HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0217 Council Mtg PacketCouncil Meeting Pkt.
BARBARA CHRISTENSEN
CITY RECORDER
CITY OF
kSHLAND
.. isthe~S~bJect!~f~Public::heating:. Which '~asi,~n!~osed~.::
any'sUl~je~:net:~,the: pri~ ~enda?lf YOU'wiShito Speaki pleaSe~lli:0ut th~e~$~al(erRequest ~:
form'located!near.the entrance:to the. iCouncil:chamberS.":.:The:chair:,Willre~gnlZe:yOu and
inform you..asto (he amount of time allotted .t° you. The..time granted:will: bedependent to. some ..11
extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish 'to be.heard, and
the' length of the agenda. ' "' '" "' ':' ' '" : " '
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 17, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
II. ROLL CALL:
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of February 3, 2004 and
Study Session Minutes of February 4, 2004.
IV.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS:
1. Presentation of flag to City Council by Travis Cooley.
2. Presentation of flag etiquette by Gid Scout Troop 2750.
~/~. Proclamation of March 1 through March 7, 2004 as Peace Corps Week in Ashland.
~4:. Proclamation of F.ebruary 27, 2004 in honor of Lenn and Dixie Hannon.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Linda Butler to the Hospital Board for a term
to expire June 30, 2007.
V~. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-112 Approving a Request for
Annexation of an Approximately 1.32 Acre Parcel Located at the end of Clover Lane.
VI.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the
subject of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued
to a subsequent meeting.)
1. Public Hearing and Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget for FY 2003-2004,
VII.
PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less,
depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.)
VIII.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST HVE ON CHANNEl.. 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT ~' VW.ASHLAND.OR.US
IX.
Xl.
XlI.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Discussion of Sidewalk Improvement Standards - Letters from Philip C. Lang.
2. City Attorney Recruitment Process.
3. Review of Draft 2004-2005 Council Goals.
4. Purchase of Ashland Creek Open Space Property (Zaller and Geddes, 755 Oak
Street).
5. Charter Review and Update.
6. Revision of Public Pedestrian Easement and Trail Improvements in the Lithia Estates
Subdivision on Ashland Creek Drive and Release of Funds for Trail Improvements.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: _
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance creating new Sections 15.28.150 and
15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Provide Fees for Uniform Fire Code Plan
Review and Inspections Be Set by Resolution."
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS:
ADJOURNMENT:
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIl.. MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT TttE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.[JS
,".'I
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASItI,AND CITY COUNCIL
February 3, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Heam were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 20 were amended on page 9, under discussion of the
motion, sentence should include "and hangers" for the Mayor's disclosures. Executive Session of January
20 was approved as presented. Continued meeting of January 22 was amended on page 3, under Staff
Response; "Council" should read "counsel." On page 5, ninth paragraph, last sentence should read "There
was never any question that what they were moving toward was a 45,000 gross sq. foot area and getting rid
of the footprint interpretation." Special Council Meeting of January 28, 2004 was approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of W. Don Mackin to the Housing Commission for a term
to expire April 30, 2007.
3. Liquor License Application from Nicole Isaacson-Hiil dba Art Attack Theater Ensemble at 310 Oak
Street.
Councilor Hartzell requested that item//2 be pulled for discussion; Amarotico requested that item #3 be pulled
for discussion.
Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
Passed.
Councilor Ham_ell questioned the process in which the appointment was made. Mayor DeBoer explained that
almost all applications were received due to recruitment, and all applications were reviewed to determine
which appointment would best keep the balance on the commission.
Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #2. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico,
Jackson, Morrison, Hearn; YES, Hartzeil; NO. Motion Passed 5-1.
Councilor Amarotico requested permission to abstain from voting on this item. Amarotico declared a direct
conflict due to his company being the sole supplier ofjiertl'or to this establishment.
Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to allow Amarotico to abstain from voting. Voice Vote: Ail AYES.
Motion Passed.
Councilor HartzelFLaws m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #3. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
Passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
PUBLIC FORUM
ASttLAND ('IT}' COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 3. 2004
15;GE I OF 10
Philip Lang/758 B Street/Requested that the Council take action in regards to paving standards and
specifications. Stated that ordinances, codes and rules are enforced for the "little people", but are waived,
aggregated and violated on behalf of rich and powerful individuals, organizations, and even the government.
Provided AMC 13.04.030 to the Council. Stated this section has been aggregated, creating significant
physical risk to individuals and liabilities to the taxpayers. He has called these violations to the attention to
the Planning and Public Works Department, but stated that nothing has been done. Lang cited several
violations including:
· the bricks located on the north side of OSF
· the OSF New Theater
· the City's Planning/Public Works Building
· the DeBoer residence located on Vista Street ~
Councilor Laws/Hartzell m/s to place this issue on the next council meeting agenda. Voice Vote: All
AYES. Motion Passed.
Ruth Alexander/1095 S. Mountain Ave./Would like to find a way to help Ashland become more friendly
to families with young children to increase the school-aged population and address affordable housing. Stated
it was not just affordable housing that has created an issue, but the whole education system in Ashland is
suffering because young families do not have the budget to afford Ashland's high-priced homes. Explained
that a young family recently visited the Chamber of Commerce to get information on schools, but were unable
to find any information and the people at the Chamber were unresponsive. Would like the Council to help the
Chamber become friendlier to families in terms of education.
Mike Morris/720 S. Mountain Ave./Noted he is a member of the Planning Commission, but is speaking on
behalf of himself tonight. Stated hc was disturbed by thc way thc Big Box Ordinance evolved to its second
reading. Feels thc Council is reacting to circumstances rather than developing a vision for Ashland.
Christopher Chappa/Good Delivery Box, Ashland/Wanted to know how the Council was reacting to the
Patriot Act II that was put into effect by the Federal Government in January.
Mayor DeBoer, clarifying for Moms, stated that public input is taken on both first and second readings of an
ordinance, and noted that quite often there are changes that occur between the two readings.
City Attorney, Paul Nolte added that Land Use Ordinances are subject to a required public hearing, but fi-om
that point on you can take input up until the second reading and can change the ordinance from the first
reading to the second.
Mayor DeBoer suggested that Chappa look at what the Council has already done on the Patriot Act to clarify
some of his issues.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Quarterly Financial Report: October - December 2003.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained that this is the halfway mark for the year and finances are close to
budget. Staffwill be using these numbers as they prepare the end of year projection and begin to prepare for
the budget process for the next fiscal year. Tuneberg pointed out that during the second quarter the cash
increased 4.5 million dollars, primarily due to the receipt of property taxes. However, the cash overall balance
is still down 2.3 million dollars from the prior year. Overall, the City is at about the 56% mark on the total
revenue received year to date, and expenses are at 54%. For the most part, the City is fairly close on the fund
balances throughout the funds, although there are some cases where there is more money than projected
(Central Service Fund), and some where they have fallen short. Tuneberg stated the City is in a good position
ASttLAND CITY COUN(TL MEETING
FEBR UA R )' 3. 2004
t:M(iE 2 OF 10
for finishing out the year and preparing for next year.
Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s to approve report. Voice Vote: Ail AYES. Motion Passed.
2. Mid-Year update on the Ashland Fiber Network.
Director of Electric and Telecommunications Dick Wanderschied explained that this report provides AFN
numbers for the first 6 months of fiscal year 03-04, and an update on the report being prepared by Navigant
Consulting.
Wanderschied explained that while AFN is currently operating under the 2001 Business Plan, staff was
requested to revise the plan based on two additional years of data. Based on this plan, the Budget Committee
in 2003 felt that there was a need to bring in additional help to refine the business plan and find additional
revenue sources. Using the RFQ process, Navigant Consulting was hired to assist with this work.
He reported that Navigant had met with the Advisory Committee and Staff to gather data and completed a
telephone survey to gather marketing data. There are 6 deliverables that Navigant will provide as part of this
plan and will meet with staff and the Advisory Committee the first part of March. On March 18~, staff would
like the entire Budget Committee to be convened and the revised report with the business plan presented.
Wanderscheid reported that AFN continues to meet all of the targets, except the high speed data, and that the
City is close to budget estimates for both revenue and expenses. He stated that the need for more revenue has
not yet been solved and that they will be looking at the Navigant report for opportunities to address this
problem.
He explained that the cable modem product is sold as a wholesale product, and that the City has always
straggled with what number to use as far as customer counts for cable modem intemet customers. The three
number sources used are 1) the Revenue Allocation Report; which is a report done by the Finance Department
at the end of the month that allocates revenue to all of the City's revenue producing items, 2) the Utility Billing
program; which is an instantaneous snap-shot that provides the number of active intemet accounts at that
moment, and 3) the Cable Modem Router software; which can produce an instantaneous number of how many
active cable modems they have.
Staff agreed on the Revenue Allocation Number for customer counts and this number has been used
consistently since September 2001. Wanderscheid clarified the number he is referring to is the 3,466
residential cable modem accounts listed on page 1 of the report. Wanderscheid explained that several things
have happened since 2001 that leads Staffto believe that this number needs to be refined. He noted that when
the ISP disconnects a modem and reconnects after a customer moves, the system counts the number of
transactions, not customers.
Wanderscheid clarified for Council that there are policy decisions that could potentially be made at the March
18 meeting. He stated that the Business Plan provided by Navigant could potentially have some new revenue
sources, new products, and new activities which may require additional resources.
Wanderscheid expected that at the meeting with the Advisory Committee, the proposed plan would be used
as a sounding board and a reality check. The Advisory Committee would analyze the draft plan, submit input,
and then Navigant would revise the plan based on their feedback.
Council and Staff discussed whether it would be more appropriate for the Business Plan come to them first,
rather than the Budget Committee; and suggested possibly looking at the policy decisions first, and then
sending their recommendations to the Budget Committee.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained that if the Budget Committee did get involved in the discussion,
ASItLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBR[blR)' 3. 2004
tSiGE 3 OF 10
then they would be bringing their recommendations to the Council. He added that the Budget Committee's
decision will not be binding; however if the Council chooses, they can receive the report first.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg clarified that Staff is in the process of scheduling the meeting for March 18th,
and noted it is not part of the regular budget process. Tuneberg explained that as the Budget Officer, it is his
goal to ensure that whatever comes out of the proposed plan from Navigant, the Advisory Committee, and the
Council discussions, comes in a format that allows them to put it in into the budget document and get approval
without any caveats. He clarified that Staff requires clear direction on how to include any changes to the AFN
business plan in the upcoming budget year.
Council reiterated that any additional services need to be approved by them.
Tuneberg explained that the process is based on the Budget Committee process from last year, plus the meeting
they had in September. This process includes using the Advisory Committee as a sounding board, and then
using that to revise the Business Plan to go the Budget Committee on March 18th. If the Council would rather
have a different kind of meeting on March 18th they could do that, but it may disrupt Staffs ability to fully
include it in the budget document. He would prefer to have a complete budget projection in the document
when they go to print.
Council understood that this needs to go to the Advisory Committee, and suggested scheduling the presentation
of the Business Plan to either a Regular or Special Council meeting. The Budget Committee could attend and
make comments at that time. If this were scheduled for a Council meeting, then the Council could act on the
new Business Plan. After this, it could go to the Budget Committee to carry out any policies approved by the
Council.
Tuneberg commented that to follow this suggestion would make it difficult for his staffto put the budget book
together in time.
Council explained that this process includes many items that are very policy laden, which may result in a policy
decision that would need to be made by the Council. It was questioned if Navigant could move up their dates.
Wanderscheid stated that the schedule has been compressed as much as possible, and does not think they could
do it any sooner. He felt that a Special Meeting on March 18, which includes the Budget Committee, would
allow the Council to take action on the consultants report. Wanderscheid also clarified that Staff is planning
to have the information distributed to the Council and Advisory Committee at least a week in advance, so there
will be ample time to review the material.
Councilor Laws commented on the fine line between what policy decisions are and what financing the City
consists of. He stated that we are aware that we are competing with Charter and is concemed that information
on what Ashland is planning on doing could be leaked out. Laws asked that Staff keep in mind that they do
not stretch things out too far, and when they make their decision, that they need to have as little time between
making the decision and implementation.
Council and staff discussed the possible dates of a meeting. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained that
if they push the meeting up, Staff runs the risk of not being able to get the material to them a week ahead of
time. Also, they need to leave time for the Advisory Committee to do their work.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99S/Stated that this is the third or fourth time he had addressed the Council on this
subject. He read a paragraph from an article in the Mail Tribune and questioned if the number of connections
on cable or ISP increased or decreased between the end of December 2002 and June 30th 2003. He also
questioned why revenues were down if connections are up. Roth noted that on the chart provided by Staff,
many of the budgeted expenses at the six month point were either equal to what was projected for the entire
ASItLAND CITY COI. fN('IL MEETING
FEBRUARY 3. 2004
t:5tGE 4 OF 10
year or close to exhausting the budgeted amount. Roth hoped that the Council would not allow the total AFN
debt service to exceed the total of the fund balance, and questioned whether the Council should consider letting
go of AFN and begin work on an exit strategy.
Tuneberg clarified for the Council, that the donation received by the Cow Creek Tribe in the amount of
$30,000 in October and $20,000 in November made the chart look like a decrease between October,
November, and December. As far as debt service to date, Tuneberg explained that the City had paid $568,000
on the loan. There is no more principle to pay, however the City will have interest to pay. Tuneberg explained
that the City has estimated $734,000 for the year and has only spent $186,430. It was explained that the
budget numbers (personal services, material & services, and capital outlay) are grouped together in one
appropriation, which gives the City flexibility as a business to perhaps hire service to be done, rather than have
employees do it, or have temps do it rather than hire it out.
In regards to marketing for high-speed data, Wanderscheid explained that AFN is getting new customers, but
they are also losing some customers. No outreach has been done outside the City, but comment was made that
this was discussed at the recent Council goal setting.
Mayor DeBoer stated that AFN is a high quality product and is here to stay. He stated that AFN has created
competition in Southem Oregon and has saved everybody hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Councilor Morrison explained that because AFN is a public entity, the City has to do its business in public,
which may put Ashland at a competitive disadvantage. He added it is not clear what the report from Navigant
will reveal, but hopefully it will give the City something we can abide by and something that will make AFN
a success.
Hartzell/Morrison m/s to add the issue of marketing AFN High Speed Date outside city limits to the next
Council Meeting Agenda. DISCUSSION: Mayor DeBoer urged the council to wait and look at the report
from the consultants before moving forward. Councilor Hartzell explained that what she would like to see is
to position the Council for discussion before they are provided the plan. This way, if the consultants suggest
marketing outside of the City limits, the Council could have a response ready.
Wanderscheid asked for clarification regarding the idea to market the data product to bring living wage
businesses to the valley. He remembers this was discussed at the Goal Setting, but needs to have direction
from the Council.
Councilor Heam would like to look at drawing in businesses as part of the Economic Development Plan, not
just as a way to bring customers to AFN.
Councilor Laws stated he is the only one who has spoken against using AFN as a way of attracting new
businesses into town. His concem is that citizens do not want Ashland growing any faster than it already is
and feels the Economic Development Group (who is working on this issue) will bring to the Council an overall
philosophy for Economic Development.
Mayor DeBoer reminded Council that it is the City Administrator's job to set the Council Agenda. He noted
that they have already added one item to the next meeting agenda, and is hesitant to have Council add more.
Mayor explained that the the marketing of AFN is done through the Chamber of Commerce. He stated that if
the City wanted to do a marketing campaign it would require dollars, and he would much rather hear the report
first.
Hartzell stated that her perspective is different, and felt that it is the Council's agenda. It is the Staffs
responsibility to add items to the agenda as requested by the Council. Hartzell stated there is no Committee
working on the Economic Development plan right now and if the Council wants to wait for an Economic
ASItLAND ('ITY COUN('II, MEETING
FEBR~5tRY 3. 2004
t:MGE 5 OF 10
Development Plan it would be two or three years out.
Councilor Morrison stated that he would prefer to see the business plan from the consultants before further
discussion.
Voice Vote: Hartzell, YES; Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, NO. Motion Failed
1-5.
~. Hargadine Parking Facility Revenues 2003 Update.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg stated this is the second year of full service, and provided a comparison of sales
from last year compared to this year. He stated that there had been no increase in rates and that the tables
provided indicated increased revenues in all but one month. He explained that the City is meeting the debt
service and is setting aside monies for maintenance and repair. Tuneberg clarified for Council that there has
been no discussion on increasing rates at this time.
Council briefly discussed public restrooms in the parking garage and how these were originally in the plan,
but were pulled due to security reasons. It was requested that, at the next report to the Council, that the plan
be included for Council information.
Councilor Momson requested discussion at some time about meeting the City's parking needs and maximizing
revenues. He felt that the Council should discuss how to increase the overall usage. Staff indicated that they
would bring this discussion back to the Council in the fall.
Tuneberg commented that there had been initial concem regarding occupancy rate, but that the parking
structure is currently generating a little more revenue than the debt service and the maintenance. He noted the
sensitivity regarding on how much the City could charge for the spaces. Currently $1 a day and $25 a month
for a parking permit is nothing compared to other areas. He raised concern that if the City were to raise the
monthly rate, the City would lose most of their permitees because it is cheaper for them to pay per day. Staff
agreed to look into this, and noted the concern to not push vehicles back onto the streets.
Council asked Staff to look into installing restrooms that would not result in a security issue.
4. Review and consider strategies in the Health and Human Services Plan.
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst clarified that the title of the Council Goal is "Review and Consider
Strategies in the Health and Human Services Plan." She explained that the Plan identified three goals and that
these goals had not been updated since the Council adopted the Plan in November of 2000.
The three goals identified were, 1) Establishing an Ad Hoc Human Services Task force to address specific
policies, 2) establish and maintain a current database of local social services, and 3) identify gaps in the
services currently being provided and the services with the greatest need for funding.
Seltzer stated that the recommendation to form the Task Force which would include representatives from the
various social services, would direct them to refine the document into a more fluid state. One that is flexing
and adapting to the needs of the community. The representatives from the social services would be the people
most knowledgeable and best equipped to identify and evaluate needs.
Hartzell voiced her support of forming an Ad-Hoc Group, but would like to stay away from requiring more
work from the applicants. She recommended that this group assist with the implementation of the current plan,
and refine as needed. Hartzell volunteered to work as a liaison to this committee.
Seltzer informed the Council that she has not yet specifically identified who would be be best to work on the
committee, but is looking at the group that had served on the original Social and Human Services Ad Hoc
Committee. Morrison commented that he would prefer to have the committee as broad based as possible.
ASftL,,IND CITY COI.,'NUIL MEETING
FEBR ~ 5tR )' 3. 2004
t:MGE 6 ()F 10
It was clarified that the Mayor would make the appointments for this committee.
Councilor Laws felt that the biggest problem is that the social service representatives are in competition with
each other, and that they almost all;depend on grants. He explained that they have only had one time where
these groups have been able to work together and were able to bring to the Council their proposals for grant
allocations. He did not feel that the Council would be able to find a representative group that is objective, but
would like to try, and wamed the Mayor to be careful on how this is put together.
Mayor DeBoer stated an Ad Hoc Committee is put together to serve a particular purpose with a specific
timeframe, and this recommendation does not fit that definition.
Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to recommend Staff to return with a plan for appointing an Ad Hoc
Human Services Task Force that would be charged the task of building recommendations for
implementing the plan. Discussion:
Mayor DcBocr stated an Ad Hoc Committees usually doesn~ implement a plan, but that they write a plan first.
Councilor Jackson questioned if this was compared to the work done by RVCOG and whether there is a need
to have this evaluated separately for Ashland. Seltzer responded that she had not compared the Plan to what
RVCOG is already doing, but agreed that it would be a valuable action to take. She suggests having the
committee evaluate and compare what is currently in existence.
Councilor Hartzell clarified that her suggestion was to come up with recommendations on how to implement
the current plan.
Council Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to amend previous motion and move to appoint an Ad Hoc Human
Services Task Force charged with the task of bringing back recommendations on the implementation
of the adopted plan. Voice Vote: Ali AYES. Motion Passed.
ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing a Rate Increase in Residential and Commercial
Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials collection and disposal rates for Ashland Sanitary and
Recycling."
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer stated that the last rate increase of 10% occurred in 1995. She noted that
in 1995, the Council had asked that Ashland Sanitary customers not be given a discount for multiple trash bins
to encourage people to recycle.
She explained that Ashland Sanitary is requesting a 7.2% increase, but that the current ordinance does not
specify the criteria to be used to evaluate whether the rates merit an increase. The submitted report included
two points, 1) changes in the CPI and 2) specific cost increases incurred by Ashland Sanitary.
Seltzer explained that the CPI has increased 23% since 1995. From a Staff perspective, it looks like the rate
increase can be justified, given the rate of inflation since the last increase and the actual costs incurred by
Ashland Sanitary. Seltzer suggested reviewing the Franchise Ordinance at some point, and amending it to
clarify the criteria that Council can use to evaluate and justify a rate increase. Staffrecommends that Council
approve the rate increase based on the CPI and actual expenses incurred. It was noted that the City was aware
of no complaints regarding Ashland Sanitary Service.
Councilor Morrison/Hearn m/s to approve Resolution #2004-05. DISCUSSION:
Hartzell questioned the rational for why residential was more in Ashland, but the commercial in Medford was
cheaper. She stated that most of the commercial activity in town is on pretty fiat ground and questioned if it
was maybe an equipment issue. Also questioned why Ashland wouldn't try to make itself more competitive
with Medford rates on the commercial level, and see if that would allow the City to hold some of the residential
AMtL/IND CITY ('OUNCIL MEETING
FEBRU~iR Y 3. 2004
t-'~(.~E 7 (OF IO
increases down.
Heam noted that the proposed increase would result in about $12 a year for the average household.
;
Russell Chapman, Vice President of Ashland Sanitary explained that Ashland's rates are quite close to
Medford's in most areas, but it is difficult to compare between the two different companies. He explained there
is an economy of scale with Medford's customer base and that they are a little more heavily weighted towards
commercial, which provides more profit than residential accounts. Chapman clarified that Ashland does have
issUes of topography and narrow alleys that they service. He explained that Ashland Sanitary did apply the
7.2% across the board, but the rates are intended to give them a standard of 10% retum on their investment.
Chapman clarified for the Council that Medford recently raised their rates and the new-fees are reflected in
the information provided in the council packet.
A correction was noted on Exhibit 'A'; Under Drop Boxes it should read lO-Yard box, not 110-Yard box.
And the new rate is $144.72, not $135.00.
Councilor Morrison/Hearn m/s to amend motion to make the correction on Exhibit A under Drop Boxes
to read: 10-yard box at $144.72. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed.
Roll Call Vote on original motion: Laws, Jackson, Morrison, Hearn, Amarotico and Hartzell, YES.
Motion Passed.
City Attomey Paul Nolte clarified for the Council that this is a special ordinance and not part of the Ashland
Municipal Code. It is more like an agreement, if changes were to be proposed, agreement between the two
parties would need to happen in order to incorporate into the franchise agreement.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. Billings Ranch Golf Course / Greenway (request by Councilor Cate Hartzell).
Councilor Hartzell stated a question on the effect of the greenway was raised, and that this item was added to
the agenda in order to get further information from Staff. She would like to discuss what Ashland's values and
interest are regarding the golf course, so that when the project moves forward, the Council has an
understanding.
Councilor Heam reported that he had attended all of the Greenway Commission meetings and that the
Commission has discussed the issues at length. He noted that there is a lot of involvement by the various State
and Federal Agencies.
Ali Turiel, Planning Manager for Jackson County, clarified that the County's planning process is very different
from the City's planning process. The permit decisions are made at the County level, however that does not
necessarily guarantee there will be a public hearing. She clarified that a public hearing will not take place
unless there is a request for one by the public, or unless she (as the Planning Director) decides to schedule one.
Turiel explained that the application, which is a request for an 18-hole Championship Gold Course and a
substantially sized clubhouse, has been withdrawn. However, it would probably be back once some of the
issues had been worked out.
Turiel stated that Jackson County has an Urban Growth Management Agreement with the City of Ashland,
and although this project is outside Ashland limits, it is within the City's area of concern. If the Council or any
of the commissions wish to provide Jackson County with comments, they could do this at time the application
is re-filed. Turiel noted that the Greenway Plan would need to be amended in order for the County to permit
a golf course because the greenway section the developers would like to use is shown as a natural area.
Turiel explained that Jackson County would lease the land to the Billings Project, and it would remain public
~t.S7tLAND CITY COI, iN(TL MEETING
FEBRI SIR Y 3. 2004
t:5tGE 8 OF I0
ownership. Also, because most of the land is zoned exclusive farm use, the golf course would be a public not
private club.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to extend meeting past 10 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed.
Ra Wollenburg/1639 Jackson/Stated the County had given a perpetual lease to Billings Golf Course on
January 17, 1997, for an easement of 1.94 acres right along the comer of where Ashland Parks and the County
come together. He questioned why Ashland didn't take the opportunity to buy this piece of land instead of
granting an easement, which could have given Ashland and the County a whole corridor around the City with
no private land. Wollenburg stated that under the Greenway Plan of 1988, the land is designated as a natural
area, which disqualifies the Billings from building a golf course. Wollenburg also stated that under the current
ORS statue, there is no provision for a championship golf course of this size. He explained that he wants the
golf course built in a way that is environmentally secure, and asked that the Council to be very diligent in
following how the golf course is built.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99S/Stated he is part owner of a farm that is just downstream from the proposed
golf course. He had done research and had several conversations regarding this proposal, and felt that the
Council needs to weigh in on this issue. The main issue is the potential for a win-win situation for the City
of Ashland, the golf course, and the fish and wildlife in the area. He is not opposed to the golf course, and
would like for the Council to look at the area more generically rather than specifically to the current proposal.
He discussed the potential for a water trade off, and urged the City to work on potential water transfers. He
also expressed concern with the wastewater treatment on this property, and asked that the Council stay with
this project.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi commented that it would be good for the Council to give an indication as
to whether or not they would like to see this issue should the application go back to the county.
Councilor Laws proposed that this project immediately come to the Council as soon as the Community
Development Department gets notice that the application was submitted.
Ali Turiel, Planning Manager for Jackson County, stated that once the application is deemed complete, there
is a 14-day response period. She stated that they would inform Ashland when the application is received,
explaining that they have 30 days from the receipt of the application to deem if it is complete, which will
provide additional time.
Tudel clarified that the time frame for submitting comments is up to and during the public hearing. If a public
hearing is requested they will schedule it, which takes a minimum of a month to a month and a half to get
scheduled.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to direct Staff to automatically request a hearing as soon as the
application is deemed complete. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed.
Councilor Heam explained that the Commission discussed using planted landscaping to provide a safety
barrier to the greenway, but until the landscape has grown tall enough, a temporary net will be used to provide
safety to bikepath users.
Councilor Laws commented that he hoped no one misunderstood his comment regarding AFN. He clarified
that the City should do things as fast as possible, so as to shorten the time the competition could react. He
would like, in no way, to encourage violating the law or the spirit of the law.
Mayor DeBoer noted a Study Session is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday January 4th, at noon. Topics
of discussion will include the Electric System Report and an Update on the Stormwater Management Plan
~ISttLAND CITY COUNCIl; MEETING
FEBRU. IRY 3. 2004
tMGE 9 OF I0
Program.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Mayor
~.I,57tLAND ('IT}' CO!/NCIL MEETING
FEBRUAR }' 3. 2004
t'.4GE 10 OF 10
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:13 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
City Council: Councilors Amarotico, Jackson, Hartzell and Hearn were present. Councilors Morrison and Laws
were absent. Staff: Dick Wanderscheid, Director of Electric & Telecommunications, Community Development
Director John McLaughlin, Finance Director Lee Tuneberg, Public Works Engineer Jim Olson, Electric
Department Bill Plein, Electric Supervisor Scott Johnson and City Administrator Gino Grimaldi.
I. Electric System 10-Year Planning Study Report.
Director of Electric & Telecommunications Dick Wanderscheid introduced Jerry Witkowski and David Castor
from Electrical Systems Analysis, Inc. who presented the 10-Year Planning Study Report.
David Castor explained that the objective is to provide high-quality reliable power. The approach includes
preparing a load forecast, developing planning criteria, evaluating transmission/substation/distribution,
performing system modeling analysis and identifying improvements.
Caster presented historical data on population, energy and demand; weather impacts on average electric use and
forecast basis on population/energy relationship. The result of projected growth equals new demand. Various
charts were presented.
Caster explained the planning criteria as, 1) Single-contingency reliability, 2) winter and summer equipment
ratings, 3) equipment capacity, substation/feeder/conductor loading and 4) voltage levels. Charts were presented
to indicate various transmission systems.
He presented charts and explained the load data for our substations, transformer capacities and forecast
comparisons.
Distribution system evaluations were completed to determine feeder peak loading versus capacity, feeder
configuration, feeder switching flexibility, feeder backup/transfer reliability and identification of problem areas.
Charts on the existing substation facilities and capacity of overhead conductors were presented. He explained
that this information goes into the model that is used.
Jerry Witkowski explained that analysis methods and stated that the most important is the power flow analysis.
This model would look at existing loads that would help to find the problem areas. The model also allows for
short-circuit analysis and protective device coordination. Examples were presented to indicate power flow;
power flow results and short-circuits. Charts were also presented in regards to cold weather conditions.
Recommendations under general comments were:
· Consider Load Curtailment Plan
· Prepare Planned Switching procedures
· Ordinance Considerations and Standard Compliance
Reactive Loads
Non-linear loads
Distributed Generation Interconnects
· Review Development Charges
· Record Keeping Practices
Recommendations under Transmission System were:
· Promote PacifiCorp 2006 Improvement
Ashland City Council Study Session
February 4, 2004
Page 1 of 2
· Lack of PacifiCorp Action = City Action
· Alternative City Transmission Loop
· City Transmission Loop Benefits PacifiCorp
· Negotiate Cost Share
Recommendations under Substation System were:
· Ashland Substation-expansion limitations
· Oak Knoll Substation-locations limitations
· Mountain Avenue Substation
Load Center Location + Expansion Potential
Consider purchase - transformation savings
Evaluate benefit/cost - payback period
Possible Negotiations with BPA
Add New Feeder Circuit (5-years
Expand Facility 10-15 years - Load Dependent
Recommendations under Distribution System were:
· Equalize Feeder Loading
· Correct Feeder Phase Imbalance
· Circuit Conductor Replacement
· Shift Loads
· Improve Switching
· Circuit Extensions
· Redundant Services to Critical Loads
· Add New Feeder Circuit from MAS
· Limit Feeder Maximum Normal Loading
Castor concluded that present distribution system would equal good services, that system improvements would
equal future reliable service and satisfied customers.
II. Update on the Stormwater Management Plan.
Public Works Engineer Jim Olson introduced Greg Stabach, Hydrologist from Rogue Valley Council of
Governments and Jim Harper, Project Manager from Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc. Olson explained that this is part of
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES Phase II). He stated that this program began last
year and under the city's permit, the city was given one year to develop a Stormwater plan. He explained that
all of the communities that were involved in the NPDES chose to hire consultants to assist with this plan. He
stated that an advisory committee has been meeting for over a year to address problems. The plan has six basic
elements, 1) Stormwater public education and outreach program, 2) Stormwater public involvement and
participation program, 3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination program, 4) Construction site Stormwater
runoff control program, 5) Post-Construction Stormwater management program and 6) Pollution prevention in
Municipal operations program.
Olson explained that Public Works has developed extensive mapping and will used in the plan. He stated that
Public Works and the Planning Department have been working together to implement various elements of the
program.
Jim Harper explained the DEQ five-year requirements to make sure that all the elements are implemented. He
noted the Clean Water Act of 1972 and non-point and point sources. He noted the damage from Stormwater
runoff and showed graph of a stream and floodplain before and after development and pictures of damage. He
indicated the pollutants that are found in Stormwater runoff. Pictures of detention Swales, porous pavements,
filtration basin, marsh wetlands, ponds, Stormwater Planters and vegetation were presented as ways to help with
runoff.
Ashland City Council Study Session
February 4, 2004
Page 2 of 2
He stated that Site designs would be looked at closely by DEQ for addressing Stormwater runoff. Noted Clean
Water Act in regards to municipal Stormwater NPDES Permits. Reiterated the EAP/DEQ NPDES Phase II
requirements and key elements as noted above. Harper gave several examples that could be used implement the
six elements.
Harper stated that the DEQ program submittal would be March 10, 2004, that a public comment period would
be established and then DEQ would issue the NPDES permits in June 2004.
Greg Stabach presented the Public Education and Involvement Program and spoke regarding the Stormwater
Management Control Measures and Program Overview. He explained that the Control Measures would include
public education and outreach along with public involvement and participation. He stated that the goal is to
educate the public on what Stormwater is. He explained the strategy and tools that he would be using in order to
reach out to the public. The following are some things that have already been done: Stormwater Open Houses,
news articles and television interview, distribution of educational materials, presentations, seminars, and
workshops, website and brochure development and involving local schools. He stated that the goal that they are
trying to reach with the public is improving water quality.
Harper presented the "Big Picture" for water quality which includes setting goals and water quality standards,
conduct monitoring to determine if meeting water quality standards, developing strategies and controls and
implementing strategies.
Meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Ashland City Council Study Session
February 4, 2004
Page 3 of 2
PROCLAMATION
The Peace Corps has become an enduring symbol of our nation's commitment to
encourage progress, create opportunity, and expand development at the grass roots
level in the developing world.
More than 170,000 Americans have served as Peace Corps Volunteers in 137
countries since 1961.
Over the past 43 years, thousands of men and women from the State of Oregon,
including a significant number of them from the City of Ashland, have responded to
our nation's call to serve by joining the Peace Corps.
Peace Corps Volunteers have made significant and lasting contributions around the
world in agriculture, business development, information technology, education, health
and HIV/AIDS, and the environment, and have improved the lives of individuals and
communities around the world.
Peace Corps Volunteers have strengthened the ties of friendship and understanding
between the people of the United States and those of other countries.
Peace Corps Volunteers, enriched by their experiences overseas, have brought their
communities throughout the United States a deeper understanding of other cultures
and traditions, thereby bringing a domestic dividend to our nation.
It is indeed fitting to recognize the achievements of the Peace Corps and honor its
volunteers, past and present, and reaffirm the country's commitment to helping people
help themselves throughout the world.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland,
hereby proclaim March 1 through March 7, 2004 as
PEA CE CORPS WEEK IN ASHLAND
Dated this 17th day of February, 2004.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
PR 0 CL/IMA TION
Lenn Hannon is a native Oregonian who attended Ashland High School and Southem
Oregon University, and worked for the City of Ashland for 21 years.
Lenn Hannon has devoted 30 years to a legislative career as a Senator representing the
26th District which includes the City of Ashland, and has shown leadership,
commitment and dedication during his tenure.
Lenn Hannon worked hard for the better good of our community, and the Legislature
has lost a senator with experience, historical perspective and a voice of reason.
Dixie Hannon has worked as Lenn Hannon's chief legislative aid for many years,
providing services, expertise and insight.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland,
hereby proclaim Friday, February 27, 2004 as
LENN and DIXIE HANNON DAY
in Ashland and salute these two citizens who have made our community a nicer place in
which to live.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2004.
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
CITY OF
kSHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Russ Chapman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present:
Absent Members:
Council Liaison:
High School Liaison:
SOU Liaison:
Staff Present:
Russ Chapman, Chair
Mike Morris
Kerry KenCaim
Marilyn Briggs
Colin Swales
John Fields
Cameron Hanson
Dave Dotterrer
Ray Kisfler
Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest)
None
None
John McLaughlin, Director, and Community Development
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chapman announced the regular Planning Commission "Chat" on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 at the Community Development
and Engineering Services Building at 4:00 p.m.
There will be a Study Session on Tuesday, January 27, 2004, at 7:00 p.m~ The Conservation Department will give a
presentation on Earth Advantage.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
The minutes of the December 9, 2003 Hearings Board were approved. The Findings were accepted as presented. Swales
abstained.
The minutes of the December 9, 2003 Regular Meeting were approved. The Findings were approved for PA2003-154 -
Ashland Community Hospital and PA2003-151 - 930 Tolman Creek - were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING ACTION 2003-158
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 81-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION,
LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA WEST OF THE NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE, EAST OF
BEAR CREEK CHANNEL AND SOUTH OF THE UNIMPROVED SECTION OF NEVADA STREET. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A
REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE REMVOAL OF AN EXISTING WETLAND,
WHILE MITIGATING ITS REMOVAL THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADDITIONAL WETLANDS ELSEWHERE IN THE PROJECT
(1.3 BEAR CEREE FLOODPLAIN).
APPLICANT: NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY, LLC
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Molnar said Final Plan approval generally does not come to a hearing because it is a Type I procedure. However, during
Outline Plan approval, a small wetland was discovered running parallel to the unimproved section of West Nevada. It is
around 5000 square feet in size. The applicant originally proposed removing the wetland to maintain the street plan as
proposed in the North Mountain Plan. At the May hearing, the Commission attached a Condition that as much of the
remaining wetlands shall be saved, as possible. The Commission approved the street network, but asked whatever portion of
the wetland that could be retained in between the streets, be incorporated into the overall plan. The applicant will present
tonight their final grading plan for the project. This has raised concerns over their ability to retain any significant area of the
natural wetland. It is a result of widening the unimproved section of Nevada, installing sidewalks and parkrows, as well as
cut/fill slopes for the north/south sections of streets. The applicants are requesting the Commission to amend the Condition to
allow them to carry out the full mitigation of the wetland area in the floodplain as part of their water quality and retention
system. -
Molnar reviewed the Tree Commission comments and Conditions as found in the record.
If the Commission chooses to approve Final Plan, there are 37 attached Conditions.
Briggs mentioned that the layout of the development looks the same as before and there had been solar concerns then. The
Commission spent a great deal of time on it last time and she expected to see some changes. Molnar said the Condition is still
included in Final Plan. The solar shadow is reviewed at the time of a building permit. If they request some relaxation in that
Condition, the applicants will have to come back to the Commission.
Swales questioned the detention pond. Presumably, the applicant will be putting in the detention pond at their cost. When the
next flood comes and all the landscaping is washed away and the detention pond is filled with silt, who will be responsible for
it at that stage? What is the long-term liability? Molnar said that will be the decision of the Public Works Department. One
Condition requires the applicants obtain a Physical Constraints Permit in order to do site work in the floodplain. The applicant
has indicated in their application that they will design their system in accordance with City standards as well as conditions
Parks will impose. The homeowners' association will do long-term maintenance. They will contract with a private utility firm
to dredge the system. Molnar said it is a public system that is being built for the project, but in the case of catastrophic event
where a flood takes out the system, he is not sure who is responsible.
KenCairn is concerned about the preservation of the upper wetland for diversity of forms - diversity of wetland types. From
her perspective the applicants could still preserve and enhance the upper wetland by using the same water source that is
currently there and not capping it. She would like to see the mitigation on top. Can this project still move that way? Molnar
said he believes it can and that the Condition locked in the street pattern, but mitigating the wetland in its current location
between the streets is still addressed through the Condition. It obviously could include slightly shifting units, if need be, to get
adequate area or to redefine the wetland area and utilize a natural hydrology source.
PUBLIC HEARING
BOB FOSTER introduced his team: DON GROVE, STEVE DECARLOW, KEN STARK, KEVlN NERING and JASON PATTERSON.
Foster reviewed the Conditions of approval. · They can retain the tree on tax lot 401 and keep any fill from spilling over onto the tree.
· Solar - they moved several buildings slightly to satisfy the solar for the multi-family. They feel they can conform to
the single family solar.
· Maintenance of the park will be taken care of by the homeowners' association, but they never talked about a
catastrophic event. They can discuss that and include it in the CC&R's.
· They met with the Tree Commission last week. They will do what the Tree Commission has requested.
Dr. Martin Schott, ecologist and wetlands specialist, has prepared the application for the Division of State Lands.
PAT HAVIRD, civil engineer, showed the Nevada Street profile. He said they are trying to minimize the cuts and fills. Once
that is established, the connector streets have to match that. They are still ending up with cuts and fills over 90 percent of the
wetland area. It is next to impossible to build the road without such a negative impact on the wetland. They have plans to put
in curtain drains to pick up any seeps, hoping to keep the water source in the wetland area as much as possible.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 13, 2004
2
DR. SCHOTT said the wetlands are pretty beat up with the hydrology of the wetland significantly altered. There is very little
water from TID coming down because the area is no longer being irrigated. There are very few species of vegetation. The
mitigation was selected to blend into Bear Creek and the cottonwood forest. Part of the mitigation will be to remove the
blackberries under the cottonwoods. The wetland area is not a detention facility. It is designed to be a natural syster~ Ifa 100
year flood comes in and destroys the whole'area, it will probably end up creating a side channel through the area. That is not a
bad thing. This is not intended to be a maintained structure, but a natural structure. It is designed to be a backwater channel.
They are planting willows and cottonwoods.
KenCaim wondered if the storm water mitigation is required as part of the project. Without it, would there be any wetland?
Schott said there is no wetland in the project otherwise. The Division of State Lands is reviewing their application. KenCaim
wondered if Schott thought the seeps were groundwater seeps or TID. Schott said he found one groundwater seep on the site
that is barely running. ~
KenCairn asked if Schott looked at using the wetland up on top and doing some mitigation up on top. There are so few
existing water sources that are not TID alterations that she hates to lose that water source. Foster said they looked at the little
piece with the cattails. They only looked for a short time at mitigating on top, but rejected it because the slope is so steep that
it would take a perched area with some kind of berm. KenCaim just wants to see that little piece of hydrology maintained to a
certain extent. She knows it is on a hillside. If you look at it as a stream that runs through various geography, it has value.
Has he considered creating a series of step pools? Schott agreed it has value.
Swales asked how they are going to maintain the wetland for the long term. Foster said he can take Swales' comments and
concerns and work with Molnar and McLaughlin to make sure it is reflected in the CC&R's. Swales would rather not see the
taxpayers of Ashland burdened with the responsibility of maintenance. Briggs agreed.
Fields asked if they are going to move the soil in the wetland area. Schott said the wetland area will be lined with a fairly
heavy clay to keep the water up on the surface and topsoil will be placed on the surface to get the final elevation.
Chapman said he is also a member of the Conservation Commission. The City's website mentions, in several places, the use of
solar. He noticed that the CC&R's for this development state that homeowners are prohibited from using the energy of the sun
to dry their clothes. He is asking that be removed. He is going to the Conservation Commission and start the process of
making sure that people have the right to use the power of the sun to dry their clothes. McLaughlin said there is a specific goal
in the Comprehensive Plan stating the City will strive in every appropriate way to reduce energy consumption in the City,
specifically, in all planning actions. He believes the Commission could impose a Condition.
PEIE CISLO, 400 E. Nevada Street, said there are two sources of water for the "natural wetland". Both are not natural. There is
an irrigation pipe that runs up the hill and a pipe that hms parallel to the street. When Ashland experienced the drought, the
irrigation was turned offeady. As a result, the cattails were reduced and they haven't come back. If the irrigation pipe was
fixed and not used any more, the wetland would dry up much faster. The second source of water is the septic drain field on the
Mart property. Cislo believes the mitigation will be so much healthier for the environment. He encouraged the Commission to
approve this action.
BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, thanked Staff for bringing forward their Tree Commission recommendations. As a matter ,
of record, due to a miscommunication, the applicant did not come before the Tree Commission during Outline Plan. There
were some Ashland landscape specific recommendations about species along the parkrow and throughout the development. He
believes it would be important for the Planning Commission to follow the Tree Commission's recommendations.
Holley said it is hard to speak about wetlands after having been dismissed. He doesn't want to disregard the possibility of a
wetland if there is a possibility that there might be a natural springs and a natural wetland at this spot that has, over time, been
supplemented by these so-called outside sources of water. He wonders if suggestions of preserving wetlands and building
homes around a wetland ever get to applicants. His translation: Because the density needed to be high to make the whole
project pencil out and removing even two or three houses might have endangered the net profitability of the development, that
the idea of doing that is just too foreign. Streets could have been changed and redesigned. The open space requirement has
already been met by the transparent "giving away" of the unbuildable ground, aka, the 100 year floodplain.
Holley noted this plan calls for using chemicals on the blackberries. The blackberries may have some wildlife value to them.
He is concerned about the development of the retail portion. Ashland has a lot of empty commercial spaces and he is
concerned we don't need more commercial.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 13, 2004
Holley has a sense of incompleteness about this project.
TOM MARR, 955 North Mountain Avenue, asked that the road improvement go before the construction. He is concerned about
dust. He hoped the existing trees could be incorporated into the street tree plan. With regard to the wetlands, he agreed there
are two sources of water - a spring and a drainage. The drainage occurs anywhere there is a slope and there is TID involved.
They have not had the septic for ten years now. He is opposed to the future LID for the construction of a bridge. He would
like to see a walking and biking bridge. Mart feels there is a better way to deal with the blackberries than with herbicides. He
noticed that the applicants might want to move the sewer line. It might be good if they can relocate theirs as well. In looking
at Camelot Drive, he wants to make sure the grading won't go onto his property. The spring is a wonderful natural feature. He
thinks a spring in someone's backyard would be nice.
MAT MARR, 955 North Mountain Avenue, passed around photos showing where the spring is located. He wondered about the
large tree on the property. Condition 27 states that the applicant needs approval from DSL before coming before the
Commission for final plan approval. And, the Condition further stated that any part of the wetlands that can be saved, will be.
The applicants have not received approval from DSL and it will not come for about 30 more days. And, they are not
preserving the wetlands. This isn't an either/or. The Commission specifically said both mitigate below and save what you can.
Do both. He believes there are some things that can be done to save the wetland. The parkrows next to Nevada Street and
other streets could be inclined, There is also grading happening for eight feet ofparkrow and five feet of sidewalks on each
side. He can see no reason to get rid of the natural features just to put in some street trees. The street trees could be terraced
and incorporated into the natural features. Also, it has not been addressed the affect the seeps will have on the roads and
buildings on top of them.
Marr said there is no septic tank on the property. A sewer line was installed about eight years ago. Marr's TID was cut offfor
two years about five years ago. The riparian area did not disappear. The real riparian area is below the two springs. The most
important part is right in the middle and he believes some part of that needs to be saved.
The Tree Commission made a number recommendations and those stipulations have not yet been met.
Mart is concerned with the floodplain and the potential for future neighbors being washed out.
Marr does not believe the application is complete enough to approve.
Foster said the tree on Cislo's s property is a willow and if the Tree Commission wishes them to save it, he will. With regard
to street trees, Foster is willing to comply with what the City wishes. The solar issue is on-going. It would be a good idea to
cover maintenance of the wetland during the Physical Constraints Permit process. They are willing to add wording about
maintenance in the CC&R's.
Schott said DSL will require irradication of all the blackberries (invasive exotic). The only way to get rid of blackberries is
with chemicals. He is proposing a specific application of herbicide to remove the blackberries.
Foster said the whole North Mountain Plan has a retail element. They have done significant studies and have found a small
retail center would be viable in this location. This should reduce traffic impacts in the neighborhood.
Havird said they are complying with the FEMA and City floodplain lines. There is no intention ofdevelopfl~g anything on
Marr's property.
Swales wondered about a Condition so none of the neighbors lose their TID. McLaughlin said a Condition would be
appropriate.
Molnar suggested reviewing the modifications. Condition 38 - That they remove the prohibition of drying clothes outside.
Condition 39 - That the existing TID distribution system for surrounding property owners remain in tact. If it is modified, it
has to be approved by TID. Condition 35 regarding the fill around the tree on the Cislo property. Staff noticed that the
finished grade would be elevated. KenCaim said someone needs to verify what type of tree it is. If it's an oak, you can't fill
on top of it.
Briggs mentioned the wetland (non-wetland). The way the houses are set now, there is not enough yard space to save any of
the wetland. KenCaim asked the applicant if the grade could work so the parkrow could be depressed rather than at grade with
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 13, 2004
the sidewalk and street and then carry the storm water underground. Foster felt it could be done. KenCairn suggested pulling
the sidewalk further away from the street and create some kind of enlarged parkway. Foster said they could do a feature piece
but not let it be a part of the mitigation plan. KenCaim said this would be a way to maintain some of the value of the seep.
The sidewalk moves away from Nevada to within six feet of units 64 and 65 and between the sidewalk and E. Nevada, creating
a swale that has some current characteristics of what is there. Schott said this is a huge effort for a potential wet spot that might
dry up. KenCairn said it can be watered with TID or the seep. It will be fed by TID overflow from Marr's property and the
natural irrigation system as well as the supplemental irrigation and tail water from Marr's plus any seep. Plant it in native and
native-like plant materials.
Molnar said the Condition would read: That Final Plan be modified to pull back a sidewalk within six feet of units 64 and 65,
creating a swale between the sidewalk and Nevada Street. It would be fed by TID overflow and irrigation water from the
adjoining landscaping. The swale should be planted with native or native-like plant materials. -
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Briggs added a Condition (add to Condition 29) that the road is built prior to construction.
Morris took a look at how we got here tonight with regard to the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. We have a wetland and
we aren't sure if it is a wetland. If it is a wetland, he is surprised we didn't look at realigning some roads and taking out some
units. McLaughlin said the wetland was not identified until after the initial hearing. He said this issue has to be balanced with
all the other things that go into the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
Chapman moved to approve PA2003-158 with the existing and added Conditions. Hanson seconded the motion and it carried
unanimously.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-001
REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR A TEN-UNIT RESIDENTEIAL SUBDIVISON
UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE 2.4 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 940 CLAY STREET (EAST SIDE
OF CLAY STREET, SOUTH OF SlSKIYOU BOULEVARD).
APPLICANT: COTA HOMES, LLC
Site Visits and Ex PaRe Contacts - Site visits were made by everyone except Hanson. Morris talked with a lady on the site.
STAFF REPORT
Harris reported this is about 2.5 acres offClay Street. There is an existing house on the property that will be on one often lots.
A new street will connect to Clay Street. Open space areas are located at the bend in the street. The applicant is providing a
street plug. The street improvement will stop short of the property line and the right-of-way dedication will extend in the event
the street will be extended in the future.
There are eleven trees over six inches diameter at breast height (dbh). The trees are situated around the perimeter of the
property. The proposal is to remove all the tree, saving only the silver maple and walnut trees. This application also includes a
Tree Removal Permit for two of the trees because they are over 18 inches diameter dbh. The Tree Commission reviewed the
application and their comments are included.
A neighbor, Carol Bonney, e-mailed comments. There is a berm that looks like someone has excavated, creating a depression
where the poplars have sprang up. She thinks the neighbor's concern is with the flood irrigation done to the pasture. When the
property is subdivided, TID will ask the applicants to relinquish their water rights.
Staff has recommended approval of the application with 20 Conditions.
Briggs asked how long the road can be for a cul-de-sac. There is no room to come out on Bellview. McLaughlin said that will
need to be checked to make sure we don't landlock that vacant parcel.
Briggs mentioned the driveway aprons. Harris said the requirement is that the driveway aprons have to be at least 24 feet apart.
Condition 4 has been added.
PUBLIC HEARING
CRAIG STONE, 708 Cardley Avenue, Medford, OR 97504, is representing the applicant. DAVE RICHARDSON, 105 Siskiyou
Boulevard, is also present.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 13, 20O4
Stone asked that the Findings, Facts and Conclusions of Law and the Exhibits appeneded be made part of the record.
There is an e-mail from a nearby property owner suggesting there is flooding on the north end of this property. He understands
this has been flood-irrigated pastureland. That problem will probably disappear when this property no longer is flood irrigated.
There is also a letter from Talent Irrigation District (TID) suggesting the water rights be relinquished. Stone said that is
customary.
The two trees requested for removal are Lombardi poplars. The Tree Commission and others agree these are undesirable trees.
Stone said they find no objections to the Conditions of approval.
The street is not intended to be a cul-de-sac. It is a street that is intended to be extended. McLaughlin said the street is about
470 feet. The length of a cul-de-sac is 500 feet, excluding the turnaround.
Briggs noted Condition 13 talks about planting two trees in place of the two significant Lomardi poplars. Can we ask the
applicant plant four trees?
Stone does not object to planting four trees. Stone said the landscape/imgation plan will be submitted as part of Final Plan.
JIbt SWARTS, 1010 Clay Street, said he has several issues ofconcem. The present owners of the property on the south side
adjacent to Lots 7, 8 and 9 is concerned about the potential loss of privacy and loss of view. He would like the applicant to
install at least a six foot high fence. That would help dampen the noise. He is also requesting that Lots 7, 8, and 9 be single
story in order to not obliterate their view.
There has been no mention of underground surface water. A number of homes on Clay Street have had to build curtain drains
around their homes. There is a sinkhole at 940 Clay filled with ground water. He is concerned about additional traffic and
parking problems. There has been no mention of garages. Since there is only parking on one side of the street, where will
everyone park? He is also concerned that the applicant has been allowed to plan for ten homes instead of eight.
KenCaim explained there are not ordinances that will protect views. Swarts hoped there could be a compromise on the part of
the developer.
Chapman told Swarts the water issues are handled by Engineering.
CRAIG GORSON, 1000 Clay Street, showed the layout of homes in the area. He spoke about density. He gets a lot of water on
his property from Canyon Park Drive. He would like to see plans for what the homes will look like.
Rebuttal
Stone responded to the testimony by the neighbors. Stone said the views are not considered an approval standard under the
Performance Standards Option development. There should not be much obstruction of views. They plan to fence the property,.
but would not object to a Condition, however, they do not want to be limited to single story homes. There will be an
underground storm drain created to channel it to the underground system on Clay Street. That should eliminate the problem.
Each dwelling will have a garage. They don't expect to see any overflow parking into the adjacent neighborhoods unless there
is a special occasion. The Performance Standards Option allows for a base density and density bonus. His client is providing
energy conservation, making the project eligible for a 15 percent density bonus.
Stone said the land to the east could be developed with more homes. The land is privately held. It has been earmarked for
acquisition by the City for furore parks purposes. It may require some form of relief from the cul-de-sac standard. The streets
are adequate. There are 24 dwellings that take access on Clay Street. This development will add ten more. Clay Street
probably has a capacity of 3,000 to 5,000 vehicle trips per day. According to the Trip Generation Manual, a single family
dwelling produces slightly less than ten trips per day per dwelling adding up to 440 trips per day.
Richardson said the parking will alternate from one side of the street to the other.
Add a Condition 21 that a six foot high fence shall be installed along the rear property line of Lots 7, 8, and 9 made of wood.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 13, 2004
6
Staff Response
Hams said the utility plan does show a curtain dram along lots 7 through 10. They are showing a private storm drain. She
believes they are aware of the water issue. A grading plan will be required at Final Plan. The limitation is on the streets that
are 500 feet in length. It is not limited to the number of units.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Moms moved to approve PA2004-001 with the added Conditions. Hanson seconded the motion and it was approved
unanimously.
OTHER
McLaughlin said he is looking at the fourth Saturday in April to hold the Planning Commissioners' annual retreat. The
Commissioners said they like looking at projects they have approved. McLaughlin asked them to think about any topics or
training. The retreat will run from about 9:00 a.m. (topic in the morning), lunch and the tour. It would end at about 2:00 to
3:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINTUES
JANUARY 13, 2004
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Chairman at 1:40 p.m.
Commissioners Present:
Absent Members:
Council Liaison:
High School Liaison:
SOU Liaison:
Staff Present:
Russ Chapman, Chair '
Ray Kistler
John Fields
None
Alex Amarotico (Council Liaison does not attend Hearings Board meetings to avoid conflict of interest)
None
None
Maria Hams, Associate Planner
Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION 2004-003
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE INTO A STUDIO APARTMENT.
987 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: MARC AND AARON HELLER
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-004
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1249 ASHLAND MINE ROAD. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT THE REAR LOT (OFF NORTON) TO HAVE A LOT WIDTH
GREATER THAN THE LOT DEPTH.
APPLICANT: ADAM FOX AND JOYCE DRESNER
This action was called up for a public heating.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-007
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 185
NORTH PIONEER AS A VACATION HOME RENTAL (I.E. ONE-UNIT HOTEL/MOTEL).
APPLICANT: DEBORAH DELAUNAY
This action was approved.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 2003-136
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING PROPERTY INTO THREE PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 272 ORANGE STREET. A FLAG DRIVEWAY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM ORANGE STREET TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE
MIDDLE PARCEL, WHILE THE BACK PARCEL WILL DERIVE ACCESS FROM THE UNIMPROVED SECTION OF OHIO STREET.
APPLICANT: DAN HELLER
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Chapman had a site visit and he spoke with Deborah Gordon, but did not speak about the project. Fields and Kistler had site
visits.
STAFF REPORT
Goldman said this action was called up for a public hearing last month. The application is a Land Partition to divide the parcel
into three parcels. A flag drive will be created to provide access to the rear Parcel A and to Parcel B. The most notable natural
feature is a man-made pond. The Division of State Lands (DSL) has noted it as a jurisdictional wetland. To provide vehicular
access to Parcel A, the applicant has proposed to provide an extension of the unimproved section of Ohio Street to go around
the pond within the existing public right-of-way to meet up with the property. A neighbor had a concern about the flag drive
and how it would meander around the pond and whether the pond would be retained. The property's frontage on Orange Street
does not have an established park row or sidewalk. The sidewalk that extends to the west of the property down Orange Street
is all curbside. There is a power pole located at the terminus of the existing sidewalk. The applicant can modify the proposal
for a curbside sidewalk to meander around the existing power pole and provide it as a modified sidewalk improvement plan.
Staff has recommended a Condition of approval that prior to signature of a final survey, that a revised sidewalk plan be
provided, reviewed and approved. .
The flag accessing Parcel B will be 15 feet in width with a 12 foot paved surface. Parcel C is located on the unimproved
section of Ohio. Ohio is at least 20 feet wide and the centerline grade is less than ten percent. The applicant is required to
participate in a LID for full street improvements to Ohio.
Of particular concern to Staff is the impact on the natural features, particularly, the pond and any potential wetlands in the
immediate vicinity of the pond. The applicant hired Northwest Biological Consulting to evaluate the site and determine
whether the pond and vicinity qualify as jurisdictional wetlands. The wetlands determination provided by the consultant
indicates that the pond itself is a wetland, whereas the area around the pond is not a wetland, having been created with fill. The
application was submitted to DSL in September, 2003 but has yet to receive a response. Goldman was informed upon calling
DSL that their response could take up to six months. Staffhas recommended a Condition that the applicant refrain from any
fill, removal or construction activities until DSL responds to the submitted wetland determination.
Of the 18 suggested Conditions, Condition 10, replace the word "common" with the word "flag".
PUBLIC HEARING
DAN HELLER, 872 B Street, stated he is speaking on behalf of Deborah Gordon. They are willing to conform with the
Conditions Staff has outlined. Regarding the wetlands, Heller just phoned DSL and they are backlogged with applications.
Pending their approval, they will wait before they do any development of the site. The pond will not be disturbed and they will
stay away from the wetland area around the pond until it is determined it is not a wetland.
DAVE HARD, Fire Marshall, Ashland Fire & Rescue, 455 Siskiyou Boulevard, said if Parcel C's access is from Ohio, then Parcel C
will need to have an Ohio address. Goldman said a Condition of approval can be added that the addressing of any structure on
Parcel C be given an Ohio Street address if the access is from Ohio.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Kistler moved to approve PA2003-136 with the suggested additions to the Conditions. The motion was seconded and
approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-150
REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT UPON HILLSIDE LANDS, AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE 20 PERCENT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR
AREA (MPFA) ESTABLISHED BY CITY ORDINANCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22 SCENIC DRIVE.
APPLICANT: T. MICHAEL RYAN
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts
Chapman had a site visit. He spoke with Susan and Rod Reid about recycling, but not the project. Kistler and Fields did a
walk-by.
STAFF REPORT
Goldman reported the property is within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. Under the newly established maximum
house size ordinance, the maximum size of a home for the subject property is 2507 square feet. The applicant has revised their
plan in an attempt to address a number of concerns by the Historic Commission and reduce the size of the residence to 2507
square feet. Attached garages are included in the square footage. The applicant has proposed an attached garage. The entry on
the application has been modified and relocated to the west elevation along Scenic Drive. The lot has severely constrained
slopes. The two-story home will have a first floor of approximately 1813 square feet and a second floor 693 square feet and a
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2004
500 square foot garage for a total of 3,134 square feet. The amount of impervious surface (40.7 percent) on-site has been of
concern. The building footprint maximizes the development potential of the lot and building very close, if not on, the
minimum side and rear yard setbacks with the exception of the south property line. The impervious surface does, however,
comply. The applicant addressed solar access. It complies with base setbacks. The deck is encroaching six inches into the
side and rear yard setbacks.
There are a number of significant trees on-site that need to be retained. The applicant has proposed to retain them. The trees of
particular concern to Staff are an eight inch pine tree and a 40 inch oak tree, an 18 inch cedar and a 30 inch pine. Staff has
suggested a Condition of approval that any pruning of trees necessary in conjunction with the house construction be completed
by a licensed arborist to insure the limbs are pruned to the minimum amount necessary without compromising the health of the
trees. To protect the driplines of the trees, Staff has recommended a Condition that the tree protection measures employed
include a six foot tall chain link fence around the dripline prior to grading or any site work.
The applicant's proposal does include a site evaluation and a geotechnical engineering report. Staff has recommended a
Condition requiring the applicant to provide a final report prepared by the geotechnical engineer as well as an inspection
schedule along the way, noting that the geotechnical will come out to inspect at the points noted in their report.
A landscaping plan was provided. It includes revegetation of the fill slopes. In review by the Fire Department, there is some
concern with the landscaping proposed. In order to gain access to the back of the property, landscaping would have to provide
at least a four foot clearance. Staff is recommending a modified Condition 5: That all requirements of the Ashland Fire
Department be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit, but not limited to installation of a foot path from
Scenic to meet the fire apparatus access standards to be within 150 feet to the furthest point of any exterior wall or the
installation of a hydrant or fire sprinkler system. Fire apparatus access and final landscaping must permit fire fighter access
around the building. That Condition has been expanded.
The Historic Commission reviewed the application for similarity in scale, bulk and coverage as well as architectural
compatibility with the impact area and forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the application,
contingent upon the applicant meeting with property owners to the east to address landscaping screening along the shared
property line. Landscaping plans incorporating this proposed screening should be submitted to the Staff Advisor for final
review and approve, prior to issuance of a building permit.
Should the Commission wish to approve the application, Staff has attached eight Conditions.
Goldman the construction of a single family home under building code has to direct its storm drainage to a fully improved
street system. That does not change with the CUP. The storm drainage will be directed through the adjacent property. The
applicant had suggested a berm along the north side of Montview Street. The Engineering Dept. reviewed it, and is afraid it
could cause further problems.
PUBLIC HEARING
MICHAEL RYAN, 179 1/~ Oak Street, said he'd met with the City on four separate occasions and nothing of the new ordinance was
ever mentioned. He supports the maximum house size ordinance. Considering his design and lot constraints and the size of
the house at approximately 2500 square feet, it fits well within the spirit of the new ordinance. This neighborhood has an
eclectic mix of houses. They comply with all but one of the six directives they were giving.
CARLOS DELGADO, 545 A Street, agent for the applicant, addressed the six issues. The first was changing the location of the
front entrance. The landscape issue of the most concern for the neighbors was on the east side because of the exposure of the
foundation wall. By reducing the square footage by 155 square feet, it has eliminated the massing. From any view, the garage
appears as a separate entity.
Delgado discussed the concern of the neighbors about this application. This is one of the first lots that has gone through the
maximum house size ordinance. Ryan's lot is zoned R-1-7.5, but his lot is 8000 square feet. Most lots in the neighborhood are
12,000 to 13,000 square feet.
Kistler wondered if the loft areas share the same ceiling height. Delgado said the ceiling height is continued the same across
the loft area. Kistler said the house looks like it's a lot over 2500 square feet. One of the downfalls of the maximum house
size ordinance is one can design a 2500 square foot house with ceilings 20 feet tall throughout and it will comply. Delgado said
they've taken what they can to bring down the size without compromising the function and aesthetic value. Ryan said when it
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2004
3
comes time to sell the home, he is interested in roof heights, an expanded feeling and aesthetics. The home on paper does look
large.
Chapman said the maximum house size ordinance is in place. The community supported it and the Council supported it. He
has to agree by reading the minutes of the Historic Commission, that the CUP was included for people with existing homes that
were up against it when putting in a minor extension on their homes. He doesn't want to habitually see requests for 25 percent
above the maximum permitted floor area. We have said mass, bulk, scale and size over a certain point, have a negative effect.
We have to take that into account when neighbors are coming before us asking the Commission to defend the ordinance. The
burden is on the applicant to show us where the neighbors are wrong.
Delgado doesn't think the neighbors are wrong. It is about being subjective and perceptive of new development on a pristine
lot. Because of the lot constraints, the building envelope is limited. ~
Kistler said if we approve this we have to be able to answer the question: What is the hardship?
Ryan believes the alternative is working against the spirit of the ordinance.
Kistler said when we are talking about bulk, mass and scale, it is every bit as relevant as whether a "floor" exists or not. The
intent of the ordinance is how big does the house feel?
Goldman reiterated the criteria for a CUP. Looking at the livability of the impact area, of the seven criteria, the one Kistler is
referencing is similarity of scale, bulk and coverage.
CHRIS WOOD, 121 Strawberry Lane, said he is a neighbor. He believes the ordinance is a savior So many homes have been
maximized. The ordinance is not perfect, but over time, this ordinance is going to have a lasting and positive effect on the
Historic District. He is concerned about setting a precedent. He is asking the Commission to go with the wishes of the citizens
of Ashland. The existing homes do not maximize the setbacks. He would like to see the ordinance defended.
LAUREL PRAIRIE KUNTZ, 522 Park Avenue, Medford, OR, said she is representing Dr. Francis Sharkey who owns the Lithia Rose
Bed & Breakfast on Granite Street and the vacant piece behind the Lithia Rose. Her main concern is what she will be looking
at from the bed and breakfast and a new structure on her other lot. She will be looking at almost a three-story mass almost to
the setback line on the east side of the property. The applicant is saying that it is a difficult property to build on given the
slopes and the configuration of the property, therefore, the house needs to be larger inside than what is allowed under the
maximum permitted floor area ordinance. She would think with constraints, the applicant would have to go with a smaller size
than the maximum allowed. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show how he complies.
The criteria they are most concerned with the similarity in scale, bulk and coverage. The proposal does not appear to meet that
standard. There is a larger bulk in this house and substantially more lot coverage than the surrounding properties and many of
the homes within this historic district. The neighbors would like the bulk reduced and the home to fit more completely into the
neighborhood.
This is a new ordinance and a precedent will be established by the Commission's actions today.
ROD REID, 17t Granite Street, said they live within 150 feet of this lot. It is not that they don't want a house built on that lot.
He has been involved with historic preservation since the 1970's. He is looking at preserving the interest of the community
over an individual. Historic preservation has changed for the last 30 years. Today the most pressing issue for historic districts
is infill. The issue is bulk, mass and scale. The applicant has stated part of the hardship is economic hardship. Property values
are high. The neighbors shouldn't be asked to help the applicant make money over and above what is allowed. Why didn't he
revise the plans to meet the letter of the law? He is asking three things: · Reduce the size of the house.
· Move the garage. If there is a loophole that allows him to build a detached garage, that is his right. Look into the
loophole of the detached garage.
· Will everyone be given 125 percent of his or her lot?
Reid does not want to design the house for him. He wants to see him conform.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2004
4
Rebuttal
Ryan said he gave the Commission comparables. There are only three lines on the house that are brought to the maximum
setback. He can create a boulder retaining wall to mitigate some of the visual mass of the foundation, install some shrubs to
soften it as well as plantings on her property that he would be willing to install. He takes issue with the massing in the three-
story structure. It is allowed to be 30 feet in height. There should be a letter from Ben Stott in the file. There has been support
from some of the neighbors.
Staff Response
Goldman said the Commission is looking at the issues of bulk and scale. Staffhas determined the house as proposed with the
attached garage, does not comply with the maximum permitted floor area, therefore, triggering the need for a Conditional Use
Permit. The CUP is a way to evaluate the site based on criteria. IfRyan chooses to make any modifications, we would need to
see it come back again. He would suggest the Commission evaluate whether the exception to the maximum permitted floor
area is warranted based on minimizing the bulk and scale. The 25 percent allowance would be allowed if it were concealed
from the public right-of-way or from the impact area in a way that is minimally intrusive.
With regard to the rock wall, that has some ramifications in terms of drainage and fire apparatus access. Staff would need to
see if it is raising the grade and how it transitions and also ask for review by a geotechnical engineer.
Fields said this is a pretty good case to adjust the vaulted area. It seems a denial would be a little punitive by forcing the
applicant to redo the application.
Kistler believes we will be seeing a lot of this. Some strong points are that the house is about ten feet below the street and
already diminishes it in size. All the walls are fairly short with jogs in and out.
Chapman believes the ordinance may need some refining. The neighbors, by talking about the negative impact, want to know
what the rules will be.
Fields said the gravity of the neighbors coming forward is more of a reason to deny it.
Harris suggested the application could be continued with the applicant coming back with a revised proposal.
Fields would entertain granting a continuance to get the square footage down, keep the garage attached, and reduce the upper
volume (ceiling area). Or maybe there is a way to reduce the mass in some way.
Goldman asked the applicants if they would be willing to waive the 120 days. The applicant agreed. This action will be
continued next month on February 10, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The public hearing will be re-opened.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JANUARY 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 11, 2004
City Council Members
Mayor Alan DeBoer~
Confirmation of appointment to Hospital Board
February 17~ 2004 City. Council Meeting
Please confirm the appointment of Linda Butler to the Hospital Board for a term to expire June
30, 2007. The vacancy was created with the resignation of Helen Smith from the Board in
January, 2004.
The appointment of Linda Butler to the Hospital Board is in accordance with Article IX of the
Hospital's Articles of Incorporation, and Section 4.3 of the ByLaws.
Attached is the letter of interest from Linda Butler.
City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street ° Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Ernail: awdb@aol.com
January 29, 2004
Mayor Alan DeBoer
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: Ashland Community Hospital Board Position
Dear Mayor DeBoer:
Please accept this letter as my official request to be considered for the
position of Board Member for the Ashland Community Hospital. I have
been asked to complete the term of Helen Smith, a board member who
recently resigned.
I am committed to the concept of a community hospital, having had
many experiences there in the emergency room with family members, in
the surgical ward with my Mom and in the Birthing room with my
hUSband, having our children. Each experience renewed my faith in our
"little" community hospital, each experience renewed my gratitude that
Ashland C°mmunity Hospital survives in the challenging times of our
economy and the medical industry.
I have had some experience on other boards. I was a member of the
Ashland Family YMCA Board for six years, a member of the Ashland
Adolescent Center Board for six years and recently was a member of the
Ashland Schools Drug and Alcohol Policy Review Committee. !
completed nine years as a Gift Scout Leader for a troop of twenty young
girls taking them'from Brownies to completing their Silver Award. I have
held many positions at our church, the last five years being the Chair of
the Space Utilization Committee. My most challenging time has been the
last few years, as the primary care giver for my Mom, who suffered from
Dementia and passed away on November 22na last year.
I have a B. A. in Sociology, with a minor in Psychology and another in
Accounting.~ I' was the Business Manager for Butler Auto Group for
seventeen years and continue to be involved in auditing and special
projeets. ~ ,' · - .... ~ ~-
I would be honored if you would consider me for this position. Please
feel free to contact me with any questions you might have.
Gratefully,
L~nda S. Butler
allbutlers@charter.net
357 Reiten Drive Ashland, OR 97520
541-488-0735
541-944-5557
cc: Paul Nicholson and Madlyn Hanna
CITY OF
SHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Background:
Attachments:
Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-112 Approving a Request for
Annexation of an Approximately 1.32 Acre Parcel Located at the end of Clover
Lane.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
February 17, 2004 /~
John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~li~Development
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator /~
On October 21, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing on this action, at
which time the Council approved the request subject to conditions pertaining to
the appropriate development of the site. The findings supporting that decision are
attached to this communication.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the findings as presented.
The Planning Commission approved a Site Review for a new light
industrial/manufacturing use on this site, and recommended approval of the
annexation to the Council. The public hearing before the Planning Commission
was held on September 8, 2003.
Findings Document
Vicinity Map of the Annexation Area
BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
October 21, 2003
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2003-112, REQUES~I' FOR
ANNEXATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 1.32 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED
AT THE END OF CLOVER LANE.
APPLICANT: Pacific Western of Medford, LLC
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 1200 of 391E 14 A is located at the end of Clover Lane, within Ashland's Urban Growth
Boundary and adjacent to the City Limits boundary.
2) The applicant is requesting Annexation of an approximately 1.32-acre parcel located at the end of Clover
Lane. The tentative partition plat, site improvements and building elevations associated .with the Planning
Commission's approval of a Site Review are on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for approval for Annexation are described in section 18.106 as follows:
An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to
conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria:
A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the
Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed
use within the proposed zoning. ·
C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works
Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by
the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric
Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a
shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for
these facilities.
E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the
purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards:
1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along
the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets
adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum
20' driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full
improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within _annexed areas shall be
fully improved to city standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street
Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of
these streets and included with the application for annexation.
2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed.
Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the
arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and
accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be
constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all
streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on
all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing
sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the
existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and
accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended
to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be
made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus m-out lanes. All
required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property.
F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the
entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90°A.of the base density for the zone,
unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features,
topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall
sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that
future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan.
For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable
areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included.
G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and
involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential
Overlay (R-Overlay):
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median
income; or
2. 25% of the base density to:qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median
income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median
income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median
income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount ofbuildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC
501 (3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of
complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public
facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be
transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of
the project.
The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down
fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used
to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties
providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus
of 25 percent.
H. One or more of the following standards are met:
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year
supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city
limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already
occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing
development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-
year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology
for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the
applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use
concurrent with the annexation request; or
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water
services; or ~.
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or
the service will become inadequate within one year; or
5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service
extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and
accepted by the City of Ashland; or
6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the
city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997; ORD 2895, 2003).
4) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on October 21, 2003, at which
time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Council approved the application subject to
conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the City Council for the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the
Staff Report, public heating testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 Ashland Municipal Code Title 18, Chapter 18.106.30 provides the approval criteria for Annexation. The
City Council makes the following findings with respect to the following approval criteria:
A. The land is within the Ci~s Urban Growth Boundary.
The property proposed for annexation is currently located within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary
as designated on the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the
Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed
use within the proposed zoning.
The proposed zoning for the property, E-I, is consistent with the designations indicated on the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan, while the proposed light industrial-manufacturing uses are
allowable uses in the district.
C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits.
The property is contiguous to the existing City Limits along the parcel's north property line.
D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works
Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by
the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric
Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a
shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for
these facilities.
Sewer, water and electric service will be extended to and through the project. Water and sewer
lines are located in the Clover Lane right-of-way adjacent to the parcel. Water and Sewer lines
will be extended across the full length of the property frontage. Run-off from the development will
be directed to City of Ashland storm drainage facilities located in the Cloyer Lane extension.
E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the
purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle,
pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the following standards:
Street improvements are required upon annexation with the degree of improvement based upon the
street's location relative to the annexed area. In this case, Clover Lane is currently improved to City
of Ashland standards. The extension of Clover Lane will be constructed to City of Ashland
standards, including travel lanes, curb and gutter, storm drains and public sidewalks.
F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the
entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90% of the base density for the zone,
unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features,
topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall
sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that
future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan.
For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable
areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35%, shall not be included.
Not applicable. This proposal does not involve a residential annexation.
G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and
involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential
Overlay (R-Overlay):
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 120% of median
income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below '100% of median
income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 80% of median
income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below 60% of median
income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount ofbuildable land for development is transferred to a non-profit (IRC
501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of
complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and all needed public
facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be
transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of
the project.
The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by rounding down
fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used
to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties
providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus
of 25 percent.
Not applicable. This proposal does not involve a residential annexation.
H. One or more of the following standards are met:
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year
supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city
limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already
occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing
development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-
year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology
for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the
applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use
concurrent with the annexation request; or
The property has a zoning designation of E-l, Employment. The Planning Commission granted
Site Review approval, on September 9, 2003, to construct two light-industrial buildings.
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water
services; or
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or
the service will become inadequate within one year; or
5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service
extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and '-.
accepted by the City of Ashland; or
6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the
city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997; ORD 2895, 2003).
SECTION 3. DECISION
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, the City Council approves Planning Action # 2003-112. The following are the conditions ~d
they are attached to the approval:
1) That the proposal complies with all conditions imposed by the Planning Commission for Site
Review approval.
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
By: Alan DeBoer, Mayor Date
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget for FY 2003-2004.
Finance Department
February 17, 2004
Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator',l~,,/
This resolution changes the 2003-2004 Budget and keeps the City in compliance with Oregon Budget
Law.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.
Fiscal Impact:
Adjusts the FY 2003-2004 budget for unforeseen events including unanticipated revenues and
corresponding expenses as follows:
a. Appropriates for EMS-CERT field equipment and data base development costs (including a
temporary part-time assistance) funded by grant money received beyond the budgeted amount.
b. Appropriates for airport hangar construction funded by a bank loan that related debt service in
coming years will be paid by hanger rental fees.
c. Appropriates for potential park and open space acquisition funded by the sale of two parcels
(North Main and Keener properties) dedicated to that program.
d. Appropriate for Forest Land Management work funded by additional grant monies received
beyond the budgeted amount and increased debt service corresponding to water revenue bonds
sold too late in June to readily amend the budget for 2003-04.
Background:
There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the Budget is adopted.
A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the
simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the
overall'budget. This is approved by a City council resolution.
2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual
fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations.
3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer
process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing.
The second type of budget change is necessary and has been duly advertised and noticed. Attached is a
resolution for your approval. The recommended changes in the budget are explained after each request.
Attached is the notice published in the local paper on February 11, 2004.
Notice of Supplemental Budget
A proposed supplemental budget for the City of Ashland, Jackson County, State of Oregon, for the
fiscal year July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 will be considered at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon as part of the City's regular business on February 17, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. A copy of
the supplemental budget document may be inspected or obtained on or after February 11, 2004 at the
Finance Department, 20 East Main, Ashland, Oregon 97520 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
A summary of the supplemental budget is presented below.
Resources Requirements
GENERAL FUND
Intergovernmental Revenue $91,400
Fire Department $11,400
Police Department $80,000
TOTAL $91,400 $91,400
To appropriate $11,400 in the Fire Department for EMS-CERT field equipment funded by a federal
grant and $80,000 in the Police Department for state 911 revenues coming directly to Ashland rather
than going to Medford and off-setting a portion of the city's dispatch costs paid to Medford.
AIRPORT FUND
Other Financing Sources $375,000
Materials & Services $25,000
Capital Outlay $350,000
TOTAL $375,000 $375,000
To appropriate in Capital Outlay, and in Materials & Services any related costs, for construction of
14 T-hangers financed by a bank loan with the annual debt service to be paid by space rental.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Sale of Assets $369,300
Material & Services $40,000
Capital Outlay $329,300
TOTAL $369,300 $369,300
To appropriate in Capital Outlay, and in Materials & Services, any related costs for purchasing park
lands funded by the Sale of Assets (2 parcels).
WATER FUND
Carry Forward
Intergovernmental Revenues
Public Works - Forest Lands Management
Debt .Service
'TOTAL
$145,000
$78,8OO
$78,8OO
$145,000
$223,800 $223,800
To recognize additional grant monies received and to appropriate for community education and wildfire
fuels reduction related to the city's Forest Land Management Division activities and to recognize added
monies carried forward related to water revenue bonds sold (refunding prior bonds and financing new
capital projects) in late June and to appropriate for the added debt service.
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
$1,059,500 $1,059,500
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING
APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2003-2004 BUDGET
Recitals:
ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a
supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one
or more of the following reasons:
a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial
planning.
b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the
budget for the current year which requires prompt action.
c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and
the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the
preparation of the budget for the current year.
d. Other reasons identified per the statutes.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a
supplemental budget, establishing appropriations as follows:
General Fund
Appropriation: Fire Department
Police Department
Resource: Intergovernmental Revenue
$11,400
$8O,OOO
$91,400
To appropriate $11,400 in the Fire Department for EMS-CERT field equipment and data
base development funded by a federal grant and $80,000 in the Police Department for the
out-sourced dispatch contract due to state 911 revenues coming directly to Ashland rather
than going directly to Medford to off-set a portion of the city's dispatch costs paid to
Medford.
Airport Fund
Appropriation:
Resource:
Materials & Services
CaPital Outlay
Other Financing Sources
$25,000
$350,000
$375,.,f00
O
To appropriate $350,000 in Capital Outlay for the construction of 14 nested T-hangars
and $25,000 in Materials & Services for related fees including financing costs, all of
which is funded by loan proceeds whose debt service will be paid by hangar rents.
Capital Improvement Fund
Appropriation: Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Resource: Sale of Assets
$40,000
$329,300
$369,300
To appropriate in Capital Outlay and in Materials & Services any related costs for
purchasing park lands funded by the sale of the 669 North Main and Keener properties.
Water Fund
Appropriation:
Resource:
Public Works - Forest Land Management
Debt Service
Carry Forward
Intergovernmental Revenue
$,14
$145,000
$145,000
$78,800
To recognize additional grant monies received and to appropriate for community
education and wildfire fuels reduction related to the city's Forest Land Management
Division activities and to recognize monies carded forward related to the water revenue
bonds sold (refunding prior bonds and financing new capital projects) in late June and to
appropriate for the added debt service.
SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Section
2.04.090 duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this 17th day of February, 2004:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this 17th day of February, 2004:
Reviewed as to form:
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Council Communication
CITY OF
, SHLAND
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Discussion of Sidewalk Improvement Standards- Letters from Philip C. Lang
Department of Community Development
February 17, 2004
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Paula Brown, Director of Public Wor~ity Enginee~
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~
Synopsis:
Mr. Lang appeared before the Council on February 3, 2004 and submitted a letter outlining his concerns
regarding the City's sidewalk improvement standards, and enforcement of those standards. The Council
requested that this item be placed on the agenda for the February 17, 2004 council meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
Replacement of the decorative tile in the front of the Community Development and Public Works
Engineering Building located at 51 Winbum Way. The cost of this replacement is estimated at
$3,200.00. No other direct fiscal impact is anticipated by the City.
Background:
Mr. Lang submitted approximately 35 pages of additional information regarding his concerns (attached).
From his original letter, he lists four major areas where he believes that either the public is at risk from
unsafe walking surfaces, or where he believes that the City erred in allowing specific sidewalk
improvements. The four examples are:
1. "The Bricks" in front of the Bowmer Theater on the Oregon Shakespeare Festival campus.
2. The New Theater on the Oregon Shakespeare Festival campus.
3. The Community Development/Public Works Building at 51 Winburn Way.
4. The Sid and Karen DeBoer residence on Vista Street.
Staff Response
Item 1. - "The Bricks" are an area that was developed with the construction of the Bowmer Theater in
the 1970's. The area does not constitute an area governed by the City's sidewalk standards. The area is
also the responsibility of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF). Any modifications to that area are the
responsibility of OSF. Liability for any injuries in this area is also the responsibility of OSF. Given that,
these bricks have been in place for approximately 30 years and are the responsibility of an entity other
than the City, we have not seen any reason to pursue changes to this surface. No claims regarding
injuries associated with this area have been file with the City. Unless directed by the Council, Staff will
not be pursuing any changes to this surface.
\\COMPAQ 1 ~DATA\GOVXpub-wrks~admin~PB Council\CC Lang Sidewalk Cone. em 2 17 04.doc
Page I of 3
Item 2. - The sidewalk area, within the right-of-way, in front of the New Theater was required to be
done to the standards of the City of Ashland, with all work done under .permit and approval of the Public
Works Department. Mr. Lang questioned if this was actually done, and informed the Planning
Department of his concerns in a letter dated January 28, 2002. Director McLaughlin responded to Mr.
Lang with the following letter (excerpt):
"The sidewalk and street crossing work done on Pioneer Street in association with the
new OSF theater was done under permit of the Ashland Public Works Department, and
was deemed to be in conformance with the City's requirements. The plaza area in front
of the new theater is not located on city right-of-way and is the responsibility of OSF.
They have made the choice to use brick pavers in this area. The new sidewalk located on
the east side of Pioneer is concrete. The adjoining sections of existing sidewalk were
aggregate and the new sidewalk was approved as aggregate for a continuous, compatible
surface. The new bump-om area on the west side of Pioneer is predominantly concrete
for the ADA tactile area, with a very limited new brick area. This was approved as part
of the permit process with Public Works. The remainder of the sidewalk area on the west
side is existing brick that was in place prior to the new theater approval.
"We have found that the condition established for OSF regarding the new sidewalk and
crossing have been met and the Department of Community Development will not be
taking any further action regarding this issue."
Mr. Lang has taken exception to the staff decision to accept the improvements. He has stated that an
aggregate surface violates our codes. However, the City's ordinance requires that sidewalks be
constructed of concrete, but does not specify the surface treatment. It is Public Works policy that
sidewalks have a smooth "broomed" surface. However, if deemed appropriate, a different concrete
surface may better fit the area. In this instance, existing sidewalks along Pioneer are of an exposed
aggregate surface and it was determined that continuation of that surface would be most appropriate for
neighborhood compatibility. The exposed aggregate surface here is not "illegal." There are several
areas throughout town that have exposed aggregate; downtown sidewalks have a mix of aggregate and
broom finish as well as some stamped concrete and even some inlaid wood spacers. The City has
authorized compatible concrete finishes, including aggregate, when it is appropriate.
As part of the traffic calming improvements on Pioneer between the two theaters, Public Works
requested the bump out to slow vehicular traffic. The bump out on the west side of the street does
contain a small amount of new bricks to maintain the compatibility and connectivity with the existing
brick plaza area. These improvements were carefully reviewed at the time of installation by both the
Public Works Director and Planning Director and it was found that the new improvements involving the
bricks were not part of the general sidewalk area and that the improvement did not pose a safety hazard.
The sidewalk along the west side was not being repaired, replaced or improved as a part of the New
Theater project. The bump out was the only new work on that side of the street. Staff did not feel it was
necessary to have OSF replace the entire length of the sidewalk on the west side of the street.
Item 3 - The tile sections in the sidewalk areas in front of the Community Development/Public Works
Building were specified by the architect as part of the original construction. This was an architectural
detail to break up the solid concrete areas and was not specifically denoted as a part of the sidewalk
surface. Staff did not call this out as a sidewalk area and therefore we missed that detail. We concur
with Mr. Lang that the tiles are breaking and the grout is loosened. A contract has been initiated to
\\COMPAQIXDATA\GOV~pub-wrks~admin~PB Council\CC Lang Sidewalk Concern 2 17 IM.doc
Page 2 of 3
remove the tile areas and grout, and replace them with scored colored concrete. This will be done in the
immediate future. Once completed, all areas in front of the building will be improved with concrete.
Item 4 - Sid and Karen DeBoer installed a new sidewalk in front of their properties along Vista Street
when they were remodeling their home and constructing a new home. They were not required to
construct the sidewalk as part of any planning action, but rather they desired to have a sidewalk along
their frontage. They were not aware that a separate permit was necessary for a sidewalk improvement.
They constructed the sidewalk out of concrete, in accord with the ordinance, but utilized an aggregate
surface rather than a broomed concrete surface. Given that there were no other sidewalks in the
neighborhood to establish a pattern, it was determined that the aggregate surface was allowable and met
ADA requirements. A short section of bricks set in concrete were installed where-the walkway to the
home intersects with the sidewalk. Again, it was determined that this did not pose a specific problem,
was coordinated with their walkway and was allowed to remain.
Should the Council find that either the exposed aggregate sidewalk or brick area in front of the DeBoer
home are inappropriate for this area, the Council can direct Staff to contact the owners to remove the
improvements and replace them with broomed surface concrete.
Recommendation:
Staff concurs that the sidewalk standards listed in ordinance 13.04.030 are somewhat rigid and should be
modified to allow for additional flexibility at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. The Public
Works Department has looked at revising this ordinance, and referencing specific improvement
standards that would be under the purview of Public Works. There have been different sidewalk
surfaces, including asphalt sections approved by the Council (Cooper) and sidewalk sections that are
narrower than the specified 5 foot width. Perhaps now is the time to look at revisions to the code to
allow sidewalk surface finish discretion, allow for public art, and at the same time, meet the ADA
requirements.
As for the examples cited by Mr. Lang, staff recommends the following:
1. No further action required regarding "The Bricks" at OSF. If council feels strongly that the sidewalk
along the west side of Pioneer is inappropriate in brick and wants that section (150-200 feet)
replaced in concrete, then it would be appropriate for an LID to be formed and the City share the
costs with OSF for an appropriate concrete (likely exposed aggregate) sidewalk. The estimate for
this work is $8,500 and the City's share for standard sidewalk LIDs is 60% or $5,100.00.
2. No changes required to the improvements constructed as part of the New Theater project.
3. Complete the scheduled replacement of the tile area in front of the Community Development/Public
Works Building with concrete, and no further action is necessary.
4. The improvements on Vista in front of the DeBoer property have been found by Public Works to be
acceptable, however, if the Council wishes to have these improvements replaced, Staff can contact
the owners and initiate the process. Staff would not anticipate a City cost share for these individual.
residential improvements.
Attachments:
Packet of Information from Philip Lang to Council dated February 11, 2004
Letter from Philip Lang to Council dated February 3, 2004
Letter from Adam Hanks to Philip Lang dated September 22, 2000
Letter from Adam Hanks to Philip Lang dated September 28, 2000
Letter from John McLaughlin to Philip Lang dated February 7, 2002
\\COMPAQ l kDATA\GOV~pub-wrks\admin~PB Council\CC Lang Sidewalk Concern 2 17 04.doc
Page 3 of 3
I~UTH ~. ~ILLEI~
PHILIP C. LANG. LC,SV,'
758 B Street . ~shland. Ore,on 97520
Residence 541 . 482-865,9
Of'rice/fax 541 .
February 11, 2004
To: The Mayor and City Council
Re: AMC Title 13.4.030 (Paving)
Agenda Item at 2/17/04 Council Meeting
I raised this issue at the 2/3/04 Council meeting in a four page presentation. A copy of
that is attached as part of this expanded presentation.
This submission covers the history, the violations previously cited, the failure of
enforcement, and the legal issues involved.
AMC TITLE 13.04.030, the governing law, is attached as Exhibit A.
THE VIOLATIONS
1. Oregon Shakespeare Festival
The existing "bricks" on the west side of Pioneer Street were installed with the
building of the Bowmer Theater in 1970-1971, thus post-dating the adoption of the
code in 1967. There is no definable 5' wide cement sidewalk as required by law; the
bricks mn from the edges of the various buildings to the curb.
The building of the New Theater on the east side of Pioneer Street was appealed.
One of the few concessions made, included in the "Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law" (Condition # 14, p.84) was inserted in response to the issue of
the dangerous brick paving proposed for the new site as well. Condition #14 states
in part that "all paving and reconstruction within the public right of way be done to
the standards of the City of Ashland..." (Exhibit B) Nevertheless, the same bricks
(as well as aggregate) were used.
The paving in front of Carpenter Hall is aggregate. This was presumably put in after
1975 (and therefore post adoption of the Code) since OSF purchased the building for
cash in that year.
Philip C. Lang Page 1 2/11/2004
e
The City's Planning/Public Works Building
The installation of four two-foot wide bands of glazed ceramic tile running from the
building's edge to the curb is a blatant violation of Code. Since installation, the grout
has failed, creating crevices and cracks that can catch heels, and the tiles themselves
have cracked. Staff have front row views of slips and falls on the street from their
office windows.
e
The DeBoer Residence on Vista Street
The owner has copied the same wire-cut clay bricks used by OSF in hi~ sidewalk at
the front of the steps and extended the sidewalk in aggregate for many feet on either
side of the bricks.
THE LEGAL ISSUES
AMC Title 13.04.030 sets forth paving specifications and standards (Exhibit A). It is
clear that the pavement must be made of Portland cement and conform to stated
dimensions and locations. The word "shall" is used with reference to both construction
and location.
AMC Title 1.04.010 provides definitions of terms used in the Code. Sections H. states
"must and shall are each mandatory". (Exhibit C)
It is clear and absolute that such materials as aggregates, bricks, or ceramic tiles,
substituted at the discretion of the Planning or Public Works departments or the property
owner are prohibited.
The primary legal issue, then, is the enforcement of a clear and mandatory statute in
the face of obvious violations. The violations cited here are those of a private citizen,
the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the City itself at its newest building. There are
probably others.
There is a second legal issue. While the standards may be said to apply only to the five
foot wide pavement specified in AMC 13.04.030, there are instances in which paving in
other areas that is not concrete constitutes a public nuisance.
Such is the case with the OSF "bricks". As stated in the description of the violations
above, there is no actual sidewalk in the OSF developments on either side of Pioneer
Street. These areas are covered in wire-cut, slick surface bricks which were dangerous at
the outset. With weathering and aging, the deterioration of the bricks including cracking,
pieces breaking off and settling, has created a dangerous situation- a public nuisance.
This is one of the most traversed areas in the entire City. If, as OSF claims, it sells almost
400,000 seats, then there are at least 400,000 trips over this paving during the season, not
including the usual year-round traffic of employees, visitors, etc.
There is a legal remedy in place to abate both the sidewalk paving violations and the
creation of a public nuisance. Section AMC 18.112.080, "Violations - Nuisance" states
Philip C. Lang Page 2 2/11/2004
in part that "any use of land, building, or premises.., maintained contrary to the
provisions of this Title, shall be and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful and a
public nuisance, and the City Attorney of the City may, or upon order of the City
Council shall immediately commence action or proceedings for the abatement and
removal and enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law, and may take such other
steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant relief as will abate..."
(Emphasis added) (Exhibit D)
ACTIVE NON-ENFORCEMENT: ANALYSIS AND EVIDENCE
Initial Overview
Despite the existence of an Enforcement Officer, there is no systematic, pro-active code
enforcement. The detection and reporting of violations is left to citizens who must
"inform" on their neighbors. There is a strong disincentive to do so in a small town...
They are likely to believe such structures were certainly done to code (viz. the OSF and
Public Works/Planning buildings). Such structures are seen less regularly than, say, a
neighbor's house so people do not notice, or do not remember, or do not bother to report
violations even if they are knowledgeable enough to recognize them. What's worse in
Ashland is the determined resistance of the designated officials, including the Code
Enforcement Officer, to take actions when notified that a clear violation of law has been
identified.
A Deeper Analysis
Active non-enforcement is not an issue of personalities or personal agendas, beyond the
fact that the leader of a department sets the tone for subordinate personnel. The structural
issues are far more important and determining. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky
developed their theory of "manufacturing consent" in their analysis of media control and
bias during the Vietnam War. They merely formalized and explicated the structural
determinants of their observed outcomes. Their analysis applies to the control and
shaping of"information" - in this case, decisions and interpretations of planning
ordinances.
First is the overriding "mission", overt or unspoken. In this case "development" is the
real mission of the Planning Department. New and "exciting" developments sprouting up
all over town are a credit to the Planning Director and his department. They are bragged
about at conferences. They get approval and support from elected officials. Former
mayor Shaw once opined that we could have all the development that was wanted and
maintain our "small town feel". Patently false, of course, but the message, passed along
from the downtown and development interests, is not missed by officials in charge of
applying laws that might hinder "development".
There is an interlocking "directorate" of City Council, City commissions, leading
businesses and business persons, and developers that creates a consensus for development
and for approving and allowing projects to go forward without too much attention to
major procedural and code requirements that might force revision or abandonment. A few
examples: The mayor is a major businessman and developer. Council members are
Philip C. Lang Page 3 2/11/2004
directly or indirectly involved with developers (vide Councilor Heam's involvement with
land use issues as an attorney and his representation the Ashland Springs Hotel). One
former president of the OSF Board is also a major business person and large property
developer in town. Another major businessperson, who was a major mover in the
development of two buildings on the SOU campus, is also on the OSF Board and was a
moving force behind its new theater development. It is an unwritten but well-known rule
that getting on the Planning Commission, which has enormous executive power, is a
ticket to success in the architecture, design, contracting, real estate business, etc. A
review of Commission members and their pre- and post-membership professional
successes attests to this.
Then, too, there is agreement by affiliation. The Planning Department staff sees builders
and developers repeatedly, many times a year, over the years. The latter's influence
therefore grows on all levels. The individual homeowner going for a new home or
remodel approval is a one-time contact, and thus of lesser influence and importance.
Again, leading business persons, organizations, and developers are constantly together
through memberships, as in chambers of commerce, service clubs, charitable and social
events and other contacts where their common interests and mutual support are reinforced.
None of this implies overt coercion or influence peddling in the interpretation of
ordinances, or the outright breaking of them. It simply points out that the interpretation,
application, and enforcement of rules is filtered through the social values and interests of
economically and socially prominent business persons, businesses, and developers.
Through their interlocking directorates and contacts their interests and wishes are defined,
reinforced and conveyed through many channels to officials who apply, interpret and
enforce "the rules".
"Well", one might say, "this goes on everywhere, in all cities and towns." That's true, but
(1) it is more dangerous in Ashland because its existence is denied; (2) it should not be
tolerated anywhere; and (3) in this instance and many others, it leads to outright violation
of laws and refusals to enforce them, even when officials are made aware of violations.
THE EVIDENCE
April 28, 2000 - Follow-up letter to Jim Olson (Exhibit E)
A follow-up to a telephone conversation of 4/24/00, copies to Public Work and Planning
Directors. I pointed out the problems with the OSF "bricks" and plans for the new theater.
Although there may have been response, I have no record of it.
August 16, 2000 - Series of e-mails between Jim Olson and Colin Swales (Exhibit F)
In this exchange Mr. Olson:
1) Disallows the usc of brick or brick pavers as not permitted.
2) Affirms that "light broom finish" is the only one allowed.
3) States that "thc OSF project did get specific council approval". Obviously hc is
ignorant of thc appeal and Condition # 14 of thc Findings.
4) Curiously he asks "Are you aware of any problems with the walks there?" This after
our lengthy conversation and m¥ letter of April 28!
Philip C. Lang Page 4 2/11/2004
September 22, 2000 - Letter in response to phone conversation with Adam Hanks
(Exhibit G)
Mr. Hanks reply states:
1) Broomed concrete is the standard.
2) OSF old "bricks" "were installed some time ago and no information is available
as to their approval by the City.
3) "The bricks in the courtyard are not required to meet this standard."
4) My concerns will be forwarded to our Risk Management Department.
5) "The brickwork done in the public right-of-way in front of the stair~vay at 234
Vista (the Sidney DeBoer residence) does not meet the standard and was not
noticed by the Department of Public Works at the time of its construction."
6) "The use of an alternative material, while not included in standards at the time of
its construction does provide a visual emphasis..."
7) "The remainder of the sidewalk in front of 234 and 300 Vista are indeed finished
with exposed aggregate. Exposed aggregate is not specified in the sidewalk
standard." (Emphasis added).
In order of the points numbered above:
1) Yes! Broomed concrete is the standard.
2) If the old "bricks were installed sometime ago..." this dribbles off into
nothingness. If they are in violation, and if they are a public nuisance, they need
correction, on either or both counts.
3) See comments throughout this report on public nuisance and public liability.
4) Was anything forwarded to Risk Management.'?
5) What Mr. Hanks is saying is: "yes, DeBoer's paving is illegal and nothing will be
done about it."
6) Here Mr. Hanks transitions from allowing that the paving is illegal to it being a
superior material, which one would presume would be desirable for all of us to
use, if only we were wealthy enough ....
7) Now Mr. Hanks gets back to the fact that bricks and exposed aggregate are illegal!
September 27, 2000 - Reply to Mr. Hanks 9/22/00 Letter (Exhibit H)
This letter points out how my questions and concerns have gone unanswered: 1) No action re: OSF bricks.
2) Liabilities to City/public involved.
3) Pointing out the word-bending involved in his making aggregate the equal of (or
superior to) broomed concrete and therefore, somehow, "legal".
September 28, 2000 - Reply by Mr. Hanks to my 9/27/00 Letter (Exhibit I)
Mr. Hanks' response states:
1) The old OSF bricks preceded the Code. FACT: they did not as indicated
elsewhere in this report.
2) Mr. Hanks now evades the issue of enforcement by stating that the standards are
about to be changed.
a) The standards have not been changed since 9/28/00. Indeed, they have been
in place, as stated by Public Works "for eons" (since 1967).
Philip C. Lang Page 5 2/11/2004
3)
b) Even if the standards had been changed, are we to allow for "retrospective
legalization"?.' That is, can a change make violations of the prior law in
force at the time of construction legal?
Mr. Hanks refers to the "entry walkway". The new theater sidewalk was under
discussion. It was and is in fact part of the public right of way. The law, and
Condition #14 of the Findings, was subsequently violated.
October 2, 2000 - Reply to Adam Hanks (Exhibit J) 1) Reiterating that the Code preceded the old "bricks".
2) Pointing out the curious notion of retrospective legalization by proposed
"changes" (that never came about).
3) Comments on the lack of enforcement, selective enforcement, dereliction of
officials.
January 26, 2002 - Letter to Mr. McLoughlin re: New Theater Paving Violation
(Exhibit K)
Reviews the history, with attachments of prior correspondence and points out the
Condition #14 of the Findings has not been met.
This letter once again raises the issue of danger to the public and injuries on the OSF
bricks, but was written to especially point out that paving at the new theater was
illegal and violation of Condition//14 of the findings. Appropriate action was
requested.
February 7, 2002 - Reply by Mr. McLoughlin to my 9/26/02 Letter (Exhibit L)
Along with the old "OSF private campus" arguments, he states that the new theater
paving is not in violation (although it is aggregate and brick), now shunting the
responsibility to Public Works. He says, in effect, that despite what Condition #14
and the law say, Public Works some how approved non-approved paving. Yet Mr.
Hanks, in and undated letter (following) indicates that "Currently, the Ashland
Municipal Code specifically states in Chapter 13.04.030 that sidewalks are to be
constructed using poured concrete. No mention is made as to the ability of staff to
allow variances to this code requirement." (Emphasis added) So, Mr. McLoughlin
claims that Public Works approved the paving (contra Condition #14 and the law)
but Mr. Hanks indicates that staff cannot allow variances to this code requirement!
Who's lying'?.
Undated Letter from Mr. Hanks (Exhibit M)
This letter is referred to above and supports the comments made on the 2/7/02 letter.
February 12, 2002 - Response to Mr. McLoughlin (Exhibit N)
January 26, 2004 - FAX to Mark Knox re: Conversation that A.M. (Exhibit O)
Philip C. Lang Page 6 2/11/2004
THE NEED FOR ACTION
The need for action is obvious and compelling:
1) Public Danger. All during the OSF season there are frequent 911 calls to pick
up people who have fallen and been injured on OSF's bricks. This is a matter of
public record. This paving constitutes a public nuisance.
2) Public/Taxpayer Liability. At some point someone will sue OSF and the City
not only for compensatory, but punitive damages, since this problem has been
known and reported to OSF management and City staff for years. OSF's
campus is on leased City-owned land. The Planning/Public Works building
requires no comment on liabilities. The City could also be sued by someone
injuring themselves on the DeBoer paving insofar as it is a violation known and
therefore permitted de facto by the City.
3)
"Government is a teacher" said Justice Louis Brandies of the U.S. Supreme
Court. He meant that government models law abiding/respecting behavior - or
its opposite. The paving in front of these structures, particularly the
Planning/Public Works building, is a brazen violation that gives a message to
individuals and builders about our building ordinances and municipal codes.
THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN
1) The City should make a clear policy statement that its building codes, AMC
Title 13.03.030 in particular, are to be enforced uniformly by City employees.
2)
Action should be taken in the three instances cited to force correction of the
violations and conformity to the AMC, including both the paving per se and
the extended nuisances the illegal paving materials have created.
Philip C. Lang Page 7 2/11/2004
SECTION 13.04.030 Standards and Specifications.
Page 1 of 1
CHAPTER 13.04 CONSTRUCTION; REPAIR AND ALTEIL&'TIO'N OF SIDEWALKS
SECTION 13.04.030 Standards and Specifications.
A. Sidewalks shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete; shall be nor less than five (5) feet in
width, and shall be located one (1) foot from the property line extending toward the curb, unless
otherwise approved by the City Council.
B. The City Administrator shall establish supplemental standards and specificatfons for sidewalk
construction, repair, or alteration to provide durable and practical sidewalks at a suitable grade
determined by the City Administrator to be in accordance with the system of the City street grades.
C. The City Administrator shall report to the City Council changes in sidewalk standards and
specifications and shall keep a copy on file in the City offices for the use of the public.
D. Sidewalks shall be constructed, repaired, or altered in accordance with the standards and
specifications established under this section. (Ord. 1515 S3, 1967)
9/26/00
,!
to mean louchmg. IF the parking structure and theatre do not touch, they are not
contiguous and do not violate ALUO 18.72.050(C) or ASDUS lI-C-3-a-2 and the City
Council concludes that they do not and cannot based upon conditions the Council has
attached to this approval.
I
14.
Inadequate Design for Turning Movements: During the proceeding some opponents
argued that there is "inadequate turning provision at the NE comer of the parking
structure to allow safe 2 way traffic" and the impact of traffic and the loading dock on
Hargadine Street has not been addressed under the CUP criteria. At Record p. 57
applicant testified that in working out the design of the project, applicant's expert
architect and civil engineer determined that there is adequate space for garbage and fire
vehicles based upon data they collected on turning radii. ' The driveway width complies
with provisions of the ALUO which require driveways to be 20 feet wide. The driveway
cited by opponents is 20 feet in width. The City Council believes the testimony of
applicant's experts and concludes that the driveway and its turning radii are adequate and
safe and fully comply with the requirements of the City.
Buildings Straddle Property Lines: During the proceeding some opponents argued that
the proposed buildings impermissibly straddle property lines. The City Council finds and
concludes that the applicant agreed to stipulate (and the City Council has incorporated as
a condition) that the property lines be adjusted or properties consolidated in ways that are
sufficient to avoid buildings that straddle property lines or otherwise violate provisions of.
the ALUO or ASDUS.
16. Design Violates the BoOk: Alexander's pattern Language: During the Proceeding some
opponents argued that the proposed project design violates the "Site Repair" idea of
Alexander °s Pattern Language which requires that the worst part of a site be developed
while the best is reserved for views-and sunlight. The City Council cOnclUdes that the
"Site Repair" idea of Alexander's Pattern Language,' is not an approval criterion and,
therefore, is irrelevant.
17.'Employment and Wage Issues: During the proceeding one opl~onent raised issues
connected with employment and fair wages and argued that applicant Oregon
Shakespeare Festival did not pay its employees a living wage..This opponent did not
explain how the.issues he raised related to the relevant substantive criteria and the City
Council concludes that they do not.
18,
Alternative Sites: During the proceeding some opponents argued that-applicant had
failed to consider alternative sites, especially sites that it now owns. It was not explained
by these opponents how the issue of alternative sites relate to the relevant substantive
criteria and the City Council concludes that applicant is not required under any approval
criteria to identify or examine alternatives sites.
I9, Sidewalk Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way. During the proceeding, some
opponents argued that the proposed pedestrian improvements within the public 'right of
..... ~,,~ir, n¢, of Law Planning Action 2000-074
Cily ot Ashland, Oregon
way were not in accord with the city's standards for side~valk construction. Thc City
Council attaches condition 14, clarifying that all sidewalk work done within the public
right-of-way shall be done to city standards, and under pern.tit and approval of the Public
Works Department.
VI
CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE APPROVAl
In addition to the thirteen (13) conditions imposed on these applications by the Ashland
Planning Commission and which were contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law of the Planning Commission (dated August 22, 2000), the City Council herewith
imposes Conditions 14 and 15 and hereby Orders that all of the below fifteen (15) conditions
are attached and made a part of this approval:
That the project shall be constructed consistent with the plan and specifications
submit{ed as part of the record, except that these may be modified by conditions .attached
by these conditions of approval.
2. That prior to the issuance of building permits, all parcels, which have buildings that
straddle or otherwise infringe on parcel boundary lines, or building setbacks will be
consolidated or the parcel boundaries will be appropriately adjusted. The configuration
of the adjusted parcels will be with the City's consent and prior approval.
3. That all proposed refuse areas be screened with either a solid wood fence or masonry
wall.. Proposed screening to be provided for review and approval by the Staff Advisor
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
That at. the time of planting and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy,
not less than two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped, areas after
the installation of living plant materials.
That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the irrigation .system plan shall be
reviewed by the Tree Commission, with final approval by the Staff Advisor. The
irrigation system plan shall be consistent with ALUO 18.82.060(T) and the Ashland Site
Design and Use Standards.
That prior to the issuance of a building permit, all Tree Commission reQommendations
consistent with City site Design and Use Standards shall be incorpora!ed into the. final
landscaping plans and reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor.
That temporary fencing shall be installed around the drip line~ rte. es identified for
reteniion Prior to issuance of a building permit, grading, grubbing, notice to proceed
with construction or other site improvements. In addition, the following measures shall
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page 82
Planning Action 2000-074
Cily of Ashland, Oregon
be incorporated and maintained in place during the project's development and until
authorizhtior~ from the Staff Advisor.
a. Fill within drip line to'be limited to six inches in depth. Fill to consist of a sandy
composition, rather than clay, to enhance drainage.
b. No cuts permitted within the drip line except as noted on the engineered construction
drawings.
c. No fill shall be placed around the trunk/crown root.
d. No storage of equipment or materials shall occur within the drip lines.
That a utility, storm drainage and grading plan be submitted prior to the issuance of a
building permit for review and approval by the Engineering and Planning Division. The
Ashland Engineering Division Staff Advisor shall app.rove the design of the public alley,
specifically with regards to the length and percent slope of alley landing and approach
adjoining Hargadine Street.
9. That all new trees installed within perimeter plaza areas shall b~ no less that two inches
in diameter at breast height.
10. That all modifications to and construction Wiihin adjoining City fight-of-Way, including
but not limited to curb extensions and the location of steel bollm:d light fixtures along
SoUth Pioneer, Shall be reviewed and approved'by the. Ptiblic Works Department and
Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit.
1 l. That the proposed Gothic light fixture and post be substituted with the light standard and
fixture installed within the downtown plaZa and adjacent to the creek along the Winburn
Bridge (not the globe fixture). The staff Advisor shall review and approve the proposed
light standard fixture prior to issuance of a building permit.
12. That the structure be constructed to provide additional shading for the center parking
spaces on the top level of the parking structure. Such structure to allow for shading
through the use of vine plantings or other permeable, non-reflecting, shading material.
Landscape planter to have a minimum soil depth of one and one-half feet (1'-6'), with
plant material to consist of"Akebia" vines or similar planting. The structure shall result
in the shading of the fully length of the center aisle parking spaces, and -a width of 20'
( 10' each side).
That tree grates be installed on all trees located within the public plaz~i areas, and th,at
tree cages be used in the high traffic areas to protect the tries dufing the first years of
growth after planting. Tree grate and cage designs to be approved by the Staff Advisor
prior to installation.
Planning Action 2000-'074
City of Ashland, Oregon
14. That all sidcwalk construction and reconstruction within thc public riehl of ~vay be done
to the standards of the City of Ashland, with all work done under permit and approval of
the Public Works Department.
1 5. That, as necessary to meet fire safety codes, there shall be a fire wall which permits a
physical separation between the theatre building and parking structure. The two
buildings shall be separated and not touch one another.
VII
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and evidence contained in the
whole record, the City Council finds and ·concludes that the application for Site Design and
Use Review have satisfied all of the relevant substantive standards and criteria contained
within the Ashland Municipal Code and the Ashland site Design and Use Standards. The City
Council also finds and concludes that the applicati6r{ for a Conditional Use Permit for the
purpose of exceeding the height limitations of the C-I-D zoning district, are compliant with
all the relevant substantive criteria as the same have been enumerated and addressed
hereinabove.
The City CounCil ultimately concludes, based upOn the fm-egoing and the conditions that it
herewith attaches, both of the subject land use applications (Site Design and Use Review and
Conditional Use Permit) comply with all requirements of the City of Ashland and of the State,
of Oregon. Therefore, the City Council herewith upholds the decision of the Ashland
Planning Commission ap£roves with conditions both quasi-judicial land use applications and
attaches all of the conditions set forth hereinabove in secliol5 VI.
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON ~
By: Catherine M. Shaw
Mayor
Dated: November 7, 2000
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Page
Plannincj Action 2000-074
Section 1,04.010 Definitions.
Chapter 1.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS
Page 1 of"
Section 1.04.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases whenever used in this code shall be construed as defined in this
section unless from the context a different meaning is intended or unless a different meaning is
specifically defined and more particularly directed to the use of such words or pttrases-.
A. City means the City of Ashland, Oregon, or the area within the territorial limits of the City of
Ashland, Oregon, and such territory outside of the City over which the City has jurisdiction or control
by virtue of any constitutional or statutory provision.
B. Computation of time means the time within which the act is to be done. It shall be computed by
excluding the first day and including the last day; and if the last day be Sunday or a legal holiday, that
day shall be excluded.
C. Council means the City Council of the City of Ashland, Oregon. All its members or all councilors
means the total number of councilors provided by the general laws of the State of Oregon.
D. County means the County of Jackson, Oregon.
E. Law denotes applicable federal law, the constitution and statutes of the State of Oregon, the
ordinances of the City of Ashland, and when appropriate, any and all rules and regulations which may
be promulgated thereunder.
F. May is permissive.
G. Month means a calendar month.
H. Must and shall are each mandatory.
I. Oath includes an affirmation or declaration in all cases in which, by law, an affirmation may be
substituted for an oath, and in such cases the words swear and sworn shall be. equivalent to the words
affirm and affirmed. . ..
J. Ordinance means a law of the City; provided that a temporary,,or special law, administrative action,
order or directive, may be in the form of a resolution.
K. Owner, applied to a building or land, includes any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, joint
tenant or tenant by the entirety, of the whole or a part of such bu~ilding or land.
L. Person means natural person, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, aSsociation, club,
company, corporation, business, trust, organization, or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer or
employee of any of them.
M. Personal property includes money, goods, chattels, things in action and evidences of' debt.
N. Preceding and following mean next before and next after, respectively.
O. Property includes real and personal property.
P. Real property includes lands, tenements and hereditaments.
Q. Sidewalk means that portion of a street between the curb line and the adjacent proPerty line
intended for the use of pedestrians.
R. State means the State of Oregon.
S. Street includes all streets, highways, avenues, lanes, alleys, courts, places, squares, curbs, or other
public ways in the City which have been or may hereafter be dedicated and ope'n~.to public use, or such
other public property so designated in any law of this state.
T. Tenant and occupant, applied to a building or land, includes any person who 'occUpies whole or a
part of such building or land, whether alone or with others.
U. Title of Office. Use of the title of any officer, employee, board or commission means that officer,
employee, department, board or commission of the City.
V. Written includes printed, typewritten, mimeographed or multi-graphed. ~'"~.,
9/30/0O
Section 1.04.010 Definitions.
Page 2 of 2
W. Year means a calendar year.
X. All words and phrases shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved
usage of the language; but technical words and phrases and such others as may have acquired a
peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law shall be construed and understood according to such
peculiar and appropriate meaning.
Y. 'When an act is required by an ordinance the same being such that it may be done as well by an
agent as by the principal, such requirement shall be construed as to include all such acts performed by
an authorized agent. (Ord. 1810 (part), 1974)
9/30/00
SECTION 18.112.080 Violations--nuisance.
CHAPTER 18.112 ENFORCEMENT
Page 1 of I.
SECTION 18.112.080 Violations~~nuisance.
Any building or structure set up, erected, constructed, altered, enlarged, converted, moved or
maintained contrary to the provisions of this Title, and any use of land, building, or,premise
established, conducted, operated, or maintained contrary to the provisions of this Title, shall be and
the same is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and the City Attorney of the City
may, or upon order of the City Council'shall, immediately commence action or proceedings for the
abatement and removal and enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law, and may take such
other steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate and
remove such buildings or prevent any person from setting up, erecting, building, maintaining, or using
any such building or structure or using property contrary to the provisions of this Title. The remedies
provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive.
9/30/0O
I~UTH )'1, ~ILLEt~.
758 15 Street ,, Abhlancl. Orcgor~ 97520
Office 541 . 462-8050
Office/F~x 541 ' 482-5367
PtlILIP C. LA'C,. Lcs~v
April 28, 2000
To: Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager
P~ao: Brick paving-OSF
Dear Mr..,Olson:
Pursuant to our c~ation last week, August 24th, here is my follow-up
memo summarizing the issues:
1) The bricks at the OSF "campus" are slippery and dangerous. This
can be confirmed by:
'a) simple
b) consulting staff who have constantly reported the problem to management.
c) reviewing incident/accident reports which I am sure OSF is required
to keep by law/their insurers
d) calling Ashland Hospital and reviewing the 911 calls to pick people
up off the bricks.
e) If you wish I can put you in touch with staff people/clients who
have had direct experience of this problem.
2) Nevertheless, OSF's plans for its new theater call for extending the
bricks across the street.
3) It is city policy that only broomed concrete be allowed on public
walkways.
4) The potential liabilities to OSF - and subsequently to the next "deep
pockets" - the City, have thus far been ignored. The reason is that
a) the public perception is that OSF is a 5o1(c) (3) non-profit, most
of which are known to always be in financial difficulties with
few or no_ assets, and,
b) No one wants to "hurt" OSF, or "make a fuss"
Nevertheless, some day, sometime this will become a very bi~ issue..
I suggest that:
a) Current plans for paving for the new theater.be scrutinized and
~ change in paving be required.
b) past experience be-reviewed with an eye to having OSF re-pave the
entire area, on both sides of the street, as. part of their proposed
project.
Jim Olson - Public Works - ~/28/00 - p. 2
In raising this issue I ~elieve that I am looking out for the interests of
OSF patrons, fellow citizens, and City taxpayers.
I would appreciate a progress fpllow-up from you.
Sincerely,
PHILIP C. LANG
cc: Building Department - attn.: Director
Paula Brown-Public Works Director
Colin Swales
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Jim Olson" <Jimo@ashland.or.us>
<colin@mind.net>
Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:55 AM
Re: Sidewalk
Page 1 of 2
Again, the only approved finish is a "light broom finish", however we may be able to get a
staff approval for your exposed agg. finish. The OSF project did receive specific council
approval. Are you aware of any problems with the walks there?
>>> "Colin Swales" <colin~mind.net> 08/16 7:41 AM >>>
Jim,
thanks for your clarification ......
How does OSF get away with their hard slippery bricks on a steep street such
as Pioneer ?
I was thinking of using them on a level surface .....
How about concrete with an exposed aggregate finish ?
Colin
..... Original Message .....
From: "Jim Olson" <Jimo@ashland.or.us>
To: <colinC_~mind.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: Sidewalk
I was enjoying a few days of vacation.
Colin...
Sorry for the late repl:¢.
Unfortunately the use of brick paver for sidewalk is not permitted by AMC.
The only surface approved is concrete. Any other surface is subject to site
specific council approval If you wish to proceed with the repairs in
concrete you may pick up a permit from our office at your convenience.
>>> "Colin Swales" <colin@mind.net> 08/11 12:26 PM >>>
Jim,
I am wanting (o' replace a cracked and tree-root damaged section of sidewalk
in front of my home. I would like to replace the brittle concrete with small
unit brick pavers similar to those used ( and proposed for the new OSF
theater plaza/sidewalk) for the "Bricks" alongside Pioneer Street. Could you
confirm that this is acceptable and if you have a tech sheet with'required
specs, if any exist.
thanks
Colin Swales
8/1
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Adam Hanks Phbne 541-552-2046
Code Compliance Fax 541-488-5311
adam~ashIand.or.us
Philip Lang
758 B St
Ashlm~d, OR ~, o20
September 22, 2000
Dear Mr. Lang:
This letter is in response to our conversations this past week regarding your request to replace the
existing poured concrete sidewalk abutting the front property line of your residence on B Street with a
sidewalk constructed with brick pavers.
As you noted in your letter of April 28 to Jim Olson, it is City policy that sidewalks in the public right-
of-way are to be constructed using poured concrete with a broomed finish. The intent of this standard is
two-fold. Broomed concrete ensures a uniform surface that, when in good repair, meets ADA standards
for a pedestrian surface. Broomed concrete, as opposed to other surfaces, asphalt, decomposed granite,
individual bricks, etc. require less long term maintenance dueto the unified nature of concrete.
Additionally, compliance to a standard provides an aesthetic visual connection throughout the
neighborhood.
You noted two deviations from the right-of-way standard explained in the above paragraph are worth
explanation. The bricks in the right-of-way on the west side of South Pioneer Street were installed some
time ago and no information is available as to their approval by the City. The bricks in the courtyard
area are not required to meet this standard, as the standard applies to sidewalks in the public right-of-way
only. The safety concerns regarding the courtyard area will be forwarded to our Risk Management
Department.
The brickwork done in the public right-of-way in front of the stairway to 234 Vista does not meet the
standard and was not noticed by the Department of Public Works at the time of its construction. The use
of an alternate material, while not included in standards at the time of its construction, does provide a
visual emphasis for both the pedestrian and vehicle intersections with the sidewalk.
The remainder of the sidewalk in front of 234 and 300 Vista are indeed finished wi;h exposed aggregate.
Exposed aggregate is not specified in the sidewalk standard, as it is more expensive than the broomed -
finish, but nonetheless meets the material standard of a poured concrete finish. The use of an exposed
aggregate finish does not decrease the expected life of the surface, nor does it violate the required
standards for 'an' ADA approved sidewalk.
I~L1TH/'t/~ILLEi~
PHILIP C. LANG.
756 b Street · Ashland, Oregor~ 97520
Office 541 - 462-6659
Office/Fax 541 ' 482-5'~67
September 27, 2000
Mr. Adam Hanks, Code Compliance
Planning Dept.
20 East Main
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re.: Sidewalk ("public right of way") paving
Dear Mr. Hanks (Adam):
I have recieved your curious letter of September 22, 2000.
Your letter does not answer major questions I raised, ergo I am sending
~this one, with copies to the same people you copied.
I will anxiously await a reply. If none. is forthcoming, I will assume
that that is the answer, and will add & note to that effect.to the file
for future reference. .
1. Your letter (~9,/..~)acknowledges what we have obviously known all along.
The bricks in the right-of-way outside OSF are not in conformity with
the code. My question: Are you going to do anything about it?
2. Relevant to #lJ "The bricks' in the courtyard area are not required
to meet this standard". 'Are you aware of the fact that the OSF
development, including the courtyard, is on land leased from the City?
In a city where landlords are made responsible'for the behavior of
their tenants after a number of'police calls to'a given address, the notion
that the lessor - the City - has no responsibility, and by inference,
is not at risk for injuries sustained when a.paving is in violation
of code, seems rather curious - and dangerous.
3. Re.: the brickwork in front of 234 and 300 Vista: The comment that it
"was not n~ticed by the Department of Public Works at the time of its
construction" is rather droll. If a permit is r~quired it is clear
that one was not applied for nor-~ssued. It is also evident that the
work was done by a professional under contract - not the homeowner.
That professional probably knew of the need for a permit, and did not
seek one, going ahead with unapproved materials. This work was done
recently. My question: what, if anything do you intend to .do about
this (and possibly other '~ocation) violations?
4. As a folloW-up to ~3. You state, in para. ~2 of your letter that "no
mention is made as to the .ability of staff to allow variances to this
code requirement". This makes it all the more clear that l~.iolations
whether at 234 or 300 Vista or elsewhere, are clear violations of the
Code.
5. Current OSF Fourth Theater plans show the same bricks extended across
the street - .sidewalk and entry walkway.
Will this be approved as proposed?
Adam Hanks - Planning Dept. -.Sep.tember. 2.7j 2000 - p. 2
The issue of code enforcement in this matter, for which you are responsible,
presents no problems, if you enforce the code in an equal-han~ed, straight-
forward m~nner.
If you choose not to, then .you (including the Planning Dept.) face some
tricky going. I will proceed, as planned, with paving my sidewalk in
the walkway bricks, of which you have a sample. I ~ill apply for a permit
to do so. If I am denied one, I will go ahead anyway. If I am then
cited, we will get into a discussion of enforcement vis-a-vis my project,
vs. non-enforcement vis-a-vis others' projects.
Incidentally, your ~omments regarding exposed aggregate being equal to
poured concrete in walkability and lifespan (p. 1, last para.) are
incorrect. Any competent professional could tell you what I am about
to tell you. At my Oakland Home, I had an exposed aggregate entry patio and
steps installed in 1980. It was done by a highly experienced professional,
who did it "the right way" - which is to totally bury the aggregate, then
use water pressure to expose,.~ it, rather than "seed" the concrete surface..
The former guarantees minimal loss - "popping out" of the aggregate.
The exposed aggregate concrete I have is protected under a wide roof
canopy. It has also been maintained over the years witk multiple coatings
of "Thoroglaze" - a professional sealer/glaze. Nevertheless, I have
had noticeable loss of aggregates, leaving a pocky surface with multiple
small holes where the stones have exfoliated - excellent traps for womens'
heels, for example.
I look forward to specific answers to these questions aG your earliest
convenience.
cc:
Paula Brown, Director of Public Works
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Jim Olson, City Surveyor/ProjeCt Manager
Sharlene Stephens, Risk Management
City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Adam Hanks
Code Compliance
Phone 541-552-2046
Fax 541-488-5311
adam@ashland.or.us
September 28, 2000
Philip Lang
758 B St
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Mr. Lang:
Per your request, the following is an attempt to answer your questions posed in your
correSpondence of September 17, 2000.
The bricks in the OSF courtyard extend out into the public right-of-way, which is not in
compliance with current City 'standards. However, that work was done prior to the currently
established standards and'can be classified as a legal, non.-6onforming sUrface. No
enforcement action will take place..
The bricks in the OSF courtyard are not required to meet the sidewalk standard, as they are
not within the public right-of-way. I realize that the land is under the ownership o.f the City
of Ashland, but that has no relevance in the enforcement of sidewalk standards. As I
mentioned in my last letter to you, I will forward your concerns with the courtyard surface
to our Risk Management Department for review. ~
o
The brickwork in front .of234 and 300 Vista was done without a .Public Works permit. It is
irrelevant who did the work, the homeowner or a professional. As I mentioned in my letter,
the sidewalk standards are being redrafted and will most likely include exceptions that allow
alternate materials emphasizing the pedestrian and vehicle crossings through the sidewalk. I
do not see the value in requiring the property owner to replace the materials that have been
installed to meet a standard that will soon be modified to permit the very material that we
require to be replaced. No enforcement action will be taken, unless dictated by the Director
of Public Works or the City Administrator.
4. Answered in statement #3.
I have noted your concems with the materials proposed for the sidewalk and entry walkway
in the file and :have also. communicated these concerns directly with: Bill Molnar, Senior
Planner. To reiterate, the entry walkway will most likely not be required to meet the
standards being discussed here because it is not a part of the public right-of-way.
The suggestions from my last correspondence still hold true. A permit is required fOr the
replacement or construction of a sidewalk in the public right-of-way. Failure to comply
with the permit requirement will result in enforcement action.
Sincerely,
Adam Hanks
Code Compliance
C:
Paula~Brown, Director of Public Works
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
i~.UTH ~./RILLEI~-
PHILIP C. LAHO.
7~8 5 Street · A~hland. Oregon 97D20
Office }41 . 4-82-8659
Offic¢/F~x D4,1 · 4.82-D387
October 2, 2000
Adam Hanks, Code Complianae
City of Ashland-Planning Dept.
20 East Main
Ashland, Oregon 9~520
Re.: Paving/~avin~ Ordinance
Dear Mr/ Hanks:
Such a speedy reply - thank you! It deserves an equally speedy response
from me, which follows.
1. Re.: Right-of-way (viz'. sidewalk) and courtyard bricks at OSF:
In reviewing the copy of the ordinance, I note that it has a date
of 1967. The ordinance, then, ?re~gded the construction of the
~Bow-mer and the surrounding courtyard. In. other words, the sidewalk
and courtyard were constructed post ordinance and.~failed to conform
to it. It seems to me that this puts an entirely different cast on
the need to enforce the rules. And remember-people are being injured-
all the time.
2. Re.: 234 & 300 Vista. Your comment is curious, implying that the
changes that will be made to the ordinance have somehow already
been.decided, and will make the ordinance conform to what someone
has done in violation of the current ordinance (your item #3).
Your comment under 5, avoids the issue. The plans for the OSF Fourth
theater call for a sidewalk (jargon translation: "public right of way")
that is the same as that existing on the other side of Pioneer. This
is in violation of the code. Please respond - or have Mr. Molnar
respond to this concern, since he is the one responsible for plan review.
As Alice says in Through The Looking Glass: "things are getting
curiouser and curioser" (sic). Your Zinal paragraph informs me that
I need a permit to replace my~sidewalk and that my failure to comply
with the current ordinance "will result in enforcement action".
This after your item 3., in which you concede that a sidewalk was
constructed reeently without permit and in violation of the standard
and that "no enforcement action will be taken ....
Adam Hanks - ~0/2/00 - p. 2
~.building code is not a code if it is: (1) not enforced, and (2) not
enforced equally and fairly. If it is not enforced, either through
neglect of enforcement, or selective enforcement based on political
expediency, it is not a code, but a sham. Selective or non-enforcement
encourages d~sN~pec%, for.government, a~d encourages further violations
of law. It is also a dereliction of duty by officials paid by the
citizens to uphold laws and codes for the benefit and protection of all.
This mat~er is far from closed.
PHILI~
CC.:
Paula Brown, Director of Public Works
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
R(]TH ~ ~ILLBI2
IIII I Ill
PHILIP C. LANC, bCS~,'
758 B Street . hshland, Oregon 97520
P, esid~nc¢ 5~1 . 482-8659
Offic~/l:ax 541. 482-5387
January 26, 2002
John MacLoughlin, Director
Ashland Community Development & Planning
201~East Main
Ashland, Oregon 97520
HAND DELIVERED January 28, 2002
Re.: Planning Action ~2000-074 (New OSF Theater)
One of the few concessions made to the legal and design crticisms of the
~ew OSF theater 'concerned the plaza and street paving.
I have extensive correspondence with your department<band with Jim Olson,
City Project Manager (with cc. to Paula Brown, Public Works Director)
in my files. Your own department has refused to do anything about
other violations of Section 13..04.030 Standards and Specifications
(viz. letter attached to me from Adaz~ Hanks, 9/22/00.i. and my 9/27/00 reply).
The issue is summarized quickly as follows:
OSF has used wire-cut clay bricks, neither meant for paving, nor suitable
as such, on its plaza. They were also used on the public right-of-way
(sidewalk area). The two areas are indistinguishable, both being
paved continuously with said bricks.
The City ordinance prohibits the use of this material. Indeed, it calls
for "broomed concrete.l!. Ht:~is'~.a(matter of public record that many, many
injuries have occurred to citizens and patrons because of falls on this
inappropriate surface. Management of OSF has been notified by staff and
by injured parties that a dangerous condition exists. Sooner or later
someone will realize that OSF is not a struggling non-profit, that it has
failed to correct this problem despite endless warnings, and in their
just anger will file - and win a lawsuit, not just for damages, but
for punitive damages. "
Insofar as the OSF complex is located on leased City land - we - the
citizens, will be 'named as well as "deep pockets". This goes for both
the old and ~he new. OSF facility.
Your official excuse for inaction, rendered by Mr. Adam Hanks has
been that (1) the 'bricks are on the "OSF Campus" and that enforcement
~n only apply to the actual public right-of-way (sidewalk). What I have s;
.......... m~nt:-The City W~lt be held responsible,
MacLoughlin - re.: Bricks/OSF - 1/25/02 - p. 2
and therefore has a right and a responsibility to enforce safety
standards.
Your second line of ~efusal was based on Mr. Hank's statement in
his letter of 9/28 (attached) under 1. that the bricks on the courtyard
were done prior to the currently established standards, and thus are
"legal non-conforming". This is not true. The Bowmer and associated
plaza/courtyard paving were done in 1970-1971 with construction of the
Bowmer. The standards were adopted, as the record shows, in 1967, before
the Bowmer (and associated plaza/courtyard (re) construction were ever
thought of.
So much for history.
The current problem is that plans for paving for the new OSF theater
called for the same brick. This was contested at the public hearing(s)
and appeal. Under ~ndings of Fact and.~Conclusions"°f. Law,~P..8l~
Section 19,. it states :"During the proceeding, some opponents argued
that ~the proposed pedestrian imuro~ements within the public tight of
way were not in accord with the city's standards for sidewalk construc-
tion. The City Council attached condition 14, clarifying that all sidwalk
work done within the public right-of-way shall be done to city standards "
Page 84, under Condition 14 states: "That all sidewaltk construction and
~constr~ction within the public right of way be done to the standards
o5 tH~ City of Ashland .... "
This requirement has not been obeyed. On the north side (old plaza/
courtyard), the paved area has been jogged out to constrict the street.
Additional identical bricks have been added both behind and beyond the
paving which is presumably the "public right of way". This "right of way"
is done in aggregate -'not broomed concrete as required by City standards.
A~d the rest of the paving in front of the new t4~eater is, in violati0n~-c:-
o f any concern for public safety and past history.- the same slick,
wire cut clay bricks, and concrete aggregate.
~..Secti~n~!3.04.030. states unde~..D.. ,Sidew~.tks shall he constructed, repaired,
'Ar'~lter~d'in ~accor~a~c~ ~ith the'sta~i~g~'~d specifications established
uner this section"].'~.'Chapter 18.112.080 entitled "Violations-Nuisance"
covers the current problem and calls for aciion using the word "shall".
Chapter 1.04.010 "Definitions" under H. says "Must and shall are each
mandatory"
I am requesting that you take appropriate action immediately, as required
by law and in recognition of the fact that heavy use of these areas ~
will commence at the end of February.
...... ~a. *.~t of attachments and ccs..
Copies to:
Mayor Alan DeBoer
Councilperson Cate Hartzell
Planning Commissioner Colin S~ales
Attachments
Chapter 13.04.030 (Standards and Specifications)
Pp. 81, 82, 84 of Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - Planning Action 2000-074
Letter from Lang to Olson - 4/28/00
Letter from Hanks to Lang - 9/22/00
Letter from Lang to Hanks - 9/27/00
Letter from Hanks to Lang - 9/28/00
Letter from Lang to Hanks - 10/2/00
Letter from Hanks to Lang - undated
--ASHLAND
February 7, 2002
Mr. Philip C. Lang
758 B Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: Your letter dated January 26, 2002 L' OSF/Pioneer Street Crossing
Dear Philip,
The sidewalk and street crossing work done on Pioneer Street in association with the new OSF Theater
was done under permit of the Ashland Public Works Department, and was deemed to be in conformance
with the City's requirements. The plaza area in front of the new theater is not located on city right-of-
way and is the responsibility of OSF. They have made the choice to use brick pavers in this area. The
new sidewalk located on the east side of Pioneer is concrete. The adjoining sections of existing
sidewalk were aggregate and the new sidewalk was approved as aggregate for a continuous, compatible
surface. The new bump-out area on the west side of Pioneer is predominantly concrete for the ADA
tactile area, with a very limited new brick area. This was approved as part of the permit process with
Public Works. The remainder of the sidewalk area on the west side is existing brick that was in place
prior to the new. theater approval.
We have found thatthe COndition established for OSF regarding the new sidewalk and crossing have
been met and the Department of COmmunity Development will not be taking any further action
regarding this issue.
I hope this answers your questions.
Sincerely,~' ,//'2 ~ ~
Director of Community Development
C~
Mayor DeBoer
Greg Scoles, City Administrator
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Paul Nich0.[son, OSF
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
.',~w~.a. shland,o[.us
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
' T'rY: 800-735-2900
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Adam Hanks Pl~one 541-552-2046
Code Compliance Fax 541-488-$311
adam@ashland.or.us
The concrete brick material you have requested for the replacement of the sidewalk in front of your
residence may initially meet the intent of the surface standards, but has a higher likelihood of creating an
uneven and unsafe surface Over a short period of time.
Currently, the Ashland Municipal Code specifically states in Chapter 13.04.030 that sidewalks are to be
constructed using poured concrete. No mention is made as to the ability of staffto allow variances to
this code requirement.
As we discussed several weeks ago, the Engineering Division of our Public Works Department is in the
process of revising many of our public right-of-way standards, including sidewalks. In discussions with
Engineering, it seems appropriate to develop language in the new standards that would provide property
owners with the opportunity to enhance the standard construction specifications by using alternate
materials in areas where the pedestrian walkway or driveway approach intersects with the sidewalk.
Because this is not yet an approved City standard, the Engineering Division would not yet be able to
issue a permit for sidewalk work with the alternate materials. I would suggest that, if you are interested
in pursuing the use of alternate materials, you delay the project until the standards have been revised and
approved. Otherwise, the only permit that could be issued would not allow anything other than a poured
concrete sidewalk.
If you have any questions regarding the Council request process, please feel free to contact Paula Brown,
Director of Public Works or Greg Scoles, City Administrator.
Sincerely,
Adam Hanks
Code Compliance
C~
Paula Brown, Director of Public Works
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager
Sharlene Stephens, Risk Management
Enc: Sidewalk Standard Document
Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 13
I~tATH h./~ILLEi~
758 I~ Street . hshland, Oregon 97520
Residence 541 , 482-8659
OFfice/Fax 541 . 482-5387
February 12, 2002
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
City of Ashland
20 East Main
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re.: Your letter of 2/2/02
I have received your letter of 2/2/02. t guess that it is some sort
of victory(!?), That is, insofar as you have foregone ~he usual
specious, circular, casuistical gobbledygook justifying allowing
the paving. Perhaps the history and documentation was too damning.
Instead, you simply inform me that you (and Public Works) have
made an ex cathedra decision that regardless of what the code~,'requires
(interesting that you make no reference to it)you have determined
that what OSF has done is perfectly o.k.
The violation of basic codes and~tawsLunder which we have all presumably
agreed to live, by officials in favor of the rich and powerful individuals
and institutions, and at the expense of the rest of us citizens, is
the very defikition of corruption.
When we built our home and paved the sidewalk in front, we followed
the rules, having been informed that the brick pavers we wanted to use
were prohibited by the code. As expected, the concrete was cra0k~dL_by
tree roots, and, as expected not in the place where we seamed the concrete.
I know better now. In the Spring, I will be removing the concrete and
replacing it with the same brick pavers I have used at the front and
rear waikways of our camPUS.
PHILIP C. LANG
cc:
Mayor Deboer
Clouncilperson Hartzell
Commissioner Swales
RUTH M. MILLER
758 B Street ° A.~hland, Oregon 97520
Re.~idence 541 ° 482-8659
Office/Fax 541 * 482-5387
January 26, 2004
To: Mark Knox
Re.: Our exchange this A.M. re: sidewalk paving
FAXed to: (541) 488-6006
As promised, this is my written, FAX follow-up to our conversation this A.M.
in the foyer of the Planning/Public Works building. I asked you if, from
the ~antage point of your office window, you had seen people slip and fall
on the tiles that constitute the paving in front of the building. You
said: "I have seen people slip - I have slipped myself".
We then launched into a discussion of violations of the Paving ordinance
by a prominent citizen, OSF, and the Planning Dept itself.
It has been .my position, stated as recently as the appeal hearing on the
Bemis project, that Planning does not follow the laws and ordinances when
it comes to the special interests of prominent/ric~ individuals, organizations,
and even .its own buildings. Thig is evident in the violations of the sidewalk
paving o=dinance - most especially,(hot limited tO)the Planning/Public Works
Deptartments' own building.
· t~ntend to ask the City Council to instruct the City Attorney and the
Planning and Public Works Departments (as well as the Co~, Enforcement
Officer) to enforce this ordinance. I hope they will. If not, I will file
a lawsuit in which I hope to compel them to do so. In case the latter
comes to pass, I will want to subpoena you (and others who have observed
the danger~. So I wanted you to rem~er - and have'a written record
RUTH M, MILLER
To:
Re.:
758 B Street · Ashland, Oregon 97520
Re.~idence 541 · 482-8659
Ofl~ceffax 541 · 482-5387
February 3, 2004
The Mayor/City Council
Ashland MUnicipal Code - Title 13.04.030
PHiLIP C. RANG, ncsw
(Paving standards and specifications
I am bringing to your attention the problem of non-enforcement of the City's
paving standards and specifications. It is a good time to bring this issue
forward since last week you upheld an appeal based on the wishes of the
majority of citizens and on the laws and ordinances affecting the proposed
development.
This does not happen often enough. Often the ordinances, codes and rules are
enforced for we "little people" but waived, abrogated and violated on
behalf of rich~ and powerful individuals and organizations and even, as in
this case, by the government on its own behalf.
I call your attention to the attachment to this statement: a copy of
AMC Title 13/04/030 which specifieS' standards and specifications for
paving. I checked with the Public Works Department since this ordinance dates
from 1967. I was informed that: "it hasn't changed for eons".
Nevertheless, it has been abrogated creating significant phySica~
individuals and liabilities for the taxpaying citizens. I have called th~se
violations to the attention of the Planning Department and Public Works
(I have substantial correspondence dating back four years), but nothing has
~been done.
I am sure that there are other major violations - but here are some ~utstandiqg
and particularly danger~ ones:
1) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - "The bricks" The existing old bricks on the
north side are wire cut/slick surface bricks. As they have aged they
have become even more treacherous.
Sp~c~6~:arguments haue been .made defending this:
a) "The Bricks" preceded the code. They did not - the paving was done
when the Bowmer was built in 1970-1971. The Code was. put in place in 1967.
b) "Its the OSF campus and thus private property" The OSF "campus" ~
is leased from the City. We are the "deep pockets~hen the lawsuits
happen.
c) "The ordinance only applies to the public right of way- not the entire
"Bricks". Even if this is so - the public right of way is also bricks.
In fact, when the New Theater was built, the "bump out" sidewalk was
also allowed to be done in the same bricks.
City Council. - 2/3/04 - Pa.¥in~ Ordinance ~ p, 2
2) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - New Theater, Thi~ was ~p~e~led to the City
Council from Planning. The "Findings of Fact and Con¢lusiQns of Law"
included a condition '~#14 - p. 84) that"all Paving and reconstruction
within the public right of way be done to the standards Df the City of
Ashland .... " Once again, the paving is bricks and aggregate - neither of
which is allowed. I so informed the Planning Director in a letter dated
1/26/02. His response, dated 2/7/02 was that the condition had been met,
and no action would be taken.
3) The City's Planning/Public Works Building.
This building has four (!) two-foot-wide bands of glazed and slippery
ceramic tile from the building's edge out to the curb - a blatant
violation of the code. Moreover, weathering and heavy traffic have
loosened the grout; some tiles are~k~, increasing the hazard.
Staff~offices~looking out on the street have allowed staff to see
people slipping and falling. Nevertheless, department staff blame
the architect, the contractor, the Public Works Department - but no
correction has been made.
4) The DeBoer residence on Vista.
The owner has copied the same wire-cut, C~ay~bricks used by OSF in his sidewalk
at the front of the steps, and extended the sidewalk in aggregate for many
feet on either side.
When notified, code enforcement allowed as the work was not approved
inspected, or done to code, but that nothing would be done. (Letter
from Adam Hanks - 9/28/00).
It is vital that something must be done for the followin~ reasons:
1) Public danger.. Ail during the season (and before and after) there are
911 calls to pick people up off the bricks. This is easily verified.
I have treated people with significant injuries sustained on "The Bricks.~
People have slipped and fallen in front of the Planning Dept. building.
2) Public/taxpayer liability. At some point someone will sue OSF and/or the
City (we are the "deep pockets"). Since these problems have been known
to OSF and the City for a long time, the possibility of punitive as
well as ,compensatory damages exists.
3) Justice Louis Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court said: "government is a
teacher". He meant that the behavior of governments is a model to
citizens. The Paving in front of the Planning Dept. building is a brazen
and "in your face" violation that gives a message to individuals and
builders about how and by whom the laws can be broken with impunity.
Ashland Municipal Code Title 18/112/080 regarding "violations-nuisance"
states that violations of this sort "are declared to be unlawful and a
public nuisance, and the City Attorney of the City may, or upon order of
the City Council shall immediately commence action or proceedings for abatement,
and removal and enjoinment...and may take such other ste~s...to grant relief."
City Council - 2/3/04 - Paving Ordinance - p. 3
I am asking you to take action to correct these violations of law, and
dangers to the public/-%
PHILIP C. LANG v .
I~UTH M. MILLER
PHILIP C. LANG, tcs\v
758 B Street · Ashland ·Oregon 97520
Residence 541 · 482-8659
Olli(:e,rf;~ 541 ' 482-5387 '
February 3, .2004
To: The Major/City Council
Ashland M~nicipal Code - Title 13.04.030
(Paving standards and specificationsl
.I am bringing to your attention the problem of non-enforcement of'the City's
paving standards and specifications. 'It is a good time to bring this issue
forWard since last'week you upheld an appeal based on the wishes of the
majority of citizens and on the laws end ordinances a~fegti~ .the proposed
development. ..
This does not happen often enough. Often theordinances, codes and rules are
enforced for we "little people" but waived, abrogated and violated on
behalf of rhch~ and powerful individuals and organizations and even, as in
this case, by the government on its own behalf.
I call your attention' to the attachment to this 'statement: a copy of
AMC Title 13/04/030.which specifieS' standards and Specifications for
.paving. I checked with the P~blic Works Department since this ordinance dates
..from 1967. I was informed that~ "it hasn't changed for eons".
Nevertheless, it has-been abrogated, creating significant pSySic&~
individuals and liabilities for the taxpaying citizens. I have called-th~se
violations to 'the attention of the Planning Department and PublicW°rks
(I have 'substantial corresPOndence'dating back. four years), but nothing has
]been done.
I am sure that there are other major violations - but here are so~e ~utstandi~g
and particularly dangerd~ ones:
'1) Oregon Shakespeare Festival - "The bricks", The existing old bricks on the
north side are wire cut/slick surface bricks. As they have aged they
have become even more treacherous,
S.p~c~6n~;:a~.gumentsha=e been made defending thiS:.
a) "The Bricks"preceded the code, They did not - the paving.was done
when the Bowmer was built in 1970-1971, The Codewas put in placein 1967,
b) "Its the OSF campus and thus private property". The OSF "campus" ''
is leased from the City. We are the "deep pockets'~hen the lawsuits
happen.
c) "The ordinance only applies to the public right of way- not the entire
. "Bricks". Even if this is so - the public right of way is also bricks.
In fact, when the NewT heater was built, the "bump out" sidewalk was
also allowed to be done in.the same bricks.
City Council - 2/3/04 - Pa¥.ing O~din~nce - p, 2
2) Oregon Shakespeare Festiyal - NeW Theater. Thi~ wa.s a~p~ea, led to the City
Council from Planning. The "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L~.W"
included a condition '(~#14 - p. 84) that"all paving and reconstruction
within the public right of way be done to the standards ~f the City of
Ashland .... " Once again, the paving is bricks and aggregate - neither of
which is allowed. I so informed the Planning Director in a letter dated
1/26/02. His response, dated 2/7/02 was that the condition had been met,
and no action would be taken.
3) The City's Planning/Public Works Building.
This building has four (~') two-foot-wide bands of glazed and slipper~
cer~m~_c tile from the building's edge out to the curb'- a blatant
violation of the code Moreover, weathering and heavy traffic have
loosened the grout; some tiles are ~, increasing the hazard.
S. taff~ffioes::looking out on the street have allowed staff to see
people slipping, and -falling. Nevertheless, department· staff blame
the architect, the con~ractor, the Public Works Department - but no.
correction has been made. ' .
4) The DeBoer residence on Vista-.
The owner has copied the same wire-cut, d~X~¥..bricks used by OSF' in his sidewalk
, at the front of the Steps, and extended 'the sidewalk in aggregate for many
feet on either side..
When notified, code enforcement allowed aA' the work was not a~proved
inspected, or done to. code, .bUt that nothing, would be done. (Letter
from Adam Hanks -'9/28/00) .
.It is vital that somath~ng must be done for the following reasons:
1)'Public danger. 'All during the season (and before and after) there are
911'calls to Pick ~eoPle up off the bricks. This is easily verified.'
have treated~eople, with significant injuries'sustained on "The Bricks.,.
People have slipped and fallen in front of the Planning Dept. building.
2) Public/taxpayer. liability. At some ~oint someOne will sue OSF and/or the
City (we are the "deep pockets."). Since these problems have been known
to OSF and the City for a long time, the ~ossibiiity of punitive as
well as compensatory damages exists.
3) Justice Louis Brandeisof the U.S. Supreme Court said:"government is a
'teacher". He meant, that the behavior of governments is a model to
citizens. The Paving in front of the Planning Dept. building is a brazen
and "in your face" violation that gives a message .to individuals and
builders about how and bywhomthe laws can be broken with impunity.
Ashland Municipal Code Title 18/112/080 regarding "violations-nuisance"
.states that violations of this sort "are declared to be unlawful and a
~m/blicnuisan~e, and the City Attorney of the City may, or upen order of
.the CityCouncil-shall immediately c~_~,3~_n_ce action or ~rooeedings for abatement,
and removal and enjoinment...and may take such other st~s .... to grant relief."
City Co~cil - 2/3/04 - Paving. Ordinance - p. 3
I am asking you to take action to correct these violations of law,
dangers to the public..% .~
and
.SECTION 13.04.030 Standards and Specifications.
Page 1 of 1
CHAPTER 13.04 CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF SIDEWALKS
sEcTION 13..00.030 Standards and 'Specifications.
A. Sidewalks shall be constructed of Portland cement conc~:ete; shall be not less than five (5) feet in
width, and shall be located one (1) foot from the property line extending toward the curb, unless
otherwise approved by the City Council.
B. The City Administrator shall establish supplemental standards and specific~ations for sidewalk
construction, repair, or alteration to provide durable and practical sidewalks at a suitable grade
determined by the City Administrator to be in accordance with the system of the City street grades.
C. The City Administrator shall report to the City Council changes in sidewalk standards and
specifications and shall keep a copy onfile in the City offices for the use of the public.
D. Sidewalks shall be constructed, repaired, or altered in accordance with the standards and
specifications established under this section. (Ord. 1515 S3, 1967)
http://www.asbland.or.us/MunieipalCode/TITLE_l 3/04/030.html 9/26/00
CITY OF
, SHLAND
February 5, 2004
Mr. Philip C. Lang
758 B Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: Your letter dated January 26, 2002 - OSF/Pioneer Street Crossing
Dear Philip,
The sidewalk and street crossing work done on Pioneer Street in association with the new OSF Theater
was done under pemfit of the Ashland Public Works Department, and was deemed to be in conformance
with the City's requirements. The plaza area in front of the new theater is not located on city right-of-
way and is the responsibility of OSF. They have made the choice to use brick pavers in this area. The
new sidewalk located on the east side of Pioneer is concrete. The adjoining sections of existing
sidewalk were aggregate and the new sidewalk was approved as aggregate for a continuous, compatible
surface. The new bump-out area on the west side of Pioneer is predominantly concrete for the ADA
tactile area, with a very. limited new brick area. This was approved as paxt of the permit process with
Public Works. The remainder of the sidewalk area on the west side is existing brick that was in place
prior to the new theater approval.
We have found that the condition established for OSF regarding the new sidewalk and crossing have
been met and the Department of Community Development will not be taking any further action
regarding this issue.
I hope this answers your questions.
Sincerely,
John McLaughlin
Director of Community Development
C:
Mayor DeBoer
Greg Scoles, City Administrator
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Paul Nicholson, OSF
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
wvAv.ashland.or, us
Tel: 541488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
Il'Y: 800-735-2900
City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Adam Hanks
Code Compliance
Phone 541-552-2046
Fax 541-488-5311
- adam@ashland.or.us
Philip Lang
758 B St
Ashland, OR 97520
September 22, 2000
Dear Mr. Lang:
This letter is in response to our conversations this past week regarding your request to replace the
existing poured concrete sidewalk abutting the fi.om property line of your residence on B Street with a
sidewalk constructed with brick pavers.
As you noted in your letter of April 28 to Jim Olson, it is City policy that sidewalks in the public right-
of-way are to be constructed using poured concrete with a broomed finish. The intent of this standard is
two-fold. Broomed concrete ensures a uniform surface that, when in good repair, meets ADA standards
for a pedestrian surface. Broomed concrete, as opposed to other surfaces, asphalt, decomposed granite,
individual bricks, etc. require less long term maintenance due to the unified nature of concrete.
Additionally, compliance, to a standard provides an aesthetic visual connection throughout the
neighborhood.
You noted two deviations from the right-of-way standard explained in the above paragraph are worth
explanation. The bricks in the fight-of-way on the west side of South Pioneer Street were installed some
· time ago and no information is available as to theft approval by the City. The bricks in the courtyard
area are not required to meet this standard, as the standard applies to sidewalks in the public right-of-way
only. The safety concerns regarding the courtyard area will be forwarded to our Risk Management
Department.
The brickwork done in the public right-of-way in from of the stairway to 234 Vista does not meet the
standard and was not noticed by the Department of Public Works at the time of its construction. The use
of an alternate material, while not included in standards at the time of its construction, does provide a
visual emphasis for both the pedestrian and vehicle intersections with the sidewalk.
The remainder of the sidewalk in fi.om of 234 and 300 Vista are indeed finished with exposed aggregate.
Exposed aggregate is not specified in the sidewalk standard, as it is more expensive than the broomed
f'mish, but nonetheless meets the material standard of a poured concrete finish. The use of an exposed
aggregate fufish does not decrease the expected life of the surface, nor does it violate the required
standards for an ADA approved sidewalk.
City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Adam Hanks Phone 541-552-2046
Code Compliance Fax 541-488-5311
- adam~ashland.or.us
The concrete brick material you have requested for the replacement of the sidewall in front of your
residence may initially meet the intent of the surface standards, but has a higher likelihood of creating an
uneven and unsafe surface over a short period of time.
Cun-ently, the Ashland Municipal Code specifically states in Chapter 13.04.030 that sidewalks are to be
constructed using poured concrete. No mention is made as to the ability of staff to allow variances to
. this code requirement.
As we discussed several weeks ago, the Engineering Divisi°n of our Public Works Department is in the
process of revising many of our public right-of-way standards, including sidewalks. In discussions with
Engineering, it seems appropriate to develop language in the new standards that would provide property
owners with the opportunity to enhance the standard construction specifications by using alternate
materials in areas where the pedestrian walkway or driveway approach intersects with the sidewalk.
Because this is not yet an approved City standard, the Engineering Division would not yet be able to
issue a permit for sidewalk work with the alternate materials. I would suggest that, if you are interested
in pursuing the use of alternate materials, you delay the project until the standards have been revised and
approved. Otherwise, the only permit that could be issued would not allow anything other than a poured
concrete sidewalk.
If you have any questions regarding the Council request process, please feel free to contact Paula Brown,
Director of Public Works or Greg Scoles, City Administrator.
Sincerely,
Adam Hanks
Code Compliance
C:
Paula Brown, Director of Public Works
John MeLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager
Sharlene Stephens, Risk Management
Ene: Sidewalk Standard Document
Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 13
City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Adam Hanks
Code Compliance
iPhone 541-552-2046
iFax 541-488-5311
adam@ashland.or.us
September 28, 2000
Philip Lang
758 B St
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Mr. Lang:
Per your request, the following is an attempt to answer your questions posed, in your
correspondence of September 17, 2000.
The bricks in the OSF courtyard extend out into the public right-of-way, which is not in
compliance with current City standards. However, that work-was done prior to the currently
established standards and can be classified as a legal non-conforming surface. No
enforcement action will take place.
The bricks in the OSF courtyard are not required to meet the sidewalk standard, as they are
not within the public right-of-way. I realize that the land is under the ownership of the City
of Ashland, but that has no relevance in the enforcement of sidewalk standards. As I
mentioned in my last letter to you, I will forward your concerns with the courtyard surface
to our Risk Management Department for review.
The brickwork in front of 234 and 300 ViSta was done without a Public Works permit. It is
irrelevant who did the work, the homeowner or a professional. As I mentioned in my letter,
the sidewalk standards are being redrafied and will most likely include exceptions that allow
- alternate materials emphasizing the pedestrian and vehicle crossings through the sidewalk. I
do not see the value in requiring the property owner to replace the materials that have been
installed to meet a standard that will soon be modified to permit the very material that we
require to be replaced. No enforcement action will be taken, unless dictated by the Director
of Public Works or the City Administrator.
4. Answered in statement #3.
I have noted your concerns with the materials proposed for the sidewalk and entry walkway
in the file and have also communicated these concerns directly with Bill Molnar, Senior
City of Ashland
Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
Adam Hanks Phone 541-552-2046
Code Compliance Fax 541-488-5311
~ adam~ashland.or.us
Planner. To reiterate, the entry walkway will most likely not be required to meet the
standards being discussed here because it is not a part of the public fight-of-way.
The suggestions from my last correspondence still hold tree. A permit is required for the
replacement or construction of a sidewalk in the public right-of-way. Failure to complywith
the permit requirement will result in enforcement action.
Sincerely,
Adam Hanks
Code Compliance
C~
Paula Brown, Director of Public Works
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Jim Olson, City Surveyor/Project Manager
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
P~]~[P C. LANG, nc~sw
'758 I5 8trcct · A,sh~and, Orc$o~ 9"/520
[~cskdcacc 541 · 48%8659
O~cc/V~x. 541 · 482-5587
February 13, 2004
To: Mayor & City Council.
Attached are two additional pieces of evidence with respect to paving
problems and[ the Planning Department's relation thereto.
They are ~b~Z~e~ Exhibit P and Exhibit Q respectively.
~pro~e~/)Minute2' and Transcription of Audiotape of 10/17/00 Council Meeting
Approved minutes:
Minutes 10117101~Council meeting http://www.ashland.or.us/AgendasResults.asp?AMID=233
.... McLaughlin stated that in the appellant's 65-page presentation, many of the issues raised, had been heard
previousl.~' and addressed. He also noted the following new issues that had not prex%usly raised:
1) A proposal for bricks in the sidewalk, and sidewalk standards for poured concrete. McLaughlin noted that staff
had added a condition requiring that the sidewalk work be done under the permit and approval of Public Works.
2) Building size requirements. McLaughlin explained that the numbers quoted were based on the architect's building
plan, which is measured from the outside of the building. He further explained that, as is written in city ordinance, the
measurements are made from the inside of the walls, and the 44,000 sq. ft building is within the 45,000 sq. ft limit.
3) Building separation, anti firewails. McLaughlin stated that one solution is to attach the theater to the parking
structure, ,~vhich would alleviate a fesv huihling code issues, but r,'ouJd also exceed the square fi}otage requirement. An
alternative solution, would he to create a fire,vail, ~vhich ~%as als. considered by the architects in the huilding
department. Staff recommended addin~ a condition ensuring that the buildings are noncontiguous .....
From audiotape (The videotape has been destroyed)
What follows is a verbatim transcript of that part of the 10/17/00 meeting
that covers M~. McLoughlin"s remarks on item ~1, ~.reaeding. Emphasis,
commas, etc. are included to try to replicate the exact cadence ~and'
intonation of his remarks.
[McLaughlin]
Urn, there's a couple of points, um, one involves the, er, proposal for bricks in the courtyard area, and that
includes, um, the way it's proposed, is there'd be some bricks within the er, dght of way or sidewalk area. And, er,
Mr. Lang is correct that you do have a standard that requires that that be done to urn, our sidewalk standard,
which is a Portland'cement. And so we would just recommend you, er there's a um, condition number ten I
believe that, um involves urn, improvements of the er, bulb-out area that's proposed, it's i'n this drawing, right
here you can see that crossing area. We just have a ~condition in there that that work all be done under permit and
approval of Public Works and just add on that the sidewalk um, comply with the City standards for sidewalk
construction and also continue under review and approval by Public Works. And I think it addresses, that point.
Exhibit P
Oregon Shekespeare Festival - 1999-2003 Long Range Plan
Goal ~2 of the 1999-2003 Long Range Plan (attached) states that:
"We will provide a work environment for all company members that is
dynamic, s~?portive, safe, and creauvely inspiring".
It also states: "In order to accomplish this goal, we plan to implement
the following action programs:
7. Ex,nine how we can make the brick courtyard less hazardous
during wet weather~.
Further on, Goal 014 (attached) states, sub ll.b.: "Examine how we can
improve the safety of the Bricks by providing a non-slip surface and
installing :steps ~n front of the box office."
Other, far ]more grandiose goals stated in this plan have been achieved,
including construction of the New Theater, and increasing the endowment
by another $10,000,000.
This one has not. Patron and staff safety still goes a-begging.
is now 2004 - 5 years later, and, presumably, time for a new four
year plan ....
Exhibit Q
It
Goal//2: .We will provide a work environment for all company members that
is dynamic, supportive, safe and creatively inspiring.
Background An,'flysis:
In the last five years we have significantly upgraded working conditions for many of our staff including
the costume shop, artistic staff, design, stage operations, box office, development, marketing and
communication, education, publications and information services. These improvements have made a huge
difference in company morale and our capacity to provide the best work. By the end of 1998 with the
renovation of the Bowmer Theatre basement area we will have expanded dressing space by 30%,
improved stage manager and stage operations offices, provided better sound, lighting and costume
construction space, and doubled the green room area.
The company inc, reasingly believes that management is really making an effort to listen to everyone. The
Manager's Work:shops and diversity training and an improved evaluation process increasingly enhance
communication and management responsiveness. At the same time, it is very difficult to make art where
outside labor forces, such as federal and state laws, apply pressure on us to be more bureaucratic and
institutional.
Although we have made concerted efforts to ensure our wages are competitive with other theatres, it is
difficult for manly company members to live in this increasingly expensive city. Although the longevity of
our company gives us remarkable stability and knowledge, the financial and time demands of raising
families can create dissatisfaction among some company members over what the Festival can offer.
There appears to be a class system developing w/thin the Festival relating to different pay scales and
education levels, where people come from, and hierarchical position, and this could jeopardize company
morale in the future. Although a lot of effort has been made to include everyone in the company through
invitation to Show Intro's, task~oriented training, diversity training, improvements in Company Relations
meetings, and the introduction of the Company Council, we will need to focus on providing continued
opportunities for the company to stay connected. We want to make the Festival one of the best companies
in the U.S. in which to work.
In order to accomplish this goal,.we plan to implement the following action programs:
1. Examine work l'oads throughout the Festival. AD/ED 2000
Dir of Pers
2. Provide vacation time/pay for all company members AD/ED 1999-2003 $35,000 -
who work more than 20 weeks per season. Dir of Pers $70,000
per year
3. Examine the costs and benefits of increasing the match ED 2000 $42,000
on our retirement plan from 4% to 5%. Dir of Pers per year
4. Increase training and tuition reimbursement budgets. AD/ED 2000-2003 $10,000
Dir of Pers per year
18
5. Ensure that we offer a competitive compensation and AD/ED 1999-2000
benefits package that attraCts and retains the people we Dir of Pers
want; engage a compensation consultant to assist the
process.
6. Examine the implication of creating a system that Prdn Mgr 2000
rewards company members who save the Festival Dir Of F&A
money through cost reductions, material savings, and Dir of Pers
time efficiency. All managers
7. Examine how we can make the brick courtyard less Dir of Pers 2000 $5,000
hazardous during wet weather. Dir Of Fac.
8. Upgrade the Green Show performance deck, ensuring AD 2000 $15,000
that it is designed to fit harmoniously into the Assoc Prd
courtyard. Prdn Mgr
9. Continue to offer management and company members Dir of Pers 1999-2000
training in communication and diversity. Assoc. AD
10. Maintain the Company Council as a vital AD/ED 1999-2000
communication between company members and OSF Cmpany Cncl
leadership.
19
Goal # 14:
We will analyze our space and facilities challenges and as our
resources permit, carefully implement changes that address the
high priority needs.
Background Analysis:
We made major improvements in the costume shop with the move to the Pioneer building in 1997. Once
the old costume shop space in the Angus Bowmer Theatre basement is converted, we will have more
suitable space for actors' Green Room, dressing rooms, sound and light departments, stage operations,
and stage managers.
While all of our theatres are in good condition, we do have limitations in load-in facilities and lighting,
vocal and movement coach space, and in the size of our rehearsal halls. Our mailing facilities are
inadequate and information services staff are working in crowded conditions.
We often mm away groups requesting education services because we are unable to find space. In
addition, some of the spaces we use are inadequate for work with students. Dedicated space would enable
us to significantly expand our education offerings.
In order to accomplish this goal, we plan to implement the following action programs:
1. Create a master plan for space needs and establish a AD/ED 1999
task force :for examining and implementing the master Prdn Mgr
space plan. Assoc Prd
Board
2. Improve access of large scenic elements ihto the theatres Prdn Mgr 1999 $20,000
by replacing load-in doors as appropriate.
3. Purchase additional suitable, affordable housing units as Dir of F&A 1999-2003 $???
they become available to provide more control over Cmp'anyMgr
company housing.
4. Examine how we can increase the size of our rehearsal Assoc AD 2000
halls. Assoc Prd
Dir of Fac
5. Provide dedicated spaces for voice, movement and AD/ED. 1999-2001 $25,000
warm up activities close to the dressing rooms in each
theatre.
~3. Explore the use of spaces off campus for activities and ED 1999-2002
functions that do not need to be close to the theatres.
7. Examine how we can improve wheelchair seating in the ED 2000
Angus Bowmer Theatre; implement as appropriate. Res. Des.
41
8. Upgrade the Sennheiser Heating System in our theatres Dir of M&C 2000 $15,000
where necessary. Prdn Mgr
Aud Serv Mgr
9. Work with the business community and City of Ashland ED 2000-2003
on creating additional parking for company members Dir Of F&C
and Festival patrons. Dir Of M&C
10. Seek to provide dedicated classroom and workshop Dir Of Ed. 1999-2003 ???
spaces for cmr education activities.
11. Improve wheechair access to our theatres:
a. Examine the possibilities of providing a wheelchair
Dir of F&A 2001 $15,000
loading zone next to the bricks.
b. Examine how we can improve the safety of the Dir of F&A 2000 $10,000
Bricks by providing a non-slip surface and
installing steps in front of the Box Office.
Dir of M&C
c. Examine ways of providing wheelchair access to
Dir of Fac 2000
the Angus Bowmer Theatre booth and Backstage Res. Des.
Tour areas.
42
CITY OF
- SHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
City Attorney Recruitment Process
Administration
February 17, 2004
Tina Gray, HR Manager '~
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Synopsis:
The position of City Attorney will become vacant in June 2004. As dictated by the City Charter, the
position of City Attorney is to be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation from the City Council.
Staff is prepared to recruit a new City Attorney without the assistance of an outside recruitment firm.
We are requesting approval from the council to move forward with our recruitment strategy and
selection process, which includes a modification to the salary range.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve the job announcement (Attachment A), salary adjustment and
internal recruitment process.
Fiscal Impact:
Internal resources will be use to create a job announcement (Attachment A), advertise the vacancy and
administer a selection process. By utilizing internal resources rather than using a professional
recruitment firm for this process, we anticipate a savings of approximately $20,000. We anticipate
normal costs for a department head-level recruitment such as travel and reimbursement costs for
candidates traveling from out of the area, background investigation expenses on the finalists, and
potential relocation expenses for the candidate ultimately selected for the position. The City will also see
a savings in salary and ~benefit costs under the proposed range.
Background:
The current City Attorney will be leaving the employ of the city no later than June 30, 2004. It is time
for thc City to start thc recruitment process to refill this key position. Staff is requesting approval from
the council to move fmxvard with our recruitment strategy and selection process internally with a
modification to the salary range.
A draft job announcement has been 'prepared describing the community, legal department and position
for perspective candidates. As our market for this position is primarily practicing Oregon Attorneys with
municipal and management experience, staff feels we can attract qualified candidates without the added
expense of employing a recruitment finn. The job qualifications currently require admittance to the
Oregon State Bar and Oregon Municipal experience. Staff recommends the recruitment process be
handled internally and capitalize on recruitment resources available in Oregon.
Recruitment Resources for City Attomey Recruitment Process
- Oregon State Bar Bulletin (Publication)
- League of Oregon Cities Website and/or LOC Focus Newsletter
- City of Ashland Website
- Local Newspapers
Salary
Staff is recommending a reduction in the salary range to make the City Attorney salary range equivalent
to the range offered to other City Department Heads. We do not anticipate that the lower salary range
will be a detriment to attracting a suitable candidate. A current salary survey using comparable cities
that we have established with our bargaining units shows that our current salary for' City Attorney is
significantly above average and would remain above average if advertised at the proposed range. The
Mayor and Council would have the ability to recommend a salary increase once they have had time to
evaluate the new attorney's performance.
Current City Attorney Salary Range
Step 1 : $6,973/mo. I $83,676/yr
Step 2 $7,250/mo. '1 $87,000/yr
Step 3 i $7,542/mo. $90,504/yr
Step 4 $7,844/mo. $94,128/yr
Proposed
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
City Attorney Salary Range
$6,450/mo. ~ $77,400/yr
$6,706/mo. $80,472/yr
$6,973/mo. $83,676/yr
$7,250/mo. $87,000/yr
Selection Process
Staff recommends a panel interview process composed of the Mayor and City Council similar to the
process used for City Administrator. As this position serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and Council, it
is critical that both parties have a high level of involvement in the selection process. Staff will work with
Mayor and Council to gather input on interview questions and process.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Review of Draft 2004-2005 Council ~als
Administration ~~/
February 17, 2004
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
Synopsis:
Attached is a draft of the 2004-2005 Council Goals.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council consider the Draft 2004-2005 Council Goals and to direct staff to prepare
a final draft for adoption.
Fiscal Impact:
The fiscal impacts of the various goals will be in the budget document for fiscal year 2004-2005.
Background:
On January 9 and 10, 2004, the Mayor, Council and staff met to develop goals for the next fiscal year
(2004-2005). The City Council reviewed the 2003-2004 goals and considered new goals for the next 24
months. At the conclusion of the session the staff was directed to prepare a draft of the goals for
consideration by the Council.
A copy of the DRAFT 2004-2005 Goals of the City of Ashland is attached (Attachment I), outlining the
draft goals based on the, input from the Council at the January 9th and l0th workshops. A copy of the
Summary of the goal setting workshop prepared by Sylvia Rose is also attached (Attachment II). Using
this information, the goals have been incorporated into a revision of the Goals of the City of Ashland,
which is attached and marked DRAFT - February 17, 2004, and redlined with changes and additions. The
Council should review the DRAFT and make any necessary changes at the meeting on February 17th.
The staff will then incorporate those changes in a final draft for consideration by the Council at the March
16 City Council meeting. Staff will prepare the 2004-2005 budget document based on the adopted
council goals. A summary will be provided which identifies the responsible department and anticipated
schedule for addressing each of the goals will be presented to the City Council in mid-April.
The attached is a summary of the results of the visioning exercise (Attachment III). The exercise
involved the Mayor and City Council as well as department heads. The exercise involved the review of ,
the seven individual vision statements submitted by the Mayor and City Council in an effort to develop a
consensus around a vision for Ashland. The summary is an attempt to capture the major themes that
emerged during the review of the seven vision statements. The summary is not intended to be a definitive
statement regarding the Mayor and City Council's collective vision for the community.
The City Council also identified some additional "administrative directives" which should be addressed
during the coming year but were not necessarily considered goals:
· Re-format goals, separate from the thirteen policy statements.
· Gather socio-economic data.
· Report on implementation of the Water Conservation goals outlined in the '98 Comprehensive Water
Supply Plan.
· Establish a public review process and implementation timeline for the Downtown Plan.
Attachments:
· 2004-2005 Goals - Draft 2/17/04 - Attachment I.
· Summary from City of Ashland Mayor and Council Goal Setting Work Session - Attachment II.
· Summary of Visioning Exercise - Attachment III.
2004-2005
Goals of the City of Ashland
D R A F T- 2/17/04 SHOWING CHANGES
COMMUNITY VALUES STATEMENT
The citizens of Ashland value a City govemmem that helps create an
environment within which they are able to live happy and productive lives. This
includes a healthy and sustainable environment; an opportunity to acquire the basic
necessities of life; a sound infrastructure that meets our common needs for
transportation, energy, information and communications, health care, water and waste
management; and a variety of social, recreational, business and cultural opportunities.
The citizens want theh' government to respect our diverse people, natural
environmem, and rich heritage and culture; and to promote citizen involvement,
initiative, innovation and a strong sense of community.
ELEMENTS
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
Citizen participation and involvement - The City recognizes the value of citizen
involvement and the wealth of information and resources that the citizens of Ashland possess.
The Gty is committed to a high level of communication with the public.
Environmental Resources - Ashland seeks to retain its natural beauty as k cominues to grow
and further develop. The City seeks to strike a balance between urbanization and the natural
environment by providing protection for soils, small creeks & wetlands, urban forest, clean air
and peace & quiet.
Housing -. The Cityhas a respomibility to ensure that proper amounts of land are set aside to
accommodate the various housing needs in the City, and that its land developmem ordinances
are broad enough to allow for variation in housing type, cost and density.
Economic Strategy - The City encourages a variety of economic activities in the City, while
continuing to reaffirm the economic goals of Ashland citizens and ex/sting businesses.
Economic developmem in Ashland should serve the purpose of maintaining and improving
the local quality of life.
Public Services - The City will provide a full range of public services that meet the needs of
existing and future citizens. The City Council values and supports city staff and the work
they do on behalf of the community. The City strives to create a productive work
environment for city employees.
Transportation and Transit - To retain Ashland's small-town character while k grows, the
City must proactively plan for a transportation system that is integrated into the community
and enhances the livability, character and natural environment.
Energy, Air and Water Resources - Ashland seeks to be a regional leader in the areas of
energy, air and water conservation. The City seeks to continue this leadership role in further
development of goals, policies and programs that encourage citizens to conserve natural
IX.
Xle
resources. The City also desires to continue to provide electrical service to consumers at as
low a cost as possible.
Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics - Ashland's character is intimately linked to its aesthetic
resources, including ks vistas, trees, parks, open space lands, and public art. The City seeks to
develop programs that preserve important open space and parkland, while accommodating
continuing urbanization.
Urbanization- The Gty seeks to ensure an orderly transition of land from rural to urban
uses.
Historical Sites and Structures - Ashland seeks to preserve its rich history through the
preservation of its historical buildings and places.
Regional Strategies - Ashland seeks to develop unique parmerships with governments, non-
profits and the private sector to ensure that regional issues of importance to the City and the
region are addressed in a collaborative and effective way.
Financial Management - The City will be an accountable and effective steward of the public
trust and public resources. The City will provide equitable and efficient services to the public
through the efficiem use of assets and resources.
Social and Human Services - To ensure that all people in Ashland live in a safe, strong, and
caring community, the City seeks to enhance the quality of life and promote self-reliance,
growth and development of people. To these ends, the City will strive to provide resources
and services to meet basic human needs.
2004 - 2005 GOALS
3.
3.
4.
5.
Cominue to help commissions and committees become more effective through resources and
training oppommities.; develop training program for commission volunteers in meeting
management, goal setting, group dynamics, and ethics.
Adopt a process to meet L(])C Goal 1 Participation goal requirement.
Complete Charter review and update process.
Develop Riparian Ordinance.
Pursue water quality and temperature improvements through an active storm water management
program including bioswales, storm-ceptors, maintenance programs, tree planting, link to the
riparian zones, erosion control programs and "creek clean-ups."
6. Develop Urban ForestryPlan.
· Pursue ways to speed up forest fuels reduction work in the watershed (municipal and federal).
· Improve the overall management of the Ashland Watershed by working with 'the Forest
Service and continue efforts to reduce the wildfire threat in the watershed.
Implement the Ashland Forest Lands restoration plan for watershed improvemem by a)
cornpleting Phase II; and, b) developing Phase III work plan for restoration work on Wmbum
Parcel.
7. Establish a stronger, formalized role for the C/win the stewardship of entire Ashland Watershed.
8. Derive a specific list of '04 action items from the Housing Action Plan and Needs Anal~is with
reasonable, measurable marks of progress.
· Consider the land use changes listed in the Housing Action Plan (council to_ approve action
steps)
· Amend ordinance to stop allowing single-family residential developmem in mixed-family
residential zoning districts.
· Provide in-kind support to ACLT as attainable housing for Ashland.
9. Design implementation of local Economic Development program, based on current
Comprehensive Plan, Policy 3.
10. Continue master planning of large undeveloped ::'.zed '~e properties.
11. Develop planning framework for future developmem of North Normal area.
12. Evaluate space ncc& (for Muv2c:.p~ c- .... r~^c% ~ty Co'.mc:~, ~_a ^~k ..... k~ r,:.=. r- .... .~ ;.
t7'.-.'.4.c Center and create plan for remodel of Council C~amber (meet various concerns: seating,
sound, design, web access).
13. Enhance revenue and services from AFN to strengthen its viability..
k'rqrcvc ~c ;~b~' cf p~m,. ,~.
14. Complete pre-design plan for future extension of TAP water line, including priority for
conservation.
15. Enhance water' supply and conservation by developing a citywide focus "the right water for the
right use." Explore and potentially develop a three-year plan to Lmprove and extend our current
TID s~tem; develop a TAP timeline and design: negotiate for other water supply optiom;
support effluem reuse option for the ~ effluent.
16. Develop a five-year plan to identify, fund and fully integrate all information technology, functions
within the organization, including upgrades to LaserFiche, GIS, utility billing software, web
interface modules and more. Invest in and utilize the most appropriate software to maintain,
improve, and enhance internal work performance thereby providing the best possible service to
Ashland citizem.
17. Complete a communications coverage study for fire department radio communications.
· Conduct a radio wave strength and coverage study.
· Determine need for additional radio repeater/receiver sites.
·
Identify and purchase necessary radio communications equipment.
18. Establish a Public Safety Adviso .fy Committee to provide public input on police and fire issues
(with Council approved guidelines).
19. Develop strategy, to educate residents about City's emergency procedures in the evem of wildfire
(Fire, Police and Public Works Departments: evacuate, relocate, shelter, communications with the
public).
20. Improve safety of existing at grade RR crossings and develop a plan to improve the Hersey St./N.
Laurel St. crossing.
21. Improve pedestrian and traffic safety based on the 3-Es - Education, Enforcemem and
Engineering at Wmaer Street and North Main.
22. Measurably improve traffic safety in neighborhoods (Pedestrians, auto, bicycle, sidewalks, school
zones, speed limits, crosswalk safety).
23. Continue and to expand RVTD free busing program.
24. Evaluate TI'PC Plan and develop action plan for items adopted.
25. Identify and acquire land for transit station.
26. Map water capacity and its sources in the watershed and enhance protection of it. In partnership,
implement an enhanced monitoring program .(begin monitoring).
27. Improve public trail system by developing a comprehensive trails master plan, which addresses
minimizing public/private conflicts. Plan should include the Bear Ca'eek Greenway (Dog Park to
Mountain Ave. Park). (Plan should discuss range of tools to obtain access and ways to estimate
construction costs and costs to obtain easements.)
28. Adopt Dark Sky. Ordinance that reduces light pollution throughout the City on public and private
property.
29.
Continue to provide information to the community and foster discussion on growth and planning
issues, with an emphasis on historic presen, ation, annexation requirements, State land use law,
infill policy and impacts related to density, rate of growth, development standards,, and processes.
30. Develop performance measures program for all city departments.
31. Review and adjust target fund balances to respond to current operations.
32. Review and consider strategies in the health and human services plan.
33.
Identify and implemem no-cost and low-cost strategies within the Health and Human Services
Plan in partnership with service providers that aid in the delivery of services to people most in
need.
Summary from City of Ashland Mayor and Council Goal Setting Work Session
Friday and Saturday, January 9-10, 2004
Community Development, Public Works & Engineering Building
In Attendance: Mayor Alan DeBoer, Councilors Alex Amarotico, Cate Hartzell, Chris Heam,
Kate Jackson, Don Laws, John Morrison. Staff: Gino Grimaldi, Mike Bianca, Tina Gray, Sharon
Laws, John McLaughlin, Paul Nolte, Jim Olson, Don Robertson, Ann Seltzer, Lee Tuneberg,
Dick Wanderscheid, Keith Woodley; and City Recorder Barbara Christensen.
Various citizens m~d members of the press,
Facilitator Sylvia Rose reviewed the agenda and established ground rules.
In the first exercise, participants were divided into 4 small groups to review the seven individual
vision statements submitted by the mayor and council members and to develop consensus around
a vision for Ashlm~d.
The groups answered 3 questions:
1. What is the vision of Ashland's future?
2. What is missing?
3. What is the role of Council and city staff in implementation of the vision?
To ensure that the Council had adequate information before proceeding into goal setting mode,
the contents of the: background packet were reviewed and discussed.
· Summary of Public Input
· Overview of Goals by Department
· Overview of Goals from Various Boards, Commissions, Committees
· Jackson County Residents in Need Report
· Financial Condition
· Summary of 2003-2004 Council Goals, with project updates
The remainder of day one was spent reviewing proposed goals, clarifying and measuring those
goal statements against the Goal Criteria.
Day two was spent discussing and modifying the proposed goals in more depth. It was agreed
that a modified consensus approach would be used to finalize the list of 24-month goals. The
2004-2006 goals are attached, along with several Administrative Directives and a Council policy.
Before concluding the session, City Administrator Grimaldi laid out next steps. The facilitator
will submit a written report within the next week. Staff will assign goals to departments and
develop a realistic timeline for Council review, modification if necessary, approval and adoption.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m., Saturday, Janu~/ry 10, 2004.
II
CiTY OF
kSHLAND
Summary of Visioning Exercise
January 8, 2004
The Mayor and Council were each asked to submit their "vision" for the City of Ashland in the year 2029.
At the 2004-2005 Council Goal Setting, Mayor, Councilors and senior staff divided into four groups to review the
seven vision statements. The group focused on three points: What is common among thes~vision statements?
What is missing from the statements? What is Council's role in the implementation of a vision and what is staffs
role in the implementation of a vision?
The following themes resonated throughout the vision statements and were identified be each group:
· Protection of the environment and enhanced natural areas including open space and riparian
· Alternative modes of transportation
· Strong civic pride and respect for local government
· A diverse and sustainable economy with an emphasis on clean industry and technology arenas
· An aesthetically pleasing community
· Thriving schools
· Fiscally sound local government
· Successful conservation efforts
· Affordable and accessible housing
The groups identified the following themes that were missing from the vision statements:
· The relationship of Ashland to the rest of the valley
· Issues related to economic growth and population growth (what is acceptable growth?).
· Regional partnerships
· Public Involvement
· How will elected offic, ials make decisions?
The council's role in implementing the vision is:
· Formulate and commtmicate policy
· Represent Ashland and actively participate in regional, state and federal problem solving on issues that relate
to Ashland and the valley
· Establish priorities
· Be fiscally responsible and be responsive to citizens
· Work in partnership with staff
· Be prepared to modi~t and re-shape the visions as things change
The staffs role in implementing the vision is:
· Provide alternatives to Council to accomplish the vision
· Recommend priorities and timelines
· Maintain infrastructure and high standards of customer service
· Report regularly.to council
· Advise Council in technical fields
CITY HALL Tel: 541488-6002
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900
wwv.ashland.or, us
III
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Council Communication
Title: Purchase of Ashland Creek Open Space Property (Zaller and Geddes, 755 Oak Street)
Dept: Parks Department
Date: February 17, 200~/~
Submitted By: Don Robertson
Approved By: Gino Grimaldi
Synopsis:
Purchase of approximately .4 acre of property adjoining Ashland Creek at the north end of the Vogel
property (map attached) for open space purposes and a conditional trail easement for $60,000 plus
survey costs of approximately $3,400.
Recommendations:
Approve the purchase of the property and authorize the mayor and staff to execute all documents
necessary for the purchase.
Fiscal Impact:
The 'purchase will require approximately $63,400 to be charged from open space funds.
Background:
The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission recommends purchase of the property as noted and
explained in the attached memo. The trail easement would run from the north end of the property being
purchased through the length of the adjoining parcel, which is approximately 150 feet. This adjoining
property is also owned by Zaller and Geddes. The trail is conditioned on not being used for ten years,
and then only if the city' obtains all other property or easements to make a continuous trail between
Hersey and Nevada Streets.
Attachments:
Map.
Memorandum from Don Robertson.
G:~IegaI\PAUL~PARKS~Zaller purchase cc.wpd
Staff Exhibit A
Proposed 20'
Easement
Subject
Property
150 0 150
MEMORANDUM
TO :
FROM :
DATE :
SUBJECT :
Ashland City Council
Don Robertson, Director
February 11, 2004
755 Oak Street
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve purchase of property at 755 Oak Street.
BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2003, at its regular meeting, the Ashland Parks and Recreation
Commission reviewed and approved the agreement to purchase the property located at 755
Oak Street.
This parcel of property was identified during the planning of the Open Space Master Plan.
The plan called fbr purchase of properties located along Ashland Creek for a future trail
connection and riparian preservation. The plan also designates that all properties purchased
will be negotiated, with willing sellers at fair market value. Staff negotiated for the property
purchase and an additional easement across adjacent property owned by the same family.
The purchase will include 200 feet of creek frontage along with the additional 150 feet of
pedestrian access easement along the creek. One stipulation of the easement is that it will
not be active until. 2014. Total acreage will be slightly less than an acre.
The price of the land, easement, and survey costs will be $63,400. This price is very
comparable to other similar property purchases.
The Commission recommends approval of the purchase of the property located at 755 Oak
Street and the adjacent easement.
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Dept:
Date:
Submitted By:
Approved By:
Synopsis:
Council Goal Charter Review and Update
Administration
February 17, 2004 .
)am Seltzer, Management Analyst ~//;
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
The 2003-2004 council goals include the goal "Consider a Charter Review".
Council should discuss whether it wants to proceed with a charter review. If so, the discussion should
include what type of charter review individual councilors envision such as a full review of the entire
charter or a list of specific issues to be reviewed.
Recommendation:
Schedule a study session to accommodate a discussion on charter review.
Fiscal Impact:
None at this time.
Should Council decide to proceed with the Charter Review, the primary expense is the consultant fee.
Depending on the review process, the charge of the committee and the level of involvement from an
expert in charter review and drafting anticipated costs to range from $5000 to $10,000 plus staff support.
Background:
The current Charter of the City of Ashland was reviewed and amended in 1970. Voters approved the
proposed amendments in 1972.
Cities and counties update their charters for a variety of reasons: to clarify lines of authority, to clarify
confusing language, to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of government, to eliminate
obsolete, conflicting and ambiguous provisions. Some charters specify that the document is reviewed on
a regular timeline, other charters do not; some specify the make up of a charter review committee others
do not. Because the needs of communities change, and State and Federal laws change, it is important
that a charter be updated periodically and reflect the current times. Sometimes communities choose to
adopt an entirely new charter and include elements of the original.
A city charter is viewed as a city constitution. For this reason, city powers are generally stated in broad,
general comprehensive terms. The charter should deal only with the basic, broad fundamentals of city
government. It should be as concise as possible and adaptable to changing conditions to avoid the need
for frequent amendment.
The scope of a charter review can range from a full review of the existing charter by examining it line by
line to a section specific review. Some cities opt to start with a sample or model charter that already
reflects the current times and is legally in compliance and then add sections to it from their existing
charter. Other cities opt to edit from the existing charter and add sections from a sample charter.
The only community similar in size,io Ashland that has recently undertaken a major charter review
process in Oregon is Eugene. Information from the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) indicates that only a
few cities in Oregon in the recent past have undertaken major charter review processes, Rogue River,
Sisters and Eugene.
Multnomah County is currently in the charter review process. The Benton County Charter requires that
the charter be reviewed and updated every two years and has standing Charter Revi_ew Committee.
A charter can only be amended by a vote of the people. Generally charter amendrnents are referred to a
vote by the Council but amendments can also be proposed by initiative petition.
There are a number of steps involved with updating a charter and a number of tools available to assist
those involved in the process.
Should the council decide to proceed, the following basic steps should occur.
1) A motion and vote of the council to create a citizen committee to undertake a review of the Ashland
City Charter.
2) Define the charge and make up of the committee.
3) Appoint a Charter Review Committee of no more than seven or ten people. It is; critical that this
committee is viewed by the community as impartial, unbiased and free of any perceived political gain.
As such a Charter Review Committee generally does not include elected officials, though occasionally
persons who previously served in an elected capacity sit on the committee though only in a citizen role
not as a political figure. The committee is responsible for the content of the charter. The committee
would present recommended changes to the council.
4) Hire a consultant with experience in charter drafting, legal review and evaluation. Evaluate the
existing charter to determine needed changes, deletions or additions. The consultant drafts changes to
the charter based on input from the Charter Review Committee and eventually drafts the ballot title.
This person is responsible for the form and language of the charter not the content of the document.
3) Council reviews and deliberates on recommended amendment(s) from the Charter Review Committee
and then decides what should be placed on the ballot.
Timeline:
The item itself is not time-sensitive. However, a revision of the charter must be placed before the voters
of the City of Ashland and therefore there is a need at some point to be cognizant of the election time
lines.
The estimated timeline for the entire process is six to nine months.
CITY OF
- SHLAND
Council Communication
TITLE:
DEPT:
DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Synopsis:
Recommendation:
Attachments:
Revision of Public Pedestrian Easement and Trail Improvements in the Lithia
Estates Subdivision on Ashland Creek Drive and Release of Funds for Trail
hnprovements
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
February 17, 2004
J.,o. hn McLaughlin, Director of Commt0ti~Development
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
In January, 2001, the Council approved the relocation of a pedestrian easement within
the Lithia Estates Subdivision. As part of the agreement to relocate the easement, the
Council did not require that the stairs and trail be constructed, but rather required that
the developer deposit funds ($14,000) with the City to allow for future development
of the trail and stairs.
The current property owners of the two parcels affected by the trail have agreed to a
slightly modified location for the trail, and are wanting to construct the stairs
necessary to access the trail at this time. It is their hope to landscape the area around
l~he trail now so that the landscaping matures for erosion control and privacy prior to
the trail connecting across neighboring properties in the future. Therefore, they are
requesting that the City release the funds that have been held for future improvements
to allow them to construct the agreed upon improvements now.
Staff recommends that the Council release the funds that have been deposited for
future trail improvements, and allow the property owner to construct the stairs
necessary for the future trail system. However, prior to the release of the funds, plans
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval, and building"
permits shall be obtained, if necessary. All agreed upon improvements shall be
completed prior to the release of funds. Further, we recommend that the Council
agree to the relocation of the trail as proposed by the two property owners, and that
the owners provide the City with a revised easement describing the public trail
]location.
~Notice Map mailed to surrounding property owners
iLetter fi.om Nancy Wallace
iLetter fi.om Jim and Caroline Carter
Previous Council CommunicatiOn- January 2, 2001
Minutes of City Council Meeting - January 2, 2001
Minutes of City Council Meeting - January 16, 2001
Vicinity Map of unofficial trails
NOTICE
On Tuesday, February 17th, 2004, 7:00 p.m., the Ashland City Council will review the construction
of a stairway and trail, within a Public Pedestrian Easement, on the south side of Lot #14 of the Lithia
Creek Estates Subdivision. The proposal is being requested by the property owners of Lot #14 in
order to complete landscaping improvements and minimize erosion issues. The adjacent owners of
Lots #15 and #16 have agreed to a revised location and the improvement. If approved, signage
noting the stairway/trail is "not a public trail" will be posted. The map below identifies the subject area,
approximate trail location and stairway location.
The meeting is to be held at the Ashland Civic Center, Council Chambers, at 1175 East Main Street.
The public is invited to attend the meeting.
no trail access on this property
Approximate approved
posted signage
"private property
no
neighboring pro[
Property owners requesting
trail relocation
ate proposed
)roperty owners
to proposed flail
(owners of both
location
For more information contact:
City of Ashland
Attn: Mark Knox, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
Phone # 552-2044
E-mail: knoxm@ashland.or, us
January 12, 2004
Mark Knox
City of Ashland
Planning Department
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: 684 Ashland Creek Drive
Lot 14
Dear Mr. Knox,
Enclosed, please find a copy of a letter from our neighbors, Jim and Caroline Carter,
stating that they agree to move the trail boundaries on our property, which in places
infringes upon the previous agreement that the former owners (the Bumses) made with
the city.
At this time, I would like to nominate our landscaper, David Chasmar of GardenCrafi, to
be granted the contract to install the staircase for the trail head required on our property.
He would be a good choice for the following reasons:
· He is familiar with the hillside
· He is currently landscaPing our property at this time
· He is a respected landscaper in the community
· He would be able to adapt the stairs so they esthetically fit in with the look of the
rest of our landscaping.
Mr. Chasmar's phone number is 541-482-5340. I would like to address this issue as
soon as possible as the area of the trail head is an erosion problem. Please do not
hesitate to contact me at 541-488-5089.
Sincerely,
Nancy Wallace
December 19, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
As owners of 676 Ashland Creek Drive, we, Jim and Caroline Carter have
reached an amicable agreement with our neighbors, Kevin and Nancy
Wallace to move the walking path between our two properties.
We would like to see the walking path constructed roughly half way
between our ~-wo homes and for it not to be constructed within the previous
owners' (Thc Bums Family) 20-Foot Rule.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel f?ee to call us.
Jim and Caroline Carter
488-2081
Best Regards,
Jim Carter
Caroline Carter
JAN 2
City ,Council Communication
Department of Community Development
Request to Relocate a Public Pedestrian Easement
January 2, 2001
Submitted by:
Approved by:
John McLau,qhlin (~
Gre,q Scoles
Title:
^ request to terminate a public pedestrian easement on Lots 17 and 18 and accepting a
public pedestrian easement on Lot 14, Lithia Creek Estates Subdivision.
Synopsis:
The property owners of Lots 14, 18, 19 and 20, of the Lithia Creek Estates Subdivision,
are requesting the Council terminate an existing public pedestrian easement on Lot 18
and replace the public pedestrian easement on Lot 14 (Exhibit "A"). In exchange for the
easement's relocation, the property owners are proposing to construct a public stairway
and trail on Lot 14. A small portion of the existing easement, approximately 20 square
feet of area, also exists on Lot 17, which will be terminated with this request.
Fiscal Impact:
None
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the relocation of the easement subject to the three
conditions listed on page three of this report.
Background Information:
The pedestrian easement (trail) is part of an extensive "public and private" trail system
that starts at Grandview Street and ends at the Lithia Creek Estates Subdivision. The
trail has been used for recreational purposes for more than 30 years. Except for the last
300+~- feet, the path follows along the Talent Irrigation Ditch (TID). In total, the trail is
over a mile in length (6,300') with little elevation change (less than 2%). Because of the
trail's length, slight slope, wooded environment and interconnectedness with many
neighborhoods, the trail is often used by many Ashland residents.
During the preliminary development stages of the Lithia Creek Estates Subdivision, it
was made known to staff by a number of trail users that this portion of the trail would be
severed once home construction began. Without any obligation to do so, the developer,
Doug Neuman, gifted a 6' wide public pedestrian easement along the eastern and
1
southern boundary of Lots 17 and 18. Mr. Neuman later sold Lot 18 along with three
other lots in the subdivision (Lots 14, 19 and 20) to the current property owners -
Carroll and Michelle Lewis. Soon after the sale, the Lewis' started home construction on
Lots 18 and 19. However, Mr. Lewis never realized the easement existed until members
of the Planning Staff were visiting the site on another matter and happened to mention
to Mr. Lewis the easement's existence and its future improvements. Mr. Lewis' claim is
backed by the fact the title company never reported the easement on the Preliminary
Title Report and that the floor plans for both homes do not reflect the easement's
existence (i.e., bathrooms and kitchen windows face towards the easement). In fairness
to the Lewis', the title company is assuming all costs associated with the easement's
relocation and trail improvements.
The original goal in the acquisition of this easement was to ensure that there would be
future opportunities for the completion of the entire trail for public access. Without the
public acquisition of an easement through Lithia Creek Estates, there will be no access
to this future trail system from a public right-of-way at the south end.
It should be noted that although the request is for a relocation of an existing public
easement from one property to another, the property owners (Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy)
directly north of the easement have not dedicated an easement to allow public access
to their portion of the trail. Their portion of the trail is not public, but for a number of
years the Kennedy's have graciously allowed the public to cross their property.
Recently they have requested that trail users not trespass on their property. The Staff
has continued to discuss maintaining public access with the Kennedy's, but because of
their past experiences, they believe that it is in their best interests not to allow public
access at this time.
It should also be noted that both easements do not "connect" with the existing worn
trail. The existing easement on Lots 17 and 18 is approximately 15' shy of the trail and
the proposed easement on Lot 14 is approximately 200' shy of the trail. If the
Kennedy's agree to allow public access on their property in the future, in order to reach
the existing trail, this additional length of trail would have to be improved.
Again, the effort is intended to provide access to a future trail system from the public
right-of-way and not to encourage trespass or damage to adjoining properties.
Overall, staff believes that the proposed easement location (Lot 14) is better for the trail
users than the existing easement location (Lot 18). Not only is the existing easement in
an uncomfortable and close location between three houses, it would also be an
uncomfortable environment to the trail users. The grade of the existing easement is
also more difficult to negotiate than the proposed easement. With the Proposed
easement and the associated stair and trail improvements, the trail will clearly be
delineated and allow future and current property owners to plan for the trail's associated
impacts. For these same reasons, the proposed trail should be much more acceptable
2
by the trail users.
However, should the Council decide that the new location is not as beneficial to the City
as the existing easement, the action would be to not vacate the existing easement and
not to accept the proposed easement.
Lastly, staff believes it is essential to plan for this important public right-of-way.
Although the trail may not be used for some time, the planning for the tr_ail needs to
occur. Staff is recommending the public pedestrian easement on Lot 14 be accepted
and the public pedestrian easement on lots 17 and 18 be terminated with the following
conditions:
1)
That all conditions imposed here be met prior to the termination of the public
pedestrian easement on Lots 17 and 18.
2)
That with the construction of the path on Lot 14, the applicant shall install a sign
near the Kennedy's property that states: "No Trespassing".
3)
That prior to construction of the stairs, the applicant shall obtain a permit from
the Ashland Public Works and Building Departments.
The applicant has offered to construct the stairs and trail on Lot 14 at this time. The
benefit of doing so now is that it is clear to property owners that there will be a public
access trail at this location, it also removes the question of who will construct the stairs,
and provides overall clarity to the situation. On the other hand, the construction of the
stairs could lead current and future trail users to trespass on the Kennedy property, and
may result in further degradation of the relationships between trail users and private
property owners. The Council could require the applicant to deposit a sum of money
with the City equal to the estimate for the materials and construction costs of the stairs
and trail, which would be used at a future date when easements are acquired to allow
full public access between Strawberry Lane and Ashland Creek Drive. An alternate
Condition 3 requiring the deposit could be added:
3) That the applicant deposit with the City a sum equal to the estimated materials
and construction costs for the development of the stairs and trail on Lot 14 for use at a
future date, as determined by the City, for the development of the public trail system.
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=243&Ag...
CITY OF
4x SHLAND
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Minutes
City Council
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 2, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
OATH OF OFFICE
City Councilors Don Laws, Cate Hartzell, and John
Morrison: terms expire December 31, 2004. Mayor Alan
DeBoer: term expires December 31, 2004. Parks
Commissioners JoAnne Eggers and Jim Lewis: terms expire
December 31, 2004.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hartzell, Hanson, Morrison, and Fine
were present.
MAYOR'S ANNUAL ADDRESS
Mayor DeBoer thanked the City of Ashland staff for their
hard work. DeBoer reviewed the challenges he sees for the
upcoming year, including the library and fire station
expansions, highway issues, sewage treatment plant,
public transit, recycling, and forest protection. He
concluded by stating he looked forward to working with the
council.
1 of 9 2/12/04 7:38 AM
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID--243 &Ag...
Reid requested that the Sustainable Housing issue be
moved to an upcoming council meeting. This issue will be
brought to a regular cou/~cil meeting in March, along with a
staff report, and then scheduled for a council study
session.
2. Council Election of Chair to City Council.
Laws nominated Councilor Reid as council chair. Morrison
nominated Councilor Fine, but withdrew in favor of Reid.
Council unanimously voted for Reid as council chair.
3. Mayor's appointments of Council liaisons to various
boards and commissions.
DeBoer read the list of council liaison appointments, noting
that the liaison for the Forest Lands Commission had been
changed from Cate Hartzell to 3ohn.~Morrison.
Councilors Laws/Hartzell m'/s to approve the liaison
appointments. Voice vote: all AYES..Motion passed.
4. Election of Citizens"Budg~t Committee members (3).
The following citizens applied for the positions: Chris
Hearn, Mary Ruth Wooding, Russ Silbiger, Sid Field, David
Dotterrer, James Watkins, Donald Montgomery, and .lames
Teece.
Reid/Hanson nominated Chris Hearn; Hartzell/Reid
nominated for reappointment David Williams;
DeBoer/Fine nominated Russ Silbiger; Hartzell
nominated Mary Ruth Wooding, and Morrison
nominated Sid Field.
The council agreed to bring Hearn, Williams, Silbiger,
Wooding and Field forward for a vote by each councilor of
three of these individuals.
Council vote result: David Williams, 5; Chris Hearn,
5; Mary Ruth Wooding, 1; Russ Silbiger, 6; and Sid
Field, 1.
Reid/Morrison m/s to appoint David Williams for a
4 of 9
2/12/04 7:38 AM
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=243&Ag...
purposes for more than thirty years, and, except for the
last 300+/- feet, the path follows along the Talent
Irrigation Ditch. During tile preliminary development
stages of the Lithia Creek Estates Subdivision, staff was
notified by trail-users that a portion of the trail would be
severed once home construction began. The developer
gifted a 6' wide public pedestrian easement along the
eastern and southern boundary of lots 17 and 18. When lot
18 was sold and home construction began, the property
owner was made aware of the existing easement by city
staff.
McLaughlin reported that the title company did not report
the easement on the Preliminary Title Report and is
assuming all costs associated with the easement's
relocation and trail improvements. The original goal in the
acquisition of this easement was to ensure that future
opportunities for public access would be made available.
Without the public acquisition of an easement through
Lithia Creek Estates, there will be no access to this future
trail system from a public right-of-way at the south end.
Staff believes that the proposed easement location at lot
14 would be better for trail-users than the existing
easement location at lot 18. However, should the council
decide that the new location is not as beneficial to the city
as the existing easement, action requires not vacating the
existing easement and not accepting the proposed
easement. Staff believes that it is essential to plan for this
important public right-of-way although the trail may not be
used for some time.
Staff recommends accepting the public pedestrian
easement on Lot 14 and the termination of the public
pedestrian easement on lots 17 and 18 with the following
conditions: 1) all conditions imposed are met prior to the
termination of the public pedestrian easement on lots 17
and 18; 2) witl~ the construction of the patft on Lot 14, the
applicant shall install a sign near Kennedy's property
stating: "No Trespassing" and 3) prior to construction of
the stairs, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the
Ashland Public Works and Building Department.
Kip Lombard/622 Siskiyou Blvd/Representing
applicant's Carroll & Michelle Lewis/He explained that
the applicants were not aware of the easement. A copy of
the Preliminary Title Report was presented proving that the
5 of 9 2/12/04 7:38 AM
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=243 &Ag...
easement was not disclosed and that the recording of the
easement was not recorded at the time of the title report.
Photos were presented showing the slope and proximity of
the trail between the two houses. Michelle Lewis stated
that no monetary compensation had been received and
that statements made by others to the contrary is false.
Susan Powell/180 Nutley/Noted the importance of
easements for the trail system. She is not in favor of
removing trails.
Barry Pecharn/46 Granite #8/Is in favor of continued
construction of the trail system and noted the amount of
use of the trails by the community.
Ben Benjarnin/323 t4aple/Proposed constructing 8-10
foot walls on either side of Lot 17 & 18 to shield property
owners.
Andrew McDermott/300 Wimer/Requested the council
to consider long--term access to the trail system.
Judith Foltz/406 So. Riverside, Medford/Representing
John & Suzan Early, property owners in escrow for lot 18.
She noted that the easement is six feet wide, greatly
infringing on the property owner's privacy.
Chris Hearn/350 Wimer/Noted his involvement of this
subdivision. He explained that the trail follows the historic
Talent Irrigation Ditch, which irrigates the orchards, and
has been used for 50+ years. Preservation of the ambiance
of the existing trails is more important than the
construction of new trails, except where a trail might need
to be rerouted to a more agreeable position on a property.
He noted possible litigation should someone be injured on
an individual landowner's property. The property owners of
Lot 15 are personal friends of his, and he understands that
they would be adversely affected by the trail system, but
he supports the creation of continuous trail access for
future Ashland generations.
Sue DeMarinis/240 Strawberry Lane/Shared the
positive experiences she has had with trail-users. She
understood the property owner's concerns, and noted that
with the right landscaping many of the concerns could be
addressed. She supports moving the trail to Lot 14 and
compromising with the Kennedy property owners.
DeMarinis suggested building the connection now,
including a gate notifying trail-users~ as well as making
future buyers of Lot 14 aware of the trail.
6 of 9 2/12/04 7:38 AM
I I
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=243 &Ag...
Lincoln Zeve/555 Ashland Creek Drive/Noted that he
is a current property owner in the subdivision and had
enjoyed using the trail before access was denied. Zeve
asked the council to allow citizens the use of the trail.
Treg Scott/95 Scenic Drive/Offered easement through
his property in order to continue the trail system. Scott
hoped that Kennedy's will allow access to the trail system.
Margie McKinsey/122 Bush Street/Explained her
misunderstanding that the trail was not a public easement.
She was not aware that private property owners were
allowing public access. McKinsey supports moving the trail
to Lot 14.
Roger Ledbetter/ll2 Nutley/Feels that the trail system
is an asset to the community and supported moving the
easement to Lot 14. He felt that, by building the steps
now, would give future property owners peace of mind.
Brent Thornpson/582 Allison/DeBoer read comment
submitted by Thompson: That a trail, beginning at the end
of a cul de sac, is the most convenient because people
notice trail heads at that location most.
David Burns/676 Ashland Creek/Voiced his opposition
for moving the easement from Lot 18 to Lot 14. Moving the
easement would cause a dead-end at the Kennedy
property where the "No Trespassing" sign is posted. This
would entice trail-users to forge their own path through
the Kennedy property. Vandalism will escalate. The terrain
is more difficult, and he is concerned for the safety of the
public.
McLaughlin explained that the side area setbacks are six
feet, rear yards are ten feet per story. He clarified that the
trail and irrigation ditch goes through the Kennedy
property, but it is not dedicated for public use. Nolte
explained that the property is used by the permission of
the owner. A possible claim, for the prescriptive use by the
public, could be taken to court establishing the trail as a
permanent public easement. As of now, it has not been
made prescriptive. McLaughlin noted that a public
easement exists across the back of Lots 16, 17, and 18 at
the property line. He noted that staff has always been in
favor of placement on Lot 14. McLaughlin understands that
some trail users are under the impression that the trail is
public property and have been conflictive. Many options
have been explored, and none are agreeable to the
7 of 9 2/12/04 7:38 AM
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=243 &Ag...
property owners. In addition, the slope of the trail is very
steep at Lot 18 and 19.
Nolte clarified that there/is no liability under Measure 7,
because it speaks to regulations imposed by the city on the
property.
McLaughlin clarified that the owner of Lot 13 is not willing
to have an easement on that pr. operty. In addition, the
map handed to the council is not entirely accurate, as
there has been a lot-line adjustment between Lots 13 and
14, increasing Lot 14.
Reid felt it is important to keep the connectivity and trail
system alive and supported moving the trail system to Lot
14.
DeBoer suggested that the council take no action at this
meeting, but to bring it back to the council in two weeks.
He stated that, before the next meeting, he would meet
with Mr. Burns, Mr./Mrs Kennedy, Mr./Mrs Lewis, and the
developer to negotiate a solution. McLaughlin offered to
take the councilors on a tour of the trail. The council
agreed to postpone the action.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing
Signatures, Including Facsimile Signatures, for Banking
Services on behalf of the City of Ashland."
Councilors Fine/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution
#2001-01. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hartzell,
Hanson, Morrison and Fine, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council discussed and set a tentative date of February 10,
2001, for the Strategic Planning process.
DeBoer read a letter of feasibility from Rogue Valley
Council of Governments requesting a three-meeting
commitment from the council.
A tour of the sewage treatment plant is planned for the
new council and mayor on January 11, 2001, at 3:00 p.m.
Council discussed setting January 18, 2001, as the first
meeting of the Budget Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
8 of 9 2/12/04 7:38 AM
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=243&Ag...
9 of 9 2/12/04 7:38 AM
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=249&Ag...
CITY OF
4x~SHLAND
Thursday, February 12, 2004
IVlinutes
City Council
MiNUTE~
INGFC
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 16, 2001 - 7:00 p.m
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to
Center Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
order in the Civic
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws., Reid, Hartzell, Hanson, Morrison, and Fine
were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting
2001 were approved as presented.
of January 2,
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor presented retirement plaque to Captain Wes
of Ashland Fire & Rescue.
Eaton
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees
2. Liquor License Application from Lawrence .1. Brody, PC
Market of Choice #11
1 of 14 2/12/04 7:41 AM
I I
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=249&Ag...
certification program would
issues.
help with
student housing
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Handed out copies of
Resolution #79-51;A Resolution of the City of Ashland
Relative to the Interim Management Plan Prepared by the
U.S. Forest Service Concerning the Ashland Municipal
Watershed; He highlighted sections of the plan, from
Attachment A, for the council's attention, noting concerns'
and recommendations related to fire management in the
watershed. He voiced his desire for the council to fall back
on the Interim Plan as adopted in 1979 and 1929, which
phased out the relationship between the U.S. Forest
Service and the City, and required that the Forest Service
completed the plan without any timber removal. He feels
this could be done with under-burning, and hand pile/burn
methods. He noted available federal funds allocated for
this type of fire management.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Request to Terminate a Public Pedestrian Easement on
Lots #17 and 18 and accept a Public Pedestrian easement
on Lot #14, Lithia Creek Estates Subdivision.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin stated
that staff recommendations are to accept a public
pedestrian easement on Lot 14 of Lithia Creek Estates
subdivision, and once the easement is granted, vacate the
easement located on Lots 17 and 18. The new easement
on Lot 14 shall be of adequate width to allow for the
development of a trail at least 20 feet away from the
property lines of adjoining lots 15 and 16. He requested
that the council direct the city administrator to sign all
necessary documents to complete the relocation. In
addition, the applicant will deposit, with the city, a sum
equal to the estimated materials and construction costs for
the development of the stairs and trail on Lot 14, for
construction at a future date as determined by the city for
the development of the public trail system.
McLaughlin explained that deferring construction of a
dead-end trail, until the next segment and easement of the
4 of 14 2/12/04 7:41 AM
http://ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.asp?ID=249&Ag...
trail is negotiated with the future property owner, was
discussed and became part of the agreement with the
neighborhood. The improvement funds will be held until it
is prudent to build this section of the trail. If the section
was built now, and does not get much use, it could wear
out in ten years, which would not be as useful as when
there is a full trail connection. He is not aware of inflation
costs for the future, but noted the funds would accumulate
interest, which may offset the difference. '
Hartzell noted that the timing for access is unknown and
that the argument in favor of building the stairs now is the
visible commitment for establishing the trail. She
questioned the likelihood of individuals using the trail
without the construction of the stairs.
IVlcLaughlin explained that the commitment is to clearly
outline the trail for future property-owners. He further
.~xplained that ~taff is ~nvesticj~ting.another outlet for trail
users coming from the direction of ~;traw~)erry, Lane. egign~
will be posted to deter trespassing, along with the cost§
associated, depending on the location of the trail head.
Fine suggested a sign that indicates a future pedestrian
trail.
David Burns, a property owner affected by the pedestrian
easement, clarified his comfort level with the proposed
20-foot easement, noting that he and another property
owner were. reviewing the possibility of purchasing the lot
next to the trail.
Councilors Reid/Fine m/s to
recommendation with correction
involved are Lots 18 & 19.
accept staff
that the lots
DTSCUSSTON:
Hartzell acknowledged the opportunity for building the trail
at this time, and noted that the city will pay the difference
of the cost of construction when it is built.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
5 of 14 2/12/04 7:41 AM
Trails may be Pdvate or Public, legal access
is not implyed by this map.
For identification only.
1"= 800'
02/i3/2004 14:42 5417347269 5ACOBSON THIEROLF PAGE 82
JERRY A. JACOI~SON'
[2.]C[-[ARD g. THIEROLF, JR.
ROBERT R. DICKEY
*Adlllittcd in Oregan & California
Of~ounseL.
JO[-1N E. FERRI$ (Rettr~l)
ROBERT G~ HUNTER
February 13, 2004
Ashland City Council
20 E. Main Street
Ashl~.nd, OR 97520
JACOBSON, THIEROLF & DICKEY, P.C.
ATTOP. NI-~YS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 4687
TWO NORTH OA.K.DALE AVENUE
MEDFOKD, OREGON 9750 [
TELEPHONE:
(54t)773-2727
FAX:
(54]) 734-7269
Dear Council M. embers:
I represent Jim and Judy Kennedy, the owners of the real property at
506 Granite Street, which is adjacent to the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision.
Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy have asked me to communicate to you their position
with respect to the request :now on the agenda for your February 17, 2004,
meeting to slightly vary the location of the easement for a public pedestrian
trail betxveen lots 14 and 15 within the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision, and
for the city to release funds and construct stairs and the actual trail within the
easement.
My clients are certainly not opposed to the requested change in the
location of the path. within the subdivision. We understand that the request
for construction of the stairs and path has been. withdrawn or dropped, and
we would like to thank the property owners, Kevin and Nancy Wallace and
Jim and Carolyn Carter, for their decision.
My clients have asked, me to reiterate for the record their unchanged
position in opposition to the actual construction of any portion of the trail or
path section that would lead to and end at their property line. Since Mr. and
Mrs. Kennedy have absolutely no intention of allowing any easement or other
access across their private property for the extension of such a path or trail,
the construction of any path or trail leading to their property line could only
be seen as an invitation to trespass and the creation of a public nuisance.
0~/~3/200~ 14:42
]'ACOBSON THIEROLF
PAGE 03
February 13, 2004
Page - 2
Fortunately, it appears that it will not be necessary for the council to
consider the expenditure of funds to construct a portion ora trail that will.
lead nowhere.
JAJ:gs
VeT truly yours,
~ DICKEY, P.C.
J~~tcobson
Clients
Mark Knox, Ashland Planning Department
JERRY A. J,~COBSON*
RICHA RD' B. THIEROLF, JR.
ROBERT R. DICKEY
*Admitted in Oregon & California
Of Counsel:
JOHN E. FERRIS (Retired)
ROBERT G. HUNTER
February 13, 2004
JACOBSON, THIEROLF & DICKEY, P.C.
ATrORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 4687
TWO NORTH OAKDALE AVENUE
MEDFORD, OREGON 97501
TELEPHONE:
(541) 773-2727
FAX:
(541) 734-7269
Ashland City Council
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Council Members:
I represent Jim and Judy Kennedy, the owners of the real property at
506 Granite Street, which is adjacent to the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision.
Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy have asked me to communicate to you their position
with respect to the request now on the agenda for your February 17, 2004,
meeting to slightly vary the location of the easement for a public pedestrian
trail between lots 14 and 15 within the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision, and
for the city to release funds and construct stairs and the actual trail within the
easement.
My clients are certainly not opposed to the requested change in the
location of the path within the subdivision. We understand that the request
for construction of the stairs and path has been withdrawn or dropped, and
we would like to thank the property owners, Kevin and Nancy Wallace and
Jim and Carolyn Carter, for their decision.
My clients have asked me to reiterate for the record their unchanged
position in opposition to the actual construction of any portion of the trail or
path section that would lead to and end at their property line. Since Mr. and
Mrs. Kennedy have absolutely no intention of allowing any easement or other
access across their private property for the extension of such a path or trail,
the construction of any path or trail leading to their property line could only
be seen as an invitation to trespass and the creation of a public nuisance.
· February 13, 2004
Page - 2
Fortunately, it appears that it will not be necessary for the council to
consider the expenditure of funds to construct a portion of a trail that will
lead nowhere.
Very truly yours,
ROLF ~ DICKEY, P.C.
JAJ:gs....
'",,acc: "% Clients
Mark Knox, Ashland Planning Department
To: Ashland City Council
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon
ED' 4ZARD S
691 Ashland Creek Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
cc: John McLaughlin, Planning
Mark Knox, Planning
Re: Public Pedestrian Easement
Dear City Council Ivlembers,
On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, the Ashland City Council will again debate the issue of access to
*.he "ditch trail" from the Lithia Creek Estates subdivision. We own the lot immediately across
t!'~e s.treet from the proposed trailhead and lherefore have a legitimate interest in the outcome of
~,5c discussions.
In reviewing the history, a consensus was reached by the city council on January 2, 2001 to locate
a portion of the trail on lot 14 (684 Ashland Creek Drive) and at least 20 feet uphill from lot 15
(676 Ashland Creek Drive). In addition, a stairway leading to the trail was proposed as the
trailhead from Ashland Creek Drive. Considerable discussion ensued over whether the trail and
stairway should be built immediately or postponed until the city obtained an easement over
adjacent property owned by Jim and Judy Kennedy. The final decision was to wait for the
easement to avoid encouraging people to use a "trail" that was not open for public access.
Now the issue is being debated again as the owners of lot 14, Kevin and Nancy Wallace, are
landscaping their property around a recently built house. With new owners of both lots 14 and
15, it is appropriate to consider adjusting the planned layout of the trail to optimize its location tbr
both owners. To their credit, these neighbors seem to have reached a mutually agreeable solution.
From our perspective their proposed location for the trail, closer to lot 15, is completely
reasonable and does not create any new concerns.
However, the proposal to immediately begin construction o£the trailhead and its associated
stairway, remains problematic. The city has not obtained, and there is no reason to expect they
can obtain, an easement across the Kennedy's property. Furthermore, the Kennedy's have the
!egal right to prohibit access across their property. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to construct
a trail that goes only 150 feet and dead-ends at their property. To do so would encourage people
to violate the rights of the Kennedy's and could leave the city liable for any damages inflicted
upon the Kennedy:'s. For this reason, we do not support construction ot'the trail or trailhead at
this time.
In summary, we are in agreement with the proposal to move the trail and stairway closer to the
property line between lots 14 and 15. ttowever, we cannot agree to the proposal to begin
construction on the trail or the stairway until, and unless, the city obtains an easement for the trail
to cross the Kennedy's property.
Sincerely,
C Ii fY and Carolyn Edwards
February 12, 2004
Mr. Mark Knox, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Mr. Knox;
Re: your rex:em notice (undated) concerning a request by the property owners of
Lot 14 & Lots 15/16 for a revision to the location and improvement of the Public
Pedestrian Easement (PPE) on the south side of Lot #14 of the Lithia Creek
Estates Subdivision.
Revised location of PPE Pathway
We have no problem with the proposal as far as the location of the pathway is concerned.
We see this as a matter for Lot 14 & Lots 15/16 property owners to decide between
themselves.
Proposed construction of PPE Stairway
At this time we remain opposed to construction of the stairway. Our reasons for this
remain as stated in the Kennedy/Bums/Jones/Bond December 4, 2000 letter, and our
December 26, 2000 letter, to Honorary Mayor and Councilors - agreed upon by same
Honorary Mayor & Councilors at the Council Meeting of January 2, 2001.
In essence, such work, undertaken a minimum of 20-years ahead of when the structure
could first be put to use, would only serve as an incitement for people to climb it, and
trespass beyond it across private lands, thus recreating the very situation Council wisely
voted to avoid at the January 2001 meeting.
Sincerely,
660 Ashland Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
cc Honorary Mayor and Councilors
Kevin & Nancy Wallace (Lot 14)
Jim & Carol.ma Carter (Lots 15 & 16)
Jim & Judy Kennedy (TL 2100)
Cliff & Carolyn Edwards (Lot 9)
Matthew Bond (Lot 13 & TL 2300)
Council Communication
CITY OF
SHLAND
TITLE:
DEPT:
'DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Ordinance Creating New Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 Of The Ashland
Municipal Code To Provide Fees For Uniform Fire Code Plan Review And
Inspections Be Set By Resolution
Ashland Fire & Rescue
February 17, 2004
David K. Hard, Assistant Fire Chief/Fi~e Marshal
Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief dt~ ~(~/
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator--~,'~'~- --~,-t,
Paul Nolte, City Attorney ~
Synopsis:
This ordinance allows the establishment of fire protection plans review and
inspection fees by resolution.
Recommendation:
Fiscal Impact:
Adopt the proposed ordinance for Ashland Fire & Rescue fire protection plans
review and inspection program. Provide an opportunity for public comment
pursuant to ORS 294.160 when the resolution setting the fees is adopted by
Council.
Fire protection plans review and inspection fees, when adopted, will generate
revenue to recover 75% of the cost of new position.
Background:
Attachments:
Ashland Fire & Rescue provides fire protection plans review and related
inspections in support of building codes and Uniform Fire Code requirements
within the City of Ashland. These code enforcement activities have been largely
carded out by the Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal. Activity within this
program area has experienced a steady increase for several years. At budget time
last spring we were experiencing a 14 to 20 day turn-a-round for plans review
actions within the fire department. Effective July 1, 2003, the fire department is
fi.tnding an additional position of Fire Prevention Officer to address workload
issues within this program area. As a result of this additional position, our current
turn-a-round average on plans review is five working days. The Budget
Committee directed staff to seek partial cost recovery of these services through
the adoption of a fee schedule. The attached fee schedule will be proposed to the
Council for adoption when the attached ordinance, which allows the fees to be set
by resolution, becomes effective.
Fire protection plans review and inspection fee schedule.
Ordinance adopting fee schedule.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING NEW SECTIONS 15.28.150 AND
15.28.160 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FEES
FOR THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE PLAN REVIEW AND INSPECTIONS
BE SET BY RESOLUTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
IAnnotated to show (~¢JeRs and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are l~-thr4~jh and additions are in bold.
SECTION 1. A New section 15.28.150 of the Ashland Municipal Code is established to
read:
SECTION 15.28.150. Plan Review / Permits - Fees. For application in this
city, Uniform Fire Code plan review fees shall be established by resolution
of the city council.
SECTION 2. A New section 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code, is established to
read:
SECTION 15.28.160. Code Compliance Inspection - Fees. 'The fee
schedule for fire code compliance inspections shall be established by
resolution of the city council.
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 ., 2004,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of ,2004.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this __ day of
,2004.
Reviewed as to form:
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
FIRE PROTECTION PLANS REVIEW PERMIT FEES
Fees for fire protection plans, review will be assessed at 10% of the building permit,
plan check and engineering Subdivision plat check fees.
Fees for additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved
plans will be assessed at $50.00 per hour. (Minimum charge $25.00 - ¼ hour) These
fees will not be applied to re-inspection corrections submitted in response to the initial
plan review.
Fees for subsequent field inspections required as a result of contractor / owner failure to
meet fire code requirements, related specifications and/or inspection schedules will be
assessed at $50.00 per hour. (Minimum charge $25.00 - ½ hour) These fees will not
be applied to re-inspection of corrections made in response to the initial field inspection.
Fire Hydrant Flow Tests required for new installations will be assessed at $100 per flow
test.
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS~ STANDPIPES~ FIXED EXTINGUISHING
SYSTEMS AND PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS
Type of System
NFPA Standard No. 13
NFPA Standard No. 13 D
Fees
10% building permit and plan check fees
10% building permit and plan check fees
* Note: Review fees for permissive NFPA 13 D systems will be waived.
NFPA Standard No. 13 R
NFPA Standard No. 14
NFPA Standard Nos. 15-16-17-17A
FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS
Type of System
NFPA Standard No. 72
10% building permit and plan check fees
10% building permit and plan check fees
10% building permit and plan check fees
Fees
10% building
permit and plan check fees
Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans:
$50.00 per hour (minimum charge $25.00 - one half-hour).
Any plan reviews required by OUFC due to specific uses and not requiring a building
permit will be reviewed at the rate of $50.00 per hour.