Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-11 Planning PACKET Note: 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 OCTOBER 11, 2011 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. September 13, 2011 Regular Meeting IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01174 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the zoning map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to create a Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and accompanying ordinance amendments designed to support and build unique neighborhood character by promoting concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to support more walking, bicycling and transit use. B.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01175 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance including Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72. The proposed code amendments are intended to reflect the Council’s interpretation and application of collocation provisions reflected in their decision of a wireless communication facility in November 2010 (PA #2009-01244) VI. 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). î ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Melanie Mindlin 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Eric Heesacker Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Pam Marsh Russ Silbiger, absent Mick Church CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.August 9, 2011 Regular Meeting. 2.August 23, 2011 Special Meeting. 3.August 23, 2011 Study Session. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes for the August 9, 2011 Regular Meeting and August 23, 2011 Special Meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. Commissioner Mindlin noted a correction request was received from Colin Swales regarding the public testimony he provided at the August 23, 2011 Study Session. Commissioners Miller/Heesacker m/s to approve the minutes for the August 23, 2011 Study Session with the following sentence added to Mr. Swales’ testimony:“Swales stated there is already plenty of R-2 and R-3 land within the City that is underdeveloped (often a single family home on a large lot). No rezoning is required or needed.” Voice Vote on minutes as amended: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01001 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: Application for approval of an ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) as a supporting technical document to be included in the Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled “Technical Report and Supporting Documents”. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated the Buildable Lands Inventory is a technical document that delineates the land within the city limits and urban growth boundary that has development potential, and provided a brief explanation of how these numbers are determined. Mr. Goldman added following the August 23 Study Session, staff went back and took a second look at historic district rd properties over 6,500 sq. ft. in size and determined there were 26 additional properties that could accommodate further development. He stated staff has adjusted these figures in the proposed Buildable Lands Inventory accordingly. Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 1 of 3 í Commissioner Dawkins commented on rezoning the north side of Lithia Way and asked what they would need to do to covert this area to high density residential. Mr. Goldman stated the City is nearing completion of the Housing Needs Analysis, which will provide data on what housing types are needed over the next 20-40 years. He stated once they have this data they could hold an informed discussion on whether additional high density residential land is needed. Public Testimony Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Commented on the Buildable Lands Inventory being used as a justification for annexation when there is not a real need. He commented on residential being looked at more holistically; and also stated some of the so-called buildable land is physically constrained and not really developable. Lastly, he noted the assessed values in Jackson County had been trending upward, however the newest assessment coming out this fall shows 25% of Jackson County properties have a real market value less than the assessed value, and questioned how this will impact the BLI’s determination of redevelopable land. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Deliberations & Decisions Mr. Goldman commented on the concern expressed in public testimony regarding the redevelopable calculation. He agreed that using assessed values can fluctuate the figures wildly, which is why Ashland uses a partially-vacant calculation instead. He clarified instead of an assessment based on value, Ashland uses an assessment based on zoning and how much of the land is buildable. Mr. Goldman also clarified staff did subtract out steep slopes and floodplains in order to get the most accurate numbers possible. Support was voiced for adopting the Buildable Lands Inventory as presented. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to approve PA #2011-01001. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Heesacker, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 4-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. Planning Manager Maria Harris stated this is a continuation of their agenda item from the last meeting and no new information has been presented. Jim Fong/759 Leonard Street and Rod Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace addressed the Commission and presented the following questions and suggestions regarding the proposed ordinance changes: AMC 18.72.180.B: Asked what changes were made to the applicability chart; what the difference between the three categories are; and whether all wireless installations could be required to go through a CUP process regardless of the zone. AMC 18.72.180.D(1.e): Asked for clarification on whether wireless facilities are allowed in residential zones. AMC 18.72.180.D(2.a): Requested language be added to subsection (i) that clarifies a “significant service gap” exists when the City fails to meet its legal requirements under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Mr. Fong clarified the City should better define “infeasible”, and stated the City is required to make services available but they are not required to accommodate every provider’s individual service needs. In regards to subsection (iii), they asked that language be added that clarifies it must not be physically possible to add to an existing structure (not that there are no limitations, but that those limitations cannot be overcome). And regarding subsection (v), asked that language be added that elaborates that some interference obstruction can occur as long as the City can meet its requirements under the 1996 law. Mr. Fong concluded their testimony by asking the Planning Commission to include a recommendation for an independent technical analysis fee with their recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Harris clarified no changes were made to the applicability table; in terms of flow staff felt it was better to move it to its proposed location. She added this chart has been in the ordinance since it was originally adopted and explained what the three table headings meant. Regarding 18.72.180.D(1.e), Ms. Harris stated this is not new language and clarified wireless facilities are allowed in residential zones if they are attached to existing structures, but the structure has to be over 45 ft in height. She added the maximum building height in a residential zone is 35 ft; and this language could allow for facilities on structures such as the university or high school’s stadium light towers. Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 2 of 3 ì Ms. Harris explained staff’s intention was to incorporate the Council’s decision but not change the other existing language in the ordinance. She stated the language in 18.72.180.D(2.a) is mostly new, and stated staff can look into the suggestions about tying this to the standards in the Federal Communications Act. Mr. Newton recommended the City also look into what it means to have coverage in an area and to seek legal guidance on whether they are required to accommodate a company’s desire for higher levels of data reception. The Commission voiced support for looking into whether the City is required to allow every provider to have coverage within the City, and whether cellular telephone service constitutes coverage, or if they need to accommodate data streaming. B.Pedestrian Places Proposed Code Amendments. Ms. Harris noted staff provided an update on this item at their last meeting and stated this is the Commission’s opportunity to discuss any outstanding issues before this comes back as a public hearing. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Questioned why these code amendments would go before the Council separate from the TSP update. Mr. Swales also commented on the arterial setback requirements and voiced concern with some of the wording. He stated he does not believe it is un-conducive to pedestrian places to have small plazas on the street. He stated there is no public plaza space requirement in the ordinance and expressed concern with all new buildings being built to the minimum setback. Ms. Harris clarified the Pedestrian Places project is a subset of the TSP Update. She explained Planning staff had submitted a separate grant application for this project; however the State contacted the City and agreed to fold this into the TSP Update in order to receive the grant award. She stated it was always conceived as a separate project, and Public Works and the consultants have no problems with moving this ahead since the land use changes proposed do not impact how the main street network functions. Ms. Harris also clarified there is a public patio space requirement for large scale projects and this is an existing requirement in the detail site review zone. She commented on providing some flexibility in the code on where to locate that space and stated sometimes a plaza off the side street or on the side of a building is more desirable and conducive to a functioning pedestrian place; and commented on allowing the design professionals to design a plaza space that works for that particular building and location. Correction was noted to 18.56.040.E(3) and E(4). Staff clarified these two items should have been combined and indicated this would be corrected. UPDATE A.Grant Application for Unified Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Harris announced the City Council has authorized staff to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant to create a unified land use ordinance. She stated creating a more user-friendly land use code was a recommendation of the Siegel Report, and if awarded this project would: 1) incorporate the various standards documents into the land use code, 2) make the code more approachable by improving the organization, formatting and graphics, 3) integrate a form-based approach where feasible, and 4) incorporate some of the green code updates. She clarified this project is not focused on policy changes, but rather repackaging the land use code to make it more user friendly. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated the first stage of the Siegel recommendation resulted in major changes to the code and stated the idea of streamlining the code worries him. He gave examples of previous streamlining that caused problems and recommended they not tinker with the code if it is working. Mr. Swales also spoke to the Commission quorum issue that has come up at recent City Council meetings and stated it is worrisome when major issues are decided by so few people. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 3 of 3 ë ê TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING Pedestrian Places PA-2011-01174 é è ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT October 11, 2011 PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01174 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3, C-1 and E-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential, Commercial, Employment ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18.08 Definitions, Chapter 18.12 Districts and Zoning Map, 18.40 E-1 Employment District, 18.60 Airport Overlay Zone, Chapter 18.68 General Regulations,Chapter 18.72 Site Design Review, Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards Options, Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking, Chapter 18.108 Procedures STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Goal 2 - Land Use Planning Goal 9 - Economic Development Goal 10 - Housing Goal 12 - Transportation OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS): Chapter 197 – Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR): 660-012-0000 Transportation Planning REQUEST: To amend the Ashland Zoning Map to include a Pedestrian Place Overlay, to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) to include a new Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones, and to amend the Site Design and Use Standards and multiple chapters of the ALUO to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project. I. Relevant Facts A. Background Project History The Pedestrian Places project originated from a presentation on “Designing Great Arterial Streets” in September 2007 that was sponsored by the City of Ashland, and conducted by the Oregon Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program. The workshop was held because city leaders and local residents were studying the ordinance requirements for the City’s five arterials (N. Main St., E. Main St., Lithia Way, Siskiyou Blvd. and Ashland St.). In particular, the presenters noted how sections of Siskiyou Blvd. and E. Main St. seem to work well for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, but then reached a point where the more walkable neighborhoods ended. The idea of creating pedestrian nodes or Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 10 ç places in these transitional areas was suggested as a way to begin extending walkable neighborhoods to other locations in Ashland. The Planning Commission expressed interest in the suggestion, and Community Development Department staff pursued obtaining funding for the project. The City of Ashland received a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program to partially fund a Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. The Pedestrian Places study is a component of the TSP project. The TGM program is a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and is designed to integrate transportation planning with the statewide land use planning program. The TGM program is supported by state and federal funds. Ultimately, the City Council affirmed the project as part of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update in June 2010. Plan Development Process Beginning in October 2010, the planning process involved a series of public workshops (10.27.10, 12.9.10, 2.22.11), an on-line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions (3.29.11, 8.23.11, 9.13.11). The workshops and on- line forum used a three-step process where participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location. The on-line forum (i.e. Open City Hall) was used to provide an opportunity for people to learn about the project and submit comments without having to physically attend a public meeting. The Open City Hall reports and written comments received during the plan development process are attached. The illustration plans and a review of the zoning and the land use ordinance were presented to the Planning Commission on March 29, 2011, and the Commission indicated agreement with working toward implementation of the recommended revisions. The review of the zoning and land use ordinance determined the existing zoning and design standards to be largely supportive of creating pedestrian places in terms of transit- supportive densities and pedestrian-oriented design standards. The final report included several recommended revisions to the zoning map and ordinance to further support the development of pedestrian places. The recommendations included developing an overlay as a tool to implement standards that supplement the base zoning district, and ordinance amendments in five key areas: 1) increased allowable floor area ratio (FAR), 2) maximum building setbacks, 3) minimum building height, 4) revised landscaped area requirements and 5) reduced parking standards. Additionally, staff identified pedestrian and vehicular circulation through sites, particularly parking areas, as an area that needs improvement. B. Description of the Proposal The Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and accompanying ordinance amendments are designed to support the development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 10 ïð walking, cycling and transit use. The revisions are based on the recommendations from the report on the review of the zoning and land use ordinance completed as part of the Pedestrian Places Project by Otak (memo dated March 21, 2011). Pedestrian Places Overlay The attached map delineates the Pedestrian Places Overlay corresponding to the three study areas, and the packet includes a draft Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones. The Pedestrian Places Overlay is proposed in three locations surrounding the intersections of N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St., Walker Ave./Ashland St., and Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. The overlay boundaries are based on areas within a five-minute walk which are designated as Detail Site Review Zone in the Walker Ave./Ashland St. and Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. study areas, and a core area around the intersection for the N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St. study area. Pedestrian Places Code Revisions In addition to the new Overlay Zones chapter, the packet includes amendments to implement the Pedestrian Places Project recommendations to multiple sections of the ALUO including Chapter 18.08 Definitions, Chapter 18.12 Districts and Zoning Map, 18.68 General Regulations, Chapter 18.72 Site Design Review, Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards Options, Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking, and Chapter 18.108 Procedures. Additionally, there are a few housekeeping items included in the attached revisions that are not related to the Pedestrian Places Project. The proposed changes are included in the attached draft ordinances – An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter 18.56, An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards, and An Ordinance Amending Miscellaneous Chapter of the AMC/ALUO. A summary of the draft revisions follows. Pedestrian Places Overlay Zone and Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones The zoning map is revised to include a Pedestrian Places Overlay in three locations surrounding the intersections of N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St., Walker Ave./Ashland St., and Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. A new Overlay Zones chapter is added to the ALUO including a Pedestrian Places Overlay (PP Overlay). The overlay zone would implement additional uses and standards that supplement the base zoning district. The following uses are allowed in the PP Overlay in addition to the permitted uses in the base residential zoning district (applicable to the N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St. location): professional offices and personal service establishments, stores, shops and offices supply commodities and performing services, and restaurants. These additional uses can be a maximum of 2,500 square feet in size, need to be located within a building or group of buildings including a mixture of housing and businesses, and provided along with the required minimum number of housing units in the development. Developments in a base residential zoning district that include a mixture of housing and businesses will be required to obtain Site Review Approval in the PP Overlay (applicable to the N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St. location). Currently, multi-family housing projects (2 or more residential units) are required to obtain Site Review Approval. Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 10 ïï New structures other than single-family homes and related accessory buildings are required to have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .50, and a maximum yard abutting a street of five feet. FAR is the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the total lot area, and is a measure of the intensity of the site being developed. A provision is added allowing outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces to be counted toward meeting up to 50% of the landscaping ratio in the PP Overlay. The Airport Overlay and Residential Overlay are transferred from Chapter 18.40 E-1 Employment District and Chapter 18.60 Airport Overlay Zone to the new Chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones. Site Design and Use Standards In the Detail Site Review Zone, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) minimum is increased from .35 to .50, and the maximum FAR is deleted. Additionally, language added allowing a shadow plan that shows how the site will eventually reach the required minimum FAR. In the Detail Site Review Zone, the allowed maximum setback from the public sidewalk is reduced from 20 feet to five feet, unless the area will be used for plazas or eating areas. The standards addressing on-site circulation systems for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, pedestrian scale lighting on pathways, streetscape improvements to on-site circulation systems, credit for automobile parking and green surface parking are deleted from the Site Design and Standards and moved to Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking. Chapter 18.68 General Regulations The arterial street setback requirement requiring a setback from the center line of the street on E. Main St. and Ashland St., and requiring all new development on arterial streets to be set back no less than 20 feet is deleted from the ordinance. The Pedestrian Places Project report identified the requirements of 18.68.050 as “are not supportive of the desired qualities of this or any other pedestrian place.” Chapter 18.72 Site Design Review Mixed-use buildings in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay is added to the list of developments that require a development that requires Site Design Review. The Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards section revised to provide an option so that applications that can either demonstrate that the existing criteria are met including “demonstrable difficulty” in meeting the requirements of the Site Design and Sue Standards, or that the proposal will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. The controlled access standards are deleted and moved to Chapter 18.92 Off- Street Parking. Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 10 ïî Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards Options The P-Overlay is amended to the PSO-Overlay to reflect the title of the Chapter, and to help distinguish this existing overlay from the new Pedestrian Places Overlay (PP Overlay). Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking The existing Disabled Persons Parking Places section (formerly 18.92.030) is moved up after the section covering the number of spaces required by use. Language added clarifying the van accessible parking space requirement. The on-street parking credit section is expanded to a Parking Management Strategies section which includes provisions to reduce the required off-street parking through measures such as providing alternative vehicle parking, instituting individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans, providing spaces in shared parking lots, and providing transit facilities. Additionally, the on-street parking credit is amended so that one off-street parking space credit can be received for one on-street parking space contiguous to the lot which contains the use. The new section 18.92.080 is largely existing language from Chapter 18.92, 18.72 and the Site Design and Use Standards reformatted and consolidated in one location. The new language is limited to the following sections. 18.92.080.B.4 “Green” surface parking requirements from the Croman o Mill District Design Standards moved to Chapter 18.92. This section requires minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of surface parking areas by either providing additional tree canopy or solar energy generating carports to shade surface parking lots, using porous paving surface for 50% of the parking area, or using paving materials with a high solar reflectance. Additionally, parking lots are required to be designed to treat storm water runoff in landscape medians and swales. 18.92.080.C.1 and 2 Clarification added as to where access and o circulation requirements apply and that a traffic study may be required to determine access, circulation and other transportation impacts. 18.92.080.C.4.a Second sentence beginning “Where necessary…” added o to clarify when joint access may be required. A section on Pedestrian Access and Circulation (18.92.090) is included with standards for safe, direct and convenient pedestrian circulation through new developments and connecting to existing or planned sidewalks. Similarly intended standards are currently included in the Detail Site Review Standards and Large Scale Development standards. Chapter 18.108 Procedures Mixed-use buildings in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay are added to the list of Type I procedures subject to the Site Design Review Standards of Chapter 18.72. The remainder of the amendments in this chapter are corrections of accidental omissions and typographical errors from the 2007 ordinance amendments. Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 10 ïí II. Project Impact The purpose of the zoning and ordinance amendments is to support the development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use. The revisions are based on the recommendations from the report on the review of the zoning and land use ordinance completed as part of the Pedestrian Places Project by Otak (memo dated March 21, 2011). The proposed zoning and ordinance amendments are consistent with local land use goals and policies, as well as with the Statewide Planning Goals. The following discussion includes a review of local and state goals and policies. Chapter 18.108 allows for legislative amendments “in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions.” The Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation on legislative amendments to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council is also required to hold a public hearing, and the City Council makes the final decision. In planning for future Pedestrian Places, there are two primary areas of consideration – integrating community-wide needs, and creating attractive and functional places for the people living in, working in, shopping and visiting the pedestrian place areas. Community-wide needs include addressing the City’s long range land use and transportation goals such as accommodating future population and employment growth, making streets convenient, safe, accessible and attractive for all users, and promoting livability in neighborhoods. Under the Oregon Statewide Planning System, Ashland is required to plan for population and employment changes in the future. Population projections indicate that Ashland will grow by an average of 1% a year, or approximately 3,200 additional residents by 2030. Employment projections show an average employment growth rate of .75% of year, or an additional 2,000 employees by 2027. The City Council recently reaffirmed the long-standing community policy of accommodating growth with the City’s existing Urban Growth Boundary, as opposed to growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands. In balancing the projected population and employment growth with the community’s desire to retain a distinct boundary and prevent sprawling development, opportunities for using land more efficiently for residential and employment purposes are being examined. Additionally, projects like the Pedestrian Places project allow the community to consider sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, incorporating green street infrastructure that treats storm drainage in landscape medians and planting strips, integrating affordable housing opportunities, taking advantage of compact building design to reduce the footprint of new construction, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options. Statewide Planning Program Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 – Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 10 ïì framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 9 – Economic Development requires cities and counties to address providing adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities for residents. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10 – Housing requires cities and counties to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state, including a range of types and price/rent levels, and allowing for flexibility of housing location, type and density. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 12 – Transportation, as well as OAR 660-012-0000 the “Transportation Planning Rule,” require transportation planning to be in coordination with land use planning. Additionally, the rule requires local governments to adopt land use regulations that address a variety of land use and transportation issues, including the following items that are directly related to the proposed Pedestrian Place amendments. In MPO areas, local governments are required to adopt regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile, specifically by allowing transit –oriented developments (TODs) on lands along transit routes. In MPO areas, local governments are required to either adopt a parking plan that reduces parking spaces per capita, or revise ordinance requirements to: reduce minimum off-street parking requirements for non-residential o uses, allow provisions of on-street parking, long-term lease parking and o shared parking to meet minimum off-street parking requirements, establish off-street parking maximums in appropriate locations, exempt structured parking and on-street parking from parking o maximums, and require parking lot s over 3 acres in size to provide street like features o along major driveways. Adopt regulations requiring on-site facilities which accommodate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from within new subdivisions, multi- family developments, planned developments, shopping centers, and commercial districts to adjacent residential areas and transit stops, and to neighborhood activity centers with one-half mile of development. Adopt regulations requiring new office parks and commercial developments to provide internal pedestrian circulation through clustering of buildings, construction of accessways and, walkway and similar techniques. Ashland Comprehensive Plan A variety of Ashland Comprehensive Plan goals and policies support further refinement of the land use ordinance to support the development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use. Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 10 ïë Economy Goal To ensure that the local economy increases in its health, and diversifies in the number, type and size of businesses consistent with the local social needs, public service capability and the retention of a high quality environment. Policy 2) The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for: c) Specific development guidelines which will ensure that: 2) Development along Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street will not primarily be automobile-oriented, but will also include attractive landscaping and designs that encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit forms of travel. e) Commercial or employment zones where business and residential uses are mixed. This is especially appropriate as buffers between residential and employment or commercial areas, and in the Downtown Housing Goal Ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section of Ashland’s population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the city. Policy 3) Regulation of residential uses shall be designed to complement, conserve and continue the aesthetic character of Ashland through use of the following techniques: c) Performance standards shall be used to regulate new development in Ashland so that a variety of housing types built on the site and imaginative residential environments may be used to reduce cost and improve the aesthetic character of new developments and decrease the use of traditional zoning ad subdivision standards. Transportation Street System Goal. To provide all citizens with safe and convenient transportation while reinforcing the recognition of public rights-of-way as critical public spaces. Policy 1) Provide zoning that allows for a mix of land uses and traditional neighborhood development, which promotes walking and bicycling. Policy 4) Enhance the streetscape by code changes specific placement of critical design elements such a but not limited to windows, doorways, sigs and planting strips. Policy 7) Design the Land Use Ordinance to ensure Ashland Street is developed as a multi-modal corridor including attractive landscaping, sidewalks, bike lanes and controlled access. Development along Ashland Street shall be compatible with and support a multi-modal orientation. Pedestrian and Bicycle Goal I. To provide all citizens with safe and convenient transportation while reinforcing the recognition of public rights-of-way as critical public spaces. Policy 8) Require sidewalks and pedestrian access in all developments. Policy 15) Pedestrian traffic should be separated from auto traffic on streets and in parking lots. Pedestrian and Bicycle Goal III. Emphasize environments which enhance pedestrian and bicycle usage. Policy 1) Maintain and improve Ashland’s compact urban form to allow maximum pedestrian and bicycle travel. Public Transit Goal. To create a public transportation system that is linked to Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 10 ïê pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle travel modes, and is as easy and efficient to use as driving a motor vehicle. Policy 2) Zoning shall allow for residential densities and a mix of commercial businesses within walking distance (one-quarter to one-half mile) of existing and planned public transit services which support use of public transportation. III. Procedural – Required Burden of Proof 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments 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 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. SECTION 18.08.345. Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050, for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The Pedestrian Places Project planning process took place in the Fall of 2010 and Spring/Summer of 2011, and involved a variety of participants including the general public, property owners and government agencies. The recommended zoning and ordinance amendments that came out of the planning process are intended to support the development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 9 of 10 ïé businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use. The proposed amendments provide more flexibility in building uses and site planning, clarify requirements for on-site circulation, and provide voluntary measures for decreasing the amount of area used for surface parking. Staff recommends approval of the Pedestrian Places Overlay and ordinance amendments to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project. Planning Action PA #2011-01174 Pedestrian Places Project Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 10 of 10 ïè ORDINANCE NO. _________ _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING MAP TO ADD A PEDESTRIAN PLACE OVERLAY additions Annotated to show deletions and to the code sections being modified. boldlined throughbold underline Deletions are and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long- standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland continues the community’s tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS , the City conducting a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on-line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011involving a three-step process where participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location;and An Ordinance Adding PP Overlay Page 1 ïç WHEREAS , the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which wouldsupport the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Zoning Map at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote;and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Zoning Map in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning Map, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to add a Pedestrian Places (PP) Overlay designation to approximately 72 acres of land within the City limits, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning Map, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4Codification. .Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, and amendments – including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 2-8, 9-10) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. An Ordinance Adding PP Overlay Page 2 îð The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2010. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2010. ___________________ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Adding PP Overlay Page 3 îï îî îí îì ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.56 OVERLAY ZONES, INCLUDING THE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY AND AIRPORT OVERLAY WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland continues the community’s tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS , the City conducting a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on-line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011involving a three-step process where participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location;and An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 1 îë WHEREAS , the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which wouldsupport the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote;and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. A new Chapter 18.56 of the Ashland Municipal Code creating a overlay zones chapter [OVERLAY ZONES] set forth in full codified form on the attached Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference, is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.40.030.E [E-1 Employment District - Special Permitted Uses] ishereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section, including all requirements of 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Bottling plants, cleaning and dyeing establishments, laundries and creameries. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located to the greatest extend feasible. For the An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 2 îê purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. Provided, however, that for the uses specified in subsection A and B above, no deliveries or shipments shall be made from 9pm to 7am where the property on which the use is located is within 200 feet of any residential district. C. Recycling depots, provided the use is not located within 200’ of a residential district. D. Kennels and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200’ of a residential district. As indicated as R-Overlay on the official zoning map, E. Residential uses. and in conformance with the Overlay Zones chapter 18.56. 1.At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. 2.Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. 3.Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. 4.Residential uses shall only be located in those areas indicated as R- Overlay within the E-1 District, and shown on the official zoning map. 5.If the number of residential units exceed 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. F. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located greater than 200’ from the nearest residential district. G. Manufacture of food products, but not including the rendering of fats or oils. For any manufacture of food products with 200’ of a residential district: 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging “objectionable odors” shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. Odors which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: a. Odors from solvents, chemicals or toxic substances. b. Odors from fermenting food products. An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 3 îé c. Odors from decaying organic substances or human or animal waste. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof or the side of a building with the least exposure to residential districts. Provided, however, that it may be located at any other location on or within the structure or lot where the noise emanating from the equipment is no louder, as measured from the nearest residential district, than if located on the side of the building with least exposure to residential districts. Mechanical equipment shall be fully screened and buffered. H. Cold Storage Plants, if such uses are located greater than 200’ from the nearest residential district. I. Automobile and truck repair facilities, excluding auto body repair and paint shops. All cars and trucks associated with the use must be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total sight obscuring fence. Facilities of 3 bays or larger shall not be located with in 200’ of a residential district. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.60 [Airport Overlay Zone] is hereby deleted as follows: CHAPTER 18.60 AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE SECTIONS: 18.60.010Purpose. 18.60.020A-1 Overlay Zone. 18.60.030GeneralProvisions. SECTION18.60.010Purpose. This overlay zone is intended to be applied to properties which lie within close proximity to the Ashland Airport where aircraft are likely to be flying at relatively low elevations. Further, the zone is intended toprevent the establishment of airspace obstructions in such areas through height restrictions and other land use controls. Application of the zone does not alter the requirements of the parent zone except as specifically provided herein. The overlay zone is shown on the Zoning Map. SECTION18.60.020A-1 Overlay Zone. A.Permitted uses shall not include residential uses unless approved under the procedure outlined for conditional uses. B.Maximum height of structures, trees or other airspace obstructions shall be twenty (20) feet. C.All planning actions will require, as a condition or approval, that the applicant sign an agreement with the City agreeing that airport noise is likely to increase in the future and that they waive all rights to complain aboutairport noise. An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 4 îè SECTION18.60.030General Provisions. A.The City may top any tree which is in excess of those maximum heights listed in Section 18.60.020, or locate appropriate lights or markers on those trees as a warning to the operators of aircraft. B.No use shall be made of land or water within any of this zone in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise create a hazard which may in any way endanger the landing, takeoff, or maneuvering of aircraft using the airport. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross- references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2010. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2010. ___________________ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter AMC 18.56 Page 5 îç CHAPTER 18.56 Overlay Zones SECTIONS: 18.56.010 Purpose. 18.56.020 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. 18.56.030 A-1 Airport Overlay. 18.56.040 Pedestrian Place Overlay. 18.56.050 Residential Overlay. SECTION 18.56.010 Purpose. Overlay zones are intended to provide special regulations and standards that supplement the base zoning district and standards. SECTION 18.56.020 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. Development located within an overlay zone is required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. SECTION 18.56.030 A Airport Overlay. Purpose A.. This overlay zone is intended to be applied to properties which lie within close proximity to the Ashland Airport where aircraft are likely to be flying at relatively low elevations. Further, the zone is intended to prevent the establishment of airspace obstructions in such areas through height restrictions and other land use controls. Application of the overlay zone does not alter the requirements of the parent zone except as specifically provided herein. The Airport Overlay applies to all property where A is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. A Airport Overlay B.. 1. Permitted uses shall not include residential uses unless approved under the procedure outlined for conditional uses. 2. Maximum height of structures, trees or other airspace obstructions shall be twenty (20) feet. 3. All planning actions will require, as a condition or approval that the applicant sign an agreement with the City agreeing that airport noise is likely to increase in the future and that they waive all rights to complain about airport noise. General Provisions C.. 1. The City may top any tree which is in excess of those maximum heights listed in Section 18.60.020, or locate appropriate lights or markers on those trees as a warning to the operators of aircraft. 2. No use shall be made of land or water within any of this zone in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise create a hazard which may in any way endanger the landing, takeoff, or maneuvering of aircraft using the airport. Ch. 18.56 PC Hearing 10.11.11 Page 1 íð SECTION 18.56.040 PP Pedestrian Place Overlay. Purpose of Pedestrian Place Overlay A.. The Pedestrian Place Overlay is intended to direct and encourage development of small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of gathering places, housing, businesses and pedestrian amenities situated and designed in a way to encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. Applicability B.. 1. Location. The Pedestrian Place Overlay applies to all property where PP is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. 2. Planning Actions. The Pedestrian Place Overlay requirements apply to proposed development located in the Pedestrian Place Overlay that requires a planning application approval, and involves development of new structures or additions other than single-family dwellings and associate accessory structures and uses. 3. Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance. The provisions of the Pedestrian Place Overlay supplement those of the applicable base zoning district and applicable Chapter 18 requirements. Where the provisions of this Chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance or regulation, the provisions of the Pedestrian Place Overlay shall apply. Conformance with Pedestrian Place Plan C.. Concept plans (i.e. site plan, development summary and building illustrations) are for the purpose of providing an example of development that conforms to the standards, and do not constitute independent approval criteria. Concept plans are attached to the end of this chapter. Special Permitted Uses in Residential Zoning Districts within Pedestrian Place D. Overlay. In addition to the permitted uses in the base residential zoning district, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirement of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Special Permitted Uses. a. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments. b. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services. c. Restaurants. 2. Limitations. a. The maximum gross floor area occupied by a special permitted use shall be 2,500 square feet. b. Special permitted uses shall be allowed in a building or in a group of buildings including a mixture of businesses and housing. At least 50% of the total gross floor area of a building or of multiple buildings shall be designated for housing. c. The development shall meet the minimum housing density requirements of the base zoning district. Development Standards E.. In addition to the requirements of the base zoning district, the following standards shall apply. Building Setbacks 1.. a. The maximum yard abutting a street is five feet, except to allow for areas occupied by outdoor restaurant seating area or a plaza. b. The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access applies only to those lots abutting a residential zone to the north. Ch. 18.56 PC Hearing 10.11.11 Page 2 íï Mixed-Use Buildings in Residential Zones 2.. Mixed-use buildings in a residential base zoning district require Site Review approval in accordance with Chapter 18.72, and are subject to the standards in Chapter 18.72, the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development (section II-C-1), Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (section D) and Street Tree Standards (section E). Floor Area Ratio. 3. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .50. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. The development shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or provide a shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. Plazas and Landscaping Ratio 4.. Outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may be applied toward meeting the landscaping area requirements in Section18.72.110, but shall not constitute more than 50% of the required area. SECTION 18.56.050 R Residential Overlay . The Residential Overlay applies to all property where R is indicated on the Ashland Zoning Map. The Residential Overlay requirements are as follows. A. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. B. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. C. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. E. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. Ch. 18.56 PC Hearing 10.11.11 Page 3 íî íí íê íé ìï ìì ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.72.080 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland continues the community’s tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS , the City conducting a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on-line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011involving a three-step process where participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location;and An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 1 ìë WHEREAS , the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which wouldsupport the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote;and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT – II-C-1 BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-1c) Landscaping 1. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas and at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District Detail Site Review Zone . Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 2 ìê SECTION 3. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT – II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale .50.35 and 1. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District . Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor The development shall achieve the required Area Ratio. minimum Floor Area Ratio, or provide a shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum Floor Area Ratio. 2. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building façade. 3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. 4. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. 5. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. 6. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. II-C-2b) Streetscape 1. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate “people” areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. 5 20 2. A building shall be setback not more than feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage 520 shall be within feet of the sidewalk. (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance # 2900) II-C-2c)Parking and On-site Circulation Protected raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 1.Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 3.Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. One-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 3 ìé Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and to the internal circulation of the building. II-C-2d2c) Buffering and Screening 1. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. II-C-2e)Lighting Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian pathways. II-C-2f2d) Building Materials 1. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area. 2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. SECTION 4. Site Design and Use Standards [C. COMMERCIAL, EMPLOYMENT, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT – II-C-3 ADDITIONAL STANDAREDS FOR LARGE SCAEL PROJECTS] is hereby amended to read as follows: II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale 1. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. 2. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards: (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance # 2900) a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 4 ìè gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof top parking, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas locate within the building foot print and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. 3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet. 4.All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate streetscape which includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards and street trees. SECTION 5. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION VIII CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS – B. DESIGN STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-B-2 Parking Areas and On-site Circulation 1. Primary parking areas shall be located behind buildings with limited parking on one side of the building. 2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non- residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. 3. Parking areas shall meet the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of Section II-D of the Site Design and Use Standards. Additional Parking Area and On-site Circulation Standards for Developments Adjacent to Active Edge Streets, or Within NC, MU and OE Overlays: 4. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings. Protected raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 5. or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas 6. and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least ten feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle 7. circulation plan for the site. On-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and to the internal circulation of the building. VIII-B-3 Automobile Parking An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 5 ìç With the exception of the standards described below, automobile parking shall be provided in accordance with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, Section VIII-C Croman Mill District Green Development Standards, and Section II–D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. Credit for Automobile Parking. The amount of required off-street parking 1. shall be reduced by not more than 50%, through application of the following credits. a.On-Street Credit: One off-street parking space credit for every on-street space. b.TDM Plan Credit: Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. c.Mixed Use Credit: Through a mixed-use parking arrangement that demonstrates the peak parking demands are offset.The credit shall reduce the off-street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the offset in parking demand. d.Shared Parking Credit: One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-site shared parking areas, or through payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking structure(s) upon establishment of a parking management strategy for the Croman Mill District. 2. 1. Maximum On-Site Surface Parking . After a parking management strategy for the Croman Mill District is in place, a maximum of 50% of the required off-street parking can be constructed as surface parking on any development site. The remaining parking requirement can be met through one or a combination of the VIII-B-3(1)18.92.025 credits for automobile parking in . SECTION 6. Site Design and Use Standards [SECTION VIII CROMAN MILL DISTRICT STANDARDS – B. GREEN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ] is hereby amended to read as follows: VIII-C-4 Design Green Surface Parking A maximum of 25% of the project area shall be used for surface parking Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. All shall meet the following standards, and parking areas shall comply with the with the Off-Street Parking chapter 18.92, with Section VIII-B Croman Mill Design Standards, and Section II–D Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. Use a maximum of 25% of the project area for surface parking. 1. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or 2. put 50% of parking underground. a.Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. b.Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 6 ëð c.Provideat least 50% shade from tree canopy over the surface lot within five years of project occupancy. VIII-C-5 Manage and Reuse of Stormwater Run-Off Reduce the public infrastructure costs and adverse environmental effects of stormwater run-off by managing run-off from building roofs, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other hard surfaces through implementation of the following standards. 1. Design grading and site plans to capture and slow runoff. 2.Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. 3.2. Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate the soil. 4.3. Direct discharge storm water runoff into a designated green street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities. 5.4. Retain rainfall on-site through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through capture and reuse techniques. SECTION 7.Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 8.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross- references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2010. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2010. __________________ _ John Stromberg, Mayor An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 7 ëï Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Page 8 ëî ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.08.651, 18.12,020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.080, 18.92, 18.108.060 AND 18.108.080 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN PLACES PROJECT WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland is projected to grow by approximately 3,250 residents by 2030 and 2,000 employees by 2027, and the City Council reaffirmed the long-standing policy of accommodating growth within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary rather than growing outward into surrounding farm and forest lands in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) planning process;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland seeks to balance projected population and employment growth with the community goal of retaining a district boundary and preventing sprawling development, and to this end examines opportunities to use land more efficiently for housing and businesses;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland continues the community’s tradition of integrating land use and transportation planning, and using sustainable development measures such as encouraging a mix and intensity of uses on main travel corridors to support transit service and use, integrating affordable housing opportunities, and reducing carbon emissions by providing a variety of transportation options; and WHEREAS , the City conducting a planning process involving a series of public workshops, on-line forum, key participant meetings and study sessions from October 2010 through September 2011involving a three-step process where participants identified the qualities that make a successful pedestrian place, developed vision statements for the three study areas, and reviewed and revised An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 1 ëí plans illustrating an example of what development might look like in a key location;and WHEREAS , the final report for the Pedestrian Place project included recommended amendments to the zoning map and land use ordinance which wouldsupport the development of the Pedestrian Places envisioned in the planning process being small walkable nodes that provide concentrations of housing and businesses grouped in a way to encourage more walking, cycling and transit use; and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote;and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08.651 [Definitions – Setback, Special] is hereby deleted as follows: SECTION18.08.651Setback, Special. The distance between the center line of a street and the special base line setback from which yard measurements are made, measured horizontally and at right angles from said center line. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 2 ëì SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.12.020 [Classification of Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.020 Classification of Districts. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: Map Symbol and Zoning Districts and Overlays Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Single Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - High Density Multiple Family R-3 Commercial C-1 Commercial - Downtown C-1-D Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University SOU (P)–OptionsSO Performance Standards P Overlay Pedestrian Place Overlay PP Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlay R Freeway Sign Overlay F SECTION 4. AMC Section 18.68.050 [Arterial Street Setback Requirements] is hereby deleted as follows: SECTION18.68.050Arterial Street Setback Requirements. To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. Street Setback East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way35 feet Ashland Street (Highway 66) between 65 feet City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the CM and C-1-D districts and properties abutting Lithia Way in the C-1 district. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 3 ëë SECTION 5. AMC Chapter 18.72.030 [Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability. Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM and M-1 zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Mixed-use structures or developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay. cd .Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. de .Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other alters orson adjacent property or a changes which affect circulation public right-of-way . ef . Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. fg . Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b the zoning regulations of this Code. gh .Any exterior change to a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. hi . Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). j. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). (Ord 2984, amended, 05/19/2009; Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 3036, amended, 08/17/2010) Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with f. Section 18.72.180. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 4 ëê B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty (30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on any one lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a, b, c) above or (e) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c). e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. (Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 6. AMC Chapter 18.72.080 [Site Design Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.080 Site Design Standards. A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These standards may contain: 1. Additional approval criteria for developments affected by this Chapter. 2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout, landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding the site design. 3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific examples. 4. Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable. guidelinesstandards B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the , a public hearing must be held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearing forwarded to the Council for its consideration. C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No’s. 2690, 2800, 2825, 2900 and 3031, shall be applied as follows: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 5 ëé 1. The Multi-family Residential Development Standards in Section II.B shall be applied to the construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.). 2. The Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development standards in Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development (e.g. public buildings, schools, etc.) SECTION 7. AMC Chapter 18.72.090 [Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards . administrative varianceexception Anto the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the and Use Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use , an existing structure or proposed use of the siteand approval of the of a site; exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or B.Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C.Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D.The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. B. There is no demonstrable difficult in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 8. AMC Chapter 18.72.120 [Controlled access] is hereby deleted as follows: SECTION 18.72.120Controlled access. A.Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. B.Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 6 ëè 1.Distance between driveways. On arterial streets -100 feet; on collector streets -75 feet; on residential streets -50 feet. 2.Distance from intersections. On arterial streets -100 feet; on collector streets -50 feet; on residential streets -35 feet. C. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the Croman Mill District Standards. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/2010) D.Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. 1.All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2.Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited. SECTION 9. AMC Section 18.88 [Sections] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.88 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS SECTIONS: 18.88.010 Purpose and Intent. 18.88.020 Definitions. 18.88.030 Procedure for Approval. 18.88.040 Performance Standards for Residential Developments. 18.88.050 Street Standards. 18.88.060 Parking Standards. 18.88.070 Setbacks. 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay Zone. 18.88.090 Performance Standards Guidelines. 18.88.100 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Development Ordinance. SECTION 10. AMC Section 18.88.080 [Sections] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.88.080 PSO-Overlay Zone. SO-zone A. The purpose of the Poverlay is to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 7 ëç B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or SO development of individual living units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts (Ord 3036, amended, 08/18/10) shall be three. SO- C. In a Poverlay area, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this Ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the Council. SO- D. If a parcel is not in a Poverlay area, then development under this Chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; or 2. That development under this Chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; or 3. The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM. SECTION 11. AMC Chapter 18.92 [Off-Street Parking] is hereby amended to read as follows: CHAPTER 18.92 OFF-STREET PARKING, ACCESS AND CIRCULATION SECTIONS: 18.92.010 Generally Purpose. 18.92.020 Applicability. 18.92.020030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places. 18.92.025050 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking Management Strategies. 18.92.030Disabled Person Parking Places. 18.92.040060 Bicycle Parking. 18.92.050Compact Car Parking. 18.92.055070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. 18.92.060Limitations, Location, Use of Facilities. 18.92.070080 Automobile Parking Design RequirementsParking, Access and Circulation Design Requirements. 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. 18.92.080100 Construction. 18.92.090110 Alterations and Enlargements. 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. SECTION 18.92.010 GenerallyPurpose. In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected,enlarged, or the use is changed, off-street parking shall be provided as set forth in this Chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 8 êð development of vehicle and bicycle parking, and to ensure developments provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. SECTION 18.92.020 Applicability. In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected or enlarged, parking or access is reconfigured, or the use is changed, parking, access and circulation shall be provided as set forth in this chapter. SECTION 18.92.020030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required. Uses and standards are as follows: Residential Uses A.. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential units: a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units --1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit. 2. Multi-family dwellings. a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit. b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit. c. 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit. e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater -- One space per unit. 3. Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses, dormitories. Two spaces for each three guest rooms; in dormitories, 100 square feet shall be equivalent to a guest room. 4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager. 5. Manufactured housing developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.84. 6. Performance Standards Developments. Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.88. Commercial Uses. B. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land area; and one per two employees. 2. Bowling Alleys. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business, general retail, person services. General - one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances - one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 9 êï 4. Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel. 5. Offices. Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) - one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less. 7. Skating rinks. One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area. 8. Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums and similar uses. One space per four seats. Industrial Uses. C. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Industrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is less, plus one space per company vehicle. 2. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business offices. One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per company (Ord 3034, amended, 08/17/10) vehicle; a minimum of two spaces is required. Institutional and Public Uses. D. For institutional and public uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Child care centers having 13 or more children. One space per two employees; a minimum of two spaces is required. 2. Churches. One space per four seats. 3. Golf courses, except miniature. Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for auxiliary uses set forth in this section. Miniature golf courses -four spaces per hole. 4. Hospitals. Two spaces per patient bed. 5. Nursing and convalescent homes. One space per three patient beds. 6. Rest homes, homes for the aged, or assisted living. One space per two patient beds or one space per apartment unit. 7. Schools, elementary and junior high. One and one-half space per classroom, or the requirements for public assembly areas as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 8. High schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per 10 students the school is designed to accommodate, or the requirements for public assembly as set forth herein, whichever is greater. 9. Colleges, universities and trade schools. One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per five students the school is designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student housing. Unspecified Uses. E. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 10 êî Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. F. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces. SECTION 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places. The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following: Required Minimum Number Total in Parking Lot of Accessible Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, must be van accessible. A van accessible parking space is required to be at least nine feet wide and have an adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of Oregon, including minimum widths, adjacent aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space designs are included at the end of this chapter. SECTION 18.92.025050 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking Management Strategies. The amount of required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50% through the application of the following credits. On-Street Parking Credit. A.The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking twoonespaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for every on-street space credit for each on-street parking space. B.1.Dimensions. On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of existing on-street parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director, taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord with the standards on file with the Public Works Department. The following shall constitute an on-street parking space: An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 11 êí 1.a.24 22 Parallel parking, each feet of uninterrupted curb. 2.b1312 45 degree diagonal, each feet of uninterrupted curb. 2. Location. C.a. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking. D.b. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking configuration that violates any law or standard of the City or State. E.c. Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums established by (Ord the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. 2836 S14, 1999) F.d. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-1-D or SO zone. G.3.Availibility. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that use, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall be permitted. B. Alternative Vehicle Parking. Alternative vehicle parking facilities may be substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking space on site. 1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. One off-street parking space credit for four motorcycle or scooter parking spaces. 2. Bicycle parking. One off-street parking space credit for five additional, non-required bicycle parking spaces. C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case, the mixed-use credit shall reduce the off-street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced parking demand. D. Joint Use of Facilities. Required parking facilities of 2 or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime vs. nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 12 êì E. Shared Parking. One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-site shared parking areas, or through payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking. F. TDM Plan Credit. Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested. G. Transit Facilities Credit. Sites where at least 20 spaces are required, and where at least one lot line abuts a street with transit service may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required parking as follows. 1. Pedestrian and transit supportive plazas may be substituted for up to ten percent of the required parking spaces on site. 2. A street with transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit service frequency. 3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. 4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a bus stop along the site’s frontage, the plaza must be adjacent to the bus stop. 5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a ten foot by ten foot square will fit entirely in the plaza. 6. The plaza must include all of the following elements: a. A plaza that is open to the public. The owner must record a public access easement that allows public access to the plaza; b. A bench or other sitting area with at least five linear feet of seating; c. A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20 square feet and the plaza must be landscaped. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping or screening required for parking areas by the Code. SECTION18.92.030Disabled Person Parking Places. The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following: Required Minimum Number Total in Parking Lot of Accessible Spaces 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 13 êë Required Disabled Person Parking spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of Oregon, including minimum widths, adjacent aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Person Parking space designs are included at the end of this chapter. SECTION 18.92.040060 Bicycle Parking. A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C- 1-D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces. B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage, shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows: Multi-Family Residential: One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit 1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit 2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit Senior Housing: One sheltered space per 8 units (80% of the occupants are 55 or older) C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces (Ord 2697 S1, shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. 1993) D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space for every five auto parking spaces. E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered bicycle parking space for every five students. F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking space for every five required auto parking spaces, of which one half is to be sheltered. G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased, however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike parking rental business. H. The required bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing residential building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of dwelling units, or when a non-residential use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use. I. Bicycle Parking Design Standards 1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage. 2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside the building. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 14 êê b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure, underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building. c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department. d. Providing secure storage space inside the building. 3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well- used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right- of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. 4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as well lit as automobile parking. 5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter. 6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. 8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter. 9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. 10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage to either bicycles or racks. Where needed, barriers shall be installed. 11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. 1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the Bicycle Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall conform with all other applicable standards of this section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely. 2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 15 êé a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels. b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate: i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security U- shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U- shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel. c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition. SECTION18.92.050Compact Car Parking. Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." SECTION 18.92.055070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up to 50% of the required automobile parking may be granted to commercial uses within the Ashland Historic District as a Type I Variance. It is the intent of this clause to provide as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential. Additionally, to identify redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. SECTION18.92.060Limitations,Location, Use of Facilities. A.Location.Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use. B.Except as allowed in 18.92.060.F and except in the M-Industrial District, required automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 16 êè C.Mixed Uses.In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands are offset. In such case the Staff Advisor may reduce the total requirements accordingly, but not by more than 35%. D.Joint Use of Facilities.Required parking facilities of 2 or more uses, structures, or parcels of land may be satisfied by thesame parking facilities used jointly, to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime v. nighttime nature) and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument establishing such joint use. E.Availability of Facilities.All automobile and bicycle parking shall be available for parking of residents, customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. F.In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is no more than 25% of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this ordinance. However, a 24-hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttably presumed that the vehicle was parked with permission of the person in control of the property. (Ord 2320, 1984) Subsequent violations shall not require a warning notice. SECTION 18.92.070080 Automobile Parking, Access and Circulation Design Requirements. A. Parking Location. 1. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use, for the duration of the use. 2. Except as allowed in Section 18.92.070.A.3, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. 3. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which is no more than 25% of the area of the front An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 17 êç yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this ordinance. However, a 24-hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior to the issuance of a citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be rebuttably presumed that the vehicle was parked with permission of the person in control of the property. Subsequent violations shall not require a warning notice. A.B.Size and AccessParking Area Design. All rR equired parking areas shall be parkinglayout chart at the end of this designed in accordance with the Chapterfollowing standards and dimensions . 1., except that 50% of the Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050 . 2. Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty- two (22) feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. 4. Green Surface Parking. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following standards. a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking underground. i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface. iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The intent of this section is to manage access to land uses and on-site circulation, and to preserve the transportation system in terms of safety, capacity and function. 1. Applicability. This section applies to all public streets within the City of Ashland and to all properties that abut these streets. The standards apply when developments are subject to a planning action (e.g. Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Land Partition, Performance Standards Subdivision). An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 18 éð 2. Traffic Study Requirements. The City may require a traffic study prepared by a qualified professional to determine access, circulation and other transportation impacts. 3. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate street-like features as described in Section 18.92.090.A.3.c. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections through large sites, and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must conform to the provisions of Section 18.92.090. 4. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing requirements for the street’s classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet. d. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the Croman Mill District Standards. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/2010) e. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. i. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ii. Creating an obstructed street as defined in Section 18.88.020.G is prohibited. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 19 éï a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. i. For shared parking areas; ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited; and iii For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. B.D.Driveways and Turn-Arounds Design. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet. 2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet in width. 4.Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a.Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b.Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family developments shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. c.Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 20 éî C.4Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width. D.5.Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. Parking and Access ConstructionDevelopmentand Maintenance. E. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be , pervious paving, paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. 3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. 6. Walls and Hedges. a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians. b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas. 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 21 éí plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. 8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light (Ord 2951, element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. amended, 07/01/2008) SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation. A. Site Layout and Design. To ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian circulation, all developments, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and accessory uses and structures, shall provide a continuous walkway system. The walkway system shall be based on the standards in subsections 1-4, below: 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adjacent streets and to private property for this purpose. 2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets, based on the following definitions: a. Reasonably direct. A route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users. b. Safe and convenient. Routes that are reasonably free from hazards and provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations. c. "Primary entrance" for commercial, industrial, mixed use, public, and institutional buildings is the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance. d. "Primary entrance" for residential buildings is the front door (i.e. facing the street). For multifamily buildings in which each unit does not have its own exterior entrance, the “primary entrance” may be a lobby, courtyard, or breezeway which serves as a common entrance for more than one dwelling. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 22 éì 3. Connections wwithin Deveelopment. Walkways within deveelopments shall be pprovide connnectionsas required in subssections a--c, below: a. Connect all buuilding entrrances to oone anotheer to the exxtent praccticable, ass generallyy shown in Figure 1; b. Connect all o-site parkng areas, storage aeas, recretional nniirraa facilities, trashh and recyccle areas aand commoon areas, aand conect of-sie adjacen uses to te site to he extent nnftttthhtt praccticable. Toopographicc or existinng developpment consstraints may be cause for not mking certin walkwy connections, as aaaaaa geneerally showwn in Figurre 1; and Figure 1Pedestriann Pathway System (TTypical) . Divide arking aras with 5 spaces r more ino separat areas so ccppee00oottee that no contiguouus parking area exceeeds one thhird of an aacre. Parkin areas may be brokn up by a buildingr group o building, ggeeooffss plazas,large landdscape areaas with pedestrian acccess wayys ( at i.e., least 2 feet total width), steets, or diveways ith streetlike 00rrrrww-- featuress, Street-likke featuress, for the ppurpose offthis sectioon, means a raisedd sidewalk of at leastt five feet in width, ssix-inch curb, accessiible curb raamps, streeet trees inn planter sttrips or tree wells, and peddestrian-orriented lighhting. AnOOrdinance Ammending Misc. Section of Ch.18PPage 23 éë B.WWalkway DDesign andd Construction. Walkkways shall conform to all of tthe standards in subsections 1-4, as generally illusstrated in FFigure 2: 11.Vehicle//Walkway Separationn. Except for crosswwalks (subssection 2),, where aa walkway abuts a drriveway or street, it sshall be raised six inchesnd curbe along the edge of he driveay/street. aaddttww Alternattively, the decisionbbody may aapprove a walkway aabutting a drivewy at the sme grade as the drieway if te walkwa is aaaavvhhyy protecteed from alll vehicle mmaneuverinng areas. AAn examplee of such protecton is a ro of decoative metl or concete bollars iiwwrraarrdd designeed to withsstand a vehhicle’s imppact, with aadequatemminimum spacingg between them to prrotect pedeestrians. 22. Crosswwalks. Wheere walkwaays cross aa parking aarea or drivveway, clearly mark crossswalks witth contrastting pavingg materialss ( e.g., light-coolor concreete inlay beetween aspphalt), whicch may bee part of a raised/ump crosing area. Painted hhss or thermmo-plasticstriping annd Figure 2 Pedestrin Walkway Detail aa similar types of nn- oo (Typical)) permannent applications mayy be appoved for rosswalk rrccss not exceeding 24 feet in length. 33. Walkwaay Surface and Widthh. Walkwy surface shall be aass concrette, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers, or other duurable surfface, as approveed by the CCity Engineeer, at leastt five feet wide. MMulti-useppaths (i.e., ffor bicycle and pedstrians) ssee shall bee concrete or asphaltt, at least 10 feet wide in accordaance with tthe Ashlannd Streettandardsin Section SS 18.88.0220.K. 44. Accessible routess. Walkwaays shall coomply withh applicablee Americaans with DDisabilities Act (ADDA) and Staate of Oregon requiremnts. The ee ends off all raised walkways, where the walkwy intersets aacc a drivewway or streeet shall prrovide rammps that aree ADA acccessible, AnOOrdinance Ammending Misc. Section of Ch.18PPage 24 éê and walkways shall provide direct routes to primary building entrances. 5. Provide pedestrian scale lighting in conformance with City standards along pedestrian facilities. SECTION 18.92.080100 Construction. , access and circulationsincluding design standards, The required parking facilities, shall be installed prior to a release of a certificate of use and occupancy or a release of utilities, and shall be permanently maintained as a condition of use. However, the Building Official may, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor, release a temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities before the installation of said facilities provided: (1) there is proof that the owner has entered into a contract with a reputable installer for the completion of the parking, including design standards, with a specified time, and that there remains nothing for the owner to do prior to installation; or (2) the owner has posted a satisfactory performance bond to ensure the installation of said parking facilities within a specified time. SECTION 18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements. , access and circulation The required parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of guest rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, ( seating capacity, or change in use. Ord 2659, 1991; Ord 2777, 1996) SECTION 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities. Required parking, access and circulation shall be available for use by residents, customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials. SECTION 12. AMC Section 18.104 [Type I Procedure – Actions Included] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.040 Type I Procedure. A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure: 1. Site Design Review. The following developments that are subject to the Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I permit procedures. a. Downtown Design Standards Zone. Any development which is less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building’s square footage, whichever is less. b. Detail Site Review. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone, as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72, which is less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 25 éé c. Commercial, Industrial and Non-residential Uses. i. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones, not within the Downtown Design Standards zone, that do not require new building area in excess of 20% of an existing building’ s square footage or 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is less. ii. All new structures or additions less than 15,000 square feet of gross floor area in the CM zoning district. (Ord 3036, added, 08/17/10) iii. Mixed-use buildings and developments containing commercial and residential uses in residential zoning district with the Pedestrian Place Overlay. iii.iv. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less iv.v. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters circulation affecting adjacent property or public right-of-way. v.vi Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. vivii .Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code. vii.viii Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places. ix. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. x. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. d. Residential. i. Two or more residential units on a single lot. ii. All new structures or additions less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, other than single-family homes or accessory uses on individual lots iii. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. iv. Off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). v. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. vi. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030.B. vii. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Miscellaneous Actions. a. Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Type I planning actions. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 26 éè b. Amendment or modification to conditions of approval for Type II actions where the modification involves only changes to tree removal and/or planning actions building envelopes. . c. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review permits as allowed in Chapter 18.62. d. Tree removal permits as required by Section 18.61.042(D). e. Limited Activities and Use permits as allowed in Chapter 18.63. f. Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions of up to 25% as allowed in Chapter 18.63. 3. Conditional Use Permits. The following conditional use permits are subject to Type I review procedures: a. Conditional use permits involving existing structures or additions to existing structures, and not involving more than three (3) residential dwelling units. b. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. b.c. Temporary uses. c.d. Enlargement, expansion, etc. of nonconforming structures in Section accordance with 18.68.090(2). d.e. Government signs per Section 18.96.150. e.f. The following uses in Residential zones: i. Accessory residential units ii. Daycare centers. iii. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses less than 2,500 square feet in building footprint and disturbs less than 7,500 square feet of land. iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone. v. All new structures, additions or expansions that exceed MPFA in historic district up to 25%, but the addition is no larger than 300 s.f. or 10% of the existing floor area, whichever is less. vi. Hostels. vii. Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone. viii. Community Services in the NM-R15 zone. f.g. The following uses in Commercial or Industrial zones: i. Electrical substations ii. Outdoor storage of commodities. g.h. The following uses in the Health Care Services Zone: i. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as beauticians and masseurs. ii. Professional offices for an accountant, architect, attorney, designer, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor. iii. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property that is not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan. h.i. Conditional uses in the Southern Oregon University District. 4. Variances for: a. Sign placement. b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in Section 18.96.130.D. c. Up to 50% reduction of standard yard requirements. d. Parking in setback areas. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 27 éç e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. f. Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area. g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage. h. Up to 20% reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements. i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as described in Section 18.92.055. j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not otherwise listed in this section. k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in Section 18.72.090. 5. Partitions and Land Divisions. a. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to Type I procedures. b. Creation of a private way, as allowed in Section 18.80.030.B. c. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions. 6. Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure. 7. Prior to the Staff Advisor providing notice of application and making a decision, applicants or the Staff Advisor may request planning actions subject to a Type I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearings Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall schedule a hearing before the Commission or Hearings Board to be heard as provided in Section 18.108.050. SECTION 13. AMC Section 18.108.060 [Type III Procedures] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.060 Type III Procedures. he following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure: A. T 1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except for legislative amendments. 3. Annexations. 4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments Standards for Type III Planning Actions. B. 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval Section standards set forth in 18.106.030(G); or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 28 èð commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the Section approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G). The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions. Type III Procedure. C. 1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be process as follows: a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of the application. b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in Section 18.108.080. Section c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in 18.108.100. 2. For planning actions described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2, the Commission shall have the authority to take such action as is necessary to make the amendments to maps and zones as a result of the decision without further action from the Council unless the decision is appealed. The decision of the Commission may be appealed to the Council as provided in Section 18.108.110. 24 3. For planning actions described in Section 18.108.060.A.3 and , the Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45 days of the public hearing. a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the Section Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of such hearing shall be sent as provided in Section 18.108.080. b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. SECTION 14. AMC Section 18.108.080 [Public Hearing Notice] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.108.080 Public Hearing Notice. Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor, Hearings Board or Commission for planning actions shall be given as follows: A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to: 1. The applicant or authorized agent, 2. The subject property owner, and 3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 29 èï B. Mailed notices shall contain the following information, provided, however, that notices for hearings before the Council shall not contain the statements specified in paragraphs 8 and 9: 1. Explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses which could be authorized. 2. List of the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to the application at issue. 3. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property. 4. The name of a local government representative to contact and the telephone number where additional information may be obtained. 5. A statement that 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. 6. The date, time and location of the hearing or of the meeting, if no hearing is involved. 7. A statement that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue. 8. A statement that if additional documents or evidence is provided in support of the application, any party shall be entitled to a continuance of the hearing. 9. A statement that 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. C. Posted Notice. A notice, as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the city in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public hearing right-of-way at least 10 days prior to the date of the . Failure by the city to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-way shall be considered an incomplete application. The city shall certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information: planning action number, brief description of the proposal, phone number and address for contact at Ashland Planning Department. D. Additional Requirements for Type II and III Public Notice. In addition to the notice specified in section 18.108.080.A, B and C, notice for Type II and III procedures shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing before the Commission. E. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision after the action is final if a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons entitled to receive notice. F. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not mail the notice required in §18.108; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights; and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew of should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 30 èî for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board meeting allowing adequate time to comply with the notice requirements of Section 18.108.080. The public hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100. If a hearing is conducted under this section, the decision of the Commission or Hearings Board shall supersede the previous decision. G. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that: 1. The city did not comply with the notice requirements in §18.108.080.A through E; 2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights; and 3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew or should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing before the Board, Commission or Council that heard or would have heard the matter involving the defective notice. a. The Staff Advisor shall notify by mail all persons who previously appeared in the matter and all persons who were entitled to mailed notice but were not mailed such notice. b. The hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100 if it is a hearing before the Board or Commission, except that the record of the previous hearing shall be reviewed and considered by the Board or Commission. If it is an appeal before the Council, the Council may hear such matters as are permitted in §18.108.110. A decision made after the hearing shall supersede the previous decision. H. Notwithstanding the period specified in subsections F.3 and G.3 of this section, the period for a hearing or appeal shall not exceed three years after the date of the initial decision. SECTION 15. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 16.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22- 23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2010. An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 31 èí _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2010. __________________ _ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 32 èì л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ݱ²½»°¬­ ̱æ Ó¿®·¿ Ø¿®®·­ ¿²¼ Þ®¿²¼±² Ù±´¼³¿²ô Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ú®±³æ ̱³ Ô·¬­¬»® ¿²¼ Ö»®®§ Ѻº»®ô Ѭ¿µ ïéíëë ÍÉ Þ±±²»­ Ú»®®§ μò Ô¿µ» Ñ­©»¹±ô ÑÎ çéðíë ݱ°·»­æ Ö·³ Ñ´­±²ô Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ и±²» øëðí÷ êíëóíêïè Ú¿¨ øëðí÷ êíëóëíçë Ü¿¬»æ Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï Í«¾¶»½¬æ Ʊ²·²¹Î»ª·»© ¿²¼ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ Ю±¶»½¬ æ Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ͧ­¬»³ д¿² Ë°¼¿¬»ñѬ¿µ Ю±¶»½¬ Ò±ò ïëéðî Ʊ²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» λª·»© ¿²¼ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ üÊÕÑÜÏÙiÊØÅÔÊÉÔÏÖÃÎÏÔÏÖÜÏÙúÔÉÄÎ×üÊÕÑÜÏÙÔ¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» °®±ª·­·±²­ ©»®» ®»ª·»© ©·¬¸ ®»¹¿®¼ ¬± ­«°°±®¬ ±® ¸·²¼®¿²½» ±º ¬¸» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬»­ ¿²¼ ¼»­·¹² ½±²½»°¬­ º±® °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò ̸» ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±²½»°¬­ ¿®» ·´´«­¬®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¼»­·¹² º±® »¿½¸ ±º ¬¸» ¬¸®»» ³¿¶±® ·²¬»®­»½¬·±² ´±½¿¬·±²­ ­¬«¼·»¼æ Ò±®¬¸ Ó±«²¬¿·² ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ Û¿­¬ Ó¿·² ͬ®»»¬ô ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ ¿²¼ ̱´³¿² Ý®»»µ α¿¼ô ¿²¼ ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ ¿²¼ É¿´µ»® ߪ»²«»ò Í«¹¹»­¬»¼ ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ ¬± ¬¸» ß­¸´¿²¼ Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» º±´´±© ±«® ¿²¿´§­·­ ±º »¿½¸ ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ ±º ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ½±³³±² ¬± ¿´´ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ·² ¬¸» ½·¬§ò ײ ½±³°´»¬·²¹ ±«® ¿²¿´§­·­ô ©» µ»°¬ ·² ³·²¼ ¾»­¬ °®¿½¬·½»­ ±¾­»®ª»¼ º±® ¿®»¿­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» ¿²¼ñ±ËÍØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏÎËÔØÏÉØÙÜÊÆØÑÑÜÊÉÕØjÛÈÔÑÙÔÏÖ ÛÑÎÚÒÊi×ÎËÍØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏÍÑÜÚØÊÔÙØÏÉÔ×ÔØÙÉÕËÎÈÖÕ½±³³«²·¬§ ©±®µ­¸±°­ ¿­­±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸·­ °®±¶»½¬ò Ñ«® ®»ª·»© ®»­«´¬»¼ ·² º±«® ¹»²»®¿´ ½±²½´«­·±²­æ ™Ì®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» ¼»²­·¬·»­ º±® º®»¯«»²¬ ¾«­ ­»®ª·½» ½¿² ¾» ¿½¸·»ª»¼ «²¼»® ½«®®»²¬ ¦±²·²¹ º±® ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿­ º±® »¿½¸ °´¿½»ò ݱ³³»®½·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±°°±®¬«²·¬·»­ ¿®» ¿´­± ¿´´±©»¼ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ¿½¸·»ª» ³·¨»¼ «­»ò Ó·¨»¼ «­» ³»»¬­ ¬¸» ±¾¶»½¬·ª» ±º ½®»¿¬·²¹ ¿ °´¿½» ©¸»®» °»±°´» ´·ª» ¿²¼ °»±°´» ©±®µò É» ®»½±³³»²¼ ²± ½¸¿²¹»­ ¬± ¬¸» «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²·²¹ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿­ º±® ¬¸» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò ™Í±³» ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²­ ¬± ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ ¿²¼ ¬¸»·® º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿­ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ½±²­·¼»®»¼ò ™ß² ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ·­ °®±¾¿¾´§ ¬¸» ¾»­¬ ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ³»¿­«®» º±® ¿½¸·»ª·²¹ ¼»­·®»¼ ½¸¿²¹»­ ¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½¸¿®¿½¬»®ò Õ»§ º»¿¬«®»­ ±º ¬¸¿¬ ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¸¿­ ¾»»² ±«¬´·²»¼ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ èë п¹» î ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï ™üÊÕÑÜÏÙiÊêÔÉØùØÊÔÖÏÜÏÙèÊØêÉÜÏÙÜËÙÊðÜÏÈÜÑÚÎÏÉÜÔÏØÅÚØÑÑØÏÉÊÉÜÏÙÜËÙÊ×ÎËÍËÎÐÎÉÔÏÖ °»¼»­¬®·¿²óº®·»²¼´§ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» «­»­ô »­°»½·¿´´§ ¬¸» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® ¬¸» Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ̸»­» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ½¿² ¾» ¿¼±°¬»¼ º±® «­» ·² ¿² ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²»ò Ñ«® ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ º±® ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ ·­ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ±«® «²¼»®­¬¿²¼·²¹ ±º ¿ ²«³¾»® ±º ½«®®»²¬ ¾»­¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±¼» °®¿½¬·½»­ º±® ­«°°±®¬·²¹ °»¼»­¬®·¿² ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¾«¬ ²±¬ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬±ô ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» ¿²¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² ±®·»²¬»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¼«½¬·±² ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º®±³ ¬¸» úÔÉÄÎ×íÎËÉÑÜÏÙiÊãÎÏÔÏÖúÎÙØéÕØËØÚÎÐÐØÏÙÜÉ·±²­ ¿®» ­«³³¿®·¦»¼ ¾»´±©ô º±´´±©»¼ ¾§ ¿ ®»ª·»© ±º ¦±²·²¹ ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± »¿½¸ ±º ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ¿®»¿­ ¿²¼ ¿ ³±®» ¼»¬¿·´»¼ »¨°´¿²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ò Ý®»¿¬» ¿ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» Ѫ»®´¿§ Ʊ²» ò É» ®»½±³³»²¼ ½®»¿¬·±² ±º ¿ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²»¿­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ¾»´±©Õ»§ »´»³»²¬­ ±º ¬¸¿¬ ±ª»®´¿§ ¿®» ±«¬´·²»¼ ¾»´±©ò Ë­»­ ß´´ «­»­ ±º ¬¸» «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ô »¨½»°¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ­¸±«´¼ »¨½´«¼» °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ô ­°»½·¿´ °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ô ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²¿´ «­»­ ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·º ¬¸±­» «­»­ ¿®» ¼»»³»¼ ½±«²¬»® ¬± ¬¸» ¼»­·®»¼ ¬§°»­ ±º «­»­ò Ñ«® ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ·­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ­¸±«´¼ °®±¸·¾·¬ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ «­»­ô ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¹»²»®¿´´§ ²±¬ ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º ¬¸» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ½±²½»°¬æ ™ß´´ «­»­ô ±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¹®±½»®§ ­¬±®»­ô ©·¬¸ ±ª»® ïðôððð ­¯«¿®» º»»¬ ±² ¿²§ ±²» º´±±®ò ™ß´´ ¼®·ª»ó«° «­»­ò ™Ý®»³¿¬±®·«³­ ¿²¼ ³¿«­±´»«³­ò ™Ý±³³»®½·¿´ ´¿«²¼®§ô ½´»¿²·²¹ô ¿²¼ ¼§»·²¹ »­¬¿¾´·­¸³»²¬­ò ™Þ±©´·²¹ ¿´´»§­ô ¿«¼·¬±®·«³­ô ­µ¿¬·²¹ ®·²µ­ô ¿²¼ ³·²·¿¬«®» ¹±´º ½±«®­»­ò ™ß«¬±³±¾·´» º«»´ ­¿´»­ô ¿²¼ ¿«¬±³±¾·´» ¿²¼ ¬®«½µ ®»°¿·® º¿½·´·¬·»­ò ™Õ»²²»´ ¿²¼ ª»¬»®·²¿®§ ½´·²·½­ ©¸»®» ¿²·³¿´­ ¿®» ¸±«­»¼ ±«¬­·¼»ò ™Û´»½¬®·½¿´ ­«¾­¬¿¬·±²­ò ™Ò»© ¿²¼ «­»¼ ½¿® ­¿´»­ô ¾±¿¬ô ¬®¿·´»®ô ¿²¼ ®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ ª»¸·½´»­ ­¿´»­ ¿²¼ ­¬±®¿¹» ¿®»¿­ò ™Ñ«¬¼±±® ­¬±®¿¹» ±º ½±³³±¼·¬·»­ ¿­­±½·¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ °»®³·¬¬»¼ô ­°»½·¿´ °»®³·¬¬»¼ ±® ½±²¼·¬·±²¿´ «­»ò ™Þ«·´¼·²¹ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ­¿´»­ §¿®¼­ò ™Ú®»»­¬¿²¼·²¹ ©·®»´»­­ ½±³³«²·½¿¬·±² º¿½·´·¬·»­ ø½±ó´±½¿¬»¼ º¿½·´·¬·»­ ©±«´¼ ¾» °»®³·¬¬»¼÷ò ™Û´»½¬®·½¿´ô º«®²·¬«®»ô °´«³¾·²¹ ­¸±°ô °®·²¬·²¹ô °«¾´·­¸·²¹ô ´·¬¸±¹®¿°¸§ô ±® «°¸±´­¬»®§ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ èê п¹» í ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï ™Ô·¹¸¬ ³¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ô ¿­­»³¾´§ô º¿¾®·½¿¬·²¹ô ±® °¿½µ¿¹·²¹ ±º °®±¼«½¬­ º®±³ °®»ª·±«­´§ °®»°¿®»¼ ³¿¬»®·¿´­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ½´±¬¸ô °´¿­¬·½ô ©±±¼ ø²±¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ­¿©ô °´¿²·²¹ô ±® ´«³¾»® ³·´´­ ±® ³±´¼·²¹ °´¿²¬­÷ô °¿°»®ô ½±¬¬±²ô ±® °®»½·±«­ ±® ­»³·ó°®»½·±«­ ³»¬¿´­ ±® ­¬±²»ò ™Ó¿²«º¿½¬«®» ±º »´»½¬®·½ô »´»½¬®±²·½ô ±® ±°¬·½¿´ ·²­¬®«³»²¬­ ¿²¼ ¼»ª·½»­ò ™Þ¿µ»®·»­ ©·¬¸±«¬ ®»¬¿·´ ­¿´»­ò ™Ð«¾´·½ ¿²¼ ¯«¿­·ó°«¾´·½ «¬·´·¬§ ¿²¼ ­»®ª·½» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ §¿®¼­ô ­¬®«½¬«®»­ò ™Ó¿²«º¿½¬«®» ±º °¸¿®³¿½»«¬·½¿´ ¿²¼ ­·³·´¿® ·¬»³­ò ™ß´´ ­°»½·¿´ó°»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²¿´ «­»­ ·² ¬¸» Ûóï ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ™Ø±­°·¬¿´­ô ®»­¬ô ²«®­·²¹ô ±® ½±²ª¿´»­½»²¬ ¸±³»­ò ™Ð«¾´·½ô °¿®±½¸·¿´ô ¿²¼ °®·ª¿¬» ­½¸±±´­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ²«®­»®§ ­½¸±±´­ô µ·²¼»®¹¿®¬»²­ô ¼¿²½·²¹ô ¬®¿¼»ô ¬»½¸²·½¿´ô ±® ­·³·´¿® ­½¸±±´­ò ™Î»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ «­»­ ¿²¼ º¿½·´·¬·»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ½±«²¬®§ ½´«¾­ô ¹±´º ½±«®­»­ô ±«¬¼±±® ­©·³³·²¹ ½´«¾­ô ¬»²²·­ ½´«¾­ô ¼®·ª·²¹ ®¿²¹»ô ®¿½» ¬®¿½µô ±® ¿³«­»³»²¬ °¿®µô ¾«¬ ²±¬ ·²½´«¼·²¹ ·²¬»²­·ª» ½±³³»®½·¿´ ®»½®»¿¬·±²¿´ «­»­ ¿­ º«´´§ »²½´±­»¼ ¸»¿´¬¸ ¿²¼ º·¬²»­­ ½´«¾­ò ™Ð«¾´·½ ¿²¼ ¯«¿­·ó°«¾´·½ ¸¿´´­ô ´±¼¹»­ô ¿²¼ ½´«¾­ò ™Ú®»»­¬¿²¼·²¹ ¼·­½ ¿²¬»²²¿ º±® ½±³³»®½·¿´ «­»ò ß Ð»¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» º±® ¬¸» Ò±®¬¸ Ó±«²¬¿·² ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ Û¿­¬ Ó¿·² ͬ®»»¬ ¿®»¿ ©±«´¼ ¾» ¿°°´·»¼ ¬± ¿®»¿­ ±º Îóí ¦±²»¼ °®±°»®¬·»­ò ̸» ±ª»®´¿§ ­¸±«´¼ ­°»½·º§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ «­»­ ¿®» °»®³·¬¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¿ ³·¨¬«®» ±º ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿²¼ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­»­ ©·¬¸·² ±²» ¾«·´¼·²¹ô ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ­·¦» ´·³·¬ ±º îôëðð ­¯«¿®» º»»¬ °»® ¾«­·²»­­æ ™Ð®±º»­­·±²¿´ô º·²¿²½·¿´ô ¾«­·²»­­ ¿²¼ ³»¼·½¿´ ±ºº·½»­ô ¿²¼ °»®­±²¿´ ­»®ª·½» »­¬¿¾´·­¸³»²¬­ ­«½¸ ¿­ ¾»¿«¬§ ¿²¼ ¾¿®¾»® ­¸±°­ô ´¿«²¼»®»¬¬»ô ¿²¼ ½´±¬¸»­ ¿²¼ ´¿«²¼®§ °·½µó«° ­¬¿¬·±²­ò ™Í¬±®»­ô ­¸±°­ô ¿²¼ ±ºº·½»­ ­«°°´§·²¹ ½±³³±¼·¬·»­ ±® °»®º±®³·²¹ ­»®ª·½»­ò ™Î»­¬¿«®¿²¬­ò λ¯«·®» Ó·¨»¼óË­»­ò ß´´±© ³·¨·²¹ ±º «­»­ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¾»·²¹ °®»­½®·°¬·ª» ©·¬¸ ®»¹¿®¼ ¬± «­»­ ®»¯«·®»¼ò Û¨½´«¼·²¹ Ë­»­ò Û¨½´«¼» °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ô ­°»½·¿´ °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ô ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²¿´ «­»­ ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²» ©¸·½¸ ©±«´¼ ¾» ½±«²¬»®ó°®±¼«½¬·ª» ¬± ¬¸» ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ ±º л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ю±¸·¾·¬ ¼®·ª»ó«° «­» °»®³·¬­ º®±³ ¾»·²¹ ¬®¿²­º»®®»¼ ±²¬± ­·¬»­ ©·¬¸·² ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½»­ò Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Í»¬¾¿½µ­ò ß´´±© ¿ º®±²¬ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ­»¬¾¿½µ ±º º·ª» º»»¬ ±® ¹®»¿¬»® ±²´§ ©¸»®» ¬¸¿¬ ­»¬¾¿½µ ¿®»¿ ·­ ±½½«°·»¼ ¾§ ¿ ­·¼»©¿´µ ½¿º7 ±® °´¿¦¿ô ±® ©¸»®» ¬¸» ­·¬» ¸¿­ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ±²» ­¬®»»¬ º®±²¬¿¹» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ ³¿¨·³«³ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ­»¬¾¿½µ ·­ ³»¬ ¿´±²¹ ¬¸» ±¬¸»® ­¬®»»¬ò ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»´§ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ­¸±«´¼ ¼»¬»®³·²» ·º ¬¸»®» ¿®» ­°»½·º·½ °®±°»®¬·»­ ©¸·½¸ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ³¿°°»¼ ¬± ¸¿ª» ­°»½·º·½ ¾«·´¼ó¬± ´·²»­ ·² ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ èé п¹» ì ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï ±®¼»® ¬± ½¿«­» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ±² ¬¸±­» ´±¬­ ¬± ¾» ²»¿® ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬ò ß ­°»½·º·½ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ´·²» ³¿° ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ·² ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ̸·­ ³¿° ­¸±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» ­»°¿®¿¬» º®±³ ¬¸» Ñ®¼·²¿²½»ò Ú´±±® ß®»¿ ο¬·± øÚßÎ÷ò ײ½®»¿­» ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ÚßÎ ¬± ïòð ±® ¹®»¿¬»®ò Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ø»·¹¸¬­ò Í»¬ ¿ ³·²·³«³ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ±º ¬©± ­¬±®·»­ò Ô¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ò ̸» ±ª»®´¿§ ­¸±«´¼ ²±¬ ­«°»®­»¼» ¬¸» ³·²·³«³ ´¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ ½±ª»®¿¹» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²»­ »¨½»°¬ ·² Î ¿²¼ Û ¦±²»­ ©¸»®» ´¿²¼­½¿°» ¿®»¿ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿®» ¿¬ îë °»®½»²¬ ±® ¹®»¿¬»®ò ײ ¬¸±­» ¦±²»­ô ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» «­»¿¾´» ±°»² ­°¿½»ô ©¸·½¸ ³¿§ ¾» ½±³°®·­»¼ ±º ±«¬¼±±® ­»¿¬·²¹ ¿®»¿­ô °´¿¦¿­ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® «­»¿¾´» °¿ª»¼ ­«®º¿½»­ ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ´¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ò п®µ·²¹ò Ù»¬¬·²¹ ¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹ ®·¹¸¬ ·­ ¿ ½®·¬·½¿´ ¿­°»½¬ ±º °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò λ¼«½»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ·²½®»¿­»­ ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ´¿²¼ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º±® ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ ©·´´ ¸»´° ³»»¬ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ÚßÎ ¬¿®¹»¬ò Ó±®» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ³»¿²­ ·²½®»¿­»¼ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬­ ¿²¼ ´»¿­¿¾´» ¿³±«²¬­ ±º »³°´±§³»²¬ ¿²¼ ®»¬¿·´ ­°¿½»ò Ú±® ·²­¬¿²½»ô ¿¬ ¬¸®»» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ °»® ¬¸±«­¿²¼ ­¯«¿®» º»»¬ §±« ¾»¹·² ¬± «­» ³±®» ´¿²¼ º±® °¿®µ·²¹ ¬¸¿² º±® «­»¿¾´» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ­°¿½»ò Ú±® ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­»­ô »¿½¸ ¿¼¼»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ·³°¿½¬­ ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ ¬¸¿¬ ½¿² ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ò ߬ ¬¸» ³±­¬ ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» ´»ª»´­ ±º ¸±«­·²¹ô ±²» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ½·®½«´¿¬·±² ­°¿½» ®»¯«·®»¼ ø¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ íð𠬱 ííð ­¯«¿®» º»»¬÷ ½±«´¼ ·²­¬»¿¼ ¾» ¿² »ºº·½·»²½§ ¿°¿®¬³»²¬ò Ñ«® ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ·­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ±® Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ¿²¼ Ë­» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Ó¿²«¿´ ·²½±®°±®¿¬» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °¿®µ·²¹ °®±ª·­·±²­ ³±¼»´»¼ ±² ¬¸» Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ±º ¬¸» Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ ¿²¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´´§ »´­»©¸»®» ·² ¬¸» ½·¬§ô ±® ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»´§ô ¬¸¿¬ ­«½¸ °®±ª·­·±²­ ¾» ·²½´«¼»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ò ̸»­» °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¼«½¬·±² °®±ª·­·±²­ ­¸±«´¼ ¿´´±© ¿ ®»¼«½¬·±² ·² ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® ¿ °¿®¬·½«´¿® «­» ±® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¾§ ²±¬ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ëð °»®½»²¬ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿´´±©·²¹ ¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¬± ±¾¬¿·² °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ½®»¼·¬­ º±®æ ™Ð®±ª·¼·²¹ ±² ­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ò ™×³°´»³»²¬·²¹ ¿ Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ü»³¿²¼ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ д¿²ò ™Ë¬·´·¦·²¹ ¿ ³·¨»¼ó«­» °¿®µ·²¹ ¿¹®»»³»²¬ ½®»¼·¬ò ™ß´´±©·²¹ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ½®»¼·¬­ º±® »ª»®§ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ¿ ¼»ª»´±°»® ½±²­¬®«½¬­ ·² ¿ ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ ±ººó­·¬» ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ò ™ß´¬¸±«¹¸ ­«½¸ ¿ °®±¹®¿³ ·­ ²±¬ ½«®®»²¬´§ ·² »¨·­¬»²½»ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ½±«´¼ ½±²­·¼»® ¿ °®±¹®¿³ ©¸·½¸ ¿´´±©­ ¼»ª»´±°»®­ ¬± °¿§ ¿ º»»ó·²ó´·»«ó±ºó°¿®µ·²¹ ©·¬¸ ­«½¸ º»»­ ¬± ¾» «­»¼ º±® ½±²­¬®«½¬·²¹ ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿­ò ̸·­ ©±«´¼ ®»¯«·®» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬± ¼»ª»´±° °´¿²­ º±® ­«½¸ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬®«½¬«®»­ô ±® ³±®» ´·µ»´§ô ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬­ò ߺ¬»® °´¿²­ º±® ¿ ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬®«½¬«®» ±® °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬ ¿®» ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ èè п¹» ë ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï ½±³°´»¬»¼ô ¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ³·¹¸¬ ±²´§ ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ ¬± ¾«·´¼ «° ¬± ëð °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸»·® ®»¯«·®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ±² ¬¸»·® ±©² ­·¬» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»³¿·²¼»® ±º ¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹ ¬± ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ º±® ·² ¬¸» ­¸¿®»¼ ­¬®«½¬«®» ±® ´±¬ò ̸» Ý·¬§ ½±«´¼ ¿´­± ¿´´±© ²± °¿®µ·²¹ ·² ¬¸»­» ¿®»¿­ ±²½» ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬­ ¿®» »­¬¿¾´·­¸»¼ ¿²¼ ®»¯«·®» ¬¸» º»»ó·²ó´·»«ó±ºó°¿®µ·²¹ ·²­¬»¿¼ ±º ³¿µ·²¹ °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² ±°¬·±²¿´ò ̸»­» °¿®µ·²¹ °®±ª·­·±²­ ´·­¬»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô ³±­¬ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¿´®»¿¼§ «­»¼ ·² ß­¸´¿²¼ô ½±«´¼ ¾» ­«°°´»³»²¬»¼ ¾§ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ®»¼«½¬·±² º¿½¬±®­ «¬·´·¦»¼ ¾§ ½·¬·»­ »´­»©¸»®» ·² Ñ®»¹±²æ ™Ì¸» ¿ª¿·´¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¬®¿²­·¬ ©·¬¸ ¿ ­¬±° ©·¬¸·² ëð𠺻»¬ ±º ¬¸» ­·¬»ô ·º ¬¸» ¬®¿²­·¬ ·­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ ­°»½·º·½ º®»¯«»²½§ øᮬ´¿²¼ ®»¯«·®»­ îðó³·²«¬» °»¿µ °»®·±¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ ­»®ª·½» º®»¯«»²½§ º±® ¿ ¬±¬¿´ »´·³·²¿¬·±² ±º ®»¯«·®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹÷ò ™Ð®±ª·¼·²¹ ¬®¿²­·¬ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ´·µ» ¿ ¾«­ ­¬±° ±® ¾«­ ­¸»´¬»®ò øÌ·¹¿®¼ ¿´´±©­ «° ¬± ¿ îð °»®½»²¬ ®»¼«½¬·±² ·² ³·²·³«³ °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ô ·º ¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °®±ª·¼»­ ¿ ¬®¿²­·¬ ­¸»´¬»®ô ¾«­ °«´´ó±«¬ô ±® ¾«­ ­¬±°÷ò ™Ð®±ª·¼·²¹ ¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª» ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º¿½·´·¬·»­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ²±²ó®»¯«·®»¼ ¾·½§½´» °¿®µ·²¹ ø±® ²±²ó®»¯«·®»¼ ½±ª»®»¼ ¾·½§½´» °¿®µ·²¹÷ ±® ³±¬±®½§½´» ¿²¼ ­½±±¬»® °¿®µ·²¹ò øᮬ´¿²¼ ¿´´±©­ º·ª» ¾·½§½´» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¬± ­«¾­¬·¬«¬» º±® ±²» ¿«¬± °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ô ©·¬¸ ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ®»¼«½¬·±² ±º ®»¯«·®»¼ ¿«¬± ­°¿½»­ ±º îë °»®½»²¬ò Ù®»­¸¿³ ¿´´±©­ ¬©± ¾·½§½´» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¬± ­«¾­¬·¬«¬» º±® ±²» ¿«¬± ­°¿½»ò ᮬ´¿²¼ ¿´´±©­ º±«® ³±¬±®½§½´» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¬± ­«¾­¬·¬«¬» º±® ±²» ®»¯«·®»¼ ¿«¬± ­°¿½» ©·¬¸ ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ®»¼«½¬·±² ±º º·ª» ®»¯«·®»¼ ¿«¬± °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ô ±® º·ª» °»®½»²¬ ±º ËØÌÈÔËØÙÍÜËÒÔÏÖmÆÕÔÚÕØÇØËÔÊÑØÊÊíÎËÉÑÜÏÙÚÎÏÊÔÙØËÊÊÚÎÎÉØËÊÜÊÐÎÉÎËÚÄÚÑØÊ ™Ð®±ª·¼·²¹ °´¿¦¿ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ±® °»¼»­¬®·¿² ±® ¬®¿²­·¬ ¿³»²·¬·»­ ·² ´·»« ±º °®±ª·¼·²¹ ­±³» ±® ¿´´ Î×ÉÕØËØÌÈÔËØÙÍÜËÒÔÏÖíÎËÉÑÜÏÙiÊãÎÏÔÏÖúÎÙØÍËÎÇÔÙØÊ×ÎËÉÕØ×ÎÑÑÎÆÔÏÖ Í·¬»­ ©¸»®» ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ îð °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¿®» ®»¯«·®»¼ô ¿²¼ ©¸»®» ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ±²» ­¬®»»¬ ´±¬ ´·²» ¿¾«¬­ ¿ ¬®¿²­·¬ ­¬®»»¬ ³¿§ ­«¾­¬·¬«¬» ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» °´¿¦¿­ º±® ®»¯«·®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ô ¿­ º±´´±©­ò Û¨·­¬·²¹ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿­ ³¿§ ¿´­± ¾» ½±²ª»®¬»¼ ¬± ¬¿µ» ¿¼ª¿²¬¿¹» ±º ¬¸»­» °®±ª·­·±²­æ ¿÷л¼»­¬®·¿² ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» °´¿¦¿­ ³¿§ ¾» ­«¾­¬·¬«¬»¼ º±® «° ¬± ïð °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ±² ¬¸» ­·¬»å ¾÷̸» °´¿¦¿ ³«­¬ ¾» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¿²¼ ª·­·¾´» º®±³ ¬¸» ¬®ÜÏÊÔÉÊÉËØØÉô×ÉÕØËØÔÊÜÛÈÊÊÉÎÍÜÑÎÏÖÉÕØÊÔÉØiÊ º®±²¬¿¹»ô ¬¸» °´¿¦¿ ³«­¬ ¾» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¾«­ ­¬±°å ½÷̸» °´¿¦¿ ³«­¬ ¾» ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ íðð ­¯«¿®» º»»¬ ·² ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ ¾» ­¸¿°»¼ ­± ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ïðù¨ïðù ­¯«¿®» ©·´´ º·¬ »²¬·®»´§ ·² ¬¸» °´¿¦¿å ¿²¼ ¼÷ ̸» °´¿¦¿ ³«­¬ ·²½´«¼» ¿´´ ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ »´»³»²¬­æ ·òß °´¿¦¿ ¬¸¿¬ ·­ ±°»² ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ò ̸» ±©²»® ³«­¬ ®»½±®¼ ¿ °«¾´·½ ¿½½»­­ »¿­»³»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¿´´±©­ °«¾´·½ ¿½½»­­ ¬± ¬¸» °´¿¦¿å ··òß ¾»²½¸ ±® ±¬¸»® ­·¬¬·²¹ ¿®»¿ ©·¬¸ ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ë ´·²»¿® º»»¬ ±º ­»¿¬·²¹å ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ èç п¹» ê ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï ···òß ­¸»´¬»® ±® ±¬¸»® ©»¿¬¸»® °®±¬»½¬·±²ò ̸» ­¸»´¬»® ³«­¬ ½±ª»® ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ îð ­¯«¿®» º»»¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» °´¿¦¿ ³«­¬ ¾» ´¿²¼­½¿°»¼ò ̸·­ ´¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ ·­ ·² ¿¼¼·¬·±² ¬± ¿²§ ±¬¸»® ´¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ ±® ­½®»»²·²¹ ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿­ ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ¼»ò Ñ«® ­«¹¹»­¬·±² ·­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¼·­½«­­»­ ©¸·½¸ ±º ¬¸»­» ±°¬·±²­ ¬¸»§ ¿®» ½±³º±®¬¿¾´» ©·¬¸ô ¿²¼ ©¸»¬¸»® ¬¸»§ ©¿²¬ ¬± ³¿µ» ¬¸»³ ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» ¬± ¿´´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬­ô ±® ¬± °«¬ ´·³·¬­ ±² °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¼«½¬·±²­ò Ú±® »¨¿³°´»ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ³¿§ ©¿²¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬­ ©¸·½¸ ²±®³¿´´§ ©±«´¼ ®»¯«·®» º±«® ±® º»©»® °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¬± ¾» ¿¾´» ¬± ¾» º«´´§ ¿¾­±´ª»¼ ±º °®±ª·¼·²¹ ±²­·¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ±® °¿§·²¹ ¿ º»»ó·²ó´·»«ó±ºó°¿®µ·²¹ò ײ ±¬¸»® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­½»²¿®·±­ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ³¿§ ²±¬ ©¿²¬ ¬± ¿´´±© ´¿®¹»® °¿®µ·²¹ ¼»³¿²¼ «­»­ ¬± ®»¼«½» ¬¸»·® ±²­·¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ¾»§±²¼ ¿ ½»®¬¿·² °»®½»²¬¿¹» «²´»­­ ±ºº­·¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ·­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ±²ó­¬®»»¬ ±® ·­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ·² ¿ ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬ò п®µ·²¹ Ô±¬ Ü»­·¹²ò ɸ·´» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ·­ »¨¬»²¼·²¹ °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¼«½¬·±² ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¬± ¬¸» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ ø¿²¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´´§ ±¬¸»® ´±½¿¬·±²­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ½·¬§÷ô ·¬ ·­ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¿´­± ¿¼±°¬ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ­·³·´¿® ¬± ¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ ¼»­·¹² ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ±º Í»½¬·±² Ê×××óÞóî ±º ¬¸» Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ Ü»­·¹² ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ù®»»² Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Í»½¬·±² Ê××óÝ ±º ¬¸» ­¿³» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ô »­°»½·¿´´§ ¬¸» ¹®»»² °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ ¹®»»² ­¬®»»¬ °®±ª·­·±²­ò ̸» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¾¿­»¼ «°±² ¬¸»­» Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ­¸±«´¼ »·¬¸»® ¾» ¿¼±°¬»¼ ½·¬§ó©·¼» ¬¸®±«¹¸ ݸ¿°¬»® ïèòçî ±® º±® ¶«­¬ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ·²½±®°±®¿¬·±² ·² ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²»ò ׬ ·­ ²±¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» л®º±®³¿²½» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Þ±²«­»­ ±º Í»½¬·±² Ê×××óÝóïí ²»»¼ ²±¬ ¾» ¿¼±°¬»¼ º±® ¬¸» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ¿®»¿­ ¾»½¿«­» ¬¸»­» ¾±²«­»­ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» «²²»½»­­¿®§ ©·¬¸ ®»¹¿®¼ ¬± ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¼»²­·¬§ ±® ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬­ò ß°°´§ ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» Ѫ»®´¿§ Ʊ²·²¹ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ñ°¬·±² ïò ß°°´§ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ±²´§ ¬± ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ¿®»¿­ ­¸±©² ±² Ѭ¿µ °´¿²­ò ر©»ª»®ô ¿°°´§·²¹ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ±²´§ ¬± ¬¸» ­»´»½¬»¼ ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬»­ ³¿§ º¿´´ ­¸±®¬ ±º ¿½¸·»ª·²¹ ¬¸» ¬§°» ±º ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¼»­·®»¼ ·º ±©²»®­ ±º ¬¸»­» ´·³·¬»¼ °®±°»®¬·»­ ¿®» ²±¬ ·²¬»®»­¬»¼ ·² ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·¬¸·² ¿ ®»¿­±²¿¾´» ¬·³»ò Ñ°¬·±² îò ß°°´§ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¬± ¬¸» »²¬·®» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¦±²»­ ­¸±©² º±® ¬¸» ¬¸®»» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò É» ¾»´·»ª» ¬¸·­ ¿°°®±¿½¸ ©±«´¼ ¾» ©¿§ ¬±± ¾®±¿¼ò ̸»®» ©±«´¼ ¾» ´·¬¬´» ¹¿·²»¼ ¾§ ¿°°´§·²¹ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¬± ¿®»¿­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ½«®®»²¬´§ ¦±²»¼ º±® °®·³¿®·´§ ´±© ¼»²­·¬§ ±® ³»¼·«³ ¼»²­·¬§ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­»­ ±® ·²­¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ «­»­ò îÍÉÔÎÏ ß°°´§ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¬± ¿®»¿­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸±­» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¿´®»¿¼§ ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ Ü»¬¿·´»¼ Í·¬» λª·»© ãÎÏØÊÜÊÙØÊÔÖÏÜÉØÙÎÏÉÕØúÔÉÄiÊêÔÉØùØÊÔÖÏ Ʊ²»­ ³¿°ò Ú±® ¬¸» Ò±®¬¸ Ó±«²¬¿·² ߪ»²«»ñÛ¿­¬ Ó¿·² ͬ®»»¬ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»ô ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿°°´·»¼ ¬± ¿®»¿­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¿´®»¿¼§ ¦±²»¼ Îóíò ײ ¿´´ ¬¸®»» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ¿®»¿­ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¸¿­ ¿´®»¿¼§ ³¿¼» ¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±²­ ¾§ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Ü»¬¿·´»¼ Í·¬» λª·»© Ʊ²» ±® ¬¸» Îóí ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸±­» °®±°»®¬·»­ ¿®» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬± ¸¿ª» ¿ º¿·®´§ ·²¬»²­·ª» ´»ª»´ ±º ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çð п¹» é ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï Ʊ²·²¹ λª·»© º±® É¿´µ»® ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» Ýóï Ʊ²» ß´´ ±º ¬¸» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬»­ ¿®±«²¼ ¬¸·­ ·²¬»®­»½¬·±² ¿®» ¦±²»¼ Ýóïò Ë­»­ Ý«®®»²¬´§ ß´´±©»¼ Ë­»­ò ̸» Ýóï ¦±²» ¿´´±©­ ¿´´ ¼»­·®»¼ «­»­ º±® ¿ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ³·¨»¼ «­» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·¬¸ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ò ݱ²­·¼»®¿¬·±²­ º±® ½¸¿²¹·²¹ ¬¸» «­»­ ·² ¬¸·­ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·²½´«¼» ®»¯«·®·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ «­»­ ±² »¿½¸ ­·¬» ±® °¿®¬·½«´¿® ­·¬» ¾» ³·¨»¼ô ±® »¨½´«¼·²¹ ½»®¬¿·² «­»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ýóï ¼·­¬®·½¬ ©¸·½¸ ³¿§ ²±¬ ¾» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ò λ¯«·®» Ó·¨»¼óË­»­òûÜÊØÙÎÏÎÉÕØËÚÔÉÔØÊiØÅÍØËÔØÏÚØÊËØÌÈÔËÔÏÖÐÔÅØÙÈÊØÊÎÏÜÊÔÉØÎËÆÔÉÕÔÏÜ °¿®¬·½«´¿® ¿®»¿ ½¿² ¾» °±´·¬·½¿´´§ ¼·ºº·½«´¬ ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ò ß ¹·ª»² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ³¿§ º·²¼ ¬±± ´·¬¬´» ³¿®µ»¬ ¼»³¿²¼ º±® ¿ ®»¯«·®»¼ «­»ô ¾«¬ ¿³°´» ¼»³¿²¼ º±® ¬¸» ±¬¸»® «­»ø­÷ ·² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ò Ú±®½·²¹ ¿ º·²¿²½·¿´´§ ¬®±«¾´·²¹ ¼»½·­·±² «°±² ¿ °®±­°»½¬·ª» ¼»ª»´±°»® ¬± ¬¿µ» ±² ¿² «²¼»­·®¿¾´» «­» ø¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ¿¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬·³»÷ ©·´´ ²±¬ ¸»´° ­¬·³«´¿¬» ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ß´´±© ³·¨·²¹ ±º «­»­ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¾»·²¹ °®»­½®·°¬·ª» ¬±©¿®¼­ «­»­ ¬± ¾» ®»¯«·®»¼ò ͬ®·½¬´§ ®»¯«·®·²¹ ³·¨»¼ «­» ±² ¿ °¿®½»´ó¾§ó°¿®½»´ ¾¿­·­ ³¿§ ¾» ¼·ºº·½«´¬ ¬± ¿¼³·²·­¬»® ·² ¿ ©¿§ ¬¸¿¬ »²½±«®¿¹»­ ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿½¸·»ª»­ ¬¸» ¹±¿´ ±º ³·¨»¼ «­» ¿¬ ¿ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ±® ¼·­¬®·½¬ ­½¿´»ò Ѳ ¿²§ ¹·ª»² °¿®½»´ô ¬¸»®» ³¿§ ¾» «²·¯«» ­·¬» ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·­¬·½­ ±® ½«®®»²¬ ³¿®µ»¬ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±ª»®©¸»´³·²¹´§ º¿ª±®¿¾´» ¬± ±²» «­» ±ª»® ¿²±¬¸»®ò Í»¬¬·²¹ ½´»¿® ³·¨»¼ «­» ¹±¿´­ ¿²¼ «­·²¹ ¿ ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ·²½»²¬·ª»­ ³¿§ ¾» ¾»¬¬»® ¬±±´­ º±® ¹»¬¬·²¹ ¿ ¾¿´¿²½» ±º °´¿½»­ ¬± ´·ª»ô ©±®µô ¿²¼ ­¸±° ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¿®»¿­ò Û¨½´«¼» Ý»®¬¿·² Ë­»­ò ß² ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ½±«´¼ ­°»½·º·½¿´´§ »¨½´«¼» ­±³» ±º ¬¸» °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ô ­°»½·¿´ °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ô ¿²¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²¿´ «­»­ ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ýóï «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²»ô ©¸·½¸ ©±«´¼ ¾» ½±«²¬»®ó °®±¼«½¬·ª» ¬± ¬¸» ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ ±º л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ Ю±¸·¾·¬ ´¿®¹»®ó­·¦»¼ ¾±¨»­ ¿²¼ «­»­ ©¸·½¸ «­«¿´´§ ¿®» ´±½¿¬»¼ ·² ´¿®¹» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ñ±® ¸¿ª» ´¿®¹» °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬­ ±® ­«®º¿½» ­¬±®¿¹» ¿®»¿­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ½¿® ­¿´»­ô ¾«·´¼·²¹ ÐÜÉØËÔÜÑÊÜÑØÊØÉÚéÕØúÔÉÄiÊñÜÏÙèÊØîËÙÔÏÜÏÚØÚÈËËØÏÉÑÄÍËÎÕÔÛÔÉÊÈÊØÊÎÇØË   ­¯«¿®» º»»¬ò ß² ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ³¿§ ©¿²¬ ¬± ¾» ³±®» ®»­¬®·½¬·ª» ¬¸¿² ¬¸» °®±¸·¾·¬·±² ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ ­«®®±«²¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò ̸» Ý·¬§ ´·³·¬­ ¬±¬¿´ ¼®·ª»ó«° «­»­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ½·¬§ ¬± ¬©»´ª» ­»°¿®¿¬» ¾«­·²»­­»­ô ¾¿­»¼ «°±² ¬¸» ²«³¾»® ±º ¼®·ª»ó«° «­»­ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¬·³» ¬¸» ±®¼·²¿²½» ©¿­ ¿¼±°¬»¼ò ̸» ¼®·ª»ó«° «­» ¿´´±©¿²½» ·­ ¬®¿²­º»®¿¾´» ¬± ¿²±¬¸»® ­·¬»ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ±²¬± ­·¬»­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¦±²»¼ Ýóï ¿²¼ ½«®®»²¬´§ ±²¬± ­·¬»­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¾»·²¹ °´¿²²»¼ ¿­ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çï п¹» è ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ß² ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ½±«´¼ ­°»½·º·½¿´´§ °®±¸·¾·¬ ¼®·ª»ó«° «­» °»®³·¬­ º®±³ ¾»·²¹ ¬®¿²­º»®®»¼ ±²¬± ­·¬»­ ©·¬¸·² ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ ±® ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ­«®®±«²¼·²¹ º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿­ò Ü·³»²­·±²¿´ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ø»·¹¸¬­ò ̸» °®·³¿®§ ¼·³»²­·±²¿´ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ ·² ¬¸» Ýóï ¦±²» ·­ ¿ ìð󺱱¬ ³¿¨·³«³ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ô »¨½»°¬ ©¸»®» ¿ °®±°»®¬§ ¿¾«¬­ ¿ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ©¸»®» ´»­­»® ¸»·¹¸¬­ ¿®» ¿´´±©»¼ò ̸»­» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¿®» ²±¬ ¿ °®±¾´»³ º±® ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ½±²½»°¬­ò ß¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ¾»§±²¼ ì𠺻»¬ ·­ °®±¾´»³¿¬·½ ­·²½» ¬¸» «­»­ ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸¿¬ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¸»·¹¸¬ ³¿§ ³¿µ» ·¬ ¼·ºº·½«´¬ ¬± °®±ª·¼» ¿¼»¯«¿¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ©·¬¸±«¬ ­«®º¿½» °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿­ ³«½¸ ´¿®¹»® ¬¸¿² ¬¸±­» »²ª·­·±²»¼ ·² ¬¸» ½±²½»°¬ °´¿²­ò ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª» °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬®¿¬»¹·»­ ¬± ­«®º¿½» °¿®µ·²¹ ½±«´¼ ¾» ¬«½µó«²¼»® °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ±® ¿ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ «²¼»® ¿ ¾«·´¼·²¹ °±¼·«³ò ̸»­» ±°¬·±²­ ®¿·­» ½±²­¬®«½¬·±² ½±­¬­ º±® ¬¸» ¼»­·®»¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ô ¬¸»®»º±®»ô ©±®µ ¿¹¿·²­¬ ±¬¸»® ¹±¿´­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ °®±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ºº±®¼¿¾´» ¸±«­·²¹ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ Ò± ½¸¿²¹»ò Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Ô¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ ݱª»®¿¹»ò ß² ±ª»®´¿§ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ½±«´¼ ­«°»®­»¼» ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ³·²·³«³ ïë °»®½»²¬ ´¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ ½±ª»®¿¹» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» Ýóï ¦±²» ·º ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ©¿²¬­ »¿½¸ ­·¬» ¬± ·²½´«¼» ³±®» ´¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ò ر©»ª»®ô ·²½®»¿­·²¹ ¬¸» ´¿²¼­½¿°»¼ ¿®»¿­ ±º ¿ ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ³¿§ ¾» ½±«²¬»® ¬± ¬¸» ¸·¹¸»® ·²¬»²­·¬§ ±º ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿²¼ ³·¨ ±º «­»­ ¼»­·®»¼ ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¦»¼ ¾§ ½´±­»´§ ­°¿½»¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹­ô «­»¿¾´» ±«¬¼±±® ¹¿¬¸»®·²¹ ­°¿½»­ô ¿²¼ ­»¬¾¿½µ­ ©·¬¸ ­¬±®»º®±²¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ Ò± ½¸¿²¹»ò Ѭ¸»® Ʊ²»­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ëóÓ·²«¬» É¿´µ·²¹ ß®»¿ Ó±­¬ ±º ¬¸» ®»­¬ ±º ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ ­«®®±«²¼·²¹ ¬¸» É¿´µ»® ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ·­ ¦±²»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Îóï ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ±® ·­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ͱ«¬¸»®² Ñ®»¹±² ˲·ª»®­·¬§ øÍÑË÷ ½¿³°«­ò Ë­»­ô ¼»²­·¬·»­ô ¼·³»²­·±²¿´ô ¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸»­» ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¿®» ­«³³¿®·¦»¼ ¾»´±©ò Îóïóéòë Ʊ²»ò Ó«½¸ ±º ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ ­±«¬¸ ±º Í·­µ·§±« Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ ·­ ¦±²»¼ Îóïóéòëô ¿´±²¹ ©·¬¸ ­±³» ¿®»¿ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» »¿­¬»®² °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ò ̸» ¬¿®¹»¬ ¼»²­·¬§ º±® ¬¸·­ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ íòê «²·¬­ °»® ¿½®»ô ©¸·½¸ ·­ ¿¬ ¬¸» ´±© »²¼ ±º ¬¸» ¬§°·½¿´ ¼»²­·¬§ ®¿²¹» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º ´±½¿´ ¾«­ ­»®ª·½»ò Ü»¬¿½¸»¼ ­·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ®»­·¼»²½»­ ¿²¼ ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ®»­·¼»²½»­ ¿®» ¿³±²¹ ¬¸» °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ò Ü·³»²­·±²¿´ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¿®» ¬§°·½¿´ ±º ¬¸·­ ¼»²­·¬§ò Í·²½» ¬¸·­ ¦±²» ·­ ¿°°´·»¼ ±² ¬¸» ±°°±­·¬» ­·¼» ±º Í·­µ·§±« Þ±«´»ª¿®¼ ¿²¼ ·²½´«¼»­ ¬¸» ÍÑË ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²»ô ·¬ ·­ ²±¬ ®·°» º±® ³¿¶±® ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çî п¹» ç ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï Îóïóë Ʊ²»ò Ó«½¸ ±º ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ ²±®¬¸ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ ·­ ¦±²»¼ Îóïóëò ̸» ¬¿®¹»¬ ¼»²­·¬§ º±® ¬¸·­ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ìòë «²·¬­ °»® ¿½®»ô ©¸·½¸ ·­ ¿¬ ¬¸» ´±© »²¼ ±º ¬¸» ¬§°·½¿´ ¼»²­·¬§ ®¿²¹» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º ´±½¿´ ¾«­ ­»®ª·½»ò Ü»¬¿½¸»¼ ­·²¹´»óº¿³·´§ ®»­·¼»²½»­ ¿²¼ ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ®»­·¼»²½»­ ¿®» ¿³±²¹ ¬¸» °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ò Ü·³»²­·±²¿´ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¿®» ¬§°·½¿´ ±º ¬¸·­ ¼»²­·¬§ò Í·²½» ¬¸·­ ¿®»¿ ·­ º«´´§ ¼»ª»´±°»¼ ¿²¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ±«¬»® °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» º·ª»ó³«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ô ·¬ ·­ ²±¬ ®·°» º±® ³¿¶±® ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ Í·²½» ¬¸» ¬¿®¹»¬ ¼»²­·¬·»­ º±® ¾±¬¸ ¬¸» Îóïóéòë ¿²¼ Îóïóë ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¿®» ¿¬ ¬¸» ´±© »²¼ ±º ¬¸» ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» ¼»²­·¬§ ­½¿´»ô ·¬ ·­ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ½±²­·¼»® ­»»µ·²¹ ·²½®»¿­»¼ ¼»²­·¬·»­ ·² ¬¸»­» ¿®»¿­ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿´´±©·²¹ ß½½»­­±®§ λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ Ë­»­ ¿­ °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿­ ­«®®±«²¼·²¹ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò Ʊ²·²¹ λª·»© º±® ̱´³¿² Ý®»»µ α¿¼ñß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» Ýóï Ʊ²»­ ß´´ ±º ¬¸» ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬»­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ̱´³¿² Ý®»»µ α¿¼ñß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ °»¼»­¬®·¿² ¿®»¿ ¿®» ¦±²»¼ Ýóïô »¨½»°¬ º±® ¬¸» ©»­¬»®²ó³±­¬ °±®¬·±² ±º ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬» Ý ¿´±²¹ ̱´³¿² Ý®»»µ α¿¼ ¿²¼ ¿ ­³¿´´ ¿®»¿ ±º °±®¬·±² ±º ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬» Ú ¶«­¬ ¬± ¬¸» ²±®¬¸ò ̸·­ ¿®»¿ ·­ ¦±²»¼ Ûóï ©·¬¸ ¿ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ±ª»®´¿§ò Í·³·´¿® ½±³³»²¬­ ¿°°´§ ¿­ ¿¾±ª» ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¸±© ¬¸» Ýï ¼·­¬®·½¬ ­«°°±®¬­ ±® ½±²º´·½¬­ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ò Ûóï Ʊ²»ô ©·¬¸ λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ Ѫ»®´¿§ ̸» Ûóï ¦±²·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ¿ ³·¨»¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿²¼ »³°´±§³»²¬ ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ̸·­ ¦±²» ¿´´±©­ ¿ ¹®»¿¬ ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ±ºº·½»ô ½±³³»®½·¿´ô ¿²¼ ³¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ «­»­ò ͱ³» ±º ¬¸» ¿´´±©»¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿²¼ ·²¼«­¬®·¿´ «­»­ ³¿§ ¾» º¿·®´§ ´¿²¼ »¨¬»²­·ª» ±® ´±© ·² ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·²¬»²­·¬§ò Ô±©»® ·²¬»²­·¬§ «­»­ ­«½¸ ¿­ ¬¸»­» ³¿§ ¾» ½±«²¬»® °®±¼«½¬·ª» ¬± ¬¸» °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ô ·º ²±¬ ³±¼·º·»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ò λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½¿² ±½½«® ¿­ °¿®¬ ±º ¿ ³·¨»¼ «­» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·² ¬¸» Ûóï ¼·­¬®·½¬ ±²´§ ·º ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ ·­ ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ±ª»®´¿§ô ¿­ ·­ ¬¸» ½¿­» º±® ¬¸» Ûóï ¦±²»¼ °®±°»®¬·»­ ¿´±²¹ ̱´³¿² Ý®»»µ α¿¼ò ̸» ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ±ª»®´¿§ ¿´´±©­ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­»­ ¿­ ¿ ­°»½·¿´ «­» ·² ¬¸» Ûóï ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¿¬ ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ¼»²­·¬§ ±º ïë «²·¬­ °»® ¿½®»ô ©·¬¸ ­°»½·¿´ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¼»²­·¬§ °®±ª·­·±²­ º±® ­³¿´´ «²·¬­ò λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­»­ ¿®» ¿´´±©»¼ ±²´§ ·º ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ êëû Î×ÉÕØÉÎÉÜÑÖËÎÊÊ×ÑÎÎËÜËØÜÎ×ÜÛÈÔÑÙÔÏÖiÊÖËÎÈÏÙ×ѱ±®ô ±® ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ëðû ±º ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ´±¬ ¿®»¿ ·º ¬¸»®» ¿®» ³«´¬·°´» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ô ¿®» ±½½«°·»¼ ¾§ °»®³·¬¬»¼ ±® ±¬¸»® ­°»½·¿´ °»®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ô »¨½´«¼·²¹ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çí п¹» ïð ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ̸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ½±«´¼ ¿´­± ¾» ¿°°´·»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ûóï ¦±²»¼ ¿®»¿ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ «­»ñ­·¦» ®»­¬®·½¬·±²­ ¬± °®±¸·¾·¬ ²±²ó­«°°±®¬·ª» «­»­ô ¿²¼ ¬± ¿¼¼ ¼»­·¹² ¿²¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´ °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¼«½¬·±² ³»¿­«®»­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò Ѭ¸»® Ʊ²»­ É·¬¸·² ¬¸» ëó³·²«¬» É¿´µ ß®»¿ ̸» ÇÓÝß ­·¬»ô ¿²¼ ¿®»¿­ ¬± ¬¸» ²±®¬¸ ¿²¼ ©»­¬ô ¿®» ¦±²»¼ Îóîô ©·¬¸ ³±­¬ ±º ¬¸»³ ¿´­± ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» л®º±®³¿²½» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ±ª»®´¿§ô ©¸·½¸ ¸¿­ º´»¨·¾·´·¬§ ©·¬¸ ®»¹¿®¼ ¬± ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ò Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® ¿ °¿®¬·½«´¿® ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­·¬» ¿®» ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ­·¬» °´¿² ®»ª·»© °®±½»­­ô ­·³·´¿® ¬± ¿ °´¿²²»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Îóî Ʊ²»ò ̸» «­»­ô ³¿¨·³«³ ¿²¼ ¾±²«­ ¼»²­·¬·»­ô ¿®» ½±²­·­¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» ¹±¿´­ò ̸» ³¿¨·³«³ ¼»²­·¬§ ·­ ïíòë ¼ò«òñ¿½®»ò Îóî Þ±²«­ б·²¬­ º±® ¼»²­·¬§ ¿´´±© «° ¬± ìð °»®½»²¬ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¼»²­·¬§ ¬± ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ïç ¼ò«òñ¿½®»ò ̸» ¾«´µ ®»¹«´¿¬·±²­ ©±«´¼ ²±¬ ¿°°»¿® ¬± ¼·­½±«®¿¹» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿¬ ¸·¹¸»® ¼»²­·¬·»­ò Ûóï Ʊ²»ô ©·¬¸±«¬ ¬¸» λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ Ѫ»®´¿§ ̸» ëó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ ·²½´«¼»­ ±¬¸»® °®±°»®¬·»­ ¬± ¬¸» ­±«¬¸ ¿²¼ »¿­¬ ±º ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬» Ýô ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¿´­± ¦±²»¼ Ûóïô ¾«¬ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¬¸» ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ±ª»®´¿§ò ß­ ²±¬»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô ¬¸» Ûóï ¦±²·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¿´´±©­ ¿ ¹®»¿¬ ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ±ºº·½»ô ½±³³»®½·¿´ô ¿²¼ ³¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ «­»­ò Ó¿·²¬¿·²·²¹ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸·­ ¦±²» ·² ¬¸·­ ¿®»¿ ¿°°»¿®­ ®»¿­±²¿¾´» ¹·ª»² ¬¸» »³°´±§³»²¬ ª¿´«» ±º ¬¸» «­»­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¿´®»¿¼§ »­¬¿¾´·­¸»¼ ¸»®»ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ Ó¿·²¬¿·² ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²·²¹ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ ©·¬¸ ²± ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ½¸¿²¹»­ò п®µ·²¹ Í·²½» ³«½¸ ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©¸·½¸ ·­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸·­ ¿®»¿ ·­ ®»´¿¬·ª»´§ ´¿®¹» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ©·¬¸ ´¿®¹» °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬­ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® °±®¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸·­ ¿®»¿ ¿®» «²¼»ª»´±°»¼ô ·¬ ·­ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´´§ ·³°±®¬¿²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ´·³·¬·²¹ ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º °¿®µ·²¹ ¾» °´¿²²»¼ º±® ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿­ ¾» ©»´´ ¼»­·¹²»¼ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²­ º±® °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ º±® ¿´´ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ ¿®» ¿¼¼®»­­»¼ ­»°¿®¿¬»´§ô ¾»¹·²²·²¹ ±² °¿¹» éò Ʊ²·²¹ λª·»© º±® Ò±®¬¸ Ó±«²¬¿·² ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ Û¿­¬ Ó¿·² ͬ®»»¬ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» Îóí Ʊ²» ̸» ¼»²­·¬·»­ ¿®» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º °»¼»­¬®·¿²óº®·»²¼´§ ¿²¼ ¬®¿²­·¬ó±®·»²¬»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ó±­¬ ±º ¬¸» Ò±®¬¸ Ó±«²¬¿·² ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ Û¿­¬ Ó¿·² ͬ®»»¬ °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ¿®»¿ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ±°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬»­ ß ¬¸®±«¹¸ Ûô ·­ ¦±²»¼ Îóíò ̸» Îóí ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ¿ ¸·¹¸ ¼»²­·¬§ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ©·¬¸ ¿ ¬¿®¹»¬ ¼»²­·¬§ ±º ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çì п¹» ïï ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï î𠼩»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ °»® ¿½®»ô ©·¬¸ ¾±²«­ ¼»²­·¬§ °®±ª·­·±²­ ¬± ¿´´±© ¿² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ìð °»®½»²¬ ±® ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ±º îè ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ °»® ¿½®»ò л®³·¬¬»¼ «­»­ ·² ¬¸» Îóí ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¿®» ¿´´ ³¿²²»® ±º ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­»­ô ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ °«¾´·½ ­½¸±±´­ò Ô·³·¬»¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «­»­ ¿®» ¿´´±©»¼ ¿­ ½±²¼·¬·±²¿´ «­»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ °®±º»­­·±²¿´ ±ºº·½»­ ±® ½´·²·½­ º±® ¿² ¿½½±«²¬¿²¬ô ¿®½¸·¬»½¬ô ¿¬¬±®²»§ô ¼»²¬·­¬ô ¼»­·¹²»®ô ¼±½¬±® ±® ±¬¸»® °®¿½¬·¬·±²»® ±º ¬¸» ¸»¿´·²¹ ¿®¬­ô »²¹·²»»®ô ·²­«®¿²½» ¿¹»²¬ ±® ¿¼¶«­¬»®ô ·²ª»­¬³»²¬ ±® ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ½±«²­»´±®ô ±® ­«®ª»§±®å ´·³·¬»¼ °»®­±²¿´ ­»®ª·½» »­¬¿¾´·­¸³»²¬­ ·² ¬¸» ¸±³»ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ¾»¿«¬·½·¿²­ô ¿²¼ ³¿­­»«®­å ¬®¿ª»´»®­ ¿½½±³³±¼¿¬·±²­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ¿´­± ±½½«°·»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ±©²»® ±º ¬¸» ¾«­·²»­­å ¿²¼ ¸±­¬»´­ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ײ ±®¼»® ¬± °®±ª·¼» º±® ³·¨»¼ó«­» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸»­» Îóí ¦±²»¼ ¿®»¿­ô ¬¸» Îóí ¦±²·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬ °»®³·¬¬»¼ ±® ½±²¼·¬·±²¿´ «­»­ ©·´´ ²»»¼ ¬± ¾» ¿³»²¼»¼ ¬± ·²½´«¼» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¼»­·®»¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ «­»­ò ß´¬»®²¿¬·ª»´§ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ½±«´¼ ¿°°´§ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¼·­½«­­»¼ ¾»´±© ¬± ¬¸» Îóí ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¦±²»¼ °®±°»®¬·»­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ ­¬®«½¬«®» ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¬± ¿´´±© ½»®¬¿·² ½±³³»®½·¿´ «­»­ ·² °´¿½»­ ©¸»®» ¬¸» «²¼»®´§·²¹ ¦±²» ¼±»­ ²±¬ °»®³·¬ ¬¸±­» «­»­ò Ѭ¸»® Ʊ²»­ Ñ°°±®¬«²·¬§ ­·¬»­ Ú ¿²¼ Ù ¿®» ¦±²»¼ Ûóïô ©¸·½¸ ·­ ¿ ³·¨»¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿²¼ »³°´±§³»²¬ ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ß­ ²±¬»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô ¬¸·­ ¦±²» ¿´´±©­ ¿ ¹®»¿¬ ª¿®·»¬§ ±º ±ºº·½»ô ½±³³»®½·¿´ô ¿²¼ ³¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ «­»­ò Ʊ²·²¹ ·­ ²±¬ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¬± ¾» ½¸¿²¹»¼ ·² ¿²§ ±º ¬¸»­» ¿®»¿­ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ̸» Ý·¬§ ³¿§ ©·­¸ ¬± ¿¼¼ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¬± ¬¸»­» ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ­·³·´¿®´§ ¦±²»¼ ¿®»¿­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» º·ª»ó³·²«¬» ©¿´µ ¿®»¿ò λª·»© ±º Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ݱ³³±² ¬± ß´´ Ü·­¬®·½¬­ Í°»½·¿´ Í»¬¾¿½µ­ Í»½¬·±² ïèòêèòðëð ®»¯«·®»­ ´¿®¹» ­»¬¾¿½µ­ ¿´±²¹ ¿®¬»®·¿´ ­¬®»»¬­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ²±¬ ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º ¬¸» ¼»­·®»¼ ¯«¿´·¬·»­ ±º ¬¸·­ ±® ¿²§ ±¬¸»® °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´ÜÚØüÐÔÏÔÐÈÐÊØÉÛÜÚÒÎ××ØØÉ×ËÎÐÉÕØËÎÜÙiÊ ½»²¬»®´·²» ·­ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¿´±²¹ ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ô ¿ ³·²·³«³ íë󺱱¬ ­»¬¾¿½µ º®±³ ½»²¬»®´·²» ·­ ®»¯«·®»¼ ±² Û¿­¬ Ó¿·² ͬ®»»¬ô ¿²¼ ³·²·³«³ îð󺱱¬ ­»¬¾¿½µ­ º®±³ ®·¹¸¬ó±ºó©¿§ ¾±«²¼¿®·»­ ¿®» ®»¯«·®»¼ ¿´±²¹ ¿´´ ±¬¸»® ¿®¬»®·¿´­ò ̸» ±ª»®´¿§ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ­¸±«´¼ ­«°»®­»¼» ¬¸»­» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¾§ ­°»½·º§·²¹ ³¿¨·³«³ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ­»¬¾¿½µ­ º®±³ ®·¹¸¬ó±ºó©¿§ ¾±«²¼¿®·»­ ±® ­°»½·¿´ ¾«·´¼ó¬± ´·²»­ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ½¿«­» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¬± ¾» ´±½¿¬»¼ ²»¿® ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬ò Ñ«® ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² ·­ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ­»¬¾¿½µ­ ±º º·ª» º»»¬ ±® ¹®»¿¬»® º®±³ ¿ ­¬®»»¬ °®±°»®¬§ ´·²» ¾» °»®³·¬¬»¼ ±²´§ ©¸»®» ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ­»¬¾¿½µ ¿®»¿ ·­ ±½½«°·»¼ ¾§ ¿ ½«­¬±³»®ó­»®ª·²¹ ¿®»¿ ´·µ» ¿ ­·¼»©¿´µ ½¿º7 ±® ¾§ ¿ °´¿¦¿ô ±® ©¸»®» ¬¸» ­·¬» ¸¿­ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ±²» ­¬®»»¬ º®±²¬¿¹» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ ³¿¨·³«³ ­»¬¾¿½µ ·­ ³»¬ ¿´±²¹ ¬¸» ±¬¸»® ­¬®»»¬ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çë п¹» ïî ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï Ѭ¸»® ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ñÚ´±±® ß®»¿ ο¬·± øÚßÎ÷ ̸» Þ¿­·½ ¿²¼ Ü»¬¿·´»¼ Í·¬» λª·»© ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ±º ¬¸» Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ¿²¼ Ë­» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Ó¿²«¿´ ©»®» ®»ª·»©»¼ò Ó±­¬ ­»»³ ¬± ¾» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±ºô ±® ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ²±¬ ¼»¬®·³»²¬¿´ ¬±ô л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ò Ѳ» °±¬»²¬·¿´ »¨½»°¬·±² ·­ ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ º´±±® ¿®»¿ ®¿¬·± øÚßÎ÷ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ò ̸» ³¿¨·³«³ ÚßÎ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ º±® ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ±«¬­·¼» ±º ¬¸» Ø·­¬±®·½ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ðòëðæï øͬ¿²¼¿®¼ ××óÝóî¿÷ò ̸» Ü»¬¿·´»¼ Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ½«®®»²¬´§ ®»¯«·®» ¿ ³·²·³«³ ÚßÎ ±º ðòíëæïò ̸·­ ·­ ¿ ´±© ÚßÎ º±® ¬¸» ¬§°» ±º ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·´´«­¬®¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ½±²½»°¬ °´¿²­ ©¸·½¸ ¸¿ª» Úßέ ®¿²¹·²¹ º®±³ òêðæï ¬± òéðæïò ̸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ¿¬ ¬¸» ß­¸´¿²¼ ͬ®»»¬ñÉ¿´µ»® ߪ»²«» ´±½¿¬·±² ø¬¸» ±²´§ ±²» ±º ¬¸» ­»´»½¬»¼ ­·¬»­ ¬¸¿¬ ·­ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¾«·´¬ó±«¬÷ ¿°°»¿®­ ¬± ¾¿®»´§ ®»¿½¸ ¬¸» ðòíëæï ³·²·³«³ ¿²¼ ¸¿­ ¿ ¸·¹¸»® °¿®µ·²¹ ®¿¬·± ¬¸¿² ·­ ¾»·²¹ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ײ½®»¿­» ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ¿´´±©¿¾´» ÚßÎ ¬± ¿¬ ´»¿­¬ ïòð ·² ±®¼»® ¬± »²½±«®¿¹» ³±®» ·²¬»²­·ª» «­» ±º ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ °¿®½»´­ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ®»¼«½»¼ ±²­·¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ¿²¼ ¼»½®»¿­»¼ ­»¬¾¿½µ­ º®±³ ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬ò ̸·­ ®»¼«½»­ ¬¸» «²°®±¼«½¬·ª» º±±¬°®·²¬ ±º °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬­ ¿²¼ ´¿®¹» ­»¬¾¿½µ­ ·² º¿ª±®¿¾´» ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ «­»¿¾´» °»¼»­¬®·¿² ­°¿½»ò ݱ³°´»³»²¬¿®§ λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ͱ³» ¦±²·²¹ ½±¼»­ ­°»½·º§ ¸·¹¸»® ³·²·³«³ Úßέô ³·²·³«³ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬­ô ±® ¿ ³·²·³«³ ´±¬ ½±ª»®¿¹» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± °®±³±¬» ·²¬»²­·º§ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ·² ¬®¿²­·¬ ±® °»¼»­¬®·¿² ¿®»¿­ò Ѻ ¬¸±­» ¬§°»­ ±º °®¿½¬·½»­ô ©» ®»½±³³»²¼ ­»¬¬·²¹ ¿ ³·²·³«³ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¸»·¹¸¬ ±º ¬©± ­¬±®·»­ò ݸ±±­·²¹ ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ ¸·¹¸»® ³·²·³«³ ÚßÎ ¿²¼ ³·²·³«³ ´±¬ ½±ª»®¿¹» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ³¿§ ¼·­½±«®¿¹» ·²²±ª¿¬·ª» ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ­·¬» ¼»­·¹²­ ©¸·½¸ ±¬¸»®©·­» ½±«´¼ ¿´­± ®»­«´¬ ·² ¼»­·®¿¾´» ¹¿¬¸»®·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º °»¼»­¬®·¿²ó±®·»²¬»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò Ø·¹¸ ³·²·³«³ ÚßÎ ¿²¼ ´±¬ ½±ª»®¿¹» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¿®» ¿´­± ±º¬»² ¼·ºº·½«´¬ ¬± ­¿¬·­º§ ±² «²«­«¿´´§ ­¸¿°»¼ °¿®½»´­ ¾«¬ ¬©±ó ±® ¬¸®»»ó ­¬±®§ ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ½¿² ­¬·´´ ³»»¬ ¬¸» ±¾¶»½¬·ª» ±º ³±®» ·²¬»²­·ª» «­» ±º ¬¸» ­·¬»ò п®µ·²¹ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ̸» ½±²½»°¬ °´¿²­ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» ¿½½±³°¿²§·²¹ ¹®¿°¸·½­ °¿½µ¿¹» ·´´«­¬®¿¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ·­ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ´±©»® ¬¸¿² ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ³·²·³«³ º±® ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ±º Í»½¬·±² ïèòçîòîðò ̸» ½«®®»²¬ ³·²·³«³­ º±® ¼»¬¿½¸»¼ ¿²¼ ³«´¬·óº¿³·´§ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «­»­ ø¾¿­»¼ «°±² ²«³¾»® ±º ¾»¼®±±³­÷ô ¹»²»®¿´ ®»¬¿·´ øï ­°¿½» °»® íëð ­¯«¿®» º»»¬÷ô ¿²¼ º±® »¿¬·²¹ ¿²¼ ¼®·²µ·²¹ »­¬¿¾´·­¸³»²¬­ øï ­°¿½» °»® ïðð ­¯«¿®» º»»¬ ±® ï ­°¿½» °»® ì ­»¿¬­÷ ¼± ²±¬ ¿°°»¿® ¬± ¾» ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º ¬¸» µ»§ ¿­°»½¬­ º±® °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ·²½®»¿­»¼ ÚßÎô ®»¼«½»¼ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ­»¬¾¿½µ­ º®±³ ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬ ¿²¼ ¿½¸·»ª·²¹ ¬®¿²­·¬ó­«°°±®¬·ª» ¼»²­·¬·»­ò ̸» ß­¸´¿²¼ Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿´®»¿¼§ °®±ª·¼»­ ±°¬·±²­ ¬± ®»¼«½» ³·²·³«³ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ò ͱ³» ±°¬·±²­ ½¿² ½«®®»²¬´§ ¾» «¬·´·¦»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¿®»¿­ò Ѭ¸»® ±°¬·±²­ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿®» ½«®®»²¬´§ ±²´§ ¿´´±©»¼ »´­»©¸»®» ·² ¬¸» ½·¬§ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çê п¹» ïí ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ Û¨¬»²¼ ¿´´ ±º ¬¸» ±°¬·±²­ ¿¼¼®»­­»¼ ¾»´±© ¬± °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò ݱ²¬·²«» ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ¿´´±©»¼ ²«³¾»® ±º °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ¿¬ ïïð °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ³·²·³«³ ®»¯«·®»¼ò Ѳóͬ®»»¬ п®µ·²¹ò Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½»Í»½¬·±² ïèòçîòðîë ¿°°´·»­ ½·¬§ó©·¼»ò ̸·­ ­»½¬·±² ¿´´±©­ ¿ ®»¼«½¬·±² ±º ®»¯«·®»¼ ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ¾¿­»¼ «°±² ½®»¼·¬­ º±® ±²ó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ß ½®»¼·¬ ±º ±²» ®»¯«·®»¼ ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» º±® »ª»®§ ¬©± ±²ó­¬®»»¬ ¹»²»®¿´ «­» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½»­ ·­ °®±ª·¼»¼ò ß ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½¿² ±¾¬¿·² «° ¬± º±«® ½®»¼·¬­ ¿¬ ¬¸¿¬ ®¿¬·±ò ߺ¬»® º±«® ½®»¼·¬­ ¿®» »¿®²»¼ô ¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½¿² ®»½»·ª» ¿ ±²» ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ½®»¼·¬ º±® »¿½¸ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ±²ó­¬®»»¬ ­°¿½» °®±ª·¼»¼ò øÒ±¬»æ ¬¸» Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ ¿®»¿ °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º ¬¸» Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ¿²¼ Ë­» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Ó¿²«¿´ ¿´´±©­ ¿ ±²» ±²ó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» º±® ±²» ±²ó­·¬» ­°¿½» ®¿¬·± ©·¬¸±«¬ ¬¸» ·²·¬·¿´ ±²» º±® ¬©± ¯«¿´·º·»®÷ ̸·­ ·­ ¿ °®±¹®»­­·ª» ¬±±´ º±® ®»¼«½·²¹ ±²­·¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬ ¿®»¿­ ¿²¼ ·²½®»¿­·²¹ ÚßÎ ¿²¼ ¼»²­·¬§ò Þ·½§½´» п®µ·²¹ò Í»½¬·±² ïèòçîòðìð ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿®» ½´»¿®ô ¿°°®±°®·¿¬»ô ¿²¼ ¹»²»®¿´´§ ­«°°±®¬·ª» ±º °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½» ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸»®» ½«®®»²¬´§ ·­ ²± °®±ª·­·±² º±® ®»¼«½·²¹ ¿«¬± °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ·º ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¾·µ» °¿®µ·²¹ ±® ¾·½§½´·­¬ ­»®ª·²¹ ¿³»²·¬·»­ ¿®» °®±ª·¼»¼ò ̸»®» ·­ ²± ­½±±¬»® °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ò ß¼¼·²¹ ¬¸·­ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ½±²­·¼»®»¼ò Ó·¨»¼ Ë­» п®µ·²¹ Ý®»¼·¬­ò ̸» Ô¿²¼ Ë­» Ñ®¼·²¿²½» ¿´´±©­ ¿ ½®»¼·¬ º±® ¿ ®»¼«½¬·±² ±º «° ¬± íë °»®½»²¬ ±º ®»¯«·®»¼ ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ º±® ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ³·²·³«³ °¿®µ·²¹ ®»¯«·®»¼ º±® ³«´¬·°´» «­»­ ±² ¬¸» ­¿³» ­·¬» ©¸»² ·¬ ½¿² ¾» ¼»³±²­¬®¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» «­»­ ¸¿ª» ¼·ºº»®»²¬ °»¿µ °¿®µ·²¹ ¼»³¿²¼ °»®·±¼­ò Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ п®µ·²¹ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ±º ¬¸» Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ¿²¼ Ë­» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Ó¿²«¿´ ̸» Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ±º ¬¸» Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ¿²¼ Ë­» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Ó¿²«¿´ °®±ª·¼»­ º±® ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º ®»¯«·®»¼ ¿«¬± °¿®µ·²¹ ¬± ¾» ®»¼«½»¼ ¾§ ²±¬ ³±®» ¬¸¿² ëð °»®½»²¬ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ±º ½®»¼·¬­ º±®æ ™Ð®±ª·¼·²¹ ±²ó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ø¿½¬«¿´´§ô ¿ ±²» ±²ó­¬®»»¬ º±® ±²» ±²­·¬» °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ­«¾­¬·¬«¬·±²÷ô ¿­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ¿¾±ª»å ™×³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ±º ¿ Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² Ü»³¿²¼ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ д¿²å ™ß ³·¨»¼ «­» ½®»¼·¬ô ¿­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ¿¾±ª»å ¿²¼ ™ß ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ­°¿½» ½®»¼·¬ º±® »ª»®§ ­°¿½» ¿ ¼»ª»´±°»® ½±²­¬®«½¬­ ·² ¿ ¼»­·¹²¿¬»¼ ±ºº­·¬» ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ô ±® º±® °¿§³»²¬ ±º ¿ º»»ó·²ó´·»«ó±º °¿®µ·²¹ ©·¬¸ ­«½¸ º»»­ ¬± ¾» «­»¼ º±® ½±²­¬®«½¬·²¹ ¿ ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿®»¿ò Ú«®¬¸»®ô ¿º¬»® °´¿²­ º±® ¿ ­¸¿®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬®«½¬«®» ¿®» ½±³°´»¬»¼ô ¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·´´ ±²´§ ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ ¬± ¾«·´¼ «° ¬± ëð °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸»·® ®»¯«·®»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ±² ¬¸»·® ±©² ­·¬» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»³¿·²¼»® ±º ¬¸» °¿®µ·²¹ ¬± ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ º±® ·² ¬¸» ­¸¿®»¼ ­¬®«½¬«®» ¬¸®±«¹¸ «­» ±º ±²» ±® ³±®» ±º ¬¸» ¾«´´»¬»¼ ·¬»³­ ¿¾±ª»ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çé п¹» ïì ãÎÏÔÏÖëØÇÔØÆmíØÙØÊÉËÔÜÏíÑÜÚØÊúμ» λª·»© Ó¿®½¸ îïô îðïï λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ݱ²­·¼»® »¨¬»²¼·²¹ ­·³·´¿® ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ¿²¼ ½®»¼·¬­ ¬± °»¼»­¬®·¿² °´¿½»­ò ܱ©²¬±©² Ѫ»®´¿§ Ʊ²» п®µ·²¹ ̸» ܱ©²¬±©² ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¼±»­ ²±¬ ®»¯«·®» ±ººó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ º±® ¿´´ «­»­ ±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¸±¬»´­ô ³±¬»´­ô ¿²¼ ¸±­¬»´­ò ̸·­ ±ª»®´¿§ ¦±²» ¿°°´·»­ ±²´§ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ¼±©²¬±©² ¿®»¿ ¿²¼ô ¬¸«­ô ¼±»­ ²±¬ ¿°°´§ ¬± ¿²§ ±º ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½»­ ½«®®»²¬´§ «²¼»® ­¬«¼§ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ׬ ·­ ²±¬ ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸·­ ­¿³» ¿°°®±¿½¸ ¾» ¬¿µ»² ·² ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½» ¿®»¿­ò É» ®»½±³³»²¼»¼ ¬¸» ®»¼«½»¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ò ̸» °±­­·¾·´·¬§ ±º ©¿·ª·²¹ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ ¿²¼ ¿´´±©·²¹ ¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·¬¸ ²± ±ººó­¬®»»¬ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ °¿®µ·²¹ ½±«´¼ ¾» ½±²­·¼»®»¼ ¾«¬ ­»ª»®¿´ º¿½¬±®­ ­»»³ ¬± ©±®µ ¿¹¿·²­¬ ¬¸¿¬ò Ú·®­¬ô ¬¸»­» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½»­ ¿®» ±² ½±´´»½¬±® ¿²¼ ¿®¬»®·¿´ ­¬®»»¬­ ©¸·½¸ ¼± ²±¬ ½«®®»²¬´§ ¿´´±© ±²ó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ò ̸¿¬ ·­ ²±¬ º¿ª±®¿¾´» º±® ®»¬¿·´ «­»­ò Í»½±²¼ô ¬¸» ´±½¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±³³«²·¬§ ³¿§ ²±¬ º»»´ ¬¸» ³¿®µ»¬ ©·´´ ­«°°±®¬ ¬¸»³ ·² ±ºº»®·²¹ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬­ ©·¬¸±«¬ ­±³» °¿®µ·²¹ò Ô¿­¬´§ô ¿ ¸·¹¸ ¼»²­·¬§ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·¬¸±«¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ³¿§ ²±¬ ¾» ¿½½»°¬¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸» ­«®®±«²¼·²¹ ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ¾»½¿«­» ±º ½±²½»®²­ ¿¾±«¬ ±ª»®ó«¬·´·¦¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ²»·¹¸¾±®¸±±¼ ­«°°´§ ±º ±²ó­¬®»»¬ °¿®µ·²¹ ¾§ ®»­·¼»²¬­ ±º ¬¸» ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ͬ®»»¬ ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ñп®µ·²¹ ß®»¿ Ü»­·¹² ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ ߬ °®»­»²¬ô ¬§°·½¿´ Ý·¬§ ±º ß­¸´¿²¼ ­¬®»»¬ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­ ©±«´¼ ¿°°´§ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» л¼»­¬®·¿² д¿½»ò λ½±³³»²¼¿¬·±² æ ײ ¬¸» ·²¬»®»­¬ ±º °®±³±¬·²¹ ¹®»»² ­¬®»»¬ ­¬§´» ­¬®»»¬ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ½±«´¼ ¼»­·¹²¿¬» ½»®¬¿·² ­¬®»»¬­ ©·¬¸·² ¿ °»¼»­¬®·¿² ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¿­ ¹®»»² ­¬®»»¬­ ¿²¼ ®»¯«·®» ­¬®»»¬­ ¬± ³»»¬ ½»®¬¿·² ­°»½·¿´ ¼»­·¹² ­¬¿²¼¿®¼­å ³«½¸ ´·µ» ¬¸» Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² ¿²¼ Ë­» ͬ¿²¼¿®¼­ Ó¿²«¿´ ¼±»­ º±® ­¬®»»¬­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ý®±³¿² Ó·´´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ øÍ»½¬·±² Ê×××óÝóí÷ò ̸» ­¿³» ½±«´¼ ¾» ¼±²» º±® ¹®»»² °¿®µ·²¹ ´±¬­ ø´·µ» Í»½¬·±² Ê×××óÝóì ±º ¬¸» Í·¬» Ü»­·¹² Ó¿²«¿´÷ ¿²¼ ¹®»»² ­¬®»»¬­ò ÔæÄЮ±¶»½¬ÄïëéððÄïëéðîÄд¿²²·²¹ÄÌ¿­µ êÄÐÝ Î»°±®¬Äл¼ д¿½» ݱ¼» λª·»© Áðíîïïïò¼±½ çè Open City Hall Reports çç ïðð Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý Public Comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM ïðï Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý Introduction The City of Ashland is studying three locations for future Pedestrian Places – Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St., Walker Ave./Ashland St., and N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St. Pedestrian Places are small walkable nodes that provide a concentration of gathering places, housing, businesses and pedestrian amenities grouped in way to encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. The land uses and building in and around Pedestrian Places are typically a mix of housing and services to provide a variety of places within easy walking distance. Amenities may include plazas, bus shelters, shade and seating, drinking fountains, public art, landscaping, information displays, and bicycle parking. Pedestrian Places can help create vibrant, livable places where people congregate, and can function as neighborhood centers. Background The Pedestrian Places Project originated from a presentation on "Designing Great Arterial Streets" in September 2007 in which discussions noted how sections of Siskiyou Boulevard and East Main Street seem to work well for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, but then reached a point where the more walkable neighborhoods ended. The idea of creating Pedestrian Places in these transitional areas was suggested as a way to begin extending walkable neighborhoods to other locations in Ashland. Citizen Input The City is seeking citizen input on the project, and held the first public workshop on October 27, 2010 at the Ashland Middle School www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðî 1 of 14 Commons. At the first workshop, participants had an opportunity to learn about the project and help develop ideas for the Pedestrian Places. (link to presentation video from first workshop) A second workshop is scheduled on December 8, 2010 to present draft concepts and ideas contributed at the first workshop. A follow-up meeting to review the refined draft concept plans will be held at the Planning Commission on February 2, 2011. For information about future meeting dates, time and location see www.ashland.or.us/pedplaces. Participants at the first public workshop were asked to answer the following questions for each of the three locations - Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St., Walker Ave./Ashland St., and N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St. Building Blocks: Do you think some building blocks for a Pedestrian Place are much more important than others? Great Streets Gathering Places New Shops/Offices Transit Improvements Public Art New Housing Neighborhood Character: Are there characteristics or features here today that we should build on? Unique Buildings Plazas or Parks Civic Uses Shops Schools Priorities for Improvements: In theory, if we could start next year, what would be the first improvements you would like to see? Sidewalks/Planting Improved Transit Stop More Walking routes Stormwater Treatment Public Plaza Safer Street Crossing www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðí 2 of 14 What Else Would Make a Great Place: Should we consider any other ‘building blocks’ or physical improvements at these locations? Thank you for your time and feedback. www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðì 3 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý As of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM, this forum had: Attendees:179 Participants:23 Hours of Public Comment:1.2 As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðë 4 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements Steve Ryan inside Ashland December 8, 2010, 3:31 PM Wow, I for one am extremely encouraged by the level of citizen involvement here and I regret I had to miss the first charette. I want to explore the possible rather than restrict innovation or focus on why ideas can't be done. Please continue shelling us with all the suggestions you can muster: Just have at'er, cynical, serious, speculative and spectacular: Thank you for this guidance and keep the comments coming, Ashland! What I see so far, is that many residents feel our commissions should take a 'no build' Ped Node option very seriously, but yet many also agree at the same time, that our traffic system is critically dysfunctional. What else? Fix what we have first? Let's reach some consensus. These are not mutually exclusive, in my view. See you at AMS tonight 7 p.m. 100 Walker, and comnent on the TSP update too, see the City Web page~ Semi-anonymous outside Ashland December 5, 2010, 6:18 PM I think that other things should be taken into account when creating pedestrian areas, and that is that having pedestrians and bikes in proximity with cars put both in danger. So pedestrian and bike specific paths and areas would help the safety of both. It is important to keep these areas so that they are not built around our major arterial streets, as it would put people in danger and slow traffic down of both the cars and the pedestrians. Instead, put areas so that they are more accessible by pedestrian-specific paths, like the Ashland bike path. Of all of the ideas, I like the idea of a small plaza, with shops and restaurants. After that, other things may be added, but the plaza and shops really set a framework for everything else. After taking these into account, I would say that the Ashland Street/Tolman Creek area would be the best spot for a place like this, especially if it was closer to the Ashland Bike path for better pedestrian access and farther from the Interstate to reduce road noise. In fact, road noise should be taken into account when creating the plaza and placing the buildings around it. There are also a few bus stops in the area for people wishing to use the bus. || I would also like to say that I agree with the opinion of having the plaza blocked off from cars and having the traffic re-routed down an expanded Lithia way, maybe letting a truck or two in to deliver supplies to some of the stores. It could be really beneficial to the traffic flow of the street, pedestrian safety in the plaza, and the general atmosphere of the plaza. Some outside parking could be created and rickshaws or low speed electric vehicles could ferry people around. tony Henthorn inside Ashland December 3, 2010, 10:43 PM great idea to make places more pedestrian/bike oriented.how about finishing sidewalks as on S.Mountain and N Main instead of flowerbeds. Maybe lights on crosswalks that actually illuminate darkly-clothed pedestrians on rainy winter evenings.maybe reclaim unused railway right of ways per the reclamation of O & C lands and put a whole neighborhood serving foot and pedal traffic.Make the planning process more adaptable to changing times and needs so that asking for variations becomes a customer friendly process instead of an expensive gamble. What about a parking structure on the Wells Fargo parking lot and reduce parking on the main street and Plaza Morgan Paull inside Ashland November 29, 2010, 6:45 PM Enough! Plaza should be Pedestrian center.I agree with Gregg M. Sally McKirgan inside Ashland November 27, 2010, 11:15 AM www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðê 5 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements What makes a great pedestrian place is slow traffic! We recently visited Danville, CA and they have traffic on their main street however, they have lights imbedded in the street cross walk areas. The lights flash when pedestrians have the right to cross in the walkway! They also have stop lights. Please do not entertain noisy twittering or tweeting devices that indicate when cross walks are available. Mt. Dora, Florida has them and they are IRRITATING to hear. Also Carlsbad, CA has a 3ft strip of bricks imbedded in the street prior in cross walk areas. They are better than speed bumps and they make driving through town annoying. They also have stop lights of course. Maybe this is an option as it slows traffic. Slow traffic equals sanity. Michael G Knox inside Ashland November 19, 2010, 9:20 AM I enjoyed Mayor Stromberg's insight and observations. I wonder why the North Main area was left out? It seems to me there are two possible nodes out this way: the Wimer/Hersey/Main intersection, and the Maple/Main intersection. Of course Ashland partially screwed itself by accepting the ODOT offer to widen N. Main to 5 lanes in the Maple St area, and not to the south or north of this intersection, thereby creating a "large particle (aka vehicles) venturi effect" which encourages high speed traffic in the N. Main area. Pedestrian Plazas could be a Godsend to interrupt this dangerous high speed traffic flow both in and out of Ashland to the north. A pedestrian plaza or round-about at the Wimer/Hersey/Main area could spur development of an area on residential consumer shops which could serve this commercially underserved area. Lastly, as one who has devoted his life to assisting seniors and the disabled, I find it dumbfounding that the city of Ashland has so severely limited access to those who cannot ride bikes or drive cars. This policy has made the task of completing the activities of daily living an impossible task for many. Ken Deveney inside Ashland November 18, 2010, 10:48 AM I like the general idea of public places will people will enjoy hanging out and not rushing on. But our rising taxes make it obvious that the city doesn't have the money even to do all the "must-do" projects. Let's not lose sight of priorities Colin Swales inside Ashland November 14, 2010, 7:09 AM It is unclear why these particular three auto-centric locations were chosen other than the nearby potential for increased development on adjacent vacant lots. (The already pedestrian-rich Boulevard location opposite SOU was dropped in favor of the Tolman intersection.) Our Downtown Plaza and Main Street, already vibrant "pedestrian Places" in need of many improvements, are totally ignored. Nevertheless, others have already solved such problems by using the concept of "Shared Space": www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðé 6 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements "...Shared space is an urban design concept aimed at integrated use of public spaces. It encourages traffic engineers, urban planners and experts from other fields to consult with users of public space when planning and designing streets and squares in both built and non-built environments. The concept shares some characteristics with Living streets. Shared space removes the traditional segregation of motor vehicles, pedestrians and other road users. Conventional road priority management systems and devices such as kerbs, lines, signs and signals are replaced with an integrated, people-oriented understanding of public space, such that walking, cycling, shopping and driving cars become integrated activities. The term 'shared space' was coined by Ben Hamilton-Baillie while preparing a European co- operation project in 2003.[1] The idea itself was pioneered and promoted by Hans Monderman,[2] based on the observation that individuals' behaviour in traffic is more positively affected by the built environment of the public space than it is by conventional traffic control devices and regulations.[1] The goal of shared space is an improvement in road safety, encouraging negotiation of shared areas at appropriate speeds and with due consideration for the other users, using simple rules like giving way to the right..." For further Reading see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space http://www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk/ http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/Files/Rod_Tolley_Bendigo_Final_report.pdf http://www.howwedrive.com/ http://ashland-blog.blogspot.com/ Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/Sharedspace#p/u http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2010/03/25/an-american-woonerf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn2NfUH0G-Q (Bern, Switzerland) Gabe Dawson inside Ashland November 12, 2010, 10:47 AM Designated bike lanes on all roads. Narrow streets and wide sidewalks. Signage must be clear and visible to all. A designated bike path seperate from pedestrians would increase safety while decreasing conflcits between the 2 groups. Max. speed limits of 20 mph on all streets. More bike parking. Semi-anonymous inside Ashland November 8, 2010, 2:26 PM www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðè 7 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements I prefer the N. Mountain/E. Main spot. It is the most likely to have pedestrian traffic, and the most likely to decrease on congestion of vehicle traffic. The area between the bike path and E. Main on N. Mountain could be much more conducive to foot traffic than it is now. Semi-anonymous inside Ashland November 7, 2010, 2:46 PM How about a plan to connect the bike path from Bear Creek to the established path that runs from the railroad district to Tolman Creek Road? Oak Street is particularly dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians (lack of continuous sidewalk). How about a bridge over Bear Creek at Nevada Street, connecting up to Mountain for access to N. MT Park and the bike path? How about bike lanes on Oak Street to bring folks into downtown? Railroad district streets are also dangerous for cyclists- too many cars on constricted and congested streets. Diane Werich inside Ashland November 6, 2010, 7:12 AM I have a small thing to contribute. Portland has many neighborhoods that I feel very good in.I think these places feel good to be in because they all have little benches, some mud, some covered, a few with coloring books in tables for kids. This says...don't hurry through this place...stay and be with us for awhile. Semi-anonymous inside Ashland November 5, 2010, 8:32 PM All three spots have great potential. I think we need more than just benches or a mini park... something that brings in more people, like a coffee kiosk or food kiosk (like all the fun ones in Portland) to give more folks an additional reason to stop and hang a few minutes. This would make the spots an attraction and destinations to walk to. Just brainstorming ... what if there were a kiosk or two or three plus some benches. Or what if there were a kiosk and a mini dog park at one of the locations... the rent from the kiosk paying for upkeep of the dog park. Folks could walk their dogs and get a coffee or snack too. I know this isn't a really heavy philosophical idea but it is practical if you want to motivate community members to go to a place and gather and hey, it could create a job or two. If enough citizens can be drawn to the areas then if a few "recreational homeless" settle in they won't 'own' the spot like has happened to some areas downtown. Semi-anonymous inside Ashland November 4, 2010, 4:04 PM I like the idea of more pedestrian focused areas but also feel that there are currently existing areas needing attention for pedestrian sidewalks first. It is amazing to me that the street that the Ashland Food Store Co-op is on has no sidewalk! That is one of the busiest spots in town and it seems it would be priority to make that a more walking friendly area with the growing businesses developing there... Ace Hardware, Ashland Recycled Furniture, DJ's Video, Indika, Etc... foot traffic in that area instead of motor traffic would be much better but there is no sidewalk. I have to put my stroller on the street to get down there. Doesn't make any sense to me. Why has that not been fixed yet? gregg marchese inside Ashland November 4, 2010, 9:35 AM I'm humbly reminded of the legal, social, and policy overlays under which this idea labors. Western settlement policies created centuries ago to prevent the creation of viable public gathering places, and zoning laws and the demonization of socialism at the beginning of the past century, plus automobile advertising and emergent cultural norms make even the simple, sensical idea of a semi-self-sufficient mixed-use node radical. Not so much in this town, but www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïðç 8 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements how many parks throughout the cities and towns of this nation are gathering places for none but the disenfranchised, desperate and defiant? Families do not feel safe there. Some (1?) of our public places/parks are well used, but others, like that little triangle where E Main splits off from Siskiyou, which is so well and i'm sure expensively done, gets virtually no visits--though it is kind of nice to see as I drive by, instead of a coffee kiosk. We might include Triangle Park for that matter (although a few tiny protest marches seem to gather and begin there annually). Any public place where you can't get away from the car presence and noise, is not one people are going to visit, except at night, and for perhaps reasons we might not want to promote. I need to remember that someone gets paid for these social and cityscape experiments. Do we the citizens get back what we really need? What do we need? This town is so small, I think it as a self-contained node already. I can easily walk to some of my destinations, more easily bike, and even more easily drive anywhere I need to go in--relatively --no time. And that's not often to see a movie, browse books, buy an expensive non-organic meal (with tax), and lounge around sipping wine or mocha lattes. Bring back Harrisons! Now there's an idea: tax breaks and other incentives for truly functional, fundamentally useful stores downtown. That's our node, so let's stock it with places that are truly functionally, practically useful to locals. How about incentives for purchases of those little electric cars? Or better yet, meet your neighbors, offer them carpool rides, accept their offers of same, offer to pick them up something to save a trip--more neighborhood support. Though this doesn't need any organized government involvement. Maybe the best that can be done with this node idea is to create expensive museum-like demonstration projects, that bring in Civic Ecology students from OSU, Eco-tourists, and aging ecotopian dreamers who can die content knowing that Something has been tried. And they can buy lattes and wine, have an expensive meal (with tax), pick up a book on Eco-cities, and see a movie about the apocalyptic future after the tour. Or leave the nodes fallow for future generations who might truly need them to grow food. I hope you can tolerate the informed cynicism. I do appreciate your efforts, but must accept that it is all embedded in a juggernaut of a dysfunctional system no one can truly derail. Hey, what about light rail? Just grasping at dreams... Oops, is this a disruptive statement? julian spalding outside Ashland November 3, 2010, 4:04 PM I'd like to see discussion about closing downtown main st., making it a pedestrian mall, re- routing traffic on a two way Lithia St. Alma Alvarez inside Ashland November 3, 2010, 1:53 PM I was excited to hear the Walker/Ashland St. area considered for a pedestrian place, particularly since it is in my neighborhood and I often walk to the local coffee shop or the supermarket. www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïïð 9 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements However, one of the items that must be considered is safety. Yesterday a young woman legally crossing at the crosswalk was hit by a motorist making a left-hand turn. It seems that we need to consider some sort of option like having all motorist signals red when pedestrians are crossing. The saftety of the crossing spaces are crucial to creating viable and attractive pedestrian spaces. Semi-anonymous inside Ashland November 3, 2010, 12:01 PM Unfortunately, as a result of the aging demographics of Ashland, walking isn't an easy task for many of us traveling to the grocery store, doctor office visits and drug store visits. Considering the decling numbers in school age children and the increase in aging Ashlanders, make sure we don't make access to our businesses more difficult and/or time consuming, while spending hugh sums of money for feel good social engineering. Also is this another example of creating the perception of the need for "pedestrian places",when the need isn't that high relative to other aspects of City government and its funding? What about adequate fire protection and police protection as priorities for public funding? Who pays for these "nice to do" programs, given our other "need to do" programs? Expensive art displays, social gathering places other than private secter facilities would be another public expense adding to the City of Ashland general fund... which is hugh. The bottom line should be pedestrian safety particularly for our children, but lets don't create a champagne project with a beer budget. Or stated anotherway, is this another glitter project to romance tourists at Ashland citizens expense? Also if the proposal creates traffic bottle necks interrupting traffic flow to the college will be a problem Melanie Mindlin inside Ashland November 2, 2010, 8:34 AM I believe that pedestrian "nodes" are important to create the sustainable Ashland of the future. Designing Ashland so that areas of 1/4-1/2 mile in diameter include housing, services, stores, jobs and public places can create vibrant city life without car travel. Public transportation would link these "nodes" with the rest of the city and points beyond. Ashland is already committed to a policy of infill rather than sprawl. This means increasing the density of both housing and employment within the City. We need a new vision to accomplish this gracefully, bringing high quality of life to living closer together. What will make this higher density housing a desirable living environment? People want light (especially sunlight), natural ventilation and at least a little garden. Apartments without south- facing windows will be appreciated by only a few. We need sunlight in the winter to reduce SAD, and to warm our homes naturally. We need natural ventilation to reduce toxic indoor air and the need for summer air conditioning, and keep us in touch with the natural world. Most people need a little garden, even if it’s just a few tomatoes or a delicious-smelling rose bush. Public landscaping does not provide this same connection and satisfaction. Here are a few ideas that could be incorporated in standards for higher density residential housing in our pedestrian zones, as well as open space (parks) that would support them. - South-facing windows, natural ventilation, and balconies. - Roof gardens to increase outdoor living space in higher density areas. - Community gardens in easy walking distance. - Open space with wild and intimate areas, preserving or recreating natural features, in easy walking distance. People can go further for active recreation, like ball fields and hiking trails. www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïïï 10 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements - Safe, car-free areas immediately outside the building for children and social interactions. In order to have a comfortable and attractive pedestrian place, it needs to be away from cars due to noise, safety and combustion fumes. I can appreciate a vision of the future where our entire town has little or slow car traffic. I don't think that time is coming quickly enough to focus our pedestrian areas on our current arterials. I think it would be best to make our arterials be boulevards, like Siskiyou, with plenty of buffer between people and cars, bike lanes and narrower pedestrian crossings. The plazas, benches and other pedestrian amenities should be concentrated on existing side streets or new narrow or pedestrian only "streets" adjacent to public transportation routes on the arterials. In the cleaner, slower future of our grandchildren, they can reclaim parts of the roadway and make them into the additional public spaces they will need in their high density zones. In order to plan Ashland for transit-oriented development and a sustainable future that is better than what we have now, we need to think much larger than the streetscape of 3 Ashland corners. John Stromberg inside Ashland November 1, 2010, 11:37 PM My comments are about the workshop on pedestrian places, as follows: 1. I think many of us participants found it difficult to let go of our acceptance of the way vehicular traffic dominates our cityscape. We're so used to accepting it as a given we can't easily create different mental pictures of how a pedestrian node might look. We're like those elephants who have been tied with a rope to a stake as infants and still believe that simple rope can hold them when they are adults. Obviously this is an impediment to the kind of thinking the workshop was trying to encourage. 2. People who live or own property within the concentric circles that define a pedestrian node are IMHO really threatened by anyone's speculative ideas about how the land uses within the circles might be changed, and I can understand why. This is_their_place, they are used to it, in fact it is an unconscious part of their security. 3. Somehow, in order to create a real transit oriented design for Ashland (for want of a better term) someone is going to have to overcome #1 and #2 above. There were some moments at the workshop when this occurred and the results were very interesting. Also I think some people felt exhilarated. To me this suggests how important this project is to the future of our city because it's an indication of how distorted from a life- affirming experience the current configuration of these nodes are. 4. So someone, somewhere is going to have to take some chances and entertain wild ideas on the pathway to discovering or inventing the new Ashland for which these nodes are the growing points. And this is going to have to take place out of the public eye (creation of the wild experimental ideas) lest they generate such opposition that we'll never make it through to ideas/designs that are both creative and feasible. www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïïî 11 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements 4. During the workshop I saw many, many instances in which one participant or facilitator matter-of-factly squelched a new idea because it_obviously_couldn't be done. Nobody was being mean or bad; they just felt it was an obvious fact that had to be pointed out. 5. The rest of my ideas are going to be presented in the spirit of uncensored, if infeasible, possibilities - with the hope that they may contribute to a fundamental qualitative change in the three nodes presented at the workshop. 6. Traffic absolutely_pours_through this town on all its arterial streets and intersections and it is powerful and intimidating. There's no way I would venture on foot out into that irresistible flow of metal, glass, plastics, rubber and engines when it's fully in motion, for example when just released by a stop light turning green - and so my experience of this otherwise peaceful and human-sized community is sliced through and across with these streams of motorized machinery. Somehow we've got to slow these streams down, make them move more slowly, take them out of their straight-line paths, divert them into smaller streams, etc. or create total bypasses for them, like piping hot gases in impermeable hoses and pipes. Human beings on foot and non- propelled machines should set the normal pace of transportation and motor vehicle traffic should be subordinated to it. I don't know how that will occur but one could imagine taking E. Main St. by the Plaza, tearing out the Plaza and making a big piazza, with no traffic lanes or signs and having just one rule: non-motorized movement has the absolute right of way. Imagine how different that would feel. It would be like one of those parade days, just after the parade is over, when people are filling the streets and just a few cars have found their way in but are driving very slowly and carefully so as to avoid hitting anyone. That's the kind of feeling we need in these pedestrian nodes and/but I wouldn't ban motorized vehicles so long as they were completely subordinated - then they would be OK. But if there were too many and they started moving together and making people feel unsafe, that would be the limit and the space sharing wouldn't work. 7. Once we've got movement in the node adjusted to human-tempo then we need to cluster stores, shops, restaurants, storefront offices, karate dojos, nail salons, toy stores, book stores, etc., again on a scale that is not physically daunting to the pedestrian traffic. If one store isn't big enough add another one somewhere else in the node. (In a way that's what malls used to do before they were gobbled up by name brand franchises and corporations.) So the stores, shopes, etc. should be locally owned and maybe there should be living facilities above, behind or nearby for the owners and workers. This is closer to the original idea of mixed use housing, before 'the market' decided to make more profit by creating housing for people who did not work in or own the stores. 8. Before continuing this line of thinking, a word about markets. "Markets" and "Market Economy" have become sacred cows, and counterpoised to "Communism" and "Socialism" as www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïïí 12 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements good vs evil. But I think the solution that actually builds healthy communities is markets-within- structures so they are not exploited (think the gigantic speculation in financial derivatives that may have irreparably damaged our economy) but perform their functions of coordinating and facilitating economic activity. As an example, perhaps there should be a maximum shop size and every shop should have living space as part of the same unit. In other words, truly mixed housing rather than co-existing mixed housing. Only in certain districts maybe (out of control regulation can become dehumanizing too)... 9. Once we start clustering the shops-with-housing along streets and plazas, we need to think of open space, community amenities, gardens, quiet places, view sites, access for deliveries, etc. (I'm not trying to map everything out; it's obvious at this point, once the proper core has been established and, anyway, the designers can do it better.) But we do need to think about public places as well as community places and we especially need to think about privacy. I don't know how to_require_that buildings be designed for privacy and contact with nature, when they're clustered. Maybe they go up (vertical) in the clustered areas. They definitely need quality design and construction ('quality', not necessarily 'fancy'). The overall node needs to relate to its natural environment and, in Ashland, invite that natural world into the pedestrian clusters and center. Also the public places need to include markets, entertainment, culture, sports, etc. And thirdly, the pedestrian nodes need to take their propoer place in the layout of the town and in relation to each other. (I'm just sketching here and will go on to one more point...) 10. The process by which these nodes are cultivated, developed and guided needs to be something other than what we currently use in our land use ordinance. We can't encourage and protect something this organic and cultural (even the economics are cultural in the sense that they are interwoven with the feel and character of the local node-community). I don't know how to achieve this but I'd start by creating special nodal zones within which the land use ordinance wouldn't apply. The balance would be shifted from rules towards process, from control towards support, and all of it towards quality of the living, traveling, exchanging, etc. environment. A nice balance would need to be struck between community and individual values and experience. At the same time, the whole node-community needs to be in balance economically, both in its normal daily existence and in its development. Last thing: this process of moving from the condition in which we now find ourselves - essentially a beautiful town that has a transportation system that is out of balance with the wonderful human scale nature of the core of the town as a whole - towards the growth and development of these nodal neighborhoods, will need to evolve over years and also have different phases as it moves towards a stage of maturity, which may eventually evolve into something else or be changed. But this would be over a long period of time, maybe the lifetimes of today's children at least. www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïïì 13 of 14 Pedestrian Places Part 1 (Closed) åÔÛÈØÍÃÍÇÈÔÓÎÑÏÛÑ×ÉÛÉÇÙÙ×ÉÉÖÇÐì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ý All Statements 11. As the transportation system comes into better balance with the pedestrian nature of the town and nodes grow into neighborhood communities along the public transit routes (with their own 'mass transit' systems that also should be attuned and scaled to Ashland) the land between nodes and stretching out towards the UGB will be affected by the development of the nodal neighborhoods and orient towards them, especially in terms of transportation ('travel'?) routes. Plus localized fruit/nut/vegetable growing, animal husbandry and food production would gather around and interpenetrate the urban pattern - as the town as a whole moves to a more sustainable settlement. That's enough for now... Rick Bleiweiss outside Ashland October 31, 2010, 4:28 PM I like this whole concept, but it seems to me that the location at Mountain and East Main does not have the concentration of services, facilities, businesses and other things that would make it into what this initiative is trying to achieve, whereas the other two locations do. Has the possible impact on traffic and transportation been taken into account when picking these locations? I don't think we should create either hazards for pedestrians nor significant traffic congestion that would create more pollution. Sophia Bogle inside Ashland October 31, 2010, 2:34 PM Ashland St and Walker makes the most sense to start with. It has the solid bones to make a good framework for other improvements. The Beanery, The Theater, Deja Vu are just a few elements that make it a great place to hang out.Also it has the perfect development spot for new shops and housing and it is comfortably near schools and neighborhoods. Tom Burnham inside Ashland October 28, 2010, 7:45 PM Subject: Pedestrian Places Access by the greatest number of people should be a primary concern. Too Bad quiet Village area was left out along with areas above Siskiyou Blvd - Green Meadows on the east, walker Street neighborhoods on the south/east. Also the Hospital area on the west. Why was the Transportation Commission left completely out of the decision for choosing the 3 Pedestrian Places? www.PeakDemocracy.com/551 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:21 PM from all participants.ïïë 14 of 14 ïïê Pedestrian Places Part 2 (Closed) åÔÛÈÛÊ×ÃÍÇÊÈÔÍÇÕÔÈÉÍÎÈÔ×ÆÓÉÓÍÎÉÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÉÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÉÓÈ×ÉÛÎØ ÓÐÐÇÉÈÊÛÈÓÍÎÌÐÛÎÉÖÍÊÈÔ×ì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉý Public Comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:20 PM ïïé Pedestrian Places Part 2 (Closed) åÔÛÈÛÊ×ÃÍÇÊÈÔÍÇÕÔÈÉÍÎÈÔ×ÆÓÉÓÍÎÉÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÉÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÉÓÈ×ÉÛÎØ ÓÐÐÇÉÈÊÛÈÓÍÎÌÐÛÎÉÖÍÊÈÔ×ì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉý Introduction We're midway through the planning process, at the "design studio" stage. For each of the three locations - N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St., Walker Ave./Ashland St., and Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. - there is a preliminary vision, opportunity sites map and an illustration plan for one site. www.PeakDemocracy.com/576 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:20 PM from all participants.ïïè 1 of 5 Pedestrian Places Part 2 (Closed) åÔÛÈÛÊ×ÃÍÇÊÈÔÍÇÕÔÈÉÍÎÈÔ×ÆÓÉÓÍÎÉÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÉÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÉÓÈ×ÉÛÎØÓÐÐÇÉÈÊÛÈÓÍÎÌÐÛÎÉÖÍÊÈÔ× ì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉý As of March 24, 2011, 3:20 PM, this forum had: Attendees:152 Participants:9 Minutes of Public Comment:27 As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. www.PeakDemocracy.com/576 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:20 PM from all participants.ïïç 2 of 5 Pedestrian Places Part 2 (Closed) åÔÛÈÛÊ×ÃÍÇÊÈÔÍÇÕÔÈÉÍÎÈÔ×ÆÓÉÓÍÎÉÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÉÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÉÓÈ×ÉÛÎØÓÐÐÇÉÈÊÛÈÓÍÎÌÐÛÎÉÖÍÊÈÔ× ì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉý All Statements Semi-anonymous in Ashland January 18, 2011, 6:26 PM I realize that this comment does not have to do with the Pedestrian locations mentioned, however, I am not sure where else to address this concern about the current bike path across town. I ride my bike along the bike path from the Railroad district to the YMCA. There is a place where East Main Street intersects this path near Garfield Park that is in urgent need of a sign for drivers to slow down and be aware of the bike path. Unlike the other streets that intersect the bike path the high volume of traffic here makes it very unsafe. Semi-anonymous in Ashland January 15, 2011, 1:00 PM In view of the current and future economic climate of our state, nation and the world, why are we spending more money just to have more vacant homes, condos and retail space. Those of us in the neighborhood who choose to walk do so already, we don't need a pretty tree to encourage us to keep our cars at home. Once again i feel this is irresponsible government spending!! Semi-anonymous in Ashland January 13, 2011, 12:24 PM My comment is probably more appropriate for Part 1 but I feel it is immediately important to facilitate and encourage walking for both the health of the citizens and to reduce auto traffic, especially downtown. I would like to see the sidewalks in neighborhoods around down town better maintained. This includes smooth, even and continuous surfaces and removal of intrusive shrubs. There are trip hazards in the upheaved and broken concrete and intermittent patches of no sidewalk. Elderly, baby strollers and just folks walking side by side would find a more inviting and safer travel with well maintained sidewalks. Could more aggressive enforcement of the current codes make immediate improvements? Thanks for the venue to comment and for the foresight to do the long term planning with the Pedestrian Places project. Semi-anonymous in Ashland January 9, 2011, 8:18 PM Since the purpose of these sites is to encourage bicycling, and an interactive location for services and entertainment, I would hope that noise abatement issues will be addressed through code enforcement or augmentation. Also, keeping night lighting levels down so as not to obscure the night sky. For some of us who already walk through our neighborhoods, has anyone considered how this is going to change the population in the proposed areas, especially at night? Ashland has this tendency to present things in a "too good to be true" fashion and I hope this isn't one of them. My worst case scenario for this program, and I'm being a bit paranoid here, is, this is just a ruse to shift the homeless and the panhandling transients away from the Plaza. But Ashland wouldn't do that. My residence is a couple of blocks from the corner of Tolman Creek and Ashland. I'm aware of a bit of undeveloped property there, but what services could be provided in a windswept, noisy area that aren't already provided by current local businesses? Wouldn't that impact those already there who are struggling to make it in business? I also agree with a contribution made which suggests a dog park on this end of town. Not having www.PeakDemocracy.com/576 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:20 PM from all participants.ïîð 3 of 5 Pedestrian Places Part 2 (Closed) åÔÛÈÛÊ×ÃÍÇÊÈÔÍÇÕÔÈÉÍÎÈÔ×ÆÓÉÓÍÎÉÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÉÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÉÓÈ×ÉÛÎØÓÐÐÇÉÈÊÛÈÓÍÎÌÐÛÎÉÖÍÊÈÔ× ì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉý All Statements to drive to walk your dog off-leash would be a blessing. Ben B in Ashland January 8, 2011, 7:59 PM I'm pleased to see these progressive plans put forward to encourage the necessary community support. We deserve a few visible successes that raise the bar on sound design without breaking "out of character" for the context, or overreaching on feasibility. The improvements overlayed on the map area as per the Legend demonstrate agreeable priorities: non-vehicular circulation/connections, streetscape enhancement, gathering places, and crossways. I would also put forward Greenspace as a general principle for balancing artificial features with ecological elements, which may include productive "green" systems for water/waste management, food/fiber/forage, atmosphere and shelter. Future development/redevelopment ideas are appealing, if wishful and a bit generic. I suppose that's what policy/incentive can do for the moment; let's keep focused on advancing infrastructure so that sensible investment projects like these become more likely based on market demand. In that vein, I hope it's clear to the council that bike transit improvements need real attention in many places around town for safer, smoother traffic in that most economical and accessible mode of travel... I, for one, see a sane "middle road" of wise growth opening up ahead, that steers around economic ruts and potholes to build on all the assets we do have in this extraordinary town towards the sustainable future that is manifesting in many other parts of the globe. It'll go slower than most of us would like. There will probably still be smelly cars around 15+ years from now; alongside lots of compact electric or pneumatic, possibly shared ownership vehicles, and maybe a few more options for mass transit. How much can we really plan for though? Let's pick a few principles the majority of us can get behind right now, as seems to be in evidence with these proposals, then truly see them through for good demonstration works while leaning forward to brighter possibilities ahead. Rural subsistence communities have a future. Ashland has pretty good odds. The rest of the world, well, there's hope, and hard work. Where do you choose to wake up? As a relative newcomer spared from any prior conflict or disappointment here, I'll endorse this vision and look for the chance to lend some creative touches on future projects, especially neighborhood-based initiatives where a little more variety and inspiration may come forward. Appreciation to the team at work though; and a few recent tips from TheCityFix to point out for all concerned: http://thecityfix.com/new-years-resolutions-for-cities-10-keys-to-sustainability- planning-success/ Semi-anonymous in Ashland January 7, 2011, 12:31 AM I note your scheme presumes to make plans for private property. What do the property owners think of your plan? Considering the disastrous financial situation of the nation, the state, the county and ultimately every city in this nation, what are we doing looking for new ways to spend money we don't have? www.PeakDemocracy.com/576 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:20 PM from all participants.ïîï 4 of 5 Pedestrian Places Part 2 (Closed) åÔÛÈÛÊ×ÃÍÇÊÈÔÍÇÕÔÈÉÍÎÈÔ×ÆÓÉÓÍÎÉÈÛÈ×Ï×ÎÈÉÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃÉÓÈ×ÉÛÎØÓÐÐÇÉÈÊÛÈÓÍÎÌÐÛÎÉÖÍÊÈÔ× ì×Ø×ÉÈÊÓÛÎìÐÛÙ×ÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉý All Statements I hate to rain on anyone’s parade but we need to think about a near future with $20 per gallon gasoline. Think about what that does to the price of everything else, everything that gets to us by truck, ship or plane. Wake up people! I don’t care if the money is already allocated, I really don’t know, but if it is give it back. Spending a dime on any project that does not increase our self sufficiency like promoting local food production, local power production or finding ways to become more efficient are dimes we will wish we had when the trucks stop arriving to stock the shelves of our stores. Call me crazy now… you’ll have to call me right tomorrow. Semi-anonymous in Ashland January 6, 2011, 6:58 PM Please keep in mind we need a leash-free dog park on this side of town. It doesn't need any expensive development and doesn't need to be as big as the Quiet Village dog park. We just need a fence and a trash can. Thanks! Joyce A. Woods in Ashland January 3, 2011, 2:09 PM It has been a bit sad to watch to beautiful views of the hills surrounding Ashland disappear over the last 30 years. There was a time, not so long ago, that the citizens of Ashland convinced the planners to preserve the view of the mountains as they built. Thus, the former McDonald's Restaurant was required to build in such a way it did not impede the view. Now, from A Street to Ashland Street, builders and planners running amuck are destroying one of unique characteristics of our beautiful city - the view. Yes, I know... in fill, in fill, in fill. The mantra of the "square footage-rules" mentality. It may make sense for the banks and realtors trying to make the most of an investment scarfing up land instead of creating green space. But, it is destroying part of the character of the town. Certainly we can improve pedestrian and traffic flow without excessive concrete and mortar in three dimensions. julian spalding in Talent December 22, 2010, 8:15 AM Let's move ahead with roundabouts. I've driven in Europe where they are ubiquitous. They make so much sense and work so well. Get rid of traffic lights wherever possible. www.PeakDemocracy.com/576 Public comments as of March 24, 2011, 3:20 PM from all participants.ïîî 5 of 5 Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AM All Participants around Ashland As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. ïîí Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? Introduction We're finishing up the design process of developing illustrations of what the Pedestrian Places might look like in the future. For each of the three locations - N. Mountain Ave./E. Main St., Walker Ave./Ashland St., and Tolman Creek Rd./Ashland St. - there is a draft concept plan including illustrations of a catalyst opportunity site as well as suggested streetscape features and improvements. Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 1 of 9 ïîì Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? As of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AM, this forum had: Attendees:97 Participants around Ashland:11 Minutes of Public Comment:33 Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 2 of 9 ïîë Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? All Participants around Ashland Michael Church inside AshlandApril 8, 2011, 3:05 PM My comments relate to the two concepts along Ashland Street. 1. I think that these cannot be 'places' where people will walk to and congregate unless Ashland Street becomes something other than an expressway. It is too wide and way too pedestrian unfriendly to leave as-is. 2. The major intersection corners need to have two-story structures, preferably at the back of sidewalk. Even with such buildings making corner statements, I think the street widths need to be reduced to make the 'place' feel like a cohesive whole. Name not shown inside AshlandApril 5, 2011, 10:19 AM It is ridiculous that there is no mention in this project of the blocking of pedestrian and bike traffic by the railroad between A Street and the communities to the north of the rails. If the project is to create "pedestrian places" then this should be a priority. There is a large demand by citizens hurting by the lack of the passage and there is little cost involved. The RR blockage is an offense to anyone from the Town side of Ashland who attends music, dance or art events in the buildings on Hersey Stand and to the residents of the North side who would walk or bike to town to work and shop. If there is any City-sanctioned policy or project promoting biking and walking it needs to start with a campaign to the owners of that property that their manner and use of the property violates any notion of freedom of movement for Ashland residents. A letter should be signed by the appropriate City officials and demand they make a passage available or face further action from the City. Jonathan Landes Name not shown inside AshlandMarch 12, 2011, 9:45 AM Generally speaking I am in favor of pedestrian spaces, but to narrow arteries to and from downtown is discriminatory towards those who live above the boulevard and those who are elderly or disabled and can not walk easily. I fervently wish that instead of spending large sums of money on outside consulting firms the city would spend a little time and money doing a thorough survey of every household in Ashland asking them if they want any of these proposed ideas implemented. I will bet that the majority of Ashlanders would not want to have their ability to move easily from their home to their work or to the grocery store or to the downtown area impeded in any way. For those who want to ride bikes, ride them on the back streets that are free of as many cars or on the greenway which goes through the entire city. For those who want to walk, there are already adequate sidewalks on all major arteries. Please stop trying to legislate my choice of mobility!!!!! You have to ask what percentage of the population live where it is easy to walk to the necessary amenities versus what percentage of the population GENUINELY plans to walk or bike to the necessary amenities? The common sense that would result from that information would say leave the arteries to and from the center of Ashland Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 3 of 9 ïîê Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? All Participants around Ashland alone! Adrian Horvath inside AshlandMarch 11, 2011, 4:24 PM There are great ideas in here for improving the walkability of streets intersecting Ashland St., but not enough, in my opinion, improvement to the walkability of Ashland St. itself. I think five lanes is just too much to create any kind of desire to stroll Ashland St.. Could the center turn lane be converted into a parklane with occasional left turn-outs instead of one long, unending open lane? I think this would give the street a slightly more intimate feel (still a long way from intimate) and also do a lot to improve traffic flow, as many of us have experienced bottlenecks in the open turn lane due to its undirected nature. thanks, Adrian Philip Gagnon inside AshlandMarch 11, 2011, 9:46 AM The pedestrian/bicycle concept is an admirable one. Portland, Seattle, Boulder, New York City already lead the way with this concept. Retailers are said to love it as more people are out of their cars meandering about, sitting in their street patios and very engaged with the settings. Store visits increase. Think of the transition that's taken place with coffee houses. They've become social meccas. Street patios can also become that. An example I read about tells of the positive changes in Times Square since all traffic is re-routed and street patios made to flourish. Wow! Changing times! I drive a tricycle and would love to see improvements made on the N. Main St area where I have to squeeze in the car lane as there is no shoulder for me to hug. How ancient is this stretch? I'm excited about the proposed changes and heartedly endorse them. Brian Comnes inside AshlandMarch 10, 2011, 9:27 AM I participated in 2 of the 3 workshops. I think the process was a good one and I learned a lot. The goals of the group are quite admirable. However, I want to make one emphatic statement. Dressing up parking lots does NOT make for or create pedestrian friendly places as you desire them. The best pedestrian places are car free - period. They don't have to be large. A single block long length of street can do it. My wife and I recently were in the 500 block area of Washington St, and the development there is very reminiscent of all three proposals put out by the City planners. They are curbside attractive buildings with an off-street parking area in the center. The parking area center is attractively landscaped with plants trees and benches. All three proposals proffered by the planners had similar design philosophies. But the fact of the matter is you are simply surrounded by the presence of cars and asphalt. In the summer (when you want to be outdoors) all that asphalt will generate intolerable radiant heat. Cars are also noisy. Maybe for smokers or people taking a lunch break area it's better Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 4 of 9 ïîé Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? All Participants around Ashland than nothing , but it is not conducive to draw people as a pedestrian place. I wouldn't choose to sit there at all. Of the three areas studied, the Walker area near SOU offered the best opportunity to add a car free zone. Shut down that whole block of Walker to car traffic allowing a short stub for truck entry on the North side to the grocery store and you create a pedestrian place. Think Calle Guanajuato which is a pedestrian place. The Ashland/Tolman site should also be able to shunt cars to one side, not make them the centerpiece of the development. The E. Main, Mountain site unfortunately has traffic going through it in 4 directions. I don't think you can really do much there. The Washington Street style may be your only option. Although, maybe the whole of the Emerick House site on the SW corner could be made a park with a history museum in the house and food carts in a park made from the rest of the property. I'd walk to that for sure. Sincerely Brian Comnes Ashland resident Name not shown inside AshlandMarch 8, 2011, 5:54 PM I am a 38 year Ashland resident and live on Pinecrest Terrace above Walker. Although the overall plan looks aesthetically pleasing and there are some good elements, there are obvious issues that are not even addressed by OTAK to anyone who has lived here for any length of time. This is another fundamental reason why it is absurd for the City to hire expensive, out-of-town, consultants to develop long and short term development plans that are typically "big city" type concepts, and not necessarily applicable nor practical to implement in a small, unique town like Ashland. First off, the idea of narrowing Ashland Street to just one lane of vehicular traffic in each direction is absolutely insane! There are only two major arterials in Ashland with four lanes; Ashland Street and Siskiyou Blvd/North Main. These are the only streets that access the primary routes in and out of town, either by Highway 99 or Interstate 5. These streets are already running a capacity most of the day and to eliminate two lanes is going to cause complete gridlock with cars backed up all the way through town. Cars pollute the most while idling and that is not a very "green" concept. Julia Sommer should be removed from the Transportation Committee for suggesting that "if it did get backed up people would have less incentive to drive." The notion that "if we build it they won't drive" is not a reason, nor a solution, to clog up our main artery in the south half of town to access the freeway where almost everybody coming or going to Ashland needs to get through. Whether we like it or not, most people in town don't have many practical options to driving to work or transporting food or kids home. In downtown Portland or Seattle (yes, big cities....)walking, biking and mass-transit is practical. In rural, small town communities, not so much unless you live and work in the "flat" areas of Ashland. Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 5 of 9 ïîè Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? All Participants around Ashland For half of Ashland's population that lives "above the boulevard," we need a car to get to work, haul our groceries or transport anything bigger than a day pack and to imply that we are going to have to sit in bumper to bumper traffic (like a big city) just so we can have some cutesie streetscape is unacceptable. The whole "Festival Street" idea is similiarly impractical which blocks off Walker and makes everyone that needs to use that block to detour through someone else's residential neighborhood that isn't designed for such traffic or kid safety. The entire block between Siskiyou Blvd, Ashland Street & Walker Avenue is private property with numerous different ownerships that are unlikely to all agree with, approve or otherwise pay for the substantial costs of this particular comprehensive plan. Which begs to ask, why are we taxpayers spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for a plan without first getting "buy-in" from these private landowners and business owners? Nowhere do I see mention of who or how any of this is going to be paid for, nor any estimated costs that these plans will require to implement. A small town like Ashland is never going to be able to afford nor even need or want this large scale urban renewal type of project. Anybody remember the Northlight project downtown which was also based on this kind of mixed use, pedestrian friendly environment that kept getting shot down? One of the biggest impediments to this particular project is that a majority of the "neighborhood" are residents like me that live up one of the steep many collector streets in Ashland (Walker, Park, Tolman, Mountain, etc.). As another poster, Joanne, mentioned in her comments, it is in no way practical for the hundreds of people living in this neighborhood to walk or bike up and down Walker with anything more than a small bag of groceries without having to drive, so where in this "Pedestrian Place" are people going to park their vehicles? Is our "big city plan" going to propose building large expensive underground parking garages for this little area to encourage a few pedestrians? Not going to happen! Unfortunately, Joanne's suggestion about having people park on Walker in a residential area, then try to hitch a ride back up the hill with others and be delivered to wherever they live is not a workable nor practical solution, for individual time scheduling reasons if nothing else. I think this whole concept needs to be scaled way back to something more realistic instead of this pie in the sky, utopian fantasy, which may be nice if it involved unused land rather than demolishing all the recent improvements. As I said, there are some good elements right at the corner of Walker & Ashland Street, but I really don't believe this area is generally going to be where people are going to want to just "hang out". The same goes for the Tolman & Ashland Street site. Personally, I'll be going downtown or to Lithia Park to hang out where there is actually something to do. This area of the neighborhood is where locals go food shopping, not to hang out. There are already so many vacant commercial properties all over town and many still undeveloped areas that have already been designated for multi-use growth, such as the railroad district land by Clear Creek Drive, Croman Mill property on Mistletoe, the Northlight (Copeland Lumber) site, the old Handyman Hardware (Forest Service office)site next to Shop N Kart that are unused. If fact, the old bowling alley building behind Market of Choice, now converted to commercial space, is empty except for Anytime Fitness right in this project zone! Are these "pedestrian places" just going to end up in a fat report collecting dust like the rest of these unbuilt "planning" studies? I think we need to be saving Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 6 of 9 ïîç Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? All Participants around Ashland our tax money to do smaller, affordable improvement projects for now and quit hiring big city planners from Portland that have no idea what really works or flies in small town Ashland. Name not shown inside AshlandMarch 8, 2011, 4:07 PM So far, from seeing the drafts of the proposed sites, I'd say they are mostly another nod in the direction of a form of affordable housing. There's not a lot of green space, or places to just relax and put your feet up, read a book, (buy a book), sit in the sun, etc. And where's the dog park we need on this end of town? I would hope that SOU will be tapped to foot some of the bill with all of this since their students will be occupying most of the apartments. It's time that SOU stepped up and paid their share of the services they enjoy thanks to the general population. They are State funded. Another point is that participants should limit their comments from 350 to 500 words per article. Sophia Bogle inside AshlandMarch 8, 2011, 10:30 AM I like the Walker proposal. The festival street idea is nice but would they really do booths and such on such a steep hill? They all need more green space. Name not shown inside AshlandMarch 8, 2011, 9:14 AM A good example of what sort of projects have been proposed for the Pedestrian Place locations is located at the fairly new development located just off Ashland St. on the east side of Washington St. (500 block). The buildings are set along the sidewalk, with parking located behind them. In the center of the parking lot is a mini-green space with picnic table and seating. Seeing this confirmed my husband's and my impressions, looking at the drawings which were presented at the Pedestrian Places meeting recently, that this sort of development contains way too much pavement and is far more car-friendly than pedestrian-friendly. Unless you were a smoker working in one of the buildings and needing a place to smoke, we could not see why one would want to sit in the middle of a parking lot on a tiny island of green space. Significantly less asphalt and a much larger green space located adjacent to the buildings would be more pedestrian friendly. We live off of North Mountain Ave. Joanne Kliejunas inside AshlandMarch 6, 2011, 12:34 PM I'm new to this concept, because I just learned about it. I think it is exciting to think about how to improve neighborhoods in Ashland by providing places to congregate and meet basic needs. I applaud the effort and have some comments to add. I will attend the Meeting on March 29 to hear more in person and share my thoughts there. I live in the hills above SOU, so the Walker/Ashland Street Ped Place is the one that captures my attention first. I have a few comments about the concept paper posted on this site and the drawings for the Walker Street Place. Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 7 of 9 ïíð Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? All Participants around Ashland The five bullets naming the land use developments that are typical to move Ped Places forward may be necessary, but they are not sufficient conditions for the success of such development. One key factor not listed is that "neighborhood residents are drawn to the Ped Place for services and can get there and to their homes more easily than to other commercial areas in town." Let me try to explain. At this time, in my neighborhood, getting to Walker and Ashland streets (most likely to go to Market of Choice) usually entails getting in a car, because of the challenge of getting back up the hill to one's home with groceries. Once in a car, unless the selection of services at Walker and Ashland are comparable or better than those elsewhere in town, one is more likely to drive right past the would be Ped Place to a larger concentration of services downtown or out on Ashland and Tolman. I go from my home to Walker/Ashland St. for Market of Choice only when a supermarket stop is the only errand on my list. As I see it, once I'm in my car, all commercial options are at my disposal and I'm likely to consolidate errands until I'm using that drive for more than just grocery shopping. To have a sufficient neighborhood draw, Walker/Ashland St. would have to have BOTH a competitive array of services and the ability to get neighbors to and from the Ped Place WITHOUT USE OF A CAR. As I said, if I'm in my car, I'll go anywhere in town that has the BEST commercial options for my errands. I do have a idea that could be useful for the WITHOUT USE OF A CAR part of my comment. Many of us living on the hill above SOU could be expected to leave our cars at home when running errands, if we had an easy way to get up [most of] the hill as we come home. I often walk down (to go to Market of Choice or downtown), but need to arrange a ride back up, if I'm carrying groceries or packages. So, I usually end up driving. However, other neighbors are driving up and down the hill at all times of the day for various reasons. If I had a way of riding up with them, without having to call someone and arrange a meeting place at a particular time, I'd be able to walk far more often. ( In addition, if I had a place to safely lock a bike at the bottom of the hill --say at the Ped Place at Walker & Ashland-- I could walk down, unlock my bike and ride it around town, then relock it at the Ped Place -- if I could get a ride up the hill.) I believe we could set up informal networks to support pedestrians and bikers to and from Ped Places and significantly reduce the need to use our cars every time we run errands. A system of drivers, peds, and bikers could be set up along major arterial streets (like upper Walker in my case), which almost everyone uses for at least part of their drives. If there were marked stops along those arterials where peds heading up or down the hill could be picked up by neighborhood drivers, the need to drive one's own car could be greatly reduced. Those able to walk down could do so or get down faster with a driver who picks them up at a marked stop. Their return trip up would originate on a lower marked stop on Walker and they would get out at another stop closer to their home farther up the hill. Such a system could be administered easily, it seems, with drivers and peds registering as residents of that neighborhood (registering perhaps for a particular arterial's route). Drivers would have a card in their right front window identifying them "Walker Ave. Drivers" (or whatever) indicating they are Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 8 of 9 ïíï Pedestrian Places Part 3 What are your thoughts on the draft concept plans for the Pedestrian Place locations? All Participants around Ashland neighbors and know the route to take. Registered pedestrians would carry a card that identifies them as "Walker Ave. Pedestrians" -- neighbors who are safe to pick up for a ride up or down the hill. Anyone who registered for the network, would, obviously, get both driver and pedestrian identification cards, since the same people could one day be drivers and another day pedestrians. Once down at the Walker Ped Place, the ped might walk, or unlock their bike and ride, elsewhere in town -- or make use of services at the Ped Place. In the short run, even before the full development of the Ped Place, Walker & Ashland Streets could become a hub for informal transportation connections. This idea has the important side benefit of creating more neighborhood identification and communication as rides are shared with previously unmet neighbors. This can only be a good thing for Ashland's safety and cohesiveness in the years ahead. One final comment on the plans I saw for Walker/Ashland St. Ped Place. It makes no sense to me that the architect's plan is based on the removal of relatively new buildings to develop newer ones. Wouldn't it be possible to conceive of a workable Ped Place created by renovating large expensive buildings that are already on the site? For example, The Market of Choice building could be an anchor that is reconfigured as an asset to the site. I'll see you at the March 29 meeting. Public comments as of August 22, 2011, 11:24 AMhttp://www.peakdemocracy.com/629Page 9 of 9 ïíî Written Comments ïíí ïíì ïíë ïíê ïíé ïíè ïíç ïìð ïìï ïìî ïìí ïìì ïìë ïìê ïìé ïìè ïìç ïëð ïëï ïëî ïëí ïëì ïëë ïëê ïëé ïëè ïëç ïêð ïêï ïêî ïêí ïêì ïêë ïêê ïêé ïêè ïêç ïéð ïéï ïéî ïéí ïéì ïéë ïéê ïéé ïéè ïéç ïèð ïèï ïèî ïèí ïèì Meeting Minutes ïèë ïèê Ms. Harris explained staff’s intention was to incorporate the Council’s decision but not change the other existing language in the ordinance. She stated the language in 18.72.180.D(2.a) is mostly new, and stated staff can look into the suggestions about tying this to the standards in the Federal Communications Act. Mr. Newton recommended the City also look into what it means to have coverage in an area and to seek legal guidance on whether they are required to accommodate a company’s desire for higher levels of data reception. The Commission voiced support for looking into whether the City is required to allow every provider to have coverage within the City, and whether cellular telephone service constitutes coverage, or if they need to accommodate data streaming. B.Pedestrian Places Proposed Code Amendments. Ms. Harris noted staff provided an update on this item at their last meeting and stated this is the Commission’s opportunity to discuss any outstanding issues before this comes back as a public hearing. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Questioned why these code amendments would go before the Council separate from the TSP update. Mr. Swales also commented on the arterial setback requirements and voiced concern with some of the wording. He stated he does not believe it is un-conducive to pedestrian places to have small plazas on the street. He stated there is no public plaza space requirement in the ordinance and expressed concern with all new buildings being built to the minimum setback. Ms. Harris clarified the Pedestrian Places project is a subset of the TSP Update. She explained Planning staff had submitted a separate grant application for this project; however the State contacted the City and agreed to fold this into the TSP Update in order to receive the grant award. She stated it was always conceived as a separate project, and Public Works and the consultants have no problems with moving this ahead since the land use changes proposed do not impact how the main street network functions. Ms. Harris also clarified there is a public patio space requirement for large scale projects and this is an existing requirement in the detail site review zone. She commented on providing some flexibility in the code on where to locate that space and stated sometimes a plaza off the side street or on the side of a building is more desirable and conducive to a functioning pedestrian place; and commented on allowing the design professionals to design a plaza space that works for that particular building and location. Correction was noted to 18.56.040.E(3) and E(4). Staff clarified these two items should have been combined and indicated this would be corrected. UPDATE A.Grant Application for Unified Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Harris announced the City Council has authorized staff to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant to create a unified land use ordinance. She stated creating a more user-friendly land use code was a recommendation of the Siegel Report, and if awarded this project would: 1) incorporate the various standards documents into the land use code, 2) make the code more approachable by improving the organization, formatting and graphics, 3) integrate a form-based approach where feasible, and 4) incorporate some of the green code updates. She clarified this project is not focused on policy changes, but rather repackaging the land use code to make it more user friendly. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated the first stage of the Siegel recommendation resulted in major changes to the code and stated the idea of streamlining the code worries him. He gave examples of previous streamlining that caused problems and recommended they not tinker with the code if it is working. Mr. Swales also spoke to the Commission quorum issue that has come up at recent City Council meetings and stated it is worrisome when major issues are decided by so few people. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 3 of 3 ïèé ïèè ïèç ïçð ïçï ïçî ïçí ïçì TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING Wireless Communication Facilities PA-2011-01175 ïçë ïçê ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT October 11, 2011 PLANNING ACTION: 2011-001175 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ZONE DESIGNATION: Legislative Ordinance Amendment COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Legislative Ordinance Amendment ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18.72.180 Site Design Review Development Standards for Wireless Communication REQUEST: To amend the development standards and submittal requirements for wireless communication facilities in Chapters 18.72.180 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). I. Relevant Facts A. Background Project History On November 2, 2010 the City Council made a final decision regarding a planning application to install rooftop wireless communication facilities at 1644 Ashland Street by Goodman Networks, Inc. for AT& T Wireless, LLC (PA 2009-01244). Upon review of the application and applicable development standards the Council found the standards to be ambiguous, and interpreted the Preferred Designs section (18.72.040C2) to be intended to outline a stepped hierarchy in which an application must demonstrate the first collocation standard is not feasible before moving on to the next design option. The Council went on to define “feasible”, and said that a demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a design option is not capable of being done, rather than an applicant simply saying it would be difficult to make use of an alternative. Finally, the Council found that the collocation study submitted with an application must demonstrate the applicant made a reasonable effort to locate other potential collocation sites that meet the applicant’s service objections and clearly identify why those sites are also not feasible. The Planning Commission held a study session on August 23, 2011 to review proposed ordinance amendments to Chapter 18.72, and continued their discussion to the regular Commission meeting on September 13, 2011. Public testimony was provided at the study session and is reflected in the attached minutes. The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) preserves state and local authority over zoning and land use decisions for personal wireless service facilities, but sets forth specific limitations on that authority. Specifically, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not Planning Action PA #2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 5 ïçé regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, must act on applications within a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules. Within the local authority over zoning and land use decisions provided for in the Act, the proposed ordinance revisions have been drafted to provide amendments consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the ordinance to “establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facility while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support”. Such amendments will help ensure applicant submittals contain sufficient information to make a finding of compliance with the City’s Development Standards for Wireless Facilities in compliance with the TCA of 1996. B. Description of the Proposal The November 2, 2010 findings relating to the denial of the application for a wireless facility identified a number of code provisions that could be further clarified in keeping with the declared purpose and intent described in ALUO 18.72.180.A. The ordinance amendments proposed address each of these areas to provide greater clarity to applicants to ensure future applications for wireless facilities provide an adequate collocation study and recognize that the Preferred Design standards in Chapter 18.72.180 are rigorously applied to establish a stepped hierarchy regulating placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities. Feasibility The development standards outlined in Chapter 18.72.180 include a Preferred Design section. This section includes the word “feasible” but this term is not explicitly defined within the ALUO. In their review of the above referenced planning action for a wireless facility the City Council defined feasible as being “ÙÛÌÛÚÐ×ÍÖÚ×ÓÎÕØÍÎ××Ä×ÙÇÈ×ØÍÊ ×ÖÖ×ÙÈ×ØÌÍÉÉÓÚÐ×ÍÖÊ×ÛÐÓÂÛÈÓÍΨFurther the Council determined that in order to evaluate the feasibility of collocation sites an that an application shall demonstrate that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. These definitions are incorporated into the proposed ordinance amendments in section 18.72.180.D.2. Collocation Study Co-location refers to the situation in which the operator of an existing wireless facility (e.g., tower) leases space on the facility to allow another carrier to add new cell attachments. Consistent with the Council’s determination that an applicant shall demonstrate that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished a collocation feasibility study is required to ensure opportunities for collocation have been thoroughly examined before a new wireless facility can be located within the City. The proposed ordinance expands the submittal requirements for a collocation feasibility study to more explicitly state what a collocation study shall contain (18.72.180D.3 as proposed). Review of a collocation study’s findings and verifying that the determination that a “significant gap” in coverage exists requires technical expertise. As such expertise may Planning Action PA #2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 5 ïçè not exist on staff with the City, the new ordinance language also provides for professional third party verification of the provider’s data. The third party professional verification is subject to City approval prior to the commencement of the work. Miscellaneous Amendments In revising the ordinance to address the Council directives Staff has taken the opportunity to re-order the ordinance sections, correct for past scribers errors, and add minor provisions to maintain consistency within the ALUO. Such changes have not been presented to introduce new requirements. These changes include the following: The “Applicability” section (18.72.180.B.1 as proposed) has been relocated to immediately follow the Purpose and Intent section (18.72.180.A) for clarity. The specific requirements applicable to each zone either prohibiting installation of a wireless communication system, requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or requiring Site Review, have not been changed. The “Additional Provisions” section (18.72.180.B.2. as proposed) was a section of code that had been included in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to adoption of Ord. 2951 effective 7/1/08. Prior to that ordinance amendment these “Additional Provisions” were originally included as footnotes to the table provided in 18.72.108.B.1. The footnote references were retained in the table itself, however the provisions themselves were inadvertently omitted from the final text. As proposed the ordinance amendment re- inserts these provisions as a specific section of code. These Additional Provisions include needed protections to ensure that the installation of wireless communication facilities is limited to only existing structures with a height exceeding 45’in residential zones (including replacement of existing poles, stadium lights, and towers), and upon buildings with a height of 50’ in the downtown commercial zone. Without such provisions wireless communication facilities could potentially be located on any existing structure regardless of height. The “Exemptions Section” (18.72.180B3 as proposed) is effectively new language in the ordinance although it was drafted to replace the preexisting Collocation Standards 18.72.040.D.5 which were stricken.This existing provision established that additions to existing wireless facilities that increased the height of the facility by more than ten were subject to site review. Inversely, additions to existing wireless facilities that do not create an increase in height of the facility more than ten feet have been considered exempt form site review, and the new section more explicitly clarifies this provision. Further this new section now contains explicit language affirming that prior conditions of approval applicable to the existing wireless facility remain valid. II. Project Impact Providing greater clarity within the ordinance should function to better guide applicants through preparation of submittal information and as such streamline the Planning Application process. Collocation studies that adequately respond to the question of the feasibility of alternatives, with the data verified by a City approved third party, will better enable the Planning Commission and or City Council to determine whether applicable Planning Action PA #2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 5 ïçç standards are met when reviewing future wireless communication facility proposals. Approval of the ordinance amendments to Ch 18.72.180 as proposed will have no financial impact to the City. Statewide Planning Program Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 – Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans. III. Procedural – Required Burden of Proof 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments 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 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. SECTION 18.08.345. Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050, for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships. Planning Action PA #2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 5 îðð IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in Chapter 18.72 are based on the November 2, 2010 decision of City Council. The changes are limited in scope to specifically remedy deficiencies in the clarity of the ordinance that were exposed during the review of Planning Action 2009-01244. It is understood that the wireless communication industry is rapidly changing as is the technology utilized to provide such services. In the future, as technological changes continue to alter the methods by which wireless services are provided, the City may need to further explore revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication to respond to such a change in conditions. Although the Planning Commission has received public testimony requesting an expansion of the scope of the amendments at this time, to more comprehensively reevaluate the ordinance in total, the proposed changes are limited to those amendments necessary to enact the Council’s prior decision. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on November 1, 2011 to review the proposed ordinance amendments. Staff recommends approval and that the Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.72.180 ) as attached. Attachments: 18.72.108 Draft ordinance amendments Planning Commission Minutes 8/23/2011 and 9/13/2011 City Council PA#2009-01244 Findings dated Nov. 2, 2010 Respect Ashland coalition letter dated 9/13/2011 Planning Action PA #2011-01175 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 5 îðï îðî ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN 18.72.180 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE additions Annotated to show deletions and to the code sections being modified. boldlined throughbold underline Deletions are and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland City Council found AMC 18.72.180.C.2 to be ambiguous on its face, and interpreted this standard in the final decision on November 2, 2010 for the appeal of a Planning Action 2009-01244, a request to install rooftop wireless communications facilities on the existing building located at 1644 Ashland Street;and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances based on the final decision of the City Council on Planning Action 2009-01244 at a duly advertised public hearing on October 11, 2011, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments unanimously;and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on November 1, 2011; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 1 îðí WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.72.180 [Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. Purpose and Intent A. - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities support. Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but the community as a whole. The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near residential areas. B. Applicability. 1. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Attached to AlternativeFreestanding Zoning Designations ExistingStructuresSupport StructuresStructures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 2 îðì M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 2. Additional Provisions. a. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast or tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless communication facilities. b. In the Downtown Commercial zoning district (C-1-D), wireless communication facilities are permitted on existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet. c. With the exception of the C-1-D zoning district as described above, wireless communication facilities are prohibited in the Historic Districts, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved wireless communication facility components are permitted outright with an approved building permit, and are allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the preceding subsection, provided that these actions: a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility more than ten feet; and b. Conforms with the conditions of the previously approved planning action; and c. Do not cause the facility to go out of conformance with the standards of Section 18.72.180.D. BCSubmittalssS . - In addition to the submittals required in ection 18.72.060, the following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility. 1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo montage of the overall facility as proposed. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 3 îðë 2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min 1"=10'). 3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior materials. 4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet. A map that includes the following information: 5. a. the coverage area of the proposed wireless communication facility; and b.theand approved A map showing existing wireless communication , and all other wireless facility sites operated by the applicant communication facilities within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site. 6. Details and specifications for exterior lighting. 67that adequately indicates collocation .A collocation feasibility study efforts were made and states the reasons collocation can or cannot occuraddressing the Collocation Standards in Section 18.72.180.D.3 . 8. For applications not involving collocation, a third party professional verification analysis providing an independent evaluation of the applicant’s data, engineering analysis, and collocation study. Prior to commencement of work on the third party verification analysis, the Community Development Director shall approve either the firm or consultant responsible for preparing the professional verification analysis 7 9 .A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not preclude collocation. 810 .Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. 911 .Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable design standards. 1012 .Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility. Documentation to include: a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility. b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the meeting. c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting. d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting. 13. Findings addressing the design standards in Section 18.72.180.D. CDDesign Standards . - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed, constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards: 1. General Provisions An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 4 îðê a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation. b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment. c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed in each zoning district. WCFWireless communication facilities d. shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support structures. ef . Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non-illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number. fg .Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period. h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to allow other users to collocate on the facility. . The following preferred designs are a stepped 2. Preferred Designs hierarchy, and the standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative. For the purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of being done, executed or effected; possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility requires a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished. Collocation.Where possible, the use of existing WCF sites for a. new installations shall be encouraged. Collocation of new facilities Where technically on existing facilities shall be the preferred option. feasible, collocate new facilities on pre-existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place, or on pre-existing towers. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 5 îðé Attached to Existing Structure.WCF b. If (a) above is not feasible, wireless communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible. Alternative Structure. c. If (a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with design features that conceal, camouflage WCFwireless or mitigate the visual impacts created by the proposed communication facilities . Freestanding Support Structure. d. If (a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached antenna design is not feasible. e.Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication supportstructures. 3. Collocation Standards. a. The collocation feasibility study shall: 1) document that alternative sites have been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable; 2) demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that meet the applicant’s service coverage area needs; and 3) document the reasons collocation can or cannot occur. b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the approving authority, upon submittal of a third party professional verification analysis of the applicant’s data or engineering evaluation that demonstrates collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following conditions exist: i. a significant service gap in coverage area ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or towers iii. structural support requirements cannot be met iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other radio frequency interference c. Prior to commencement of work on the third party verification analysis, the Community Development Director shall approve either the firm or consultant responsible for preparing the professional verification analysis. 34WCFwireless .Landscaping.The following standards apply to all communication facilities with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or the public right-of-way. a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant landscaped area. WCFwireless communication facilities b. The perimeter of the shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 6 îðè WCFwireless communication facilities c. The outer perimeter of the shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone. d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth and health of the vegetation. e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to WCF provide a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the wireless communication facilities . Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting. 45 .Visual Impacts a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure. b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its purpose. c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non-reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to which it is attached. WCFWireless communication facilities d., in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the setback requirement. WCFwireless communication facility e. Exterior lighting for a is permitted only when required by a federal or state authority. f. All wireless communication support structures must have a non- reflective finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government agencies. g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the WCFwireless communication mitigation of visual impact of the facility , additional design measures may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding techniques. 5.Collocation standards a.Each addition of an antenna to an existing WCF requires a building permit, unless the additional antenna increases the height of the facility more than ten feet. b.Addition of antennas to an existing WCF that increases the overall height of the facility more than ten feet is subject to a site review. D.Allinstallation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 7 îðç Attached to AlternativeFreestanding Zoning Designations ExistingStructuresSupport StructuresStructures (1) Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited (2) C-1-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1-Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited (2) Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “code”, “article”, “section”, or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22- 23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____ day of ________________, 2011, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2011. An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 8 îïð _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of, 2011. __________________ _ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.180 Page 9 îïï îïî îïí îïì îïë îïê îïé îïè îïç îîð îîï îîî îîí îîì îïï îïî îïí îïì îïë îïê îïé îïè îïç îîð îîï James Fong/759 Leonard/Commented briefly on solar parking shading and recommended they contact a local associate. Mr. Fong also spoke to the cell tower decision and codifying the Council’s decision in the land use code. He stated he has met with City staff regarding this and warned they are nearing the one year anniversary of the decision date. Mr. Fong stated they initially discussed this element coming forward with the next “housekeeping” ordinance, but since that was delayed they are now asking this get codified with the other changes they are considering for this chapter. He added AT&T will be able to come back and resubmit an application after the year is up and urged the Commission to adopt this language. He also commented on determining “feasibility”, and recommended the City require applicants to provide a fee that the City could use to hire consultants to perform an independent analysis. Comment was made questioning if staff and the Council had considered adding this fee. Ms. Harris explained staff is looking into this and felt at a minimum we needed to get the Council’s interpretation into the ordinance since we are nearing the year anniversary. She stated in the mean time staff will be looking into the suggestion to charge an independent analysis fee. She added this is more of a policy decision and the City’s Finance and Legal departments will need to be consulted to flush out how this fee would be collected and returned. Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Voiced her appreciation for getting the Council’s decision into the code as quickly as possible, however she would like to see the fee adopted as well. Ms. Hartzell stated the current proposal is bare bones and would like to have a larger discussion as a community about how they want to handle these types of applications. Staff clarified that a fee for independent review would need to be charged up front, and if any money remains after the analysis is complete it would be returned to the applicant. Commissioner Marsh voiced her opinion that the Commission should define their role as narrowly as the wording in front of them, and stated the Commission does not have the authority to enact new fees. No objections were voiced to the code amendments as presented, and it was agreed that the public hearing on the code changes would be held on October 11, 2011. Comment was made that the addition of a fee should be researched by staff and brought before the City Council for discussion. B.North Normal Avenue Neighborhood Grant Senior Planner Brandon Goldman announced the City of Ashland has received a grant for the Normal Street project. He stated the City Council voted to move forward and gave their direction for an Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Goldman stated the next steps will be drafting the project scope and selecting a consultant, and staff expects this project to start at the beginning of the year. C.Buildable Lands Inventory Update Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a brief presentation on the Buildable Lands Inventory Update. He reviewed the purpose, land availability, demographics and land supply figures. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Voiced concern that partially vacant land is not accounted for and hopes this can be updated. Mr. Swales stated there is already plenty of R-2 and R-3 land within the City that is underdeveloped (often a single family home on a large lot) and no rezoning is required or needed. He added he would like to see more emphasis placed on infill and not annexing. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission August 23, 2011 îîî Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Dawkins commented on rezoning the north side of Lithia Way and asked what they would need to do to covert this area to high density residential. Mr. Goldman stated the City is nearing completion of the Housing Needs Analysis, which will provide data on what housing types are needed over the next 20-40 years. He stated once they have this data they could hold an informed discussion on whether additional high density residential land is needed. Public Testimony Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Commented on the Buildable Lands Inventory being used as a justification for annexation when there is not a real need. He commented on residential being looked at more holistically; and also stated some of the so-called buildable land is physically constrained and not really developable. Lastly, he noted the assessed values in Jackson County had been trending upward, however the newest assessment coming out this fall shows 25% of Jackson County properties have a real market value less than the assessed value, and questioned how this will impact the BLI’s determination of redevelopable land. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Deliberations & Decisions Mr. Goldman commented on the concern expressed in public testimony regarding the redevelopable calculation. He agreed that using assessed values can fluctuate the figures wildly, which is why Ashland uses a partially-vacant calculation instead. He clarified instead of an assessment based on value, Ashland uses an assessment based on zoning and how much of the land is buildable. Mr. Goldman also clarified staff did subtract out steep slopes and floodplains in order to get the most accurate numbers possible. Support was voiced for adopting the Buildable Lands Inventory as presented. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to approve PA #2011-01001. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Heesacker, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 4-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Revisions to the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. Planning Manager Maria Harris stated this is a continuation of their agenda item from the last meeting and no new information has been presented. Jim Fong/759 Leonard Street and Rod Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace addressed the Commission and presented the following questions and suggestions regarding the proposed ordinance changes: AMC 18.72.180.B: Asked what changes were made to the applicability chart; what the difference between the three categories are; and whether all wireless installations could be required to go through a CUP process regardless of the zone. AMC 18.72.180.D(1.e): Asked for clarification on whether wireless facilities are allowed in residential zones. AMC 18.72.180.D(2.a): Requested language be added to subsection (i) that clarifies a “significant service gap” exists when the City fails to meet its legal requirements under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Mr. Fong clarified the City should better define “infeasible”, and stated the City is required to make services available but they are not required to accommodate every provider’s individual service needs. In regards to subsection (iii), they asked that language be added that clarifies it must not be physically possible to add to an existing structure (not that there are no limitations, but that those limitations cannot be overcome). And regarding subsection (v), asked that language be added that elaborates that some interference obstruction can occur as long as the City can meet its requirements under the 1996 law. Mr. Fong concluded their testimony by asking the Planning Commission to include a recommendation for an independent technical analysis fee with their recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Harris clarified no changes were made to the applicability table; in terms of flow staff felt it was better to move it to its proposed location. She added this chart has been in the ordinance since it was originally adopted and explained what the three table headings meant. Regarding 18.72.180.D(1.e), Ms. Harris stated this is not new language and clarified wireless facilities are allowed in residential zones if they are attached to existing structures, but the structure has to be over 45 ft in height. She added the maximum building height in a residential zone is 35 ft; and this language could allow for facilities on structures such as the university or high school’s stadium light towers. Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2011 îîí Page 2 of 3 Ms. Harris explained staff’s intention was to incorporate the Council’s decision but not change the other existing language in the ordinance. She stated the language in 18.72.180.D(2.a) is mostly new, and stated staff can look into the suggestions about tying this to the standards in the Federal Communications Act. Mr. Newton recommended the City also look into what it means to have coverage in an area and to seek legal guidance on whether they are required to accommodate a company’s desire for higher levels of data reception. The Commission voiced support for looking into whether the City is required to allow every provider to have coverage within the City, and whether cellular telephone service constitutes coverage, or if they need to accommodate data streaming. B.Pedestrian Places Proposed Code Amendments. Ms. Harris noted staff provided an update on this item at their last meeting and stated this is the Commission’s opportunity to discuss any outstanding issues before this comes back as a public hearing. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Questioned why these code amendments would go before the Council separate from the TSP update. Mr. Swales also commented on the arterial setback requirements and voiced concern with some of the wording. He stated he does not believe it is un-conducive to pedestrian places to have small plazas on the street. He stated there is no public plaza space requirement in the ordinance and expressed concern with all new buildings being built to the minimum setback. Ms. Harris clarified the Pedestrian Places project is a subset of the TSP Update. She explained Planning staff had submitted a separate grant application for this project; however the State contacted the City and agreed to fold this into the TSP Update in order to receive the grant award. She stated it was always conceived as a separate project, and Public Works and the consultants have no problems with moving this ahead since the land use changes proposed do not impact how the main street network functions. Ms. Harris also clarified there is a public patio space requirement for large scale projects and this is an existing requirement in the detail site review zone. She commented on providing some flexibility in the code on where to locate that space and stated sometimes a plaza off the side street or on the side of a building is more desirable and conducive to a functioning pedestrian place; and commented on allowing the design professionals to design a plaza space that works for that particular building and location. Correction was noted to 18.56.040.E(3) and E(4). Staff clarified these two items should have been combined and indicated this would be corrected. UPDATE A.Grant Application for Unified Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Harris announced the City Council has authorized staff to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant to create a unified land use ordinance. She stated creating a more user-friendly land use code was a recommendation of the Siegel Report, and if awarded this project would: 1) incorporate the various standards documents into the land use code, 2) make the code more approachable by improving the organization, formatting and graphics, 3) integrate a form-based approach where feasible, and 4) incorporate some of the green code updates. She clarified this project is not focused on policy changes, but rather repackaging the land use code to make it more user friendly. Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated the first stage of the Siegel recommendation resulted in major changes to the code and stated the idea of streamlining the code worries him. He gave examples of previous streamlining that caused problems and recommended they not tinker with the code if it is working. Mr. Swales also spoke to the Commission quorum issue that has come up at recent City Council meetings and stated it is worrisome when major issues are decided by so few people. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2011 îîì Page 3 of 3