HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0504 Cont.Meeting PACKET
CITY OF
,ASH:LAND
AGENDA FOR THE CONTINUED MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
May 4, 2004 - 12:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
I. 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.)
II. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2004-105 - R&C Investments - Mountain Pines
Subdivision.
2. Council election of Audit Committee member (Will be continued to May 17 City
Council meeting)
3. Adoption of 2005-2006 council goals (Will be continued to M'ay 17 City CCluncil
meeting)
III. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Ashland Fiber Network Organizational Change.
2. Measure 37 Claim on Lowe Road
3. Request for sanitary sewer service at t:j97 Benson Way - Located Outside the City
Limits.
IV. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing a Subsidy from the Electric Fund to the
Telecommunications Fund for Debt Service."
V. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL~ MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS:
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
STUDY SESSION
1. Status of Planning for Reconstruction of Fire Station NO.2.
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).
(
ViSn l fiL
;\RF Rti,\[)(/\S'j LTV 0:'\1 H
j)'S \Vf,.n S! 'l't: [' \V\\:\\' j,[
L:[ ()
J).<)R,
..111
._~
VtLtlt5, 37
-------- -
fOrt- ~~) bq~O D1d ftou'1 97 S
C:ITY OIF
ASHLAf\ID
Council Communication
Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2004-105 - R~,C Investments -
Mountain Pines Subdivision
Meeting Date: May 3, 2005
Department: Legal ~
Contributing Departments: Planning
Approval: Gino Grimaldi <("
Primary Staff Contact: Mike Reeder, 488-5350 MdA L
reederm{cV,ashland. or. us
Secondary Staff Contact: Maria Harris, 488-5305 ,~\..~.
harrism@ashland.or.us
Statement:
At the February 15,2005 meeting, the Council approved the application for a Prelimlinary Plat, a
Tree Removal Permit, and an Exception to the Street Standards request by R & C Investments to
create a 7-10t (single-family) subdivision from a 1.75-acre property at the intersection of Prospect
Street and North Mountain Avenue. Attached are the findings supporting that decision for
adoption by the City Council.
Background:
The attached proposed findings supporting the Council's decision to approve the Planning
Action were initially written by the applicant's agent and subsequently modified by staff to more
closely reflect the Council's decision and reasoning.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
The Council may adopt the findings as presented, modify the findings and adopt the
modification, or choose not to adopt the findings.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council either adopt the findings as presented, or modify and adopt
the findings.
Potential Motions:
Move to adopt the findings for approval of Planning Action 2004-015.
Move to modify and adopt findings for approval of Planning Action 2004-015.
Attachments:
Findings ofF act and Conclusions of Law supporting P A 2004-015.
G:\legal\Reeder\PLANNING\Mtn Pines Sub\Mtn. Pines Findings CC.doc
~~,
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE M~~ ITER OF API=>>LlCA TlONS FOR )
A 7-LOT SUBDIVISION, IPRELlMINARY PLAT,)
CONDITIONAL USE PE:RMIT FOR AN )
ACCESSORY RESIDE~ITIAL UNIT,
VARIANCE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING )
LOCATIOIN, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND)
AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS)
FOR APPI~OXIMATEL Y 1.75 ACRES OF )
LAND ZONED R-1-10 ~/HICH IS LOCATED)
AT THE I~ITERSECTIOI~ OF SOUTH )
MOUNTAIN_AVENUE AND PROSPECT )
STREET II~ THE CITY OF ASHLAND, )
OREGON )
)
R & C Inv.~stments: Aplplicant )
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION; PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Applicant, R & C Investments, a partnership involving Charles A. Cochran and Bruce
Roberts, fi]led the following consolidated land use applications with the City of AsWand:
1. Subdivision. Application for a Preliminary Plat pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) Chapter 18.80. The application sc;~eks to create seven lots from the 1.75-acre
subject property, which consists of three existing lots, two of which are occupied by
dwellings. The future seven lots will be occupied by single-family dwellings. An
existing dwelling wiH continue to exist but as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU).
2. Conditional Use Permit. Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit an
existing single family dwelling on Tax Lot 3500 to continue to exist and operate in the
future as an Accessory Residential Unit (AR'U) pursuant to ALUa 18.20.030. Withdrawn
by Applicant.
3. Exception to Street Standards. Along Prospect Street, an exception is sought to street
right-of-way and paving width standards, and to eliminate the parkrow between the curb
and the sidewalk on the property frontage. AJong South Mountain A venue, an exception
is sought to permit a required planting strip and sidewalk within an easement on the
subject property rather than within the right-of-way of South Mountain A venue.
4. Variance to Off-Strc~et Parking. Application seeking variance relief for the purpose of
permittilng the two (2) required off-street parking spaces for the ARU to be located on an
adjacent parcel. Withdrawn by Applicant.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 1 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
5. Tree ProtectionlRemoval. Application for Tree Removal Permit for the removal of two
trees over 18 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) Two of the three existing lots are
exempt from the tree removal standards of ALUO 18.61 (Tree Preservation and
Protection) pursuant to ALUO 18.61.035(B). Tree protection/removal on the other
existing lot is governed by ALUO 18.61 and ALUO 18.62.090 (Development Standards
for Wildfire Lands).
6. Wildfire Lands. Authorization for subdivision under the special standards which apply
to this land which is within the area designated Wildfire Lands on Ashland's Physical &
Environmental Constraints Map
Following public notice in accordance with law, the applications w(~re heard by the Ashland
Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") on October 12, 2004. The public hearing
was continued to November 9, 2004 and f01l10wing the conclusion of public testimony, the
record and public hearing were closed and the Planning Commission deliberated on this
matter and voted approve Applications 1, 3, :5 and 6 above and not to approve Applications 2
and 4. Within the time period specified in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was timely submittled by Appellant Randall
Hopkins. No party sought the City Council's review of the Planning Commission decision to
deny Applications 2 and 4 and during the Council proceedings, Applicant's attorney
indicated that Applicant had withdrawn these.
Following public notice in accordance with law, the Ashland City Council ("City Council" or
"Council") conducted a public hearing on February 1, 2005 to hear this appeal. The public
hearing was continued to February 15, 2005. Following the conclusion of public testimony,
the record and public hearing were closed and the City Council deliberated on this matter and
voted approve Applications 1, 3, 5 and 6. Applications 2 and 4, earlier withdrawn from
consideration by Applicant, were not consid(;~red by the Council on appeal. These Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law support the Council's decision in this rnatter.
II
EVIDENCE BEFOf;~E THE CITY COUNCIL
The evidence which was before the City Council is contained in the City's file on this matter
(Planning Action 2004-105) and the record has been assembled and the pages numbered.
Citations herein are to record page number for Planning Action 2004-105.
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The standards and criteria under the applications enumerated in Section I (other than the two
applications withdrawn by Applicant) must be considered, are in the Ashland Land Use
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 2 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Ordinance (ALVO). The approval criteria and relevant prOVISIons of the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan are recited verbatim below and in Section V herein, where each is
followed by the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the City Council.
A. SUBDHIISION; Prelill1inary Plat
18.80.040 PRELIMINARY PLAT
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and other supplementary
material as may be required to indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of the
Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size
at a scale '2.0 smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
C. General information. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of another
subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The folllowing existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together
with easements and other important features, such as section lines and corners, and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to remain on the property after
platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
F. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the relationship of the streets to any
projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there
is no development plan, as suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 3 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by
the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the un subdivided portion.
H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying
the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed
subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary
grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show existing and
finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and report from the City
Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. Within thirty (30) days from the first regular Planning Commission meeting following submission of the
plat, the Planning Commission will review thH plan and may give tentative approval of the preliminary
plat as submitted or as it may be modified or, if disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its
reasons therefore.
2. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the Planning Commission's approval of Ithe final plat
provided there is no change in the plan of subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat and there is full
compliance with the requirements of this Title.
3. The action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on two (2) copies of the preliminary plat,
including reference to any attached documents, describing conditions. Onl9 (1) copy shall be returned to
the subdivider and the other retained by the Planning Commission.
B. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.88.050 STREET STANDARDS
All development under this Chapter shall conform to the Street Standards as defined in 18.88.020.K.,
The following standards regulate the development of streets and are in addition to the standards contained in the
Street Standards Handbook.
A. Private Drive. A private drive is a road in private ownership, not dedicated to the public, which serves three
or less units. No curbs or sidewalks are requimd for a private drive. On-street parking is prohibited on
private drives. The private drive standard is as follows:
3 Units15 feet with 20 feet dedicated width
2 Units15 feet with 20 feet dedicated width
1 Unit12 feet with 15 feet dedicated width
B. Dedicated Public Streets Required. All roads which serve four units or greater, and which are in an R-1, RR
and WR zone, must be dedicated to the public and shall be developed to the Street Standards of this
section.
C. Dead End. No dead end road shall exceed 500 feet in length, not including thH turnaround. Dead end roads
must terminate in an improved turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards guidelines adopted
pursuant to Section 18.88.090.
D. Obstructed Streets. Creating an obstructed street is prohibited.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 4 of 49
Findings of Fact and ConclUlslons of Law
Planning Actioln 2004-105
E. Street Grade. Street grades measured at the street centerline for dedicated streets and flag drives shall be
as follows:
Private drives serving structures greater than 24' in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall provide a Fire
Work Area of 20' by 40' within 50' of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the
structure served by the drive has an approved automcltic sprinkler system installed.
Private drives and work amas shall be deemed Fire Lanes and subject to all requirements thereof.
Private drives greater than 250' in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance
Standards Guidelines as provided in 18.88.090.
F. Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance
requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all
of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
2. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
c. TREE HEMOVAL PERMIT
ALUO Chapter 18.61 Tree Preservation & Protection
ALUO 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-
Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria am satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's
report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
ALUO 18.61.1080(8) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use
Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant ne~~ative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant nE!gative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.'
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements sha II be a condition of approval of the permit.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this
section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 5 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
IV
FINDINGiS OF FACT
The City Council reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this
matter.
1. Description of Project Area. The subject property consists of three parcels, two of
which have existing single family dwellings, as described in Table 1 below.
Tc.ble 1
Description, Ownership, Size, Tax C:ode Existing Development and Zonin!~
Sources: Jackson County Assessor; Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
I I Acres I Tax I I
Map and Tax Lot Owner of Record Code Existing Development i . .
39-1E-16AD TL 3400 R&C Investments 0.41 5-01 Single-family dwelling R-1-10
39-1E-16AD TL 3500 R&C Investments 0.70 5-01 Single-family dwelling and R-1-10
detached galrage
39-1E-16AD TL 3600 R&C Investments 0.64 5-01 Vacant R-1-10
Total 1.75
2. Property Location: The property is within the corporate limits and acknowledged urban
growth boundary of the City of Ashland. The property is located at 759 and 769 South
Mountain A venue at the southwest cornc;~ of the intersection of South Mountain Avenue
and Prospect Street.
3. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: The Ashland Comprehensive Plan designates the subject
property Residential. The property is zoned R-l-l o. See, Record p. 282.
4. Surrounding Land Uses: Record p. 276 through 286 accurately depicts thc~ pattern of
existing land partitioning and development in the surrounding an~a. Lands developed with
single-family detached dwellings on individual urban-size lots surround the subject
property.
5. Project Description: Applicant proposes to create by subdivision, seven dis~~rete lots to
be occupied in the future by single-farnily dwellings. Two of the lots are occupied by
existing dwellings. While Applicant originally proposed to retain the dwelling on Tax Lot
3400 as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU), that application was not approved by the
Planning Commission and Applicant withdrew further consideration of this matter. While
the structure may remain, it cannot be used as a dwelling and \\'ould instead be used as a
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 6 of 49
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
studio lOr for some other purpose which requires neither kitchen nor bathroom facilities.
According to the records of the Jackson County Assessor, the existing dwelling has 900
square feet of gross habitable floor area. 'Where feasible, trees have been retained and
preserved, although only Tax Lot 3600 is subject to the tree protection standards in ALUa
18.61 because the other two lots (Tax Lot's 3400 and 3500 are developed with dwellings).
6. Access:: Access to the seven proposed lots will be directly from Prospect Street, South
Mountain Avenue or from a Private Drive, as described in Table 2 below.
Tab/E~ 2
Access t4) Lots
Source: Craig A. Stone & Associates. Ltd.
-
Lot I Method of Actual Access .
Number .. . . . .
1 Prospect Street Prospect Street
2 Private Drive Prospect Street
3 Private Drive Prospect Street
4 Private Drive Private Drive
5 Private Drive Private Drive
6 Private Drive Private Drive
7 South Mountain Avenue South Mountain Avenue
7. Topography: The subject property ranges in elevation from approximately 2,320 feet at
its southwest comer to approximately 2,250 feet at its northeast comer and has
reasonably moderate slopes. The evidence shows that no portion of the subject property
exceeds a slope of 22 percent. Cuts and fills (and proposed retaining walls) are shown on
applicant's plans, along with preliminary grading information. The topography of the
subject property is indicative of topography in nearby areas in that it is moderately steep
and evenly sloped.
8. Public Facilities and Services; Utilities: The routing for and locations of the following
existing and planned public facilities and utilities are shown on the plan at Record p.
A47:
. Sanitary Sewer
. Public Water
. S tor:m Drainage
. S tre4~ts
. Utilities
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 7 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
The subject property is more particularly served by the following public fa,~ilities and
services:
8.1 Sanitary Sewer: According to City of Ashland Engineering Department, there are
existing sanitary sewer lines in both Mountain A venue and Prospect Stre:et that are
adequate in condition capacity to support the proposed subdivision.
8.2 Public Water: There is an existing 4-inch water main in Prosp(~ct Street.
Representatives of the Ashland Water Department have indicated that additional
development will require upgrading the main to a larger size to accomrnodate the
proposed subdivision.
8.3 Storm Drainage: Applicant testified that representatives of the City of Ashland
Engineering Department have indicat,ed to Applicant's agent, that the existing storm
drainage facilities in Prospect and Mountain are sufficient in condition and capacity
to support the proposed subdivision.
8.4 Streets and Transportation: The property fronts upon and has direct acc(~ss by way
of South Mountain A venue and Prospect Street, both of which are city stre1ets, owned
and maintained by the City of Ashland. Access to the individual lots (here proposed
to be created) is as shown in above Table 2.
The property also fronts upon Prospect Street. Prospect Street terminates at the
northwest comer of the subject property and cannot be extended due to st1eep terrain
and the existence development. Lot 1 is proposed to take legal and actual alccess from
Prospect. Prospect Street is classified in the AsWand Comprehensive Plan as a
Neighborhood Street, however it does not meet Ashland standards; it is presently a
gravel road without curbs, gutters sidewalks or planting strips. Moreove:r, existing
dwellings and other structures (on the north side of Prospe(;t Street) encroach upon
the street right-of-way. A portion of Prospect Street was vacated by aC1tion of the
City Council to accommodate structures that were constructed in the public street
right-of-way. See, Record p. A22-,A.23. Applicant has proposed an exception to
certain street standards along the frontage of Prospect Street. These vvill permit
Prospect (west of South Mountain Avenue) to be improved to a width ranging from
25 feet on its east end and tapering to 22 feet on its west end. The exception would
also allow the elimination of a parkrow between the curb and sidewalk on the
property frontage. A sidewalk instalh~d at the curbside is proposed along the western
2/3 of the Prospect frontage. The improvements to Prospect Street are set forth in the
Council Conditions 8, 11 and 29 in Se:ction VI.
Applicant has proposed a Private Drive that will be able to functionally se:rve five of
the proposed parcels two of which have legal access to Prospect Street.
Applicant had also requested an exception to allow existing juniper shrubs and a
retaining wall to remain in front of the proposed lot seven. The exception would include
City of Ashland I Oregon
Page 8 of 49
Findings of f=act and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
the elinrlination of the proposed planting strip for approximately 85 feet. Applicant is
proposing that the juniper and sidewalk n~main and that a sidewalk of five feet be
installed adjacent to the existing curb on South Mountain A venue. No other exceptions to
South l\1ountain Avenue are requested. Table 4 below, shows the City standards in
relation to the nature and extent of the exceptions sought by Applicant:
8.5 Police and Fire Protection: Police and fire protection are provided by the City of
Ashland.
8.6 Utilities: Electric~ity, natural gas, telephone, CATV and internet access are
imnlediately available to the subject property. Utilities will be placed underground
pursuant to requirements of the ALUO.
9. Trees; E-xisting Natural Features; Design Process: Portions of the subject property
(primarilly the westerly portion) are heavily 'wooded. There are 62 trees on the property
which have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of six inches or greater, 19 of which are
proposed to be removed. Three additional trees exist on abutting properties and will be
protected during construction and retained. The trees to be removed and those to be
preserv(~d are inventoried and shown on the plans at Record p. A16 (Sheet Ll Tree
Protection and Removal Plan). The strategies for tree preservation are set forth in the
Tree ProtectionlRemoval Plan Narrative prepared by Applicant's expert landscape
architect, Galbraith & Associates, Inc (Rec;ord p. 105-120). Earlier project designs
examin(~d by Applicant which are in evidence resulted in the required removal of
substantially greater numbers of trees (and substantial cuts and fills). Applicant acquired
the parcel now intended to be Lot 7, to enable the access road for the subdivision to be
placed vv'here now proposed; without this parcel, the road was required to traverse the
westerly portion of the property - the portion of the property most heavily wooded-
and in doing so, necessitated the removal of substantially greater numbers of trees.
Moreov1er, building envelopes have been adjusted to reduce tree removal to the greatest
extent practical, while still providing reasonable flexibility for future home design and
si ting.
10. Wildfir~e Protection A.rea: The subject property is located within a Wildfire Protection
Area based upon the Physical & Environmental Constraints Map. A Wildfire Protection
Plan has: been produced, by landscape archit<~cts Galbraith & Associates, Inc. (Record p.
A46). Dry grasses, Mountain Mahogany and brushy grove of Manzanita will be removed
as the same exists as a wildfire hazard. Nearby areas are similar to the subject property
in topography and vegetation.
11. Wetlands: According to the City of Ashland Wetland Inventory, there are no wetlands
on the subject property.
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 9 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
v
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The following conclusions of law are based on the findings of fact contained above in
Section IV and these relate to the approval criteria for the various land use applications now
before the City Council on appeal. The standards and approval criteria are recited verbatim
below and followed by the conclusions of law' of the Council:
A. SUBDIVISION
Purpose of Application: The purpose of this application is to consolidate and subdivide
three existing lots into seven lots as shown on Applicant's plans. The City Council observes
tpat subdivistons are governed by precise design and development standards and that no
"approval criteria" per se, exist in the ALua which are prerequisite to the approval of a
preliminary subdivision plat. The various design and development standards in ALVa
Chapter 18.80 (Subdivisions) are addressed below. The street standards for subdivisions are
those for development which proceeds under Ashland's Performance Standards Options in
Chapter 18.88.
18.20.040 General regulations
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-1 zone shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, except
six thousand (6,000) square feet for corner lots. R-1 areas may be designed for seventy-five hundred
(7,500), or ten thousand (10,000) square foot minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make
larger sizes necessary. Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-1 notation which
represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-7.5 7,500 square feet
R-1-10 10,000 square feet
B. Minimum lot width:
I nterior lots 50 feet
Corner lots 60 feet
All R-1-7.5 lots 65 feet
All R-1-1 0 lots 75 feet
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum depth of one hundred fifty
(150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth
requirements shall not apply to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than
its depth, and no lot shall exceed one hundred l1fty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord. 2425 S3,
1988)
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding garages. Unenclosed
porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any existin~1 public utility
easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have
a minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a corner lot
abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in
excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar
Access. (Ord. 2097 S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752,1995)
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 10 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories in
height, whichever is less.
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be 11fty (50%) percent in an R-1-5 District, forty-five (45%)
percent ill an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (40%) percent in an R-1-1 0 District.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact and evidence submitted by
Applicant, the City Council concludes as follows:
1. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat meet the minimum lot area for the R -1-10 zone.
2. All lots shown on the Preliminary Plat meet the minimum width requirement for the R-l-
10 zone:.
3. All lots snown on the Preliminary Plat meet the minimum lot depth requirement for the
R-I-I0 zone. '
4. The building envelopes shown on the Tree Protection Plan and Preliminary Plat
demonstrate compliance with the standard yard requirements.
5. The ALVa does not require the submittal of architectural plans as part of subdivision
approval. However, Applicant has agreed to stipulate that no structure will exceed the
lesser of thirty-five (35) feet in height or two and one-half (2~ ) stories.
6. Applicant has agreed to stipulate that the maximum coverage for each lot will not exceed
forty (40) percent and Applicant's stipulations have been made conditions attached to this
approval.
**************
18.80.020 Design Standards
A. Acceptability - principles: The subdivision shall conform with any development plans and shall take into
consideration any preliminary plans made in anticipation thereof. The subdivision shall conform with the
requirements of State laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions of law herein that the application as submitted conforms to the requirements
of State laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
**************
B. Streets: The Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, shall apply to
developments under this chapter.
1. Reserve Strips. Reserve strips or street plugs shall be created to control access onto any street which
terminates upon any undeveloped land through which the street might logically extend. In such cases,
the street shall be provided to within one foot of the boundary line of the tract with the remaining one
foot being granted in fee to the City as a reserve strip. Upon approved dedication of the extension of the
affectl3d street, the one-foot reserve strip shall be dedicated by the City to the public use as a part of
said street. This dedication will be automatic and without further action by the City. This action shall also
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 11 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
apply retroactively to all previously created rE~serve strips where the streets have been extended and
dedicated for street purposes. (Ord. 2436, 1987)
2. Alignment. All streets as far as is practical shall be in alignment with the existing streets by continuation
of the center lines thereof. The staggering of street alignment resulting in "T" intersections shall
wherever practical leave a minimum distance of 125 feet between the center lines of streets.
3. Future extension of streets. Where necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory subdivision of
adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary of the subdivision and the resulting dead-end
streets may be approved without a turnaround. Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to
preserve the objectives of street extensions.
4. Intersection angles. Streets shall be laid out to intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practical,
except where topography requires a lesser angle. Property lines at intersections with arterial streets
shall have a minimum comer radius of twenty (20) feet and property lines at other street and alley
intersections shall have a minimum comer rctdius adequate to allow sidewalk and utility space and a
curb radius of ten (10) feet.
5. Existing stre~ts. Whenever existing streets adjacent to or within a tract are of inadequate width,
additional right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision.
6. Frontage and limited access roads may be required as defined in Sections 18.72.040(L) and
18.72.040(M) of this Title.
7. Access to subdivision. All major means of access to a subdivision or major partition shall be from
existing streets fully improved to City standards, and which, in judgment of the Director of Public Works,
have the capacity to carry all anticipated traffic: from the development.
8. Half streets. Half streets, while generally not acceptable, may be approved when essential to the
reasonable development of the subdivision, when in conformity with the other requirements of these
regulations, and when the Planning Commission finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the
other half when the adjoining property is subclivided. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be
subdivided, the other half of the street may be platted within such tract. Reserve strips ancl street plugs
may be required to preserve the objectives of the half streets.
9. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall have a maximum length of five
hundred (500) feet. All cul-de-sacs shall temtinate with a circular turnaround unless alternate designs
for turning and reversing direction are approved by the Planning Commission.
10. Street names. No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of
existing streets in Ashland and vicinity except for extensions of existing streets. Streets which are an
extension of, or are in alignment with, existin9 streets shall have the same name as the existing street.
Street names and numbers shall conform to the establishment pattern for the City and shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Commission.
11. Streets adjacent to railroad right-of-way. Whemver the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a
railroad right-of-way, provision may be required for a street approximately parallel to and on each side
of such right-of-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the land between the streets and
the railroad. The distance shall be great enough to provide sufficient depth to allow scmen planting
along the railroad right-of-way.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact in Section ][V and the
evidence submitted herein, the City Council (~oncludes as follows:
1. No reserve strips or street plugs are necessary or required for this subdivision.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 12 of 49
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
2. The only new street proposed here, is a Private Drive that intersects Mountain A venue at
a 90-de:gree angle ("T" intersection). This intersection is separated by more than 125 feet
from the nearest existing intersection - Mountain A venue and Prospect Street.
3. The only "street" to be created as part of this application, is a Private Drive that
terminates in an approved turn-around. No public streets are proposed as part of this
application.
4. The proposed Private Drive intersects Mountain A venue at a right angle.
5. Applic,mt has agreed to dedicate an easement 12.5 feet wide to accommodate a planting
strip and sidewalk along Mountain A venue along the subject property frontage. An
exception is sought from the right-of-way dedication standards for Prospect Street; the
approval-criteria for street exceptions are addr~ssed hereinbelow. After reviewing the
extent of the existing Right-of-Way, the street design policies and Street Standard
Handbook, and the scope of proposed arld current use of the streets, the Council
concludes that they are both adequate in width.
6. No frontage or minimum access roads are required or proposed.
7. Based upon the findings of fact in Section IV, all major means of access to this
subdivision will be from existing streets which will be fully improved to City standards
(or bas(~d upon the exceptions sought and approved), and which, in the judgment of the
Director of Public Works, have the capacity to carry all anticipated traffic from the
development.
8. Half streets are not proposed. Applicant proposes to improve Prospect Street, albeit to
standards which are less than typical City requirements but are hereby determined to be
adequate to serve the limited uses of this portion of Prospect Street. The reduced
standards, as below addressed, are needed to accommodate structures and landscaping
that now' encroach onto the existing right-of-way and which Applicant does not wish to
adversel y affect.
9. The cul-de-sac proposed is as short as possible to serve the proposed lots which comply
with City standards, has a length of substantially less than 500 feet and terminates in a
turnaround which is of an alternative "ham]nerhead" design approved by the Planning
Commission (and on review, by the Council). The turnaround design accommodates
turning and reversing direction movements and will permit access and turnaround for
emergency vehicles.
10. Applicant has agreed to stipulate (and the same has been made a condition of approval)
that no street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of
existing streets in Ashland.
11. There are no streets adjacent to a railroad right-of-way
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 13 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
**************
C. Easements.
1. Utility lines. Easements for sewers, water mains, electric lines, or other public utilities shall be dedicated
wherever necessary. The easements shall be a minimum often (10) feet in width.
2. Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainage way, channel, or
stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming
substantially with the lines of the watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for the
purpose. Streets or parkways parallel to major watercourses may be required.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: With respect to easements, the City Council concludes as
follows:
1. Applicant has agreed to stipulate (and the same is made a condition of approval) to the
dedication of easements for public utilities whenever necessary and the sarne will be
shown on and dedicated by the Final Subdivision Plat. All existing easements are shown
on the preliminary plat (Record p. A41).
2. Based on the Findings of Fact, the City Council finds that there are no watercourses that
traverse the subdivision.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
D. Lots.
1. Lots shall meet the requirements of the zone in which the subdivision is located. These minimum standards
shall apply with the following exceptions:
a. In areas that will not be served by a public sewer, minimum lot size shall be increased to conform with
the requirements of the County Health Department and shall take into consideration problems of water
supply and sewer disposal.
b. Minimum lot standard shall not conflict with City zoning standards.
c. Where property is zoned and planned for industrial or business use, other standards may be permitted
at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for
commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking
facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated.
2. Access. Each lot shall abut upon a street, other than an alley, for a width of at least forty (40) fl3et, except in
the case of lots located upon the curved portion of cul-de- sacs or knuckles, or in the case where
topography warrants a narrower width. In no case shall a lot abut upon a street for a width of less than
twenty-five (25) feet.
3. Through lots. Through lots shall be avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential
development from major traffic arteries or adjacent nonresidential activities or to overcome specific
disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least ten (10) feet, across
which there shall be no right of access, may be required along the line of lots abutting such a traffic artery or
other disadvantageous use. Through lots with planting screens shall have a minimum average depth of one
hundred ten (110) feet.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 14 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
4. Lot side lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall run at right angles to the street upon which
the lot faces.
Discussiol1l; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Findings of Fact and evidence submitted,
the City Council concludes as follows:
1. Based upon the Preliminary Plat (Record p. A41) all proposed lots meet the minimum
standards for the R -1-10 zone.
2. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 abut upon either (or both) Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street for a
width of at least forty feet. Lots 4, 5 and 6 abut the new Private Drive for a width of at
least forty feet.
3. No through lots are being created as part of this subdivision. A through lot is not created
by virtue of frontage upon a City street and the proposed Private Drive.
4. All lots have side lot lines which run at right angles to the streets (and Private Drive)
upon w'hich the lots front. While Lots 1, 2 and 6 have jogs that are necessitated by an
existing structure and the general size and configuration of the subject property, the side
lot lines, as far as practicable, run at right angles to the various streets (and Private Drive)
upon which the lots face.
**************
E. Lot grading. Lot grading shall conform to the following standards unless physical conditions demonstrate the
propriety of other standards.
) 1. Cut slopes shall not be steeper than one and one.half (1 Y:1) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically.
2. Fill slopes shall not be steeper than two (2) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically.
3. Cut slopes and fill slopes along side and rear lot lines shall be planted with ground cover and shrubs or
trees, or by some other method approved by the City.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the preliminary grading
plan (Record p. 164-167) and letter from Appli(;ant's civil engineer (Record p. 287 through
288) establish compliance with Ashland's lot grading standards.
**************
F. Large lot subdivision. In subdividing tracts into large lots which at some future time are likely to be re-
subdivided, the Planning Commission may require thelt the blocks shall be of a size and shape, be divided
into lots and contain building site restrictions to provide for extension and opening of streets at intervals
which will pennit a subsequent division of each parcel into lots of smaller size.
G. Land for public purposes.
1. The Planning Commission may require the reservation for public acquisition, at a cost not to exceed
acreage values in the area prior to subdivision, of appropriate areas within the subdivision for a period
not to exceed one (1) year, providing the City knows of an intention on the part of the State Highway
Commission, school district or other public agency to acquire a portion of the area within the proposed
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 15 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
subdivision for a public purpose, including substantial assurance that positive steps will be taken in the
reasonable future for the acquisition.
2. The Planning Commission may require the dedication of suitable areas for the parks and playgrounds
that will be required for the use of the population which is intended to occupy the subdivision.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the proposed subdivision
is not a large lot subdivision under this standard because, based upon zoning, thl~ resulting
lots cannot be further divided. The Council also concludes that the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan has no provision for the acquisition of land within the boundaries of the subject
property. The Council finds that the existing R-l-l 0 zone requires the largest urban size lots
in Ashland and these will have ample yard space for the use and enjoyment of the future
residents of the subdivision and, therefore, does not require land for parks, playgrounds or
other common open space.
**************
H. Landscaping. The Planning Commission shall ensure that lot coverage requirements of the zoning district
are met appropriately. If lot disturbance exceeds the percentage allowable, the subdivider shall submit as
part of the Final Plat procedure, a landscaping plan to be approved by the Commission, and which will
conform with the letter and intent of the zone district requirements, the slope requirements in the General
Regulations of this Title, and any other applicable section. Performance shall be assured in accordance with
Section 18.80.050 of this Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council finds that the building envelopes shown
on Applicant's plans may cover more than 40 percent of each lot. However, the Council
concludes that building envelopes do not determine lot coverage; coverage is determined by
actual building plans. Applicant is aware of the 40 percent maximum and has agreed to
stipulate to observing the same, as a condition of approval, that when dwellings are proposed
to be constructed on the individual lots each will comply with this standard. The City will
ensure that the lot coverage standard is observed when it reviews the applications for
building permits, needed to construct dwellings on the lots. The Council finds and concludes
that the lot coverage requirements of the R-I-I0 zoning district can and will be met
appropriatel y.
**************
I. Exceptions - large scale development. The Planning Commission may modify the standards and
requirements of this Chapter if the subdivision plat comprises a complete neighborhood unit, a large scale
shopping center, or a planned industrial area. The Planning Commission shall determine that such
modifications are not detrimental to the public hHalth, safety, and welfare and that adequatE~ provision is
made within the development for traffic circulation, open space, and other features that may be required in
the public interest.
J. The Planning Commission may modify the standards and requirements of this Chapter where the applicant
presents innovative design concepts that will assist in providing livable housing at reasonable cost. Such
modifications of standards shall be made only in conformance with the intent of this Chapter, and in
conformance with all applicable portions of this TiUe.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 16 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Discussiotl; Conclusions of Law: Based upon the size of the subject property, the City
Council concludes that this is not a large-scale development and no modification of standards
are proposed under this section of the ALUO. While this application does not contemplate
new affordable housing per se, it does preserve an existing dwelling that is intended by
Applicant for use as an allowed accessory structure, (but not a dwelling unit).
**************
18.80.040 Pr,eliminary plat
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and other supplementary
material as may be required to indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of the
Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The~reliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size
at a scalE~ no smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
C. General information. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of another
subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat.
4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract.
5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together
with easements and other important features, such as section lines and corners, and monuments.
2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees.
4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to remain on the property after
platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an interval of five (5) feet.
E. Land division - proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary plat.
1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the relationship of the streets to any
projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there
is no development plan, as suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation.
2. The location and purpose of easements.
3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks.
4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 17 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
F. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by
the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion.
G. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying
the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed
subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the existing streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form.
3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary
grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show existing and
finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan
shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and report from the City
Engineer.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the application package,
as submitted, demonstrates compliance with all of the filing requirements of the City. As to
deed restrictions, there are none per se, although there will be Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CCR's) which will govern the use, enjoyment, upkeep and maintenance of the
individual lots, the Private Drive and maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan.
The City of Ashland will be named as a beneficiary of such CCR's as the same: applies to
the Fire Prevention and Control Plan. The City Council has required Applicant to furnish
CCR's as a condition of approval.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
B. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
Purpose of Application: The purpose of this application, which seeks to except certain
municipal street standards, is twofold:
1. Prospect Street: This application seeks to vary the street improvement standards for a
Residential Neighborhood Street for Prospect Street from its intersection 'with South
Mountain A venue west to its terminus. The street standards to be excepted relate to
right-of-way width and the installation of planting strips along the frontage of the subject
property. The standards sought to be varied for Prospect Street are set forth in Table 3 in
the findings of fact (Section IV herein).
By way of explanation, Prospect Street terminates near the northwest Cotl1er of the
subject property and cannot be extended due to steep terrain and the existence of
development. Applicant testified that City staff had advised that the City has no plans
which contemplate nor any desire to extend Prospect Street from its present terminus.
From its intersection with South Mountain Avenue, Prospect serves only four existing
dwellings or parcels. The approval of this subdivision will add three homes 'iYhich front
Prospect Street (legal access), but only one additional home (Lot 1 of the proposed
subdivision) to actually be served by Prospect Street (functional access).
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 18 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
There are encroachments in the Prospect Street right-of-way by structures and mature
trees that prevent a full utilization of the right-of-way that now exists (without removing
the encroaching structures or trees). The evidence shows that Prospect Street was
partially vacated to accommodate structures placed in its right-of-way. If additional right-
of-way were to be taken from the subject property to accommodate greater paving width
and a planting strip (on its west end), the result would be the removal of additional trees
near the property' s northw~omer in order to provide the planting strip improvements
sought here to be excepted.l.L ne Council concludes that standard street improvements are
unnecessary based upon tne number of dwellings to be served. Additionally, there is
steep terrain along the Prospect Street frontage of the subject prope~which begins
approximately at the south boundary of the Prospect Street right-of-way. If the street is
required to be widened to accommodate the excepted improvemen , he same will
require cuts and flUs that will produce an unnecessary environmental impact and the
removal of trees existing trees near the property's northwest comer which are shown on
Applicant's plans. See, Record p. 277.
2. South Mountain Avenue: Applicant has requested that the required dedication of 13 feet
be reduced for the section of South Mountain A venue that fronts upon proposed Lot 7.
Applicant has stated his willingness to install a five-foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb
along this portion of South Mountain A venue, but requested an exception to reduce the
size of the sidewalk by one foot and to keep the existing juniper and retaining wall that
currently exist, while installing a 7-foot planting strip along South Mountain Avenue
between of the Private Drive and Prospect Street. Applicant has also sought an
exception, as necessary to permit future frontage improvements along South Mountain
A venu(~ to be within an easement rather than as an in fee dedication of right-of-way.
However, the actual paved improvements exist on the extreme west side of the right-of-
way adjoining the subject property. The size of lots that front upon South Mountain
A venu(: would be reduced below the 10,000 square foot minimums required by zoning if
Applic(mt is made to dedicate right-of-way for a planting strip and sidewalk. However,
Applic(mt has expressed his willingness to supply the planting strip and sidewalk if he is
not made to dedicate the land to the city in fee simple, because to do so may
imperm:issibly reduce the size of the abutting lots.
3. PrivatE~ Drive: Applicant testified that he has designed the subdivision to take primary
access from South Mountain A venue and the proposed Private Drive instead of Prospect
Street. According to Applicant's testimony, the design of the subdivision was warranted
based upon concerns expressed by neighboring property owners along Prospect Street
who believe that Prospect lacks adequate capacity because of its narrowness. Applicant
also testified that he seeks develop the property in a way that is functional and
aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Eliminating actual access along Prospect
Street ~Jr lots 2 and 3 allows for the garages for those two lots to be moved behind the
future dwellings and to access these from the Private Drive. In redesigning the
subdivision in this way, five parcels will take access from the Private Drive (even though
two of these also front upon Prospect Street, and thus have legal access to Prospect
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 19 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Street). Council interprets Section 18.88.050.A to mean that a unit is "served by" a
private drive only when the unit has no "legal" access to a City street. Legal access is
interpreted to include a unit that fronts a City street, thereby giving the unit the right to
access property from a City street. Units that have functional access from a private drive,
but also have legal access to a City street shall not be considered "served" by a private
drive. .
With the above as background, the City Council reaches the following conclusions of law
with respect to the various relevant substantive criteria which are prerequisite to approving
exceptions to Ashland's municipal street standards:
Exception Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.88.05e(F). Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the
Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if
all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
With respect to street standards for subdivisions, ALUOI8.80.020(B) states that, "the Street
Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, shall apply to developments
under this Chapter." Therefore, the street standards for subdivisions (and provisions under
which streets may differ from the typical standards) are those set forth for in ALUO
18.88.050 (Street Standards).
A. For the exception to street right-at-way and paving width tor Prospect Street.
The Council finds that the application is consistent with the approval standards for an
Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk with the Prospect Street
improvements. Prospect Street is an unimproved, unpaved city street with stl~ep slopes,
trees and structures located in the street right-of-way on the north side of the street. The
natural features and structures create physical constraints that require the street to be
improved at the southern side of the right-of-way. In addition, there is a large cluster of
trees to be preserved on the south side of the west end of the street (in the northwest
comer of the subject property). As a result, the sidewalk will be installed at the curbside
for the western 2/3 of the street rather than with a planting strip as required by the
Ashland Street Standards so that the trees on the south side of the street can be preserved.
In the eastern 1/3 of the street, the sidewalk will be incorporated in the drivilng surface
and differentiated with paving material to further protect the aforementioned cluster of
trees. The Council finds that the curbside sidewalk will provide adequate pedestrian
facilities given that the street experiences low volumes of vehicular traffic because it is a
dead-end street, is 310 feet in length and will serve at total of five properties.
Criterion 1
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 20 of 49
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Discussiol1l; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
1. Based on the Preliminary Plat and detail of Prospect Street (Record p. A41 and Record p.
A48) it is clear that existing development to the north prevents Prospect from being
widened to the north, or obtaining additional right-of-way.
2. The art;~a to the north also has a steep topographic drop off that prohibits widening of the
street on its north side.
3. Requiring Applicant to provide additional right-of-way on the subject property (to the
south) will create a street that jogs to the south and serves a total of only five dwellings
(four existing dwellings and one which is proposed as part of this application). There is
no expectation that Prospect Street will ever serve more than five dwellings because the
eyidenc:e - shows that steep topography prevents the further extension of this street.
Requiring a dedication of property to the City rather than requiring a granting of an
easement, would be disproportionate to the impacts created by this Project.
4. There is a cluster of trees in the northwest comer of the subject property adjacent to
Prospec:t Street. If the street is required to be widened, it will require cuts and fills that
Applicant asserts will produce an unnecessary environmental impact, including the
removal of trees on the subject property which exist along and just outside the existing
Prospect Street right-of-way on the westerly portion subject property's frontage on
Prospect.
5. If the paving width is required to meet the standard for a neighborhood street an
exception would still be required to reduce or eliminate the required parkrow strip or
sidewalk because of the inability to widen the street because of encroachments in the
right-of-way to the properties to the North.
6. Neighboring property owners on Prospect Street have testified that the road is inadequate
in size and design to be able to handle any additional traffic that may have direct access
onto it. In order to alleviate those concerns a Private Drive was designed with direct
access onto South Mountain Avenue and the only access to Prospect Street will be for
Lot 1, the driveway for which will be located upon the portion of Prospect which will
have a paving width of 25 feet.
7. During the proceeding Appellant Randall Hopkins (Record p. A222-A226) and other
opponents argued that the ALVa does not permit an exception to street standards for
Prospeclt Street. Opponents argue that the ALVa requires the city to require this
Applicant to dedicate additional right-of-way along Prospect to accommodate off-street
parking consistent with the Ashland Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets
("Street Standards Handbook"). See, Record p. AI44-AI91. While opponents do not
specify under which approval standard this objection is raised, the Council considers it
here.
City of Ashland I Oregon
Page 21 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
As background, Prospect Street is identified as a "Neighborhood Street" in the AsWand's
Transportation Plan. The current Prospect Street right-of-way varies between 43.85 feet
on the eastern two-thirds of the street and narrows to 28.745 feet on its westerly one-
third. This is clearly below the 50 to 57 foot right-of-way standard of the Street Standards
Handbook. Applicant proposed that the Prospect Street right-of-way (approved by the
Planning Commission) remain the same, but that the curb-to-curb width of the easterly
two-thirds of the street be 24 feet wide, while the westerly one-third of the street be 22
feet. The Planning Commission required a 25-foot curb-to-curb width (rather than the
proposed 24-foot width) on the eastern two-thirds of the street, but oth(~rwise, the
Applicant's proposals for Prospect Street were approved.
Appellant and other opponents opposed the Planning Commission's decision and urged
the Council to require Applicant to dedicate a portion of the subject property to meet the
street," standards outlined in the Street Standards Handbook. If required to dedicate
portions of the subject property, some or all of the lots adjacent to Prospect S1reet would
no longer meet the minimum lot size required (10,000 square feet) thus effectively
requiring Applicant to submit a different proposal with fewer lots. It appears that this
action would result in a design having one lot fewer than the proposal now before the
Council. During the public hearing, Applicant's attorney argued (Record p. AI7-AI8)
that the municipal street standards are designed to provide flexibility to address situations
where physical features of a project site produce severe constrains and that limited
paving area and narrower streets in this instance will preserve hillside slopes and existing
trees on Applicant's property.
Appellant Hopkins is correct that the Council is empowered by any of several sections of
the ALVa to require Applicant to dedicate added right-of-way from its property.
However, the Council concludes that having the authority to require dedication is
different than being required to obtain such a dedication from Applicant.
ALva 18.80 applies generally to subdivision applications. Howev(~, ALVa
18.80.020(B) specifically applies the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88 (P~~ormance
Standards Option) to subdivision development streets. ALVa 18.80 adds specific
requirements for streets in subdivisions, which Appellant Hopkins highlighted in his
written and oral testimony.
Specifically, ALVa 18.80.020(B)(5) (Existing Streets) states: "[w]henev'er existing
streets adjacent to or within a tract are of inade.9.uate width, additional right-of-way shall
be provided at the time of the subdivision." Lbppellant Hopkins emphasizes the word
"shall" but ignores the term "inadequate." Therefore, if the Council should fllnd that the
width of Prospect Street is inadequate, then it must require additional right-of-way from
Applicant. However, in order to determine whether a particular street is of "inadequate"
width and requires additional right-of-way dedication by Applicant, the Council must
apply the Performance Standards Option for Streets in ALVa 18.88.050 (Street
Standards) which incorporates by reference the City's Street Standards Handbook, and
specifically, ALVa 18.88.050(F) which allows the Council to except certain streets from
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 22 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
the Hatldbook standards. The fact that the proposed right-of-way is below the standards
of the Street Standards Handbook, does not necessarily mean that the proposed right-of-
way is "inadequate." The Council finds that this is precisely the type of flexibility
contemlplated in the Performance Standards Ordinance and Street Standards Handbook.
Appellant Hopkins argued that ALVa 18.82.020 takes discretion away from the Council
on this issue. Record p. 223. The Council concludes that this is not correct. ALVa
18.82.020, although titled "Street Dedication Required," does not require additional
right-of-way, but gives the Council discretion to decide whether to require additional
right-of-way. The first four provisions of ALVa 18.82.020 apply to future streets.
However, the last provision, (E), applies to existing streets. ALVa 18.82.020(E) states:
"[t]he City may require additional right-of-way on streets which do not meet the Street
Standards of Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards aption . . ." Although street
dedication is required in ALVa 1 &.82.020 for future streets, additional right-of-way
dedication for existing streets is authorized, but not required.
Appellant Hopkins quotes ALVa 18.82.060, apparently for the proposition that
additional right-of-way is required in this situation. Record p. 223. However, ALVa
18.82.060 merely establishes the timeframe for when dedication must be complete. In
other words, ALVa 18.82.060 requires the dedication of future right-of-way for a street
or greenway prior to final action on a subdivision approval, but only if such dedication is
required. If no dedication is required, then ALVa 18.82.060 is inapplicable.
Appellant Hopkins argued that the, "the only exception to this dedication scheme is
provided in 18.82.040." Record p. 223. The Council finds that this is not accurate
because ALVa 18.82.040 is not self limiting. In other words, ALVa 18.82.040 does not
indicate that street dedication may be waived only by ALVa 18.82.040. ALva
18.82.040 requires the Planning Commission (and Council) to waive street dedication for
the construction of a City street or greenway when it is proven, to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission (and Council), that the planned use will not increase in any way
the automobile, pedestrian or bicycle traffic generated in the area. In such a situation, an
owner is still prohibited from building in the right-of-way or associated setback areas of
the future street or greenway. ALVa 18.82.040 applies in situations that differ from the
present application and approval. This section applies to situations where the application
will not increase traffic, but for which, the City still has an interest in having a dedicated
(but unimproved) right-of-way for future development. ALVa 18.82.040 is not directly
applicable to this case, where Opponents want additional right-of-way dedicated by
Applicant. If Prospect Street was not a "dead end" then it is plausible that this section
would apply, as future development might necessitate additional dedicated right-of-way.
It is true: that the proposed application will increase traffic slightly on Prospect Street, but
this increase in traffic on an already dedicated right-of-way does not apply to ALVa
18.82.040. In short, ALVa 18.82.040 does not preclude this Council from applying the
Exceptions to the Street Standards of ALVa 18.88.050(F).
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 23 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Current Street Characteristics:
.
The current Prospect Street right-of-way (right-of-way) varies between 43.85 feet on
the eastern 2/3 of the street and narrows to 28.745 feet on the western 1/3 of Prospect.
This is clearly below the 50-57 foot right-of-way standard of the Handbook.
.
Prospect Street is identified as a "Neighborhood Street" in the City's Transportation
Plan.
Proposed Street Improvements:
· Total right-of-way for Prospect Street remains 43.85 feet on the eastern 2/3 of the
street_and 28.745 feet on the western 1/3 of Prospect.
· Curb-to-curb width of the eastern 2/3 of the street be 25 feet, while the western 1/3 be
22 feet. The 25-foot curb-to-curb width for the eastern 2/3 of Prospect is clearly
within the standards of the Handbook.
Street Standards:
· According to the Street Standards Handbook, "Neighborhood Streets" (Record p.
A167, A179, A180 and A181) have the following standards:
· A 50 to 57 foot right-of way standard where parking is provided on both sides of the
street; a 47 to 51 foot right-of-way standard where parking is provided on only one
side of the street; and
. Curb-to-curb width of 25 to 28 feet for parking on both sides; curb-to-~UIb width of
22 feet for parking on one side; and
. An 11 to 14 foot lane for parking on both sides; where parking is to be on only one
side of a street, the motor vehicle travel lane is to be 15 feet and the parking lane 7
feet in width.
Exception to the Street Standards:
ALva 18.88.050.F states:
An Exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and
may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances
are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapt(~r due to the
unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 24 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Perfonnance Standards
Options Chapter.
The Council concludes that it has the discretion and flexibility to decide whether
Applicant should be granted an Exception to the street standards found in the Street
Standards Handbook. Here the Council believes that it is entitled to decide this issue
either '.vay because such determination is factual. The Council is not required to grant an
Exception to the street standards on Prospect Street, but, if it chooses to, it may grant
such an Exception providing findings for each criterion in ALva 18.88.050(F) and the
~ame are add~essed below. :::~~~tion$ ~.050 ~ ::
D.DRm vanance stan ar . lll\;;ull S a
dif4icyJ~m~etiBg th(' sp0cifie requircmeJ.!! " base
~~d use of th~ site, asd net gnl)! it~ ~ical mtribyte~ Therefore, the Council
Het.emluies=that the, manner m. \J.Thieh ftB..-A ppli~ant seeks--tcr develop the p-ropertY --!3
Jele"aJ:J~to granting an Exception to the municipal street standards)The Council further
finas:that because Applicant's tree protection plan makes the development of the site
difficult, that this is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the
Handbook standards. The Council also concludes that it may consider the fact that the
chief argument against the Planning Commission's approval of this application is based
on the proposition that the Prospect Street right-of-way is below the standards of the
Street Standards Handbook. It is true that the total right-of-way width, including
sidewaJlks, planting strip, and pavement is less than the 50-57 foot standard for
Neighborhood Streets with parking on both sides or the 47 to 51 foot standard for parking
on only one side. However, the curb-to-curb width does meet the Street Standards
Handbook standard of 25 feet on Prospect's easterly two-thirds and the standard of 22
feet on Prospect's westerly one-third. Therefore, the Council concludes that it is entirely
consistent with the ALVa to determine that the Prospect Street right-of-way is
"adequate", as set forth above. Moreover, the Council concludes that any requirement
for additional right-of-way would result in the loss of at least one of the seven proposed
parcels. While opponents argued that guests of the future owners of all ITonting lots
would use Prospect Street, the evidence shows that these lots each accommodate four or
more oj[f-street parking spaces and the likelihood of significant use of Prospect by guests
is slight Additionally, the Street Standards Handbook favor flexibility and modification
of the general standards to accommodate the actual topography, coverage, traffic and
design of the site, apart from the Exception standards of ALVa 18.88.050(F).
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
chapter du(~ to a unique or unusual aspect of the site and its proposed use consistent with
Criterion 1.
Criterion. 2
2. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 25 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that Prospect Street is
presently a gravel surface without paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks or underground storm
drains. Approval of this application requires Applicant to upgrade Prospect Street with
paving, of a width of 22 to 25 feet, the installation of concrete curbs, gutters, sidl~walk, and
planting strip (along most of the frontage) and underground storm drainage. WhHe the right-
of-way will continue to be less than municipal standards for Neighborhood Streets, the City
Council concludes that the required improvements will result in superior transportation
facilities to that which now exists. Connectivity will be neither enhanced nor reduced as a
result of this application. While some opponents argued that Prospect is inadequate now and
would remain inadequate or even worsened as a result of the required improvements, the
Council finds to the contrary. The surface improvements with paving, curbs, pedestrian
facilities and_ turnaround will be superior in virtually all respects. Although there was
testimony that the existing travel surface on the west~ly one-third of Prospect is now 23 feet,
the Council concludes that the existing travel surface is undefined (without curbs) and is at
best only an approximate measurement. The Council further concludes that the c;urbed and
paved 22 foot travel surface in this area will have superior functionality and conditions
attached to this approval will ensure that off-street parking will be safely accommodated and
provide access to all properties by emergency vehicles. Based upon the foregoing findings of
fact and conclusions of law, the City Council concludes that the application is consistent with
the requirements of Criterion 2.
Criterion 3
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
"
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: From Applicant's plans and the balance struck by the City
Council in its consideration of the appropriate improvements to Prospect Stre(~t the City
Council concludes that Applicant has proposed and the City Council has approved the
minimum variance necessary to alleviate the difficulties which are set forth in the Findings of
Fact in Section IV herein. Therefore, the Council concludes that the application is consistent
with Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The purpose and intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter is set forth in ALva 18.88.010 which provides:
"The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is pennissible
under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity
and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of
life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be
aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the
natural environment and neighborhood."
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 26 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
The City Council concludes that this variance relief is consistent with the stated Purpose and
Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the following reasons:
1. The intent of "this chapter" is to allow for more flexible design than is permissible under
the conventional zoning codes. Applicant here has sought a more flexible design for
Prospect Street that still provides adequate pedestrian and vehicular transportation. The
greater flexibility will result in paving and other improvements to a street that now exists
as a gravel road and will result in not removing trees near the property's northwest corner
(which would otherwise have to be removed to accommodate a street constructed to full
City standards). Lastly, the flexibility will result in a design that eliminates two
otherwise-required access driveways from Prospect Street and will result in an improved
street that will benefit the neighborhood, while still providing for adequate public
transportation.
,0
2. The variance with respect to energy efficiency, will produce no consequence, positive or
negativ1e.
3. With n~spect to architectural creativity, the variance does not involve buildings and,
therefore, does not affect architectural creativity either positively or negatively.
4. With respect to the use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage,
this variance will result in an ability to preserve existing trees located near the property's
northw<;:st corner.
5. Regarding the provision of a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in
developments built under the standard zoning codes, this variance, by enabling the
preservation of existing trees (located near the property's northwest corner), will in turn,
utilize and preserve existing natural features to their greatest advantage. It will also
permit the improvement of Prospect Street to the functional standards of the ALva and
Street Standards Handbook. The same would not be possible if this project were built
using the typical standards of the city.
Appellant Hopkins argues at Record p. A228 that the variance will produce a lower
quality of life because the improvements will not solve parking problems that now exist
and because this subdivision will place, "massively added demands on the street." The
Council disagrees because: 1) the added demands will not be "massive" but will be
slight, as only Lot 1 at the easterly end of Project has actual access to Prospect and all
other lots that front upon Prospect will take actual access from the private drive and these
lots each accommodate four off-street parking spaces. The large number of off-street
parking spaces will reduce substantially the amount of guest parking needed on Prospect.
Moreov(~, the required improvements to Prospect will enhance its function with respect
to travet, parking and turnaround maneuvering.
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 27 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
6. The Council also disagrees with Appellant Hopkins that the approved improvements to
Prospect would not be aesthetically pleasing. Record p. A228. By preserving existing
trees (located near the property's northwest comer) the project will be aesthetically
pleasing. Lots 2 and 3, by taking access off the Private Drive rather than Prospect Street,
will produce a more aesthetically pleasing streetscape along Prospect by eliminating
driveways and allowing landscaping in their place and/or the preservation of existing
mature trees.
7. Without the variance relief sought by Applicant, the subdivision would loose at least one
of the proposed lots (which are of the largest size permitted in Ashland) and would result
in reduced land use efficiency because then only six (or fewer) rather than the
permissible seven lots could be provided and this would result in less not greater land use
efficienc~
8. This variance will reduce the impact of development on the natural environment by
preserving existing trees (located near the property's northwest comer). The variance
will also reduce the impact of this development on the neighborhood by p<;:rmitting a
substantial upgrading of Prospect Street from its present condition to one 'Nhich will
include paving, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, underground storm drainage and
planting strips (along a portion of the Prospect frontage). Despite Appellant Hopkins'
objections at Record p. A229, impacts upon both the natural environment and
neighborhood will be reduced by the substantial improvements required for Prospect
which are to be implemented in a way that avoids cuts into the steep enlbankment
adjacent to the south Prospect right-of-way and which would unavoidably required the
removal of existing mature trees that will serve to screen the new subdivision homes
from existing homes in the Prospect neighborhood.
9. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4 as to the
relief sought along the Prospect Street frontage and for the exception to allow more than
three parcels (five are proposed) to access a Private Drive but not for the relief sought
along South Mountain Street.
B. For the exception to street right-of-way for South Mountain Avenue adjacent to
proposed Lot 7 which would permit a sidewalk against the curb on land that
would be dedicated and without a planting strip (other than the existin!g junipers
which are behind the sidewalk, and, Along Lot 1 north of the Private Drive, to
locate the 7-foot planting strip and 5-foot sidewalk within an easement conveyed
to the City for public use.
Criterion 1
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 28 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan as
pertains to Lot 7 along South Mountain Avenue (Record p. 277) Applicant argued that there
are existing mature juniper plantings and a retaining wall located approximately 5 feet from
the back of the curb of South Mountain A venue. However, neither the wall nor junipers
provide sufficient reason not to require the construction of pedestrian and planting strip
improvements consistent with municipal standards. For this reason, the Council concludes
that there is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Therefore,
compliance: with this approval criterion cannot be met and it is denied.
Some opponents argued that not only must the Council require planting strip and sidewalk
improvements on South Mountain but the same must occur within the public right-of-way,
which would require the dedication of land along Lot 7 and other portions of South Mountain
along the pr;perty frontage. While it is unclear under which approval criterion Opponents
raise these objections but the Council considers them here. Opponents also argue that if a
dedication of right-of-way is required, the size of Lots 1 and 7 will be reduced below the
10,000 square foot minimum lot size standard of the zone and necessitate denial of the
subdivision application. Applicant's attorney argued that nothing in the ALVa requires the
in fee dedi(;ation of land for right-of-way and that the Council is entitled to accept, in lieu
thereof: the: dedication of an easement to be used for public pedestrian access and/or to
accommodate planting strips. Staff testimony identified several prior and current land use
approvals utilizing pedestrian easements and ,I or easements for the creation of street
improvements (but not driving surface), similar to the easements required as conditions of
this approval. In this instance, the Council concludes that right-of-way of South Mountain
A venue is adequate. The Council concludes that this is true even though the existing street
improvements are located along the westerly-most side of the existing right-of-way and
therefore require any new planting strip and sidewalk improvements to extend beyond the
existing right-of-way and onto Applicant's property. To accommodate sidewalks and
planting strips along South Mountain Avenue, its is necessary to require either the dedication
of land for right-of-way (and the improvements themselves) or to require the dedication of an
easement (and the improvements themselves). The City Council finds that it has the
authority and discretion to accept the applicant's offer to impose a condition which requires
the granting of a perpetual public pedestrian and utility easement for the South Mountain
Avenue improvements.
Criterion 2
2. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the exception to
eliminate the planting strip fronting Lot 7 would not result in an equal transportation
facilities and connectivity because the planting strip and sidewalk would then exist in reverse
locations. The Council believes and concludes that the reason for separating sidewalks from
travel/parking surfaces with the use of planting strips is to create a more pedestrian friendly
environment that will buffer pedestrians from vehicular traffic and the same would be
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 29 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
compromised if this application were approved. For this reason, the application (vlith respect
to the improvements along Lot 7) is concluded to be inconsistent with the requirements of
Criterion 2. However, the Council also concludes that the portion of the application which
seeks relief sufficient to permit planting strip and sidewalk improvements to be within a
dedicated public pedestrian and utility easement (rather than requiring a land ded.ication for
right-of-way where the existing South Mountain Avenue right-of-way width is adequate) is
appropriate. Moreover, the Council concludes that whether the planting strip and sidewalk
improvements are within dedicated street right-of-way or within a dedicated easement will
not affect, in any way, the functionality of the required improvements. Therefore, the
Council concludes, as to the easement dedication versus the in-fee land dedication, that there
will be no difference in either transportation facilities or connectivity and the srume will be
equal in all functional respects.
Criterion 3
.-:
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Because the City Council concluded above that it cannot
approve the variance which would permit transposition of sidewalk and planting strip
improvements along Lot 7, the Council declines to address this matter further und<::r Criterion
3. As to the relief sought to permit sidewalk and planting strip improvements in an easement
to be dedicated (rather than within dedicated land for right-of-way expansion), the Council
concludes that the balance struck by the Council in its consideration of the appropriate
improvements to South Mountain A venue, the Council concludes that Applicant has
proposed and the City Council has approved the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the
difficulties which are set forth in the Findings of Fact in Section IV herein. Thf::refore, the
Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The purpose and intent of the Performance Standards
Options Chapter is set forth in ALVO 18.88.010 which provides:
"The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to allow an option for more flexible design than is
pennissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency,
architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest
advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under
the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce
the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood."
The City Council concludes that this variance relief is consistent with the stated Purpose and
Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the following reasons:
\
1. Again, because the City Council concluded above that it cannot approve the variance
which would permit transposition of sidewalk and planting strip improvenrlents along
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 30 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Lot 7, the Council declines to address this matter further under Criterion 4. To the
extlent that the requirement that improvements be made within a granted easement
must be addressed under this standard, the Council specifically addresses that
condition and the further application of this standard below.
2. Th(~ intent of "this chapter" is to allow for more flexible design than is permissible
under the conventional zoning codes. Applicant here has sought a more flexible
street design that still provides adequate pedestrian and vehicular transportation albeit
within a dedicated public pedestrian and utility easement (rather that within dedicated
land for right-of-way width expansion). The greater flexibility will result the same
improvements as would be otherwise require if the improvements were within
dedicated street right-of-way.
3. The: variance with respect to energy efficiency, will produce no consequence, positiv~
or negative.
4. With respect to architectural creativity, the variance does not involve buildings and,
therefore, does not affect architectural creativity either positively or negatively.
5. Regarding the provision of a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in
devdopments built under the standard zoning codes, this variance is concluded to
result in improvements that will be functionally equivalent in all respects to the same
improvements if located within a dedicated street right-of-way (rather than within a
dedilcated pedestrian/utility easement).
6. The Council concludes that the improvements (within an easement rather than within
dedicated right-of-way) will be aesthetically indistinguishable.
7. Without the variance relief sought by Applicant, the subdivision would loose at least
one of the proposed lots (which are of the largest size permitted in Ashland) and
would result in reduced land use efficiency because then only six (or fewer) rather
than the permissible seven lots could be provided and this would result in less not
greater land use efficiency.
8. With respect to the impacts on the natural environment and neighborhood, the
Council concludes that this variance will produce no different impacts whether the
needed planting strip and sidewalk improvements are placed within a dedicated
ped(:strian/utility easement or within land dedicated for right-of-way expansion.
9. Bas(~d upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 4 as to
the relief sought along South Mountain A venue to permit the planting strip and
sidew'alk improvements to be placed within a dedicated pedestrian/utility easement
inste:ad of on land that would be dedicated for right-of-way expansion.
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 31 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
C. TREE PRESERVA TION, PROTECTION AND REMOVAL
Purpose of Application: Portions of the subject property (primarily the westerly portion) are
heavily wooded. Any development of this property will require the removal of trees. There
are 62 trees on the property which have a diameter (dbh) of six inches or greater, 19 of which
are proposed to be removed. As established in the findings of fact and evidence submitted
by Applicant, earlier project designs required the removal of substantially greater numbers of
trees than now proposed. Trees to be removed, will be removed at the time of excavation
and improvement for the private road, prior to final plat approval.
Tree Removal Permit Approval Criteria
ALUO 18.61.08"0(8) Tree that is not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: ."
Criterion 1
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use
Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for
accurate verification of the permit application; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The evidence shows that portions of this property are
wooded. There are 62 trees on the property which have a diameter (dbh) of six inches or
greater and 19 of these are proposed to be removed. The trees to be removed and those to be
preserved are inventoried and shown Record p. A43.
A Tree Removal Permit is required to remove two trees because the trees are greater than 18
inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and are located on the vacant parcel (3600). The two
trees include an 18 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot 3 and a 24 inch dbh pine on proposed Lot
5. The trees are centrally located in the building envelopes of the proposed lots, and
development of Lots 3 and 5 is likely not feasible without removal of the pines.
Only trees located upon existing Tax Lot 3600 (the westerly most existing tax lot) is subject
to the provisions of ALVO Chapter 18.61 because ALVO 18.61.035(B) exempts the
following activities from the requirement for tree removal permits:
"B. Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single family detached
dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise regulated by the Physical and
Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62).
Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are both in a single family residential zone (R-I-I0) and are
occupied by single family detached dwellings (both of which are to be preserved). The
Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (ALVO 18.62) regulates the subject
property only with respect to the development standards for Wildfire Lands pursuant to
ALVO 18.62.090 which does not restrict the removal of trees when for the purpose of fire
safety.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 32 of 49
Findings of F:act and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
The strategies for tree preservation are set forth in Record p. A43 (the Tree
Protection/Removal Plan) and Record p. A24 through A40 (Tree ProtectionlRemoval Plan
Narrative) both prepared by Applicant's expert landscape architect, Galbraith & Associates,
Inc. The evidence shows that earlier project designs examined by Applicant necessitated the
removal of substantially greater numbers of trees (and substantial cuts and fills). Applicant
acquired the parcel now intended to be Lot 7, to enable the access road for the subdivision to
be placed \vhere now proposed; without this parcel, the road was required to traverse the
westerly portion of the property - the portion of the property most heavily wooded - and
in doing so, necessitated the removal of a substantially greater number of trees than is in the
proposal now before the City Council. Moreover, building envelopes have been adjusted to
reduce tree: removal to the greatest extent practical, while still providing reasonable
flexibility fc)r future home design and siting. Three of the trees to be preserved, 32, 52 and
59, have dIielines or tree protection zones that extend into the Private Drive. For these,
special construction requirements and root vents are specified to help ensure tree health and
survival. See, Record p. A24 through A40. The root vents will be installed in the private
roadway to help maintain a healthy root system. Applicant has agreed to stipulate to carrying
out the tre(~ protection measures in the plans at Record p. A43 and A24 through A40,
provided there is some flexibility in carrying out these requirements.
0e City Council is aware that adjustments in design often are required once fi?:Jal
engineering is completed and sometimes after construction has commenced. The stipulation
[Iffered by Applicant seeks to bind it to the Galbraith tree protection plans while according a
degree of fl(~xibility that the City Council finds is reasonable. ....
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent with the requirements of Criterion 1 because:
1. Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt ftom the requirement to obtain a special permit to
remove trees.
2. Even if Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 were not exempt from this criterion, the ALVa contains
many design and development standards which govern matters such as lot size, lot
configuration, lot ftontage, lot coverage, building setbacks, off-street parking
requireITlents and requirements for streets and access. These regulations dictate in large
part the design of any development. The preservation of regulated trees relates to and is
balanced by the need to provide reasonable buildable areas to supply housing
commensurate with the subject R-I-I0 zone. While adjustments to these plans are
possible to preserve a particular tree, the adjustment will often require the removal of
another. Based upon the evidence at Record p. A42 through A47 and A24 through A40,
the City Council concludes that the trees proposed for removal on existing Tax Lot 3600
are required in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
ALVa requirements and standards.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 33 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
3. The removal of trees on Tax Lot 3600 is required: 1) to be consistent with other
applicable ALVa requirements and standards, and 2) to comply with substantive
provisions of ALVa 18.62.090.
Criterion 2
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1, the City Council concludes that Tax
Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these being existing lots
occupied by single family dwellings. The trees to be preserved are grouped in four clusters
situated primarily on the western portion of the subject property. The two trees requiring a
Tree Removftl Permit are situated in the center of the building envelopes for Lots 3 and 5,
and will be replaced with a structure. The use of clusters for tree preservation allows the
trees to protect adjacent trees as well as maintains erosion control, soil stabili1ty, flow of
surface waters and existing windbreaks. For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 if
this criterion is applicable), based upon Record p. A24 through A40 and the professional
opinion of Applicant's expert landscape architect, the City Council concludes that removal of
the trees as proposed in this subdivision, will not have a significant negative impact on
erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks. Therefore, the Commission concludes that this application is cons:istent with
Criterion 2.
Criterion 3
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1 and 2, the City Council concludes
that Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these being existing
lots occupied by single family dwellings. There are numerous trees throughout the site
including pines, cedars, oaks, big leaf maple, madrone and fruit trees. The: two trees
requiring a Tree Removal Permit are an 18 inch dbh pine and a 24 inch dbh pine. Since the
development will preserve 43 of the trees on site with the majority being pines, the removal
of the pines will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies
and species diversity with 200 feet of the subject property. For Tax Lot 3600 (and Tax Lots
3400 and 3500 if this criterion is applicable), based upon Record p. A24 through j~40 and the
professional opinion of Applicant's expert landscape architect, the City Counci]l concludes
that removal of the trees as proposed in this subdivision, will not have a significant negative
impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property. Therefore, the ~on concludes that this application is consistent
with Criterion 3. ' ~ ,J
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 34 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Criterion 4
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.f>1.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement
of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the
alternativl9s continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: As under Criterion 1, the City Council concludes that Tax Lots 3400 and
3500 are exempt from this criterion by virtue of these being existing lots occupied by single family dwellings.
The application includes a mitigation plan to replace the two trees to be removed.
For Tax Lot ~600 (and Tax Lots 3400 and 3500 if this criterion is applicable), Applicant has
agreed to stipulate~to the mitigation of trees in any of the ways provided in AMC 18.61.084.
The City Council concludes that suitable mitigation can and will be provided based upon
Applicant's stipulate which has been made a condition of approval. Therefore, the City
Council concludes that this application is consistent with Criterion 4.
**************
Tree Protection Plan Approva/ Criteria
ALUO 18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION
Criterion 5
Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit.
A. Tree Protection Plan Required.
1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any
development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a
property or site, which requires a planning action or building permit.
2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which
clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale
and include the following:
a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site;
b. Location of the drip line of each tree;
c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other
utility lines/facilities and easements;
d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches;
e. Location of proposed and existing structures;
f. (irade change or cut and fill during or after construction;
g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces;
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 35 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
h. Identification of a contact person and/or arborist who will be responsible for implementing and
maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and
i. Location and type of tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230.
3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all
trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree.
B. Tree Protection Measures Required.
1. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all required tree protection measures set forth in
this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feHt apart, shall
be insfalled at the edge of the tree protection zone or dripline, whichever is greater, and at the boundary
of any open space tracts, riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being
developed.
3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree
protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Stc:lff Advisor for
the project.
5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping
or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles.
6. The tree protection zone shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints,
thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, constnJction debris,
or m-off.
7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur within the tree protection
zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor.
C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion
control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection
measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the City.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes that the plans at Record p.
A43 and in Record p. A24 through A40, demonstrate compliance with Ashland's tree
protection requirements as set forth in ALVa 18.61.200 - Criterion 5.
**************
D. WILDFIRE LANDS
Purpose of Application: The subject property is covered by Wildfire Lands on Ashland's
Physical and Environmental Constraints map. Therefore, subdivision of the property is
subject to the requirements of ALVa 18.62.090 (Development Standards fc)r Wildfire
Lands). The Wildfire Lands development standards in ALVa 18.62.090 are addressed as
follows:
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 36 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Wildfire Lands Approval Criteria
18.62.090 Dtwelopment Standards for Wildfire Lands
Criterion 1
A. Requireml3nts for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission of any application for an
outline plan approval of a Performance Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or
application to partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard areas.
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief within 3 days of
the Ireceipt of a completed application. The Fire Chief shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan,
and submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days before the scheduled hearing. The
Fire C~iefs report shall be a part of the record of the Planning Action.
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, 'prepared at the same scale as the development plans, shall
include the following items:
a. An analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, as influenced by existing vegetation and
topography.
b. A map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation.
c. A map of the areas that are to be thinned to reduce the interlocking canopy of trees.
d. A tree management plan showing the location of all trees that are to be preserved and removed on
each lot. In the case of heavily forested parcels, only trees scheduled for removal shall be shown.
e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are required to be installed around each
structure, as required by 18.62.090 B.
f. Roads and driveways sufficient for emergEmcy vehicle access and fire suppression activities,
including the slope of all roads and driveways within the Wildfire Lands area.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows with respect to the various
subparts of Criterion 1:
1. Applicant has supplied a Fire Prevention and Control Plan with the submission of these
applications, one of which is for a preliminary plat of a subdivision, within a Wildfire
Hazard area pursuant to the Wildfire Lands designation on Ashland's Physical and
Environmental Constraints map.
2. The provisions of subpart 2 of Criterion 1 are procedural matters which imply no burden
upon any Applicant seeking approval under this ALVO.
3. Applicant's Fire Prevention and Control Plan (Record p. A46), Tree Protection and
Removal Plan and Narrative (Record p. A43 and A24 through A40) properly and in
detail cover the requirements of subpart 3 of Criterion 1.
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 37 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the matters covered in Criterion 1 are procedural and have been observed
by Applicant in these applications.
Criterion 2
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan when,
in addition to the findings required by this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire
hazards present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the need to
preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and
aesthetics.
Criterion 3
5. The hearing authority may require, through the imposition of conditions attached to the approval, the
following requirements as deemed appropriate for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a formal plan for such thinning.
b. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load.
c. Removal of all dead and dying trees.
d. Relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire and improve the chances of
successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be implemented during the public improvements required of
a subdivision or Performance Standards Development, and shall be considered part of the subdivider's
obligations for land development. The Plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any building
permit for structures to be located on lots created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance
Standards developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or designee, shall inspect
and approve the implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be
considered fully implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff Advisor that the
Plan was completed as approved by the hearing authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for the maintenance of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan shall be included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the
development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such covenant~;, restrictions,
and conditions.
8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the property in
accord with the requirements of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority.
Conclusions of Law: The City Council concludes as follows:
1. Regarding subpart 5 of Criterion 3, the City Council concludes that special conditions are
not required beyond the Fire Prevention and Control Plan as proposed by Applicant and
made a condition of this approval and the provisions for maintenance of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan as contained in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CCR's) which are also required as a condition of approval.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 38 of 49
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
2. Regarding subparts 6 and 7 of Criterion 3, the City Council concludes that Applicant has
agreed to stipulate to the various matters contained therein. Applicant's stipulations are
in Section VI hereinbelow.
3. Regarding subpart 8 of Criterion 3, the City Council concludes that the proposed lots are
created by subdivision not by partitions, therefore, subpart 8 is inapplicable.
4. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
concludes that the application is consistent ''lith the requirements of Criterion 3.
Criterion 4
B. Requirements for construction of all structures.
1. All new construction and any construction expanding th~ size of an existing structure, shall have a "fuel
break" as defined below.
2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-
burning species sufficiently thinned so that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation.
Where necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted in slow-
burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does not involve stripping the ground of all native
vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures and
residences beyond that required by other sections of this title.
3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum of
30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is less, in all directions around structures, excluding fences,
on the property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will produce flame lengths in
excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over
10%, Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of primary fuel
breaks.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed, maintained and shall extend a
minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under
the control of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce
fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire is reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as
determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire
Lands area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall be done under approval
of a zoning permit. No structure shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-
product material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's building code.
Conclusion.s of Law: The City Council concludes that the above provisions of Criterion 4
have been incorporated into the plan at Record p. A46, and can and will be incorporated into
the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) as the same will be furnished for review
and approval as part of the final plat for this subdivision. Based thereupon, the City Council
concludes that the application is or can and will be consistent will all of the requirements of
Criterion 4.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 39 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Objections Not Elsewhere Considered
During the proceeding certain objections were raised by Appellant Hopkins and other
opponents which where not characterized to any particular approval criterion. The Council
considers these objections below:
1. Objection: The City Council must deduct the paved drive portions of tUte private
way from the lot area of the lots with paved access. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p.
A232-A234)
Conclusions of Law: Appellant Hopkins argued that the City Council should interpret the
definition of "lot area" as found in ALVa 18.08.360 to mean that the paved private drive
portion of the lot must be deducted from the "lot area" of the subject property. A.pplicant's
attorney, Alan Harpet argued that the ALVa definition of "lot area" is ambiguous and does
not support Mr. Hopkins' argument that the paved portions of the private drive must be
deducted from the "lot area."
Relevant Code Standards and Criteria:
"Private drives" are permitted under ALVa 18.88 "Performance Options Standards."
ALva 18.88.050(A) states that: "[a] private drive is a road in private ownership, not
dedicated to the public, which serves three or less units." ALVa 18.08.360 defines "lot area"
as "[t]he total horizontal area within the lot lines of a lot, said area to be exclusive of street
right-of-way." The Council concludes that there is no basis for determining that the private
drive portion should be (or even can be) deducted from the definition of "lot area." "Street"
is a defined term that includes only public rights-of-way; private drives are not considered
"streets." See, ALva 18.08.670. Appellant Hopkins attempted to support the argument that
the private drive access should be deducted from the lot area by citing to a F{:bruary 25,
2003, letter from the city staff in regard to an earlier application which stated that, "... the
Planning Commission could make the interpretation that the flag drive area is the actual
physical location where the drive is proposed and deduct this area from the lot." However,
this letter was discussing a different planning action than the one proposed here, which had
entirely different factual lot dimensions. Furthermore, flag lots and flag driveways are
governed by the Partitions portion of the code, in ALVa 18.76, which is inapplicable to this
subdivision application. The City Council concludes that there are no provisions in the
ALva that require or allow for deduction of a private drive from the lot area of a parcel.
While the Council believes it may have the authority to interpret "lot area" to exclude private
drives it declines to do so.
2. Objection: Prospect will provide inadequate access to the ReidlSigetich property
which is located at the terminus of Prospect and the street's inadequaey is made
worse by people who violate no parking restrictions on the westerly lend of the
street. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A234-A235)
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 40 of 49
Findings of F:act and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
ConclusiolJls of Law: The evidence shows that the westerly end of Prospect Street is
sufficiently narrow so as not to provide ideal acc,ess for emergency vehicles. Evidence in the
form of testimony for an Ashland Fire Department representative also shows that emergency
vehicles can gain access to this parcel, although it may require some emergency vehicles to
back out. The Council concludes that the configuration of Prospect Street, while not ideal, is
not of AppJicant's making. Moreover, the improvements offered by Applicant and required
by conditions attached to this approval will make significant enhancements within the
existing right-of-way while not removing additional trees on the property or requiring
environmentally deleterious cuts into the hillside, the toe of which exists along the south
boundary of the Prospect Street right-of-way. The evidence also shows that parking and
travel on the westerly end of Prospect will be slight because: 1) only Lot 1 on the easterly
end of Prospect is the only lot which takes actual access from Prospect, 2) Lot 1 will have
garage parkiQg for two vehicles, two additional vehicles can park on the driveway apron and
two additional parking spaces for visitors are available to Lot 1 from the Private Driveway,
3) Lots 2 and 3 take actual access from the Private Driveway, and 4) Lots 2 and 3 each will
have g~~, parking for two vehicles and two additional vehicles can park on the driveway
apron. These facts weigh heavily in the Council's conclusion that the subject project will
produce sight, if any, parking demands on Prospect Street, particularly on its westerly en9
As to peopll~ disregarding the no parking restrictions which now exist along the westerly end
of Prospect Street, the Council concludes that the willful violation of parking (or any laws)
provides an insufficient reason to deny this application. Additionally, the enforcement of
municipal laws often occurs on a complaint basis and the Council anticipates that with
complaints that this issues will ultimately be resolved.
3. Objection: A security bond should be required to enforce Applicant's tree
protection plans. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A235-A236)
Conclusions of Law: ALVa 18.61.250 governs tree protection bonds, and states:
"The City may require the pennittee to post with the City a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined
by the city administrator, ensuring the satisfactory completion and maintenance of the tree protection plan.
Suitable collateral may be in the fonn of letters of credit, certificates of deposit, cash bond, or bonds issued
by an insurance company legally doing business in the State of Oregon."
The evidence shows that the issue of posting a security bond for the tree protection plan was
raised and discussed at the November 4, 2004 Tree Commission meeting. Specifically, this
applicant's history on other projects was raised in a letter from the Appellant Hopkins to the
Tree Comrnission. After the letter was read by a neighboring property owner, a Tree
Commissioner questioned the applicant on his history of tree protection on projects outside
of this application. Despite a recommendation from the Planning Department staff that the
Tree Commission not consider evidence other than the merits of the application now before
them, Appli1cant chose to respond. In the final recommendations of the Tree Commission, a
requirement for a security bond was not included as a recommendation and the Council
further declines to make this a requirement. While the ALva 18.61.250 clearly gives the
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 41 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Council authority to require the posting of a bond, the,same is a purely discretionary matter.
The Council here has elected not to exercise this discretionary authority.
4. Objection: The Planning Commission proceeding was replete with ex parte
communications, undisclosed potential conflicts of interest and disregnrd of the
rules of procedure. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A236-A238)
Conclusions of Law: Prior to the opening of the public hearing at the November 9, 2004
Planning Commission meeting, Appellant Hopkins raised the issue of ex parte eontacts by
Planning Commissioner Dave Dotterrer. Two Commissioners (Dotterrer and John Fields)
declared ex parte contacts that occurred directly after the October 12, 2004 m(~eting. The
Commission reviewed the declarations and concluded that the Commissioners were not
biased and could participate in the proceedings. The Planning Department staff t(;:stified that
it is not aware Qf, and has not received evidence of any other ex parte communications by
Planning Commissioners, other than the comments in Appellant's Hopkins brief (Record p.
236-238). The Council concludes from the evidence that any inadvertent ex parte
communications on the part of one or two Planning Commission members wer~~ disclosed
and that the necessary opportunity to comment and examine the nature of those (:ontact was
provided at the time of hearing. ffiowever, the Council also concludes that the outcome of
the Planning Commission proceeding was not improperly affected by the said
communicationS) Moreover, to the extent that there were any improper or undisclosed ex
parte communications between Planning Commissioners and any other party, that the said
improprieties are cured by this de novo proceeding before the City Council. Similarly, at all
Council hearings on this matter disclosures were made by Council members and the
opportunity to challenge or inquire into those contacts was afforded to all parties.
5. Objection: In the winter streets in the area become slick with snow and ice and
produce unsafe driving conditions that will be made worse by the traffi<: from this
development. (Appellant Hopkins at Record p. A220-A221 and others else,"'here in the
record)
Conclusions of Law: Opponents who raise this issue do not cite to any of the relevant
substantive approval criteria and the Council does not know where it would be entitled to
consider this objection. The Council concludes that such objection is irrelevant because it
does not go to any of the relevant substantive criteria upon which these applications must be
judged.
VI
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS; DECISION; CONDITIONS; STIPULA TIOINS
Ultimate Conclusions; Decision
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council
ultimately concludes that all of the relevant substantive criteria, prerequisite to approving the
City of Ashland I Oregon
Page 42 of 49
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Preliminary Subdivision Plat, Exceptions to Street Standards, and Tree Removal Permit have
been satisfi~ed in full or can and will be satisfied based upon Applicant's approved plans and
the stipulations agreed to and which have been made conditions to these permit approvals
and other conditions imposed by the City Council. Therefore, the City Council orders that
the applications be, and the same hereby are, approved and made subject to the conditions
of the City Council and the stipulations offered by Applicant and accepted by the City
Council, all as set forth hereinbelow.
More specifically, the City Council herewith takes the following actions on the various
subject land use applications considered and disposed of as Ashland Planning Action 2004-
105.
.1. Subdivision. Application for a Preliminary Plat pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance
(ALUO) Chapter 18.80. The application seeks to create seven lots from the 1. 75-acre
subject property, which consists of three existing lots, two of which are occupied by
dwellings. The future seven lots will be occupied by single-family dwellings. An
existing dwelling will continue to exist but as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU).
, ~
Conditional ApprovaL ~~)< '
2. Condit]ional Use Permit. Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit an
existing single family dwelling on Tax Lot 3500 to continue to exist and operate in the
future as an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) pursuant to ALUa 18.20.030.
Withdrawn by Applicant.
3. Exceptilons to Street Standards:
A. Along Prospect Street, an exception is sought to street right-of-way and paving width
standards, and to eliminate the parkrow between the curb and the sidewalk on the
property frontage.
Conditional Approval.
B. Along South Mountain Avenue, an exception is sought to permit a required planting
strip and sidewalk within an easement on the subject property rather than within the
right-of-way of South Mountain Avenue.
Conditional Approval in Part; Denial in Part.
4. Varianc=e to Off-Street Parking. Application seeking variance relief for the purpose of
permitting the two (2) required off-street parking spaces for the ARU to be located on an
adjacent parcel.
Withdr~rwn by Applicant.
5. Tree ProtectionlRemovaI. Application for Tree Removal Permit and related Tree
Protection Plan. The applicant seeks to remove two trees 18 inches dbh and greater on
the vacant parcel. Two of the three existing lots are exempt from the tree removal
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 43 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
standards of ALVa 18.61 (Tree Preservation and Protection) pursuant to ALva
18.61.035(B). Tree protection/removal on the other existing lot is governed by ALva
18.61 and ALva 18.62.090 (Development Standards for Wildfire Lands).
Conditional Approval.
6. Wildfire Lands. Authorization for subdivision under the special standards \vhich apply
to this land which is within the area designated Wildfire Lands on Ashland's Physical &
Environmental Constraints Map.
Conditional Approval.
City Council Conditions
The following conditions are herewith attached to these applications and made a part thereof:
1. That all proposals of the Applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
here.
2. That all easements for sewer, water, electricity, etc., as required by the City of Ashland,
shall be shown on the final survey.
3. That the necessary perpetual public pedestrian and utility easement for the Prospect and
Mountain subdivision sidewalk improvements shall be granted and shown on the final
survey.
4. That the Applicant shall consult with the Electric Department before submitting an
Electric Distribution System Plan. This plan shall include load calculations and the
location of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, street
lights, underground installation of existing and proposed lines, and all other necessary
equipment. The electric plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection
Plan in order to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones. The Tree
Protection Plan shall be revised by the project Landscape Architect accordingly, and
submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final
survey. The Electric Distribution System Plan must be reviewed and approved by the
Electric Department prior to signature of the final survey.
5. That the water line in Prospect Street shall be upgraded to an eight inch line with the
subdivision infrastructure improvements, and the engineered construction draw"ings shall
be revised accordingly.
6. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to
hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the
construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the Ashland Fire Department prior
to signature of the final survey.
7. That a utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 44 of 49
Findings of IFact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey. The utility plan
shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the
development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewers, manholes
and cle:an-outs, on-site treatment of storm drainage and catch basins. The utility plan
shall b(~ designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in order to minimize the
routing of utilities through tree protection zones.
8. That the sidewalk on the south side of Prospect Street shall be a minimum of five feet in
width in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards as required in 18.80.030.A.l. In
addition, west of the turnaround, the sidewalk shall be at the same level as the driving
surface and incorporated into the total curb to curb width of 22 feet. The sidewalk shall
be connected through the turnaround area by providing wheelchair ramps and installation
of the at _grade sidewalk in the turnaround. Engineered construction drawings for the
street improvement shall include the increased sidewalk widtil, standard curbside
sidewalk west of the turnaround, and crossing area, and shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Ashland Engineering and Planning Divisions.
9. That storm drain facilities shall be included in the Prospect Street improvements. The
storm drain plan shall be designed in coordination with the Tree Protection Plan in order
to minimize the routing of utilities through tree protection zones. The Tree Protection
Plan shall be revised by the project Landscape Architect accordingly, and submitted for
review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final survey.
Engineered construction drawings for the street improvement shall include the storm
drain facilities, and shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland
Engine(~ring and Planning Divisions.
10. That thl~ use of porous paving material and the construction of the improvement above
existing street grade ("raised" pavement) for Prospect Street is not approved, and the
engineered construction drawings shall be revised accordingly.
11. That th(~ proposed Prospect street improvement east of the turnaround shall be revised to
increase: the curb-to-curb width to 25 feet. That the Traffic Safety Commission will
evaluat(: and recommend one or two-sided parking whichever is most appropriate. That
the proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround shall be revised so that
the curb-to-curb width is 22 feet. The engineered drawings shall be revised accordingly.
12. That engineered construction drawings for subdivision infrastructure improvements,
including but not limited to utilities, public street improvements, private drive
improve:ments, the street improvements shall submitted for review and approval by
Ashland Engineering Division prior to signature of the final survey. Plans to include
profiles and cross sections, indicating cuts and fills, and erosion control and slope
stability methodologies consistent with the standards for Hillside Lands contained in
AMC 18.62.080B, if applicable.
13. Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities, public
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 45 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
street improvements, private drive improvements, and street lights shall be installed or a
bond posted for the full cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey.
14. That the name of the street shall be approved by the City of Ashland and consistent with
the street naming resolution.
15. Access shall be maintained to the existing public utility easement on the western
boundary of the site. The easement shall be included on building permit subnlittals, and
no portion of a structure may intrude into the easement.
16. The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanYing standards for complianl~e shall be
noted in the CC&R' s. The CC&R' s must state that deviations from the plan shall be
considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to
penalties described in the Asbland Municipal Code.
17. That a draft copy of the CC&R' s for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided
prior to signature of the final survey. CC&R's to describe responsibility for the
maintenance of all planting strips and street trees.
18. That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval of the
Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection and Removal Plan,
Landscaping Plan and Irrigation Plan. The revised tree, landscaping and irrigation plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Staff
Advisor prior to signature of the final survey.
19. Street trees, planting strip landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installedl or a bond
posted for the full cost of construction prior to signature of the final survey plat.
20. That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and
approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved trees on site
and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the notice to proceed with construction
of subdivision improvements. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identi1ications of
trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing. The tree protection
shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection and Removal Plan prior to
any site work or storage of materials.
21. That a system for long-term maintenance of trees identified for protection, and
addressing private drive improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey.
22. That a grading plan shall be submitted for each individual lot with the building permit
submittals. There shall be no grading outside of the approved building envelopes in the
approved tree protection zones (i.e. terracing to create yard area, patios).
23. That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 40% of the lot area in accordance with
City of Ashland. Oregon
Page 46 of 49
Findings of F:act and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
18.20.040.F. Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be
submitted with the building permits.
24. That the front yards for the purposes of setbacks for Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be the yard
adjacent to Prospect Street, and the rear yards shall be adjacent to the private drive.
25. That the development shall receive a 1200C permit from Oregon DEQ prior to site work.
Evidence of the permit shall be submitted with the final engineering for the project.
26. That a fence shall be installed at the Applicant's expense on the east end of the private
drive turnaround to prevent headlights from shining into adjacent properties. In addition,
a fence shall be installed at the Applicant's expense at the mutual boundaries with 789
South ~t12untain Avenue and with 1036 Prospect to the maximum allowable height in
accordance with 18.68:010. Fencing shall be installed,"prior to issuance of a building
permit for Lot 3, 4, 5 or 6.
27. That th(;~ South Mountain Avenue improvement shall be revised to include a planting strip
in accordance with Ashland Street Standards.
28. That the street trees at the intersection of South Mountain Avenue and Prospect Street
shall be placed to provide vision clearance.
29. That tht:: proposed Prospect street improvement west of the turnaround shall be improved
as proposed with on-street parking on one side if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. a vehicle turnaround easement is obtained from the property owners of 1036 Prospect
for use of their driveway for a turnaround area, or it is demonstrated that it is possible for
a vehicl,e parked on the north side of Prospect on the west end to turnaround and exit out
of Prospect Street in a forward manner, and 2. the Fire Department determines that a
emergency vehicle can negotiate the turn into 1036 Prospect with automobiles parked on
the north side of Prospect on the west end. If the before mentioned conditions are not
satisfied, the Prospect Street improvement shall be constructed with 22 feet of curb-to-
curb width, but on-street parking shall not be permitted west of the turnaround. The
engineered drawings shall be revised accordingly.
Stipulations Offered and Agreed to by Applicant
1. Prospect Street Water Main. Applicant will upgrade the size of the existing 4-inch
water mlain in Prospect Street to a larger size, consistent with standard engineering
practices and the requirements of the Ashland Water Department.
2. Dwellin;g Height: No structure will be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2
1/2) stories in height, whichever is less.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 47 of 49
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
3. Lot Coverage: Notwithstanding the size of building envelopes shown Applicant's plans
(See, Record p. A43) the maximum coverage for each lot will not exceed forty (40)
percent.
4. Dedication of Easement and Improvements on South Mountain Avenue: Applicant
will dedicate a 12.5 feet wide easement along the South Mountain Avenu~ frontage
between Prospect Street and the Private Drive to accommodate a 7-0 foot planting strip
and 5-0 sidewalk which Applicant will install.
5. Street Name: The name of the proposed private driveway will not duplicate or be one
which might be confused with the names of existing streets in Ashland.
6. Easements: Applicant will dedicate easements for public utilities whenever necessary
and the same will be shown op and dedicated by the Final Subdivision Plat.
7. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's): If the City so requests, Applicant
will provide copies of the intended Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR's) for
municipal review and approval as part of the Final Subdivision Plat. The City of Ashland
shall be named as a beneficiary of such CCR's on all matters related to impl(mentation
of the approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan.
8. Lot Landscaping: Portions of all subdivision lots not covered by structures and hard-
surfaced areas for vehicles and pedestrians, will be ornamentally landscaped ,~ith living
landscape materials and mulch and served by underground automatic sprinkle:r systems.
In particular, cut and fill slopes along side and rear lot lines, will be planted with ground
cover and shrubs or trees.
9. Protection for Trees Required by ALUO 18.61 to be Preserved: Trees on the property
will be preserved in accordance with the Tree Protection and Removal Plan (See, Record
p. A43 and A24 through A40) prepared by Galbraith & Associates, Inc., provided that
Applicant may seek (and the Staff Advisor may approve) such minor adjustments as may
be needed to accommodate proper engineering and construction.
10. Fire Prevention and Control Plan: The Fire Prevention and Control Pl~m will be
implemented during construction/installation of the public improvements requilred of this
subdivision and prior to the issuance of any building permit for structures to be located
on the subdivision lots. The Fire Chief will be asked to inspect and approve
implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan and verify that the said plan was
completed as approved by the Planning Commission.
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 48 of 49
Findings of I=act and Conclusions of Law
Planning Action 2004-105
Dated:
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
By: John ~10rrison
Mayor
City of Ashland, Oregon
Page 49 of 49
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
JOHN W. MORRISON
CITY HALL - 20 EAST MAIN STREET- ASHLAND - OREGON 97520
TEL [541] 488-6002 - FAX [541] 488-531 1 - TTY 800 735-2900
MORRI~:;OJ@ASHLAND.OR,US - WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
City Council Members ~
John W. Morrison. MaY8
April 26,2005
TO:
FROM:
RE:
AUDIT COMMITTEE
May 3, 2005 Council Meeting
There is currently one vacancy on the Audit Committee for a Citizens' Budget Committee
member for a term to expire April 30, 2006.
The Audit Committee is council appointed.
A recent poll of all Citizens' Budget Committee members indicates that the following would be
interested in being considered for appointment to the Audit Committee:
. David Williams
. James Bond
. Lynn Thompson
. Marty Levine
Other current members are:
Barbara Christensen (City Recorder) voting member
AI B. Case (citizen/3 year term expires 4/30/06)
Guy Nutter (citizen/3 year term expires 4/30/07)
Please indicate your choice at the May 3,2005 Council meeting.
Resolution 2003-07 (re Audit Committee) states in part:
. .. Section 2.
A. Four voting members shall be appointed by the city council and shall consist of one council
member or mayor, one budqet committee member, and two citizens at large. The fifth voting
member shall be the City Recorder. . . .
B. In making the appointments, the council shall give preference to persons with auditing or auditing
experience, background, or expertise.
CITY OF ASH I_AND INCORPORATED 1874
CITY ~OF
ASHLJ~ND
Council Communication
Adoption of the 2005-2006 Council Goals
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Departments:
Approval:
May 3, 2005 ~
Administration
None
Gino Grimaldi ~
Primary Staff Contact: Gino Grimaldi
E-mail: grimaldg@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: None
Statement:
This is a revised draft of the 2005-2006 priorities for Council Goals.
.~
Background:
On January 14 and 15, 2005, the mayor, council and staff met to develop goals for the next fiscal year (2005-2006). The
council reviewed the existing 2004-2005 goal priorities and developed and considered new goals for the next eighteen
months. At the conclusion of the session the staff was directed to prepare a draft of the goals for consideration by the
council. Using the information derived from the council goal setting, a draft of the goals was presented to council at the
March 2 study session. A revised draft incorporates the modifications suggested by council at the study session. Once
council goals have been adopted, a Summary of Council Goals listing the department responsible for the ~Ioal, with a
schedule for accomplishing the goal, will be provided by April 19, 2005.
Related City Policies:
There is no established policy in the Ashland Municipal Code which states that council must hold a yearly !~oal setting
process. However, Section 2.04.095, Identification of Fiscal Impact of Policy Decisions states:
A. At such time as the council adopts a new program or policy with significant revenue implications, it shall offer clear
direction to city staff and to the budget committee as to how the new program or policy is to be funded.
B. When the city council adopts such a program or policy, it shall indicate how it expects that program or policy will be
funded; e.g., which existing taxes or fees the council expects to increase and by how much, or which current city
programs or department expenditures the council expects to reduce to fund the new program or policy. However, if
the council cannot reasonably identify a potential funding source, it shall so indicate. . .
In 1998, the City Council adopted a goal to begin a strategic planning process for the City. In recent years the council has
conducted an annual goal setting process that identifies more short-term goals for the City, which are subsequently tied to
the budgeting process.
Council typically holds a goal setting early in the year to provide the budget committee with goals for the upcoming fiscal
year. The goal setting process has been a valuable tool for the City as it has created measurable, definable and
implementable goals that have driven the finances and organization in a clearly defined way.
Council Options:
Approve the goals as presented.
Approve the goals as presented with any required amendments.
Staff Recommendation:
Move to approve and adopt the goals as presented.
~~.,
Potential Motiolns:
Move to approve and adopt the goals as presented.
Move to approve the goals as presented with any required amendments.
Attachments:
· (Draft) Mayor and City Council- 2005-2007 goals (1-3)
· Parking Lot items designated for future study sessions (4)
· Council Goals (internal) (5)
· Administrative Directions/Actions (6)
· Goals from Departments 2005-2006 (7-11)
· Comments from Councilor Hartzell regarding the proposed 2005-2007 goals (12-14)
~~.,
[Q)~i~[P1
City of Ashland
Mavor and City Council - 2005. 2007 Goals
ADMINISTRATION
1. Implement no-cost and low-cost strateQies within the Health and Human Services Plan in partnership with
service providers that aid in the delivery of services to people most in need.
ADMINISTRA TION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2. Produce a workinQ economic development plan
3. Continue to provide infonnation to the community and foster discussion on Qrowth and planninq issues. with
an emphasis en historic preservation. annexation requirements, State land use law, infill policy and impacts
related to density. rate of Qrowth, development standards. and processes "
. Refine and create program to educate the public about state land use laws and what the City has done to
slow growth.
4. Establish fonnal public involvement policy by '06
. Assess effectiveness, review models, decide on and implement process
. Increase level of effectiveness with which Council and Commissions influence planning policies and
challenges and increased public acceptance and engagement in directing the City's urban landscape.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
5. Complete revision of Downtown Plan
6. Develop Riparian Ordinance
7. Adopt a process to meet LCDC Goal 1 Participation Goal Requirement
8. Adopt Dark Sky Ordinance to reduce IiQht pollution on public and private property
9. Develop Urban Forestry Plan
10. Be proactive in the planninQ of lan::Je undeveloped properties
11. Develop planninQ framework for future development of North Normal Area
12. Plan and implement a 6-12 month citywide/community visioninQ process
. Help maintain quality of life and reduce Council and staff time spent on appeals.
. Review in-fill program as it relates to already densely populated neighborhoods.
. Develop and implement participatory process that surveys a wide variety of groups.
13. Identify at least 25 units of affordable housinQ; have online for construction in '06
14. Develop process improvements that resulUn completion of proiects
. Annexation and rezoning
. Industrial land development white papers
. Downtown plan hearings
. Process improvements
. Code enforcement
1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITH PARKS COMMISSION & AWTA
15. Improve public trails system by developina a comprehensive trails plan that addresses minimizina public and
private con1licts
· Include Bear Creek Greenway (Dog Park to Mountain Ave. Park). Plan should discuss range of tools to
obtain aCCl3SS and ways to estimate construction costs and costs to obtain easements.
· Secure a method of maintaining the current level of access, natural beauty and value of Bear Creek
Greenway
COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC WORKS
16. Develop a comprehensive public transportation, traffic, and parkina plan to reduce pollution and conaestion,
and to improve Ashland's Quality of life
· Secure expanded bus service in Ashland in evenings and/or weekends.
· Evaluate TTPC Plan and develop action plan for items adopted.
17. Identify and acquire land for transit station
PUBLIC 'WORKS
18. Enhance water supply and conservation to meet taraets
· Develop citywide focus "the right water for the right use"
· ExplorE~ and potentially develop 3-year plan to improve and extend our current TI D system
· Negotiate for other water supply options
· Support effluent reuse option for WWTP effluent
· Complete pre-design plan for future extension of TAP water line, including
priority for conservation.
19. Improve pedestrian and traffic safety
20, Fix Wimer StreeUNorth Main/Hersey Street intersection
21. Increase safety at rail crossina (bike/pedestrian)
22. Evaluate and create plan for remodel/replacement of City Council Chamher (se8ti~~ sound. desiqn. web
access)
23. Pursue water Quality and temperature improvements
24. Develop a five-year plan to identify, fund and fully intearate all information technoloay functions within the
oraanizatioq
FIRE DEPARTMENT/PUBLIC WORKS
25. Establish stronaer, formalized role for City in stewardship of entire Ashland Watershed
· Pursue ways to speed up forest fuels reduction work in 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:
· Lobby for $$$
· Collect water quality/quantity source data
· Continue community wildfire protection plan
· Review relationship with Mt. Ashland/Ski Ashland
QAQC
· Promote and support, with City resources, the implementation of the
Ashland Forest resiliency Community Alternative in collaboration with Ashland Ranger District
of the Rogue River National Forest
2
ELECTRIC
26. Enhance revenue and services from AFN to strenqthen its viability
. Increase AFNs level of marketing and outreach to achieve financial goals linked to City's overall economic
development strategy.
. Explore options for low-level investment in AFN, until finances stabilize.
. Have a plan in place if AFN cannot meet its financial goals by 6/05.
27. Explore options to increase City's currently installed renewable enemy resources (solar, wind, hydro, etc.)
FINANCE
28. Develop performance measures proqram for all city departments
3
PARKING LOT ITEMS DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE STUDY SESSIONS
1. Homeless issues.
· Conduct a community forum discussion to help guide a decision on what Council wants to implement (if
anything) regarding the homeless.
2. Growth and infill issues.
3. Desiqn and build fire station #2
· Decide on funding mechanism by 6/06.
4. Review and evaluate City Boards and Commissions.
· Consider establishment of a new Transportation Commission, not ad hoc, incorporating the Bicycle and
Pedestrian and the Traffic Safety Commission, as well as the general public.
5. Act on a Fesolution requirinq that all future City-sponsored construction proiects meet LEED-equivalent
standards.
6. Study and adopt a fundinq plan for Open Space Fund and Housinq Trust Fund.
· Secure public support; initiate long-term funding mechanisms; identify funding sources.
7. Evaluate the benefits, advisability, and feasibility of the creation of a downtown police storefront substation.
· Include panhandling issue in the discussion.
8. Identify and adopt policies and methods to increase the tree veqetation canopy cover inside the City limits
annually
· Plan to conserve energy and protect the environment through carbon sequestration.
· Begin with feasibility study and putting in place a monitoring system.
9. Proactively analyze Measure 37s potential effects both within the City and on adiacent land in the County,
· Consider strategies and options for planning, services, and infrastructure.
10. Think clobally, ac( locally, work reqionally.
· Cooperate to address regional problems: worker housing, water supply, transit development, regional
planning and transportation, industrial/commercial development, Measure 37.
11. Review L.ID. process, especially financinq methods and streets selected for improvements.
· Reduce public controversy.
· Reduce Council and staff time spent on appeals.
12. Support and promote all forms of cultural and arts activities, especially off-season.
· Expand public arts commission into a cultural commission.
13. Promote hiqhly enerqy efficient automobiles.
· Example: Hybrid-only parking space on every block in downtown district (Review with Conservation and
Traffic Safety Commissions.)
14. Explore with Railroad on purchasinq and securinq control of property north of railroad district.
· Consider for public uses, transit station, affordable housing, etc.
16. Secure a method of maintaininq the current level of access, natural beauty, and value of the Bear Creek
Greenway.
4
INTERNAL COUNCIL GOALS
. Discourage councilors, commissioners, and committee members from using disposable beverage
containers in Council Chambers (in particular, disposable water bottles).
. Revise the goal setting process to engage more public input.
. Assess and coordinate City participation in the state and valley venues to ensure adequate
representation and use of opportunities to collaborate to meet the City's goals.
. Discuss and clarify roles of Council and staff in the visioning process.
. Direct Conservation Commission to explore funding of installation and ongoing service of recycling
containers throughout heavy pedestrian areas of Ashland, and to forward its recommendation to
Council.
. Mayor Morrison and Councilor Jackson will obtain and study the Oregon Mayors' Association
resolution on sustainability and report back to Council.
5
City of Ashland
Mayor and Council Goal Setting Work Session
January 14-15,2005
"Parking Lot" Summary
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIONS/ACTIONS
Continue to report progress on last year's goals (level), along with current goals (level 1).
Last year's goals #20 and #21 should be consolidated into a single goal.
Last year's goal #5 should read, "Pursue water quality and temperature improvements."
Delete the ~st.
Adopt a system for tracking planning and growth issues, and addressing them more
proactively and consistently (kitchen sink list).
Improve Council process by providing annual and semi-annual updates on Department
(staff) Goals.
Increase awareness of professional best practices and of issues that result in legal, social
and ecological liabilities. Provide City employees training in ethics, sexual harassment,
cultural diversity, and environmental protection.
6
GOALS FROM DEPARTMENTS
2005-2006
POLICE
· Evaluate the feasibility of the creation of a downtown police storefront/sub-station.
Outcome: Create a safe environment for people who live, work and visit the
downtown area
ELECTRIC AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENTS
. Develop and begin implementation of a Comprehensive Information Technology
Plan.
Outcome: Establishment of priorities for the implementation of technology based on
need and benefits
. Evaluate the cost and benefits of purchasing the Mountain Avenue Substation from
BPA.
Outcome: Decision
. Develop a plan and cost estimate for a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) system for the City's Electric, Water, Waste Water and
Telecommunication Utilities.
Outcome: Efficient use of resources resulting in lower costs
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
. Complete a perfonnance audit of the department
Outcome: Identification of opportunities to improve service; evaluation of
organizational structure, management structure, workload, records management, use
of technology; clarification of mission; establishment of measurement or monitoring
systems; and identification of opportunities to improve the land use code to avoid
conflicts and lack of clarity.
. Identify and acquire property for affordable housing with the proceeds from the sale
of the "Strawberry Lane" property.
7
Outcome: The creation of 20 units of affordable housing
· Evaluate the code enforcement program
Outcome: Establishment of code enforcement priorities that meet the needs of the
comtnunity and the City Council
· Evaluate planning fee structure
Outcome: Compliance with City Council requirement to maintain fee structure that
recovers 750/0 of cost
PUBLIC WORKS
· Complete the FY05 construction program and find innovative ways to effect change
so that we are better able to tackle the projects that come up;
Outcome: Timely completion of construction projects
· Focus on training for in-house construction and maintenance projects to better
respond to our customers;
Outcome: Improved customer service
· Find new ways to use emerging technology and equipment to improve efficiencies
without compromising quality and safety;
Outcome: Effective and efficient delivery of services to the community
· Review options for the pending temperature regulations at the wastewater treatment
plant and focus on the "right water for the right use" which includes options for even
more conservation practices with our potable water use and backyard irrigation
systerns
Outcome: Compliance with temperature regulations and increased water conservation
FIRE DEPARTMENT
· Promote and support with City resources the in1plementation of the Ashland Forest
Resiliency Community Alternative in collaboration with the Ashland Ranger District
of the Rogue River National Forest.
8
Outcome: Reduction of wildfire potential in the Ashland Watershed
. Develop plans for the reconstruction of Ashland Fire Station No.2, including
financing, architect selection and program outline.
Outcome: Replacement of a facility that no longer meets the needs of the coramunity
and city employees
ADMINISTRATION
. Review and evaluate city boards and commissions
Outcome: Ensure that the charge of the city boards and commissions meet the current
needs of the council/community and the role of the council liaisons are clearly
established. Reduce the turnover rate of citizen volunteers on the various boards and
commISSIons
. Conduct a community wide city survey
Outcome: Determine citizen satisfaction levels with city services and key areas of
concern; con1pare the results of prior surveys
. Obtain federal funding for community projects
Outcome: In cooperation with the Ashland School District, Community Works,
Southern Oregon University, Ashland Chamber of Commerce, and Ashland
Community Hospital, secure $2 million for land acquisition for affordable housing;
funding needed to complete the Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab, funding for a park
and ride facility, funding for the initial research phase of the Ashland Creek
Watershed .t\1anagement Plan and funding for a comprehensive program to meet the
needs of the youth of the community
. Monitor state legislative issues
Outcome: Ensure that state legislation does not negatively impact the community
HUMAN RESOURCES
. Complete contract negotiations with three labor unions
Outcome: Three new labor agreements
. Complete a major clean-up and consolidation of existing personnel policies
9
Outcome: Create a working Personnel Manual that can be modified as needed and
eliminate the volume and confusion that exists with personnel policies now being
housed in multiple locations and formats
· Develop and implement succession plans
Outcome: Ability to maintain city services in light of retirements in key positions
· Evaluate and further develop human resource programs such as employee recognition
and compensation and classification.
OutcOJne: Create a more organized Human Resources program that employees can
identify with
· Continue to utilize the mid manager focus group
OutcOJne: Utilization of a key group of employees to develop programs and policies
and obtain feedback
· Create a benefits committee to assist in making prudent choices regarding health
benefits
Outc01ne: Collectively plan for changes in health care benefits
FINANCE
· Update/enhance the Utility Billing software.
Outcome: Remove an audit comment regarding the lack of documentation and
accounting reports as well as enhance user friendliness and effectiveness of the
program.
· Update the AFN pro forma.
Outcome: Further develop the pro fonna for recent audited numbers and changes in
the financial condition of the utility. Provide cost centers that accurately reflect AFN
product lines.
· Update Water and Wastewater rate models.
Outcome: Update the existing rate models, preferably by internal staff, to accurately
project revenue requirements and rate changes needed.
· Finance capital projects as needed including issuing bonds for recent local
improvement district project assessments Bancrofted.
10
Outcome: Complete the process established for financing public processes whether
they are infrastructure or public building improvements initiated by the City or
citizens.
. Review and update all internal cost allocation plans.
Outcome: Develop models that accurately calculate the appropriate allocation of
internal costs for the Central Service, Insurance and Equipment funds to other funds
based upon use and fair share. The end result would be better recognition of cost of
services in departments.
. Update Electric rate model.
Outcome: Update the existing rate model, probably by utilizing consultants and
internal staff" to accurately project revenue requirements and rate changes needed,
adjusting where necessary for changes in the BP A contract in 2007 and trends in
wholesale power availability and cost.
CITY RECORDER
. Identify long term storage needs for official records
Outcome: Address shortage of adequate storage space for official records
LEGAL
. Provide greater up front support to the Community Development Department for
proposed proj ects in which the code language is subj ect to more than one
interpretation
Outcome: Clear and consistent application of the land use code
. Begin revie~1 and assist the Community Development Department in needed revisions
to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
Outcome: Reduce ambiguities and inconsistencies in the land use code
11
~<65~ 3 (! C. _ \ .r~
noM ate I
City of Ashland. ~ Cf) Ie 5 ~ ·
Mayor and City Council - 2005. 2007 Goals ~ f ~ ~
1~5 ~
ADMINIStTRA TION
1. ImDlement no-<:ost and low-cost strateaies within the Health and.Human Services Plan in oartnershlp with
service Droviders that aid in the deliverv of services {o DeeDls most in need.
[W(R<&\[FlF
ADMINIS!JRATION/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2. Produce ~ wo~ina economic develoDment plan
3. ContinuE~ to Dravlde Infonnatlon to the community and foster discussion on growth and Dlannina issues. w~h
an emDhasis on historic Dl'essrvatlon. annexation reaulrements. State land use law. Infill DOlicv and imp~~
related to djstnsitv. rats of Growth. develooment standards. and Drocesses
· Refine ana create program to educate th~ public about state land use IsY/$ and what the City has done to
slow growth. " 1.
4. ab/Ish formal :bllC Involvement ~I~ I' · t<. ::"\
~~ff~...tlv liS, revk'.,. mode. ' n and Implement process l~ 'UJ..;\.:~~
~ ~ncrea~~e level of effectJveness with which Council and Commissions Influence planning policies and
, challenges and increased public acceptance and engagement In diredlng the City's urban landscape.
COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT
. S. =~ion of Downtown Plan
6. ~.:aiDanan Ordinance
7 Adopt a process to meet LCD~ Goal 1 Participation Goal ReQuirement
8. Adoot Dark Sky Ordinance to reduce lioht pollution on pUblic and private prooerty
....~\ \
9. DeveloD Urban Forestrv Plan " 10.
f ~~~active"in'th1 DIQoning Qf larae undeyelooe~ ~t\)\)EIr1i~~ ~ M C
11. Develo[) plannlna framework lar future development of North Normal Area
12. Elmiod imclement a 6-12 month citvwide/communi~ visionina crocess
~ ~~lntaiA ttl:Jslilr tJf life ana reduce (;.;Ouncll alld Qt!fftime e~ent 0,1 Q~~als.
Review In-fill program as ~ relates to already densely populated neighborhoods. ,-
~ \...
.. DewIop and 1Mp"'",,,,,,t ~P'''''''f pII)G~Js#tah.UI~." wide vilflely ~ . , ~ 1
1~! "1I~:=si~~~nline for~struclion ID 'Q~~~~ ~ '
14. Devalo recess 1m roveme ts that result.I~~tlo of ra ects ~
· Annex~~tion and rezonfngr-- "l, ~~
· Industr1alland development white papers
. Downt()wn plan hearings
· Proces;s Improvements
· Code Etnforceme~~ 1 . "
. R~~()J~ ~
\o.J.-lW- ~
12
l . dR, L ' (I N
. .. "1 " '.
SHO
~dt9:Zl 900Z '9l'J
COMMUNITY DEVEL(.,r MEN
,15. lmDrPve public trails sYStem by developing a comprehensive trails plan tJ)at a
Dr1vate conflicts '
· Include Bear Creek Greenway (Dog PsJt to Mountain Ave. Park). pran should discuss range of tools to
obtain access and ways to estimate oonstruction costs and costs to obtain easements.
. Secure 8 method of maintaining the current level of access, natural beauty and value of Bear Creek
Greenway.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC WORKS
16. DeveloD a comprehensive public transportation, traffic! and parldna plan to'reduce Dollut/on and conaestlon.
and to improve Ashland's auallty of life
. Secure expanded bus service in Ashland in evenings and/or weekends.
. Evaluate TTPC Plan and develop action plan for items adopted.
'7. Iden~fv and accuire land for transIt sta~on
~
PUBLIC WQRKS .
~_ '. ~ ~ 18. Enhance wate[ stipolv and conservation to meet targets . 1
~}J ~ Develop citywide focus Kthe rlg,ht water for the rightuse" , r _ _ rr/..,
~ . ~ ~lId jJote:ntlallyd6'itlep 3~laR ta impff)ve 8Md e~teflet-eur cl;Il"I"entTID syster-A-.- S~~S ...
. Negotiate for other water supply options
. Support effluent reuse option for 'WWTP effluent
. Complete pre-design plan for future extension of TAP water line, including
nority for conservation.
19. 1m rove traffic safe 'M ~~t'2- kt
f\O\eaS!- ~
20. 9 Wimer StreetlNortA-Ma n/Hersev Street intersection
21. In~rease safety at rail cross'~ike/Dedestri~n} ~l\l.~
22. Evaluate and create plan for remodel/replacement of City Council Chamber (seat!na, sound. dE~siQn. web
a9cess)
,'Ioi'lOt~i;;~\;'
''1.
~ "
"\, \"
13
'd
88lL'orr'
-0"" ~' ...,.
I ~ .. _ ...
"""'SHO, ''''~~d~9: 3 l'..'9003 . 9 l'
ELECTBJ~ ' ,
26. Enhance revenue and services from AFN to strenathen Its viability
· IncreU9 AFNs level of marketing end outreach to achieve financial goats linked to City's Qverall economic
development strategy.
. Explore optlons for low-level Investment In AFN, until flnances stabilize.
. Have 8 plan In place If AFN cannot meet Its flnanclal goals by 6/05.
27. Exclore oDtions to increase City's currentlv installed renewable enemy resources (solar. wind. hydro. ete,)
FINANCE~
/28, Develop.performance measures proaram for all citY departments
~I _ fD '_ (~ 1
'JJ~ -t\~, 1J"d 1f1
~ ~M}i~'v
\...,
'\
14
'd
l L' N
r' '
SHO
"
~dSS:Cl SUOZ 'Sl
CITY 01;
AS H LAr" D
Council Communication
AFN Organizational Change
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Depts:
Approval:
May 3, 2005
Finance
Electric
Gino Grimaldi
~",";A
Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg, 552-2003
Secondary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid,
552-2061 wandersd@ashland.or.us
Statement:
This report is in response to the request from Council made during the April 26, 2005, study
session in which staff presented a proposed change in staffing for AFN and Finance, moving all
of Telecommunications and Computer Services into the Finance Department from Electric.
Background:
Included in the proposed FY 2005-06 budget is the transition of Telecommunications into the
Finance Department. This change moves 15 employees and a budget of $4,432,687 from the
Electric Department thus increasing the Finance Department operational budget from 21.65 FTE
to 36.65 FTE and from $2,585,893 to $7,018,580.
Key elements of this reorganization are to create two new positions, one to provide operational
support to the Finance Director and one to manage Telecommunications and Infonnation
Technology. The finance position is identified as a Controller and will manage day to day
activities for most of Finance operations, picking up the areas needing more attention than the
Finance Director has time to do, allowing him to focus directly on AFN and technology as
needed from an administrative purview.
Please note that the Finance Department had already requested an additional accountilng position
be added to help deal with workload and to "free up" time for the director to work on high level
finance and management issues. The added position would be paid for by Central Service
charges recognizing the benefit all departments and funds receive in the way of finance and
budget support.
A technician position in AFN was traded for a management position recognizing that the new
manager would review all levels of operation, leveraging talents and skills where necessary and
identifying any gaps that exist. The position eliminated was a vacant position created after the
consultant study whose work was being accomplished through other avenues. A merno speaking
to the impact of this change and potential options is attached.
Attached is a schedule showing impacts on the proposed reorganization on the Electric,
Telecommunications and Central Service funds. The estimated pay ranges for the two positions
were arrived at by gauging what may be required by the market and, to a lesser degree5 how they
1
~r.lII
.r_~
fit within the city structure. FY 2005-06 includes these amounts with estimated benefit costs in
the 45% range. It is expected that the finance position would fall in the $70,000 - $75,000 range
whereas the AFN position is budgeted at the $80,000 - $85,000 level.
The most critical addition is a dedicated manager to AFN and technology to focus on the day-to-
day operations, building upon them to align city efforts with the long term success of this utility.
This change raises questions as to how locating AFN under Finance is beneficial and what is the
impact on Finance and other departments.
In recognition that AFN is not the normal municipal service and has a need to operate differently
and often times act pro actively in an expeditious manner, the new position will need to have
some license to function at a higher level than many other division managers. However, it must
be noted that every day in the City of Ashland there are division mangers making decisions
regarding water, sewer, electric and emergency services that do not require direct input or
managerial authority by department heads or city administration.
The Finance Director operates from the perspective that it is his responsibility to keep current
with divisional operations, supporting the managers by providing the tools and resources
necessary to accomplish operational goals and to provide quality customer service. tvlanagers
operate within the guidelines established by the city and other levels of oversight authority and it
is up to them to identify gaps in resources, barriers encountered and alternatives to
accomplishing the established goals and in meeting targets. In turn, the Finance Director assists
the manager in obtaining what is necessary and in accomplishing what is needed, rerrlaining
cognizant of the ramlifications of paths taken and complying with legal requirements.
Examples of legal requirements are budget law, purchasing rules, federal state and local
reporting requirements, personnel standards & pay requirements, contractual obligations, etc.
From an operational stand point, the Telecommunications Manager will need to have the latitude
to adjust staff roles and responsibilities and daily operations as needed to meet work load,
operational goals and resource allocation to meet established targets. Adjusting targets and
methods of accomplishing goals must be flexible and remain under this manager's authority to
provide the flexibility necessary for this industry. . . within the legal requirements identified above
and the general guidelines established by top management and the elected body.
Many different names have been discussed for the top position in AFN.. .director, supervisor,
business manager, etc. The title is not as important as the skill set desired which must include
technology and industry experience and the ability direct, motivate and manage. The process for
identifying the most important talents and their priorities must be broad-based so that the
recruitment process is successful. Our goal should be to identify the right skills and pay to
generate sufficient interest to obtain a sufficient number of applicants to choose from. There is
considerable interest from elected officials, management, staff and the public that we are sure
getting input will be relatively easy whereas identifying a realistic skill set, prioritizing them and
associating the compensation will be more a difficult process that should be more internal.
Related City Policies
None applicable.
2
CITY ()F
AS H Lfl~N D
Council Options:
Authorize staff to proceed with reorganization as proposed.
Direct staff to proceed with reorganization as amended by Council.
Direct staff to make no changes.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council accept staff s proposal and authorize us to proceed.
Potential Motions:
Council accepts staff's recommendation (as amended by Council?).
Attachments:
Proposed Staff Change - cost comparison by fund
Vacant Telecommunications Technician Position
April 29, 2005 AFN Reorganization Memo
3
..111
._~
Proposed Staff Change
Amounts include wages and benefits estimated at 450/0
Original Proposed
Position Total Percent Budaet Budaet
Telecommunication Fund
Wanderscheid 135,000 35% $ 47,250
Tuneberg - Central Service Charge 135,000 30% 40,500
Tuneberg - Direct 140,000 20% 28,000
IT Director - New 120,000 80% 96,000
Secretary 53,464 15% 8,020
Technician 54,577 100% 54,577
150,347 124,000
Proposed
Electric Fund Elect t Budaet
Wanderscheid 135,000 65% 87,750
Wanderscheid 135,000 100% 135,000
Secretary 53,464 85% 45,444
Secretary 53,464 100% 53,464
133,194 188,464
Proposed
Central Service Fund Impact CS t Budaet
Tuneberg 135,000 100% 135,000
Tuneberg 140,000 80% 112,000
IT Director - New 120,000 20% 24,000
Controller - New 108,000 100% 108,000
Account Representative - New 70,723 100% 70,723
205,723 244,000
Central Service Charge Adjustment (40,500)
Total $ 448,764 $ 556,464
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
REGARDING:
May 3, 2005
Mayor and City Council
Dick Wanderscheid
Vacant Telecommunication Technician Position
The proposed AFN budget for next year does not include funding for the Teleconlmunication
Technician position which was a new position that was added to this year's budget ( FY 04-
05). That slot was filled in mid September and was filled until February 5, 2005 when the
departure of another employee, our Headend tech created the vacancy that currently is being
filled by having the Telecommunication Tech working out of class in this position. The vacant
slot was then filled by hiring out of the union hall on a temporary basis. This position was
created because of the Navigant study which determined that AFN was well below national
averages for employees per customers. It was envisioned as some one who cou!ld help out
with both marketing and technical issues on an as needed basis.
This job was not included in the proposed budget to help offset the costs of the new
AFN/Computer Services manager position. Because we have back filled the vacant job with
temporary help, AFN has had a full complement of staffing since mid September.. Loss of this
employee in the next budget year will result in less production from AFN staff and customer
service could be compromised. There is money budgeted for temporary staff to help with the
fall return of students.
More realistically however some of the behind the scene but very necessary tasks will probably
suffer more than customer service. This could have long term negative effects on system
reliability. Many tasks that have not been done from Network launch because of the build out
and rush to sign up customers can no longer be ignored. Tasks like FCC mandated
performance testing, continuous sweeping and balancing of the system, fiber management
and cable design simply must be done or system reliability and legal benchmarks will not be
met. Adding this new position to AFN's staff was critical to begin catching up on these areas.
New construction is a!lso a critical area that suffers from lack of staffing.
Filling this vacancy does provide the ability to install AFN service in a much timelier manner
which is important for many new customers who don't like to wait extended periods of time for
their install. This is especially important in the fall with the return of SOU students. It also
provides backup and special as needed help on out of the ordinary projects and provides an
additional on call person for weekend duty rotation.
ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT
90 North Mountain Aveenue
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
..~II
._~~
The new AFN Manager will no doubt evaluate personnel needs and have to determine
appropriate staffing levels. Funding this position and leaving it vacant would allo'vv the new
manager to select a person with appropriate skills and place them in this slot if that seems
warranted. If they don't see a need to fill the position it could remain vacant as a cost saving
measure. Having the vacant slot would also allow flexibility in any restructuring of duties that
the new manager might find beneficial. Handing the management of AFN to a new individual
without the appropriate staffing will greatly hamper the chance of implementing changes which
can help turn around the financial situation at AFN.
Options
1) Do not fund this position at this time. Allow the new manager to evaluate AFN' s needs and
allow their discretion to possibly redesign the position, develop different restructuring efforts,
evaluate out sourcing of critical tasks, or explore other more efficient ways for AI=N to deliver
services.
2) Fund the position for FY-05-06 but leave it vacant until the new manager can evaluate the
job description and fill the vacancy
3) Fund and fill the current vacancy immediately.
While there is a need for AFN to have adequate resources to complete the various tasks at
hand and because an outright loss of this position without mitigating it in some other manner
could seriously impacts this ability, my recommendation would be to pursue option one at this
time. This would allo'vv the new individual the utmost flexibility in shaping the AFI\J staff and
tailor the vision of the best way to achieve success.
.--..-.----------
ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT
90 North Mountain Aveenue
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
.4~1I
._~.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
April 29, 2005
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator
RE:
AFN Reorganization
Backaround
Over the past several months staff has been evaluating the organizational structure of the
Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) with a particular emphasis on its location in the overall city
structure. Lee Tuneberg, Dick Wanderscheid, and Tina Gray participated in the evaluation.
AFN is currently a part of the Electric Department and under the responsibility of the Electric
and Telecommunications Director. Until recently, a "shared" AFN sales position located at City
Hall was under the Direction of the Finance Director but is now part of the Electric Department.
Billing and collection are the responsibility of the Finance Department. Potential AFN
customers first contact the city to purchase city utilities by contacting the Finance Department.
The group of employees that provides support to the city's computer systems, networks,
personal computers, and phones is under the direction of Telecommunications Engineer. The
Telecommunications Engineer's time is split between AFN and computer services. This
position reports to the Electric and Telecommunications Director.
Discussion
The Electric Department and AFN represent significant responsibilities. Electric fund
expenditures are approximately $11 million with 21 employees. AFN is a business with
expenditures of $2.6 rnillion with 8 employees. The expertise to manage the city's electric
utility and AFN are different. Initially, during the construction phase of AFN, the experience
and knowledge needed to manage both were in better alignment. However, now that the
construction of the AFN system, with exception of providing service to new developments, is
Administra tion
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
p ..----..,- .-----
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
.. ~II.
...~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
complete, it is time to shift the emphasis of the management of AFN to maintaining the existing
infrastructure; keepin~J current with the ever changing world of technology; increasing the
customer base for the current AFN products; and evaluating new AFN products that will
improve the Financial condition of AFN. There are also a number of challenges and
opportunities facing the Electric Department that will require the full time attention of the
Electric and Telecomrnunications Director. Those challenges and opportunities include the
evaluation and implenlentation of a SCADA system, implementing the new rate structure from
SPA, purchase of the Mountain Avenue substation, re-negotiation of SPA contract and
succession planning for key positions.
In short, AFN and the Electric Department require the attention of full time mananers.
Potential customers of AFN are people who are currently subscribers to the competing
providers of cable television and internet services. Recent marketing efforts have shown that it
is difficult to move customers from the competition to AFN. The best opportunity to bring a
new customer to AFN is when they come to the city to establish utility services. This activity
occurs in the Finance Department. Placing employees that have the greatest opportunity to
obtain additional customers in the same department, under the same leadership with the other
AFN employees increases the ability to obtain new customers and to provide consistently good
customer service.
AFN relies heavily on the Finance Department to prepare financial information used to make
short and long term revenue and expenditure projections. This reliance on the Finance
Department exceeds what is required by most city departments. This is due to the fact that
there is a lack of staff time available within AFN to evaluate and prepare financial information.
As information flows between the two departments it increases the probability that errors will
occur.
Propose On::lanizational Structure
It is proposed that the Electric and Telecommunications Director dedicate 1000/0 of his time to
the management of the Electric Department.
The responsibility for the management of AFN be assigned to a newly created position. The
tentative title for this position is IT/Telecommunications Manager.
Administration
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
----------
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
..~II
."t~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
The IT/Telecommunications Manager will report to the Finance Director.
The proposed organizational structure will require the elimination of the Telecomlmunication
Technician in AFN. This is being done in order to accommodate the increased cost associated
with having a full time manager of AFN. The Telecommunication Technician position is
currently vacant.
A Controller position will need to be added to the Finance Department in order to backfill for
the time that the Finance Director will need to spend on AFN and Computer Services issues.
The Controller position will also assist the Finance Department in completing critical tasks that
they are not able to complete at this time.
Financial Impact
It is anticipated that the financial impact to AFN will be almost neutral due to the savings from
an eliminated positions and recognizing corresponding changes in Central Service Charges.
The impact on the Central Service Fund is an increase of approximately $40,000 that will be
shared by all departments benefiting by added support from the Controller.
Future Issues
The impact of the elirnination of the Telecommunication Technician will need to be carefully
monitored. It is critical that the reliability of the AFN network be maintained and that customer
service requests are addressed promptly.
The knowledge, skills and abilities of the new manager position will need to be carefully
crafted. It is anticipated that there will be an emphasis on selecting a person with direct
experience managing a private or public system similar to the size and scope of AFN.
Alternatives Considered but Reiected
All of the alternatives considered other than maintain the status quo, included dedicated 1000/0
of the time of the Electric and Telecommunications Director to the Electric Department and
creating the AFN/C0111puter Services Manager.
Administration
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
-------..--.--- -
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
..~-
._~~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
Several alternatives that were rejected involved variations on how to absorb the impact of
moving AFN under the Finance Director. The variable for these alternatives revolved around
the number of staff to add to the Finance Department.
Moving AFN under the City Administrator was evaluated but rejected due to the increased
workload it created by adding an additional position reporting to the City Administrator.
Separating Computer Services from AFN and creating a separate Computer Services
Department was also rejected due to the overlapping responsibilities between AFN and
Computer Services. The two could be split bit it would result in increased costs for both AFN
and Computer Services.
A more comprehensive reorganization involving the creation of an Administrative Service
Department was rejected to the relatively high cost of the alternative.
Implementation Timeline
Full implementation of the proposed organizational structure cannot take place until the 2005-
06 budget is approved. However, staff will be proceeding with the recruitment of the
AFN/Computer Services Manager as soon as possible so that the position can be filled shortly
after July 1 st. The interim transition of AFN to the Finance department will begin immediately
and will require moving ahead with steps to backfill the Finance Director to enable this
transition.
CC: Dick Wanderscheid
Lee Tuneberg
~'._.__._-_.._..- ----~._.._._-
Administration
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
..~II
._~~
From: "Richard Barth" <rrnb@barthfamily.com>
Date: Tue May 3, 2005 5:42:06 PM US/Pacific
To: <morrisoj@ashland.or.us>, <hardestyforcouncil@charter.net>, <russcity@mind.net>, 'IICate Hartzell'"
<cate@mind.net>, "'Alex A.marotico'" <alex@standingstonebrewing.com>, <chearn@davishearn.com>, "'Kate
Jacksonlll <KateJackson@opendoor.com>
Cc: <AIDouma@aol.com>, <rmb@barthfamily.com>, "'Jim Teece'" <jim@projecta.com>, "'Gino Grimaldill'
<grimaldg@ashland.or.us>
Subject: AFN Advisory Committee Recommendations
To: Ashland City Council
From: Rick Barth, Allen Douma,JimTeece
Subject: AFN
As citizen members of the AFN Advisory Committee we would like to offer you our observations and recommendations for a future course
of action.
AFN has a long history of technical success and financial short falls. We believe that AFN can continue to provide a valuable service to the
community. We think that AFN should be used to substantially enhance communication to and involvement of citizens in
theAshlandcommunity, particularly in city government. However, that can only occur if AFN is on sound financial footing. Unfortunately, that
does not appear to be the case and so the remainder of this memo focuses on financial matters.
In brief, we believe council should establish an Oversight Committee simultaneously with reorganizing the AFN management structure on a
temporary basis.
A purpose of the Oversight Committee is to firmly establish the current financial status of AFN and projections for the next two years. In
addition, this committee would identify the most reasonable scenarios with regard to what can be done with AFN ir the future and develop
the underlying rationales for each, both operationally and financially.
The Oversight Committee's charter and operation must be different from the past operation of the Advisory Committee. It must be
authorized by council. Its voting members must be either council members or citizens appointed by council. Meetings should be public,
noticed, agenda published, minutes recorded, and staff required to be responsive to requests for information.
We agree with the AFN reorganization memo fromGino Grimaldibut only on a temporary basis. We believe that council should consider
AFN management structures that are part of the scenarios presented to the Council by the Oversight Committee and eventually select one
as part of that process.
Hiring a permanent AFN manager now only makes sense if council has made a final decision on AFN's being a utility managed by the city
but subject to competitive price pressures and that it will part of the Finance Department. We do not think that the Council should make that
commitment until it has had time to further deliberate the findings of the Oversight Committee and the citizens of Ashland have developed
greater understanding and appreciation for what AFN has to offer.
Even though we do not believe that a permanent manager should be hired at this time we do believe that some restructuring of AFN
management must occur now. We suggest that a temporary manager be hired who will keep AFN running in its current form while the
longer range plan is developed. We further suggest that the city actively look for qualified current community members who can fill this role.
Since the position would be advel1ised to be temporary then the temporary manager could work with the oversight committee, council, and
staff to decide on the long range plan.
In summary, we believe that the council should take the following course of action:
Establish an Oversight Committee and charge them to:
Prepare a financicd report describing the current state of AFN
Prepare a planning report for long term AFN operations and finances.
Proceed with AFN reorganization:
Hire a short term manager who reports to Lee Tuneberg
Using the reports from the oversight committee decide on the long term AFN structure.
CITY OF
ASHLAl'ID
Council Communication
Measure 37 Claim - Lowe Road
Meeting Date: May 3, 200~
Department: Legal J,;/t! ~
Contributing Departments: Adhpn
Approval: Gino Grimaldi <:
Primary Staff Contact: Mike Franell, 488-5350
franellm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact:
Statement: -
Jackson County has provided notice to Ashland of a Measure 37 claim received outside our
urban growth area, but within our area of mutual concern. The claimants are Reginald &
Annette Breeze.
Background:
Measure 37, passed by the Oregon voters in November 2004, allows a property owner to submit
a claim for diminution of property value caused by land use regulations enacted after a property
owner acquired their property. The governing body reviewing the claim may either pay the
diminution in value, if any, or may waive or choose not to apply the limiting land use
regulations. The Bre:ezes, together with Charles J Kenney and Darrel G HinnewinkeL, purchased
the property in 1979. The property consists of approximately 18.4 acres along S. Vaney View
and Lowe Roads near the North Interchange to Interstate 5. The property was zoned RR-5
(Rural Residential, 5 acre minimum lot size) at the time of purchase, but was listed in the
County's comprehensive plan for interchange commercial. In 1982, Jackson County amended
their comprehensive plan and rezoned all but 1.62 acres to OSR (Open Space Reserv(~). The
claim purports a reduction in value from what the property could have been used for at the time
of purchase, with a rezone to interchange commercial, of$5,763,980, based upon (Jl proposed
development of a botanical interpretive area with a rest area and tourist welcome center, a thirty-
two space campground with full RV hookups, a convenience store, a gift shop and two
restaurants.
Council Options:
Primary jurisdiction for resolving the Measure 37 claim lies with Jackson County. Therefore, the
City of Ashland has limited options at this point. We could do nothing and see how Jackson
County resolves the claim. We could submit a letter objecting to the granting of the claim to be
considered by the County in their determination.
Staff Recommendation:
Due to the area around this interchange being one of only two interstate access points into th~~ City of
Ashland and due to the claim being based upon uses that would have required a zone change in order to
have been pennitted at the time the property was acquired, Staff recommends the Council direct staff to
prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature objecting to the granting of this Measure 37 claim.
1
r~~
G:\legal\Mike\Council Communications\Breeze M37 claim memo.doc
Potential Motions:
I move the Council direct staff to prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature objecting to the granting of
this Measure 37 claim.
Attachments:
Copy of Measure 37 claim
Copy of map identifying relevant property
Copy of Tax Assessor's Map.
2
JACKSON COUNTY
oregon
April 15, 2005
Mr. Gino Grimaldi
City Administrator
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
l
Dear Gino:
Administration
Susan E. Sllick
County Administrator
10 South Oal(dale, Rm. 214
Medford, Orergon 97501
Phone: 541-j~4~
Fax: 541-77oi1f.6455
slackse@jacksoncounty.org
www.jacksoncounty.org
t~ [2 A~~R [~ ~ ;oo~~ ~J
By
~ \ -e.-/')'
11~-~k ~
"~ c..,..,.
Enclosed is a copy of a Measure 37 claim that was submitted to Jackson County by Reginald P.
and Annette L. Breeze, Charles J. Kenney, and DalTel G. Hinnewinkel on April 7, 2005. The
property for which the claim has been filed is located on Lowe Road and is not within the
Ashland UGB, but is within the Area of Mutual Planning Concern. While our ordinance (No.
2005-1) does not require us to advise you of this claim, I thought you might be interested.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~
Susan E. Slack
County Administrator
Enclosure
, '
\ .
i'
I' ,
-:c~
; \!1
,Ii
11 '
" - ~, 1 S ~-; :, j .:! III
;!)
---------" I
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
This application is used for review of compensation
claims as provided for by
ORS Chapter 197
MEASURE 37
COMPENSATION DEMAND
Submit to: County Administrator's Office
10 S. Oakdale Ave., Room 214
Medford OR 97501
[AP-M37-NoF~!] rev. 01121/05
OFFICE USE ONLY
File NSl JY\ ~ 1~OO5-()C)o5J
App. Received by l.k"
Date Received ~,. t-OS
NOTE: The applicant must be all property owner(s) whose collective interests amount to fee simple title, their
attorney or agent duly authorized in writing. If a person other than the current property owner(s) is filing
this claim, a notarized affidavit, letter of authorization or power of attorney must be submitted with this
claim. For purposes of claim review, the Claimant Owner or Agent will be designated as the primary Contact
for purposes of communication, correspondence and notices pertaining to the claim.
Please print In black Ink, or type alllnformaUon, except where a signature Is required.
CLAIMANT PROPERTY OWNER(S): OTHER PROPERTY OWNER(S):
Please list all owners with an inte~t ~the property, or the authorized representative if a corporation.
Name: BrAAzA, RAglnald P & AnnAttA ~ Name: Kenney, ChartAs J
Mailing Address: 1175 East Main Street. Suite 1C
City: Meford
State: OR
Zip: 97504
Daytime Phone: (541) 773-7548
AGENT:
An agent is not the Owner
Name: FowlAr" William H
Mailing Address:
City: Medford
State: OR
Daytime Phone:
705 WAst 10th StrAAt
Zip: 97501
(541) 779-4075
MailingAddress:~/ED
City: COI 'NTY ADt\Al[~'.::')T') t. TO~
State:
Zip:~
Daytime Phone:
f, LJ
\" !.?
L} . 0 C'I .-.... l' l' 1('\ ~ r, ...... , - ,-.
~ I V I y \_.,,'\.1.'" 1:,,1 { I.. h' I '-,~ i t? I ~..
I'.
Name or Names of Legal Owner(s) JOintly Filing Claim
Name: HinnewinkAl, DarrAI G
Mailing Address: Same
City:
State:
Zip:
Daytime Phone:
Property Description: (list all contiguous lots or parcels that are under the same ownership or that are !part of the claim)
Township Range Section Tax Lot(s) Date Acquired Zone of Property
On Date Acquired
38 S 1E 31 100 June 22, 1979
Property Address(es): .
Measure 37 Conlpensation Demand
Page -2-
1) Date of Acquisition (attach copy of document that transferred ownership, note County deed record
instrument number if applicable): June 22,1979 (See attached Exhibit 4)
2) Is the Property In the Same Configuration as When It Was Acquired? _X_ YES _ NO
3) Zoning Malp and Plan Map Designation(s) on Date of Acquisition by Current Owner:
See Claim Narrative attached as Exhibit 1, and Land Use Maps attached as Exhibit 3
4) Use RequEtsted (specify what you want to do with your land): See Exhibit 1 for requested uses,
and Exhlbllt 6 for proposed development plan.
5) Has a Land Use Regulation Been Enforced on Your Property That Prevents the Use(s) You
Described .Above? _X_YES NO
a) Listthe Land Use Regulation(s) That Prevent the Use(s) You Specified (list specific local
ordinclnces or State requirements, noting date of enactment): See attached Exhibit 1 for
Claim narrative.
6) Has Jacksoln County Formally Denied the Use You Specified Above? YES NO
a) Pleas'9 Explain Circumstances (describe land use permits sought and outcome of
applications): See Exhibit 1
7) List Prior Cllalms Filed with Jackson County or the State of Oregon:
None
Measure 37 Compensation Demand
Page -3-
8) Relief Sought (specify whether compensation or a use waiver is desired, if con1pensation is
requested, specify the dollar amount of relief sought): Explained in Exhibit 1
-
THE CLAIM APPLICATION MUST INCLUDE:
1. A completed, signed claim form (with additional sheets attached as necessary). If a person other
than the owner(s) of the subject property is filing this claim, documentation must bE~ provided as
outlined on page one of this form.
2. A scaled site plan showing the location of all existing and proposed uses on the owner's property
(a survey map of the property is recommended for use as a base map). A copy of any surveys
recorded with the County can be obtained at the Surveyor's Office located on the third floor of the
Courthouse Annex, Room 318A. Alternatively, a copy of the most recent asseSSrTlent plat map
showing the subject property may be used as a base to show existing and proposed uses.
3. Copies of all deeds or other records that document ownership and date of acquisitlion, including
a copy of the last recorded deed for the subject property. This can be obtained frorn the County
Recorder's Office located on the second floor of the Courthouse Annex, Room 216A. A copy of
the acquisition title report may be submitted to fulfill this requirement.
4. Aswom statement indicating any otherinte rests and encumbrances against the propHrty, including
but not limited to leases and encroachments, of which the claimant is aware or may have reason
to believe exists (a title report may be substituted for this requirement).
5. A written appraisal prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP) by a professional appraiser licensed and registered in the state of Oregon. The
appraisal must explain why the land use regulation(s) has the effect of reducing th~3 value of the
property on which the restriction is imposed.
6. A written statement addressing how the land use regulation enacted after property acquisition
restricts the use of the property and the degree to which fair market value is affected. Explain why
available land use processes can not remedy the regulatory restriction.
7. A copy of any other documents upon which the owner/applicant relies to support !his/her claim.
Such records may include birth certificates, baptismal records, marriage certificates, divorce
decrees, wills, or other documents proving family relationships among owners of the subject
property when such relationships are the basis for a compensation claim. Copies of denied land
use permit applications, enforcement citations or other evidence demonstrating the County has
enforced land use regulations that restrict use of the property should also be submitted.
Note: The applicant/claimant has the burden of proof and must submit clear and convincing evidence to
demonstrate they are entitled to monetary compensation or a waiver under Measure 37. The claim will
not be forwarded to the Board of Comlnissioners for action until County staff have determined that all
necessary information hc3s been submitted.
Measure 37 Comlpensation Demand
Page -4-
Please Read and Initial the Statements Below:
0lL IflNe understand Jackson County will notify nearby property owners of my/our daim and that the
Board of Commissioners may conduct a public hearing prior to making any determination regarding
compensation orwaiver of land use regulations.
QL l!We understand any land use regulation waiver issued by Jackson County may indude conditions
of approval that may include, but not be limited to, filing a deed declaration regarding the means
of obtaining a permit and the status of any use so permitted upon transfer of said use.
~ l!We understand that a decision by Jackson County to waive its local land development regulations
does not reliieve me/us of the responsibility of seeking a waiver from the State of Oregon if the local
regulations waived by the County are also contained in State law or administrative rules.
NOTICE:
In recognition that allland-use planning authority of Jackson County derives from the
laws and administrative rules of the State of Oregon, it is the policy of the County to
advise individuals seeking compensation to file simultaneous claims against the State
of Oregon in accordance with procedures established by law.
I/WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER(S) OR AUTHORIZED AGENl: AFFIRM BY MY/OUR
SIGNATURE(S) THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FOREGOING APPLICATION AND
ASSOCIATED SUBMISSIONS IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Dated this ~ day of ~ ( ,200:5.
All Owner Signatures Must Be Notarized
CLAIMANT OWNI:R:
~IIVA l&])~e.&E-Le-
Print Name
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss
County of Jackson )
r1~
Sign or attested beforq ~ !his _ I
\ cJ.d +-: 1~2-L
. OFFICIAL SEAL
GLENDA J. HOBBS
.~ ) NOTARY PUBLlC-QREGON
. COMMISSION NO. 375690
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 06, 2008
~s~~~
-' ..._._-~-..
~~
\l,\~~ \. G:-
o. Signature
day of ~ I
, 20 05 ,by
Measure 37 Compensation Demand
Page -5-
OTHER PROPERTY OWNER:
1I1L/L~t:tL (- g fe eA-C
Print Name
~(!-~RL~
Signature 6---
STATE OF OREGON )
) ss
County of Jackson )
daYOf~~ I
,20 ~-,bY
. OFFICIAl SEAl
: GLENDA J. HOBBS
:i NOTARY PUBlJC.OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 375690
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 06, 2008
...................**..
OTHER PROPERTY OWNER:
U~ILJ"2,Eb 67 f.J/~,t./&4/j.v~
Print Name
O~LJ/!~~
Signature
County of Jackson
Signed
)
) 55
)
STATE OF OREGON
,20 0 "S , by
. OFFICIAL SEAL
i GLENDA J. HOBBS
~I. NOTARY PUBlIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 375690
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 06, 2008
J-.......
~
/ IIo(oro
...**..*.......**....
OTHI7R PROPERTY OWNER:
Okr{es ::f ~I/e(
Print Name
~~/~~~
STATE OF OREGON )
) 55
County of Jackson ) '1'Ji
Signed or~f;[sted before me ttJis --L- day of
~ CL"LL~ .j,
. OFFICIAL SEAl
. GLENDA J. HOBBS
.~ . NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON
, .~ COMMISSION NO. 375690
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 06, 2008
, 20 OS- , by
Measure 37 Compensation Demand
Page -6-
AGENT:
Print Name
lI/;}/~ -/~
Signature
William H. Fowler
STATE OF OREGON )
) 55
County of Jackson )
day of
, 20 Cfj ,by
. OFFICIAL SEAL
: GLE~~DA J. HOBBS
" j NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON
\" ..,'/. COMMISSION NO. 375690
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN. 06, 2008
************************
FOWLER &. MCNAIR, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILLIAM H, FOWLER
CHARLES MILLER McNAIR
70S WEST TENTH STREET
p, 0, BOX 17....6
(5....11 779-....075
FA:>( (5....11 779-87....2
KIMBERLY S. T, 80LEN
MEDFORD, OREGON 97501-0136
April 7, 2005
Jackson County Administrator
10 S. Oakdale Avenue, Room 214
Medford, OR 97501
Re: Proposition 37 Application
Owners: Breeze-Kenney-Hinnewinkel
Property: Ashland Interchange (North) T38S R1E SEC. 31 TL 100
Dear Administrator:
A Proposition 37 Application on behalf of the referenced owners is tendered herewith.
Exhibits 1 through 8" supporting the Application, and the required Agency appointment
signed by the owners are also enclosed.
We will appreciate the County's tilnely processing of this Application, and look forward
to providing such other information or comments as may be necessary or convenient to
that process.
Very truly yours,
/1I~16I~
t/~am H.~OWler ~
WHF/gh
Ene!.
cc: Mr. Reginald P. Breeze
Mrs. Annette C. Breeze
Mr. Charles ,J. Kenney
Mr. Darrell G. Hinnewinkel
Administrator's Office
10 South OakdaJe Ave., Room 214
Medford OR 97501-2902
JACKSON
COUNTY
Oregon
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT William H. Fowler
Has Been Retained to Act as Agent to Submit a Measure 37 Compensation Demand fonn for My
Property Identified Below.
Lowe Road
(Address or Road)
AND DESCRIBED IN THE RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY AS:
TOVVNSHIP 38 S I RANGE IE
TO\IVNSHIP -_J RANGE
TO\IVNSHfP _~, RANGE
I SECTION 31
I SECTION
I SECTION
I TAX LOT(S) ~o
I TAX LOT(S) _
, TAX LOT(S)
THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS, WHICH AR E NOT SATISFIED BY THE AGENT; ARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNER.
APPLI~ ~
SIGNATURE: ~-l-Oc(I \J) D!~
PRINTED NAME: RI~ginald P. Breeze
ADDRESS: 1175 East Main Street, Suite Ie
CITY/STATElZIP: Medford, OR 97504
DATE: Jj- 7 - () 5 '
PHONE: (541) 773-7548
FAX:
PROPERTY OWNEr~: ~__
Thi authori 10(1 is ff!!. ~~ation Demand fol11/ only. L
SIGNATURE: "vi ~\.-::) DATE: 4 - 7 -0 ~
PRINTED NAME: Reginald P. Breeze
ADDRESS: 1175 East Mai n Street, Sui te Ie
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97504
AGENT: //~/j'-L -;?/..,/ /1 I
SIGNATURE t.dd&1'/~H #~k~ / DATE L,L~ 7::- 0(' I
PRINTED NAME: Wi II i am H. Fowler
ADDRESS: 705 W~st 10th Street PHONE: (541) 779-4075 I
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97501 FAX: (541) 779-8742
I :\ZONI NGIBM37\M37 AuthFrm. wpd; 12/04 I
-- ----- --- - ---.- ------ - --- -- - ------- - -- - - -- ------- - - --- --- -- --- - --..------ . --------- --- - ---_ J
PHONE: (541) 773-7548
FAX:
Administrcutor's Office
10 South OakdaleA.ve., Room 214
Medford OR 97501-2902
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
JACKSON
COUNTY
Oregon
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT William H. Fowler
Has Been Retained to Ad: as Agent to Submit a Measure 37 Compensation Demand form for My
Property Identified Below.
Lowe Road
(Address or Road)
AND DESCRIBED IN THE RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY AS:
TOVVNSHIP 38 S. RANGE 1 E
TOVVNSHIP _' RANGE
TOVVNSHIP _' RANGE
. SECTION 3 1
. SECTION
. SECTION
. TAX LOT{S) 100
I TAX LOT(S)
. TAX LOT(S)
THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS. 'NHICH AR E NOT SATISFIED BY THE AGEN"f, ARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNER.
This authoriz 'on is for the Moosu" 37 Compensation Demand form OnIY~ 7 _
SIGNATURE: DATE: ~,- -l:J~
PRINTED NAME: Annette
ADDRESS: 1175 East Main Street, Suite 1C
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97504
APPUCAN~ ~
SIGNATURE: r2Yl-.1l-R..---L Q.6 f. l-A,rI J2...L-< p
PRINTED NAME: Annette~. Breeze (j ~
ADDRESS: 1175 East Main Street, Suite 1C
CITY/STATElZIP: Medford, OR 97504
PROPERTY OWNER:
AGENT: /' ///; ;~~. --7 / ~ /1
SIGNATURE: //t/~d~4{ #-' ~
PRINTED NAME: William H. Fowler
ADDRESS: 705 West 10th Street
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97501
I:\ZONING\BM37\M37AuthFrm.wpd; 12/04
DATE:
4- 7-05"
PHONE: (541) 773-7548
FAX:
PHONE: (541) 773-7548
FAX:
I
I
I
I
--------------___ _______J
DATE:
~7~o)~
PHONE: (541) 779-4075
FAX: ( 54 1) 7 79 - a 74 2
Administrator's Office
10 South Oakdale Ave., Room 214
Medford OR 97501-2902
JACKSON
COUNTY
Oregon
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT William H. Fowler
Has Been Retained to Ad as Agent to Submit a Measure 37 Compensation Demand form for My
Property Identified Below.
bowe Road
(Address or Road)
AND DESCRIBED IN THE RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY AS:
TOVVNSHIP .l. 8 S, RANGE 1 E
TOWNSHIP _-' RANGE
TOWNSHIP __, RANGE
,SECTION 31
, SECTION
I SECTION
, TAX LOT(S) ~)
, TAX LOT(S) _
, TAX LOT(S)
THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS, WHICH AR E NOT SATISFIED BY THE AGENT, ARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNER.
APPLICANT: 4 / I~
SIGNATUR~ t9 - _ /"
PRINTED NAME: Charles J. - K - nne --
ADDRESS: 1175 East Main Street, Suite lC PHONE: (541) 941-6770
CITY/STATEIZIP: Medford, OR 97504 FAX: (541) 535-6429
DATE: ~~
PROPERTY OWNEF~:
This authoriZ:~e ea re 37. ompensation Demand form o~ ~
SIGNATURE: ~u: . DATE: <1j t/' 7. ;IS-
PRINTED NAME: Charles . K nney
ADDRESS: 1175 East Main Street, Suite 1C
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Ml2dford, OR 97504
PHONE: ( 541) 941-6770
FAX: ( 54 1) 53 5 - 6 429
----- ---------~-------___ u___ _ _____, _ ________________, ______
I
I
I
I
I
-- ---------'-'----------------------- ------~ ----J
DATE:
~ -
- 7-- u ~
,
:'~~~;~RE: ~~ ,7Y~~/
PRINTED NAME: Wi 11 iam H. Fowler
ADDRESS: 705 West 10th Street
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97501
PHONE: (541) 779-4075
FAX: (541) 779-8742
t:\ZONtNG\BM37\M37 AuthFrm,wpd; 12/04
Administraltor's Office
10 South Oakdale Ave., Room 214
Medford OR 97501-2902
JACKSON
COUNTY
oregon
LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT William H. Fowler
Has Been Retained to Act as Agent to Submit a Measure 37 Compensation Demand form for My
Property Identified Below.
Lowe Road
-
(Address or Road)
AND DESCRIBED IN THE: RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY AS:
TOWNSHIP 38 S. RANGE 1 E
TO\NNSHIP . RANGE
TO\NNSHIP . RANGE
. SECTION 3 1
t SECTION
t SECTION
. TAX LOT(S) 100
t TAX LOT{S)
. TAX LOT(S)
THE COSTS OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS. VVHICH AR E NOT SATISFIED BY THE AGENT, ARE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OVVNER.
APPUCA .
SIGNATUR ./
PRINTED NAME: DarrE~l G. Hinnewi nkel
ADDRESS: 1175 East Main Street, Suite lC
CITY/STATElZIP: Medford, OR 97504
~'-7'-c/~
PHONE: (541) 858-4104
FAX: ( 54 1) 5 3 5 - 6429
PROPERTY OWNER:
~~~~~~~~fu~~~
SIGNATURE: 0/ ~0~ DATE: c:; tZ. ;:J.5
PRINTED NAME: Darrel G. Hinnewinkel
ADDRESS: 1175 East Main Street, Sui te lC
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97504
PHONE:
FAX:
(541) 858-4104
(541) 535-6429
AGENT: /; /).1 I ' ~/ / /I
SIGNATURE: d~44tI fr ~
PRINTED NAME: William H. Fowler
ADDRESS: 705 West 10th Street
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Medford, OR 97501
DATE:
qr '7vC7~
PHONE: (541) 779--4075
FAX: ( 54 1) 7 7 9 '- 8 7 4 2
i
I
I
L
I :\ZONING\BM37\M37 AuthFrm.wpd; 12/04
-_____~__~_______________ ,____ _,_ _______ __J
LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the owner of real property described as Tax Lot 100
on Jackson County Assessor map 38-1 E-31.
LET IT BE IOlOWN that William H. Fowler is the duly authorized representative of Reginald P.
Breeze, Annette G. Breeze, Charles J. Kenney, and Darrel G. Hinnewinkel, the owners of record
of the above dlescribed real property, and, by this instrument, do hereby authorize William H.
Fowler to per10nn in our names all acts legally and procedurally required to pursue a claim
pursuant to Ballot Measure 37 for the above described real property.
THIS LIMITE][)'~AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited
and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convt::y any part or any
interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by the above property owner..
c::::-
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the
undersigned property owner and shall expire on April 30, 2006, but may be extended by the
mutual consent of the parties.
Done and dated this 1 ~ day of /l~
1
~~~
Regina} P. Breeze
O-Rfi!! - c- ~~ (
Annette . Breeze 6 ~,
& c'
, 2005.
CharlesJ. Ke ey ,~ ~
~ I~~
<~1;;~.. ~
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF JACKSON
IN THE MATTER OF A CLAIM FILED )
PURSUANT TO BALLOT MEASURE )
37 BY REGINALD P. & ANNETTE G. )
BREEZE, CHARLES J. KENNEY, AND )
DARREL G. HINNEWINKEL )
CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY )
ACQUIRED BY WARRANTY DEED )
ON JUNE 22, 1979, SAID DEED )
HAVING BEEN FILED WITH THE )
OFFICE OF THE J'ACKSON COUNTY )
CLERK AS OFFICIAL RECORD 79- )
12936 ON JUNE 25,1979. SAID )
PROPERTY IS FURTHER )
DESCRIBED AS TAX LOT 100, )
TOWNSIllP 38 SOUTH, RANGE 1 )
EAST (WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN), )
SECTION 31. )
)
BALLOT MEASURE 37
CLAIM NARRATIVE
Claimants' JExhibit 1
I
NATURE OF mE CLAIM
Claimants seek just compensation equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected
property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land use regulations enacted
by Jackson County subsequent to owners' acquisition of the subject property, or modification
of current Jackson County land use regulations in lieu of payment for just compensation.
On the date of property acquisition, the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Map designated
the subject property as Interchange Commercial. The zoning at the time was Rural Residential
(RR-5). The zoning regulations then in effect were included in Zoning Ordinance fc)r Jackson
County, Oregon, as adopted on April 24, 1973 and as last amended by Ordinance on September
27, 1978. Owners acquired the property with the reasonable expectation, bas~~d on the
Comprehensive Plan Map Designation, that Interchange Commercial uses could be developed
in conjunction with a zone change to implement the comprehensive plan for the area.
Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Page 1 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et 81
Intervening RR-5 uses could be established over the intervening period either outright or by
conditional use pennit.
In 1982, Jackson County legislatively amended its land use maps in a marmer that removed the
Interchange Commercial Comprehensive Plan Map designation from all but 1.62 acres of land. I
Approximately seventeen acres were re-designated Open Space Reserve and re-zoned to OSR
in that action. The zoning regulations in effect were included in the Zoning Ordinance for
Jackson Coun1y, Oregon, as adopted on August 29, 1980 and as last amended by Ordinance 81-
85 on December 23, 1981 (effective February 23, 1982). Owners were subsequently able to
develop a rest:lurant on the commercial zoned portion of the property. However, a re-zone of
the residual area of the property to IC was no longer available under the Open Space Reserve
comprehensiv(~ f)lan map designation.
The subject property continues to be zoned OSR, and is now.designated a~ Forestry/Open
Space on the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Map. The uses currently pennitted are set
forth in the Jac~kson County 2004 Land Development Ordinance, adopted by Ordinance 2004-
2RM on Decernber 1,2004 as last amended by Ordnance 2004-14 on February 13,2005.
Loss of property fair market value has resulted from the enactment and enforcernent of land use
regulations by Jackson County since the present owners acquired the property. Owners
acquired the subject property for a premium warranted by the underlying commercial plan
designation, as only a simple zone change and site plan approval would have been required to
develop the property.
Market value under the current zoning and land use regulations for OSR land in this area of
Jackson County, where only a single homesite would be available, .would be: approximately
$9,000 per acrc:~ (raw land). The subject property is unsuitable for forestry management, has no
farm value due to rocky and very shallow clay soil conditions, and is not attractive as a
seventeen acre homesite due to the adjacent freeway commercial center and. the associated
impacts. Those who can afford to pay a premium for open space in association with a
residence will (~hoose land that is further from nearby freeway commercial activities, and that is
available for purchase without the need to buyout a restaurant use. ClaiJnants therefore
contend that the $9,000 per acre assignment of value is conservatively within reason, and that
the total current value is therefore estimated to be no more than $151,020 for 1he vacant OSR
land.
Claimants further contend that the development plan shown at the attached Exhibit 6 for a
highway rest area, public tourism center, county road re-alignment, RV campground resort with
gift shop and c:onvenience grocery, and restaurant dining facilities were available uses at the
time of acquisition through a combined zone change and site plan review not requiring an
amendment to the comprehensive plan for the property.
I Jackson County Ordinance 82-32, adopted November 10, 1982.
Page 2 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et 81
The proposed development plan is also consistent with the OSR zoning regulations in effect
upon the date the subject property was legislatively re-zoned to OSR in 1982. Chapter 214 of
the Jackson County Zoning Ordinance listed the following as pennitted uses in Section
214.020:
214.020(4): Parks, scenic, historic or botanical areas.
214.020(15): Buildings and uses of a public works or public service nature.
214.020(16): Utility facilities necessary for public service in conjunction with
permitted or approved conditional uses, but not including substations, treatment plants,
storage plants, hydro-electric or other power generating facilities. A1aximum
utilization of existing easements and rights-ol-way shall be made.
The proposal contemplates a botanical interpretive area in association with the rest area and
tourist welcome cente:r. The rest area and welcome center facilities would be buildings of a
public service nature. Utilities needed to serve the project are currently available on site.
Conditional uses available at the time were:
214.030(2): Recreation or destination resort type use, including but not limited to:
A) Campground.
B) Marina.
C) Guest Ranch.
D) Riding Stable.
E) Eating and sleeping accommodations.
F) Service station.
G) Store for the sale of gifts, sporting goods, recreation supplies, or
groceries.
H) Health related center or spa.
The proposed development plan would provide a thirty-two space campground with full
R V hookups, a convenience grocery store, a gift shop emphasizing Oregon products and
attractions, and two restaurant areas for eating accommodations.
The proposed development is highly complementary to the rest area and welcome c(~nter uses,
and the adjacent IC zoning district .uses. The development site is well insulated from any
conflicting residential uses in the area, and will provide an excellent staging area for travelers
-_.,-_._-------~~--
----.--.---------
Page 3 of 11
Ballot Measure' 37 Claim
Breeze, et al
with large RVs to transition to smaller towed vehicles, cycles, or shuttle service into nearby
urban communities. It will also effect a much-needed re-alignment of Lowe Road to the
specifications: of the Jackson County Roads Division and ODOT. A re-aligned Lowe Road will
better serve the existing commercial and residential uses, including a sizable mobile home park,
on the west side of Valley View Road.
The estimated land value of the OSR zoned portion of the subject property, if the uses
previously available had not since been restricted by Jackson County enacted land use
regulation an1endments, is estimated to be $5,915,000 pursuant to William L. Leever, a
commercial real estate broker with the finn of Pulver & Leever in Medford, Oregon. See,
attached Exhibit 7. The resulting loss of value from the enactment and enforcement by Jackson
County of the-previously described land use regulations that now prohibit the described
proposal is $5,763,980.
In lieu of payment, Claimants request that the Board of County Commissioners modify the
existing regulations by application of the Limited Use site-specific zoning district and plan map
designation, to the portion of the subject property currently designated as Forestry/Open Space
Land and zoned Open Space Reserve (OSR). A modification to Land Development Ordinance
Section 5.7.1 is requested to allow a Ballot Measure 37 Claim settlement as an appropriate
qualifying circumstance for the LU zoning district. The district would serve to identify the site
as one subject to a specific order by the Board of County Commissioners of Jackson County,
wherein the ](md use regulations for Jackson County are modified to allow the development
consistent with those uses depicted at Exhibit 6 attached to this claim. Extension of sewer
service to the proposed development from the existing Rogue Valley Sewer Services main line
that currently traverses the subject property is explicitly requested for claim settlement, and
reasonable signage allowances, which Claimants are willing to negotiate. ClaiJnants agree that
the development plan prepared in accordance with the Board's regulatory modification
settlement ordc~r will be provided to the Board for approval.
II
EVIDENCE OF RECORD
The following evidence is provided before the Board of County Commissioners of Jackson
County ("Board"):
Exhibit 1. Ballot Measure 37 Claim Narrative (this document)
Exhibit 2. Tax Lot Map
Exhibit 3. Land Use Maps
~--------------- ---------~------------
Page 4 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et 81
a. Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Map (1973i
b. Jackson County Zoning Map (1973)
c. Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map (1980)
d. Jackson County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map (1982)
e. Jackson County Zoning Map (2004i .
Exhibit 4. Ownership Records
a. Jackson County Deed Record Card
b. Warranty Deed (O.R. 79-12936) - Property Acquisition
c. Bargain and Sale Deeds 00-38227 and 00-38696 - Right-of- Way
Conveyance to Jackson County for South Valley View Road
Exhibit 5. Zoning ()rdinances
a. Article III, Section 5 (Rural Residential Districts), Zoning Ordinance for
Jackson County, Oregon, as adopted .on April 24, 1973 and as last amended
by Ordinance on September 27, 1978.
b. Article ill, Section 8 (Interchange Commercial District), Zoning Ordinance
for Jackson County, Oregon, as adopted on April 24, 1973 a11ld as last
amended by Ordinance on September 27, 1978.
c. Article IV, Section 4 (Site Plan Review), Zoning Ordinance for Jackson
County, Oregon, as adopted on April 24, 1973 and as last amended by
Ordinance on September 27, 1978.
d. Article VI, Section 1 (Conditional Use Pennit), Zoning Ordinance for
Jackson County, Oregon, as adopted on April 24, 1973 and as last amended
by Ordinance on September 27, 1978.
e. Article VIII (Amendments), Zoning Ordinance for Jackson County,
Oregon, as adopted on April 24, 1973 and as last amended by Ordinance on
September 27, 1978.
f. Chapter 214 (Open Space Reserve District), Zoning Ordinance for Jackson
County, Oregon, as adopted on August 29, 1980 and as last mnended by
Ordinance 81-85 on December 23, 1981 (effective February 23, 1982).
g. Chapter 260 (Conditional Use Permit), Zoning Ordinance for Jackson
County, Oregon, as adopted on August 29, 1980 and as last mnended by
Ordinance 81-85 on December 23, 1981 (effective February 23, 1982).
2 Jackson County Comprc~hensive Plan Map, depicted as Map 6 in a Jackson County Department of Planning and
Development Document Entitled A Studv of Urban Growth In and Around the City of Ashland. dated March 1978
(Amended October 1978). The 1978 Planning Department Study provided background findings for the
subsequently adopted Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement.
3 2004 Zoning Map prepared by Claimants' Land Use Planning Consultant Craig A. Stone & Associ:iltes, Ltd. It
was prepared based on current Jackson County zoning shape file data obtained from Jackson County Geographic
Infonnation Systems. The
P.:ige 5 of 11
Ballot Measure ,37 Claim
Breeze. et 81
h. Chapter 282 (Site Plan Review), Zoning Ordinance for .Jackson County,
Oregon, as adopted on August 29, 1980 and as last amended by Ordinance
81-85 on December 23, 1981 (effective February 23, 1982).
Exhibit 6. Site Plan proposed for Oregon Welcome Center
Exhibit 7. Property Valuation: Letter from William L. Leever of the Pulver & Leever Real
Estate Company (Commercial), a Commercial Real Estate Broker, dated February
28,2005
III
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board reaehes the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter:
1. Characteristics of Subject Property
A. Property Location and Description: The proposed site for the Rest Area has
approximately 18.4 acres of land that slopes and drains from the east to the west. The
property is partially developed on approximately two acres of the site that is zoned
commercial. Thirty-three thousand square feet of the two acres zoned IC is vacant. A
Burger King fast food restaurant is located on the balance of the two-acre IC zoned site.
The rert1aining area, zoned Open Space Reserve (OSR), is vacant. Tht~ site is located
northwest and outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the City of Ashland.
B. Property Ownership: Reginald and Annette Breeze, Charles Kenney, and Darrel
Hinnewinkel, Claimants, own the site.
C. Planning and Zoning: The subject site is designated as Forestry/Open Space on the
Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Map, and is zoned as Open Space Reserve (OSR),
except approximately two acres thereof that is designated as Commercial land and
zoned Interchange Commercial (IC).
D. Location in Relation to other Safety Rest Areas: The subject site is located
approxiJmately 26 miles north of the Klamath River Safety Rest Area in California and
approxiJmately 29.4 miles south of the Valley of the Rogue Safety Rest Pu-ea, in Jackson
County. There is a rest area along the west side of Interstate 5, approximately 2 miles
westerly from the subject site. That rest area is only available to motorists traveling
south.
E. Summary of Claimants' Proposal: seeks to undertake the following uses, and physical
improvements on the property:
Page 6 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et 81
· Interstate llighway Rest Area Facilities
· Oregon Wc~lcome Center
· Recreational Resort
o Thirty-two campground spaces with full RV hookups
o Two restaurant buildings
o Convenience grocery
o Gift shop
· Re-alignnu~nt of Lowe Road to the South Valley View Road/Eagle ~lill Road
intersection
· Interpretiv~e area
· Welcome Center
· Connections to the sanitary sewer line
F. Existing Land Use: All of the property is vacant except for the portion of the land
developed and used for a Burger King.
G. Historical Sites: There are no known historical sites on the subject property nor within
the area surrounding the subject property.
H. Archeological Sites: There are no known archeological sites on the subject property.
The Claimants stipulate to halt work and notify state and local.authorities in a(~cordance
with applicable law if an artifact is found during construction.
I. Wetlands: The Lower East Lateral irrigation canal, part of the Talent Irrigation District
irrigation works, is designated on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as R4SBCx
(a riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded, excavated wetland). This
feature would be largely undisturbed, bounding the welcome center site along the south
and west perltneter. The only disturbance would be a culvert or bridge crossing for the
realignment of Lowe Road south of the canal so as to properly align with Eagle Mill
Road. Permits will be obtained from TID and the Bureau of Reclamation for the canal
crossing. Thle developer will also obtain a removal/fill permit from the County and the
Division of State Lands if required to do so (less than 50 cubic yards of removal/fill
activity is anticipated). Bear Creek is located to the south of the projeet site on
intervening property (Tax Lot 200) owned by the Mencas Family Trust. Bear Creek is
designated on the National Wetlands Inventory as R3UBHx (a riverine, upper perennial,
unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, excavated wetland) at this location.
However, the closest area of disturbance will be located well to the north of the riparian
boundary and the greenway boundary associated with Bear Creek. The developer
stipulates to the use of Best Management Practices for erosion control and vvill obtain
an erosion control permit fronl the Department of Environmental Quality. No other
P~lge 7 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et al
wetlands were found to be located on the subject properties or otherwis~~ located so as to
be aff(~cted by the proposal.
J. Areas of Special Concern: The Bear Creek Greenway is located nearby and
southv/esterly of the project site, but outside the proposed project area. A separated
multi-use trail is to be constructed along the Lowe Road realignrnent to provide
connectivity with the Bear Creek Greenway Trail located on the opposite bank of Bear
Creek by way of the Valley View Road crossing.
K. Wildlife Habitat: The project site is not within any known area of spe~cial concern for
habitat protection as identified by Jackson County Land Developnlent Ordinance,
although-the nearby Bear Creek Greenway (ASC 82-2) is an outstanding scenic
'~recreat:ional trail that affords habitat protection to a wide variety flora and fauna.
L. Public Facilities and Services: The property is seIVed with the following facilities and
seIVices:
· Sanitary Sewer: There is an 8-inch public sewer main line that traverses subject
property from South Valley View Road westward along the IC/OSR zone line.
Rogue Valley Sewer SeIVices (RVSS),4 through BCVSA Project 82-09, provided
the sewer line to mitigate a public health hazard situation deelued to exist by
Jackson County.s The Burger King restaurant on the subject property is located on
the north side of the sewer main and is connected to the system. Representatives of
RVSS have advised Claimants that the line has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the proposed uses at this location.
· DOUlestic Water: The Claimants will be using an existing well located on the site
to SleIVe proposed uses. Permits will be obtained from the Oregon Department of
HU11l1an Resources for potable water use.
· Storm Drainage: A storm drainage design, to be prepared by an Oregon registered
civil engineer, will include several bio-swales that will collect the storm water and
filter it back into the ground. The system will be self-sufficient and would not
require a connection to a public storm drain system.
· Elec:tricity: The seIVice provider of electrical seIVice is Pacific Pow(~r.
· Telephone: The seIVice provider for telephone service is Qwest.
4 Then known as the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA).
.s Based on a study conducted by Jackson County Public Health Officer Dr. Fukushima, th<:~ Jackson County
Planning Commissiion adopted the public health hazard declaration findings on May 27, 1982.
Page 6 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et 81
M. Soils and Irrigation: The subject property is not irrigated and has Carney clay soils.
The soil characteristics, as classified by NRCS and Jackson County, of th(~ subject
property are set forth in Table 1, below:
Table 1
Soil Characteristics of the Subject Site
Sources: Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
and
Jackson County Planning Department
Table Notes:
1. Indicates the~ potential production of cubic feet per sae per year.
2. Characteristics of Surrounding Land Uses:
A. Residential Uses: A Rural Residential (RR-5) zone of approximately thirty acres in
area is located to the west and northwest of the subject property. The RR-5 zone
contains four developed parcels. The largest parcel, having approximately fift~~n acres
of area, is dev(~loped as a mobile home park with sixty-nine spaces. Other residentially
zoned lands are separated from the subject area by Interstate 5 to the north or the Bear
Creek Greenway to the south.
B. Commercial Uses: The subject property has approximately two acres of land zoned
Interchange Commercial. A Burger King restaurant has been constructed on this area.
There are six other parcels within the same Interchange Commercial Zoning District.
The total area of these six parcels is approximately eleven acres. Two of the parcels are
located to the c~ast across South Valley View Road from the subject property. These are
developed with a hotel and a service station. Adjacent commercial lands are developed
, with a service station, a hotel and restaurant, and a card-lock fuel center. One parcel,
previously in use as a U-Haul rental agency and equipment storage, has a current land
use approval f4Dr construction of a new hotel.
C. Farm and Forest Uses
. Three Parc~els of land in tract ownership (Mencas family), with approximat.ely forty-
five total acres, are located south of the subject property and are zoned Open Space
Reserve. The land is vacant, with no farm or forest uses occurring. The soils have
no forest (~pability and are rated Class IV for agriculture whether irrigated or not
(NRCS mapping).
PCllge 9 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et 81
· The subject property approximately sixteen acres of OSR zoned land that are vacant
and not in use for agriculture or forestry. The soil is Carney clay, which is
unsuitable for forestry and rated Class III if irrigated or IV if not for agriculture
(NJRCS mapping).
· A :sixty-six acre parcel zoned for Exclusive Farm Use is located east and across
South Valley View Road from the subject property. The EFU zoned land is not in
fann or forest use. Soils are Carney and Cove clays with no forest rating and Class
III through IV agriculture ratings.
· A twenty-two acre EFU-zoned farm is located to the southeast of the subject
property across South Valley View Road and south of Eagle Mill Road. The farmer
has indicated that a farm stand is conterrIplated for sale of crops and other products
grown on-site or nearby, and that a winery is also being considered.
· A pear orchard exists approximately one-half mile to the northwest of the subject
property on EFU zoned land. The subject property is separated from the orchard
land by the Rural Residential zone and uses previously described.
D. Green,vay: The Bear Creek Greenway is located south of the Mencas' tract and the
subject property. The Greenway contains the Bear Creek riparian corridor and
floodplain, and a paved recreational trail.
E. Public Facilities and Services: The subject property is served by w'ells and Rogue
Valley Sewer Services.
F. Irrigati.on: Property owners will obtain water for irrigation from the Talent Irrigation
Canal that traverses the southern boundary of the property. Owners have contacted a
water broker who has advised that rights for a sufficient amount of landscape irrigation
can be rnade available by private transfer to allow the use of TID water.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
IV
SUMMARY OF CLAIMANTS' STIPULATIONS
Claimants here,Nith agree to stipulate to the following matters and anticipates that the same will
be attached to (my settlement order in the Board of County Commissioners' response the this
Ballot Measure 37 claim:
1. Permits: The Claimants agree to obtain all road, sewer, utility, structural, electrical,
plumbing, irrigation right, environmental, and other ministerial permits in order to develop
the subject property.
Page 10 of 11
Ballot Measure 37 Claim
Breeze, et 81
2. Improvement Ag;reement: Claimants agree to provide for re-alignment of Lowe Road and
improvement of the intersection of new Lowe Road with South Valley View Road at its
intersection with Eagle Mill Road, according to plans to be developed by ODOT.
Claimants will, upon request, provide a copy of the traffic impact study prepared by JRH
Traffic Engineering.
3. Archeological Sites: Claimants agree to notify Jackson County if any artifact is found
during excavation and construction.
4. Modification to Local Land Use Regulations: Claimants agree that modifi,cation by
Jackson County of the local land use regulations provided in a manner that allows for
Claimants' use of the subject property consistent with the plan proposed at tht:~ attached
Exhibit 6 Will sufficiently restore the fair market land value of the subject property.
Claimants further agree that a modification to the local regulations to designate the subject
property as Limit(~d Use (LU) is appropriate to properly identify the property as subject to a
settlement agreement.
5. Final Developm(~nt Plans: Claimants will provide development plans to the Planning
Director for reconlffiendation to be forwarded to the Board for final order.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~-~~
Claimants' Legal Representative
---
~._-_. --------- - -----------~----~_.__._-----------_._---,_.-
Pa!~e 11 of 11
i i
JACKSON COUNTY
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
Map Maker Application
ont Counter Legend
Highlighted
Feature
0 Tax lot
Ot.lt'ine~
Taxlot fotumbers
City limits
0 Ashland
Butte Faits
0 CentGII PWnt
Eagte PoInt
Gotd tUn
[] Jacbon~
[] Modforo
0 P'hooouo;
R011tJe R;,..
Shady Cow
r mant
d
TArT"CA"T
In.\..~JV1''
COUNTY
n.s rTlftp il based on a digital dat&bflee compiled by
..I8cklOO County From a variety of 8OlI'C8S. JACkson
Colr1ty cannot accept reapon8ibily for 8frOfS,
omissions, or poribOnal 8CClK8Cy, There are no
4500
~ - ...00
(5001
-
- 1:., -
I.
~
- -
1200 1: I
7201 I
n
- -
~ I
no2
-
7710
7801
:c::::::::=
300
1300
3001
1801
2501
381E318
2001
3900
2000
381M!
~~
z......
t::jt%j
~~
~
~
-e
&S
SE}; MAP 33 IE ~
11"':1
~
uI
~
~
~
J~~
~Z t%j
t::j
!W t%j VJ
;X .......
-
t;:;
~
~
&S
) a
~ ~r:::-
/ "( :1~
~:
~ r~
~
c:...Z
>~
J~
8 8 ~
~~
~
3::
>
-e
~
M
~
~
~
-e
&S
M
~
~
\\~.
I ~-;-1~--1
, '" ~ ,~',
I ~ " \
_~~1~ \ "
tJl:a;:----= .
~
~
-e
~
M
~~
~ ",;
-ern
II
~cs
::0
1::'"
i:e Co C/)
r; J
~ CO t:r]
~ t;; t:r]
'(........ Co ~
'(~'\ ..... ::to.
to '"tJ
_ roo..
'"
~
~~
~
iBLi,
~ MAP 3B IW 33
'"
m
METAFILE C:/WORKSPACE/381E31 PLATCRA
CREATED FRIDAY MARCH 18, 2005 1141 AM By KIRKPAAJ
01\[V'lHSV
.:10 A~I~
UO!le~!unwwo::> 1!~UnO~
: IeAoJddv
:s~u;}w}Jed;}a '3u!~nq~uoJ
:~u;}w}Jed;}a
:;}~ea '3U!~;};}W
sn'Jo'puelqse@WOS!liOW ~ltl-l~~ ~ !PlewPD OU!D
'JS UOS'illOW ;}){!W :P~UOJ JJe~s A.mpuo:);}s '3u!uueld
sn'Jo'puelqse@fuoslo S){JoA\ :)!Iqnd
(}) ZlvZ-Z~~ 'uosIO W!f :P"1uo::JJ]"1S A1ewud ~OOZ 'f hew
S~!UI!1: A~!J ~q~ ~P!S~no p~~U~01:
AUM. UOSU~H L6C; O~ ~~!Al~S l~M.~S A.IU~!UUS 10J ~s~nb~lI
.UI~~SAS ~q~ JO uOn~~Op1 M.On~ PlnOM. q~!qM. A:J.I~d01d ~q~
uo S~~!S ~A!l~U1~~I~ OU ~1~ ~l~q~ pu~ UI~~SAS ~nd~s ~UnS!X~ S,~~lrnUI~~snH ~q~ tFJno.nn suru l~M.~S
~q~ JO ~u~llIffi3!I~ p~SOd01d ~llL .~~~UI~~snH .Y APO;) Aq p~UM.O A~ M. uosu~H L6~ ~~ A:J.I~d01d
~11J tFJnOlln pu~ A~M.-JO-~tFJ!l p~OlI!~l ~q~ l~pun p~~n01 ~q ~U!I ~~!Al~S l~ftI~~S ~ln ~~q~ s~l!nb~l
q~!qM. A~ M. uosu~H uo S! uon~~UUO~ JO ~u!od ~S~l~~U ~ql .UI~~SAS l~M.~S A1~~!U~S pU~Iqsy ~q~
o~ 'S~!UI!I AH;) ~q~Jo ~P!s~no P~~~~oI '(OOL ~oI X~~ - at1 tI1 6~) p1~A~InoH no.t\:pIS!S 66LZ ~~ ){l~d
~UIoH ~I!qo~\I ~~~n!A nOA!)[S!S ~q~ p~UUO~ o~ ~s~nb~l ~ p~A01dd~ I!~uno;) ~ql ZOOZ '~q~l~W uO
:1uama1B1S
(.~~u~UI~~snH APO;) pu~ S!A~a ~~ruH UIO.Ij sl~n~I p~q~~n~ ~~S) .UI~~SAS
l~M.~S AH;) ~q~ o~ p~p~uuo~ ~q 'A.mpunoq q~M.O.D3 u~q1n ~q~ U!q~!M. ~nq S~!1U!I A~!;) ~q~ ~P!s~no
S! q~!l{M. 'A~ M. uosu~H L6~ ~~ ~~U~P!S~l ~UnS!X~ ~q~ ~~q~ ~unS~nb~l S! J[~UM.O A:J.I~d01d ~llL
.p~OlI!~l ~q~ l~pun ~lOq ~q~ ~u!pnpu! UI~~SAS l~M.~S ~~~A!ld ~ S~ P~U!lB~U!~UI pu~ H!nq ~q
PlnOM.1~M.~S JO uon~~s ~U!U!~UI~l ~ql .p~OlI!~lI ~g:!~~d pu~ UO~~lO l~l~U~;) ~q~Jo A~M.-JO-~tFJ!l
Ap~~S~~ ~q~ ~~ pu~ PlnoM. UI~~SAS l~M.~S ~!Iqnd ~ql .U!~UI ~q~ O~U! (I~A01dd~ I!~uno~ 10 Uon~x~uu~
uodn) S~!:J.I~d01d ~u~~~fp~ JO Uon~~UUO~ M.On~ PlnoM. pu~ UI~~SAS l~M.~S S,A~!;) ~q~JO :J.I~d ~UIO~~q
OSI~ PltlOM. U!~UI l~M.~S JO Uon~~s S!q~ 'uon~IdUIo~ uodfl .Sl~UM.O ~q~ Aq A~!;) ~q~ O~ p~~U~.D3
~q O~ ~U~lU~S~~ A~!Inn ~!Iqnd ~ uo A:J.I~d01d ~~u~UI~~snH ~q~ SSOl~~ p~pru~suo~ ~q PlnoM. U!~UI
l~M.~S JO ~~~)J OO~ I~UO!~!PP~ uy .UI~~SAS A~!;) ~q~ JO :J.I~d S~ p~~d~~~~ ~q Plno.t\\ UO!~~IdUIO~ uodn
pu~ Sp1~pu~lS A~!J O~ ~I!nq ~q PlnOM.1~M.~S S!ql .A~M. uosu~H U! UO!SU~~X~ U~:~UI l~M.~S l~~~UI~!P
,,8 '~uoIlOOJ OOt ~ ~pnpu! S~U~UI~A01dUI! p~l!nb~l ~llL .)[l~d ~UIOH ~I!qO]V\I ~~~n!A nOA!){S!S
~q~ o~ ~~!AI~S pu~ UO!SU~~X~ ~u!I l~M.~S A.I~~!U~S ~q~ ~!S~P o~ .~uI 's~~~possy pu~ ~u!l~~U!~UtI
A~p1~H P~U!~~~l s~q ')[l~d ~UIOH ~I!qoW ~~~n!A nOA!)[S!S ~q~ JO JI~q~q uo 'S!A~a ~~ruH .1W
:punO.l~1faBg
.~An~U1~~I~ I~~!~OI ~ S! U!~UI l~M.~S p~SOd01d ~q~ o~ UO!P~UUO~
~ '~)HS ~q~ UO ~lq~I!~A~ ~ou S! UI~~SAS ~nd~s ~ 10J uon~~ol ~~~U1~H~ ~Iq~!A ~ ~~U!S .A~ M.
uosu~H L6~ l~ UI~~SAS ~nd~s ~U!~S!X~ ~q~ A01~S~P n!M. A~M. uosu~H pu~ A~M.-JO-~tFJ!l p~OlI!~l ~q~
U~~M.~~q U~~UI l~M.~S JO UO!:J.Iod ~q~ JO uon~ru~suo~ ~llL .~OOZ 'll~qUI~AON o~ 10!ld P~~~IdUIo~
~q )[l~d ~UIOH ~I!qoW ~~~II!A nOA!)[S!S ~q~Jo uon~~uuo~ ~q~ ~~q~ p~l!nb~l s~q A~UnO;) UOS){~~f
1
~~
:}Op'J;}h\;}S f.P.M. UOSU;}S L6S ;}}Up.wmsns .):)\SUO!J:);}uuo:) J;}JP.M. 7fJ J;}h\;}S\SJ;}JP.M. \u!wpe'J~P\~U;}\$)jJh\-qnd\:D
'g~)n
aqJ U!qnM S! l\J.lado.ld aq.L "AJUpun08 q~i\\OlD uuq10 ~q~ u~qHi\\ s~ puuI ~q~ ~UI[l (8
'uo!Ja!.IJsa.l paap B U~~!S
II!M aq JBqJ paJBa!PUJ SBq JUBa!1ddB aq.L "AH;) ~q~ o~ uoqux~uuu o~ 10Ild puuI ~q~ JO
UO~s~A~pqns 10 ~u~uoq~:}lud ~q~ ~UqU~A~ld uoq~Il~S~l p~~p u ~~n~~x~ nuqs l~Ui\\O ~l[l (L
'S JaJ.lJS!<I a.l!.i JaBJuoa OJ Juawa.l!nba.l aqJ JO paS!ApB uaaq SBq JUBa!1ddB
aq.L "A~~;) ~q~ O~ ~su~dx~ ~ln~t1J 10 ~u~s~ld ou W puu OZS"ZZZ SlIO q~~i\\ p10~::m
u~ sPIl~s~P ~~~A.1~S ~Hqnd q~ns uo ~U~U~UUI~l SlU~A JO l~qUInu ~q~ Aq p~HdqInUI 's "ON
PIl~s~a ~l~d A~UnO~) UOS)[~U[ su q~ns PIl~s~P ~~~A.1~S ~Hqnd u Aq p~PU1~UO~ AIsno~A~.ld
ss~up~~q~pu~ puu s:~qH~quH 10J ~U~UISS~SSU ~U~lln~ ~q~ o~ Iunb~ ~unoUIU uu 'uoqux~mlu
JO ~UIq ~q~ ~u 'Sl~Ui\\O ~q~ Aq A~~;) ~q~ o~ ~u~wAud ~q~ 10J ~p~A01d nuqs ~uu~Hddu ~l[l (9
.aw!J S!qJ JB xaUUB OJ qS!M JOU saop Jnq 'uo!JBxauuB
OJ Juasuoa U~!S II![M aq JBqJ paJBa!pU! SBq JUBa!1ddB aq.L "PUUI ~q~ JO Sl~Ui\\O ~lnlr1J
uo ~u~pu~q puu AH;) ~q~ Aq p~p10~~1 ~q AUUI ~~ ~uq~ os P~zIlu~oU puu p10~~1 JO Sl~Uir:\.O
~q~ Aq p~i113~s 'puuI ~q~ JO uoqux~uuu o~ ~u~SUo~ u A~~;) ~q~ o~ qs~wt1J ~uu~Hddu ~LLL (S
'){.IBd awoH anqoW a~BII!A nOApts:~S
aqJ JO JIBqaq 1[10 S!AB(I aan.lg Aq saa!A.las ~U!UUBId pUB S){.IBd 'SPBOH AJuno:J
UOS){aB r OJ apBw uO!JBa!1ddB IBU!~J.lO aqJ JO J.lBd SBM .laMaS AJ!:J OJ AJ.lado.J[d
aJuBwBJsng aqJ JO uO!Jaauuoa aq.L .U!BW .laMaS pasodo.ld aqJ JO uO!Jan.lJsuoa al[n
Aq paJaBdw! AIaS.laApB aq II!M Jnq ~U!nBJ Auuasa.ld JOU S! waJsAs a!Jdas ~u!Js!xa
aqJ aaUJs aIClBa!1ddB JOU S! Juawa.l!nba.l S!q.L "suOqUImJ~110 s~lru 's~u~UIn~op
:}loddns 'uuId ~)A~SU~q~ldUIO;) ~uno;) UOS)[~U[ ~q~ q~~i\\ ~~~IJuo~ ~ou s~op puuIqsy
JO A~~;) ~q~ Aq l~i\\~S JO UO~S~A01d ~q~ wq~ puu P~I~uJ suq UI~~SAS ~~Ui\\~S ~uqs~x~
~q~ ~uq~ A~UnO;) UOS)[~U[ UIO.g S~U~UI~w~S '~uqIli\\ u~ '~ln~~s nuqs ~uu~Hddu ~ql (Ii'
'aauap!s;u
~u!Js!xa ;)qJ JO JaaJ OS U!qnM pUB AJ.lado.ld aqJ uo paJBaoI aU!1 U!BW An:J
B aq II!M a.laqJ 'paJan.lJsuoa S! aU!1 JBqJ aauQ 'waJsAs s,AJ!:J aqJ OJ S!qJ aJBa!p~lp
II!M pUB (Ja~IJ OSL AIaJBw!xo.lddB) S){aB.lJ pBO.lnBH aqJ OJ ABM uosuag wO.JJ
uO!Jaauuoa .laMaS aqJ Jan.lJsuoa InM S!AB(I aan.lg "p~~S~nb~l ~u~~q s~ ~~~A.1~S l~i\\::)S
q~~qi\\ 10J A:}l~d01d ~q~ O~ ~uH 10 U~UUI l~i\\~S Plrelqsy JO A~~;) ~q~ ~u~pu~~x~ JO s~s()~
IIt1J ~q~ 10J ~Iq~suods~l ~q nuqs ~uu~Hddu ~1U "P~P~uuO~ ~q o~ ~u~PI~nq 10 ~U~IPNlP
~uqs~x~ ~q~Jo ~~~J OO€ u~q~~i\\ ~uH 10 U~UUI l~i\\~S puulqsy ~uqs~x~ uu s~ ~12~:.L (E
'Juawa.l!nba.l S!qJ JO paS!ApB ua~lq
SBq JUBa!1ddB aq.L "S)[lO.M. ~Hqnd JO 10p~1~a ~q~ Aq p~U~UIl~~~p SU p~SU~l~U~ ~q ~(m
II!i\\ UI~~SAS l~i\\~S ~q~ JO ~sn ~q~ su ~uoI su A~~;) ~q~ JO UI~~SAS l~i\\~S ~q~ o~ p~p~uuo~
~q o~ ~nu~~uo~ AUUI ~u~PI!nq 10 ~U~n~i\\p ~u~UI~~uId~l ~q~ u~q~ 'UOSU~l AUU 10J P~~uId:~l
Anuquu~sqns S][ UI~~SAS l~i\\~S ~q~ O~ p~p~uuo~ ~u~PI!nq 10 ~U~n~i\\p u ~U~A~ ~q~ UI (Z
'uo!JBa!1ddB a~BII!A nOAptS!S aqJ JO J.lBd SB S!AB(I aan.lg
Aq p!Bd aq InM saaJ lIB aaUBJSU! S!qJ UI 'uo!Jaauuoa S!qJ .IoJ sJsoa paJBw!Jsa aqJ Jro
paS!ApB uaaq SBI1[ JUBa!1ddB aq.L "I!~uno;) AH;) Aq P~qs~Iqu~s~ S~~lUq~ ~u~UIdopA~lp
SUI~~SAS ~q~ puu ~~J uo~p~uuo~ l~i\\~S ~q~ SAud ~~~A.1~S l~i\\~S 10J ~uu~Hddu ~ql (I
:suo~~~puo~ ~U~i\\OnoJ ~q~ uodn AluO ~pUUI ~q nU~[S uoq~~uuo~
q~ns "S~q~I!~U] ~~Ui\\~S S,A~~;) ~q~ o~ Iu~u~UIIl~~P ~q ~ou o~ puu puuIqsy JO A~~;) ~lq~Jo ~S~l~~U~
~s~q ~q~ u~ ~q o~ I!~uno;) A~~;) puuIqsy ~q~ Aq p~U~UIl~~~p s~ uoq~~uuo~ q~ns u~qi\\ UI~~SAS
l~i\\~S ~q~ o~ p~p~mlo~ ~q AUUI A1upunoq q~i\\O.n3 uuq1n ~q~ ~p~su~ puu puuIqsy JO AH;) ~q~ ~p~s~no
P~~u~oI ~u~PI~nq 10 ~UHpi\\P p~~dn~~o uy (S66 I "€ l~qOPO :L9LZ cruo P~PU~UIV) A.mpun08
q~i\\OlD uuq10 ~P~suI "A~~;) ~p~s~no - UO~P~uuO;) "0€0"80"v I uO~P~S ~PO;) IUC1~~~unw puuIqsy
s.-J!J!lod A1][:) P.-J:J81~lH
Z
aN~r'lHSV
=10 A..lI:>
.U!lHU l~M.~S p~SOdOld ~q} lOJ UO!re~ol
~ww~Hu uu pug: O} A.roSs~~~U ~q H!M. }! 'P~!U~P s! }S~nb~l ~q} JI 'UI~}SAS l~^\~S A}!;) ~q} O} AU M.
uosu~a L6S }U ~~U~P!S~l ~q} JO uon~~uuo~ lOJ }S~nb~l ~q} AU~p lO ~AOlddu o~ }~~P AUUI l!~uno;)
:suO}1dO UJuno:)
'UI~}SAS l~M.~S A}!;)
~q} O} AU i'A UOsu~a L6S ~U ~~U~P!S~l ~q} }~~uuO~ o~ }S~nb~l ~q} JO IUAolddt~ SpU~UIUIO~~l JJU}S
:uo}1BpuawwoJaH JJB1S
'UO!P~uuO~ l~M.~S lOJ }S~nb~l ~q} AU~p O} ~AOUI AUUI l!~uno;)
. M.~!A~ll~q:}lt1J ~u!pu~d ~nss! S!q} uo uon~u AUPP O} ~lolli AUUI l!~uno;)
'UO!P~uuO~ l~M.~S lOJ }S~nb~l ~q} ~AOlddu O} ~AOUI AUUI l!~uno;)
:suo}1oW IB}1ua1od
SOOZ 'z l!ldV JO l~n~l
SOOZ 'oz 'A.mnuuf JO l~n~l
duW l!U}~a
dl~W A}!U!~!A
:s1uawqJB11V
t
~~
:mp'J;}M;}S At?M UOSU;}S L6t; ;}1Ut?WmSns :::>:::>\suO!1;x}uuo:::> J;}1t?M W J;}M;}S\SJ;}1t?M \U!Wpt?-1~P\iiU;}\S){.lM-qnd\:D
<;P
o~~
~.,.-
~ --I
~ r-.-<
~~o
~z~
~o
@g
v)c
\OtI1
'Jr./J
tc~
tI1~
~o
on
zo
~2
>tI1
~n
~~
O~
n:t
~tI1
~g;
r./J r./J
tI1~
~tj
tI1tI1
~R
tI1
~~~o
~2~:! ~
rnrnno
~~~."
::::;;;: )-
:::;C')~'"
"" "':r:
;::; 'Or-
:>oorn)-
)--"'Z
:r::<~o
o
~~
CD
C/I
o
0,
",-7\1
/ ,
/,/ /'/\\'\\
// ;
/,;)~~!J ~ ~;>~\ .
/
01
01
o
(\
\,)
0'1/''\
N"/'
(X) ,
- I L:
II Ii t I i_ -,-
~ r r -u
II CD !
i ..,
II cc i 0
CD i
i_ -c
'lJ 'lJ 'lJ 'lJ m ~
-, -, -, -, x 0
0 0 0 0 00' C.
"'0 "'0 "'0 "'0 ,-+oW
0 0 0 0 ~
(J) (J) (J) (J) :J o CD
CD CD CD CD (Q
0- 0- 0- 0- en (jJCl..
en en en en Q)
en en en en :J (O(j)
;::+:
0 :::0 () OJ Q) ~CD
:J Q) 0 CD -< OJ:E
(J) -, 0- :J en
;::+: 0 '< (J) CD
CD Q) OJ 0 :E CD CD
:J
0- CD ::::J ..,
N ...--. "'0 ~ -, ~
0 0- -, W ()
q 0 0 en
-, "'0 '< 0
~ CD ~ 0
;:+ ::::J
I '< ::::J
~ I 0 ~::::J
~
CJ1 v..> ;::+:
- 0 $ Q) CD
q
I ,<$3-
~
CJ1 0
q
::::J
~
'-~'~~~...- '~--"
"~
~'~-.
~~'-,~
m '.........~- ',....... "
X
00'
01 .....
CD S'
01 c.c
en
Q)
::J
~
-<
en
CD
:E
CD
.,
~
w+z
m
C CJ [J C7 f~:)
- ~J
V/? ,~p
1..../
[J
t
o
::J
CD
::J
()
:J""
II
N
o
CD'
CD
r-+
en
.....
-,
CD
CD
.-+
(J)
OJ
C
0-
:J
(Q
(J)
wi
x
o
.....
(J)
()
o
:::0
~
:::0
:::0
lUO~.USlU@ZO~!I~gu~ I!~lU-~ 6~OS 88P (ItS)
OZC;L6 'MO 'pu~TqsV 'A~M uosu~g L6C; 'I ~t~ xog Od
~Igu3 "f I~Jntr] ~ ~!U1nUmSna .V ApoJ
c;ou~ 'z H-IdV
T!~unoJ A~!J PU1~TqsV :O~
UO!!~~UUOJ J~M~S JOJ !s~nb~'M
.ZOOZ 'c; q~l~W uo I!~unoJ A~!=) pU~TqsV
~q~ Aq p~AOldd~ ATSnO!A~ld S~M 1U~lUUg!T~ S!q~ .~g~n!A nOAp{S!S ~q~ O~ S~~!Al~S lU~~SAS
l~M~S ~!J pu~rqsV ~q1 JO UO!SU~~x~ U~ gU!M.On~ A:}l~dold lno JO l~plOq Ul~)q1nos ~q1
guolu 1U~lU~S1B~ U~ ~P!Aold 01 '~g~II!A nOAp{S!S ]0 SlgUM.O '.OJ 1UglU~g~UUW uoz!loH JO
S!AUa ~~Olg ql!M.1U~lU~~lg~ U~ ~p~UI ~A~q ~M. .A~M. uosu~g L6~ 1U A:}l~dold ~ql UM.O ~M
.1s~nb~l S!l{1 gU9UUlg lnoA ~)1Up~lddu
U!M. ~ f1~ . AU M. uosu~g P~lU~!P~P glp UO SlUOl] puu 'A.xupunog l{1M.OlD UHqlO lnOA
U!l{1!M S! A:}l~dold lno .UOn~nl1suo~ l!~l{1 l{1!M. uo!punfuo~ U! UI~1SAS l~M.~S ~'(n 01 ~UIOl{
lno l~~uuo~ 01 P~l~]JO suq ~gun!A nOAp:[S!S .I~~lud lno UO S~1!S gA9~Ul~lIu OU ~A~l{ ~M.
pu~ 'UI~1SASJnd~s lno qgno.nn 1n~ II!M. UO!190l1SUo~ P~lU!~OSS~ ~l{1 pu~ 'lU~UIug!IU S!q~
), ~ gIgug.f plnBj puu ~1UUlUUlSnH,~POJ
,/'})) ~ ~(j '[I
// --r------ .. Igl~~U!S
pU:dWU'JUU
~UIG/17
Ovf~6 V:J 'pdJldW 'dAPO ApBdDBW L8
9vL~6 V:J 'ABg d:qUB1D 'fZ1'90f# "PA19 sBl~noo OZ1v
ANVdWO:) .lN3W30VNVW NOZIlIOH
900l 'Ol AJenuer
G'
'A t t
''4',/
~.,": 111r--.,
/ . "-0'< .~
I ......~.... ,fY,y,'r}
"", \~/
-4)2' /? "<_1~JO
-, ,. /') /
:' '........., ~f /,///
:I 0) " Ii v /!
"Ii :; ~'~ 1/
. ~<< 2./ {JI/l
I ~6~-f8f (60z) X~~ 'l~' 'f8f (60Z)
~9II"L6L (916) XV~ ~~11'L6L (916)
DZ516 ~O 'pueJ4S't
"'13M DJnqU!M ~ 9
~uewdole^ea A~!UnWWo~ JO JopeJ!a
uHlt6ne-pw ulIOr
S)fJOM :>!Iqnd JO JopaJ!O
'3' d 'UMOJ8 elned
uo!peuuo~ JeMes ~!Iqnd
tiO 'pu~\tsv "P^t8 nO^~}ls~s 66LZ 'aDS1H^ nO^~}ls~S :3~
. uO'JeJap,suoJ pUB aW'J Jno^
jt)} npJ\ ~UID.tl 'pa~ 9'Q P1nOO Plre1 ~U'e',)B^ .mo jD e$11 wnumdo 9JOW B U~~UUB \1f3nt\n.n
~e4~ ~leJ no^ ~eln pe6eJno~ue fue^ seM I ~nq (~ouue~ no^ eZ!leeJ MOU I 4~!4M))jJed pepuedxe
ue O~ S~~~A1as Ja}BM pue JaMaS ap~^oJd O~ keM B seM aJa41- pado4 PB4 1 Ane~p'uI 'pafoJd
Jno 6U!pJBBa.l ^lJua:>aJ aw 4P.M 6u!Jaaw JOj no^ 10 4Joq )fuB4J oJ JUBM I 'Ja^aM104 'JSJ!.::I
'uo~auuoo
JeMa$ ~,~UB~rsns ^po~ PmPJtID9J ~u~ lPuno~ ^~1~ N\mJq9.:J am uo ~:d aq 0) 1$'anbaJ
e JO lewwsueJ~ 13 pue 'pefoJd Jno lO sn1e~s etH uo eP3pdn ue eq o~ pepue~u! S! Ja>>el S141
:U40f pue eJned Jeee
'uom;io 6~O\.t ~^ B ~ 9~~ no^~~ 6U1~9.J av,W^ uot~aU\JiOO ~o ~~ ~61\t
e4~ ~es!Jo dle4 O:~ sn MOlle II!M te4. punoJ5 ~u~e^ Jno JOJ esn e pue Uonexeuue )j~~es O~ uonue.u!
Jno s~ }t . ^}uno~ uos)J~er Aq a6em^ nOA~)Js~S asop JO uo~pauuoo JaMaS Jno a}E;)tdwo:> O} SOOZ
· ~ Jaqw8^ON I!JlJn U8^~6 uaaq 8^e4 aM 'UO!PnJJsu~ Jno 4P.M uo~punfucx> u~ op OJ p8aJ6e a^B4
aM LP'4M ~^B^~ uosuaa U, JaMeS SI^P.~ e4J OJ pauucx> OJ JB^oJdde a^e4 Jsnw ClOJ e4 aJojaJe4J
-1OO..rerl ~~ uo ~~~xa em; \)J\nmu~ amW~9J ou p~ Wgrs,^~ '~~ t5Ut1$~xa ~\;I ^OJ~p P1noM
^~edoJd S,atU!~we~sn8 ^Po~ SSOJ~e ~uewu5!1e pe^oJdde ZOOZ '9 4:>JeV\J e4~ ~e4~ uoque>>e Jno
o} awo:> ^ISnO~l',aJd pe4 1-1 'sa^taSJnOA 4p'M s6u~}aaw }ua:>aJ AW sn4} 'uo)pnJ}Suo~ Mau JO} sp'w~1
^J!8 puoAaq s.~~^,as JaMaS pUB J8JBM :>!lqnd sp. puapc8 JOU Pln~ PUBI4SV 10 ^P.8 a4J JB4J PIOJ
seM J U841 'se:>eds OZ peMoJJe wnwpcew a4J ppe OJ (9LZOO-yOOl NOZ pue 9~OOO-vOOZ ens
~n~~ ~Wt)~l) 1\1P~a :5]JW~d^1-l1np~ ~U1 9} 1Jtm~n:itte 1BlUJOj B ap1:~w aM 'sroBds
Meu Ol JO wnw1xew e JO se~eds eJOW 0/009 6u!ppe ^q )jJed Jno puedxe Plno~ eM 6u!uoz ^~uno~
uos)J:>er }uaJJn~ Jno Japun }e41- aJeMe aw~aq aM OSI'V 'uo~pauuoo tenpe alU JO} luessa:>au
spunJ a4J J() JSOW a~B OJ 'waJsAs JU8JJn~ Jno 6U!JBJado AlajBS aH4M 'aW!1. 8lU sn paMolIB
se4 s~41 'sw~.JS^S ,esods,p OM} Jno jO auo u~ wa,qoJd ,~~ue4~aw e Du,paJJOO pUB 6u'J~o, u~
1T'\J$S~ns wa.M aM 1BhOJtiQB D~~f5 J~ AWD\.tS -~un 29 pamuuad 6unsprn IDtl >>0 uapJnq 11nl
e4+ e)je~ 0+ PUE~I ~ue~e^ Jno JO esn e 6u!)fees pue spunl 6u!nJ~~e ueeq e^e4 eM ZOOZ '9 4~JeV\J
uo wa}s^s JaMas S,^P.~ a4} O} pauuoo O} Je^oJdde H~uno~ ^P.~ 6u~^~~aJ ~u~S :sn}e~s ~uajjn~
OUOZIJV jO S8ljlUnwwo:) 6UIsnOH p8mpOjnUO~
UOljOi:)OSSV S8!j!Unwwo:) 5u!snOH p8mpOjnUO~ UJ81S8M . UO!jOi:)OSSV )jJOd 18^OJ! OIUJOjIfO:)
SdOn\f3~ jO UOljOi:)OSSV IOUOljON . SdOll\f3~ jO UOljO!:)ossv O!UJOj!IO:) . jU8W85ouo~ 8jOjS3 I08~ jO 8jnj!jSUI
.saluewelsne a414~ DU~}aaW a41 puaue II~ I 'oc)~AJas
sJllJ)O uOJsuapca JnCl llJJM uOjJ:)un[uo:) UJ ^eM uosuaa UJ waJs^s JaMaS S,^Jl8 allJ OJ pauuo:) OJ
leAOJdde u!eB OJ JapJo U! epuaBe oU!JaaV\lI!~un08 AJ!8 AJenJqa.:i e uo pa~eld aq o~ a~UleweJsn8
laJnel pue AP08 WOJj JsanbaJ e S! pa4~en'it :uO!paUU08 JaMas lOj JSanba~ jO leij!WSU8Jl
"JsanbaJ S,^PO:J llJ!M DUOJe SJaqwaw lpuno:J a4J OJ JaJJal S14J aplAoJd OJ aaJ) Jaa) aseald
'sap~ap JnOj JaAO JOj uaaq SB~ ~! se->i~o~s 15u!sno~ S,pueI4s'it jO ~Bd alqB!A e aOBII!/\ nOA!)jS!S
daa>i OJ alqe aq OJ ado4 aM 'spafoJd Jno uo Jndu! JnOA aJepaJdde 4~nw fuaA I :sJ4on041Ieu!.:i
JaUMO e6emA nOA!>iS!S ~811 'a~~J41 8V\1H
JaqwaV\l 6u!6eU8V\1-08 's!^eo a~nJ8
~-r9J~-j?/
U -":^laJ~U!S
aN'\f~HSV
:I () A. ~ I :>
NOISS3S Aan.lS 11~NnO~ A.lI:)
vaN3~V
~aaJ~S U!8V\J ~S8=:J 9L ~ ~ 'sJaqw848 l!~un08
"w.d OO:l~ ~8 900l'v A8V\J 'A8pSaUpaM
"6 "ON uo!~e~s aJ!~ JO uo!~~nJ~suo~atJ JOJ f)U!UUBld JO sn~8~S . ~
"0 ami 'VO'V PO t "gr
-ZO t 'gr C:J:::1J 8Z) 6u!Jaaw aLlJ OJ AJ!/!q!SSao:'Je aJnsua OJ sJuawa6ueJJe alqeuoSeaJ a>few OJ
AJ!J aLlJ a,qeua IJ!M 6u!Jaaw aLlJ OJ JO!Jd sJnoLl 2~L uO!JeoY!JoN '(006Z-grL-008-t Jaqwnu auoLld
^_L1.) Z009"88p (t pg) Je aO!jjo s,JoJeJJs!u!WP'V AllJ aLlJ JoeJuoo aseald '6u!Jaaw S!LlJ U! aJedp!ped
OJ i3oueJS!sse le!oads paau nOA i! 'Jo'V saml!qes!o LlJ!M sueofJaw'V aLIJ LlJ!M aoue!ldwoo ul
~~
a l'JV~ H SV
~[O A~I:>
UO!Je~!unwwo~ I!~uno~
Z .ON NOll V lS ffiIL~ dO NOIlJO"}llSNOJtrn
~/)f 1I0U.Id O,!!W I ~i1oqoun.L oo'} :1.AOIddV
v I~~;)'1 / ;):>U~U~d :Stu;)uQ.md;)G ~unnq~uoJ
;)n:>S;)lI1fl ;)I!d :tu;)w:J,md;)G
~OOl 'p A~It\I :~t~G ~un~~w
:p~tUOJ JJ~tS A.mpuo:>~s
sn'lo'pu~Iqs~@){A~IPOOA\ L I ll-l~~
A~IPOO M. '3: qt~~)I :p~tuoJ JJ~tS A.1mu~d
'~~~rold
S!q~ l[~!M P~lB!~OSS~ S:}.IoJJ~ ~U!UU~Id ~u~lln~ JO sn~~~s ~q~ I!~uno~ o~ ~U:;;)S~ld o~ A~!un:}.Ioddo
U~ q~!MJJ~~S ~P!AOld U!M UO!SS~S Apn~s I!~uno~ ~OOZ 't A~W ~q.L ..rn~A I~~SY LO-900Z
~q~ ~u!lnp ln~~o o~ p~Inp~q~s ~~~rold ~U~W~AOldw! I~~!d~~ ~ S~ Z .OU u09~~s ~lY JO UO!~~ru~SUO~~l
~q~ S~Y!1U~P! '~~~pnq A~!J 90-~00Z p~SOdOld ~q~ U! p~pnpu! 'lrnld S~U~W~IAO.rdlUJ I~~!d~J ~llL
:JuamaJBJS
'suons~nb
l~MSUt~ o~ UO!SS~S Apn~s ~q} }~ }u~s~ld ~q U!M ~H 'Z 'ou UO!~~~S ~lY JO U()!pru~suO~~l ~q~ lOJ
lOP!llO~ ~~~l~S pU~Iqsy ~q~ ~UOI~ s~}!s ~Iq~}!ns JO Apn~s S!SAI~U~ A:}.I~dold ~ P:;;)~~Idwo~ s~q ~~~~s3
I~~"M ~s~ M. old l~){U~S: U~MPIoJ JO s!ll~H ){~!"M 'UO!P~I~ 900Z l~qW~AON ~q~ U! puoq U09~~!Iqo
I~l~U~~ ~ JO I~AOldd~ l~}OA uo }U~~U!~UO~ 'u~Id }U~W~AOldlUJ I~~!d~J 80- LOO(: ~q} U! }U~W~~~Id~l
lOJ p~SOdOld u~~q s~q Z 'ou UOn~}S ~l!d 'A~u~dn~~o lOJ ~Iq~I!~A~ S~M uon~~s ~lY M~U ~q}
U~qM 'tOOZ ~sn~ny Inun pl~A S){lOM ~Hqnd }~~l~S s: ~q~ U! ~u!PI!nq l~Inpow ~ U! P~}~~OI ~l~M
sl~:}.IUnb }u~w:}.I~d~p ~lY A.ltuodw~.L 'P~qS!IOW~P S~M ~u!PI!nq ~q~ plrn 1 'ou UO!~~~S ~lY p~~~~~A
~u~w:}.I~d~p :;).IY ~q~ OOOZ l~~A ~q~ UJ 'I 'ou uon~~s ~lY JO UO!~~ru~SUO~~l ~q~ ~u!punJ lOJ p~AOldd~
pu~ 6661l~qw~AoN U! Sl~~OA PlrnIqsy ~q~ ~lOJ~q }~nolq S~M ~nss! puoq y 'lrnld S~U~W~AOldlU!
I~Hd~~ ~~lrnl-~UOI lno U! sI~o~ p~rold S~ su09~~s ~lY I~d!~!unlU q~oqJo uon~ru~suo~~l
p~Ynu~P! lrnld ~u~lU~AoldlUI I~~!d~J 00-6661 ~q.L 'S~!~!I!~~J ~~~nb~p~ JO UO!~~)ru~suo~ ~q~ :}.Ioddns
o~ ~Z!S ~u~!~YJnsu! JO ~l~M s~oI uon~~s ~lY ~U9S!X~ o~ ~q~ ~~q~ p~~ou oSI~ SBM n 's~ln~~ru~s
~q~ JO l~q~!~ ~~~AOU~l Ap~n~~JJ~ ~So~ o~ A~!I!q~U! ~q~ pu~ ~!S~P lood '~~~ ~u!PI!nq o~ ~np
su09~~s ~J[Y q~oqJo ~U~lU~~~Id~l ~q~ p~pU~lUlUO~~l :}.IOd~l ~q.L '~~~ds ~~~l~~ sn~~l~dd~ ~lY pu~
){lOM ~}~nb~p~u! plrn S~!~U~!~y~p A}~J~S pu~ qH~~q ~U!p.rn~~l sw~~uo~ o~ ~SUOdS~l U! SUO!lB}S
~lY I~d!~!unw q~oq U!q~!M sp~~u ~~~ds ~~~nI~A~ o~ p~pnpuo~ S~M Apn}S ~ '~661 UI 'S~u~lU~l!nb~l
s:;)~!A.I~s A~U~~l~lU~ W~pOlU ~~~W o~ s~p~~dn o~ p.rn~~l q~!M P~U!lU~X~ ~q SUO!~~~S ~lY
q~oq ~~q~ p~pU~WlUO~~ll~q:}.It1J Apn~s ~q.L '~S!X~ AnU~S~ld A~q~ ~l~qM ~~.rn 11e~!qd~~0~~ I~l~u~~
~q~ U! plrn 'A~!~ ~q~ U!q~!M S~~!S suon~~s ~lY OM~ U!~~U!~lU Plrnlqsy JO A~!J ~Ilp ~~q~ SpU~lUlUO~~l
:}.IOd~l Ieuy ~q.L . t661 U! Plrnlqsy JO A~!J ~q~ Aq P~~~IdlUo~ S~M Apn~s uon~~oI UO!~~~S ~lY Y
:puno.lfutJBg
I
~T.
'Sg~~AlgS glY 10J Sg~nU~lU ~; pUB Sg~~AlgS
SWtI 10J Sg~nU~lU 17 ~B pgqSHqB~Sg Uggq gABq SplBpUB~S glU~~ gSUOdSgl A~Ug~lglUg IB~~pglU pUB gl~~
Sa!J!lod ~l!:J pa1RlaH
.UO~pglg ~OnBq 900Z 19qUIgAON gq~ 10J
glnSBglU gq~ glBdgJd O~ JJB~S pgl~P O~ pggU lEA\. E~uno:) 'pOq~glU ~u~punJ pgllgJgld ~Iq~ SB pgpgpS
s~ puoq uoqB~Hqo IBlgUg~ B JI .UO!Ptu~suo~ ~u~PEnq pUB UO~~B1Bdgld g~!S 'U09!S~nb~B PUBl
10J pOq~glU ~U!PU~J B JO U09~glgS gq~ gpnpU! 11!A\. ~~gfOld s~q~ 10J pgl!nbgl SU09~B E~uno:) gln~n~
:suondo I!JUno:J
'AIUO UOqBlUlOJU~ 10.1
:UOnRpUamUIOJaH jjR1S
.pgl!nbgl gUON
:SUOnOIt\I IRnUa10d
.suoqdo ~u~punJ AP:) ~U!P1B~gl ~lgqgUnl gg'llOpgl!G g~UBU!.:I lU01J OlUgW
:s1uamqJR11V
Z
ONV'lHSV
.:10 A.lI:>
OW8V\J
:8NI0~V83~
: V\l0~::J
:01
:31'10
6upueu!::J l# uone~s aJ!.:I - uo!ssas Apn~s
Jo~~aJ!O a~ueu!.:I'6Jaqaun1 aal
IPuno8 A~!8 pue JOAelV\l
gOal 'v AelV\l
.~~afoJd
Uo!~~nJ~SUO~ B Lpns 6upueu!J JOJ suo!~do a4~ O~ s)feads owaw S!41 .suoseaJ-Snope^ JOJ ~aaJ~S
puel4sV uo pa~e~ol auo a4~ a~eldaJ o~ uo!~e~s aJ!j. puo~as e JOJ paau a4~ f)upap!suo~ S! A~p a41
.awa4~s 6upueu!J a4~ U! papnpu! aq o~ paau PlnoM (sa6Je4~
6upueu!J pUle s~ua~uo~ 'saaJ pa~elaJ pue UO!~~n.J~suo~ 'u6!sap 'uo!l!s!nb~e A~adoJd) s~so~ a4~
JO lie ~sow os uo!~~nJ~SUO~ S!4~ JOJ ap!se ~as Aauow JO ~unowe ~ue~!J!U61!S ou S! aJa4~ aw!~ S!4~
~v .a^!snpu! SlSO~ lie 'UO!ll!W g.€$ Ala~eW!xoJdde se ~a6pnq pasodoJd a41 U! aJe 6u!sn AnUaJJn~
aJe aM sa~ew!~sa a41 .sUo!~e~s aJ!::J - UO!S!^!O s6u!PI!ns led!~!unV\l '~uaw:lJedao a~ueu!.:J 'pun::J
~uawa^oJdWlle~!de8 a4~ JO ~no JOJ p!ed pue pa~a6pnq aq PlnOM Uo!~~nJ~SUO~ 'pa^oJdde JI
.Jlas~! ~~afoJd S!4~ Aed II!M puel4sV P004!1a)f!llIe U! ~nq ~~afoJd
a4~ U! ~s!sse O~ s~ueJ6 ~!WOUo~a JO sweJ60Jd 6upueu!J JOJ sa~Jnos .Ja4~0 4~eoJdde O~ A~!~
a4~ a^004aq PlnOM ~I .spuoq JeaA-Ol AlleWJOU - 6upueu!J a4~ JO aJ!1 aq~ Ja^o a~!AJas ~qap JOJ
A^allepads e op O~ uo!~ezp04~ne a~eJo~~ala 6urija6 sueaw AlleJaua6 S!41 .s6u!pl!nq ledp!unw
JOJ pa~e~l!pap anua^aJ leUO!~eJado ou pue S!4~ JOJ pasn aq ue~ ~e4~ s:a6Je48 ~uawdOla^ao
swa~sAS ou aJe aJa41 .6u!PI!nq led!~!unw e 6u!PI!nq JOJ pa~!w!l a~!nb aJe suo!~do 6upueu!::J
.~~afoJd a4~ 6upnp paz!mn aJaM uo!~~nJ~SUO~ Uone~s aJ!j. aJn~nJ JOJ Pla4 sa!UOw
paAJasaJ lie pue a~eJo~~ala a4~ Aq le^oJdde AeV\l uodn paseq seM ales a41 .uO!II!W 0.17$ seM
~~afoJd ~e4~ JOJ ~so~ a^!snpu! lie 'leu!J pue ~# uo!~e~s aJ!.:I JOJ seM JapU!BWaJ a41 .uo!~eJo~saJ
poolJ o~ pa~elaJ 000'9L ~$ AIUO 4~!4M JO UO!II!W €.€$ 6u!le~0~ spuoq PloS A~p a4~ OOOl 'aunr ul
.~a6pnq L~-gOal A.:I a4~ JO ~ed se pa!^al pue pa^oJdde aq o~ saxe~
A~adoJd 6u!puodsaJJo~ pue gOal AJenJqa.:l Aq anss! puoq e 'gOal Jaqwa^oN U! le^oJdde Ja~o^
sa~edp!~ue pU1:? sa~JnosaJ Ja4~0 Aue apnpu! ~ou saop uospedwo~ 6u!MOIIOJ a4~ sn4~ l# uo!~e~s
aJ!::J JOJ spuoq uo!~e6!1qo leJaua6 anss! o~ ~so~ a4~ uo sn~oJ Pln04s A~p a4~ 'a^oqe a4~ ua^!8
PlnOM lUaWaJ!nbaJ S!4~ ~aaw o~ 6u!l!eJ ~nq walqoJd e aq ~ou Aew ~H4~ os pJo~aJ ~no UJn~
po06 AIJ!eJ H se4 puel4sv .pa~eaJap Alle~!~eWo~ne S! anss! a4~ JO SJa~o^ a4~ JO ~no UJn~ %Og
e saJ!nbaJ JeaA paJaqwnu ppo ue U! uo!~~ala Jaqwa^oN e 'aw!~ S!4~ ~e '~B4~ pa~ou aq Pln04s ~I
sn'JO'pueI4se'MMM
Ol9L6 uo6aJO 'pueI4S'v'
}aa.qs u!e~ }se3 Ol
IN3WHIVd30 3:>NVNI;J
006l-9U-OOg :,Ul
~ ~ €9-ggy- ~ vg :xe::J
00€9-ggy-~ vg :Ial
~~..
a'_
"900llle.:J Aq ~UaJajJ!p aq O~ ~! ~~adxa ~ou Plno4s aM ~nq ~uawaJ!nbaJ S!4~ O~ aoue4~ e
ou!pJeoaJ wales U! Ulo!ssn~s!p awos uaaq se4 aJa41 "alnpa4~s pasodoJd a4~ Ja~le AI~ue~!J!uo!s
"sJo~e~!pu! pooo aq Aew saoueJ pue alqe~ OU!MOIIOJ a4~ ua4~ 'aJn~nJ Jeau a4~ U! anJ~ sPl04
saxe~ ou!~ew!~sa JOJ pasn uo!~dwnsse ~uaJJn~ a4~ ~e4~ pue ("~~a 'uo!sap 'UO!~~n.J~SUO~ 'AlJadoJd
'a~uenss!) s~so~ liB sapnpu! anss! a4~ JO ~unowe a4~ ~e4~ ou!wnss\f "apew aq ue~ sa~ew!~sa
~nq paAoJdde S! anss! puoq UO!II!W g"€$ e J! LO-900l A.::J U! a~eJ xe~ a4~ ~~arOJd O~ ~In~w!p S! ~I
:~~edw! ~ue~lnsaJ a4~ aAe4 pue a~eJ xe~ ou!puodsaJJo~
a4~ aJ!nbaJ PlnOM a~eJ ~saJa~u! pue a~ew!~sa a~!AJas ~qap OU!MOIIOJ a4~ 4~!M anss! puoq UO!II!W
g"€$ e 'anJlsu!euuaJ anleA passasse JO 000 ~$ Jad xe~ AlJadoJd JO ~O"O$ 4~ea ~e4~ ou!wnss\f
G9'GL$ 6t'v9$ t~8~'O$ 000'06G$ %OL ~ . 9
VG'99$ 89'6v$ 999 ~ '0$ 000' 99G$ %09 ~ 'v
OOO'OOv$ OOO'OOt$ AAal xe 1 I~d ale~
:ll8 panleA asnoH uo pedwllenuuV' ~adoJd lenuuV' puoS
"Suo!~dWnSSH pue Uo!ssn~s!p aAoqe a4~ uodn paseq SaOeJaAe pue Sa~ellJ!~Sa aJe asa41
"OOO'OO€$ ~e passasse asn04 e uo 99"617$ JO xe~ AlJadoJd leUO!~!ppe ue Lleaw PlnOM pue
a~!AJas ~qap a4~ Ja/\o~ O~ uo!~enleA passasse JO 000 ~$/ggg ~ "0$ Ala~eW!xoJdde OU!Z!J04~ne AAal
le!~ads e aJ!nbaJ PlnOM S!41 .SJeaA A~ua~ JOJ 000'99l$ JO ~uawaJ!nbaJ a~!AJas ~qap lenuue ue
U! ~lnsaJ PlnOM %Og ~ "v JO a~eJ ~saJa~u! aOeJaAe ue ~e PIOS spuoq ~e4~ SM04S alqe~ aAoqe a41
"~ue~suo~
ou!u!ewaJ SOU!4~ Ja4~0 lie 'SMOJO anleA passasse le~o~ se ~qap a4~ JO 6IJ!1 a4~ JaAO JeaA
4~ea a~eJ Jallews e U! ~lnsaJ II!M a~!AJas ~qap JOJ ~unowe a4~ ~e4~ ^la~!1 S! ~I "anleA passasse
alqexe~ le~o~ JO LI~OJO pue aAoqe a4~ uodn paseq fueA II!M AlJadoJd JO a~a!d puel4s\f ue uo
~~edw! a41 "ales puoq e JO Aep a4~ mun UMOU~ aq ~ou PlnoM a~eJ len~~e a4~ ~nq ~a~Jew s,Aepo~
ue4~ Ja40!4 sa~eJ sapnpu! aoueJ a41 'ou!~ew uo!spap fueu!W!laJd pue Uo!ssn~s!p leJaUao JOJ
Uo!~ewJoJu! ap!AoJd O~ pue uadde4 Aew ~e4M JO eap! ue l!~un08 aA!O o~ pap!AoJd S! aoueJ a41
sn'JO"pUeI4Se"MMM
O~~L6 uo6aJo 'puel4S\f
}aa4S u!e~ }se3 Ol
IN3WH:I\fd3a 3:>NVNI.::I
006~-~tL-OOg :lli
~ ~ r~-ggv- ~ ~ :xe.::l
oor~-ggv- ~ ~ :Ia 1
~~.
.~.
ON'rf1HS'rf NI ^~Ol.SIH NOll. 'rfl.S 3~/::/
:^JOJS!H UO!J:>nJJSUO~) UO!JeJS aJ!:I
UO!Je:>ol Jea A
~68~
806~
896~
996~
80-Z00Z
~S u!eV\J ~se3 OZ
~S Lj1Jno.::J 9Z
'P^IS nO^!)js!S 99P'
.~S puelLjs\;f 098 ~,
'P^IS nO^!)js!S 99t7
SJ8peno ~ 'oN ^uedw08 8soH JOi
WOOJ 8UO p8!dn880 ~u8w1Jed80 8J!.::J
pue 'lIeH ^~!8 se p8~8nJ~su08
~ 'oN uoqe~s 8J!::I
'00'09 ~ $ JOi OP6 ~ ~noqe
U! PI os seM uoqe}s 8J!i ~88J~S Lj1Jno::l 'lIeH ^l!8 O~U!
p86J8W 8J8N\ s8!uedw08 8S0Lj Lj~oq 868 ~ UI
SJ81Jeno Z 'oN ^uedw08 8soH
U bs 09Z' ~ 00 ~ 'Z$ 6u!pl!ns / 00'098$ ~Ol
Z 'ON UO!~elS 8J!.::J
'P96~
Lj8JeV\J U! P8^OW }UaW1Jed80 8J!.::J 'uo!}e}s 8u!lose6
P818POW8J U bs 008'9 / 000'09$ JOi p8seLj8Jnd
~ 'oN uo!}e}s 8J!.::J
'00'909' ~ $ JOi
POOM}S8M uOPJ08 o~ ^1J8doJd uo 8snoLj PloS
'000'8 ~$ JOi Lj8e8l 'JV\J WOJi }Ol p8seLj8Jnd
'OOp' ~Z$ JO }S08 UOn8nJ}su08
6u!pl!nq )j8olq 8}8J8U08 U bs 008'Z
Z 'oN uone~s 8J!.::J
/OOO'OOO'P$ / u bs 000'9 ~
UO!}8nJ}SU088~ ~ 'oN uoqe~s 8J!.::J
Z .oN uO!JeJS aJ!.:I
- 88J8 lOI 5uqS!X3
(S8J88 GLG.) "U .bs OOO'G ~
88J8 JOOIJ 5u!pl!l1q 5uqS!X3
.U .bs 998'G
- 88J8 ~Ol p8sodoJd
.S8J88 G- ~
- 88J8 JOOIJ 5u!pl!nq p8sodoJd
"U .bs OOO'G~
:SJataweJed at!s uoneJS aJ!.:I
.P80Cl ~88JJ U8ll1101. PU8 8nU8AV' J8~18M U88M~8q JOppJ08 J88J~S
PU81L1SV' 8L1J S8 UOqB801 wnwndo 8L1~ ~s866ns S8!pn~S 8Wq 8suods8C1 :UO!J880l
"sa!~8doJd ~U888fp8 Aq 8Sn 8Iq!~8dwoJ
dnJ 8 LIJ!M G-CI JO '~-3 '~-J :6U!UOZ
(S8J88 (,L(," S! 8~!S (, .OU UO!~8~S 8J!J 5UqS!X8) 'S8J88 9. ~ O~ O. ~ AII88PI :88JV
:6u!pl!ns p8sodoJd
(OOO'G JOOl1
puG / 000'0 ~ JoolJ }S~) U bs 000'(, ~ AI8~8W!XOJddV'
:SUOn8J8p!SU08 18P8dS
"8!1q nd 18J8U86 8L1J
PU8 S818!LI8A 1~8U86J8W8 6u!puodsaJ JOJ A~818S
aJnsua OJ ~u!od SS8888 A8MLl6!LI 84J J8 18U6!S
8!:1:J.8JJ e J8nJ~SU08 o~ Alq8J8J8Jd S! ~I "UO!~8~S 8J!J
a4~ JOJ sS8Jl58 ~ sS8J6u! 818!48A A8Ua5J8W3
S'Z
\}'0\?U\
Q)t\
J
~
~"
~
~*
<Y~
'6
.Iv~
~
.~
\Y
Z
'epeue:) JO
AaSJaH 2l
o
.Q)
~
(j)
-
461Cj
u
S'
ussno S41 ^ISSreV',j
M8!MII8S -&
5 66 ~F'
I
,
()
.., I IS puel4s't(
('t)
('t)
99 '" ~
:::u
0- J IS
~
)e~
1 ~
IS epe^aN 3
}O
S'O
'Pll SWSIS^S pue eleo 6uIIS~JeWOJ:J!V',j 4:JJessndwo:) ^q 0002: 1461J^do:) @
JSH @ SS!IP04Ine ue!peue:) WOJJ UOlsS!WJsd 411M us~el uOljeWJoJul sspnpul elep SI41 PS^JSSSJ SI461J IIV 'ss!6010U4:JSl UO!le61^eN 0002: @ PS^JSSSJ S146!J IIV ':JUI '^6010U4:JSl eleo :J!4deJ6oS8 ^q 0002: 1461JMo:) @
IUloddewjwo:J'jJOSOJ:JIW'MMMjrdIl4 'pSMSSSJ SI461J IIV 'SJSllddns SII JOjpue 'dJo:) jJOSOJ:JIV',j ~002:-886 ~ @ 1461J^do:)
66
puellls'V
ft'-~/
....
U!W S S puel4s't(
~
0&
~
~
u.-
\
~ ~
~ .4
.,~ ~l
~ ,
Ii -t-U) ~ \
.. J\ 3 U!W S IJ-e\u.s'V
j ~ Q
;,IS ep~" 3 ~,~ ~
\,,.T 1 ~
, r 66,
IS
'\
\--\
;::;..
~.....
Q.
?B
\\\J\
N
'It
c
o
~
U5
~ iij ~ -g'(/)-
t> e ~
.5 ~"O 'x
(/) a: --' w
v<
c
ro
=E ~
ro >
~ ! I
~ 8 8
U 0 0
~ ~- ~-
'" '"
~- v ^
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ E ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
=~~~-~ ~
I Ii ~ ~O ;
(/)
a
~
(")
(/)
~
C'
<1>
.c
u
,0;
1~
'"
<">
-
g
,I
II
II
II
I
I
FIRE STATION NO.2
ASHLAND, OREGON
OBSERV A TIONS AND RECOMMENDA'rION
THE BUILDING
OBSER\i'A TIONS
.
I
I
I
I
.
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
The existing Fire Station No.2 building was constructed in 1965. Typically at that time there
was little concern for energy conservation and this is evidenced in the Inaterials and systems
used in construction. Walls are constructed of 8 inch thick concrete masonry units which
provide the finished surtace inside and out. Insulation is minimal and at best concrete block
cores n1ay be filled with loose vennicu1ite. The roof structure consists of laminated beams, 2
inch wood decking, and 1 inch of rigid fiberglass insulation. The station was small at the
outset .and lacks features that should have been included even thirty years ago when it was
built. Available funds at that time may have been a factor.
The building is too small and lacks the facilities and spaces necessary to function effectively
as a contemporary fire station. It houses fIrefighters and equipment but has numerous defi-
ciencies.
Some of these deficiencies were outlined in the Urban Planning Associates Report of October
1993 and are as follow:
"Deficiencies noted during the survey:
.
Does not meet the requirement of Oregon OSHA 29 CFR Pan CFR Pan 1910.1030
Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne pathogens; Final Rule, and Chapter 3 of NFPA
Standard 1581, Fire Department Infection Control Program. There is only one rOOln
for storing and cleaning contamil1f1ted equipnlent which is connected directly to the
sleeping quarters. (NOTE: This is incorrect. There is no separate room and the only
place to clean contaminated equipment is at the laundry area located in the comer of the
engine bay.) This room should be separated from sleeping, eating and living areas.
There should be a separate area for the storage of medical supplies. This station should
meet the same requirements as those for Station 1.
Restroom capacity is limited
Deficiency in closet and locker space.
No exhaust system for apparatus bay - same requirement as for Station 1
E:x.1erior walls need to be sealed and insulated
No office space.
No water supply in apparatus bay to fill booster tank on pumper.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
II
Ashland Fire Station NO.2. -- Observations and Recommendation
September 1995
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
No floor drains in apparatus bay.
The parking lot is poorly graded and lacks sufficient drains to prevent water from run-
ning into the station at the rear through the wall.
There is no study or quiet area.
The overhead doors have the same deficiency as those at Station 1.
There is no vented storage area for protective clothing that is located away from the ap-
paratus area. Protective clothing stored in the apparatus area can become contaminated
with exhaust producedfrom the apparatus. "
.
.
.
.
Additional deficiencies noted:
.
The toilet/shower room is very small and restricted. It does not meet residential re-
quirenoents under the current building code.
A conler of the engine bay was sacrificed to create a small office used for study and by
the duty officer. It is poorly located and inadequate. This space would be better util-
ized for another function more closely related to the apparatus bays but has been
claimed to create the much needed small office.
Deficiencies exist related to requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and
Chapter 31 of the Building Code as adopted by the State of Oregon and City of Ash-
land.
The site is improperly drained and surface water collects at the building and seeps into
the Day Room. This is a situation which should be addressed and remedied even on a
short tenn basis.
.
.
.
TABLE 2-A, FIRE STATION NO.2 SQUARE FOOTAGE COMPARISON outlines those
spaces required for proper operation and those spaces currently contained within the build-
ing. The present building which is 2,866 square feet in size is deficient by nlore than 6,000
square feet.
12
Ashland Fire Station No.2. -- Observations and Recommendation
September 1995
I
capital improvements plan
TITLE: FIRE STATION NO.2 RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT TYPE: ADMINISTRATION
RESPONSII3LE DEPARTMENT: Ashland Fire & Rescue Department
Funding Sources:
$3,400,000 General Bond
Prior Years:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
$400,000
$3,000,000
Project Description:
Purchase of additional property, building
design and construction for replacement of
Fire Station No.2, located at 1860 Ashland
Street. The current facility has insufficient
garage and workspace, does not meet ADA
requirements and presents health and safety
issues for employees. Project funds will
need to be approved by Ashland voters in a
general obligation bond election held in
November 2006. The new facility will
consist of a 12,000 square foot fire station
designed to provide emergency vehicle
garage space, training facilities and
firefighter living quarters necessary to
provide emergency service to the City of
Ashland.
Project Cost by Budget Year:
$3,400,000