoyal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the
following:
1. The tree is proposed for remoyal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Enyironmental Constraints.
The Staff Adyisor may require the building footprint of the deyelopment to be staked to allow for accurate yerification of the permit application; and
2. Remoyal of the tree will not haye a significant negatiYe impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks; and
3. Remoyal of the tree will not haye a significant negatiYe impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diyersity within 200 feet of
the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatiyes to the tree remoyal haye been considered and no
reasonable alternatiye 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 alternatiye site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatiyes continue to comply with
other proYisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the remoyal of each tree granted approyal pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approyal of the permit. (ORD 2951,2008; ORD 2883, 2002)
G:\comm.dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2009\2009-00043 .doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
February 10, 2009
PLANNING ACTION:
#2009-00043
APPLICANTS:
Housing Authority of Jackson County
City of Ashland
LOCATION:
380 Clay Street
ZONE DESIGNATION:
R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density Multi-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
February 2,2009
120.DAY TIME LIMIT:
June 2,2009
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.61
18.72
18.76
18.88.050
Tree Preservation and Protection
Site Design Review
Partitions
Street Standards
REQUEST: A request for modifications and changes to the phasing of the previously approved
Planning Actions #2004-00141 and #2007 -00802 for the Willowbrook Subdivision to allow a Land
Partition creating three lots and Site Review to construct a 60-unit multi-family residential
development for the property located at 380 Clay Street. The application includes a request for a tree
removal permit to remove 12 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater where
only eight trees were previously approved for removal.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
In December of 2008, the Ashland City Council and the Housing Authority of Jackson
County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement to purchase the property located at 380
Clay Street with the existing land use approvals in place and to jointly make application to
divide and develop the property as proposed in the current submittal materials.
In July of 2008, a request for a one-year extension of the Final Plan, Site Review, Tree
Removal, and Exception to Street Standards approval was granted through Planning Action
#2008-01060.
In November of2007, a request for Final Plan Approval for a 53 lot, 107-unit multi-family
development under the Performance Standards Options chapter was approved
administratively as Planning Action #2007-00802.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 1of18
In August of 2007, a request for a second one-year extension of the Outline Plan, Site
Review, Tree Removal, and Exception to Street Standards approvals was granted through
Planning Action #2007-01229.
In November of2006, a request for a one-year extension of the Outline Plan, Site Review,
Tree Removal, and Exception to Street Standards approvals was granted through Planning
Action #2006-02009.
In June of2006, the Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change
associated with the Planning Commission approval of Planning Action #2004-00141 were
approved by the City Council.
In July of 2005, the Ashland Planning Commission approved the application for Outline
Plan, Site Review, Exception to Street Standards, and Tree Removal Permit for a 117-unit
multi-family development as Planning Action #2004-00141.
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The application involves the partitioning and partial development of an approximately ten-
acre parcel on the east side of Clay Street, between Ashland Street and East Main Street,
located at 380 Clay Street. The subject property was annexed into the city in 2006 with an R-
2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoning, and was subsequently granted Final Plan
and Site Review approvals for the development of the 107-unit Willowbrook Subdivision.
The Housing Authority of Jackson County and The City of Ashland jointly purchased the
subject property with the Willowbrook Subdivision approval in place in December of2008,
and now propose some modifications to that existing approval, including changes to the
project phasing, partitioning to create three lots, and Site Review approval to develop 60
multi-family residential units, with the remainder of the property able to accommodate
development to the required minimum density in a later phase.
The subject property is rectangular in shape, and slopes gently (approximately 3V2 -percent)
down to the north. An existing single family home, barn and other accessory structures are
situated on the southwest portion of the subject property near Clay Street. Approximately 30
trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater have been identified on the
site, with the vast majority of these located near the southwest comer of the property in the
vicinity of the existing residence and out buildings. The Tree Protection/Tree Removal Plan
included with the application identifies 12 trees scheduled for retention or removal, four
more than the eight trees approved to be removed under the Willowbrook Subdivision
approval.
The City of Ashland 's Wetland and Riparian Corridor Inventory and Assessment identifies
the location of a narrow wetland protruding into the northerly portion of the property. The
wetland is shown as part of a larger 1 V2-acre wetland (#W13) consisting of a "gentle
topographic swale" that runs from south to north through the neighboring semi-rural
properties north of the project and extends through the eastern portion of Bud's Dairy
Subdivision, a housing development located further down Clay Street to the north. The
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 2 of 18
WiIlowbrook Subdivision was initially granted Outline Plan approval with 117 units and
1.21 acres of open space including wetlands and play areas, but subsequent wetland
delineation found that the actual wetland on the site was larger than originally suspected.
The Final Plan approval reduced the development 107 residential units with 1.25 acres of
open space, removed 12 parking spaces that had been proposed adjacent to the wetland, and
provided for the mitigation, enhancement and expansion of wetland area.
1. Land Partition to Create Three Lots
The Willowbrook Final Plan approval was to subdivide the property, creating 53 lots
and allowing for the construction of 107 residential units. The current application
proposes to modify this approval by opting for a Land Partition which would create
only three lots. The proposed Lot #1 would be approximately 4.32-acres in size, "L-
shaped", and would retain 47-units of the approved density for development in a
future phase. Lot #2 would be approximately four-acres in size, "L-shaped", and
would be developed with 60 residential units as the first phase of development of the
subject property. With the proposed development, Lot #2 would be retained under
the ownership of the Housing Authority of Jackson County. Lot #3 would be
approximately 1.3l-acres in size and would remain as open space, under City-
ownership, to protect the existing wetland. The wetland would be enhanced with the
first phase of the development of the subject property. As part of the proposed
partition, a 20-foot wide strip extending from Clay Street to the rear of the subject
property would be retained with Lot #3 to enable future connectivity between Clay
Street and Tolman Creek Road along the full northern property line of the subject
property.
Access to the proposed lots would be from Clay Street, which would be improved to
City standards along the full frontage of the subject property as required in the
Willowbrook approval. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters would also be extended
nOlihward along the east side of Clay Street to provide a continuous sidewalk
connection as required through the Willowbrook application. Two new internal
streets would be dedicated along the boundary between the second and third lots, and
would be improved to "half-street" standards by the Housing Authority of Jackson
County to provide access to accommodate their planned development of Lot #2. The
applicants also propose to install the widening improvements necessary for a right-
turn only lane at the intersection of Clay Street and Ashland Street with occupancy of
the first phase of the development, provided that a median restricting left-turn
movements at this location is not installed in the Ashland Street right-of-way before
then.
The second phase of development is to address the remaining 47-units of available
density as well as completing the improvements of the half-streets, providing an
alley-connection to McCall Dlive, and addressing the sidewalk improvements along
the "elbow" on the west side of Clay Street near the Ashland Street overpass.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 3 of 18
2. Site Review
The Housing Authority of Jackson County proposes to retain the "L-shaped" Lot #2
to develop 60 residential units as affordable housing. The proposed development
would consist of 12 one-bedroom units, 12 two-bedroom units, 26 two-bedroom
townhomes, and ten three-bedroom units spread over ten two-story building groups,
ranging from four to six units per group. The proposed buildings would be oriented
to the adjacent street frontages or to the nearby wetland, and street-fronting units are
to be provided with direct connections to the adjacent sidewalks. The buildings are
to be sided in standard siding with shingles at their pediment and base, with 312 -inch
window and door trim and standing seam "cool" metal roofing to minimize heat gain
and water quality impacts. Each of the individual units is proposed to have its own
porch or balcony; the porches are to utilize six-by-six posts with wrapped bases to
provide more of a sense of permanence. The building exteriors are proposed to be
painted in earth tones.
Parking is proposed to be provided in two surface lots located beside and behind the
buildings, and the 10S-space automobile parking requirement is proposed to be
satisfied through a combination of 88 off-street spaces and 22 on-street credits.
Required parking lot landscaping and screened trash enclosures are provided adjacent
to the parking lots. 89 required bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in 15 six-
space bicycle parking structures near each of the proposed buildings, with an
additional four bicycle parking spaces to be provided at the proposed community
building.
To satisfy the eight-percent recreational space requirement, the application materials
submitted indicate that eight- to nine-percent of the subject property is to be provided
in recreational space, including several lawn areas and a centrally located neo-
Craftsman community building with a multi-purpose room, computer room,
restrooms, office, covered patios, bike parking and an adjacent children's play area.
The wetland on the City-owned Lot #3 is also proposed to be enhanced concurrently
with the Housing Authority of Jackson County's development, and while not
proposed as part of the required recreational space it represents a significant
additional amenity to residents. A wetland planting plan incorporating a viewing
platform and pedestrian access has been provided along with preliminary engineering
to enhance the wetland, and the subject property's landscape plan incorporates bio-
swale areas and plantings that integrate well with the planned enhancements to the
wetland. Permits necessmy to accommodate these modifications to the approved-
plan for the wetlands under the Willowbrook Subdivision will be obtained through
the Division of State Lands.
3. Tree Removal Permit
As previously approved, the Willowbrook Subdivision proposal included the removal
of eight ofthe subject property's 30 trees. One of the large poplar trees which was
previously identified to be retained, previously identified as Tree #3, was removed
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Departmenl- "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 4 of 18
with a tree removal permit, when portions of its canopy split and fell endangering
adjacent homes. With the modifications proposed, twelve of the site's remaining
trees are proposed to be removed. Ofthese, the tree identified as Tree #17, a 40-inch
d.b.h. poplar that is proposed for removal to accommodate the placement of the new
east/west street, is by far the most significant. Ten of the 12 are proposed for
removal due to their locations relative to proposed road and sidewalk construction,
and the remaining two, an eight-inch d.b.h. almond (prunus dulcis) and a 12-inch
d.b.h. black locust (robinia pseudoacacia) which are now dead according to the
proj ect arborist's assessment.
4. Exception to Street Standards
An Exception to Street Standards was approved with Planning Action #2004-00141
to allow a portion of the sidewalk along Clay Street to meander around a Cedar tree
located in the southwest comer ofthe property. The applicants propose to retain this
approved Exception to Street Standards unchanged under the current application.
II. Proiect Impact
While previously approved as a Performance Standards Subdivision under Chapter 18.88 to
create 53 lots and develop 107 residential units, the application now proposes to modifY the
approval by partitioning the subject property into only three lots: Lot #1 which would
accommodate development of the 47-units of the property's approved density in a future
phase; Lot #2 which would be developed as a first phase involving the installation of street
improvements and the construction of 60 affordable housing units; and Lot #3 which would
contain the existing wetland to be enhanced and maintained in City-ownership. In addition
to the proposed three-lot Land Partition, the current application also includes a Site Review
approval request to construct the 60 multi-family residential units proposed on Lot #2, and a
Tree Removal Permit to remove a total of 12 trees over six-inches in diameter at breast
height (d.b.h.) where only eight trees were previously to be removed.
The City of Ashland and the Housing Authority of Jackson County propose to utilize
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to complete some of the necessary
infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed first phase of development. Given
federal requirements and deadlines tied to the use of these CDBG funds, the final survey plat
will need to be recorded and public right-of-way necessary for proposed street improvements
dedicated to the City prior to construction of these improvements. The timing of standard
"trigger points" within the conditions of approval - which would typically require
infrastructure installation or bonding prior to the City's sign-off of the final survey plat - have
been adjusted accordingly, and in staff's view the partnership between the City and the
Housing Authority through an intergovernmental agreement, their shared ownership of the
subject property, and the City Council's dedication of $345,000 in CDBG funds toward
public facility improvements for this 60-unit affordable housing project provides more than
adequate security to merit the relatively minor adjustments to the typical timing of the
conditions.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 5 of 18
Chapter 18.108 of the Land Use Ordinance would typically allow a three-lot Land Partition
and Site Review for two or more residential units on a single lot to be handled through a
"Type I" procedure with administrative approval by the Staff Advisor. However, because the
Staff Advisor is employed by the City of Ashland (a property owner and co-applicant) the
application was scheduled for a hearing as a "Type II" procedure to provide for a decision by
the Planning Commission and avoid any conflict of interest.
A. Land Partition to create three-lots
The approval criteria for a Land Partition include requirements that an application
demonstrate that both the "future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract" and
the "the development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded." In this instance, the proposal has reserved 47 units of the available density for
development of the proposed Lot #1 while also providing required protection for an existing
wetland on Lot #3. The applicants also have proposed to construct street improvements
along the property's frontage, to install half-streets to serve the proposed lots within the
project, to provide an additional 330-feet of sidewalks, curbs and gutters along the full
frontage of the neighboring property to the north to connect to an existing sidewalk, and to
reserve a 20-foot strip along the north property line to facilitate a future street connection
from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road.
There has been discussion of the future possibilities presented by City-ownership of Lot #1 to
provide additional park land associated with the adjacent YMCA fields and/or to develop an
east-west street connection from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road, either as an extension of
the new street proposed by the Housing Authority on the southern portion of the subject
property or along the northern boundary ofthe site. While neither of these is included as part
of the current proposal, both the lot configuration proposed and the 20- foot strip reserved
along the subject property's north boundary provide for future street connectivity and keep
these options open.
Staff believes that the proposal not only does not impede but in fact assists in the future
development of the proposed Lot #1 and of adjoining properties by providing access and
frontage improvements. In considering the future impacts of the proposed development, it
should also be noted here that the Willowbrook project, with the modifications proposed, is
specifically identified for its anticipated positive impacts on enrollment numbers in the
Ashland School District's recent "Population and Enrollment Forecasts: 2009-2010 to 2018-
2019" prepared by the Portland State University Population Research Center.
The subject property has not been partition in the last 12 months, and the proposed
partitioning here is not in conflict with any applicable laws, ordinances or resolutions.
Other than a narrow portion of upper Clay Street (at the sharp turn), Clay Street's existing
paved width in this vicinity is at least 20 feet as required for partition approval. The
applicants note that at the time of completion of the proj ect' s street work, this section will be
paved under necessary permits to ensure it satisfies the required minimum 20-foot width.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 6 of 18
The application includes proposed street improvements to bring Clay Street to City standards
along the subj ect property's full frontage, as well as providing frontage improvements for the
neighboring property to the north in order to provide a continuous connection to the existing
sidewalk system, as required in the Willowbrook approval. In addition, the applicants
propose to provide half-street improvements for the two street sections interior to the
development, with the remaining interior street improvements to be fully completed
concurrently with the development of Lot #1 in a future phase.
The application materials submitted include a "Conceptual Plan: Water, Sewer and Utility"
and a "Conceptual Plan: Draining, Grading and Sections" prepared by Construction
Engineering Consultants, the firm that previously prepared the utility plans associated with
the Willowbrook Subdivision approval. Water, sewer, electric and storm drain utilities are
available in the Clay Street and McCall Drive rights-of-way to serve the project, and the
existing facilities along with proposed extension of services to serve the proposal have been
identified in conceptual utility and drainage plans provided with the application submittal. In
discussions with Engineering Division staff, they have indicated that adequate capacity can
and will be provided through the subject property utilizing existing facilities within the
rights-of-way and those additional facilities to be provided with the development.
B. Site Review
Applicable Ordinances
The first criterion for Site Review approval is that, "All applicable City ordinances have
been met or will be met by the proposed development." The proposed multi-family
residential units are a permitted use within the R-2 Low Density Multi Family Residential
District. Within this district, the base density is 13.5 dwelling units per acre. The
Willowbrook Subdivision approval and associated annexation were based on 8.8 net
buildable acres, after unbuildable areas such as the wetlands were excluded from the density
calculations, and the base density was 118.8 residential units (8.8 acres x 13.5 residential
units per acre). The Subdivision was initially proposed at 117 units, but this was reduced in
the Final Plan approval to 107 units to provide a more marketable mix of units while
accommodating the delineated wetland which turned out to be larger than had originally been
expected. Annexation requirements call for annexed properties to ultimately be developed to
90 percent oftheir base density, and the 107 residential units approved with the Willowbrook
Subdivision Final Plan represented development to 90 percent of the base density that had
been considered in the annexation. The CUlTent application proposes to develop Lot #2 with
60 residential units, while reserving the remaining 47 units necessary to satisfy the 90 percent
minimum density required in the original annexation for the development of Lot #1 in a later
phase. Development ofthe subject property with 107 residential units is consistent both with
the allowed density of the zoning district, and with the minimum density required of the
annexation approval.
Standard yard requirements within the R-2 zoning district call for front yards to be a
minimum of 15 feet excluding garages, however unenclosed porches are permitted with a
minimum setback often feet from the front property line. Side yards are required to be six
feet, except that side yards of a comer lot abutting a public street are required to have a ten
foot setback, and rear yards are required to provide a setback of at least ten feet per story. As
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 7 of 18
proposed, the application complies with all standard setback requirements, and calculations
have been provided demonstrating that the proposed buildings near the nOlih property line
(buildings "G" and "H") comply with required "Standard A" solar setbacks as well.
The maximum allowed lot coverage within the zoning district is 65 percent and the
application as proposed requests to cover 63 percent of the site. The maximum building
height is limited to 3 5 feet or 2 ~ stories, and the buildings here are proposed at 21 feet and
two-stories to comply with this requirement.
Site Review Chapter Requirements
The second Site Review criterion is that, "All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have
been met or will be met." The applicants have proposed to provide a four common refuse
and recycling containers to provide convenient access for residents of each building, and the
plans provided include details of the required screening. Conditions have been
recommended below to require that they be installed prior to occupancy, and that compliance
with restrictions on the direct illumination of sUlTounding properties be demonstrated by
providing specifications for proposed exterior lighting fixtures with the building permit
submittals.
The application proposes to limit motor vehicle access to the proposed Lot #2 to two
consolidated driveway access points from the proposed new streets. The project complies
with controlled access standards which require that driveways on residential streets be a
minimum of35 feet from intersections and a minimum of 50 feet from the nearest driveway.
As proposed, the new driveway on the east/west street is approximately 190 feet east of Clay
Street, and the new driveway on the north/south street is more than 300 feet from the
intersection to the south.
Site Design & Use Standards
The third approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Site Design
Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter." The Site Design
Standards address building orientation, streets cape, open space, natural climate control and
building materials. In terms of orientation, buildings are to have their primary orientation to
the street, are to comply with required setbacks, and are to be accessed from the street and
sidewalk. The streets cape is to include street trees and appropriate front yard landscaping,
and landscaping is to include a variety oflocally-adapted trees, shrubs and flowering plants
with as many of the existing, healthy trees to be preserved as possible. Trees are to be
selected to provide natural climate control for the site, and parking areas are to be located
behind or beside buildings and shaded by large canopied trees and buffered from adjacent
uses. All landscaping is to be irrigated. Building materials and colors are to be compatible
with the sUlToundings and very bright or neon colors are not to be used. The proposed site
and building designs respond directly to these requirements, and integrate the site's design,
drainage facilities, and landscaping elements with the adjacent wetlands on Lot #3 to a
degree that is advantageous to the wetlands, the development, and the neighborhood at large.
An area equal to at least eight percent ofthe subject property's total lot area is required to be
dedicated to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the development; to satisfy the
requirement, an area is required to be treated in a surface suitable to human recreational use
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 8of18
and may not be covered with shnlbs, bark mulch, etc. The submittal materials indicate that
eight percent of the subject property, or 12,245 square feet is to be provided as recreation
space, including a community building, a play area, and several lawn areas located around
the development. The application further notes that additional open space areas not included
in these calculations are spread throughout the property, including bio-swale areas, areas
between the buildings, and individual porches and balconies. In staffs view, the relatively
large recreation areas spread around the site, combined with the community building, play
area, porches and balconies, and the proximity to the wetlands on Lot #3 will greatly enhance
the livability of the proposed development.
Adequate Capacity
The final criterion for Site Review approval is, "That adequate capacity of Ci ty facilities for
water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject
property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards
in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. " Water, sewer, electric and storm drain
utilities are available in the Clay Street and McCall Drive rights-of-way to serve the project,
and the existing facilities along with proposed extension of services have been identified in
conceptual utility and drainage plans provided with the application submittal. In discussions
with Engineering Division staff, they have indicated that adequate capacity can and will be
provided through the subject property utilizing existing facilities within the rights-of-way and
those additional facilities to be provided with the development.
Engineering Staffhave noted that the conceptual plans will need to be modified in preparing
engineered civil drawings: utility easements will need to be clearly identified, another fire
hydrant (in addition to the three hydrants already identified in the plans) will need to be
installed near the driveway entrance nearest to Clay Street, electric plans will need to address
service stub-outs for future development of adjacent parcels and conduit installation under
the sidewalks, street light placement to CUlTent standards noted, meter sizes and placement
verified, storm drainage within the proposed street addressed and necessary catch basins
provided. It was also noted that the sewer line at the project's northern boundary will need to
be slightly relocated so that its location is beneath the future street rather than the future
sidewalk. In addition, Engineering staff have indicated that the applicant's drainage plans
will need to include calculations necessary to demonstrate that proposed on-site detention of
stormwater restricts post-development peak stormwater flows to levels less than or equal to
pre-development levels while providing adequate flows to preserve the hydrology of the
wetland on the neighboring property to the north. The applicant has been made aware of
these issues, and conditions have been proposed below to require that detailed preliminary
civil engineering drawings addressing street improvements, utilities and drainage plans be
provided for review with the submittal of the final survey plat, with plans to be finalized and
approved prior to the building permit issuance.
Clay Street, a collector street under Jackson County's jurisdiction in this vicinity, provides
paved access to the site. The subject property's Clay Street frontage is paved, but lacks
sidewalks, park row planting strips, street trees, street lights, curbs and gutters. Under the
existing Willowbrook Subdivision approval, a number of street improvements were required
with development of the subject property in order to provide for adequate transportation:
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 9 of 18
Frontage Improvements
Clay Street was to be improved to comply with City of Ashland Local Street
Standards along the entire frontage of the subject propeliy. These improvements
were to include 28 feet of pavement overlay to include two travel lanes and an
approximately six-foot bike lane, curb, gutter, storm drains, 7-~ foot planting strip
and a six-foot wide public sidewalk. The applicants propose to provide these
required improvements as part of the first phase of development of the property as
well. The conditions of approval proposed below include modifications to allow for
submittal ofthe final engineered drawings for review and approval with the building
permits, and completion prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
Connection to Existing Sidewalk System to the North
Half-street improvements including curbs, gutters, storm drain facilities, planting
strip and public sidewalk were required to be installed along the full street frontage of
the property immediately to the nOlih (39 IE llCB Lot #1100) of the subject
property. These improvements were to be consistent with Ashland's Local Street
Standards and allow for a smooth transition to the adjoining sidewalk network. The
applicants propose to provide these improvements as part of the first phase of
development of the property as well. The conditions of approval proposed below
include modifications to allow for submittal of the final engineered drawings for
review and approval with the building pcrmits, and completion prior to the issuance
of an occupancy permit.
Right- Turn Only Lane at Ashland Street Intersection
A right-turn only lane on southbound Clay Street at Ashland Street was required to be
engineered and installed. The design was to include widening of the pavement width
at the intersection; the installation of curb, gutter and storm drainage facilities if
applicable; and sidewalks from the Clay Street/Ashland Street intersection to and
through the bend (i.e. elbow) in Clay Street to the existing curb and sidewalk on the
west side. As part of the proposed modifications to the project phasing, the
applicants have proposed some revisions to these required improvements.
With the recent development approval for 2200 Ashland Street, the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) has indicated that a median is necessary
within the Ashland Street right-of-way to limit left turn movements both from the
2200 Ashland Street site and from southbound Clay Street in order to address sight-
distance concerns. While the Planning Commission did not require median
installation as a condition of the 2200 Ashland Street approval, the Ashland Street
right-of-way is an ODOT facility, and the Planning Commission decision recognized
that a median might be required through the ODOT permitting process. Because the
need for a right-turn only lane would be eliminated by the installation of a median
restricting left-turns at this location, the applicants propose to delay installation of the
widening improvements for a right-turn only lane until the first certificate of
occupancy for the development of Lot #2, with the remaining improvements
including curb, gutter, storm drainage, and sidewalks to be defelTed until the
development of Lot # 1, with the understanding that the improvements for the right-
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 10 of 18
turn only lane would not be required if a median were installed prior to this time.
The application explains that these requirements were imposed based on a traffic
impact analysis of the potential build-out of the site to its maximum allowable
density of approximately 130 units. As proposed, the CUlTent application is to build
only 60 units with a remaining 47 units (for a total of 107) to be built-out with
completion of a second phase. The application explains that the 660-feet of new
sidewalk, planting strip, curbs, and gutters along the subject property's frontage and
330 additional feet of improvements along the neighboring property to the nOlih's
frontage, a continuous sidewalk system on Clay Street will be provided from
Dollarhide Way to Ashland Street. The submittal concludes that the CUlTent
development represents only 56 percent of the approved density and only 46 percent
of that originally considered in the traffic impact analysis, and as such argues that the
proposal to defer installation of the remaining approximately 350-feet of
improvements until the later phase is more than equitable. Staff concurs with this
assessment.
Internal Street Improvements
All new public streets within the development were required to be improved to
Ashland's Local Street Standards, with a minimum street width of 22 feet at
intersections and a minimum width of 26-28 feet when accommodating on-street
parking on both sides of the street. The application proposes to comply with these
standards through the installation of half-street improvements within a proposed 52-
foot right-of-way width during the first phase, with the remainder of the
improvements to be completed with development of Lot #1.
A connection to McCall Drive was proposed in the Willowbrook application, and while it
was not a specifically conditioned requirement of the approval a connection has been
identified over Lot #1 to show how this routing could be integrated into the internal street
network of the subject property with the development of Lot # 1.
While not a requirement of the Willowbrook approval or a proposal within the CUlTent
application, recent applications have recognized the need for an east-west street connection
from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road. As such, the application proposes to preserve a 20-
foot wide stlip ofland along the subject property's northernmost boundary in City-ownership
to partially accommodate a street connection if that were the route chosen and built-out with
future development. City ownership of Lot #1 also preserves the future option to provide an
east-west street connection by extending the east-west street segment proposed to be installed
by the Housing Authority.
C. Tree Removal Permit
As noted above, the Willowbrook Subdivision proposal included removal of eight of the
subject property's 30 trees. One of the large poplar trees which was previously to have been
retained, identified as Tree #3 in the Willowbrook submittals, was removed with a tree
removal permit after portions of its canopy split and fell endangering adjacent homes.
With the modifications proposed herein, twelve ofthe site's remaining trees are proposed for
removal. Two of the 12 trees, an eight-inch d.b.h. almond (prunus dulcis) identified as #24
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 11 of 18
and a 12-inch d.b.h. black locust (rohinia pseudoacacia) identified as #18 are now dead
according to the project arborist' s assessment. The other ten are proposed for removal due to
their locations relative to proposed road and sidewalk construction. Of these, the tree
identified as Tree #17, a 40-inch d.b.h. poplar that is proposed for removal to accommodate
the placement ofthe new east/west street, is by far the most significant. An even larger 70-
inch poplar identified as #15 and located approximately 50-feet south is to be preserved and
protected.
The application materials provided note that alternative site designs were considered, but that
the current proposal was ultimately reached due to the configuration of the property, access
management standards, and required minimum density. It goes on to explain that while no
tree removals are requested on a hazard basis, that it should be noted that poplars are very
prone to limb breakage which is a concern here given their size and the significant limb
breakage encountered with the tree removed in 2006. Staff would also note that poplars are
generally prohibited as City street trees for these reasons. The submittal concludes that based
on the project's arborist's assessment, the proposed removals will not have significant
negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees
or windbreaks, and adds that more than 12 trees are to be planted to mitigate the impacts of
the proposed removals.
D. Exception to Street Standards
The original staff report for the Willowbrook Subdivision explained that this was a relatively
minor exception to the City Street Standards in order to permit the installation of a small
segment of curbside sidewalk along Clay Street to retain an existing, 18-inch diameter at
breast height (d.b.h.) cedar tree. At that time, staff expressed support for the requested
Exception, noting that the location, size and health of the tree presented a clear difficulty to
complying with City street standards and that the proposed Exception would not compromise
the use of the public sidewalk given the relatively small adjustment in sidewalk
configuration. The Exception was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission, and
both the request and the circumstances underlying the previous approval remain unchanged
in the CUlTent application.
III. Procedural. ReQuired Burden of Proof
The criteria for preliminary approval of a Land Partition are described in AMC 18.76.050 as
follows:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be
impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto
will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
O. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution
applicable to the land.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 12 of 18
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards
contained in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can
be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by
City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of
the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with
an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street.
The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under
permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for
a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does
not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not
required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to
waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate
both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of
full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a
local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs
thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall
be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner
declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be
provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the
City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject
property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the
Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 13 of 18
The criteria for Tree Removal Permits are described in AMC 18.61.080 as follows:
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.
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 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 applicable
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
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 forthe removal of each
tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 14of18
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, staff believe that the proposed modifications and changes to the phasing of the
previously approved Planning Actions #2004-00141 and #2007 -00802 for the Willowbrook
Subdivision to allow a Land Partition creating three lots and Site Review to construct a 60-
unit multi-family residential development, and tree removal permit to remove 12 trees are
consistent with the applicable approval criteria and with the original requirements attached to
the Willowbrook approval.
From staffs perspective, the Housing Authority and their design team merit recognition not
only for their willingness to partner with the City to bring this project forward, but also for
their willingness to incorporate Ashland's site design standards into the project and to
integrate the adjacent wetlands with the open space and landscaping ofthe project to greatly
benefit the livability of the Snowberry Brook development. The partnership with the
Housing Authority and the proposed modifications to the Willowbrook Subdivision's
approval represent a true win-win situation for the City in addressing the transportation
infrastructure needs and minimum density requirements of the annexation while enhancing
and protecting a locally-significant wetland and providing 60-units of much needed
affordable housing where only 17 units were previously to have been provided. With this in
mind, staff would strongly recommend approval of the application with the following
conditions attached:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
2) That prior to any disturbance occurring on the site or the issuance of a building,
excavation or demolition permit, a Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained.
Required tree protection measures detailed in AMC 18.61.200 shall be installed,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any development activities,
including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, or
storage of materials, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and ilTigation installation. An agreement shall be
recorded requiring the remaining poplar situated at the southwest comer of the site to
be protected and preserved in accordance with the approved Tree Protection/Tree
Removal Plan (Applicant's Exhibit L-l.0). Any modifications or amendments to the
plan would be processed through a Tree Removal Pelmit procedure. The southwest
comer of the property as delineated on the Tree Protection/Tree Removal Plan
(Applicant's Exhibit L-l) would not be covered by Exempt Tree Removal Activities,
Section 18.61.040.C as described in the Land Use Ordinance.
3) That the Housing Authority of Jackson County shall obtain a Demolition/Relocation
Review Permit if deemed necessary by the Building Official prior to the removal of
any structures necessary to complete the proposed road construction as required in
Section 3d of the Clay Street Intergovernmental Agreement.
4) That prior to signature of the final survey plat:
a) A preliminary utility plan for the project be reviewed by the Engineering,
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 15 of 18
Electric, Building and Planning Divisions prior to signature of the final
survey plat. The final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering Division and Building Division at the time of
building permit submittals. 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, sewer mains and
services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins.
b) The identification, relocation and piping of existing irrigation facilities shall
be addressed at the time offinal plat submittal, and shall be finalized with the
building pennit submittals. The design, relocation and installation of
irrigation system shall be reviewed and approved by the Talent IlTigation
District prior to the City of Ashland approval of the final engineering
construction documents. The ilTigation facilities shall be installed as part of
the overall public infrastructure requirements.
c) The engineering design of all on-site storm water detention systems (i.e.
wetland/detention system) shall be reviewed prior to signature of the final
plat and approved by the Public Works Department, Building Official and
Staff Advisor at the time of Building Permit submittals, the commencement
of public infrastructure installation or the issuance of an excavation permit.
The design of the wetland/detention shall incorporate required pollution
control systems (if applicable), while the discharge shall be designed so as
not to significantly increase the volume of runoff beyond pre-development
amounts on the property to the north. The permanent maintenance of on-site
storm water detention systems must be addressed in a manner approved by
the Public Works Department and Building Division, and a preliminary
operations and maintenance plan provided for review with the final survey
plat.
d) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved
addressing and directional signage; fire fighter access; fire apparatus access
including improvements, turn-around, angle of approach, necessary
easements and signage; fire flow; and hydrant installation shall be clearly
addressed in the preliminary utility plans. Final engineered construction
drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department at
the time of building permit submittal.
5) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be
reviewed and approved by the Electlic Depmiment prior to building permit
submittal. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible
from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
b) That the engineering construction drawings for Clay Street comply with City
of Ashland Local Street Standards. Clay Street shall be improved along the
entire frontage ofthe property. Improvements to Clay Street shall consistent
approximately with the following standards: 28 feet of pavement overlay
width (includes two travel lanes and an approximately six-foot bike lane),
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 16 of 18
curb and gutter, storm drains, 7~-foot planting strip and a six-foot wide
public sidewalk. The civil plans shall include profiles and cross sections,
with erosion control and slope stability methodologies installed consistent
with the standards contained in AMC 18.62.080B.
c) Engineered designs for a right-turn only lane on southbound Clay Street at
Ashland Street shall be provided at the time of building permit submittals.
These engineered designs shall include the widening of pavement width at the
intersection; installation of curb and gutter, storm drain facilities (if
applicable) and sidewalks from the Clay Street/Ashland Street intersection to
and through the bend (i.e. elbow) in Clay street to the existing curb and
sidewalk on the west installed as part of the overall public infrastructure
requirements for the subdivision. Widening improvements for the right-turn
only lane may be defelTed until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit
with all other improvements noted herein to be defelTed until Lot #1 is
developed. Widening improvements for the right-turn lane shall not be
required to be completed if a median on Ashland Street is installed
prohibiting east bound (left) turning movements from Clay Street onto
Ashland Street (Highway 66) prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy.
d) The recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted at their
February 5, 2009 meeting, where consistent with Ashland's Site Design and
Use Standards and Tree Preservation Ordinance and with final approval by
the Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into a revised Landscaping Plan (if
applicable) prior to building permit submittal. The recommendations shall be
included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of
submission of building permit.
e) That refuse and recycling facilities shall be identified in conjunction with the
design of each building and in accordance with the standards described in
Section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a
building permit, and shall be installed according to approved plans, inspected
and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
f) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all
exterior components of the project be included at the time of submission of
building permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture,
dimensions and shape of materials and building materials proposed and
approved as part of the land use application.
g) That required bicycle parking shall be identified on plans submitted at the
time of building permit review. The bicycle parking shall be designed and
installed consistent with the standards described in 18.92.040 and shall be
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
h) That specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures shall be included at the
time of submission of the building permit. Exterior lighting shall be directed
on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 17 of 18
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the engineered construction drawings for all new public streets within
the project shall comply with City of Ashland Local Street Standards. The
minimum street width shall be no less than 22 feet in width at intersections
(unless permitted by the Ashland Fire Department), and a minimum width of
26 to 28 feet when accommodating on-street parking on both sides of the
street. Plans to include profiles and cross-sections, with erosion control and
slope stability methodologies installed consistent with the standards
contained in AMC l8.62.080B.
b) The applicants shall submit a wetland delineation and wetland
mitigation/enhancement plan that has been reviewed and approved by the
Oregon Division of State Lands and the Engineering, Building and Planning
Divisions. Such plans shall include civil engineering specifications for any
water detention, water treatment and water distribution.
c) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Housing Authority ofJ ackson
County shall record deed restrictions in accordance with the City of
Ashland's Affordable Housing Standards.
7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a "half-street" improvement
including curb and gutter, storm drain facilities, planting strip and public sidewalk
shall be installed along the street frontage of the neighboring propeliy to the north (39
1 E 11 CB, #1100). The design of these improvements shall be consistent with
Ashland's Local Street Standards, allow for a smooth transition to the adjoining
sidewalk network and be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
Permit. Such improvements shall be installed as part of the overall public
infrastructure requirements for the project.
8) At the time that Lot # 1 is developed, engineered construction drawings for the project
addressing the design and installation of public multi-use pathways, fence and gates
from the subject property to the City of Ashland Parks/Ashland Family YMCA
Soccer Fields shall be provided. The design of any multi-use pathways shall be in
accord with City Local Street Standards, reviewed by the Director of the Ashland
Parks Department, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior the installation of
improvements associated with the development of Lot #1. That the development and
surfacing (i.e. all weather surface) ofthe multi-use pathway at the south boundary of
the project be extended through the existing easement on the adjoining parcel to the
south (tax lots #200 and 201). A design for the pathway shall be submitted at the
time of any Building Permit approval for Lot #1 and installed as part of the lot's
public infrastructure.
9) That the owner of Lot #1 shall remain responsible for the pruning and continual
monitoring of the remaining poplar tree. The owner of Lot #2 shall be responsible
for the maintenance oftheir storm water detention facilities, including for bio-swales
to be installed in the Clay Street park row planting strip.
Planning Action PA #2009-00043
Applicant: Housing Authority of Jackson County/City of Ashland
Ashland Planning Department - "Snowberry Brook" Staff Report,dds
Page 18 of 18
~I
Proposed Site Layout for 380 Clay Street
i
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
~1
:..1
,"",l
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
:~
!~
Ie
i~
~:~
~I~
~l~
I
I
"'I
~i
t;j!
...,!
i
I
i
1
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
2.49.iZliZ.l'
N8S' ie.' IZl"W
----\
,---
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
i
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
1*
'"
,..,
!
,
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
i
i
,
,
-- --------------- - .d1lV.OO'--NOO:-~i,m------------..----~
(l
-j
-(
~~
U
l\)
~
'"
~
J>
U'
I
r
J>
z
lJ
11 l,C1:lIZ! ,
5~. 0)4' AI"W
S"
-i
:f;t
N
I
o
LC
J>U'
(l-
AZ
iPG\
OJ>
ZC
-j
(lI
00
c/O
Z-
-j-j
-(-(
o
-rT
"
~
~
u>
G
~
~
~
EO
J>(l
U>_
I-j
,-(
~O
lJ-rT
581'1'52'59.[
~
e
~Z ~
; ~ ffl
.
l>
-{
()
C
-<
"
()
'"
(j)
o
n
r
l>
-{
(J>
-<
B;i;
'ii~~11m~
z I~i{!~ ~~~
~ JP~i~ ~~.~
g~ rilhi t"~
~ '~~~;i~~g
g 'i;il~~! 9~x
~ z~i1.i 6lt:~
olnf ~~2
\;1"
(l
-j
~ -(
()
TI
it J>
tJ. U> .
I
,
J>
Z
0
/
HS91,'n-(
211.9~
JAN/30/2009/FRI 14: 12
JACKSON COUNTY ROADS
FAX No. 541 774 6295
P,001/001
Roads
Engineering
~~~~~t: )' X
':::\: ' ">. ^',
- . "_U4' ........
JACKSON COUNTY
Roads
Russ Log\l~
Constructiolt Manw;e.r
200 Antelope Road
WhitG City, OR 97503
phooo: (541) 774-6265
Fax; (541) 774--629$
loguera@jackeoncounty.org
www,jacksoncounly.org
January 27,2009
Ashland Planning Department
CIty Hall
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Development off Clay Street - a county-maintained road.
Planning File: 2009-00043
Dear Planner:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the request for modifications and change to the phasing of
the previously approved Planning Actions #2004-00141 and 2007-00802 for the Willowbrook Subdivision to allow
a Land Partition creating ,three lots and Site Review to construct a 60-unit multi-family residential development for
the property located at 380 Clay Street. Jackson County Roads has the followIng comments:
1. The applicant needs to submit construction plans to Jackson County Roads, so we may determine if county
permits will be requIred. Road approaches from Clay Street shall be completed under permits from Jackson
County Roads. Additionally, any work within the county's 50-foot right-of-way shall be under a permit from
this department. .
2. The development of the property will require access from Clay Street. We recommend that half street road
frontage improvements be requir6d(road widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and bike lane) as a condition for
the development.
3. If additional right-of-way is required for the improvements, dedication should be required. City of Ashland
standards may be utilized for road improvement if the City agrees, in writing, to future maintenance of the
urban improvements. .
4. If county storm drainage facilities are utilized, Jackson County Roads would Ilke a copy of the City approved
hydraulic report including the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity improvements or on site detention, If
necessary, shall be installed at the expense of the applicant. Upon completion of the project, the developer's
ellginaer shall certify that construction of the drainage system was completed per plan and a copy of the
certification shall be sent to Jackson County Roads.
If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-6255.
,. "'"
~::,;;~'w
B m 2
I ;\Engineering\Development\CITI ES\ASHLAND\2009-00043.doc
" ,';.;
~> ,~,x0d
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING APPLICATION
SNOWBERRY BROOK RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
An affordable housing development for the
Housing Authority of Jackson County for
380 Clay Street
PROPOSAL: This planning application proposal is for five land use entitlements for the
9.63-acre parcel off Clay Street formally known as the Willowbrook Subdivision:
. a 3-10t Land Partition (modified from a 53 lot subdivision);
. a Site Review Permit modification of Planning Action #2004-141 to construct 60 multi-
family units (modified from 117 units);
. Amendment to certain Conditions of Planning Action #2004-141; and
. a Tree Removal Permit modification of Planning Action #2004-141 to remove 12 trees
greater than 6" d.b.h. (modified from eight trees)
. an exception to the City Street Standards to allow a pOliion of the sidewalk along Clay
Street to meander around a Cedar tree located in the southwest corner of the property
(unchanged from Planning Action #2004-141).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
APPLICANTS:
Housing Authority of Jackson County
2251 Table Rock Road
Medford, OR 97501
LAND USE PLANNING:
Urban Development Services, LLC
485 W. Nevada Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-482-3334
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:
Laurie Sager & Associates, Inc.
700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 201
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-488-1446
CIVIL ENGINEERING:
Construction Engineering Consultants
P.O. Box 1724
Medford, Oregon 97501
Tel: 541-779-5268
SURVEYOR:
L.J. Friar & Associates
816 W. 8th Street
Medford, Oregon 97501
Tel: 541-482-5009
OWNER:
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
OWNER:
Housing Authority of Jackson County
2251 Table Rock Road
Medford, OR 97501
DRAFTING & DESIGN
Daniel R. Horton
169 W. Main Street
Eagle Point, OR 97524
Tel: 541-830-1014
ARBORIST:
Laurie Sager & Associates, Inc.
700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 201
Ashland, OR 97520
Tel: 541-488-1446
WETLAND BIOLOGIST:
Agate Engineering
1175 East Main Street
Medford, OR 97501
Tel: 541-282-7930
, ,)
N
1
r
rJt
ADDRESS & TAX LOT:
380 Clay Street
Assessor's Map 391E l1C, Tax Lot 2500
ZONING & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
R-2; Multi-Residential
HISTORY:
In June and July of 2005, the Ashland Planning Commission unanimously approved and
issued their Findings of Fact for the Subdivision's Outline Plan, Site Review Permit, a Tree
Removal Permit and Exception to Street Standards. At that time, the Planning Commission
also forwarded to the Ashland City Council their recommendation for Annexation,
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map amendments (PA-2004-l41).
In March and June of 2006, the Ashland City Council approved and issued their Findings of
Fact on the Annexation, Comprehensive and Zone Map amendments (P A-2004-141).
In October 2006, a request for a one year extension was granted for the subdivision's Outline
Plan, Site Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and Exception to Street Standards (P A-2006-
02009).
In July 2007, a request for a one year extension was granted for the subdivision's Outline
Plan, Site Review Pelmit, Tree Removal Pelmit and Exception to Street Standards (P A-2007-
01229).
In July 2008, a request for a one year extension was granted for the subdivision's Final Plan,
Site Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit and Exception to Street Standards (P A-2008-
01060).
In November 2008, the Ashland City Council and the Housing Authority of Jackson County
agreed to acquire the propeliy for the purpose of affordable housing and park land.
INTRODUCTION:
The subject property is located at 380 Clay Street, immediately adjacent to the YMCA soccer
fields - between Ashland Street and East Main Streets. The property was recently annexed
into the City and conculTently received approval for a 53-lot subdivision, 117 (reduced to
107 units with Final Plan application) single and multi-family units, a tree removal permit
and an exception to the street standards for a meandering sidewalk adjacent to a tree
(Planning Action 2004-141). Of the original 107 units, 17 units were to be affordable and the
remaining market rate. The developer had finalized his financing, completed all of the Home
Owner's Association documents, generated all of the civil engineering documents and was
prepming to start construction. In November of 2008, the City of Ashland and the Housing
Authority of Jackson County agreed to purchase the property in order to develop portions of
the property for affordable housing, additional park land or both.
As noted, the applicants are proposing five land use entitlements and modifications to the
original approval which include:
. a 3-lot Land Partition (modified from a 53 lot subdivision);
2
. a Site Review Permit modification of Planning Action #2004-141 to construct 60 multi-
family units (modified from 117 units);
. Amendment to certain Conditions of Planning Action #2004-141; and
. a Tree Removal Permit modification of Planning Action #2004-141 to remove 12 trees
greater than 6" d.b.h. (modified from eight trees)
. an exception to the City's Street Sandards to allow a pOliion of the sidewalk along Clay
Street to meander around a Cedar tree located in the southwest comer of the property
(unchanged from Planning Action #2004-141).
PARTITION:
Lot #1: Lot #1 is 5.63 acres in area with an average slope of approximately 3%. The parcel
includes the property's .83 acres of wetlands, a future road right-of-way along the nOlihern
property line, a large portion of land adjacent to the YMCA soccer fields, the existing farm
house and accessory buildings and virtually all of the sites trees. The parcel is oddly shaped
and will be a remainder parcel (undeveloped) until the property is developed into public park
lands, additional housing or a combination thereof.
Lot #2: Lot #2 is 4.00 acres in area with an average slope of approximately 3%. The parcel is
"L" shaped and incorporates the proposed housing area, off-street parking area, common
spaces, play areas and new streets. Lot #2 will be owned and maintained by the Housing
Authority of Jackson County.
SITE REVIEW PERMIT:
Density: The property is zoned R-2 with a base density of 13.5 units an acre. The subject
parcel is 4 acres in size allowing up to 54 units with an additional 6 units being added via
density bonus provisions. In this case, all of the 60 units are to be affordable rental units
allowing for an additional density of 25% (18.106.030 G.). As such, 67.5 units are allowed
because of the density bonus, but only 60 units are proposed with this application. Note: Due
to the annexation provisions of Chapter 18.88.030 F. the 5.63 acre remainder lot (Lot #1),
minus areas of natural constraint, parks or right-of-way, will need to provide 90% of the
zones base density when developed.
Units: The proposal includes 60 affordable rental units to be owned, maintained and managed
by the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The housing sizes and types vary as follows:
12 - one-bedroom 665 square foot flats
26 - two-bedroom 948 square foot townhomes
12 - two-bedroom 888 square foot flats
10 - three-bedroom 1182 square foot flats
60 units total with 9i8 square feet of average living area per unit
Vehicle Parking:
The parking requirements and obligations per 18.92.020 and 18.88.060 are as follows:
Studio units or i-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. --1 space/unit.
i-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--i. 50 spaces/unit.
2-bedroom units--1. 75 spaces/unit.
3-bedroom or greater units--2. 00 spaces/unit.
+ lon-street space per unit
3
Proposed Unit Types:
One-bedroom
Two-bedroom (TH)
Two-bedroom
Three-bedroom
Total Required Parking:
Total Provided Parking:
# of Units
12
26
12
10
Vehicle parking spaces required
18
45.5
21
20
104.5 (105)
110
Bike Parking:
The bike parking requirements and obligations per 18.92.040 are as follows:
One sheltered space per studio and I-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
Proposed Unit Tvpes:
One-bedroom
Two-bedroom (TH)
Two-bedroom
Three-bedroom
Total Required Bike Parking:
Total Provided Bike Parking:
# of Units
12
26
12
10
Bike parking spaces required
12
39
18
20
89
92 (sheltered)
Architectural Design: The proposed buildings are well articulated and have a variety of
building accents, fluctuations and material changes typically not found in traditional multi-
family developments. The incorporation of these elements provides a visual opportunity for
not only improved aesthetics, but also individualism. Each group of buildings has multiple
roof lines, staggered volumes (porches, wall faces, etc.) and heights to help break-up building
mass. Each unit has their own porch or balcony depending on the type of unit.
The elevations show a variety of materials being used with shingle siding in the pediments
and base, standard siding on the walls, standing seam roofing, and 3 ~ trim around the
windows and doors. Furthermore, the unit's porch posts are to 6" X 6" with a wrapped base
and when combined with the shingled base, give the units a sense of permanence. All of the
units will be painted in emih tone extelior colors.
Building Olientation: The plans show ten sets of building groups ranging from four to six
units per group. All of the buildings orient towards the street or the site's wetlands. All
parking, other than parallel on-street parking, is to the rear or sides of the building in an
attempt to minimize its appearance. Each individual unit has its own sidewalk leading
directly to the porch and front door helping to not delineate each unit, but also improving
their sense of entry.
Common Building and Recreation Area: The proposal includes a neo-craftsman
"community" building and recreational "play area" within the center of the project. The
community building is attractively designed with multiple fronts creating an inviting feel.
Each front has a large covered patio with three of the fronts having glass entry doors and
windows allowing for a "natural" security by the residents. The project's play area or "tot-
lot" includes a play structure commonly found at the elementary schools. Both the
4
community building and play area are delineated by sidewalk or short walls. The overall area
of the recreational space and play area is 9% of the project. The project's wetlands are not
included in the calculations although they clearly are a visual amenity and include a viewing
platform and sidewalks on three sides.
Conservation Measures: Although not required by code, the proposed development will
comply with either the "Enterprise Green Communities Compliance Path" or the "Earth
Advantage Celiification Path," but most likely the latter. The specific elements of this project
will include at minimum the following:
· Energy Star lighting throughout
. Upgraded attic insulation to R49
. Upgraded window U value to U.35 or better
. Energy Star appliances including: refrigerator, dishwasher, & clothes washer
· Energy efficiency / low SEER PTHP and forced air units
. Water efficient toilets using 1.6 gals. per flush or less
. Low flow shower heads and faucet aerators
· Use of engineered wood products where possible
. Use of recycled contents in finish flooring
· Native trees and plants appropriate to the site and climate to be specified.
. Interior paints, adhesives, and sealants to be specified as low or no VOc.
. Retention of wetlands.
. Metal roofs for "clean" storm water runoff routed directly into adjacent wetlands.
. Street, parking and sidewalk stOlID water run off to be retained and treated biologically via
on-site bio-swales.
In addition, besides the new sidewalk to be added along the project's Clay Street frontage
(units, wetlands and City property), the applicants will be constructing a "significant"
amount of off-site sidewalk and street improvements in order to improve the areas limited
pedestrian facilities. This includes approximately 330' of sidewalk and curbing along the
adjacent County property to the north and an additional 100' of sidewalk and curbing to the
south connecting the existing sidewalk leading to Ashland Street. These improvements help
facilitate pedestrian movement and keep vehicular trips to a minimum. Considering this
propeliy is located within 1.4 mile (5 minute walk) of retail facilities, professional offices,
grocery stores and other services, the reduction in vehicular hips should be realized. No other
off-site improvements are proposed other than standard utility and storm water improvements
as noted herein.
Street Designs: All of the project's streets, as well as Clay Street, will be improved to cunent
City Street Standards. The interior streets are to have a 52' light-of-way and a * street
improvement with two 10' travel lanes, a 7' parking lane, 8' planting strip and 5'-6"
sidewalk. The remaining 1.4 street improvement (along the edges of Lot #1) will occur when
that portion of the property is developed. Along the property's Clay Street frontage the plans
show additional paving allowing for two travel lanes and a bike path, 6' sidewalk and a 7' -6"
planting ship for street trees. However, the plan also shows the planting strip as a "bio-
swale" in an attempt to retain heavy metal particulates from the street's storm runoff prior to
release into Bear Creek (see Sheet 6, Agate Engineering plans for details). Although this type
of improvement isn't common in Ashland, it's very common in Portland and Eugene in an
attempt to biologically reduce pollutants prior to entering major stream corridors. The best
5
local example of this type of bio-swale improvement is within the parking lot of North
Mountain Park.
Transportation: The Oliginal Traffic Impact Analysis for this site was for 130 single family
and multi-family residential units. In that analysis, the findings concluded that three of the
four intersections impacted by the project will continue to meet applicable mobility standards
but for one - Clay and Ashland Street. In that analysis, it concluded the intersection would
meet mobility standards if a dedicated right-hand turn lane was added at the intersection. In
this scenmio, there would be one in-bound lane, one out-bound left lane and one out-bound
right lane.
This application continues to agree with the analysis. However, considering the recent
discussions involving this intersection and the Coming Attractions Theatres project at 2200
Ashland Street (P A02008-0 1318, Approved December 13th, 2008) and the Oregon
Department of Transportation's position on that application's turning movements onto
Ashland Street (a State Highway), there is likely to be a raised median at this intersection
which would nullify the need for the additional lane. As such, the applicants are proposing to
install the lane's pavement without curbing, but would request the improvement be defelTed
until the proposed units are initially occupied and not complete the lane's paving if the
median is installed prior to occupancy. Under this scenmio, a significant amount of asphalt,
effort and cost could be avoided as there would be no purpose for an '''additional'' turn lane
if the median was installed first.
Wetlands: The subject property has .83 acres (36,499 sq. ft.) of wetlands located within the
northwest comer of the property along Clay Street. As with the previous application, the
wetlands are to be retained, slightly modified and expanded in order to improve its
functionality and aesthetics. In addition, the wetlands will have a "public" viewing platform
from the Clay Street sidewalk as illustrated on the project's landscaping plans and wetland
plans. In addition, various types of wetland plants will be added in order to increase its
ecological and biological benefits. When complete, the wetlands will have a total area of .93
acres (40,490 sq. ft.) - not including the bio-swale areas noted below which will likely
increase the appearance of the wetland by an additional 10% to 15%. As noted previously,
the application doesn't include the wetland area as part of the project's recreational space
even though there is a viewing platform and pedestrian sidewalks on two sides.
The wetland boundaries have been officially delineated and accepted by the Division of State
Lands (DSL) and were approved as part of the original application along with the proposed
wetland plan approved by both DSL and the Corp. of Engineers. The proposed improvement
plans have also been review by DSL and the Corp. of Engineers and final approval will occur
once all of the applicable engineering documents are complete. All communication to this
point with both DSL and the Corp. has been very favorable.
Bio-Swales: As noted, the application also includes a number of bio-swales throughout the
site in order to biologically improve storm water quality by removing suspended solids to
settle out and retain storm water during peak storm events - minimizing downstream
capacity issues and erosion problems. The plantings within the bio-swales help filter
particulates and their associated pollutants as runoff passes slowly and evenly through the
channel. The pollutants are then incorporated into the soil where they may be immobilized
and/or decomposed by plants and microbes.
6
Landscape Strategies: The planting plan was completed by a local Landscape Architect,
Laurie Sager & Associates, familiar with the area's climate. The Landscaping Plans illustrate
the various types of trees, plants, and ground cover proposed for the project based on their
relationship from the sun, least active areas and most active areas. In addition, the
Landscaping Plans show a heavy emphasis on plants and shrubs, rather than a water
consumptive lawn.
The parking areas provide shade trees in an attempt to minimize surface heat gain, shade
vehicles and sidewalks. There are a number of extended landscape islands within the parking
area to help soften the area and break up the linear alignment of parking spaces. Street trees
are to be planted 30' on center and planted in accordance with the specified standards noted
on the landscape plans. The trees have been chosen from the adopted Street Tree list based
upon their setting and amount of hydrology.
Utilities: Within the development and along Clay Street the electrical, television and
telephone service will be underground within a 10' wide public utility easement. The sanitary
sewer and water lines will connect to the existing service lines within the Clay Street right-
of-way. Storm water runoff will drain to the existing system along Clay Street and to the
planned bio-swales. In addition, an equal pOliion of storm water that cUlTently drains onto the
5 acre property to the north (Cooper property) has been engineered to continue to drain in
order to retain the histOlic level of hydrology that fccds that propcrty's wctlands.
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS (PA-2004-141):
The proposal is pmiition the lot into two parcels and developed in two phases. As such, the
conditions of approval applied to the original Site Review Permit and Outline Plan
Subdivision (PA-2004-14l) either no longer apply or more aptly should apply with the
correct phase - regardless if the next phase is developed as a park, additional housing or
both.
The following conditions of approval are include "suggestive" amendments (deleted / added)
followed by the applicant's explanation.
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That a consent to annexation form be completed, which is non-revocable for a period
of one year from its date.
A consent to annexation agreement has been submitted.
3) That a boundary description and map 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.
A boundary description and map, prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225 by a
registered land surveyor (Jim Hibbs, LJ. Friar & Associates) has previously been
submitted.
7
4) That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including loan calculations
and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets
and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the
Electric Department prio,v to Final Plan at the time of Building Permit submittals.
Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots. In this case, all civil drawings and documents submittals will
be provided at the time the building plans are submitted and delivered to the Electric
Department at that time for their review and approval.
5) That a preliminary utility plan for the project be reviewed by the Engineering
Division and Building Division prior to final plat. The final utility plan for the
project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building
Division at the time of Final Plan Building Permit submittals. 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, sewer mains and
services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins.
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots. In this case, all civil drawings and documents submittals will
be provided at the time the building plans are submitted and delivered to the
Engineering and Building Depmiments at that time for their review and approval.
6) That the identification, relocation and piping of existing irrigation facilities be
addressed at the time of Final Plan final plat and finalized with Building Permit
submittals. The design, relocation and installation of irrigation system shall be
reviewed and approved by the Talent Irrigation District prior to the City of Ashland
approval of the final engineering construction documents. The irrigation facilities
shall be installed as part of the overall public infrastructure requirements.
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots. In this case, all civil drawings and documents submittals will
be provided at the time the building plans are submitted and delivered to the Talent
Irrigation District at that time for their review and approval.
7) That the engineering design of all on-site storm water detention systems (i.e.
wetland/detention system) shall be reviewed prior to final plat and approved by the
Public Works Department, Building Official and Staff Advisor prior to Final Plan
appro'v'al at the time of Building Permit submittals and the commencement of public
infrastructure installation and the issuance of an excavation permit. The design of
the wetland/detention shall incorporate required pollution control systems (if
applicable), while the discharge shall be designed so as not to significantly increase
the volume of runoff beyond pre-development amounts on the property to the north.
The permanent maintenance of on-site storm water detention systems must be
addressed thmugh thc projcct's CC&Rs and approved by the Public Works
Department and Building Division.
8
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots. In this case, all civil drawings and documents submittals will
be provided at the time the building plans are submitted and delivered to the
Engineering, Building and Planning Department at that time for their review and
approval. Considering there no longer will be multiple lot owners, but instead one
owner (the City of Ashland), there are no CC&Rs.
Nevertheless, it should be clearly understood the project's Civil Engineer completed
the engineering documents for the subject storm water detention systems for the
previous application which were reviewed and approved by the Ashland Public
Works Department as they relate to this condition and specifically the property to the
north.
8) That the engineering construction dravvings for Clay Street comply with City of
Ashland Local Street Standards. Clay Street shall be improved along the entire
frontage of the property. Improvements to Clay Street shall consistent approximately
with the following standards: 28 feet 0.1 pavement overlay width (includes two travel
lanes and an approximately six-foot bike lane), curb and gutter, storm drains, 7.5'
planting strip and a six-foot wide public sidewalk. The Final Plan civil plans shall
include profiles and cross sections, with erosion control and slope stability
methodologies installed consistent with the standards contained in AMC 18.62. 080B.
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots. In this case, all civil drawings and documents submittals will
be provided at the time the building plans are submitted and delivered to the
Engineering and Planning Department at that time for their review and approval.
9) That a half street improvement including curb and gutter, storm drain facilities,
planting strip and public sidewalk be installed along the street frontage of the
neighboring property to the north (39 IE 11CV, #1100). The design of these
improvements shall be consistent with Ashland's Local Street Standards, allow for a
smooth transition to the adjoining sidewalk network and be provided at thc time of
Final Plan prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit. Such
improvements shall be installed as part of the overall public infrastructure
requirements for the subdh'ision project.
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots. Regardless, a half street improvement including curb and
gutter, storm drain facilities, planting strip and public sidewalk will be installed along
the street frontage of the neighboring property to the north (39 IE IIeV, #1100).
The design of these improvements will be consistent with Ashland's Local Street
Standards and will allow for a smooth transition to the adjoining sidewalk network.
10) That an engineering design for a right turn only lane on southbound Clay Street at
Ashland Street shall be provided at the time of Final Plan Building Permit
submittals. The engineered design shall include the widening of pavement width at
the intersection; installation of curb and gutter, storm drain facilities (if applicable)
and sidewalks from the Clay Street/Ashland Street intersec~ion to and through the
9
bend (i.e. elbow) in Clay street to the existing curb and sidewalk on the west installed
as part of the overall public infrastructure requirements for the subdivision.
Widening improvements for the right turn only lane may be deferred until issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit with all other improvements noted herein be
deferred until Lot #1 is developed. Widening improvements for the right turn lane
shall not be completed if a median on Ashland Street is installed prohibiting east
bound (left) turning movements ji'om Clay Street onto Ashland Street (Highway
66).
As noted above, the original Traffic Impact Analysis for this site was for 130 single
family and multi-family residential units. In that analysis, the findings concluded that
three of the four intersections impacted by the project will continue to meet
applicable mobility standards but for one - Clay and Ashland Street. In that analysis,
it concluded the intersection would meet mobility standards if a dedicated right-hand
turn lane was added at the intersection. In this scenario, there would be one in-bound
lane, one out-bound left lane and one out-bound right lane.
This application continues to agree with the analysis. However, considering the recent
discussions involving this intersection and the Coming Attractions Theatres project at
2200 Ashland Street (P A02008-01318, Approved December 13t\ 2008) and the
Oregon Department of Transportation's formidable position on that application's
turning movements onto Ashland Street (a State Highway), there is likely to be a
raised median at this intersection which would nullify the need for the additional lane.
As such, the applicants are proposing to install the lane's pavement without curbing,
but would request the improvement be defened until the proposed units are initially
occupied and not complete the lane's paving if the median is installed prior to
occupancy. Under this scenario, a significant amount of asphalt, effort and cost could
be avoided as there would be no purpose for an '''additional'' turn lane if the median
was installed first.
Finally, the applicants propose to defer installation of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and
storm drain facilities (if applicable) from the Ashland Street intersection through the
bend (i.e. elbow) on the south side of Clay Street until Lot #1 is developed either as a
park or housing development. The improvements to be installed with this
development (Lot #2), will include not only 660' of new sidewalk, planting strip,
curbs, gutters, etc., along the property's entire Clay Street frontage (including the
frontage of Lot #1), but also 330' of the neighboring property to the north (County,
Tax Lot 391E11CB 1100). With these improvements, a continuous sidewalk system
from Dollarhide Way to Ashland Street will be realized.
Considering the original approval was for 107 units and now only 60 units are
proposed (44% reduction), the ratio of public street improvements (approximately
1,000') in compmison to the proposed units is significant as it's equitably reasonable
to defer the remaining sidewalk improvement, approximately 350', until Lot #1 is
developed either as a park or housing development. As such, the existing and
proposed sidewalk improvements along Clay Street clearly meet the applicable
transpOliation criteria found in AMC 18.72.070 D. and 18.106.030 E. and that the
proposal is consistent with the original approval (P A-2004-141).
10
11) That the engineered construction drawings for all new public streets within the
project shall comply with City of Ashland Local Street Standards. The minimum
street width shall be no less than 22 feet in width at intersections (unless permitted by
the Ashland Fire Department), and a minimum width of 26 to 28 feet when
accommodating on-street parking on both sides of the street. Plans to include
profiles and cross-sections, with erosion control and slope stability methodologies
installed consistent with the standards contained in AMC 18.62. 080B.
Application will comply.
12) That a street plug, one foot in vv'idth, be dedicated adjacent to public streets and
alleys tkat adjoin the north property boundary. In addition, a street plug shall be
d-cdicated along the eastern boundary 0/ the pmject, between the public alley and
cast property line.
This condition is no longer applicable as the entire north side of the property has been
incorporated into the whole of Lot #1, owned by the City of Ashland.
13) At the time Lot #1 is developed, either as a park, housing development or both, +he:t
the engineered construction drawings for the project address the design and
installation of public multi-use pathways and fence gates from the project to the City
of Ashland Parks/Ashland Family YMCA Soccer Fields. The design of the multi-use
pathway shall be in accord with City Local Street Standards, reviewed by the
Director of the Ashland Parks Department, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior
to signature of the final survey plat or the installation of improvements associated
with Lot 1 the subdh'ision. That the development and surfacing (i. e. all weather
surface) of the multi-use pathway at the south boundary of the project be extended
through the existing easement on the adjoining parcel to the south (tax lots #200 and
201). A design for the pathway shall be submitted at the time of any Building Permit
Final Plan approval for Lot #1 and installed as part of the subdi".'ision 's lot's public
infrastructure.
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots. Considering Lot #1 abuts the properties to the nOlih, east
and south, Condition #13 will be addressed when that lot is developed.
14) That public casements sh.all be id-cntified on the final sun'ey plat for all multi use
path~','ays. The p:'oject CC&Rs shedl note that the pathways arc fo,v public use and
shall not be obstructed or through access to the cast restricted unless authorized by
the City o/Ashland and Ashland Parks Department.
The previous subdivision approval incorporated pedestrian connections to the south
and east of the property. However, the application has changed and the connections
are no longer applicable to Lot #2, but most likely will be when Lot #1 is developed.
As that time, public pedestrian easements will be designed into that lot's site plan and
recorded.
11
15) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to
hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the
preliminary utility plan prior to final plat. Final engineered construction drawings
shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department at the time of
Building Permit submittal Final Plan and appro'v'ed prior to signature of the final
surv'ey plat or the installation of imprmements associated 'v'v'ith the subdi'v'ision,
The subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, but instead
partitioned into two lots.
16) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted at their February 3
and June 9, 2006 meeting and consistent with Ashland's Site Design and Use
Standards and Tree Preservation Ordinance, shall be incorporated into a revised
Landscaping Plan (if applicable) prior to Final Plan Building Permit approval. The
recommendations shall be included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation
plan at the time of submission of building permit.
The application includes a proposal to modify the Tree Removal and Protection Plan
and will have met again with the Tree Commission prior to Planning Commission
review of this project.
17) That prior to any disturbance occurring on the site or the issuance of a building
permit, a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for. Required Tree Protection
Measure (18.61.200) shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including,
but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be
removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and
irrigation installation.
Application will comply.
18) That the owner of Lot #1 shall remain responsible That a final copy of thc CC&Rs
for thc Homem'v'ncr's Association shall be prmided at the time of Final Plan and
apprmed prior to signature of the final surv'ey plat. CC&Rs to &:scribe
responsibility for the pruning and continual monitoring of the three poplar trees.
maintenance of common area landscaping, pri'v'ate dri'v'e,'v'ays, multi use path'.'v'ays
and on site storm ,'v'ater detention facilities. The Homeo,',ncr's "1ssociation is
responsible for contracting ,'v'ith a utility maintenance company for the The owner of
Lot #2 shall be responsible for the maintenance of the storm water wetland/detention
facility. All parameters for maintenance of the facility, including time lines and
enforcement, shall be rc:ie,'v'cd and appro),oed by the City Public Works Department
and dcscribed in the CC&Rs.
Because the subject property is no longer being subdivided into multiple lots, there
will be no Homeowner's Association or CC&Rs. However, if Lot #1 is filliher
subdivided and developed, this condition appears to be appropriate at that time.
Nevertheless, the property owner of Lot # 1 is the City of Ashland and will be the
responsible entity for maintaining the Polar Trees.
12
19) That the project complies with the Affordable Housing Standards as described in
18.106.030G. Each affordable unit shall be identified and the required term of
affordability agreements (i.e. in perpetuity) signed prior to signature of the final
survey plat, with proof of recording submitted to the City of Ashland Housing
Program Coordinator prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Application will comply.
20) That the CC&Rs identifj: ~'v'hich units arc subject to the City's Affordable Housing
requiremcnts terms of affordability.
All of the units identified will meet the City's Affordable Housing requirements.
21) That a Demolition/Move permit be issued for all applicable structures on the property
prior to signature of the survey plat.
Application will comply.
22) That opportunity-to-recycle facilities shall be identified in conjunction with the design
of each building and in accordance with the standards described in Section 18.72.115
of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.
Application will comply.
23) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior
components of the project be included at the time of submission of building permit.
The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of
materials and building materials proposed and approved as part of the land use
application.
Application will comply.
24) That required bicycle parking shall be identified on plans submitted at the time of
building permit review. The parking shall be designed and installed consistent with
the standards described in 18.92.040.
Application will comply.
25) That the applicant agrees to construct the project in accordance with the appro'v'ed
plan and City ordinances and ~'v'ai'v'es the right to ,file a claim under Oregon State'/v'ide
},{easure 37. The signed ',mi'v'cr shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal
Dcpartmcnt for revic",'v' and appro'v'al prior to signature of thc surv'e)' plat or adoption
of a :'csolution or ordinance formally annexing the property.
This condition no longer applies as it has changed ownership.
26) That prior to Building Permit approval Final Plan submittal, the applicants shall
submit a wetland delineation and wetland mitigation/enhancement plan that has been
reviewed and approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands and Staff Advisor.
13
Such plans shall include civil engineering specifications for any water detention,
water treatment and water distribution.
Application will comply.
27) That 50% of the affordable units shall be completed and occupied by qualified
households, at or bclow 60% area median income, prior to issuance of a cert~ficate of
occupancyfor the last of the first 50% of the market rate units. Prio:' to issuance of a
building permit for the ,final market rate unit, the final 50% of the affordable units
shall ha'v'e been issued building permits. All affordable units must be occupied, or a
rental ag,"eement or purchase agreement shall be executed ,vith qualified low income
households, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy fo:' the final market
:'ate unit. Purchasers or renters of the designated affordable units shall be income
qualified by the City of Ashland and the City shall be presented '....ith copies of all
rental or sales agreements associated with the designated affordable units. That prior
to issuance of a Building Permit, the Housing Authority of Jackson County shall
record deed restrictions in accordance with the City of Ashland's Affordable
Housing Standards.
Considering all of the units are to be affordable, the majority of this provision no
longer applies.
28) That an agreement be recorded requmng the poplar tree grove situated at the
southwest corner of the site to be protected and preserved in accordance with the
approved Tree Protection/Tree Removal Plan (Applicant's Exhibit L-J.O). Any
modifications or amendments to the plan would be processed through a Tree Removal
Permit procedure. The southwest corner of the property as delineated on the Tree
Protection/Tree Removal Plan (Applicant's Exhibit L-l) would not be covered by
Exempt Tree Removal Activities, Section 18.61.040 C. as described in the Land Use
Ordinance. Further, the agreement would stipulate that further d-c',:clopment of the
south,',:est corner that includes an increase in the number of residential/mits shall
include a percentage of residoltial units for purchase or rent to households consistent
with the requirements for annexation and commensurate ,vith City of Ashland
resolution adopting a range of qualijj:ing incomes.
First, a Tree Removal Permit was obtained for the Poplar Tree that fell in October of
2006. Second, the submitted Tree Protection/Tree Removal Plan has a new exhibit
label. Third, the tree exemption noted (18.61.040 8.) pertains to multi-family zoned
propelties with a single family house which allows trees to be removed without
permits. In this case, the remaining parcel (Lot #1), would fall under this exception
without this specific language. Finally, the current proposal exceeds both parcels
affordable housing obligations as noted under Chapter 18.106.030 G.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:
Twelve of the sites 30 trees are to be removed with this application in order to provide the
project's necessary transportation facilities such as its roads and sidewalks. Generally, the
trees proposed to be removed are consistent with the trees approved for removal as part of the
original application, but for the few trees within or adjacent to the proposed east/west street
right-of-way. Most notably, a 40" d.b.h Poplar tree is to be removed as it sits directly in-line
14
with the new street. According to the project's Arborist, this tree is healthy, but its tolerance
to construction is poor as well as it's susceptibility to limbs falling. Regardless, this is the
only significant tree on the property proposed to removed. Note: In October of 2006, a large
40" d.b.h. Poplar was removed due to a major limb break causing a hazardous condition. At
that time this information was forwarded to the City and Tree Commission. Also during this
time, the remaining Poplar Trees were pruned in accordance with the original tree
preservation plans. The revised Tree Removal and Protection plans have been updated to
recognize any changes since the original approvals.
All tree protection measures have been designed by a licensed Arborist and Landscape
Architect. The Tree Protection Plan notes that all tree protection measures will be installed
prior to any construction and a Tree Verification Permit obtained in accordance with Chapter
18.61.042. In addition, during construction the site will be monitored by the project arborist.
STREET STANDARDS EXCEPTION:
The request for a Street Exception's request remains unchanged since the original approval
(PA-2004-141) as the new sidewalk along Clay Street needs to meander towards the curb and
run parallel in order to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south. In doing so, the
sidewalk avoids a 24" Cedar tree.
Findings of Fact
The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff,
Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the
required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the
Partition standards as outlined in Chapter 18.76 in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), Site
Design & Use Standards as outlined in the AMC, Section 18.72.070, Site Design & Use
Standards (Design Standards Booklet, adopted August 4th, 1992), the criteria for a Tree
Removal and Tree Protection as outlined in the AMC, Section 18.61 and the criteria for a
Tree Removal Permit as outline in the AMC, Section 18.61.
For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline" form with
the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font.
Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings
of fact are complete.
CHAPTER 18.76
PARTITIONS:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
The future use of the remaining parcel (Lot #1) has not been impeded as the remaining parcel
will have direct frontage and access from the public streets to be installed as part of this
application.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
15
The future development of the remainder land (Lot #1) will not be impeded by the proposed
development as as the remaining parcel will have direct frontage and access from the public
streets to be installed as part of this application.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
The parcel has not been partitioned in the previous 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to
the land.
The partition appears to meet all laws, ordinances, and resolutions for the proposed partition.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in
the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
The proposed partition is in accordance with the design and street standard contained in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards. Clay Street as well as the proposed streets will be
improved to ~ street standards (City Standards) with the remaining y,; street improvement
occurring by the other side of the street's adjacent property owner.
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be
provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City
documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
All public facilities serving this parcel are adequate and located within the Clay Street right-
of-way. According to the multiple communications with department representatives, all of
the services such as water, sewer, storm, and electricity are available and are not at capacity
and can accommodate the proposal.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel
to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete
pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street
shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
Other than a narrow section of upper Clay Street (sharp turn), Clay Street's paved width is at
least 20'. At the time the project's street improvements are being completed, the applicants
will also pave the upper portion of Clay Street in order to ensure its required 20' minimum
width is met with all of the work being done under permit from the Ashland Public Works
Department.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be
provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.
No alleys exist on or adjacent to the subject property
CHAPTER 18.72.070
SITE DESIGN & USE STANDARDS:
16
A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
It has been the intention of the applicants to meet all City Ordinances without requesting any
Variances or Exceptions to the Site Design Standards. To the applicant's knowledge, all
applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met unless otherwise noted herein. At
the time of the building permit submittal, the application will be substantially consistent with
the proposed application and will meet all conditions of approval imposed by the regulating
authority.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
All of the requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter, Section 18.72, have been met
without Variances or Exceptions. The Site Review Chapter was designed to ensure that high
quality development is maintained throughout the City of Ashland. The proposed application
was designed and redesigned in order to best meet this purpose and produce a quality living
environment.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
The development complies with the City of Ashland's Site Design Standards, adopted
August 4t\ 1992. A thorough response as to the project's compliance with the Site Design
Standards, Section II-B, Approval Standards and Policies for Multi-Family Residential
Developments; Section II-D, Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards; and Section
II-E, Street Tree Standards, has been provided below.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All
improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
All utilities serving the project are within either the Clay Street right-of-way or from McCall
Drive which will be extended via easements. None of the utilities are at capacity to service
the development. A pre-application was completed on November 5th, 2008, with City
Departments reviewing the application and assessing availability of services. All utility work,
including driveway turning standards as required by the Planning and Fire Departments, have
been incorporated into the site plans.
Three new fire hydrants are to be installed and all of the units are accessible from either the
adjacent rights-of-way or the private driveway designed to meet width, height and weight
requirements for fire-truck ingress and egress.
SITE DESIGN APPROVAL STANDARDS:
Multi-family residential development shall conform to the following design standards:
II-B-l)
Orientation
17
II-B-la)
II-B-lb)
II-B-lc)
II-B-2)
II-B-2a)
II-B-2b)
Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the
street when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II -B-1 a.
The buildings that are within 20 to 30 feet of the street (right-of-way) and
include porches oriented towards the street. The front facades have been
designed to have an attractive and pedestrian friendly streetscape environment
as each street fronting unit has a 6' deep front porch and a sidewalk extending
from the adjacent right-of-way to the porch.
Buildings shall be set back from the street according to ordinance
requirements, which is usually 20 feet.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-1 b. as
well as the setback requirements of Chapter 18.24.040. D. which allow
porches to be as close as 10' and houses to be 15' from the front property line.
Building shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking
areas shall not be located between buildings and the street.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-1c.
Parking is within the center of the project in open parking stalls. All of the
parking is generally hidden from the street's view other than a few spaces at
the entrances. The units are accessed via a sidewalk from the streets and/or
from the parking area.
Streetscape
One street tree for every 30 feet of frontage, chosen from the street tree
list, shall be placed on that portion of the development paralleling the
street. Where the size of the project dictates an interior circulation street
pattern, a similar streets cape with street trees is required.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-2a.
New street trees, every 30' of frontage, will be planted in accordance with the
City's adopted street tree standards. The new trees have been chosen from the
City Street Tree List.
Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in residential
neighborhoods, with appropriate changes to decrease water use.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-2b.
The applicant's landscape plan has been designed keeping in mind the project
is for a multi-family residential building complex and that water usage should
be limited. The proposed planting species are similar to what would be found
in other multi-family neighborhoods around the community.
Other than the lawn area near the play area, only small amounts of turf are
proposed in order to decrease water use.
18
II-B-3)
II-B-3a)
II-B-3b)
II-B-3c)
II-B-3d)
II-B-3e)
Landscaping
Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one
year of installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3a.
The landscape plan has been designed to meet a 50% "spreading" coverage
after the first year and 90% "spreading" coverage prior to the development's
5th year. The landscaping plan was designed by a local landscape professional
knowledgeable of the various plant and tree specifications for the Southern
Oregon climate.
Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen
trees and shrubs and flowering plant species well adapted to the local
climate.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3b.
The landscaping plan incorporates a variety of deciduous shrubs, flowering
plant species and drought tolerant ground cover for Southern Oregon. The
landscaping plan was designed by a local landscape professional
knowledgeable of thc various plant and tree specifications for this area.
As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably
feasible.
Please see the attached Tree Protection Plan. As many of the site's existing
trees are being saved and protected where reasonably feasible. All tree
protection measures have been designed by a licensed Arborist and Landscape
Architect with the intent to retain as many existing healthy trees as reasonably
feasible and still meet the various other site design and zoning requirements
(multi-family housing). The Tree Protection Plan notes that all tree protection
measures will be installed prior to any construction and a Tree Verification
Pelmit obtained in accordance with Chapter 18.61.042. In addition, during
construction the site will be monitored by the project arborist.
Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at
least 10 feet in width.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3d.
The buildings will sit proudly along Clay and the new streets with porches and
landscaping between the buildings and the public sidewalk as illustrated on
the landscaping plan.
Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall
be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses.
19
II-B-3f)
II-B-4)
II-B-4a)
11- B-4b)
II-B-4c)
II - B-5)
The project's landscaping plan identifies a number of shade trees in order to
reduce excessive heat gain. All of the parking is either screened or adequately
mitigated from the rights-of-way.
Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping successes.
Refer to Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards for more
detail.
The proposed application will meet the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3f
as an irrigation system will be installed at the time the landscaping is installed.
The landscaping and the irrigation system will be installed by a professional
landscape company.
Open Space
An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open
space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-BAa.
The applicant proposes 12,245 square feet (8%) of recreational space to be
used by the tenants. In addition, more open space is spread throughout the
property including the bio-swale areas, areas between buildings, porches and
balconies that have not been considered in this calculation.
Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which do
not provide a suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward
this requirement.
The above standard is intended to preclude areas that typically do not promote
space for outdoor activities or social gatherings. Such activities typically
include parking lot landscaping, architectural landscaping or landscaping
along pedestrian and vehicular access corridors. As such, the project's
Landscape Architect has designed the recreational space so that shrubs, bark
and similar ground covers are not included in the calculation. Nevertheless,
areas not included in the number that should be appreciated as recreational
space include the project's porches, balconies and wetland viewing platfOlm
as each provide an opportunity for outdoor recreation and human interaction.
Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play
areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that
are designed to include families.
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-BAc.
and includes a play area, lawn area and a community building.
Natural Climate Control: Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and
low bare branch densities on the south sides of buildings which are
occupied and have glazing for summer shade and warmth.
20
The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section 11-8-5.
The landscaping plan was designed by a local landscape professional
knowledgeable of the various plant and tree specifications for this area. New
plantings include deciduous trees that provide for early leaf drop for full
winter solar access and summer shading.
II-B-6)
Building Materials: Building materials and paint colors should be
compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type
paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are
unacceptable.
No bright or neon-type paint colors will be used on the building. The proposed
material and colors will be emih tone colors consistent with building materials
and colors often found on residential buildings.
18.61.080 CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT:
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.
As noted, the proposal is to remove 12 trees of the site's 30 trees. All tree protection
measures have been designed by a licensed Arborist and Landscape Architect. The Tree
Protection Plan notes that all tree protection measures will be installed prior to any
construction and a Tree Verification Permit obtained in accordance with Chapter 18.61.042.
In addition, during construction the site will be monitored by the project arborist.
The criteria are as follows:
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.
None of the trees within the proposed project to be removed are being removed because they
are hazardous. Instead, they are being removed in order to develop the property in
accordance with the project's transportation needs and the City's Site Design Standards.
Nevertheless, it should be noted the Polar trees are very prone to limb breaks and considering
their size a concern as the Poplar limb that fell in 2006 nearly landed on the adjacent
neighbor to the south's house, but miraculously only causing minor damage.
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 tree is 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
All of the trees to be removed are due to their location within a planned street or sidewalk
system which is required by the Land Use Ordinance or Site Design and Use Standards.
21
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
Removal of the trees will not have a significant impact on erosion as the trees to be removed
are on minimal sloping lands. According to the project Arborist, the removal of the trees will
not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of
adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
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.
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. Again, all of the
subject trees have been assessed by the project's arborist who has also chosen the
replacement trees.
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.
No exceptions are proposed with this application other than the street exception to meander a
sidewalk away from a 24" d.b.h. Cedar tree. The applicants have explored alternative
designs, but due to the configuration of the property, access management standards, and the
minimum density standards required in the zone, the proposed plan was chosen.
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.
The applicants are aware of this provision and will comply.
18.61.084 Tree Mitigation Required
An applicant may 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 Yz-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. 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.
22
The applicants will mitigate the loss of the 12 trees by planting at least 12 new trees within
the project's boundaries. In fact, the landscape plans show significantly more trees that the
required minimum.
B. Replanting off site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available
space on the subject property, the replanting required in subsection A shall occur on
other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an open space
tract that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City owned or dedicated open space or
park. Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the authorized property
owners. If planting on City owned or dedicated property, the City may specify the
species and size of the tree. Nothing in this section shall be construed as an obligation of
the City to allow trees to be planted on City owned or dedicated property.
The applicants are aware of this standard and if determined to be necessary, the applicants
will comply.
C. Payment in lieu of planting. If in the City's determination no feasible alternative
exists to plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the tree account an
amount as established by resolution of the City Council.
The applicants are aware of this standard and if determined to be necessary, the applicants
will comply.
18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or
building permit.
A Tree Protection Plan has been submitted as part of the application in order to protect the
trees planned to be preserved as well as the site's neighboring trees. All tree protection
measures will be installed prior to any construction and a Tree Verification Permit obtained
in accordance with Chapter 18.61.042. No development activities, including, but not limited
to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work will occur without the protection
measures in place. Protection measures will only be removed after completion of all
construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS:
18.88.050.F - Exception to Street Standards - 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.
There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the aforementioned parkrow and
sidewalk standard in the far southwest corner of the property as it would require the
removal of an 18" Cedar tree.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and
connectivity;
23
The request will result in the preservation of a mature Cedar tree and be at least equal
in value as the standard pedestrian transportation facility.
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
The request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
The stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter are
found in Chapter 18.88.010 of the Ashland Municipal Code and is as follows:
18.88.010 Purpose and Intent - The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an
option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning
codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and
innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage,
provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built
under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient
land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and
neighborhood.
The request is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Performance
Standards Options Chapter found in Chapter 18.88.010 as the applicant is proposing
to retain a mature Cedar tree that would otherwise be removed.
24
,,:, _ .1)
SNOWBERRY BROOK RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
An affordable housing development for the
Housing Authority of Jackson County for
380 Clay Street
FEB - 4
f' : ,: ;-,~::'nt
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ADDENDUM
18.61.080 CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT:
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.
As noted, the proposal is to remove 12 trees of the site's 30 trees. All tree protection
measures have been designed by a licensed Arborist and Landscape Architect. The Tree
Protection Plan notes that all tree protection measures will be installed prior to any
construction and a Tree Verification Permit obtained in accordance with Chapter
18.61.042. In addition, during construction the site will be monitored by the project
arborist.
It should be noted the site's trees, specifically the large Poplar Trees, were evaluated
previously by two certified Arborists, John Galbraith and Tom Myers. Each had differing
opinions as to their ability to survive a development. However, it should be clear each
evaluated the trees under different plan configurations with one having housing directly
adjacent to the trees and the other no development near the trees (adopted plan). The
current plan is somewhat of a hybrid of the previous two plans with only one Poplar Tree
being removed. This plan has been evaluated and guided under the direction of a third
Arborist, Laurie Sager & Associates.
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are as follows:
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.
None of the trees within the proposed project to be removed are being removed because
they are falling down, leaning or breaking and none appear to be obviously hazardous
even though since the original two Arborist reports were completed in 2005, two of the
trees have died and one of the large Poplar Trees' limbs broke off in 2006 and nearly
crushed the adjacent house to the south at 400 Clay Street (see attached photos). The rest
of the tree was removed by Tom Myers, Upper-Limb-It Tree Service under an
Emergency Tree Removal Permit. An attached letter from Mr. Meyers, states that
evidence revealed the tree was rotting within. Obviously, during the initial two Arborists'
investigations, no exterior evidence was found which is obviously a major consideration,
especially when combined with the fact Poplar Tree species are highly "intolerant",
subject to wind-throw and trunk failure. In summary, considering the size of Tree #17,
it's species limited tolerance level, it's age and the recent collapse of a sister tree, the
applicants contend the tree is very likely to be a hazardous tree in the near future.
Regardless, all of the trees proposed to be removed, including the Tree #17, are being
removed in order to develop the property in accordance with the project's transportation
needs, the City's Site Design Standards and the City's minimum density standards as
permitted under AMC 18.61.080 B, below.
Again, two of the trees proposed to be removed are dead (Trees #18 and #24) and a
majority of the trees to be removed are within the Clay Street right-of-way where
sidewalks and parkrows are proposed. And, none of these trees are appropriate street
trees.
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 tree is 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
All of the trees to be removed are due to their location within a planned street or sidewalk
system that is required by the Land Use Ordinance or Site Design and Use Standards.
Alternative design configurations were considered in an attempt to minimize tree loss,
but the alternatives proved to be inconsistent with applicable land use codes and
standards. One of the alternatives showed the road extending through the center of the
multi-family portion of the property (Lot #2) with tenant housing "under the tree". This
was determined to be not only dangerous but also physically impossible as large limbs
(36") would be required to be removed causing trauma and likely killing the tree.
Another scenario had the site's open space and common area near the tree, but again the
common area's structure and play area would have been directly under the tree causing
not only the tree's limb to be removed, but creating a hazardous situation for the tenants
(children) under the tree. This scenario also caused the project's required open space to
be less than the required 8% and on two parcels. Finally, the alternative design showed an
eventual need for additional streets and caused access management issues that are in
direct conflict with the City's Transportation standards and policies.
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
Removal of the trees will not have a significant impact on erosion as the trees to be
removed are on minimal sloping lands. According to the project Arborist, the removal of
the trees will not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability and flow of surface
waters. However, the removal of Tree #17 may have an impact on the remaining Poplar
tree as it appears to provide some level of wind protection. The project Arborist contends
this may be minimal due to the tree's open canopy structure, but recommends
professional pruning at the time of disturbance in order to mitigate impact.
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 subJ~ct
property. c"
~4
B
r..~'- _
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. Again, all of
the subject trees have been assessed by the project's arborist who has also chosen the
replacement trees.
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.
In regards to the Street Exception request, no exceptions are proposed with this
application other than the street exception to meander a sidewalk away from a 24" d.b.h.
Cedar tree. Further, the applicants have explored alternative designs, but due to the
physical constraints of the property, configuration of the property, access management
standards, and the minimum density standards required in the zone, the proposed plan
was chosen.
Again, all of the trees to be removed are due to their location within a planned street or
sidewalk system required by the City's Land Use Ordinance or Site Design and Use
Standards. Alternative design configurations were considered in an attempt to minimize
tree loss, but the alternatives proved to be inconsistent with applicable land use codes and
standards. One of the alternatives showed the road extending through the center of the
multi-family portion of the property (Lot #2) with tenant housing "under the tree". This
was determined to be not only dangerous but also physically impossible as large 36"
diameter limbs 5' from the ground would be required to be removed causing trauma and
most likely kill the tree. Another scenario had the site's open space and common area
near the tree, but again the common area's structure and play area would have been
directly under the tree causing not only the tree's limb to be removed, but creating a
hazardous situation for the tenants (children) under the tree. This scenario also caused the
project's required open space to be less than the required 8% and on two parcels. Finally,
the alternative design showed an eventual need for additional streets and caused access
management issues that are in direct conflict with the City's Transportation standards and
policies.
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.
The applicants are aware of this provision and are proposing mitigation.
18.61.084 Tree Miti2ation Required
An applicant may be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved fQr
removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the
4
following:
A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a mInImUm 1 ~-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. 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.
The applicants will mitigate the loss of the 12 trees by planting at least 12 new trees
within the project's boundaries. In fact, the landscape plans show significantly more trees
that the required minimum.
B. Replanting off site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available
space on the subject property, the replanting required in subsection A shall occur on
other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an open
space tract that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City owned or dedicated
open space or park. Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the
authorized property owners. If planting on City owned or dedicated property, the
City may specify the species and size of the tree. Nothing in this section shall be
construed as an obligation of the City to allow trees to be planted on City owned or
dedicated property.
The applicants are aware of this standard and if determined to be necessary, the
applicants will comply.
C. Payment in lieu of planting. If in the City's determination no feasible
alternative exists to plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the
tree account an amount as established by resolution of the City Council.
The applicants are aware of this standard and if determined to be necessary, the
applicants will comply.
18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or
building permit.
A Tree Protection Plan has been submitted as part of the application in order to protect
the trees planned to be preserved as well as the site's neighboring trees. All tree
protection measures will be installed prior to any construction and a Tree Verification
Permit obtained in accordance with Chapter 18.61.042. No development activities,
including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work will occur
without the protection measures in place. Protection measures will only be removed after
completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
Furthermore, the project Arborist suggests the remaining Poplar tree be pruned prior to
site disturbance and have secure protection fencing (chain-link) around it's perimeter in
order to prevent a dangerous situation from occurring. The fencing should remain in .
perpetuity until the tree is removed or some other form of fencing occurs.
[j
380 Clay Street
2006 Collapse of Poplar Tree (40" D.B.H.)
( hotos)
~..
IIiJ--c.
.--
. ,<.'
Looking east (house at 380 Clay Street): The driveway has been
engulfed by a "single" limb of the Poplar Tree that has since been
removed (photo 10/12/06).
L.: '.';,_'~'D
rES - 4 2009
,-
,.... I ":.' :-:- . ~..::..~~nt
Looking west towards Clay Street
~; ,'0
. ::....
FE 8 . - 4 2009
("..
.' :,~(..l1t
Looking south towards 440 Clay Street
NOTE: The pictures herein do not demonstrate the miraculous
circumstance that "saved" the house at 440 Clay Street. In reality,
there was a secondary limb (not shown) that held-up the limb and kept
it from crushing the house.
~; ..... ."...a\
F E B - 4 2009
c>. :. I'
.:., :.:/::nt
Upper Lintb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
Attn: Mark Knox
Urban Development Services
320 E. Main SU.202
Ashland, OR 97520
October 13, 2006
Tree Report for 380 Clay St.
The 40-inch DBH Black Cottonwood tree at the entry of 380 clay street (tree #3 in the tree
inventory) is in hazardous condition and is presenting a hazard to the public. A major scaffold limb
broke and fell on the neighboring property. The damage done to the trunk by the breakage has
rendered the trunk structurally unsound, The break of the scaffold limb revealed a rotten point in the
trunk where the limb was attached. The resulting wound to the trunk combined with the rot make it
certain that the top will break causing further damage to surrounding property unless the tree is
removed immediately. There are no remedial measures that can be taken to save this tree. It should
be removed immediately. . If you have any questions regarding this report please call me at 482-3667.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
DBA Upper Limb-it
I
/
I
v
,m m~f"" ""
, I!
~ 00 Il\.
~'i~ n.. ~ I i ;~
~ U i do
,..<t "I:( ~ ~ LO
~ .,... WI ~I
, ~
~ """" ~ ,.
sf J-nr
~ 0) II I~ . JI t
[/) en :i'" If
- M - IS ·
.
--r m
,ft
,m Q" ,IUt ~~1
i il ~~. i
~ . ~ . i8
Ii D.q~ ! t.
I ~~i
~ ~ ~ ,~
i .=. ." J I
t:'-N~ - !!!!.. - --€I
,"-
IJItf-j l' ,., 'I"rr,
j
:
R-2
i!ll
-!
!I
I
~
EaDI
_!I
!5
.lrJl'
...~ ~
. F ;:;
?t:j
;~'"\
V I.
~
..... --....
I J/lli';~~- =, _ - f::)
IV~1 ~II~ ~-5 I
f I '-00-- I\. \
!-- "l!~" I __II\.
I '( ~ I~ II ... .,' 1'cI I
~ ;:t 19C ,~tl ,/ /--
" ___Ilit ~ / J '
· ~ 1lIII'I.U ' '" i!1DtI!!I ,/
H!~ Fi "/6. Irj r- -- i'
l ~Jt ~ 'i I ex>
_ ~_ :: ~~ .b
. I ~. ~ ~U; : ~/It
fl_ I~ II. r ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~
--, LO
, / I
\ ( I
;:
~
MIlO i
It
1l'r.Il:ft
N'
-
. .1
..
'1
J
,
~
\
\
\
.1
/~ -
. .
ft
., II Ii ,I .
- - - .
J.3iJlUS
AV1J ,\
I! lC ; '''-., -. ~~I:.
I II ~ III ~ PI! "
Irr--~II~~ ~
fjl II ~ ~ rll~'
L.J ~ ~ ~I lL.
~ m i II...II~. I! '
l'~ ~l:..T " SITE' hI! j R.2~
) I ~ ' i'II. I I! 1'1 ....
f l-f r I . ~I'" 'I . l
~ \ ~ Iii~' It ..I..u'
'JS Am ;.LBnt.s l~ AV10 :
~~}o.
.~. ~- {. ~
7.(. \'1\ ~
'0 6-
~'l[..
-;
.nll!
j""''''-
-"'-'.'-"'~
", ']" .. ~
. liB I ~
:...~~\ ~.I- '~Elb 8~. _ II.
~ 0' \il II~ W'~' ... g Ii,
...."f" ~~~ .S~~ !
.....o~..... >' '11:6 s I . II
"'i 0 ...~,~i' 6.~' ~ I <t:," ~ ~ '
~~~ -;. ~ lit, BY ~'\ · -- ~ :-..
\'i' ~ MI'.AOOW ~~~~ __
t.. \ II ~ I JJI~ .~~.t-~ ',1111
- - -'''~ a' II '. 'It.'r.l ~ · l.........C
/= ,"- __ -- ..,_,.,,~ ' ~I.'l' "~. - ~~" ~
?-'/'~ "~~''''-='''~-'/;!" I ILj itl'
.. ...,v -. nt I' I :. ~ i! J: ~
...~ ,C'. \\1 L-.:
~o ~ ~ ~ ~ 1I111UUUIIUl cL
t... 0. ~\ \\'1 6. '\lo" '1<J ....00VlIN · :.. I ,- IIfO
)- &- ... -- -",,-(",i! . :rn.-..
~ ......, -; ,II! t.~!.... . H
. \1' -$
t..
co
I
L{)
R-2
j
=-,.l
Jli".""''''
~ vrCINITY MAE
V NO SCALE
/)
_"R....!MII:
.
,,",,',,eNO):!k,JoI,,,i.'oN! ~ <Q ~
,W<ZIlS/'{Ni30JeUi AN! ,O~ "0 '''Ii> "'b 1'0 f'/ t>;\, '>D' I I
,Gr'L.I.'^~7~ W!;!_ ':$'" {~" ~"'\ 'b<>, ill C' / <, 1=1<>.. ' 2
HI<I~, I "'I t"'" O'<"", O'",'}, g <:'";.s to'" J~ronl\.~-t)'~ oI'~ I
,186~'15I'I11l)iiJ.,JI...q"l'll I~: "".,S'.,y "';-Q ~\"'.. ~"'"" Ii..,y "',o."'.wn=1.G! \" 7 :r:
,~'G%I.{g!Eh!loI.lIMJ "0 ("' .~il' v~"'%- "'J.%- \,) l~aa1 '3.7 Qi t!1
'''''I!'''>1'(alikllo!.~l\Ni ,0"( ".;,.. '" ~ (;n:xn.'B,i "],O;;<!' :Jl
,~n'l6l';\313""""" ',,..,f'fo. ,I>;.,. ,.-0.1' \ ~ w~ J ..Ii ~~~g}S.68S I. ~ ...;:,~~y '~ , 1 i
""., Hl<la~ Q '~\. ~ir,LiA;8N ? ---- I~ S9 { _v_ :;, I
~~wr~o 'fl'm-," . ,to ~ld Nil JNl~~ ,~7!61~ \ \. ':J ~Q ;;.. '\' ,,/ 2
(. !fiE!!!:: I \-7-~ __ \\ ~~ I:II~_I ~~'V':~~~~".-._'~:'ff'\;;/) '!I
MWJi.~j,;-- ~------------ _ _ ~ L=I~'" .'.. ~"I \ k ' ;
I'~.,,- \""'----r--\\"\\ ~T~, 'Y' -J h~-~ ..',~I/!!
IE~.. ri---' , ---:::.:~---~t ~ I'!Q --fYA' ,- -~-~ l!
~ y ~i J.OIVJ. ,_. ~~ _____...,~_ Id I
./ I r t-o'f---,>( ~/;n ~~ '(//)1) _ _ _ :: __ g
I! I-;-~-a-I;--i-~!l~'i:-I- j S ~~e ~ ~ I r ~ 1\ !
1 i i I. ..--, f,l J ,Iv," ."@N ,1?)~vG~ ~-Jj ~-II-*- ~ I 1 / I
j/1t' il !!If). pj' u ,lL,' 'f _ !.l ,1.... t . _) I · - ~ I ~ !
---- II '~~~ ~Jl e.~~ I~? ~ ~:;-~p-;\ ~;-'!l( ljq=.Il Q.~ B~
......;;.... , ~Il E · f-- t - - C:1 :>l .~. I~ I: ~
: ,- b p.~ P ~ ~f[m5:-- t7=:l. --;- ~r#~" I "CQ 1m \/ ~
I ~II r-~ ht ~!l 1r.>c1 ~~, h 'l ~~:, "~- rx IRt j:.~ I" !
./'i - ~~..l I I I I I I~ LL ~,~ \ .....1'::1.. ,L .1 II I ..L V _ ~ ~
-! i' pIJj "~ '.t'j)' .1:1~1~ "~!I;:: -I- +(~ \;}, ~'Jm 11 ~ j
, I' ~ Ilil1 ~ ; ;~! .. ! !I Iii ~ ! VIlI"~ I . " j
I )..-; I- .it ~I - ~ -~r~ - - I~II ~~M I.~ . '!- / I
'---- ' /~II ~ ~ .. I:~T 'h-~yt ~. ~~~ ~~ 'h ~ Il ~ ~ ~~.~ ~. ~ ~ ~"I-t:-'- - ~ t 1
zo" ~I I \ A::- 'X, X "d" J( r.,t-:II ~,L II Trtr ..1m"" I ,- I ~: ~
1 m 'I "- taJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' ;- ~~ ~]~ 2~~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I
1 ~ I ~'""; 11 ill! '~ 3.... j '"- s;>.. L ~
t 1'---- I · i ~ ~ Fi ~ I ir' ~ h t' ~J1\, II'" · ~. ~ "''-lom Fll Jli. I I I
--- : lJ-;: 1I'I'Q- ~v" .71~ ~ '" '!lie.-:J ~ ~V!
c; _____________--1-->--- I-~ G~II ~.~"'l1 ., ~~ ~ U~;:l L-l..A-.r, (~r'-w... ,_' I
..., I ~ ~ t-~- I-i "'" T - '" ~ W~ Ld J'? l...!1l JlL f--n g
:2 \ ~ : I ~ Z ;.Lil:r: -IL \i\ - 1 tt, _, ~ I
- ~ ~ I, - - Iril' Jr ~ ~~ -0 ~ ~14 !"-- .. -- -\ ~ ~~~ ~n),,~ ~1
~ ~ ,~ I\) n 1t3 1 ~ . ~J~ " ..l. ~ I~L J'~ t ~
I '.''', 1_ U> II A';eljt>, " UQJ / - ';"',;~---~IY II \v I
- t---- --t ! ; "1.'- .... '~p,;; 4wilf I~ '1- ,Ii q
c ~ I I T IL I I I F -no t+~,~ !rilGrJ l~!i \ / .. ~
- v \1~ II i III ~ ~iil all= II' :ti- ~ 1ll , I I
: 'tr,:{ ~'Dill" il ~ h'~; LJ.lJIJ Ti '-.. f-=:-F~ ~ \ ,/ ~
I ~~ c-;- ,. -- --}...-'1! i~ rl:tl.' J\-II ~ ) \ ./ / ",I
v-------....... ~ j _ 't d~o:~ fl: 1-1 ~ \ ,.,,~ ~
I -------_~_~_____--+ 'i Me. ",~- _ 'lit; iO If. : .' _~._--- v ~
I i"1f Jlj tt.ji t-IJ \ j-T'~~ ~ ~.. ~.J/ ~ ~I
: I T. III ~\~!.t -.. 'ql~ lr~!~ ~r
I & ~ ~+-" I I - ~il \ ~'"___ ~i
/ I a LF.-m Irv;- T I" ~ .. n ''''_ I \ J:---------.... 1\ / I
: ,~4R ~ 'r I -{; u- ~ ~~ 2' .' A' l[" n- _= I IRJlJ;j\ T
""---1 rn i G \ :: j!~ r, ,L ~ I~ I ~I! I ~ g
: ~~~ ,- .- \! III tt ::J i /<;L 00- i'ilUfi:~ l 3~ I 1 d ~
I I x M-- I · .. I'-" ~ II - ~ r /' I
&-rr~Itn1 I ~.~ ~ j~ .. '\ -~II r-~ -..,: !: _.--/ I g
I I - ~ i~ -= . N ~ ...Ii _-I' ~ / I
'I i~ 1 ,r i ~~+,.:: ~~:J\.rJ~I-- I! /n/I~--/ i'\ !
'~~ )( + ~ --JlG!l. P '-- ----'--t.~ ./ \ of
I 1- !l!- -F 4-- ----.,.- -A. ~ '1\ ".., ~
Jr" i N~ ~ht.~',,<\ 'f1t jl l - . ) I
/1 ..... h. i m.t y ~ '" Y d: i -- n I' L'\ -w j ~ !
L-Q'".l \. \.. n " ~2 ->1- ~ ~I
"" ~,t ~t .-/ !l: nil I,
a6'S~S III hI.OI.9,,58N a~. '
i ,~,-~- n' 1
I
~
b
~~
I ~~
9gj
m~
. ~~
p ~- .
~ I ~J ~ f! t!~
~ ~ iU i ~; : u ,,~!~~
!~~g~A ~:~.~. ~~ :~~ ~~I~~"I~~~~
i '.1 h:&'~i ~~ ~ U ~~ II" Il
" ~ i':1 0- 9 ~e .......... i:!~~~~
1==1 I I:;"j Ii ~! .!II!llllill
I,ll,! il' il II ~l 1"".",",1
~~~~i B ~~!! ~8 ~8 jQ j~~~~~~~~~~~
'-l "
~~~~i ~ ~
:\:\:\~~ ~ ~
uu.. ~ ~
,," b ~
~ :\.~~ ~ "W"~"
~; ~~~f 3; ~~~ ~
~~~! ~E $~~ ~
g~~ I~ ."
~ j~ix ~ ~;! ~~~
~ ~ ~w~1 di u Ii xx~
~ Iii! !t~ jil,l I! lIil
~ t ~h ~~~i iI-I ~~ ~UI~
-I In inh I~ ~I ~~;J
~
r:
~
~)
1
...,
---~"o(Il
1'-----''''
1
r---......_
~liel
D
\---
~
Jl.
o
o
(l':t
[Q~fl
1-0
>- \l) ,
fr' >- ~
(l':::L-l
ill o~
(j) ~ -<t
31"\
o
Z
tl)
~~
~t-}-Q
W:ZI-~1i q
--lW-::J:i[i "T
~~()OO~ ~
~--l~O~~~'
~~~6~g M
l.a~~~w ~
Z"'~o-~ ~
1.611)1~
\OJ""}'"
~~
j
~
hi
;h-~- ~,
.~ ~~Q ~~
[8JI*i+Jt 1~
~ nl ~ ;,-
f I~ ~! ~
~ P&lJ
~~~~ till
~x~ ,lf~p ~ ::::
tl~~~hb~f~. "ILL
.~ '~~l~I'lhl!11 ~
~~~~ .J1~~f ~ <{
~~~~rf~l
o &i!h
~ ~
...
~
~i I ~ ~ I
~~ I ~ ~
~ ~
.. 9
z; ~
~li
~2~
$>
I
, __n__~
,
,
,
:
,
!
,
:
,
,
~=~
"
"
"'-~;r::';~
"
':
c..:.~
I
,
,
i
i
I
,
,
I
f ------....
r----
:
I
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
"nnn
\ ----...."":
,
,
:
i
,
i
1
C=,1
;;
.___JI
_......--'
"
"
=.:.~
:
,
,
,
,
i
!
1
, ~_____..Jl
},f... ~~
-0 ~ Ji~]f
~o ~>- r'
I- f-~ ~~~~ ill~
<<tit UJ UJZf- !
...JUJ- z
-ill ~[l [fitOC :JlL~ ~ ~x~I~K~.s ~ =
~>- 1-0 <( 0 OuO t. i!!l:.l~ · t
\I)' ~()I 00 ' ~
0 zffi~ #1 ~il G~~i Illl) ~~ 0
Q)1t }-z ..JI-
~~ <[<t O~:J 0-10 ti
...J...l Itw<1 \l)llln !!ll~!ll ~ ~
(jI III
-w <l'l <[Cl\.') ~~w ~
om ~<t ~~z o_r
:::!3 ll'\ -\I) <{~ ~j lpf
100 </):J "'")N ~ P f
:30
Z ~I
ct)
XI
WI
-l!
OJ
'1"1
11
<[I
-l' -
lLib
I ,
oc!~
0!3
o
-l
IL
Ii
ill
3
o
-l
z
o
I-
<:{
> =
ill~
-1';;
ill =
<II
:t.;$.
I-
:J
o
Q)
~
~ ~
~ ~~ ~
Ju 1Il ~ t:
L . -D.. I
1: '{ <l: 1;
<[ --I ~
~ ~ ~ ~
9 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
lii ~:I it
x
ill
-1
lL
't
I
Z
<t
-1 =
lL~
oc!
03
o
-1
LL
IY.
ill
IL
IL
:J
z
o
I-
<(=
>Q
ill-I
-17,
UJ ~
I-
Q)
<{
ill
6
I-
<{
> =
Ul~
-1'-
ill ="
IJl
~
()
z
t ------"}l
:
:
:
:
:
,
!
,
,
t"=ii
"
"
~~~_.JI
--'1r-..J
"
"
I
~~!
I
I
!
I
I
!
i
i ------..
,.-__u
:
I
:
i
i
:
I
ic~.,___
------'"1::.
,
,
:
,
!
!
,
j
o:"=~
:l
____.:l
~-li-"
"
':
L~~
:
i
I
i
,
,
:
,
!
I ______..Il
'Y. ~~
.0 ~ li~li
Po I- u.. >-}.- .
~ll( WZf-f-~
UJ --1UJ-Z N tJ2d ill
[Q ~fi ~t~5~~ :t ~>I~!l: l[~"'
y 1-0 ~ ~X' "9 2 -
>- Ii) , ~3~ \) ~~ ~I ii~ll!lii r
I.J) ll( >-2 ~ U i!i! llilj Ii ~
~ ~ 1:<:[ ~~~ 6 ~~ t
z; -1--1
ill uI <lnl.9~~@ ~ i !l!P:Uli! ~
Q <J)
..J [Q ~1: ~~ZL)_r
::J 3 If\ 6ii51:~ ~~ fpt
10 0 <J):J"')'"
Z :JO ~ P r
~I
U) .
x
ill
-I
lL
"t
I
Z
1:
-1=
lL~
It:~
0:;'0l
o
-1
LL
It:
ill
3
o
-I
~
~
~
....
~
~
ill
~
i
....
Il)
~
~ ~ ~'
",0
ll~
.. Il '
<l <{ ~
~ i ~
t ~ ~
~ ~
~ '" ~.
..:t ,"'
~
I
....
~
~
~
x
ill
[
"t
I
Z
1:
-I"
fL~
~:.;;
0:;'''
G
-I
LL
It:
ill
lL
fL
:J
, ------,
:
:
!
I
:
"'';::'1"1
I,
,
____J;
--lr--'
"
,I
c:::~
i
I
I
:
i
I
:
I
,
I
J _____~.JIl
r-m
:
:
:
:
:
I
Ln___
------.,
i
:
,
,
!
:
:
~"'~
"
"
____J~
--ir--'
"
"
~~1
,
:
I
i
:
:
i
, ~----_..
Y- ~&
0 ~ li~jI
0 t- IL}.-/- .
-fl w WZ f- t ~ 'J h~~ !tl~
~[} ~~ -lW-::J ~
~t()OOO ..
~>- t-O ~ I!"i llli'i 2 =
II) , ~gI(j~~
~fl }-2 ~
9~ <:[1: ~I-zw t iiI! {lilt, Ii I~
-l-l ~W~O~IL l-
I.)
-w l)I 1:0...,<010 ~
~[} II)
~<l: Z~Z~~~ O!~~I Jf!~ ~ <{
3 cf\ <:[ - II) iil~Ul tr 11
-d)<.{",
() IJ)::J,'" ~ ~Hb
z 80
d) :n: Ii . i
x
ill
-l
lL
"'t
I
Z
-<1
-l=
lL~
Ity.
a ~'"
0-
-l
LL
It
w
3
o
-l
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
il
>-
~ ~ ~
~~ t:
.. Q ,
:! j ~ ~
h ~
t ~ s ~
~ ~ f ~
x
([
"'t
I
Z
<{
-l=
lL9
(}':y.
o~
()-
-l:
LLi
It!
wi
ILl
~I
~
!
I
:
I
:
I
i
~~li
'I
"
",
-"'-l"-'"
"
"
~~~
I
I
l
I
:
l
:
l
:
:
I
( __..,......~~...IIl
-.
I
I
i
I
I
:
I
:
~~~
"
"
____JI
"''''1r-'''
I'
I'
~~~
:
:
I
i
:
I
I
r _____~,...Il:
,,-----
:
:
I
I
I
:
I
:
l______
__~"_h_:
:
I
I
:
:
,
:
,
I
<-<
-"
"
"
____Jl
~-1r-'"
"
"
co!
I
J
:
I
l
:
I nu__...l
'1L ~~
0
0 IL }-. 8 pij
I- 1-)-
-lk w WZI- t~ ~~~! itl
!.l-[l wit --1W- ~
lU[OC ::)~ll!.
~~ 1-0 OuO ~ ~"~Q~[p
\I)' @oo 00 ' ~ K' "3 ~
-oc )-2 --1 I zffi~ 2 iih'llij · f
9lk 1:1 o~S
--1--1 ltwq O...J~ lJ . UIllllil,. ~
SW OI l.f)lOQ
ill{j} ~~ <to\.') ~~UJ ~
~I.!lZ (J_L li~iP~f!1 ' <t
3 (l\ z- q:\l
G -(j) ~iW tE~: ~
\/)::) ,N
Z 60 ~ dIlr
d) II i l
x
Ul
--1
.J)
I
Z
1:
--1=
(L~
frY
() ~~
()
--1
LL
OC
Ul
3
()
--1
~
I-
-1
> =
W~
-1=-
ill =u
:rJl
l-
lk
a
z
~
~ ~ ~ ~
IU III iji r:
1: .. Q... I
~ ~1l ~
~~ ~ ~ t Ie
i~ ~ [:s. ~
f->l ~~ ~ ~
I/lY ~:t ~ ~
~ ~
I C\
~ ~
1l ~
~ l
-I -I
II
o ~<I\
0-
--1
IL
::)
Y..
~o ~~
...0 u-}-}- .
:~mooc ~~~~~li ~
l= 1:tO()~G '
~}-Il)cl ~OIOO ' ~
~~j3 lI:()~~ZO~~ g
zwu::t: w'l lOll. ti
CilD~~ 1:()\!l~~@ ~
:::!3<f1 ~~~UifiI: It
:JO iD~<tN
lUZ GOJN
d) II
-
='
...
~
~
c.l)
t.:)X
Qw
-l[
~r.\l
Z.
<t .
-lQ
[L~
[Y d'
() :,./ll
()
-l
l1..
~ ~ ~
~ ~, Q
.d'i ~p.: III
III ij) jL iii t: III
. Il. t: ' ;;/
1"'~~ ~
Q-,~~~a: ~
<I ~ ..I Q I/- l: -I
~[~Q~~~
~~~ti.:r~ ~
~1<-W!:(>Il ~
NJ~Illi!~ ~
:)
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
oc ~
~ ~
-' -'
Cl ~
~ 9:
~ ~
""t
8
-
~ ~
~ ~ X
. 0 ill
-l-l
m(L
I (jj
2,
<t '
-ltl
{L~
OC ,,"
o .:J)
o
-l
l1..
II
~
[L
:J
~ ii~jI
~~~~ ~lIJJ
1/ !i'! lllj' ~ =
~ ii;llliil~ ~ l~
!~;~ .lfihf ~ ~
MIU~tli' It <ll
~ ~Ulr
i
I
~
o
-l
U)x
IW
Z-1
..;(0...
..J~
0--;-
Y.. ~t ~ li~JI
0
01- IL }-.
I~ }- l- ~ ~~;p ltll
J:~WOC WZl-Z f,)! ~ij!J\llLl'9 ~ _
-1W- OC
:J'i. ..
" [[} 0 ~[OOUO, Cl) tI!iih!II~~ N I~
Q
\9}-:J>n ~3; 0 ~~ ~ i ~ ill~ litllr ~ ~
;?;; >- z
O~<:{1 ~~~ 6 ~g U
-l ..J-1 W oc~~~ ~!ftt ~
-wo:r <tCl~~~w ~
~U)~~ Z~Z0-I: ~9 ~lt
3Cf\ <;(-iO..;(l!1 a 11 f
() \I):J""")N
::Jo \I i!
Z ~J:
I.l)
II
II
II
I
._..1
J:
~
o
.J
lflx
'W
z[
-<{
.J~
,
~ =
o~
07.
~.J =..
lLs.
IY
ill
'3
o
-l
~ p: ~
~ ~ ~, ~
tll~p:~t: ~
.n.{:$' ~
~j~~~ ~~
~~~Q~ ~~
t~~lii:N~!
~~~~Q ~~
,,1 ~ II) ~ >Il ~
'}L ~~
0 ~ !c~lf
0 t- ~t- >- ~
-~ t-
lU lUZt- Z ~ ~~~~ 11J~
;t{Q ~oc ...JIU- )loc
lfIl[OC :J ,
~>- t-o -<( 0 0 00 ~ ~I !~i! IllrrJ!i I~
(j) , ~o:t l) o '
CI oc~ ~
-~ }-z ...JE- Z
90c -<{-<{ o~:J UJo I-
-l...J lI:lU<[ 0 ...J1l 0
-w o~ -<{o~ ~ lOn ~ 'lil~rllf ~ 1
~{Q ~<{ ilU
z~z l) :1:
:3 <{ -
(() -0) <[ III ~~ lpt
0 l.I):J N
J N
Z Bo Cl : J f
(j) :r:t i ~
[I
~~
[~
~~
<t...J
:r
Y- ~t ~ p~Jl
~o
-0 u..~~ '
Q~ t- UlZ!-t~ ~2~~ ill!
w N
::::!rn ~oc ~~~ 5 0 ~ 't
.. i~~~~l 'ij3 2 -
:::) t-O ~ t' ii!ll;l~t << r
lOt- (/)' ~3; 0 ~g
r~ ~ ~ i illllllll ~ ~
>-fr'. ~~~~~~
!::oc '<l:...J ti ~ !!iI1p-lf ~ ~
.JI III
Zw Ulj) '<l:D~)i~lU ~
:::J[Q ~<:( ~~Zo_r
E~ i!!~1iI ti'11
~ ~d)<(~ ~ ~ Ub
1l>:::J""")N
Oz 50 II ~ ;
Q) II
liJ
~
ill
o
~
B
ill
\J)
o
~
:J
lL
I
t-
..J
::J
r:
,
\....
"-
/"---
I
I
~
~
z
o
!-
<1
>
ill
-l =
ill~
t-ii
d) =
ill -~
:3
J:
I-
::J
o
<J)
z
o
I-
<1
>
UJ
ill
I-
<J)
W
:3
I
I-
O!
o
Z
o
t-
<1
>
ill
..J
ill
t-
<J)
<1
ill
I
I-
(i
o
z
!iJ
~
~
Q
::!
:::)
Ifi~
>-~
f" "
Z .).~
:::J
~~
ON
l)~
I ..
Z~
<[-
..J~
lL...J
OC
()
o
-l
IL
~
,
~
u
~
~
00 u.>
~J
~
...
~
~~
~
~ ~
I!!
...J ~
~ Q
III
Q
;v ;n
X . -l
~I~ H
I
I1II1 ~
UJ ~
I
- ,'J-
~
,
L
~
~
~
-lI'-Iij~
w
fr:
:J
ti)
o
-l fr: .
u<[~
Zw:
W{k:: s<
1:
ill
<[
I--
ill
fr:
::J
(j)
o
~ill .
IJw9
ZO~
ill-'*
ill-
J:
ill
~
I-
~
:J
ill
01-
-lZ'
1J()9
Z ';
w~s.
g IlL
ti)
<:[
{k::
I--
w
{k::
::s
ill
()
-l
o
Z
w~
I:
ti)s<
q
~
l-
I
Z
-q
-l
lL
'" ~ ~O ~ J r!JI
~ OC~ ~}- }- ~ 02-t:t illl
l- I-
W IUZI-- Z '" ~-D~~ IKf'S ~ ;::;
:1 ~[Q JIU- ~lt j
~~ 10[(1: ::J ~
d) 0 uO I!MI~,lif "10
() () 1-0 <t 0
0).- ~~ ~O::r 0 0'
...J .JI- lt~ 2 ~ ~ il!lljl!lr!1 ~
0 w[l ~~:J z ~~ t
z ...J[l <I:.J 0
W Ow .J::x w"'-l ill lUo ~ ~.~, ~siPli!1 ; 1:
~~ <tCl~ Y.. <tw iil~1ll rl'ftl
J: >-[Q ~~z \) :r
(j) ~3 <t 11) ! !llh
~ (1) -If) N
roo <J)::l J N
:Jo II ;
I- Z ~::r
cj)
-IIG-lL.-
%
~~
~~
~~
(l
W
I-
-l
W
'I ti) .
ti)W9
0:-
w_~
-Jti)
o
>-
o
(l)
(l
lll{k::
j<1:
Will
:r ~.
ti) "t ~
llll-~
-l -
OZ
).-0
~~
[Q
[-''0-1 ~
r,,9-,C ill
Ii: - ,€",€ -'- ,€',€ - j
~ I 1 ~
8 I ...J~ :~;r,. (j)
~~: III ~ ~
l!l~ I ~ 1 r. ill.
j:'{1 :11: :. -l ~
~: -' II. _. '1 '" Ij:,
: :~. ~ ~ G ~
i 1 r. [Q
~ I
Z
<1:
--1
lL
m~
<I)'
t-
~~
,g-
Z
'1
0:
lJ)
lJ)
ill
o
\.)
1:
lJ)
~ I
~ ~ II R
~; !
,___ _ ~ii
I I-.c~ ___~ ---------- I ------ -- $
, i ':;:'L'- I ~T--;--I--'--l:fty--- =
I' !J ,~} ~~~l l!' ~ ,-
I I _ ~'" --;- ,I l - I
. --' 0: j';I"'1' E · ~.~ .
I I t Ji ~ 'iT I TT1~ I ~
. ' =i'fI:n... II 1 v T i
I i ~ . JfX;')<t - A~ ~ ~
I J H fPI' J;.."i..\ '^" -U · ~
, I X' JI' r/S, III fI-L,~ T !n-
" '- dA~ ~ ~ L ' I2<J ",
I, ' >();(<)< 1$ f ~ --.It- .
, I =l fi0'-f-. q ~hri e~ .
: i Er ~ 'QfDY ~ ~ bJi;'~~;P I~. ..
: i ,I m < - [Ffi~ 1a, ~uill=
: I, ~ r fr-- ~ 1------------------
: " :.JlIr '
! I~, TT U~~ !
! ,1 rLil.LL '= t I
i ! tL !! -, nr.lI ~ - ;.j["'l:;l:
, I <T ,-<:'I!l:. "'IF' - :: ~ I
i i-f.L.,-,.,-,-;Il{~Sa,j~ i
: ._c ~ -- l>J;;q,J,
I I ~ -14""1' -l;; ~~ 1; ,
: i - ~ ;~ wE ~ ~ !
! ,i J1 ' .- ~ I
!_ ~ ~~ ::fg;:
, 1'- ~i"",~ !
I [1 -- '
!:\!!
~ ~s~~sd:H
~ Illlli!!ll!
~mlmml I
~~9P~~~;~~~ ~ ~
it nnn~~~~~ ~ I
m
G
o
~f- I-rr'
rf\lU WZI-I-O
U-l1JlOi. ..JW-ZOi. '"
Ira lOr: ::nlll' j:
>-~Q d&0000 ~
(k'.}-Z ~..J:r.oOQ"
(k'.SS ()~5zffioc ~
Wl0I ~w<[o;r!2 ~
III '<0 ill"'nlll
~~1 q~~~~~ 9
O illQ)<{~ It
::l::),N
Z ()o
d) :rI
~ p~tI
ilill!lll
ti1i~~~~~~~ld ~ :::
fl i!~! ilill~f ~; I~
'h2~i!I' f ~ -
li~~ Jfh -, A
~~~ t1 Ii 1$> 'l
! iUlr
~
I
~
~-
[~
-
t:l
o~SL6 NO~3110 'ONVlHSV
lOZ' :U1nS Javo~ 301311SIW ooL
ONI S1:>3"1IHOll\l 3dV::JSONVl $31VI00SS\I aNV
1130VS 31"!JnV"j
~
w
""",.J
<
Jjj
a~
J
<
:c
NO(ll~O 'ONVlHSV
muS AVlJ og8
12l3fOlld $NISnoH )I0011S AllmMONS
8 0
" .
c;. r-
~~
2.
x
w
o
z
~
w
W
I
(j)
z
:S
CL
z
o
~
o
w
~
o
n:::: <c
0.. >-
:::JzzIY
~:55~
00..0.0
2C)C)W
wzz~
0:::--0
~1-
ttJzzzzzzzz
0::::15:55:5:5:5:5
~o..o..o.o..a..o..a..a..
Oz00000(9(9(:)
<czz~~~~~~
<C<(l-~~~1-1-
w....l-lzzzzzz
~tujjj:):s::):5:s:s
~SSo..a..a..CLa..CL
o
z
w
G
w
...J
o
Z
00, o..-('.J (f)"'tl.()
':c-.jc-.ic0c0(")(")(")(")
I I I I I I I I I
...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J
I I
I I
l- I I
UJ I I
UJ I I
a:: w I I
I- z I I
::J
<I) r: I I",
I- '" I I"
w
Cf} l~ I l~
~ \~ Ie:
It
I Q I'" I&'
I ll! It I
Ij} 1" I
.::( ~ ~ I!! l~ I
UJ ~ * ~~ It; I -0
'""" \i I Ii
a... i' g ~~ I ~ N
'-' i: ~ ~
z ~ U
11'- ! ~
- 10 =
to @ ~ ...
I;.
101 "
-~ ~ ],l,l
I It ...
\ " -<
'" ()
\ \ 0
g III
\ 1<0
I
) \
1 c:
/ I Ii
\ ~
II>
\GJ "
/::
oe I\~ '"
c:
aa ti
Iq x
iHi "
"'" ;;:
wW
mo>
00
""'""
~ ~ I
~ ~ ,
o ~ I
I
~ 5 \
~ [ \
\
w w I ~
III "
g g \
~ ~ \
It li: ,
\
1 ~
~---,._--.~'- I >=
~ ~
I \ ~
Ii \ g
~
I~ \ E
I~ \
10
:i )
I"
I~
10
I"
It I
I" I
lll~ I~ / I
00 I I
.---.~....---" :;;~ X I
1;0 I
we , ~....--/ Iw I
~w
06 I '-----.- IB I
;~ I~ I~ I
"" Ie I
~ I I
I- l~ ~ I
(/) 0 I I
wI- '"
~ " ,------------1---
~lli w I
w ~
'" I
"" 8
wcr ~-{ ::J
-<t:1- ( I) II
wC/)
"""' I I
~ \ :
~@ wQ w 0 w ill tr;
;~ ~ w w
0> 6 0 ~ "
,.
,.9 ~~ ~ " ;-
;el:;5 "' \1 ~
"'" 133CllS A 'fl~ '"
Si
8
c
o
j
c:J B El
lfJ"lfl\i~OV>J=i" (]NIf NOIi:"J31O"d 33,H
133,,1S 1S3MJ1S't3 (d)
~
~
.0
f-
a
ill
-,
a
~
n.
S!
00
;:J
a
T
~
o
a
IX
[()
~
IX
I1J
~
o
l;j
f-
l:J
W
Il:
f-
({)
i:
Il:
ill
"-
o
Il:
a.
a
z
:S
;r:
if!
<(
lL
o
(.:
(3
t
15
z
i 85
11 t'iti
gH
1 !!
~ ~:
"Q -Q-Q
~ u
~ H
.l! H
!: n
~ H
.s H
e. 2::.
i
2
3
~
..
~
~
):
~
~
.8
2
3
~
..
~
~
,~~ M
Hi ~
2.2.2,;t~
!~~~:
~Ho!
tuto.a
~~~i:
HHi
:;J ~ ~ CLb
t:~~~~
H!.~~
~ '~g18"G~ ~
i i'".L w
I l<i"?i8~ (j
't).~t~S"'i w
i~ig.S-~~5 ..J
.s~~:~~;:
'!~~~~;~;
9.fd~~.iJ.g ~.6
O~.i:i-D-O:""-ii
~.i~ffit~
~~~~11~1
~~~iiij~l
~i{~l~ll
!:!:!:... i 2 '.
~n'..I!:'
~Uiii. i
66 8~22~2
~ ~U~]
~ HHu~!
;;;~~~~~
:b ~! z t ~H ~ ~ ~ ~ !
E ~E~~~~~~~mre~g~~~g~~ 8 I~~:!~~~~
::; ~ () .. iJ!
~ :r. [i: I .Ii ::'
g 8E~<D~~;!r_.h:=:Q~~comM;!M~ f! a~g8~~~I~ ~
ojIlO'" ~Id~ ~ ::51 ~~~J];i:;~ ~
8 t~ ~ :(~]'~ '13 ~ ~i1:::~~~ z
>- ~ a 3 3. "p U 8 8'~ IX" ~ ~ 2 ~ 2 ~ F g
g; 1l.!H!j;~,"~~2~~.B,.~.l!." 0 lin>:. >:~Q < 0
~ ~ HHH~~~~HHg~ ~ ot)OOQ ~ 5
~ J ~~~~~jjlJ!~~ii~~j ~ c g;
UJ ~ ill ~ ~1~&~~~:t lli
~ ~ ...~;:~~~!~e!;:~~~N~g::~ g: ~....('J::~~~~;?; ~
() 0 f ~~
i
~~
~S~~~~~0~~e~~~~~~~
~s
g..liI CII ~
-gH i>:t
B.il- "(I'!
a....~ ~~-lI$
~ ~1-~ ;s!
! ~ ~!i i~] ~
~r;
Cl . L.
~ H . g ~~ ~ ,i' i~
l5 H ~'.~ 'd 2~.!
"""0 ~.: ~]~~;~ ~'.~. ."
s~ ~~ ~~~ }8 2~ ~~~
~~ ~~~e~,,~ E ~.'.
~ ~~ .~~-b'~c ~o '&1 ~
- ~M ::~8e; ~: l.~ g~l
(f) ~~ '-~.f3;::s - l:! ~s.i
~ ~i ~6~,!t;! ~i i~ giE
~ 5~ f~;Eal ii ~~ i~2
Z -="" l;t~...!~~ ~'" "''f;!
o I~ ~~!ilg .~ :~ ii.
E: 8~ 'i:~" ~H .~ ~! ;U
;) ~~ .~:i]~~.~~! ~~ :]:
::;: ".~"~'l;o~~t.1i ..~ ~p (j)
l.U .~za;]~+'.~::.3~1 ~~~..o~ ~
o :i"..!'.~~~S"I.. ~""il.~ a
IY -~~:f..8~g~" ....is ~.l:1oo:t- Z
~ .~ 0 ~ .z -] .. E; 1'~1 i s.~ z i ~.. z
m 2~~~i]~~~~~m ~~~~:~ 0
z :1~~'O:;'5~,~~~~.~~~~c~ F
o g1:aOi~"~D:i~~D~~1Iui:ilij: u
t= ~s!2~~~~~iii:is]~]1i ~
i3 ihiilt~~ ~i~H~'a ~~~ ~
il:~..s ~~.;ii"",~.~lIQ.
o "0 ~ ~ 'a ill S ~ ~ '6 ~ '5 D 0.... ~ 1 ~ coB w
~ ~~~f!i"ij2~~2!i!~;~~ ~
rJ) -<i. cQQ ci w ~ I-
8,~ ,~ " f
E1 ~~, i ~E;~il ~ .
~~ ~ n '~H.Pf '5 i
Z !- h ' ~..." g ~ t
:l.,- L,~ ~ .il:!", ~ 0
~~ ..~~ l >:l~n! ." ~
~o ~~~ ~ ~~~o}~ !~ ~
s-;; Ql.;t c. ~2"-c."r,.. ~., ,~
",g ~-g~ ~ !~~~~5 .' ~ ig
~~ j~; ~ ~"'m b~'~~ 2 ~ lJl~
iO ~~~~~ ~~~j~$,. ~~ c~
~_~ i~~~; ~~~{~~j ~! Ii
,-. I.~~~ .1~ol~1 .~B e
],~ l~J:iI" 8-ltl:c2'g"'~ ."I)..,~'t:5
~] ~~;~~ ~.~~~g.g,~1]!-!i~
'5~ :1:,o;~:C{J fTi,s;Qa.e'il"i~~!~ll.~
m~ ~.~$:~ ...-~~2"'1.-5~~"f;\~:;;~
.' i"":~~l.D~~~~.~E~,..
y~~>.:~ t;~~~'I:l~:a_B~i'!~~~
Iiltl.:II!iil.z~tll:IJ
o .",1 ..Ii~~p;.~ E~~l...,,'!'ii
~~&s~:~a!e~I~~~,~t~iiti
~!8E!~t3\c~~;oU2~~~~=~
1~:I~~!:~!~~~~;~iil~l'
~~~~j~o~g~~ it~~~32~~8
~~1~~~&g~~~~~~n~~0v~_~
~i;;ii!i=~8!;~i~]~lj~~~
.~~::5~_li-li!~.;0lQ-:;'Q2J:O-:$'" ~:i
~~~;.~~!~~B~~~gu~~~ ~i:
~O~":!~~~~~c~s~g g~~
<i. cl 0 ci uiU:
Z
b ~
c..
-0 Z
II 0
=
.... B
w
... LU
-< 0
()
III
Q Ol:
c..
':).
~
0
~
LU
Ol:
LU
W
01::
~
l- CI
W
ill
IX Z
l-
(j) -(
5 I-
a W
LU
J:
(/)
LU
...J
~
i=
~ 1
= ~ I
'E ~ .z
! (I 2
" g g
.~ ~ !
~ " "
,,~ ..
~ ~ jj
~ I- ~
2:
o
~
~
':':l
w
olQL6 NO~3110 '(JNVlHSV'
LOZ ;llInS 'avo~ W~llSIW ooL
::>NI Sl:)31IH:)lIV 3dV:)S<lNVl S31VI::>OSSV <lNV
1I3E>VS m nV']
~
12
8
\,11
-l
<{
U
>- "
~vo .g
:1o~$
.s;
8
< vo
:r:
No~mo I(]NVlHS'v'
muS !.V1) OBt
l:l3rOlld BNlsnoH )100MB All1l311MONS
g
N
r;:
i::-
o
>
.0
.~,
o
.
N
~
"
o
j
---
-t-=_
3NI.l }JJI3dO~d _-:-----~-~.~ ~ ...t,~
~~.bm$i,[ili.;~~~~.C-c~ ~'%~~'.-3NriH5i~V>l c____:""-L.._. ..
'" -
f) N
..J .:,
---
-
------
--""~(., ~::-~
M ~
-'... ..J
ill
2
:i!"'co
II'
CJ
f-
.:'
:< .."
I
!
ill
Z
::;
I
o
f-
<(
:<
b
I,.
r
,
W
..J
6
w
Ii
c.
--...
\
II
I I
I II
I I~.
,
) !
"'
)/t--~
:f/- ~~~ ::.-:.:J- ~~J' '--...
"- ~-
V _~- -~~ ~ '--... .............
; / '" , ~1> I" r', . !. _
1" 0. ~,j --.-
, ffi ~ ~~ .a""'-"--"--
~
'"
5~
N_
I-~
zo
~~
~~
wo.
\
ill
Z
:J
~
f-
~
ill
Q.
o
c:
Q.
0.
W
'"
"
w
~
0:
~
0.
\
\:.5 ~ 0. m;
% ~~ ~
'.1.. ~~ I
I ~~ ~
~,,~.:.; w~ U
fill
~ i '. ~
: 0: . \.... rr
I ~ ,
II I ; \... Ii (IC:'\,_.I
II: \ ~~ '
, 11\,:" ~</
II-! --.--.; .
II , '"
II
In 0 0 ~
<1 '" N ~
..J .:, '" .:, ..J
~ 0 ~ ti 0 " ~ :; ti '" :l
fu ~ :z ;;: ~ ~
~ d~ 0 '" " w
~ II) '" z
~ ;, .;, .;, ;, ::i
~- I
0 0
l- I-
<( <(
:;: :;;
z
~
0-
..J ~
~ Z
ill
~ 0 I-
0
~~ <!) Z
z
~" ~ ~
.0 <(
00
"", ..J 0-
~ n.
N en Cl
::J
'" Z
I
(fJ ~
N
ti
~
Q
(f)
ill
I-
o
Z
~j
- f: i
f~ 1
~:
i~ ~
'0 "''0
~ H
~ !~
] _"l ~
E 5l '; a ol
1 ~i ;~
...a ~u
: j ~ ~~
~._ ~~ ,tl
_ ~'O ,i";
~ ~1 ~;
~ .~i~~i
~~]~€
! ~..~*~
~ftr.~i;~
~~~~~il
~2~~:~~
:e:~~~! "~
N 1'''>~~1t101:;
~
~o
~~
m:(~
~-
~15!C'i a;
:;~ ~
(IlwI r
~~~ ~
CI)::!:1.l.. :=:
"
"
J
5
"
~ ~ ~
" ~ 2
fil 8 ~
3 ~
o ~ ir
~ Z t>
o ;; v>
"
q
1)J
~ ~~ " og
0 ~n
~ ~~U ..~
00 s
~~
I'J N~ ~ ~~~~ ~" ~
'" "'<J)
ij ~ ~ ~~~ a:C !;:
~ ~~ :: ::> ~ l-.:r:<( ~~~ Z
t g~ ~ p. ~~~ Q
.. '"
~~~ "
(l) t- ~ 0 g~ ~ a16~ "
Q 00 eo ::l" ~~~ ::>
o Ow ,. :; (J"}~;t;j.... t;
~ "'> w .' ~ "'0"
~ ,.0 ~ a. "'Zoo( ~~~ Q
o :JO:t:. z
~ N ~~ ~ i)z~ ::>
::; \
w
"
0
~
a:
~
"
:J
a:
"
::>
" ..J
~ ~
~ w
0
<!)
,. Z
N
a: ;::
'" z
.. ~
:< ..J
'" n.
> ill
0
ffi w
0::
" I-
0 "
, ,;
I, ,.
@ @
ill lj,.. &"2Oi i ...
"ij U .. ;. ..
t:I J: . ~.. .. ~ '"
IJI w~ ~ ~
ill d
~ i~
z ~H
z .
0 "i ~~~~~
:;: " <- ] ii:i ~ ... ~
:;: o . 3":: ~ i ~
. ~
0 j ~ Hn.:;
<J ;:;:1'
ill ~
::;; "
<[ ~~ ~
:z ." .~
<J .s 2. ': 0
ii: ~~ ~H ~ i
;: .>'l
:z H 1:~~'~
ill
() ~il ~>; u t
... - "i31i..'fi.
IJI 00 fII U) lJ} CI)
,
~ '
~~~
" , .
U1tt: ~
~ ~ 'i
"',"0
E
~ i ~
" , .
t~~
""~
.
,
.
! " "
t'l.-lil 2:
i ~ ~
~ ~ "~
. , ,
" " <J)
~Ai
IH
.g ~.~
~~i
~~~
...I
0
D1 1] ~D ~[J
:;: 0 g ~ ~ ~ Q ~
)- <( :.{ :-', ~ ....
w ~ 0. ~ ,. ~,'
/I) () " "II> II> II>
c: <( .
0 w
z 11)33 > "' w
W >- ii58 ~ ~
t1 !I:: gi~~
w 0 (f) Wo l- I-
..J e 1?~ci ~z ~ il
w '"
I- ill ill ::i::J ~ 0
Z t- o: IllJ<!) 0 ~
.:5 <( I- 0) ffi~ 0: ,
a. 0 0.<( t1 w w
. ~ ........ .....m_........_.m_._.-._ -...--...-.-.-.---------
ffi
~ l,
0 ~
<) ,..;
..J -' \l
l- I- 4
ill W '"
ill W II>
I I 4
(f) if) :0
(
"
~
"
~
1
<;
~
.
1
"
I
orSL6 NOe:nIO IONVlHSV
lOl" illlns lavo~ W13l!SIW ooL
:>NI SlJ3HH:>~V 3dV:>SONV] S31VI::>OSSV ONY
113~VS 31~nYl
~
"
~ .~
}:: >
o .
is ]
NO!)3~O 'ONVlHSY
133~lS ..V1) Oll!:
l:mOlld ~NlsnoH )lOOllB A1I1EISMONS
8
N
0:
c
9,
"
-0,
.....
~
..!J
.t_..... '.,...-- ~..'. .' ~ _ ~ ~.. ~ -- / )
~<;.E""l '----""'""""m' ........!."___<:~Il ;::;,=~,~t},.",5!l!~~L::.:l....3..N.llffi~1..c,:~. '.- .
fr" r1:-1 3Nili'f::jiV1'l-'U . -~.' '" lHJllfV,
l~~:
~('
d3
w
Z
;;J
(j
i-
<(
~
z
~
CI..
--' ~
~ Z
w
0 i=
.~ ~
~~ z Z
;::
~b z ~
00 ::;
,0: CI. CI..
N ell 0
~
II:
I Z
I/)
'" :5
Iii
~
Q...
b
. E
~.8
. f t
~. "2
:~ ~
~l ~
~. ~
~ 8~ i
" "~ il
.. S~
'i ~.; '&
~ H ~i
"li 1\." ~ ~
c.S(i 2-6. ~ 1,
:'0 ; ~ ~~
t~ :;,8 - ~
~~ ~l .~.5
Q;'; ;1 ~ g
.8.= R li.~~~
!~ ~,3-S~!
Y.. ~1i~h
:i ~~-g~~
!E~~~i~,;
li)w 'ii.sfi;;.I>~~ ~
_.I:: -n:2.1; ~ JI .2:
i- ...zo.!>.!!_
~ 5~ ~~~ ~:j
~
~ ~
~~ ~
~
g~ 0:" @ ~
~~~ ~~ ~ wi
~" ;;: ~@ . ...~
~zo ::; 0 ~c
-0 '" c., 0
~ffi~ , ..0 ~ ~~
0J:~ 0 5~ "" ~i
$oi ~ <
o:w .
Si:li: ~ ..c 0 ~"
I
w
--'
6
I/)
,,~
,. ~..
" ~ ~~ . ~g
~ g ...
\ * C::1II1) .0
" ~ "...~ .... ...
'" "$ U g
~ ~ ~..
.. " ~~~Ct: .... ~
~ N~ w" .. .~
w, "' o ~~j "0 ~
"0 " ..."
~ ~a; . . " ~ ;~g ~a~
.. z. ;; @
~:- ... 0_ ~:;;: .. .... O~l-- ~~~ '"
" .z . 0 "\t ~ ~o;g "
"'~ 8 8~ ". ~~ ;-J~~ il
.'" I~
z" ,,::; tIl.o:ai..J ."2 '"
Q ,,> ~~ 2~ w " ~ ~~~ C
"'2 " :; .0 0. 1-2.(
,,- O.;:lO:I: ~;;~ "
",'" ~ N ~~ ~.. << IJ2U, "
~~ \ \ \
w.. ~
\ ~ w
'"
0
I J:
"
w
'"
'"
"
~
f~1
~
- --f -1
~ -'f'- --1. '___~f.'-=J-:=~~~1;1;;1=:: ~jl ~
-rl~ T:___. c;::=- ~r:,~.::--'r=- .-~ J__-" I ~
d ...-.t. ... ._"
lf~r~=--J-..~ __--.-J- .-.. I
\
~
5!-
,,><
~::;
2"
~:::
,,'"
~~
"'."
\
"'
p
~~ . 'J..'
"'2
,,-
~~.
\ j
-.... _\ ~~',-
--......._.,...~-/.... ....
c 2 ".
~ '."
w
~
Ol
l~
~8
~ i
" "
@ @
'" '"
-i i.
(., ~
... .;
is is
"'"
@I@1
~~
""
~
Q
OJ
@:::
w>l
;~
~~
"'''
,"N
~ffi
W...
~~
:~
b~
z"
g
]
:l1
'"
!
i3
I
.
1
.
~3 ~
,,:::
!!!5 ~ ..
0
>.. 0 '" < ~
0 .
--' j 2
" "" l- i- ~
<'! '" w W
~I W W ~
--' I I
I/) Ii) ~
OJ t
z
:J 0
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i '" ~ ~ ~ ~
<J " ~ ~ " ~ ~
~ ..; ~ .. ;. ~ ~
~ " '"
::;;: go
&iij:;;O:;~
~:~~~
~
;1;
z
o
:E.
::;.
o
(,)
.
Ii
;:"
u ~ 2
~ . .
~< p.
i~~~t
~ ~ .pi
,,~d ~
~
~-s~
O:'s
_" u
:a '5'~
"''''..
>Ii
Li
i&.!
~d
,,"'..
~
-g
" >-
~ .
~~
":I:
~
<(
z
t)
il:
;::
Z
III
5
Ol
..
.
g ,
i ~._ ~
:6 ~.~..
nn~
:.2 j:: ...:. '0 .~
~~:2'
- :r CI " -&
~~~~~
. ~
!..~
i i ~
~~ .~
~H
~~~
~
. "
. ~
-ll E
" -ll
< ~
-g g
8 ~
..~
00
~
~ . D.
"F4. ;: ~
Hi
(,0 ill !"
~ ~ l
o~'"
.J
g ~D TJ
::;. ;1i3>\,;d lJ
Cl9 1:\......... ~ ....
>-- ",OJ ~~~~~ :i: \-,
t/) 00
0 (( "' "
w
Z (I)~ > "' "'
w >-- 1?8 8 8
" II: (i)<lgs
~ 0 Wo ... >-
Cl ill ~~& ?:':z z z
'" w "'
I- III W fEw" :>::J " "
~ i- e.: 0 '" "
q I- (1)((0 "' "'
IX " ::;
(,) wz " w "'
0. 0.<
b
It)
"
l:.i
--'
~
Ii)
--'
~
w
o
~
>=
z
<(
--'
0.
W
W
(l:
I-
!
0?;QL6 NOE)3l1O 'aNVlHS'v'
LO?; 31lns 'avo~ 301311SIW ooL
:>NI Sl:>31IH:>1I'v' 3dV:>SaNVl S31VI:>OSS'v' aNV
1I3{)VS 3111nVl
~
.i.."~-'
'j r):l ~">/J,
! R~ -"" ~, -, ~~
.l5~~~ ~'o -<
:~~'~'
. c:'-..
:5
:,)
z~
(:"~
;:-
9 8 0
>- 0 NOm~o 'ONYlHSV
"'0 '" .
~~ I 133US AYl::> 088 N M
0--
e ~ 1:>3rOlld ~NISnoH )I001lS AlI1I38MONS ~
0 '0 ~ I
u --oJ
V) 2,
ON3831 ONY A~Ol:)3mO 8NIINYld
~
~~~~..~ fE!l~ T~
-1--,,- 0 --"- "' " --"- 0 I ril
1f'1=1" J T I5<IX1 lr1rrl' >'< ." I ~Z
~~~ ~ rlL 1m
f---- =: ~ ~ ~ 4f. r-
:n{" ~ <1 .u::;s ~ w- J'L rn q I
~~8, 16 J '-
~ ~ ;' 2~e~ ; ~ f ~ -L:'"O"'l
I r:j.JIIII~ ~V1\ L~oo;~l
I " ~' := m W "" ~ .gj fI;;.. H ""'" '-ll .. ooIlR[
I - ~i5t~~ ~- ~ '1L(llili'I~W -
- I t ~ ,~ -" e--- rN~7 <J ~ I J\ VI IIIII n ~ I III 3
- ~ '-j f.L.LLL '-.: ><S1....... v~).::~ -I I IT I .-
............... XI P1 r .............. 1'\.4 }-{;)......J!'!.... ~[:. 111I ~ I~
~~H~~' ;'''.~'~~~~ ~_ ~ ~j ~1: ,J
,'Y
'maA ~ JallE a^owa~ "Jaap WOJJ palOJd 01 aouaJ JO ap'SlflO saaJllIE 015u!ouaJ NEJodwal aPlMJd 'L
'lEnba JO 'lI1Eq'~nw lI1EP JO ..S 4l1M l"!1alEW lU"ld JO UO!IEII"lsu, JallE SEaJE 5u~UEld 401n~ '9
'(: 1I ~ I!"lao Jad sqlU4s PUE SaaJllIE lUEld '9
'I'OS 5u~S1xa 1M pualq 01 AI45noJ0411l'1 PUE SlJlI ..S UlI'OS IIEISUI '17
'I"^EJE) PUE PUES JalEJO WOJJ pualq l,osdolllSodwO:) 's
'SEaJE pOS IJE UI pU8jq I,osdol/lsodwoo ..9 aOEld '(:
'SEaJE 5u!IU"ld qru4s PUE aaJllIE u, pualq JlosdOlllsodwoo ..G~ aOEld '~
:S310N
llV130 E)NIINifld 8n~HS G
'N'''' (.g) UW05'
WilOS lid A.::IIHV::lS
XlVII liDS 031:)\fdWO::> A llN3~
S!OOM 031 \7':):)IS30
HOQ3~VWVO 3Nm:ld
NlW.~ H::nnw
30VllD 03HSINI~
01 fIK)UVl3~ NI H3~IH
AllJ-E>IlS3B llVHS san~HS
11\f130 8NIIN\fld 33~1
Vinff(X'VW SijV3A Z ~31::lV 3^OW3};1
110S 3/\/lVN 03aHn1SIONn~oNV' 03Q33N.::l1 A lNO S33~1 3)tVlS 310N
1IOS3J\JIVN'YoSL 1 t
ON\!' 110SdOl ONV lSOdWO::J 031~OdWI NIW VlO
".SZ::lO X1W 03~Vd3~d HIIM llH)l::JV9 llVB X Z -;:: J
"03AOW3~ A llV 101 38 llVHS I
1VI~31V'W 3l8VaV1l~3a'"018-NON
"dV1Hn8 ~o!l. d0131\OW3H "In::J
38 TM-ISl1V'8 :10 dOL IV S3dOH
.PXIW 1lOS
a3H'v'cBHd 3sn :C13::JClVS liDS
)lNn~1l WO~::I A VMV to!
.~ 1-01f1W ~N1d33)l "NIW .Z :H:J1ClW
~~ HSINl:! 3^08V
V;:.:.~~~
~ .8 )l~ IV 3S0H H388m.,
3Sfl S311 ~NIHn:J3S
'0'0 "OS EladaN Mal SJa~IEM 1"01 SJa~IEM EladaN 8
@ Slod ,,17 SSEJE)IEO anl8 sUaJ!A1adwas U040UlOp!laH ...
.z.XIW
'0'0 aso~ uns ,liU!d AlaSIM. wnwa41UEllaH D
.S@IE5~ sa'IJ1alln8 5u'~'4M .sallJ1alln8 BUI~I4M. E1OEE)
.hXIW
IE5 ~ fuJaqdSEJ 5U1daaJO snqol"luad snqn~ BZJ
d8nH
IE5 ~ ElU04E~ 5U1daaJO suadaJ ,,!U04E~ 1m
~HV'"
'.:)"0
.<:~ @SIEIJ fuJaqM"-'lS 40Ea8 S1suaol140 EUE5EJ~ ~
O\f~~
~
IE5 ~ E)JUEZUE~ ladJEO PIEJauJ3 JadJEO PIEJaW3, SOIA4dElSOlOJ\f 3::lHV
~3^OOONnO~E)
1S3XI~
3ZIS
3~\tN NO~~OO
3~\tN 01311N310S
r
L
.L~S --r
r::o- .........
(0) n:-l
(8) ~ '~-l .L33HS
l'
-
-
c,?
\l
~
q,
-
(
\TT
~
n
--'
I
I
I
I
l
ODD. Jad 'sql 9' ~
IE59
IE59
IE5.
IE5.
IE5 ~
IE5 ~
IE5.
IEB L
IE5 ~
IE5 S
IE59
IE59
IE59
IE5 ~
IE5 ~
IE59
IE5.
IE5 ~
IE5 S
IE5 ~
IE59
IE5 S
IE5 ~
IE59
IE59
Slod ,,17
Slod ,,17
IE59
IE59
IE5 S
IE5 S
IE59
IE59
IE5 ~
IE5 L
IE5S
IE5 S
IE5 ~
IE59
IE59
Slod ,,17
IE59
IEO,,~.
IEO ..~~
IEO ,,~~
IEO "G
IEO "G
IEO ,,~~
1I"l,g
IEO ,,~~
IlInWIIEI,17
IEO ..~~
125 9~
IE5 9~
IEO ,,~~
IEO ,,(:
125 9L
IEO..G
1I"l,g
IEO ,,~~
IEO ,,~~
IEO ,,~~
'~nw IIEI ,9
IEO,,~.
3ZIS
I
I
\ L......I T I
I
~~3=n-m- _ ~
'JaqolOO aIEl JO lud\f
aIEl u, UOSEaS AU'EJ 01 Joud paas
pOs
wnwnq,^ ElSE4S
wnuJnq'^ P'^EO
NJaqMOUS
EaJlds uodd'N punoqMous
EaJ!dS EIUldl\f
EaJids walsaM
EaEJ,ds JaJalEM AU041U\f
MOJIIMJa'SOaldJnd JlEM(J
NEWaso~ anl8 uEosnl
aso~ E>tlOON
uOJpuapop04~ JOPUaldS aldJnd
uOJpuapop04~ Elqwaz EMN
uOJpuapOP04~ EqMElEO al'4M
lUE.Un:) pa~ 5ulJaMOI~
"llllualod POOMSloqq\f
aUld 05n~ JlEM{]
SSEJE) ulEluno~ Npno~
SSEJE) u'''luno~ ulawEH
ooqwE8 AIUa^EaH uOlsSEd wnld
adEJE) u05aJO
EiJJa)( aJqnoo
fuJaq~ul
SSEJE)IEO anl8
Ei4lASJO~ NOIE) 5uudS
EiuoIIEos3 ssaoulJd ~Uld
4leaH MOlE) al!4M
41EaH 1451N la^la^
aU4dEO JalUIM palE5alJE^
JalsEauoloo NJaqJEa8
aso~ ~OO~ lasuns
aso~ ~OO~ paA3-lIMOJ8
sn410UEa:) EUOP'^
sn410UEaO JEIS lI1EO
a5pas JEal Ja41Eal
SSEJE) paa~ Ja41ea~ s~alSJao~
fuJaQJE8 Apun5Jn8 IEAO~
fuJaqJE8 asauEdEr
4sru8 alOAOO
"l'UEZUE~ UU,~O~ pJEMOH
aaJl fuJaqMEJlS JlEM{]
auowaU\f asauEdEr
fuJaqaOIAlas aouElllu8 uwnln\f
,,^o~laz uaaJE) a5"lI'^
E^o~laz aSE^ uaaJE)
4S\t u'IEuno~ IEAO~ IEUlpJEO
~EO pa~
~EO nn8
JEad lEJOOlSIJ\f
aoruds anl8 lJa~E8
alddEqEJO lJUpMOUS
laZEH 40~M aue,o
4s\f aw"l~
5,=, AaUOH s~alad
51~ Aa~Jnl lIMOJ8
W04lf'/1EH UOI5U!4SEM
pO<YV\MollaA UEolJaw\f
lnulaZEH E!UJO~IEO
fuJaq~OEH
JepaO asuaoul
lnUlsa40aSJoH pa~ 1I10u8
aJdE~ MOlE) u'Eluno~ ,\)joo~
8jdE~ lI1EqJadEd
aidE~ aUI^
aldE~ po05pool8
3~\tN NO~~OO
(8) ~ '~-l .L33HS
"'
I
I
I
.
~I~_ -L.'
SUI~dOH
~ sqqOH Aq XOd 90L auJ!lOJd
XI~
033S
pual8 aA1:I AEM S
NM\fl
,ElSE4S, w nwnq'^
IIPJ^EP wnwnql^
snqlE sodJEOU04dwAS
,punoqMous, U EaEJlds
,E!uidllf, " EaEJ,ds
IISEI5nop EaEJids
~aJalEM AU041U\f, 'f EaEJids
,EUEN, 'd lQlES
.anl8 uEosnl, snU~EWSO~
EUE~lnu ES01:l
~opualds ajdJnd, UOJpuapop04~
,EJqwaz EMN, UOJpuapop04~
,wnql\f, '0 uOJpuapop04~
wnaUln5uES Saql~
,poOMSjoqq\f, EII~ualod
O'l,wnd 05nw snu'd
,Npno~" 'E wnlasluuad
,UlaWEH, 'E wmas,uuad
,UO!SSEd wnld. 'p EUlpUEN
wUllo~nbE E,u04E~
,EJolJluald. Eo!uodEI EUJa)(
,ElOEdwO:), elqEI5 xall
sUaJlAladwas u040UlolollaH
,.vOlE) 5u~dS, " 'x E!4lASJO~
!'sapEJ~, 'a 'x E,uoIIEos3
/'^OlE) a~4M, Eou3
J45JN la^la^, EO~3
,ElEU!fuEW-001O\f. EJOpO aU4dEO
,5U!lPUl~ s,q.a.llS. 'p JalSEaUoloo
Jasuns, snls'o
snlElnoEW JaJ'uEP"l SnlS!O
,EiJOP'^, sn 410U EaO
~"lS lI1EO, sn41ouEao
lIuEuE40nq XaJEO
~alSJao~ ~E)(, 'e sIls0J50wEleO
,A.l)uaE), , s~aqJa8
,Aw5-^d uoswuO, , sUaq,Ja8
,s~Ead U1M1, 'd S1JE400E8
,UU!~O~ pJEMoH, 'p SOIA4dEISOIOJ\f
,ElOoowoO, 'n snlnqJ\f
Eo!uodEf auowau\f
.aouEllI1J8 uwnln\f, '5 'x Ja!40uEI8W\f
S81^
081^
\f~AS
SldS
ridS
OldS
\fldS
NllfS
lSO~
NSO~
dOH~
NOH~
OOH~
S81~
\flOd
dNld
~N3d
HN3d
dN\fN
\fH\f~
r~3)(
0311
S13H
S~O~
~OS3
MI~3
^1~3
Od\fO
SlOO
SSIO
lSIO
N130
0\f30
8~\f0
)ll\fO
d~38
0~38
10\f8
HO~\f
08~\f
r3N\f
\f3~\f
S3SS\fCIE) ON\f
Sl\fINN3~3d
'S8n~HS
,uaaJE) a5"lM. 'S E^O~laz
,aSE^ uaaJE), 'S ,,^o~laz
'paJ401~, 'E snqJOS
EJqnJ snOJano
edJEOOJOEW snOJano
JEJOOlSU\f, '0 SnJAd
,IJa~E8. 'd EaO!d
,1IUPMOUS, snlE~
,aUE!O. "! "X S!!aWEWEH
,edJEOAXO. 'E snulxEJ~
,AauoH s~alad, '0 sno!~
,Aa~Jnl lIMOJ8, '0 sno!~
wlUAdouaE4d sn5a"lEJO
Ea~nlua~ S'lSEJpEJ:)
EO!woJ'IEO '0 snlNoo
s!IEluapJOOo sma:)
sUalJnoap srupaoolEO
!'loug, EaUJEO 'x snlnosa\f
.lP1w40S, '5 Jao\f
wnasp5 Jao\f
wnlEUIOJIO Jao\f
,po05pOOI8, 'd Jao\f
^13Z
E)13Z
~~OS
~3nO
~3nO
\fCIAd
80ld
Sl\f~
O~\fH
O\f~~
dOI~
801~
d\f~0
)liflO
O~OO
0130
0l\f0
8S3\f
S30\f
E)30\f
030\f
830\f
S33~1
3~\tN 01311N310S
108>',AS
A~0E)31 \f0
ON38311NVld
I
..,
(\I) ~'~-l.L33HS
I
I
I
H
I
---:-1 .J
~qr ~: 1
,.1-1" '0018
I
n:-l
.L33HS
O'c-l
.L33HS
--I:
&::film :: F'Q,
~:
I
I I I
~ III
~
I
I
I
I
I
_I
-I--
I
S"'~I=IS--
, , '
,9!
o
Q
c
o
~
~
'"
1d,J
~,-!
< q
t 1 0
':$ -
V ~\? Ii
6 ;2 :..
b,~ ~
~ B
~ f/)
<t:
fWr:
No\'mo '<lNV1HSV
EB~lS AVl) ogE
lJ3COlld DNISnoH )I0ollg ^1I~311MONS
~
N
0'-
C
o
~
!l.
M
~
o?SL6 NOm~o 'ONVlHSY
LO~ 3!JnS 'avo~ 30131lSlW ooL
JNI Sl::>31IH::>lIV 3dV:>SQNV"j S31VI::>OSSY aNv
1I3~VS mnY]
~",.""""..""",."",....".'.,.,.
.....~
~
.
NVld 8NIINVld
:S:;J10N
'suo~e~jJ,.ds "."pelnuew MOIIO~
'J3qOPO olel JO l~dV el~1 U! uos~.s .IUleJ OJ JCjJd peas
'dS OOOl.led spunoo 9',)0 ejeJ Ie IIe)SUI
S\9l6l:<:(SOS)# 'PIl sUI~dCH 1sqqOH WOJjBlqel!"^\I
XIV'l,XGd SOL ew!;oJd. XI~ G3:;JS 3l\lMSOl8 5ij
0('. (\. 1\ ~ S3XI~
033S
Sled,,!;
UOII~6 I adeJQ UOWJO 6U1deeJO suada! "2!u04~V'l ~HVV'l
Slod,,~ 45n~ ijoS snsnJlo snaunr 3Nnr
UOll061 poaM600 !!laSle>i )^.SI.~, 's snuJo:) )I~O:J
Slod,,~ otipes a6u!!lO 0.a~1S<l; X<lJ~:) 1<l\1::l S3SS\fCI<> ON\>'
STo'INN3~3d
'SSntlHS
jea..'iH ~"O MOIIM 'Ojla~d sn~l"no d3nO
lea )>{I weaqwoH Jeuwnloo ,El~!61Ise~,q snu!dJ~:) ~~\l0 S33~1
3ZIS 3V'l1iN NOI~V'lOO 3V'l1iN Old ILN3 iC>S IOeWAS AIi0831\f:J
ON383l1NVld
~
~ Jea, I Jaue a^Owe~ 'Jeap WOJJ pelO!d 01 sBWllle 01 6upuajIJeJodwa)ap,^OJd '9
'jOnb, JD '~JOIW'~ )O,,~ ~~M 10u.lOW lUejd 6U'IIeISUI ,aue a.ul: '.1""', 4614 at.oqe s~..m ", UIIUOI" 4"1n~ '9
sUD90rJjsuI SJwnpEjnuew Jad XlW pees II~ISUI '1'
l'l/ , 11elao JW sqrJ4s pue s"".!IlIe lueld 'S
'[a^,I.18 PU8 pues J"1"'0 WOlj puerq IloscMnsodJ.lOCl '7-
pue[{i [losdOI !Asodwo~ 1 ,l~ 11e)5U! 'seaJe .,8MS 5UlpI?J6 lew' ~
11\1130 <>NI.!.Nlild 8I1~HS l
,",W., ,mn.
"N,. (.$)WJ/OO~
WOlloa lid "'ij'o':Ja
'XIWll00 031~""d~O ^ 'HSO
S"lOOb' 03JIJ:l'JlS'30
lKl 038VIWO 3Nn~d
3C1'\f13O 03HS1NI::l
OII'.<)IlV13~ NI ~3H8IH
....1Ll-r.)J1S 3a "1"l\;r"HS S'\Jnl:;IHS
llVBO 8N11N\fld 33U
@:0-gii,~[S;Z~t~;i@~
M1Wl\'\!W~"-2 H3l:!V 3flOye~
OWlmdo,:::;;~;:~;,n~ i".NII,. 03,Q,.,3,3,:,:~,',I1l,l., ',O,O".S, 3,3. ~.".ti, 3.~".V1S :3iON
"".o"'W03"'d3"'H1V^111J'O""~ ~I ' . :'MY' ....
'a!Y\OVG~}"Wl0.l.3-e.:W.HS '" :,:' . " ':"
1t1R13~VW 3113\;fO'~~3a-016i110tl
'M;:liH3.::lD Iff dOLMQ~);I eJJ1:)
3aTlIIHSTMl ,OdOl1VS3dO~
.llX1W1IOS
03Wd3ijd 3$0 :"3~nVS 1lOS
)iNn~l i'roB= }"'IM'!! ~
., H:llm~"'.331Nlw.. :Holnw
3(Mro-l-fI~NI~ 3AO:B\f
~~:~:::l:' ~
m>l~W8 rx,~
U~.13" ~ ~MlIl3SOH M3B8m:J
3snS3110lN1ijro3s
"a.. '\t3ClV
.t s
):> ~l> )>
;01'>' -n -i
""NO
m:mI
)> ):> r
OO~
~m
~
133C:llS AVl8
(
lMJ3~ 81
~r@t(
~/.~
~c'
~:f2;~[~gtr!,gf'~%~;S1B:(
~~~gt@&:t;'j;:f&?1i:g
!'0'%.~:E\\*\";'';@~(~1~1(*:~l
f:..\~'!.l%k'\&/!J;l!@r?,7;;t~g1'-!:
~t.~
:;0 h ""0
m"'m
~ I
~ )> r
o 0-
~
'I
..8.. V3tl'lf
133tllS A\fl8
)>
:;0
m.
)>
o
:s:
~
o
I
c:
Z
m
t@@g;;$~*%1:;1~%t(?01cR0!,1'0;;::l1i~~;~
s
~)>
;0""
mO
J'>,)>I
Orne:
Z
m
..8.. V3ClV
133tllS J..Vl8
:,;
t s:
}>~ )> )>
;Uil ::u -i
~~mg
lD~ }> r
~2
[c m
:-.\\~ll'l/,I...
.i:"";;"''tJ'j;;:t$l;:j,1g~;(;i;x;:
!1~,t-t::S:SE::f~1t~~~;;:fJ;1:1S0?!
!f;<K{;;:J&{.'"~$.?:QSf&J
'r~--m&:&~;f-;r€'~,*1Wi.,;'f%i
~:f~~~WJJWi:52:i;
?z.TlZ:.,X!J.f!JjiiYf,1J:;.'7,f,/Ji,'ZQ
t2ta*J;f~,17%J!;".,g,~_C)t,(~J,.~
)>
;U
,,'V.. V3ClV
133CJ1S .J..Vl8
~
J1~O:';l.Z~
I
1?~&IDA%~;f&'%~t
!h'W}Eill~!:4~U~t'i.'"ib~
"'~'''"'')''"~''''-"'''''W"'"''I
I,:>CW""" o""~!"''',=,,_.,,,o,.,,
>>~= ...,~"',,-.-.",,~~,.,.",.
kW
~
<(.
v \ 9
Y:;;. 0
~8~
!"L~ .
~ ]
-<
J:
Na8l~O 'ONV1HSV
133US AVI) og!:
D:!rOlld ~NlsnoH )lOOllS "lIl1:!lIMONS
o
'"
'S:
.
'"
oz/;L6 NO€m.lO 'ONVlHSV
l00 311ns 'avo~ 3013USIW ooL
:)NI SlJ31lH:)lf\l 3d'OSONYj S31VIJOSSV ONV
M3~VS 31M nYj
~
"
B
8
"
(>.
C:
g
~
C't
.
M
~
133t11S lS3M11S'i3 (d)
0>" (!) '"
(')~ * ~~ [~ Ii ~ " " 52
~~ B :> " ~ :> S !! .. .. it
~~~-"-'~5 5 ~ ffi '" '"
~ ffi wO " ~~ 1 . u u ~~ "
~ <:; ~ ~~ ~ ~ >-t- . ~ '" <b
~ <b~ ,,~ " "'''' ~ "" " '"
:J
I
()
~
::<
~
il
w
~
.
:t
S
'!
III
Z
~
o
f-
<(
:;;
~ ~ ~!~
~,
~!
~I::~
rr0
f-
ill
ill
0::
f-
CI)
>-
<(
...J
o
! ~~~
: ::-(1.0
, If.~.,J,
f-
a
-'
~
S2
Cl:
<(
a.
,,'"
0~
.,J.,J
w
Z
:J
'"I
~ 5 ()
~ ,..j~
" l
...;I~().o..o.
~5~~~
~~~.;-""
~
..
..
~ ~ is (!) .. '" ~~ I ~ " .. '" <-'
(5 ~ '" 'l' if ,,!!
.~H i "v
~ ~ .( -( z::: .~ ~ ~ z " 0"
~';'n* ,.:.,.:. ;! .. "
1
~
9
al
r\
(I
f$: ~ I
~~'--.. ./.~~~
--~. ._.r~~
~ ~
u ~
n
c
'"
'"
'"
.,J
Ll
C
"
~
s
"
i"
is
'"
~
m
0:
.E
0
'"
-"
Iii
'"
~
w '"
F '"
0 Ul
Z
:-;;,:-,.::::.:&5.";;t;,:;'?E?';J~"/~;;
z
:5
D-
C)
Z
I-
Z
::5
Q.,
Q
,
!JJ
...J
<. -
~tJj; g
~~ ~~ ~
'~ u.., ~ .!!
~~ 3
<( '"
:J:
Nom~O 'a~V1Hsv
mus AV1) cSE
1:)3rO~d ~NISnoH )lOo~g )'~~3SMONS
0-
S
N
0-'
C
o
o
"
.!1,
M
.
M
..!J
ozSL6 NOm~O 'aNVlHS'V
LOl" ;llIns 'avo~ 30.L311WI"'I ooL
:>N] Sl:>alIH:>l!Y adV:>SaNV"] S31VI::lOSSY aNv
l!30VS 31~(lV"]
,""3" \ I~"',,'\I '""'~'I''''' I ""."" ,m !Jl-L
~'~~~~11f10\x~ ~ :~!iMA~li ~ Y ~~-~~""~ 'tX:: ~~~;:,g!1.~< '\ :"1&i:::'''~~~
lfM><> ~ -::; III ,\ y-*~6'-}r ~_,j,:::,~ dNlH
'fflAS-S I ~" I 'V::Y.",,\ ';'" V"'-- ",- ./
/,' '< ~>: :-' v '\ \'J):1\ / /" \
>,i~, ' ~: ~~r/ ~~},~ ~1 ~/,
\J:~~:~;~ ~ =~~l~
M-
m
~
....
L~ ~ I
~ /~~I~~. ~~ )lJ3a"$ SlO~'t-F- ,0" ~
-II ( , i'\ ;J:f; "-, :; ~~ r&;")
Li If ~) ~1~::~tI d"d"$ ,...~ ~~0 )
:n ' "':~~'-~~ / -= =" I ._______
\ \ lSOH'~
:'i\ ,\ ~~0(so~ ~(~~ f,~l{~9-- ~~ ~..". ~~"1 ~~~~ So
d"~~\\ ,:~l r. so ~ B B .1/';i r'-h ~. <M!O" 't- so
stdS-l '- \... ./ ,', -L L ~ -/;-.. ;~. SSI~..(' A(.\.
S100~ '-'- . J 7'7" r~) '- \ d"d"'--' ~LOd" ..,..'-1" \ .<<.X1W ~
~ ~ Y S:I S:J '.::-~ "'-- ......, . I,....- d~3S~ S1dS.~ -- :'. ^ ~:;.. -dtl:::tf15 ......
...... 'I l '- '- ao",,'~ 11B~-I- "" 'p \, ~,..\
S3N01S /" ~, "'-r ~lOd't "iOd-' _'U_ ^ . ,;{.; "0 ~ dNld'l
~~'''"' I 00;)( ~(*,~~~~_:.._ Y~;B~ ::~: ~ ~ ,~ ;77 ~-::,~ /' y l'j;.iT
~ ~J.\^~" aQl^'l ('.r:AY ~)ii:-', Sl3H;; / V i!1:@@'if1
tfr''\ ^ / v>-;-< ~~~ ~
13l'~ '~~ -.. ~:~~<: ~l""'~,~ Oll'1: / X / "'" ~
\ _F, ;~ - =:~ ~.;~fll\'I ~0S3'l It y )V~ 3
\ ~~~. ~.~.t~ ~ ~ "":"" 8"1/' =~ ;:;; ~1, / _<'~I;k"~\ i~~-' i. V
~:E ~ c '- - ~~. f.'P."'~2J 03111: '-- f. I ,IY
("? ,,"'~r,,~ ~\ ::::~ ~ _ .I,XIW I ~~,l;~K @
~ N so "'10" ""'M L .~* ~ SilH;; ~ H'Lni '",JJl@l
,ldS-, :m~"~", ~ "',' . I/~'
J ~ ~-"r. "f'~ "'__ -dNldi' fl:i3::C-~ _- \'\.
\\ -, 'J d~3at ~r. 'V '\ ~ S"W~" .;iI "", \ 3
iJ, _.0. '81N1'~10<l" ;X31: . :9'~^
--""") l'i'ad't *-*-~ m".. \ 1P r,:t 3
j C' I H 0l1'i:~ ~ \ "c) @@:B!
'> :;<d:\.1,~L .,(J,,0O18 I ~L;)\@
:t" ~~J;:~ WlhSi: '''d-l ",/ \~l lClONI)l1:i\lJ ~~~ ,\' --..~f.'l'^
. )(:u ---. YlOd~ ONVH") S13H.. .' 'v-
J I~r Sld~'1 d!Sa., '~ W~'I~ ol1'-t ,\
.-..:;;::: ,/.\.:- I1BY-, ~ ~ ' d.3e"$ .,.x,~\
'\ · \'1: $811\-1 GillNt ~:'(1 SldS:~ I~H-t ;.-.:.-.:.' ',.\
- i0'f-, VIOdwS OlWH , 'VldSi:
/ ,'/:-\ ~ d.3e,! 1\ 1.1<; ./'/ r-- a~I^1> ,..ic'
"-;~~""" dlil..,. ~~1c~ 1--.1' I ~ ..r-,S1d~-t ~ ssto'! ~ ~,},
Que. /r;;=~~~~ ~~:;-~-... t, /II"'--J,~ Z/ 'h /,Y;~~; "'XI~)~ ~o
V;=jOBWl:\\J'~i" '- ". ^ , / j ~...';.,... .lOO"""/~ ~
rC\ .'" 001.1; WlOd-l ~ "",, ^ 1 7:" "'-
t}(lJi----< / r-SBIA'j I'OOd-',-~.; \Y'~' "",' ~ '\' '- ""
\ -;;g~F jdO", rj:)}S7r:~v rVV ,'Ii" "!y:~
" ./ i'07Xnl~;~~~~?0r2 II C ~ l ~ r;t)~~ ~tt~1 ~ ~(\{J ~~. _ J-> s~ S~ j( ~o
/ " ~ 01 '-'V ... --- ./ j-----.
I ~ \ \ ~:... t-- S)'\,:fs~ fl..- -~o '~:rD ~tf{t;: ..~ ~ 1Z~~t.~. /" ~r-rs~)-., ~.'s~
JtM C.l,\", \l....-. ,,v ff,\W, r>t-- fl ! t"..., \ ~1' Kr, ~rr
r H?,) 'iso j) l'-.1WiI\l' .' S~ 1 lp'~ ,,' ,fjJ:
- ~ V It' 11'\ ~lX\ ~~l / / 2::;;r
~~. ~ ~ 1/ I" u I '_l~L:~~ ~y _~
~'~~~HJ' \Jt d:i:~\ L:~H~ \j~:~..J ~ ~ 1....'\ \' ~~~~
,,\' L- d_lll't SldS.iJ dNldi: dI'H~" -' H A - 4'0',,"\\ \ \ ~ oBW-1
,\", g~ld-' d"d't~ YlOd'l SlO~-t..J t;...-< \\i>lf \\ ""M
I -------dHlB"' ,..~.,- SSl)" Sl<lS-,-"" ^ ,''lIfi .\-S1dS'j
NM\ll l ': ~1Od-LL OOll\1> _ - :,*, d~d-l
. ~'''')~; l&J ~~~aY.,. ..3..00l9 )ff., 'i~: '= S100"
ex; ~., ~ ~ ~I~~ r;:::::.- ~i,~~ ~( :f~' ______ ~~~
!~'" ) /::=?,",o-, nOd~ ''''''-!If"'''OH- d~"Z- m.::. "~" ' r- "aw-, rl""..,I" \~
- V'~~~~3a'L ~'r;;;:;;;.~10<l't- ,-030V-' l1J3~'1~ ktif.-,,;- IV It:=.ss;,,,.,. ,-l'f\Od't ~!.
~~ I tr~~~ ftAOl!3B'L - r::;lOd'~~ ",i;;:: - y.." ; . ....., II ,:;_~~~ c- <NO'" m
\.,.. v ~ ff;:_~"'d-' ,rr;~~~~ I' '. OOIA'h l\~. - f 1!lrl~'riH ~g~l~
\, 1 W :J.i.o~:~=, 11 1:"'00-1 \ no':~- rf"'llA 'I V:.I..,I...i-i" ~30'-',/~
\' ~ '"" I a".., I ~ - ~'>--..< rn~
1\\ t7p!. ^il^;th,.. .f, ~\.1{ .....'.~. _~-..s.o~.<,~ ~/i ..;
, J:lI ^ ;\.. ~:* A /: r- ;t-"',)j lili · s I ~
~ So '-<:~ -~V ~ 1 c-..; 'rJ So ("I
1\ .r - . h.,..-( · ^'" I--? ~, I] i - S) '---;
1\ ".)~ ) {(.' Gte so ^ -r-I;', .'s' 1>::-,;, f\) ""'\ .
~(8 B~)'~ I ,\,-fL B S:l /-- "-=',\ KAt" " .) .....; _
'\..,,~ ..7.' 0 -';><:1'-' <oV .*,Y! ~~ r-I 1,1,' I C ~ --..~ ,I ,?(J
~ ~11~" - ~ :r{J,r.- So ~- t~ "Yn> ?A"0'fs.v YI ~ /~Jif~ t;,
r ~~I1L ~ .l-O~ ~~~;. '" 4 ~~-"\ [/\iil/ ~ ~ ~" I
//. {/ /!/'/i. k/ ~/>i (/., . '.'-'::; ... "1 i./'::
./'i W'?" \~~0X ~;>i}; 1vt./~ I/~I{'C ,.> \~'
l=.'t; ~~ ~\ i>;; ~,j. ~ '-i
'flV~-S 3j~\l"1'l - XfQ'.')""9 r r
",I"
(..l"ll-
3O>!Y'>
l!'():)-I
S3k10iS
~ldd3iS
lOo--S
S::JNOJ-S
""dd31S
ci'3ail
S3~OlS
lJ"dd31$
~llZ'1
V10<l"$
\11II,s.,.
d!SB1>
8132'-(
~
NVld 8NIlNV'ld ~
'P"a6al pu. "0,08,,0 6U!IU8Id JOj Ot'll~'~S aas "
'31ON
-
l'G-l
@''f~~@liJ2i;:P '0.8~K~* .' ..
:J '
'0 ,,'
,_._~ <2J;~
-~
r+i-t ~~
I...~...' '"-'~. ~N
,",oo ~ "c y
.'u,\.
:') -....
- --'~-"'"--~--r
Ii
r~
[f;
f!f!JJiJ1!{f!!!Jfffil1gj~~'0B
3N11H81\fVJ lSl~"
"'d~'t
:H::ll:l'v'.l
"lNWil
OBW',
All:f:Hl
,"",Sil
XIV:J-g
1S1~-,
::ra~N+~
ow,
W^d-r~
1600' ~
/'
I \
//. ,^ './, >>, /
IV . ,q.....,. >'. /'.
~Y7Y:'<
~ lL
:0
ID
....""
Sl
;:
::;
o
I
!:
z
-
NMVl
101 f)N1~<Jltd
:m!;
Wld-'
-
rr
WW
w~
'M,.
Wld',
I---
f---
----
~ ONnOtlOA\lld
;/ //////
//////~
~
tt
i3B..,
\
\)
\lNIUlIflS
)JnNI~~O:J
13Z'1
S: )~ ~
~~ 5
le~~(
~ii.."m~m
.~ "NL
If'*- -):X '.p:".
X :.
. --
~-l/
S3NOLS _""'~' ~
~NI-ddHS
~,. ~~ . ""~
~ '=
\\ fP )~t- /;
dim \ \ (-1~ \ ~ f;7Jl
~, ~ ~W
\~: ~
~
~3no.1
SJ.O:>'Z
dli38i:
-
t1!./>\~
~ Pls ~;/&-/:
, ~~..~
,
E'E1~JSHJnOSIHldON (dl
0,/;L6 NOmlJQ 'ONVlHSY
LO?; @1If1S 'OVO~ 3013USIW ooL
:lNj Sl:::l31IH:::l)JV 3dV:)SONVj S3!VI:)OSSY ONV
)J,WVS 3111nvl
~
w
,
"""'"
R< .
61.J ~0
& "'" t5
f"'''' 5
~w"",
wd
<(
'T
~
NO~3~O 'ONVlHSV
Ems AVlJ ogC
!:l3fOlld 8NISnoH )lOO~9 AlfmMONS
8~
"
o' M
r..!..
..9,
NVld 9NIINVld ~
'pue56' pue NDIDDJ!O fiullueld JOj O~' 11'*'4. Des '~
:310N
~ ------~
~~~6
.. '(ij~~ ~~% V
~ :,:'~,,: I y;; ld
:::;::""LV ,F 'J< \j \ NSOi'~ X
:,}- ~ s~ V Hr- '-:,:': r-
F6 :(Y6'\.0' ,')( '.'",. y "'- so :t"\~
W I \
H
J:J:~) ~ ;',:e~:~M~ ~ so r- ~~\\~: -'~f'~ '1 ,~;~ ~
) >T,.,~!,J, J J, ~Yl'~I, SO} ~M'" If lt~8:, I so B\ j 1
v J;'I',\ t \1\ :-; I " v. '"?)--) .
r,. I. ~ \\ \ j A I j' J~ \,J!S'
. ,\.\ Jilt (...
i \}L,"Od'~l I) . \ c~gl:~ 1//A (II I) ~~:~o[~ :k...,..... _ V100";
, OD~n \ c..:.;;;aa;-J .....d.. \'()
dll3a'l' '--lOd"; '0"00" fllJ,'l , .
! ~~;S- SldS" ~~::'-" "iii,'
dNJd1>~ ~~~ _ OlIllY" 03'','" --<6 '-" skin
\ilCd-t ,d,j T)OlS l"3N'9'l1M~~lOc:l-t ' ~)< - dNld-t
, !l:~~ (fffg~~:!::::\ dNJd' ~ I ~~~;fY"
~:~ r;::::~~~~ \\ =::, ;:~~ ~ A \ _ '100"
)] Iii I iill~ 1\ //1 ~!~"l~ \ r:c~, ~/ ~is a~"J ~::~~
4-:.' I I ~ ",~" \ \~, j " \ ~,,;::-c IL .' ((Q"
iA:;i So ^ : II^ ^ ~ ~ ^ )"^ ^. 0 l J?~ /8 , ..tY 1,1 ~
9V' ~ : -... {' ,:0 --c;.-:- ./ JiC: '.<1":or l),O It- s"A O'o'>l;l (
~,r:J.:.~:_ ~;) ~r- '_', ~ ~~); ....~j ~ so G, K d9ni-tZ ;' a
AA' 9.- - ...... - I--~,' ~,....-, "',"/ ';:,:" J. - )('\'"
;.~r Il,:~';~ s~'"so _ (.....1..' ~ - -:" so S~ ,._'-/ 0.\,!\, ,'~,_*_ S~ s'..:_'__'_ ',' '" $S1~1> ,_ ~
"-V--~'--'i'- " 'X,';-, -\.]'-' ,- /\ t-- . , "'\/0;, ",' In .'." n.
1'" .. " , ~ ~~~ \ "I S3 OIS \ . X \'\ I /V / 1
I /' ~"d31--""'" 1 vl-~NJ."r""-l''-\1 I 't'-- ,j//'h__' ___., ,
' i//>S/~.; .,;.P'i ~ ~) i/;;':; fD (),.". ~;W I :~~8
/ ,;X~, I(,,-Q;:,;/\ r>~,/ J /<l?,.%!~r< (;_\/;_~ I" ,>1 '\;1 'r- r{~f:->,{l (
-~
g~ ~ I{"'.: ~ \ ~"i1~ J \ \ II
tk ~~~'( 1 WL~wn~~ ./ ~ Olon ~~;&
Jz "--- 013Z" -\ .wo~. ~z
1'll 3:m.'o HlCllS lS3f1NHWON Id) "-- ~;~~:~;- i~
i~ ~Z
l~ ~~
"'"~ :~; "n",;! ~";:-~iZl~ ~;;j 1\
, jjrN~ ~hV~Z c-AL:'_,~t, J-~.
.- ''''I..D dl#N~ ,XII"/033S 1 ds ~V / 6
do/ 3WMSOl8 '-
1.-....... ""'d'll "j\.. f(:'" /\.-C'\3NIlAl(J3dO<Jd/""'...........
~' ." N@" HOWl ~ J I.'~/ S1l1~1> \ ,,,..PL1:,,,,, 8'1 ~:'--~O"'.'.-::. ""'.,_~. .."',. .M, ",~, ""'~,'~ ~~:S...;>,
>.:: ~ "\ ::~1l '>-<...--.. ,-/ \ , ..~ I oINIIHJ1'l~ dS . '. """, _ ~., """ ~ '''. (d'
co ~; N ;~~ V-\r ~~;~ ~ [*/ :::" I (r ~........- -,--- - "~J'-''';:' Ir..' ._.',.,-.,.".'.. ' -.... , ,--- .".. "...
n,"_~_ / /~ \ ~ SS~:)i:~ ~ / tfWS-t (N C1:J .. , OldSi:'
~ ~""---~~, 'c: I, X:"t }!/J-J O'GO'~ O~ :'~ ' ~'~ XIW 0338 ~
~, ' 'ZZ.~' \ s r. l' aids.,. ) o~ eMo' 3l\fMSOI9 V
t! ,k> ~ \,'14'\ '~1 l~~. " ..J3~~7
~ so \ ~, rNW', NMVl NlMl, '. "'''F.:-
~ so F;' dS 'Sl' d~ ~,;.; :i-y \ '~~, DO"
rn NMV1 i. ~~ r' , " Ji" / V I K>'~~ \~-'r-...,
~ ;~.d ~....~ fI lOW'ZJl\~?>' <1-~C ~
-"'-"- ~ \'"~ 2~~jC=_Y--l ~z<; 1/ l~'
,^\:J~.~ A \j LJ ""d ~c:/ I) ...11~"_
'7 - '- 80','" S1l1~1> .-I / f; 1" ;I~ C
"'--~'; AV3o..J 3r' 'M
i. ^" ~,~~z' =- '
r\. I- ;'~~, ,,1,,0018 ..
- --....... Ii:. . .. ~G\i3~" 'i I
'- /' ,,, - ,/"'" .'60~'o ;"
k~:;i '\.....3.- ::.;::: ~,", ~ dNIIN-' dI'l\lN1>"""",\ ~ \ dS
[?)/; JX3-t d".." SStn S13H'~ IlIM"':J\' l\ \
>-'<; ... -' / ;;:::~.e:; ;;~""'".. / ~~~-i -~N"~"\ S13H<- \\ W'
f'" h r <'VN~ ~~i sB'''', - oa~~ $SID" ~ ~
f S13~"i r-.... SS'1:J"l Q3:'::V"~--, 1-"""" r'rlds-s - (,.-'"I@dS[
k Y 'Vi ""'." I \ j'l S1lH'SfJ\ .X3'hl I \ >8S3'Z,71 . I , \
NN\\l1 so -" I,t..l, 'I '"
~ S, ~,"" 1'/ 1,/> i r-~I A ~ N N 3 ~ 1~I~rJ'~~ JNX,N1.~ ~n\oo1
:::;:-, r:::: ~.~ ~rxN N~N N ~ - A ~ )..~ tr.~AsffJ^ A........ W!!'t^L:,~.~;:J"N",~N ~K"<'''--
-~ i',..</I J1 --; (J~'1',l ~ " ~ so r\s, s so trf'\ * r-...
rg. ':.... ~ ( ^ Do t :~; hS ~O '--1,11: S SO)-_<:O)-': s S LJ..:')~
-:4 ~~ 1\V / 'l If ;( 77
~~ ~3~~' / i
SSlo'~ J
;';\', ~
.:~ ~ :: ,~;;::
3 ~:tS3i: " :l:)s3'~
3 (!) ...... S'TlIW'1 ~ d::~ _____
@ ~~ V
3 ,[fjl Gf ,': I $131<," NM\il / ---. SS1n
@@@, ~D31I" ,>' ,:. ,'.XIr.
@ ~ ,:JS3'. ," O.'Id"
0!;Y.oX ~/:==.,.X11'/ .....1 i, ~
A 'A..:.-t;' J - 1SOi-Z ,,. '"" R
- ;~;~, )
"'" ~~ )
O'Z'l H3f.fS
33S GNIfl13M
GNnOllO),lfld
~
id
i,i \
li.-:J
:"i
/
.....,....?
)
()Nlmna
).lINn~~OO
-
p
-<
Q
l'
Z
m
\"
rr
'-u6
A-m
~,
f~:; ,:',:!
so ':.
''-c~
:!:JS3"l
As
o~
o 0
(;~
V
\
""',..
SSI::J."'C
defllJ'tl
- dtJ~S-S
SlOo~
e:Jld"L
101 t)NI~1:l\Id
w
.,.J
<
U 9
~oi- ?
l').
!Jb~:l~
~ Ci .~
<. ]
J:
NOfl3~O '(]NV1~S\l
H3~lS A1/1) og~
l:)Jro~d ~NlsnoH )IamB M~3aMoNS
0"{,';L6 NomllO 'aNVlHSV
lO;:; ::llIns 'avo~ 3013llSIW ooL
JNI SlJ31lHJllV 3dVJsaNVl S31VIJOSSV aNY
1130VS ,!Ill n Vl
~
811)
"'""",
'" .. - II
r~
..2,
11 III
__ J) III
-~ ---- - ---- .-./ j)!
\~,2 ,#~~'.~~... ...--~ .. -~.*.-'*.. G. ~...~~...~.:.~~. .......31VMSOI8 ~ SIlI~"\:
- ~ ~r~0~ f~~.
~~ ____ ~l{,"",J 0.'~; >-J*,
----=:: 830'-'0.7' +-- 1fflS-t
:~"\:- ~ C~D
~Il (:e- a~"\:
""",s"t--~
/mt~\ ~*
1\1~1J:i :~:~:I '\\ ,~f\, ':s::;l~ III _ IIW.IS.l
N~ I "H N~ I\.-! N Y I >;:
.11I N" J~\0- S~ I S~ >-<
1(7 ,,~~ (~~-~ ;:":\1 ~ SIlI~"\:
1~...........?l"Y:~e) , I~ l\ ~
~CZ;.] \1 :.;;.
3~~'"t ~l af:1\1 (:-.. >-- -
~:~\jA~ :
SOIO-'- -$~ ,.J!( ~ II dS OIdS"\:
~YJ~
l~ m "",s
;l~::H -3, \.. S~ dSV
,S 17
G
-/-
~~
Il Vkl
1\li2
~ ~l#- 003"-'
dS i\ N OldS"\:
* >lTVN
aldS-.
II
IV;;)
1'0~
~'
~i; ,
~~"\:
XIV>10338 :~
3l1!M8018
NVld 8NIlN'fld ~
.pua5a, P"" ~OI:>aJla 5UIl"Eld JOj O.€-11Ba4S 6as. ~
o l-' B~H8
3380N\flBM
. ,,~c ..f\_.\;;l~ _,
-~.aa ~g €-, 3NIlHJ1Wr a. T "'IT ",,0,
s'~ dS f-1
3-S .. ~ - -.- ~ ~1 j Q ij-- - --
)I~: ( \ ~~ 1. /
r;- r;- " ~ . ... NM'il
- ,.,,~y ~\i. I /
1-- ,#-'~~~~\ /
t dill.. ~1 AO L tf~ :~~J
~ {(~ 'r',~~ ~ t&)~'€
r. '\""" ':d. c::: ~~~
l>K ;t;:, a~~~ J:f . ~ o~oo-,
~.Msola~ >-~~~_
tB ~"f-'
dO --b OldN [~~~~~
~ r--1 J I ~~~=:-\ .
VA\ ~n ~~~- \\
\ VdO\) \.:= ~g-; r1 r~~~~
?(~. \ n, r;::~~~ tG
\ ^ .t 11r- rldSi: N' N N)
';; N GO _ _/ 7" U_\~€ ~ N' . V )--~
:;)KN ~ X ~)r~" ." s L ~ 'ilN: '*,
\ :; 1 'r~"I</ ~ ~ ~ 0 '
!%. \:J "./ '--(0 0 -
.~_bltJ~6tJdC;:;" ih<
'\ '-~"_.----~
------::: dS
/
'i:CNSO~"
I\...^~~~J
gi:lll"~
:r\ill,
.~
I
~_.-
G~~<X
I
1/;7;
k...../i...~
'-J
\j
,1-1" .0019
'i~ I
\
,.--3~V-Z
m",,~--, nds"t_
~l a,Vf"~~~'\ \ =~-7-
( / r 3011\n \"";:'~><)'"
. Ir NOHll.. /1 \ \ "'-lHll"\:
~/?t:l ' ~ J Nll~
~,~"~ 1 "- 8 ij ID
\ 'Y 0 S 1}/7 3 " ,X s
017 """'::go ~_i\ ~0~5?:'
IV 7~ 1\
I dBn~'" ~ r<'
O'l>H" .;..,;
..c.. ',..'.
[ .,.....
~,d)
\- ~
~
J
..-/
\
)
~
~
-
/
\
101 DNI~<JVd
101 8N I>lCllld
....
/:(6 j- B~O";
~0 ~ d-an~.~t
..,'-l? OIlllH
~
~
~
38:>3"<- 1-3 .Jt3
$10" _ if 51
...~"'_ T"
'..;
OOlH
"
\ dB"""':,::
10 ~ ~ /~ l- :S
~,.,.:,' Vs0~ """/ ~f----1/ ,,~~;/;;CA / ~~;/iR~>~..! ~i"7. ~~ * m.s~
"-'" , \'G I~ 0 - · ' ?-~/, t J1 h IJ' ..,J '---' 0 i~ ~
(',;;. ; .... I-- \(i ~ I \(0 0 [>& ~~ v. I:A Ii \.r w ~ i -- tm "'J~ 0 ~ ~ I -8""0"
~ V~~~ ;~i ~I~" / ~ r;'; 3 /(s S /01) J(
\ 3 1\13os... -~ ~~w:, ! ~rt- /j .I Li~~:i \ 1/ \J r,:g~{j 111;71
r-< ~Y= \ (B'VO-Z' lV 3'~:!J:::- Bw.l1'- 'dIlI'~'~ IfIIi"S-'--- I
N.A/i'1tl 't. \...n~Si: ~5S3-; ~~"i- ndS~ '-Sl:{\I':)"9
~ ~ ~
IP f
(~ ~1~;;;;:=Jl BlIV01' \ ,f)" t>019 30~'1' ~
~ ~~h7 -~~~ \ IF~~"
/ '" 3:JWi' S(J~.~--' dV'dO J~
t--r' I ",ov, 3o~",,; t.I()<~-t,
~F~ (I r1 1"\ ~I(~
~r) l ~ ,; \ f1 ~dfll'N-Z ~~i:"~ "" Vi II . \\
[/ ~( ,,' SIllA-' S3~'-' 'J(../ oo--l----
\~ " . I J R 0 Jl N'; ~~;=- ;:'~~-_ll" ;. ~ j ~~ --==~;'
~' fA'! 2!. N', 1>>OH"l _ _'.';j ~ _:;,.,.,~..,
~ - "/.' r\ '\' 10i. fl. /F '\ ~ VI'lAsr~
\~Jr; .. ;;/;;J.>_ED~ 1'"1 ~\"\~""':,o-~.\~, ~ 'f:lI] ,,~=~'\~"-i
," I> l~" ~ 'i' I=-'<" i]i..~ f2A 'I d"" \I::\"~
J/. -I> ) 17 ~ ~~H Vi.,. i/;' 1[:"_ I-- k -T --------~ '~
(/;? ---H:' ,~~iO'''''' I \," ' . '4,
~~,:- ""~__;:"- ~-- ~;:.:~ ~ ~ ,,~: ';.R
~\~ ,,/ "'-- / f\.. / I-- "- / ---= '\)(\ A
7 l\' \ 1\ 1\ Y I ) a~~~~lJ ""J I I v o~~~~ / i,-~~~: .~
?> & ~~~;:';:f 913N - 0l3N
. ~ ~!fin 5~~f~ mom runOS!HlllON (d) SiCO-;
" '--- SlD~"\:
:J:i!"3H"6
',-
. .
~I
1
...........,
\
f\
dS
/
II
7
.........-
f--
-
I---
~
\~
7
:310N
\IJ-Il
~H<~-;
l:l1-M1\H':
SIllll"t
\Il'I.\S
s-gl~-{
t1t-r1tVi-S
"'-'d
3liNVll9
o Odl'lOO
(lV3.J"Z
I.... ~
.11
'.-' '. .,.
...... ......
. .
-....
, ~q ,
~. III . ,
I
I'
:<: . II
I ~
'~-"~~ :! .\{._.;~ ;. ~~.
1"'1'" I""""'; 11'" . ,~
,:, .. "I"':i . i"
. ' ,', ,,!i 111111 .
i~H'I.t..~ I ,.
t l " 1 r r I J <I J J 11 ,I t I I II I J,.. ;
, \ if f /.: r ,I' X .1".. J'., i,.; , ~i.'< I I I i ,i. I
~ ,1 ~ rr. .f I ". , I .. .' ,.'. . ......". '."..
.. . \ i II r r I r l, it! I I, I, I, ~. , . ,.
, ~,i." '. \..
.ii,.,.".,.,.
~_..
t,
:r~""~,; i
I
'/ I.'........ II:
't' . Ii
. -. - .
. . - - ,
" '" I' ..,'
:....J., ':~""""",.:..:.I" ....'..:,:.1.,
I ; .,'
. ~ ;';
'. '~
I...:.'.:."......!:.'..'..,.,: ',' ......,...1",:.'.'..,..,.
,'" .'1
~'.' ".
Iltl
".'....','.' .1.....,.'..'......'.....
R tJ'.
.......'"..,......", I....'.'..,...
I'",
,. . ;
, ,
1'/ ".
'......"..,. .' .... ..
'.,: I ,"
I
I."..
i '
I..' ..... ".
I... .....Ii ~. ,:;t ; I
i,,": i .. ! i' , . j , ,,' ) ','"
:; - ;,~:'," (. '"; ~' , _',J f" ':.:: ~: F - .
JI tl;I.11
't~IIUIJII II
::""- :":.'-' :'" .,
I.
,",
, ~I:..'..,'.....I
;t. ,
I
, I
~.
!'
II
II'"
'I,
II
'I
I '
I
I'
~
kLNOOJ NOS)!JVf
AIIClOHlOV 8NISnOH
S3lV,:lS J.snraV 1331,'S SiHJ. NO KJNl )NQ
DN .If ';]NtlwtJa ?1N/'ldf} NG HJ!'f1 ]N:) SJ 8\18
wo:nsa~Jl}u8@~IEl}e :I!ew.;]
tZ6L-iJ!?iJ( /pg) :xed
O;:;6L'28;::(IPf;) :/'11
f10!iL61:10 'pJOjP8J1/
VI # 'is U,I~W )Se;q,L II
'Du/';6u,IJeeU!Bu3
'O/IV,' ')JIO 1IM)"l"
~o 'ON\l1HSV
>10088 A8m8MONS
A3 mn NOI$I^J~ 'U~
@
Ic:
'"
,.
"-
\( "
'" ~
.. ~ @
.,.
" 2 ~
~
" 9<; "
~ ~
-< "'''
t:! "'<> (2
1; ~~
" " '^
~ ~(j ~
'<
:;; h.Ci r2
'^.J
8 ~~ ~
IJ.l ~_
Ie
'"
"' R
~ (j
~ '" ;S;
~
'" i!: '"
~ ~ ~
>::
'" "Oi
~ ~3 ~~
~ ;-OJ ~3
~ G"
'" ~ '" lti~
~ i;'i",
<l\ ~?i ~~
~ ~ ":' ~~
~'"
~ \j' ~
'" "", -"
'^ ~ "'''
, lli'" 1<'
S) ~ ". ~'"
0:> -'^ ,,0:>
"Ic:
G",
I-C)
-.)'<
"'''
~~
""
;;~
"''''
~r!
...~
f,j-
;Q~
Ie>-
",1)
iS~
,i.;"'.:""
<'
~
~
~
~
'l
~
"
~
=~"c:-"~'--if'" .,' :,
~'-------7.'-
"\ l ill \1 !~
"'r~I'l ,11~
''''I Il,!~
I Irll~
! <~ ~.
\: ':~-;~~--ll 11 r~
\ I !~ ~
! I III. ~w
I' 1!~
:1 U
II /lll~
ii' 11 ~~
i 11.. ~'!
I II <
,,) i i( rr
" ' Il.:,'
(:l~d I I ~ ~1~
I ~ I ':'f' I i ( ,,!'t.-'fj" jl II
~.. .. \ - ~ II Ii :W
. " Ii. ~ I:ji
-' II II i '[" _ := t' ll--, jl , " ' 1 ! i " !
........ ~' ,- t ~"'~l' I. ~ I ~ ~ ~~,'-~.'.j1~ II"1". k~l.b:rr:=:'!'.:,.:"f,.,jJ i~r
~ n.." , IXI - [xlf JL = "tf!'1 : 'I J' ~
~ M,Ji::-;D I' I Jll'i 11 ~ 11'(1' i ~ f1:~lt;~~~.';I..1 ~I
,fll'1'''''~ , ~ H H I~] I I n I 'J J (' I I - - ~ Ii JA'~I'm=II' ill
\... bm:f~p I.' , irfG)hYr-~-.1 Il2:T _trh..~~L IT-.. }~::' ,J = .r....!. j.H~
~l ,', ,'} - 1 ),cy " -'en !'I i
TTTi I, ;y' > ~~ '0 ",:m ,[:, I! \f,
- ;-,,' p ;' ' ~' ' '1"'1" r)FJ;~~r~): ;)~i." ~':~[f" '1: :1" j,!
~ j J!" 6 ~ ~ 1'1 ": f' ~I- --i"1 ',\1\:,1 Inl-' t ~ i,!~1
- r'-~ . " --rj -2Sj ~~ Kr/,...tji /lU...@ I,:;~ I'~;'~~I _ . j;;I~
t:::Irr:l ~~~~! J1fl " ~~ ~-,.- " ,''-''P-,~~L. - I~!~
- =r'T>~ 'J: , "',c_ ."-+,' " .' .' " " " ./ . t.:irr,'..
,LLLL R..)1 I .'Cli ~~_ ~..."\. ~ ' 'Ii ' ',' ,,'" 1'1"
- ~J: L)5Y[ ]'<Q:. -l~~~~~~.'~~, ~'~Z~~:~:,-);!--; lilL
~ ~- w ~~ r rx: ,\, '\f--/;::~..:----:-? II
( - '" , " '" , ~ Jt~? ~~ ;..----=/ /0, ii I ~
\= IIII Lv :...., ~'~ ----->:.:~~' U
( ----.. I I <<-I' w- ~(. tt;r~r: -- -- -= -- -; I ~I'
Ii \ilf:L ,. ~.'.Ir....;
TIT I I I I 11L ~ - I6J -- f\ i ql
= ,~~ - =: ~r!jbl~x~~~ - / -'Ill
' - -" -- =~: ~)~~~~~ \;~.!i:'~I:r.f,
- ," ~ ~ \1, If.R::J/I" " C,J1.;~
- II[ r', .. -,-J --, c..Jj ':11) \: ~ . S's ~ - )'I.Q'11
I "'3 j _n ~ '" ,~ ." ~ t,~, I.
I '1f:':I:' ~ i 'I r~
~.. 'r(" ri -. ~~~ w"' ~:! iii,
ii'!- ~- : ' ,U~~~i" N B. ii' \~
I _ ;~~-'(.'i~. !:'W ~ ~ ' "'1. '" ,\ I'l Ili~
Vi. - I)::' , , ' / ____ . ! ~ I !:[;
.. i "f; ~ = j;i,Uf~t1:: ' ' r~ ~----: v-------~ ?' , : ~ 111m
#','</l~ AY~ ': r-::-:~:::5::;] _~,I! I~
/I" , > ;', r 1~ -Y..../, , .." 1/ I" .' ~~ i'! 'I ~ru
- -- ,U ';,; I - I~J " .. I I I I j I I 'm.., (jl it
...-----lI---"'..-"~,~=.. ....:....,:,...,L......,."=~. .....".,"".,,"'''''''~'::.,-~~ '( . )" Y. ~----~--''(..-_'_-'c"._,-,._,-w.----,,,----,,.._.,,....~,= -~:;:~il 'H1t
i;:1 11 III '~J.'I
.I ~p p~
1111 11 ~
1-1 I j;:d
..J'~'f-.~.,~~,..,,,,..
h.. .".._h'''~.''.'.' [:".",.
~
~--------------~~
\
r-........."......,
HI/WI
NClIIII
3SI1DH
"."...............--
..
....,.
;;'".~'~...__,",,~d"c~"._.>;~,.,_.......~>.'.
...,,--.).
"-
....:--
- F" ......----1
1__~N107f11q._!
\
.
/11
l
I
I
: 1-
@~~
~)
1o~::J~/
'"~~
~,
,...~
"
.(,
~ '
" 0
~~ ~
<>1
~~?
~~~
g~'"
"Q~
QJ~'"-i
~~ ~.~
(,J 0,0::
S ~ ~~
t~.tg
~~:.-...
.s ~~ t
,,~ ,- E
~~~~
~~::"IJ,I\.>
1-.: '<;{ l:'.l.~"o
g~~~~
3
b
~
b-'I
lil ~;
- ~
~..
:'2-
AINOOJ NOS)!JVr
A,L!(lOI.IJ,nV ~)NISnOH
~'_l' A"/?,Wa~[,IJ:;1/
S:=r11i,JS lSnr-all J.3JJ.I'S SlHJ. NQ ~'N1 3ND
@VI ~NrI\V~a l'INr91~a W) m"1 lN1l Sf ~"a
WaJ,)OsuI6u8@el~6~ :ffew-3
CiJ6L'Zg;:(/I>S) :XE::/
0S6N8~lIl>s) :/61
POSL61:10 'pJOJPew
\11 # 'IS U!eWiSf!3fiLII
~O 'ON\flHSV
>lOOtl8 Atltl38MONS
A.:i .HVO ~mSI^l~ 'ON
f(1 C~ r
t~) \'(j / /> :g
~
~
I( t:j
'^ ~
.. ~ t
" ~ "
'< ~ 'u'
I( '" -
~ 61( .Il <c.
" ,,~
~ ~ '^
.. "
.. h() ~ ~
" '.) '>
;!j 2 t:j "" ~
'" ~ -.
\j ~
" ~I( ;~ "
~ ~ , '::
"'''' <;,
'" c~ <l
'" ~~ 2
i!! ,,'j! 1u '"'
:;;"' "
. <1-
" " " ~~ "
'4! I!l ? ~
~Cl , a.: 1",;,; "
.: ~<J ~ \:'~ , <>
" "''' 6~ ~
8 ~,~ "\\'
'"~ <l
- --,- ~'_'_'m..m c. ....... _,__._..~"^..,"_~_____ .__._-~",.._.._-_..--
lillIJ![
i..
i
(\
I ':r';,:.
\I
;:.:...,.I~>I.ill'
\I
/
~~
x
A ~~ ~..
1::''-,
.,,\,:
\i
(\
~~
I..,'
~.m1-~1--1
~ \ !~.~:. '~:j.'= ~
~I.-r!....
/~Ml::::r~ ()
[ //{+r:~
~ ( '-li' +..
?:: ::so Ii.-. ..""L..
~ ~ 1~~-lJ-. ~
" Ii <::! <';
~ \'...._~J....
~ 1- - ~ --I
~ <1'. !l_..l.eJ....J
Q Q l....J~Li?
~ ~ []-r
'" ~ ,......1....'.1
.~ I < i... ...;,.._..., R
.... i, {\,[
!l ! .........1...
I. "-.....
1.,--_..+
, ()
IT'''--j'''' R
"I'r"
r"LI-.
!-..~. ..--....
i..I.....I-- 2
1.:....,....
I-rl..--!.....
11....\ "'''. '.
,.+ ....i.....
....1.....1..,..,
I.... ~ .1.., ~
i'-II \1..- ~
i....l...~.1
[m-r.....i~...1
!......--j(\.:8
. i- I
I........I~.I
1.."...."..,Q".,,1
1"'J.i~11
I.....: <:l... 8
1....1
I 1m
I,.,........: 2
..,+!
Ir]\+
I~T!
:9L, 0
: <: I ,,'D
I~I: ~
I'~ :, ~
c\ ! '-'l ()
I III ~ ~
, "
I I II ~
~ ~ . :/ ~'I'I'fl
~ ~ ~ III ,8
~ ." lu I III
'^ 'S: (J I I
~ ~ i:
k1 ---1~
L.---"" I, Ii. a
lu
-J
!Q
'^
~
I-
~
I--
~
2
@
::>
fl]
ti)
~
~
2
'"
~
"
i:!
~
:;:
~
f::
'"
~
() a
~ ~
~?~
''', ~"
;"\l!-,:
;sfr;
::c ~:"
W/I\:-hl :.;j!\lO 1'_'jJ.)N~1I
CJ:::
~
~
6
1 ~
'::t: .....
~ ~
CI) ~
~
~
~
~
-..J
-..J
~
~
~
~-
C'l')~
~
~
"
~o
~.c: :.:.
~.~ ~
..~l
.~ 0
#j ~..!.
~~~
~~~
~~t
.g ~l C:l.. vi
~ ~ ~.~
~..... t/l\)
,,,
t~~'~2
~~~t
.~~~'; t:
(o~.~ ~
G.j~.6-~ Iij
~~~~~
}.,LNf10J NOS)!JVf
AJJdOHJJ1\f ~NISnOH
~
~
"(rt~"~~~
~~~;:;~~~~
'-lc~~~~'<~
:;t::C)\) -..~~1.(
~tfi:~h(;''Il
"'~J)~SJ,~d
'" II< ~
~ ..J\le.~Q:S&
a~ 'J',::.t
61J\~ W
~ ,- ~
~o 'CNI'1HS~
~OOtf8 AClCl38MONS
" ..........--" ... 1:.Jt.IJ[U{i}:;J~r
S31ttJ$ lSnrnv rnNS SIWJ ."'0 J../:JNl :JND
fP.N j' '9NIItV.Ij([ l'IN19/(10 Nfl HJN{ 3h'O Sf 8'rI8
w(xm;euI6ua@o/UfJe'i'"W"
CiJ6L-<:9,f{lfr9) :X/2:J
Of:6L-r:8r:(tPgj :Wi
togl.6lfO 'pJOJPIJ/V
lit # '/su:eWiSTJ39LU
hi Jl~G
NOJSI^l~
'ON
':J
"
d
"
~
::;
'"
"
~
"
"
:;;
~~.~~~
~ dn"~
~IJ ~~~~;
~2g~
,,~ ()
t 8;;~<l
~... ~ 1iZ~ ~
:(;' ~,. \-'
I')'\~' ~ (j a
~) t<\~ ~.lt: ~
~~.r\' ~ ':
!') '" ~
~
~
'~
Iu
..J
~~
~~
\<:
<:l"
-..J
<\0.:
<0
~
'"
1;!
"
'"
"
:;:~.
<I) CI~~
':i ~I)"i
~ I.'"\,'<-..J
~ ~a::3
h.
"'\
'"
2
~a ~
~J~ ~
it~~ ~~
~5 Q
~~Q 1'~
~.Jl.,jIf'\~\I\
@~~~~~v;
t:~~~...Ja~
()Q~-"!"~
<i,J<:<\~~<:
. Gi\i~~:(~
'9.',Q~ \! (;,;; -.J'I
~"
'1
""Iu
.J~~
~\ij~
~~
",t
\-
2~
~
t;';\1!~~nl):
0G;::G"~ ~
~~" "",,~ ~Iu
", Cl '" >-" ~ 'C~
Cl"ClQ"''''<
\l Iu~ ~ 'Il
~~~"~~~Ci
.,J="ItJ\J\l{:\-..
~:!;'f'\ "'C.
R"1iJ~(3~e:
.R ()()()"
Q' I..j'-"'-J~
Q "
0:'--
h.(i
). ~
~"
~~
Q ~ 11~
~\J
'^~;,;,
~~ ~~~
~~ !:ia ~
~i::' 'C'" ~
.Jii:~
~~ \u{5"(
l..j~ \}
~.' ~ ;;:Il"\W
1.t .(VI--I...:!
6 ~ ~ ~
.. >J ()
~ ~&:'
, 0
~
;[)
iiS
'flh.
\l:;
00
~~
~0
, t
"0
~t;j
h.
Cl'C
"\il
~0
"0:.
~>--
;t:~
1- J:
/
LI.J
-...I
~~
(J)~
0:2
....."
C[J~
<.:JI'"
'"
(j~
~i~
(J)~
t
h
::J
li
CO
~
\.)
LI.J
...j
~~
CJ:l~
Of?
.....h.
CO~
G~/I r/n :~I\I'a l:tM"3/.ml
h.
W
i'::
~
'"
8 ~
,,~0
~ ~~
i.":;J
~\\i~
"oiili
~ !i,_
\)'C
"
~~@
.- '" ~
''0 ~;(
~ ~'-o;;:r '<l
0
@ ~ ~~
" \~
\) (j"C
~~ ~~
j,
. >-h. ~ ."
",,~
;?~S \
'0:-./'"0 \,\' ~
~~~ LI.J
. 20 '"(~ -...I
~~.\- ~
C\~. '<
~ 0
,..~. (j
~ qJ~
"'\ Cq~
'^
~ \)12
llJl-.
"''''<~''' tr)~
d ~B~h~ "
Cl::'S ;:::
~ " ~"~
~ ~~",~Q
0S2n<(l
G "" ~
0\J(j~i-:
G ~!\(.
t5 '<~~~~
:i:~~;;:
~ '\",-2
li:t....
,~\,' '", '~2
l.lJ 2
-...I ~
~~
(.) ~
'i ~
(.) 02
.....1-.
co~
Q) Q) "~I
~
~~
6~
;Sit
~I
~ ~ tJ,
~ -J
"", ct
1:5'5 "
1_ \l
'"
\
. ,.
i; ,;.;
",",,~l~ki
<i'Y f'(!j'"
~~c~ !
(~~ )
tq~t
<'''JI.:!I!OIl~
1
l:i
(D"
"'
1~
",\6
'^
(jR
lJ.J1-.
0)2
AJJ\OOJ NOS}!JV f
AJJdOl-IlOV ONISnOH
\)
\.)
@
~
~:--,
~
, "I-
\l'i:!"-
~~s
,I-<.l
"
"'<l:l
~~~
, ~<.l
~3~
i:Il
co
I
'"
....
~~
'"
,,-"
ii:i~
\
"6:J:lj!:;~G~
~'i~\:~~i::~
i':1;,~h-!;?~
:t" :i._"
~~~e~~~p'
-..; }- ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ cl
\')~'>) ...j
'''''~(l''a:;;~
"t ~Q"'L~
;<'~ '"
Il.j'^ ~ l-'
~ \. l:i
~O 'ON\I1HSV
>lOOtl8 ACltE38MONS
. ... f"iIVIlJliU.lJV
$)1II;1S J.S~'5.'HI NO ~'JNJ ]NO
ON .JJ :;N1t1VelU l'JN{!)J.M; M) HY'tl 3NG Sf CiVS
~
~2~ 1\,
~}-~ ~
S~~ ~
9~1;j s:::J
~ -<:~" ,^(J
,,~''il ~J '"
.-'.e
tJ<.l -J,,~ '-.)
.,..)..... ~~ . ......... f--,
~~~ - C!)~
~" ,,~<;
~.... ..jt ~
~~ '"is"<
J:~~~ccl~~~ ~~I ~~~
~\ji::I:J~ -: \::: ~.. f;J:-.-..;
'!i ~<:....", >t~ ~ ~ ",;'>i)
oo.:1;J<:}.,\I)~~1.( ~ ~~
CI <.lClCl <II-" ~ ,'1"
\)4. \u:j;~:s,.11 ~
~"~'^rs~~Q ~
~~~\lJlJo.:~ <
~~l5~'''~~
,R ~~Go!
Q6 0","~
~~5J2: .
~\'\ \\, ~~\ J'I,.\"
-,,-",,'\ \ \:, \\ \\\\ \\ 0' \\~,.d ,
~'\ '\ ,\ \, ,\" \\ '\' '-::'\"" ,.~
,>~ \\\ \\';,\~\\~\\~\\~~ III ~\\\ '':u. ~
, \I \1 \ ';, \\ '" \\ \, \ _ "'~\, ~' ,
\\ \'\ \\:'\: I,~, \, \\ \\ \\ \.:. '- ~~" ,
\\ \\ \\ ,\ \\ \\ \\>\ '~::, ~\ \, V.
~0:'\<\\'\'\\\~\\:~~ ~\:\\~\
'\\\\ \\ \\ I; \\ ,\:, \'~ "<\\ \;. '\; \ "
\ \\ \~\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ ~\ \\ \~\' ~
I"~ " ':\,' I' \\ ,I ~ \ '\ ,\ '\ ,. .
\'\\\\\\\'-';\'~'\\\\\~\\\\\\ t:,
:\ '\ \\ ,\ :\ \\" ,\ \' \\ ,\ ,\, .
\\ \\, \\\\<\ \\~\ ~, \:, ,\ < '\\ i (Q
\\\\\~,\\ \\ \\ '\'~ ~:0 \~ \~\ \\
0S\\ \\~>~\\\\\ \~ \\~\ '
>.' ,'\\ \\ '\ \' \0 " '0;\\ ''1'''-
r\,\ \\\'~\\ '\\\\\ '\'\\\\" "'.
\\~'\\~\\'\~\,\~\~\~~' \ ' C t:
\~\;~\\\\\~~\\;~'0;,~;;,~'\
\ \\,~ \\\\ \~ \\ \\ \y\\ 'V~\ '\ \r\ \
1\\ \\,\ \\\\\\\~\\I'\ \\ '^, \\ \,\,._.
\, \\ \\ " \ \\ \ \. \\ ~\;\. ':\ \~" , '0
'~, \'\~~\\'\\\ ~\\\2\\\\\:,!~, .
\~ \\ \\ \, \\ \\\\ ~ '\ \\ \\ \\ \, :~ f.
,\ \' \\" \\ "\\'("'\" ,,\\" ,\, .
\\~, '- ',,\ \ \ \\ \\ ,,\ '\ \\. \\ \' ;' .
\:\ ~\ \\ ,\ \\ -..\ -...\ '~ '\ \\ '\ \\ '- I, .
\\~,\\\ \\\\\\ \- \; \\ \:- \\'\" \ '- .~,
~\ \\ '" \\ '0\ \\ t \~ \\ \\ \\ \\ \
.\\ \' .\ \\ \ 0\\.0 ,\ \\ \\ ,,\\ 1,/,
\\ \,~ \, \\ \\ ';, '',\ \\ \\"\\ \ \ \\ . '.
'- \\ \\ \\ \~, '0 \, ~ ,\ \\ \\ \\ \ \.
\ \\ '\ '\'\ "~, \\ ,~, \\ \\ :., \\ l..
\~ ~'\- \\ \' '\ '\\ \: \, \\ '\ \' ~:'.
\\ ;;" ': \\ \\ \\ I' '~\\ " \' i\ I."
\;.. \\ 0\ \' "I. \\ ~; \ '\ \. \\ ~\ 1..,
~ \, " '\ /i;, " \ , \, ~\ \' ,,\ .
\\ \\ \\ \\\~~~, ~ '\\ '~, ~~,~~'~
II \' \\, ~ ,\ 'I> ~_. ~
k';:' \\ \,'\ '\ J0"->'
~\~U0~
Ai lVcr
"
,,'l\)
Lu
"
~~
''0:
~~
"
\
~
,
U,)
Cl
~
l1J
~
~
'::c
~
~
G
~
()
8
a::
LlJ
-..l
~~
~
(f)",
OR
-"
trl~
>-
\u
"
.()
\l"
~~w..J
/
~~:)~~
CJ(j~f..:~
~~~2~
~@;;;~Q
<.l~o(,<I\ "
J.,;:lk:I,..;.(\~
0"<I\"~
2~~~!>.
13C'.J!.(G
~eHe
~t:tC
~ b2
1:
'"
",
,,"'1
.~,
'"
:1,
I,
t:]
~
"'
~~
<ll C\ ~ ~
'5 ~ ~ \u
<.l", ....
& ~~ 8
I-
2 "
~Cl 0
II:~ i~ ~
~~~ ~o,
~~~ ~~
". .,j-J'oI\ ~ If'\
8~~~~~~
t~~~;jQ~
SQ\l:l1J~t5~
" "'c5~ ~ ~~"
'" '",'Q~ 0" 0Cl
I
"'(l,"
~~~
SLuUJ
~~
~~
~G
"
WOJ~B~urBue@OI~tJD ,YWW'3
ta3L-Z8Z'(/r9) :X1O!::J
Of:6i.'?EJiJ(/P''l) :}91
PO'lL S 1:10 'plo/paw
tit # 'IS uf!1W IS~3 9L Ii
NOISI^]~
'OK
"
<.l
()
'"
co"
cb~
<J;
()2
LI..i"
C')~
;,
()
c:
~
~
"'
~~~~~
C52~l-:~
;)~~~~
~~<I->;>
\.I~, ~ ~It-.
\:"~f,:.\-
0\1,,"
(j~,,'l
"'iii8~
~~h
~~ ~
I~ ':
2
'<) @
~
~
~
iil
is
<l:ll-
"'"
\\0
'~
:-?0
, l:
";\.)
~.;j
"-
Cl<:
0:'8
~~
"i!::.
"'"
'"~
~l:
, :,?
'Of
L--
'QUI '6u]Jeeu!f5u~
3JfJJltY'~r
-, 0JJ
\.h
G~
'"
()R
LlJ"
(f)2
t
I-
::::J
()
co
~
\.)
LI..i
-..l
~~
(f)M
62
_h
Cl:l~
(;{I/ I ~/i: l :.UIl'C "']\Jj),:~ltm,l
"-
t:]
1::
"'
t,
([l~
"
~ s
, "<.l
";o!
:t<l:l
~g~
t)",~
~ '~J"
~ \11
'" I-
0"<
"
~@~
tl:;;;~
~~~
'}~
"q
()f2
li.J1-
C/)~
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
February 10, 2009
PLANNING ACTION:
2008-02013
APPLICANT:
City of Ashland
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.96 Sign Regulations
REQUEST:
Adoption of an Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter
(18.96) Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO).
Relevant Facts
I.
A. Background
In July of 2008 the Mayor appointed members to an ad-hoc Downtown Task
Force to evaluate concerns relating to signage limitations and enforcement,
downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial
use. Members of the Downtown Task Force included representative downtown
merchants, members of the Planning, Historic, and Public Arts Commission,
Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large, to review
and make recommendations directed to address several concerns affecting
downtown merchants. The Downtown Task Force met five times through July
and August, 2008.
nd
Upon hearing the Downtown Task Force Recommendations on September 2,
2008, the Ashland City Council initiated the Type III Planning Process directing
Staff to amend the Land Use Ordinance to address the identified concerns.
The Ashland Planning Commission has held two separate Study Sessions to
th
examine conceptual changes to the Sign Code on December 18, 2008 and
th
January 27, 2009.
The Ashland Public Arts Commission reviewed the proposed changes and
submitted a Memo including their recommendations dated November 2008,
which is included in the record.
Planning Commission and members of the City Council also conducted a walking
th
tour of the downtown on February 5, 2009, to become familiar with sign issues
on the ground prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for February 10, 2009.
The Ashland Historic Commission reviewed proposed changes to the Sign Code
specifically as they relate to Historic Districts, at their regular meeting on
th
February 4, 2008. As of the date of writing this Staff Report the Historic
Commission meeting has not yet occurred and thus their recommendations shall
be presented at the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 9
B. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.96
A revised copy of Chapter 18.96 is attached.
The substantive modifications to Chapter 18.96 are listed below and are
explained more fully in Section C.
Downtown Task Force suggested modifications
Modifies the existing limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) in the
downtown from 2 signs of two square feet, to up to 3 signs with an
aggregate area of not more than 7 sq.ft. Essentially this modification
provides for an additional 3 sq.ft. exempt sign.
Modifies the ordinance to allow a downtown business to install one three
dimensional sign not to exceed 3 cu.ft.
Modifies the ordinance to allow a business outside of the downtown to
install one three dimensional sign not to exceed 20 cu.ft.
Modifies the ordinance to include material limitations for three-dimensional
signs.
Modifies the ordinance to enable the installation of collective identification
and informational signs on public right-o-ways, or City owned property, to
better direct pedestrians to civic, business, recreation, and historic interest
areas when installed by the City under the exempt sign category.
Modifies the ordinance to establish allowances for sandwich boards, ‘A’
frame and pedestal signs when located on private property and when
within the square footage limit permissible for incidental exempt signs.
Modifies the ordinance to exempt qualified Public Art (per Chapter 2.17 of
the Municipal Code) from the Sign code requirements.
Planning Commission suggested modifications:
Modifies the ordinance to eliminate the limitations upon “strings of lights”
to allow for other bulb types than incandescent and to allow for closer
spacing of bulbs than the 6” currently required by ordinance.
Staff suggested modifications
Modifies the ordinance to refine or add various definitions to add clarity to
the applicability of the ordinance
.
Modifies the ordinance to allow for area calculations to be considerate of
the common geometric shapes of circles, triangles, and rectangles.
Modifies the ordinance to define and increase the size allowable for
temporary construction signs to better correlate to standardized sizes for
such signs.
Modifies the ordinance to prohibit vehicle signs used as static displays
when parked for an extended duration.
Modifies the ordinance to allow additional business frontages to be
counted when fronting on more than two separate streets. This provision
would then allow additional area on the third and fourth frontages of a
building.
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 9
C. Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous
influence upon the transformation of Ashland’s downtown into a community focal
point, revered throughout the State and beyond. The existing sign code is a
classic product fashioned by a community well-known for its dedicated and
farsighted citizenry. The changes currently proposed aim to provide new
opportunities for adequate signage for business identification, non-commercial
speech, and dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter,
protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland’s unique character.
The preceding section of this report lists all the modifications proposed. This
section elaborates on the more substantive changes currently being considered
and the implications of various options being presented.
Section 18.96.020 Changes. Definitions Relating to Signs
Area Definition
A commonly asked question at the counter in issuing sign permits is “How does the City
calculate the area of a sign?”. The current definition is:
“The area included within the outer dimensions of a sign”. (18.96.020).
Although relatively simple on its face, this definition has left a lot of room for
interpretation and thus Staff has suggested two options for the Commission to consider
in the proposed ordinance changes that would eliminate ambiguity.
essentially formalizes the means by which staff has calculated the area of a
Option 1
sign as bounded within a rectangle.
creates new opportunities to consider circles and triangles as additional
Option 2
geometric shapes in calculating area. Additionally this definition would enable the City
to consider areas of multiple components of a sign to additively determine area as
bounded by these common geometric shapes.
Staff supports option 2 as a means of enabling a greater measure of creativity and
provide additional opportunities for more distinctive signage, without the disincentive of
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 9
decreased area allowance. Further the existing code language could be seen to support
such a methodology although that has not been its standard application over the years.
Public Art definition
Public Art would not be considered a sign per the proposed changes to 18.96, and as
such would no longer be regulated per this section.
The proposed change to 18.96 defines Public Art simply by referencing the definition
already existing in Chapter 2.17 of the Municipal Code which is as follows:
“All forms of original works of art in any media that has been planned and
executed with the specified intention of being sited or staged on City Property or
on property owned or controlled by the City of Ashland, usually outside and
accessible to the public.”
The approval of Public Art would therefore not be proceeded as a Land Use
Proceedings but rather through the application of the set criteria and juried selection
process fully outlined in Chapter 2.17.
Public Arts Commission Recommendation
The Public Arts Commission is supportive of the proposed code changes to remove
Public Art from review under the Sign Code.
Three dimensional sign definition
To distinguish three dimensional signs from the typical 2-D sign this definition
establishes that any sign having a relief of greater than 6” shall fall into the 3-D category
and be regulated as such. The limits of this new 3-D sign type are addressed in this
report under the section below on New Sign Types.
Section 18.96.030 Changes. Exempt Signs
City Installed Directory Signs (18.96.030(A))
The modifications to) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force
recommendation to more explicitly enable the City to install various off-premises
directory signs on City property (including public right of way as well as city property)
to assist in directing people to interest areas that are otherwise not readily visible from
the street. The recommendation also expresses an interest in developing separate
policies to address issues of size, materials, color, font, materials, and location. The
proposed code change will enable the City to create a such a program to install
informational signs on City property.
Construction and Real Estate Signs (18.96.030(F&G))
In evaluating compliance issues Staff determined that the common practice of installing
multiple signs during construction was frequently in violation of the existing code. In
recognition of the need for contractors, architects, financial institutions and other parners in
new developments to post their company contact information in the form of small signs we
have proposed two options for the Commission to consider. These options are intended to
provide reasonable opportunities for Construction signs, while retaining some measure
retaining control over visual clutter and the proliferation of numerous small unsecured yard
signs on construction sites.
Option 1
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in
residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas,
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 9
provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such
signs shall be limited to one sign per lot. Freestanding temporary construction signs
shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
Option 2
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs on a lot not exceeding sixteen (16) square
feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas,
provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such
signs shall be limited to no more than four signs per lot . Freestanding temporary
construction signs shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
The second option is being presented to address discussion among Planning
th
Commissioners that occurred at the January 27, 2009 Study Session. Should the
Commission choose to allow for more than one consolidated sign in which the multiple
yard signs could all be affixed and instead allow multiple individual signs, Staff
recommends limiting the total number to four.
The existing limitation on Construction and real-estate signs combined is currently 6
square feet in residential zones, and 12 square feet in Commercial zones. In separating
the sign types the proposed changes in Option 1 or Option 2 will allow a real estate sign
to be independent of the construction signs and as such increasing the total area
allowed as follows:
Sign Type Existing ProposedExisting limit ProposedProposed
AllowableAreaon number Limit on Limit on
AreaNumberNumber
(Option 1) (Option 2)
Real Estate -
6 sq.ft. 1 1
Residential
6 sq.ft. 1
Construction -
16 sq.ft. 1 4
Residential
Total 6 sq.ft. 22 sq.ft. 1 2 5
Real Estate -
12 sq.ft. 1 1
Commercial
12 sq.ft. 1
Construction -
32 sq.ft. 1 4
Commercial
Total 12 sq.ft. 44 sq.ft. 1 2 5
Exempt ‘Incidental’ Signs
The modifications to 18.96.030(H) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force
recommendation to increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the
downtown area. It was recommended that the allowable area for the additional proposed
sign be increased to 3 square feet for increased flexibility, and specifically in
consideration of restaurant needs for “menu” signs.
Strings of Lights
The proposed draft ordinance eliminates ‘incandescent’ and the spacing requirements
for Strings of Lights (18.96.030K). Commissioners had raised the question whether
such lights should be considered temporary, whereas under the current ordinance there
is no such time limit established. The proposed changes throughout this code are not
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 9
intended to limit existing uses, rather to refine definitions for clarity or expand available
opportunities for new signage. As such Staff is not recommending that a new time limit
be established to make “strings of lights” temporary.
Section 18.96.040 Changes. Prohibited Signs
Wall Graphics
Wall graphics (such as mosaics, murals, or signs painted directly on a wall) have
previously been prohibited under 18.96.040L. As such signs are similar in nature to wall
signs painted on a board and affixed to a wall, and would be subject to General Sign
Regulations and the limitations for wall signs, Staff recommends this prohibition be
eliminated.
Vehicle Signs
Section 18.96.040(M) is proposed by Staff independent of the Downtown Task Force
recommended changes to the Ordinance. The subject of Vehicle signs was not
discussed by the Task Force but has been an enforcement concern regarding vehicles
parked for extended periods on public streets solely for advertising purposes of adjacent
businesses. This section would not prohibit vehicle signs affixed to vehicles that are
used in the daily operation of a business such as delivery vehicles.
Sections 18.96.080 and 18.96.090 - New Sign Types and increased allowances
Multiple Frontages and additional Sign Area Section 18.96.080(B)1b).
The subject of additional frontages and existing signage limitations was raised before
nd
the City Council by Brett Thompson on September 2, 2008. Concerns raised related
to properties with business frontages on more than two streets or businesses whose
sole frontage is on a third or fourth side of a building. Council directed that this issue be
addressed in proposed amendments by forwarding implementing language for
consideration.
Two options are presented for the Commission s consideration in 18.080B1b.
Option 1 would allow additional sign area (30sq.ft.) for the additional street frontage(s)
when defined as a ‘business frontage (see definition 18.96.020(7)) while preserving
existing protections limiting what would be viewable from any single business frontage
(maximum of 60sq.ft.).
Option 2 Correlates the allowable additional sign area on three or more frontages to be
one sq.ft. for every two lineal feet of business frontage. This is ½ the area allowance
permitted for the primary or secondary frontages. Further Option 2 establishes that
business frontages of three or more on a single building shall comply with criteria from
the City’s Site Design and Use Standards providing an attractive and functional
pedestrian entrance open to the public during all business hours, oriented toward the
street, and providing direct pedestrian access from a public sidewalk.
Staff recommends Option 2 as a preferred alternative to help ensure the third or fourth
frontage of a business are truly utilized by patrons and not merely presented to allow for
additional signage which would have the result of drawing customers toward a non
functional entrance. Further this method better relates the size of a sign to the size of
the business frontage.
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 9
Projection Distance
Section 18.96.080(B)1c ) addresses a recommendation by the Downtown Task Force to
increase the maximum distance a sign can project from the face of a building from 18” to
2’ to foster improved visibility as well as increased opportunities for such projection signs
to function as architectural elements. Specifically this modification was proposed to
assist businesses on smaller side streets and alleys with limited visibility from the main
streets within the downtown.
Three dimensional signs- Section 18.96.080(B)5a-g and 18.96.090B4a
The proposed ordinance amendments would establish a new sign type called
dimensional signs (defined as those signs having greater than a 6” relief). As proposed
the volume limits for these signs would be 3 cu.ft. in the downtown, and 20 cu.ft. outside
the downtown on commercially zoned property. This new provision was intended by the
Downtown Task Force to provide opportunities for unique and creative options for
businesses to connect to customers and the community. In addition to limitations on
height, width and depth, material restrictions have also been proposed prohibiting the
use of plastic and electrical components (see 18.96.080(B)5f and 18.96.090(B)4f).
The Downtown Task Force had recommended that such small 3-D signs in the
downtown (up to 3 cu.ft.) be considered as part of the exempt sign category, however
due to issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas, ingress egress
requirements of the fire and building codes, and building code compliance relating to the
method of permanently affixing such signs to the wall or ground, Staff has proposed
such signs as a permitted sign type to enable such review.
There has been discussion regarding whether the small 3-D sign in the downtown
should be counted against the area allocation for exempt incidental signs, or whether it
should be an additional sign allowance. Two options are presented in the draft code
language that distinguishes between these alternatives. As comparing square foot area
to cubic foot volume is not feasible, Staff now presents an option that resolves this
concern in limiting the total number of such small signs, both incidental and 3D, within
the downtown.
Option 1
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot. This is in addition to the
limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning or marquee
signs.
Option 2
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one three square
foot incidental sign otherwise allowed per 18.96.030H.
Downtown Task Force recommendations
The Downtown Task Force recommended allowing 3cu.ft. three-dimensional signs within
the downtown. The Downtown Task Force also recommended the City consider allowing
larger 3-D signs outside the downtown. In large part their discussion related to an
existing 3-D statue (“Alfredo” at Wiley’s Restaurant) which is approximately 20 cubic feet
in size. Members of the Downtown Task force addressed concerns over the proliferation
of prefabricated 3-D signs at chain franchises, such as a Bob’s Big Boy statue, in that
the size and material limitations would limit such 3-D signs.
Public Arts Commission Recommendations
The Public Arts Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and provided a memo for the
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 9
Planning Commission’s consideration (attached). Further members of the Public Arts
Commission presented at the study session held January 27, 2009 which are reflected in
the minutes (attached). In relation to 3-D signs the Public Arts Commission stated they
are opposed to 3D signs outside the downtown area.
Historic Commission Recommendations
The Historic Commission is scheduled to review the Sign Code amendments at their
th
meeting on February 4, 2009. As this report has been prepared in advance of their
meeting, their recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission during
th
the public hearing on February 10, 2009.
Portable Signs - Sandwich Boards and Pedestal Signs(18.96.080(B)6
The Downtown Task Force explored the option of allowing sandwich boards and
pedestal signs when discussing the desire to increase exposure for businesses not on a
major street. The issue was largely resolved through the concept of enabling the City to
install collective directional signs (as proposed in18.96.030A).
However the use of pedestal signs or sandwich boards on the businesses private
property still may have merit provided such sign areas are calculated in consideration of
the exempt sign allowance. Although typical exempt signs are not required to obtain
sign permits, Staff has proposed this section under the permitted sign section to allow
assessment of issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas,
ingress egress requirements of the fire and building code, and compliance with
maximum height requirement through the sign permit process. The size, materials, and
location of such signs would also be limited by the proposed ordinance amendment.
II. Procedural
The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows:
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance
or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive
plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative
amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by
application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall
conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable
meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to
the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the
Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the
proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the
required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a
public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission,
the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place
of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 9
given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days
prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be
considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following
a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new
application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of
circumstances warrant it.
Pursuant to ORS 197.610, a pre-notice, including draft language that is to be
considered through the public hearing process, was sent to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) on December 22, 2008, which by statute is
more than 45 days prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for
February 10th. Pursuant to ORS 197.615, the City of Ashland will provide notice to
DLCD within 5 days of the final decision by the City of Ashland.
III. Conclusions and Recommendations
The Planning Commission shall consider public testimony received, the Public Arts
Commission recommendation, the Historic Commission recommendations, the
Downtown Task Force Recommendations,and Staff recommendations regarding the
various options presented for sign code amendments.
In consideration of testimony received, and selection of specific options for inclusion in a
final ordinance, Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the City Council to update and revise Ashland’s land use requirements
regarding such factors as the size, number, type, materials, and location of signs.
Attachments
Draft Ordinance Amending the Ashland Sign Code, Chapter 18.96
City Council Meeting Minutes September 2, 2008
Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
January 27, 2009
January 13, 2009
Downtown Task Force Meeting Minutes:
August 11, 2008
August 4, 2008
July 28, 2008
July 21, 2008
July 14, 2008
Downtown Task Force Summary Report dated August 21, 2008
Public Arts Commission Memo dated November 2008.
Submitted Letters
Adam Stallsworth, Oregon Department of Transportation
Steve Cole, Sound Peace
Linda von Hanneken-Martin, WolfPacks.com
Dave Alexander
Art Bullock
Matt Frey
Brent Thompson
Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report – 2-10-09
Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9 of 9
LAND USE CODE
CHAPTER 18.96
SIGN REGULATIONS
SECTIONS:
18.96.010 Purpose.
18.96.020 Definitions Relating to Signs.
18.96.030 Exempted Signs.
18.96.040 Prohibited Signs.
18.96.050 Sign Permits.
18.96.060 General Sign Regulations.
18.96.070 Residential and North Mountain Sign Regulations.
18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D).
18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts.
18.96.100 Freeway Sign Zone.
18.96.110 Abatement of Nuisance Signs.
18.96.120 Construction and Maintenance Standards.
18.96.130 Nonconforming Signs.
18.96.140 Enforcement.
18.96.150 Governmental Signs.
18.96.160 Historic Signs.
SECTION 18.96.010 Purpose.
This Chapter shall hereafter be known and designated as the "Sign Ordinance of the City of
Ashland", and is adopted in recognition of the important function of signs and the need to
safeguard and enhance the economic and aesthetic values in the City of Ashland through
regulation of such factors as size, number, location, illumination, construction, and maintenance
of signs; and thereby safeguard public health, safety and general welfare.
SECTION 18.96.020 Definitions Relating to Signs.
1. Alteration
Any change excluding content, and including but not limited to the size, shape, method of
illumination, position, location, materials, construction, or supporting structure of a sign.
2. Area
The area included within the outer dimensions of a sign.
Option 1
The entire area within a perimeter defined by a continuous line composed of right
angles which enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark, or other graphic
representation, together with any frame or structural trim forming an integral part of
the display used to differentiate the sign from the background against which it is
placed
.In the case of a multi-faced sign, the area of each face shall be included in
determining sign area, excepting double-faced signs placed no more than 24 inches back-
to-back.
Option 2
The entire area within a circle, triangle and/or rectangle which encloses the extreme
limits of lettering, logo, trademark, or other graphic representation, together with any
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 1 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
frame or structural trim forming an integral part of the display used to differentiate the
sign from the background against which it is placed
.In the case of a multi-faced sign,
the area of each face shall be included in determining sign area, excepting double-faced
signs placed no more than 24 inches back-to-back.
3. Awning
A temporary or movable shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building and
composed of non-rigid materials except for the supporting framework.
4. Building Face of Wall
All window and wall area of a building in one plane or elevation.
5. Bulletin Board or Reader Board
A sign of a permanent nature, but which accommodates changeable copy.
6. Business
A commercial or industrial enterprise.
7. Business Frontage
A lineal front footage of a building or portion thereof devoted to a specific business or
pedestrianduring all
enterprise, and having anentrance/exit open to the general public
business hours
.
8. Business Premises
A parcel of property or that portion thereof occupied by one tenant.
9. Canopy
A non-movable roof-like structure attached to a building.
10. Construction sign
A temporary sign erected on the premises where construction is taking place during
the period of construction, indicating the names individuals or firms having a role or
interest with respect to the structure or project.
11.
10.Direct Illumination
A source of illumination on the surface of a sign or from within a sign.
12.
11.Election
The time designated by law for voter to cast ballots for candidates and measures.
13.
12.Flashing Sign
A sign incorporating intermittent electrical impulses to a source of illumination or revolving or
moving in a manner which creates the illusion of flashing, or which changes color or
intensity of illumination. This definition is to include electronic time, date and temperature
signs.
13.Frontage
A single wall surface of a building facing a given direction.
14. Ground Sign
A sign erected on a free-standing frame, mast or pole and not attached to any building. Also
known as a "free-standing sign".
15. Indirect Illumination
A source of illumination directed toward a sign so that the beam of light falls upon the
exterior surface of the sign.
16. Illegal Sign
A sign which is erected in violation of the Ashland Sign Code (18.96).
17. Marquee Sign
A sign which is painted on, attached to, or supported by a marquee, awning or canopy.
18. Marquee
A non-movable roof-like structure which is self-draining.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 2 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
19. Non-conforming Sign
An existing sign, lawful at the time of enactment of this Ordinance, which does not conform
to the requirements of this Code.
20.Projecting Signs
Signs other than wall signs, which are attached to and project from a structure or building
face, usually perpendicular to the building face.
21.Portable Sign
A permitted sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent
structure including sandwich boards, pedestal signs, and ’A’ Frame signs.
22.Public Art
Public Art defined, approved, and installed in accordance with section 2.17 of the
Ashland Municipal Code shall not be regulated as a sign per the provisions of this
Chapter.
23.
21.Roof Sign
Any sign erected upon, against, or directly above a roof or top of or above the parapet of a
building.
24.
22.Shopping Center or Business Complex
Any business or group of businesses which are in a building or group of buildings, on one or
more lots which are contiguous or which are separated by a public right-of-way or a privately
owned flag drive used for access and not greater than 35 feet in width, which are
constructed and/or managed as a single entity, and share ownership and/or function.
25.
23.Sign
Any identification, description, illustration, symbol or device which is placed or affixed
directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or land, Interior illuminated panels, fascia
strips, bands, columns, or other interior illuminated decorative features located on or off a
structure, visible from the public right-of-way, and with or without lettering or graphics shall
Public Art shall
also be considered a sign and included in the overall sign area of the site.
not be considered a sign.
26.
24.Sign, Public
A sign erected by a public officer or employee in the performance of a public duty which
shall include, but not be limited to, motorist informational signs and warning lights.
27.
25.Street Frontage
The lineal dimension in feet that the property upon which a structure is built abuts a public
street or streets.
28. Real Estate Sign
A sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or portion of the premises, on
which the sign is located
29. Replacement Sign
A change in the size or materials of a sign in a location where a permitted sign had
previously existed prior to the proposed installation
30.
26.Temporary Sign
A sign which is not permanently affixed. All devices such as banners, pennants, flags, (not
including flags of national, state or city governments), searchlights, sandwich boards,
sidewalk signs, curb signs, balloons or other air or gas-filled balloons.
31. Three-Dimensional Sign
A sign which has a depth or relief on its surface greater than six inches exclusive of
the supporting sign structure and not to include projecting wall signs.
32.Vehicle Sign
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 3 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
A sign mounted on a vehicle, bicycle, trailer or boat, or fixed or attached to a device
for the purpose of transporting from site-to-site.
33.
27.Wall Graphics
Including but not limited to any mosaic, mural or painting or graphic art technique or
combination or grouping of mosaics, murals, or paintings or graphic art techniques applied,
implanted or placed directly onto a wall or fence.
34.
28.Wall Sign
A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building with the face in a parallel plane of
the building wall.
35.
29.Wind Sign or Device
Any sign or device in the nature of banners, flags, balloons, or other objects fastened in
such a manner as to move upon being subject to pressures by wind or breeze.
SECTION 18.96.030 Exempted Signs.
The following signs and devices shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter except for
18.96.040 and
18.96.140
A. Informational signs placed by the City of Ashland, or by the State or Oregon in the publicly
Collective identification or directory signs placed by the City of
owned right-of-way.
Ashland showing the types and locations of various civic, business, recreation,
historic interest areas, or other similar uses, when such signs are located on
publically owned right-of-way or on City of Ashland property.
B. Memorial tablets, cornerstones, or similar plaques not exceeding six square feet in size.
C. Flags of national, state or local governments.
D. Signs within a building provided they are not visible to persons outside the building.
E. Temporary signs not exceeding four square feet, provided the signs are erected no more
than 45 days prior to and removed within seven days following an election.
(Ord 2844; S1 1999)
(not more than one per tax lot)or construction
F. Temporary, non-illuminated real estate
signs not exceeding six square feet in residential areas or twelve square feet in commercial
and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed within fifteen days from the sale,
or within seven days of completion of the project.Such
lease or rental of the property
signs shall be limited to one sign per lot. Freestanding temporary real estate signs
shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
G.
Option 1
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet
in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas,
provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such
signs shall be limited to one sign per lot. Freestanding temporary construction signs
shall be no greater than five feet above grade.
Option 2
Temporary non-illuminated construction signs on a lot not exceeding sixteen (16)
square feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and
industrial areas, provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of
the project. Such signs shall be limited to no more than four signs per lot.
Freestanding temporary construction signs shall be no greater than five feet above
grade.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 4 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
H.
G.Small incidental signs provided said signs do not exceed two square feet in area per
streetbusiness
sign, not more than two in number on any parcel or two per frontage,
Within the Downtown Design Standards Zone, three incidental
whichever is greater.
signs with a total area of seven square feet, provided no single incidental sign
exceeds three square feet in area, are allowable per business frontage.
I.
H.Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone, when such
signs do not obscure more than twenty percent of such window area, and are maintained for
a period not exceeding seven days. Signs which remain longer than seven days will be
considered permanent and must comply with the provisions of the Ashland Sign Code
(18.96).
J.
I.Any sign which is not visible to motorists or pedestrians on any public highway, sidewalk,
street or alley.
K. incandescent
J.Strings of Lights. Strings of lights in non-residential zones where the
, the bulbs are placed no closer than 6" apart
lights do not exceed 5 watts per bulband
do not flash or blink in any way. Strings of lights in residential zones are not regulated.
(Ord. 2660, 1991)
L.
K.Temporary non-illuminated signs not exceeding 16 square feet for charitable fundraising
events placed by non-profit and charitable organizations. Such signs shall not be placed
more than seven days prior to the event and must be removed within two days following the
event. No more than two such events may be advertised in this manner per lot per year.
(Ord. 2323, 1984)
All of the foregoing exempted signs shall be subject to the other regulations contained in this
Chapter 18.96 relative to the size, lighting or spacing of such sign.
(Ord. 2221, 1982)
SECTION 18.96.040 Prohibited Signs.
A. No sign, unless exempted or allowed pursuant to this Chapter, shall be permitted except as
may be provided in Section 18.96.030.
(Ord. 2221, 1982)
B. No movable sign, temporary sign or bench sign shall be permitted except as may be
provided in Section 18.96.030.
C. No wind sign, device, or captive balloon shall be permitted except as may be provided in
Section 18.96.030.
(Ord. 2221, 1982; Ord. 2440, 1988)
D. No flashing signs shall be permitted.
E. No sign shall have or consist of any moving, rotating, or otherwise animated part.
F. No three-dimensional statue, caricature or representation of persons, animals or
except as may be
merchandise shall be used as a sign or incorporated into a sign structure
provided in Sections 18.96.080(B)5, and 18.96.090(B)4
G. No public address system or sound devices shall be used in conjunction with any sign or
advertising device.
H. No roof signs or signs which project above the roof shall be permitted.
I. No exposed sources of illumination shall be permitted on any sign, or for the decoration of
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 5 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
any building, including, but not limited to, neon or fluorescent tubing and flashing
incandescent bulbs, except when the source of illumination is within a building, and at least
ten (10) feet from a window which allows visibility from the public right-of-way, or when a
sign is internally illuminated or the source of light is fully shielded from the public view.
J. No signs which use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects or are internally illuminated in
the Historic District, as identified in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, or in any residential
districts shall be permitted.
K. No bulletin boards or signs with changeable copy shall be permitted, except as allowed in
Section 18.96.060(D).
L.No wall graphics shall be permitted.
L.
M.No unofficial sign which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles an official traffic
sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which hides from view
any official traffic sign or signal shall be permitted.
M.Vehicle signs used as static displayssuch that the primary purpose of the vehicle is
the display of the sign, placed or parked where visible from off-premises or the public
right-of-way for a continuous period of 2 days or more. Vehicles and equipment
regularly used in the conduct of the business such as delivery vehicles, construction
vehicles, fleet vehicles, or similar uses, shall not be subjected to this prohibition.
SECTION 18.96.050 Sign Permits.
A. Sign Permit Required. A sign permit is required in each of the following instances:
1. Upon the erection of any new sign except exempted signs.
2. To make alteration to an existing sign, including a change in the size or materials.
Permits shall not be required for minor maintenance and repairs to existing signs or for
changes in sign copy for conforming signs.
3. To alter an existing non-conforming sign, subject to Section 18.96.150.
4. To erect a temporary sign for a new business subject to Section 18.96.050(D).
B. Required Information for a Sign Permit. For the purposes of review by the Staff Advisor and
Building Official, a drawing to scale shall be submitted which indicates fully the material,
color, texture, dimensions, shape, relation and attachment to building and other structures,
structural elements of the proposed sign, and the size and dimensions of any other signs
located on the applicant's building or property.
C. Temporary Signs for New Businesses. The Staff Advisor or his/her designate can issue a
permit for a temporary sign for new businesses for a period not to exceed seven days. A
permit is required for these signs but the permit fee is waived.
D. Unsafe or Illegal Signs.
1. If the Staff Advisor or Building Official shall find that any sign is unsafe or insecure, or
any sign erected or established under a sign permit has been carried out in violation of
said permit or this chapter, he/she shall give written notice to the permittee or owner
thereof to remove or alter such sign within seven days.
2. The Staff Advisor or Building Official may cause any sign which is an immediate peril to
persons or property, or sign erected without a permit, to be removed immediately, and
said sign shall not be re-established until a valid permit has been issued. Failure to
remove or alter said signs as directed shall subject the permittee or owner to the
penalties prescribed in this Title.
3. Any person who erects, constructs, prints, paints or otherwise makes a sign for which a
sign permit or approval is required under Chapter 18.96 without first having determined a
permit has been obtained for such sign, has committed an infraction, and upon
conviction thereof is punishable as prescribed in section 1.08.020 of the Ashland
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 6 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
Municipal Code. It shall not be a defense to this section that such person erected,
constructed, printed, painted or otherwise made the sign for another.
(amended Ord. 2754, 1995)
E. Sign Permit Record Required. The Planning Department shall keep a copy and permanent
record of each sign permit issued.
F. Sign Permit Fee. The fee for a sign permit shall be as set forth in Resolution No. 88-01, as
adopted by the City Council. The fee for any sign which is erected without a sign permit
shall be double the regular sign fee.
SECTION 18.96.060 General Sign Regulations.
The following general provisions shall govern all signs in addition to all other applicable
provisions of this chapter.
A. Variances. The following regulations pertaining to signs are not subject to the variance
section of this Code:
1. Section 18.96.040 - Prohibited signs.
2. Section 18.96.110 - Abatement of nuisance signs.
3. Section 18.96.120 - Construction and maintenance standards.
4. The size, height and number of constraints of Sections 18.96.070, 18.96.080, 18.96.090
and 18.96.100, except as may be allowed in 18.96.130.
B. Obstruction by Signs. No sign or portion thereof shall be placed so that it obstructs any fire
escape, stairway or standpipe; interferes with human exit through any window of any room
located above the first floor of any building; obstructs any door or required exit from any
building; or obstructs any required light or ventilation.
C. Bulletin Board or Reader Board. Twenty (20) percent of permitted sign area may be allowed
as a bulletin board or reader board.
D. Placement of Signs.
1. Near residential.
No sign shall be located in a commercial or industrial district so that it is primarily visible
only from a residential district.
2. Near street intersections.
No signs in excess of two and one-half feet in height shall be placed in the vision
clearance area. The vision clearance area is the triangle formed by a line connecting
points twenty-five feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an
intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting
points ten feet along the alley and twenty-five feet along the street. When the angle of
intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall
be twenty-five feet. This provision shall apply to all zones.
3. Near driveways.
No sign or portion of thereof shall be erected within ten feet of driveways unless the
same is less than two and one-half feet in height.
4. Future street right-of-way.
No sign or portion thereof shall be erected within future street right-of-ways, as depicted
upon the Master Street Plan, unless and until an agreement is recorded stipulating that
the sign will be removed or relocated upon street improvements at no expense to the
City.
SECTION 18.96.070 Residential and North Mountain Sign Regulations.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 7 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
Signs in the residential (R) and North Mountain (NM) districts shall conform to the following
regulations:
A. Special Provisions:
1. No sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the premises on
which such sign is located.
2. Internally illuminated signs shall not be permitted.
3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as permitting any type of sign in conjunction
with a commercial use allowed as a home occupation, as no signs are allowed in
conjunction with a home occupation. Signs in residential areas are only permitted in
conjunction with a Conditional Use.
B. Type of Signs Permitted.
1. Neighborhood identification signs. One sign shall be permitted at each entry point to
residential developments not exceeding an area of six square feet per sign with lettering
not over nine inches in height, located not over three feet above grade.
2. Conditional Uses. Uses authorized in accordance with the Chapter on Conditional Use
Permits may 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 sign in lieu of a ground sign. Such signs shall be approved in conjunction with the
issuance of such conditional use permit. Said signs shall not use plastic as part of the
exterior visual effect and shall not be internally illuminated.
3. Retail commercial uses allowed as a conditional use in the Railroad District and
traveler's accommodations in residential zones shall be allowed one wall sign or one
ground sign which meets the following criteria:
a. The total size of the sign is limited to six square feet.
b. The maximum height of any ground sign is to be three feet above grade.
c. The sign must be constructed of wood and cannot be internally illuminated.
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.
(ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008)
SECTION 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D).
Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall conform to the following regulations:
Special Provisions.
A.
1. Frontage.
The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be
placed only upon such business frontage. and no building shall be credited with more
.
than two business frontages
2. Aggregate number of signs.
The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each business
frontage (a frontage with an entrance/exit open to the general public).
3. Material.
No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall use plastic as part of the
exterior visual effects of the sign.
4. Aggregate area of signs.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 8 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street frontage
shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage.
Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real estate and construction signs.
Types of Signs Permitted.
B.
Wall Signs.
1.
a. Number.
Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one sign per
frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or suite.
b. Area.
Option 1
Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for one lineal
per
foot of legal business frontage. This area shall not exceed sixty square feet
business frontagefor a property with two or less business frontages, or
ninety square feet for a structure with three to four business frontages on
separate public streets. The maximum sign area on any single business
frontage shall not exceed sixty square feet.
Option 2
Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for one lineal
foot of legal business frontage This area shall not exceed sixty square feet.
Buildings with two or less business frontages shall be permitted one square
foot of sign area for each lineal foot of business frontage. Building frontages
of three or more, on a single building, shall be permitted one square foot of
sign area for every two lineal feet of business frontage. The maximum sign
area on any single business frontage shall not exceed sixty (60)square feet.
Business frontages of three or more, on a single building, shall comply with
the following criteria established within the City’s Site Design and Use
Standards:
i. A pedestrian entrance designed to be attractive and function, and open to
the public during all business hours
ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway connected to
a public sidewalk.
c. Projection.
two feet
Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inchesfrom the face of the
building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least
eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may only project four
inches.
d. Extension above roof line.
Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building.
Ground Signs.
2.
a. Number.
One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in
excess of fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count one street frontage. Two or more
parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the foregoing
standard.
b. Area.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 9 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of street
frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any
property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on corner
properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section
18.96.060(F).
d. Height.
No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
Marquee or Awning Signs.
3.
a. Number.
A maximum of two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall
signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a
wall sign.
c. Projection.
Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above the
face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee.
d. Height.
Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if placed below the marquee.
e. Clearance above grade.
The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than seven feet,
six inches above grade.
f. Signs painted on a marquee.
Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall signs provided the signs do not
exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs.
Projection Signs.
4.
a. Number.
One sign shall be permitted for each business or group of businesses occupying a
single common space or suite in lieu of a wall sign.
b. Area.
Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign shall not exceed an area of
one square foot for each two feet of lineal business frontage that is not already
utilized by a wall sign. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be 15 square
feet.
c. Projection.
Signs may project from the face of the building to which they are attached a
maximum of two feet if located eight feet above grade, or three feet if located nine
feet above grade or more.
d. Height and extension above roof line.
Signs shall not extend above the roofline, eave or parapet wall of the building to
which they are attached, or be lower than eight feet above grade.
e. Limitation on placement.
No projecting sign shall be placed on any frontage on an arterial street as designated
in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
5. Three-Dimensional Signs.
a. Number.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 10 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
Option 1
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lotThis is in addition
.
to the limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning
or marquee signs.
Option 2
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one three
square foot incidental sign otherwise allowed per 18.96.030H.
b. Surface Area.
Flat surfaces in excess of two square feet shall count toward the total
aggregate sign area per 18.96.080(A)4.
c. Placement.
The three-dimensional sign shall be located so that no sign or portion thereof
shall is within a public pedestrian easement or extends beyond any property
line of the premises on which such sign is located into the public right-of-way
unless an encroachment permit has been issued.
d. Dimensions.
No three-dimensional sign shall have a height, width, or depth in excess of
three feet.
e. Volume.
The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be calculated as the entire
volume within a rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of
the sign and shall not exceed three (3) cubic feet. For the purposes of
calculating volume the minimum dimension for height, width, or depth shall be
considered one foot.
f. Materials
The three-dimensional signs shall be constructed of metal, wood, bronze,
concrete, stone, glass, clay, or other durable material, all of which are treated
to prevent corrosion or reflective glare. Three dimensional signs shall not be
constructed of plastic. Three dimensional signs shall not be internally
illuminated or contain any electrical component.
6 Portable Business Signs
a. Number
One portable business sign, limited to sandwich boards, pedestal signs, and
‘A’ frame signs, shall be allowed on each lot excepting that buildings or
businesses with permanent ground signs shall not be permitted to have
portable signs.
b. Area.
Sign area shall be deducted from the aggregate sign allowed for exempt
incidental signs established in 18.96.030(H). Signs shall not exceed an area of
four (4) square feet per face including any border or trim, and there shall be no
more than two (2) faces.
c. Height.
Sandwich board signs and ‘A’ frame signs shall not extend more than three (3)
feet above the ground on which it is placed. Pedestal signs shall not extend
more than four (4) feet above the ground on which it is placed.
d. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 11 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Portable signs
shall not be placed on public right-of-way.
e. Limitation on placement.
No portable business sign shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere
with pedestrian ingress and egress as regulated within the Ashland Municipal
Code.
g. General Limitations
Signs shall be anchored, supported, or designed as to prevent tipping over,
which reasonably prevents the possibility of signs becoming hazards to public
health and safety. Signs shall not be constructed of plastic, illuminated or
contain any electrical component. No objects shall be attached to a portable
sign such as but not limited to balloons, banners, merchandise, and electrical
devices. Portable business signs shall be removed at the daily close of
business. These signs are prohibited while the business is closed.
SECTION 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts.
Signs in commercial, industrial and employment districts, excepting the Downtown-Commercial
Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay District, shall conform to the following regulations:
Special Provisions.
A.
1. Frontage.
The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be
placed only upon such business frontage. and no building shall be credited with more
.
than two business frontages
2. Aggregate number of signs.
The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each business
frontage.
3. Aggregate area of signs.
The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street frontage,
shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of
street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and temporary real estate
and construction signs.
Types of Signs Permitted.
B.
Wall Signs.
1.
a. Number.
Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one sign per
frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or suite.
b. Area.
Option 1
Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for one lineal
per
foot of legal business frontage. This area shall not exceed sixty square feet
business frontagefor a property with two or less business frontages, or
ninety square feet for a structure with three to four business frontages on
separate public streets. The maximum sign area on any single business
frontage shall not exceed sixty square feet.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 12 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
Option 2
Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for one lineal
foot of legal business frontage This area shall not exceed sixty square feet.
Buildings with two or less business frontages shall be permitted one square
foot of sign area for each lineal foot of business frontage. Building frontages
of three or more, on a single building, shall be permitted one square foot of
sign area for every two lineal feet of business frontage. The maximum sign
area on any single business frontage shall not exceed sixty (60)square feet.
Business frontages of three or more, on a single building, shall comply with
the following criteria established within the City’s Site Design and Use
Standards:
i. A pedestrian entrance designed to be attractive and function, and open to
the public during all business hours
ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway connected to
a public sidewalk.
c. Projection.
Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign may project a maximum of
two feet
eighteen inches from the face of the building to which they are attached,
provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion
lower than eight feet can only project four inches.
d. Extension above roof line.
Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building.
Ground Signs.
2.
a. Number.
One sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of fifty lineal
feet. Corner lots can count both street frontages in determining the lineal feet of the
street frontage but only one ground sign is permitted on corner lots. Two or more
parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the foregoing
standard.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of street
frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any
property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on corner
properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section
18.96.060(F).
d. Height.
No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade.
Awning or Marquee Signs.
3.
a. Number.
Two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall signs.
b. Area.
Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a wall sign.
c. Projection.
Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above or
below the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee.
d. Height.
Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if attached to the marquee.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 13 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
e. Clearance above grade.
The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than seven feet,
six inches above grade.
f. Signs painted on a marquee.
Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall sign provided the signs do not
exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs.
4. Three-Dimensional Signs.
a. Number.
One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street
frontage in excess of 50 lineal feetThis is in addition to the limitations
.
established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning or marquee
signs.
b. Surface Area.
Flat surfaces in excess of two square feet shall count toward the total
aggregate sign area per 18.96.080(A)4.
c. Placement.
The three-dimensional sign shall be located a minimum of ten feet from a
property line and no sign or portion thereof shall be located within a public
pedestrian easement.
d. Dimensions.
No three-dimensional sign shall have a height, width, or depth in excess of six
feet.
e. Volume.
The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be calculated as the entire
volume within a rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of
the sign and shall not exceed 20 cubic feet. For the purposes of calculating
volume the minimum dimension for height, width, or depth shall be considered
one foot.
f. Materials
The three-dimensional signs shall be constructed of metal, wood, bronze,
concrete, stone, glass, clay, or other durable material, all of which are treated
to prevent corrosion or reflective glare. Three dimensional signs shall not be
constructed of plastic. Three dimensional signs shall not be internally
illuminated or contain any electrical component.
5. Portable Business Signs
a. Number
One portable business sign, limited to sandwich boards, pedestal signs, and
‘A’ frame signs, shall be allowed on each lot excepting that buildings or
businesses with permanent ground signs shall not be permitted to have
portable signs.
b. Area.
Sign shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by
exempt incidental signs per 18.96.030(H). Signs shall not exceed an area of
four (4) square feet per face including any border or trim, and there shall be no
more than two (2) faces.
c. Height.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 14 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
Sandwich board signs and ‘A’ frame signs shall not extend more than three (3)
feet above the ground on which it is placed. Pedestal signs shall not extend
more than four (4) feet above the ground on which it is placed.
d. Placement.
Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond
any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Portable signs
shall not be placed on public right-of-way.
e. Limitation on placement.
No portable business sign shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere
with pedestrian ingress and egress as regulated within the Ashland Municipal
Code.
f. General Limitations
Signs shall be anchored, supported, or designed as to prevent tipping over,
which reasonably prevents the possibility of signs becoming hazards to public
health and safety. Signs shall not be constructed of plastic , illuminated or
contain any electrical component. No objects shall be attached to a portable
sign such as but not limited to balloons, banners, merchandise, and electrical
devices. Portable business signs shall be removed at the daily close of
business. These signs are prohibited while the business is closed.
SECTION 18.96.100 Freeway Sign Zone.
Purpose.
A. This special overlay zone is intended to provide for and regulate certain ground
signs which identify businesses in commercial districts located at freeway interchanges.
Establishment and Location of Freeway Sign Zones.
B.Freeway sign zones shall be
depicted on the official zoning map of the City and identified as the Freeway Overlay District.
Freeway Overlay Sign Regulations.
C. All signs in this district shall comply with Section
18.96.090, except for ground signs, which shall comply with the provisions of Section
18.96.100(D), ground sign regulations.
Ground Sign Regulations.
D.
1. Number.
One freeway sign shall be permitted for each lot in addition to the signs allowed by
18.96.090 of this Chapter.
(Ord. 2290, 1984)
2. Area.
Signs shall not exceed an area of one hundred (100) square feet per sign.
3. Height.
Signs shall not exceed a height of 2028 feet above mean sea level.
SECTION 18.96.110 Abatement of Nuisance Signs.
The following signs are hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be removed or the
nuisance abated:
A. Flashing sign visible from a public street or highway.
portable signs located on the publically owned right-of-
B. Temporary, or movable signs or
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 15 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
way.
C. Illegal signs.
D. Signs in obvious disrepair which are not maintained according to the standards set forth in
18.96.120(C).
SECTION 18.96.120 Construction and Maintenance Standards.
Materials of construction.
A.
1. Single and multi-family residential districts.
All signs and their supporting member may be constructed of any material subject to the
provisions of this Chapter.
2. Commercial and industrial districts.
All signs and their supporting members shall be constructed of non-combustible
materials or fire-retardant treated wood which maintains its fire-resistive qualities when
tested in accordance with the rain and weathering tests of the U.B.C. Standards No.32-
37, unless otherwise provided in this Section.
3. Non-treated signs.
All wall, ground, marquee and projecting signs of twenty square feet or less may be
constructed of non-treated wood.
4. Real estate and construction signs.
All signs may be constructed of compressed wood particle board or other material of
similar fire resistivity.
5. Directly illuminated signs.
All signs illuminated from within may be faced with plastics approved by the Building
Code.
6. Glass.
All glass used in signs shall be shatter-resistant, or covered by a shatter-resistant
material.
7. Wood.
Wood in contact with the ground shall be foundation-grade redwood, foundation-grade
cedar, all heartwood cypress, or any species of wood which has been pressure-treated
with an approved preservative. Trim and backing strips may be constructed of wood.
Construction Methods.
B.
1. All signs shall be constructed of such materials or treated in such manner that normal
weathering will not harm, deface or otherwise affect the sign.
2. All letters, figure and similar message elements shall be safely and securely attached to
the sign structure.
3. All signs shall be designed and constructed to resist the applicable wind loads set forth
in the Building Code.
Maintenance.
C. All signs shall be maintained at all times in a state of good repair, and no
person shall maintain or permit to be maintained on any premises owned or controlled by
him/her, any sign which is in a sagging, leaning, fallen, decayed, deteriorated or other
dilapidated or unsafe condition.
SECTION 18.96.130 Nonconforming Signs.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 16 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
A. Any sign which does not conform with a provision of the Ashland Sign Code, and has been
in existence for more than five years, is subject to this Section.
B. Alteration of any existing nonconforming sign. It is unlawful to alter any existing
nonconforming sign. The sign must be brought into conformance with this Title upon any
physical alteration. Acts of God or vandalism which damage these nonconforming signs
shall be exempt from this Section, if the cost of the repair is less than 50% of the cost of
replacing the sign with a conforming sign. However, the signs must be restored to their
original design and a permit with a $10.00 fee will be required prior to the repair work.
C. Any nonconforming sign used by a business, shopping center, or business complex must be
brought into conformance prior to any expansion or change in use which requires a Site
Review or Conditional Use Permit. All nonconforming signs must be brought into
conformance with the same provisions as are required for new signs. No building permits
for new construction may be issued until this provision is complied with.
D. Variances can be granted using the variance procedure of this Title to alleviate unusual
hardships or extraordinary circumstances which exist in bringing nonconforming signs into
conformity. The variance granted shall be the minimum required to alleviate the hardship or
extraordinary circumstance.
(Ord. 2357, 1985)
SECTION 18.96.140 Enforcement.
The portions of this Chapter relating to the structural characteristics and safety of signs shall be
enforced by the Building Official or his/her designate; all other portions shall be enforced by the
Staff Advisory or designate.
(Ord. 2176, 1982)
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.
(ORD 2951, amended, 07/01/2008)
SECTION 18.96.160 Historic Signs.
A. Historic Sign Inventory. The inventory of historically significant signs shall be established by
resolution of the City Council.
B. Criteria for designation of historic signs. All signs for which designation as a Historic Sign
are requested shall be substantially in existence at the time of the application; shall be
displayed in their original location; shall be in association with an important event, person,
group, or business in the history of the City of Ashland; shall follow a guideline of being in
existence for approximately 40 years; and shall meet one of the following criteria:
1. The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it was
constructed, uses historic sign materials or means of illumination, and is not significantly
altered from its historic period. If the sign has been altered, it must be restorable to its
historic appearance.
2. The sign is integrated into the architecture of the building and is exemplary of a
historically significant architectural style.
C. The owner of any sign may request that said sign be reviewed for significance in the Historic
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 17 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
Sign Inventory upon written application to the City Council. Application fees shall be the
same as for Type I applications. Applications shall include written findings addressing the
criteria for designation of historic signs, and current and historic photographs of the sign, if
available.
1. The Council shall refer all requests for inclusion on the Historic Sign Inventory to the
Historic Commission for review and recommendation to the Council within 30 days of the
request. Notice of the Historic Commission meeting shall be mailed to all affected
property owners within 100' of the subject property. If a recommendation is not made
within 30 days, the request shall be forwarded to the Council without a recommendation.
2. The Council shall, after receiving the recommendation of the Historic Commission or
after 30 days, provide notice to all affected property owners within 100' of the subject
property of a public hearing before the City Council.
3. The Council shall decide, based on the criteria above and the recommendation of the
Historic Commission, whether to approve the request to include the sign on the
inventory.
4. Inclusion on the Historic Sign Inventory shall be by resolution of the Council.
5. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant.
D. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory in any zoning district shall be exempt from the
requirements of this Section except Sections 18.96.110 and 18.96.120(D). Also, that the
sign area of the historic sign is exempted from the total allowable sign area, as defined in
this Section, except as modified by Council conditions in E. below.
E. The City Council shall have the authority to impose conditions regulating area, maintenance,
etc. on the signs included in the Historic Sign Inventory to further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance.
F. Removal or demolition of a Historic Sign shall be done under permit and approval of the
Staff Advisor. The Historic Commission shall review the permit at their next regularly
scheduled meeting and shall have the authority to delay issuance for 30 days from the date
of their review meeting. Such delay shall be to allow the Commission the opportunity to
discuss alternate plans for the sign with the applicant.
G. Signs on the Historic Sign Inventory, which have been destroyed or damaged by fire or
other calamity, by act of God or by public enemy to an extent greater than 50%, may be
reconstructed in an historically accurate manner. Such reconstruction shall be authorized by
the City Council, only after determination that the reconstruction will be an accurate
duplication of the historic sign, based on review of photographic or other documentary
evidence specifying the historic design. The Historic Commission shall review and make
recommendations to the City Council on all such reconstructions.
H. Maintenance and Modification of Historic Signs.
1. All parts of the historic sign, including but not limited to neon tubes, incandescent lights
and shields, and sign faces, shall be maintained in a functioning condition as historically
intended for the sign. Replacement of original visible components with substitutes to
retain the original appearance shall be permitted provided such replacements accurately
reproduce the size, shape, color and finish of the original. Failure to maintain the sign in
accord with this section shall be grounds for review of the historic sign designation by
the City Council.
2. Modifications of a historic sign may be allowed, after review by the Historic Commission
and approval by the City Council, only if such modifications do not substantially change
the historic style, scale, height, type of material or dimensions of the historic sign, and
does not result in a sign which does not meet the criteria for designation as a historic
sign.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 18 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
LAND USE CODE
3. Changes in the location of a historic sign may be allowed, after review by the Historic
Commission and approval by the City Council, only if such locational change does not
result in the sign no longer meeting the criteria for designation as a historic sign.
(Ord. 2598, 1990)
DRAFT AMENDMENTS
Feb. 10, 2009
Page 19 of 19 – SIGN REGULATIONS
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 2, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Excerpted Section pertaining to the Downtown Task Force Recommendations
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force relating to
employee parking restrictions in the downtown area, proposed changes to the City's sign code
and permissible use of public sidewalk area, and direct City staff to prepare ordinance language
for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council, as necessary?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report that included background
information on the issues reviewed by the Downtown Task Force. These issues were related to
employee parking restrictions in the downtown, sign code and permissible use of the public
sidewalk area.
Pam Hammond, Chair of the Downtown Task Force, Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager and
John Stromberg, Chair of the Planning Commission presented the summary report that included
the following 9 issues along with recommendations:
Issue #1: Particularly in the Downtown area, the current limitation of two exempt signs per
business, with each sign not exceeding a size of two square feet, does not seem to meet the
needs of many local merchants.
Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three; increase the third
sign from two to three square feet.
Issue #2: The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional statues, caricatures or
representations of persons, animals or merchandise from being used as a sign or incorporated
into a sign structure.
Recommendation: For properties within the Downtown or one of Ashland's four Historic Districts,
allow one of the three exempt signs to be three-dimensional; allow an additional exempt 3-D sign
for properties outside the Historic Districts with a volumetric maximum.
Issue #3: Some businesses, by virtue of their physical location and entrances, such as smaller
side streets and alleys, have limited signage opportunities along the main streets within the
downtown area.
Recommendation Increase the maximum distance that a sign can project from the building face
from the 18 inches to 24 inches.
Discussion on these issues:
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks responded to an inquiry regarding issue #3 and explained
the 24-inch sign could display on the front side of buildings for shops located down alleyways,
etc.
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that Council could only regulate time, place and
manner of signs, not content.
Issue #4: Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition on off-
premise signs, generally consisting of the placement of temporary, movable signs (i.e. sandwich
boards) upon the public sidewalk or other public property. Some merchants feel that due to
specific characteristics associated with location of their business frontage they lack adequate
exposure. Off-premise signage is one means of drawing attention to the business location.
Recommendation: Create a set of policies and implement guidelines for the placement of
information/directional signs by the City in the right of way or other publicly controlled property.
Issue #5: The use of the public right of way, for private commercial use is limited by the
Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafes (AMC 6.44), which may not be the most equitable method for
allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public sidewalks.
Recommendation: Amend the ordinance to allow any abutting properties (within a commercial or
employment district) the opportunity to obtain a permit for private use of a portion of the public
sidewalk, as long as merchants meet specific public safety and access standards.
Issue #6: The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the
encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what types of functional
objects are encouraged, allowed or legal for placement upon a city sidewalk or within the public
right of way.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance or an appropriate approval process by which specific
functional items may be established upon the City sidewalk. It would be contingent upon the
items meeting City specifications, as well as retaining minimum clearance, public safety and
placement standards. Additionally, Council would direct staff to explore an exemption to have free
use of the shy zone, the area along the sidewalk within the 12 to 18 inches of the building face,
for placement of such amenities as flower boxes, doorstops, etc.
Issue #7: The proliferation of newspaper and other miscellaneous publication racks within the
downtown is creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to installation of newspaper and other publication
racks.
Discussion on these issues:
Ms. Hammond provided examples for Issue 5 explaining merchants could display fresh flowers, t-
shirts, etc.
Concerns regarding regulations for the Sidewalk Sale and café tables were noted. City Attorney
Richard Appicello explained they would address permits for the sidewalk sale when they expire.
Ms. Bennett explained that café tables would come to Council as a right of way issue later.
Issue #8: Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly
inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have expressed
concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and employee access to the
downtown area while not at work.
Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in the downtown
area.
Issue #9 The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to more
efficiently administer the downtown-parking program.
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow vehicles that have
either five unpaid parking tickets or a total unpaid parking ticket balance of $250. Develop a final,
visible, warning placard to be placed upon a vehicle at least 24 hours prior to the vehicle being
towed. The Task Force does not recommend the use of a booting/immobilization device over the
option of towing the vehicle.
Discussion on these issues:
Mr. Appicello explained that the ordinance would allow noticing for individuals who had five
violations prior to towing or booting the vehicle.
The Task Force identified additional issues for consideration that allocate staff resources to
review sign code amendments every two years and exempt Public Art from the sign code, sign
code review and education.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison St/Submitted a letter from Garrett Furuichi that requested a
modification to the sign code. He asked Council to add an exception that would "allow signage on
the side of the building that is the primary entrance or only entrance to the business." Currently
signs are precluded on the third or fourth sides of a building.
Jeff Compton/770 Acorn Circle/Owner of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. Stated that the
Task Force was too restrictive. The City can dictate what goes outside of his business but not
inside.
George Kramer/386 N Laurel/Encouraged Council to add language to the code that would allow
signs where the entrance to a business was on the side of a building. He commented that the
sign code was complicated but necessary and that the Task Force had attempted to make it a
little better.
Councilor Hartzell asked that Staff reconcile the word "prohibited" versus "exempt" in Issue 2.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to accept recommendations of the Downtown Task Force
and direct staff to develop a work plan and timeline for developing implementing
ordinance language that addresses Task Force recommendations with the addition of
what was noted by the City Administrator as well as the question raised about signs on
non-dominate sides.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty commented that the Task Force had accomplished a lot and it
was worthwhile. Councilor Navickas was not sympathetic to the proposed changes, stating they
seemed more a reaction to staff enforcement and Council should be very careful about creating
legislation around these recommendations. Councilor Hartzell emphasized that the intention was
to send the recommendations to the Planning Commission for another committee review.
Councilor Silbiger appreciated the businesses that complied when informed of their sign code
violation. Mayor Morrison said the purpose for forming the Task Force was to find a middle
ground between the need for regulation and the need to re-examine. The Task Force did a
tremendous job even though not everyone was happy. He complimented Pam Hammond and the
committee on completion of this task.
Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty and Jackson, YES. Motion
passed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 27, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Planning Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Tom Dimitre Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Deborah Miller Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
David Dotterrer
Michael Church
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
None Eric Navickas
POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE (Based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations)
Dawkins noted the public hearing for this item is scheduled for the February Planning Commission meeting. He stated this is
the time for the Commissioners to get their questions answers and to raise any issues so that staff knows what needs to be
addressed before this ordinance comes back for approval.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the packet includes a letter from the Public Arts Commission outlining
their issues with the 3D sign provision. He added members from that Commission are here tonight to provide testimony. Mr.
Molnar provided a brief explanation of the Sign Code and stated it is based on where the property is zoned, and then there is
a formula for the overall amount of signage allowed. Then there is a breakdown for wall signs and ground signs, and an
allotment for incidental signs.
Mr. Molnar stated the public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for the February 10th Planning Commission meeting and
noted Staff is in the process of scheduling a combined walking tour with the City Council that will likely be held on February 5
th
at 4:30 p.m.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation to the Commission. The presentation included several depictions of
what permitted signage with the current Sign Code looks like, and what it would look like with the proposed changes. He also
displayed several photos of what the downtown area and Siskiyou Boulevard used to look like before the Sign Code was
adopted. He stated the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to gather input from the Commission and asked if they had any
questions or comments on the draft ordinance.
Mr. Goldman provided a brief explanation of internal illuminated signs and indirect illuminated signs. He stated internal
illuminated signs can be used outside the downtown area and the sign can have lighting within it, but the lighting mechanism
itself cannot be visible. He added indirect illumination is when light is directed onto the face of the sign, but is not part of the
sign itself. Mr. Molnar commented on neon signs and noted the Sign Code was amended to recognize neon represents the
character of a certain period in time, and locations such as the Varsity theater and Palm Motel could maintain or bring back
their neon signage.
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 1 of 4
Staff was asked to clarify in what ways the proposed ordinance differs from the Downtown Task Force recommendations. Mr.
Goldman stated the provision to limit the use of vehicle signs was added by staff (vehicles parked exclusively for the purpose
of displaying business signage). Another change not recommended by the Task Force but requested by the City Council was
the opportunity for additional business frontages. Lastly, staff is recommending the ordinance include a distinction between
real estate signs and construction signs. Mr. Goldman stated one last item that staff needs clarification on is whether the 3D
sign (3-cubic feet) inside the downtown area is a separate allocation or whether it should be subtracted from the 7-sq. ft.
allotment. He stated the current draft of the ordinance has this as a separate allocation.
Commissioner Morris asked for clarification on the public art provision. Mr. Goldman explained the ordinance removes public
art from consideration as a sign, and it would no longer be regulated under the Land Use Code. He added public art would fall
under a difference process and different chapter in the Code. Morris questioned which section of the Code would apply if the
Planning Commission required public art as part of a large scale development. Mr. Molnar did not have an answer, but stated
he would consult with the City Attorney.
Morris questioned the 35-ft width provision on page 3 of the ordinance, under “Shopping Center or Business Complex.” He
also questioned the language regarding temporary construction signs on page 4, item G, and asked if there was a limit on the
number of signs or just the maximum square footage. Mr. Goldman stated the intent was to limit this to one larger sign per lot.
Comment was made suggesting this language be revised to allow multiple signs so long as they do not exceed the total
allowable square footage. Morris suggested the language on page 5, “Strings of Lights” also be clarified. Comment was made
that they may want to remove the word “incandescent.”
Mr. Goldman presented some sign area calculation examples and noted the different options and formulas that could be
utilized. He requested the Commission provide input on which option they prefer. He noted what they are currently doing is
looking at the rectangular shape that bounds the sign, and while a circle or triangle shape could be used as well, staff is
hesitant to expand much beyond this.
Dana Bussell/Public Arts Commission/Noted she was also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell stated the
Public Arts Commission supports the exemption of public art from the Sign Code, but they are opposed to 3D signs outside
the downtown area. She expressed their concerns for 3D signs of significant size and stated it is likely that many businesses
would take advantage of this change. Ms. Bussell stated the object that the Task Force hoped to bring into compliance was
the Alfredo statue outside Wiley’s Pasta. She questioned how the size of these objects would be configured and questioned if
the Alfredo statue was too big to fit within the proposed size limit. She noted the desire of businesses located near Exit 14 to
be noticed and urged the Commission to be cautious. She stated once these items are in place it will be difficult to have them
removed. Ms. Bussell suggested an alternative is to recognize the item that prompted this amendment (Alfredo) is not a sign
and should not be treated as such.
David Wilkerson/Public Arts Commission/Noted he is also a local architect and is familiar with the City’s Sign Code. Mr.
Wilkerson voiced his concerns with the unintended consequences that the Task Force recommendations would allow. He
stated the City is not allowed to limit the sign content and stated the current ordinance is what has prevented the visual clutter
that you see in Medford. He stated the Sign Code has helped to maintain Ashland’s charming environment and encouraged
them to take another path. Mr. Wilkerson suggested if these items are considered public art, they could be subjected to a
separate process and thinks this is a much safer approach. He concluded by urging the Commission to consider the
alternative presented by the Public Arts Commission.
Council Liaison Navickas indicated that the City Council was reluctant to the 3D allowance outside the downtown area, but
wanted the Planning Commission’s opinion before they moved forward.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUSTAINABILITY WORK GROUP
Commissioner Mindlin presented an update of the Sustainability Work Group. She commented on the Planning Commission’s
decision to make sustainability a priority this year and stated the two paths the Group wanted to look into were: 1) what is
going on in the community, and 2) what are the other local governments doing. Mindlin commented on how they went about
gathering this information and their decision to not take the public hearing approach. She noted the ongoing meetings that
were held at the Ashland Library and noted some of the regulars who attended those meetings are also here tonight.
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 2 of 4
Mindlin reviewed the questionnaire that was used by the Work Group during their telephone interviews and clarified most of
the interviews took 30-45 minutes and the individuals were anxious to share their input. Mindlin commented on the different
sustainability frameworks that are utilized and commented on how her contacts were formed. She noted they ended up with
300 contacts and were able to inventory 150 of them.
Mindlin stated that Ashland has been considered a leader in sustainability for a long time, and a lot of this has to do with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. She noted some of the cities who are working on sustainability plans, and clarified a lot of this
reference material has come from California. Mindlin commented on Portland, Oregon and noted the recent merging of
Portland’s Bureau of Planning with the Office of Sustainable Development. She shared some information from the City of
Portland’s website and what they are doing to support sustainability.
Mindlin provided an overview of the information gathered by the Work Group, which was submitted to the Commission at the
beginning of the meeting. The sustainability inventory submitted by Mindlin was separated into the following categories: 1)
Nature Stewardship, 2) Built Environment, 3) Transportation, 4), Recycling & Reusing, 5) Energy, 6) Education and Culture, 7)
Health & Spirituality, 8) Economics and Business, 9) Local Government, 10) Community Connections, 11) Food Resources,
and 12) Youth.
Mindlin noted the work of Triple Bottom Line for the 21 Century and THRIVE. She stated Ashland has a program for certifying
st
Green Businesses which is administered through the Conservation Department. She also commented on the efforts of the
Ashland Chamber of Commerce. Mindlin noted the Work Group prioritized contacting Ashland based businesses and stated
80% of those inventoried are Ashland based.
Mindlin provided a brief overview of the work being conducted by Lomatski. She also commented on Willow Winds, the
Wilderness Charter School, and stated Southern Oregon University is listed as one of the Top 20 Green Colleges by the EPA.
She noted the Sentient Times, Plan-It You, Heart Circles, and Transition Town. Mindlin commented on the need for
intergenerational dialogue. She stated there are a lot of young people in the community that want to make a difference in the
world and stated Ashland needs to think about what it can do to keep our young people here.
Mindlin commented on how this inventory might be accessed, including a possible database housed on the Chamber of
Commerce website. She commented on how the information is organized and noted a lot of things did not fit within the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, including food security and sustainable food resources. Mindlin commented on the huge upwelling of
sustainability projects that were started in the past year and stated people are really concerned and want to find out what they
can do. She stated when individuals were asked what three issues were of most concern, she received a variety of responses.
However the most common responses were: 1) solar orientation, 2) rainwater catchment and infiltration, 3) food security, 4)
city land for community gardens, and 5) clustering housing on farms.
Comment was made questioning what the next undertaking is for this Work Group. Mindlin stated that her sense is that the
Planning Commission as a whole needs to take this issue up at a future meeting and discuss where they would like to go from
here. She noted the City Council usually sets their annual goals in the spring and this might be something that comes up in
that context.
CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Draft Plan. The presentation
outlined the elements in the Plan, including the following:
Locations of the Office & Employment District, Compatible Industrial District, Neighborhood Center, and Open Space
Traffic Circulation
Street Framework
Pedestrian & Bicycle Framework
Transit Framework
Parking
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Harris indicated the next steps for this project includes an update to the City Council on February 17, 2009, and then the City
will take the Plan through the local land use process for adoption. She noted this project is similar to the North Mountain Plan
and the City will need to draft a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance. She noted if any of the Commissioners wish to look at
the full Draft Plan, it is available on the City’s website.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Planning Commission Study Session
January 27, 2009
Page 4 of 4
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Mike Morris Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Debbie Miller Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Michael Church
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the public hearing on the Water Resource Protection Zones
Ordinance has been rescheduled to the March 3, 2009 City Council meeting. He also noted staff would be presenting a brief
update of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan at the February 3, 2009 Council meeting.
Commission Chair Dawkins requested the Commission save a few minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss absenteeism
on the Planning Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1. December 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
B.Approval of Findings for 232 Vista Street, PA #2008-01517
Commissioners Church/Mindlin m/s to approve the December 9, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote:
Commissioners Dawkins, Morris, Miller, Marsh, Mindlin and Church, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer,
ABSTAINED. Motion passed 6-0.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners in regards to 232 Vista Street.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for 232 Vista Street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Church, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris, and Dawkins, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer, ABSTAINED. Motion
passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Commented on the increased amount of cigarette butts discarded on City streets now that
smoking is banned in restaurants and bars. Mr. Roth recommended the City provide and maintain outdoor cigarette
receptacles in the downtown area and stated these could be emptied each week along with the regular trash pickup.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 1 of 7
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement
PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01984
DESCRIPTION: Consideration of the City of Ashland entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement, the “Greater
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement”, (the “Agreement”), for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which provides for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley
Regional Plan.
Mr. Molnar explained the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to determine whether the Participant’s Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute, and issue a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not they should sign the
Agreement. He provided a brief overview of the Regional Problem Solving process and noted five of the other communities
involved have already signed the Agreement. He clarified that by signing, the City is not adopting the Regional Plan, but rather
is agreeing to send the Plan through Jackson County’s Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mr. Molnar noted a
recommendation from the Planning Commission is required because this is a land use decision and therefore needs to go
through the City’s normal process, which includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the elements in the Agreement and stated it is Staff’s opinion that the Agreement is
consistent with the RPS statute. He noted the City did not identify any urban reserve areas and instead plans to accommodate
increased population by utilizing existing lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Molnar commented on his experience
with the Ashland Planning Department over the last 20 years and noted the importance of Ashland being a participant in
regional planning. He commented that Ashland’s approach to planning has often been viewed as different from the rest of the
valley, and noted at times there has been frustration within the community when the City’s accomplishments are diluted by
other actions occurring in the region. He stated this is Ashland’s opportunity to not just influence change within our community,
but also among the other jurisdictions in the valley.Mr. Molnar stated the Agreement represents the City’s solidarity with the
other participants in letting the Plan go through the County’s process. He added there would be an opportunity for the City and
the other participants to present comments and concerns during the County’s land use process.
Mr. Molnar introduced City Councilor Kate Jackson, who is also the Chair of the RPS Policy Committee. Councilor Jackson
elaborated on her involvement with regional planning and expressed her hope for the City to continue its current level of
involvement. Jackson explained tonight’s decision is whether the City should sign the Agreement and remain a participant with
the project. She noted the Regional Plan will need to go through the County’s land use adoption process, and individual cities
that have identified urban reserves will need to take those changes through their own Comprehensive Plan amendment
processes. Jackson clarified this Agreement would coordinate these land use changes into a standard timeframe.
The Commission opened the discussion and shared their preferences and concerns regarding the signing of the Agreement.
Miller applauded Councilor Jackson for her efforts, but expressed concern with the wording “agree to abide by a Plan” which is
contained on page 3 of the Agreement. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the Planning Commission is charged with
reviewing the Agreement for consistency with the RPS statute. He stated the Agreement does not adopt the Draft Plan, but it
does agree to submit it through the County’s land use process and agrees that Ashland will abide by and make consistent
Comprehensive Plan amendments to what is adopted by the County. Jackson added that any group or City can testify for or
against the elements of the Plan at the County’s public hearings. If the adopted Regional Plan is found to be unsatisfactory to
a particular City or group, they can appeal the County’s decision under the standard land use law.
Council Liaison Navickas noted the comments that were submitted by the City Council in November 2007 and expressed his
disappointment that they have not received a response. Councilor Jackson indicated the Council’s comments were addressed
and are available for review on the Rogue Valley Council of Government’s website.
Dawkins questioned what would happen if Council signs the Agreement and the City ends up disagreeing with the outcome.
Mr. Appicello clarified the City has not designated any urban reserves, and signing the Agreement empowers the City to have
a place at the table and a say in the process. He stated if the City signs the Agreement, we will need to participate in the
public hearings in order to protect our point of view. He added participation in this process is the only way the City will be able
to influence what is going on in the other jurisdictions.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 2 of 7
Dimitre noted “Section XII: Termination of Participation” on page 15 of the Agreement. He stated the City of Jacksonville
decided not to sign the Agreement and asked for clarification of that decision. Councilor Jackson indicated the City of
Jacksonville took the position that the Agreement did not need to be signed until after the Regional Plan is adopted. She
provided a brief overview of how the Agreement was developed and stated a signed Agreement is necessary at this point to
identify which groups are participating. She added it is her belief that this is the best way to submit the Plan to a public process
and to make further adjustments.
Comment was made that because Ashland did not identify any reserves, they have nothing to lose. Navickas disagreed and
stated if the City ever wanted to expand its Urban Growth Boundary, they could not do so without going through an
amendment process.
Miller noted the Council has already expressed their support and asked if there was any legal reason why this Agreement had
to be signed prior to the Plan being developed.
Trish Bowcock/705 East C Street, Jacksonville/She stated she does not oppose Regional Problem Solving or the draft
version of the Plan, but opposes the process. Ms. Bowcock said the City is being asked to sign a legally binding contract and
at this point nobody knows what the Final Plan will be. She stated if they do sign the Agreement and are unsatisfied with the
Final Plan, the only way to avoid implementing it is to abide by Section XII, which subjects the City to strong disincentives. Ms.
Bowcock claimed the statue does not suggest that this Agreement needs to be reached before the Plan is finalized, but rather
is only needed prior to the adoption of the Plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She added if a
Participants Agreement is needed at this stage in the process, a much simpler agreement should be drafted.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Expressed concern with the City signing the Agreement and questioned what they were
agreeing to. He disagreed with the inevitable doubling of population and stated the Agreement before the City is too vague.
Mr. Roth voiced his appreciation for Staff’s optimism that Ashland’s values would rub off on the rest of the County, but does
not think this will happen. He stated regional planning is conceptually a good idea, but does not believe it is a good idea for
Ashland to sign the Agreement.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Allocated his time to Greg Holmes.
Greg Holmes/235 NW 6 Street, Grants Pass/1,000 Friends of Oregon/Expressed concern with the process and the
th
Agreement itself. Mr. Holmes voiced his objections to agreeing to the outcome of a process that has not been completed yet,
and noted once the Agreement is signed, they would not be able to remove themselves from the process without sanctions
being imposed. He noted two other RPS processes in Oregon that made it further along in the process than they are now, and
neither one had an agreement in place before they started their hearings. He indicated there is nothing in the statute that
states the Agreement needs to be signed at this point in the process, and stated they can go forward with the regional
planning process without this Agreement in place. Mr. Holmes stated there are significant flaws in the Agreement and feels
that it incorporates the Regional Plan. He stated the goal is not to try and stop RPS, but rather for the public hearings to be
held before the participants agree to abide by what is ultimately decided.
Mr. Holmes clarified his belief that the statue indicates agreement needs to be reached by the participants prior to the Plan
being adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. He also claimed some of the cities who have already
signed the Agreement did so because they would be getting things out of this Plan that they would not get from the normal
process.
Councilor Jackson disagreed with Mr. Holmes assessment that the Agreement does not need to be signed until the Plan is
ready for adoption by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She clarified this Agreement sets forth the “how”
and the structure for implementation, and the details of the Plan will be decided through the County’s land use process. She
added any City can and likely will appeal the County’s decision if they do not find it satisfactory.
Commission Chair Dawkins closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 3 of 7
Comment was made questioning when the Policy Committee anticipated individual cities would hold their public hearings. Mr.
Appicello clarified the official process is the County’s land use process, and the City could hold hearings at any time to decide
what they would like to present at the County hearings.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris m/s to recommend the City Council approve the RPS Participants Agreement.
DISCUSSION: Dotterrer clarified the Regional Plan will only address the three problems that have been identified. Miller
expressed her concern that the Agreement is too binding on the individual jurisdictions and feels the Plan should be finalized
before they agree to it. Dotterrer commented that this is a two-way street, and voiced his support for the City being involved in
this process. He stated he agrees with the intent of the Agreement, and noted the need to have general consensus before you
enter a planning process. Marsh voiced her support for regional planning and although there is some risk, she stated
Councilor Jackson’s involvement with this process provides her a level of comfort. She recommended if the Council approves
the Agreement, that they schedule a public hearing in order to gather input on the Plan, and that they insert into the regional
process an affirmation by the participants at the end. Dawkins noted his opposition to the draft Plan in regards to the City of
Central Point. Church noted that each city is giving up some level of autonomy and stated it makes sense to have this type of
Agreement in place at this point in the process. He added the process needs to have some momentum going forward and
thinks this process would self destruct at the end if they all waited until the Final Plan was completed before they agreed to
participate. If the Agreement is signed, Morris encouraged the City to push their concepts, otherwise Ashland will be stuck with
what everyone else decides. Dimitre stated he has a problem agreeing to this because it is not clear what they are agreeing
to. He stated he is not against the idea and the process, but feels this Agreement is premature.
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to amend motion to include recommendation that the City Council hold a public
hearing on the substance of Plan in order to prepare input for County’s planning process, and that the Council
recommend to the Regional Planning Process that they incorporate a process for explicit affirmation by the
participants at the end of the process. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the public hearing would be for citizens to provide
input on the substance of the Plan itself. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Dawkins, Morris, Church and Marsh,
YES. Commissioners Mindlin, Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion passed 5-3.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Church, YES. Commissioners
Miller, Dimitre, Mindlin, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
Commissioners Dimitre/Mindlin m/s to recommend the City Council not sign the RPS Participants Agreement. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Church, Dotterrer, Marsh and
Morris, NO. Motion failed 4-4.
B.PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01986
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2915 Highway 66
APPLICANT: Myles Comstock
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of a previously approved Site Review (PA#2008-01315) for a
Variance to exceed the maximum 20-foot height limitation in the Airport Overlay Zone. The proposed structure is
26.5 feet in height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39
1E 13B; TAX LOT: 2005
Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Anderson presented the Staff Report. She explained in September 2008, Staff administratively
approved a request to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. single-story building, which was proposed to be 20-feet in height. This is a
modification of that approval to allow the building to have an average height of 26.5 ft. Ms. Anderson noted all other aspects of
the previous approval will stand, however there would be a few small changes to the storefront entry in regards to the doors
and windows. She explained the height limitation imposed by the Airport Overlay Zone is 20 ft., however the City’s Airport
Master Plan and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would allow for a much taller structure in this location. She noted
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 4 of 7
the City’s Airport Commission has reviewed this modification and their letter of approval is included in the record. Ms.
Anderson stated Staff feels the height modification would result in a positive change to the buildings design and they are
recommending approval of the request.
Ms. Anderson provided a brief overview of the FAA’s calculation for building heights, and clarified this is determined case by
case based on the structures height, elevation and proximity to the runway. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
commented briefly on the Airport Overlay Zone and explained this provision has not been revisited since the Municipal Code
was codified in 1982. He noted the original intent may have been for the 20 ft. height restriction to only apply in an approach
zone, but this clarification no longer exists in the Code. He added it may be beneficial to modify this section of the Code to
make it more site specific and calculated closer to the way the FAA does it.
Applicant’s Presentation
Steve Shapiro and Myles Comstock addressed the Commission. Mr. Shapiro explained this site is the location of Valley
Equipment Rental and the modification to the buildings height would allow them to store their taller equipment in a safer
environment. He noted the Staff Liaison to the Airport Commission indicated that based on the FAA calculations, they could
have a 40 ft. building at this location. He stated this property is 2,000 ft. from the runway and they are nowhere near where the
planes circle. Mr. Shapiro clarified the nearby towing company could have a building height of 35 feet and the building
adjacent to this property has a building height of 28.5 feet.
Dawkins closed the record and the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Public Testimony
None
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Dotterrer/Mindlin m/s to approve Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Dawkins, Morris, Church, Mindlin, Dimitre, Miller, Dotterrer and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Dimitre, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Motion passed 8-0.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Church m/s to continue to meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A.Discussion of possible changes to the City’s Sign Code based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations.
Commissioner Dawkins noted there are two components to the Downtown Task Force’s Recommendations: 1) possible Sign
Code revisions, and 2) issues with public right-of-way encroachments. He clarified the Planning Commission will not be
discussing the right-of-way issues and this will be handled by the City Council. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
noted tonight’s discussion will include an overview of the proposed Sign Code revisions, and the Planning Commission will
hold a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council at a subsequent meeting.
Mr. Molnar provided a brief summary of the charge given to the Downtown Task Force, which included addressing concerns
raised by local business owners. He stated a number of recommendations came out of the Task Force meetings, however
there was general consensus that the Sign Code has been a benefit to the City. He noted Ashland’s downtown area is a
nationally registered historic district and it is common to have regulations for signs in these districts. Mr. Molnar clarified the
Planning Commission is being asked to focus on the Sign Code recommendations, and the second phase to this process
which includes review of encroachments on public property will be handled by the City Council at an upcoming meeting. He
noted the goal is for the Commission to have a recommendation ready for the Council by March so the Council can hear these
two issues jointly.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the recommendations that came from the Downtown Task
Force. These recommendations included amending the Sign Code to permit the following:
An additional exempt incidental sign allowance (3 sq. ft)
Small three-dimensional (3D) signs in the Downtown area (3 cubic ft.)
Larger 3D signs outside the Downtown area (20 cubic ft.)
Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs
City installed identification signs
Increased projection distance for signs
The Task Force also recommended the Sign Code include a definition for “public art”, and allow additional business frontages.
Mr. Goldman’s presentation provided examples of different sign types, as well as further clarification of exempt incidental
signs, the 3D sign provision, and the portable sign provision. He also clarified how the proposed ordinance would treat signs
consisting of block letters or irregular shapes and stated the square footage would be determined by measuring the entire
area within the perimeter of the sign.
Dimitre requested Staff provide examples of what the maximum signage amount looks like now, and what it would look like
with the proposed revisions. Mindlin questioned if there was any deviation from the Task Force recommendations to what is
proposed in the draft ordinance. Mr. Goldman noted George Kramer, who was a member of the Task Force, had spoken to
him earlier this evening and indicated it was his recollection that if a business wanted a 3D sign in the Downtown area (3
cubic ft.), this would be subtracted from their incidental sign allowance.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Written statement was read into the record by Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Thompson’s
concerns related to additional frontages and he asked the Commission to cease the discrimination to businesses that have
their main entrance on the 3 or 4 side of a building.
rdth
John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Provided input from his service on the Downtown Task Force and commented on how the
Commission should link the work of the Task Force to the Council, so that the City Council does not have to start over when
this issue comes before them. Mr. Stromberg suggested they ask George Kramer to provide input during their discussions and
also recommended they conduct a walking tour so that they can get a good picture of the issues they are dealing with. He
listed some specific businesses that have signage issues and stated he has come to the conclusion that different areas of
town deserve different treatment. He shared his hope that the Commission will look into these issues in detail so that they can
feel confident with their recommendation to the Council.
Mr. Molnar clarified staff is attempting to keep a fairly expedited timeline and the goal is to have these amendments in place
before next summer’s season. Comment was made that the Sign Code can be very difficult to understand and requesting Staff
provide ideas of how they would illustrate the requirements. It was stated that the City should have a user’s guide, or
something that makes these provisions easy for people to understand.
B.2009 Hearings Board Assignments
Mr. Molnar clarified the Hearings Board no longer meets every month and only convenes when needed. Commissioners
Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin and Miller all volunteered to serve on the Hearings Board when needed.
C.Planning Commission Attendance
Commissioner Dawkins noted the attendance provision in the “Planning Commission Rules” and requested the Commission’s
input on how strictly they would like these requirements enforced. He noted Commissioner Church is planning a four month
vacation and asked how the group would like to handle this situation. Dimitre commented on his absences in 2008 and
indicated this will change. Marsh stated that she is not bothered by the occasional absence, and because there are nine
Planning Commissioners, even if some are absent they still have enough members to carry on. She stated that Commissioner
Church’s situation is a legal issue and should be left to the Mayor to decide. City Attorney Richard Appicello suggested the
Planning Commission consider amending the Ordinance to allow the Commission to excuse absences that exceed the 2/3
attendance provision. Comment was made that they may also want to further define “excused” and “unexcused” absences.
Dawkins requested the commissioners submit any further thoughts on this topic to staff.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 6 of 7
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
Page 7 of 7
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #5
AUGUST 11, 2008
PAGE 1 of 4
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way. She announced this is the sixth and final meeting of the Downtown Task Force.
Members Present: City Staff Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
John Morrison, Mayor Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate FactoryRichard Appicello, City Attorney
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
PUBLIC COMMENT
Art Bullock/
Submitted written comments to the group and draft sign code language he prepared. He
commented on the public interests which he feels are not represented in the sign code and explained the two
primary interests are: 1) overwhelming visual clutter, and 2) business window transparency.
Melissa Markell/Public Arts Commission/
Questioned if the Task Force would be addressing public art on
private property.
Hammond noted the staff memo distributed on July 17 by City Administrator Martha Bennett and stated the
memo outlined the process for how this issue would be handled. City Attorney Richard Appicello noted they
were going to recognize that art accepted by the City is not subject to the code, and the sign code would be
amended to make this clear. Bussell expressed concern with the lack of discussion on this issue and felt this
recommendation should be further debated by the Task Force.
Kevin Christman/
Expressed concern with the prohibitions against displaying art and stated the current sign
code does not permit the display of art to any capacity.
Mr. Appicello explained this issue would be included with the public art policies and procedures that will go
before the City Council in September. Stromberg stated this issue would be debated by the Planning
Commission and the Council, but not this Task Force.
Lloyd Haines/
Commented on public art and recommended any language that comes from this group include
an expansive statement so that it does not get construed when it gets to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
J. Ellen Austin
/Asked if she was in violation for having art displayed outside her gallery, which is located in
a residential neighborhood.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #5
AUGUST 11, 2008
PAGE 2 of 4
Mr. Appicello stated residential zones need to be addressed in the sign code; however he does not feel it is
appropriate for the Task Force to handle this issue.
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the recommendations to the City Council to include a recommendation to
exempt public art from the sign code and to have its own process developed at a future date.
DISCUSSION: Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
It was noted these two actions will need to be concurrently.
passed.
RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSION
Mr. Appicello addressed the proposed ordinance amending regulations concerning use of City sidewalks. He
explained the ordinance does not distinguish between residential and commercial use and would allow
individuals to pay the designated rate for use of the sidewalk. He clarified he did not include a list of what
items would be acceptable and stated he only addressed “who” can lease the space, not “what” can be placed
there.
Stromberg summarized the Task Force’s previous discussions on this issue and stated there were three main
points:
1)The City would have to broaden the sidewalk café restrictions in order to allow for other uses, and
the City would apply a market rate charge for use of the sidewalk.
2)Some of the objects placed by merchants in front of their stores were in the public interest (planter
boxes, etc.), and these objects would have to be donated to the City. The City would establish criteria
for this, and there would be no charge.
3)They would allow certain 3D objects that fit within certain size parameters that had some functional
use.
Mr. Appicello stated the public arts ordinance would address the process on how to accept art and stated he
did not see the need to write a regulation on how the City would regulate the placement of items. He stated
there is no obligation on the part of the City to have to accept an item and stated the City can accept
donations and place items where ever they feel is appropriate.
Kramer commented that the intent of this was to allow merchants to beautify their areas. He expressed
concern with the proposed ordinance and stated he does not know why they are creating more rigmarole.
Hammond agreed and stated the ordinance does not accurately reflect the Task Force’s desires. Mr.
Appicello shared his concerns with designating “what” in the ordinance and noted a case that will be argued
in front of the Supreme Court on this issue. Stromberg questioned if there was a way to apply market rates
for part of the sidewalk, by low rates for the “shy zone.” Mr. Appicello stated he understands the group
wants free use of the shy zone for amenities and will try to incorporate this, however he is not certain this is
permissible. Stromberg suggested they make a formal motion in include this piece as part of their
recommendation and ask the Council to direct staff to keep working on this.
Laws/Stromberg m/s to recommend that the City Council direct staff to explore an exemption to have
free use of the shy zone for amenities (such as flower boxes, door stops, spittoons, etc.) Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
ISSUES RECAP
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks asked the group to clarify their preferences on a few of their previous
recommendations. The group issued the following clarifications:
1)The additional exempt sign would be applicable to the Downtown area or within one of the four
Historic Districts.
2)The larger 3D sign would be in addition to the existing sign numbers for wall or ground signs.
3)The additional 3D sign would be allowed only in commercial zones outside Historic Districts.
4)The 3D sign will have a specific separate size in addition to the current total square footage.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #5
AUGUST 11, 2008
PAGE 3 of 4
Kramer summarized within the “historic core,” merchants are allowed 3 exempts signs, one of which can be
a small 3D sign. Outside the historic core, merchants are allowed 3 exempt signs, plus one larger 3D sign
that meets criteria yet to be developed.
Mr. Hanks commented on a possible provision regulating the amount of flat surface permitted on 3D objects
before it starts to count against the permitted signage amount. Kramer suggested a possible limit of 2 sq. ft.
Stromberg recommended they forward this provision back to staff for refining.
Hammond noted the proposed ordinance still includes the booting provision and stated this is not what the
Task Force wanted. Mr. Appicello clarified no changes were made to the ordinance since the group’s last
meeting and affirmed that he understands what their recommendations were.
Kramer/Stromberg m/s that despite the language of the proposed ordinance, the Downtown Task
Force recommends eliminating booting in favor of towing with adequate notice before hand.
DISCUSSION:
Laws suggested including language that notifies the vehicle owner that additional costs will
be incurred by towing and storage. Municipal Judge Pam Turner expressed concern with the provision that
requires vehicles to be moved to a different block in order to avoid a citation. Mr. Hanks agreed that the City
needs better signage on this. Mr. Appicello clarified his staff has met with the Judge and are working to flush
out some of these practical problems. Slattery noted the importance of placing a large orange sign on the
Voice
vehicles 24 hours in advance of the towing. Mr. Appicello clarified this was included in the ordinance.
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
Kramer asked if they could discuss Issue 7, Encroachment Permit Process, and stated sandwich boards on
public right of ways have not been addressed. Hammond stated sandwich boards should not be permitted on
public right of way, only in alcoves which are private property. Mr. Hanks clarified sandwich boards are not
addressed in the sign code and therefore are not currently permitted.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar asked if the group had concerns about opening up the
sidewalks for other uses besides sidewalk cafes. Mr. Appicello added he and Mr. Molnar have been working
on trying to make a distinction to see if limiting the use of sidewalks to sidewalk dining was possible.
Stromberg stated staff previously informed them they could not limit the use of sidewalks to just cafes and
this is the premise they have been working under. He expressed concern that this option was not presented to
the committee sooner. Kramer agreed and stated he did not know this was a possibility. He added he does not
have concerns about rampant selling of merchandise on the sidewalk and stated the City could deal with that
problem when and if it ever arises. Stromberg agreed and felt they should go with what they have for now.
Laws disagreed and stated if they have a choice, they should only allow restaurant tables. He stated he does
not think Ashland would have a desirable appearance if they start allowing these other uses. Mr. Appicello
clarified the Council would likely ask about this option, and staff was merely doing their best to be prepared
for the Council discussion.
Laws noted the email submitted by Brent Thompson and asked why a building can’t have signs on more than
two sides. Mr. Molnar stated there are very few businesses in town that have four public streets bounding it
and noted the elements that need to be considered when establishing a business frontage. He commented on
the concerns behind this provision and gave the example of someone calling a loading doc a public entrance.
Compton expressed her concerns with whether this group has really solved the problems. Bussell noted they
cannot solve every merchant’s problems and stated these businesses are out of compliance for different
reasons. She added this group has been successful in providing additional options to these businesses. Laws
stated the purpose of this committee was not to bring everyone into compliance. Slattery suggested the Task
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #5
AUGUST 11, 2008
PAGE 4 of 4
Force include a detailed statement to the Council that describes the “whys” behind their recommendations.
Hammond proposed forming a small subgroup of the Task Force to form this narrative. Greenblatt stated this
statement needs to be understandable to lay people and stated the community has a misunderstanding about
what these meeting are about.
Stromberg noted they have not found a solution to the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory bear, and stated
the bear is symbolic of this whole process. Compton acknowledged that there is no way to allow the bear and
not allow worse things elsewhere. She noted the bench and the bear are located in the shy zone and the only
way to keep it would be to purchase an encroachment permit, which would cost $50-$100 a month. Mr.
Appicello noted staff is attempting to create an exemption in the shy zone for public elements, which would
include the bench, but not the bear. Laws stated he hopes staff will continue to look at a way to grandfather
in objects that were placed after the law went into effect.
Comment was made from the audience suggesting the Task Force remove the minimum square footage
provision and allow merchants free use of the shy space.
Greenblatt questioned if the sign code could be revisited at a later date. Stromberg noted this would
eventually come to the Planning Commission and perhaps they could build in some kind of review process.
Stromberg voiced his support reducing the minimum square footage and stated they should include this as
part of the package that goes to the Council. He noted if the Council has misgivings, they can request
additional information from staff and make a final determination.
Kramer/Laws m/s to revise the Sidewalk Café Ordinance to have no minimum rental provision, but
rather a processing fee and a per square foot charge. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the alterations in the sign code to be reviewed after it has been in effect for 2
years. Voice Vote: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Bussell, Stromberg, Kramer, and
Shostrom, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed.
WRAP UP DISCUSSION
Slattery commented that there is a huge education element that goes along with this and they need to find a
way to let people know their options. Hammond suggested a statement in the City Source newsletter that
identifies someone in the City that could assist businesses with their signage questions.
Greenblatt questioned if the Task Force would be given the opportunity to tweak the final report before it
goes to Council. Mr. Appicello clarified staff would send out the report to the Task Force members and they
will be given the opportunity to submit comments to staff. He cited Oregon’s Public Meeting Law and stated
the members must avoid back and forth dialogue through email and should not be submitting their comments
to each other. Stromberg asked about forming a small subcommittee to prepare a statement to the Council
that captures the reasoning behind their recommendations. It was agreed that Hammond would be able to
form a subcommittee if she feels it is necessary and staff would ensure this was properly noticed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #4
AUGUST 4, 2008
PAGE 1 of 3
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 4, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present: City Staff Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate FactoryRichard Appicello, City Attorney
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Absent Members:
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Morrison, Mayor
Hammond clarified the group would be discussing Issues #1 and #2 today, which deal primarily with sign
square footage and how it relates to 3D items on private property. She noted they would be addressing the
right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation to group which reviewed current sign code
allocation examples, exempt sign options, examples of 3D signs, and options for 3D objects and
representations of merchandise.
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified there are three types of signs: permanent, exempt, and
temporary. Mr. Hank’s clarified businesses are required to go through a permitting process for permanent
signage and commented on how the allocation of signage is determined for business located on second and
third stories.
Comment was made questioning if the 20% temporary signage allocation was “on the table” for possible
revision. Staff indicated yes, and clarified businesses have to change their signs once a week in order for
them to qualify as temporary signage. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the purpose
of the exempt category is to provide businesses with additional flexibility. He noted they are unable to
separate the display of menus from other signage and stated this starts to get into the content issue. Mr.
Hanks noted most businesses can achieve their signage goals and still work within the City’s sign code. He
added a lot of this depends on how the business decides to divvy up their signage allotment. He clarified
“dead space” does count towards the total sign square footage, and noted they would normally draw a
rectangle around the wording/image and determine the square footage based on that.
Mr. Hanks asked how the group would like to proceed with exempt signs. Compton questioned if they could
remove the limitations from displaying signage in windows. Laws commented that this would drastically
change the sign code. Mr. Molnar clarified this is an option; however, it would create conflicts with other
sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and could cause a domino effect. Stromberg commented that it
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #4
AUGUST 4, 2008
PAGE 2 of 3
seems they are drifting away from their original assignment, which was to recommend some common sense,
minor adjustments to relieve some of the businesses current issues. Shostrom stated that it is difficult to
picture what is legal and what it not, and stated a before and after picture would help determine which is
preferred.
Hammond suggested they come up with a blanket, square footage signage allotment, based on the size of the
building, and allow businesses to use if for whatever they want. She stated removing the exempt and
temporary categories would make things much simpler and easier to understand. Bussell suggested cutting
the sign categories down to two: temporary and permanent. Stromberg commented that simplifying is an
attractive option, but it presumes that the existing code was not created through a thoughtful process with lots
of expertise. Hammond commented that what they have now is not very enforceable and causes confusion
for the merchants. Stromberg recommended they make modest changes to the existing code and then
recommend that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look into more extensive changes.
Hammond reviewed Issue #1 and listed the four options for the group. She noted the Task Force tentatively
selected Option 4 at their last meeting, which is to allow one of the exempt signs to be three dimensional, and
asked if they would like to proceed with this recommendation. Kramer clarified Option 4 would create the
opportunity for one, small 3D sign to be placed on private property. Laws questioned how businesses could
create a meaningful 3D sign that fits into the 1x1x2 sign limitation and voiced concern with business owners
trying to protect what they have instead of thinking of the streetscape as a whole. Comment was made
questioning if this option would apply to just the downtown area or the entire City. Stromberg suggested staff
refine the permitted size and scale of 3D objects to allow for more flexibility. He recommended a cubic
dimension with minimums and maximums. Shostrom voiced his support for Option 4 with three exempt
signs. Greenblatt noted this option would leave some of the cited merchants out of compliance and
questioned if this would really solve the problem.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan, Black Sheep/
Noted the issues she has faced with signage and stated she has needed each sign that
has been put up. She asked for examples of signage that is permitted and samples of what compliance looks
like.
Art Bullock, Ashland Resident/
Stated there are two primary public interests that the group has not
addressed: 1) the public does not want so much signage that windows look cluttered, and 2) the public does
not want so much signage that you cannot see into the business. He stated he does not think the Task Force
can make small tweaks and be able to address these public interests and stated a more fundamental rewrite is
necessary.
Garrett, Duex Chats/
Asked for examples of approved signage and questioned the placement of signs on
multiple entrances.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS (Continued)
Hammond clarified this exempt sign discussion is in relation to the downtown area only. She acknowledged
that Option 4 is not much more than a band-aid and agreed that they should recommend to the Council that
these issues be looked at in depth. Slattery commented that she did not realize the temporary signage
allocation was as flexible as it is. Hammond commented on the possible formation of a group (either through
the Chamber of Commerce or the City) that helps merchants deal with their signage.
Stromberg/Kramer m/s to approve Option 4 with 3 exempt signs.DISCUSSION:
Stromberg clarified
this motion includes the understanding that they will recommend this be further evaluated by the Planning
Commission. Laws commented on the point of this group coming together, and stated it was not to change
the whole spirit of the sign code. Compton questioned if this option would provide enough relief to the
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #4
AUGUST 4, 2008
PAGE 3 of 3
merchants. Ms. Bennett commented on the complexity of the entire issue and commented on who this
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously.
specific option would address.
Kramer commented that the recommendation to the Planning Commission should be a global
recommendation that comes at the end of their work.
Hammond introduced Issue #2 and the related options. Bussell provided some background on Option 3 and
stated Ashland is unique in that it considers art to be a sign. She noted any type of representational structure
is not allowed and wall graphics are also not permitted. Bussell explained the Public Art Master Plan
recommended modifying the sign code to allow for certain types of public art. Ms. Bennett commented on
the rules that govern Oregon and stated Ashland is not the first community to experience problems in this
area. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified if art is owned (donated) to the City and properly place, it is
exempt from the sign code. Ms. Bennett noted this issues still needs to go through the Public Arts
Commission.
Kramer clarified Issue #2 deals with issues like Wiley’s Alfredo statue. Bussell questioned if they are talking
about the entire City. She stated this won’t be too much a concern for downtown, since there is not much
space, but noted the areas outside downtown are most likely to have national chains. Kramer felt size and
material limitations would address these concerns. Staff clarified they do not consider sandwich boards 3D
signs. Ms. Bennett clarified Option 4 would not work for Wiley’s Pasta because Alfredo comes in every
night. Stromberg suggested they deal with sandwich boards and items like the Alfredo statue separately. Staff
clarified the problems with sandwich boards is more of a right of way issue, which will be addressed next
week. Kramer suggested creating an additional exempt sign opportunity outside the Downtown Design
Overlay Zone that includes allowable material types and size limitations. The group briefly discussed
possible objects this suggestion may open the door to.
Bussell recommended they add a public art exemption for city owned facilities/city property. City Attorney
Richard Appicello was asked to bring back options at the next meeting to address Bussell’s concerns
regarding public art.
Stromberg/Compton m/s to create a category for movable 3D signs, that 1) are not measured as part of
the total sign allotment, 2) meet certain material and construction standards (to be determined by
staff), 3) fit within a volumetric maximum, and 4) this category would apply to areas outside the
Downtown Design Zone and the Historic Districts.
Stromberg/Compton m/s to amend motion to add a setback from the public right-of-way (for staff to
determine). DISCUSSION:
It was clarified this amendment would be added to the original motion.
Voice Vote on motion as amended: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Kramer, Shostrom and
Laws, YES. Shostrom and Bussell, NO. Motion passed 7-2.
Staff clarified the Task Force would be dealing with Issue #4 and the remaining right-of-way issues at their
final meeting next week.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #3
JULY 28, 2008
PAGE 1 of 3
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 28, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way. Hammond noted several of the members attended a tour of downtown sign issues,
which was conducted prior to the meeting.
Members Present: City Staff Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator
John Morrison, Mayor Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate FactoryAdam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Absent Members:
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
PUBLIC COMMENT
Judy/Shakespeare and Co. Bookstore/
Stated she is in a difficult situation because her business is
located down an alley. She explained sales have dropped 60% since the City has prohibited her from
placing the wagon at the alley’s entrance and explained that she is doing her best to keep the bookstore
open.
Jeff/ Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory/
Commented that the proposed changes are insufficient and
felt more change was needed. He stated businesses can’t stay in business if they cannot have something
that lets customers know they are there. He stated customers will not visit a store if that business does
anything “too tacky” and he does not understand what the task force is afraid of.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Issue #3 – Downtown Businesses with Limited Signage Opportunity.
Hammond read and the issue and the options aloud. She voiced her support for Option 1, which would
change the sign limitation to 24” from the wall and would provide greater visibility for businesses on side
streets/alleys/pedestrian access ways. Mr. Hanks used Shakespeare and Co. as an example and explained
how Option 1 would allow them to place a sign at the entrance to the alley that would project out from the
corner.
Greenblatt/Compton m/s to accept Option 1 for Issue #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Issue #5 – Placing Signage in the Public Right-of-Way.
Hammond read the issue and options aloud. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if Option 2 were
selected, the City would have to establish a program and identify the parameters for a temporary sign
permit process. Slattery suggested they consider City owned signs that don’t include business names, but
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #3
JULY 28, 2008
PAGE 2 of 3
rather indicate “lodging” or “dining” and directional arrows. She stated these could be artistically done
and may encourage people to walk. Ms. Bennett commented that another option would be for the City to
install signs and allow businesses to purchase a spot on that sign. She stated this option would help with
the Blue Giraffe’s signage situation and noted a City sign could be placed in the Water Street parking lot.
Comment was made voicing support for a combination that would allow for generic directional
information signs as well as City signs that list specific business information.
Compton/Dotterrer m/s to accept Option 1 for Issue #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Laws/Kramer m/s to reject Option 2 for Issue #5. DISCUSSION:
Kramer stated he is interested in
looking at encroachment opportunities that pertain to all businesses and voiced opposition to creating a
separate authority in this area. Laws felt it would be a mistake to allow temporary signs in addition to
directional signs. Compton commented that if the City decided not to place a directional sign, Option 2
would provide the business owner an opportunity to apply for a permit. It was questioned if the City could
stipulate that this option would only be available if the City does not do Option 1. Ms. Bennett voiced her
hesitations with Option 2. Suggestion was made for the group to table the motion and come back to this
Motion was tabled.
after they have dealt with the encroachment issue.
Issue #7 – Encroachment Permit Process.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Kramer voiced support for a list of approved items that
could be placed in the City right of way. He stated this list of allowable items should be separate from the
items the City would require a permit for. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the legality of
this issue and recommended a process where items would be donated and accepted by the City; and the
City would then decide where the item is placed. He stated the City would only accept items that met
generic durability standards and the individual would need to sign a maintenance and hold harmless
agreement. Ms. Bennett questioned if the City already owned these items and she stated it was her
understanding that if someone places an item in the City right of way, they are essentially donating it to
the City. Laws commented that it would be difficult to come up with a list of approved items and stated
the list would have to be regularly amended. He added that he does not feel a list of approved items would
solve the problem and voiced his support for Option 1. Kramer voiced concern that requiring a permit and
the donation process would stop these types of objects from being placed. Hammond noted that there are
also safety measures to be considered, such as the Black Sheep’s lion. Suggestion was made for a two part
process that includes a list of general items that the City endorses and requiring the placement of all other
items to go through a permit process.
Ms. Bennett summarized the group’s deliberation and stated they would like to allow for the placement of
functional items and recognize that these will be owned by the City; they are willing to let staff evaluate
whether to establish a donation process or include a general acceptance provision in the code. Ms. Bennett
stated staff could also look into a 3D allowance for functional objects designed to address safety issues
and noted there will need to be criteria established for how to decide on the placement of these objects.
Stromberg/Laws m/s to approve the staff direction as outlined by Ms. Bennett. DISCUSSION:
It
was clarified this is not a final decision and this issue would be returning to the group at their next
meeting. Stromberg commented that he views this as enabling certain uses, not prohibiting everything
else. Bussell noted that if someone wanted to donate art there is already an approval process for that. Mr.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Appicello clarified the two processes would work together.
Issue #6 – Newspaper/Misc. Publication Racks.
Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Comment was made questioning if the City could
completely remove the racks. Mr. Appicello clarified he does not believe completely banning them is
appropriate.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #3
JULY 28, 2008
PAGE 3 of 3
Kramer/Greenblatt m/s to combine Options 1 and 2 and direct staff to inventory all downtown
newspaper/publication racks and prepare a recommendation.DISCUSSION:
Recommendation was
made for the inventory study to indicate their preferences and for it to be referred directly to the City
Voice Vote: all AYES.
Council.Kramer and Greenblatt agreed to include this amendment in the motion.
Motion passed.
Issue #9 – Administering the Downtown Parking Program.
Ms. Bennett noted the draft ordinance that was submitted to the group and indicated staff needs clarity on
the towing vs. booting then towing options. She clarified the City is not proposing to boot the vehicle and
leave it there until the owner pays, but rather boot the vehicle and have it towed after 24 hours if payment
is not received.
Support was voiced for towing and not booting vehicles. Hammond questioned the dollar amount owed
before the City would take action and suggested raising it from $250 to $500. Ms. Bennett commented on
why the $250 amount was chosen and cautioned them about raising this too high. Greenblatt noted the
provision in the ordinance that states the individual will be noticed 10 days in advance before any action
is taken. Stromberg supported the towing option and stated booted vehicles could take away from the
City’s ambiance.
Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Ashland Municipal Judge Pam Turner commented on the 10 day notice period and shared a few situations
where individuals might not receive the notification. Comment was made suggesting the City affix a
colored placard to the vehicle prior to it being towed.
Dotterrer/Greenblatt m/s to recommend the Ordinance as drafted with the exception of removing
the booting provision. DISCUSSION:
Mr. Appicello suggested the notification period be changed to 14
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
days. Consensus was voiced for including this modification.
DISCUSS POSSIBLE AUGUST 4 MEETING
Hammond stated it will be necessary for the group to meet again and asked for the members’ preference
on meeting dates. She noted the group could meet next Monday, or meet two weeks from today. Mr.
Appicello indicated he would likely need more than one week to prepare the draft right-of-way ordinance.
thth.
The Task Force reached consensus to meet on August 4 and August 11
Ms. Bennett clarified the Task Force’s final report is scheduled to go before the City Council on
September 2, 2008. She noted recommended changes to the Sign Code will have to go to the Planning
Commission; however, the Council could enact the rest of their recommendations. She added the group
th
will need to complete their work by August 19 in order to make the September packet deadline.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #2
JULY 21, 2008
PAGE 1 of 4
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 21, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present: City Staff Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator
John Morrison, Mayor Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate FactoryBill Molnar, Community Development Director
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
Absent Members:
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
STAFF PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks briefly reviewed the nine key issues and options listed in the staff
report.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ron Roth, Geppetto’s/
Shared his concerns over what he felt was an overzealous Code Enforcement
Officer and recommended more direct supervision of this City employee.
Graham Lewis, United Methodist Church/
Noted the church is located on the corner of Laurel and N.
Main, but they are only allowed signage on one of the streets. He stated signage on both frontages would
be helpful.
Steve, Soundpeace/
Questioned if he would be permitted to place a prayer flag in the garden in the
morning and take it in at night. Regarding the parking situation, he thought this was always voluntary and
not necessarily enforced.
Julie, Wiley’s World/
Stated she does not view her Alfredo statute as a sign, but rather a piece of art; and
stated the statue needs to be able to come in at night to avoid potential theft or vandalism. She voiced her
support for removing the 3D object prohibition from the Sign Code.
Melissa Markell, Chair of the Public Arts Commission/
Voiced her support for Option #4 regarding the
three dimensional sign issue, which would create an exemption for 2D or 3D public art.
Susan, Black Sheep/
Submitted signature petitions supporting the placement of the lion statue in front of
the Black Sheep’s entrance. She stated if they remove the lion it would result in an unsafe doorway and
stated this is a historical building and the entrance cannot be changed.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #2
JULY 21, 2008
PAGE 2 of 4
Lee, Downtown Employee/
Stated she received a ticket a few years ago, without warning, after parking in
the same block twice. She stated this is a silly rule and the City should at least put up a sign warning
employees.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/
Noted all parking appeals come to her and voiced her support
for repealing or revising the downtown employee parking ban. She stated the ban is very difficult to
enforce and felt the language was over broad.
Lance Pugh, Ashland Resident/
Voiced concern with what he felt was staff running the meeting and
directing the focus.
Brent Thompson, Ashland Resident/
Voiced his support for the option permitting one additional exempt
sign. Regarding the parking issue, he suggested diagonal parking could be used to create more spaces in
certain downtown areas.
Donna, Webster’s/
Stated if they change the sign code, they need to make sure it can be universally
applied. She commented briefly on the sidewalk issue and noted they are heavily congested in the middle
of the season.
Mike Morris, Ashland Planning Commissioner/
Asked how they would feel if every building had
something out in front of it, and questioned where the limits are.
Ramona, B Ella/
Stated if they are going to enforce the parking ban, it needs to be applied to everyone.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION & DIRECTION TO STAFF
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Hammond voiced support for Option #1, which would eliminate the employee parking ban from the
Ashland Municipal Code. She stated the City could still send out a letter each year asking the downtown
businesses to voluntarily comply with the seasonal parking limitations. The Task Force voiced unanimous
consent for this option.
Unpaid Parking Tickets
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained how the City currently handles unpaid parking citations and
stated the City’s current enforcement tools are very weak. She stated booting or towing vehicles that have
an excessive amount of unpaid parking violations is one option the group should consider.
The group discussed the option presented by staff. Stromberg voiced his concerns with booting vehicles
and felt towing was a better alternative. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified due process would
occur before anyone was booted and the individual would receive proper notice before this action
occurred. Ms. Bennett listed the outstanding parking citation figures for the group. Laws voiced his
support for booting, and stated this type of action is needed if they have people who simply do not care.
Greenblatt agreed that this needs to have some “teeth.” Kramer voiced his support for the towing option.
Compton agreed, but questioned what the outstanding ticket amount would have to before this action was
taken.
Hammond recommended they move onto the next issue and look at this option further at their next
meeting.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #2
JULY 21, 2008
PAGE 3 of 4
Amount of Signage Permitted
Hammond listed the two options for Issue #1. She stated they could modify the Sign Code to allow for
one additional exempt sign or they could choose to modify the Code to allow the existing exempt signs to
be a maximum of 3 sq. ft.
The group discussed the two options. Shostrom suggested modifying the requirement to allow for two
signs at 2 sq. ft. or less, and one additional sign at 3 sq. ft or less. Kramer recommended they not limit this
to the C-1-D zone, but permit the additional signage in the entire commercial district. Compton noted that
being able to display menus is not only a benefit for the restaurants, but also the pedestrians. Kramer
suggested they increase the total amount of signage permitted (based on the linear footage of the
building’s frontage) and allow businesses to allocate the space as they choose. Compton suggested they
establish two different parameters; one for inside the downtown area and one for outside this area.
Mr. Hanks clarified the current provision which allows businesses to use up to 20% of their window
space for changeable copy. He also provided a brief explanation of how businesses with no windows or
those located on second and third stories are accommodated.
Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with information on the new options presented by
Shostrom and Kramer.
3-Dimensional Signs/Representations of Merchandise
Hammond listed the options for Issue #2 outlined in the staff report. Kramer and Compton voiced their
support for Option 2, which would allow 3D representations as a sign type. Laws expressed concern with
permitting 3D objects, though supported the ones we currently have. He questioned if there was a way to
exempt those that exist today. Slattery voiced her confidence that businesses would do everything
possible to make their business attractive and is not concerned that Option 2 would result in a surge of
undesirable objects.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group supported Option 2.
The Task Force agreed to continue with the meeting until 4:30 p.m.
Limited Signage Access due to Location
Hammond listed the options for Issue #3 outlined in the staff report. Kramer suggested businesses, such
as the Blue Giraffe, with no frontage on a public street be allowed one offsite sign as part of their sign
allocation; however include a provision that this sign could not be placed on public right of way. The
group briefly discussed these options and agreed to come back to this issue at their next meeting.
Use of Right-of-Way for Commercial Use
Hammond listed the options in the staff report. Laws noted when the Sidewalk Café ordinance was
passed, its intent was not to benefit the restaurant specifically, but to enhance the ambiance in town. He
felt opening up the use of sidewalks for merchandise was unacceptable and would destroy the Ashland’s
appearance. City Attorney Richard Appicello briefly commented on the legal issues surrounding this
matter. Slattery commented that sidewalk dining is something the public loves, and suggested they look at
other communities and how they deal with this issue. Kramer noted that selling flowers, fruit or
vegetables on the sidewalk could also add character.
City Administrator Martha Bennett commented on Option 2, which would allow the City to lease
sidewalk space to businesses, and questioned how much merchandise that business would need to sell to
make this worthwhile to them. Comment was made that this would be for the individual business to
decide. Greenblatt noted Greenleaf was the first restaurant to have outdoor seating on the Calle and
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #2
JULY 21, 2008
PAGE 4 of 4
voiced support for allowing the City to rent the public right of way, so long as the parameters are
followed. Ms. Bennett clarified the sidewalk space would be only leased to the adjacent business.
Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group were interested in a combination of
Options 2 and 3.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would do more flushing out of the details on the input provided by the group.
She noted they would pick up where they left off at the next meeting and encouraged interested citizens
and business owners to submit their comments and concerns to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #1
JULY 14, 2008
PAGE 1 of 4
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 14, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room,
51 Winburn Way.
Members Present: City Staff Present:
Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator
John Morrison, Mayor Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate FactoryBill Molnar, Community Development Director
Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager
Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce
Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission
Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission
John Stromberg, Planning Commission
George Kramer, Citizen at Large
Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large
Don Laws, Citizen at Large
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Pam Hammond and Mayor Morrison welcomed the group and each member introduced themselves.
PURPOSE & GOALS OF TASK FORCE
Mayor Morrison commented briefly on what prompted the creation of this task force and noted issues
have been raised regarding the City’s sign code, use of the public right of way, and the downtown
employee parking ban. He stated the Downtown Task Force would be meeting for three weeks and
encouraged them to focus on addressing the immediate concerns.
OVERVIEW OF TASK FORCE SCHEDULE
Hammond briefly reviewed the meeting agenda. She indicated their second meeting would include a staff
presentation of options and committee discussion; and hopes they can have deliberations and come to a
recommendation by their third meeting.
OVERVIEW OF THREE ISSUES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented an overview of the City’s sign code, use of
public right-of-way, and downtown employee parking restrictions.
Sign Code
Mr. Molnar stated the 1966 Central Area Plan called for the development of a sign program and the City’s
sign ordinance was officially adopted in 1968. He stated there have been several updates to this section of
the code over the years and noted the 1988 Downtown Plan acknowledged the success of the sign code.
Mr. Molnar provided the definitions of “signs”, “exempted signs”, and “prohibited signs” and listed the
main compliance issues the City deals with.
Use of the Public Right of Way
Mr. Molnar noted there are many competing interests within the sidewalks and stated the City has
regulations regarding the outdoor display of merchandise. He explained the Ashland Municipal Code
prohibits using the street or public sidewalk for selling, storing or displaying merchandise or equipment;
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #1
JULY 14, 2008
PAGE 2 of 4
and businesses within the City’s commercial zones are required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP)
for the outdoor storage of merchandise on private property. Mr. Molnar noted the City has a sidewalk café
ordinance and it is administered by the Public Works Department.
Downtown Employee Parking Ban
Mr. Molnar explained the ban was first adopted in 1985 at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and
the seasonal restrictions were made permanent in 1986. He explained the ban restricts downtown
employee parking in the downtown parking district between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., May through
September; and listed some of the issues that have been raised by the affected businesses and their
employees.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Tom, Pasta Piatti & Tabu/
Shared his concerns regarding the newspaper racks.
Nola, Renaissance Rose/
Noted she had been cited by the City and requested clarification on the
ordinance governing the outdoor display of merchandise. She noted the sale of merchandise on
Guanajuato Way and asked about the City’s CUP process.
Steve, Soundpeace/
Asked if there was a way for current businesses to be “grandfathered in” and require
anyone new to receive approval for the display of items. He agreed with the concerns expressed by the
previous speaker regarding newspaper boxes and suggested there be a maintenance requirement for these.
Steve noted the signage in Boulder, Colorado and suggested the Task Force review the Boulder sign code
for comparison. He also commented on the employee parking ban and noted employees are being issued
tickets when visiting downtown businesses on their days off.
Julie, Wiley’s Pasta/
Noted her business is not located downtown and stated they use their “Alfredo”
statue to show customers that they are open for business.
Lenny, CD or not CD/
Stated there is a small space in front of his store that he would be interested in
obtaining a CUP for. He commented on the height of his sign and suggested they allow businesses to sell
merchandise outdoors on weekends only. He stated it is possible to have attractive sandwich signs,
newspaper boxes, and neon signs; and suggested the City form a review board to determine what is
aesthetically pleasing.
Dave, Endless Massage/
Noted that his is a newer business and commented on the use of sandwich
boards to attract business. He stated his board did obstruct people walking and stated it made a big
difference in bringing people into his business.
Susan, Pilaf/
Questioned why people dressed as the Statue of Liberty or dressed in sandwich boards does
not go against the sign code. She stated that parking is one of her major stressors and explained that she
often has to come and go several times a day from her business.
Kate, Earth Friendly Kids/
Stated being unable to put merchandise out in front of her store has made
them struggle financially and believes the City is hurting the vitality of the town by making such strict
rules.
Ramona, B Ella/
Noted her store has no back entrance and all of their supplies have to come through the
front door. She questioned the fairness of the parking situation and asked if downtown employees who
work at night are being ticketing as well.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #1
JULY 14, 2008
PAGE 3 of 4
Jimmy, Blue Giraffe Spa/
Noted their building is set back from Water Street, behind the parking lot and
customers cannot see his sign from the street. He stated he receives a lot of complaints from clients
because they cannot find his store. He suggested the City have some sort of hearings process to deal with
unique situations like his own. He also questioned putting up a small sign similar to Pilaf’s or Iris Inn’s
signs.
Don, Ashland Springs Hotel & Larks/
Stated he was cited for placing the building’s original sandwich
board in front of the hotel and noted the challenge of educating guests on what they offer. He stated that
inadequate parking in Ashland is a big issue and noted the parking garage is consistently full.
Mike Morris, Planning Commissioner/
Recommended the sign ordinance be removed from the Land
Use section of the Municipal Code and recommended they set criteria for a variance. He suggested
different requirements be set for areas outside of downtown (at least until these areas become more
populated be pedestrians) and recommended they establish maintenance requirements for newspaper
boxes.
Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/
Noted that she handles the City’s parking violations and stated
the intention of the employee downtown parking ban is not to prohibit employees from visiting businesses
on their time off. She encouraged everyone to read this section of the code (AMC 11.30.020).
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified 95% of the businesses have complied with the City’s
requirements and stated she would like to continue to work cooperatively with the businesses while this
process is going on.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented briefly on the concept of grandfathering. He clarified the
City is required to treat everyone equally and does not believe grandfathering is an option.
Mayor Morrison clarified that public testimony will be included in this process and encouraged the
businesses and members of the public to submit their information to the Task Force.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated staff would be preparing white papers and submitting them
to the group within the next few days. She recommended they inform staff if they are in need to additional
information or if there are options they are leaning toward. She agreed that parking in Ashland was a
valid concern, but recommended they limit their discussion to the employee parking issue.
Clarification was requested on the process of obtaining a conditional use permit to display merchandise
on private property. Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks stated this is a Type I land use action and the
fee is currently $882. He stated the City has seen this type of CUP for larger scale uses, such as the
hardware store, but noted the approval criteria are fairly general.
Mr. Hanks clarified the Iris Inn’s sign was obtained through ODOT, not the City.
Sandra Slattery commented that these requirements were put in place for good reasons; however they
need to ensure that Ashland businesses can be successful and stated it is time to look at these regulations
with the current view of the community in mind.
City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the issue of placing 3-D objects in front of businesses
and clarified they can only limit the time, place, manner and size of these objects, not the content. George
Kramer added they could also control the materials they are made of and can require the object to be
maintained.
DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE – MEETING #1
JULY 14, 2008
PAGE 4 of 4
Ms. Bennett noted the City would be bringing forward options regarding sidewalk cafes, including
options for permitting, regulating, and leasing public right of ways. She clarified the vendors along Calle
Guanajuato lease this space from the City and stated the Task Force could consider creating a similar
provision for individual business to display merchandise in front of their stores.
Don Laws requested the City Attorney prepare a memo that cites the court cases and laws that deal with
grandfathering and the equality of treatment. He stated he would like to know what is legal and whether
the City could make changes. Mr. Laws provided some history of the sign code and stated its intent was
to make Ashland businesses more appealing. He commented on how the sign code has contributed to the
overall success of businesses in Ashland and recommended they be careful about making changes.
Dave Dotterrer suggested the sign code differentiate between private property and public right of way.
Ms. Bennett voiced her support for this suggestion. Mr. Appicello clarified the City could permit larger 3-
D objects on private property than on public right of way.
Dana Bussell commented on the Public Arts Commission’s master plan and noted the plan did speak to
some of these issues. She clarified one of the goals of the plan was to change the sign ordinance to allow
for murals. She also commented briefly on the public art jury process the commission utilizes, and
clarified people affected by the object are represented on the jury.
Sandra Slattery noted that there are other communities, such as Carmel, California, that have very
pleasing signage and suggested the group take a look at how other communities deal with this issue. Ms.
Bennett requested the group clarify which cities’ sign codes they are interested in. Staff was directed to
look into the sign codes for Carmel, California and Boulder, Colorado, particularly for small, directional
signs. Ms. Slattery noted she would also try to gather information and obtain samples from other
communities that are attractive, high visitor destinations.
Mayor Morrison requested information on newspaper boxes, including what governs their installation,
maintenance, and removal. Additional request was made for how many spaces a publication can have and
whether the boxes interfere with pedestrian and vehicle safety. It was also questioned if the City could
designate certain areas where the boxes would be permitted.
Ms. Bennett indicated staff would gather the information requested by the group and stated materials for
the next meeting would be sent out later this week. She noted the next Downtown Task Force meeting is
scheduled for next Monday, July 21 at 2 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
August 21, 2008
At the initiation of Mayor John Morrison and in conjunction with the Ashland
Chamber of Commerce, a Downtown Task Force was created and charged with
reviewing and providing remedies to address the following issues affecting
downtown merchants:
· The current policy on parking restrictions within the downtown area;
· A review of the City sign provisions related to the requirements for
temporary signs and the use of three-dimensional representations as sign
structures and education of business merchants and community with
respect to city sign code requirements; and
· Permissible encroachment upon downtown public sidewalk.
At the first of what turned into five consecutive Monday afternoon meetings in
July and August, Mayor Morrison explained his view on the charge of the Task
Force, and encouraged the members to focus on immediate concerns that can
be addressed within a "fast track" timeline.
At the request of Task Force members, City Staff presented a list of issues for
discussion and potential options to consider that may resolve or at least alleviate
impacts associated with each particular issue. Over the course of the five
meetings, the Task Force solicited public input, received information and
potential options from City staff, discussed the variety of options and ultimately
voted on a recommendation for each issue.
The following summary is divided into two pieces. The first piece includes
immediate fixes to some of the most visible and controversial issues. This has
been presented in the format of an issue statement, Task Force recommendation
and supporting reasoning. In the second piece, the summary report identifies
two issues that the Task Force recommended warranted additional review by
City staff. These items were believed to be outside the initial charge of the Task
Force, as well as beyond the expedited time table set for addressing the three
immediate issues affecting downtown merchants.
Suggested Immediate Solutions
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
1
Iss ue #1
Particularly in the Downtown area, the current limitation of two exempt signs per
business, with each sign not exceeding a size of two square feet, does not seem
to meet the needs of many local merchants.
Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the
Downtown Area. The allowable area of the third sign would
be increased to three square feet, rather than the current two
square feet allowed for the other two signs
Reasoning: The additional exempt sign will permit businesses increased
flexibility in how they allocate signage, providing an
opportunity for a merchant to adapt when there are changes
in services and/or merchandise offered. Additionally, the
change would address specific concerns raised by
restaurant owners regarding the need for increased flexibility
with respect to posted "menu" signs.
Issue #2
The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional statues, caricatures or
representations of persons, animals or merchandise from being used as a sign or
incorporated into a sign structure.
Recommendation: For properties within the Downtown or one of Ashland's four
Historic Districts, allow one of the three exempt signs to be
three-dimensional. Accordingly, the 3-D sign would be
limited to a maximum size or volume of 3 cubic feet.
Recommendation: Allow an additional exempt 3-D sign for properties outside
the Historic Districts with a volumetric maximum (for
example, 20 cubic feet). This would create an additional sign
category and sign area in addition to the total sign area
allotment under the current code. The three-dimensional
sign would be required to be setback from the public street,
and standards would be established for sign placement,
size, height, surface detailing, illumination, materials and
construction methods to assure any such sign would be of
durable materials and quality construction consistent with
Ashland's existing sign standards.
Reasoning: The removal of the prohibition of three dimensional objects
for signage provides unique and creative options for
Downtown Task Force 2
Summary Report
businesses to connect with their customers and the
community. Through the sign code amendment process,
additional limitations could be placed upon the 3-D signs in
order to ensure that the community is adequately protected
from an emergence of 3-D objects that are out of scale with
the building or that create too large of a visual distraction.
Issue #3
Some businesses, by virtue of their physical location and entrances, such as
smaller side streets and alleys, have limited signage opportunities along the main
streets within the downtown area.
Recommendation: Increase the maximum distance that a sign can project from
the building face from the current 18 inches, to 24 inches
from the building face. Existing State Building Code
addresses the minimum height above grade (sidewalk level)
needed for any structure or sign to project over the public
right of way or sidewalk.
Reasoning: Increasing the amount of projection may provide better
angles of visibility for businesses located on side streets or
public alleyways. The increased projection provides an
opportunity for the sign to function as an architectural
element of a building while still having a scale that is not
disproportionate and overpowering to a business frontage.
Issue #4
Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition on
off-premise signs, generally consisting of the placement of temporary, movable
signs (i.e. sandwich boards) upon the public sidewalk or other public property.
Some merchants feel that due to specific characteristics associated with location
of their business frontage they lack adequate exposure. Off-premise signage is
one means of drawing attention to the business location.
Recommendation: Create a set of policies and implementing guidelines for the
placement of informational/directional signs by the City in the
right of way or other publicly controlled property. The
guidelines should specify standards for the signage, which
may include maximum size, color, font, content (name,
arrow, type of business, etc), materials and location. For
example, an informational sign could be installed at the
entrance to an alley with the words "more shops" or
Downtown Task Force 3
Summary Report
"restaurants" or "galleries". In situations where physical site
constraints limit visibility from the primary public right of way,
an option for integrating a specific business name as an
element of the City informational signage could be included
into the guidelines.
Reasoning:
This is in recognition of the fact that there exist unusual
situations where, through no fault of a business owner, the
location and exposure of a particular business frontage may
be uniquely constrained.
Issue #5
The use of the public right of way for private commercial use is limited by the
Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafe's (AMC 6.44), which may not be the most
equitable method for allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public
sidewalks.
Recommendation: Amend the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance to allow any abutting
property (within a commercial or employment district) the
opportunity to obtain a permit for private use of a portion of
the public sidewalk, as long as specific public safety and
access standards have been met. The permit fee would
consist of a base charge and an additional charge for each
square foot of public sidewalk space being privately utilized.
Reasoning: In the absence of some compelling issue related to the
public interest, there should be an equitable allowance for
use of public sidewalks for private use. The broader issue is
one of fairness and, specifically, whether or not restaurants
should be the only business with use of public sidewalk
space.
Issue #6
The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the
encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what
types of functional objects are encouraged, allowed or legal for placement upon a
city sidewalk or within the public right of way
Recommendation: Create an ordinance or other appropriate approval process
by which specific functional items (planter boxes, benches,
trash cans, safety items, etc) may be established upon the
City sidewalk. This would be contingent upon the items
meeting city specifications, as well as retaining minimum
Downtown Task Force 4
Summary Report
clearance, public safety and placement standards. Individual
permits for items meeting such standards would not be
required, while items that do not conform to the standards
could be eligible for some sort of review and permit
procedure. Additionally, the Task Force recommended that
the City Council direct staff to explore an exemption to have
free use of the shy zone, the area along the sidewalk within
12 to 18 inches of the building face, for placement of such
amenities as flower boxes, door stops, spittoons, etc.
Reasoning:
The Task Force was very intent on solving this issue in a
way that encouraged the "right stuff' to be able to be placed
upon public sidewalks to help beautify the streetscape,
increase pedestrian comfort and also allow some individual
expression within the constraints of public safety and access
considerations. Creating a list of the types of "functional
objects" that would be permitted, accompanied by minimum
standards and specifications to assure quality, would
eliminate the need for individual permit requirements that
could easily result in discouraging businesses from
enhancing the streetscape.
Issue #7
The proliferation of newspaper and other miscellaneous publication racks within
the downtown is creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic.
Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to installation of newspaper
and other publication racks. Standards could be included
related to rack placement, maximum size and dimensions,
allowance for grouping of racks, distance between
groupings, etc. The ordinance would also address aesthetic
standards such as materials, maintenance and use to
ensure durability and public safety, as well as to eliminate
ongoing problems of litter, abandonment and use of racks for
displaying materials not qualifying for placement upon the
public right of way.
Reasoning: It was unanimously agreed that the proliferation of newspaper racks
in the downtown area has reached a point where regulation on use and
placement is critical. The current lack of regulation and oversight has led to
somewhat of an "anything goes" situation, and City staff has minimal ability to
address the issue.
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
5
Issue #8
Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly
inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have
expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and
employee access to the downtown area while not at work.
Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in
the Downtown Area.
Reasoning:
The conclusion of the group was that the ordinance was put
in place primarily at the request and benefit of the business
community. If local merchants believe the employee parking
ban is cumbersome and difficult to effectively enforce, it
would be reasonable to remove it and leave the matter to the
business owners to self regulate through informing their
employees.
Issue #9
The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to
more efficiently administer the downtown parking program.
Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow
vehicles that have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total
unpaid parking ticket balance of $250. Additionally, the City
should develop a final, very visible, warning placard to be
placed upon a vehicle at least 24 hours prior to the vehicle
being towed. The Task Force does not recommend the use
of a booting/immobilization device over the option of towing
the vehicle.
Reasoning: While this aspect of the parking issues downtown wasn't
specifically part of the charge of the Task Force, the
recommendation for the removal of the employee parking
boundary created the need to address related parking issues
so the Task Force added their recommendations in these
areas as well.
The Task Force believes the City needs effective tools to
assist with the collection of unpaid parking fines from flagrant
parking violators. The use of a boot or other immobilization
technique, however, is a very noticeable means of deterring
violations and may not send the appropriate type of
message to members of the community as well as visitors.
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
6
Additionally, the boot/immobilization renders the parking
space unusable until the operator contacts the City and pays
the fine due or until it gets towed, which most likely results in
a 12 to 24 hour time period.
Additional Suggested Considerations
Before concluding their charge, the Task Force identified two issues where
additional follow-up work would be necessary. The following items for Council
consideration were believed to be outside the initial charge of the Task Force, as
well as beyond the expedited time table set for addressing the three issues
immediately affecting downtown merchants. Nevertheless, the Task Force
recommended that the Council allocate staff resources to conduct follow-up work
in these areas.
Recommendation for Two-Year Review of Sign Code Amendments
The Task Force recommended that any amendments to the sign code be
reviewed and evaluated after two years. This would provide an opportunity to
assess the effectiveness and implications associated with the committee's
proposed changes.
Recommendation to Exempt Public Art from City Sign Code
The Task Force recommended that the City sign code should be amended to
include an exemption for Public Art once an appropriate process is adopted for
reviewing and approving the installation of public art. The proposed change to
the sign code would be completed simultaneously with the adoption of a public
art ordinance, which establishes processes and criteria for the acquisition and
location of public art within the city limits.
Recommendation for Sign Code Review/Education
While the Task Force supports the intent of the existing sign code and
appreciates the positive impact it has had on downtown Ashland, there was
general agreement that, as currently written, is difficult for the business
community to understand, leading to unintentional non-compliance as "sign
creep" over time. The Task Force recommended a possible review of the code
to simplify its design and, at a minimum, consider developing illustrated
educational materials. Additionally, city staff would be available at a merchant's
request for on-site review in order to increase awareness and reduce future
violations.
Downtown Task Force
Summary Report
7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Commission
City of Ashland
November 2008
Dear Planning Commission:
The mission ofthe Public Art Commission reads in patt ".. .to enhance the cultural and
aesthetic quality of life in Ashland... "
Weare passionate about preserving and enhancing the aesthetic beauty of Ashland and
we believe the attractiveness of Ashland and lack of visual clutter is due in large part to
the current sign code.
We support the recommendation of the Downtown Task Force to exclude public art from
the sign code (specifically definition #27) but we are opposed to the recommendation to
allow 3 dimensional signs - which we believe could have a negative impact on Ashland
aesthetics.
The powers and duties of the Public Alt Commission include tlle following:
D. The commission shall advise the planning commission, the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Commission, other city commissions and committees and city departments
regarding artistic components of all municipal government projects under consideration
by the city. The commission may also serve as a resource for artistic components of land
use developments.
As such, we respectfully submit the attached memo for your consideration and look
forward to discussing this with you at an upcoming study session.
Sincerely,
Melissa Markell, Chair
Public Art Commission
C: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staff liaison to the Public Alt Commission
CITY OF
ASHLAND
MEMO
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
C:
November 2008
City of Ashland Planning Commission
City of Ashland Public Art Commission
3 dimensional signs
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staffliaison to the Public Att Commission
The Public Arts Commission respectfully proposes an alternative recommendation to the
recommendation of the Downtown Task Force to modify the CUD"ent sign code and allow
3 dimensional signs outside the downtown core of up to twenty cubic feet.
The Downtown Task Force's recommendation #2 provides for two scenarios: allowing 3
dimensional signs in the downtown and historic districts limited to three cubic feet and
allowing 3 dimensional signs located outside the downtown area and historic districts up
to twenty cubic feet. In both scenarios, the object must be placed on private property.
We feel the allowance of 3 dimensional signs significantly increases the risk of visual
clutter and the unintended consequences are greater than the potential benefit to Ashland
businesses,
The Task Force admirably strove to accommodate the existing non-compliant 3
dimensional objects (lion, teddy bear, and waiter). The lion would be accommodated
under recommendation #6 allowing "functional objects", the bear would be
accommodated under recommendation #5 allowing the display of merchandise on public
propelty for a rental fee and the chef/waiter accommodated under recommendation #2
allowing 3 dimensional objects up to twenty cubic feet outside the downtown core and
historic districts.
1
All three of these existing items are objects with no blatant commercial message (words
or logos). These generic objects are not associated solely with the business. However,
since regulation of sign content is prohibited there could be a preponderance of 3
dimensional objects with blatant commercial messages that clutter Ashland's visual
landscape as businesses seek greater exposure and visibility. If 3 dimensional signs are
allowed, they likely would have strong and obvious references to the business,
graphically (doughnuts, tires, pizzas, and cameras) with or without words. Or the 3
dimensional objects might only contain words ("TIRES" spelled out oflarge letters that
appear to be made of tires). Either way, the potential for eye clutter is great. This effect
would likely be exacerbated where businesses are clustered together (shopping centers).
Given that the recommendation is an opportunity for an additional sign of significant
size, the opportunity for businesses to take advantage of this for advertising purposes is
great.
It is understandable that business owners want to draw attention to their business as a
means of attracting customers. In lieu of the Task Force recommendation #2, we believe
an appropriate, artistic and aesthetic way to accomplish this desire is through the
placement of public art.
After adoption of the Public Art Master Plan, the City Council requested the public art
selection process be codified. The revised and expanded public art ordinance will go to
the Council for first reading in early December 2008.
The ordinance allows for the placement of public art on private property (through an
easement) and includes guidelines for selection including: "The artwork shall not
promote goods or services of adjacent or nearby business." Through the public art
process, content of the piece is managed via criteria set forth in the request for proposal
and via the guidelines established in the ordinance. A selection panel, separate from the
public art commission and comprised of a variety of persons selects the winning design
and makes the recommendation to the PAC who brings it forward to the City Council for
final approval.
This method of soliciting and selecting 3 dimensional objects helps to protect the visual
aesthetics of the community and provides an opportunity for businesses to call attention
to their business in an attractive and noncommercial way and enables the city to retain
some level of control over the appearance, message and content. While the objects would
2
not be adveliising for a specific business, it could serve the same purpose of drawing
customers: people making a point to go to view the art and then visiting existing
businesses; or serving as a point of reference when providing directions to a business or
location. The art might be a mural, a mosaic, a kinetic piece, a three dimensional
interactive piece etc. It would serve to draw the customers rather than a collection of
advertising signs.
Should the Planning Commission decide to move forward with the Task Force
recommendation of 3 dimensional signs, the Public Art Commission encourages the
Planning Commission to impose a one year review of the amendments versus the two
year review as proposed by the Task Force. A two year review allows time for a
significant number of 3 dimensional signs to be installed - and regardless of the review
outcome those signs will no doubt be in place for years.
Fmiher, the Public Art Commission urges the Planning Commission to carefully evaluate
the proposed dimensions, (the difference between a 3D 'object' and a "fat" 2D sign), and
consider the possible unanticipated consequences (giant 3D hamburgers).
Thank you for your consideration of our position and suggestions.
3
I'
I
.-
I:=!
:.
- . .
etters
-'
-II
,-,
.-
..
i~~~----'~~_.. -~- ~_-,~ - ,~_ .._
~_.~. '.__._-,..:.J~
--- - :. -- .. - -_:-I'~_ :___.1 i,I',
- ~--,. '. "'-----.- -- iIj.;;;~
- -
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
"ST ALLSWORTH Adam 0" <Adam.O.ST ALLSWORTH@odot.state.or.us>
<goldmanb@ashland.or.us>
"STEPHENS Shawn A" <ShawnASTEPHENS@odot.state.or.us>, "PYLES David" <0...
1/27/200910:48 AM
Ashland Sign Code Amendment - ODOT Comments
:.
At this time ODOT has no concerns with the Ashland City Sign Code
Amendment proposal. The Only paint of interest for ODOT would to be
notified of any and all Signs and Banners that would be installed over
or in the State Right of Way. ODOT has no other comments at this time.
Adam O. Stallsworth
Oregon Department of Transportation
Region 3 District 8
White City, Oregon.
"'
.'
'-
;)
~
.,;
:!,
'!
9-16-08
Soundpeace
199 East Main St
~Ashland, OR 97520
.>.
~
.:
I5ear Ashland Planning Commissioner,
I write this letter as the downtown business owner of Soundpeace and as someone who
works and shops downto~.
There is before you a proposal for a revised sign ordinance. One issue that has not been
addressed that relates to Soundpeace is the Tibetan Prayer Flag that we have flown in
front of our store in the garden on private property for years. We have never had a single
comment from a customer or passer by that this flag was in any way offensive. In fact
when we were told to take the flag down we posted a petition in our store asking that the
flag be allowed. Hundreds of people signed the petition injust a few days. Locals and
tourists alike were shocked that Ashland had banned the prayer flag from flying. We
have since submitted that petition to the committee that was formed this summer to
review the sign code.
'-,
My understanding after talking with the very helpful Adam Hanks is that the flag would
continue to be banned under the proposed ordinance. I am requesting that you write into
the ordinance a specific exemption for Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flags. Currently the city
permits the American Flag and flags of the City and State. If you can exempt those flags
then why not the Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flag? I am assuming the city has already
exempted the Tree City USA flag that flies at the Police Station and that therefore it is
lawful to specify certain types of flags that are not governmental.
I am hoping that somehow the City of Ashland can find a way to permit a colorful flag in
a garden whose simple prayer is that an beings may be blessed with peace, compassion,
strength and wisdom.
Thanks for your consideration,
Steve Cole
- ..
. -- . - .- -- ..~----i-"'I .~lll'iIlilr--J:'--"1n'JH:I:..o.o-'\'.~"'Ir.~'J~.I.:;::;"".;lt\'...~~.';;:'~_'_._'~ . .
I 8i72008 Adam Hanks - Cha ter 18 r"-'(=--::~:::":::~'~_~:~v-- m__: ::,---1( 1 _,,~L. _..A~-_C'--_-_-~"'O~"~f'~_m'f,"'__n-_""''''~~a"e 1
(~ ), - ,P '"'~--""'''=<''-~-'~;;I:o;::.-",::-~__,,,"., _", _~=,..."",,,..=," ,_' ::~I<:::- :,~-:-'-c,T""i' il'-~'-'~'="'''~'''- .~~~:~~___~,
:.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
'Wolf Packs, Inc." <traildog@wolfpacks.com>
<hanksa@ashland.or.us> I
8/5/082:55 PM
Chapter 18 Input
Dear Mr. Hanks,
I have been a resident of Ashland for nearly 20 years, as well as the
president of a successful mail-order business. I can not attend
meetings, as I live outside of town and am the mother of a young
child. Still, I would like to have my opinion heard and considered in
connection with Chapter 18 regarding the removal of displays outside
of businesses in town.
I have traveled extensively in my lifetime and Ashland has a special
feel, unlike any other place I have seen. Part of this has to do with
the fun and unusual displays, both inside and outside various local
businesses. Wiley's World's standing plaster mascot Alfredo has
greeted countless children and parents for just about as long as that
establishment has been serving their customers. My four year old
daughter always stopped to have a conversation with the lion in front
of Black Sheep, even before she could talk. I have seen the bear at
the Chocolate Factory and the giraffe at Bug A Boo bring smiles to old
and, young alike. The toys displayed in front of Earth Friendly Kids
always drew my eye, and I would occasionally stop to buy something
because I saw it while driving by.
This new enforcement requiring the removal of so many creative
displays does nothing but put Ashland into an all too common, mundane
class of cities. By clipping the wings or OUf! small business owners,
the artistic feel of the town is diminished. Supporting our local
businesses is certainly in the interest of the City of Ashland, as
without the little guy, our town could easily become unremarkable and
common.
Please count this message as three requests (from me, from my husband,
and from our daughter) to allow our iconic friends to once again grace
the city of Ashland.
.
Respectfully -
Linda von Hanneken-Martin
WolfPacks.com - Gear for Working Dogs
Phone/FAX: 541-482-7669
web: http://wolfpacks.com
email: traildog~wo~packs.com
{II:.
.:..:
Request for change to Sign Ordinance of the City of Ashland.
Background
I moved my family to Ashland (wife and two daughters - 6yr and 2.yr) about 1 yr ago. I opened Endless
Massage to bring an inexpensive and effective option for improved health to the community and our
visitors. We have 4 employees who value and enjoy their jobs, customers who have greatly benefited
from our services, advertising vendors whom we support, an office space lease, and actively contribute
to groups in the community. I respect the ambiance of the town and believe new business owners can
be trusted to promote themselves so these types of signs can be permitted with newly defined
parameters.
Problem statement
.)
I
Starting a busine~s is difficult; a poor economy makes this more difficult. We are trying to gain
awareness"in the community. In addition to all our other advertising, we put up a sandwich board (see
picture on back) and it has dramatically helped our business. The sign is within the footprint of the
building, does not obstruct pedestrian traffic, and is simple and tasteful in design. When removi'1& the
sign at the direction of city officials, we saw a huge drop in revenue such that if we are not able to keeo
C~". . -, I
:~~iRiIi~~,ti'.~'g"-~~M'tI_~ I would be
happy to provide corresponding sales reports to support this. Our location is such that this i~ a vital
component to our advertising and exposure.
S'uggestion
'.
;-
The city could allow the use of sandwich board or similar signs within defined parameters:
· limit size to 3'x2'
· Must not impede pedestrian flow
· Colors and verbiage to be approved by city
· Permits for 6 months
Thank you,
Dave Alexander
:.
541-488-9600
dave@endlessmassage.com
...
I
Charter Amendment ",,,,.' Limited GovernmeneAnYl Protecting Freedom-
This.Amendment Umits Government And Prevents Any Ordint1.nce From Becoming An Unneeded
And Unwanted Bureaucratic Restriction On Individual Fteedom And Business Success
I
. I,
'.
~
:?t ~-
Draft To Show Approach, 2008Aug11
:....:
Support Staff, And Solve The Pr,,-.. __m, , :.:;. '~
. -..: ...... .... .,:.: "I ~ .II:;
I cq,nJinue to read and hear attacks,9n Adams Hanks and Dean Walker...who arar~sponsible for code
enforcement. TAdam and Dean are city employees paid to do the.job they've been directed to do.
Harry Truman had a sign on his desk ''The Buck Stops Here", "
In Ashland, the buck stops with the mayor, who by charter is the Chief ExeCutive Officer of the
corporation known as City of Ashland, and who directs code enforcemenf employees. (.)
We need to stop scapegoating staff who are not responsible for this situation, and focus our energy on
solving the core problem. We need to stop dancinglaround;the edges"to.make a few minor sign':changes ~o
we can "f~el" involved. The law as amended by this task force would not pass a majority vo!e of th.e people
because it doesn't solve the por~ problems. ,~, ,-.1:', ' I~'
Adam and Dean are doing their jobs.
It's time for us as Citizens of Ashland to do ours, wt:!ich ,tg to hold the mayor accountable, and work
together. to rewrite the entire sign code as a simple, understandable law in the public inter.est that would.
pass a majority vote of the people, as it should in a democracy.
~ :~ ~
I' ,~, .._
Problems Of The Sign Code As Amended By' The Task Force, And Task Force Decisions ,;,
It's still not understandable, even by those who've been to 5 meetings and spent'20 hours on it.
It doesn't solve the core problems. -. . ~ c, '..
. . ~,-.;. 1'1
It doesn't identify the publiCI interests that would warrant restricting individ.ual freedom and increasing
business costs:'- ~.~ -'_
It"~oesn't resolve issuesb~hind most of the 55 or s.o noncom.P!,!n~ lett~r~. ,: :. .,~ . ", .
ijJjoesn't ~nswer the questions of businesses or taxpayers for Why so l11ucn tax.money IS being spent on
this item rattier than higher priority items.' "
It perpetuates the overkill restrictions that go.Jar beyond the public interests re clutter and transparency.
It perpetuates ambiguity in the current law that prevent staff and businesses from determining with
~pecificity whether their signs ;do or don:t satisfy the sign code. This ambiguity and resulting discretion
:::reates 'negotiations' between businesses and staff, and results in charges of .favoritism and unequal
:lpplication of th~.,law (Wiley's Waiter gets dinged, barber poles do not; spme businesses are allowed neon
3igns, others are not; etc.). . " .
It perpetuates multiple sign categories and expensive bureaucrB'cy without a guiding public interest.
It continues restrictions on "exempt signs". How strange to write restrictions on signs that are exempt
:rom the law. .'~; . ,- PI,. ;\'! '''' ,.':T:
It transfers liability for government property to businesses through "hold harmless" legal agreement's that
'equire Ashland businesses to bear attorney costs for actsJ,of govel11ment, ,wht}ther proper or"improper.
It transfers maintenance costs for government property to businesses by requiring.,maintenance
~greements forcing Ashland businesses to bear maintenance costs for property that the government owns.
It transfers control to resolve cOre issL.U3s to the Planning Commission, where the 2 mayoral candidates
m the task force have more influence. "' .~"._. '. .,", ~-;:",: ~f
My message to the task force is the-same as my message to the Charte~lReview Committee:,,,~You can't
Jet there from here. The process you're using won't solve the problem because you're.not building the law"
>ased on the majority willnof the people. The amended law wouldn't pasS' a ballot: 1.\:0."
We need to go a different direction. Let's rewrite the law as Citizens in"'the public ihterest, by identifying
he public interests that warrant sign restrictions, and limit the restrictions accordingly. ~)
We Citizens can write a simple, understandable law that finds fhe balance between business freedom
Ind limited public interests re visual clutter arid"Window transparency without treating the current '.~, ',~
'u~eaucratic nightmare for code enforcement and 'negotiations'. '_ :. "
~ .. .-
m Bullock
Ifthepeopleeditor@gmail.com
488-3366
hat's GUV-DEMOcracy
;
.,
,-,
.:.:
.!":; ,
'!1
.~~ ~
'li"
{,.;
I.~~
,
To Whom It May Concern" .,
My name is Matt and I owned and operated Rare Earth on the Plaza for over 39 years until controlling
interest was sold to Marcy several years ago. I am for the time being still the landlord of the Perrine's
Building and Old Simpson's Hardware Building. We lease to some of the oldestlbest merchants and
" tenants on the Plaza, regarded as mends and associates for over 25 years. I have always been more of a
merchant than a landlord and it is reflective in the terms I offer my tenants considering the every rising
costs in fees, taxes, insurance, utilities, employees and benefits being imposed by the City, County, State
and Feds. These rising costs coupled with the dramatic loss ofswes (over 60% in the last 5 years) are
severely impacting many businesses ability to survive in Ashland. We did not downsize Rare Earth out of.
personal wishes or for fun!! We, thankfully, downsized in time to survive the lack ofleadership and the
obvious lack of concern for the downtown business community's needs! It is not the price of gas or the
tourist's attitudes; it is not the economy or a lack of knowledge in the business community. It is the lack
of leadership to provide healthy direction, convenience and accessibility to the downtown for its citizens, .
guests and especially our neighboring communities. We have demonstrated an intolerable arrogance and
lack of cooperation towards our neighbors on many levels. It is no wonder an attitiide has emerged from
one of pride and aI!nost envy to becoming laughing stock within a few ~hort years.
" '!I;jl' llit;; II ii' II II '\IWII 'I iT" ,'-jOi ."
.,' :!!:5> I~ ~ ,I,IJ I;; 1J..':!;l~ : .
'I
JUl 1 7 Z007 , .
\."
,~
1-
Ashland is a touriSt town with nobody waiting in the wings to save us from the very amenities that
attracted many of you to relocate to Ashland in the first place. Why 'are we now condemning those
amenities and gains that tourism has facilitated in our community? The result is that Ashland no longer
has "value" and is not competing w~ll in the tourist market, not because of the lack of a desire totvisit by
others but because of the limitations being imposed by ignoring those needs of a community based on
tourism. Ashland is no longer envied or admired as an example ofa balanced and thriving community.
How many of you say, "Oh, I don't go downtown because of the congestion and incivility" or "I'm"sick
of paying the only sales tax in Oregon to bail out more city waste" or "They do not have anything I want
downtown," when you haven't even looked in years? We hear this from many p~ple throughout the
valley. Oh yes, people come to town for a play, parade or other special event but because of the negative
attitude oflocals spurred by their leaders, no parking, excessive taxes and ticketing they do not "stay,
play and shop" any longer. Why would leaders of any community tolerate this untenable and destructive
situation to its business community? We are suffocating from a City that won't grasp the fact that
accessible adequate parking is essential in Ashland and we are paying dearly for that neglect because of a
few who have wasted the Community's resources, integrity, and time on social engineering projects that
have not yielded meaningfi.d and realistic results or positively impacting our community after spending
millions while forgoing the security of a solid infrastructure.
As a thought to contemplate, South Shore Lake Tahoe accommodates 12 million diversified tourists
every year with their population of32 thousand living in a pristine area successfully and environmentally.
The problems of water, recreation, environment, growth, community, housing, a vision and busine"ss
needs were positively impacted years ago with a little cooperation from all concerned. The
acknowledgement was that no one is always right and compromise is the road to success and a benefit for
all by simply stimulating the engines ofa community. Meaningless arguments over conditions that can not
be impacted or resolved are a waste of time and money. If individuals wish to follow a lifestyle, that is
their free choice, but to condemn an entire community to the same limitations are nonsense and
counterproductive. Tahoe asked each group to defend the others positions and compromised a settlement
based on that position. The result produced a level of sustainability with their neighboring communities as
:~:
:"1
:,f
a reality 'not j~st lip service or political dialogs in meetings and propaganda sessions. They established that
using private entrepreneurship to res~lve problems does work best while acknowledging the responsibility
and duty of any viable city is to provide the community with practical functioning infrastructures,
educational opportUnities, maintenance of public property/open spaces and public safety at a "reasonable
and affordable cost." The social amenities that Ashland claims to desire, but can not afford, are being
financed there by the successful enterprises and cooperation within the business community.
Certainly a city should contribute alternative ideas but in Ashland's case any attempt at success without
adding convenient accessible workforce and visitor parking will remain fleeting and unattainable. No
debate has or will change that reality! I have heard every cliche and excuse the City can muster over the
last 25 years and the end product is always the same: More failures, more excuses, more meetings, more
wasted time, and more money to avoiding the obvious! If the purpose or intent of redundant dialog over
the obvious is to destroy and obstruct what once was a world-class community congratulation, they are
winning! But if Ashland is to once again be "Gem of Southern Oregon," one real need of the downtown
would be parking! Get a grip folks; there is no significant economic diversity on the horizon that has or
can survive this leaderships meddling and anti everything referendum. That leaves what is left of tourism
and like it or not the car is the only viable way for any guests, workers and citizens to enter Ashland. The
car is not going away any time soon but it will be improved. There are autos that get upwards of a
hundred miles to the gallon and others that do not use gas at all. It is only a matter of time as this Country
sets the definitive goal with real cooperation from the very business community they condemn. Tata
Motor from India has already developed a compressed air car that goes 70+ miles per hour, a range of
200 miles without gas, and a 600+ mile range at 78 miles per gallon with a hybrid gas compressed air
combo. It cost about $7500 for the basic model and set to sell overseas next spring.
.-
_I
If realistic solution including adequate accessible parking were forthcoming, the downtowrl businesses
and property owners would be very willing to cooperate on any level required. It must be made very
clear and understood that attempts to add non-related agendas will sever any cooperation.
Stop confusing affordable housing or other social problems with downtown parking needs. These are
s~parate issues with very different solutions. The infill myth that the City Planning Department runs is as
flawed as their growth myth in the recent past. Concentrate time and money on those things that actually
can be affected and cause meaningful change, like parking, will guarantee success.
"
r
There is a lot of work to be accomplished if Ashland is to do more than just survive. It needs to regain its
credibility, competitive edge and deskability. To procrastinate will only hasten the continued collapse of a
once thriving and desirable community that has succumbed to the fantasy of obstructionism and lying by
omission as a path to success. You can be sure that it is not going to be pleasant to anyone living or
owning anything in Ashland ifwhat is occurring continues. Personally, I do not think the City has the will
or desire to work with or support their business community. They certainly will not listen to those of us
who are on Main Street and are trying to survive their mandates, taxes, tickets, user fees, rising costs,
codes, ordinances, lack of parking and general incivility. We need to get back on tract, get realistic about
the damage that has been done to our community's economy and the need for adequate accessibility
workforce and visitor parking before we become just another wasteland of bad ideas and dreams of what
could have been.
-.-
"
I
!_~
'-
'.'
l;i
:.
i(
I.
1-
F orrowing is a simple list of possibilities that might help to get Ashland back on the tracks if enacted
sooner rather than later. The list is by no means meant as complete, but could help set a new tone for
cooperation and consideration of our guests and citizens that wish to enjoy the amenities of Ashland.
l.ii',
1) Change the Nutley Street parking lot (ice skating lot) and Windburn Way's head in parking at Lithia
Park to 2 hour near the Plaza and 4 hours from the playground to the band shell. Place both in the
"
downtown-parking zone with limited parking between sJ:OO to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
2) Change the Water Street parking lots to 2 and 4 hour. Place them in the downtown parking zone with
limited parking 9:00 to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day. I
3) Encourage and promote Park and Ride areas at the North and South Interchange when the overpasses
are rebuilt by ODOT. Get a grant of finance with ODOT and the county's help. Strongly consider the
feasibility of a free City shuttle and/or better bus services throughout Ashland from Memorial Day to
Labor Day. It would be advisable and courteous to have added bus service during major special events
and parades like Hallow"een, 4th of July and Festival of Lights.
4) Immediately consider where to put additional parking downtown and implement on a fast track. From
the 1988 downtown plan Ashland is a 1000 space shy of satisfying the minimal needs in the downtown.
We may never reach this goal but it is essential we try and have an official short and long term plan to add
needed parking in the core downtown areas.
If two people per car rotate through a parking spot downtown for the two hour limit just 8 hours of a 24
hour day and spend an average of $1 00 per person on shopping, dinning and entertainment the potential
revenues gained from a single parking place from June thru October is $144,000 per year. When you
consider that we are 1000 parking spaces short we are depriving our community of an enormous amount
of money and higher paying job opportunities by not giving our citizens, guest and workforce what they
want and need---more adequate accessible downtown parking!
5) Stop'-ticketing employees, city staff, merchants and owners when they are offwork playing, shopping
or dining downtown. It is just wrong to ticket' them when they are not working and within the parking
guidelines others must follow. Parking agents can keep tract with w8.ming tickets that state if they are
working they are not to park in the downtown zone and if an individual is obviously violating that rule
with excessive warnings, ticket them. During business hours for needed stops allow employees and
owners to place a note or fonn letter from the city on their vehicles for a 15 minute temporarily picking
up or delivering courtesy, ifviolated ticket them.
6) A complaiQ.t I- have heard: the City excludes themselves from the impact of the problems they help
create. They should share in the demands placed on others, yet they manipulate and ignore codes,
ordinances and laws they've place for their benefit and a chosen few. Everything from parking permits for
themselves, to blackberry abatement, riparian codes, and business license requirements, banner/sign
ordinances, encroachment permits, allowing retail sales and concerts in an R2 residential family zoning
without parking requirements or revie}V standards are approved by the City while businesses on the Plaza
are threatened into submission for the 'smallest infractions that, more often than not, are literally
meaningless and the hobgoblin of little bureaucratic minds rationalizing their jobs and flexing their power.
7) Another point of interest ---many Plaza businesses do not allow their employees to park downtown
even in the area and times allowed. They park only on Granite Street or above when working. They are.
well aware of the problem for customers and are in the forefront when trying to provide for their needs. .
~..
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Matt
~1ik~.
..,,~ ~4~_
: ~I'~ __ "-, :;~~ '-'. I. .__
",,~if:<<'_"~., ~1
:..JW,j!_. ~"~\~' _ ~-c ~~:~i1 ~~, r'~
~~: ___,__,~.__ ___~u
~I~~ ~J! .~
i'
- ....
....;
~
,;,;
310 Oak Street
c/o P.o. Box 201 .'
Ashland, OR 87520
:;'!l~.
fJ.
2 May 2006 '
of
\;
..
Ashland City Council
20 East MaIn St
Ashland. OR 91520
~Lt
~
Ae: Sign code revision for bUildings with more lI1an
two business frontages
Dear Council Members.
Please see the following pages regarding the sign code revision forwarded to
you In the summer by the Planning Commission.
1tVe believe vve understand the principal concern of the Council, and we added
language to ensure business frontages In excess of two will oot be as promfnently
.slgned- as the two primary frontages. An allowable sign area of 50% for the third
business frontage and 250;{, for the fourth business frontage business frontages of what
might be permiUed for the two designated primary business frontages should enable a
business to identify itseH. lessen the visual impad. and deal with unintended
consequences.
it seems that it Is likely that hying to restrict 100 number of signs any given
business may have to two sides of a building may be a reslriction of oontent Th~s.
since it ia apparent that there are buildings that have business frontages on more than
two sides. the best way to deal with undesirable Impact is to reduce Ihe size permitted.
Our tenants at 130 -AS Street do want, need and deserve signs. We hope this
modification will ensure they may have them soon. _
We do oot believe sign applications should bigger site reviews. OIher
applications already do that
Thank you.
ff'~:'
- ~;..~:~ ~I <~~ -_..
'- . t, - \I
~ ,~ '., j,' )~.,.,....;
_ '"'!; r fl"',o,)'! I)
1!
'^''\
'....1
,-'" :.,
,/ ,j d
Sincerely.
,~~ ~~~"-
Brent ThomPFn
488..()407
Barbara lbompson .
fl~ /La ~,:~~.:.~;-"..'-;'-'~ ~
. , -
. ._~' /_~-'~' ': "I ~c_: ~ -~.-;_.. _:'., '.' '_~--~~' .~~ ~_~ ~ :,;,'
- ~ -' ,-.... -.. ',-' !jf~""~ ^ - ,~, - . ~'-
: ~',,_-,"'."--_-"..~,~-,~o ._.f' h \~- ""',-,'"
~~'--:;' - \~~,I.. _~ ~ '!.I"'~'..
~ .~E..:. I~r ,t...............;
.~~.:~~
-- -~ '~~""
~{
~",It > .- ,," ,--, -, .,., ,..Ifl AI ~
. ._~ ~
''''';f11tt:-''(- 1*^':'" .-''''",-,
,-~ 0:;: ,
.. .
h"'"' .
. --
.~~:- .-
, j_'J". _.'..._=:;..... . '".;
;~_/
,.,.,
SECTION 18.96.080 Com.merci~I-Downtown Overlay District (e-l-D).
Signs in tbe Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall conform to the following regulations:
A. Special Provisions. ,~ ~'J" r.' II' :~
1. Frontage. The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business
=__~..,,_ n~' ~" fron~age s~lall be plac~ed only u?on such busit~ess.. frontage, ~d Be 1:J~iIdiBg IRslI he
~I:I(- , ..1 9rtthtttl 'l:ltR men t:RM. t'.V8 h1l8tMIiI i'aRtag""'fa- bu'dings with nUliple business
"-'" -~ frontages the sign area for business frontages exceeding two shall be 50%
for the lI,ird side and 25% for IlIe toUrlll side of the normal area pennitted.
2. Aggregate number otsigns,:oi:?The aggreg~te number of signs for each business shall
be two signs for each business frontage (a frontage with an entrance/exit open to the
general public). '
3. Material. No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall use plastic as
part of the exterior visual effects of the sign.
4. Aggregate area of signs. The aggre~ate area of all signs established by and located
on a given street frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each
lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real
estate and construction signs.
B. Types of Signs Pennitted/
1. Wall Signs. ,0:
a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each
business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a
singfe common space or suite.
b. Area. Total sign area shall not be more tban one square fOQt of sign~area for
one lineal ,.foot 'of legal business frontage. TIlis area shall not exceed sixty
square feel -,
c~. Projection. Signs may project a maximum of eigliteen inches from the face'
of the building to which they are at.tached, provided the lowest portion of the
sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may
only project four inch~.
d. Extension above. roof lIne. Sings may not project above the roof or eave line
. . ~!
. of the buddmg.
2. Ground Signs.
a. Number. One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, *all be permitted for each lot with
a street frontage in ex~s of fifty lilleal feet. Comer lots can count one street
frontage. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for
purposes of meeting the foregoing standard.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal
feet of street frontage, with a maximum area of six.ty square feet per sign.
c. Placement. Signs shall be plac,ed so that no sign or portion thereof shall
extend beyond any property line of Ule premises on which such sign is
located. Signs on cameO properties shall also comply with the vision
clearance provisions of Section 18.96.06O(F).
d. Height. No ground sign shall be in excess offive feet above grade.
3. Marquee or A wnlng Signs. .. I
a. Number.. A maximum of two signs shall be permitted for each business
frontage in lieu of wall signs.
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the pennitted aggregate sign area not taken up
:~ by a wall sign. I.
"
~~. ~ ~
:~..:
~i:
I<
;-i
~I.1I~
~.
/;
';-:.,.
~~
.'
~
--'-'-
.-.....:::::-~-;::'~..:t...
;~;
~
'-"~'
;;
-<!
i~'
. ..~~
ii',
~,