HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-0620 Council Mtg Packet
Important: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the agenda, unless it is the subject
of a public hearing, which has been closed. The Public Forum is the time to speak on any subject not on the
printed agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance
to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted
to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the
number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 20, 2006
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes
]
1. Regular Council meeting minutes of June 6, 2006
2. Special Council meeting minutes of June 8, 2006
V. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
[5 Minutes]
1. Presentation of Retirement plaque to Mike Bianca
[5 Minutes]
2. Presentation of Retirement plaque to Russell Chadick
VI. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Liquor License Application - The Jefferson State Pub
3. Appointment to the Historic Commission
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (unless it is the subject of a
Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker,
Land Use Appeal
. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent
meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC §2.04.040})
1. Public hearing to Consider Appeal of Planning Action 2006-00282 – Request for Land
[1 hour]
Partition to create two parcels for the property located at 521 Fordyce Street
2. Public Hearing to Consider Request for a Variance to Allow Early Morning Operation of a
[15 Minutes]
Street Sweeper
VIII. 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
[15 minutes maximum]
on the number of individuals wishing to speak.)
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
[20 Minutes]
1. Adoption of Finding Regarding the Formation of the Nevada Street LID
2. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2004-141 – Annexation and Zone Change for an
approximately 10-acre parcel located on the east side of Clay Street, north of Ashland
[20 Minutes]
Street, at 380 Clay Street
[20 Minutes]
3. Purchase of Environmentally Preferred Power form BPA
[30 Minutes]
4. Reading by title only of, “A Resolution amending Resolution 2005-46”
X. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
[10 Minutes]
1. Procedures on selection of Council Position #1
[10 Minutes]
2. DEQ Presentation on Revised PM Standards
XI. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An Ordinance levying taxes for the
period of July 1, 2006 to and including June 30, 2007, such taxes in the sum of
$9,797,262 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within
the coporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon”
2. Reading by title only of, “A Resolution amending the pay schedule for management and
cofidential employees for fiscal year 2006-2007”
3. Reading by title only of, “A Resolution of the City of Ashland clarifying certain conditions
of employment for management and confidential employees and making such conditions
consistent with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act by repealing Resolution No. 97-18”
4. Reading by title only of, “A Resolution supporting the request for Oregon Department of
Transportation’s transportation enhancement funds in the amount of $275,000 to be used
to construct the Laurel Street sidewalk project”
XII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Re-visit RVTD discussion (David Chapman)
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 1 of8
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 6, 2006
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
f
ROLL CALL
Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Amarotico was absent. Councilor
Hardesty passed away on May 23,2006.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council meeting of May 16, 2006 and Continued Council meeting of May 18,
2006 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Presentation was made by Ashland High School student representatives traveling from Ashland to our Sister
City of Guanajuato.
Mayor's Proclamation of June 12,2006 as "Soroptimist International of Ashland Day" was read aloud.
Mayor announced his approval ofthe US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Recognition was given to Councilor Jack Hardesty who recently passed away, new City Administrator Martha
Bennett, and Interim Police Chief Ronald Goodpaster.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. V oice Vote: all A YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing to Consider Adopting the Annual Budget.
Administrative Services & Finance Director Lee Tuneberg commented on the changes made to the budget
and submitted a memo that listed the adjustments and corrections. He noted the Council needs to consider the
Rogue Valley Transit District and Debt Service agenda items prior to adopting the budget. He also noted the
budget has been reduced from $101.5 million to $100.2 million, and appropriations have been reduced from
$80.4 million to $78.5 million.
Request was made for Staff to provide additional information regarding the City's involvement with the
Regional Land Use Plan prior to any funds being expended. Mr. Tuneberg requested that Council identify any
other items they want brought back for further discussion. Request was made for the additions to the General
Fund to be brought before Council before funds are expended. City Administrator Martha Bennett assured
Council that Staff would consult with them before moving forward on any of these projects.
Public Hearing Open: 7:34 p.m.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 6,2006
PAGE 20/8
Art Bullockl791 Glendower Street/Suggested the City prepare a budget that better prepares for structural
changes in the economy. He stated there has not been a clear explanation of what the increased property tax
dollars would provide and stated the proposed budget would put the City in a vulnerable position. He urged
the Council to vote against the budget, to adopt a budget at or below the current level, and to develop a clear
and aggressive plan for how to reduce the debt.
Brice Brandt/280 Meadow Drive/Suggested the City sell the 900 acres across the freeway and use it to pay
down the AFN debt and noted the AFN Options Committee had recommended selling AFN. He recommended
the budget include a separate line item for AFN so the community can know how much it is costing.
Carmon Auble/542 Siskiyou Boulevard/Spoke regarding the AFN debt and stated it should be impermissible
for the City to allow an assessment on all property owners to provide this non-essential service. He stated it is
importantto recognize that many citizens do not want this service and are not subscribers. He stated if the City
Charter does not provide for public approval of such an assessment it should be amended to do so. He added
the City Charter should prohibit City investment in business enterprises not essential to basic services and
believes AFN should be sold.
Susan Rust/42 N. Wightman Street/Expressed her concern regarding the sale of the City owned land and
encouraged the Council to use this as a last stitch option to fixing the budget. She also suggested the Council
enter into discussions with the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy for how this land might be protected in an
undeveloped condition while allowing for the generation of income to the City.
Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Commented on setting a precedent of asking citizens to pay through a
property tax increase what should come from the department's budget. She suggested that some of the
projects could be accomplished at no cost to the City, such as conducting a Community Visioning charette. She
voiced her support for selling the City-owned property and asked the Council to not adopt the budget as
presented.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:47 p.m.
It was clarified there would be public discussion when the projects included in the budget came before
Council. It was also clarified the property tax would be reviewed annually.
Mr. Tuneberg noted $525,000 in expenses was eliminated from the budget and clarified the majority of the
increase was due to Capital Improvement Projects.
Suggestion was made for the Council to begin looking at the Capital Improvement budget prior to it going
before the Budget Committee. Support was voiced for this suggestion and additional recommendation was
made to start the budget process during August or September and possibly have a Budget Committee Study
Session.
Mr. Tuneberg commented on the areas in the budget where funds were cut and noted the increase of Capital
Improvement costs are beyond the City's control. He spoke regarding the adoption process and clarified the
four actions that been to be taken tonight.
PUBLIC FORUM
Art Bullockl791 Glendower Street/Spoke regarding the Nevada Local Improvement District (LID) Circuit
Court decision. He stated the City illegally benefited LID property owners and most of the benefit went to the
Billing Subdivision. He also stated the Public Works Director also benefited from the illegal percentages that
were proposed. To remedy this situation, he suggested the Council void the Nevada LID, pause the
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL MEETiNG
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 3 0/8
construction, and redo the LID legally. He stated the Council had not been provided with the entire court
record and claimed if any councilor had not reviewed the whole record, they must postpone adopting the
Findings until they do so.
Chris Skrepitos/4424 Highway 66/Spoke regarding the reactivation ofthe Clear Springs Resort. He stated
there are significant wetlands on the proposed site and noted the concerns regarding the use of ground water
and the impact to the surrounding property owners. He stated there was a potential for this development to
become a burden upon the citizenry of Ashland and asked the Council to address their concerns at the County
Hearing scheduled for June 13, 2006.
Pam Vavra/2800 Dead Indian Memorial RoadlPresented "Earth Day" messages conveyed to the Jackson
County Pacific Green Party by visitors to their booth at the Earth Day celebration. Ms. Vavra commented on
the activities of the Pacific Green Party at the celebration and displayed a poster signed by children with their
messages to City leaders. She noted City leaders were asked by the children to provide more community garden
space, plant fruit and nut trees throughout the City, support local farmers, and augment bus service with
weekend runs that extend to Talent and Phoenix.
AItlbuja Rosen/Spoke regarding the weight of cable used by owners for tethering dogs and urged the use of
lightweight cables with swivel ends. Ms. Rosen commented on the use of tangle free tethers, protection from
wet ground, and how prolonged tethering of dogs could make them more vicious.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. RVTD Contract and Route 5 Costs.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer presented the staff report and explained Rogue Valley Transportation
District (RVTD) has notified the City they will no longer be able to provide enhanced services in Ashland and
their contract with the City will terminate on June 30, 2006. Ms. Seltzer stated the enhanced services are
currently paid through the City's Street Improvement Fund at an annual cost of $290,000. These services
include Route 5 (an Ashland-only loop), free fare in Ashland, and Valley Lift services. Due to budget
shortfalls, RVTD is proposing a system-wide fare increase to $2.00 per trip, cutting Route 4 in Medford, and
eliminating Valley Lift services beyond % of a mile of RVTD fixed routes.
RVTD has informed the City they can continue to provide the enhanced services and free fare program in
Ashland for a cost of $430,000 a year, however due to the City's budget this is not a feasible option. Staff
recommends using $100,000 of currently allocated funds to implement a free fare program for eligible (low-
income) Valley Lift clients and fixed route clients, and returning the remaining $192,000 to the Street
Improvement Fund.
Craig Anderson and Peter Jacobson/Rogue Valley Transit District/Stated they were available for Council
questions.
It was clarified that the fare in Ashland would change from no cost to $2.00 per trip, and Valley Lift would
cost $4.00 per trip (Federal law permits transit to charge twice the standard fare for these services).
The RVTD representatives explained they are analyzing the best potential for a future funding source to
address the long-term problems they are facing and are considering a payroll tax for transit services. Ms.
Seltzer noted Ashland's current property tax includes $0.17 per $1,000 assessed for basic RVTD services
(Route 10). Suggestion was made for RVTD to also consider a gas tax.
T' .
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL MEETiNG
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 4 of8
RVTD clarified for Council they do not have financial information on the 185 Valley Lift customers,
however they would have no objection to providing the list of registered riders to the City as long as this does
not violate the Federal Privacy Laws. It was also clarified if Valley Lift service areas were extended in
Ashland beyond the %-mile limitation, they would need to provide equal treatment throughout the district as
required by ADA standards.
Elizabeth Hallett/923 Plum Ridge Drive/Spoke on behalf of Trinity Respite Care, which is an adult day
center for people with memory loss. Ms. Hallett stated that Trinity is located outside of the proposed %-mile
Valley Lift service area and stated many of the families they work with greatly depend on these services. She
stated if their clients are not able to use Valley Lift, it is likely that families will have to place the clients into
permanent assisted living centers. She stated they have 35 families that require Valley Lift services and is
concerned about how these changes will affect them.
Madeline HilI/857 Mountain Meadows Drive/Spoke on behalf of SkyLark Assisted Living, which is the
largest assisted living group in Ashland. Ms. Hill stated 50% of their tenants are low income and stated Valley
Lift is the only way many of them are able to leave the center. She noted that Trinity, SkyLark, and Mountain
Meadows would not be eligible for Valley Lift services with the proposed changes, as they are more than %
miles away from the transit route. She suggested a task force be established to find a solution to RVTD's
budget shortfall while finding a way to meet the transportation needs of Ashland's transportation impaired
senior and disabled citizens.
Tracy Harding/334 Bridge Street/Stated the reduction in funds to RVTD proposed by Staff is unfortunate
and hopes the entire $290,000 will remain for RVTD services. Ms. Harding offered some solutions to the
problem, including establishing a payroll tax, partnering with the School District, and utilizing the tax credit
offered by the Oregon Department of Energy. She noted a hearing is scheduled at the Jackson County
Courthouse to discuss these changes and asked the Council to leave the money in the budget and to continue
to support public transportation.
Lilliput Gillespie/855 Mountain Meadows Drive/Stated she is the Residency Service Director at Mountain
Meadows and commented on the difficult situation citizens face when they lose their driver's license. She
stated Valley Lift has helped residents to make this transition and urged the City to help continue this service.
Celia Moss/815 Boulder Creek Lane/Stated she is a Board Member of Mountain Meadows Owners
Association and shared her concern with the Valley Lift service area limitation. She understands that budget
shortfalls may require fares to be raised, but it seems unfair to remove their Valley Lift services completely.
Don Laws/968 Hillvew Drive/Clarified that he is speaking only on behalf of himself and explained his
involvement with establishing the City's Senior Program and low-fare bus program. He requested Council not
follow Staff's recommendation and suggested they retain the full $290,000 in the budget to be used for RVTD
servIces.
Sharon Laws/968 Hillview Drive/Stated she is the Director of Ashland's Senior Program and expressed her
concerns with the proposed changes. She stated that transportation is one the most serious needs of older and
disabled citizens and stated the $4.00 Valley Lift charge each way would make it impossible for some to visit
the Senior Center and get to vital medical appointments. She stated if these changes go into affect, some
citizens will continue to drive longer than they should and sees a difficulty in how the City will determine who
is in most need of the proposed vouchers.
Art Bullockl791 Glendower Street/Stated the proposed changes was a short term fix instead of a long-term
solution. He suggested the Medford route have a drop-off site on the Plaza and stated it is not worth $2.00 per
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 5 of8
trip to travel the short routes within Ashland. He stated the proposed plan would destroy the progress that has
been made in the last 10 years and suggested a range of fare structure be considered.
Comment was made agreeing that more options need to be considered; however, the Council needs to make
an interim decision tonight. Support was voiced for retaining the full $290,000 in the budget for RVTD
services and applying this to the solution.
Councilor Chapman suggested eliminating Route 5 and going to 30-minute pick-ups on Route 10. He voiced
his support for maintaining the "Ashland Free Zone" and questioned if Route 10 could be expanded. He also
noted the need to continue the Valley Lift services.
Councilor Hartzell questioned the possibility of a $1.00 fare for Route 5 and a $2.00 fare for Valley Lift
services, which would offset the operating costs.
Mr. Anderson provided an explanation of the Summary of Service Cost Estimates, which was included in the
packet materials and stated the total operating cost for the enhanced services is costing RVTD approximately
$437,000 a year.
City Administrator Martha Bennett asked the Council to provide direction as to whether to use $192,000 of
the $290,000 budgeted to pay the operating costs for Route 5. She stated the use for the remainder of the
funds could be determined at a subsequent meeting.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to retain $290,000 as budgeted for the bus system and to pay $192,000
to retain Route 5 for the time being. DISCUSSION: Comment was made questioning how this decision
would affect the fare rate and how to determine the best use of the remaining $100,000. Councilor Chapman
voiced his opposition to the motion and stated that Route 5 is not effective. He suggested the City pay the
operating costs for Route 10 and the $2.00 Valley Lift fare per rider. Comment was made that Council has not
been presented with a good array of choices tonight and suggestion was made to hold a Special Meeting to
come to a decision on this issue.
Councilor Jackson motioned to call for the question. Motion died due to lack of second.
DISCUSSION (cont.): Councilor Chapman further explained his suggestion and stated for $21 0,000 the City
could retain free in-town bus service on Route 10 plus free Valley Lift service. Mr. Anderson commented on
the Service Cost Estimate chart and the actual costs of providing these services. He stated if the fare structure
were changed, this would affect the annual operating cost figures listed. Mayor Morrison commented on
looking at the greater picture when deciding where to apply the funds. He voiced his support for holding onto
to the $290,000, but does not support approving this motion at this time. Ms. Bennett stated that R VTD needs
to know whether the City wishes to continue with Route 5 before the end of the fiscal year. Councilor Hartzell
stated these decisions affect the lives of many people and does not feel they have been provided with adequate
information to make this decision tonight. Councilor Jackson commented this interim decision to retain Route
5 would keep the system from falling apart until they make changes to it.
Council discussed whether to continue this discussion at the Study Session meeting on June 8, 2006. Staff
noted this would need to be advertised as a Special Meeting and questioned whether RVTD could prepare the
additional information in time for the meeting. RVTD clarified they could provide the numbers requested by
the Council, but might not be able to attend the meeting.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell withdrew motion.
Mayor Morrison announced a Special Meeting would be scheduled to continue discussion of this item.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 6 of8
2. Raw Waterline Replacement Contract & Brown & Caldwell Engineering Services Contract
Amendment Approval.
Associate Engineer Pieter Smeenk presented the staff report. He explained the lowest bidder for this project
came from the same company who handled Phase I; however, the lowest bid is still 15% above the consulting
engineers estimate. Mr. Smeenk stated the shortfall is approximately $320,000 and suggested the City approve
the contract for the bid amount and look towards finding cost saving changes during construction, which is
what happened during Phase I.
Administrative Services & Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained there are two approaches for dealing with
this situation. He stated that part of this project was suppose to be started this year, so there will likely be a
fund balance carry forward which could be the basis for a Supplemental Budget next year. Alternatively,
Council could change the budget resolution set to be adopted tonight and recognize a larger fund balance that
will grow the budget by $320,000. Mr. Tuneberg recommended the Council adopt the budget as presented and
stated Staff could bring a Supplemental Budget before Council during the next fiscal year.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve the contract with R&G Excavating for the construction of
the Raw Waterline Replacement Project as amended for a total cost of $2,732,490; and approve the
contract amendment with Brown & Caldwell Engineering increasing the scope of the contract to
include construction phase engineering services for approximately $240,000. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
3. Approval of Architect Selection and Agreement for Fire Station No.2 Construction.
Fire Chief Keith Woodley explained in October of2005, Staff presented to Council a proposed work plan for
the reconstruction of Fire Station #2. This work plan called for architect selection in June of2006 and Staff
has issued a request for qualifications and received two responses. The citizen committee has reviewed the
responses and recommend the contract be issued to Peck, Smiley & Ettlin Architects.
Mr. Woodley clarified if the voters do not approve the bond levy, the City would need to pay the $49,000 in
pre-bond project development costs.
Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve the contract with Peck, Smiley & Ettlin Architects. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed.
4. Appointment of Council Position #1.
Mayor Morrison noted the City Recorder's Office had outlined a proposed schedule for filling the vacancy of
Councilor Hardesty, who passed away on May 23, 2006. He recommended the Council approve a schedule
for filling the vacancy and stated the voting method could be determined at a later date.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained the proposed schedule is based on how Council has filled
vacancies in the past. She noted there is no set procedure as to how the Council must proceed; they are only
required to fill the vacancy within 60 days.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
Passed.
Colin Swales/461 Allison Street/Expressed his sadness of the passing of Councilor Hardesty. Ms. Swales
commented on his qualifications and noted he had applied to fill the vacancy last year when Chris Hearn
resigned from his Council seat. He stated he is in a good position to step straight into this position, if that is the
wish of the Council, and noted that he had received Councilor Hardesty's vote to fill Hearn's seat. He stated
he is ready and willing to step into this position if the Council does not wish to go through the prolonged
application/interview process.
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL MEETiNG
JUNE 6, 2006
PAGE 70f8
Alice Hardesty/575 Dogwood Way/Stressed the importance of filling this position quickly and voiced her
support for Mr. Swales filling this vacancy. She spoke to Swales' qualifications and stated he shares the same
values as Councilor Hardesty did. She noted that Council has the option to proceed how they wish and that
they do not have to go through a laborious process. Ms. Hardesty asked the Council to appoint Mr. Swales as
a Councilor Hardesty.
Comment was made that in all fairness to the community, the Council should open the process to other
candidates and not make an appointment this evening. Recommendation was made to establish a voting
methodology ahead of time and determine the final procedure for interviewing the candidates.
Ms. Christensen recommended the City advertise as soon as possible so the Council will have ample time to
review the applications and determine the procedure they wish to use.
Mayor Morrison stated it would not be proper to fill the vacancy tonight and spoke to having a fair and open
process for filling the vacancy.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to schedule Council interviews for a Special Meeting on July 19,2006;
direct City Recorder Barbara Christensen to advertise sooner for applicants; and that Council may
discuss the voting process at the next Council meeting. Voice Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman and
Jackson, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion Passed 3-1.
5. Review ofInitiated Measure-Amends Chapter Requiring Voter Approval of Property Transfer Tax.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained a qualified initiated measure for the November 2006 ballot was
received on May 24,2006, and it is up to the Council to place this measure on the November ballot.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to refer initiated "Amends Municipal Charter Requiring Voter
Approval of Property Transfer Tax" to the city electors. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed.
6. Debt Service Scenarios for the City.
Administrative Services & Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained if Council adopts the budget as
presented, this issue would be resolved. At this point, a $575,000 transfer from the CIP Fund and a property
tax increase of $0.175 addresses the debt service.
Council expressed desire to accept the budget as approved by the Budget Committee.
7. Adoption of Findings Regarding the Formation of the Nevada Street LID.
Delayed due to time constraints.
8. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2004-141 - Annexation and Zone Change for an
approximately 10-acre parcel located on the east side of Clay Street, north of Ashland Street, at
380 Clay Street.
Delayed due to time constraints.
9. Purchase of Environmentally Preferred Power form BPA.
Delayed due to time constraints.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of, "A Resolution adopting the Annual Budget and making appropriations".
Mr. Tuneberg noted the recommended changes to the Annual Budget, which are listed in the spreadsheet
presented to Council.
J -
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 6,2006
PAGE 8 of8
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2006-11 as amended by Finance Director to a
total of $78,870,845. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Hartzell, Chapman, and Jackson, YES.
Motion Passed.
2. Reading in full of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance levyiQg taxes for the period of July 1,2006 to
and including June 30, 2007, such taxes in the sum of $9,797,262 upon all the real and personal
property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits ofthe City of Ashland, Jackson
County, Oregon."
Mr. Tuneberg read the ordinance aloud in full.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve first reading of Ordinance and move to second reading. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Motion Passed.
3. Reading by title only of, "A Resolution certifying City provides sufficient Municipal services to
qualify for State subventions."
Councilor Silbiger/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2006-10. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman,
Silbiger, Jackson and Hartzell, YES. Motion Passed.
4. Reading by title only of, "A Resolution declaring the City's election to receive State revenues."
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2006-12. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Hartzell, Jackson and Chapman, YES. Motion Passed.
5. Second Reading by title only of, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code relating to
Business License amending Chapter 6.04 Sections 6.04.080, 6.04.090, 6.04.120 and 6.04.130."
Mr. Tuneberg clarified this amendment would generate some funding for the General Fund.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Ordinance #2926. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman,
Silbiger, Jackson and Hartzell, YES. Motion Passed.
6. Reading by title only of, "A Resolution amending Resolution 2005-46."
Delayed due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the Council Goals discussion is scheduled for a Study Session on
July 13, 2006; and the Transit Transportation and Parking Plan is also scheduled to be discussed at an
upcoming meeting. Request was made for the Council to be provided with the Look Ahead schedule with their
meeting packets.
Councilor Jackson announced the ceremony to officially dedicate the McGee/Neil Memorial is scheduled for
June 12,2006.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen announced there are still openings on the Planning Commission, Forest
Lands Commission and Tree Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
----~--- --,-
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 8, 2006
Page 1 of7
MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 8, 2006
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.m.
Attendance: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman and Hartzell. Councilor Amarotico was absent.
1. Discussion of RVTD contract and Route 5 costs.
City Administrator Martha Bennett gave brief overview of the system in place and noted the question of
why we have transit in our community and what are we trying to achieve with this service. She noted the
current system that helps to relieve our dependency on auto and the goals of having a service that is
convenient, promotes ridership and provides transit for those in need. She stated that staff tried to analyze
the actions and options based on these goals.
Ms. Bennett stated that the city does a good job of achieving these goals, but financially it is not possible to
meet all of these goals. Staff is requesting direction from council on which of these goals is most the
important.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer presented to the council three options based on the goals and the
estimated costs associated.
Current Program
. Keep Route 5 and continue to provide free fare to Ashland
. 15 minute service
. $535,000
Option 1
· Keep Route 5 and subsidize reduced fare at 50% ($1 for fixed route and $2 for valley lift), bill city
for actual ridership
. 15 minute service
· Assuming 10% drop in riders $330,912; 20% drop in rider $298,556; 30% drop in riders $266,200
Option 2
. Eliminate Route 5 and subsidize free fare
. 30 minute service
Option 3
. Eliminate Route 5 subsidize ($190,000 to street fund) free fare passes with $100,000
. 30 minute service
Ms. Seltzer noted related issues that cannot be resolved over a short period of time, but need to be explored
over time. Some of these issues included no participation by Southern Oregon University, the issue of
Mountain Meadows being outside the % service, exploring alternative transportation models for smaller
communities through MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization), the need for transit routes that extend
...,.---.--.- ~---r-
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 8, 2006
Page 2 of7
into neighborhoods, hospital, etc., the need to continue easing congestion and parking and the Federal
regulation that requires equal service district wide.
Councilor Jackson agreed with the idea of contracting with a different transit service entity to provide
transit service within the city. Councilor Hartzell requested that the council focus on the immediate
concerns and suggested a modification of Option 2 which would charge a minimum of $1 for either the bus
or Valley Lift. She is interested in option b under option 2 and to look for some reasonable revenue
sources.
Councilor Silbiger noted that convenience of service is good but not as important as having the service, to
eliminate route 5 with $1 fare and help subsidize the Valley Lift. He also suggested providing regular use
passes .for residents.
Mayor agreed that convenience does not rank as high as meeting the needs for those that have no
transportation. He recommended Option #1 which eliminates route 5 and subsidizing the fare.
Ms. Seltzer clarified for the council that the options being considered are workable options with Rogue
Valley Transportation District (RVTD). She also noted that Option #1 includes RVTD billing the city for
actual ridership which would allow flexibility on the commitment of the city for actual dollars in an annual
contract. The billing on this could be done either monthly or quarterly.
Councilor Silbiger commented on how the bus does not cost any more to run based on the number of riders
and that charging a fare would discourage more ridership. He suggested that the city determine a flat
dollar amount for the year which does not rely on the percentage of ridership.
Ms. Bennett explained that RVTD was counting the cost of operating the bus and the cost ofloss fare
revenue. She asked them not to do this, as the city should not be charged on both ends. She noted that
Valley Lift is a variable cost but that route 5 is a fixed cost.
Councilor Hartzell suggested that the council make one decision one at a time, either to retain or get rid of
route 5 and allowing a task force to look at or modify it a later date. She suggests eliminating route 5 and
that it become a component of where they start. It was determined that there were additional questions by
council before a decision on this could be made at this time in the meeting.
Don Laws/968 Hillview DriveINoted that route 5 and 10 go opposite directions and that eliminating route
5 would affect the amount of time spent on the bus. He stated that this is a matter of convenience but that
it is a considerable difference in how much time would be spent on the bus.
Mat Marr/31 Union Street/Stated that it is not a matter of convenience but a matter of use and noted that
he does not own a car and that route 5 is very convenient. He stated that that paying $1 for the 15 minutes
service is worth it and that it is a matter of use and use will drop. Mr. Marr explained that it takes a long to
time to develop patterns and if there is a change it would be difficult later to rebuild these patterns. He
commented on how important these routes are to the school systems to be able to utilize a bus service that
is convenient. He suggested that the council consider using route 5 during the peak utilization time. He
urged the council to do as much as they can to make means, other than cars, feasible to get around. Even if
mass transit is not supporting itself right now, that we create an info-structure in the long term that
continues to move in this direction.
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 8, 2006
Page 3 of7
Marge Sutton/989 Golden Aspen PlaceN oiced her concern with the issues regarding service to the
Mountain Meadows area and supported re-routing to include Hersey Street and N. Mountain. She felt that
this would solve the problem regarding lift service and make it easier for those that are able bodied to catch
the bus.
Madeline HiW828 Boulder Creek Lane/Spoke regarding the importance of Valley Lift program and that
the operative word is "lift." She is concerned with who would be able to transport wheelchair bound
individuals if Valley Lift were to go away.
It was clarified for Ms. Hill that the federal regulation of within % mile is a "minimum" and that it is
RVTD's choice to make this service available.
Councilor Jackson noted that the tax rate received by RVTD is $287,000 for route 10 and questioned if
RVTD does pass sales anywhere else. It was clarified that RVTD does sell passes but that their passes are
not in reduced form. She commented on her support for peak hours, but that this would need to be
considered in the long term decision. Ms. Jackson voiced her support of Option #1 which would keep
route 5 for the reasons that Mr. Marr and Mr. Laws pointed out and for the stability of pattern. She would
like to work out the reduced fare subsidy with Option #1.
It was clarified that the tax rate pays for base service, which is route 10, but not the free fare portion of
Ashland.
Councilor Hartzell requested that if any of route 5 is kept, to keep it at peak times and provide the amount
of how much this would cost. Councilor Jackson noted the difficulty of providing this information within
30 days.
Staff noted that they had not been able to find any information on Portland's "fare free zone" and "para
transit." Councilor Chapman felt that this information is important to him. He suggested free passes for
Ashland and offered ways that this could be administrated.
Ms. Bennett stated that the choice for the council is to either to offer free fare or keep route 5, there is no
money in the budget to do both. That even if council were to consider a "peak time" bus route, that the
cost associated with this would be higher than they would expect.
Councilor Silbiger noted that option #1 provides for the most for the money with the least amount of
disruption. Ms. Seltzer noted that the best case scenario would be a 10% drop in riders if $1 is charged the
amount that the city may have to subsidize is around $42,000 over a year. If the city is billed for actual
ridership, it will assess what our ridership is and allow the city time to explore other revenue streams.
Councilor Chapman stated that the key is determining which option will lose most riders and voiced his
concern that there is no data to help make this decision.
Mayor commented that if route 5 is eliminated, it is important to have predictability in order for riders to
count on a system and use it. He voiced his concern with a fare that goes from zero to $4 for a one-way
ride. Councilor Hartzell also voiced her concern over charging a fare and noted the difficulty it will be on
low and medium income families to pay bus fare for their school age students. She stated that it would be
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 8, 2006
Page 4 of7
easier to adjust time than it is to find the money. Ms. Seltzer did note that RVTD does offer discounted
fares for youth and regular single riders.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to choose Option 1 with further refinements to be mad on how the
subsidy works. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell stated that the city cannot afford to do this for citizens.
Roll Call vote; Jackson, Silbiger, YES; Chapman, Hartzell, NO; Mayor, NO. Motion denied 3-2.
Councilor Chapman/Hartzell m/s to eliminate route 5. Roll Call Vote: Jackson, Silbiger, NO;
Chapman, Hartzell, YES; Mayor, YES. Motion passed 3-2.
Councilor Hartzell made proposal that staff come back with an option c under option #2 that we look at a
subsidy of .50 for fixed rate and $1 for Valley Lift. Ms. Bennett offered to come back with a fare structure
that balances to the $290,000 which would indicate what the fare would need to be.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s ask staff to return with a proposed structure that subsidizes the
fixed route and valley lift with the funds that we have. Roll Call vote: Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman,
Hartzell, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor added that she understands the logic for retaining route 5 and sees this as an interim option. She
would like the council to look at bringing route 5 back as quickly as possible.
Direction to staff is to set up a meeting with RVTD to move forward on related issues that would include
exploring peak hours.
2. Discussion of Amendments to the 2004 Oregon Fire Code
Chief Keith Woodley briefly explained that staff had been directed to look at those amendments that the
local community chose not to adopt and to look at the general fire department requirements on hillside
development lands as well as the rest of the city, with the intent of determining any gaps or community fire
protection being compromised.
Division Chief Marguerite Hickman presented analysis and pictures of various areas of the city that will
help illustrate the findings. These problems illustrated street width in hillside areas, foot access to homes,
fire flow issues, signage on streets, narrow streets, dead end streets and drives, fire apparatus turnarounds,
measurement around structure as it is required to be within 150 feet from the fire apparatus, driveways
serving up to three homes, addressing of units, identification and familiarity with fire protection systems
and appliances, and fire hazardous vegetation.
Ms. Hickman noted the proposed vegetation management for a code adoption. She stated that these are the
type of landscapes that they are looking at to modify in the future because it is poses a high fire risk type
with the junipers.
Staff suggested code amendments, code enforcement in several areas including parking, inspection during
and or after the completion of projects, and a review of "no parking" signs and if there are more areas
where they should be placed.
Councilor Hartzell voiced her support of the suggestions made by staff and proposed going further. She
shared past conversation that she had with Ms. Hickman, where Ms. Hickman indicated that seven feet
street width was not adequate for trucks and ,mirrors and SUV's. That three of the four homes destroyed
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 8, 2006
Page 5 of?
by fIre in the past were started by fIres outside the home and that sprinklers would not have been helpful
and yet our water flow is less than the state standard. Ms. Hartzell had asked the Fire Chief what his top 10
things would be to increase fIre safety in town and he had indicated two. One was to deal with the gallon
per minute requirement and two was the 150 foot turnaround, of which we are less than the state
requirement because we allow turnarounds to happen every 250 feet.
Chief Woodley explained that it is a flow problem. The state requirement is 1,000 and the city's
requirement is 750.
Councilor Hartzell also noted that enforcement is also an issue.
Chief Woodley stated that one of the mitigations that they are looking at is to look at the issue of fIres
starting outside the building and bum into them, is the vegetation. The community has recognized the
types of vegetation that are highly flammable, but have not embraced the problem of those plantings that
have been created into new developments. The vegetation ordinance that is being proposed is designed to
get at this problem and to restrict the use of plant material that is highly flammable.
He explained that the problem with the gallons per minute is problematic. The community will have to
take a look at the impact of changing from 1,000 to 750 and how it would have on the ability to issue
building permits. There are many areas in the city, not only in hillside areas that have four inch water
mains that were installed in the 1930's to 50's and the hydrants won't deliver 1,000 gallons per minute.
They are more likely to deliver 750 - 800 gallons per minute. Applying these standards to these areas
could restrict building in areas where we have not considered to be accumulative impact on hillside fIre
safety issues that we are concerned with.
Chief Woodley was asked if 750 gallons per minute would be adequate to fIght a fIre. He answered that
the engines capacity is to pump 1,500 but that there are factors that need to be considered. If there is
sprinkler system in the home, it would reduce the amount of water needing to be pumped by 50-75%. If
there is no sprinkler system, but the building is properly compartmentalized and it is not a 6,500-7,000 sq.
foot home, 750 to 1,000 gallons per minute could probably handle it. Ms. Hickman explained that starting
at 3,600 sq. feet, 1,500 gallons per minute is required and it continues to go up incrementally based on the
size of the structure. This is what will regulate home large a home can be built and is what is currently in
the city code.
Chief Woodley stated that the fIre department has over time absorbed some diffIculties in regards to their
ability to provide fIre protection in order to allow developments to go into existing neighborhoods. He
commented that they are following community direction.
Councilor Hartzell stated that one of the other costs of planning the way it was decided to plan was
spending enough on enforcement.
Chief Woodley explained that they have tried to educate the council and the planning commission about
the trade-offs required in the some of the past choices made. He explained issues regarding alley access
and the problems associated with these.
Ms. Hickman further clarifIed that after this year's code adoption process they had been in touch with the
State Fire Marshall's offIce and they have identifIed that both of the code issues that have been adopted
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 8, 2006
Page 6 of?
that were less restrictive are appropriate for a local jurisdiction to make this decision. They also cited that
the turnaround was appropriate due to t.~e laws related to land use planning and that the reduction in fire
flow was appropriate because there is an Oregon State Statute or is within the fire code that gives local
jurisdictions the ability to do this. Council asked that staff provide a written rationale for doing this.
Ms. Bennett noted that we should match up wherever they have fire code problems with whatever water
replacement programs Public Works has in place. Chief Woodley stated that they have this data they could
provide to the council on what neighborhoods would be affected.
Staff was directed to bring back proposals to a regular council meeting where action could take place on
these amendments. Council requested information on development opportunities and the impact of not
changing back to a more stringent code on existing houses.
3. Discussion of AFN Operating Goals
IT Director Joe Franell presented goals for AFN as the following priorities: 1) Regain and then maintain
infrastructure health and reliability, 2) Maintain existing internet customer base (transitional goal), 3) grow
the customer base and 4) Operate at a profit.
He explained that staff intends to meet these goals by continuing to offer excellent customer service and
product reliability, enhancing current product offerings and launching new products that fit within the
structure provided by the goals. Mr. Franell continued by stating that it was clear that AFN must be run
like a business and be profit based in order to exist and grow, it does not exist for its own sake. AFN is a
community owned enterprise and exists to benefit the community. The goal is to be a positive community
partner defined by our contribution to business and economic development, education and the arts.
Mr. Franell stated that AFN has always had the potential for being a tool in attracting high tech, small
businesses to the Ashland area. The long-term economic health of Ashland relies on our ability to provide
easy access to technology that is appropriate to these businesses. This includes the ability to anticipate and
respond to market requirements and technological developments. He explained that the key will be
introduction of new products, services and features that meet the needs of our business customers and that
there is a natural synergy between technology, education and the arts. Staff believes strongly that AFN
must actively pursue opportunities to encourage and enable education in the arts in Ashland.
Mr. Franell stated that a specified goal is that choices of product line will always include this philosophy.
Councilor Silbiger asked when they would see a Business Plan. Mr. Franell explained that it is his intent
to "under-commit" and "over-perform." That if un-realistic goals are set, just for the sake of setting hard
numbers, we would be setting ourselves up for some kind of failure. Because, perception becomes reality
in people minds and if we set perceptions that are un-realistic and goals that may be unattainable or
realistically high enough, it would not be a service to the community. He stated that as we work through
the six month transition it will start to come together and that by next years budget cycle there will be a
good plan on where we want to go and what the numbers are.
When asked about a timeline or timeframe on the business plan, Mr. Franell answered that he expects to
have the new products in place soon and that there may be opportunities that may present themselves
sooner. He explained that the six month transition period is part of presenting what the options are to
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
June 8, 2006
Page 7 of?
people. He offered to go over numbers individually with councilors in order to not create the semblance of
providing hard numbers.
Mr. Franell explained that the budget allows for the transition period where it unveils its new place and
that next year is the year where the biggest amount of money will be spent on fixing the network. After
this is when we should be seeing the reward of our effort and when choices will need to be made on our
reward. He stated that operating at a profit is when the fourth goal is realized, to have the flexibility to
make decisions about applying toward the debt service or allowing the council to use this profit for
something more critical and beneficial to the community.
Councilor Chapman reminded staff that this is a municipal company and we need to offer a service that is
offered to everyone in the community at an affordable rate as part of a city service and he did not see this
as a goal for the department. He believes that this should be a goal of the department.
Mr. Franell explained that cable television networks were designed to be closed networks and is not
supposed to leap radio frequency signals. That there had been instances in the past where leaping cable
plants have been mistaken for aerial beacons and could be a problem. He stated that they city had not been
good at tracking, repairing and reporting the leakage.
Councilor Hartzell requested discussion with staff on how selection was made under positive community
partnership. She also inquired as to what the next step would be. Mr. Franell stated that once the goals are
in place and we are comfortable with the goals, which means the council is comfortable with the direction
AFN is taking, that the next step would be to start putting together a Business Plan. The Business Plan
would be more specific short-term and less specific long-term, as is our own city budget.
Councilor Chapman requested goals of the IT Department as well. Mr. Franell responded that they are
currently working on these goals and will present them to the council when complete.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Ashland Traffic Safety Commission
Minutes
March 2006
Members Present:
Patti Busse, Doris Mannion, Colin Swales, Noal Preslar, Jack Hardesty, Alan Bender,
Pam Hammond
Jim Olson, Dawn Lamb, Steve McClennan, Tom Cook
Keith Massie, Terry Doyle
Staff Present:
Members Absent:
I. CALL TO ORDER -
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 23rd, 2006 Minutes approved with corrections.
III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
A. PUBUC FORUM ITEMS:
B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS / PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED
1. Lithia Way / Third Street Intersection Concerns
Matt Warshawsky addressed the Commission regarding the Lithia Way / Third Street intersection. Mr.
Warshawsky presented a communication stressing the difficulty of making a left turn from Third Street
onto Lithia Way; the difficulty being brought about by the lack of vision caused by parked vehicles on
the south side of Lithia Way.
With the Siskiyou Boulevard project the section of Third Street between Lithia Way and East Main
Street was converted to two-way traffic. Prior to that the street was one-way southbound with two
lanes of travel: one south onto Gresham Street and one a dedicated left turn onto Siskiyou Boulevard.
With the conversion to two-way traffic, a number of conflict points were created at the Lithia Way /
Third Street intersection. Much of the problems stemmed from the fact that the intersection is not
perpendicular - with Third Street intersecting Lithia Way at a 45 degree angle. This severe angle makes
it difficult to see upcoming traffic to the southeast (right) and it also makes it more difficult for larger
vehicles to turn left from Lithia Way onto Third Street.
Prior to the change in traffic direction, this intersection had a chanellized island that facilitated the left
turning traffic from Lithia Way. The position of the stop sign and stop bar is one of the elements of
concern at this intersection. Currently the stop is positioned some 30 feet southerly off the edge of the
traffic lane on Lithia Way. This position helps to facilitate left turning traffic from Lithia Way, but does
not provide enough penetration into the intersection to adequately see approaching traffic. Many
vehicles are forced to make a two stage stop, stopping at the sign then slowly moving forward to view
the approaching traffic. Other motorists who are familiar with the intersection simply stop some 25 or
30 feet beyond the stop sign. Once a vehicle is in the advanced position, larger vehicles on Lithia Way
simply cannot make a left turn and are forced to wait until the vehicle on Third Street has moved on. If
the Third Street traffic is making a left turn, the stopped vehicle on Lithia Way provides a needed traffic
gap, however, if the Third Street traffic is traveling further north on Third Street, it is necessary to wait
for the northerly lane to clear as well providing more delay and a potential for a rear-end collision on
Lithia Way.
Traffic entering Lithia Way from the public alley between Fourth Street and Lithia Way (at the Rogue
Federal Credit Union) also provides traffic that must be considered and watched by motorists on Third
Street. This entrance can be completely blocked from view by parked vehicles on the south side of
Lithia Way. While a traffic signal may improve the flow of traffic through this intersection, it is an
extremely expensive option at over $300,000.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
,'" ''t-~:~ r./t....~$.:..::i<;;
Page 1 of 11
Mr. Warshawsky suggested this intersection may be significantly improved by the removal of two
parking spaces on the south side of Lithia Way (nearest Third Street). This would provide a better view
of approaching traffic on Lithia Way and of traffic entering from the credit union alley.
It would be difficult to limit the entrance of vehicles from the alley and would necessitate creating a
one-way alley (eastbound) causing other problems and create additional conflict points at other
locations.
Discussion:
Olson felt that the moving of the stop bar could help with visibility. The cost of installing a signal light
is exhorborant and could be overkill for the area to have so many lights within a short distance.
Moving the stop bar could make the left hand turn onto Third from Lithia Way even more difficult
especially for large trucks. Removing the first two parking spaces would improve visibility. The loss of
parking downtown is usually a hard consideration. There is a lot of traffic movements for cars leaving
the Third Street intersection to consider before pulling out onto Lithia Way. There is not a solid
solution for this intersection. Preslar asked for the history of Third Street prior to the Siskiyou
improvements. The street was once one way southbound to facilitate the emergeocy vehicles needing
to access Gresham and other routes to Siskyou Boulevard.
Matt Washawsky, 443 Allison Street, addressed the need for motorists needing better visibility of
vehicles on Lithia Way. He brought pictures of vehicles showing the blocked line of visibility.
Understand the limits of removing parking but there is parking on Third Street as well as parking along
Third Street, these are for businesses and would not cause hardships for residences. If the street were
made one way there would be no left hand turn movements from Lithia Way. He uses the left hand
turn at 2nd Street because it is safer than the one at Third Street. Olson said that making Third Street
one way could not be considered due to the major artery used by the emergency response vehicles.
Bender asked if signage would help. He was not sure what to suggest for wording. Washawsky asked
about eliminating parking from the north side of Third Street. Also the cross traffic from Third Street
across Siskiyou could be restricted so that cars could only make left hand turns and not be able to go
straight across to Gresham. Swales mentioned there was also the complication of the alley on the west
side to take away one problem area. Swales felt that parking in the downtown corridor is at a
premium. The area here is an island for people going to the gas station and for parking of people
visiting the flower shop both have on site parking. Swales feels that the elimination of two places
along Lithia would not be a great hardship. This would make it easier to pull out a little on Lithia Way
to see oncoming traffic. Swales recalled the original curb line was different and if the curb was
reworked then it would encourage drivers to make room for cars making a left hand turn while they
were queued a to turn onto Lithia Way.
Hardesty commented that you can not see until you are in the Lithia Way traffic when you are making
a left hand turn onto Lithia Way. He never sees vehicles making a straight movement across the
intersection. The parking could be marked as small cars only. He still doesn't feel that removing the
two parking spaces would cause a hardship. Olson said the experiments with small car only spots
failed where there is no enforcement. Olson still recommended losing the two parking spaces and
moving the stop bar forward about ten feet to accommodate better visibility. This combination may
help the problem. Swales asked if the angle of the stop bar could also be encourage people to stay
close to the curb to help vehicles making a left hand turn onto Third Street and paint a centerline to
help keep the left hand turn vehicles channelized. Olson thought a centerline may help give room for
cars turning left.
Preslar questioned cross traffic on Third and Olson felt that if the cross traffic was restricted it would
cause confusion. This would not be a safe situation. Preslar felt that removing the parking spaces
would be a good step forward to improve the intersection. Bender asked what would happen if the
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc Page 2 of 11
';'''''':",,,,,':.''~-: ...~' ~'kc :..r:<,;.".:....c
flower shop came in to petition the decision of the commission to remove the parking spaces.
Hammond felt that the parking for businesses in the area should be protected. There is considerable
parking in this area.
Decision:
Swales motioned to accept staff recommendation to remove two parking spaces to the east of Third
Street on the south side of Lithia Way and to realign the stop bar. Preslar seconded the motion and
the vote passed five in favor with one opposed, Hammond.
2. Sherman Street Parking
Matt Warshawsky, who resides on Allison Street, presented the Commission with traffic safety concerns
at the Sherman Street / Siskiyou Boulevard intersection.
His concern was that when northbound Sherman Street traffic stacks up at the traffic signal, a
bottleneck is created impacting other turning movements onto Sherman Street from Siskiyou
Boulevard. Mr. Warshawsky's suggestion was to eliminate all parking on one side of the street.
On Sherman Street south of Siskiyou Boulevard traffic volumes have increased since the completion of
the Siskiyou Boulevard project. In 2001, prior to the Boulevard project, traffic volumes in the block
between Siskiyou and Allison were approximately 722 vehicles per day. In 2004, following the
completion of the project, traffic volumes rose to 1292 vehicles per day. Even though traffic volumes
rose over 40%, Sherman Street is still classified as a neighborhood residential street. Under the 1999
City Street Standards, the width for a residential street with parking on both sides is 25 to 28 feet wide.
Sherman Street is 28 feet wide with parking permitted on both sides. Parking is prohibited on the west
side from Siskiyou Boulevard southerly 100 feet and on the east side approximately 53 feet. Parking on
the remainder of the street is sporadic with numerous open areas for traffic queuing to take place as
traffic seeks to accommodate the narrower traffic lanes created by parked vehicles.
Several site visits were made during peak traffic periods to try to access the amount of queuing and
delays to northbound Sherman Street traffic at the signal. It was noted that the signal's green cycle for
Sherman Street is relatively short, but with the great disparity of traffic volumes between Siskiyou
Boulevard and Sherman Street, a short cycle is expected to prevent delays to the major traffic flow.
The signal does have sensor loops in the pavement and is sensitive to the demand for all turn
movements at the intersection. Even with the much higher traffic volumes on Siskiyou, queuing of
more than four vehicles on Sherman Street was rare with the average queue being two to three
vehicles.
It was noted that motorists intending to turn left onto Siskiyou often crowded the center of Sherman
Street to anticipate their turn. The position of the vehicles near the center of the street makes all other
movements onto Sherman Street from Siskiyou more difficult.
The parking layout for the majority of the street does not yet appear to be detrimental and may in fact
have a traffic calming effect as vehicles are forced to weave around sporadic parked vehicles. The
parking near the intersection is, however, very crucial as it could impact the movements at the
intersection.
The parking prohibition on the west side is a full 100 feet while the east side is only 53 feet. The longer
distance appears to be adequate, however, at 53 fe~t only three spaces are provided for queuing.
While this may be adequate for normal situations, it does not provide for a more saturated traffic flow.
Staff r~commends that the parking prohibition on the east side be extended southerly approximately
30 feet to exactly match the parking prohibition on the west side of the street. It is further
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
Page 3 of 11
recommended that a yellow centerline be marked from the crosswalk southerly approximately 100 feet
to help keep vehicles in the proper position while awaiting a green signal.
To facilitate other turn movements it is recommended that the centerline stripe be tapered slightly so
that the centerline is located 14 feet from the west curb at the south end and 15.5 feet from the west
curb at the north end. This taper would help to ensure that the queued vehicles remain as far to the
right as possible thereby providing more room for other vehicles entering Sherman Street.
Discussion:
Olson received five phone calls of residents who did not want to lose all parking along the street
because they felt it was a traffic calming device. Olson will have to work with ODOT on the timing of
the traffic light. It is set to accommodate the majority of the traffic along Siskiyou.
Diane Cowan, 200 Sherman Street, liked Jim's recommendation and hopes that most parking can
remain for residents. Removing parking could become a hardship for the elderly neighbors. The
parking would move up to Allison Street and crowd those neighbors. The intermittent parking provides
a slowing effect on the vehicles traveling up and down the street. If the parking were removed
residents would be in front of this commission again to complain about the speeding on the street.
The traffic light does seem to take a very long time to change, could they be adjusted.
Matt Warshawsky, 443 Allison, said he never intended to have all parking removed, just enough to
make the intersection workable. The parking could be eliminated on the west side up to the alley and
that appears to be sufficient. The lighting needs to be switched so that the traffic on the north side
clears before the traffic on the south side, this makes it easier for traffic coming south to be able to
maneuver the intersection. The other issue is the traffic loop being too far forward.
Patrick Honsinger, 87 Sherman Street, agrees with staff recommendation and was concerned about the
complete elimination of parking and the hardship it would cause on the neighbors with no off-street
parking. He agrees that parked cars along the road slows traffic traveling up and down the road.
Swales lives in the area and agrees the lights could be more effective if they were switched. The cars
stacking up cause a crowding for cars turning up Sherman. The other side of Sherman has a problem
with the traffic loops not detecting bicycles. Olson advised that the traffic loops commonly have
challenges detecting the bicycles because they don't posses the metallic bulk needed to trigger the
mechanism. Swales did mention that from the Safeway side of Sherman Street that the timing of the
light could improve the flow of traffic for cars making the turn from Siskiyou to Sherman. There could
also be improvements by adding lines delineating the lanes as people turn from Sherman to Siskiyou.
The parking restriction should help cars maneuver the corner with more room. The restriction will only
extend to the alley on the east side. If anymore parking was removed it would become a hardship to
the residents who do not have off-street parking. The extension will only remove two to three spaces.
The turn onto Sherman from Siskiyou if you are turning east going into Safeway is nearly a U-turn for
drivers.
Decision:
Bender moved to accept staff recommendation that the parking prohibition on the east side be
extended southerly approximately 30 feet to exactly match the parking prohibition on the west side of
the street. It is further recommended that a yellow centerline be marked from the crosswalk southerly
approximately 100 feet to help keep vehicles in the proper position while awaiting a green signal. To
facilitate other turn movements it is recommended that the centerline stripe be tapered slightly so that
the centerline is located 14 feet from the west curb at the south end and 15.5 feet from the west curb
at the north end. This taper would help to ensure that the queued vehicles remain as far to the right as
possible thereby providing more room for other vehicles entering Sherman Street.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
Page 4 of 11
Motion seconded by Mannion and passed unanimously.
Swales asked if the signal light could be looked at again. Olson said engineering will work on the lights
for better timing.
3. Church Street Report by Nancy Seward
The Neighbors of Church St. met on Saturday, March 11, 2006 to discuss ways to calm traffic on Church St. In
attendance were John & Jill Williams, Alan Bender, Bea Carlson, Cici Brown, Jim & Janese Williams, Nancy
Seward,. and Alan Parowski.
We agreed upon some requests that we would like to ask of the city and respectfully submit them to you in hopes
that you will help make them happen. Our priorities are as follows:
1) CROSSWALKS
We would like to ask that crosswalks be put in at the intersections of Church St. with:
High St.
AlmondlBaum Sts.
Scenic Dr.
We would like for them to have the format similar to the crosswalks on Pine St. in downtown Central Point and to
the ones that are going to be installed on North Mountain St. in Ashland. We are referring to the 'faux brick'
style, outlined in the white reflective paint that is used for all other street painting so that it will be visible at night.
It is our understanding that this work is weather contingent and we would just like to ask that it happen as early as
is appropriate for the work to be successful. Our understanding is that this could potentially happen when the
North Mountain work is being done since that has already been approved.
We inferred some possible concerns about a crosswalk at AlmondlBaum Sts. We would
like to say that just because there is no sidewalk or curb at this intersection, it does not mean that it would be
unsafe to have a crosswalk there. There has to be something created to tell drivers that pedestrians cross here and
that they need to be alert. To say that installing a means to convey the need for safety makes it unsafe seems a
little contradictory to us and we sincerely hope this logic will not be applied to our request.
2) SIGNAGE
We would like to have the city waive the sign permit fee and possibly pay for materials (wood stakes/ poster
board) so that we can make signs to post in yards conveying information to passing drivers of the need to slow
down and drive carefully.
Sign messages would be along the lines of:
Welcome to the Church St. Neighborhood - Please Drive With Care
Visualize Driving Slow or Visualize Driving 25
I Pledge Allegiance to the Speed Limit! (With a picture of the earth and
25 MPH on it)
Cars Don't Speed Down Church Street...People Do!.. .Please Drive Safely
What Goes Up Must Come Down... ..Just Do It at 25 mph
The Golden Rule.. . Drive in Our Neighborhood As You Would In Yours
Y ou'te Not Over The Hill, You're On It, So Please Drive With Care
We are following the guidelines of the Mental Speed Bumps Handbook about being positive, clear, eye catching
and welcoming. We will continue to brainstorm ideas and if there are any that the Commissioners or City staff
would like to contribute, we would gladly take suggestions.
Weare also agreeing with the Handbook which calls attention to the fact that the message needs to change
periodically due to the human factor that people stop seeing something (and consequently stop being mindful of
the message) when they see the same old information repeatedly.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
Page 5 of 11
It is our aim to rotate the signs, messages so that we can keep people thinking about their choices of how fast they
are going. We would be very open to the idea of sharing signs with other neighborhoods (Wimer St. , North
Mountain St., etc.) if those neighborhoods want to join the 'mental speed bumps campaign".
3) BLOCK PARTIES
Another idea that we would like to try from the Handbook is the idea of a block party.
We would iike permission from the city to close down Church St. between High and Almond/Baum for a short
block party. We would like to try it 3 times-Once each month
in May, July & September. (DatesfTimes T.B.A.)
4) MAILING
It was suggested that a mailing go out to all residents on Scenic Dr. and above (particularly the new developments
up in Strawberry Hill, if that's what it's called) to alert them to the need to pay attention to safety when going up
and down the hill. It would probably make sense for this mailing to coincide with the implementation of the
crosswalks.
5) SPEED STUDIES
Weare thinking it might be helpful to do speed studies prior to and after the implementation of any of these ideas.
The data may help track which strategies are the most successful.
These are our first priorities and requests of the Traffic Safety Commission and the City of Ashland. Below are a
list of ideas for the future contingent upon the success or lack of success from the above ideas.
1) Temporary chalk pictures drawn on the street by the residents; We would be responsible for this, but
wanted to check with the city to make sure there are no ordinances that would make this a problem.
2) Publicity to alert all residents of the city of the problem of speeding in residential neighborhoods as
well as the solutions that Church and North Mountain St. are coming up with. We would hope that this
would come from the city as it will have more impact if it looks like the city is taking a pro-active
approach to this issue.
3) We will look into asking the police department to post a police car with an officer
who is giving tickets to speeders. We will also ask them to set up the temporary
speed reader board which alerts drivers to their speed.
4) We will research technology seen in San Francisco that has LED lights embedded
crosswalks to highlight them better.
5) We will look in to the efficacy of using a permanent planter put into one of the
parking spaces with a bush or tree in it, that says something to the effect of
"Welcome to the Church St. Neighborhood"
At this time, these are our current requests and strategies. It is our sincere hope that you will grant these first 4
requests. We look forward to hearing your responses.
Representing the neighbors of Church St,..
Nancy Seward
Discussion:
Alan Bender gave a report in Nancy Seward's absence. The neighborhood meeting produced good
neighborhood participation. Commission went over the potential of the items on the list. Overall the
neighbors are anxious to move ahead.
John Williams, 120 High Street, addressed the Commission on the intersection of AlmondjBaum and
Church Streets. The neighbors would appreciate anything being done that delineates the fact that
there is a crosswalk there. Williams understands the fear of creating a false sense of security for the
pedestrians crossing, but the neighbors are willing to be more assertive then the City at this
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc Page 6 of 11
.;"'....::'p.',;r:-.J:F.;,.r::..;;....:; ~
intersection. The recent accident which is installing a yield sign is a step but not substantial enough.
The painted design of a brick crosswalk seems more identifying. Williams had known of a couple of
accidents over the last twelve years. There are multiple accidents that are not reported. We know it is
a dangerous intersection at the bottom of a steep slalom hill so definetly like to do something more
dramatic than just putting up little signs that say please slow down. Like to have the City do some
signs or crosswalks with lights imbedded in the crosswalks, these seem very effective. These lights
seem effective without causing noise, or having the lights shine in the house.
Bender commented that although the traffic counts on Almond is low it is a pedestrian thoroughfare to
the Plaza because of its quasi-alley like feel. It seems to be preferable pedestrian route for people
coming downtown. That is an additional contributor to be considered.
Olson liked some of the suggestion brought up by the neighborhood. The crosswalk at High should be
done and need to do more to create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The challenge with the Church
Street area is the absence of sidewalks all the way up the streets. There is no sidewalk on Almond or
Baum or a connection to Church Street. Olson is in support of putting in additional sidewalks on
Church all the way to Scenic. Olson will add these sidewalks to the list of areas to install sidewalks.
Williams commented that would help pedestrians crossing to get to the other side where sidewalks do
exist. Swales commented that while reading the packet he noticed that crosswalks are implied at all
intersections whether they are marked or not. This does give pedestrians the right of way to vehicles.
Olson not have a problem if there were sidewalk connections to the required handicap ramps at the
intersections. The intersection of High and Church does have existing handicap ramps and sidewalks
and Olson is open to marking the crosswalks. Williams would like further steps toward getting the
imbedded lights in the street to help drivers slow down. Olson researched the imbedded lights while
engineering a project downtown. The lights are considered highly successful, but are costly at $50,000
for installation and purchase. The cost prohibits them from being installed in too many places. The
use of the lights has been reserved for areas where dense pedestrian use like the downtown area.
Williams did agree that the cost was prohibitive.
Busse asked about the signage and whether it would be feasible to waive permit fees. The location
and type of sign makes a difference. If the signs are permanent there is more involved. Olson will
work with the planning department to see what objections exist. Olson would like to stay with rotating
signs to keep them from becoming background visuals. Busse also liked the idea of closing the street
for a block party. Bender and Williams were both wary of a party on such a steep street. There would
be a street closure permit. Busse would like to have speed studies done before and after some of the
projects are implemented to mark their effect. Swales liked the block party idea and commented how
impressed he was with the efficiency the street department and police are at closing streets for
parades. Olson said this would be a simple street closure permit which requires notification and
signage as the biggest issue.
Bender felt the lowest priority because of the cost and timing would be the installation of bump outs.
The neighborhood was supportive of losing some parking to install the bumpouts. Olson felt putting in
the bumpouts would be easy and cost about $5-$6,000 per bumpout. Because of the street
narrowness they could only be installed on one side.
Busse thanked the neighborhood for their great ideas. The help is greatly appreciated. Olson will do
some research on some of the items and possibly find support for funding a budget for the additions.
Decision:
Busse itemized the list:
Sidewalk added to the priority list for Almond and Church connections.
Crosswalk on High and Church will be done quickly with a ladderstyle crosswalk.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc Page 7 of 11
Signage requirements will be researched.
Speed study will be conducted.
Bumpouts will be marked for the future.
The imbedded crosswalk will be removed from the list do to the high cost.
4. Church Street/ Almond Street Intersection Concerns
Former Traffic Safety Commissioner Thomas Heumann told of an accident he had been involved in at
the intersection of Church and Almond Streets. Apparently a vehicle entering Church Street from the
northwest failed to yield and struck Thomas' vehicle broadside. The insurance company distributed
20% of the blame to Thomas because they classified the intersection as uncontrolled. Thomas
suggested that stop or yield signs be considered on Almond and Baum Streets at Church to prevent
another similar occurrence.
The conditions on Church Street are well known due to several previous actions and the ongoing
neighborhood committee work, but the interconnecting streets of Almond and Baum have been largely
ignored due to their very minor traffic impact and low volumes. The traffic volumes on Almond and
Baum have not been measured recently, but from short term manual counts appear to be less than
100 vehicles per day. This volume is too low to meet warrants for stop sign installation, however, there
are some conditions that are unusual and may warrant further consideration.
The low volumes and the lack of improvements on these two streets may be a part of the problem.
Both streets are extremely narrow and unimproved. It is difficult for a motorist on Church Street to
recognize either street as a public street. The appearance is more akin to a private way ore even a
driveway than to a public street. The narrow entrances also hinder those drivers on Almond or Baum
who are entering Church as vision of approaching Church Street traffic is compromised in all directions.
The steep grade of Church Street also makes stopping for errant traffic more difficult for traffic
traveling down Church Street.
Staff recommends that due to the unusual conditions, yield signs be installed on Almond Street and
Baum Street at Church Street.
Discussion:
This intersection does have some unusual aspect and does not meet warrants for stop signs because of
the extremely low traffic volumes. There is a grade of 8-10% and less than 100 VPD and even less
than 30-40 vehicles on Baum. The streets are not paved and do resemble driveways. Olson did feel
that the intersection could be improved by a yield sign.
Bender asked if a warning sign of some sort could be added that warns drivers of a upcoming
intersection. Olson said they are used mostly in rural settings and rarely seen on residential streets.
The signs start to become to prolific and blend into the background. The introduction of signs
sometimes seems to cause the opposite effect. When speed signs were put up in two locations,
speeds actually increased instead of slowing vehicles.
Mannion asked if the yield signs would help with the insurance companies see the intersection as
controlled with a yield sign. Olson was unclear how the insurance company would view the
intersection.
Swales was not supportive of adding more signage up in the neighborhood. If the sign is not needed
than why add a yield sign, there are other intersections within the City that do not have a clear right of
way. He feels badly for Heumann but is not in support of adding more signs.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
Page 8 of 11
Decision:
Bender moved to accept staff recommendation to install a yield sign a the intersection of AlmondjBaum
and Church Street. Preslar seconded the motion. The vote was called, three in favor, three against.
The motion died.
5. Jurisdiction of Streets Within the Central Business District - Collin Swales
Ashland is certainly not unique in the fact that all of the main arterials running through the downtown
core are state highways. The challenge is to reach a balance between the needs of pedestrians,
shoppers, employees, business owners and residents with the needs of through traffic, both auto and
freight, to move safety and efficiently. This balance is often compounded by the need to accommodate
several road authorities including ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
With the Downtown Plan now moving into the study phase, Colin Swales has suggested that it might
be time for the Downtown Plan Review Committee to consider a jurisdictional transfer from ODOT to
the City to allow more flexibility in the design and implementation of the plan. Swales suggested the
Commission explore the pros and cons of this issue at our next meeting.
. Available publication such as "Main Street... when a highway runs through it: A Handbook for Oregon
Communities," developed by David Evans and Associates, Inc in conjunction with ODOT deal with
many of the same issues Ashland is facing.
Discussion:
Swales is concerned that many of the items mentioned in the downtown plan will be hindered by
ODOT.controlling much of the downtown corridor. It is mentioned in the plan to switch the jurisdiction
to Ashland. Swales commented that this is sometimes a long process and it should be started so that it
won't hinder options brought forth in the downtown plan. There are financial ramifications if we take
over then make 'costly improvements. There is a midground with ODOT where the approvals for
improvements will need not be so time heavy. Like to see the Commission make a motion to have a
committee formed to begin the process of the jurisdictional exchange. Swales suggests a motion
instructing staff to draft a communication to the Council to consider this as part of the downtown plan.
Ask Council to form a subgroup. The consultant is coming in April to meet with stakeholders. It would
be beneficial to have an ad hoc committee assigned. This will help to keep the process moving. They
will be producing a schedule for the study to work out a calendar. Swales would like to engender
support from the downtown merchants for money and support.
Bender felt the philosophy of improvement will not mean much if the City does not have control of the
area. Hammond feels that parking needs to be part of the process and she hopes that whatever
happens in the study that we employ a lot of people in the process and hopes it is a success. Swales
mentioned the publication "Main Street, A Highway Runs Through It" to John Fields and David
Chapman and asked staff to forward a copy to both of them.
Decision:
Swales motioned to direct staff to prepare a memo to Council informing them of the situation regarding
the jurisdictional exchange. Bender seconded the motion, passed four in favor; two abstentions,
Hammond and Mannion.
6. Bike and Pedestrian Issues and Concerns (Bike & Ped Agenda wjminutes)
The Bike and Pedestrian commission is moving ahead with the BTA education program. Last month
they asked for time to reconsider the scope of the program. BTA will teach bicycle education in the
elementary and middle school classes. Bike and Ped is asking for Traffic Safety to donate $1,600
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
Page 9 of 11
towards the cause. The Parks Department and the Bike and Ped Commission have already pledged
$1,600 each.
Decision:
Busse moved to support the Bike and Pedestrian Commission with $1,600.00 for the BTA Education
Program. Seconded by Swales and passed unanimously.
C. Follow-Up on Previous Actions - No discussion.
D. Traffic Safety Education
1. "Uniform Traffic Control Devices", April 5-7, OSU
2. "Design & Control for Older Drivers", May 8 & 9, OSU
E. Development Review:
1. Planning Commission Agenda
Mattise Addition -
We have received information regarding the construction of an eleven unit residential
development on Mountain Avenue just north of East Main Street. The sole access will be from
the existing alley which runs parallel to and north of East Main Street between Emerick Street
and Mountain Avenue. In August of 2004 we considered a request to open and improve this
alley which now only extends about 150 feet in from Mountain Avenue. At the time consensus
was not to open the alley due to added traffic imposed onto Mountain Avenue. With the
development of the Matisse Cottages all traffic will now be directed that direction.
The eleven units all access a small alley that accesses Emerick and North Mountain. The alley
was considered by the commission during the building of the Art Building on the corner of
Mountain and East Main. At the time, the commission felt the alley could remain closed unless
the end parcel was developed, which is happening now. The planning commission considers
this application next Tuesday and Olson would appreciate some direction. All units will use the
alley as access in and out. The Commission could move to open the alley on both ends to
relieve some of the traffic congestion. The downside is that cars on North Mountain could cut
through on the alley to East Main to avoid stopping at the light at E. Main and Mountain.
The alley driveway on Mountain is close to the intersection of E. Main and cars exiting the
complex would enter traffic approximately where the turn lane begins.
Busse asked if making the alley one-way would be beneficial. Hammond felt that the one-way
alley is rarely upheld. The alley behind her store constantly has traffic going both directions
and causing issues. Olson felt that the people would become tired of a long trip around the
block to get home when they could simply go down the alley. They would begin to ignore the
one-way status. The alley is 15 feet wide and it will be able to be improved to 12 feet with
pavement. Drivers will be able to see the entire length of the 300 foot alley and people will
need to be courteous.
Bender asked if there was parking for the art building in the alley, Hammond and Mannion both
commented that the parking allowed in the alley causes some concern. Mannion commented
that people backing out of the parking spaces causes challenges. Swales noticed that a traffic
study was suggested as a condition in 2002 before approval. He suggests making the
developer aware of the changes since 2002 including the Riverwalk, Mountain Meadows and the
railroad district developments. There needs to be a big picture consideration.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
Page 10of11
The public alley is 15 feet with and current street standard would be 20 feet if going both ways
then they should be improved to full standard. Parking would be lost at the art building.
Whatever goes on there should be an option for opening the alley.
Busse asked if restrictions on the alley for parking could be considered. Nothing will take
pressure off of Mountain Avenue and there are no predictions on if the alley will be used for cut
through, but it seems like someone will take advantage of the opened alley. Hammond sees a
problem in the future. Olson thought the narrow width of the alley will discourage cut through
users.
Bender asked if the Emergency departments have issue with the alley. Olson asked them and
they felt the width would be adequate, but consider a 20 foot clearance a minimum for current
standards. Preslar asked if cars pulling out onto Mountain would have clearance if a car was
attempting to pull into the alley. Olson said that half way down the alley there was a space for
cars to pass and maneuver safely. This alley is basically the same width as 36 other alleys with
15 MPH speed limits and a two way traffic flow will help to keep traffic slow.
Busse can see how turning out left onto Mountain should be discouraged. Olson felt that
people will form habits that make them the most comfortable. He felt most will leave by the
Emerick access.
Swales looked at the plans and thought that the parking bays were included along Mountain
Avenue as part of the plan. Olson said they probably will not be built due to the high traffic on
the street. Mannion felt that tuning on to Mountain with the number and speed of vehicles
approaching the light would become a hardship. Swales asked if the alley was opened if the
developer would pay for the paving and if not can we ask that it be a condition.
The remaining area is zoned R-3 for single family high density and other developments are
possible in the area. Conditions may be pOSSible on the Mattise Condos, but probably not on
the other developments if they happen in the future.
Preslar asked if paving to at least 14 feet would be possible.
Decision:
Swales motioned to recommend the opening of the alley the full length to City standard all the
way to Emerick Street to the Planning Department. Motion seconded by Hammond and passed
in favor unanimously.
2. Hearings Board Agenda
F. Capital Projects Update: No discussion.
G. Other:
1. Sidewalk Construction
2. Commission, Committees Vacancies
3. City Source Message
4. Miscellaneous Communications
5. Clay / Faith Street intersection large stop sign has been installed. Painting will happen
when the weather dries.
IV. Adjourned 9:00 PM
Page11of11
;%:
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\Mar 23 06 TSC.doc
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Liquor License Application
~
Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us
Estimated time: Consent Agenda
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
June 20, 2006 6'
City Recorder AA
Martha Bennetr'/' l
Statement:
Liquor License Application from Andrew Bolsingor dba The Jefferson State Pub at 31 Water
Street "B"
Background:
Application for liquor license is for a new business.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC
Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies
with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter
6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Staff Recommendation:
Endorse the application with the following:
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements
and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city
council recommends that the OLCC proceed with processing ofthis application.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
. Appointment to Historic Commission
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
June 20, 2006 r
City Recorderl~1
Martha Bennett 1'(
Primary Staff Contac . Barbara Christensen
488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us
Estimated time: Consent Agenda
Statement:
Confirmation by Council of the Mayor's appointment of Mollie Owens-Stevenson to the Historic
Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2009.
Background:
This is an annual confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment for the Historic
Commission on an application received after the noticed deadline.
There are still two openings on the Tree Commission.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment.
Staff Recommendation:
None
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve appointment of Mollie Owens-Stevenson to the Historic Commission for a
term to expire April 30, 2009.
Attachments:
Application received
r&,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
APPLICA TION FOR APPOINTMENT TO
CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at
City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if
necessary .
Name
Mollie Owens-Stevenson
Requesting to serve on: _Historic
(Commission/Committee)
Address_936 Mary lane Ave, Ashland
Occupation_College Counselor
Phone: Home 482-0658
Work 245-7748
Email_ mowens@roguecc.edu
Fax 245-7644
1. Education Back2round
What schools have you attended?
Southern Oregon University
Sacred Heart Academy, Southern Oregon College,
What degrees do you hold? Bachelors of Science in History, Masters of Science in
Social Science, History and Sociology
What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position?
_My two degrees have been focused on Western US History; my personal interest is
historic buildings and their history.
2. Related Experience
What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to
this position?
I have not worked in the field.
Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such
as attending conferences or seminars? Why? _Yes, further training would be helpful.
I am a fast study, and would like to be as knowledgeable as possible about any subject
about which I am asked to make decisions
CITY OF
ASHLAND
r[0
Council Communication
If
Appeal of Planning Action 2006-00282 - Request for a Land Partition to create
two parcels for the property located at 521 Fordyce Street. The application
includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards for a reduction in the
required 24-foot distance between driveway curb-cuts on Old Willow Lane. A
Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two willow trees sized l8-inches
diameter at breast height or greater from the proposed new vacant lot.
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
Department: commu~velopment
Approval: Martha Benn~,\ J
Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar ".552~
2042; bill(Q)ashland.or.us ~
Secondary Staff Contact: Derek Severson,
552-2040; seversod(Q)ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 1 hour
Staff Recommendation:
When this application was initially heard before the Planning Commission Hearings Board,
Planning Staff had recommended approval of the Land Partition, Tree Removal, and Exception
to Street Standards. Newly created parcels are typically required to take access via lesser order
streets (i.e. local neighborhood street). In this instance Old Willow Lane is a residential
neighborhood street with very low anticipated average daily trip (ADT) numbers, assumed to be
at or less than 140 ADT. Fordyce Street is a residential neighborhood collector street and is
designed to accommodate 1,500-5,000 ADT. 2001 traffic counts for Fordyce Street identify
1,445 ADT from East Main to Rose and 406 ADT from Romeo to Munson. Staff encouraged
and was originally supportive of the application's proposed access via Old Willow Lane, and the
proposed Exception to Street Standards. Staffs position was based upon the fact that Old Willow
Lane is a neighborhood street with very low traffic volumes and that the new parcel's driveway
location creates a greater offset between the proposed driveway and the alley outlet on the
opposite side of the street.
Neighbors living on Old Willow Lane attended the public hearing to express a number of
concerns, including potential traffic impacts associated with the placement of a driveway in close
proximity to the driveway on the adjacent lot; the proposed driveway location relative to the
alley entrance directly across the street and potential conflicts coupled with the location of an
existing communal mailbox. The mailboxes serve the Old Willow subdivision and are situated
adjacent to a narrower section street, close to existing on-street parking.
The Hearings Board ultimately believed that Fordyce Street had more than sufficient capacity to
absorb the additional vehicle trips resulting from one new lot via the existing driveway. Further,
1
'A'
by prohibiting the driveway access on Old Willow Lane, the concerns raised by the neighbors
with respect to potential traffic conflicts would be addressed.
Planning Staff continues to support approval of the application with the attached conditions
recommended in the original Staff Report of April 11lli. The Council, however, will have to
weigh the level of concern expressed by neighbors over potential traffic impacts on Old Willow
Lane against transportation policy that discourages permitting additional access onto collector
streets when other options exist.
Statement:
Planning Action #2006-00282 was approved by the Planning Commission's Hearings Board on
April 11th, 2006, and the decision was subsequently appealed by the applicants. The public
hearing is scheduled for the June 20th, 2006 City Council meeting.
Background:
On February 10,2006, the applicants made application for the above referenced planning action.
A request for public hearing was filed by the Ashland Willows Homeowners Association in a
timely manner.
A public hearing was properly noticed and scheduled before the Planning Commission's
Hearings Board on April 11 th, 2006 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was
submitted. The Hearings Board voted to approve the Land Partition and Tree Removal Permit,
but denied the requested Exception to Street Standards. A condition was added that required that
the two newly created lots share a single access driveway off of Fordyce Street in order to reduce
potential vehicular conflicts on Old Willow Lane that were of neighborhood concern. This
decision was approved by a unanimous vote.
The Hearings Board adopted the findings supporting their decision to approve the application on
May 9,2006, and the findings were mailed to the involved parties on May 12,2006. An appeal
was filed by the applicants, Robert W. and Cynthia E. Munroe on May 25th, 2006. The appeal
request stated eight issues as the grounds for the appeal. The issues raised by the applicants' in
their Notice of Land Use Appeal were as follows:
1) Impervious surface increased by 1,250 square feet on Lot A. Drainage and
buildable land concerns.
2) Traffic hazards to Lot A, a corner lot, will now have traffic on three sides.
3) Loss of off-street parking to Lot A will increase need for on-street parking on
Old Willow exacerbating the loss of parking concerns of neighbors.
4) Erroneous comments by neighbors at the public hearing regarding garages on
Old Willow, mailbox and alley locations.
5) Curb cut for use of two residences only 13 feet wide with water meters on both
sides, near sidewalk, only 15 feet apart.
6) Less safe to enter on Fordyce which is narrower than Old Willow and has three
times the number of "daily trips".
7) We own 165 feet of road frontage on Old Willow, more than twice the frontage
of the 8 other properties and all of the existing homes have private drives.
8) Driveway variance requested (seven feet rather than 24 feet) is in conformance
with the designs on Old Willow. Four of the existing nine curb cuts on Old
Willow are six to seven feet apart.
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Staff responses to these issues are detailed below:
1) Impervious surface increased by 1,250 square feet on Lot A. Drainage and
buildable land concerns.
The required shared driveway serving these parcels is in excess of 50 feet in length and
subject to City standards for flag drives. These standards require that the driveway have a
dedicated width of at least 15 feet, and be paved to a width of 12 feet. This would result in
an additional 1248 square feet of impervious surface which will apply to the lot coverage of
Lot A. The maximum allowed lot coverage within the zone is 50 percent.
The additional impervious surface would have an impact on site drainage, but just as the flag
drive standards require that the drive be paved they also require that drainage be addressed
by the applicant concurrently with the installation of the drive.
In the initial pre-application conference, the applicant indicated that they had an interest in
constructing an accessory residential unit. The added lot coverage resulting from the
driveway improvement does reduce the remaining buildable area of the lot because of the
maximum lot coverage allowance. The 50 percent lot coverage allowed represents
approximately 4,316 square feet of impervious surface. If the existing house is 1,296 and the
driveway is limited to 1,248 square feet, there is approximately 1,772 square feet to
accommodate additional impervious surfaces in the form of additional building footprint
area, associated parking spaces, and any other improvements on the site.
2) Traffic hazards to Lot A, a comer lot, will now have traffic on three sides.
The lot in question is already a comer lot. The most recent traffic count data was provided in
the record of the original application, and the traffic on the third side would be from a shared
driveway, serving the applicants existing home and one additional parcel created here by the
applicant. A typical single family residence generates roughly ten vehicle trips per day, on
average, and residents of the newly created lot would likely utilize on-street parking along
Old Willow Lane for at least some of these daily trips. As such, Planning Staff believes that
while it certainly isn't typical to require what amounts to flag drive access for a parcel with
street available, there would be no greater traffic hazard than would result from the creation
of any other flag drive.
3) Loss of off-street parking to Lot A will increase need for on-street parking on
Old Willow exacerbating the loss of parking concerns of neighbors.
The decision of the Hearing Board to prohibit driveway access to the new parcel from Old
Willow Lane will result in more than 48 feet of uninterrupted curb frontage being available
contiguous to the newly created parcel (Lot B). As such, the parcel is entitled to an on-street
parking credit, meaning that the applicants will be able to rely on available on-street parking
along Old Willow Lane to provide one of the two required parking spaces for the newly
created parcel. Planning Staff assume that the applicants will take full advantage of this
3
r~'
available on-street parking credit both in providing less off-street parking on site and in
utilizing Old Willow Lane to fulfill at least a portion of their parking needs.
Similarly, Lot A fronting on Fordyce Street will be unable to utilize off-street parking that
would otherwise have been available in what will now be required as a shared access
easement. The owners of this parcel are also entitled to on-street parking credit to satisfy a
portion of their off-street parking requirements, and will be more likely to utilize available
on-street spaces.
Given the street width and orientation of the on-street parking spaces (parallel parking on
only on the north side of Old Willow, which has no outlet) parked vehicles would likely enter
the alley and back out to turn around, or proceed into the subdivision and use existing
driveways in order to turnaround and exit back to Fordyce Street. Staff believes that the
potential increase in on-street parking along Old Willow Lane and the additional related turn
around movements of vehicles may indeed be a concern to the neighbors.
4) Erroneous comments by neighbors at the public hearing regarding garages on
Old Willow, mailbox and alley locations.
The applicant will discuss this concern at the hearing before the Council.
5) Curb cut for use of two residences only 13 feet wide with water meters on both
sides, near sidewalk, only 15 feet apart.
The shared driveway is required to comprise 15 feet of dedicated width, with a 12 foot paved
travel aisle in the center of the dedicated width. If the existing curb cut and/or water meters
are insufficient to accommodate this requirement, the applicant would be responsible for any
necessary modifications to accommodate the required driveway improvements.
6) Less safe to enter on Fordyce which is narrower than Old Willow and has three
times the number of "daily trips".
Fordyce Street is approximately 22-feet in width, where on-street parking is not present,
within a 50 foot right-of-way from Evan Lane to the end of Fordyce Street. Old Willow
Lane is improved to 20 to 25 feet within a 48 foot right-of-way.
No traffic counts have been completed for Old Willow Lane. Currently with no outlet and
only 14 homes, the counts are estimated to be below 140 ADT. Traffic counts on Fordyce
Street, from Romeo to Munson, were at 406 ADT when counts were last taken in May of
2001.
7) We own 165 feet of road frontage on Old Willow, more than twice the frontage
of the 8 other properties and all of the existing homes have private drives.
The applicant does have 165 feet of frontage along Old Willow Lane, significantly more than
any of the other properties on Old Willow.
8) Driveway variance requested (seven feet rather than 24 feet) is in conformance
with the designs on Old Willow. Four of the existing nine curb cuts on Old
Willow are six to seven feet apart.
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
While this may be the case, a variance is still necessary to install the driveway with a
separation of less than the 24-foot city standard.
Related City Policies:
The following policy is identified in the Transportation Element of Ashland's Comprehensive
Plan:
17. Direct driveway access onto streets designated as boulevards (arterials) and avenues
(collectors) should be discouraged whenever an alternative exists or can be made
available.
Council Options:
The Council may approve the application (in whole or in part) with attached conditions or
modifications, or deny the application as submitted.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve Planning Action #2006-00282 for a Land Partition, Tree Removal Permit and
Exception to Street Standards with the attached conditions described in the Staff Report.. (This
would be in keeping with the original staff recommendations from the Staff Report dated April
Ilh, 2006, permitting a driveway access to the new parcel from Old Willow Lane separated by
approximately eight feet from the neighboring property )
Move to approve Planning Action #2006-00282 for a Land Partition and Tree Removal Permit
with applicable conditions as described in the Staff Report, and to deny the requested Exception
to Street Standards in P A #2006-00282. (This would allow driveway access to the new parcel
from Old Willow Lane, but require that the required 24-foot separation between driveways be
met.)
Move to approve Planning Action #2006-00282 for a Land Partition and Tree Removal Permit
with applicable conditions; to deny the requested Exception to Street Standards; and to require
consolidated access be taken from the existing driveway from Fordyce Street in P A #2006-
00282. (This would affirm the original decision of the Planning Commission Hearings Board.)
Move to deny the application.
Attachments:
The record for Planning Action #2006-00282 is attached.
5
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2006-00282
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00282
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 521 Fordyce St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert and Cynthia Munroe
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition to create two parcels for the property located at 521
Fordyce St. The application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards for a
reduction in the required 24-foot distance between driveway curb cuts on Old Willow Lane. A Tree
Removal Permit is requested to remove two willow trees sized 18 inches diameter at breast height
or greater from the proposed new vacant lot. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family
Residential; Zoning: R-1-5P; Assessor's Map #: 391E 10 SS; Tax Lot: 1300.
~
6-1-06
5-25-06
5-12-06
4-11-06
4-11-06
Undated
3-22-06
4-11-06
3-31-06
4-4-06
3-3-06
2-22-06
2-10-06
!t!m
Notice of public hearing and criteria for Council hearing
Notice of Land Use Appeal filed by Robert & Cynthia Munroe
Mailed Planning Commission Findings and Orders adopted on 5-9-06
Hearings Board Minutes
Written comments from Cleo Co po
Photographs of the site
Notice of public hearing and related criteria for Hearings Board hearing on
April 11 , 2006
Planning Department Staff Report
E-mail to Derek Severson from Ray Smith, City Engineer re: traffic counts
Letter from Talent Irrigation District
Letter from Ashland Willows Homeowners Association
Notice of meeting and related criteria for review by Hearings Board on
March 14, 2006 (Type I)
Application and applicant's findings
Paae #
1-3
4-7
8-15
16-18
19
20-24
25-27
28-37
38
39
40
41-43
44-74
r..'
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland. Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-552-2050 www.ashlandor.us TTY 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00282
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 521 Fordyce Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert & Cynthia Munroe
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition to create two parcels for the property located at 521 Fordyce St. The
application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards for a reduction in the required 24-foot distance
between driveway curb cuts on Old Willow Lane. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two willow trees sized 18
inches diameter at breast height or greater from the proposed new vacant lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA nON:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5P; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391E 10 BB; TAX LOT: 1300.
APPLICANT: Robert & Cynthia Munroe
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
, f...,
~/J. . \NfL-LOYV LN
O~~ "'j ___." -
>-\_- ----
Ii r
PA #2006-00282\'1_~..
521 FORDYCE ST .
SUBJECT PROPERTY ~
~ J f ~ \\,
ROME --~
~ Iq~\
I T -<\
~-- !..
I
.1
i
(
\
'.
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this
application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,
precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based
on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions
of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the
right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so
requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's
office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-488-5305.
G. .comm-dev'planning'!\;otices Mailed'2006-00282 Council Appeal.doc
~~~QI\ LA~D PAftTITIQN CBItE~I~ (Section 18.76.050)
If the proposed partition does not appear to comply with the requirements for routine administrative approval,
the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88,
Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S8, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the
Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved
with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the
street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the
following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to
participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with
respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to
the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement
shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the
application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and
prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
TREE REMOVAL
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff
Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and
injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is
causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be
relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and
such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC
18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface
waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
;Z
G:\comm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2006-OO282 Council Appeal.doc
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this
section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In
making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be
granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the
site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
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 Performance Standards Options Chapter.
(Ord 2836, Amended, 02/02/1999)
3
G:lcomm-devlplanningINotices Mailed\2006-OO282 Council Appeal.doc
"
C4r: ~~y
1~;1 .d"J;-
. . . t..
Adm I !'c_", -
[U) [H~ ~ n \lJ ~ ~I
\\l\l MAY 2 5 2006 W
Notice of land Use Appeal
Ashland Munici al Code 18.108.11 0.A.2
A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es):
1. (LDF3Efl:f VO. MV\N t..oe 5/,Z FAi~VIE:~ ft5~i-IINt>
2. C-Ykl-rHIA E. mlAtJ/<-06 5~2- FAiRV/~ .A-5t-JLAN/)
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed
Date of Decision: Planning Action #: Title of planning action:
'S/q lOb UJot:, OD7g2-
D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party
For each erson listed above in Box A, check the a ro riate box below.
The person named in l@J am the applicant.
Box A.1. above l@J I participated in the public hearing before the planning
qualifies as a party commission, either orally or in writing.
because: l@J I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
('ti") am the applicant.
~I participated in the public hearing before the planning
commission, either orally or in writing.
l@J I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as
a art.
The person named in
Box A.2. above
qualifies as a party
because:
E. Specific Grounds for Appeal
1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):~p.e;"vi~s Sur'~ I/n~ k /2-$D ~,#;
/h1. J-.c-r A , ""D~ ~ ~~ I~d ~iffi-ls,
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
~ or other law in ~ requires that
attach additional a es if necessa :
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is
(attach ad9itional pages if neces~ary): -r,-~ ~t:L'5 tc /...-et A ) t( ~
Iw-tlI~~~ 3.~.
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
~ or other law in ~ requires that
attach additional a es if necessa :
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
~dditional pages if necessary)~. hb$S \\ ~ ~ II R~ ~ ;Nt A wdI
LM~fI..ied.~'I~~ . ~&.tJW~ ~b~
~ ~~ ' hrYs. - -<lJ
This is an er~r~~cause tHe applicable criter~r ~ure in the Ashland Municipal Code
~ or other law in ~ requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
'-f
4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For
each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other
law that were violated.
Appeal Fee
With this notice of appeall(we) submit the sum of $ 269.00 which is the appeal fee required
by ~ 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date: S/c2-5/i' ~
Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary):
',~
Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed
with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone
541-488-6002, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective
dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Munici al Code Section 18. 108.070.
.5
J:~ 1
r,\j
III
II
~ I
-~-~-~._~----"..~_._..._----_..._-_._.~".
~ "~ ~
__. '. ... . .-~~--4#~~.1 ___~t~_~....!_:.-__-__-,,___.._-_____
~'r (/
.
"
---,~-~. ...~._-------_..'.-- .~._-~_._---_.__..~,....---_....,--_.__._._~,._...'-.__._---'-"_......_._.._--_..~,,._._..._..__.-._--_._.....-
=~ 1r~.l,.i ~~~~~k1~-:--=,
~Mt."-~
-._----------11; - ~, -'----' -
. !
','j ---.----------.---------... ---
_ ... : ~~ '#- t<4<-~~U4. ndr-/o/ ~ --
.; . . ,,~ I7n /;~~~~ ~--_._-"
: I '--'--
: if .,-- ~.
i~h-~~~~~~.~ --
'. _ _____-:~-~- ~_~.~ -Me.~~--_--
:~~(I
lU--- .-'- --~~=-~=====--==
1~4_~.-/"f: 4~~-t-~-._~ ~..~1re.__
--- ~ ~~~~-tt::.f.:~~.Ad.
_..________.____~.:j, _ _ ':!E~ --r~.--_--~~.~~----.--_..-----
j,
1
i~Wuu"1 ~~r44. 6~~1;Iu.-" 2'1).4.---
W1 I!AM~ Ib1'l (tV w-vcJL .iIu ~ IYl UJ.. W~_
~I-!J~~~ ~6 ~ W2 ~uJ~
tlIu- 1:-7 I rf
~
By
CITY OF ASHLAND 913 8 8
Date [) -d6-0r>
Cash 0
Check rn I (0 ~
Account Number Amount
Received tromJY\ l )n ('0.(
For
--.jK~
---1--
--- --
1
---:;~TAc-$ dlo9 .pO
May 12, 2006
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Robert & Cynthia Munroe
562 Fairview Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Planning Action #: P A#2006-00282
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Munroe:
At its meeting of April 11 , 2006, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Land Partition,
an Exception to the Street Standard and a Tree Removal Permit for the property located at 521 Fordyce Street __
Assessor's Map # 39 IE 10 BB; Tax Lot 1300
The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the May 9,2006 meeting, is enclosed.
Please note the following circled items:
6/
2.
rQ)
({9
0S)
A fInal map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of
preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
A fInal plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes invalid.
There is a l5-day appeal period that must elapse before a building permit may be issued.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit
may be issued.
Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application
wowd have to be submitted.
e to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
Bill
anmng Manager
cc: Alex Knecht P.O. Box 3209 Ashland, OR 97520
Scott Kurtz 831 Liberty Street Ashland, OR 97520
Charles Schink 1212 Old Willow Lane Ashland, OR 97520
Josh Hamik 1239 Old Willow Lane Ashland, OR 97520
Katie Gomez 1249 Old Willow Lane Ashland, OR 97520
Pamela O'Keefe 1232 Old Willow Lane Ashland, OR 97520
Cleo Capo 1269 Old Willow Lane Ashland, OR 97520
Mark Allen 1222 Old Willow Lane Ashland, OR 97520
Jim Pendleton, Talent Irrigation District P.O. Box 467 Talent, OR 97540
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
- --,- ----_.~--
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
rA'
q
II
BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD
April 11 th, 2006
IN THE MA ITER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-00282, A REQUEST FOR
A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS, AN EXCEPTION TO
STREET STANDARDS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 24-FOOT
DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS, AND A TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT TO REMOVE TWO WILLOW TREES AT 521 FORDYCE STREET
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
APPLICANT: ROBERT & CYNTHIA MUNROE
--------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 1300 of 39 IE 10 BB is located at 521 Fordyce Street and is zoned R-I-5P; Single-Family
Residential.
2) The applicant is requesting a Land Partition to create two parcels, an Ex~eption to Street Standards
for a reduction in the required 24-foot separation between driveway curb cuts along Old Willow
Lane, and a Tree Removal Pennit to remove two Willow trees that are 18-inches or greater in
diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), for the property located at 521 Fordyce Street. Details of the
proposal are outlined in the plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for a Land Partition are described in Chapter 18.76 as follows:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be
impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the
land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the
Chapter on Subdivisions.
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided,
as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water,
sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to
the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete
pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street
shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
P A 2006-00282
Aprilll th, 2006
Page 1
1
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor
land partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed
ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the
applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the
owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners
agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such
improvements and costs thereof Full street improvements shall include paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalks and the under grounding of utilities. This requirement
shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines
to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided
from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
4) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61 as follows:
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is
clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree
may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is
causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and
such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated.
The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot
reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each
hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements
shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not
a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
P A 2006-00282
April II th, 2006
Page 2
/6
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 buildingfootprint of the
development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit
application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,
soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the
subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the
tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to
allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this
section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the
City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or
alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each
tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
5) Further, the criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in Chapter 18.88 as
follows:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due
to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
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 Performance
Standards Options Chapter.
6) The Hearings Board, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on April 11th, 2006 at
which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Hearings Board approved the
request for a Land Partition to create two lots and the Tree Removal Permit to remove two Willow
trees subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site; the Hearings Board
denied the requested Exception to Street Standards for a reduction in the required 24-foot distance
between driveway curb cuts.
P A 2006-00282
April 11 tb, 2006
Page 3
/1
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission Hearings Board of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHffiITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Hearings Board finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Hearings Board finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for a Land Partition as
described in the Partitions Chapter 18.76 and all applicable criteria for a Tree Removal Permit
as described in the Tree Preservation and Protection Chapter 18.61.
2.2 The Hearings Board finds that the proposed Exception to Street Standards fails to establish both
that the proposed placement of the driveway will result in equal or superior transportation
facilities and that the proposed driveway placement is the minimum necessary to alleviate the
difficulty, and therefore fails to meet the applicable criteria for an Exception to Street Standards
as described in the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88.
2.3 The Hearings Board finds that the use of the existing driveway taking access from Fordyce
Street as a shared vehicular access to serve both proposed parcels provides a feasible option to
reduce the number of driveway intersections with streets as required in the Off-Street Parking
Chapter 18.92, and that the use of a shared driveway access from Fordyce Street will result in a
reduction in potential vehicular conflicts that could occur with the placement of a driveway on
Old Willow Lane amid the concentration of on-street parking, the adjacent driveway to the
west, the location of the adjacent subdivision's mailbox, and the alley entrance located across
the street.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Hearings Board concludes that the
proposal to partition the property into two lots and remove two Willow trees is supported by evidence
contained within the record.
P A 2006-00282
Aprilll th, 2006
Page 4
/:;2.
,----- ---~---~~----------
3.2 However, the Hearings Board further concludes that the proposed Exception to Street Standards to
allow a reduction in the required 24-foot separation between driveways along Old Willow Lane is not
supported by evidence contained in the record, and that in order to reduce potential vehicular conflicts
along Old Willow Lane both lots shall be required to take access from a shared driveway off of Fordyce
Street as provided for in the Off Street Parking Ch~pter under AMC I8.92.070.BA.a.
3.3 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the
following conditions, we approve the Land Partition to create two parcels and the Tree Removal Permit
to remove two Willow trees at 521 Fordyce Street as Planning Action #2006-00282. We deny the
proposed Exception to Street Standards to allow a reduction in the required 24-foot separation between
driveways on Old Willow Lane. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be
invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-00282 is denied. The following are the
conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
below.
2. That a final survey plat shall be submitted to the City for review within 12 months of this
approval.
3. That all easements for sewer, water, electricity, drainage, shared access, and Till shall be shown
on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland Engineering Division.
4. That a. I5-foot wide public utility easement along the northern portion of Lot A shall be shall be
indicated on the final survey plat. This easement is primarily intended to benefit the newly
created Lot B, but also provides existing services to 1269 Old Willow Lane through an existing
easement in the same area.
5. That both proposed lots shall take vehicular access from the existing Fordyce Street driveway
along Lot A's north property line, and that no driveway curb cut shall be permitted along the Old
Willow Lane frontage.
6. That an access easement to allow the use of the shared I5-foot driveway over Lot A by Lot B
shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the
final survey plat, and that this access easement shall be recorded by the applicants with the final
survey plat.
7. That the shared driveway shall be paved to a minimum width of 12 feet and required screening
installed to flag drive standards prior to signature of the final survey plat. The drive shall be built
as a fire apparatus access road to support a fire emergency vehicle.
8. That an agreement providing for the perpetual maintenance of the paving and screening of the
shared driveway to City flag drive standards shall be signed, notarized, and recorded prior to
signature of the final survey plat.
9. That the required parking for Lot B shall be configured in such a way as to provide adequate
back-up and turn-around area to allow cars to exit to Fordyce Street in a forward manner. A
parking/circulation plan demonstrating compliance with the Off-Street Parking Chapter parking
requirements and showing a workable parking configuration shall be provided for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittal, and required parking shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a residence on Lot B.
P A 2006-00282
April 11 11\ 2006
Page 5
/3
10. That the electric service shall be installed underground to service both parcels prior to signature
of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full
amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid as
well) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either
case, an electric service plan shall be provided by the applicants for the review and approval of
the Engineering, Building and Electric Departments prior to signature of the final survey plat.
11. That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street
shall be installed for both parcels prior to the signature of final survey plat.
12. That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The
utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations
of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric
servIces.
13. That a Drainage Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Engineering and
Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot B.
14. That the existing curb cut at the southeast comer of Lot A, at the intersection of Old Willow Lane
and Fordyce Street, shall be removed under permit from the Public Works Division, inspected
and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat.
15. That the accessory building (shop/garage) on the proposed Lot B shall be removed prior to
signature of the final survey plat. If the structure is 500 square feet or larger, a
DemolitionlRelocation Review Permit approval in accordance with AMC 15.04.210 shall be
obtained prior to removal of the structure.
16. That no obstructions including landscaping, fences or structures greater than two and one half
feet high shall be placed in the vision clearance areas adjacent to the driveway or at the comer of
Fordyce Street and Old Willow Lane, in accordance with 18.92.070.D.
17. That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including that all addressing
shall be approved prior to being installed, prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
18. That all recommendations of the project arborist's report shall be conditions of approval,
including but not limited to the installation of any underground utility lines being routed outside
of tree protection zones or as a last resort directionally bored under them. Particular attention
shall be paid to utility installation or removal within the vicinity of the tree protection zones of
trees #6 & #7 at the northeast comer of the parcel; all trenching shall be routed outside of the tree
protection zones, and if this proves impossible, then the utility lines shall be installed using
directional boring beneath the trees rather than using standard trenching.
19. That two trees to replace the Willows proposed for removal by the applicants shall be planted on
site prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a structure on the newly created Lot B.
Tree species selection and location shall be approved by the Staff Advisor prior to planting.
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 issuance of the building permit. The Verification Permit is
to inspect the identifications of trees to be removed, as well as the installation of tree protection
fencing for trees to be retained. The tree protection shall be installed according to the approved
Tree Protection Plan prior to any site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall
P A 2006-00282
April 11th, 2006
Page 6
/'-f
-'I'~---' -'--~-
I I
be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B.
21. That all recommendation of the Tree Commission, with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall
be conditions of approval, incorporated into the revised Tree Protection Plan and submitted for
review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of building permit, or prior to any
sitework or storage of materials on site. The revised Tree Protection Plan shall identify the
multi-trunked tree located behind Tree #8 and provide a measurement of the tree at its most
narrow point before it splits into multiple trunks.
22. That all easements, including public utility easements, shall be identified on the building permit
submittals.
23. That both newly created parcels shall be subject to Solar Setback Standard A in accordance with
18.70.040.A. Solar setback calculations and an elevation or cross section identifying the highest
shadow producing point and its height from natural grade shall be submitted with the building
permit.
24. That calculations shall be submitted demonstrating that a 21-foot high structure can be placed on
Lot B based on a Standard A Solar Setback that does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-
south lot dimension, or a solar envelope and written description of its effects demonstrating
compliance with Solar Standard A shall be submitted, prior to signature of the final survey plat as
required in Chapter 18.70.050 of the Solar Ordinance.
25. That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area in accordance with 18.20.040.F.
Lot coverage calculations shall be submitted with building permit applications for either parcel.
26. That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on both street frontages prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the newly created lot. All street trees shall be
chosen from the dopted eet Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the
specifications noted Section of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be
. . ated.
g ommission Hearings Board Approval
b / 1 (6~
Date f .
PI
P A 2006-00282
April II th, 2006
Page 7
/s
--,.-- -
I
I I
John Fields recused himself and stepped out of the room.
The Commission dealt with the request from Colin Swales requesting a hearing before the full Planning Commission. The
Hearings Board by a majority vote can move this action to a regularly scheduled commission meeting. Chapman is
comfortable with the Administrative Variance and he believes the Variance is justified.
Harris explained an issue was raised concerning where the notice was posted. The Ordinance requires the notice be posted in
clear view to the public right-of-way. Failure of the notice to stay on the property will not invalidate the public hearing. The
notice was in full view when it was first posted (Staffhad a photograph). Staff believes the noticing meets the requirements
and there is no reason to invalidate the proceedings.
Black is concerned about justifying a change in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in this application.
Black moved to call this action up for a public hearing before the full Planning Commission. There was no second to the
motion, therefore the motion failed.
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2006-00452
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT IS REQUESTED
TO CREATE TWO PARCELS WITH SLOPES 25% AND GREATER ON HILLSIDE LANDS.
331 WIMER STREET
APPLICANT: KENNETH & MARGARET WELLS
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2006-00286
REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMn: FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ON SEVERE CONSTRAINT LANDS
TO CONSTRUCT A HOME. A VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY GRADE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM OF 15% SLOPE BY A SECTION
OF THE DRIVEWAY BEING 18% FOR A DISTANCE OF 107 FEET IS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. ADDITIONALLY, AN
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR HILLSIDES LANDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT A
DOWNHILL BUILDING WALL THAT IS GREATER THAN 2O-FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT, TO CREATE A CONTINUOUS HORIZONTAL
WALL THAT IS GREATER THAN 36 FEET IN LENGTH, AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY LENGTH ON HILLSIDE LANDS
EXCEEDING 35% SLOPE. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS INCLUDED TO REMOVE ONE TREE 18 INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST
HEIGHT OR GREATER IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL.
700 ASHLAND CREEK DRIVE
APPLICANT: CARLOS REICHENSHAMMER
This action was approved.
PLANNING ACTION 2006-00453
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODIFY THE EXISTING CHURCH CAMPUS BY
REMOVING TWO ADDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTING A NEW NARTHEX, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, CLASSROOM WING AND
ADDITION TO WESLEY HALL. THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED IN TWO PHASES AND WOULD INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF _
APPROXIMATELY 5,500 SQUARE FEET OF EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTING APPROXIMATELY 7,100 SQUARE FEET OF
NEW BUILDING. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE FOUR TREES ~IX INCHES DIAMETER AT
BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER IN SIZE.
175 NORTH MAIN STREET
APPLICANT: FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF ASHLAND
This action was called up for a public hearing.
t ~ n fILAIllIINfi~
PlANNING ACTION 2006-0028
REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION TO CREATE TWO PARCELS. THE APPlICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION
TO THE STREET STANDARDS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 24-FOOT DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS ON
ASHLAND PLANNING Co.SSION
HEARINGS BOARD
APRI. 11, 2006
-.uTES
2
/~
-,.-- ---~ ---_._~-
OLD WILLOW LANE. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO WILLOW TREES SIZED 18 INCHES DIAMETER
AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER FROM THE PROPOSED NEW VACANT LOT.
521 FORDYCE ST.
APPLICANT: ROBERT & CYNTHIA MUNROE
Site Visits or Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all.
STAFF REPORT
Severson said this action was preliminarily approved by Staff and was subsequently called up for a public hearing by the
neighbors. He reviewed the request as outlined in the Staff Report. The Exception to Street Standards proposed is to allow
placement of the driveway for the proposed Lot B nearer to the driveway on the adjacent parcel to the west than normally
allowed under the City's Street Standards. They are proposing a seven and one-halffoot separation.
Staffhad some concerns regarding two of the trees. In keeping with the arborist's recommendations, a Condition has been
added that any utility lines installed should be installed outside the driplines of the two trees or if they have to go through the
driplines and tree protection zones that they be directionally bored under the tree root system.
The Tree Commission reviewed this action last week and made three recommendations. A Condition has been added that their
recommendations be made Conditions of approval. One recommendation is that the Pinus contorta tree be mitigated. The
Pinus contorta on the plans does not require a street tree removal permit so mitigation cannot be required. Severson suggested
modifying the Condition to require the applicants to only meet two of the recommendations.
Staff is recommending approval of the application with 25 Conditions. Amend Condition 19 to address the Tree Commission
recommendations.
No wetlands have been identified on this property.
PUBLIC HEARING
CYNTHIA MUNROE, 560 Fairview, said the property was always flood irrigated until the subdivision went in. They plan to
replace the trees that will be removed.
ALEX KNECHT, 955 Drew Lane, representing the applicant, discussed the neighbor's issues. It is an oversized lot and the owners
want to create another lot. In response to the neighbor's letter from Old Willows Subdivision, Knecht noted these items Loss
of parking. They will be taking away one and one-half spaces. They wish to put the curb cut closer to the canopy and keep as
much parking as they can. The idea of accessing the lot from Fordyce doesn't make any sense. Trees. The tree in the front is a
hazard. They will replace them with healthy trees.
Munroe said she talked to a member of Old Willows Subdivision Homeowner's Association. They pay dues to maintain the
parkrow. She was asked to be a part of the homeowner's association and is not interested.
Old Willow Subdivision put in sidewalks and parkrows and the homeowner's association is required to maintain those areas.
SCOTT KURTZ, 831 Liberty Street, stated he is one of the original developers of the Old Willow Subdivision. They worked hard
to minimize the impervious surfaces and ended with large parkrows and large open spaces but it allowed for parking only on
the north side. He will be surprised and dismayed if this application is approved because of the reduction in on-street parking.
He feels it is inappropriate to cut into the street. He believes it is not safe to use Old Willow Lane as the ingress and egress.
It's been contentious because there is nothing written in the ordinances requiring this owner and others in similar situations to
join the homeowner's association, It would be helpful if the Munroes could participate in the maintenance of the parkrows and
open space and participate in the Conditions, Covenants and Conditions (CC&R's). He requested the partition has access from
Fordyce Street.
CHARLES SCHINCK, 1212 Old Willow Lane, is representing the homeowner's association. There will be congestion if the curb
cut comes out where proposed. There is an alley across the street that serves six families and this will cause conflict. Also, the
mailboxes are near the driveways for all of Willow Lane. Currently, there is barely enough parking for the families that live
there. He too would like the Munroe's to participate in the homeowner's association. He would propose they access both
homes from Fordyce. All of the Old Willow houses were specifically designed with the garages in the rear. This property
won't match.
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
HEARWGS BOARD
APRIL ii, 2006
MINUTES
3
/,
T ~- - ---~---
JOSH HAMIK, 1239 Old Willow Lane, stated there are already congestion and parking problems. There are a lot of children in the
neighborhood. He doesn't like the fact they are not interested in being a part of the homeowner's association. The driveway is
long enough off Fordyce to have parking along it.
KATIE GOMEZ, 1249 Old Willow Lane, took pictures on Sunday of cars parked on Old Willow Lane. There were very few vacant
places to park. There is considerable street congestion.
Fields read comments from CLEO COPO, 1269 Old Willow Lane, in opposition to the application,
MARK ALLEN, 1222 Old Willow Lane, gave some history of the subdivision. He does not support another curb cut on Old
Willow Lane. The street is narrow and there is minimal parking. They can't afford to lose any parking. The garage in front of
the house is 100 percent contrary to how he built his home. He concurs with what has been said by everyone else in
opposition.
Staff Comments - Severson said the applicant chose not to take advantage of the common driveway. The criteria in the Partition
chapter could require the applicants to consolidate ifthat was necessary to address the neighbors' concern.
Chapman asked if they could condition this requiring someone to become a part of the homeowner's association. Harris said
you can assign conditions but is it a proportional request for dividing off one lot? Harris suggested it might be a cleaner
solution to require the applicants to require them to take over maintenance of their section of parkrow.
Rebuttal - Munroe offered to take over maintenance of the parkrow. The house was there long before the subdivision. They
gave a temporary easement to the property owner behind them. The easement is no longer there. She can't see having a curb
cut is any more dangerous to their subdivision than having four cars parked there.
Knecht said utilities run along the south property line.
Severson noted the alley is somewhat offset from the proposed driveway.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
The Commissioners questioned whether a second access would be necessary. Chapman thought it seemed only right that the
back house participate in the homeowner's association. He believes they should use Fordyce by way of a consolidated
driveway. Fields said he'd like both parcels to share the same egress. The public easement that can't be built on can be the
access for the house with no street cut on Willow.
Harris said the Exception is now out of the discussion. She mentioned when Staff was originally looking at the proposal, the
reason they thought access off Old Willow Lane would work better is because Fordyce is a higher order street. Old Willow has
about 150 vehicle trips per day off it. Fordyce from East Main to Rose Street in 2001 was 1445 vehicle trips per day. From
Romeo to Munson the numbers reduced to 406 vehicle trips per day. Additionally, Staff always looks at a scenario that will
provide the most potential for a rear yard area open space as well as reducing impervious surface.
Fields thought Fordyce can better handle the vehicle trips.
Chapman/Black m/s to approve the Partition for P A2006-00282 requiring there be consolidated access off Fordyce Street.
Deny the Exception to Street Standards, approve the Tree Removal Permit for the two willows and adjust Condition 19 to
.A ~equire two replacement trees and a revised tree plan before the signature of the plat. The existing street tree could then remain
. chere it is if there is no driveway. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. .
PLANNING ACTION 2005-02257
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO USE A PORTION OF A NEW HOME AS AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
655 LIT WAY
APPLICANT: BRIAN MAGEL HOMES
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Black and Chapman had a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
APRIL 11, 2006
MINUTES
4
/g
--r-- -.---..------.---~.----
,
Citizen Speaker Request F .m
Please complete this form and return to the City Recorder.
THIS FORM IS A PUBLIC RECORD
ALL INFORMA nON PROVIDED WILL BE MADE A V AILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
Meeting Date: ,~j -- / I
SUBJECT:
r; 1 )
(~-/ ' ):'1
'J~
AGENDA NUMBER (if on tonight's agenda):).. c:>~/, -/:,',
~) ----;>
:;:'..l c-'
LAND USE HEARING ( lease check one): FOR:
1/
>, , 'v ,
, :.... ,,>:~ ,\,,' ~~\ ~J~!:!~~~, \., '~L't;"\,,~~:~, ,:~,:,)<
'i', '~~;~t~~. :,~,
. >:;::, ~', ~""" " . ',.~", . .' .
, '. y'- ,-' ,'.
~' /' " f'~~)
WRITTEN COMMENTS: f Cl-m Diu l' m~bL V\lA-tJ,-~\ 0"'-"-\'4. rir-
. ,71 yU.;,L:'t ~'1)y .
-+~ ~,chf\UUN'~~ ~ ~iC~1
~. ih. f.<>h\M ~--D..U iJ,/{ M. WL~..J Od\..ik (~""'''l \',!1-~ -t 0,,:",
lllOvLcA ~ (), ~ i ~ .W~~ I o..tv1 .1lu.'-'. ~ lliuCl-"1 r.L Lt"'",
+0 it-- p~~ ~ r-ovc{'jCrt.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. Please complete this form and return it to the City Recorder.
2. Address the City Council from the table podium microphone.
3. State your name and street address for the official record.
4. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes, unless otherwise instructed by Mayor.
5. If written documentation is presented, please furnish one copy to the City Recorder for the
official record.
IF YOU WISH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. Please complete this form and return to the City Recorder.
2. Written comments will be part of the official record.
19
"
J
1:1
'~'-
a
11II
I
I
,
" '.'
-,'~
\~ ~o
c2l
--
I
If
'l
~.1
, 1
1~
I~'
,.~;"
.,;~;,..~.:<I;
t~~}~~~~.'"~' ,
~J;-
v
'.' ./ . ...i"h'
Y ""^"", ,/'
'y.....c.:...-. '-.;( ;;;;"'~_.... / ~_....
,y,? .......~ - . ~ ..
r~l~~ :.,_ " ' ~f~
~
ICI
1 1
V,-
~'i
r- I
~...
._~
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY Of
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00282
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 521 Fordyce St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert and Cynthia Munroe
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition to create two parcels for the property located at 521 Fordyce St. The
application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards for a reduction in the required 24-foot distance
between driveway curb cuts on Old Willow Lane. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two willow trees sized 18
inches diameter at breast height or greater from the proposed new vacant lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5P; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 10 SS; TAX LOT: 1300.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on April 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MEETING: April 11, 2006, 1:30 P,M.
Notice is hereby given that a PUBUC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before
the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER,
1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an Objection concerning this
application, either in person or by letter. Of" failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the
issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the
objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues
relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and
will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and
Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have
the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a
participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TrY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request. please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department. 541-488-
5305.
; Ji,...
>.:,l ....)
u: ,comm-uc\'\plannmg\ I empl(:ll~'''''J II'LL-IU..._......oc
MINOR LAND PARTITION CRITERIA (Section 18.76.050)
If the proposed partition does not appear to comply with the requirements for routine administrative approval,
the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88,
Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S8, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the
Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved
with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the
street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the
following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to
participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with
respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to
the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement
shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the
application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and
prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
TREE REMOVAL
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff
Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure
persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is
causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be
relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and
such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084.
Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the
applicant demonstrates all of the following: '
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable
Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,
protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and
species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed
by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures
or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to
~~
G:\comm-dev\planning\ Templates\NOTlCE-HB2.doc
"1
comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to
AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS
18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be
granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or
unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
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 Performance Standards Options Chapter.
(Ord 2836, Amended, 02/02/1999)
~1
G:\comm-devlplanningl TemplatcsINOTICE-HB2.doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
April 11 th, 2006
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00282
APPLICANT: Robert & Cynthia Munroe
LOCATION: 521 Fordyce Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-5P
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: February 22nd, 2006
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.20
18.61
18.76
18.88
Single-Family Residential
Tree Preservation and Protection
Partitions
Performance Standards Options
REQUEST: Request for a land partition to create two parcels for the property located at 521
Fordyce Street. The application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards for a
reduction in the required 24-foot distance between driveway curb cuts on Old Willow Lane. A
Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two willow trees sized 18 inches diameter at breast
height or greater from the proposed new vacant lot.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
The application was preliminarily approved on February 22nd, 2006 for review at
the March 14th, 2006 Hearings Board meeting. Subsequently, the action was
called up to a public hearing by a neighbor. The letter requesting the public
hearing is attached.
There are no planning actions of record for this site since its creation through a
land partition in 1993. The parcel is adjacent to, but was not included within, the
Ashland Willows subdivision which was approved by the Planning Commission
in 1997.
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
April lIth, 2006
Page 1
~rt
T-- --
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:
Site Description
The parent parcel is 13,695 square feet in size. The parcel is located at the
northwest comer of the intersection of Fordyce Street and Old Willow Lane, and
has an 83 foot width along Fordyce Street and a 165 foot depth along Old Willow
Lane. The property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-I-5P). There is an
existing single-family residence located near the center of the parcel, fronting on
Fordyce Street on the proposed Lot A. The existing home is accessed via a
circular drive with two curb cuts along Fordyce Street. There is also an existing
garage/shop building on what will be Lot B, which the applicants are proposing to
remove.
The site slopes downhill in a northerly direction with an average slope of three to
four percent. There are a variety of trees situated around the parent parcel.
Proposal
The applicants are requesting approval of a Land Partition to divide the property
into two lots. Proposed Lot A would be roughly 8,632 square feet and would
contain the existing single family home which fronts on Fordyce Street. The
proposed Lot B would be an apIXoximately 5,063 square foot lot to take access
via Old Willow Lane.
An Exception to Street Standards is also requested to allow placement of the
driveway for the proposed Lot B nearer to the driveway on the adjacent parcel to
the west than would normally be allowed under City street standards. The
standard separation between driveways is 24 feet, and the proposed driveway
location is only 7'l'2 feet from the neighbor's driveway. The application notes that
this location is necessitated by the presence of an existing tree and by the sunken
sidewalk grade which would make installation of a driveway further to the east
difficult.
The application states that there are seventeen trees six inches in diameter at
breast height (d.b.h.) and greater situated throughout the property. The
application includes a tree inventory prepared by an arborist, and it identifies the
existing trees, proposes the removal of eight trees, and provides recommendations
for the preservation and protection of the trees which are proposed for retention.
Two of the eight trees proposed for removal are significant trees and require Tree
Removal Permits, and one of the eight is a street tree and requires a Street Tree
Removal Permit.
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
April lIth, 2006
Page 2
:;;''1
The applicants are also proposing to demolish an existing garage/shop building
that is located on the proposed Lot B, behind the existing residence. A condition
of approval has been added requiring that the applicants obtain approval of a
DemolitionlRelocation Review Permit through the Building Division prior to the
removal of this structure if it is found to be over 500 square feet.
II. Proiect ImDact
Land Partition
The proposed land partition must meet the approval criteria from the Partitions Chapter
of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (AMC 18.76). The proposed parcels exceed the
minimum 5,000 square foot lot size and the dimensional requirements ofthe Ordinance.
Utilities including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and electric are in place in the
Fordyce Street and Old Willow Lane rights-of-way and within an existing easement
along the parent parcel's north property line, and can be extended to serve Lot B. The
Engineering Division's maps show that the existing easement along the north property
line currently is used to provide electrical service to the property to the west at 1269 Old
Willow Lane. As such, the Engineering Division has recommended that this easement be
retained as a 15-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) rather than reduced and made a
private easement as indicated on the applicants' site plan. A condition to this effect has
been added.
Fordyce Street is classified as a Residential Neighborhood Collector in the City of
Ashland Transportation System Plan. Streets of this type are designed to accommodate
between 1,500 and 5,000 average daily trips (ADT). The most recent traffic counts for
Fordyce Street, conducted in 2001, are 1445 ADT for the segment from East Main Street
to Rose Lane, but nearer the subject parcel the counts reduce to 406 ADT between
Romeo and Munson Drives. Old Willow Lane is classified as a Residential
Neighborhood Street. The range of average daily trips a Neighborhood Street is typically
intended to handle is 1,500 or less. The Engineering Division projects that there are
currently only about 140 ADT on Old Willow Lane currently, however no traffic counts
have been performed due to the low number of anticipated daily trips. The only reported
accident in the vicinity was when a parked car in a bay along Fordyce was hit by another
vehicle in February of 1998. Both Fordyce and Old Willow are improved with curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks already in place. In Staff's opinion, both Fordyce Street and Old
Willow Lane have more than sufficient capacity to serve one additional single-family
home and its anticipated ten additional vehicle trips per day.
The proposed Lot A has an existing driveway configuration that forks from the northern
curb cut along Fordyce Street and includes both a large circular drive filling much of the
front yard, and an extension to the rear of the house and onto the proposed Lot B to
access the existing garage/shop building. The existing configuration is nonconforming
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munr<M:, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - StafIReport
April 11 th, 2006
Page 3
~D
both in having two curb cuts where only one is permitted, and in consuming more of the
front yard area than allowed under AMC 18.92.060.F which limits the placement of
parking and driveways in the front yard to 25% of the area of the front yard. To remedy
these concerns, the applicants have proposed to remove the circular drive and curb cut
nearest the intersection at the southeast comer of Lot A.
Exception to Street Standards
The application includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow the
driveway on the proposed Lot B to be closer to the driveway on the adjacent parcel to the
west than allowed under City street standards. City street standards call for a 24 foot
separation between driveways and only a 7Y2 foot separation is proposed. The applicants'
submittal notes that there is sunken sidewalk grade on the eastern portion of the proposed
Lot B as well as an existing large tree that they hope to preserve, and indicates that these
existing conditions constrain their ability to provide the standard separation between
driveways. The application notes that the sidewalk was originally installed below road
grade in order to preserve the root system of the Willow trees adjacent to the sidewalk,
and notes that construction of a driveway approach where the sidewalk is below road
grade would be difficult and cause issues with storm drainage and standard approach
construction. In reviewing the situation on site, Staff noted that the grade differential
between the street and the sidewalk is a drop of five feet or more over a distance of six to
seven feet at the worst point, and would concur that the grade difference between street,
sidewalk and the buildable area of the lot, when combined with the location of the tree to
be preserved make a standard 24-foot separation between the driveways difficult.
Tree Removal
The arborist's report provided with the application notes that there are 17 trees six inches
d.b.h. or greater on the parent parcel, eight of which are proposed for removal. Two of
the eight trees proposed for removal are considered to be significant trees under the Tree
Ordinance and therefore require a Tree Removal permit. The first, a Willow identified as
#12 in the arborist's inventory, is 30-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and is
declared to be a hazard by the arborist. He indicates that there is decay evident in the tree
and that one large limb has already broken off. The second, a 24-inch d.b.h. Willow, is
identified as #15 in the inventory. The report indicates that it is in fair condition but
showing signs of decline with dieback in major limbs. The arborist indicates that in its
current condition, the tree is too close to the proposed building footprint to survive
construction and removal is recommended.
One of the eight trees proposed for removal is a street tree. This tree (#17) is a three inch
d.b.h. Callery Pear which is proposed for removal due to its location within the proposed
driveway along Old Willow Lane. A condition of approval has been added that the
applicants obtain approval of a Street Tree Removal Permit prior to removal of the tree,
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - StafIReport
Aprillltb,2006
Page 4
3\
T -
and that every attempt be made to preserve this tree and relocate it elsewhere within the
parkrow planting strip.
In reviewing the applicants' plans, Planning Staff was concerned with the proposed
utility trenching within the tree protection zones of trees #6 and #7, a maple and a walnut
located at the northeast comer of the proposed Lot A. In keeping with the arborist's
recommendations, Staff has added a condition that the utility lines be installed outside of
the tree protection zones where possible, or installed with directional boring under trees'
protection zones where necessary. As this report is being prepared, the Tree Commission
has not yet reviewed the application. A condition has thus been added that any
recommendations of the Tree Commission become conditions of approval.
Neighborhood Concerns
The proposal was approved administratively by Planning staff, but was subsequently
called up to a public hearing by the homeowners association of the Ashland Willows
subdivision, adjacent to and just east of the subject property. The letter requesting a
public hearing expressed concerns about the loss of on-street parking, the location of the
proposed new curb cut, the new parcel taking access from Old Willow Lane rather than
via Fordyce Street, and the proposed removal of two Willow trees.
There is no criterion which addresses the loss of on-street parking in considering a Land
Partition application, and the Planning Commission has historically required newly
created lots to take access via the lesser order street, which is in this case Old Willow
Lane. Planning Staff believes that the proposed location of the driveway on Lot B is
justified by the existing sunken grade of the sidewalk and the presence of the large,
healthy tree that the applicants hope to preserve. Further, the anticipated traffic counts on
Old Willow Lane appear sufficiently low to minimize potential vehicular conflicts that
might result from the proposed placement of the driveway. With regard to the proposed
removal of the Willows, the applicants have provided an arborist's report to support
removal of both Willows, and Planning Staff's on-site observations support the arborist's
assessment of the condition of the trees.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Land Partition approval are described in Partitions Chapter 18.76
as follows:
If the proposed partition does not appear to comply with the requirements for routine
administrative approval, the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
and approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be
impeded.
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
AsWand Planning Department - Staff Report
April II th, 2006
. Page 5
~...,
. )
..., r:.."'-
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto
will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution
applicable to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards
contained in the Chapter on Subdivisions.
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities
can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and
specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and
electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of
the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved
with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed
street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work
done under permit of the Public Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access
for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions
exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest
fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street
does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not
required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and
to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to
remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to
participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to
cover such improvements and costs thereof Full street
improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the
under grounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to
the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so
agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to
be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord.
2757, 1995)
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
April 11 th, 2006
Page 6
. .83
""T
The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in the Performance
Standards Options Chapter 18.88 as follows:
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of
section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all
of the following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this
chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and
connectivity;
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 Performance
Standards Options Chapter. (Ord 2836, Amended, 02/02/1999)
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in the Tree Preservation and
Protection Chapter 18.61 as follows:
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following
criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate
the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if
the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that
it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a
tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing
public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be
relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the
condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a
foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard
or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is
not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
April 11 th, 2006
Page 7
3'1
T
Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the
zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall
be a condition of approval of the permit.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a Land Partition, an Exception
to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit and would thus recommend approval.
Should the commission choose to approve the application, Staff would recommend that
the following conditions be attached to the approval:
1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified below.
2. That a final survey plat shall be submitted to the City for review within 12 months of this
approval. . .
3. That all easements for sewer, water, electricity, drainage, and TID shall be shown on the
final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland Engineering Division.
4. That a 15 foot wide public utility easement along the northern portion of Lot A shall be
shall be indicated on the final survey plat. This easement is primarily intended to benefit
the newly created Lot B, but also provides existing services to 1269 Old Willow Lane
through an existing easement in the same area.
5. That the electric service shall be installed underground to service both parcels prior to
signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be
posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits
and connection fees paid as well) as an alternative to installation of service prior to
signature of the final survey plat. In either case, an electric service plan shall be provided
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
April II th, 2006
Page 8
35
T-
,---
by the applicants for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Electric
Departments prior to signature of the final survey plat.
6. That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at
the street shall be installed for both parcels prior to the signature of final survey plat.
7. That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Division and Building Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat.
The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including
the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm
drain lines and electric services.
8. That a Drainage Plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Engineering
and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot B.
9. That the existing curb cut at the southeast comer of Lot A, at the intersection of Old
Willow Lane and Fordyce Street, shall be removed under permit from the Public Works
Division, inspected and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat.
10. Preliminary engineered drawings for the sidewalk improvements associated with removal
of the curb cut at the southeast comer of Lot A and for driveway installation on Lot B
shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments
prior to their installation. The improvements shall be installed to city standards and under
permit from the Ashland Public Works Department.
11. That the accessory building (shop/garage) on the proposed Lot B shall be removed prior
to signature of the final survey plat. If the structure is 500 square feet or larger, a
DemolitionlRelocation Review Permit approval in accordance with AMC 15.04.210 shall
be obtained prior to removal of the structure.
12. That no obstructions including landscaping, fences or structures greater than two and one
half feet high shall be placed in the vision clearance areas adjacent to the driveways or at
the comer of Fordyce Street and Old Willow Lane, in accordance with 18.92.070.D.
13. That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met, including that all
addressing shall be approved prior to being installed, prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
14. That all recommendations of the project arborist's report shall be conditions of approval,
including but not limited to the installation of any underground utility lines being routed
outside of tree protection zones or as a last resort directionally bored under them.
Particular attention shall be paid to utility installation or removal within the vicinity of
the tree protection zones of trees #6 & #7 at the northeast comer of the parcel; all
trenching, shall be routed outside of the tree protection zones, and if this proves
impossible, then the utility lines shall be installed using directional boring beneath the
trees rather than using standard trenching.
15. That prior to removal of tree #17, the Callery Pear street tree at the southwest comer of
the proposed Lot B, a street tree removal permit shall be obtained. Prior to the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for a structure on Lot B, the applicants shall work with
Planning Staff and the Tree Commission to relocate this tree elsewhere within the
parkrow planting strip along Old Willow Lane, however if this proves to be impossible a
site-appropriate replacement tree from the Recommended Street Tree List shall be placed
elsewhere in the planting strip along Old Willow Lane.
Plauming Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
AsWand Planning Department - Staff Report
April 11 lb, 2006
Page 9
~6
-,.----------rr----.~., -
16. That all recommendation of the Tree Commission, with final review and approval by the
Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of this approval.
17. That two trees to replace the willows proposed for removal by the applicants shall be
planted on site, or other mitigation measures as listed in AMC 18.61.084 completed, prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a structure on the newly created Lot B.
Tree species selection and location shall be approved by the Staff Advisor prior to
planting.
18. 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 issuance of the building permit.
The Verification Permit is to inspect the identifications of trees to be removed, as well as
the installation of tree protection fencing for trees to be retained. The tree protection
shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to any site work or
storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of
six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B.
19. That all recommendation of the Tree Commission, with final approval of the Staff
Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection Plan and submitted for review and
approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of building permit, or prior to any
sitework or storage of materials on site.
20. That all easements, including public utility easements, shall be identified on the building
permit submittals.
21. That both newly created parcels shall be subject to Solar Setback Standard A in
accordance with 18.70.040.A. Solar setback calculations and an elevation or cross
section identifying the highest shadow producing point and its height from natural grade
shall be submitted with the building permit.
22. That calculations shall be submitted demonstrating that a 21-foot high structure can be
placed on Lot B based on a Standard A Solar Setback that does not exceed 50 percent of
the lot's north-south lot dimension, or a solar envelope and written description of its
effects demonstrating compliance with Solar Standard A shall be submitted, prior to
signature of the final survey plat as required in Chapter 18.70.050 of the Solar Ordinance.
23. That individual lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area in accordance with
18.20.040.F. Lot coverage calculations shall be submitted with building permit
applications for either parcel.
24. That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on both street
frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the newly created lot. All
street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in
accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use
Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
25. At the time of construction on the proposed Lot B, sidewalk modifications to install
driveway/curb cut shall be done under permit from the City of Ashland Public Works
Division, and inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for the new home.
Planning Application #2006-00282
Applicant: Munroe, Robert & Cynthia
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
April Iltb, 2006
Page 10
~7
r- ----
I Derek Severson - Re: Traffic Counts
Page 1 I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ray Smith
Derek Severson
3/31/061 :03:00 PM
Re: Traffic Counts
Traffic counts have never been performed on Old Willow Lane due to the anticipated low ADT's (14
taxlots: 140- VPD, projected.)
Fordyce Street: East Main to Rose: 1445 ADT (05/16/01)
" . " ". 1 021 ADT (04/23/96)
Fordyce Street: Romeo to Munson: 406 ADT (05/16/01)
Romeo Drive: Fordyce to Mill Pond
162 ADT (11/07/01)
The only reported crash history in the area is one (1) Hit & Run: parked car (which was in the parking
bay on Fordyce) in Feb., 1998.
>>> Derek Severson 3/31/2006 11 :46:32 AM >>>
Ray,
Do you have ADT numbers for Old Willow Lane and for Fordyce Street near Old Willow/Romeo? "m
working on a staff report and a neighbor is objecting based partly on traffic concerns.
Thanks,
Derek
32
r
,!~I~
AREA CODE 541 - 535-1529
D iJlid
P.O. BOX 467
TALENT. OREGON 97540
April 4, 2006
City of Ashland
Attn: Planning Commission
20 E. Main
Ashland, OR 97520
To the Planning Commission,
After review of your PLANNING ACTION 2006-00282, better described as, Township 39 South, Range 1
East, Section 10BB Tax Lot 1300, we find that it will have a potential affect upon the Talent Irrigation District
(TID).
It is the request of the District that the following conditions be considered:
1) That the landowner/developer be aware that there are TID lines on the Fordyce and Romeo Drive
sides of this property and that easements be shown on the map for the TID lines on this property.
2) That the irrigation rights on tax lot 1300 either be removed or provisions made to provide the
additional tax lot with access to the irrigation, that it be shown on the map and an easement be recorded.
In accordance with ORS 92.090(6) the City of Ashland Planning Commission must receive a Certification
form from the Talent Irrigation District stating that the partition has been removed from the District or is
included within the District for purposes of receiving services.
It is further requested by the Talent Irrigation District that the Planning Commission require that the
landowner/developer present to the Planning Commission a letter from TID stating that these recommendations
have been satisfied prior to the Planning Commission's final approval of said development.
We respectfully request that if this application is approved that the above stipulations be made conditions of
that approval.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
....)1
-,
.....,1
T
~Tr-'-------'- -- -. ..
03 MAR 2006
Ashland Willows Homeowners Association
c/o Allison Hamik
1239 Old Willow Ln
Ashland, OR 97520
CITY OF ASHLAND
RE: PLANNING ACTION 2006-00282 @ 521 FORDYCE ST.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The homeowners of Ashland Willows Homeowners Association request
a public hearing regarding the above proposed land partition due to
concerns about the following:
- loss of parking
- location of the new curb cut
- access from Old Willow Lane when there is perfectly good access with
an existing curb cut from Fordyce St.
- and destruction of 2 Old Willow Trees which may be salvageable.
Sincerely
fJ.4w-~/c-
President, Ashland Willows Homeowners Association
L-/1>2 - <63fo L
RECEI\/ED
MAR 3 2006
City of Ashland
o Field D Office 0 County
40
~ T-~~- -
r~'
Planning Department, 51 .ourn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.oLus TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00282
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 521 Fordyce St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Robert and Cynthia Munroe
DESCRIPTION: is a request for a Land Partition to create two parcels for the property located at 521 Fordyce St. The
application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards for a reduction in the required 24-foot distance
between driveway curb cuts on Old Willow Lane. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two willow trees sized
18 inches diameter at breast height or greater from the proposed new vacant lot. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5P; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 1088; TAX LOT: 1300.
NOTE: Public comment concerning the project's landscaping plan will be taken on March 9, 2006 between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at
the Community Development and Engineering building located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL: Februcrry 22,2006
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MEETING: March 14, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m.
DEADLINE FOR REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING: March 6, 2006
The Ashland Planning Department Staff have preliminarily approved this request. This planning action will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning
Commission Hearings Board on the meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
No Dublic testimonv is allowed at this review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request. AT NO CHARGE. a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission on this
action. To exercise this right. a WRITTEN request must be received in the Planning Department. 51 Winburn Way. prior to 4:30 p.m. on the
deadline date shown above.. The written request for the public hearing must include your name, address, the file number of the planning action
and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable criteria. IF VOU DO NOT SPEClRCALL V
REQUEST A PUBUC HEARING bv the deadline time and date stated above. there will be no Dublic testimonv Dermitted.
If a hearing is requested, it will be scheduled for the following month. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application. either in
person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on
that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this
Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and
will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will
be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and
Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTV phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Vates at the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-
5305. LI /
G: '.comm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2006-00282.doc
EXCEPTION TO STREET ST I "'-TDARDS
18.88.050 F - Exception _J Street Standards
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and
may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances
are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
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 Performance Standards Options
Chapter.
(Ord 2836, Amended, 02/02/1999)
TREE REMOVAL
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied.
The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall
and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights
of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or
services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the
condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by
treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC
18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if
the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 negative impact on erosion, soil stability; flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies,
and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted
density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans
or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so
long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant
to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
(ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002)
MINOR LAND PARTITION CRITERIA (Section 18.76.050)
If the proposed partition does not appear to comply with the requirements for routine administrative
approval, the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and approved when the following
conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordina4.<=.3.. or resolution applicable to the land.
G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices Mailed\2006-00282.doc
. I
E. The partitioning is in accordan"'o with the design and street standard<" "ontained in the Chapter 18.88,
Performance Standards Options. rd 2836 58, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate pUblic facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as
determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers,
storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest
fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be
improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The
minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works
Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all
of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to
participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both
with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs
thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding
of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner
declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley
and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757, 1995)
tf3
G:\comm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2006-00282.doc
T
: I
. . .~. - ..... "~ '. .
. '.. '"'' ,,". .' . ......
~.1I.
wall ~ P1anniDa Depanmeot
CITY or 51 WiabumWay, AahIaad OR 97S20
-ASHLAND 541-48&-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
.t'- : . .~
.~ " ,-' . - ... '..- .. '" ,.- .', ......' ~
-"' '. ". "." .
p' : ~:.j::".':\ t";
" "'" .;:f'
PLANNING APPLICATIOl\{
FOe # fJl1- .Rot'~ ~ ~tJ~8:c..
Date Received :t - I () r ()?
Zoning 1?-1-5~ P
Type
/
.
Filing Fee $ /50/, t>t>
Comp Plan Designation
./ Minor Land Partition
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Boun Line
APPUCATION IS FOR:
Outline Plan (# Units)
Final Plan
Site Review
Annexation
Zone Change
Comp Plan Change
Staff' Permit
Solar Waiver
Application pertains to
I 'tJ.7 (,
(chapter, section, subpart)
of the Ashland Municipal Code.
APPLICANT
Nanie R D f"E:f2.-/ Am C Y A.J-r7-D A ,!Yl LA. Ai r<.tJ e:.
Address ..5(,;z.. fl/IIZV/e;w sy:
E-Mail R.rf1/.(tJ~6 {tiJMi~)O 'NE.T
(for e -"I,. SCatrR.pert)
Phone 6&11- tf8l-b~/O
City As+it..4^-' b oK.. Zip cr7S~
)
PROPERTY OWNER
Name "R, be,.,.f (J;YlJ. Cj Y\ tJutt rn LA n ("0 e.-
Address -5<.0 7- FA ~ J'2- Vi EUJ :ST
. Phon6l.ff) 188 -03/0
City AsHt.-AJJb J DR- Zip cr75zt>
SUVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCWTECT. LANDSCAPE ARCWTKCT
Name J1o~bv\r\r :E A,~:/~JC'c . Phone ,-7 ('I c-Lf (,-'<-11
Address (~c \~ \., ~ (\, '.'
City r\/\t~t(. J c~
Zip C1-j-S
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address !5 2-1 F-o f2-17'(~ S"T.
A5+.k..AN1::> I ot:- ~75~
,
Assessor's Map No. 39 IE 1066 Tax Lot(s) _ 1.300
On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenantS, conditions or restrictions concerning use of the Pl'Qperty or
improvements contemplated, as well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the
property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire.
OVER ..
4 '-I-
0.' 11 ....r. ~,._.,............... AfpIIc8IIaa........
. I
i-~},' '. ::;' ; . . ,.~ ;.;.,
FINDINGS OF FAcr:
Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and
enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual
statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findin2s criteria and the
evidence that SUDOOrts it. ,
I hereby certify that the. statements and information contained in this application, including the
enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in 'all respects, true and correct. I. .
understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site
inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner
assumes full responsibility.
I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced suffi~ient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) thatthe findings offact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also
possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my
expense. If I h~ve any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and
asSistan~\ \!!J t~
~~~ .;/9~t"
cant's Signature Date '
As owner qf the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete
.appli~n ~ i consequences to me as a property owner. .
~. . ~A~
er's"Signature Date
NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a building or a release
of utilities prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building DiVision AND the completion of
all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory
performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. nOLA-TIONS may result in prosecution and/or
disconnection of utilities.
LIs-
0: dWf" j"--.~ AppIicocIoa FclnLdoc
r-
Fordyce Street Partition
RECE!'JED
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
Application for Minor Land Partition
with an additional Administrative Variance
ZONING: R-I-5
LOCATION: 521 FORDYCE STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: 39 -IE -10BB - TL 1300
AGENT: ALEX KNECHT
CRAFSTMAN CUSTOM HOMES
P.O. BOX 3029
Ashland, OR. 97520
488-8655
APPLICATION FOR:
MINOR LAND PARTITION
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE:
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE
OWNER: ROBERT AND CYNTIDA MUNROE
521 FORDYCE STREET
Ashland, Oregon 97520
18.76.00
18.20.00
18.100.00
ARBORIST: UPPER LIMB-IT
TOM MEYERS
2040 ASHLAND MINE ROAD
Ashland, Oregon 97520
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: KEN CAIRN SAGER LAND ARCH.
KERRY KEN CAIRN
545 A STREET
Ashland, Oregon 97520
541 488-3194
18.20 R-l Single-Family Residential District
18.20.010 Purpose
The purpose of the R-l district is to stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of
Jft
the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life.
18.20.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Single family dwelling, utilizing at least two of the following design features to
provide visual relief along the front of the residence:
Weare proposing the creation of a lot that will ultimately hold a single family
residential home. The design of the home will exceed the minimum design
requirements for the zone.
B. Duplex on comer lots, provided that no two such uses shall be contiguous, except that
this provision shall not apply to any area which has been developed or is part of an
existing subdivision or established platted neighborhood at the time of enactment of this
ordinance. Such structures shall be subject to provisions of the Site Review Chapter.
N.A. This is a proposal for a single family homesite.
C. Agriculture.
N.A. This is a proposal for a single family homesite.
D. The keeping of livestock, except swine, provided that:
N.A. This is a proposal for a single family homesite.
E. Public schools, parks, and recreational facilities.
N.A. This is a proposal for a single family homesite.
F. Residential Planned Unit Developments when authorized in accordance with Chapter
18.88, Planned Unit Development.
N.A. This is a proposal for a single family homesite.
G. Home occupations.
N.A. This is a proposal for a single family homesite.
H. Manufactured homes on individual lots, subject to the following criteria:
N.A. This is a proposal for a single family homesite. If it is determined that a
manufactures home is to be installed, it will meet all of the design criteria for this
section.
18.20.030 Conditional uses
This proposal does not include any conditional uses.
R r- r"'\ ~--.. ~ \ ' ':'!'- D
iC\ 51""'''' ~ '1/ t::
18.20.040 General regulations
If?
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
T
; I
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-l zone shall be five thousand
(5,000) square feet, except six thousand (6,000) square feet for comer lots. R-l 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-l notation which
represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-I-5
R-I-7.5
R-I-lO
5,000 square feet
7,500 square feet
10,000 square feet
This proposal is for the division of one 13,695 square foot lot in the RI-5 zone into two
lots: lot A is proposed at 8,632 square feet, and Lot B is proposed to have 5,063 square
feet.
B. Minimum lot width:
R~ rrr-,~" ,
"l~,.
ilL".., ':, A'
j? I'l"'-
::':;"..D
~1f \,0" 'f,-~
Interior lots 50 feet
Comer lots 60 feet
The width dimension of proposed lot A is 83'.
The width dimension of proposed lot B is 61'.
FEB 1 0 Z006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
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 fifty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord. 2425 S3,
1988)
The length dimension of proposed lot A is 104'.
The length dimension of proposed lot B is 83'.
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 existing 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 comer 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)
Lot A, far exceeds any minimum yard requirements, the front yard is 56' deep, and
both side yards are approximately 20'. The new back yard is 10'.
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. Structures within the Historic District
shall not exceed a height of 30 feet.
The new home when designed will comply with the building height regulations; this
is a proposal for the creation of a new lot only.
1-f
II
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%) percent in an R-I-5
District, forty-five (45%) percent in an R-I-7.5 District, and forty (40%) percent in an R-
1-10 District.
The exiting home and driveway on the new lot A would have a total lot coverage of
2,500 s.f. which is 29% of the lot.
The new home and driveway on Lot B will be designed to comply with the 50% lot
coverage requirements.
G. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. The
maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the Historic District shall be
determined by the following:
N.A. This lot is not within an historic district.
f-;; r- ,~
Q;C:~ ~~.~" '.'
Iilll...... ....('
~, 1""-0
;.>.'~ ""'.' ~.'''.'<~''II
:; \: ~-
FEB 1 0 2006
18.76 Partitions
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a preliminary map of the proposed
partition.
The preliminary map for this partition is titled S-1 in the drawing set.
18.76.020 Preliminary Step
18.76.030 Preliminary Map Requirements
See Sheet S-1
The preliminary map shall have a minimum size of eight and one half (8 ~) inches by
eleven (11) inches and contain the following information:
A. A map describing the boundaries of all contiguous land in the same ownership.
B. The date, north arrow and scale of the drawing and a sufficient written description to
define the location and boundaries of the particular area.
C. The names, addresses and phone numbers of the owner, partitioner, and (if
appropriate) the surveyor.
D. The location, name and right-of-way width of all streets, alleys and private ways.
E. The location and width of all public and private easements for drainage and public
utilities.
F. The dimensions (to the nearest foot) of the total area.
G. The number, dimensions (to the nearest foot) and square footage of the proposed lots.
H. The location of all existing and proposed structures on the property, including
structures on adjacent properties that are within twenty-five (25) feet of the subject lot
lines.
I. The approximate location of areas subject to inundation or storm water overflow, all
areas covered by water, and the location, width and direction of flow of all water courses.
J. The names of the recorded owners of all land adjacent to the partition.
K. An indication of the direction and approximate degree of slopes.
19
T _.. - ._-~~--_._.~-_.~ -~
18.76.040 Administrative Preliminary Approval
Preliminary approval for all minor land partitions which require no Type II variances
shall be processed under the Type I procedure.
This proposal is a Type I procedure with an additional Administrative Variance for
the distance between driveways, this variance is described further in these findings.
18.76.050 Preliminary Approval by the Planning Commission
N.A.
18.76.060 Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions
R.....r-..~..- ~
Yo, ~~Jl -
:~t ~'o. l'
il w",,,.. " .,' ".
P 1i:
"""""0'
-. '~',~
r,eaI"
18.76.070 Notification
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
N.A.
On any partition where the number of lots is increased, property owners that are within
two hundred (200) feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposed partition shall be
notified by mail at least ten (10) days before preliminary approval is granted.
18.76.080 Further Lot Division
When the lots of a partition can be further divided, the Planning Commission may require
a development plan for the tract of land. If the Planning Commission determines that an
area or tract of land has been or is in the process of being divided into four (4) or more
lots, it can require full compliance with all Subdivision regulations.
18.76.090 Conditions May be Set
The Planning Commission or the Staff Advisor may require dedication of land or
easements, signing in favor of street improvements, and conditions or modifications
relating to improvements such as sidewalks, utilities, and the standards of the Subdivision
Chapter and the development plan for the area. In no event shall the Planning
Commission or the Staff Advisor require greater dedications or conditions than could be
required if the area were subdivided. Underground utilities shall be required in
connection with all land partition applications as set forth in subsections 18.80.060(C)
through 18.80.060(F) of this Title.
18.76.100 Final Step
Within twelve (12) months of the date of preliminary map approval, the tract of land shall
be surveyed, pins set at all corners, and a final map submitted to the Planning Department
incorporating any conditions or modifications of the map's preliminary approval. If the
applicant has not completed the foregoing within the twelve (12) month period, the
50
i I
applicant must resubmit the partition for preliminary approval consideration.
18.76.110 Final Map Requirements
18.76.120 Acceptance of the Final Map
18.76.130 Final Approval by the Secretary
18.76.140 Lot Line Adjustments
N.A.
18.76.150 Issuance of Building Permits
The final map shall receive final approval and pins set before the issuance of a building
permit.
18.76.170 Exterior Unimproved Streets and Access Ways
N.A.
18.76.180 Private Ways
N.A.
18.76.190 Dedication of Property for Public Use
N.A.
R~
41 '
",;. r~~
l:i. ili.: ."..
f.~ lf~~-D
' ~::fi :;~ ~
18.100 Variances
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
18.100.010 Variances - Purpose
Weare requesting an administrative variance to allow for a reduced distance
between driveways. The standard minimum requirement for distance between
driveways is 25 feet. Were it not for a sunken sidewalk grade on the Eastern
portion of the lot, the configuration of the new lot would allow for the driveway to
be placed anywhere along its frontage. There is though an existing public sidewalk
that has a significant sunken grade that gets substantially worse as it moves further
to the East. There is also a large, healthy tree on the eastern side of the property;
the tree on the Western end is slated for removal because of severe limb breakage
and rot. We are proposing to place the garage and the driveway at the western side
of the lot, allowing the driveway, street and garage to have a more appropriate
grade relationship, while preserving a large mature tree. The placement of the
garage in this location creates a situation where we are proposing a driveway that is
edge to edge only 7.5 feet away from the existing neighboring driveway.
The sidewalk condition, the neighbors drive, and the preservation of the existing
tree are all conditions outside of the control of the applicant, these are not self-
imposed conditions, and the disregard of them would create substantial hardship.
51
, I
18.100.020 Application
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application
shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations
necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application
shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not
typically apply elsewhere.
Sunken sidewalk grade and existing neighboring driveway that is very close to the
property line.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
Saving an existing mature tree.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely
selfDimposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
All conditions of this situation are pre-existing.
18.100.030 Effect
No building or zoning permit shall be issued in any case where a variance is required
until fifteen days after approving of the variance by the Commission, and then only in
accordance with the terms and conditions of said approval. An appeal from the action of
the Commission shall automatically stay the issuance of the building or other permit until
such appeal has been completed and the Council has acted thereon. In the event the
Council acts to grant said variance, the building or zoning permit may be issued
immediately thereafter, in accordance with such terms and conditions as may have been
imposed on said variance.
R~>"
. '." ~" ..n.w,_ ,.>. ~
~'~'. ."'" ... ""'" ~c'"
~ ~'.~; ..~ ~
'f' .~~J
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
5~
r -- - '-->~--~- i i
NARATIVE FOR
MINOR LAND PARTION
2/8/06
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Owner/ Applicant:
Cindy and Robert Munroe
Fairview
Ashland Oregon, 97520
Project Address:
521 Fordyce st.
Map# 391EI0BB 1300
Planning consultant/ representative:
Alex Knecht! Craftsman Custom Homes
PO Box 3209
Ashland Oregon, 97520
488-8655 Office 482-9162 fax
R'r::c::~:n,/~D
t.",,,, . _,f> ~,,,.~. e, \; iJ, ._
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
Landscape Architect/ Consultant:
Kencaim Environmental, ASLA
541-488-3194
Surveyor:
Hoftbuhr and Associates
Daryl Hauk
541- 779-4641
Arborist:
Tom Myers
2040 Ashland Mine Rd.
Ashland OR, 97520
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Zoning Designation: Rl.5, Adjacent-zoning Rl.5
Lot size: 83 x 165 13695 sq ft
Allowable Density: 2.74 Dwelling units
Proposed Density: 2.5 Dwelling units
Proposed Lot size:
Lot #1 83xl04 8,632 sq ft (existing home wi accessory dwelling unit)1.5DU
Lot #2 83x61 5,063 sq ft 1 DU
1
~I
..-l
- --,-
: I
REr~~\ /'-D
"~ . ~ ~ . .... ~,.,.
'. ~ ,!fii ,. '..' ~
I. .".' "<~ :,;!:',::",g:o. 1 ti' !$-,,~
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Asl1land
o Field 0 Office 0 County
PROJECT SUMMARY
Applicant is proposing a minor land partition under the land use ordinance
chapter 18.76. Applicant is proposing to split property into two residential
lots. Applicant will request a demolition permit from the building dept., for
the removal of the existing non-conforming garage/ storage building (see
plot plan). Applicant and Arborist have further identified eight trees for
removal and ten trees for preservation, along with the preservation of the
existing established landscaping, please see tree inventory/ removal plan.
Applicant has provided an accurate list of tree species and size with this
submittal. The location of these trees impedes the developable lot area,
please see tree plan and report. Applicant is requesting a deviation from the
driveway location standard. The proposed driveway location is 9 ft. from the
existing driveway to the west. The sidewalk along Willow st. was
constructed below road grade for the preservation of the root system of the
Willow trees adjacent to the sidewalk in the South East comer of the
property (see photos), with exception to the westerly 35 feet. Construction of
the driveway approach where the sidewalk is below road grade would not
only be difficult but also prove impractical for storm water run off and
standard approach construction.
Applicant is confident that all land use standards and ordinances can be
satisfied or mitigated Applicant is satisfied that all services (sewer, water,
elec. & communications) have ample capacity to handle the additional
dwelling units. There is currently sewer main line and water main line in
Fordyce st. as well as Willow lane. Its has been determined at the time of
this narrative that the property to the west on Willow st. is still utilizing the
services installed within the easement along the northern property line. The
easement was granted to tax lot #1301 in Feb 1993, before the construction
of the Willow In. Subdivision. It has been proven that the easement for
ingress and egress to said lot has been terminated, the access for taxlot
# 130 1 is from Old Willow lane. There is currently an easement and
utilization of said easement for city and private utility services. The
applicant will work with the city engineer and the owners of tax lot # 130 1,
to best utilize or eliminate the utility easement. Installation of said services
was conditioned for removal as part of the Willow Ln subdivision approval
process. Applicant may keep said easement (if necessary) for utility services
over lot #1 to service lot #2, and further to Tax lot 1301. This public utility
2 5'1-
r - h
! I
easement is running along the north property line, ten feet in width, as
noted on the plot map. There is a fire hydrant on Fordyce st. within 250 ft. of
the existing and proposed buildings.
The elevation of the property in general is low compared to the developed
lots and the roadways around it. It is very slightly (.5%) sloping south to
north with a little (.5%) East to West. The property for all intensive
purposes is flat.
It is the intensions of the applicant to meet the density of the zone designated
for the area.
Respect~vely sub~itted by:
n~ w J~
\fY\ ~<--! I
~=;;~~t).2/q/(}",
R'!"'""""C
~<~' tc~ '5'
. ","".,. '. J
i\ fCD
:; ~€.t ~. ~,MI!
FEB 1 0 Z006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
---------------------------------------------
Alex Knecht (Planning consultant)
3
~. ,..-
:-) .~-,')
r--
i I
l'UvllV.l~ VIewer
f"E-1Z \-AcKSo~ C!DlA..Nf'/ D ~9
77 C:, ~ Co S> C>O
J
r"UIIISON DR
I:- n )"
I-
(I)
~ IHlll
)- 6111
CJ
II:
o
IL
Hun
!'DII
OLD WILLOW LN
UU tlHI
1 lit
2n 12.DiI
!; un
:ID
LoT#:
DvJN~/frD(JREsS
C!-LED cAPo
I~&q 6CD WILLOW
Kkri c eqO{V}-c., 2-
r ~9 CCD W ('L-UJ u.J
}:30 I
\302-
1303
.
cJoSttvtA +t-ITM 11<-
12..39 e>Cl) WILLoW
lz..oo
(2-(P2- D'-b WI LLbW
A/Yt'l SCOT/
/310
L-L.-lJ E:f\ JJ -5 H ; AI K..
5z.q ro~"D'{C.E
RoB~T 'f' 50sAN SALApo~
/2-9D mtoJSoN D~.
(Vl AiZ T ,'/0 + C--A-1Co L. '{ N f3.u tZtJS
/2S (.., (hM t-J 5{')A.J ~cR. .
/ 4-Do
(Soo
ItOO
.
6e:rH A;J tJ L..t> KI
l'2-rL:. YVVuAJ SoJ\J D~.
http://web .j acksoncounty. org/fca/MapF rame. cfm
56
i I
I '-9
SEENJt1.N 1.~
!;lll!
!ill
ROF\'EO DR
!nl
lH lHI
BlIt
BilO
11 :il~u ill
.-bOT~
f ~(X)
1800
(9DO
rOV
rooo
500
~Ol
411!;
7ill
Page 1 of 1
,.
4116
Au~ACE.;JT
P~PEJCfi
() wAJEI(.S
411!
-----
REC I\/ED
FEB 1 0 2006
City of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
()()')N~bKE:ss.
,
AAJ,JE SLoAN
ltic fYlL-lNSctV ~.
'-fAix>AJNI'!=: ~{9HJ
1274 In 11 tV SON 1lt'<..
OA0lb AcE(A~J)Efi-
I~o rY\L.-IA/So(V "D~.
ft-Uf\fV\
.
+ C,/ ).J-rft /A 5
HAwK
RONl~o ~.
I-3D5
rYloNI'{
w Pr L- -n:::-Je.. 'S,
.E ~ FoR. 7)~C-E:.
SCbIT FLE lA..,.-t:.~
( 31 + S EEtJA LANE:
qtLN~ RAcK- LEFF
62& 'FotZ-u'/ c.e..
2/1 0/2006
lJlql?f:
SEE MAP
39 1E 10BB
JETAIL MAP
09/20/2005 07:18 FAX 541 734 4682
(
&~
CTI CUST ~ERVICE
140'
Tha'Jjs For t
ChCfJsing N
Qr!t American Titla
T31 R~ S
16 1300
r
."\'~\? -
\\;
\yY
,-,,\ l'
\01.4
1307
1209 ~ ~
~ 1207 ~ .
=
-
.... ......
~ ~ \0)
. rV
~ ~
9 W
1205
54'
11 0913
-
....
.....
...
-
....
~
'"
5~'
5.4'
C! 13124
52' 52'
(IRK
~~ .LANE
: I
0~
* ?J/
<{>')
165'
90.3~'
, 13,00.59'
:z ::4-
6 < 1201100.59'
- 3 1202
~1;12~t
20' 100 .59'
1200
UI
Co
1206
91.31 '
() )~
\);.>)
\...:s'
I~O.67'
54' 54'
110j5 110d6
1204
1102 en
0~""
~v
II '? 2-')
.6;. ,..,,~-
57
~007
-
IlO
"",. '1\...' f'l':. .... r')
;,~ 't" ;:' '." ~1
. \~... ~ 401
o 20 6 0.003 AC.
" 5T PlUG
d. 116'
....
00
....
....
saNA
500 122.02'
0.20 AC.
es 15407 F
'"
82.02'
600 At ~ Cf
D.1~ . ~
CS 15771
82.coPCL 1 "})<:.
....
Z
-0
~
tj
)-t
~
~
3.55' 85.02
701
~ 0.18 Ac
....
...
;t
I
1
....1
.....1
~I
I
P1 ~
100'
~ 801
"'l
i 0.18 Ac
C5 13419
116.53
-
....
..
36' 51'
: EVAN ~
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone: 541-482-3667
January 12, 2006
Attn: Alex Knecht
PO Box 3209
Ashland, Or 97520
Tree Preservation Plan for 521 Fourdyce
I have enclosed the proposed general recommendations for tree protection, tree removal
and a tree inventory. All trees 6 inches in diameter at breast height or larger are included in
the tree inventory. The recommended tree protection zone figures are included on the tree
inventory spreadsheet. The tree protection zones will need to be drawn on the plot plan.
Each tree has been assigned a number and tagged accordingly in the field. The same tree
numbers are also indicated on the plot plan. These numbers correspond to the tree
numbers in the inventory and with the actual tree tags in the field. Some of the trees were
miss-identified on the plan you gave me and I have made any necessary corrections on the
tree inventory spreadsheet.
.
The enclosed tree protection measures will insure the survival of those trees you
wish to save. Some of the existing trees may have to be removed to accommodate
construction but I cannot determine this until a development plan is completed. If you
have any questions regarding this report, please call me at 482-3667.
Tom Myers, Certified Arborist
.1z~/l~ -r--
DBA Upper Limb-it
R.r-'i!i~ ~~. lri 'D'
,::~ '""."" ~"., 'c t !' ~
, ~,~ <\!. ~\ "l .. r.'! t, ~_ ~
I
FEB 1 0 2006
C:ty of Asllland
D Field D Office D County
5~
i I
Upper Limb-it
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone 541-482-3667
R',,.
~\
t~;' f;:;~' ~1! ~1'Q'
,~; ~ it ~
';,' ;; Ji
,titinII~lJIJI#T
FEB 1 0 2006
C:ty of /t,~.1'1':,rld
u., ',;;:tIi II~i.,
D Field D Office 0 County
January 12, 2006
Alex Knecht
PO Box 3209
Ashland Or 97520
Tree Removal Plan for 521 Fourdyce
There are seventeen trees that lie within the building lot at 521 Fourdyce. Eight of these trees will
need to be removed to accommodate development of this lot.. The trees in question are tagged by
number on site, listed in the attached tree inventory and labeled on the building plans. Below is a list of
the trees that need to be removed as they are numbered in the tree inventory.
Tree # 4 is an 11-inch diameter Spruce. It stands adjacent to the proposed driveway. Given the
existing condition of this tree, it would not survive the construction process. The removal of this tree will
not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve
as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of the property.
Tree# 5 is a 9-inch diameter Shore Pine. It stands adjacent to the proposed driveway. The removal
of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It
does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant
impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of the property.
Tree# 8 is a 7 -inch diameter Apple tree. It is dead. The removal of this tree will not have a
significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as
protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of the property.
Tree# 12 is a 30-inch diameter Willow. Its trunk shows signs of decay and a large (12 inch
diameter) limb has already broken off . This tree is a hazard and should be removed. The removal of
this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It
does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant
impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of the property.
Tree# 13 is a 67 -inch diameter Apple tree. It is in fair condition. It stands to near to the
proposed footprint of the garage. The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil
erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or
windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or
species diversity within 200 feet of the property.
Tree# 15 is a 24-inch diameter Willow tree. It is in fair condition but is showing signs of
decline with dieback of some major limbs. It is too close to the proposed building footprint to survive the
building process. The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability,
or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its
removal will not have a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within
200 feet of the property.
.51
-.--.1---- -~,
! I
1/1212006
Tree# 16 is an 11-inch diameter Locust. Although it is in good condition, it is too close to
the proposed building footprint to survive the building process. The removal of this tree will not have a
significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of surface water. It does not serve as
protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its removal will not have a significant impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of the property.
Tree# 17 is a 3-inch diameter Pear tree. It is in the proposed cut for the new driveway.
The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on soil erosion, soil stability, or the flow of
surface water. It does not serve as protection to adjacent trees or windbreaks. Its removal will not have
a significant impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopy or species diversity within 200 feet of the
property.
The removal of all trees will be mitigated by planting trees of appropriate size and species in
appropriate places before the completion of the building project. If you have any questions regarding
this tree removal plan, please call me at 482-3667.
Tom Myers Certified Arborist
~~'1~'Zr17'-
DBA Upper Limb-it
I
F"~-
"' ...... f'"t Ii \ ~''- O'
.~ ;:: A. j.,:;' ~~:
FEB 1 0 2006
C;ty of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
. Page 2
t,{)
"' ~...~"'""'.."'----
, I
rtIi IUpper Lbnb-lt
Tree Service
PO Box 881
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone 541-482.3867
Tree Inventory for 521 Fourdyce 1/12/2006
Tree
protectlon relatlve
Crown zone radius tolerance to
Tree # Species DBH Height Radius In feet constructlon Condltlon Notes
1 Sa/ix matsudana 'Tortuosa' 17 40 15 moderate Fair Significant deadwood
L-. Acer sacchalinum 22 44 16 moderate Fair broken leader
~-~-- ~~r sacchalinum 18 42 16 moderate Good
4__~_ f'i.cea ~b/es_~__. 11 33 9 moderate Poor sparce foliage, remove
5 Pinus contorla 9 28 9 - .aood Good remove
-----.--
~---~ Acer sacchalinum --- .- 1--.9 35 10 moderate Good
~-,-_.-
L____ .Jug/ans n~___ 12 35 9 DOOr Poor large trunk wound
~- Ma~_Sf!J'... ___~ -~-- 7 22 8 moderate Dead remove
---.
9 c.a/~ecJ..rus decurrens _ 12 38 5 moderate Good
- ..~
10 __u__ --' Afa/us sfJ!',-__ --.- 7 22 7 moderate Good
11 -.-.--..- G/editsia tliacanthos 10 42 10 good Good --
--- -"---"'--'--~,
12 _~/ix~~bl''O/li~a ___ _ 30 38 20 moderate Poor Decay in trunk, major limb broken. remove
-....----
13 '!.a/~J~PJL_ 6 8 __ -~- -~- moderate_ tair__ remove
----._- ---- -.----, ~,
~._---- _ M!l!us~pfJ._ ~. 6 14 7 moderate Poor centrelleader dead
.!? ---- S!l/ix ~~E!JIc.. _ 24 38 20_~ _. moderate Fair Significant deadwood, remove
16 _._~ G/editsia tliacanthos - 11 40 4_~ t--- laood Good __~move__.
----- - ..----- -------
17 I Pvrus callarvana 3 23 3 moderate Good remove
RF"'~.. '\ I~D
0: l' ~;:'D.W Ii '- -, "'f.,' '; ~~ ,., h >~" ~ - _
~ ~-f1" ..~, ,.t, t" ~~_\:BBII'
to/
FEB 1 0 Z006
Cay of Ashland
o Field 0 Office D County
, I
pi"'''\'(]... ";,~~'nl
:":;:';';.;~
\ !ir"""'D'
". /t ;,......
','" ,',' .0 ~
t ;~~i'\
" \.i,
FEB 1 0 2006
Specifications for Tree Preservation D.uri9&:Fwi.t~~tion
UFfe,1J' O"011lCEt rrcounty
1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all
work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for
each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may
not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the consultant.
3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone.
If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree.
5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within
the tree protection zone (fenced area).
6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified
arborist and not by construction personnel.
7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that
use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water.
8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as
possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is
expected to encounter tree roots.
10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the
soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches.
11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be
installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone.
12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any
trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone
by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench
and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.
13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly
with a saw.
14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6
inche~ of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be
replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
be?.
- T----
! I
15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection
zone, either temporarily or permanently.
16. No burn piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or
garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone.
17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or
smoking is allowed near mulch or trees.
",,",",...,~ fi' D'
, P i. ". ~-
. ' ~ t;, ":~ /t-' " .'lJ
". I. "'. ~
." ;:.. .';1' ;\"..~_'
FEB 1 0 2006
b" 00:)
."..;....
.' .-"
City of ,".shland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
T" ..,-,- -.--------~
Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing
1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work
to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures.
2. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field.
3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy oftree(s) to remain must be
removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified
arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and under story to
remam.
4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated
equipment.
5. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling
and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first
severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting
through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or
other approved root-pruning equipment.]
6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist.
The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out.
7. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with
equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out,
not by skidding it across the ground.
8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches
9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the
smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall
be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity
10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications
11. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree
protection zone
12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six
hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health.
13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6
inches. of mulch or gravel shall. be ~reate~ to protect the SOi~~, !J..~.' '.' ~.' ,~.~. e. r~..r~tJ. be
replerushed as necessary to mamtain a 6-mch depth.': !f'- ;;i, . :,"" ~ ,/'i
Ii. Mil' ,~u_ ': '-'", ,~.r *' ~,..~
t::: L.l-
FEB 1 0 2006
City of !\shland
D Field D Office D County
T' .... _._-~-- ---- . I
Specifications for Tree Pruning
1. All trees within the project area shall be pruned to:
a) Clear the crown of diseased, crossing, weak, and dead wood to a minimum size of 1 1/2 inches
diameter.
b) Provide 14 feet of vertical clearance over streets and 8 feet over sidewalks.
c) Remove stubs, cutting outside the woundwood tissue that has formed around the branch.
d) Reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter
branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches near the ends of the scaffolds.
e) Remove any mistletoe.
2. Where temporary clearance is needed for access, branches shall be tied back to hold them out of
the clearance zone.
3. Pruning shall not be performed during periods of flight of adult boring insects because fresh
wounds attract pests. Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of infestation is past.
4. All pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist.
5. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree-Pruning Guidelines (International Society of
Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Pruning Standard (American National Standard for Tree Care
Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI ZI33.1.
6. Interior branches shall not be stripped out.
7. Pruning cuts larger than 4 inches in diameter, except for dead wood, shall be avoided.
8. Pruning cuts that expose heartwood shall be avoided whenever possible.
9. No more than 20 percent oflive foliage shall be removed within the trees.
10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require
treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the consultant.
11. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees within the tree protection zone
to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch.
~
r' ~
I~. \.
l:':
:r-D
'.l" a .
'''!
r~,,~ '
'.
,
bS-
FEB 1 0 2006
C:ty of Ashland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
r- -
! !
(' ~ iY\~, v'\
~cwu" ~O\L
\
~
-~
. ,,~
"---q- IS-
[~\b\-\V"\~ (j( \Vcv0(1\.~ \QC)~ ~~
W~-\- f\()'l'A ~("OvtCL6-t.
LO
C)
C)
C'J
C>
~
CD
W
l..l-
~
C
::l
o
o
"PO
l0
., ('J
0' U
<'. ~::
(.:;0
-0.,0
0-0
"0
C
o
.,.._._~ -. - - ~~
- - ---......- ( /
. --- - _. .- - -+ ..-
- - iiI --
.l " _ ___ - --
a I:lI
III
6\~~\G)C \?roQ(ISt~ ~(~\/~vJ~'1 lOLVv1-\OV'\
v\) \ \ \ClA,;) --\ (; \O~ \' Q.. 'tV\ 0\/ e. ~
,,-..... ~
I C
-..
. ("j
k 0
.. tD ~~
C)
~ C)
, '" ~)
I 0 )
!
- )
<.
\. m .~"LJ
w
I' LL ()i..
l
~ J ID
L.... ( L:
0
~
')
f:.-
~
/
~
~ ~.
1 v.
t.
J
I
(f'
-t ' .
~ I
r. )
Ii
,I
i
1 I
/J
8
is
;..-
~
u
&
.:..r
p
o
3
(y
[
~
I)
"
~Q. ~()~ ,\,e.e.. S
'()C)~\'\~ NE- -\\o~'\
SLAJ \\-o~JL(' ~\ L 6{'{\ ~
r-tQR\OX., ~'O~U5re c
'\X'OJ( e \1,--,\ \J "c
....~
P.lIil'TJ!IIF'-
>-
.....
C
:J
o
o
lD "'9 0
= '-~
=
c--.J ,- <D
(,~ ()
e> <:E
~ DO
ES ~.. 0
l.1... 0 '0
Q5
u:
o
~.
~-;'
\
ft'
..
~'~ ",.
...
....*
~ .-
-<... "
~,
--..!:
'-
....
b
",.
<-::
-
-c.,
~
~
.....- - -
--~-
=........
,- ..'.
--
.~
~ "'-41
.......,-~
~
---.::!
"
."
....
'.,~
w"'- r ')~
Tf.111//I::~t:
"&
Ii
"i
i;l
EI
Ii
:z
-a .....
:::a:::a
om
.....m
m-
OZ
.....<
-m
Oz
z.....
>0
~~
:::a
m
:s:
o
~
r-
-4i
~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ . W N ~ .
1 Iii Iii I I I t t I I t t i i
'iPill- 1JilPiH
i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 2
. I I' -. -. %
~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t. _ I
~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II
I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 'I
Iii 1 ill 1 1 I 1 111 1 i i I ~
IltHl II Ii ii' ~
I Iii f l I
i i
J
I
If~J~~~II~lifl~lti!l!il{i~11 I iiijji~)~ltljiiiiiii I
I f [ I l lr t Slr i p' r lS Ii Ii,' tl" 1 J ;;: I' t
~ i'l i~l!tliillil!Jt:I!li I r i!ifl11~1~ l~rttlil!i ,i
-{:- · ~ r'-l 1,1 t.lf lr I r It r li~lllrli .' lit I
. J t ItI1.!li!ltil!trll ! I 11l;'I,I:tl ~ ~I- II iill!
~1 l.l! 'lrlf ltl~I~' t I j lr tlf -(I' '1)1: f( II
t! !Ilrt.l~l!tllf:llli ~ lilrlll I;i ~f !III~
i I ~I' I' t I i I r r II' Ii' f I: tIt I r"
it l~liil 1~lt:lil!il! i!!II if II lJ.i!~I:
~ fllll'~ I -hi'i " ili! ~I (l 'it
1 Ii 'jll !I~ r.! :ril ! If I ~, (i i(1 ~
- if t [ ! ill' f l r J rr .. ~
i ill It ti! Ilr1liJI l !I(, ~J I! J Jr
i II', .i r ,Ir 'I! ~ - 'II 8
r [g 'I I ~It'~~ ! I'~ I 1 '
~ l! Il ' J:l J ',-!!: ~ i 1.
I r lr 'a, 'I l I' if i'1I ~
ill !i 11 i I ~l i I ~
! i t II II 1 II ~ If f
i i r If I! i l J~ I I I
i I I j tl f [it I f ~
[I ~ 11 ii' I I !~ 11ft
~ l I tl Jo . I II f-
I I ~ I II I. I I
f CRAFTSMAN CUSTOM HOMES
-I FORDYCE PARTITION
. -
~ I 521 FORDYCE STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
,.----. ---'. -- --.
1\
~
II
I
-
.
.
'il
~
(rlll'i i IrJ[~!!tl!I~!ll!!~J[lll~llf i
(I Illi J Ilil~l'~!I~~I!it~~I,~il~t~~'!1 I
,I ~I r I' '. ~ I J ~ [l '(I J t f II ~ J ~ I f r I ill
~l i-ill ([(rltll1 fllil'(iJitf(rlitf ;1 ~
f I III e [lr I' I I r r 1- I' [r!i Ii I' I r [r (I' i
~ !illl J J!I!!i!!!rJ~ifl!i~I!!fl! it f
Ir ~l ,} l~ltlr~il~f~llt Ilf~l II
If ,'I ' I ' ~lf rrrl r.d r.H frr ~tllt h
I ~rfJ !I t Ilitl(i~llill t~llr I~
ji 1~IJ, ~I~ !!t~I~!iiil!iti !il!l IJ
.1 III ' , IlruI,. ~11!rl I III IJll
"'1 I III _~Il[, III I-~ II 1l1"
bin ~ .lUfft hhilH .Ih Of
II :tJt I l~{~J~J tlJ~I{~ III~! I[
r! 1~IJ' t t!:I.!. !ltJ1:1 t-tJi lfl
! I' 11 rrlU lllll,~1111 rhfl .'~
II III rt I -,IJIlII)ll, fi'i:rtlll - ~!i:rf i[
eo I. I' II I ~ 'lh I rl ~ f!- 'l t I r f ~ ~ ~
I J i Ii i f [U l) 1'1- I rill I l ~ rll J II
Il <il ,r I' {!Ill ,rr [, hill It, I..
~ ! I r .- J Ilt~ t.lll, ~ ~ II ' ~ t. ~ ' .i r
~lr,,1 If !,Jl.,Ill, r.,ff, I!
I J I ~l ll, I ,h ~II If. i-n'il II i-~ lrf
Il( I' Jllff, I -,I ~iJr 'll ~I' I
~l Ilif J J~til~(l~ Ii Ilii .f Ii ii
aUf IlIl~I,1 Ii 1I1~1I III III, Ir
I 1'11'1 1 !n, ., Ili llri'!f !J 1111
, Il'Hl r iJ~i 1-:, II' ~lH iil' Jr I'll'
I' I' ~~ . "ill I ~ l II rll I' r 1',
-I' f 8 Il, I
J1'1.
Do.
()
C
:J
-<
J
I
KenCairn
Sager
Landscape
Architects, Inc.
~. .'"'it
. -4
(J
J\
-,
\
\
i.~ili!;ilii~~iJiifft~ilii 1
'jrh I 11'11111 tl~ I'i~f;
liJl~.llJ~lJII~i! III ttlll ~
III . Ii,! ~ ,Ill 1.1 III l~lfi f I
[JIIJt!JIII~iJI i~i llll! I
Ilt~,lli!IJ!!1 HII jlllr: !
r!Jt~.liOI[IJ" !ll r(ltll !
[ltiltl~JJ' I' ~II Ii ~I ~
J}Hii .j 11 i m l'iI=
l':tl l!itlll,llt:1 it!ll. !llil
'J f R If 51 i 11 11Ill,1 f
I -I i ' ~5I ~f I'
1'1 Ii ~j.tlli I-I lrl '[
1111 , [&. J!lfl.'1 !toll' .' fll
}.t ~i IJf~. a r- ~ ~~
.:1 J, .I ~ f ,t ~! I : i r f t l
ilrlt il iJi!li l~l, I il
If i llJI It Ii I! U
11111 I I~lll' li' 1 I)
it. If Ilgl I III t s!
f. I II;'~ If.... J 8<1
il 1~ I! t1 ~ [ f IJ
- a f~ t. I R I
, I' } 51 II J i If ~I
I ~ J.li-~ J I il
I ill i I II
I' ~ I
545 'A' STREET, SUITE 3
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
PH. (541) 488-3194
FAX (541) 552-9512
._._.~._._._.
iil"
-\IJ
{!I I
J I
I I
if i ~Ii
{I I I
U
II
I
...
..
\
( ir;:-
- . - . p;;;;;;;;;;jN~ Fu,;. - .
(iiQ
"
~
~
I'tj
~~
~~.
I.f
iill1
CRAFTSMAN CUSTOM HOMES I'V KenCairn 545 'A' STREET, SUITE 3
I c::;) I
en FORDYCE PARTITION ~~ c::;) Sager ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
CJ) '-"
. ,.c,
~ 521 FORDYCE STREET ~ '. J I Landscape PH. (541) 488-3194
I 0
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 c ~..,...;:' ~ Architects, Inc. FAX (541) 552-9512
:J \.",)
-<
~
""tI .
:::0
m
r-
-
i:
-
z
)>
~
i:
)>
""tI
.
""tI
)>
:::0
--I
=i
-
0
Z
""tI
:::0
0
""tI
0
en
)>
r-
FORDYCE STREET
o
-n_. . ...,..,
/If:\. ~
[ .
r
H~~~
t~.~
"r
~ ~
~~~ '
~~:t. ~
""~!\)tll
(::) 'I ~~ ~
,.., ~~, i
\:) \ ~~~t~
~ -.-.-.-.-t-'-1
,.., $II$II!Il~~
,.., :-.,:-.,:... "
(::) "-.;;::tJ
~ \ ~
,.., d I t
)0,.
~ :S'
III \ I ~.
~
r-.. "
~\ I ~
~.
~\J"I I ~
/ ~
$II
I :-.,
'-- - --
f8}l~:};; :f};f:.i';.;;:~i:{~:f~i;:r~~NI
il
I I
I
I
~f
hi
I
U
\
Proposed New Property Line
FORDYCE STREET
"- \
~
~ ~i
I'l) ~.
I.f
N. AVE. s
~
fT1
",
o_z !16 [ 3~nos ]
~zsa
VILlAGE
(I)
m
~
~
",
1"'tJ
o a
~ .....
_CD
c5' n
:::I
I FORD YCE STREET
ii
~ -;-I en ("') ("') &?:g.a:i~ e?:~~~~ e~j;i~~ 0 r-Ni:> "'tJ
. ~ 0 ~ 00>0 :::0
- -
-I Z · :Zo'g m .::r' ~~Z -IZ"tlO 0
"'tJ m -I ~g;>""i:0 wS'>~ 0 ~!S' ~!i en-"::::o c-
D :::0 :::0 m -ZWm m
::::0 m i~ en-.~en ~
m m Z cnCLfnr-CD2!;! .P-cr3CD("') g:CL><3~.. NCi)CD ("')
~ m ...... - ::r' -. '< - Da CD m .. _ en
-n r- c;j 0S'3CD~ olen~~ Ow~n SJ :. :::om~ -I
0' z i! o ::r' Z
Q() ...~'7CiJ.. (jI-DaDam (jIN("')- w":""cCon
< Z CDCL~ co ~::;. > co CD c g -ConmN ."
." m > cg i: -I o ~ > m- 0
0;.; fT1 Z o ....~::::o ::I.
~< ~ ~ -.(jI ::s 0 ("') -I'" ::::0
CD -I CDiCD ~ r- ("') 3 QO iC
os. 0 CD Da ::c: CD ::::0 r- ~
...... i: ~::::oen ...... ~ - ...... ::c: ("') m _CL !4
::11 :> j ~ ~ Con CL -I Con '< en w'<
(') 01 = > NOCD N fn m N 0 ::s - on 0
CD =T ~ 'y,,'o;""i:l > "'tJ ODa~ o ~ ("') 0 3 - - OCD
'" (0).>1 CL -. CD ::r' W Z
15) <::::l
<::::l Z n 'g :-:I fn Di. e" en
O::::l '.~'Q't"~ 0 CD -
en 3C CD (jI
a. " ..~ > Con
0 ~ ::::0 0 CD
0 m d ~ en -
c 0 3C ::r' a "
:::l 0 :=
..... CD CD ..:.-
'< ~ i
r-
~I
m.
::0
CRAFTSMAN CUSTOM HOMES
FORDYCE PARTITION
521 FORDYCE STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
T- --
I
ii
I
i
545 'A' STREET, SUITE 3
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
PH. (541) 488-3194
FAX (541) 552-9512
KenCairn
Sager
Landscape
Architects, Inc.
C.ITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
Department: Public Works I En i eering
Contributing Departments:
Approval: Martha Benn
Request for a Variance to Allow
Early Morning Operation of a Street Sweeper
Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412 9t)
E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Morrison 552-2325
E-mail: morrisom@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Statement:
The Public Works Department operates two vacuum street sweepers Monday through Thursday
between the hours of 4:00 AM and 12:00 PM. The 4:00 AM to 7:00 AM operations are confined to
commercial zones and to arterial and major collectors with high traffic volumes. The sweepers exceed
the allowable decibel levels specified under AMC Section 9.08.170 and a variance is being requested.
Background:
The City's street sweepers are in operation four days a week throughout the entire year. In general,
the citizens of Ashland have high expectations regarding the cleanliness of their streets and demand
that street surfaces by maintained in pristine condition. The current weekly schedule of sweeping is:
Monday - sweep downtown areas, Winburn Way, Plaza area, East Main Street and
Walker Avenue. Residential areas after 7:00 AM.
Tuesday - sweep North Main Street, Lithia Way, Maple Street and "An Street. Residential
areas after 7:00 AM.
Wednesday - sweep Highway 66, Tolman Creek Road and Normal Avenue. Residential areas
after 7:00 AM.
Thursday - sweep Siskiyou Boulevard, East Main Street and the Railroad District
(commercial section). Residential areas after 7:00 AM.
Second Tuesday of each month - sweep all City parking lots.
Third Tuesday of each month - sweep all bike paths.
During the past fiscal year (2004-05) a total of 6,546 miles of streets were swept with a total of 8,316
miles traveled in the process. A total of 3,098 cubic yards of debris were removed from City streets,
bike paths and parking lots. All bike paths and parking lots were swept twelve times during the year.
Our experience over the past years has demonstrated the necessity of sweeping high traffic areas
and commercial zones during the early hours of the morning prior to the arrival of delivery and service
vehicles and employees. Our sweeping schedule is similar to many cities in Oregon as shown on the
following table:
C:\DOCUME-l \lambd\LOCALS-l \Temp\CC Street Sweeper Variance 606 rdln.doc
r~'
City Sweepers in Total Hours of Hours of Operation in Hours of Operation
Operation Operation Commercial Areas in Residential Areas
Bend Unknown 4:00 AM to 8:00 AM 4:00 AM to 7:00 AM 4:00 AM to 8:00 AM
Roseburo 2 4:00 AM to 12:00 PM 4:00 AM to 8:00 AM 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM
PhoenixIT alent 1 4:30 AM to 12:00 PM 4:30 AM to 7:00 AM 7:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Corvallis Unknown 4:00 AM to 4:30 PM Unknown Unknown
Medford Unknown 3:30 AM to 3:00 PM 3:30 AM to 7:00 AM 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM
Jacksonville
White City
Euoene Unknown 24 hours a day I 3 shifts I 5 days a week
Grants Pass Unknown 5:00 AM to 6:00 PM 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM
Sorinofield 3 4:00 AM to 12:00 PM 4:00 AM to 7:00 AM 7:00 AM to 12:00 PM
The nominal operating speed for a street sweeper is 10 miles per hour. This ensures a thorough
pickup of debris, but can provide frustrating traffic delays during busy traffic hours. Most cities find it
nearly impossible to sweep busy arterial streets or commercial areas after 7:00 AM. In residential
areas the opposite is true as streets tend to have less on-street parking during normal work hours.
AMC Section 9.08.170 states that "sustained noise levels shall be reduced by 5 dBA during the hours
of 9:00 PM to 7:00 AM." Following is a comparison of the noise levels generated by several types of
vehicles:
DECIBELS (dBA)
Vehicle Idling at 10 Operating Idling at 75 Operating at
Feet at 10 Feet Feet 75 Feet
Deliverv Truck 74.4 dBA Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable
Diesel Pickuo Unavailable 78.3 dBA Unavailable Unavailable
Garbage Truck 73.3 92.1 dBA Unavailable Unavailable
Schwartz Sweeoer 76.7 dBA 91.2 dBA 66.1 dBA 76.7 dBA
Johnston Sweeoer 66.2 dBA 88.9 dBA 55.4 dBA 73.0 dBA
Train Unavailable 109.8 dBA Unavailable Unavailable
Although our sweeping schedule has remained unchanged for years, recently a citizen complaint has
prompted the evaluation of our operations and has culminated in a formal request for a variance in the
specified hours of operations due to noise parameters.
Related City Policies:
AMC Section 9.08.170A establishes acceptable noise levels within the City limits. It states that:
9.08.170A No person shall make, assist in making continue or cause to be made any loud
disturbing or unnecessary noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers
the comfort, repose, health, safety or peace of others.
9.08.170B The standard for judging loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises shall be that of
an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration
the character of the neighborhoods in which the noise is made and the noise is heard.
9.08.170C Any source of noise which exceeds the following standards is considered a public
nuisance:
1. Decibel Noise Standards
Allowable Statistical Noise Levels in any One Hour
7 a.m. to 9 p.m. 9 p.m. to 7 a.m.
L50 - 50DBA L50 - 45 DBA
C:\DOCUME-l\lambd\LOCALS-l\Temp\CC Street Sweeper Variance 606 rdln.doc
r&,
L 10 - 55DBA
L 1 - 60 DMA
Where:
L50 = noise level exceeded 50% of the time
L 10 = noise level exceeded 10% of the time
L 1 = noise level exceeded 1 % of the time
L10 - 50 DBA
L 1 - 55DBA
Under Section 9.08.170C(5) the Council is authorized to grant a variance to the Decibel Noise
Standards when it finds that strict compliance with the ordinance would cause an unusual and
unreasonable hardship to a commercial or industrial use.
Although the sweepers do exceed the specified noise level of 55 dBA it is not a sustained noise level
and the duration is much less than the allowed exceedence of 1 % of the time (approximately 15
minutes). (A sweeper traveling at 10 miles per hour covers 880 feet per minute therefore a sweeper
would be adjacent to the average width lot for less than 9 seconds.)
For commercial or industrial operations which violate the noise standards a public hearing is required.
We have interpreted AMC 9.08.170(5) to require notification of adjacent residential structures within
200 feet of stationary noise producers. The use of the sweeper does not meet this requirement as its
use is transitory. Therefore, except for the complainant to whom we have mailed notice, we have only
provided notice by publication in the newspaper.
Council Options:
Council may grant the Public Works Department a variance to operate its street sweepers between
the hours of 4:00 AM to 12:00 PM with the hours of 4:00 AM to 7:00 AM reserved for operation within
the Central Business District, commercial I industrial areas, and arterial and major collector streets.
Operation on neighborhood residential streets to be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 12:00
PM.
Council may decline to grant a variance for early hour operation.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance to allow operation of the street sweeper
during the hours between 4:00 AM and 12:00 PM with the hours of 4:00 AM to 7:00 AM reserved for
operation within the Central Business District, commercial and industrial areas and on arterials and
major collectors.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to grant a variance to the noise ordinance to allow operations of street sweepers
as recommended by staff;
or
Council may move to deny the request for variance;
or
Council may move to grant the variance to the noise ordinance with other qualifying statements.
Attachments:
Letter from Lars D. Svendsgard of February 22, 2006
C:\DOCUME-I\lambd\LOCALS-I\Temp\CC Street Sweeper Variance 6 06 rdln.doc
rA'
Lars D. Svendsgaard
183 Vista Street
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-3142
l~}wI~d 117~ c' mAl
1> It1; l-ce ~l1l7d
1/ f' /66
RECEIVED 7}YVJ
February 22, 2006
FEB 2 7 2006
City of Ashland
Mike Franell, City Attorney
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Mr. Franell,
I am writing to you pursuant to the question of whether the City of Ashland must
obey its own ordinance regarding noise. It has recently been city policy to
operate the street sweeper beginning at approximately 4:30am. Most weeks the
operation takes place on both Monday and Tuesday mornings.
I have inquired with both the police department and the street division of the city.
To avoid covering old ground, I am aware that 'this is an ideal time to sweep the
streets' and that it is 'a big vacuum cleaner', and that the city allegedly has kept
this schedule for many years. I would question whether this activity was always
initiated at 4:30am, as it has just recently begun to disturb our sleep. The police
dispatcher had an officer contact us, then nothing happened. I went straight to the
street department and was told that operation would be kept off of Hargadine, the
street directly below us. While appreciated, this is not enough; the noise is still
unacceptable. I then contacted the police again, to inquire as to which agency
would actually enforce the noise ordinance. She admitted being uncertain as to
how the police might proceed (or not proceed) in this case because of the city
having 'permits' or the like. My reading of the noise ordinance notes no
exception for city entities. It clearly states no noise in the amount of 45 decibels
for a given duration prior to 7am. It is my understanding that the police
department has the obligation to enforce this law. If! had a wild party at 4:30am
on Monday morning I am certain that enforcement would occur 'promptly'.
The effect of this noise, which is primarily very high frequency sound waves,
cannot be underestimated in its deleterious effects on sleep, and thus overall
health. This noise continues unabated for well over an hour in duration, during
which time sleep is impossible. While it's understandable that the city has an
interest in keeping the streets clean, it also apparently has an interest in the
peaceful existence of its citizens; thus a clear noise ordinance exists. The
operation of this equipment at 4:30am flies in both the spirit and letter of this law.
I enclose a clipping taken from The San Francisco Chronicle. Please note the
form of "menacing" taken by the subject of this case against his neighbors.
Although malice is lacking by the street sweeper, the effect is the same.
Any attention and time you may give this matter is greatly appreciated. My
request is that the city abides by its own law. Operation of this extremely noisy
machine prior to 7am should be curtailed
Sincerely,
Lars D. Svendsgaard
Cc: Mayor John Morrison
Joe Strahl Public Works
Chief Mike Bianca, APD
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Adoption of Findings Regarding the Formation of the Nevada Street LID
June 20, 2006
Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson, 552-2412
E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Frannell, 552-2090
E-mail: frannelm@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 20 Minutes
Statement:
The opinion for Circuit Court Case No. 04-397123(7), Art Bullock vs The City of Ashland, was
received on May 22, 2006. The court record indicated that it was devoid of findings on the part
of the Ashland City Council on two issues pertaining to the formation of the Nevada Street LID.
1. The court directed the Council to enter findings on how the boundaries of the LID were
. established; and
2. The court directed that the council enter findings to indicate why the Council decided to
proceed with the formation of the LID despite stated conflicts of interest.
The court further directed the City to provide the necessary findings within 45 days of the
approval of the court's opinion (May 17, 2006). The required findings are provided for Council
approval.
Background:
On August 3, 2004 Council approved Resolution No. 2004-30 which set a public hearing
pursuant to the formation of the Nevada Street LID. The public hearing was held on September
7,2004 as erdered and the LID was formed by Resolution No. 2004-31. Council
Communications submitted for each of these council actions, along with oral presentations by
Paula Brown and Jim Olson, fully addressed the issues of the LID boundary and the possible
conflict of interest.
Following is a brief summary of the two issues at question:
1. Formation of the LID Boundary
Proponents of the LID argued that all residents of the surrounding subdivisions (Quiet
Village Subdivision Units #1, 2 and 3, Lynn Estates Subdivision, Williams Subdivision
Unit 1, Cedar Homes Subdivision and Old Helman Ranch Subdivision) or at a minimum
all lots north of Nevada Street should be included within the LID since all would be
impacted by any changes to traffic patterns or conditions on Nevada Street. By
expanding the boundaries to the surrounding area more citizens would have an actual
vote in the formation of the LID. Staff countered that there is a vast difference in being
"impacted" and being "benefited." Those properties which actually have a physical
frontage on Nevada Street would receive a direct and positive benefit from the
improvement including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Direct improvements to the front yards of many homes along the street would
add value to the property. The sidewalk project would improve the frontage of
homes along the street by providing a uniform border for landscaping, by
C:\DOCUME-l\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\Nevada LID CC re Adoption of Findings 5 06.doc
Page 1 of4
rA1
removing several unsightly dead trees, by removing or trimming overgrown
shrubbery, and by providing additional plantings. The overall visual appeal of
these homes will be enhanced.
b. A direct safety benefit would be derived for those families residing on Nevada
Street who have children who play in or occupy the street in front of their homes.
Slower traffic and improved safety features represent a direct benefit to these
families.
c. Many areas where concrete driveways are in disrepair or are not to code will be
reconstructed to provide a smoother and obstacle free walkway.
d. The most important element of any traffic calming project is to change the image
of the street to one which is more pedestrian friendly. It reminds motorists that
this area is first and foremost a residential neighborhood and not a thoroughfare.
This project is aimed at changing the image of Nevada Street to one which is
more livable and this has a most direct benefit upon those fronting the street.
The Billings Ranch Subdivision was included within the LID boundary as a condition of
approval by the Planning Commission. This 72 lot subdivision will add a significant
amount of traffic onto Nevada Street and the Planning Commission ruled that the
subdivision should participate fully in the LID.
The LID boundary includes all lots with actual frontage on Nevada Street between
Helman Street and the east boundary of the Billings Ranch Subdivision and all lots
within the Billings Ranch Subdivision. The LID is comprised of 72 lots within the Billings
Ranch Subdivision and 53 lots with frontage on Nevada Street.
Historically, Ashland's LID boundaries have been formed on the basis of frontage on the
street to be improved. In fact, up until 1999 all LID assessments were computed based
on the amount of street frontage per lot. Assessments were historically determined on a
cost per frontage foot basis.
The 2002 Tolman Creek Road LID is the sole LID which assigned benefit beyond the
actual lot frontage. Tolman Creek Road is considered a major collector I arterial street
and the improvements were above and beyond the normal residential street
requirements including sidewalks and bikelanes on both sides of the street, full street
reconstruction, oversized storm drains and multiple traffic calming and pedestrian safety
improvements. Additionally many of the subdivisions surrounding Tolman Creek Road
were required, by prior planning actions to be included within the LID boundary.
2. Formation of the LID
At the September 7,2004 Council meeting, Public Works Director Paula Brown declared
a potential conflict of interest as she and her husband own property within the LID
boundary (800 Cambridge Street). Besides this declaration for the record, Ms. Brown
had relegated all decisions pertaining to the formation of the LID and its proposed
boundaries to Project Manager James Olson. Ms. Brown did not benefit financially due
to her property ownership or her position with the City. Ms. Brown received the same
benefits and considerations that would have been offered to any other property owner
within the improvement district.
C:\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOCALS-l \Temp\Nevada LID CC re Adoption of Findings 5 06.doc
Page 2 of 4
r.l1
Related City Policies:
The action filed by Art Bullock constitutes a writ of review as prescribed under ORS 34.020
through 34.040.
Section 34.040 states that a writ shall be allowed in all cases in which a substantial interest of a
plaintiff has been injured and the City, in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions,
appears to have:
1. exceeded it's jurisdictions;
2. failed to follow the procedure applicable to the matter before it;
3. made a finding or order not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record;
4. improperly construed the applicable law; or .
5. rendered a decision that is unconstitutional.
Since no findings were adopted, the court is unable to make a final determination under ORS
34.040 and has ordered the Council to adopt findings at this time.
Council Options:
Council may adopt the attached findings as prepared o( may make whatever changes it deems
appropriate and then adopt the revised findings.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the attached findings be adopted as quickly as possible so that the
approved and signed findings can be forwarded to the court in a timely manner.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to adopt the attached Findings, Conclusions and Orders or
Council may move to adopt the attached Findings, Conclusions and Orders with changes.
Attachments:
1. Circuit Court Case No. 04-397123(7) Opinion
2. Findings, Conclusions and Orders with attachments
C:\DOCUME-I \shipletd\LOCALS-1 \Temp\Nevada LID CC re Adoption of Findings 5 06.doc
Page 3 of 4
ria'
'.,
"
1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
7 FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
8 ART BULLOCK, fudividually and )
as Trustee of791 Glendower Trust )
9 Dated December 25, 2003, ) Case No. 04-3971Z3(7)
10 )
Petitioner, Pro Se, ) OPINION
vs. )
11 )
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a )
12 Municipal Corporation of the State )
of Oregon, )
13 Respondent. )
)
14
15 This matter came before the court upon the Petition for Writ of Review filed on
16 November 4,2004, and the court having reviewed the Writ, the return of Writ and supplementary
17 returns filed by the respondent City or'Ashland, and the parties' memoranda, and having
18 reviewed the oral and video record ofthe Ashland City Council meetings of August 3, 2004,
19 August 17, 2004, September 7,2004, September 21,2004, and October 5, 2004, and further
20 having conducted an oral hearing on said Writ on April 6, 2006, and having considered the
21 argument of counsel Michael Franell on behalf of the City of Ashland and petitioner, acting pro
22 se, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the court now sets forth its Opinion.
23 OPINION
24 Jurisdiction and Standing
25 The Court previously found that this matter is properly brought as a writ of review
26 pursuant to ORS 34.020 ff. Petitioner Bullock alleges that he is the "trustee ofreal property-...
I
27 inside the Nevada Street Local hnprovement District No. 85 ('Nevada LID')" that is the subject
28 of the Writ. Pet. ~ 2.
1 OPINION
In that capacity, Bullock's property is among the,pmp~rtiy.stQ pe,._,- '
<;) r-~-~ ~ U~~ u v~:~_~
.)j l
" ; [-'\.1 MAY 2 2 2006
I i j
'11 I,:,
I: ~ I; ;,
I iU'1
. .
1 "benefitted" by the LID and will be assessed for a portion of the costs of the improvements.
2 Accordingly, he has standing to bring his petition.
3 The Standard and Scope of Review
4 The standards to be applied in a writ of review proceeding are set out in ORS 34.040.
5 Accordingly, the Court reviews the record before the agency making the decisions at issue, in this
6 case the Ashland City Council acting on August 3, 2004, and September 7, 2004, for one or more
7 of five statutory errors. It is well established law in Oregon that the scope of review under ORS
8 34.020 if is limited. The court generally examines only the record established at the proceedings
9 in question and, with respect to the evidence before the agency, reviews only whether there was
10 substantial evidence in the whole record to support the agency's decision. The court is
11 specifically prohibited from weighing the evidence.
12 The Absence of Findings
13 The record before the court is devoid of findings on the part of the Ashland City Council
14 indicating what evidence they relied upon in reaching their decisions on August 3, 2004, to set
15 the public hearing that is required before the Council may form an LID, and on September 7,
16 2004 to form the LID and to direct the Ashland city staff to complete the design and move
17. forward. Petitioner correctly points to the lack of findings (and related reasoning) as an error
18 warranting relief. "An agency must issue fmdings which explain the basis of its decision." "If
19 there is to be any meaningful judicial review, an agency must demonstrate that it has considered
20 the factors prescribed by statute and its own regulations and has not acted in an arbitrary manner
21 or on an ad hoc basis." Feitelson v. City of Salem 46 Or. App. 815, 820, 822 (1980).. There are
22 two specific respects in which the record must be supplemented to include the findings that will
23 enable the court to determine whether any of the errors set out in ORS 34.040 are present in this
24 case:
25 (A). Although there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Council's overall
26 decision to institute a Local Irriprovement District in the area of Nevada Street, there are no
27
,28
2 OPINION
-
1 findings or reasoning about the Council's choice of boundaries for the Nevada LID, 1 specifically,
2 the inclusion of the Billings Ranch properties but not some other single-lot properties near
3 Nevada Street, the specific basis for Petitioner's objection. "Even though [the court] can trace
4 through the record a legitimate path by which the [City Council] could have reached [its]
5 conc1usion[s] our task on judicial review is not to serve as a pathfinder." Salosha. Inc. V. Lane
6 County. 201 Or. App.138, 145 (2005), quoting Green v. Hayward, 275 Or. 693, 706 (1976)
7 ("The chances of misunderstanding and of inconsistent * * * decisions are greatly enhanced
8 when the courts are forced, because of inadequacies in the record, to undertake a search for
g-evidence to support-findings ~hich were not made and reasons which were-nutgiven~")~ -'!1Rf----
10 City Council is directed to enter findings on why the boundaries of the Nevada LID are where
11 they are.
12 (8). Similarly, although there is evidence in the record to support. the Council's choice to
13 proceed with the fonnation of the Nevada LID on September 7,2004, notwithstanding the orally
14 disclosed conflicts of interest of Paula Brown and the memorandum provided to the Council at or
15 before the September 7,2004 meeting, there are no findings to indicate why the Council decided
16 to proceed, despite the identified conflicts. The City Council is directed to enter such findings.
17 The City Council is directed to enter the findings called for by this Order within 45 days
18 of the entry of this Order and to provide such findings to the Court within 10 days thereafter.
19 Once the Court has received the City's findings, the Court will enter its further Order regarding
20 Petitioner's allegations of error concerning the Nevada LID boundary and Ms. Brown's conflicts
of interest.
21
22
23.
24
Petitioner's Allegation of Error # 1 asserts that the City acted "arbitrarily" when it
chose the properties to include in the Nevada LID in violation of AMC 13.20.040(C)(I)(c) and
Ashland Municipal Resolution 1999-09(2) concerning "benefitted" properties. Petitioner further
26 alleges (#2) that nearby property owners should have received individual notice of the September
7,2004, hearing. These allegations will be addressed after the Court receives the findings called
for in this order.
25
27
28
3 OPINION
1 The Remaining Allegations of Error
2 Alleged Error #3 concerning 30-day review is without merit. Ashland Municipal Code
3 ("AMC") 13.20.040(A) does not require providing copies of the design along with the notice of
4 hearing. It only requires giving 30 days' notice of the hearing.
5 Alleged Error #4 concerning the adequacy of the improvement description is without
6 merit. AMC 13.020.040(C)(I)(a) requires only that the notice of hearing contain a "general
7 description" of the improvement, not a detailed design. The City's notice made interested
8 citizens aware of a project involving sidewalk and traffic calming improvements, which is
9 adequate to inform the public of the nature of the project, and to invite further inquiry.
10 . Error #5 concerning the adequacy of the cost estimate is without merit. The cited
11 ordinance, AMC 13.20.030(A)(6) requires the cost estimate to be included in the improvement
12 resolution. In-this case, section 2 of the resolution forming the Council's decision on September
13 7,2004, (Exhibit 1, page 15-16 of the return of the writ) states the cost estimate, the total amount
14 to be paid by special assessment, and the total assessment for each tax lot in the LID.
15 Alleged Error #6 asserts the City violated Resolution 1999-09 (1 )(A) by not paying "the
16. required 75% City share" on storm drainage improvements. Petitioner is correct that the City did
17 not follow the formula set out in the Resolution and the Court notes the language of the
18 Resolution is mandatory. 'The City was not at liberty to stray from the formula. However,
19 Petitioner's assessment was reduCed by the City's decision, and thus he has not been financially
20 harmed. Petitioner raises non-financial damages he has allegedly suffered as a result of the
21 decisions but even if the court were able to find a direct link between the City's decision to
22 reduce the assessment per lot with Petitioner's concerns with "public safety tradeotIs", the
23 possibility of a future exchange of water rights, open and transparent government and alleged
24 design flaws, these would not give rise to a determination that the Council's decision to form the
25 LID in the first instance was flawed and must be voided, as Petitioner requests. Accordingly,
26 Petitioner is not entitled to a remedy for the City's error.
27 Alleged Error #7, alleging the Council violated AMC 13.20.020(B) when it "ignored"
28 petitions from certain Ashland residents, is without merit. Under the ordinance, the LID could
4 OPINION
1 be, and was, initiated by City Council action pursuant to AMC 13.20.020(A), as Petitioner
2 conceded in his Memorandum in Support of Motion to Expand the Record, filed October 26,
3 2005: "Council began Nevada LID." TIlls was a proper alternative for the Council to follow.
4 Had the council failed to act, AMC13.020.020(B) provided an alternative method whereby the
5 benefitted parties could have initiated the LID process. Because the City did act, that: alternative
6 method was unnecessary.
7 Alleged Error #8 concerning charges to the Billings Ranch developer, is without merit.
8 There is nothing in the record to indicate that the City Council took any action on August 3,
. 9 2004, or September 7,2004, regarding charges to the developer and accordingly there is no
10 decision for the Court to review pursuant to this Writ.
11 Alleged Errors #9-18,36,37,47-48, although asserted under a variety of labels
12 ("conflict," "financial benefit," "abuse of power'"'), all concern the alleged conflicts of interest of
13 city employee Paula Brown. The Court notes at the outset that Petitioner makes no allegation
14 that any member of the City Council had a conflict of interest. Accordingly, the only issue
15 before the Court on writ of review is whether the employee's conflicts were disclosed to the City
16 Council at or before it made its decisions on September 7, 2004, and the reasoning behind the
17 Council's decision to proceed in the face of the disclosed conflict. To the extent the errors allege
18 a failure of findings on the part of the City Council, they will be addressed when the findings are
19 provided to the Court. To the extent the errors allege a failure to disclose, the record reflects that
20 Brown's conflicts were disclosed orally at the September 7, 2004, meeting and that they were
21 disclosed in further detail to the Council in the form of a memorandum from city attorney
22 Pranell?
23
To the extent the errors about conflicts of interest concern Brown's actions and status
24 other than the fact ( or absence) of disclosure, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative
25
26 2 Even if the Court determines that there was inadequate disclosure of Paula
27 Brown's conflicts at or before the September 7,2004, meeting, the Court cannot void the City'sractions solely because of that inadequacy. ORS 244.130(2).
28
5 OPINION
1 remedies and his recourse is to the appropriate enforcement agency pursuant to ORS 244.260.
2 Alleged Error #19, which alleges an improper delegation oflegislative authority, is
3 without merit. Petitioner fails to specify any respect in which the requirements of the statutes
4 and resolutions on which he relies were violated by the City Council's actions. AMC 13.20.030
5 specifically contemplates that the initial resolution creating the LID will be based upon
6 "estimated" costs. To the extent Petitioner intended to allege that the impropriety was in
7 allowing Brown, rather than someone else from the department, to make these determinations,
8 Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. To the extent Petitioner intended to
9 allege that the impropriety was in allowing Brown to make further detenninations after
-
10 disclosure of any conflicts of interest, that will be addressed when the findings are provided to
II the court.
12 Alleged Errors #20-23 concerning documentation are without merit. These alleged
13 failures have been addressed either by the order requiring findings, or by the document
14 submissions and prior court orders in this writ of review proceeding.
15 Alleged Errors 24-27 concerning employee Mark Knox are without merit. There is no
16 evidence in the record that Mr. Knox played any role that improperly influenced the City Council
17 in its September 7,2004, deliberations. To the extent the allegations concern Mr. Knox's actions
18 related to the Nevada LID apart from the City Council's deliberations, they must be addressed, if
19 at all, pursuant to ORS 244.260.
20 Alleged Errors 28-30 concerning city employee Barbara Christensen are without merit.
21 Allegations #28 and 29 concern actions taken after the September 7, 2004 meeting at which the
22 City Council decision at issue in this proceeding was taken. The issue of the accuracy of the
23 City Council minutes (#30) was resolved by prior orders of this court.
24 Alleged Errors 31-35,45-46, all concern design issues and each is without merit. First,
25 there is no evidence that the City Council acted on any of these design issues at the September 7,
26 2004 meeting. As far as the record appears, the decisions about these design aspects were
27 finalized after the September 7, 2004 meeting and never were the subject of a quasi-judicial
28 decision by the City Council. Moreover, certain of the design issues, including delayed
6 OPINION
1 emergency response time and the pros and cons of textured crosswalks, were specifically
2 addressed and discussed at the public hearing on September 7,2004, and to the extent Petitioner
3 reaches different conclusions about the import of that evidence than the City does, the Court is
4 not allowed to weigh and "vote" on this evidence. To the extent there are aspects of the sidewalk
5 improvement design that may violate federal or state laws, that is not a matter properly before the
6 Court on writ of review. To the extent the references to Brown in allegations in #45 and 46 are
7 intended to suggest conflicts of interest, they have been addressed elsewhere in this opinion.
8 Alleged Errors #38-41, each of which alleges a failure on the part of the City to
9 . adequately take into account the "majority" viewpoint at various meetings, is without merit.
10 Neither AMC 13 .20.020(B) nor Resolution 1999-09 (4) requires the City to take the actions
11 urged by Petitioner. Moreover, the record is replete with evidence of community involvement in
12 meetings, presentations, and other activities related to the formulation of the ideas and plans that
13 preceded the resolution forming the Nevada LID. To the extent the focus on Paula Brown's
14 actions in these alleged errors is another way of alleging conflict of interest, it is without merit
15. for the reasons previously stated.
16 . Alleged Error #42 alleges a violation of AMC 13.20.020(B) for Brown's use of a post
17 card survey. This allegation is without merit. Irrespective of how the City has surveyed its
18 residents in the past, there is nothing in 13.20.020{B) which requires the use of formal petitions
19 to determine residents' views for a project which the City itself initiated pursuant to AMC
20 13.20.020(A).
21 Alleged Error #43 asserts that the "City's last-minute change gave Developer 69 of 125
22 votes" and thus deprived Petitioner and others of a majority vote, is without merit. The only
23 effect of a majority vote against the project (called "remonstrance" in the ordinances) would have
24 been to effect a six-month delay in action on the improvement. AMC 13.02.050(C). The flaw in
25 Petitioner's argument is that even if the developer had not been given a vote, Petitioner and his
26 colleagues would not have been able to produce votes against the project by "two-thirds ofthe
27 property to be specially assessed." Whether or not the developer voted, the most votes Petitioner
28 could muster against the improvement would be 53 out of the 125 lots to be assessed.. The
7 OPINION
-1"'-' _,.~..u_
1 ordinance says nothing about two-thirds of the properties actually voting on the improvement.
2 Additionally, assuming arguendo that the 30 petitions Petitioner presented to the City Council at
3 the September 7th public hearing were in fact proper remonstrances3 and assuming, further, that
4 the Developer Was given only one remonstrance vote, instead of 69, petitioners 30 remonstrances
5 still did not constitute 2/3 of the eligible "votes". By any definition, those affected by the LID
6 were given their opportunity for remonstrance, as set out in the ordinances, but failed to muster
7 the required number of remonstrances to suspend the project, regardless of the Developer's
8 involvement in the process.
9 Alleged Errors #44, 49 concern allegations of "intimidation" and "penalizing" by city
1 0 employees, and are without merit. These allegations are not properly the subject of this writ of
11 review proceeding. To the extent they are another way of alleging Paula Brown's conflict of
12 -interest; they have been dealt with elsewhere in this opinion. Petitioner's remedy, if at all, is
13 through the disciplinary arm of the human resources department of the City of Ashland.
14 Petitioner's Requests for Relief
15 The relief available to a petitioner upon writ of review is set out in the governing statute,
16 ORS 34.100. As set forth elsewhere in this order, the court has ordered one such form of relief,
17 direction to the agency to enter findings on certain issues in the case. Petitioner's remaining
18 requests for relief are disposed of as follows:
19
20
21
22
23
1.
Petitioner asks that the City provide him with certain transcripts and other
documents. As to these requests, the documents have been made part of the
record and! or the Court has disposed of them by prior orders in the case.
III
24 III
25
3 At the September hearing, City Attorney Franell stated that the petitions constituted
26 remonstrances. The Mayor questioned that determination, at that same hearing. The court's
27 review of the petitions raises senous doubts as to their validity as "remonstrances", but the court
will accept the City Attorney's public statement that they were, for purposes of the practical point
28 being made here.
8 OPINION
T-.-~-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
cc:
25
26
27
28
2. Petitioner asks that the Court declare ''that City improperly created the Nevada
LID and to declare it void" and to "order Respondent to make no assessment" on
the LID or to "void any assessment heretofore made." Although the Court cannot
finally determine these requests until it receives the City Council's findings, to the
extent the remaining errors have been dealt with in this order, petitioner's requests
are denied.
3. Petitioner previously asked the Court to enjoin further work on the project and his
request was denied by prior order of the Court.
DATED this n day of May, 2006
J?c~~~
MARK SCHIVELEY ~~.-
Circuit Court Judge
Mr. Art Bullock
Mr. Michael Franell
9 OPINION
BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
June 5, 2006
IN THE MATTER OF RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING AND ORDERING THE FORMATION OF THE
WEST NEVADA STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT FOR SIDEWALK AND TRAFFIC CALMING
IMPROVEMENTS ON WEST NEVADA STREET FROM
HELMAN STREET WEST TO THE BILLINGS RANCH
SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
RECITALS:
)
) FINDINGS.
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
)
)
)
1) On August 3, 2004, Council approved Resolution No. 04-30 to set a public
hearing with intent to form a local improvement district for sidewalk and traffic
calming improvements to West Nevada Street.
2) The Nevada Street LID boundary was approved by Council as being all those lots
with frontage on Nevada Street from Helman Street west to the Billings Ranch
Subdivision (53 lots) and all of those lots within the Billings Ranch Subdivision
(72 lots).
3) The Council, following proper public notice held a public hearing on September
7, 2004 at which time a staff presentation was made, citizen testimony received
and exhibits presented. Council approved Resolution No. 04-31 authorizing and
ordering the improvements to Nevada Street consisting of sidewalks, curb
extensions, planter areas, pedestrian safety improvements and drainage and
associated improvements.
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the following exhibits will be used:
Exhibit I - Council Communication dated August 3, 2004
Exhibit 2 - Minutes of the August 3,2004 Council meeting
Exhibit 3 - Resolution No. 04-30 setting a public hearing
G:\lel!al\Mike\L1Ds\Nevada St City Council Combined Findings 5 06 final.docG:\l~I\Mjke\LJl)lY,NtJYaEla St City Cll\lneil CllmaiRed F-iJHlingG 5
O€i rdln.E1ec Page 1 of 4
Exhibit 4 - Council Communication dated September 7, 2004
Exhibit 5 - Minutes of the September 7, 2004 Council meeting
Exhibit 6 - Resolution No. 04-31 authorizing and ordering the improvement of
Nevada Street under the Nevada Street LID No. 85
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Council Communication dated August 3,2004 and
September 7,2004, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The proposed LID is in the best interest of the City. Evidence presented indicated
that average traffic speeds along Nevada were in excess of posted speed limits.
With the anticipated increases in traffic volume resulting from the construction of
the Billings Ranch Subdivision, there would be an increased chance for
pedestrian, vehicular conflict. Nevada Street does not have any sidewalks
between Helman Street and the Billings Ranch Subdivision. The proposed
pedestrian improvement project will be in the City's best interest as it will
provide for improved pedestrian safety by reducing overall vehicular traffic
speeds through traffic calming and providing sidewalks for pedestrian use in an
area along a pedestrian route used by school children where none currently exist.
2.3 The proposed LID boundary included lots fronting on Nevada Street (53
properties) from Helman Street west to and including the new Billings Ranch
Subdivision as depicted on the map attached to Resolution No. 04-30. This
boundary was selected as these 53 properties would be directly benefited by the
improvements along Nevada Street. Helman Street marks the beginning of the
residential district and since sidewalks are already in place between Helman
Street and Oak Street, that block was not considered for inclusion. The Billings
Ranch Subdivision (72 properties) was included as a condition of their planning
approval in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.80.060 B.2. which
reads:
B. Improvements requirements.
Improvements to be installed at the expense of the land divider are as
follows: . . . 2. Exterior unimproved streets. When part of a proposed
subdivision or major land partition abuts an existing unimproved street,
the property owner, or a representative, shall satisfy the minor lands
partition improvements requirements and sign an agreement in favor of
improving said street in the future to full City standards as outlined in
this Section.
The proposed boundary was consistent with other neighborhood sidewalk and
traffic calming LIDs (Helman, Penny/Palmer) as only those properties directly on
G:\Iegal\Mike\L1Ds\Nevada $t City Council Combined Findings 5 06 final.docG:\I~I\Mikei.L1DsIJ>le'/ada St City Ceu8sil CembiRed FiRdffigs 5
O{j 1'418.006 Page 2 of 4
the affected streets or within subdivisions for which participation was required
pursuant to AMC 18.80.060 B.2. were included in the LID boundary area.
There had been some discussion that all ofthe Quiet Village Neighborhood or at
least all ofthe homes north of Nevada Street should be included in the LID
boundary as all will be affected by the improvements as most all residents travel
some part of Nevada Street to access their homes. The only LID in recent years
that went beyond the immediate street improvement area was Tolman Creek
Road. Tolman Creek Road is considered a major collector / arterial street and the
improvements were full street improvements (street reconstruction and overlay,
new storm drain system, sidewalks on both sides, traffic calming planters, etc.). In
that case, the boundary was extended to include all homes that directly and
indirectly accessed Tolman Creek Road. This requirement was further reinforced
by the fact that nearly all subdivisions were required to participate in the LID as a
condition of the planning approval pursuant to the requirements of AMC
18.80.060 B.2.
2.4 It was necessary that the Nevada Street Sidewalk and Traffic Calming LID be
formed by Council initiative in accordance with AMC Section 13.20.020.
Although staffhas worked with the neighbors and has received general consensus
for the formation of the LID, actual signed petitions in favor of the LID had not
been collected by staff. However, in August, 2004 Staff sent a letter to each of the
property owners within the LID boundary and requested they return a postcard
marking their choice regarding formation of the LID. A clear majority of the
respondents were in favor of the LID. This information was presented at the
public hearing.
2.5 The proposed Nevada Street Local Improvement District is consistent with the
2002-2003 Capital Improvement Plan and identified in the 2002-2003 budget
adopted by Council in June, 2001.
2.6 The City Council did not receive a remonstrance sufficient to postpone the
construction of this project.
SECTION 3. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST
3.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Council Communications dated August 3, 2004 and September
7,2004, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
3.2 At the September 7,2004 Council meeting Public Works Director Paula Brown
verbally declared a conflict of interest as she and her husband owned property at the
comer of Nevada Street and Cambridge Street (800 Cambridge Street) which is
located within the assessment district boundary and property which is located at 810
Cambridge which is immediately outside the LID boundary proposed by staff and
adopted by the City Council. When Ms. Brown was initially assigned the task of
G:\Iegal\Mike\L1Ds\Nevada St City Council Combined Findings 5 06 final.docG:'.legal\Mikel.LID#ltwada St City Cell1l6il Cembined FiR6iags 5
Qfi nllR.ao6 Page 3 of 4
#~-hrot
putting together the LID, Ms. Brown notified City Administrator, Gino Grimaldi, of
her property ownership on Cambridge Street. Ms. Brown ~efforts to mitigate any
conflict by relegating~decisions regarding the formation of the assessment
boundary, the allocation of the assessment to each benefited property ~
si.ruihtr iS8liiil to Project Manager James Olson.
3.3 Council determined that Ms. Brown did not benefit financially from her ownership of
the property resulting from her position within the City and that she had taken the
steps to ensure that any conflict was mitigated. Any defect in not following state law
precisely was insignificant and had no bearing on the validity of the proposed
formation of the Local Improvement District. It was further determined that Ms.
Brown did not receive any benefits or considerations beyond that which would have
been available to any other citizen. Council determined that the conflict should not
stop the proposed formation of the local improvement district as nothing relating to
the conflict would change the proposed boundary, the needed improvements, nor the
proposed assessments.
SECTION 4. DECISION
4.1 Based on evidence contained within the whole record on this matter, the City Council
concludes that the establishment of the LID boundary is in the City's best interest, is
justified as presented by staff and is supported by evidence contained within the
record.
4.2 Council further conclude ~ that the conflict of interest as stated by Paula Brown has
been fully mitigated and t~ no impact upon the formation of the LID.
4.3 Therefore, based onCur overall conclusions, the City Council authorizes formation of
the LID. C
OD~~~
G:\lee:al\Mike\L1Ds\Nevada St City Council Combined Findine:s 5 06 final.docG:\Iegal\Mikel.L1Ds\NevaEla St City CeaHGij Cembilled Filllliags 5
OG r4la.eee Page 4 €If 4
EXHIBIT'1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
. A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing with Intention to Form a Local
Improvement District for Sidewalkarid Traffic Calming Improvements
to W. Nevada Street from Helman Street West to the Billings Ranch
Subdivision
Dept
Date:
Public Works Department
August 3, 2004
Submitted By:
Reviewed BY:
Approved By:
Paula Brown
Mike FianeIi
Gino -Grimaldi
. Synopsis:
For the past several months, staffhas been working with the Nevada Street neighbors to complete
. design for the installation. of sidewalks, pedestrian safety improvements and associated traffic
calmmg elements to Nevada Street from Helman Street to. the Billings Ranch Subdivision. This
project will greatly improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety along Nevada Street by slowing
traffic on this wide street. The project will improve the pedestrian use within this busy
neighbOrhood, which accesses Helman School, the entrance to the Dog Park and the Greenway will
l?e significantly improved.
The attached resolution establishes a public hearing date to consider forming the local improvement
district for these enhancements. The proposed LID boundary includes lots frontiQ.g on Nevada Street
from HelmanStreet west arid includes the new Billings Ranch Subdivision as depicted on the map
attached as Exhibit A. .
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution establishing the date and time for a
public hearing to consider the formation of the Nevada Street SideVialk and Traffic Calming Local
Improvement District. .
Fiscal Impact:
The total project estimate is $173,500. Under resolution 99-09 the City is obligated to pay a majority
of sidewalk, street improvements related to traffic calming and engineering costs.
The following is a breakdown ofthe City's obligation under this recommendation:
Estimated Construction Cost (includes contingency)
Engineering and Administration
$148,500
~OO
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LlDs\CC Nevada selPH LID Formation 3Aug04.doc
erA'
Total Project Costs
$173,500
City Participation in LID per resolution 99-09
Sidewalks and Traffic Calming (60% of$148,500)
Engineering (50% of $25,000)
$89,100
12.500
$101,600
Remaining Assessinent Participation
Number of equivalent dwelling units
Cost per equivalent dwelling unit
$71,900
125
$575.Z0
Each equivalent ,dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit will pay $57520, which may be
Bancroftedover a 10-year period. The construction of improvements to Nevada-8treet is a priority in
the City's Transportation System Plan and has been on the ,Capital Improvements 'Program project
list for the pastseveral years.' . .
B'ackground and Preparation for the Public Hearing Decisions: .
There will be two actions for the Cou.nci! at the conclusion of the Public Hearing on September 7th.
The first is the formation of the district boundaries and the second is concurrence with the 90%
design submission.
LID BOUNDARY: The proposed LID boundary includes lots fronting on Nevada Street (53
properties) from Helman.Street west to and including the new Billings Ranch Subdivision as
depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A. This boundary was selected as these 53 property owners
will be directly benefited by the improvements along Nevada Street. The Billings Rarich Subdivision
(72 properties) was included as a condition of their planning approvals. This boundary is consistent
with other neighborl.tood sidewalk and traffic calming LIDs' (Helman, Penny/Palmer) as only those
properties directly on the affected streets were included in the LID boundary area. There has been
some discussion that all of the Quiet Village Neighborhood or at least all of the homes north of
Nevada Street should be included in the LID boundary as all will be affected by the improvements.
The only LID in recent years that went beyond the immediate street improvement area was Tolman
, Creek Road. Tolman Creek Road is considered a major collector I arterial street and the
improvements were full street improvements (street reconstruction and overlay, new storm drain
~stem, sidewalks on both sides, traffic calming planters, etc.). . In that case, the boundary was
extended to include all homes that directly and indirectly accessed Tolman Creek Road. Staff
recommends retaining the ~undary to the properties directly on Nevada street.
It may be necessary that the Nevada StreetSidewalk and Traffic Calming LID be formed by Council
initiative in accordance with AMC Section 13.20.020. Although staff has worked with the neighbors
. and has received general consensus for the formation of the LIb, actual signed petitions in favor of
the LID have not been collected by staff. It is staff's intention to send information to each of the
property owners within the LID boundary and to have them return a postcard acknowledging their
consent to the LID. This information will be presented at the public hearing.
DESIGN CONCURRANCE: With the past several LIDs, Council has participated by conGurring
with the design process at the 90% design stage. In this LID process, staff has been working toward
design completion since December 2003. This project has been planned and on the City's Capital
Improvements Project list for the past 5-6 years. This project is a high priority on the City's
Transportation System Plan for sidewalks. As the current 36 foot wide street is wider than the.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LlDs\CC Nevada set PH LID Formation 3Aug04.doc
~A'
current standards for a minor collector (residential neighborhood collector). Ashland's current
standards (Ashland Street Standards Handboo~) for a residential neighborhood collector are 32 feet
from curb to curb; allows for two 9-foottravellanes and parking on both sides. This current wider
straight street section encom-ages faster speeds and it has been the City's practice to provide traffic
calming elements,to slow those speeds down and allow for safe travel of bicyclists, pedestrians and
vehicles.
Initially staffhired an engineering firm (Thornton Engineering) to prepare a concept design for
sidewalks and traffic calming on Nevada Street. This preliminary plan was shared with the Nevada
Street and Quiet Village community at a neighborhood meeting in December 2003. There were
significant concC?rns and a diverse set of reactions to this first plan. In the ensuing 5-6 months, a
. citizens committee was formed and met several times to help identify the community concerns and
suggestions for improvement. In May, staff was presented with seven different proposals from this
... citizen's committee with a request to incorporate the elements of seven concepts into three plan.
. options. . .
. .
. .
Staff used the following objectives. to meet the primary goal improving safety:
1. Reduce speed of traffic;
2. Encourage uniform traffic speed;
3. Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian route;
4. Provide safe and comfortable bicycle route;
5. Provide safe motorist route;
6.. Maintain safe and unimpeded emergency access;
7. Maintain street function as a neighh9rhood collector;
8.. Increase Iivability.ofthe neighborhood (noise, trees, sign, .clutter);
9. Balance street function; safety and livability; and
10. Reduce impact of anticipated traffic increase.
In June, staff distilled the seven proposals into 3 alternatives that would meet the critical safety
concerns. These three alternatives were presented to the entire neighborhood during the June 21 st
meeting, where each was discussed and the group consensus narrowed the three to one preferred
alternative. Ai the July 19th meeting, the preferred alternative was again discussed and the .
neighborhood group was asked to add elements, but was not allowed to pull elements out as each
provided a critical factor in traffic safety and traffic calming. The resulting preferred alternative wilL
be presented to the City Council at the September 7th Public Hearing. There was some discussion
about the need for more tiaffic calming, especially at the west end of the project between Laurel and
. Cambridge. There was also a desire ~xpressed by some to have sidewalks on both sides of the street .
between Helman and Voris. Staff will review both of these elements and the engineer and a
discussion will be presented to Council on the 7th.
TIMING: With Council's approval, the public hearing will be scheduled for September 7th and final
formation of the LID will be on September 21st. Assuming there will be no major design changes
upon LID formation, staff will finalize design for the September 21 st meeting and have the project
out for bids at the end of October. Construction may begin as early as November and should be
completed, in ApdllMay 2006. .
Attachments:
Resolution
LID Map
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LIDs\CC Nevada set PH LID Formation 3Aug04.doc
~~,
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 1 of5 .
EXHIBIT 2
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
MINUTES FOR THE R.(:GULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
August 3, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Morrison and Hearn were present; Councilor Jackson was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 20, 2004 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &. AWARDS
Mayor's Declaration to commemorate Hiroshima Day (Aug 6th) and Nagasaki Day (Aug 7th) was read
aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Liquor License Application from Chun H. Chan dba Chun's Palace, Inc.
3. Approval of Amendment No.1 to Fund Exchange Agreement No. 20521, Water Street Bridge
Project, between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Continuation of Public Hearing regarding Appeal of Planning Action 2004-052, 904 Garden
Way, Ashland.
Mayor DeBoer read aloud the Public Hearing procedure for Land Use Hearings.
Public Hearing Continued: 7:09 p.m.
EX PARTE CONTACT
Mayor DeBoer and Councilor Morrison received an em ail from Oak Knoll Meadows Home Owners
Association; however neither read the message due to the public hearing being closed. Mayor DeBoer
stated he forwarded the email to Staff.
IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT
Lynn Costantino/892 Harmony Lane/Presented a poster displaying pictures of the subject property. Mr.
Costantino voiced concern that no architecture was considered and noted the close proximity to the
adjoining property. He also commented on the petition signed by the 46 neighbors and stated he is not the
only one with concerns.
STAFF RESPONSE
Community Development Ditector John McLaughlin stated the Council should consider the options
presented in the Staff Memo, which deal with the concerns raised during the first portion of the public
hearing.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the accessory unit is an allowed use of the
zone under certain conditions. He stated there is only one other approved accessory unit in this zone,
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID= 177 6&Print=True
5/23/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 2 of5
however Staff has been notified of others that might be operating illegally and they will be investigating
these claims. Mr. McLaughlin stated an ordinance amendment would be required if the Council wished to
set a number of the allowed CUPs per neighborhood.
Ms. Harris noted the neighbors have raised concerns regarding the need to protect the electric pole. Ms.
Harris clarified that although the pole location is not ideal, there is nothing that prohibits its close location
to the proposed driveway. However, Council could ask for a condition that would provide a barrier to
protect the electric pole. The Electric Department would need to review this property in order to determine
the potential risk.
Mr. McLaughlin stated there are currently 94 approved accessory units and noted they are located
throughout the City. It was noted that Staff has not had any experience with negative impacts to
neighborhoods as a result of allowing accessory units.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified that the ordinance does not require homeowners to occupy homes with accessory
units.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that the traffic generated by the proposed accessory unit would be no different than
that of a normal single family unit. In regards to architectural compatibility, the accessory unit would not
change the architecture and there is no reason to believe there will be any affect on air quality. In addition,
Staff does not see this application as setting a precedent for future applicants.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified the Council could deny the permit if they determine that the conditions are
inappropriate. However they would need to specify which conditions they do not agree with.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified that remodeling can be done without obtaining permits. It is only when the owner
wants to make a separate living unit that a CUP is required. City Attorney Mike Franell stated that the
potential violation of not obtaining the necessary building permits should be handled as a separate issue.
REBUTTAL
Jane VanDyke/668 Leonard Street/Stated they were taken back by all of the negative comments"
expressed at the last council meeting. She and her husband are attempting to do something that is
positive, and were under the belief that this was something that the City supported and encouraged. Ms.
VanDyke stated she would like to respond to some of the specific concerns and mis-information provided at
the last meeting. First, they did not turn the garage into an apartment. The garage was converted to two
bedrooms and a bath in the 1970's, 30 years before they purchased the house. Additionally, their house is
13 feet away from the neighbor's, not 5 feet as stated by the opponents. Ms. VanDyke stated that they
want to have a legal unit, which is why they are going through this process. Ms. VanDyke stated she does
not understand why this neighborhood is only willing to welcome "certain types" of people, and questioned
if this property does not meet the affordable housing goals of the City, than what does?
Public Hearing Closed: 8:13 p.m.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION
Mayor DeBoer expressed concern that this case was only heard in front of the 3 member Hearings Board,
and felt that it should have been heard by the full Planning Commission. He also expressed concern that
two rental units are being placed in a single-family residence. Mayor DeBoer stated he does not support
this application based on the parking issues and the negative impacts on the livability of the neighborhood.
Council discussed the seven factors that are to be considered, which include:
1) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage,
2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets, Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass-
transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities,
3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area,
4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants,
5) Generation of noise, light, and glare,
http://wv-...w.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID= 177 6&Print=True
5/23/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 3 of5
6) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, and
7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
Councilor Hartzell suggested two additional conditions to add to those recommended by the Hearings Board
and Staff:
Condition #17 - Ask the Electric Department to review the driveway pole and make any recommendations
that they see fit to ensure the electric pole meets safety standards.
Condition #18 - The accessory unit not be increased more than 500 sq. ft.
Concern was raised regarding setting a condition that would limit the size of the house and the unit in the
future. It was stated that building permits are required to add on to a house and questioned whether this
would be more of a legal condition.
Mr. Franell stated there are already building limitations in place. There is a condition that states the
accessory unit cannot exceed more than 50% of the floor space of the primary unit. In addition, the
Maximum Lot Coverage Ordinance would apply. However, Council could add an additional condition further
limiting the size of the accessory unit.
It was noted that the applicant would have to apply for a new application if they wanted to make any of
these changes to the property in the future.
Council discussed whether Staffs Condition #16 should be included at this time or handled separately.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to uphold the application, denying appeal, with the following
conditions: Conditions #1-13 from the Hearings Board, Conditions #14 and #15 as stated in the
Staff Memo dated July 28, 2004, an additional condition that states that the Electric Department
review the drhteway pole and make any recommendations they see apprbpriate to ensure
protection of that pole and neighborhood safety, and a condition that states that the accessory
unit will not be increased more than 550 sq. ft; If the owner wants to increase size of the
accessory unit they would pursue an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION:
Mayor DeBoer voiced his concern with livability. Council Hartzell stated she shares in the Mayor's concerns.
Voice Vote: Councilor Laws, NO. Councilor Amarotico, Hartzell, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Motion
passed 4-1. Mayor DeBoer spoke to the owner of the house, and stated it is very critical with a rental
situation like this to monitor the rental closely.
Councilor Hartzell motion to direct Staff to take the action as noted in Condition #16 an(l that
Council direct the Planning Department Staff to investigate any accessory units in that
neighborhood that might be unpermitted and take necessary action. Motion dies due to lack of a
second.
Mayor DeBoer noted that Staff is already required to follow any illegal activities. He also noted that if
neighbors are concerned, they can make a complaint to the Planning Department, and they will send
someone out to investigate.
Council discussed whether it was appropriate to direct Staff to only investigate this one neighborhood.
Opinion was expressed that because a complaint was raised, it is appropriate to formally ask Staff to follow
up. Opposing comment was made that Staff is already required to investigate complaints and Council
should trust Staff's discretion on how to follow through.
PUBLIC FORUM
Ryan Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Requested that the Council reconsider the most recent approved
ordinance regarding public nudity. Mr. Navickas spoke regarding the cultural norm in regards to the human
body and expressed his concern with the passive and compulsive nature on the passage of this ordinance.
He noted there are already laws regarding lewd behavior and requested that this issue be placed on the
agenda for council discussion.
Erik Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Spoke regarding the proposed Mt. Ashland Ski expansion. Mr. Navickas
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID= 177 6&Print=True
5/23/2006
~ity of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 4 of5
requested that the Council mQve to haltthe NEPA process until the Waste Treatment Facility on the Mt.
Ashland development is dealt with. He stated there are high nitrogen levels in the effluent and others
serious problems that exist in the current development.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Eighth Annual Report on implementation of the Valdez Principles.
Electric & Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid stated the Valdez Principles were adopted in
May of 1990 and require an annual report on implementation of the principles. The annual report was
submitted to the Council and is included in the public record. Mr. Wanderscheid noted the new items are
in italic and gave a brief explanation of each.
Mayor DeBoer acknowledged the use of bio-diesel fuel being used by the Ashland School District buses.
Public Works Director Paula Brown noted there is a Department of Energy program that will reimburse the
City 25% of all of the costs associated with going to the bio-diesel fuel.
Mayor DeBoer spoke regarding the styrofoam ban, and stated that it is his understanding that the new
styrofoam now dissipates quicker in a land fill than plastic. Mr. Wanderscheid agreed and noted that CFCs
are no longer being used to create styrofoam. Mr. Wanderscheid stated he will talk with Ashland Sanitary
and the Conservation Commission to revisit this topic.
It was noted the Cities for Climate Protection and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan was missing
from the report.
The BPA Power Shift Program was noted. Mr. Wanderscheid stated they have been disappointed in the
response to this program. The City has the ability to do 100 homes, at last count Ashland was only at 40.
It was noted that the bulk of the sign-ups came as a result of a front page article ran in the Daily Tidings.
Mr. Wanderscheid stated he is currently working with BPA to do a direct mailing to residents. It was noted
that the program offers a $100 rebate and residents can visit the City's website to sign up.
Mr. Wanderscheid quoted an article on Good Watch, which explained that this is a home energy
management system that employs technology that allows customers to automatically control their home
energy uses. Homeowners can program their thermostat, pool pump, water heaters and other devices, at
home or remotely, around the clock via the internet. They can also monitor their settings whenever and
wherever they happen to be.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing with Intention to Form a
Local Improvement District for Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Improvements to W. Nevada
Street from Helman Street North to the Billings Ranch Subdivision."
Public Works Director Paula Brown presented the Staff Report on the intent to form an LID from W.
Nevada and Helman Street, North to the Billings Ranch Subdivision. Ms. Brown stated they will be looking
at the district boundary and also the costs. It was noted that the City may have over-estimated what the
actual cost will be. It was also clarified that the City received seven plans, and from'those seven Staff
created one consensus plan.
Council requested that both the original and consensus plans be provided to the Council for review. It was
clarified that at the public hearing, Council will be able to view both plans and cost estimates and receive
testimony from anyone who wishes to speak on this issue.
Ms. Brown clarified the decision the Council is making tonight is to form a LID, they are not making a
decision on design. Concern was expressed that the change in costs would result in the need to re-notice
the neighborhood.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp ?Display= Minutes&AMID= 1 77 6&Print=True
5/23/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 5 of5
Councilor Hartzell/ Amarotlco m/s to approve Resolution #2004-30. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell,
Morrison, Hearn, Laws and Amarotlco, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor DeBoer stated there are currently opening on the Historic, Public Arts and Airport Commissions. He
also noted that applications are kept on file for 6 months.
A Study Session is scheduled for'tomorrow at noon in the Council Chambers. Topics of discussion include
making land-use decisions and ex parte contact. In addition, Ashland Town Hall will be airing on RVTV at 6
p.m. tomorrow night.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID= 177 6&Print=True
5/23/2006
EXHIBIT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 04- ~
A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH INTENT TO FORM A
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR SIDEWALK AND TRAFFIC
CALMING IMPROVEMENTS TO W. NEVADA STREET
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. It is the intention of the Council to commence Sidewalk and Traffic
Calming Improvements to W. Nevada Street from Helman Street west to and including
the Billings Ranch Subdivision
SECTION 2. The boundary description of the local improvement district is described as
those lots fronting on W. Nevada Street from Helman Street North to the Billings Ranch
Subdivision as depicted on the map attached to Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The city engineer's estimated cost of the improvement, including
engineering and administration costs, and the proposed allocation of the cost among
each of the property owners specially benefited is $173,500 of which $71,900 will be
paid by special assessments on benefrted properties. Costs will be allocated based on
$575.20 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the
assessment area.
SECTION 4. The council will hold a public hearing in the Council Ohambers, Ashland
Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on September 7, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., at which time
and place the owners of the benefited properties may appear or submit written
comments prior to or at the hearing as to why the improvement should not be
constructed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner
proposed.
SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by
publishing a notice of the public hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than 30 days
prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners
of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and
assessment roll. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit" A" attached to this
resolution.
SECTION 6. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
PAGE 1
G:\IegaI\Office\ORD\N\Nevada Set PH Reso.doc
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland M~pal Code
~2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this.3 day of r.ruvf-
2004.
~~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
14
day of Avdus-\- ,)004.
~~
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
PAGE 2
G:\JegaI\Office\ORD\N\Nevada Set PH Reso.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on September 7, 2004, at 7 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the
formation of a local improvement district as follows:
NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT:
Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Improvements to W. Nevada Street from Helman Street
west to the Billings Ranch Subdivision.
BENEFITED:
Those lots fronting on W. Nevada Street from Helman Street west to the Billil:'lgs Ranch
Subdivision as depicted on the map attached to Exhibit A.
ESTIMATED COST:
The estimated cost of the improvement, including engineering and administration costs,
and the proposed allocation of the cost among each of the property owners specially
benefited is $173,500 of which $71,900 will b.e paid by special assessments on
benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $575.20 per equivalent dwelling
unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the assessment area.
Additional infonnation regarding the proposed improvement or method of assessment
may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR, phone
number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM.
All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments
prior to or at the hearing, as to why the improvements should not be installed or why the
benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of
the property owners to be benefited object to the improvement, the improvement will be
suspended for six months.
13.20.040 Notice of Hearino Reoardino Improvement Resolution.
A. Notice. Notice of the hearing regarding the improvement resolution
shall be given at least 30 days prior to the scheduled date of the
hearing.
B. Method of Deliverino Notice. Notice shall be made by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation within the city and by mailing copies
of the notice by first class mail to the owners of lots affected by the
improvement.
PAGE 3
G:\IegaI\Office\ORD\N\Nevada Set PH Reso.doc
iO l!() I (I~' :4'r1J
.., C c D7'l , ~
Q r 1q:J EiOV I
] Q CJ'
c:J
.,C
ri '-.
."
....tItna- D .
UP'r--
t:I o.
[7.'. '0 ~
c:::J rr<r' ~...;... '. ~
.r-?J I; ;J ~ ..:l::. ..
fL-J LJi, .0
.. . ,...... '. -:IJ
lfa TIf .~. llrfc ~. ..
...~ ~ ~... . .~~.... .j.'~~'
. :)15'0 II D ~. v ~~ .
. 1:1 IrJ" ~. . I ./4,,~' . . .. .
::IttR. v ~O,:., .
~.I ..
.. . C'.'
......~r@~....
~~~~11. Q
~1~ ~-;;rr ~..
~ ..~ ii' JJ. . "f ilt
.~'. .~
-. ; '.. 0
: . .' (1". .
." Q.:~~: ".' ~
. ['IlI. .
LJ' . . ....
Dw..'G~
Lr. ...~:::t.,;;.
t~- .I'<!I:.,::!':"'"
_C'~L!P' -10 - -'. DJ.!i:f1c
. . c;; IKnJr
"1' K''''' .' " ~I C
.... '. (J I~~ .
. 'E R,';~a
tl . ]
?-' ."foJ'
CJ
..J
7.
;1 ~.. on'
. CJ
.i-~ -;:r
,"-h ~..
~~, [I.
~ 0:'" _ ,.
" : .~"'j
..J :'1~U::
~.
C'
r,tI>r:!J .... .' ,
. -----
~. ~"dM~~r.
lor gCJpl:Jfr.,. 1
(p:forms\lidl.res)
J
C I T Y '0 ~
ASH.LAND
NEVADA $TREETL.I.D.
. .'.14
o '" . a.os' .
-Miles
.0.1
.~
::'T P.
r 11 T1' 1:" k~
@. .'-
.. m-(J'
. til ..
,.:
It)
Q
~
W
Z
I
r;;
.,.)
,.... . .~
'~.l{
>, -if, .
..~... .'i.. "-~f
.. 0
n
..
:~
.. .)<
.
: E:!I
.. . . ~"u:[~U
~. .....
V .L-I
. TI TO i.)
r r t:J
'0
lJ : f"\.l!I
'-~I" .. ( SO
'~'. 0 6 '. ..
. ~ 0.. '. 0 . O'b
...;... '. . c
~~~ , 0() []n 0
. /'
Dc::::J
B','
sUlIIIlll
Lell
,.ft /J
./ 1
IS~
EXHIBIT 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Title:
Public Bearing and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing and Ordering
the Formation of the Nevada Street Local Improvement District for
Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Improvements to W. Nevada Street from
Belman Street West to the Billings Ranch Subdivision
Dept:
Date:
Public Works Department
September 7, 2004
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
Approved By:
Paula Brown
Mike Franell
Gino Grimaldi
Synopsis:
For the past several months, staff has been working with the Nevada Street neighbors to complete the
concept and engineering designs for the installation of sidewalks, pedestrian safety improvements
and associated traffic calming elements to Nevada Street from Helman Street to the Billings Ranch
Subdivision. There have been significant differences of opinion regarding the need for traffic speed
reductions and amount of traffic calming elements necessary to improve safety.
The final plan was developed in conjunction with the entire Nevada Street neighborhood, but with
additional weight being given to those who reside on Nevada Street, receive the benefit and
corresponds to those that are within the proposed LID boundary. This plan represents a lot of work
on the neighborhood's part, a great deal of compromise of personal feelings, and a well thought out
decision. This project will greatly improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety along Nevada
Street by slowing traffic on this wide street. The project will improve the pedestrian useage within
this busy neighborhood, which provides access to Helman School, the Dog 'Park and the Greenway
multiuselbikepath.
The attached resolution authorizes and orders the formation ofthe LID and construction
improvements to Nevada Street including sidewalks, curb extension planter areas, pedestrian safety
improvements, drainage and associated improvements. The resolution also authorizes the city to
borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual
cost of the local improvement. The proposed LID boundary includes lots fronting on Nevada Street
from Helman Street west and includes the new Billings Ranch Subdivision as depicted on the map
attached as Exhibit A.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council hold a public hearing to listen to comments and concerns regarding
the intent to form the Nevada Street Local Improvement District for sidewalk and traffic calming
improvements. Ifupon completion of the public hearing Council determines a need for the local
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LIDs\CC Nevada LID Formation 7Sep04.doc Page 1 of 14
~4'"
.._~
T"---"~"-'"
improvement district, staff recommends that Council form the LID by Council initiative in
accordance with AMC Section 13.20.020. As such, staff recommends Council adopt the attached
resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of a Local Improvement District for the Nevada
Street Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Improvements.
Fiscal Impact:
The total project estimate is $173,500. Under resolution 99-09 the City is obligated to pay a majority
of sidewalk, street improvements related to traffic calming and engineering costs.
The following is a breakdown ofthe City's obligation under this recommendation:
Estimated Construction Cost (includes contingency)
Engineering and Administration
Total Project Costs
$148,500
25.000
$173,500
City Participation in LID per resolution 99-09
Sidewalks and Traffic Calming (60% of$148,500)
Engineering (50% of $25,000)
$89,100
12.500
$101,600
Remaining Assessment Participation
Number of equivalent dwelling units
Cost per equivalent dwelling unit
$71,900
125
$575.20
Each equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit will pay $575.20, which may be
Bancrofted over a 10-year period. The construction of improvements to Nevada Street is a priority in
the City's Transportation System Plan and has been on the Capital Improvements Program project
list for the past several years.
These costs are only estimated construction costs. The City Recorder has provided the affected
property owners this information through the assessment order. Should the actual construction costs
come in higher than 110% of the estimated costs, the City would have to pay the difference. The
assessment order has a provision that the property owner can pay as much as 110%. However, if the
final construction costs are less, that diffurence is shared with the property owner in relative
proportion as shown above.
Background and Preparation for the Public Hearing Decisions:
Staffwill ask Council to take two actions at the conclusion of the Public Hearing on September 7th.
The first is to adopt the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of a Local
Improvement District for the Nevada Street Sidewalk and Traffic Calming Improvements. This
action will approve the district boundaries and the cost estimate of$173,500, which includes
$101,600 of City funds and an assessment of$575.20 per dwelling unit. The second discussion item
requests Council concurrence with the 90% design submission as depicted by the neighborhood
design of July 2004.
LID BOUNDARY: The proposed LID boundary includes lots fronting on Nevada Street (53
properties) from Helman Street west to and including the new Billings Ranch Subdivision as
depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A. This boundary was selected as these 53 property owners
will be directly benefited by the improvements along Nevada Street. The Billings Ranch Subdivision
(72 properties) was included as a condition of their planning approvals. This boundary is consistent
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LlDs\CC Nevada LID Formation 7Sep04.doc Page 2 of 14
~.,
with other neighborhood sidewalk and traffic calming LIDs (Helman, PennylPalmer) as only those
properties directly on the affected streets were included in the LID boundary area. There has been
some discussion that all of the Quiet Village Neighborhood or at least all of the homes north of
Nevada Street should be included in the LID boundary as all will be affected by the improvements.
The only LID in recent years that went beyond the immediate street improvement area was Tolman
Creek Road. Tolman Creek Road is considered a major collector I arterial street and the
improvements were full street improvements (street reconstruction and overlay, new storm drain
system, sidewalks on both sides, traffic calming planters, etc.). In that case, the boundary was
extended to include all homes that directly and indirectly accessed Tolman Creek Road and included
many new subdivisions that were required to participate in the LID as a condition of their planning
approval. Staff recommends limiting the boundary to the properties directly on Nevada Street.
It may be necessary that the Nevada Street Sidewalk and Traffic Calming LID be formed by Council
initiative in accordance with AMC Section 13.20.020. Although staffhas worked with the neighbors
and has received general consensus for the formation ofthe LID, actual signed petitions in favor of
the LID have not been collected by staff.
As indicated on the August 3, 2004 Council Communication, staff sent design information to each
property owner within the LID boundary with a postcard with three optionslo respond to staff. To
date, the results of the postcard survey are as follows:
1. I favor the formation of the LID and feel that the current plan. is acceptable. 10
2. I favor the formation of the LID and feel that the current plahs are not acceptable. 6
3. I do not favor the formation of an LID on Nevada Street. 0
At the time this Council Communication was written, of the 55 properties (if you count Billings as
only one property, not 72) only 16 residences had responded to our question. There were six packets
returned with no forwarding address. Staff will continue to gather information and present it at the
public hearing.
DESIGN CONCURRANCE: With the past several LIDs, Council has participated by concurring
with the design process at the 90% design stage. In this LID process, staff has been working toward
design completion since December 2003. This project has been planned and on the City's Capital
Improvements Project list for the past 5-6 years. This project is a high priority on the City's
Transportation System Plan for sidewalks. As the existing 36-foot wide street is wider than the
current standards for a minor collector (residential neighborhood collector). Ashland's current
standards (Ashland Street Standards Handbook) for a residential neighborhood collector are 32 feet
from curb to curb; allows for two 9-foot travel lanes and parking on both sides. This current wider
straight street section encourages faster speeds and it has been the City's practice to provide traffic
calming elements to slow those speeds down and allow for safe travel of bicyclists, pedestrians and
vehicles.
Staff has put into practice traffic safety design elements to slow traffic and improve safety in several
of our neighborhood streets. There are two (of many) design publications that are routinely used by
the Traffic Safety Commission: the first provided by Pat Noyes and Associates (Colorado), "Traffic
Calming Primer" and the "Neighborhood Traffic Control" published by North Central Section
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Both stress the advantages of curb extensions (neck-downs,
chokers, bump outs) to provide increased visibility for pedestrians, reduce vehicular speeds, and
provide neighborhood streetscape amenities.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LIDs\CC Nevada LID Formation 7Sep04.doc Page 3 of 14
~~,
.
Initially staff hired an engineering firm (Thornton Engineering) to prepare a concept design for
sidewalks and traffic calming on Nevada Street. This preliminary concept plan was shared with the
Nevada Street and Quiet Village community at a neighborhood meeting in December 2003. There
were significant concerns and a diverse set of reactions to this first plan. In the ensuing 5-6 months,
a citizens committee was formed and met bi-weekly to help identify the community concerns and
suggestions for improvement. The goal of the citizens committee was to consolidate information and
community desires and bring City staff one plan. In May, staffwas presented with seven different
proposals from this citizen's committee with a request to incorporate the elements of seven concepts
into three plan options, which would ultimately be consolidated into one preferred plan..
The primary goal of this construction project is to improve safety. Staff used the following
objectives for the design elements:
1. Reduce speed of traffic;
2. Encourage uniform traffic speed;
3. Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian route;
4. Provide safe and comfortable bicycle route;
5. Provide safe motorist route;
6. Maintain safe and unimpeded emergency access;
7. Maintain street function as a neighborhood collector;
8. Increase livability ofthe neighborhood (noise, trees, sign, clutter);
9. Balance street function, safety and livability; and
10. Reduce impact of anticipated traffic increase.
In June, staff (a team of five personnel including staff from public works, fire, and planning) distilled
the seven citizen proposals into three alternatives that meet all of the critical safety concerns. Each
of the three options was designed with safety as the primary concern. Each will help to reduce
speeds with the addition of curb extension or bumpouts. One plan focused on extending the entire
curb out into the street for the addition of the sidewalk and narrowed the street entirely. Two ofthe
plans used a combination of curb extensions and crosswalks to provide safety elements.
The three alternatives were presented to the entire Nevada Street neighborhood during the June 21 st
meeting, where each was discussed and the group consensus narrowed the three options to one
preferred alternative. At the July 19th meeting, the preferred alternative was discussed again and the
neighborhood group was asked to add elements, but was not allowed to pull elements out as each
provided a critical factor in traffic safety and traffic calming. The resulting preferred alternative will
be presented to the City Council at the September 7th Public Hearing.
The preferred alternative (July 2004) is similar to the concept design originally presented in
December 2003. However, there are some significant differences. The July preferred design has 2' x
2' scored concrete crosswalks, bumpouts and curb extensions on one of the comers at the
intersections of Helman, Voris, Michelle, and Glendower and curb extensions at both comers on the
south intersection of Cambridge. Primarily, the focus of the traffic calming and crosswalks is at the
two entry points (Helman and Cambridge) and at the three streets that channel traffic to the rest of
the Quiet Village neighborhood to the north (Glendower, Michelle and Voris). All of the traffic to
the north of Nevada Street uses Nevada Street as a neighborhood collector transportation route. The
bumpouts do not extend to the side streets with the exception of one comer on Cambridge and one
comer on Helman.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LlDs\CC Nevada LID Formation 7Sep04.doc Page 4 of 14
~A'
The original December 2003 design (attached) included more dramatic curb extensions. There were
curb extensions on all four comers at Cambridge wrapping around from Nevada through the side
street curbs, similar wrapped curb extensions on each of the 5 side street intersection with
corresponding bumpouts/chokers directly across from each entry point onto Nevada. There were
bumpouts on each side of Nevada to choke traffic just west of Helman. There was also one traffic
diverter island in the section from Glendower to Cambridge. Again, these are easier seen on the
attached drawings and will be discussed by staff at the meeting.
There was some discussion about the need for more traffic calming, especially at the west end of the
project between Laurel and Cambridge as this is a relatively longer section (1200 feet) with only two
traffic calming elements in the preferred design. StafIhas reviewed this idea and would support the
addition of curb extensions on both sides at Glendower to provide traffic calming, but would have
this be a planted curb extension only on the west side, not an ADA ramp as there is no crosswalk or
need for that landing. There was also a desire expressed by some to have sidewalks on both sides of
the street between Helman and Voris. Staff supports this idea as there is considerable pedestrian (and
some bicycle) travels to the Dog Park at that end of the neighborhood, but the existing utilities
(power poles, water meters, mailboxes) and landscaping makes this a very difficult addition.
TIMING: the public hearing which is scheduled for September 7th will finalize the formation ofthe
LID. Assuming there will be no major design changes upon LID formation, stafIwill finalize design
and have the project out for bids at the end of October. Construction may begin as early as
November and should be completed in April/May 2006.
Attachments:
· Nevada Street LID Map Boundaries (page 6)
· Ashland Municipal Code Section 13.20, Local Improvements and Special Assessments (pages 7-
14)
· Resolution to form and construct the Nevada Street LID; with Exhibit A to the Resolution
showing the effected properties and boundary map
· July 2004 design (7 pages)
· December 2003 design (2 pages - concept)
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LlDs\CC Nevada LID Formation 7Sep04.doc Page 5 of 14
rA1
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 1 of7
EXHIBIT 5
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 7, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 17, 2004 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Proclamation of September 2004 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month was read aloud by
Councilor Morrison.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Henry Baker to the Historic Commission for a term
to expire April 30, 2005.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Vicki Griesinger to the Airport Commissio"n for a
term to expire April 30, 2005.
4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Melissa Markell to the Public Arts Commission for a
term to expire April 30, 2005.
5. City's Investment Report.
Consent Agenda item #5 was pulled for discussion.
Councilor HearnfJackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-4. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen spoke regarding the City's Investment Report. It was explained that a
portion of the investment funds has been utilized for the completion of capital improvement projects. It was
also noted that the recent financing for AFN is not included in data provided. Mrs. Christensen stated the
portfolio has dwindled slightly due to the lower rate of interest on securities. Councilor Hartzell suggested
that future reports include the influence of trends on the City's investments.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Year Change.
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman stated there are three options for the Council to consider.
1) Shift the beginning of the program year from January 1, 2005 to July 1, 2005;
2) Opt to retain the existing program year (January 1-December 31), which would require the City to
immediately issue an RFP and only $274,000 of the anticipated $474,000 would be available; or
3) Approve the program year shift but immediately issue an RFP for the $274,000 throu9h the existing
process.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas. asp?Display= Minutes&AMID= 182 5 &Print=True
5/2312006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 2 of?
The Housing Commission recommended Option 3 and Staff recommended Option 1, however they both
agreed that a shift from the calendar year to the fiscal year is advantageous.
Public Hearing Open: 7:15 p.m.
Rad Welles/381 N. Mountain Ave/Stated there is a property located in Ashland that could be used for
affordable housing, but the City would have to act on this opportunity. before January 2005. He voiced his
support for retaining the current schedule so that the proposal for affordable housing could be heard.
Rachel Whitley /289 Grant St/Stated the Council should seriously consider acting on RVCDC's proposal
for affordable housing this year.
Ron Demele/165 Crocker St/Executive Director of RVCDC/ Stated RVCDC has a proposal for
affordable housing that they would like to submit to the City. He explained that they currently have an
option on the property and the funding is in place. If the Council shifted the program to the fiscal year
calendar, they would lose their opportunity to act on this affordable housing project which could create 16
new units in Ashland. Mr. Demele stated the proposed housing would target individuals at 50% of the
median income and that the project is fully sponsored by the Federal Government. Mr. Demele voiced his
support for Option #:3.
Teresa McCants/375 Kent St/Voiced support for RVCDC's proposal to provide affordable housing in
Ashl~nd. -
Floyd Pawlowski/415 Pompadour Dr/RVCDC Board member/Stated the time change for the
9ranting of CDBG funds would put their proposal in jeopardy. He asked that the Council retain the current
funding timeline, which would allow RVCDC to present their proposal for affordable housing in Ashland.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:23 p.m.
Mr. Goldman clarified that, if the Council wanted to act on Option 3 and move forward with RVCDC's
proposal, the Housing Commission would need to review the proposal in October. The City Council would
then make a review in November, and Staff would complete an environmental review and action plan that
would be submitted to HUD. Mr. Goldman stated that having this process completed by January may be
too optimistic and that it would likely be late January or early February before funds could be awarded. He
further clarified that HUD has a 3D-day review period and occasionally a proposal is returned to the City
for corrections and the 3D-day period starts anew.
Mr. Goldman stated that RVCDC had agreed with the program year shift, and that their concern regards
the allocation of the 2004 funds. Council discussed the benefits of following through with the already.
started RFP process. Mr. Goldman clarified that if the property in question could not be purchased by
January, the City would not lose anything and tlole funds would be aggregated with the 2005 award.
Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s to approve Option #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
o
2. Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local
Improvements for the Construction of Improvements to Nevada Street Consisting of
Sidewalks, Curb Extension Planter Areas, Pedestrian Safety Improvements to Intersections,
Drainage and Associated Improvements and Authorizing the City to borrow money and issue
and sell Notes for the Purpose of Providing Interim Financing for the Actual Cost of the
Local Improvement.
Public Works Director Paula Brown declared a potential conflict of interest, stating that she and her
husband own the property located at 800 Cambridge Street and 810 Cambridge Street. Ms. Brown noted
she was asked by both a Council member and the City Administrator to assist with this project.
Ms. Brown stated the design presented to the Council would improve traffic and pedestrian safety and
would slow speeds throughout the neighborhood. She explained that the primary goal of this project is to
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas .asp ?Display= Minutes&AMID= 182 5&Print=True
5/23/2006
City of Ashland; Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 3 of7
improve safety and noted the following objectives that were used for the design elements:
· Reduce speed of traffic;
· Encourage uniform traffic speed;
· Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian route;
· Provide safe and comfortable bicycle route;
· Provide safe motorist route;
· Maintain safe and unimpeded emergency access;
· Maintain street function as a neighborhood collector;
· Increase livability of the neighborhood (noise, trees, sign, clutter);
· Balance street function, safety and livability; and
· Reduce impact of anticipated traffic increase.
City Engineer Jim Olson explained this process began over 2 years ago when a small group of citizens
approached the Engineering Department with a proposal for sidewalks and traffic calming elements on
Nevada Street. The proposal came forward at the same time the Billings Ranch subdivision was up for
approval by the Planning Commission and concern was raised regarding the increase of traffic generated
from the Billings development. Mr. Olson stated the assessment district was identified as those lots
fronting Nevada Street and included the Billings Ranch subdivision, which was part of the plan of approval
for the Billings development.
Mr. Olson displayed the initial plan presented to the neighborhood in December 2003 and pointed out the
various elements of the plan. He explained that the initial plan was not well rec;eived at the December
neighborhood meeting. A citizen's panel was then formed and met with Staff almost every other week
from December 2003 to May 2004 to create a consensus plan that would be acceptable to the majority of
the residents and not just the properties in the assessed district. Mr. Olson stated the culmination of the
work of the citizen panel resulted in seven different plans which were condensed down to three options
through the efforts of the Fire, Public Works, Engineering and Planning staff. All of the elements in the
three proposals were taken directly from the seven plans submitted by the citizens. In May, the three
proposals were presented to the neighborhood and it was narrowed down to one plan. In June, the
neighborhood and Staff met once more and the design before the Council is the result of the June
meeting.
Mr. Olson pointed out the various elements of the current proposed plan. Ms. Brown clarified that
sidewalks will only be placed on one side of the street and stated the proposed bump-outs will be large
enough to support trees.
Public Hearing Open: 8:01 p.m.
Kristie Franks/290 W. Nevada St.jAsked the Council to reconsider the inclusion of the bump-out at the
corner of Glendower and Nevada, which would save the Cedar tree and hedge that protects her property
from noise and light. Ms. Franks expressed concern regarding the lack of traffic calming in the plan.
Dian Brandenburg/8S W~ Nevada StjExpressed concern with the bump-outs, stating they can cause
difficulties for large vehicles when passing oncoming motorists. She stated that embedded crosswalks can
be difficult to see and suggested that the City start by installing painted crosswalks.
Christina lindquist/Spoke in favor of the LID due to safety issues and submitted a handout that noted
the safety risks to children under the age of 10.
John Semplej 18S Almeda DrjStated he attended most of the meetings and noted the positive changes
from the initial plan. He voiced his appreciation that the bump-outs had been toned down, but voiced
concern with the "noisy crosswalks" and suggested instead that some sort of warning devise be placed
before the vehicle reaches the crosswalk.
AI Bodin/119 Cypress Circle/Noted he frequently bicycles on Nevada Street. Mr. Bodin stated he does
not live within the LID boundary, but would like to be included in the assessment district so that his voice
will be heard. He does not support the proposed bump-outs due to his physical impairments and
expressed concern regarding the number of votes allocated to Mike Peru of the Billings Development. Mr.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp ?Display=Minutes&AMID= 1825&P11nt=True
5/23/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 4 of7
Bodin stated he was berated by Staff during the neighborhood meetings and asked that the UD be
postponed so that the problems could be rectified.
Anne Bodin/119 Cypress Circle/Stated the conflict of interest issues had not been resolved and have
impeded acceptable progress. She stated that all of Quiet Village will be affected by this project, but many
have been.excluded from the LID and Staff has neglected their opinions and ideas. Ms. Bodin voiced
opposition to the proposed bump-outs, stating they fall to reduce traffic speeds. She stated that her
comments along with others had been verbally denounced by Staff and requested that the Council
postpone the formation of the LID so that a thorough investigation could take place.
Nora Knox/276 W. Nevada St/Read aloud a newspaper article about an elderly man who was killed by
a motorist on Nevada Street. Ms. Knox voiced support for the current plan as presented by Staff. She
explained that this project began as a grass roots effort by residents along Nevada Street to improve their
street and it has turned into a bitter process that has pitted neighbor against neighbor. Ms. Knox stated
that instead of allowing the traffic engineering experts to plan the street improvements, the neighbors
took it upon themselves to draw up the plans and were unwilling to allow outside information from the
professionals. She commented on the speeding problem on Nevada and stated the problem will only
increase once the subdivision in completed. Ms. Knox stated she supports the sidewalks, stamped
concrete crosswalks and small bump-outs. She does not like the lack of traffic calming in the proposal, but
is willing to accept the current plan because she would like to see something done.
John Whitesitt/15.6 W. Nevada/Commented on his involvement with the citizen's committee and noted
that he was their elected spokesperson. Mr. Whitesitt stated the consensus plan adequately reflects the
concerns of the neighborhood and stated the committee agreed to the proposed plan. He noted that the
seven plans were submitted to Staff because the group was not able to agree on a single plan. Mr.
Whitesitt stated he personally supports the consensus plan and asked that the Council move quickly for
'the safety of the residents. He also asked that the Council not be swayed by those individuals who are
unwilling to compromise.
Jerry Mulloy 1183 W. Nevada/Acknowledged that there are safety issues on Nevada Street. Mr. Mulloy
stated the entire Quiet Village neighborhood should be part of the LID and does not agree with excluding
the residents of the side streets. He expressed disappointment that the developer was given 69 votes,
which is more than the votes given to the people who currently live on Nevada.
Gail Patton/822 Michelle Ave/Stated she was involved with the citizen's panel and noted comparisons
to the Tolman Creek LID. Ms. Patton stated the side street property owners are willing to shoulder some
of the cost burden, but would like for their opinions to be heard as well. She stated that safety is the
primary concern for everyone and noted that emergency crews will have a difficult time navigating a
narrower street.
Lyn Horstemeier/920 Cambridge StjNoted her involvement with the citizen's panel. She suggested
that the plan be "road tested" first to determine the actual effects to each property owner. She stated that
both the City of Portland and Corvallis perform road tests before beginning any construction and that the
Nevada LID would benefit from this sort of action.
Renee Swenson/360 W. Nevada St/Stated she is in favor of the LID and is in favor of the consensus
plan.
.Jim Youngj240 W. Nevada St/Acknowledged the work of Staff and his approval of the proposed plan,
although he wished there was more traffic calming. Mr. Young stated there has always been a speed
problem on Nevada and requested that something be done in regards to the safety issues.
Tony Kerwinj350 W. Nevada St/Noted his involvement with the citizen panel. Mr. Kerwin stated the
current plan addresses the issues raised by the neighborhood and asked the Council to move forward and
accept the LID as proposed by Staff.
Linda Vanderlipj325 W. Nevada StjStated she approves of the assessment district and requested that
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID= 1825&Print=True
5/23/2006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agend~s And Minutes
Page 5 of?
the Council approve the proposed plan.
Will Schmidt/85 W. Nevada St/Stated that he is an EMS and noted that any type of street narrowing
would hinder emergency response times. Mr. Schmidt stated that there are other measure that can be
taken to calm traffic and slow speeds other than bump-outs. He noted that motorists often swerve to
avoid the bump-outs, which could put pedestrians at further risk. Mr. Schmidt stated that there are many
children in the Quiet Village area and supports educational tools for children in regards to traffic safety.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St/Stated that he had been following this matter closely even though he does
not live in the neighborhood. He commented that bump-outs might seem like a good idea for pedestrial")s,
but that they .can create issues for emergency vehicles. He also commented on the ~'Three E's: Education,
Enforcement and Engineering". Mr. Holley stated if the City enlarged the LID boundary, they could more
effectively educate the neighborhood about the speed issues. He stated that the rumble strips would be
noisy and that they don't always work, and that a ladder crosswalk with a white boundary might be more
effective.
Chris Hald/275 Cambridge St/Stated he participated in the community group and voiced opposition to
the LID as presented by Staff. Mr. Hald stated he would like to see painted crosswalks and a sidewalk on
the south side. He also commented that many of the homes on Nevada have multiple vehicles and the
cars parked along the street create a traffic calming effect.
Paige Morse/746 Cambridge St/Stated she lives on_a side street of Nevada and does not understand
why side street property owners are not included in the LID. Ms. Morse voiced opposition to the Billings
subdivision having the majority of the votes. She commented on the rumbling crosswalks and stated that
conscience traffic calming makes more sense. She stated the sidewalks should be more noticeable and if
they do insert rumbling, it should be placed before the crosswalk. Ms. Morse also noted the safety issues
on Laurel Street and encouraged the Council to look into this street as well.
Joaquin Saloma/368 York St/Stated the residents on the side streets should have a vote in regards to
the LID as they also have to travel on Nevada to get to and from their homes.
Tia Hatch/815 Michelle Ave/Statement was read aloud into the record.
Art Bullock/791 Glendower StjStated that he represented the majority of the Nevada Street property
owners. Mr. Bullock explained that of the 53 properties in the assessment district, 30 of the property
owners had signed a petition objecting to the plan presented by Staff. He explained that the majority of
the residents do not support bump-outs, rumble strips, street narrowing, storm drain relocation and trees
in the street. The majority does support a south side sidewalk, painted ladder crosswalks and side street
stop signs for pedestrians to cross safely.
Kris Daly /335 W. Nevada St/Stated that it is not fair that Mike Peru was given the right to vote for
properties that do not sit on Nevada Street. He commented that it could be years before the project is
complete and feeis that the side streets residents should be allowed to vote on the project.
Bob Armen/375 Oxford St/Stated he supports the opponents of the LID and that there are safety
issues with the bump-outs. Mr. Armen questioned why Council didn't seek ODOT approval of the plans. He
also disagreed with the number of votes given to developer and stated it is an insult to the residents of
Quiet Village.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:55 p.m.
City Engineer Jim Olson clarified that the proposed crosswalks would have parallel lines painted on the
outside of the concrete embedment, and that the reflective paint markings would be visible at night. The
scored pattern in the crosswalks would be a two-foot square pattern and would serve as a passive
reminder to motorists. It is not a rumble strip, which has scoring at 2 to 3 inch intervals.
Mr. Olson also clarified the Fire Department was involved in the planning process from the very beginning
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp ?Display= Minutes&AMID= 1825 &Print=True
5/2312006
. City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 6 of7
to eliminate any emergency response time concerns.
Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified the plans were not submitted to ODOT because they do not
manage city streets, only freeways and highways. However the design was prepared in concert with the
ODOT requirements, especially in regards to the bicycle and pedestrian elements of the design. Mr. Olson
clarified that ODOT is very supportive of bump-outs, embedded crosswalks and the other traffic calming
measures included in the proposed plan.
Mr. Olson clarified that adjusting the sidewalk around Ms. Frank's residence to save the hedge was an
option and noted that Staff had already planned to save the Cedar tree mentioned.
Ms. Brown clarified that in order to install sidewalks on both sides of the street, they would have to
eliminate on-street parking. Mr. Olson added that the street is not wide enough to have bike lanes and
parking on both sides.
City Attorney Mike Franell clarified thatthe petitions submitted by the property owners, who reside within
the UD assessment district, could count as remonstrances. However, with only the votes from the Billings
Development, the 2/3 requirement in favor of the UD is fulfilled. Mr. Franell also noted that even with a
100% remonstrance, the City could still move forward with the sidewalk project.
Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2004-31. DISCUSSION: Councilor Laws
stated that traffic would increase significantly once the Billings development is complete aAd stressed the
importance of the Three E's: Engineering, Education and Enforcement. He commented that bump-outs
provide the best means of giving the appearance of a narrow street and reducing traffic speeds, and that
the disadvantages of the bump-outs are outweighed by their advantages.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Councilor Laws explained that the developer should be included in the UD assessment because their
development would have a strong impact on the area and that they should pay for a substantial part of
the improvements. In addition, he explained that Staff had abided by the precedent set by Council, in that
those properties directly involved with the improvements are the ones that are charged.
Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Hearn, Hartzell, Morrison, Laws and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.
Mr. Olson clarified that it is against the law to place a bike lane on only one side of the street. The only
way to install just one lane would be to put a physical barrier between the traffic lanes and the bike lane.
Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s approve the 90% plan and to allow Staff consideration in the
final design of the LID to include the suggestions of sidewalks on both sides of the street
between Helman Street and Voris Street; and to extend the bump out on the Frank property.
DISCUSSION: Council asked that their suggestions not be given special attention over the concerns
raised by the residents. Mr. Franell clarified that passing this motion would allow Staff to assemble the
proposed assessment and move forward with the project. The next time this would come to Council would
be at the final assessment hearing at the completion of the improvements. Mr. Franell also clarified that
once the public hearing concluded there is no more opportunity to file a remonstrance. The only
opportunity for an appeal is under the writ of review process, as stated in the Ashland Municipal Code.
Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison. and Hearn, YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Leslie Ormanian/4093 Tenino Terrace/Stated he was wrongfully terminated from his position with the
City of Ashland and spoke regarding what he perceives as rampant abuse of the Ashland Fiber Network. Mr.
Ormanian stated computer equipment was given to employees for personal use and noted a lack of proper
records within the AFN department.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp ?Display=Minutes&AMID= 1825 &Print=True
5/2312006
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 7 of7
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report.
Electric and Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderscheid and Finance Director Lee Tuneberg
presented the AFN Quarterly Report. Mr. Wanderscheid pointed out the comparisons in the report
regarding revenue type between the Old Plan, the 2004 Plan and the Actual. He noted the promotion
activities and the planned targets for acquired accounts. Mr. Wanderscheid stated that Staff would be
revising the format of the Quarterly Report to better reflect the figures that need to be tracked. He also
explained that the plan recognizes that accounts would increase with the beginning of the Southern
Oregon University school year. Mr. Wanderscheid stated that they had not noticed any resistance to the
price increase and that most of the lost accounts are due to people moving away.
2. Quarterly Fin.ancial Report - April - June, 2004.
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the Quarterly Financial Report. He pointed out items of interest
in his report and commented that the auditors will be arriving soon.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ashland Reiterating
its Policy of Relating the Expenditure of ,Monies for Economic and Cultural Development to
the Hotel/Motel (Transient Occupancy) Tax and Repealing Resolution 2004-11."
Delayed due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilor Jackson noted a Living with Wiidfire in Ashland Forum on September 9, 2004 at the Community
Center from 7 p.m. - 9 p.m. The Forest Lands Commission and Ashland Fire and Rescue will be present to
speak about the Community Wildfire Protection Plan that is currently being developed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas . asp ?Display=Minutes&AMID= 1825&Print=True
5/23/2006
< -
EXHIBIT 6
0100'" ~J
RESOLUTION NO. iii
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO
NEVADA STREET CONSISTING OF SIDEWALKS, CURB EXTENSION
PLANTER AREAS, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENlS TO
INTERSECTIONS, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MO'NEY AND ISSUE AND
SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM
FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
RECITALS:
_A. The Council has declared by resolution its tntention to develop the improvements -
described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and
to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional
share of the cost of the improvement; and
B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to
the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be
assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective
assessments to be levied for the costs.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots
described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Nevada Street Local
Improvement District, No. 85.
SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the
improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance
with costs estimated to be $173,500.00 of which $71,900.00 will be paid by special
assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $575.20 per
equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the assessment area.
Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A.
PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION
(C:IDOCUME-1\BERTEAUFlLOCALS-1\TEMPllID NEVADA RESO.DOC)
SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell
notes for the purpose of provi~ing interim financing for the actual cost of the local
improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of
additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This
borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235(7).
SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds
to pay for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue
bonds or other obligations (the uReimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of
the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its
available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement
Bonds to be excludable from gross income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United
States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement
Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that
the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $90,850.00.
SECTION 5. The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties is characterized as
an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305,583(4).
SECTION 6. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the
respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the
city.
SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
~2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 7 day Of/~ 2004.
~~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
7
day of
s.~r+
,2004.
,/,/
~~/
Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor
"
)
PAGE 2-FORMATION RESOLUTION
(C IDOCUME-1IBERTEAUF\LOCALS-1ITEMPIlID NEVADA RESO.DOC)
c::::J ~. .'. ~ t;;:1S1. .1;1 tl~.. ~ ~ oa
~ . ~ 1 ~.
~r7 - I~'j-'~
::: r I!fr:;ft, Ill.' ~ ;:'L I" ~.
L,r"~. ~.' . ':J" lJ. '" v
'IT . :pJ -= 100
Ill' tj L ~ ~. D'" . .
i..t:l"". (I ~. ....,'- k1~'
~_. ~ ~ .~~.
.' . 11 ...... .\. ~ . .~,~~ .
. ..' ..Q 1 .~~. v~ .~~ -
'roo:.!'" l\'~ ~~. ."" .
v ~o... '.
.'~' ~~:. .
n I ~ J
.: . ~ .
'0 ".:~. 'rr
'. 'V~ ~
' \ ~~. .
. ~ . ~ .,?'A~rJ..j. t\} -"<: I'
~. "i~". ~~/.ts.rqrt.... . ~."
. -. .(:) n ] Q'iij
. l'\J D. [J. . ~mt, _ ..
- .;:: (] & . ~~W:II n .... I Or;
'. . .~U~~. -~, r
o :.' ~~I .'ol~ij.: CL..
:.Ill' ..' . 1-1 .. ra- ~ El '.
~ .~ IO~ B.. :0
D~ '1
'~<I I ~~,,:: ~.. . ~.rn,l:
I.LA,lU1 ...L'O . U 0 ~. .' i'
..:t- ~ ~ .~. niS!: j~~
~~r!l D ~
~ ~
~ ~MPr~~l "5 .
V la qt:Jp c;jR~ r.T []
'-
'.
c~r
l-
if! -
. or.;
~ .~
Exhibit A
C.I T yO F
AS.HLAND
NEVADA STREET L.LD.
o
. Miles
0.1
0.05
~.
. Q 0.-'.-- 1.1 ~ I J. ::. "/ ,
R "1 .~.~~ .,.}
o :'~ . _ .........'f' IU.ar: 'l I
~'f D' ~."il ~ ~ ~ r
~ B~ -,>". . Q : .....? '.
.1l1:Ji ". ~ ~. -. ' ~f'
:: . S> G'J.. 7)\;) ." ......~~
>< . ~ t'-i
..~I~):
'.T .~.... U
.
'. .
'!!J'~"'r ~r':'p
..' r:r ~... ;..., ~
filE.Al. ;.. ...
". C1
.ll.iD :.~~~ ....
~;,..
f:F . ""Q
~~I- ,
~ -lit /
C'. ~3g
rb . ..
0() O[] [J080 [
DC]
~nnmnl A ~j
'1~ -~..- ~ -.-............ / I
'1 t:lIl3Ef 7
1/
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\LIDs\CC Nevada set PH LID Formation 3Aug04.doc
~..
r.'
It)
I
~
o
it:
~
U)
E
~
z
w
:i:
~
o
0::
Q.
~
..J
c(
o
o
..J
~
W
W
0::
I-
(f)
c(
c
~
w
z
-~
lJ III
"" :I
III
~.
Q)
~.
II) II)
1I);t:::
Q) c:
II) :J ...-
~
....
o
II)
ro
II) II)
II) Q)
Q) c:
i5 ~
'0 <(
<(",. -
'OotQ)
c:-.Q)Q)
rog.oJ:>o
Q)-'<{(/)~
EI'-o(lrol'-
ro ...160>
Z ~>o::
II)rod>O
-... Q) Z '0
~ ~~ffi
:;: ]!N:E
o (1)",. CIl
W...-<(
..-
-
c:
::J
c:
c: .0
o 'in
a:~
'C '0
U .0
~~
o II)
(ij E
Ol ro
d> ==
...J .-
~
....
o
N
.;..:
CO
i"
o
...J
~"O..-
...JO
..-
()
o CO
Z """
a. LU
ro ..-
Z ~
o
Z
o
N
.0
I'-
10
~
o
~
C:-I'-
d>~0>
:J...o::
g> Ci) 0
(!)C-o
II) d> c:
d>~ro
E<o:E
ro <0 CIl
-,M<(
-
c:
::J
c:
.Q
en
.:;;
'i3
.0
:J
CI)
en
E
.~
~
.....
o
N
~
in
N
o
...J
N
o
..-
()
OJ
"""
W
..-
m
M
N
o
~
to
I'-
to
~
o
",.
d
to
....
..-
~
N
o
N
Lri
I'-
to
o
N
Lri
I'-
10
o
N
Lri
I'-
to
~
...-
o
N
.0
I'-
to
~
...-
o
N
Lri
I'-
10
~
o
N
Lri
I'-
to
~
E
:Q
III
W
~
ra
[:
~
~
a..
o
:J
!
en
III
"0
~
Ql
;?;
o
:J
C
'e
"0
2
a.
Ql
~
01
[:
~
'"
i!:
l
::)
ll.
o
~
~
o
N
Lri
"'-
10
~
~
....
....
.....
...-
U)
"C
.l:
()
o ~ m =
~ ~ ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~
.l: '0 0> - d> d>0> od> :J<o
~Q) c: N 0> ro_ 0> -Q) c:Q) ~c:<o
:Jc:Oro Ii) J:>0~Q)0>0 J:>0~J:>0 '-OOld><o
.l:roNCI) 0> (/)N N (/)~>(/)~~Ci)~~_<(>~
() ...J Ii) .l: """ to c: J:> 10 v, > ~, ....~, .."
_0>1'-- 0> rol'-~(/)I'- rol'-rorol'-Q)~~~~~
Q)CIlO>~~~ro~O>~mO>~~O>'-'OO>Dro~~M>
~'i3O::c:~()i~O::O::~O:::J~O::~~O::~>~ro""'-
Ci)~O~Ci)rouZOo(lroOIZO~zO~~Ozw~
roQ.ro-o..xmE::i, .-0 E...J'O ro .'0 ,'0 ,'Oc:z::J
'0 C:~~:J >c: ~C:->C:o(l>C:o(l>c:~<oo
ro Ii) J!! ~ I'- (ij .9- > J!!.~ .!Y "~ >.!Y c: > .!Y ~ > .!Y 0 u
>N.l:roO-=<O.l:=O>.l:J:><o.l:.l:<O.l:C:O.l:=..-c:
Q)..-CIl~OQ).l:OCll>Ii)CIlroI'-CIl01i)~OMCIlroNro
z...-<(~...-Q.Q.N<(>I'-<(Q."-<(-''''-~I-...-<(~.....>
..-
-
"c
::J
c:
o
'in
.:;;
'6
.0
::J
(/)
CIl
E
"~
~
.....
o
N
~
CO
0>
06
<0
"0
...J
M
o
...-
()
OJ
"""
LU
..-
m
M
M
..-
-
'c
:J
c:
.Q
en
:~
"tJ
.0
:J
(/)
en
E
~
~
"-
o
~
in
.....
"0
...J
"""
o
..-
()
CO
"<t
W
...-
m
M
"<t
..-
-
"c
::J
c:
o
'in
':;;
'i3
.0
:J
(/)
CIl
E
~
~
....
o
-
..-
~
in
N
o
...J
Ii)
o
..-
()
CO
"<t
W
..-
0>
M
10
..-
-
c:
::J
c:
.Q
en
.:;;
'6
.0
:J
(/)
CIl
E
.~
~
....
o
~
in
M
o
...J
<0
o
..-
()
CO
"<t
W
..-
0>
M
<0
-
c:
::J
c:
o
'in
":;;
'6
.0
:J
(/)
en
E
~
~
....
o
N
~
in
"0
...J
I'-
o
..-
()
CO
"<t
LU
..-
m
M
I'-
-
c:
:J
c:
o
'in
":;;
'i3
.0
:J
(/)
CIl
E
~
~
....
o
N
~
CO
M
"0
...J
<0
o
..-
()
OJ
'<t
W
..-
0>
M
<0
..-
-
'c
::J
c:
o
"in
":;;
'i3
.0
:J
CI)
en
E
.~
~
..-
-
"c
::J
c:
o
'in
":;;
'i3
.0
:J
(/)
en
E
~
~
.....
o
N
~
CO
10
o
...J
....
o
N
~
CO
<0
"0
...J
0>
o
..-
o
..-
......
()
OJ
"<t
W
()
CO
"""
W
..-
m
M
......
m
M
())
o
......
~
o
o
~
~
m
I/')
co
~
I-
o
iX:
I-
(f)
o
I-
Z
UJ
:E
UJ
>
o
0:
0..
~
-'
<(
o
o
-'
I-
UJ
UJ
0::
I-
(f)
<(
c
~
UJ
Z
1-
I:
CD
- E
S fI)
~ll
fI)
~
0)
g.
I/)J!l
I/) 0-
0) C
~::l
......
o
I/)
ro
I/)
I/)
~
:g
<{~
-gQ
rog
0)-
E"-
ro
Z
I/)
-....
0)
c
~
o
o
N
uj
"-
10
w
,...
o
N
uj
"-
10
w
,...
o
N
uj
r;;
w
,...
o
N
uj
"-
10
w
,...
o
N
uj
"-
10
w
o
N
uj
"-
10
w
o
N
uj
"-
10
E>4
o
~
10
"-
10
w
o
N
:d
10
w
,...
o
N
uj
"-
10
w
I-
0)
E
E
ro
ii
c
1) (0-
0) -oJ~
~o.J~o 0)0
(f)NIO....(f)N C ~N
""rolOroO)IO
ro"-..c: "-C>"-
~m a.-gm O)<{m
>0:::0)>0:::3.....0:::
O)o:gO)o....::Io
~"O.~-oQ)..5"O
~ ffi i ~ ffi ~~ ffi
..-::c.o('"):c...."-::c
10 ,I/) 0 CD I/) ro 10 I/)
,...<{0:::,...<{:2:~<{
I/) ~ ~
iGiGi Gi jl ~ ~1 1
UO)O ~~C>O)L..o O)oCO~oc ('")()~o ~o
L..N ro"-.........N ~Nt(f)Nro Nro(f)N (f)N
CWIO~-oJCD::I(f)~C(f)~.oO)ro~WIO Ocro~~ro~
roro"-~~m.oro'-roro -0'- ro"O--o
l/)"Om~ro-c"OmE"Omorom>-~m-romO) m
~roO:::~wI~~~~roo:::o:::>o:::~()<{o>O:::E~O:::c
~~o E~cO)Oe~O~~O~~()~~OO)~O~
EZ"O E>3~>- e!Z"OI-Z"O 0) ,"0:: I/) ~ ~ ,"00::: ."0,';;
co.... co C c- c....,=-- CI/) c~
~_~~~.ooo~c~~i~~&~~=<{~~~~O)~~ro
>..c:O),,-cro>..c:->..c:L..IO..c:c>..-=O)..-..c:EIO..c:L..
~CDI/)~..-~-101/)0)101/)~01/)~100.....Ml/)ro('")l/)~
>m<{~~~Ooo<{Im<{~,...<{>"-I(f)..-<{.,...<{~
.....
.....
'c
::>
c
c 0
'0_ Oiij
os;
0.:0
'C .a
U ::I
:{l en
o I/)
E
~
~
W
0>
0)
-oJ
x_
ro 0 ,...
_ -oJ ,...
,...
()
o IXl
Z -q-
a.1JJ
ro .....
:2: ~
o
Z ..-
..-
......
o
N
~
ili
r--
(5
-oJ
m
m
00
m
..-
,
10
~
c
Q)
E
::I
U
o
o
"0
Q)
Q)
o
o
o
('")
..-
()
OJ
-q-
W
..-
m
('")
N
..-
o
-q-
('")
o
..-
I
00
m
'It:
C
Q)
E
::I
U
o
o
"0
Q)
Q)
o
o
o
~
..-
()
co
~
w
,...
m
M
M
..-
('")
,...
M
o
M
,
10
~
c
Q)
E
::I
U
o
o
"0
Q)
Q)
o
o
o
10
.,.....
()
OJ
'<:t
W
.,.....
m
('")
'<t
.,.....
m
m
~
"-
N
I
00
"-
'It:
C
Q)
E
::I
U
o
o
"0
Q)
Q)
o
o
o
co
.,.....
()
co
'<:t
W
..-
m
M
10
.,.....
co
10
10
~
,...
I
N
00
'It:
C
Q)
E
:J
U
o
o
-0
Q)
Q)
o
o
o
I"-
.,.....
()
OJ
'<t
W
..-
m
('")
CD
.,.....
'<:t
N
co
o
.,.....
I
00
"-
'It:
C
Q)
E
:J
U
o
o
"0
Q)
0)
o
o
o
00
.,.....
()
co
'<t
W
.,.....
m
M
I"-
.,.....
c
o
'iij
's;
:0
.a
:J
(f)
I/)
Q)
iii
u;
w
c
>-
-oJ
M
~
co
(5
-oJ
o
o
m
.,.....
o
OJ
'<t
W
.,.....
m
M
00
.,.....
c
,Q
I/)
0;:;
:0
.a
::I
en
I/)
0)
iii
u;
w
c
>-
-oJ
N
~
ili
10
(5
-oJ
o
o
o
N
()
co
'<t
W
.,.....
0>
cry
0>
..-
c
o
Oiij
"s;
:0
.a
:J
(f)
I/)
Q)
iii
u;
w
c
>-
....J
N
~
co
~
(5
....J
o
o
..-
N
o
co
~
w
..-
0>
cry
o
N
c
o
'00
's;
:0
.a
:J
(f)
I/)
Q)
iii
-
I/)
w
c
>-
....J
N
~
co
('")
(5
-oJ
o
o
N
N
()
co
'<t
W
.,.....
0>
cry
.,.....
N
o
N
uj
"-
10
fI)
fJ
E
""
II)
w
2-
co
'I:
~
1!
D-
o
::::;
Qj
,g:
en
Cll
"0
~
CD
Z
o
;;!
I:
'E
"0
Cll
.!.
a.
CD
32
tll
I:
~
III
~
~
.0
::I
D-
o
w
N
"'<t
o
o
N
N
a;
It')
i
I-
o
it:
I-
UJ
C
I-
Z
UJ
:i:
UJ
>
o
0::
no
~
-I
<(
o
o
-I
I-
UJ
UJ
0::
I-
UJ
<(
o
<(
>
UJ
Z
i:
CD
- E
~ III
~ :l
III
~
0)
~.
l/J.!!l
l/J "-
0) c:
l/J=>
.!2
.....
o
l/J
III
l/J
~-
"0
~'<t
"00
C:O
lllC")
0)-
E""
III
Z
l/J
-....
0)
c:
~
o
o
N
Iri
,....
In
~
o
N
Iri
,....
In
~
...
o
N
Iri
,....
In
~
...
o
C'!
In
,....
In
~
...
o 0
N . N
Iri Iri
,.... ,....
In In
~
...
~
o
C'!
It)
,....
It)
~
...
o
N
iri
,....
It)
~
.....
o
N
10
,....
It)
~
o
CO
r...:
CO
N
~
v
~
o
ii)
::J
....
~ I-
0) ....
c: 0)
o ffi ~
oS l/J l/J u:: -g
J ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_
.... 00)....0) 0) ltio) "~o) 0) (/)0) ,- (90)
Q) N bO~bO bOCObo~bO 0 bO~boi o.....bO
n ,.... ~N~UJN ~N ~N~~N Q)Nc:~~c:~~~ Nm~N
e OC lll~ lll~l/J""~~lll~~lll~ 2....~rolll,....Wlll"" ~,........~
~ ~ "Om~"Om~Q)m~"OmQ)"Om m~"Omlll"Om~mmQ)Q)m
~~~l/J~OClti~ocg~o::~~OC~~O:: ~o::e~O::~~O::~bo::5~o::
1-1t)~~~O~zOm-gO~~O~ZO ~o8~o~zoe.....o~-go
c X 5 III "-g ~ . -g ,~ ~ -g l/J . -g ~ . -g X -g t "-g c: "-g co g -g 0) ~ -g
&S~~~~~~~~<9~~~~~~~~o~O)~~~~~~co~I<9~
Q)ou"~In~::J"'~-N~~m~C:,,"~~""'~Dolt)~Q)In~::Jo~::J""'~
.... lllOml/J.........~roml/J~ml/Jrolt)l/J ml/J C")~-Nl/Jlll l/J....m(/)
O~"-I.....~CONq~,....~ON~'N~<9C")~O::Nq0N<(~~~I-,....~
c:
,Q
c: l/J
o :~
'E.~
.C o4.J
U ::J
l/J ~
Q) l/J
o 0)
10
iil
w
c:
~
-I
N
~
iD
N
o
-I
ro
0>
Q)
-I
~ 0 0
t- -I g
N
o ()
Z r;j
nLU
III -.-
~ ~
o
Z N
N
c:
o
'in
'S;
'6
D
::J
~
l/J
0)
10
iil
w
c:
~
-I
N
~
in
o
-I
o
o
'<t
N
()
co
'<t
W
...
0>
C")
C")
N
c:
,Q
In
:~
"0
D
::J
~
In
Q)
10
iil
w
c:
~
-I
~
iD
o
-I
o
o
In
N
()
co
'<t
LU
.....
0>
M
'<t
N
c:
,Q
In
:~
"0
D
::J
~
Q)
0>
~
:>
Q)
"3
o
~
co
m
o
-I
o
o
N
m
~
I{)
LU
.....
0>
C")
I{)
N
c:
o
'in
'S;
'6
D
::J
~
Q)
0>
~
:>
Q)
'3
o
~
iD
It)
o
-'
o
o
M
m
~
I{)
LU
.....
m
C")
to
N
c:
o
'in
'S;
'6
D
::J
~
0)
0>
~
:>
~
::J
o
~
iD
'<t
o
-I
o
o
'<t
to
~
I{)
W
.....
m
C")
,....
N
c
o
"in
'S;
'6
.0
::J
~
Q)
0>
~
:>
]l
::J
a
...
~
iD
C")
o
-I
o
o
I{)
m
~
I{)
w
.....
0>
C")
co
N
c
o
'in
:~
"0
.0
::J
~
0)
0>
J!1
:>
Q)
'3
a
~
iD
N
0'
,.J
o
o
m
m
~
I{)
w
.....
m
C")
0>
N
c:
o
'in
'S;
'6
.0
::J
o
Q)
0>
~
:>
~
::J
a
~
iD
.....
o
-'
o
o
,....
m
~
I{)
ill
.....
m
('f)
o
M
c
o
'in
:~
'0
.0
::J
~
0)
0>
~
:>
~
::J
a
c
o
'in
'S;
'6
.0
::J
~
0)
0>
~
:>
Q)
'3
o
"
M
~
iD
N
~
iD
o
-'
...
......
o
-'
o
o
N
.....
...
o
o
m
co
~
I{)
LU
.....
0>
('f)
~
I{)
ill
.....
0>
('f)
,-
M
N
M
o
N
l()
,....
It)
III
S
IV
E
,.,
III
W
~
IV
C
~
1!
ll.
o
::J
Qi
~
CI)
IV
"0
~
CD
Z
o
::J
C
'f
"0
IV
.!.
a.
CD
:l2
Cl
c
CD
Iii
~
1
:>
ll.
(;
~
l"l
'f
o
o
!:::!
!:::!
Ol
L
c:
Q)
- E
.g CI)
I- CI)
:g
~
Q)
~.
VJj!3
VJ ,-
Q) C
VJ:J
~
It)
i
I-
o
0:
I-
en
C
t-
Z
W
==
W
>
o
0::
n.
~
-'
<(
o
o
-'
Iii
w
0::
I-
en
<(
o
<(
>
w
z
'-
o
VJ
tlJ
VJ
VJ
Q)
...
'0
'0
<(V
'OQ
Co
tlJ(\')
Q)--
EI'-
tlJ
Z
VJ
-...
Q)
C
3=
o
u u u ()
-I -I -I -I
-I -I -I -I
a. a. a. a.
~. ~ ~ ~
~ e e e e
wm m Q)'Om m m,~ ,~
~Q) Q) Q) CQ) Q) Q) Q) ~ ~ CD CD
"''''0 ~o ~otlJ~oQ)o~ ~o ~o~~v~~~~Q)m~~1'-
I-mN WN WNO::WN.~8cWN WNO~OO~OO~oo~o
~ro~a.tlJ~ tlJ~tlJtlJ~VJaN~tlJ~ tlJ~CDO~CDO~CDo~CDo~
~'Om~'Om 'Om'~'OmI-2Q)mo'Om 'Om~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m
<(tlJ Q)tlJ tlJ -tlJ 'O<(-tlJ VJtlJ 00) 00) 00) 00)
> 0:: > 0:: > 0:: > 0:: ... 'Vi u.. -> 0:: '0 > 0:: C '0 0:: C '0 0:: C'O 0:: C '0 0::
cQ)O~Q)o Q)O~Q)O.~U~Q)omQ)otlJ~oro~OtlJ~OtlJ~O
oz roZ ~z cZ cro'O-IZ ~Z O::w'OO::w'OO::w'OO::~'O
~ ,~> '~ro .~.,g '~~r:l.ro~ '~D '~VJtlJ"'lI)tlJ"'VJ<Il"'lI)ro'"
c~~ro~~o~~~~~I_ic~~c~~~ws~ws~ws~ws
O)_~'O~~II)~~c(\')~'O(\')~~m~O_~=_'O=_'O=_'O=_'O
~-II)~NII)~(\')II)OVII)Q)_roomIl)O)~II)=~~=~~=~~=~~
~(\')<(-,(\')<(~(\')<(.(\')<(I-v(),(\')<(w(\')<(ml'-~ml'-~ml'-~ml'-~
C
,2
0..
'c
o
II)
Q)
o
(ij
0)
.3 .i
~
a
N
~
co
N
'0
-I
o
~ (5 0
I- -I ;:2
,....
o ~
Z l()
a.w
<Il ,....
~ ~
o
Z C')
cry
c
2
II)
'5
'5
.D
~
W
Q)
0)
~
:>
o
N
u:i
I'-
~
~
-
o
N
u:i
I'-
~
~
c
,2
II)
'5
'5
.0
~
W
Q)
0)
~
:>
j
~
a
N
~
co
cry
'0
-I
o
o
v
-
-
:?
~
w
-
m
cry
v
cry
o
N
u:i
I'-
LO
~
C
o
'Vi
'5
'5
.0
~
W
Q)
0)
~
:>
m
'5
a
N
~
co
-.:i
'0
-I
o
o
~
-
.,....
:?
10
W
.,....
m
cry
10
cry
o
N
u:i
I'-
~
~
c
o
'Vi
:~
"C
.0
~
en
Q)
0)
~
:>
Qj
'5
a
N
~
co
u-i
(5
-I
o
o
m
.,....
.,....
:?
LO
W
.,....
Q)
C')
CD
C')
o
N
u:i
I'-
~
~
c
o
'Vi
'5
'5
.0
~
W
Q)
0)
~
:>
~
~
a
N
~
co
CD
(5
-I
o
o
I'-
.,....
-
:?
LO
W
.,....
m
C')
I'-
C')
o
N
u:i
I'-
~
~
-
c
o
'Vi
'5
'5
.0
~
W
Q)
0)
~
:>
~
~
a
N
~
co
r-:
'0
-I
o
o
co
.,....
.,....
:?
10
W
.,....
Q)
C')
co
C')
o
N
u:i
I'-
LO
~
c
,Q
VI
'5
'5
.0
::J
W
Q)
0)
~
:>
Qj
'5
a
N
~
co
co
(5
-I
o
o
Q)
.,....
.,....
:?
l()
w
.,....
(j)
C')
(j)
(V')
c
o
'iij
'5
'5
.0
~
W
.s::
o
c
tlJ
0::
VI
0)
,f:
co
o
.,....
(5
-I
o
o
(j)
v
().
<(
LO
W
.,....
(j)
C')
o
~
o
('II
u:i
I'-
LO
~
o
('II
u:i
I'-
~
~
c
o
'iij
'5
'5
.D
~
W
.s::
o
c
ro
0::
II)
0)
,f:
co
-
-
(5
-'
o
o
o
LO
U
<(
LO
W
.,....
(j)
C')
.,....
~
o
('II
u:i
......
l()
~
c
o
'iij
:~
"C
.0
~
en
.s::
o
c
ro
0::
Ul
0)
~
co
N
.,....
(5
-'
c
o
'iij
'5
'5
.0
~
W
.s::
o
c
ro
0::
Ul
0)
@
co
cry
.,....
o
-'
o
o
.,....
l()
U
<(
10
W
o
o
N
LO
()
<(
l()
w
.,....
Q)
C')
.,....
Q)
C')
N
'<t
cry
~
o
N
u:i
I'-
~
..
S
lU
E
~
~
III
C
~
2!
a.
o
::i
1i
t
CI)
lU
~
~
G)
~
o
~
c
E
~
III
i
G)
32
Ol
c
~
..
-l!:
~
.0
:>
a.
<!i
~
"<t
"<t
o
o
~
~
'"
an
.i
t-
o
~
t-
rn
o
t-
Z
w
:E
w
>
o
0::
c..
~
..J
<
o
o
..J
t-
W
w
0::
t-
(f)
<
o
~
w
z
x - 0
tU 0 0
_....I (\')
l[)
o 0
Z ;;5
a.UJ
co ..-
2 ~
.
i:
II)
j9 E
~i
III
~
Q)
~ .
I/).J!l
I/) --
Q) C
I/):J
~
....
o
I/)
co
I/)
I/)
~
"0
"0
<(..,.
"Oe
Co
llJ(\')
Q);:::
E
llJ
Z
I/)
.L..
0)
~
o
o
N
u;
.....
10
~
o
N
u;
.....
It)
~
..-
o
N
u;
.....
l[)
~
o
N
u;
.....
10
~
o
N
u;
.....
10
~
o
N
u;
.....
10
~
o
t"!
It)
.....
10
~
o
N
u;
.....
10
~
o
N
u;
.....
It)
~
o
N
u;
.....
l[)
~
() () () 0 () () () () () ()
..J ..J..J..J..J....I..J....I..J..J
..J ..J..J..J....I..J..J..J....I..J
a. <( a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
::J ill ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J
e " e e e e e e e e e
o ~ 0 000 0 0 000
~~~..J~m~~O~~""'~~N~~(\')~~""""~I[)~~~~~"",~~~
o-o_-oo-.....o-.....o-.....o-.....o_.....~~..-o_..-o_..-o_..-
00~~O~00~00~00~00~00~00~00~00~00~
~Q)mEQ)m~Q)m~O)m~Q)m~O)m~Q)m~O)m~O)m~Q)m~O)m
g OJ 0:: a. OJ 0:: goo:: goo:: g OJ 0:: g OJ 0:: g OJ 0:: goo:: g OJ 0:: 0 Ol 0:: 0 OJ a::
CO~O~~OCO~OCO~OllJ~OllJ~OtU~oCO~OllJ~Offi~offi~o
o::~"OO)~"Oa::~"Oa::~"Oo::~ua::~ua::~ua::~uo::~ua::~Ua::~u
I/) co L.. > co L.. I/) tU L.. I/) co L.. I/) llJ L.. I/) llJ L.. I/) tU L.. I/) tU L.. I/) llJ L.. I/) co L.. I/) tU L..
OJUJ.E c3 w.E ow.E OJUJ.E oUJ.E ow.E ow.E oUJ.E ow.E ow.E ow.E
~.....u ....."O~_u~.....u~.....u~..-u~.....u~..-u~..-u~_u~..-"O
- 0)0 Q)-- 0)- 0)- 0)- 0)_ 0)_ 0)_ 0)_' Q)- 0)
~~2I~~~~2~~2~~200~~OO~~OO~~~~~~~~~~~
C C
o 0
'K :__-~
-;::
o "0
(/) D
Q) ::J
o (f)
10 ~
OJ 0
0) C
....I ~
(/)
OJ
,g
in
..,.
..-
(5
....I
o
Z ..,.
..,.
C
o
-in
'>
:0
D
::J
C/)
~
o
C
tU
0::
(/)
o
.~
i:D
l[)
.....
(5
....I
o
o
"<t
l[)
o
<(
l[)
W
..-
m
(\')
l[)
..,.
c:
o
'en
:~
u
.0
::J
C/)
~
o
c:
llJ
a:::
I/)
o
.~
i:D
~
..-
(5
....I
o
o
l[)
LO
()
<(
l[)
w
..-
m
(\')
CD
..,.
C
-Q
I/)
'>
:0
D
::J
C/)
~
o
C
co
a::
I/)
o
~
i:D
r--:
.....
(5
..J
o
o
CD
10
o
<(
l[)
w
..-
Ol
(\')
r-..
"<t
C
o
-en
:~
"0
D
::J
C/)
~
o
c:
co
a:::
I/)
OJ
,g
i:D
~
...-
(5
..J
o
o
r-..
LO
()
<(
l[)
w
..-
Ol
(1)
co
..,.
C
o
'en
:~
u
.0
::J
(f)
~
o
C
ro
0::
(/)
o
~
[1)
a>
..-
(5
..J
o
o
co
l[)
o
<(
l[)
w
...-
Ol
(1)
Ol
"<t
C
o
'in
->
'6
D
::J
(f)
~
o
C
ro
0::
(/)
o
~
i:D
o
N
(5
..J
o
o
Ol
LO
o
<(
l[)
w
...-
Ol
(1)
o
l[)
C
o
'en
:~
"0
.0
::J
(f)
~
o
C
llJ
a:::
I/)
Cl
~
i:D
-
..-
N
-0
..J
o
o
o
~
o
<(
l[)
w
..-
0)
(")
..-
l[)
C
.Q
(/)
:~
"0
D
::J
C/)
~
o
C
llJ
a:::
I/)
o
~
i:D
N
N
(5
..J
o
o
..-
~
o
<(
l[)
W
..-
Ol
(")
N
l[)
C
-Q
(/)
'>
:0
D
::J
C/)
~
o
C
co
a::
(/)
OJ
~
i:D
(\')
N
(5
..J
C
o
'en
'>
'6
D
::J
(f)
~
o
C
ro
a:::
I/)
o
,g
i:D
"'<t
N
(5
....I
o
o
N
CD
o
<(
10
W
o
o
(1)
CD
o
<(
LO
W
..-
Ol
(\')
..-
Ol
(")
(\')
l[)
"<t
LO
o
N
u;
.....
10
-Ill
.s
III
E
~
III
W
~
III
t::
:~
~
o
:J
~
en
.:g
~
z
o
~
t::
'E
1J
III
a
Q)
:!2
01
t::
~
III
t:
~
..c
::>
Q.
(;
~
I()
"<t
o
o
N
N
0;
an
~
I-
o
0::
l-
(/)
a
I-
z
W
~
W
>
o
0::
Q.
~
...J
<t
o
o
...J
I-
W
W
0::
l-
f/)
<t
C
~
w
z
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0
c N N N N N C'f C'f N N N N
III to to to to to It) l!? to to to to
! E ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... ,... " ,... ,...
~~ It) It) It) It) 10 10 It) It) It) It) It)
'"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E,/) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CI>
g.
CIl!i
fIl .-
Q) C .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... ....
~:J .... ....
'0
CIl
ro U U U C
fIl U U ~
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J Q)
fIl .~ "
~ ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J C C E
" a. a. a. a. a. .c C ::J ::J
" ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J U 0 ::J ro
<t'<t e 0 0 e 0 ro 0> fIl_ ro ~ .a
cD ~ cD .a '<t I: Q) 0) 0)- Q)Q) 01 a>
"0 c> c> c> ~ g ~ ~ t:: o 0) ~Q)
1:- ~ ~ 0> ~~O ~~.... ~~N ~~M Q)-O 0) C~O
I:J::O Q)L...O
roO C"O> U)Ci5~ IX)O)N I-Ci5N 5Ci5N
M 0-- .... 0.- N 0.- N 0.- N 0.- N roU)N
O)r::: C>~IO C>~1t) c>L...1t) C>~1t) C>~IO Q)rolt) ~~IO >rolO >-rolt) >-ro~
0" 0" 0" 0" 0" roroe:{
E Eou 0)16" -" " " " "1:-0"
ro .cQ)0> .cO)O> J:O)O> .cO)O> .cQ)0> 50::: fIl C 0> roU)O> :::&:::roO> 0) roO> Q)"O)
u 010::: u 010::: o 010::: u 010::: u 010::: .- ro
Z c" "1:" C" C" 1:" z;::~ 0)>0::: ...Jroo::: 01:1>0::: a;>~ 3>0:::
Ul ro 'C: 0 ro -c: 0 ro "C: 0 ro 'C: 0 ro -c: 0 0:::0)0 01:1160 Ul~O IX) 0) ....,0)0
O:::w" O:::w" O:::w" O:::w" O:::w"O 0I:I"2~ oI:IZ"O Z oI:I:Z:"O
-~ fIl>" "~ ""0 01:1 ."0
0) U)ro~ Ul ro ~ Ul ro L... U) ro L... Ul ro L... C 0 c: O)~I: 0) 0) c: l:: ~ C t::~ffi ~ 5: ffi
I: g> UJ ,2 OlW,2 OlW,2 OlW,2 OlUJ,2
3= >- IX) <{ I: Jl! u Z ro ro ~
=....~ ~....~ ~....~ ~..-~ ~....~ Q)1t)U) roo.c I:co:C: I'<tJ: Q)N:C: Eo:C:
0 m~~ m~~ m~~ m~~ m~~ > 0 0 .c<<>~ ~ N U) -;C;;~ ::90Ul ~~~
WIO...J U)M LLM<{ <{Me:{
I:
I: I: I: I: I: 0
0 0 0 0 0 'ifj
'ifj -ifj 'ifj 'en "ifj 'S;
C C C I: C I: :~ 'S; 'S; 'S; 'S; '6
0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 '6 '6 '6 '6 .a
:a 'en 'ifj 'en 'ifj 'ifj .a .a .0 .0 .0 ::J
'S; 'S; 'S; 'S; 'S; ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J en
'C '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 en en en U) U) Ul
U
U) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 U) U) U) U) U) 0)
0) ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J 0) 0) Q) 0) 0) E
0 U) en en en en E E E E E 0
(ij .c .c .c .c .c 0 0 0 0 0 I
u u u u u I I I I I L...
01 C I: I: I: I: L... '- L... L... L... ro
0) ro CIl CIl CIl ro CIl ro CIl CIl CIl "
...J 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: "0 "0 " " " 0)
U) U) U) U) Ul 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) U
01 01 01 01 01 U U U U U
~ I: I: ~ .~ N N N N
N N ~
IX) in IX) IX) IX) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CD
CD CD CD co CD
Lr) lJ:i ,... co 0> - N ui N
N N N N N .... <<> " ....
'0 0 (5 - 0 0 - - (5 (5 (5
0 0 0
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
x- 0 0 0 0 0
CIl 0 0 0 0 0 0 .... N M '<t It) <<>
-....J '<t 10 <<> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<0 <<> <<> <<> ,... .... .... .... .... .... ....
0 0 U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z e:{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{
l.O It) It) LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO
a. LU UJ W LU W W W UJ W UJ LU
CIl .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
2 0> 0> 0> O'l Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 0>
0:"1 M ("') 0:"1 M M M M 0:"1 M 0:"1
0
Z l.O <<> ,... co Ol 0 ..... N ("') ~ LO
l.O LO LO LO LO <<> to to to to to
11
III
E
:::l
'"
W
~
III
C
:~
1!
Q.
D
::::i
j
Ci5
III
'0
III
>
III
?:
o
~
c::
'E
'0
III
t
CD
:!2
Cll
c::
~
.>t.
~
1:.
~
n.
o
<0
'<t
o
o
~
N
Oi
.'
It)
co
:Jt
I-
o
iX
I-
U)
0-
I-
Z
w
:E
w
>
o
~
a.
~
-.J
c(
o
o
-.J
I-
W
W
~
I-
en
c(
c
~
w
z
~<5
_ -.J ~
..-
~
c
G)
19E
~i
~
a>
~ .
t/)!3
1/)'-
a> c:
1/)::>
~
'0
I/)
co
I/)
I/)
~
-0
-0
c(~
-OQ
C:O
co('/')
a>-
E"-
lU
Z
I/)
....
a>
c:
~
o
o
C\I
Iri
"-
10
~
T"
o
C\I
Iri
"-
It)
~
~
ui'
"-
10
~
o
C\I
ui
"-
It)
~
o
C\I
ui
"-
It)
w
o
C\I
ui
"-
It)
w
o
C\I
ui
"-
It)
~
o
<0
~
co
C\I
~
v
10
o
o
C\I
ui
"-
10
w
o
o
o
C\I
ui
"-
10
~
T"
x ~ ~ 0 0 0
o c: (.) -J -J -J
:2 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~
-CE 0. g> ~ Q) co g g g
co- - co c:- ~ c:~ Q) ~Q)'" ... ...
~m ~m I ~m a> lUa> a> C:a> ~ ~ ~
~~21-~2~ T"O~~o ~o'~o ~Oe~O~~~~~It)-~<O
...en~=en~~ enC\l enN~enC\la>enNa>enNO~OO~O~~O
~lU,,-OlU,,-~~~~lU~ lU~c:co~-olU~>lU~~O~~O~~O~
a>i~O-o~~I~~i~3i~!i~Oi~~i~tia>~ti~m~a>~_
E>~en~~~W~~>~Q)>~Q)~~~>~~>~c:~~c:~~g~~
~a>O~a>O~~O~Q)O~Q)O~Q)Oa>a>OCOQ)Oco~Oco~om~o
Q)Z-oa>Z-o S-o~Z-OOZ-o~Z-o~Z"O~Z-o~~-o~~-o~~"O
~>C:~>C:~~5Q)>C:->C:C:>C:~>C: >c:wco5I/)C05wC05
m>J12 1/)>J12 Q)LO-:;:,>~'~>~E>~~>.!!! E>~ ~W_ ~W.... ~W_
L-<o~~<o~~coi~o~C:<O~-O~~.~COco~=T"i=T"i=T"i
O"-I/)~<OI/)~m~"'~I/)CO"-WC:IOI/)>It)I/)"o~I/)=co~=CO~=CO~
ZC\lC(ONC(WT"~~NC(ONc(c((,/,)c(>Nc(c(('/')c(m"-~m"-~m,,-~
c:
o
'U;
c: '>
,2 '0
1i.g
"5 en
I/) II)
Q) Q)
o E
~ 0
~I
Q) ...
-.J ~
Q)
o
N
.llI::
ffi
0>
<5
-J
o
o c('
Z It)
c.w
co ..-
~ ~
o
Z co
co
c:
o
'U;
">
'0
.0
:J
en
II)
Q)
E
o
I
L-
co
"0
Q)
o
N
.llI::
m
o
T"
-
o
-J
co
o
..-
o
c(
It)
UJ
.....
0>
(")
,.....
co
c:
o
"U;
:~
-0
.0
:J
en
II)
Q)
E
o
I
L-
co
-0
a>
o
N
.llI::
ffi
~
-
o
-.J
~
o
..-
o
c(
It)
W
..-
0>
(")
ro
<0
c:
o
'U;
">
'0
.0
:J
en
II)
Q)
E
o
I
...
co
-0
Q)
()
N
.llI::
ffi
ro
-
o
-J
o
T"
..-
o
c(
It)
UJ
.....
0>
(")
0>
co
c:
o
'U;
'>
'0
.0
:J
en
II)
Q)
E
o
I
.....
co
"0
Q)
()
(")
.llI::
Cii
..-
-
o
-J
.....
.....
.....
o
c(
It)
UJ
.....
0>
(")
o
,.....
c:
o
"U;
">
'0
.0
~
en
Ul
Q)
E
o
I
L-
co
-0
Q)
()
N
.llI::
m
(")
<5
-J
N
..-
.....
o
c(
It)
UJ
.....
0>
(")
.....
,.....
c:
o
'u;
:~
"0
.0
:J
en
Ul
Q)
E
o
I
L-
co
-0
Q)
()
N
.llI::
Cii
.....
.....
o
-J
It)
.....
.....
o
c(
It)
UJ
.....
0>
(")
N
"-
c:
,2
Ul
:~
"0
.c
~
en
Ul
Q)
E
o
I
.....
co
"0
Q)
()
.llI::
m
o
-J
<0
N
.....
o
c(
It)
UJ
.....
0>
(")
(")
,.....
c
o
'U;
">
'0
.0
:J
en
~
(.)
c:
co
~
II)
~
~
m
..-
o
-J
o
o
(")
..-
o
c(
It)
UJ
..-
0>
(")
.
,.....
c:
o
';;;
">
'0
.0
~
C/)
~
(.)
c:
co
~
I/)
OJ
~
ii5
N
o
-J
c:
o
"U;
'>
'0
.0
:J
C/)
~
(J
c:
co
~
I/)
OJ
~
ii5
(")
o
-J
o
o
.
.....
o
o
It)
..-
o
c(
It)
UJ
.....
0>
(")
o
c(
It)
W
.....
0>
(")
l.()
,.....
<0
,.....
o
C\I
ui
"-
It)
fIl
.!
10
E
;0
fIl
W
~
10
C
~
e!
a..
o
::J
Qj
~
(J)
10
"0
10
ai
~
o
;;;;!
c
'e
"0
III
I
a.
G)
"0
C.
C
Gl
Iii
l
.D
::>
a..
o
w
,...
'<t
o
o
~
~
0>
1-
c
tI)
S E
~.~
III
~
ll>
~ .
Vl2
VI .-
ll> C
VI::J
~
an
i
.-
o
"
.-
en
C
.-
z
w
:;
w
>
o
0:::
a..
~
...J
~
o
o
...J
t-
W
W
0:::
t-
en
~
c
~
lU
Z
--
o
VI
10
VI
VI
ll>
....
U
U
<(.q-
uQ
Co
1O(\')
ll>;;::
E
10
Z
VI
-....
ll>
C
~
o
o 0 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
e e e e e e e e e e 0
~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~~~~m~~o~~~~~('II~~(\')~~.q-~~~~~~~~m
o~go~go~go~~o~~o~~o~~o~~o~~o~~_~g
~O~~O~~C~~C~~O~~O~~O~~O~~O~~O~~O~
~ll>m~ll>m~ll>m~ll>m~ll>m~ll>m~ll>m~ll>m~ll>m~ll>mEll>m
g Ola::: g Ola::: g C>a::: g Ola::: g C>a::: g C>a::: g C>e:: g Ola::: g C>e:: g C>a::: Q. Ola:::
ro~oro~oro~oro~oro~oro~OtO~OtO~OtO~OtO~O~~O
a:::~Ue::~Ua:::~Ua:::~Ue::~Ue::~U~~U~~U~~U~~Ull>~U
VI to .... VI to .... VI to .... VI to .... VI to .... VI to .... w to .... w to .... w ro .... w to .... > to ....
OlW.E OlW.E OlW.E OlW.E OlW.E C>w.E OlW.E C>w.E C>w.E C>W .E ~ w.E
~~U~~U~~U~~U~~U~~U~~U~~U~..-U~~U ~U
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
c C
,Q ,Q
a. III
'C '>
~ :u
ll> .0
o ~
ro ~
Ol (,,)
ll> C
...J to
c::
w
Ol
.~
i:D
.q-
o
...J
~ 0 0
t-...J :2
o 0
Z ;;!3
~W
10 ~
~ ~
o
Z f"-
f"-
o
C'!
~
t--
~
o
N
Ici
t--
~
w
w
C
o
'iij
'>
:u
.0
~
(/)
~
(,,)
C
ro
0:::
III
C>
~
iii
an
o
...J
o
o
~
..-
o
<(
I.()
W
..-
m
(I')
co
~
o
N
Ici
t--
~
w
~
c
o
'iij
:~
U
.0
~
(/)
~
(,,)
C
to
a:::
VI
C>
,~
i:O
co
o
...J
o
o
m
~
o
<(
I.()
w
~
m
(I')
m
~
o
('II
to
t--
~
w
C
o
'iij
'>
:u
.0
~
C/)
~
(,,)
C
to
c::
III
Ol
~
CD
~
o
...J
o
o
o
('II
o
<(
I.()
W
~
m
(I')
. ~
0>
(I')
o
co
o
('II
Ici
t--
I.()
w
C
o
'iij
'>
:u
.0
~
(/)
.c
(,)
c
to
e::
VI
Ol
~
iii
~
o
...J
o
o
..-
N
o
<(
I.()
W
~
~
o
('II
Ici
t--
~
w
C
o
'iij
:~
U
.0
~
C/)
.c
(,,)
c
to
c::
W
Ol
,~
i:O
m
o
...J
o
o
(I')
N
o
<(
I.()
W
~
0>
(I')
N
~
o
('II
Ici
~
~
w
C
o
'iij
'>
:u
.0
~
(/)
.c
(,,)
C
to
0:::
w
Ol
,~
iii
ci
(I')
o
...J
o
o
"<t
N
o
<(
I.()
W
..-
0>
(I')
(I')
a::>
o
N
Ici
~
~
w
c
o
'iij
:~
U
.0
~
(/)
.c
(,,)
C
ro
0:::
III
Ol
~
i:O
~
(I')
o
...J
o
o
I.()
N
o
<(
I.()
ill
..-
())
(I')
"<t
co
o
C'!
I.()
t--
~
w
c
o
'iij
:~
U
.0
~
(/)
.c
(,,)
C
ro
e::
III
Ol
,~
iii
N
(I')
o
...J
o
o
co
N
o
<(
I.()
W
..-
())
(I')
I.()
co
o
N
to
~
II)
w
c
o
'iij
'>
:u
.0
~
C/)
.c
(,,)
c
10
0:::
III
Ol
,~
iii
(I')
(I')
o
...J
c
o
'iij
:~
U
.0
~
C/)
.c
(,,)
C
to
e::
VI
C>
~
CO
.q-
(\')
o
...J
o
o
~
N
o
<(
I.()
ill
o
o
a::>
N
o
<(
I.()
W
~
0>
(I')
~
0>
(I')
CD
a::>
f"-
a::>
o
N
to
t--
~
III
.!l
~
,.,
III
W
~
III
C
~
e
D-
o
::J
w
j
en
III
'0
III
>
Q)
Z
o
::J
c
'E
'0
III
a
Q)
'0
0,
c:
~
III
-l!
~
:>
D-
o
co
'<t
o
o
~
N
0;
It)
i
I-
o
iE
?-
m
E
I-
Z
w
:E
w
>
o
~
a..
~
-I
<(
o
o
...,I
ti
w
0:::
?-
m
<(
o
~
w
z
1... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c N N C\/ C\/ ~ N N C\/ ~ N N
CIl Iri Iri Iri Iri Iri lri lri Iri Iri
j9E I() I{)
,.... ,.... I'- I'- I'- ,.... I'- I'- ,... ,... ,...
~! I{) I{) I() It) I{) I{) I{) I{) I{) I{) I{)
III
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(I)
~.
1/)$
I/) .-
(I) C
1/):::> ..... ..... ..... ..- ..... ..... ..... ....... .....' ..... .....
:2
"-
0
I/)
1'0 ()
II) t) () () u () t) t) U () ()
II) -l -I ...J -l ...J -I -l -l -I -I -I
~ -l ...J -I -l -l ...J -I ...J ...J ...J -I
-0 n n n n n n n n n n n
-0 ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J
<(v 0 e 0 e 0 0 e e e e e
.... .... .... ....
-oQ (9 (9 C) (9 (9 C) C) (9 (9 C) C)
Co ::~co ~~O> ~~o :=~....... ~~N ~~C") ~~v ~~I{) ~ ~ (0 ~ ~,... ~~co
I'OM 0.- ....... 0.- ....... o .- C\/ 0,- N 0.- N 00- N o ,- C\/ o .- C\/ 0,- N 0.- N 0.- N
(1)- (9....1{) C)....I{) C)....I{) (9....1{) (9....1{) (9....1{) C)....I() (9....1{) (9....1() C)'-lt') C)....I()
E"" 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,...
..c(l)O> ..cQ)0> ..cQ)0> ..cQ)0> ..cQ)0> ..cQ)0> ..cQ)0> ..cQ)0> "fiQ)0> ..cQlO> ..cQ)0>
1'0 ~O 01 0:: o 01 0:: o 01 0:: o 01 0:: o 01 0:: o 01 0:: o 01 0:: o 01 0:: o Cl 0:: o 01 0::
Z C-o C-o C-o C-o C-o C-o C-o C-o C .g> 0:: C-o C-o
II) 1'0 'C 0 1'0 'C 0 ro oc 0 1'0 'C 0 ro 'C 0 ro 'C 0 ro 'C 0 1'0 'C 0 1'0 'C 0 1'0 'C 0 1'0 'C 0
-.... O:::1;j-o O:::1;j-o O::1;j-o a:::1;j-o O::1;j-o O::1;j-o O::1;j-o O:::Vi-o O:::Vi-o O::iil-o O::Vi-o
Q) II) 1'0 .... II) 1'0 .... II) 1'0 .... II) 1'0 .... II) 1'0 .... II) 1'0 .... II) ro .... II) 1'0 .... II) 1'0 .... II) t'O .... II) ro ....
~ OIw,2 OIw,2 enw,2 enw,2 OIw,2 enw,2 enw,2 enw.O enw,2 01 LU ,2 g>w,2
~.......~ ,~ ....... -0 ~.....~ ~.....~ ~.....~ ~.....~ ~.....~ ,~~ 15 .~ ..... -0 ,~ ....... -0
0 =coQ) - Q) - Q) - Q) :::.....~
m~~ co,...~ m~~ m~~ m~~ m~~ m~~ a5~~ m~~ m~~ a5~~
C c C C C C C C C C C C
,Q ,Q .Q ,Q 0 0 0 0 .Q 0 0 0
a. lI) II) VJ 'iij 'iij 'iij 'iij en 'iij 'iij 'iij
:~ ':; ':; ':; ':; ':; ':; ':; ':; :~ ':;
'C '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 '6 '6
0 -0 -0
II) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Q) ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J
0 (f) en en en (f) en en en en en en
lii .c ..c ..c ..c ..c .c .s:::. ..c ..c ..c .c
0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0
en c C C C C C C C C C C
Q) 1'0 ro ro co ro co ro co co co co
-I 0:: 0:: a::: 0::: 0:: 0:: 0::: 0:: 0:: 0:: 0::
lit en II) II) II) II) II) II) II) en II)
Cl 0> en en 01 01 0> en 01 en 0>
,g ,~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
iD ill iD iD ill iD co ill co ill ill
ll"i ,..: co 0> 0 -
(0 ....... N C") V I{)
('t') C") M ('t') M V V V V V V
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0
0
...J ...J ...J ...J -I -I ...J ...J ...J ...J -I
x- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ro 0 0 o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_...J 0> 0 ..... N C") V I() (0 ,... co 0>
C\/ C") C") ('t') M C") C") ('t') ('t') C") M
ci 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <( <(
IJ') I() l() I() I() IJ') I() l() IJ') I{) IJ')
n W W W W W W W W W W W
co ....... ..... ..... ....... ..... ....... .,.... .,.... ....... ....... .......
~ 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
('t') C") C") C") C") ('t') C") ('t') C") C") ('t')
ci
z co 0> 0 ....... N ('t') V l() <D ,... co
co co 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
III
.S!
IV
E
:c
III
W
~
IV
C
~
e
Q.
o
::i
~
CI)
IV
'0
~
Ql
Z
o
::i
l:
'E
'0
'P
a.
Ql
:e
01
c
~
~
.1J
:;]
a..
(;
en
~
o
o
~
~
Ol
'Ii
It)
i
t-
O
Q:
t-
m
C -
t-
Z
w
::!:
w
>
o
0::
Q.
::!:
-I
<(
o
o
-I
t-
W
W
0::
t-
m
<(
c
~
w
z
~ (5 0
_...J g
"Ot
o 0
Z ~
a.w
ro ,...
2 ~
.
1:
t)
:s 5
~J
Q)
~.
1/)J1
I/) .-
Q) I:
~::>
'0
I/)
ro
I/)
1/),
I!?
u
U
<("Ot
UQ
1:0
roC")
Q)j:::
E
ro
z
I/)
-....
Q)
~
o
N
u;
......
10
o
N
u;
......
10
o
N
u;
r;;
~
,...
o
N
u;
......
1.0
~
o
~
LO
......
10
~
o
~
10
......
10
~
,...
o
N
u;
......
1.0
~
o
N
u;
......
1.0
~
o
N
u;
......
1.0
.~
,...
o
N
u;
......
1.0
~
o 0 u 0 0 0 u 0 u 0 U
...J ...J -I -I -I ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
...J ...J ...J -I ...J -I ...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
e e e e e e e e e e e
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~m~~o~~""~~N~~C")~~~~~IO~~~~~"""~~~~~m
O~NO-C")O-C")o-C")o-C")o-C")o-C")o_C")o_C")o_C")o_C")
~o~~o~~o~~o~~o~~o~~o~~o~~O~~O~0o~
~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m~Q)m
o Cl tY 0 Cl tY 0 Cl tY 0 Cl tY 0 Of tY 0 Cl tY 0 Cl tY 0 CltY 0 Cl tY 0 0> "" 0 Cl tY
I:u.... l:u....l:u....l:u.... I:u..... l:u.....l:u.... I:.u.... I:u.... I:u.... I:u....
ro~oro~oro~oro~oro~oro~oro~oro~oro~oro~oro~o
n:~~n:~un:~un:~un:~un:~un:~~n:~un:~un:~un:~~
I/) ro '- I/) ro .... I/) ro '- ~ ro .... ~ ro '- ~ro '- ~ ro '- ~ ro .... ~ ro '- ~ ro .... I/) ro '-
OJw.E OJw.E ClW.E ClW.E ClW.E ClW.E ClW.E ClW.E OJw.E OJw.E ClUJ.E
~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~~,...~
m~2m~2m~2m~2m~2m~2m~2m~2m~2m~2m~2
I: 6
.Q 'iij
i5. '>
'5 u
I/) .0
Q) ~
o rJ)
ro {5
Cl I:
Q) ro
...J n:
I/)
Cl
~
m
~
"Ot
-
o
...J
o
Z 0)
0)
~
~
,...
I:
o
'iij
:~
~
.0
~
CI)
~
o
I:
ro
n:
I/)
OJ
.S
m
r--
"Ot
(5
...J
o
o
,...
~
o
<(
lO
ill
.--
m
C")
o
o
.--
I:
o
'iij
'>
U
.0
~
CI)
~
o
I:
ro
n:
~
OJ
~
co
~
~
(5
...J
o
o
N
"Ot
o
<(
lO
ill
.--
CJ)
C')
.....
o
,...
I:
o
'iij
'>
'6
.0
::J
rJ)
~
o
I:
ro
n:
I/)
OJ
~
m
m
"Ot
(5
...J
o
o
C')
"Ot
o
<(
lO
ill
.....
0)
C')
N
o
,...
I:
o
'iij
:~
~
.0
~
CI)
~
o
I:
ro
0::
I/)
Cl
.S
m
o
1.0
(5
...J
o
o
"Ot
"Ot
o
<(
lO
ill
,...
0)
C')
C'?
o
,...
I:
.2
~
'>
'6
.0
::J
CI)
.r:::
o
I:
ro
0::
I/)
OJ
~
CO
.....
lO
(5
...J
o
o
lO
"Ot
o
<(
lO
ill
.....
0)
C')
"Ot
o
,...
I:
o
'iij
:~
~
.0
::J
rJ)
~
o
I:
ro
n:
I/)
Cl
~
m
N
lO
(5
...J
o
o
co
"Ot
o
<{
lO
ill
,...
m
C'?
lO
o
.--
c
o
'iij
'>
U
.0
~
CI)
~
o
I:
ro
n:
~
OJ
~
m
ri
lO
(5
...J
o
o
......
"Ot
o
<{
LO
ill
.--
0)
C'?
co
o
.--
I:
,Q
~
'>
U
.0
~
CI)
~
o
I:
ro
n:
I/)
Cl
.S
m
~
lO
(5
...J
o
o
~
~
o
<{
lO
ill
.--
0)
C')
......
o
.--
I:
,2
~
'>
U
.0
~
rJ)
~
o
I:
ro
n:
~
Cl
~
m
LO
LO
o
...J
I:
o
'iij
:~
~
.0
~
CI)
~
U
I:
ro
n:
~
OJ
.S
m
(0
lO
(5
...J
o
o
0)
"Ot
o
<{
LO
ill
o
o
o
lO
o
<{
LO
ill
,...
lJ)
C'?
,...
lJ)
C'?
~
o
.--
lJ)
o
.....
o
N
u;
......
1.0
III
.!!
~~
""
III
W
~
IV
c:
:~
e
11.
o
~
II
II
rJ)
IV
"1:l
11I
>
OIl
~
~
c
'E
"1:l
11I
t.
OIl
"1:l
Ol
c:
~
III
->0:
~
.0
:>
11.
(:j
~
.--
o
'<t
o
o
!::!
!::!
OJ
. ,
1-
c:
GI
- E
~ :l
~~
Q)
g.
1Il!l
III '-
Q) c:
~::>
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
In
~
,....
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
,....
10
~
o
N
to
,....
10
~
'0
III
CO
III 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0
III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ n n n n n n n n n n
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<(ve e e e e 0 e e e e
~Q(!) C> C> C> (!) 0 C> C> ~Q) C> (!)
~g~~o~~~~J~~Jc:~~J~~J~~J~~J~~~2~J~~"J~
Q)-O~~~~IO~~IO~ 1O~~IO~~IO'n~IO'n~1O -1O'n~lOtn~1O
E,....C>a,....~a,....~a,....~a,....~Q,....~Q,....~a,....~a,....~>,....~a,....~a,....
co .cQ)m.cQ)m.cQ)m.cQ)m.cQ)m.cQ)m.cQ)m.cQ)mc:<(m~Q)m.cQ)m
Z g~~g~~g~~g~~g~~g~~g~~g~~tc~c:~~g~~
III co~oco~oco~oco~oco~oco~oco~oco~oco~oco~oco~o
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c:~~~~~~~
~ III co ~ III co ~ III co ~ III co ~ III co ~ III co ~ III co ~ III co ~ N co c: III co ~ III co ~
- o>w 0 o>w.E o>w.E o>w.E o>w.E o>w.E o>w.E o>w.E .;:: > co o>w.E o>w .E
~ c: ~c: ~c: ~c: ~c: ~c:_~~_~~_~~co_.~~_~~__~
o ~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffi~~~~~~~~~~~
an
i
I-
o
a:
l-
f/)
5
I-
Z
W
~
W
>
o
~
D.
~
..J
<(
o
o
~
t-
W
W
a:
l-
f/)
<(
o
~
w
z
~ (5 0
~ ~ ~
10
o 0
z <(
10
nw
co .-
~ ~
c: 6
.Q 'in
0.. "S;
'5 '6
III .n
Q) ~
a rn
ro .c
0> u
Q) c:
~ tl
III
0>
~
m
r-:
10
(5
~"
o 0
z .-
.-
c:
o
'in
:~
~
.n
~
rn
.c
u
c:
co
~
III
0>
~
m
co
10
(5
~
o
o
N
l()
o
<(
l()
w
.-
0>
(")
.-
.-
.-
c:
o
'in
:~
~
.n
~
U)
.c
u
c:
co
~
II)
0>
.!;
in
m
l()
(5
-.J
o
o
(")
l()
o
<(
l()
w
.-
0>
(")
N
.-
.-
c:
o
'in
:~
~
.n
::J
U)
.c
u
c:
co
0:::
III
0>
.!;
m
o
co
(5
~
o
o
l()
l()
o
<(
l()
w
.-
0>
(")
(")
.-
..-
c:
o
'in
'S;
'6
.0
::J
U)
.c
u
c:
co
~
II)
0>
~
in
."..
co
(5
...J
o
o
co
l()
a
<(
l()
w
..-
0>
C')
~
.-
..-
c:
o
'in
:~
~
.0
::J
U)
.c
u
c:
co
~
II)
0>
.!;
in
N
co
~
o
~
o
o
,....
l()
o
<(
l()
w
.-
O'l
(")
l()
..-
..-
c:
o
'Iii
:~
~
.0
::J
U)
.c
u
c:
co
~
II)
0>
,g
in
(")
co
(5
-.J
o
o
co
l()
o
<(
l()
w
.-
0>
(")
co
.-
.-
c:
o
'in
"S;
'6
.0
::J
U)
.c
u
c:
co
0:::
II)
0>
@
in
--i
co
(5
...J
o
o
o
co
o
<(
l()
w
.-
O'l
C')
,....
.-
.-
c:
.Q
II)
:~
~
.0
::J
U)
.c
u
c:
co
0:::
II)
0>
.!;
in
10
co
(5
-.J
o
o
N
co
o
<(
l()
w
..-
O'l
C')
co
..-
..-
c:
o
'Iii
:~
~
.0
::J
U)
.c
u
c:
co
~
II)
0>
@
in
<Ii
co
(5
~
c:
o
'Iii
'S;
'6
.0
~
U)
.c
u
c:
co
0:::
II)
0>
.!;
co
,....
co
(5
~
o
o
(")
co
o
<(
l()
w
o
o
v
co
o
<(
l()
w
..-
0>
C')
..-
O'l
(")
Q)
.-
.-
o
N
..-
o
N
to
.....
l()
j
ClI
E
""
(/)
l1J
~
ClI
c:
:~
~
n.
o
::;
4i
l!!
u;
ClI
"0
ClI
>
CIl
Z
o
~
c:
'E
"0
1
Co
Gl
:!2
0>
c:
~
1II
~
l
:;,
n.
o
~
~
~
"<t
o
o
N
N
m
....
T-.--.'~~ T
..
It)
co
:n:
I-
o
~
l-
t/)
C
I-
Z
W
:e
w
>
o
0:::
Do
~
-'
ct
o
o
-'
lu
w
0:::
l-
t/)
ct
o
~
w
z
t.. 0 "0 0 0 0
5i N N C"! C"! N
- E to to It) 10 to
Sill ,... ,... ,... ,... ,...
~IJ It) It) 10 It) It)
~ to9 to9 to9 ~ to9
Q)
~.
(/)!3
(/) 0-
Q) c:
(/)::> ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
~
'0
(/)
ro
(/) 0 0 0 0 0
(/) -' -' ...J -' ...J
~ -' ...J ...J ...J ...J
"0 a. a. a. a. a.
"0 :J :J :J :J :J
ct'<t 0 e 0 0 0
.... .... .... ....
"00 0 0 0 0 0
c:-- :!:: ~..... :!::~N :!::~M ......Q);1; :!::~It)
rog - >
0-- 10 00- 10 0-- 10 0-- 0-- 10
Q)-- 0....10 0....10 0....10 0....10 0....10
E"" 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,... 0,...
.c: Q) 0> .c:Q)0> .c:Q)0> .c:Q)0> .c:Q)0>
ro o 010::: o 010::: o 010::: o 010::: o 010:::
Z C:-O C:"O 1::-0 C:"O 1::-0
(/) ro -;:: 0 ro -;:: 0 ro -;:: 0 ro 0;:: 0 ro -;:: 0
L.. O:::1i)-o O:::1i)-o O:::1i)-o O:::1i)-o O:::1i)-o
Q) (/) ro .... II) ro .... II) ro .... II) ro .... II) ro ....
I:: OIW 0 OIw.E OIW 0 OIw.E OIw.E
~ of: ..- t; ~ ..-:~ of: ..... 1:; ~.....~ ~..-~
0 - Q) - Q)
ai~~ m~~ ai~~ ai~~ ai~~
c: c: c: c: c: I::
0 0 0 0 0 0
li "00 "00 -00 000 000
"> '> 0> "> :~
-;:: '6 '6 '6 '6
0 -0
II) .D .D .0 .D .0
Q) :J :J :J :J :J
0 (f) (f) (f) (I) (I)
ro .c: .c: .c: .c: .c:
0 0 0 0 0
01 c: c: c: c: c:
Q) ro ro ro ro ro
...J 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: 0:::
II) II) II) II) II)
01 01 01 01 01
,g of: .f: ~ .f:
iD iD lD lD lD
-
00 en 0 ..... N
co co ,... ,... ,...
(5 - (5 (5 (5
0
...J ...J ...J ...J ...J
~o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
I-...J l() co ,... 00 0>
co co co co co
0 0 0 0 0 0
Z <{ <{ <{ <{ <{
10 l() l() l() l()
a. W W W W W
ro ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
~ 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>
M M M M M
0 ..... N M ">t l()
Z N N N N N
..... ..... ..... ..... or-
10
N
..-
III
S
l'IJ
E
""
III
W
~
l'IJ
C
:~
e
Q.
o
::;
Qj
~
ti5
11l
"0
~
.Q)
z
o
::;
c
oe
"0
t
Q)
:!2
OJ
c
-!
..
-""
~
.0
J
a..
(;
N
o
C'o!
10
,...
10-0
to9Q)
1.1.-
00
1-.5
(I) II)
05
o 0
<{:!:
ro
Z ~
o Q)
o...:Q
::> II)
Og>
W:o::
(I) .!Q
<{ ><
lD Q)
I- (;
z......
w"O
~~
(1)"0
(I) ~
Wo
(1)_
(f) 0
<{...J
V
'<t
o
o
~
~
0>
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2004-141 - Annexation and
Zone Change (Jackson County Rural Residential RR-5 to City of
Ashland Low Density Multi-Family R-2) for an approximately 10-acre
parcel located on the east side of Clay Street, north of Ashland
Street, at 380 Clay Street.
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
Department: Community Development
Contributing Departmen~~J(
Approval: Martha Benn~17jI
Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar, 55~
bill@ashland.or.us .. ""t> tAr--
Secondary Staff Contact: Mike Franell,
552-2105
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Statement:
At the March 21, 2006 meeting, the Council approved the application for an Annexation of a 10-
acre parcel located at 380 Clay Street. 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 Chris Hearn, Attorney for the applicant. Legal and Planning
Department staffhave reviewed the findings and have amended condition # 28 in the document
to reflect the decision of the Council based upon evidence in the record.
At the Council hearing on this matter, staffhad suggested a condition # 27 related to the timing
of affordable housing construction. This condition has been incorporated within the proposed
findings document. Included with the motion to approve the annexation was a condition # 28.
This condition required the applicant to provide a conservation easement or comparable
instrument over the two proposed larger open space areas, one at the northwest comer and one at
the southwest comer. It is staff's understanding that this condition was intended to provide
perpetual protection of the wetland area (northwest comer), as well as the open space containing
several large poplar trees.
The applicant has stated in a letter provided by their attorney that they find the proposed
condition # 28 somewhat problematic. The applicant's attorney notes that it is the applicant's
intention to sell the southwest parcel, which contains the older residence, out buildings and
poplar trees. The residence will be renovated and the parcel occupied by an Ashland family.
Consequently, the letter states: "It is therefore important that the scope of any conservation
1
'A'
easement still allow flexibility for the family to use their property for typical and reasonable uses
which any homeowner would expect." The written correspondence further explains that the
future property owner of the southwest comer, whoever that may be, may seek to redevelop the
parcel at a later date consistent with the R-2 zoning designation.
Staff Recommendation:
It is staff's opinion that the proposed wording of condition # 28 reflects Council discussion and
the motion to approve the annexation at the March 21, 2006 meeting. If the Council chooses,
they may instruct staff to work with the applicant to ensure that the wording of the conservation
easement (or similar restrictive covenant) clearly permits flexibility for the owner of the
southwest parcel to use the property for typical and reasonable uses which any homeowner
would expect.
The decision of the Council, in staff s opinion, did not contemplate the future development of
multiple housing units on the property. If a future property owner wishes to develop additional
housing units on the property at a later date, the property owner would need to prepare a land use
application for an amendment to a condition of approval. This is permitted under the Procedures
section 18.108.040 ofthe Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Such a request would require public
notice to surrounding property owners and would need to comply with all relevant land use
approval standards including those related to affordable housing.
For Council consideration, Staff has attached optional wording for condition # 28. This condition
requires that the poplar grove be preserved and protected in accordance with the Tree
ProtectionlRemoval Plan. Future removal of any poplar trees would be subject to a Tree
Removal Permit. Lastly, if further development was permitted in the southwest comer of the
project at some future date, the condition requires that a percentage of the additional residential
units comply with the affordable housing requirements as set forth for annexations.
Staff recommends that the Council either adopt the findings as presented, or modify and adopt
the findings.
Council Options:
The Council may adopt the findings as presented or modify the findings and adopt the
modification.
Potential Motions:
Move to adopt the findings for approval of Planning Action 2004-141.
Move to modify and adopt the findings for approval of Planning Action 2004-141.
Attachments:
Optional wording for Condition # 28
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders supporting P A 2004-141
Minutes of the regular Council meeting of March 21, 2006
Letter from Christian E. Hearn, Attorney
Planning Commission Findings, Conclusions, and Orders for P A 2004-141
Tree Protection Plan/Tree Removal Plan
Topographic survey of property with tentative wetland delineation and poplar tree inventory
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachment
Optional Condition #28
That an agreement be recorded requiring the poplar tree grove situated at the southwest corner of the site
to be protected and preserved in accordance with the approved Tree Protection/Tree Removal Plan
(Applicant's Exhibit L-1). Any modifications or amendments to the plan would be processed through a Tree
Removal Permit procedure. The southwest comer of the property as delineated on the Tree Protection/Tree
Removal Plan (Applicant's Exhibit L-1) would not be covered by Exempt Tree Removal Activities described
in the Land Use Ordinance. Further, the agreement would stipulate that further development of the
southwest comer that includes an increase in the number of residential units shall include a percentage of
residential units for purchase or rent to households consistent with the requirements for annexation and
commensurate with City of Ashland resolution adopting a range of qualifying incomes.
3
r;.1
--n:-.----
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-141, )
A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION, )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP CHANGE; )
FOLLOWING APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION )
OF AN OUTLINE PLAN AND SITE REVIEW FOR A )
117-UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE)
STANDARDS OPTION, AN EXCEPTION TO STREET )
STANDARDS AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT )
)
PROPERTY LOCATION: 380 CLAY STREET )
COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39-1 E-11 C, TAX LOT 2500 )
)
APPLICANT: D and A Enterprise )
)
FINDINGS OF FACT
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS,
AND ORDERS
1. The real property which is the subject of this land use and/or limited land use
decision is located in Jackson County, Oregon, and is described by County
Assessor's map designation as: 39-1E -11C, Tax lot 2500 (the "Property"). The
address of the Property is: 380 Clay Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
2. The Property is currently located in the unincorporated area of Jackson County
and is zoned RR-5. The Property is located within the urban growth boundary of
the City of Ashland ("City"). City's Comprehensive Plan designates the Property
for annexation into City for "Multi-Residential" use, with a proposed City zoning of
designation of "R-2" upon annexation.
3. On or about November 30, 2004, Applicant duly submitted a land use and/or
limited land use application to City for approval of an Outline Plan under the
performance standards option, site review, a tree removal permit, and an
exception to City of Ashland's local street standards, subject to reasonable
conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site under the
relevant criteria (the "Application").
4. On February 8,2004 and June 14,2005, City's Planning Commission, after
proper public notice, duly held public hearings on the Application. At the public
hearings, testimony was received and exhibits were presented to the Planning
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -1-
"------------nr-- ~_. .--.--
Commission. The public hearing process was then closed. The Planning
Commission deliberated, and unanimously approved the Application subject to
certain conditions. Additionally, the Planning Commission forwarded to the
Ashland City Council ("Council") a recommendation that the Property be
approved for annexation into the City under AMC 18.106, with appropriate
changes being made to City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map to
implement the annexation.
5. On July 26, 2005, City's Planning Commission duly issued its Findings,
Conclusions and Orders approving the Application with conditions. A true copy
of the Planning Commission's Findings, Conclusions and Orders is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set
forth.
6. The Planning Commission's Findings, Conclusions, and Orders granting
approval of the Application, subject to certain conditions set forth therein, was
not appealed. The Planning Commission's Findings, Conclusions, and Orders,
attached as Exhibit "A", thereafter became a final land use and/or limited land
use decision.
7. In compliance with the Ashland Municipal Code, the Application was thereafter
forwarded to Council in the form of a request for annexation, with the appropriate
concurrent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map change from the current
Jackson County zoning ("RR-5") to City of Ashland zoning ("R-2" -- Low Density
Multi-Family Residential).
8. On March 21, 2006, Council, a quorum being present, and after proper public
notice, held a public hearing on Applicant's request for annexation, along with
the requested concurrent Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes.
During the Council's public hearing, testimony and exhibits were offered and
received. The public hearing was then closed, and Council deliberated and
considered the relevant criteria. Council then voted to approve Applicant's
request for annexation, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes,
subject to conditions, as more fully set forth below.
9. The procedure, application requirements, and approval standards for
annexations to be applied by Council in reviewing the Application are set forth in
AMC 18.106.010; 18.106.020; and 18.106.030. Council's findings for approval
address these criteria below.
10. 18.106.010 Procedure
All annexations shall be processed under the Type III procedure. (ORD 2791,
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -2-
.
1997.) Finding: City duly processed the Application in conformity with the
Type III procedures established in the AMC. This criterion is met.
11. 18.106.020 Application
Except for annexations initiated by the councilor commission pursuant to section
18.106.025, application for annexation shall include the following information:
A. Consent to annexation which is non-revocable for a period of one year from its
date. Finding: Applicant provided the necessary consent to annexation,
which was non-revocable for one year. This criterion is met.
B. Agreement to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding
indebtedness of special districts defined in ORS 222.510. Finding: Said
agreement was duly provided by Applicant to City, and is in the custody of
the City Recorder. This Criterion is met.
C. Boundary description and map prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225.
Such description and map shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor. The
boundaries shall be surveyed and monumented as required by statute
subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. Finding: Applicant
provided a description and map prepared by registered land surveyor,
subsequent to Council approval, in connection with final plat. This
criterion is met.
D. Written findings addressing the criteria in 18.106.030. Finding: this criterion
is met by the findings set forth below, and incorporated by reference here.
This criterion is met.
E. Written request by the property owner for a zone change. Provided, however,
no written request shall be necessary if the annexation has been approved by a
majority vote in an election meeting the requirements of Section 11 g of Article XI
of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 47). (ORD 2792,1997).
Finding: In connection with Applicant's request for annexation into City,
Applicant requested that the zoning designation be concurrently changed
from its current County designation (RR-5), to the proposed City zoning as
reflected in City's Comprehensive Plan (R-2). This annexation request was
not made pursuant to Oregon Ballot Measure No. 47 or Section 11g of
Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. Rather, this application for
annexation was initiated by Applicant, and only involved a request for
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -3-
iii
annexation of real property owned by Applicant. The portions of City's
Municipal Code ("AMC") relating to land use have been duly acknowledged
by the State of Oregon's land Conservation and Development Commission
("lCDC"), including those portions of the AMC relating to annexation of
land within City's Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB"). This criterion is met.
12. 18.106.030 Approval standards
An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with
the following approval criteria:
A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. Finding: The land
which is the subject of the Application is completely within the City of
Ashland's UGB. This criterion is met.
B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the
designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if
proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the
proposed zoning. Finding: The Property is designated in City's
Comprehensive Plan for eventual annexation into City with a zoning
designation of "R-2". The project proposed by Applicant is an allowed use
within the "R-2" zone. This criteria is met.
C. The land is currently contiguous with the present City limits. Findings: The
land which is the subject of this application is currently contiguous with
the present City limits. In fact, Applicant's land and the adjoining 5 acre
parcel to the North are surrounded on all sides by land already within the
City. The Applicant's Property and the parcel immediately adjacent to the
North form an "island" of County land, otherwise completely surrounded
by land within the City. This fact makes the City's findings herein
compelling. If the subject parcel was proposed to be developed as two
parcels under the current County RR-5 zoning, then such development
would be contrary to City's current policies, given the City's
Comprehensive Plan designation and the physical attributes of this
property. This criterion is met.
D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by
the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste
water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the
provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department;
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -4-
urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has
declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is
recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities.
Finding: City's Public Works Department has determined that these
services are either currently adequate, or will be adequate to accommodate
Applicant's proposed development when Applicant complies with the
conditions of approval set forth below. This criterion is met.
E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject
property. Finding: The Application, with the required conditions of approval
set forth below, meets the criteria, as set forth below.
For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations
consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit transportation meeting the
following standards:
1. For vehicular transportation a 20' wide paved access exists, or can and will be
constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully
improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area
shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20'
driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development,
require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets
located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to city standards. Where
future street dedications are indicated on the City's Street Dedication Map or
required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and
improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation.
Finding: This criterion was fully addressed during the public hearing and
substantial evidence in light of the record satisfies this criterion. See:
Applicant's site plan and supporting documents, along with the conditions
of approval. This criterion is met.
2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can
. and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street,
bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle
destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible
bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. Finding: this
criterion was fully addressed during the public hearing and substantial
evidence in light of the record satisfies this criterion. See: Applicant's site
plan and supporting documents, along with the conditions of approval.
This criterion is met.
3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -5-
--,-
iii
exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be
provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the
proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance
on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter
of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall
be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian
destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and
accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
Finding: this criterion was fully addressed during the public hearing and
substantial evidence in light of the record satisfies this criterion. See:
Applicant's site plan and supporting documents, along with the conditions
of approval. This criterion is met.
4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be
likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local
public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate
transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required
transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed
property. Finding: this criterion was fully addressed during the public
hearing and substantial evidence in light of the record satisfies this
criterion. See: Applicant's site plan and supporting documents, along with
the conditions of approval. This criterion is met.
F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the
development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of
90% of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of
units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography,
access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the
property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after
approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord
with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of
computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing
undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes
greater than 35%, shall not be included. Finding: this criterion was fully
addressed during the public hearing and substantial evidence in light of
the record satisfies this criterion. See: Applicant's site plan and supporting
documents, along with the conditions of approval.
G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units
or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or
industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay):
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -6-
--I~--~ --
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 120% of median income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below '100% of median income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 80% of median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 60% of median income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to
a non-profit (IRC 501 (3)(c) affordable housing developer or comparable
Development Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above.
The land shall be located within the project and all needed public facilities shall
be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land
shall be transferred to the affordable housing developer or Development
Corporation prior to commencement of the project.
The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be
determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A
deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee
compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years.
Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall
qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. Finding: this criterion was
fully addressed during the public hearing and substantial evidence in light
of the record satisfies this criterion. See: Applicant's site plan and
supporting documents, along with the conditions of approval. More
specifically, Applicant agreed to meet above sub-criterion #4. This
criterion is met.
H. One or more of the following standards are met:
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is
less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed
land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means
land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but
on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood
that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses
during the planning period. The five- year supply shall be determined from
vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need
projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders {Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -7-
i---
-...-----fr- .--
Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright
permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request;
or
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City
sanitary sewer or water services; or
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or
sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or
5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or
sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent
to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashl"and; or
6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded
by lands within the city limits. (ORD 2792, 1997; ORD 2895,2003.)
Finding: Both Applicant and City conducted independent inventories of
vacant and re-developable land within the City's limits. Applicant's
Application was, in fact, delayed in order that City could undertake and
complete said inventory, as required under sub-criterion #1 above. The
analysis by City's Staff, Applicant, and testimony and evidence presented
in the record and at the public hearing were duly considered by Council. In
light of the record as a whole, Council specifically finds that Applicant
meets sub-criterion #1 above, and that there is less than a five-year supply
of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification
within the current city limits. This criterion is met.
13. EXHIBITS
Council finds that, for the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached
index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an liS"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a lip"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
14. The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision, based on: A. review of the 313- page record received by Council prior
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -8-
---~'-
to the March 21, 2006 public hearing (along with any additional later submittals
to the record prior to the commencement of the public hearing); B. the site visits
disclosed by Council members at the commencement of the public hearing; C.
the Staff Report and Staff presentation at the public hearing, and during the
public hearing itself; D. the public testimony offered and received by Applicant's
agents, proponents, opponents, and other members of the public during the
public hearing; and, E. the exhibits and documents received into the record both
before and during the public hearing.
15. The Council finds the Application, based on diligent review and careful
consideration of all of testimony, documentary evidence and argument identified
above, and subject to the conditions set forth below, meets all applicable review
criteria pertaining to Applicant's request (including AMC 18.106), based on
substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole.
16. The Council finds that it is appropriate, both as a matter of policy and under the
applicable review criteria, to annex Applicant's property into the City, and to
make the appropriate amendments to City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map to effectively consummate said annexation of land into City, with a City
zoning designation of "R-2".
17. The Council accepts and adopts the Findings, Conclusions and Orders of the
Planning Commission, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (also set forth at pp. 16
through 24 of the Record before the Council) subject to the two additional
conditions set forth below (Condition # 27 and Condition #28). Condition # 27
and Condition # 28 are added by Council as additional conditions of approval for
Applicant's annexation request. Condition #1 through Condition #26 below are
the same conditions as those previously required by the Planning Commission in
connection with its approval of Applicant's request for outline plan and site
review, from exception to City's street standards, and a request for tree removal
permit (Record: pp. 16-24).
18. The Council finds that it is appropriate to annex the Property into City's fire
department, so that the Property will be served by Ashland Fire and Rescue
upon its annexation.
CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS
A. Council incorporates by reference its Findings set forth above.
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -9-
--,------ ~---
I],
B. Based on the record of the Public Hearing in this matter, Council concludes
that the Applicant's request for annexation of the Property (39-1 E-11 C, Tax Lot
2500) into the City, along with the requested Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Map change for the purpose of constructing a 117 -unit development (Planning
Action #2004-141), is supported by substantial evidence in the whole record, and
meets all applicable approval criteria.
C. Council approves Applicant's request for annexation, Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Map change; and also approves Applicant's request for inclusion of
the Property into City's fire district upon annexation; all subject to the following
conditions of approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That a consent to annexation form be completed, which is non-revocable for a
period of one year from its date.
3) That a boundary description and map be prepared in accordance with ORS
308.225. A registered land surveyor shall prepare the description and map. The
boundaries shall be surveyed and monuments established as required by statute
subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation.
4) That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including loan calculations
and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers,
cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and
approved by the Electric Department prior to final Plan approval. Transformers
and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while
considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Division and Building Division at the time of Final Plan. The utility
plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and
adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter
sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -10-
Ii'
pipes and catch basins.
6) That the identification, relocation and piping of existing irrigation facilities be
addressed at the time of Final Plan. The design, relocation and installation of
irrigation system shall be reviewed and approved by the Talent Irrigation District
prior to the City of Ashland approval of the final engineering construction
documents. The irrigation facilities shall be installed as part of the overall public
infrastructure requirements.
7) That the engineering design of all on-site storm water detention systems (Le.
wetland/detention system) shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department, Building Official and Staff Advisor prior to Final Plan approval and
the commencement of public infrastructure installation and the issuance of an
excavation permit. The design of the wetland/detention shall incorporate
required pollution control systems (if applicable), while the discharge shall be
designed so as not to significantly increase the volume of runoff beyond pre-
development amounts on the property to the north. The permanent maintenance
of on-site storm water detention systems must be addressed through the
project's CC&Rs and approved by the Public Works Department and Building
Division.
8) That the engineering construction drawings for Clay Street comply with City of
Ashland Local Street Standards. Clay Street shall be improved along the entire
frontage of the property. Improvements to Clay Street shall consistent
approximately with the following standards: 28 feet of pavement overlay width
(includes two travel lanes and an approximately six-foot bike lane), curb and
gutter, storm drains, 7.5' planting strip and a six-foot wide public sidewalk. The
Final Plan shall include profiles and cross sections, with erosion control and
slope stability methodologies installed consistent with the standards contained in
AMC 18.62.080B.
9) That a half street improvement including curb and gutter, storm drain facilities,
planting strip and public sidewalk be installed along the street frontage of the
neighboring property to the north (39 1 E 11 CV, #1100). The design of these
improvements shall be consistent with Ashland's Local Street Standards, allow
for a smooth transition to the adjoining sidewalk network and be provided at the
time of Final Plan. Such improvements shall be installed as part of the overall
public infrastructure requirements for the subdivision.
10) That an engineering design for a right turn only lane on southbound Clay Street
at Ashland Street shall be provided at the time of Final Plan approval. The
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -11-
.. ------r-
IJ,
engineered design shall include the widening of payment width at the
intersection; installation of curb and gutter, storm drain facilities (if applicable)
and sidewalks from the Clay Street/Ashland Street intersection to and through
the bend (Le. elbow) in Clay street to the existing curb and sidewalk on the west
installed as part of the overall public infrastructure requirements for the
subdivision.
11) That the engineered construction drawings for all new public streets within the
project shall comply with City of Ashland Local Street Standards. The minimum
street width shall be no less than 22 feet in width at intersections (unless
permitted by the Ashland Fire Department), and a minimum width of 26 to 28
feet when accommodating on-street parking on both sides of the street. Plans to
include profiles and cross-sections, with erosion control and slope stability
methodologies installed consistent with the standards contained in AMC
18.62.0808.
12) That a street plug, one foot in width, be dedicated adjacent to public streets and
alleys that adjoin the north property boundary. In addition, a street plug shall be
dedicated along the eastern boundary of the project, between the public alley
and east property line.
13) That the engineered construction drawings for the project address the design
and installation of public multi-use pathways and fence gates from the project to
the City of Ashland Parks/Ashland Family YMCA Soccer Fields. The design of
the multi-use pathway shall be in accord with City Local Street Standards,
reviewed by the Director of the Ashland Parks Department, and approved by the
Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat or the installation of
improvements associated with the subdivision. That the development and
surfacing (Le. all weather surface) of the multi-use pathway at the south
boundary of the project be extended through the existing easement on the
adjoining parcel to the south (tax lots #200 and 201). A design for the pathway
shall be submitted at the time of Final Plan approval and installed as part of the
subdivision's public infrastructure.
14) That public easements shall be identified on the final survey plat for all multi-use
pathways. The project CC&Rs shall note that the pathways are for public use
and shall not be obstructed or through access to the east restricted unless
authorized by the City of Ashland and Ashland Parks Department.
15) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -12-
to hydrant placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified
on the engineered construction drawings and reviewed by the Ashland Fire
Department at the time of Final Plan and approved prior to signature of the final
survey plat or the installation of improvements associated with the subdivision.
16) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted at their
February 3 and June 9, 2006 meetings, and consistent with Ashland's Site
Design and Use Standards and Tree Preservation Ordinance, shall be
incorporated into a revised Landscaping Plan (if applicable) prior to Final Plan
approval. The recommendations shall be included on a revised landscaping plan
and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit.
17) That prior to any disturbance occurring on the site or the issuance of a building
permit, a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for. Required Tree Protection
Measure (18.61.200) shall be instituted prior to any development activities,
including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and
shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including
landscaping and irrigation installation.
18) That a final copy of the CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be
provided at the time of Final Plan and approved prior to signature of the final
survey plat. CC&Rs to describe responsibility for the pruning and continual
monitoring of the three poplar trees, maintenance of common area landscaping,
private driveways, multi-use pathways and on-site storm water detention
facilities. The Homeowner's Association is responsible for contracting with a
utility maintenance company for the maintenance of the storm water
wetland/detention facility. All parameters for maintenance of the facility,
including time lines and enforcement, shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Public Works Department and described in the CC&Rs.
19) That the project complies with the Affordable Housing Standards as described in
18.106.030G. Each affordable unit shall be identified and the required term of
affordability agreements (Le. in perpetuity) signed prior to signature of the final
survey plat, with proof of recording submitted to the City of Ashland Housing
Program Coordinator prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
20) That the CC&Rs identify which units are subject to the City's Affordable Housing
requirements terms of affordability.
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -13-
-~--
-11'----.---
21) That a Demolition/Move permit be issued for all applicable structures on the
property prior to signature of the survey plat.
22) That opportunity-to-recycle facilities shall be identified in conjunction with the
design of each building and in accordance with the standards described in
Section 18.72.115 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a
building permit.
23) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior
components of the project be included at the time of submission of building
permit. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions
and shape of materials and building materials proposed and approved as part of
the land use application.
24) That required bicycle parking shall be identified on plans submitted at the time of
building permit review. The parking shall be designed and installed consistent
with the standards described in 18.92.040.
25) That the applicant agrees to construct the project in accordance with the
approved plan and City ordinances and waives the right to file a claim under
Oregon Statewide Measure 37. The signed waiver shall be submitted to the City
of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior to signature of the
survey plat or adoption of a resolution or ordinance formally annexing the
property.
26) That prior to Final Plan submittal, the applicants shall submit a wetland
delineation and wetland mitigation/enhancement plan that has been reviewed
and approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands and Staff Advisor. Such
plans shall include civil engineering specifications for any water detention, water
treatment and water distribution.
27) That 50% of the affordable units shall be completed and occupied by qualified
households, at or below 60% area median income, prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of the market rate units. Prior
to issuance of a building permit for the final market rate unit, the final 50% of the
affordable units shall have been issued building permits. All affordable units
must be occupied, or a rental agreement or purchase agreement shall be
executed with qualified low-income households, prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the final market rate unit. Purchasers or renters of
the designated affordable units shall be income qualified by the City of Ashland
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -14-
----i--~
and the City shall be presented with copies of all rental or sales agreements
associated with the designated affordable units.
28) The Applicant's tree removal/tree protection plan submitted with the Application
calls for the mature poplar trees designated in the Southwest corner of
Applicant's property to be retained and protected and for wetlands on Applicant's
property to be protected. The Applicant will work with Planning Staff to craft a
conservation easement or similar mechanism for the purpose of protecting the
relevant trees as long as said trees remain healthy and viable and for the
protection of wetlands.
The Ashland City Council hereby issues the above Findings, Conclusions, and Orders.
Dated:
Ashland City Council Approval
Approved as to form:
Ashland City Attorney
Notice: This is a land use and/or limited land use decision. Any appeal of this
decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals must be filed within 21 days of the
date of this decision, and must comply with the requirements of ORS Chapter
197; and OAR Chapter 660, Division 33 .
Council Findings, Conclusions, and Orders (Planning Action #2004-141)
Page -15-
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 1 of6
City Council - Minutes
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 21, 2006
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Amarotico, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilors Hartzell and Hardesty were absent.
Councilor Jackson arrived at 7:24 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Executive Session Meeting of March 3, 2006, Special Meeting of March 3, 2006,
Executive Session Meeting of March 7, 2006 and Regular Council Meeting of March 7, 2006 were approved
as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 8r. AWARDS (None)
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
2. Liquor License Application - Tabu.
3. Liquor License Application - Pipon's.
4. Appointment to Airport Commission.
5. Authorization to Enter into a Land Purchase Agreement.
Council requested that Item #5 be pulled for further discussion.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1 through #4. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Silbiger expressed his concern with approving the contract when they have not been given the
opportunity to review it. City Attorney Mike Franell explained that the contract was mailed to the party
involved for their signature. It has been signed and placed in the mail, but the City has not yet received it.
Craig Gorson/l000 Clay Street/Claimed that the adjoining property owners had not received proper
notice of this action and commented that he had been in discussions with the property owner to purchase
the parcel with the intent of creating open space and home sites. He asked that if the City purchases this
property that he be allowed to share the expense of curbs, gutters, sewers, paving and installation of
public utilities in exchange for the City granting him access from Clay Street to the three housing sites on
his property.
Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson stated that he had spoken to Mr. Gorson but due to the
restrictions regarding Executive Sessions, he was not able to inform him of all the details. He stated that
Mr. Gorson has expressed interest in working out some sort of arrangement that would provide access to
his property so that he could subdivide or develop the rear of his property. Mr. Robertson added that the
Parks & Recreation Commission was willing to speak with Mr. Gorson about this possibility.
Mr. Robertson stated that the owner of the property could sell the property to whomever they chose, but
decided to sell to the City. He stated that a fair market appraisal was done and the Parks & Recreation
Commission met in Executive Session to endorse the agreement. He added that the contract has a clause
regarding fencing, which is beneficial to the City.
Mayor Morrison questioned whether it was necessary for the Council to review the contract. Mr. Franell
stated that this was a standard contract; they have agreed on a financing arrangement to payoff the
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2576&Print=True
5/31/2006
-.r-r-
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 2 of6
property in the next fiscal year, will grant an easement for access and maintenance of a storm drain on the
property, and have agreed to a lot line adjustment to accommodate the parking area.
Councilor Silbiger noted that the tax lot listed on the staff memo is different from that listed on the Jackson
County map site.
Councilor Amarotico/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #5. DISCUSSION: Mr.
Franell noted that the correct legal description of the property is attached to the contract. Councilor
Amarotico warned that they may lose this opportunity if they do not act on it and noted that this parcel has
been on the City's open space plan for a long time. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Annexation and Zone Change (Jackson County Rural Residential RR-5 to City of Ashland Low
Density Multi-Family R-2) for an approximately 10-acre parcel located on the East side of Clay
Street, North of Ashland Street, at 380 Clay Street.
Mayor Morrison reminded the public that this is a public Land Use Hearing continued from the February
21, 2006 Council Meeting.
Abstentions., Conflicts, Ex Parte Contacts
None were reported.
Staff Report
Interim Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report. He explained that this is
a request for annexation of approximately 10-acres located off Clay Street and if approved, the property
would come in as R-2 Multi-Family Zoning. Mr. Molnar stated that the Planning Commission unanimously
approved the request for subdivision and site review, and recommended by a vote of 5-3 that the
Council approve the annexation.
Councilor Jackson arrived at 7:24 p.m.
Mr. Molnar indicated on a map where the property is located and the surrounding area, and noted that
the majority of the surrounding property is located within City limits. He stated that the existing
residence on the property would be retained and all of the Cottonwood trees would be retained and
incorporated within the development. The applicant proposes to develop 117 housing units on this site
and all public services are available and adequate to serve the development. Mr. Molnar stated the main
issues discussed at the Planning Commission were regarding improvements to the transportation system
and what level of improvements should be required. Mr. Molnar commented on the affordable housing
requirement and stated that 15% of the units would be made available for rent or purchase by
households 60% of area medium income or less. He stated that staff recommends that Council uphold
the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the annexation.
Councilor Jackson reported no ex parte contact but noted she received a phone call from someone who
had commented in writing.
Mr. Molnar commented on how the wetlands were identified and noted that some of the storm water
would be directed into the public street system while a percentage would be directed to the wetland. He
also noted the condition to evaluate and maintain the flow to the north at pre-development levels.
Mr. Molnar clarified how the housing need figure was determined and stated that this was based on a
housing needs analysis and not just consumption.
It was noted that the City's Comprehensive Plan identifies policies for annexation and discusses when
properties should be incorporated into the City limits. It was also clarified that the delay between the
Planning Commission's decision and this action coming before Council was due to the applicant's decision
to wait until staff had completed the buildable lands inventory.
Applicant
Mark Knox/Urban Development Services/320 E. Main Street, Suite 202/Stated that this project
has been in the works for two years and explained the changes that have made to the project over this
time. Mr. Knox commented on the City's base standard density, the concern over the wetlands, and the
preservation of the existing trees on the site. He explained that the plan before the Council is essentially
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2576&Print=True
5/31/2006
Ii' I
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 3 of6
the same plan approved by the Planning Commission with a few minor enhancements. He commented
on their proposal to enhance the wetlands and commented on the diversity of housing this project would
provide. He noted that twelve of the affordable units would be two-bedroom, and the remainder would
be one-bedroom units. He commented on the amount of improvements the applicants are going to make
along Clay Street and commented on the intersection of Ashland Street and Clay Street. He stated that
there are service problems that will need to be resolved at this intersection and that this situation would
arise with or without this development.
Mayor Morrison questioned if the extension of the new road across the development would go through
the eastern extension of the wetland. Mr. Knox said No, and explained that when they designed this
project they looked at future connections and made sure that this would not encroach the wetlands at
all.
Mr. Knox clarified for Council that the buildout has been estimated to take 4 - 4 V2 years and stated that
the affordable units would be build at the same ratio as the market rate housing.
Those Wishing To Provide Testimony:
Colin Swales/46l Allison Street/Commented on the buildable lands inventory update done by staff
and noted that re-developable lands were not included in this figure. He suggested that the City perform
a thorough investigation of the City's buildable lands and these small parcels. Mr. Swales commended
the applicant for offering to build the affordable units with the market rate units and suggested that the
Council make this a condition of approval.
Greg Gargus/400 Clay Street/Stated that he is not for or against the proposed subdivision, but is
before the Council on behalf of himself and the adjoining neighbors to request that the footpath be
vacated. Mr. Gargus voiced his safety and security concerns regarding the footpath and stated that it is
redundant and not needed.
Sue Strong/2l4l Birchwood Lane/Stated she is representing the Birchwood Homeowners
Association and requested that in the near future they begin the procedure to officially vacate the public
walkway. Ms. Strong noted her security and privacy concerns, including that the path is only 4 feet from
her and her neighbor's kitchen and dining room windows and is only 18 inches away from their
backyards.
Glen Cooper/196 Santa Elena Lane, Santa Barbara, CA/Stated that he is co-owner of the property
to the north and voiced his concerns with: 1) the wetland area and the storm water plan, 2) the
retaining basins, 3) how the flow of water is going to be regulated from one property to another, and 4)
the pollution control. He also requested that both current and future potential traffic be considered.
Albert Pepe/32l Clay Street #2l/Submitted a list of residents and neighbors of lower Clay Street
who oppose the Willowbrook Development and the annexation for the following reasons: 1) excessive
density in one area with a narrow street access, 2) excessive impact on traffic patterns, 3) wetland
concerns given the existing discrepancies as to the actual site of the wetlands, and 4) impact on the
existing wildlife habitats. Mr. Pepe voiced his opposition to the project on the grounds of excessive
density and the need to maintain open space and farmlands for future food sources. He also commented
on his concern with removal of trees.
Bill Street/180 Mead Street/Noted that he is on the Housing Commission but stated that he speaking
on behalf of himself. He directed the Council to the Housing Commission meeting minutes when this
action was discussed and voiced his concern that there was not considerable support from the
Commission for this project. He voiced his concern regarding the mix of housing in the development and
suggested the Council ask the developer to explain whether this project would meet the true housing
needs of Ashland and questioned if it would make more sense for all of the affordable housing units to
be owner occupied.
Staff Response
Mr. Molnar proposed the following condition if Council chooses to approve this action. Copy was given to
the applicant and distributed to the Council for their consideration.
That 50% of the affordable units shall be completed and occupied by qualified households, at or below
60% area median income, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of
the market rate units. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final market rate unit, the final
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2576&Print=True
5/31/2006
--~-~
III I
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 4 of6
50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits. All affordable units must be
occupied, or a rental agreement or purchase agreement shall be executed with the qualified Iow-
a income households prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final market rate unit.
Purchasers or renters of the designated affordable units shall be income qualified by the City of
Ashland and the City shall be presented with copies of all rental or sales agreements associated with
the designated affordable units.
Mr. Molnar explained that this would require the affordable units to be built and occupied consistent with
the market rate construction. He commented on the mix of housing and noted that Housing Commission
meeting minutes are not generally included in the official planning action record, as this was not part of
the formal land use process. Mr. Molnar commented on Mr. Swales testimony and stated that a lot of the
re-developable land for multi-family lies within the Historic Districts and generally they do not see or
encourage teardowns in these areas. He added that most people will turn their small house into a larger
one and are purchasing properties in these areas because of the neighborhood; not because they want
to develop the property and put up a duplex.
In regards to Mr. Cooper's testimony, Mr. Molnar explained that he has had a number of conversations
with Mr. Cooper and believes that all of his concerns have been addressed.
In response to the comments made regarding the pathway, Mr. Molnar stated that there are clear
policies in the City's Transportation Element that support multi-use paths and explained that the public
pathway system was a requirement for the Birchwood Subdivision when it was approved. Mr. Molnar
noted where the existing pathways are located and stated that there is a process to vacate them if
Council determines they are not needed. He added that this process would not be initiated by Staff and
it would be up to the property owners and Homeowners Association to bring forward.
Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to extend the Public Hearing until 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
Council briefly discussed possible repercussions for not approving the annexation at this time. Mr. Molnar
stated that there is always the possibility that they would be presented with a less desirable proposal
later down the road and noted that the City does not anticipate any significant affordable housing
developments to occur within the existing inventory.
Rebuttal
Mr. Knox noted the re-developable lots mentioned and stated that these lots are very small and would
not be used for affordable housing units. He commented on the possibility of requesting a vacation for
the footpath and stated that the current connection does provide an adequate north/south connection.
Mr. Knox noted his conversations with Mr. Cooper and stated that they would do a significant amount of
engineering to minimize any impact to his property while at the same time retaining the hydrology that
goes through the wetlands. He noted that there is a significant amount of open space on this project and
they have doubled what is required by the City. He disagreed with the comments made by Mr. Street
and stated that he felt the Housing Commission was supportive and left the meeting with the feeling that
the Commission was happy they were offering this mix used project. Mr. Knox submitted a map into the
record that indicates the property is surrounded by other multi-family developments and stated that
they are comfortable with the additional condition presented by staff.
Public Hearing Closed at 9:13 p.m.
Council Deliberation
Mr. Molnar offered further explanation of the condition proposed by staff and stated that it would be the
responsibility of the property owner to notify the City when a tenant moves out and a new qualified
tenant moves in. He added that there is a similar restriction in the resale agreement that requires the
City's verification of qualified household status when there is a change in ownership of the affordable
units.
Suggestion was made to add an additional condition that would require something equivalent to
conservation easements on the wetlands open space and on the southwest corner of the property with
the Poplar trees.
Comment was made that the traffic in this area will become a problem much sooner than anticipated
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2576&Print=True
5/31/2006
~~._- ._--~.--r-
IJ. I
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 5 of6
and the applicant should be responsible for a big portion of these costs. Mr. Molnar clarified that the
applicant is required to install improvements along Clay Street and pay SDCs per unit that will go toward
future projects. He added that the Council could impose a condition that obligates this project to
participate in any future improvement district.
Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to approve as presented with the 26 conditions from the
Planning Commission, the 27th condition regarding the buildout of the affordable units, and a
28th condition on conservation easements for the southwest corner and the wetlands.
DISCUSSION: Jackson added that she did not include language for traffic because she does not want to
back design the project and believes that they are contributing substantially. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Amarotico, Jackson, and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-1.
PUBLIC FORUM
John FieldsfJohn Stromberg/Tracy Harding/Spoke regarding the Downtown Plan and informed the
Council that they are proposing to have the consultants come to town during the week of April 24th in
order to hold a series of stakeholder meetings. These meetings would flush out what the downtown process
would look like and the hope is to build some strong financial and community support. It was requested
that each councilor attend at least one of the stakeholder meetings, and there would be a public open
house on April 26. The importance of Council's participation was noted in order to make this process
successful.
Comment was made that the Council has two other major projects they are working on and concern was
expressed that they might not be able to handle all three of these at the same time. Mr. Fields stated that
their timeline could end up matching the Council's and they would like to start educating the community
and bringing people to the table sooner in the process. He added without collecting this initial information,
it is difficult to know where they are at and whether this has community support.
Councilor ChapmanfJackson m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Hillary Tiefar/565 Wrights Creek Drive/Spoke in favor of enacting an ordinance banning the prolonged
tethering of dogs at their homes. Ms. Tiefar stated that dogs suffer from prolonged tethering and shared an
experience with dealing with a dog that was continually tethered. She asked that the Council give time and
attention to this issue.
Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding the tethering of dogs and commented on similarities between dogs and
humans. Ms. Rosen stated that this was an important issue worthy of time on the Council's meeting
agenda and stated that it would be more efficient for Council to vote on this soon, rather than to keep
putting it off.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.
ALUO 18.68.050 Interpretation.
Mayor Morrison noted that the Council could choose to forward this issue to the Planning Commission or
table it until their next meeting.
City Attorney Mike Franell explained that there is room for interpretation in AMC Section 18.08.420,
which states, "The narrower street frontage shall be the front lot line except when the staff advisor
determines topographical or access problems makes such a designation impractical". Mr. Franell stated
that they have not defined what type of topographical or access issues could give the staff advisor
discretion to change where the front lot line would be located. He noted that the Planning Commission
has not looked at this and suggested that the better course of action would be to refer this to the
Planning Commission for a recommendation.
Comment was made that this issue should come back to the next council meeting for further discussion.
Opposing comment was made that it is clear what the intent was and the sooner they clean up the
language the better.
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to direct staff to use their ministerial direction to call the lot
line facing the arterial street the front lot line. DISCUSSION: Mr. Franell clarified that this motion
would direct the staff advisor to move the front lot line to the arterial street. Voice Vote: Councilor
Chapman and Silbiger. YES. Councilor Amarotico and Jackson, NO. Mayor Morrison, NO.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2576&Print=True
5/31/2006
~_..._-_._-~
II, .-----'---~
City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Page 6 of6
Motion failed 3-2.
Councilor Amarotico/Jackson m/s to table this item until the next council meeting. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Possible Formation of Library District. .
Ronnie Lee Budge, Library Director for Jackson County addressed the Council and stated that Jackson
County libraries are facing budget and funding problems. Kathleen Davis explained that the Jackson
County Library Advisory Committee has been studying this issue and the best way to provide ongoing
sustainable support is to create a special taxing district. It was explained that they would come back
before Council in a few weeks with a more detailed proposal to ask whether the City of Ashland would
participate in voting on the creation of this special district.
2. Revisions to Environmental Protection Agency Standards for Fine Particulate Matter.
John Becker from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality explained that the EPA has proposed
to lower fine particular standards nationwide and noted that the deadline for comments on this proposal
is April 17, 2006. Mr. Becker explained that the Rogue Valley is currently exceeding the new standards
and stated the three major causes of fine particulate matter are transportation, outdoor open burning,
and woodstoves. He suggested the following ways Ashland could reduce fine particular matter: 1) upon
the sale of a home, if the homeowner wishes to continue to use wood heat they would be required to
replace the non-certified woodstove with a certified one, and 2) restrict or ban residential open burning
within the City limits.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 (Building and Construction) of
the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to the Adoption of Oregon Specialty Codes."
Item postponed to next council meeting due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=2576&Print=True
5/31/2006
II: I
JACK DAVIS
CHRISTIAN E. HEARN"
SUSAN VOGEL SALADOFF:l:
DAVID L. SMITH*t
JENNIFER A. BRIDGES
JENNIFER L. CRANE E
JESSE A. VISSER
kdtF LAW
SAM B DAVIS - Retired
SIDNEY E. AINSWORTH (1927-2003)
DONALD M. PINNOCK - Retired
DAVID V. GILSTRAP - Of Counsel
" Also Admitted to Practice in CA
:l: Also Admitted to Practice in DC. MD. PA and NJ
t L.L.M. in Taxation
E Also Admitted to Practice in UT
A Professional Corporation
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 488-4455
www.davishearn.com
May 25,2006
Via Email Transmission and Mail
Beth Lori
Legal Department
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Bill Molnar
Planning Director
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Willowbrook Annexation (Lower Clay Street)
Planning Action # 2004-141
Dear Beth and Bill:
This letter follows the conference call Mark Knox and I had with assistant city
attorney Beth Lori this afternoon concerning approval of the Willowbrook Findings
(Planning Action # 2004-141). Adoption of the findings is on Council's agenda for June
6.
You will recall that, at the March 21 public hearing on this matter, Council voted
to approve, with specific conditions, this annexation application. At the public hearing,
Staff requested that the Applicant draft and submit the proposed findings, and we
provided those to you last month. They are again enclosed for your easy reference.
Conditions #1 through #26 were the same conditions as those attached to the
Planning Commission's approval signed on July 26,2005 (and as Exhibit "A" to the
proposed Council findings).
Condition #27 was presented by staff to Council and Applicant in written form at
the public hearing. I therefore merely included the verbatim condition as offered by
staff at the public hearing, and thereafter adopted by Council after discussion.
Condition # 28 is was the only aspect of the decision which we found somewhat
problematic. Our conversation with Ms. Lori this afternoon focused on Condition # 28,
since we requested some clarification concerning its terms and intent. Applicant's
proposed Condition #28 appears in the findings we submitted, as well as below, but it
Page 2
appears that Staff may need to request some clarification from Council concerning
Condition #28 when the findings are considered at the June 6 meeting.
To recap, Condition # 28 concerns the Southwest corner of the project. This
residual parcel contains the existing older home, barn, and outbuildings which the
application proposes be retained and renovated, rather than demolished. In fact,
Applicant currently has a local family which is interested in purchasing and renovating
the existing home, which is surrounded by several of the mature trees.
In connection with the application, Applicant submitted a tree protection plan,
drafted by John Galbraith, which was approved by the Tree Commission. Please note
that the majority of the trees are Poplars, which do not have a long natural life span and
can be readily become "hazard trees."
Councilor Jackson, who proposed Condition # 28, suggested a conservation
easement or similar restrictive covenant designed primarily, as we understood her
comments during the Council discussion stage of the hearing, to ensure continued
protection of the trees during the remainder of their natural life span.
A conservation easement can include whatever terms the drafter writes into the
easement document in order to effectuate the drafter's intent. Such terms typically
include the duration of the conservation easement, the scope of the conservation
easement, and the specific boundaries of the conservation easement. If the
mechanism of a conservation easement is indeed Council's choice, the Applicant would
request that these terms be clarified in the language of Condition #28.
One factor which renders the mechanism of a conservation easement somewhat
problematic for the Southwest corner of this property, is the location of the existing
older home, two barns, and fourth outbuilding on the original parcel. All of these
existing structures are proposed for retention in the application, and pre-date the trees,
which were planted around them years ago, probably for shade and wind protection.
The application, in the form which went to Council, contemplates that the home and
outbuildings will not be demolished. Instead, the parcel will be sold, the buildings
renovated, and the parcel occupied by an Ashland family. It is therefore important that
the scope of any conservation easement still allow flexibility for the family to use their
property for typical and reasonable uses which any homeowner would expect.
Another issue which we believe is important to consider is that, perhaps a
decade or two from today, the Poplar trees will likely reach the end of their life span,
and will die. At that point the future property owner, whoever that may be, may seek to
redevelop the parcel for affordable housing or other uses consistent with the property's
R-2 zoning. Principles of good urban planning suggest that the range of potential future
eventualities be wisely considered today, and some flexibility be built-in for the future.
Attached is a copy of the Preliminary Wetlands Map, which appears at page 194
DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH
A Professional Corporation
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(541) 482-3111 FAX (541) 488-4455
Page 3
of the record provided to Council in advance of the March 21 public hearing. It best
depicts the relative location of the existing home and outbuildings in relation to the
existing trees. This site plan demonstrates why any conservation easement should be
crafted to allow the contemplated domestic use of the existing structures on the parcel.
Attached also is a copy of Mr. Galbraith's tree inventory ("L-1") which depicts the
estimated root zones of the existing trees in relation to the home (it does not show the
outbuildings).
Here is the proposed Condition # 28 which we feel best addresses the above
concerns, and therefore respectfully submit for Council's consideration:
"28) Applicant's tree removal/tree protection plan submitted with the
Application calls 2for the mature trees designated in the Southwest
corner of Applicant's property to be retained and protected. The
application also states that the existing older home and
outbuildings in the Southwest corner of the property will be
retained. It is possible that, in the future, the owner of the lot
occupied by the existing older home and outbuildings may seek to
redevelop that lot consistent with its R-2 zoning, including for the
purpose of affordable housing. Any future application for
redevelopment must address the tree protection and retention
issues appropriately, as required by the Ashland Municipal Code,
Chapters 18.61 (Tree Preservation and Protection) and 15.04
(Building Codes). The Applicant will work with Planning Staff to
craft a conservation easement or similar mechanism for the
purpose of protecting the relevant trees as long as said trees
remain healthy and viable. Said conservation easement or similar
mechanism should retain some flexibility to allow for potential
future redevelopment of the lot in the Southwest corner of the
property consistent with R-2 zoning."
I understand from Beth that staff will likely give this matter some further
consideration before presenting the proposed findings to Council on June 6.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call or send
me an email at:chearn@davishearn.com.
Sincerely,
DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH, P.C.
O-!~
---
Christian E. Hearn
DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH
A Professional Corporation
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(541)482-3111 FAX (541) 488-4455
Page 4
Enclosures: As stated
cc: Mark Knox
Mark DiRienzo
Clients
DAVIS, HEARN, SALADOFF & SMITH
A Professional Corporation
515 EAST MAIN STREET
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(541)482-3111 FAX (541) 488-4455
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
IN THE MAITER OF PLANNING ACTION #2004-141, REQUEST FOR OUTLINE ) FINDINGS,
PLAN AND SITE REVIEW FOR A 117-UNlT DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE .) CONCLUSIONS
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED 380 ) AND ORDERS
CLAY STREET. AN EXCEPTION TO CITY OF ASHLAND STREET )
STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO MEANDER A PROPOSED SIDEWALK )
ALONG CLAY STREET AROUND A CEDAR TREE LOCATED AT THE )
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS )
REQUESTED TO REMOVE FOUR TREES ON THE SITE. )
)
APPLICANT: D and A Enterprise
)
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 2500 of391E 11C is located at 380 Clay Street. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Multi-
Family Residential with a proposed zoning ofR-2.
2) The applicant is requesting Outline Plan and Site Review approval for a 117 -unit development under the
Performance Standards Options. The application includes an exception to City of Ashland Local Street
Standards to meander a short section of sidewalk proposed for installation along Clay Street, as well as a
Tree Removal Pemrit to remove approximately four trees.
3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described In section 18.88.040 A.4 ofthe Ashland
Land Use Ordinance as foUows:
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been
met:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City.of Ashland.
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate
transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large
trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant
features have been included in the open space~ common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses
shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required
or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher
ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. That the proposed density. meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836, S2 1999). 't . ,
Exhibit
Pagel of
;i.' J,
;-:
The criteria for Site Plan approval are described in section 18.72.070 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as foRows:
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to
and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the
Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6,
1999)
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in section 18.61.080 of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance as foRows:
An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall dem~nstrate that the following criteria are satisfied.
The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to subs~antiate the criteria for a permit.
. .
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall
and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights
of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or
services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition
or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to
an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC
18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
B., Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if
the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The.tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other
appli~leAshland Land Use Ordinance requirements and ~tandards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design
and Us~ 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.
ReII1oval.oftbe tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, s6il .::A.ity tlo.w of
. . ..
Exhiobo t _ II
It ..
Page ~ of-9-:
"~~..', ~,,,,,
surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing wiildbreaks; and
,(
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been
considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone.
Nothing in this .section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density
allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact. on trees, so long as
the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the AsWand Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the
, permit.
An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100
and 'may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following
circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique
or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.,.
B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity;
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 Performance Staridards Options
Chapter.(Ord 2836, Amended, 02/02/1999)
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on February 8, 2005
and June 14, 2005, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the application for Outline Plan, Site Review, Tree Removal and an Exception to City
of AsWand Local Street Standards subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
In addition, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation for approval of the Annexation to the
AsWand City Council.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
. ~.,
Exhibit .
Page-3-of~
.,L'i'_.'
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the application complies with the applicable approval
criteria described in 18.88.030 A 4.for Outline Plan approval and 18.72 for Site Review
approval. Clay Street will be upgraded, new streets will be installed and public utilities will be
extended to serve the project. The application identifies the construction of a half street
improvement along the frontage of the property. 'This includes a pavement overlay, installation of
storm drains, curb and gutter, bicycle lane, planting StripSl street trees and a public sidewalk. In
addition, other sections of Clay Street will be improved, both north and south of the property, in
order to provide safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the site, as well as to
East Main Street and Ashland Street.
Public water, sewer and storm sewer lines are loc~ted in Clay Street and available, or can be
extended, to serve the project. Run-off from the site will be directed into storm water facilities
constructed within the new streets and distributed to Clay Street and an on-site wetland
Idetention system located along the northwesterly portion of the development. Multi-use
pathways are proposed for installation throughout the project in order to provide convenient.
direct routes to and through neighboring properties.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the existing and natural features of the land; such as
wetlands and large trees have been identified in the plan of the development and included in the
open space and common areas. While the project design slightly encroaches upon the
preliminarily delineated boundary of the wetland. the revised plan addresses disturbance to the
wetland by providing a mitigation area that is substantially larger than the impacted area. The
applicant's consultant notes that the wetland mitigation area and the creation of wetlands for
storm water detention and treatment will provide better overall water quality in the Bear Creek
Basin, as well as providing wildlife habitat, recreation and aesthetic beauty for the site.
, ...."...:','
The project's neighborhood street design has been substantially modified in order to account for
not only the location of wetland, but also the large cottonwood trees at the southwest comer of
the site, as well as the existing farmhouse. Although the Poplar species is thought to be
undesirable within developing residential neighborhoods due to the potential for the breaking and
dropping of limbs, the applicant has chosen to retain these large majestic trees within an open
space area. Specifically, the wetland, wetland mitigation area and all three large poplar trees have
been incorporated within a large common areas throughout the project.
. .. A"
Exhibit . .
Page~of~
2.4 The CommissiQn finds that the application complies with the base density requirements of
the underlying zoning (i.e. R-2 zoning district) and Will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The application proposes to construct
approximately 117 housing units on an approximately 100acre parcel. The housing mix will
include the existing single-family home, 36 duplexes (72 units) and 11 fourplexes (44 units). The
project density conforms to permitted density requirements of the R-2 Zoning District, allowing
for a base density of 13.5 units/acre or approximately 127 units (.6 acres of wetland subtracted
from calculations as per 18.106.030 F.). This does not take into account the possible additional
density bonus permitted due to the provision of affordable housing.
A system of new public streets and multi-use pathways will be constructed to serve and provide
circulation throughout the entire project. The adjoining 5-acre parcel to the north is located
within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary and has a Plan designation that accommodates future
residential uses. The new neighborhood street system integrates two public streets that will
terminate at the north property line, but would eventually extend into the adjoining undeveloped
property. In addition, a new east-west oriented street will straddle a portion of the project's
northerly boundary. TIlls street provIdes a second access to the project from Clay Street, as well
as providing future access to the abutting property to the north. The public alley system has been
designed throughout the project and allows rear as well as side access to individual garages and
surface-padcing areas, including connections to existing and planned alley connections north and
south of the development.
25 The Commission finds that the proposed development plan with attached conditions of approval
ensures that existing and proposed public streets are designed and installed consistent with the City
of Ashland's Local Street Standards. New streets are designed with planting strips and public
sidewalks at widths that, in most cases, will provided for additional on-street parking. In order to
retain an existing, IS-inch in diameter cedar'tree, a relatively minor exception to City Street
Standards is requested to permit the installation of a small segment of curbside sidewalk: along Clay
Street. The Commission finds that the location, size and health of the tree present a clear difficulty to
complying with City street standards. The design and use of the public sidewalk will not be
compromised, given the relatively small adjustment in sidewalk configuration. Accordingly, the
Commission supports this deviation and believes it complies with the approval criteria for an
exception.
2.6 The Commission finds that the site plan and residential unit design complies with the .
requirements of Ashland's Site Design and Use chapter, as well as with applicable multi-family
design standards. The project's neighborhood street design has been substantially modified in
order to account for,the location ofwetIands, the large cottonwood trees at the southwest COffi(;!'
of the site, as well as the existing farmhouse.
Each residential structpre is oriented toward the public street, with required parking located to the
rear or side of the structure. Public alleys provide access to individual garages and surface
parking areas, thereby leaving the vast majority of newly constructed streets free of driveway
aprons and available for resident and guest parking.
':.A"
Exhibit .
PageS-of~
Five percent of the total project area is requited to be mcluded within commonly owned open
space. About 10% of the total project area is included within common areas and open spaces.
This includes a picnic area adjacent to the YMCA soccer fields, a children's active play area and
the passive wetlaridarea. It should be noted that the total lot coverage for the entire project is
approximately 50%. This is considerably lower than the 65% lot coverage standard permitted
within the R...2 Zoning District. Also, street trees will be installed along all street frontages, while
individual yard spaces will be planted with lawn, ground covers and a variety of shrubs and trees.
Consequently, the Commission finds that the landscaping plan is consistent with the
requirements and standards for Site Review approval.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for Outline Plan and Site Review approval for a 117 -unit development, with a Tree Removal Permit
and exception to Ashland's Local Street Standards is supported by evidence in the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2004-141. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are
found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then PlaI111ing Action # 2004-141 is denied. The following
are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: \,
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.
2) That a consent to annexation form be completed, which is non-revocable for a period of one year
from its date.
3) That a boundary description and map be prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. A registered
land surveyor shall prepare the description and map. The boundaries shall be surveyed and
monuments established as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed
annexation.
4) That the applicant submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment.
This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to Final Plan approval.
Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the
access needs of the Electric Department.
5)
That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division
and Building Divisions at the time of Final Plan. The utility plan shall include the location of
connections to all public facilities in arid adjacent to the development, including the locations of
water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, stonn drainage
pipes and catch basins.
-:A ..
Exhibit
Page~of~
:..~ "," "'"
6) That the identification, relocation and piping of existing irrigation facilities be addressed at the time
of Final Plan. The design, relocation and installation of irrigation system shall be reviewed and
approved by the Talent Irrigation District prior to the City of Ashland approval of the final
engineered construction docmnents. The irrigation facilities shall be installed as part of the overall
public infrastructure requirements.
7) That the engineered design of all on-site storm water detention systems (Le. wetland/detention
system) shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, Building Official and
Staff Advisor prior to Final Plan approval and the commencement of public infrastructure
installation and the issuance of an excavation permit. The design of the wetland/detention shall
incorporate required pollution control systems (if applicable), while the discharge shall be
designed so as not to significantly increase the volume of runoff beyond pre-development
amounts onto the property to the north. The permanent maintenance of on"-site storm water
detention systems must be addressed through the project's CC&R's and approved by the Public
Works Department and Building Division.
8) That the engineered construction drawings for Clay Street comply with City of Ashland Street
Local Street Standards. Clay Street shall be improved along the entire frontage of the property.
hnprovements to Clay Street shall consist approximately with the following standards: 28-feet of
pavement overlay width (includes two travel lanes and an approximately six-foot bike lane), curb
and gutter, storm drains, 7.5' planting strip and a six-foot wide public sidewalk. The Fin81 Plan
shall include profiles and cross sections, with erosion control and slope stability methodologies
installed consistent with the standards contained in AMC 18.62.080B. .
9) That a half street improvement including curb and gutter, storm drain facilities planting strip and
public sidewalk be installed along the street frontage of the neighboring property to the north (39
IE lICB, #1100). The design of these improvements shall be consistent with Ashland's Local
Street Standards, allow for a smooth transition to the adjoining sidewalk network and be
provided at the time of Final Plan. Such improvements shall be installed as part of the overall
public infrastructure requirements for the subdivision.
10) That an engineered design for a right turn only lane on southbound Clay Street at Ashland Street
shall be provided at the time of Final Plan approval. The engineered design shall include the
widening of pavement width at the intersection; installation of curb and gutter, stonn drain
facilities (if applicable) and sidewalks from the Clay Street! Ashland Street intersection to and
through the bend (Le. elbow) in Clay Street to the existing curb and sidewalk on the west side of
Clay Street, adjacent to Wing Spread Park. Such improvements shall be installed as part of the
overall public infrastructure requirements for the subdivision.
11) That the engineered construction drawings for all new public streets within the project shall
comply with City of Ashland Local Street Standards. The minimum street width shall be no less
than 22-feet.in width at intersections (unless permitted by the Ashland Fire Department), and a
minimum width.Qf26 to 28-feet when accommodating on-street parking on both sides of the
street. Plans to include profiles and cross sections, with erosion control and slope stability
methodologies installed consistent with the standards contained in AMC 18.62.080B.
". ^ "
Exhibit~
. Page:i.-of~
12) That a street plug, one foot in width, be dedicated adjacent to public streets and alleys that adjoin
the north property boundary. In. addition, a street plug shall be dedicated along the eastern
boundary of the project, between the public alley and east property line. "
13) That the engineered construction drawings for the project address the design and installation of
public multi-use pathways and fence gates from the project to the City of Ashland Parksl Ashland
Family YMCA Soccer Fields. The design of the multi-use pathway shall be in accord with City
Local Street Standards, reviewed by the Director of the Ashland Parks Department, and approved
by the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat or the installation of improvements
associated with the subdivision. That the development and surfacing (i.e. all weather surface) of
the multi-use pathway at the south boundary of the project be extended through the existing
easement on the adjoining parcel to the south (tax lots #200 & 201). A design for the pathway
shall be submitted at the time of Final Plan approval and installed as part of the subdivision's
public infrastructure.
14) That public easements shall be identified on the final survey plat for all multi-use pathways. The
project CC&R' s shall note that the pathways are for public use and shall not be obstructed or
through access to the east restricted unless authorized by the City of Ashland and Ashland Parks
Department
15) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including but not limited to hydrant
placement and flow and apparatus access, shall be clearly identified on the engineered
construction drawings and reviewed by the Ashland Fire Department at the time of Final Plan
and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat or the installation of improvements
associated with the subdivision.
16) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission noted at their February 3 and June 9th,
2005 meetings, and consistent with Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards and Tree Preservation
Ordinance, shall be incorporated into a revised Landscaping Plan (if applicable) prior to Final Plan
approval. The recommendations shall be included on a revised landscaping plan and final irrigation
plan at the time of submission of building pennit.
17) That prior to any disturbance occurring on the site or the. issuance of a building permit, a Tree
Verification Permit shall be applied for. Required Tree Protection Measures (18.61.200) shall be
instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading,
excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction
activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation.
" ,'....'"..
18) That a final copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided at the time
of Final Plan and approved prior to signature of the Final survey plat. CC&R's to.describe
responsibility for the pruning and continual monitoring of the thrc..'C poplar trees, "maintenance of
common area landscaping, private driveways, multi-use pathways and on-site storm water
detention facilities. The Homeowner's Association is responsible for contracting with a utility
maintenance company for the maintenance of the storm water wetland/detention facility. All
-. A"
Exhibit_ ,....
Page___of~
parameters for maintenance of the facility, including time lines and enforcement, shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department and described in the CC&R's.
19) That the project complies with the Affordable Housing Standards as described in 18.106.030 G.
Each affordable unit shall be identified and the required term of affordability agreements (i.e. in
perpetuity) signed prior to signature of the final survey plat, with proof of recording submitted to
the City of Ashland Housing Program Coordinator prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
20) . That the CC&R; s identify which units are subject to the City's Affordable Housing requirements
and terms of affordability.
21) That a DemolitionIMove permit be issued for all applicable structures on the property prior to
signature of the survey plat.
22) That opportunity-to-recycle facilities shall be shall be identified in conjunction with the design of
each building and in accordance with the standards described in section 18.72.115 of the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.
23) That the color, texture, dimensions, shape and building materials for all exterior components of the
project be included at the time of submission of building permit. The information shall be consistent
with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and
approved as part of the land use application.
24) That required bicycle parking shall be identified on plans submitted at the time of building permit
review. The parking shall be designed and installed consistent with the standards described in
18.92.040 .
25) That the applicant agrees to construct the project in accordance with the approved plan and City
ordinances and waives the right to file a claim under Oregon Statewide Measure 37. The signed
waiver shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior
to signature of the survey plat or adoption of a resolution or ordinance formally annexing the
property. .
26) That prior to Final Plan submittal, the applicant's shall submit a wetland delineation and wetland
mitigation/enhancement plan that has been reviewed and approved by the Oregon Division of
State Lands and Staff Advisor. Such plans shall include civil engineering specifications for any
water detenoon:'WafettreatmeIl~ and water distribution.
" ............ .'"
_"'-'"_~'~'--'~'''''4''"",,, -f&l-~""'''''''''~':j~~'
/'~'" ~ '~'..
" "..............-, ) ~_.' . .... . .~. . ......~.................~, .
~_"...>~, /-:'. ....._~.::A..... .......~........ ,.
./~lannmg}Zonumsslon Approval ...... . .....~
7/2(p IDS-
Dati '
"~.
Exhibit f
Page~of~ .
. , : ''''.' """ ....,."
~/'"
"-.'
.g ~ .
.~ h ~f u
..c; !:~' ~r
0;'. !' ,.;1 ~;
tlQ ;0 _~ Ii";
II ..!"
. .,.,
I 1\
; i .oQ;
". ,~.,,'
i~~ i\ :! n ILl \ ---"
IIl,Z,",:I ,: I _~ ,.....,
~IolO . .~.:. 1::= . "'
oed 1 i\ !~ ~ ,....
:l\2;> . i" ~::l ,Iii'
~lZ:~ iiJd ;-0 = di~
\,,---.,
~
-i
~
I
.
It
I
II.
~I
I Wi
l;i 311Is....
" xv,:) .
"
".~~...
~ ~ ~
~! ~ r-
;
)-. Q., W!) ~
..
.. ~
:o:q lo; ~ i t
4 ~::ra ~ . i * I
"._.../ .. ~ ~J ; ~ J i I ~
i
< ~ '6... ~ R
.. ~ ~~ I I I I I . .
, ~j of 01 "" *e oe~. .,"
-. .. l
:z ~; ,
~i:l
l
\
;~1"-
r
I
1__
i
'N,
~
'i
~l-
,~
.
."
__.~1Ii6f)~
.....,.--., .~
i :\...,
,/ (.....
..i ,f)
. .1I~'''.~~'i~:l'M
. .ff'iHI.~W.
. (.n:~MI,l=
-f.WtH,..
-..
.""i'Hl..w.r
-..
.0,
~~
~ ~- ~..... ~- ~ \ r ~. - i~
t '''~..:. i-..- :.:.. ~ ~w~ ""_:: '~
t::::.
MAY 1 6 Z005
,..,.
C"' , " ~ . ,.' . 1--1
...... "-......... . .'-1
Council Communication
Purchase of Environmentally Preferred Power from BP A
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
Department: Electric
Contributing Depart. N/A ~n l
Approval: Martha Benn"'H /'( .~V
Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid,
552-2061 wandersd@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: N/ A
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Statement:
The City has been purchasing Environmentally Preferred Power (EPP) from the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) since 2001. Our yearly purchase has equaled 1aMW (8,760,000
kWh's) or about 5% of our power requirement under a 5 year contract (2001-2006). This
contract expires on September 30, 2006, and the City needs to decide if we want to purchase EPP
again during our next 3-year rate period.
Background:
The City of Ashland has been purchasing 1 aMW of EPP from BP A as a part of our wholesale
supply mix. This power represents about 5% of the approximate 20 aMW total electric load that
the City purchases from BP A. It is being purchased under a five year contract which is set to
expire on September 30,2006. This power costs an additional $10.50/ MWh which equates to a
premium of $91 ,980 in extra costs per year. These costs are included as part of our wholesale
power costs and are passed on to all electricity purchasers, and are not sold at a premium to
customers on a voluntary basis.
Half of the revenue that BP A derives from the sale of EPP currently goes to the Bonneville
Environmental Foundation (BEF) to support their Renewable Resource and watershed
enhancement activities. Under BPA's new EPP proposal 36% of the revenue will go to BEF but
they will also receive 36% of any renewable energy credits (Green Tags) sales so they will
probably receive about the same amount of revenue for their programs as under the current
proposal. BEF was one of the major funding sources of the City's Solar Pioneer I program and is
also our formal Green Tag Partner under a cooperative market agreement with the City. We also
hope to partner with them on our proposed Conservation and Renewable Energy Bond funded
Solar Pioneer II project which is budgeted for next fiscal year.
The City is in the middle of a 10-year power agreement to purchase wholesale power from BP A.
The first rate period of the contract was 5 years (2001-2006). The second rate period will be 3
years (2007-2009), and the final rate period will be for 2 years (2010-2011).
1
BP A will soon be offering EPP contracts to all its customers. Utilities like Ashland, that are
already purchasing EPP will be given the first rights. The price for EPP has been set by BP A at a
$10.50 premium per MWh, the same as the price for our existing 5 year contract.
The City has been using our Conservation and Renewal Rate Discount (C&RD) to cover EPP's
extra cost. This discount is a method that BP A uses to reduce our wholesale power bill by 1/2
mill per kWh purchased. The utilities must demonstrate they have spent at least an equal amount
on conservation or renewable resource activities or the money must be paid back to BP A.
In the next 3-year rate period, BP A will again be offering this same type of mechanism which
will be called the Conservation Rate Credit (CRC). It has some new features and some changes
to how it operates. The Ashland CRC for Federal FY06-07 is $92,604.
The major change which could impact using CRC for the purchase ofEPP is that BPA has
limited the total regional amount of the credit that can be used for the renewable resource
programs to $6 million/yr. Utilities must notify BP A by July 15, 2006 if they plan to use some
or a~l of their credit for an EPP purchase. BPA will then assess the total amount of the claims and
if they exceed the $6 million cap, utilities will be notified of a prorated reduction in the amount
that would be eligible for a renewable resource credit.
For example, if Ashland were to use the credit to cover the $91,980 cost of purchasing laMW of
EPP and regional requests were $12 million, then only Y:z of the credit (or $45,990) could be
claimed for EPP. Other eligible conservation measures would need to be installed, and credits
for these additional measures would then be used to make up the remainder of the claim. If the
$6 million cap is exceeded, BP A will notify all utilities with a prorated reduction notice on
August 1,2006 and utilities will then be able to modify (reduce) their EPP purchase amount if
they desire.
During the current rate period, October 1, 2001, through September 30,2006, total regional rate
credits for renewable programs were about $2 million per year with the exception of 2002 when
claims equaled $8 million. However, the voters of Washington State will probably be deciding
on a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in November via Washington State Initiative process.
If that initiative passes, many Washington utilities that will be affected by the RPS will probably
turn to BPA's EPP as a way to meet the new requirement. Therefore, it is very difficult to
predict if the $6 million regional cap will be exceeded or not.
This new EPP proposal does offer some advantages to Ashland because we were one ofthe
utilities that purchased EPP during the last 5 year period. Because of this, we get the first rights
to purchase EPP again and thus are assured that we can purchase the product even if BP A has
more requests for EPP than the inventory they have.
Secondly, if we purchase EPP again for the next 3 year period, we would have the first rights to
continue to purchase it again for the final two years of our BP A contract (FYI 0 &FYll) at the
current incremental price of$10.50 MWh. In addition, purchasing EPP in FYI0 & FYll allows
Ashland the first right to again purchase EPP under a new contract. There is no price guarantee
beyond our current 10-year contract. The EPP product tha~ BPA will be offering is 100% wind
generated electricity.
2
Other Regulatory Issues
As mentioned earlier, Washington voters may have the opportunity decide in November whether
or not to approve an initiative that all electric utilities with greater than 25,000 customers must
have 15% of their resource portfolio be renewable resources by 2020. In addition, in February
2006, the California Public Utility Commission issued a formal notice that they will be working
on developing a cap on carbon emissions for the California investor owned utilities and also will
work with the California Governor's Office to ensure that municipal utilities in California will be
subject to similar limits.
Also, on May 4,2006, eight U.S. Senators introduced the Enhanced Energy Security Act of
2006, which would require electric utilities to obtain 10% of their electricity from new or
existing renewable energy sources by 2020. The State of Oregon is also considering similar
requirements for Oregon's electric utilities. Oregon's Renewable Energy Action Plan, developed
by the Oregon Department of Energy in 2003 at the request of Governor Ted Kulongoski, has a
long term goal that "Renewable generation will meet 10% of Oregon's total load by 2010, which
is roughly about 1 % growth in renewable generation per year. This will increase to or exceed
25% ofload by 2025." One of the short term goals ofthis plan is for the State to perform "an
assessment of the feasibility of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for the State." The
Governor's office has a responsibility in the plan to "support a Renewable Energy Working
Group (REWG) to be coordinated through the Governor's office and the Oregon Department of
Energy to guide implementation of this plan." The REWG was officially formed in January,
2006 and has met 3 times so far this year.
The City's Electric Director is serving on this group and represents both Ashland and the Oregon
Municipal Electric Utilities Association (OMED). The group is diverse and also includes Carlos
Reichenshammer an Ashland builder and the current president of the Oregon Homebuilders
Association. This group has been tasked with developing a legislative proposal for an RPS that
will be presented for adoption in the 2007 legislative session. All of these activities would seem
to indicate there is a good chance that Electric Utilities in Oregon will be facing a State or
Federal mandate which will require that some of our power supply mix will need to be supplied
by renewable resources at some point in the future.
The Governor is also proposing that all State owned facilities purchase renewable resource
electricity for 100% of their power needs by 2010. The City could facilitate that kind of
purchase by passing on EPP costs the Southern Oregon University as a way for them to meet this
requirement. SOU uses about 1.5 aMW's of electricity annually.
Related City Policies:
The City strives to be environmentally aware and many of our programs and policies aim toward
that end. The Valdez Principles specifically encourage the use of renewable resources.
The City's Conservation Commission made a unanimous recommendation to the Council that the
City increase our EPP purchase to 2 aMW at its January 25,2006 meeting. At that time BPA was
indicating that the cost ofEPP would be between $4 -$7 MWh not the $10.50 MWh that BPA
has set as the actual price for the product. A copy oftheir February 7, 2006 memo to the council
has been included with this communication.
3
Council Options:
For the next 3 year rate period:
1) Continue purchasing EPP from the Bonneville Power Administration, or
2) Decline to purchase EPP from BP A
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City issue a notice to BP A of our intent to purchase 1 aMW of EPP
from BP A for the next 3 years of our BP A Power sales contract for the following reasons:
· Continuing to purchase 5% of our Power as EPP will ensure our ability to continue to
purchase it in the future.
· The additional costs of purchasing EPP will be covered in part or entirely by the BP A
Conservation Rate Credit. The City can decide in the future to decrease or eliminate the
amount of our EPP purchase if our rate credit prorating is significantly reduced.
· Purchasing EPP supports Renewable resource programs in the Northwest and
demonstrates the City's environmental commitment by this action.
· Future RPS requirements from the State or the fuderal government could be met by the
City's purchasing EPP.
. The purchase supports the Valdez Principles as adopted by the City.
. The purchase ofEPP continues to support BEF and their activities.
Potential Motions:
1) Move that the City's Electric Department submit a Pre-Notice Claim to BPA to purchase
1 aMW of EPP for the next 3 year rate period.
or
2) Move that the City discontinue purchasing EPP from BP A for the next 3 year period
Attachments:
February 7,2006 Conservation Commission Memo
4
Memo
DATE: 2/07/06
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Conservation Commission
SUBJECT: Renewable Resource and Solar Discussion
BACKGROUND
At the January 25,2006 meeting, the Ashland Conservation Commission reviewed and discussed the
Council Communication on Renewable Resources and Solar Program Options with a goal of making a
recommendation to the Mayor and City Council on how to proceed on these important issues.
After reviewing these options in a spirited discussion which lasted over an hour, the Commission voted
unanimously to recommend the following:
Environmentally Preferred Power- The Commission unanimously recommends that the City
continue to purchase Environmentally Preferred Power (EPP) from the Bonneville Power Association
(BP A) for the next 3 years. We propose the City increase their purchase to 2 aMW or 100.10 of our total
wholesale power supply, however, we recommend that the total incremental costs should exceed
$100,000 which is $8,100 or 8.8% more than the City currently spends.
Because EPP costs will be in the $4-$7 mWhr range, this dollar amount will allow a bigger purchase
that the current 1 aMW the City now purchases from BP A. The Commission's rationale for continuing
the purchase is to continue to support development of new renewables in the Northwest and to reduce
carbon emissions associated with electricity production. The proposed 8.8% increase in spending is
loosely based on the population increase in the City since 2000 when the City entered into their current
contract for EPP with BP A.
Solar Program Option- The Commission supported the model of using CREB interest free
bonds to fund a new community solar system where output could be sold on a voluntary basis to citizens
and voted unanimously that a $500,000 solar system funded by CREB, should be pursued by the City
for this program.
Feel free to call our staff liaison, Dick Wanderscheid, at 552-2061 if you have any questions or need
further information or assistance.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Procedure on Selection of Council Position #1
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Departments:
Approval:
June 20, 2006
City Recorder ~
None .A~
Martha Bennstt "l
Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen,
(541) 488-5307 christebt'w.ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: None
Estimated time: 10 minutes
Statement:
A Special meeting of the Council is scheduled for July 17 to conduct interviews and make appointment to Council Position
#1 for a term ending December 31, 2006.
Background:
As was approved by council at the June 6 meeting, advertisement seeking letters of interest was placed in the local
newspaper as well as on the city website. The deadline for applications to be submitted to the City Recorder's Office is 5pm
on June 30.
History on past appointments by council:
1997 Council Position #6 vacated by Brent Thompson filled by Alan DeBoer
. 3 applications received through advertisement of vacancy
· No interviews conducted, but questions were presented to the candidates and turned into the council
. Nominations were made by council
· Appointment based on majority of votes; 3 for DeBoer; 1 for Lewis and 1 for Hartzell.
2001 Council Position # 6 vacated by David Fine filled by Chris Hearn
. 7 applications received through advertisement of vacancy
. Interviews conducted
· Council voted on applicants; 3 for Hearn; 1 for DeBey and 1 for Lininger
. Motion was made to appoint Chris Hearn. Appointment based on majority of votes 5-0.
2002 Council Position #4 vacated by Cameron Hanson filled by Kate Jackson
· 5 applicants received through advertisement of vacancy
. Interviews conducted
· Council voiced their support of various applicants
· Motion was made to appoint Kate Jackson. Appointment based on majority of votes 4-1.
2005 Council Position #6 vacated by Chris Hearn filled by David Chapman
· 14 applications received through advertisement of vacancy
. Interviews conducted
. Council voted for the top three applicants; due to a tie, Council kept the two top applicants (Swales and
Dimitre) and voted in a second round to determine the third applicant to be considered; Council then voted
on the top three applicants (Swales, Dimitre and Chapman); council voted 3 for Chapman and 2 for
Swales.
· Motion to appoint Chapman based on majority of votes. 5-0
Interview Questions previously used by council:
· What do you believe you would contribute to the City Council based on your experience? What are you good at?
· What do you want to accomplish while serving on the City Council?
· What do you think are the biggest issues facing the city?
rj.'
· Relative to the key issues mentioned, what approach would you recommend the Council take?
· How long have you lived in the community and what community activities have you been involved in? And what is
your primary motivation for seeking the vacant council seat?
· What do you think are the biggest issues facing the city? And how do you see yourself contributing to resolve the
issues?
. What personal skills and time availability to you ofter the council?
· When moving ahead on a particular project, that is the best for the community at large, but would impact an
existing neighborhood, how would you handle this?
. Do you see yourself representing a particular constituency or group?
. Do you have any questions of the council?
Related City Policies:
There is no charter law or city ordinance that sets the method in which the council elects an individual to a council seat in the
event of a vacancy.
Council Options:
1) Discuss if pre-selection process of applicants should take place prior to the July 17 meeting.
2) Discuss what questions should be asked of the applicants and if these questions should be made available prior to
the scheduled interview.
3) Discuss method of voting.
Staff Recommendation:
None
Attachments:
None
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
DEQ Presentation on Revised PM Standards
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Departments:
Approval:
June 20, 2006
Administration All AA
Martha Bennett 1'1)/1
Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer ~
E-mail: ann@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact:
Estimated Time: 10 Minutes
Statement:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) has proposed new federal air quality health standards for
fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and inhalable coarse particle matter (PM 10-2.5).
John Becker from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will update the council on
these new standards.
Background:
The council was to have heard this presentation in March. Due to the number of agenda items it was
postponed until now.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
This for informational purposes only.
Staff Recommendation:
This for informational purposes only.
Potential Motions:
None.
Attachments:
. Revised PM Standard Q&A
. Graph showing Medford PM2.5 three year average
r~'
Revised PM Standard Q&A
EP A Fine Particulate Proposal
The Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) has proposed new federal air quality heath
standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and inhalable coarse particle matter (PMIO-
2.5). EP A has proposed keeping the current annual PM2.5 standard the same (at 15 ug/m\
but lower the daily (24-hr average) standard from the current 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3.
Overall, Oregon has had a long and successful history of meeting the challenge to reduce
air pollutants. Under the proposed standards, most of Oregon will remain in compliance,
however some areas like Klamath Falls and Medford may have trouble meeting a lower
PM2.5 standard. We will need to wait for EP A's final action before knowing what areas in
Oregon are potential new nonattainment areas. Oregon will likely have a number of areas
on the borderline of a new PM2.5 health standard, so 2006 will be a time to engage with
these communities on pollution prevention. Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) staff are tracking this proposal and will work with other western states to
evaluate and respond to EP A's proposed revision.
Some Q&A
Why has EP A adopted new standards?
The Clean Air Act requires EP A to review and revise air quality standards at least once
every five years to ensure that they protect the public from air pollution. The Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) has reviewed hundreds ofthe most recent
medical studies and believes that current standards should be strengthened to better
protect the public from short-term fine particle exposures.
EP A is required, under consent decree, to complete its review of the PM standard. EP A
must propose a revised PM rule by December 20, 2005 and finalize it by September 27,
2006.
What is PM (particulate matter) and how does it affect me?
Particulate matter comes mostly from smoke from fuel combustion (large and small
engines, home heating, construction equipment, etc.), some industrial processes, motor
vehicle and truck exhaust, and wind-blown dust. PMIO refers to particulate matter 10
microns in diameter and smaller, whereas PM2.5 refers to particulate matter 2.5 microns in
diameter and smaller. (The average strand of human hair is 70 microns in diameter.)
Health studies over the past decade show that there are harmful effects from breathing
PMIO particles and additional harmful effects from breathing particles measuring less
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). This size fraction is inhaled deep into the lungs and
can lodge there for weeks and months, aggravating asthma, heart disease, and other
circulatory and respiratory conditions.
2/15/06
What are the revised standards?
EP A has proposed new standards that address primary health standards as well as
secondary welfare standards.
Primary Health Standards
EP A has proposed to lower the daily (24-hour average) PM2.5 standard about 46%, from
65 ug/m3 to of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and to retain the current annual
average standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter.
EP A has also proposed to eliminate the current PMlO standards and replace them with a
new standard that focuses on the coarse particles that are between PMIO and PM2.5. This
new standard is known as PMcoarse or PMlO-Z.5. The PMlO-2.5 standard will have a 24-hour
average concentration of 70 micrograms per cubic meter. EP A proposes to limit this
standard to "urban" areas only, specifically where PMlO-Z.5 comes from high-density
traffic on paved roads, industrial sources, and construction activities. PMlO-Z.5 from rural
windblown dust and soils and agricultural and mining sources would be excluded. EP A
is not proposing an annual standard for PMlO-Z.5, due to a lack of scientific evidence
showing significant public health risks associated with long-term exposure to coarse
particles.
Secondary Welfare Standards
In addition to the proposed primary standards, EP A has also proposed secondary
standards to protect the public welfare such as crops, vegetation, wildlife, buildings and
national monuments and visibility. However, for both PMZ.5 and PMlO-2.5, these levels are
identical to the primary standards.
What Oregon communities might be affected by the new standards?
Most of Oregon should meet the new standards, however, some communities may have
trouble and be classified as nonattainment based on the proposal. Because there is still a
public process that EP A has to go through before finalizing the rules, the proposed
standard could change. Therefore, DEQ cannot say with certainty which specific
communities will be in nonattainment. Areas that have had problems in the past include
Klamath Falls, Medford, Eugene/Springfield, and Oakridge, and these areas are again at
risk of non attainment under EPA's proposal. Attainment determinations will depend on
EPA's final standards and the years they choose for monitoring. At this time, it appears
that EP A is planning on using 2004-2006 for PMZ.5.
2/15/06
What does this mean for Oregon?
Over the past twenty years, Oregon has invested in strategies to reduce particulate matter.
These strategies have significantly reduced both PMIO and PM2.5. Ifwe have areas that
are in nonattainment, we will likely need to further reduce sources of smoke and dust,
such as open burning, transportation, industrial sources and woodstoves.
According to EP A's PM2.5 implementation timetable, Oregon will use monitoring data
from 2004-2006 to make initial PM2.5 nonattainment area recommendations to EP A.
Following any new PM2.5 designations, Oregon will develop plans to reduce the
emissions of fine particles and any new nonattainment areas will have until 2015 to meet
the new PM2.5 standard.
The new PMIO-2.5 standard represents a new approach for particulate measurement and
regulation, and EP A must start with fundamentals such as developing a standardized
monitoring approach. For PMIO-2.5, EP A has proposed a new federal reference method to
measure it. Once that monitoring method is finalized and in place, Oregon will have to
collect three years of monitoring data, currently expected in the 2009-2011 timeframe.
Any nonattainment areas designated under the PMIO-2.5 standard will need to come into
compliance by 2018.
What will happen to the PM10 standard?
EPA is proposing to revoke the current daily (24-hour average) except in specified areas,
none of which are in Oregon. EP A recently published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking addressing implementation ofthe revised PM NAAQS (National Ambient
Air Quality Standards). One important section of this proposal will address the transition
from PMIO to the new PMIO-2.5 standards, including important anti-backsliding issues
affecting existing PMIO strategies.
Is the EP A accepting comments?
Yes. Comments from the public will be accepted by EP A until April 17, 2006.
Where can I get more information about the proposal?
Visit EP A's website at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/actions.html
For questions within Oregon, you may contact Rachel Sakata at 1-503-229-5659, or at 1-
800-452-4011, or at: http://www.SAKATA.rachel@deq.state.or.us
Next Steps
States will know EPA's final decision on the new standards in late 2006. EPA will then
expect initial attainment and nonattainment area designations in 2007. If Oregon does
have new PM2.5 nonattainment areas, DEQ will need to conduct the technical analysis and
research work needed to understand the contribution of key emission sources and other
2/15/06
factors driving PM2.5 nonattainment. This fundamental research will provide the
foundation on which to build an effective and equitable attainment strategy. In 2006,
DEQ will be developing its budget for the next biennium, and will seek the resources
needed for answering fundamental science and technical questions about PM2.5 as well as
for working with communities on strategy development.
In the meantime, DEQ and communities can start with the basics, such as updating local
woodstove and open burning ordinances that are sensitive to the new PM2.5 standards.
DEQ and community partners can also begin to develop the public's understanding of
new PM2.5 issues and look for other opportunities for pollution prevention.
States and federal budgets for particulate monitoring have been severely reduced.
Funding for monitoring will likely be a critical issue that EP A will need to address as
they roll out new standards for PM2.5 and PMIO-2.5.
2/15/06
o
01
......
o
......
01
I\)
o
PM2.5 (ug/m3)
I\) VJ VJ .j:>.
01 0010
.j:>.
01
01
o
01
01
0)
o
0)
01
I\)
o
o
o
I
o
I\)
Co)
CO
3:
(1)
Q,
0'
a.
"'tI
-I 3:
::r ~
aJ
CD (,II
-< W
CD
AI '<
., .,
:::a ~
AI I\)
:J 0 (1)
ca -0 Co) .,
CD ...... ..... 0
C I
0 """
(II VJ -
CD ::T
Q. (1)
:J CO
~ CO
-
CD v ::T
Dl 0) "'tI
ca en (1)
CD n
(1)
~
!:!:
CD
I\)
o
o
I\)
I
o
.j:>.
CITY Of
ASHLAND,
Council Communication
An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2006 to and
including June 30, 2007, such taxes in the sum of $9,797,262 upon all the
real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the
corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
Department: Administrative Services
Contributing Departments: NA
Approval: Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Secondary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Estimated Time:
Lee Tuneberg J11."l
tuneberl@ashland.or.us
NA
15 Minutes
Statement:
An Ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1,2006 to and including June 30,2007. Such taxes
in the sum of $9,797,262 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy
within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. The levy consists of three
parts: (1) a permanent rate supporting the General Debt Service and Parks funds of $3.9747, totaling
$7,000,000 (2) a local option levy supporting Ashland Youth Activities Fund at a rate of $1.3800,
totaling $2,430,000, and (3) two bonded debt levies totaling $367,262.
Background:
The Property Tax rate is calculated to increase to 3.9747 from 3.7147 with .1750 to cover the City's
debt service requirements and an additional .085 for other General Fund programs.
The Ordinance is consistent with the Budget Committee's recommended approved tax rate.
This Ordinance was first considered and read on June 6, 2006.
Council Options:
Council may approve the following tax rate to cover the City's debt service requirements.
Council may lower, but not increase, the following tax rate and adjust its intended use.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance by its second reading.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to accept the tax rate as presented.
Attachments:
An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1,2006 to and including June 30, 2007, such taxes
in the sum of $9,797,262 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within
the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon
rA'
~--~-~--~~----- ---~-- ~------,--
City of Ashland, Oregon - Ordinance
Page 1 of2
/ City Recorder / City Council Information / Packet Archives / Year 2006 / 06/06/ ORD Levy
Taxes / Ordinance
Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2006 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30,
2007, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $9,797,262 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND,
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted
budget in the permanent rate of $3.9747 per thousand an amount estimated to be $7,000,000, voter
authorized Local Option in the rate of $1.3800 per thousand an amount estimated to be $2,430,000, as well
as $367,262 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied
upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2006, on all taxable property within the City.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following
funds:
General Fund
Debt Service Fund
Parks & Recreation Fund
Subject to General Excluded from General
Government Limitation Government Limitation
Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt
$3,006,000
$308,000
$3,686,000
Rate
Per $1,000
1. 7069
0.1750
2.0928
Youth Activities Levy
1997 Flood Restoration Bond Levy
2000 Flood and Fire Station Bonds
2005 Refinancing
$2,430,000
1.3800
$83,452
$166,385
$117,425
$7,000,000 $2,430,000
$367,262
The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the _ day of June, 2006 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
_ day of June, 2006.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of June, 2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney
End of Document - Back to Top
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp ?N av ID=93 90&Print=True
6/15/2006
CITY Of
A.SHLAND
Meeting Date: June 20,2006
Department: Community Develop
Contributing Departments: Legal
Approval: Martha Benne
Council Communication ADDENDUM
Resolution Amending Resolution 2005.46
Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman 552-2076effi!
E-mail: goldmanb@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar 552-2~ 1/"00..
E-mail: molnarb@ashland.or.us -/ \7VY -
Estimated Time: 30 Min.
Addendum to the Council Communication regarding the
Resolution amending 2005.46 dated June 6th, 2006.
The Housing Commission held numerous hearings on the proposed resolution for the Affordable
Housing Program and SDC Deferral program and the various components contained within the
resolution. During this process concerns were raised by both for profit and non-profit developers
regarding potential impacts of the changes. Although the Housing Commission weighed these
potential impacts in their deliberations, some specific concerns were not raised until the day of the
scheduled City Council review of the proposed resolution on June 6th, 2006. As the Council is aware,
the proposed resolution amending 2005-46 was not reviewed at the meeting and as such the City was
able to further evaluate those newly raised concerns
In meeting with Merry Hart and Cindy Dyer of Access Inc on June 7th to address the SDC resolution
presently before Council, we examined some potential issues with the Affordable Housing Program as
presented. ACCESS Inc had identified a number of valid concerns with the program as presented in
the resolution during this meeting and their efforts to work with staff to identify remedies to the
foreseeable issues is appreciated.The letter submitted previously by ACCESS Inc (July 14, 2005) did
not address the issues below. The concerns raised in the previous letter were known by the Housing
Commission and deliberated as part of the initial review of the programs.
All new concerns raised related to the methodologies proposed in the resolution and are outlined
below. The Ashland Legal Department is reviewing the issues and the proposed remedies to draft
language for incorporation into the resolution amending 2005-46. The Legal Department anticipates
that this revised resolution will be complete and available to the Council on Monday June 19th for
consideration at the regular meeting on June 20th, 2006
Maximum Purchase Price
The calculation of the maximum purchase for covered units under the new resolution created three
areas of concern. Below the issues of household size, qualifying income level, and assumed interest
rate are addressed to structure the resolution to provide a consistent and predictable calculation for
both buyers and sellers.
Household Size
The variable pricing structure which is dependant in part on the household size could have the
unforeseen consequence of having developers, that are required to sell units at an affordable rate,
r~'
being selective on which household could buy the unit to hold-out for a household with a greater
number of individuals, therefore a greater purchase price. Doing so would permit a developer to sell a
unit for a greater amount, but would also unfairly discriminate against any smaller household size that
is otherwise income qualified for the unit. This form of household selection, although favoring large
households, could be seen as discriminating against a single mother in favor of a married couple with
the same number of children. Such a consequence was not intended by the resolution.
Potential Remedy
The maximum purchase price shall be established to not exceed the affordability limits
indicated in following table:
Studio = 1 person household income for the designated income level
1 Bedroom = 2 person household income for the designated income level
2 Bedroom = 4 person household income for the designated income level
3 Bedroom = 6 person household income for the designated income level
4 Bedroom = 7 person household income for the designated income level
Households with a greater or lesser number of occupants shall remain eligible for covered
units but the sale price shall not be adjusted due to household size above the limits
established above.
Qualifying income level
The variable pricing structure establishes that the purchase price can be "not exceed more than 30%
of their monthly income on total housing costs which includes Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance
(PITI) and any homeowners or regular maintenance fees." This provision was in large part the goal of
the restructuring of the program to ensure households were not cost burdened by the housing cost of
units, and that the sale price was correlated to the income level of the occupant households.
ACCESS Inc. identified that in a similar capacity to the household size scenario outlined above, this
could effectively cause developers to restrict the sale of units only to households at the maximum of
the target income range. Therefore this could result in limiting participation in the ownership housing
provided by functionally restricting households of lower incomes.
ACCESS Inc., raised the issue of the 30% cap in their letter dated 7-14-05, noting that such a
limitation would be more restrictive than some lenders that allow a qualified household to borrow up to
38% of their incomes to cover PITI. The concern raised indicates that some households of lower
incomes could potentially purchase a covered unit if allowed to exceed the 30% cap and thus the
limitation may restrict their participation unnecessarily.
Staff believes that the 30% cap is an important threshold to maintain as it functions to ensure units are
provided at a lower asking price, and therefore truly affordable to the target households. However in
the remedy to this issue presented below the issue of discrimination in favor of only the highest
income households (within the designated categories), as well as the concern regarding the 30%
limitation is addressed.
Potential Remedy
The maximum purchase price shall be established by calculating the ability to pay for a
household at the 60%, 80%, 100% or 120% income level and not for the income of the specific
occupant household
In this manner a seller would establish a purchase price for a covered unit assuming the
hypothetical buyer (4 person household) was qualified at 80%AMI and establish the asking
price with that standard (ie $115,000). An actual purchaser earning only 72%AMI would still
be required to pay the $115,000 asking price which would account for a combined PITI and
homeowners fee payment equal to 34% of their household income.
~~,
This methodology provides greater consistency of expectations for both buyers and sellers of covered
units and ensures that households with incomes below the threshold (60,80,100, 120%AMI) would not
be bypassed in favor of households at the precise level to maximize sale prices.
Interest Rate
With variation in interest rates it is foreseeable that a seller would restrict the sale of a covered unit to
only those households that could obtain a very low interest rate loan. As structured currently the
maximum purchase price allowable increases as interest rates decrease. Therefore the resolution
could effectively promote interest only loans, adjustable rate loans in addition to the subsidized loans
available. To level the field ACCESS Inc. and Staff believe that establishing an interest rate to be
used in calculations provides a predictability to both buyers and sellers. To accomplish this it is
important to utilize an interest rate index that adjusts and is in large part commensurate with a 30 year
fixed rate loan. The Oregon Bond Loan RateAdvantage home loan provides such an index. Buyers
would not be directed to use this loan program, rather the established interest rate (currenty 5.4%)
would be used as the benchmark to calculate units affordable sale price.
Potential Remedy
The maximum purchase price shall be established by utilizing the interest rate for the Oregon
Bond Loan RateAdvantage, as adjusted, in calculating the maximum amount of a households
payment toward PIT/.
Buver Protection
The resolution as drafted does not explicitly address the resale of units and how the preceding (first)
purchaser is protected against loss of equity in the event Area Median Incomes decline, or any
circumstance where the calculated purchase price for the subsequent owner is less than the original
purchase price. It was not an intention to allow a first purchaser to lose their investment in response
to external market forces (incomes, interest rates, closing costs, realtor fees) that would effectively
limit the resale price. Additionally for consideration in this issue is also whether a owner could
recapture any voluntary investments made into the improvement of a cove fed unit such as additions,
remodels, or other physical alterations to the unit. Due to the incentive such a provision would
provide, to increase a sales price by adding amenities or square footage, staff questions whether such
a provision is in the best interest of the long term affordability of covered units.
Potential Remedy
In no case shall a purchaser be required to sell the covered unit for less than their original
purchase price, plus any applicable closing costs and realtor fees"
Although such a provision would effectively create a greater disparity between the ability to
pay of the subsequent purchaser and the actual purchase price of the unit over time, it seems
appropriate to mitigate the risk any purchaser of a covered unit would otherwise face. Further,
without such assurance that a buyer will be able to recapture at least 100% of their original
investment many lenders would not finance a loan as in the event of foreclosure a lender will
want to ensure their risk is minimized.
OccuDancv Qualification
The resolution as drafted does not explicitly address whether an occupant household, which was
originally income eligible for a covered rental or ownership, that experiences an increase in income
r.l'
over their period of occupancy will be permitted to remain in the unit. For ownership units it seems
evident that in the event a low-moderate income household purchases a covered unit and achieves
the stability of home-ownership, there is an increased possibility that they will experience a raise in
household income. Further, movement of household out of low income status is a primary goal of
providing ownership opportunities. For rental projects covered by federal funding (HOME) there are
provisions to allow a previously qualified household to remain in the unit after an increase in
household limit to again encourage the transition from low to moderate income and above. In both
ownership and rental housing the resolution for Ashland's Affordable Housing Program should ensure
that displacement of what were initially qualified households does not occur as a consequence of
strict adherence to the income re-qualification annually.
Potential Remedy
The ownership section of the proposed resolution only requires units be sold to qualified
occupant households and does not address a continued qualification process. Thus this does
not need to be altered to ensure a purchasing household will not be displaced due to
increased incomes.
The rental section of the resolution does establish a requirement for yearly certification and
alteration to 2.3.1 allowing for retention of households (that entered the program as income
eligible but experienced a rise in income after taking residence in a covered unit) would ensure
displacement did not occur.
"The owner of record, or the designated agent of the record, owner, shall annually file with the
City of Ashland a signed certificate stating the occupants of the record owner's rental housing
units continue to be qualified households. or are a household that aualified at their initiation of
OCCUDancv. within the meaning of this Resolution, and any amendment made to it...".
The numerous issues outlined above, and the proposed remedies, are currently being examined by
the Ashland Legal Department. The precise language necessary to draft a resolution is to be
provided as part of a revised Resolution Amending 2005-46 prior to the Council review scheduled for
June 20,2006. Although the issue of how to craft a functional and predictable Affordable Housing
Program is a complicated one, the provisions of the resolution currently being proposed will be more
effective at supporting affordable housing and in securing protections for the occupant households of
covered units.
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 15, 2006
Brandon Goldman
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney
Resolution amending 2005-46, Affordable Housing Program and SDC Deferral program
QUESTION: You relayed five issues Access Inc recently raised. These issues, set forth verbatim
below, are:
1) The variable pricing structure which is dependant in part on the household size could have the
unforeseen consequence of having developers, that are required to sell units at an affordable rate, being
selective on which household could buy the unit to hold-out for a household with a greater number of
individuals, therefore a greater purchase price. Doing so would permit a developer to sell a unit for a
greater amount, but would also unfairly discriminate against any smaller household size that is otherwise
income qualified for the unit. This form of household selection, although favoring large households,
could be seen as discriminating against a single mother in favor of a married couple with the same
number of children. Such a consequence was not intended by the resolution.
2) The variable pricing structure establishes that the purchase price can be "not exceed more than
30% of their monthly income on total housing costs which includes Principal, Interest, Taxes and
Insurance (PIT!) and any homeowners or regular maintenance fees." This provision was in large part
the goal of the restructuring of the program to ensure households were not cost burdened by the housing
cost of units, and that the sale price was correlated to the income level of the occupant households.
ACCESS Inc. identified that in a similar capacity to the household size scenario outlined above, this
could effectively cause developers to restrict the sale of units only to households at the maximum of the
target income range. Therefore this could result in limiting participation in the ownership housing
provided by functionally restricting households oflower incomes.
3) The resolution as drafted does not explicitly address the resale, of units and how the preceding
(first) purchaser is protected against loss of equity in the event Area Median Incomes decline, interest
rates rise, or any circumstance where the calculated purchase price for the subsequent owner is less than
the original purchase price. It was not an intention to allow a first purchaser to lose their investment in
response to external market forces (incomes, interest rates, closing costs) that would effectively limit the
resale price. Additionally for consideration in this issue is also whether a owner could recapture any
voluntary investments made into the improvement of a covered unit such as additions, remodels, or
other physical alterations to the unit. Due to the incentive such a provision would provide, to increase a
sales price by adding amenities or square footage, staff questions whether such a provision is in the best
interest of the long term affordability of covered units.
CITY OF ASHLAND
Legal Department
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney
Shanene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
~&,
4) The resolution as drafted does not explicitly address whether an occupant household, which was
originally income eligible for a covered rental or ownership, that experiences an increase in income over
their period of occupancy will be permitted to remain in the unit. For ownership units it seems evident
that in the event a low-moderate income household purchases a covered unit and achieves the stability of
home-ownership, there is an increased possibility that they will experience a raise in household income.
Further, movement of household out of low income status is a primary goal of providing ownership
opportunities. For rental projects covered by federal funding (HOME) there are provisions to allow a
previously qualified household to remain in the unit after an increase in household limit to again
encourage the transition from low to moderate income and above. In both ownership and rental housing
the resolution for Ashland's Affordable Housing Program should ensure that displacement of what were
initially qualified households does not occur as a consequence of strict adherence to the income re-
qualification annually.
5) The idea is to establish a predictable sale price by referencing an interest rate and the one chosen
would be the Oregon Bond Loan Rate Advantate effective interest rate plus 1 %. There was concern that
by not indexing a rate a seller could hold-out to sell to the person with the 'best loan' like an interest only
loan where the lower interest rate would correlate to a larger allowable asking price. By indexing our
programs calculation of affordability to the Oregon Bond Loan programm this would make the current
rate to be used for calculating maximum purchase price to be 6.40% (5.4 + 1) which is pretty close to
market rates. This standardizes the formula and I can produce a max sale price for each unit based on
bedrooms... note that buyers would not have to use this loan, it would only be used to set the purchase
pnce.
DISCUSSION:
ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2.
The ordinance is intended to apply to owners/developers who want to construct a number of homes and
receive a density bonus in exchange for offering some of them as low income. AMC Chapter 10.1101
and the Fair Housing Act already prevent the discrimination Access envisions. The owner cannot
discriminate based on familial status. Based on these laws, I see no need to change these sections;
however, the choice is yours. The Fair Housing Act, 42 USC SS3603 - 3604, is set forth below for your
reference (emphasis added).
~ 3603:
(a) Application to certain described dwellings. Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) and section 807 [42 uses ~
3607], the prohibitions against discrimination in the sale or rental of housing set forth in section 804 [42 uses ~ 3604]
shall apply:
(1) Upon enactment of this title [enacted April 11, 1968], to--
(A) dwellings owned or operated by the Federal Government;
(B) dwellings provided in whole or in part with the aid ofloans, advances, grants, or contributions made by the
Federal Government, under agreements entered into after November 20, 1962, unless payment due thereon has been
made in full prior to the date of enactment of this title [enacted April 11, 1968];
1 I offer no opinion whether AMC 10.110 is constitutional vis a vis 42 USC section 3603 et seq.
2
CITY HALL
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
r.,
(C) dwellings provided in whole or in part by loans insured, guaranteed, or otherwise secured by the credit of the
Federal Government, under agreements entered into after November 20, 1962, unless payment thereon has been made
in full prior to the date of enactment ofthis title [enacted April II, 1968]: Provided, That nothing contained in
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this subsection shall be applicable to dwellings solely by virtue ofthe fact that they are
subject to mortgages held by an FDIC or FSLIC institution; and
(D) dwellings provided by the development or the redevelopment of real property purchased, rented, or otherwise
obtained from a State or local public agency receiving Federal financial assistance for slum clearance or urban renewal
with respect to such real property under loan or grant contracts entered into after November 20, 1962.
(2) After December 31, 1968, to all dwellings covered by paragraph (I) and to all other dwellings except as exempted
by subsection (b).
(b) Exemptions. Nothing in section 804 [42 USCS ~ 3604] (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to--
(I) any single-family house sold or rented by an owner: Provided, That such private individual owner does not own
more than three such single-family houses at anyone time: Provided further, That in the case of the sale of any such
single-family house by a private individual owner not residing in such house at the time of such sale or who was not the
most recent resident of such house prior to such sale, the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply only with
respect to one such sale within any twenty-four month period: Provided further, That such bona fide private
individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on his behalf, under any express or
voluntary agreement, title to or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of, more than three
such single-family houses at anyone time: Provided furthe~, That after December 31, 1969, the sale or rental of any
such single-family house shall be excepted from the application ofthis title only if such house is sold or rented (A)
without the use in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker,
agent, or salesman, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of
any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesman, or person and (B) without the publication, posting or
mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of section 804( c) of this title [42 USCS ~
3604(c)]; but nothing in this proviso shall prohibit the use of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and
other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title, or
(2) rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four
families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as
his residence.
(c) Business of selling or renting dwellings defined. For the purposes of subsection (b), a person shall be deemed
to be in the business of selling or renting dwellings if--
(1) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as principal in three or more transactions
involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein, or
(2) he has, within the preceding twelve months, participated as agent, other than in the sale of his own personal
residence in providing sales or rental facilities or sales or rental services in two or more transactions involving
the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein, or
(3) he is the owner of any dwelling designed or intended for occupancy by, or occupied by, five or more
families.
uses ~ 3604
As made applicable by section 803 [42] and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 [42 USCS ~~ 3603(b),
3607], it shall be unlawful--
(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making ofa bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or
otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or
national origin.
(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the
provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or
national origin.
(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with
respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation,
2 All four provisions must be satisfied. Hagar Agua y Vida en el Desierto v. Suarez-Medina, 36 F.3d 177, 184 (1st Cir. 1994)
3
DEPARTMENT HERE
Street Address
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
r~'
or discrimination.
(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any
dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the
entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin.
(f) (1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter
because of a handicap of--
(A) that buyer or renter,
(B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or
(C) any person associated with that buyer or renter.
(2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the
provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of--
(A) that person; or
(B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or
(C) any person associated with that person.
(3) For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes--
(A) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises
occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment
ofthe premises except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition
permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed
before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.[;]
(B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such
accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; or
(C) in connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the
date that is 30 months after the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 [enacted Sept. 13,
1988], a failure to design and construct those dwellings in such a manner that--
(i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped
persons;
(ii) all the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently
wide to allow passage by handicapped persons in wheelchairs; and
(iii) all premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design:
(I) an accessible route into and through the dwelling;
(II) light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations;
(III) reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and
(IV) usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.
(4) Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the American National Standard for buildings and facilities
providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people (commonly cited as II ANSI A117.1 ") suffices to
satisfy the requirements of paragraph (3)(C)(iii).
(5) (A) If a State or unit of general local government has incorporated into its laws the requirements set forth in
paragraph (3)(C), compliance with such laws shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of that paragraph.
(B) A State or unit of general local government may review and approve newly constructed covered multifamily
dwellings for the purpose of making determinations as to whether the design and construction requirements of
paragraph (3)(C) are met.
(C) The Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, States and units of local government to include in their
existing procedures for the review and approval of newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings, determinations as
to whether the design and construction of such dwellings are consistent with paragraph (3)(C), and shall provide
technical assistance to States and units of local government and other persons to implement the requirements of
paragraph (3)(C).
(D) Nothing in this title shall be construed to require the Secretary to review or approve the plans, designs or
construction of all covered multifamily dwellings, to determine whether the design and construction of such dwellings
are consistent with the requirements of paragraph 3(C).
(6) (A) Nothing in paragraph (5) shall be construed to affect the authority and responsibility of the Secretary or a
State or local public agency certified pursuant to section 810(f)(3) of this Act [42 USCS ~ 361O(f)(3)] to receive and
process complaints or otherwise engage in enforcement activities under this title.
(B) Determinations by a State or a unit of general local government under paragraphs (5)(A) and (B) shall not be
conclusive in enforcement proceedings under this title.
4
CITY HALL
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
,.,
(7) As used in this subsection, the term "covered ITlUltifamily dwellings" means--
(A) buildings consisting of 4 or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators; and
(B) ground floor units in other buildings consisting of 4 or more units.
(8) Nothing in this title shall be construed to invalidate or limit any law of a State or political subdivision of a State,
or other jurisdiction in which this title shall be effective, that requires dwellings to be designed and constructed in a
manner that affords handicapped persons greater access than is required by this title.
(9) Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would
constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial
physical damage to the property of others.
The 1988 Amendments to the FHA specifically prohibit discrimination against families with children
younger than eighteen. This protected class includes all imaginable household combinations with
children including: (1) households in which a minor is "domiciled" with parents; (2) persons with legal
custody of the minor; or (3) designees of the parent or persons with legal custody; (4) pregnant women;
and (5) families in the process of receiving legal custody of a child.
The statutory list of proscribed conduct remains generally the same for all protected categories. It is
unlawful to discriminate against a family with children under the age of eighteen by:
(1) refusing to sell, rent, negotiate for, "or otherwise make unavailable or deny" a dwelling;
(2) varying invidiously the "terms, conditions, or privileges of a sale or rental" or in the provision of
services or facilities of a dwelling;
(3) making or publishing any discriminating statement in regard to a sale or rental;
(4) misrepresenting the availability of a dwelling;
(5) "blockbusting" or inducing a person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations about the
presence of members of families with children in the neighborhood;
(6) discriminating in access to real estate services;
(7) retaliating, coercing, intimidating, or threatening a family with children who has exercised a right
under the FHAA.
9 Admin. L.J. Am. U., 307-308 (1995) (citations omitted; direct quote from reference).
The concern I see as more significant is that the ordinance does not define what a household is. The
ordinance should define that term. It appears you are still using it interchangeably with family. See,
e.g" the definition of Net Assets.
ISSUE NO.3
I don't think you need to put this in the ordinance. You can make it a term in your City of Ashland
Affordable Housing Resale Restriction Agreement, which the purchaser is required to sign. Again,
however, the call is yours.
ISSUE NO.4
The proposld change is a policy decision. We earlier discussed how to ensure those who are eligible for
this program remain eligible through annual certifications. Now, if the intent is in ensuring initial
eligibility but not continued eligibility, your proposal achieves the intent.
5
DEPARTMENT HERE
Street Address
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
~A'
ISSUE NO.5
This is a poliey/business question, not a legal one.
I hope this was helpful.
Beth
Ee: Mike Franell
CITY HALL
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-6002
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
6
rj.'
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 2005-46
RECITALS:
A. WHEREAS, in 1993, the City of Ashland passed Resolution no. 1993-39 which
established affordable housing income levels and rental and purchased cost levels.
B. WHEREAS, in 2005, the City of Ashland passed Resolution 2005-46 which
required provisions for homeowner and maintenance fees to be included in the
affordability calculations for its affordable housing program.
C. WHEREAS, neither resolution contained provisions establishing rent levels or
purchase price levels for households earning 60%, 80% 100% or 120% of the area
median income (AMI).
D. WHEREAS, neither resolution required Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance
(PITI) to be included in the maximum housing costs of eligible households in the
affordability calculations for the purchasing part of its affordable housing program.
E. WHEREAS both resolutions used "not-to-exceed purchase price" as a qualifying
criterion for purchasing housing units, which criterion requires annual revision, and the
current resolution seeks to replace the "not-to-exceed purchase price" with a "percent of
household income" criterion which does not require annual revision.
F. WHEREAS, the City considers that a range of qualifying incomes maximizes the
potential for success of its affordable housing program.
G. WHEREAS, the City desires that PITI be included in the affordability calculations
for the various income levels of qualified households and that the "percent of household
income" criterion be used in place of the "not-to-exceed purchase price" criterion.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Resolutions 1993-39 and 2005-46 are hereby amended in their entirety as follows:
SECTION 1. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY - RENTAL AND PURCHASED HOUSING
1.1 All qualifying ownership or rental units required to be affordable through
density bonuses, annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use
approval under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) shall not be eligible to receive
a waiver of the Community Development and Engineering Services fees associated with
the development of said affordable units unless a waiver is approved by the Ashland
City Council.
1.2 All qualifying ownership or rental units required to be affordable through
density bonuses, annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use
approval under the ALUO shall be eligible to receive a deferral of the System
Development Charges associated with the development of said affordable units.
1.3 All qualifying ownership or rental units voluntarily provided as affordable to
low income households, consistent with section 1.1 and 1.2, above, shall be eligible for
a System Development Charge, Engineering Service, and Community Development
Fee deferral or waiver without obtaining approval from the Ashland City Council.
1.4 Affordable Housing Units covered under this Resolution can only be sold
or rented to occupant households from the same income category as the original
purchasers or renters for a period of not less than 30 years, or as required through the
condition of approval for a unit required to be affordable through a land use approval.
1.5 System Development Charges, Engineering Services, and Community
Development Fees may be deferred or waived when units are sold or rented to low-
income persons. For purposes of this subsection, "low-income persons" means:
a. With regard to rental housing, persons with an income at or below
60 percent of the area median income as determined by the State
Housing Council based on information from the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development; and
b. With regard to home ownership housing and lease to purchase
home ownership housing, persons with an income at or below 80 percent
of the area median income as determined by the State Housing Council
based on information from the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
2. RENTAL HOUSING -. Units designated for affordable rental housing in
developments which have qualified for density bonuses, annexation, zone change,
condominium conversion, or other land use approval under the ALUO shall be rented to
individuals or households-whose annual income is consistent with the target income
identified in the planning approval. Incomes shall be qualified at the 60% or 80%
median income levels for households in the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA). This figure shall be known as the "qualifying household income" and shall
be determined by the City's Department of Community Development in May of each
year from the annual family incomes published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area (MSA).
2.1 Area Median Income - 80%. The rent charged for such affordable rental
housing benefiting households earning 80% Area Median Income or greater, including
any home-owners association or maintenance fees, shall not exceed 23% of the
qualifying monthly income (qualifying family income divided by twelve) as provided in
the following formulas:
Studio Apartment 23% of the average of 1 & 2 person qualifying monthly
incomes
1 Bedroom 23% of the average of 2 & 3 person qualifying monthly
incomes
2 Bedroom 23% of the average of 3, 4, & 5 person qualifying monthly
incomes
3 Bedroom 23% of the average of 4, 5, 6, & 7 person qualifying monthly
incomes
4 Bedroom 23% of the average of 5,6,7, & 8 person qualifying monthly
incomes
The City's Department of Community Development shall maintain a table of
maximum rent levels permitted under these formulas and shall annually update th~
table in May of each year.
2.2 Area Median Income - 60% or lower. The rent charged for such
affordable rental housing benefiting households earning 60% Area Median Income or
less, including any home-owners association or maintenance fees, shall comply with the
maximum rents established by the State of Oregon HOME Program based on the target
income qualification as adjusted annually by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area. The HOME program
indexed allowable rents are adjusted annually by the State of Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department (OHCS).
2.3. Owner's Obligation. The owner of the affordable rental housing shall
sign a 30-year agreement, or longer depending on the period of affordability established
through the ALUO, with the City of Ashland that guarantees these rent levels will not be
exceeded and that the owner will rent only to households meeting the income limits.
The agreement shall bind subsequent owners who purchase the rental housing during
the established period of affordability. The agreement shall also require the owner to
allow the unit to be rented to HUD Section 8 qualified applicants and agree to accept
rent vouchers for all of the affordable units when applicable. The City shall file the
agreement for recordation in the County Clerk deed records, Jackson County, Oregon.
2.3.1. Certification of qualifying occupants. The owner of record, or
the designated agent of the record, owner, shall annually file with the City of
Ashland a signed certificate stating the occupants of the record owner's rental
housing units continue to be qualified hous~holds, or are a household that
qualified at its initial occupancy, within the meaning of this Resolution, and any
amendment made to it. The City of Ashland shall provide the record owner or
the record owner's agent with access to a form to complete and sign to comply
with this provision.
3. PURCHASED HOUSES - QUALIFYING. Units designated for affordable
housing available for purchase in developments which have qualified for density
bonuses annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use
approval under the ALUO must satisfy two criteria.
1. They shall only be sold to occupant households whose:
a. Annual income is consistent with the target income identified in the
planning approval for the development. Incomes shall be qualified
at the applicable 60%,80%,100% or 120% median income levels
for households based on number of people per household as
adjusted annually by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area.
L The maximum monthly payment for a covered unit shall be
established to not exceed the affordability limits, established
above, indicated in following table:
Studio = 1 person household income for the designated income level
1 Bedroom = 2 person household income for the designated income level
2 Bedroom = 4 person household income for the designated income level
3 Bedroom = 6 person household income for the designated income level
4 Bedroom = 7 person household income for the designated income level
Households with a greater or lesser number of occupants shall remain
eligible for covered units but the sale price shall not be adjusted due to
household size above the limits established above.
b. Net assets, excluding pension plans and IRA's and excluding the
down payment and closing costs, do not exceed $20,000 for a household
or $130,000 if one household member is 65 years or older.
c. Mortgage payment does not exceed more than 30% of the monthly
income for the target income level indicated in 3.1 (a)(i) on total housing
costs which includes PITI and any homeowners or regular maintenance
fees.
d. The maximum monthly payment for a covered unit shall be
calculated by utilizing the interest rate for the Oregon Bond Loan
RateAdvantage as updated by the State of Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department.
2. They shall remain affordable as follows:
a. The purchasers of the affordable housing units shall agree to the
City of Ashland Affordable Housing Resale Restriction Agreement
establishing a period of affordability of not less than 30 years. In no event
will a purchaser be required to sell the unit subject to the aforementioned
Agreement for less than his or her original purchase price, plus any
applicable closing costs and realtor fees.
b. For housing financed by Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA),
the affordability shall be assured by the FmHA's recapture provisions
FmHA which require sellers to repay FmHA for all the subsidies accrued
during the period the sellers resided in the housing unit.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the
Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
92.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2006.
$191,500 $242,250 $282,250 $302,750
$13,405 $16,958 $19,758 $21,193
$178,095 $225,293 $262,493 $281,558
5.40% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45%
360 360 360 360
$1,000 $1,265 $1,474 $1,581
$101 $128 $149 $160
$239 $303 $353 . $378
$64 $81 $94 $101
$1,404 $1,776 $2,070 $2,220
Not qualifed as Rental Affordable Housing.
At the 80%AMI + level for rentals
SDC waivers are not available
avg household size 1 person 2person
Not qualifed as Rental Affordable Housing.
At the 800/0AMI + level for rentals
SDC waivers are not available
$134,000 $170,000 $198,750
$9,380 $11,900 $13,913
$124,620 $158,100 $184,838
0.45% 0.45% 0.45%
360 360 360
$700 $888 $1,038
$71 $90 $105
$168 $213 $248
$45 $57 $66
$983 $1,247 $1,457
$75 $75 $75
:::j,~lm'C::$.j~. :::${M~~~K
:$U~~ U$h~t~ n )JM;~
$213,250
$14,928
$198,323
0.45%
360
$1,114
$112
$267
$71
$1,564
$75
:::::)11~'a::
n:::n$~l$$
$103,250 $131,750 $154,250 $165,750
$5,163 $6,588 $7,713 $8,288
$98,088 $125,163 $146,538 $157,463
5.40% . '. 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45%
360 360 360 360
$551 $703 $823 $884
$56 $71 $83 $89
$129 $165 $193 $207
$34 $44 $51 $55
$770 $982 $1,150 $1,236
..~{~; ~ ;.< ~ < .' ~; ;.;? ~ ~~;~r;~/~;./; ...; ~/::<":~:~~:~::r.t).: ~~r?<~~:' ; . //; t? ..~~. :'.'::~:' ~Jr:~~?~~r~~
Note at the BO%AMI + level for rentals
SDC waivers are not available
1+2+3 pph 3+4+5 4+5+6+7 5+6+7+8
:::::?m:??~~~:?r)$.~:::::~~{{{{)?{ )@t::t~J.rr~:?::: t:::m::::M':m:::::::: ?::r::::~!Mi??::
pph=persons per household
$64,250 $75,000 $96,250 $113,250 $121,750
$3,213 $3,750 $4,813 $5,663 $6,088
$61,038 $71,250 $91,438 $107,588 $115,663
0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45% 0.45%
360 360 360 360 360
$343 $400 $513 $604 $649
$35 $40 $52 $61 $66
$80 $94 $120 $142 $152
$21 $25 $32 $38 $41
$479 $559 $718 $844 $908
$75 $75 $75 $75 $75
::::r::::::::$.:1$4f (\:::rl.'-~::: ::::::::::r$l~~:::::::m:: :::$.~1'/: :::::J~':::
n::::u ::::J::::)$.~$.$. n )):.$. Ur$.t~E:rn$~QJ::::::U::$.~$.4
5.40%
4bdr
$755
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESOLUTION 2005-46
RECITALS:
A. WHEREAS, in 1993, the City of Ashland passed Resolution no. 1993-39 which
established affordable housing income levels and rental and purchased cost levels.
B. WHEREAS, in 2005, the City of Ashland passed Resolution 2005-46 which
required provisions for homeowner and maintenance fees to be included in the
affordability calculations for its affordable housing program.
C. WHEREAS, neither resolution contained provisions establishing rent levels or
purchase price levels for households earning 60%, 80% 100% or 120% of the area
median income (AMI).
D. WHEREAS, neither resolution required Principal, Interest, Taxes and Insurance
(PITI) to be included in the maximum housing costs of eligible households in the
affordability calculations for the purchasing part of its affordable housing program.
E. WHEREAS both resolutions used "not-to-exceed purchase price" as a qualifying
criterion for purchasing housing units, which criterion requires annual revision, and the
current resolution seeks to replace the "not-to-exceed purchase price" with a "percent of
household income" criterion which does not require annual revision.
F. WHEREAS, the City considers that a range of qualifying incomes maximizes the
potential for success of its affordable housing program.
G. WHEREAS, the City desires that PITI be included in the affordability calculations
for the various income levels of qualified households and that the "percent of household
income" criterion be used in place of the "not-to-exceed purchase price" criterion.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
Resolutions 1993-39 and 2005-46 are hereby amended in their entirety as follows:
SECTION 1. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY - RENTAL AND PURCHASED HOUSING
1.1 All qualifying ownership or rental units required to be affordable through
density bonuses, annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use
approval under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) shall not be eligible to receive
a waiver of the Community Development and Engineering Services fees associated with
the development of said affordable units unless a waiver is approved by the Ashland
City Council.
1.2 All qualifying ownership or rental units required to be affordable through
density bonuses, annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use
approval under the ALUO shall be eligible to receive a deferral of the System
Development Charges associated with the development of said affordable units.
1.3 All qualifying ownership or rental units voluntarily provided as affordable to
low income households, consistent with section 1.1 and 1.2, above, shall be eligible for
a System Development Charge, Engineering Service, and Community Development
Fee deferral or waiver without obtaining approval from the Ashland City Council.
1.4 Affordable Housing Units covered under this Resolution can only be sold
or rented to occupant households from the same income category as the original
purchasers or renters for a period of not less than 30 years, or as required through the
condition of approval for a unit required to be affordable through a land use approval.
1.5 System Development Charges, Engineering Services, and Community
Development Fees may be deferred or waived when units are sold or rented to low-
income persons. For purposes of this subsection, "low-income persons" means:
a. With regard to rental housing, persons with an income at or below
60 percent of the area median income as determined by the State
Housing Council based on information from the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development; and
b. With regard to home ownership housing and lease to purchase
home ownership housing, persons with an income at or below 80 percent
of the area median income as determined by the State Housing Council
based on information from the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
2. RENTAL HOUSING -. Units designated for affordable rental housing in
developments which have qualified for density bonuses, annexation, zone change,
condominium conversion, or other land use approval under the ALUO shall be rented to
individuals or households-whose annual income is consistent with the target income
identified in the planning approval. Incomes shall be qualified at the 60% or 80%
median income levels for households in the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA). This figure shall be known as the "qualifying household income" and shall
be determined by the City's Department of Community Development in May of each
year from the annual family incomes published by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area (MSA).
2.1 Area Median Income - 80%. The rent charged for such affordable rental
housing benefiting households earning 80% Area Median Income or greater,. including
any home-owners association or maintenance fees, shall not exceed 23% of the
qualifying monthly income (qualifying family income divided by twelve) as provided in
the following formulas:
Studio Apartment 23% of the average of 1 & 2 person qualifying monthly
incomes
1 Bedroom 23% of the average of 2 & 3 person qualifying monthly
incomes
2 Bedroom 23% of the average of 3, 4, & 5 person qualifying monthly
incomes
3 Bedroom 23% of the average of 4, 5, 6, & 7 person qualifying monthly
incomes
4 Bedroom 23% of the average of 5, 6, 7, & 8 person qualifying monthly
incomes
The City's Department of Community Development shall maintain a table of
maximum rent levels permitted under these formulas and shall annually update the
table in May of each year.
2.2 Area Median Income - 60% or lower. The rent charged for such
affordable rental housing benefiting households earning 6D% Area Median Income or
less, including any home-owners association or maintenance fees, shall comply with the
maximum rents established by the State of Oregon HOME Program based on the target
income qualification as adjusted annually by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area. The HOME program
indexed allowable rents are adjusted annually by the State of Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department (OHCS).
2.3. Owner's Obligation. The owner of the affordable rental housing shall
sign a 3D-year agreement, or longer depending on the period of affordability established
through the ALUO, with the City of Ashland that guarantees these rent levels will not be
exceeded and that the owner will rent only to households meeting the income limits.
The agreement shall bind subsequent owners who purchase the rental housing during
the established period of affordability. The agreement shall also require the owner to
allow the unit to be rented to HUD Section 8 qualified applicants and agree to accept
rent vouchers for all of the affordable units when applicable. The City shall file the
agreement for recordation in the County Clerk deed records, Jackson County, Oregon.
2.3.1. Certification of qualifying occupants. The owner of record, or
the designated agent of the record, owner, shall annually file with the City of
Ashland a signed certificate stating the occupants of the record owner's rental
housing units continue to be qualified households, or are a household that
qualified at its initial occupancy, within the meaning of this Resolution, and any
amendment made to it. The City of Ashland shall provide the record owner or
the record owner's agent with access to a form to complete and sign to comply
with this provision.
3. PURCHASED HOUSES - QUALIFYING. Units designated for affordable
housing available for purchase in developments which have qualified for density
bonuses annexation, zone change, condominium conversion, or other land use
approval under the ALUO must satisfy two criteria.
1. They shall only be sold to occupant households whose:
a. Annual income is consistent with the target income identified in the
planning approval for the development. Incomes shall be qualified
at the applicable 60%,80%,100% or 120% median income levels
for households based on number of people per household as
adjusted annually by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Service Area.
L The maximum monthly payment for a covered unit shall be
established to not exceed the affordability limits, established
above, indicated in following table:
Studio = 1 person household income for the designated income level
1 Bedroom = 2 person household income for the designated income level
2 Bedroom = 4 person household income for the designated income level
3 Bedroom = 6 person household income for the designated income level
4 Bedroom = 7 person household income for the designated income level
Households with a greater or lesser number of occupants shall remain
eligible for covered units but the sale price shall not be adjusted due to
household size above the limits established above.
b. Net assets, excluding pension plans and IRA's and excluding the
down payment and closing costs, do not exceed $20,000 for a household
or $130,000 if one household member is 65 years or older.
c. Mortgage payment does not exceed more than 30% of the monthly
income for the target income level indicated in 3.1 (a)(i) on total housing
costs which includes PITI and any homeowners or regular maintenance
fees.
d. The maximum monthly payment for a covered unit shall be
calculated by utilizing the interest rate for the Oregon Bond Loan
RateAdvantage as updated by the State of Oregon Housing and
Community Services Department.
2. They shall remain affordable as follows:
a. The purchasers of the affordable housing units shall agree to the
City of Ashland Affordable Housing Resale Restriction Agreement
establishing a period of affordability of not less than 30 years. In no event
will a purchaser be required to sell the unit subject to the aforementioned
Agreement for less than his or her original purchase price, plus any
applicable closing costs and realtor fees.
b. For housing financed by Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA),
the affordability shall be assured by the FmHA's recapture provisions
FmHA which require sellers to repay FmHA for all the subsidies accrued
during the period the sellers resided in the housing unit.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the
Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
~2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2006.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Resolution Supporting the Request for 2006 ODOT Transportation
Enhancement Program Funds
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
Department: Public Works Department
Contributing Departments: Fin~~(JJJ
Approval: Martha Benn;rl'l'f ~
Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown
E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us ()/!)
Secondary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412 1(/
E-mail: olsonj@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Statement:
On June 30, 2006 the Public Works Department will submit an application for ODOT's Transportation
Enhancement (TE) Program for years 2009-2011. The City is asking for $275,000 in TE Funding for
the Laurel Street Project. As part of the supporting documentation for the fund request, the City must
include a resolution from the City Council supporting the request for TE funds. A Notice of Intent was
sent to ODOT on March 20, 2006 indicating the City's plan to apply for this grant.
Background:
Historically the City has relied heavily on the Transportation Enhancement grants, among others, to
construct sidewalk and multi-use path projects. In recent years grant funds were used to construction
the Central Ashland multi-use path, Oak Street Sidewalk Project and the current North Ashland multi-
use path. As we have learned from recent projects, sidewalk construction projects often do not fit well
into a standard local improvement district. This grant is an excellent method by which these sidewalk
projects can be funded.
This year's project is located on North Laurel Street from Hersey Street to Randy Street and consists
of sidewalks, sidewalk ramps and other pedestrian friendly amenities. There are several missing
sidewalk connections along this important collector and local street network to reach Helman
Elementary School. This project would also serve as a pedestrian connection to the popular dog dark,
the Greenway Bicycle Trail System and the downtown core. All construction work is located within the
existing public right-of-way therefore property acquisition is not necessary.
The proposed Laurel Street Sidewalk project meets the 2005-2007 City Council goal to improve
pedestrian and traffic safety and is supported by the City's Traffic Safety Commission. The project is
also listed in the current Capital Improvement Projects for implementation within the TE Program
timeline.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
Council may approve this attached resolution supporting the application of Transportation Grant funds
for the Laurel Street Sidewalk Project or Council may decline to approve the application. There is
insufficient time to propose alternative projects for this grant for this year.
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\OOO1\2006 TE CC in Support of Application.doc
rj.'
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends support for the resolution.
Potential Motions:
Council can move to support the request for ODOT Transportation Enhancement Program Funds for
the Laurel Street Sidewalk project.
Council can move to deny support for ODOT Transportation Enhancement Program Funds for the
Laurel Street Sidewalk project.
Attachments:
Notice of Intent dated March 20, 2006
Resolution
C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\LOCALS-I\Temp\2006 TE CC in Support of Application.doc
~.,
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S TRANSPORTATION
ENHANCEMENT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $275,000 TO BE
USED TO CONSTRUCT THE LAUREL STREET SIDEWALK
PROJECT.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Ashland supports and will accept a grant offer of the State of
Oregon in the amount of $275,000 for the purpose of constructing the Laurel Street
Sidewalk Project.
SECTION 2. The Ashland City Administrator is authorized and directed to sign the
statement of acceptance of the grant offer on behalf of the City of Ashland.
SECTION 3. A true copy of the grant application is attached.
SECTION 4. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
92.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 20th day of June, 2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of June, 2006.
John Morrison, Mayor
C:\DOCUME-1\stephens\LOCALS-1\Temp\2006 TE Laurel St Sidewalk Council Resolution.doc
CITY OF
ASH.LAND
March 20, 2006
Patricia Fisher
ODOT Transportation Enhancement Program
355 Capitol Street NE Room 326
Salem Oregon 97301-3871
RE: NOTICE OF INTENT FOR 2006
Dear Ms. Fisher:
The City of Ashland respectfully submits the attached Notice of Intent to apply for
ODOT's Transportation Enhancement Program for years 2009 - 2011. The
Laurel Street Sidewalk Project meets the first approved TE activity: provision of
facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. The project will be designed in accordance
with the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and conform to all federal and state
requirements. The City is asking for $200,000 in TE funding and will match
. $25,000 or 12.5% in ~tatl services and local funds.
. The proposed project is located on No'rth laurel Street from Hersey Street to
Randy Street and consists of sidewalks, sidewalk ramps and other pedestrian
friendly amenities. There are several missing sidewalk connections along this
important collector and local street network to reach Helman Elementary School.
This project would also serve as a pedestriari connection to the highly popular Dog
Park, the Greenway Bicycle Trail System and the downtown core. All construction
work is located within the existing public right-of-way therefore property acquisition
is not necessary.
The proposed laurel Street Sidewalk project meets the 2005-2007 City Council
goal to improve pedestrian and traffic safety and is supported by the City's Traffic
Safety Commission. The project -is also listed in the current Capital Improvement
. Projects for implementation within the TE Program timeline.
c}i=.~
~ames H. Olson
Project Manager
Traffic Safety Commission Staff Liaison
cc: Gino Grimaldi
Joe Strahl
Engineering
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
II'fflW .ashland .or. us
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-aclmin\ENGINEER\OD0T\2006 TE Notice of Intent narrative 3 06.doc
Tel: 541/488-5347
Fax:541~488-6006
TTY: 800n35-2900
!'~.
._~
NOTICE OF INTENT
This Notice is reQuired for all applicants. FAX to: (fro) 986-3290 or mail to:
ODOT Transportation Enhancement Program, 355 Capitol St NE, Rm 326 Salem OR 97301-3871
Due: March 23, 2006
INSTRUCTIONS: (1) Enter project information in the boxes below. (2) Attach a letter or narrative
(1 page max.) explaining the need for the project, type and extent of proposed work, property ownership
status, funds reQuested and matchina funds available, and the role of any co-applicants or partners.
(3) Attach a vicinity map and site map or other appropriate graphics-1 or 2 pages.
APPLICANT
Agency City of Ashland
Address 20 East Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
Contact
Title
Telephone
. Email
James H. Olson
Project Manager
(541) 488-5347
olson i(Q)ashland~or .us
CO-APPLICANT (if any)
Name
Address
Contact
Title
Telephone
PROJECT (name, location, and one-line description)
The Laurel Street Sidewalks project is located in the City of Ashland on North Laurel
Street between Hersey Street and Randy Street and includes construction of sidewalks,
sidewalk raDlpsand other pedestrian friendlv amenities.
COST SUMMARY RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS
TE Funds Requested: . $200,000 Property to be purchased?
Matching funds $25,000 [ ] yes [Xl nor ] don't know yet
Other Non-TE costs Easements or donated property?
Total Project Cost . $225,000 [ ] yes [ ] no [Xl don't know vet
COORDINATION ISSUES (mark all that apply)
[X] Project located in MPO jurisdiction [] Project on railroad property
(metropolitan area with population >50,000) [X] Project at Of near a railroad crossing
[] Project within state highway right-of-way [] Contribution from other than applicant
[] Use of land owned by another agency (Xl Maintenance by other than applicant
ODOT Reply Area
[ '] APPROVED TO PROCEED with an application for FY 2009-2011 funding.
[] Application requires advance coordination or endorsements. See 'Part 2 Checklist' attached.
. [] Please call the TE Program Manager at (503) 986-3528 to dis<;uss this proposal before applying.
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\OD01\2006 TE Notice of Intent 2nd.doc
LAUREL STREET ~
SIDEWALK PROJECT lJr:
~ '
b J'1 /l~,JJIJl ~ "j"b 1t}!l. ~ ~
D~~m '~I~L~ ~ ~e- ~~[l
- -J~1ff L 'L~ ~
o ~ R l'l ~. IJ' ~I - .:-.....r'
L~ ~ '= I,. :.J I'~
~ ( , ~- ,;;.... "
," ~ ) 0 In.' ~', . ~
~~~ "~~~U' ~~ ~ ~..:...0>>8 ·
S:>~, I po 0& ,~ r I;~
~ o",,:fl.) ~'1r(J .' () t::) 1
' ,~ ~~ ~
:" -/ lb" ..~ .It. ~
\ 'r! ..~. ". ". '0. t::j ~ I1Q
'\ 0 C::J 1').01 ~~ If
~ \\\)~ O. ~q -.;~ p. ". .~ ". ~
'.......)~ "\ Q ~ ~ U0
8 .~~g. :;30 ~p~ ~J~ ~;;Y:
~
, ~ n
~::~~~"~2~q 0~~O ." ~~~,~
Jr ,,-1r-1~~" I" -J ~j 1:( ~ . '/, . F I~ ,,:;,-,
. , "- C!J&1!lNIiililO I =0
· &f1&INl&lJUflff1~W~; I '
~@[]:{]@@f1
I2
7-l,Q
. \ ~
\
\
~ \\~
~,\, @
, Dc
E
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
June 20, 2006
Administrati~"Av1jl
Martha Benrreryy
RVTD
Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer .~
ann@ashland.or.us "IV
Secondary Staff Contact:
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
Statement:
The current contract for enhanced services with RVTD will terminate on June 30 and changes in RVTD services
and fares will begin July 1. Council must make a decision at this meeting about the enhanced services it wishes
R VTD to provide in Ashland.
Background:
At the city council meeting on June 6, the council voted to eliminate Route #5 and devote $290,000 to buying
down the fare on Route #10. This item is coming back to the council at the request of Councilor Chapman.
RVTD has provided various costs for each option based on changes in ridership and the actual operating costs of
Route #5. It is impossible to determine the actual costs to the city as those costs are determined by the number
of riders. The city will be billed for actual costs on a quarterly basis.
Related CitY Policies:
The City of Ashland has supplemented public transportation for a number of years believing that increased use
of public transportation eases the transit demands on the community including parking and congestion.
Council Options:
1. Retain Route #5 and subsidize fare for 50% ($1.00 fixed fare and $2.00 for Valley Lift). Actual costs to
the city will be based on ridership and billed quarterly.
2. Eliminate Route #5 and buy down fare on Route #10 to $.75 fixed fare and $1.50 for Valley Lift.
Actual costs to the city will be based on ridership and billed quarterly.
Staff Recommendation:
Retain Route #5 and subsidize fare at 50% of RVTD fixed fare. (Ashland fare = $1.00 for fixed route and $2.00
for Valley Lift).
NOTE: The city will be billed quarterly for actual charges based on ridership. Staff will closely monitor the
expenditures to ensure that we are within the approved budget of $290,000. Should we determine that the
expenditures are approaching the limits of the budget staff will bring this information to the council with
proposed actions.
Potential Motions:
Move to direct staffto prepare contract with RVTD for enhanced services including route #5 and 50%
subsidized fare.
Attachments:
1) Council Transit Options, June 20, 2006
1
r.l'
en
c
o
;;
a. CO
og
~N
CC
caN
~ CD
..... C
.u ::s
C""
::s
o
(,)
~I
i
0]
-
~ ~
= 8
~"E
5&1
Cl)V)
-t-:
~fA
'" '"
o .....
Q..CI)
~~
~~
..9:9
'" '"
<<S ~
e ~
~ '"
~ ~
0-
-eo
~E-<
~~
=II: ~
H
~z
Q..
:E
'"
....
:9
....
0;;
a
Co)
<<S
....
,s
~c
;.::3 '<:)
~s
~~
0;; 0
> .....
~~
~~
I
CI)
=
8]-
-e '"
Cl) ....
~ CI)
t+::]
....
,so;;
o a
~ ~
- ....
e,s
'$-c
0.....
V) u
~=
Cl):E
.... 0
~ .....
-eO
8 E-<
.a~
CI),-..
....~
Cl) .....
.~ ~
~~
"'-
.g <<S
'" ~
-e,s
a 0
V)~
=ll:N
Q..fA
Cl)-e
~ a
o
ca
o
C>
-
o
CI)
>
..
U
CI)
:c
o
c
o
CI)
U
C
CI)
"0
C
CI)
C.
CI)
"0
CI)
U 0
:1 0
"0....
~ i;
0)
c
=0
.~
~
c..
>-
..c
~
Cl)
u
'E
Cl)
'"
Cl)
.)
o
('<)
"""
o
Cl)
'"
;
u
Cl)
~
i:l
CI)
'a
Cl)
~
o
Co)
'"
'"
~
CI)
....
~
-e
a
CI)
u
=
Cl)
'a
CI)
8
u
.S
o
.....
Cl)V)
.at-:
Q..fA
o!:l """
o;j 0
....
~
01::
.S
=
o
.~
u
.a
CI)
....
Cl)
;s
'"
'"
o
Q..
CI)
u
'E
Cl)
'"
.1
V)
-
CI)
U
c
.!!!
c
CI)
>
c
o
(.)
CIl
.S
-e
.E
u
.S
ot::
'"
a 8
.t:l 0
5 .s
i:l ~
Cl) 0
-e_
=-e
fra
~.s
'" ;:l
~ ~
",-e
.... =
CI) <<S
]~
.....
u >.
~~
<<sO;;
>
~
CI)
~
V)
t-:
fA
e
~
o
~
-
fA
o
.....
CI)
.a
c..
:E
'"
....
CI)
-e
'1::
.S
=
o
o~
u
.a
Cl)
....
CI)
;:e
'"
'"
o
Q..
CIl
.S
-e
.E
u
.S
.....
.....
'"
a
.t:l 8
= 0
o U
i:l .S
CI) ~
-e 0
=-
Cl)-e
fra
~.s
'" ;:l
~ ~
~]
:'Sl
....~
..... -
Co) >.
~~
<<So;;
~ >
CI)
....
~
o
~
-
fA
....
"iii
c
e
I-
'0
CI)
o
::::)
.c
0)
:E
CI)
:!::c.
o 0
c CI)
CU c..
I-~~~
o CU
CI) - U
100....
:1 5 5
C"'._ .c
~ Q.:!::
<(o~
....
~ CIl
<B]
.S ~
..... Q..
]]
Cl) <<S
.... =
>'0
e .~
Cl)
e gp
~ 0
V) Co)
r-- .S =
Q"}Cl)~
] ~ 5
<<s e -e
U
oS
i:l
Cl)
'a 0;;
CI) .~
~ =
o ~
U 0
'" Q..
'" '"
~~
.~ (J'J
..... ....
o~ ]
.t:l
'"
....
CI)
:'Sl
il
<B~
.S CIl
-E]
~ ta
.... Q..
>.]
e <<s
Cl) S
~ .~
o CI)
o gp
,...; 0
fA U
-e oS
a Cl)
'"
i:l <<s
CI) e
'a U
Cl) .S
~o;;
8 .~
_ Cl)
- .....
".::: 0
'" Q..
.~ U')
.~ ~
=
<<s
.t:l
o
....
~
CI)
o
o
C3
o
CI)
>
o
:iE
CI)
>
0)"
c ~
.:; :c'
.!!! 0
.c CI)
U.c
CU....
N\OO
\0 V) V)
r-- r-- r--
01. -. r<'i'
r-- ('<) 00
N N-
fA fA fA
'I~ ~ ~
~ oS .S oS
< g.g.g.
4:;4:;4:;
'$-'$-'$-
000
- N ('<)
<o:i0
N \0 0
- V) 0
OIv)N
o. 00. \0.
('<) 01 \0
('<) N N
fA fA fA
'I~ ~ ~
~ oS oS .S
< g.g.g.
4:;4:;4:;
'$-'$-'$-
000
- N ('<)
<o:i0
~
o
....
o
o
(.)
"0
CI)
....
CU
E
..
o
W
,...:l.....:l.....:l
>>>
'$-'$-~
~~[:...
ai ,u' ~
~~~
-e-e-e
CI) CI) CI)
~ ~ ~
t+::t+::l.;:l
~ ':$.' '$-
~~~
V) ~, ~
<~0
,-..
cf?.'-'"
~'$-
'1"""'4 "q
.... ....
o 0
N\O
-V)
01 V)
o"OO.....:l
~~>
:;:3~
""'t::r--
t:: 0 .
.8~e
~---~
.....:l~-e
> ..... ~
,*a~~
~~'$-
N ai ~
~V)
-e=ll:
~'$-
t+::-
,0 ~
~u
V)
..-
ai
....
~
-e
CI)
~
t+::
'$-
\0
V)
.V)
V)=lI:
=II: ,0
~ c'
o 00
;;('<)
<(:Q
c
~
o
"0
~
CU
CI)
~
..c
CI) Q
O)Q
CUQ
.... -
cQ
Cl)c:n
UN
~~
CI)_
c.. 0
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Resolution amending the pay schedule and Clarifying Conditions of Employment for
Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Depts.:
Approval:
June 20, 2006
Administration
Finance D~~;~IT}~I)f J IS
Martha BenreYf'VV
Primary Staff Contact: Tina Gray, 552-2101 ~
grayt@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg, 552-2003
tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Statement:
The City has negotiated collective bargaining agreements with five bargaining groups. Management
and Confidential employees of the City are not an organized group for the purpose of negotiating
terms and conditions of their employment. Each year, City Administration makes a recommendation
to the City Council for a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for all non-represented employees.
Adjustments for the Elected City Recorder and Municipal Judge are set forth in the City Charter.
The Management Resolution clarifying conditions of employment for Management and Confidential
employees has been out of alignment with other employee groups within the City. Revisions have
been made to the Resolution to maintain consistency with internal bargaining units and to remain
competitive with external comparators.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the pay schedule for
Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Staff is recommending an
increase .of 4% to maintain salary differentials and to help avoid compression between represented
employees and Supervisory/Management staff and to ensure the City remains competitive in their
salary offerings for recruitment and retention. Based upon requirements of the City Charter, staff is
recommending an increase of 4.88% for the elected Municipal Judge and City Recorder.
To address housekeeping issues and bring Management and Confidential employees into alignment
with other bargaining groups of the City, staff is recommending modifications to the Management
Resolution. A summary of those modifications follow:
. General housekeeping - Changes have been made to reflect current job classifications and
clarify current practices of the City.
. Vacation - The vacation cash-out provision has been capped at 40 hours. The payout was
moved up from June to April to prevent unexpected expenditures at the end of the Fiscal
Year. (It is a savings to the City to allow employees to cash vacation out at a static value
rather than carry it forward when salary increases may be applied).
. Sick Leave - The sick leave accrual cap was increased to 960 hours which is consistent with
other City bargaining units.
'.1'
· Utilization of Sick Leave - Changes were made to allow employees flexibility to care for ill
or injured family members consistent with Oregon and Federal Family Leave laws and other
City bargaining units, and to reinforce the City's commitment to recognize diverse
definitions of "Family."
· Sick Leave Cash out - This provision was increased by 8 hours to function as an incentive
for employees to not use sick leave, and to provide employees more flexibility with their time
management as many of our external comparators move to "Paid Time Off" systems.
· Funeral Leave - Grandparent and grandparent-in-Iaw were added to the list of paid funeral
leave to acknowledge the impact that a death of these special people have on employee work
performance, and to maintain constancy with other internal bargaining units.
· Compensation-Pay Schedule - Clarification of the City Administrator's authority to reward
top performers without impacting the overall pay structure of the City.
Background:
The City is currently in negotiations with our Police and Fire bargaining units, and we anticipate
some catch-up to bring them up to the average of their statutory based comparators. The annual
COLA for two ofthe 5 labor unions, (Laborers and Clerical/Technical employees) has been
established at 4% by contract based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Electric Union is
in the first year of a new contract and their wages will have increased by 7% from July 05-July
06. The CPI has been trending upward, and the most recent figure for May is 4.3%
The City automatically budgets a 3% increase for all employee groups unless more specific
information is available for budget projections. The additional 1 % for Management and
Confidential employees equates to $41,744 which would be absorbed across departments.
Salary increases for the non-represented employees have not kept pace with the increases
afforded the collective bargaining groups at the City, and we are experiencing salary
compression and turnover in key staff positions. Additionally, due to the local housing market
and cost of living, the City has had several difficult recruitments for managerial staff positions.
Competitive salary and benefit offerings are critical for employee recruitment and retention.
Related City Policies
None.
Council Options:
Option #1- The City Council could direct staff to adjust wages for all non-represented Management
and Confidential employees by 4%, adjust the wages for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder by
4.88%, and approve changes made to the Management Resolution regarding employment conditions
for Management and Confidential employees.
Option #2 - The City Council could direct staff to implement an alternative Cost of Living
Adjustment for non-represented employees and the elected Municipal Judge and City Recorder and
make alternate recommendations for revision of the Management Resolution regarding employment
conditions for Management and Confidential employees.
Potential Motion:
Move to adopt Option #1 authorizing staff to adjust wages for all non-represented Management
and Confidential employees by 4% effective July 1, 2006.
2
Attachments:
. Resolution amending the pay schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for
Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
. Revised Resolution clarifying certain conditions of employment for Management and
Confidential employees.
. Salary Schedule including proposed adjustments.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND CLARIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES BY
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-23, WHICH REPEALED RESOLUTION 2002-
23.
Recitals:
A. The City of Ashland has negotiated collective bargaining agreements with all
employees who are members of labor unions;
B. The management and confidential employees of the city are not an organized group
for the purpose of collectively negotiating the terms and conditions of their
employment; and
C. It is in the best interest of the city and efficient and effective government to clearly
set forth the city's expectations for the performance of its management and
confidential employees;
The mayor and council resolve as follows:
1. Scope of Resolution. Resolution No. 2004-23 is repealed. This 2006 resolution shall
apply to all management and confidential employees of the City of Ashland as set forth
in Appendix "A", dated June 2006. Where the term "employee" is used, it shall mean
regular full-time employees and probationary employees as defined in section 2.7. This
resolution does not apply to any employee who is a member of any collective
bargaining unit.
2. Definitions.
2.1. Confidential emplovee. As defined in ORS 243.650(6), a confidential employee
is one who assists and acts in a confidential capacity to a person who
formulates, determines, and effectuates management policies in the area of
collective bargaining. Confidential employees are paid hourly for work performed
and they are subject to payment for overtime according to the Fair labor
Standards Act. Confidential employee includes those classifications in Appendix
"A" under "Confidential."
2.2. Department head. A person directly responsible to the city administrator, mayor
or city council for the administration of a department. Department heads are
exempt from overtime payment. Department heads include those Management
classifications in Appendix "A" under "Department heads."
2.3 Division Supervisor. A person directly responsible to a department head or the
PAGE i-RESOLUTION
City Administrator for the operational functions of a city department or division.
Division supervisors are exempt from overtime payment. Division supervisors
include those Management classifications in Appendix "A" under "division
supervisors."
2.4 Mid-Level Supervisor. A person reporting to a division supervisor or department
head who may receive overtime payment for work outside their normal scope
and duties. Mid-level supervisory positions require autonomy, independent
decision making, planning, and may provide supervision to other personnel.
2.5 Emplovee. A person in any of the classifications listed in Apper;ldix "A" who has
completed the probationary period.
2.6 ManaQement or ManaQer. Those classifications included in Appendix "A" under
the title "Management" including Department Heads, Division Managers and Mid-
Level Managers.
2.7 Probationary Emplovee. A person appointed to a regular position but who has
not completed a probationary period during which the employee is required to
demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the duties of the
position.
2.8 Supervisor. Any person responsible to a higher divisional or departmental level
authority who directs the work of others and who is not in a collective bargaining
unit.
3. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is set forth generally in the preamble. More
specifically, the resolution has three fundamental purposes:
3.1. To clearly establish which classifications in the city service are management or
confidential.
3.2. To clearly set forth the functions of management and to establish criteria for the
evaluation of managerial performance.
3.3. To establish the personnel policies governing the conditions of employment of
management and confidential employees.
4. Manaaerial Performance.
4.1. Goal SettinQ. Basic goals for the City of Ashland are set by the mayor and city
council. Resources for achieving those goals are provided via the annual budget.
Operational goals and short- range objectives are set by the city administrator
working with department heads. The single most important factor in achieving
the goals of the City of Ashland is the performance of the city's managers.
4.2. ManaQerial Responsibilities. Each of the city's managers at a minimum have the
following responsibilities:
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION
4.2.1. Getting the job done properly and on time,
4.2.2. Keeping the workplace safe and healthy,
4.2.3. Encouraging team work and cooperation among employees and
departments,
4.2.4. Developing employee skills,
4.2.5. Keeping records and making reports, and
4.2.6. Actively promoting affirmative action at all levels.
4.3. General Expectations ReQardinQ ManaQement Emplovees. In addition to the
specific performance standards mentioned above, there are also general city
expectations of its managers.
4.3.1. Job Commitment. All management employees are expected to have a
high degree of commitment to the City of Ashland and to their jobs. When
a new manager is hired, the city expects a commitment of continued
service of at least three years unless unforeseen circumstances warrant
earlier resignation or termination.
Management employees are expected to devote whatever hours are
necessary for the accomplishment of their duties as part of their normal
work week. Overtime will only be paid as set forth in section 14.3.
Management employees may take compensatory time oft at their
discretion as long as they exercise judgement so that their absence does
not unreasonably interfere with the city's operations.
In the event of voluntary termination, management employees are
expected to give a minimum of 30 calendar days notice in order to give
the city adequate time to recruit a qualified replacement.
4.3.2. Professionalism. Management employees are expected to maintain the
standards of their individual profession. This includes remaining current
with new developments, maintaining memberships in professional
societies, and attending meetings with professionals in their field. Where
professionals have codes of ethics or standards of performance, these
should also be followed in the manager's work for the City of Ashland.
4.3.3. Termination. If at any time a manager's performance is deemed
unacceptable, the city administrator or appropriate department head may
ask for the employee's resignation. In most cases, reasonable time will be
given to the employee to find other suitable employment. The city may
provide severance pay in the event of resignation or involuntary
termination.
4.3.4. Residencv. Residency within the Urban Growth Boundary shall be a job
requirement of the city administrator and strongly encouraged for
department heads.
PAGE 3-RESOLUTION
------,------
The following job classifications shall establish their residence to enable
them to report for emergency duty within 30 minutes of notification
including "get ready" and travel time:
Public Works Superintendent
Street Supervisor
Wastewater & Reuse Supervisor
Water Quality Supervisor (Distribution)
Water Plant Supervisor
Electric Operations Superintendent
Fire Division Chief
Deputy Police Chief
Police Sergeant
Telecommunications Engineer
Network Administrator
Database Administrator
User Support Administrator
Maintenance Safety Supervisor
T elecommunications/Computer Technician
Residence shall be established by new employees in these classifications
within these boundaries or limitations within a period of twelve months of
hire or promotion. Department Heads may identify other positions which
require emergency response within 30 minutes to meet operational
requirements.
4.4. Essential Manaoement Functions. The following are the essential functions of all
city management positions and the expected standards for their performance:
4.4.1. Plannino. Anticipates future needs and makes plans for meeting them;
recognizes potential problems and develops strategies for averting them;
makes long and short range plans to accomplish city and/or departmental
goals.
4.4.2. Oroanizino. Efficiently and economically organizes and carries out
assigned operations; carries out responsibilities in a sound and logical
manner; operates the unit smoothly and in a well organized manner;
effectively delegates authority and establishes appropriate work rules.
4.4.3. Coordinatino. Coordinates all activities related to work objectives;
maintains coordination and cooperation with other departments and
divisions; maintains good communication with employees, and allows
employees to make significant contributions to the accomplishment of
objectives.
4.4.4. Leadership Motivation. Creates a climate providing challenge and
motivation to employees.
PAGE 4-RESOLUTION
------------~
4.4.5. Decision Makino/Problem Solvino. Analyzes situations and problems,
weighs the pros and cons of alternative solutions, exercises logical
thinking and good judgment, is creative, and is able to make decisions.
4.4.6. Emplovee Relations. Equitably adjusts grievances among subordinate
employees, properly administers union agreements, and administers
discipline in a fair and progressive manner; trains and develops
subordinate employees.
4.4.7. Public Relations. Maintains a high level of contact with the public,
maintains a sensitivity to the public's needs, and meets the needs of the
public within available resources.
4.4.8. Budoetino. Prepares operational and capital budgets to meet the public's
needs, and expends funds within adopted budgeted limits.
4.4.9. Safety. Maintains a safe, clean, pleasant work environment, and supports
the city's overall safety program.
4.4.10. Self Development. Stays current with new ideas and procedures in
the manager's field of responsibility.
4.4.11. Affirmative Action. Actively supports and implements Affirmative Action
within the manager's area of responsibility, including the hiring and
promotion of women, minorities, and the disabled. Is sensitive to sexual
harassment in the workplace and enforces the City's Harassment and
Non-discrimination policy in their area of responsibility.
5. Holidavs. Recognized holidays are set forth in AMC 33.08.080. For convenience they
are listed here:
New Years Day (January 1)
Martin Luther King Day (3rd Monday in January)
Washington's Birthday (3rd Monday in February)
Memorial Day (last Monday in May)
Independence Day (July 4)
Labor Day (1st Monday in September)
Veteran's Day (November 11)
Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November)
Day after Thanksgiving (in lieu of Lincoln's birthday)
Christmas Day (December 25)
5.1. Police Sergeants shall receive paid compensation in addition to regular salary for
each of the holidays listed above, in lieu of time off consistent with what is
afforded other law enforcement officers of the City of Ashland. This shall be paid
on the first payday in December of each year. Newly-hired Police Sergeants
shall receive this paid compensation pro-rated from the date of hire. In the event
PAGE 5-RESOLUTION
that a Sergeant terminates employment for any reason, they will receive pay only
for the holidays which have elapsed that calendar year. If more holidays have
been taken as time off than have actually occurred at the time of termination,
those hours overpaid will be deducted from the employee's final paycheck unless
other arrangements are made to repay the City.
5.2. If an employee is on authorized vacation, or other leave with pay when a holiday
occurs, such holiday shall not be charged against such leave.
5.3 Employees working an alternate work schedule will receive compensation in the
amount that constitutes their normal work day. (i.e. employees working four 10-
hour days will receive (10) hours compensation for any holiday that falls in their
regular work day. Employees may be permitted to flex their schedule during a
week which contains a holiday to ensure they receive full pay. In no event shall
an exempt employee receive pay for more than 40 hours/week due to a holiday
or alternate work schedule arrangement.
6. Vacations for Manaaement and Confidential Emplovees.
6.1. EliQibilitv. Management employees shall be eligible for vacation with pay in
accordance with the following sections:
6.1.1. Employees with less than four full years of continuous service shall accrue
8.67 hours of vacation for each calendar month of service worked.
6.1.2. Employees with more than four but less than nine full years of continuous
service shall accrue 10.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar
month of service.
6.1.3. Employees with more than nine but less than 14 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 12.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar
month of service.
6.1.4. Employees with more than 14 but less than 19 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 14 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month
of service.
6.1.5. Employees with more than 19 but less than 24 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 15.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar
month of service
6.1.6. Employees with more than 24 full years of continuous service shall accrue
17.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service
(NOTE: The above schedule includes one day of leave which was previously designated as
"birthday holiday".)
PAGE 6-RESOLUTION
-- ---------,-~
6.2. Utilization. Vacation leave shall not be taken in excess of that actually accrued.
However, the city administrator has the discretion to authorize all management
employees to take vacation in advance of accrual when warranted by special
circumstances.
6.3. Continuous Service. Continuous service, for the purpose of accumulating
vacation leave credit, shall be based on the regular paid hours worked by the
employee. Time spent by the employee on city-authorized, city-paid absences
shall be included as continuous service. Time spent on unpaid absences shall
not be counted as service, provided that employees returning from such
absences shall be entitled to credit for service prior to the leave.
6.4. Accrual limitation. Management and Confidential employees are required to take
at least 75% of their annual vacation accrual as time off each year. All
Management and Confidential employees may elect to receive up to 40 hours as
cash on the first paycheck in April each year. The balance not elected for cash
payment will be added to their cumulative vacation accrual. In no event shall the
employee's total vacation accrual exceed twice the amount of the employee's
annual accrual without written approval from their Department Head.
6.5. Schedulimt Vacation times shall be scheduled based on the city administrator's
or department head's judgement as to the needs of efficient operations.
6.6. Payment on Termination. An employee terminated after six-months employment
shall be entitled to prorated payment for accrued vacation leave at the rate as of
the date of termination. In the event of death, earned but unused vacation leave
shall be paid in the same manner as salary due the deceased employee is paid.
6.7. Administrative Leave. Exempt management employees may be granted UP to
one week of Administrative Leave each July at the discretion of their department
head. The purpose of Administrative Leave is to recognize the extra hours
required of exempt managers for which no overtime compensation is afforded.
No cash payment will be made for Administrative Leave, and it can only be taken
as time off durin~ the year in which it is granted. Ad.ministrative Leave must be
used by June 30 h each year or it will be deemed forfeited. In the event of
termination or retirement, no cash payment will be made for Administrative
Leave.
7. Hours of Work for Confidential Emplovees.
7.1. Workweek. The workweek, to the extent consistent with operating requirements,
shall normally consist of five consecutive days as scheduled by the department
heads or other responsible authority.
7.2. Hours. The regular hours of an employee shall be 8 1/2 consecutive hours,
including 1/2 hour for a meal period, which shall not be paid.
PAGE 7-RESOLUTION
7.3. Work Schedules. All employees, to the extent consistent with operating
requirements, shall be scheduled to work on a regular work shift, and each shift
shall have regular starting and quitting times. It shall be the responsibility of the
department head to notify employees of their scheduled shifts, workdays, and
hours.
7.4. Rest Periods. A rest period of 15 minutes shall be permitted for all employees
during each half shift, which shall be scheduled by the city in accordance with its
determination as to the operating requirements and each employee's duties.
7.5. Meal Periods. To the extent consistent with operating requirements of the
respective department, meal periods shall be scheduled in the middle of the
work shift.
8. Sick Leave.
8.1. Purpose. Sick leave is provided for the sole purpose of providing financial
security to employees and their families. Under no circumstances shall the city
grant an employee sick leave with pay for time oft from city employment caused
by sickness or injury resulting from employment other than with the City of
Ashland.
8.2. Accumulation. Sick leave shall be earned for the purpose stated by each
employee at the rate of eight hours for each full calendar month of service. Sick
leave must be taken for the purposes specified in section 8.3 as condition
precedent to any sick leave payment. The maximum accrual cannot exceed 960
hours. Sick leave shall continue to accrue only during leaves of absence with
pay.
8.3. Utilization. Employees may utilize their allowance for sick leave when unable to
perform their work duties by reason of illness or injury. In such event, the
employee shall notify the department head or city administrator of absence due
to illness or injury, the nature and expected length of the absence, as soon as
possible prior to the beginning of the next scheduled regular work shift, unless
unable to do so because of the serious nature of injury or illness. For absences
longer than 24 hours, employees shall notify their department head on a daily
basis. At the option of the department head or city administrator, a doctor's
certificate of illness may be required as a pre-requisite for the payment of sick
leave.
Non-exempt employees may be granted sick leave for doctor or dental
appointments at the discretion of the department head. Such time oft shall be
charged against sick leave time on an hourly basis. All employees covered by
this resolution may be granted the use of sick leave for the illness or injury of a
family member in accordance with Oregon Family & Medical Leave Act
(OFMLA), and/or the Federal Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and/or
anyone residing at their place of residence. Use of sick leave to care for ill and
injured family members is subject to department head review and applicable City
PAGE a-RESOLUTION
policy. The City may request medical documentation before granting paid sick
leave for this purpose.
8.4. InteQration with Worker's compensation. When injury occurs in the course of
employment, the city's obligation to pay is limited to the difference between any
payment received under workers' compensation laws and the employee's regular
pay. In such instances, prorata charges will be made against accrued sick leave
until sick leave is exhausted. Thereafter, the only compensation will be workers'
compensation benefits, if any.
8.5. Sick Leave - Without Pay. Sick leave is provided by the city in the nature of
insurance against loss of income due to the illness or injury. No compensation
for accrued sick leave shall be provided for any employee upon death or
termination of employment, except that upon retirement accumulated sick leave
will be applied as provided in ORS 238.350. Sick leave shall not accrue during
any leave of absence without pay.
8.6. Pay for Unused Sick Leave. All Management and Confidential employees may
elect to receive 1/3 of their unused annual sick leave accrual (maximum of 32
hours) as cash on their first paycheck in December. If cash payment is not
elected, the unused portion of sick leave will be added to cumulative sick leave
balance or converted to accrued vacation at the option of the employee.
9. Funeral Leave. An employee may be granted five calendar days funeral leave with
regular pay in the event of death in the immediate family of the employee. An
employee's immediate family shall include spouse, parent, children, brother, sister,
mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-Iaw or other relatives living in
the same household. Leave with pay, for up to four hours may be granted when an
employee serves as a pallbearer.
10. Other Leaves of Absence
10.1. Criteria and Procedure. Leaves of absence without pay not to exceed 90 calendar
days may be granted upon establishment of. reasonable justification therefore in
instances where the work of the department will not be seriously handicapped by
temporary absence of the employee. Requests for such leaves must be in
writing. Normally, such leave will not be approved for an employee for the
purpose of accepting employment outside the service of the city.
10.2. JUry Dutv. Employees shall be granted leave with pay for jury duty. Employees
may keep any payment for mileage, but all other stipends for service must be
paid to the City. Upon being excused from jury service for any day an employee
shall immediately contact the supervisor for assignment for the remainder of their
regular workday.
PAGE 9-RESOLUTION
10.3. Appearances. Leave with pay shall be granted for an appearance before a court,
legislative committee, judicial or quasi-judicial body as a witness in response to a
subpoena or other direction by proper authority; provided, however, that the
regular pay of such employee shall be reduced by an amount equal to any
compensation received as witness fees.
10.4. Required Court Appearances. Leaves of absence with pay shall be granted for
attendance in court in connection with an employee's officially assigned duties,
including the time required for travel to the court and return to the employee's
headquarters.
10.5. Familv Medical Leave. Leave in accordance with the Federal Family and Medical
Leave Act and the Oregon Family Medical Leave Act shall be granted to
employees eligible under those acts and for the purposes described in those
acts. Leave may be unpaid or paid as provided in these acts.
10.6. Military Leave. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with ORS 408.290.
10.7. Failure to Return from Leave. Any employee who is granted a leave of absence
and who, for any reason, fails to return to work at the expiration of said leave of
absence, shall be considered as having resigned their position with the city, and
the position shall be declared vacated; except and unless the employee, prior to
the expiration of the leave of absence, has furnished evidence of not being able
to work by reason of sickness, physical disability or other legitimate reason
beyond the employee's control.
11. Discipline and Discharae. The following section applies only to those employees
subject to this resolution who do not have a written individual employment agreement
with the city.
11.1. Discipline. The city shall abide by the legal requirements of due process prior to
taking disciplinary action. Disciplinary action may include the following:
(a) Oral reprimand
(b) Written reprimand
(c) Demotion
(d) Suspension
(e) Discharge
Disciplinary action may be imposed upon any employee for failing to fulfill
responsibilities as an employee. Conduct reflecting discredit upon the city or
department, or which is a direct hindrance to the effective performance of city
functions, shall be considered good cause for disciplinary action. Such cause
may also include misconduct, inefficiency, incompetence, insubordination,
misfeasance, the willful giving of false or confidential information, the withholding
of information with intent to deceive when making application for employment,
PAGE 10-RESOLUTION
- ---_.---- --~
willful violation of departmental rules or this management resolution, commission
of any matter listed in AMC 93.08.030.8 or for political activities forbidden by
state law.
11.2. Discharoe. An employee having less than twelve months of continuous service
shall serve at the pleasure of the city. An employee having continuous service in
excess of twelve months shall be discharged only for cause.
11.3. Due Process. Due process procedures shall be followed before a suspension
without pay, demotion or discharge is imposed upon an employee.
Employees, other than those appointed by mayor and city council, may appeal a
suspension without pay, demotion or discharge to the city administrator. The city
administrator's decision shall be final.
12. Probationary Period.
12.1. New Emplovee Probationary Period. The probationary period is an integral part
of the employee selection process and provides the city with the opportunity to
upgrade and improve the departments by observing a new employee's work,
training, aiding new employees in adjustment to their positions, and by providing
an opportunity to reject any employee whose work performance fails to meet
required work standards. Every new employee shall serve a minimum
probationary period of 12 months after which, upon recommendation of the
department head, the employee shall be considered a regular employee. The
probationary period may be extended upon request of the department head if an
adequate determination cannot be made at the end of the probationary period.
12.2. Promotional Probationary Period. An employee promoted into a management or
confidential position will be required to serve a six-month promotional
probationary period. The city may at any time demote an employee on
promotional probationary status to their previous position with or without cause.
13. General Provisions.
13.1. Non Discrimination. The provisions of this resolution shall be applied equally to
all employees without discrimination as to race, color, religion, marital status,
age, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability.
13.2. Other/Outside Emplovment. Outside employment shall be permitted only with
the express prior written approval of the department head or City Administrator.
Such written approval shall be documented in the employee's Personnel File.
The general principles to be followed by the City in permitting or restricting such
outside employment shall be:
1. The need for mentally and physically alert City employees;
2. Insulating employees from potential conflict of interest situations;
PAGE 11-RESOLUTION
----,---
3. Maintaining efficiency unimpaired by other employment, particularly for
those city positions requiring employees to be available for duty 24 hours
a day. In the event that the above principles are violated, the department
head or City Administrator may revoke previously granted permission to
hold outside employment.
13.3. Worker's compensation. All employees will be insured under the provisions of
the Oregon State Workers' Compensation Act for injuries received while at work
for the city. Compensation paid by the city for a period of sick leave also covered
by workers' compensation shall be equal to the difference between the Workers'
compensation pay for lost time and the employee's regular pay rate.
13.4. Liability Insurance. The city shall purchase liability insurance in the maximum
amounts set forth in ORS 30.270 for the protection of employees against claims
against them incurred in or arising out of the performance of their official duties.
14. Compensation
14.1. Pay Periods. Employees shall be paid on a bi-weekly basis, on every other
Friday. In the event a regularly scheduled pay date falls on a holiday, the
preceding workday shall be the pay date.
14.2, Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance
with the pay schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. When any
position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the City Administrator shall
designate a job classification and pay rate for the position. The City
Administrator shall have the authority to amend the salary schedule as
necessary within budgetary constraints to meet the recruitment and operational
goals of the City. Such changes will be included in the official salary schedule
which is published and maintained by the Human Resource Department.
Additional pay that is specific to individual performance such as longevity,
Acting-in-capacity, certification, or meritorious service pay is not included in the
base salary and will not be reflected in the published salary schedule.
14.3. Overtime. Exempt management employees are expected to devote whatever
time is necessary to accomplish their job. For all non-exempt employees, the city
has the right to assign. overtime work as required in a manner most
advantageous to the city and consistent with the requirements of municipal
service and the public interest.
14.4. Form of Compensation. The City Administrator, City Attorney, department heads
and division supervisors are not eligible for paid overtime but are allowed
compensatory time off at their own discretion depending on the operating
requirements of the city. Mid-Level supervisors and confidential personnel shall
be compensated in the form of pay at the rate of time and one-half the regular
rate for overtime work or given equivalent time off at the option of the city. No
employee shall have more than 40 hours of compensatory time on the records at
any time.
PAGE 12-RESOLUTION
14.5. Administration of Pay Plan. Employees shall be entitled to pay in accordance
with the current salary resolution. In the event of a vacancy, the City
Administrator may appoint a new employee at any appropriate step within the
pay range.
15. Health. Welfare and Retirement.
The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance
with Appendix "B" for employees subject to this resolution.
16. Compliance with FLSA.
This resolution shall be interpreted in a manner to preserve the exempt status of
the city's bona fide administrative, executive, and professional employees, as
those terms are used in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Such
exempt employees shall not have their pay docked or reduced in any manner
that would be inconsistent with the salary test set forth in the FLSA and they are
not subject to disciplinary suspensions of less than a week except for major
safety violations.
17. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective as of July 01, 2006.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of June 2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of June, 2006.
Alex Amarotico, Council Chair
Reviewed as to form:
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
PAGE 13-RESOLUTION
APPENDIX "A" Classifications in the Management and Confidential Employee Groups
June 2006
MANAGEMENT
". - ~ -
, lZ:,:' : ~ , :')<(f;\~j:;Ll~', ~ , " ,
City Administrator Exempt
City Attorney Exempt
Police Chief Exempt
Electric Utility Director Exempt
Administrative Services/Finance Director Exempt
Fire Chief Exempt
Public Works Director/City Engineer Exempt
Information Technology Director Exempt
Community Development Director Exempt
Electric Operations Superintendent Exempt
Deputy Police Chief Exempt
Fire Division Chief Exempt
Human Resource Director Exempt
Public Works Superintendent Exempt
Telecommunications Engineer Exempt
Planning Manager Exempt
Engineering Services Manager Exempt
Water Plant Supervisor Exempt
AFN Operations Manager Exempt
Network Administrator Exempt
Database Administrator Exempt
Management Analyst Exempt
Senior Planner Exempt
Building Official Exempt
Finance Division Manager Exempt
PAGE 14-RESOLUTION
User Support Administrator
Assistant City Attorney
Project/Courts Manager
Fire Inspector
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Police Sergeant
Water Plant Supervisor
Water Quality Supervisor (Distribution)
Wastewater & Water Reuse Supervisor (Collection Plant)
Associate Engineer
GIS Analyst
Forest Resource Specialist
Maintenance Safety Supervisor
Street Supervisor
Police Administrative Services Manager
Police Accreditation & Training Manager
T elecommunications/Computer Technician
Legal Assistant/Claims Manager
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
CONFIDENTIAL
Executive Secretary
Human Resource Assistant
Legal Secretary
Administrative Assistant/Secretary
Administrative Secretary
Secretary
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
PAGE 15-RESOLUTION
APPENDIX "B"
Health. Welfare. and Retirement Benefits
The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance with this
appendix for employees subject to this resolution.
1. Health Insurance.
A. Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical Plan V-A, UCR Vision and dental plan III for
employees and their eligible dependents. New employees will begin coverage
on the first day of the month after they are hired.
As of January 1, 2003, the City will pay 95% of the total monthly health premium,
with the employee paying the remaining 5% on a pre-tax basis.
8. Reimbursement for preventative/wellness medical costs as provided in the city's
Wellness Program.
2. Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities life insurance policy for each
employee at one times annual salary.
3. Dependent's Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities $1,000 life
insurance policy for each qualified dependent of an employee.
4. Salary Continuation Plan. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities Long Term
Disability Insurance.
5. Retirement. As required by law, the city will contribute to the Oregon State Public
Employees Retirement System for each employee. Enrollment will commence six
months from the date of employment for new employees, unless that person was in
PERS immediately before coming to work for the city. Upon retirement, one-half of
unused sick leave earned will be applied to retirement as provided in statute. The city
will also assume or pay the employees' contributions required by ORS 238.200 for
employees at a uniform rate of six percent.
PAGE 16-RESOLUTJON
~_."_.._~~
APPENDIX "B"
Health, Welfare & Retirement Benefits
Paae: Two
6. Social Security. Contributions to Social Security as required by law.
7. Medical Insurance for Retirees. All employees retiring from city employment and their
eligible dependents will have the option of continued participation in the city's medical
insurance program at the same monthly group premium as active employees. The
retiree must be actively covered under the city's group plan at the time of retirement to
be eligible for continued retiree covera~e. Retirees must make their health insurance
payment to the city on or before the 15 h of the month prior to the covered month to
continue health coverage. The right to participate and medical coverage ceases when
the retiree or their eligible dependent(s) become Medicare-eligible at age 65.
Any employee retiring in a position covered by this resolution who has 15 or more years
of service and who is Medicare-eligible at the time of retirement, shall be provided with
Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/ Plan C, or equivalent plan selected by the city. The
city will pay the premium for the retiree. The retiree must have been participating in the
city's group plan at the time of retirement to be eligible for this benefit.
Early retirees who retire in a position covered by this resolution, and have 15 or more
years of service, and are at least age 60 at retirement shall receive a monthly check
equal to the amount paid for Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C, or equivalent plan
selected by the city, until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. The retiree must
elected continued retiree coverage under the city's group plan to be eligible for this
benefit. Once the retiree turns 65 and establishes Medicare eligibility, the city will pay
the premium directly to Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C or the equivalent plan
selected by the city, on the retiree's behalf.
8. Deferred Compensation. Deferred compensation in the amount of $30.00 per month in
matching funds per employee enrolled in a city deferred compensation program. This
program is at the option of the employee and contingent upon a minimum $15.00 per
month contribution paid by the employee.
PAGE 17-RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007.
RECITALS:
1. The wage adjustment for two City Labor unions has been set at 4% based upon the
Consumer Price Index. One union received 3% July 2005, 2.5% January 2006, and is
scheduled to receive 1.5% July 2006. The two Public Safety bargaining groups are in
negotiations with the City.
2. The City has an interest in maintaining salary differentials to avoid compression between
represented employees and the supervisory/management staff.
3. It is the desire of the City to maintain its management and confidential pay plan at a level
commensurate with other jurisdictions to enhance recruitment and retention in these key
positions.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The overall pay schedule is hereby increased by 4% for Management, Mid-
Management/Supervisory and Confidential employees effective July 1, 2006.
SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be increased by
5.10%, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for Department Heads and
Supervisors as set forth in the City Charter.
SECTION 3. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor or City Council Chair.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of
,2006.
Alex Amarotico, Council Chair
Reviewed as to form:
Mike W. Franell, City Attorney
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
FOR 2006-2007
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
501
Step A - First 6 Months $50.9155 $8,825 $52.9521 $9,178
Step B - Next 12 Months $53.4572 $9,266 $55.5954 $9,637
Step C - Next 12 Months $55.5987 $9,637 $57.8227 $10,023
Step 0 - Next 12 Monts $57.8226 $10,023 $60.1355 $10,423
Step E - Thereafter $60.1289 $10,422 $62.5341 $10,839
502
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4781 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117 . 7/1104 Range made equal to all
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399 department heads when vacated
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6787 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
504
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4781 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6787 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
505 Tille change 5/29/01
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4781 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117 Tille Change 7/1105
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6787 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
506 Tille Change 711105
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4781 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6787 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
507
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4781 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6787 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
508
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4781 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6787 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
509 . New Position. Range Create 3/06
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4781 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6787 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
510
Step A - First 6 Months $39.4780 $6,843 $41.0572 $7,117 . 3/1103 Range increased to
Step B - Next 12 Months $41.0430 $7,114 $42.6847 $7,399 match dept head range
Step C - Next 12 Months $42.6786 $7,398 $44.3858 $7,694
Step 0 - Thereafter $44.3731 $7,691 $46.1480 $7,999
Last Revised: 6/14106
Last Increase ADOIied:
4% COlA all dassifications
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
FOR 2006-2007
3% COLA
4'/0 COLA
MID-MGMT/SUPERVISORY CONT...
511 - Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
Step A - First 6 Months $35.0150 $6.069 $36.4156 $6,312 to offset compression 7/1104
Step B - Next 12 Months $36.4740 $6,322 $37.9329 $6,575
Step C - Next 12 Months $37.9329 $6,575 $39.4502 $6,838
Step D - Thereafter $39.4511 $6,838 $41.0291 $7,112
503 - Oeputy Police Chief New
Step A - First 6 Months $6,036 $36.2139 $6,277 position added 7/1104.
Step B - Next 12 Months $6,287 $37.7222 $6,538 -Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
Step C - Next 12 Months $6,539 $39.2317 $6,800 to offset compression 7/1104
Step D - Thereafter $6,800 $40.7999 $7,072 Assitant Fire ChieflFire
Marshal eliminated 7/1105
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Next 12 Months
Step E - Thereafter
$29.0396 $5,034
$30.5724 $5,299
$32.1764 $5,577
$33.8756 $5,871
$28.7188 $4,978
$29.8594 $5,176
$31.0357 $5,380
$32.2715 $5,594
$33.5624 $5,817
$30.2012
$31.7953
$33.4635
$35.2306
Salary Ranges for Water Plant Supervisor and
Wastewater & Water Reuse Supervisor
adjusted to match Engineering Services Mgr
range 111106
$5,235
$5,511
$5,800
$6,107
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
530
$29.8675
$31.0538
$32.2772
$33.5624
$34.9049
Added Step E 12101
$5,177 7/1106 Title Changed with
$5,383 elimination of CAlV Services
$5,595
$5,817
$6,050
- Administrative Svcs1HR Mgr added 7/22102,
reelassiled to HR Director 711104
- 07101102 Building Official range
Step A - First 6 Months $27.8728 $4,831 $28.9877 $5,025 made equivalent to Senior Planner
Step B - Next 12 Months $29.0342 $5,033 $30.1955 $5,234 - Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
Step C - Next 12 Months $30.1955 $5,234 $31.4034 $5,443 to offset compression 7/1104
Step D - Thereafter $31.3992 $5,443 $32.6552 $5,660
523
Step A - First 6 Months $27.2738 $4,727 $28.3648 $4,917 -Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
Step B - Next 12 Months $28.4102 $4,924 $29.5466 $5,121 10 offset compression 711104
Step C - Next 12 Months $29.5466 $5,121 $30.7285 $5,326
Step D - Thereafter $30.7218 $5,325 $31.9507 $5,538
Last Revised: 6/14/06
Last Increase ADOlied:
4% COLA all dassifications
2
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
MID-MGMT./SUPERVISORY CONT..
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Next 12 Months
Step E - Thereafter
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Next 12 Months
Step E - Thereafter
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
FOR 2006-2007
3% COLA
"Tille Change effective 711104
$25.1740 $4,363 $26.1809 $4,538 From Fire Protection/Plans Examiner
$26.4287 $4,581 $27.4859 $4,764 Based on changes to job duties
$27.7507 $4,810 $28.8608 $5,003
$29.1340 $5,050 $30.2994 $5,252
$30.5907 $5,302 $31.8143 $5,514
$26.7999 $4,645 $27.8719 $4,831 . Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
$27.9170 $4,839 $29.0337 $5,032 to offset compression issues 711104
$29.0337 $5,032 $30.1950 $5,234
$30.1870 $5,232 $31.3945 $5,442
. New position added 4117100
$24.9284 $4,321 $25.9255 $4,494
$25.9147 $4,492 $26.9513 $4,672
$26.9484 $4,671 $28.0263 $4,858
$28.0178 $4,856 $29.1385 $5,051
.Gis Analyst added 2104
$21.9459 $3,804 $22.8237 $3,956 *Forest Resource Specialist
$23.0315 $3,992 $23.9528 $4,152 added 711106
$24.1988 $4,194 $25.1668 $4,362
$25.4128 $4,405 $26.4293 $4,581
$26.6736 $4,623 $27.7405 $4,808
$23.4788 $4,070 $24.4180 $4,232
$24.4056 $4,230 $25.3818 $4,400
$25.3918 $4,401 $26.4075 $4,577
$26.4018 $4,576 $27.4579 $4,759
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
Last Revised: 6114106
---,----
.711103 Tille Change from Communications
Supervisor to AccreditationIT raining Mgr.
$23.4788
$24.4056
$25.3918
$26.4018
$24.4180
$25.3818
$26.4075
$27.4579
$4,070
$4,230
$4,401
$4,576
$4,232
$4,400 *7/1102 Communications Supervisor
$4,577 salary range made equivalent to
$4,759 Police Admin Services Mgr.
Last Increase ADoIied:
4% COLA all classifications
3
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Thereafter
FOR 2006-2007
3% COLA 4% COLA
. New position added 8/1103
$27.8728 $4,831 $28.9877 $5,025 Salary Range adj. 7/1105
$29.0342 $5,033 $30.1956 $5,234
$30.1955 $5,234 $31.4033 $5,443
$31.3992 $5,443 $32.6552 $5,660
Salary Range adj. 711105
$24.9284 $4,321 $25.9255 $4,494
$25.9147 $4,492 $26.9513 $4,672
$26.9484 $4,671 $28.0263 $4,858
$28.0178 $4,856 $29.1385 $5,051
. Legal Assistant/Claims
$19.8463 $3,440 $20.6401 $3,578 Management Reclassified
$20.6383 $3,577 $21.4638 $3,720 101112002;
$21.4635 $3,720 $22.3220 $3,869 Title change to Claims Manager 2106
$22.3220 $3,869 $23.2149 $4,024
3% COLA 4% COLA
MID-MGMT/SUPERVISORY CO NT..
408
542
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Thereafter
546
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Next 12 Months
CONFIDENTIAL
. Position Reelassiled;
Step A - First 6 Months $14.6004 $2,531 $15.1844 $2,632 range decreased 10101101
Step B - Next 12 Months $15.3349 $2,658 $15.9483 $2,764 . Legal Secretary Added
Step C - Next 12 Months $16.0999 $2,791 $16.7438 $2,902 12/512002
Step 0 - Next 12 Months $16.8891 $2,927 $17.5646 $3,045
Step E - Thereafter $17.7268 $3,072 $18.4359 $3,196
537
Step A - First 6 Months $13.5882 $2,355 $14.1317 $2,449
Step B - Next 12 Months $14.2609 $2,472 $14.8313 $2,571
Step C - Next 12 Months $14.9580 $2,593 $15.5563 $2,696
Step 0 - Next 12 Months $15.7041 $2,722 $16.3323 $2,831
Step E - Thereafter $16.4868 $2,858 $17.1463 $2,972
536
Step A - First 6 Months $11.7658 $2,039 $12.2365 $2,121
Step B - Next 12 Months $12.3407 $2,139 $12.8343 $2,225
Step C - Next 12 Months $12.9644 $2,247 $13.4830 $2,337
Step 0 - Next 12 Months $13.6004 $2,357 $14.1444 $2,452
Step E - Thereafter $14.2609 $2,472 $14.8313 $2,571
ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Recorder
Municipal Judge
3.59% COLA calculated per
City Charter
5.10% COLA calculated per
City Charter
PLEASE NOTE: Hourly rates are accurate to 4 decimal places. A monthly wage is provided
as an approximate salary, but actual monthly earnings may differ from those quoted above.
Last Revised: 6/14106
Last Increase ADDIied:
4% COLA all dassifications
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007.
RECITALS:
1. The wage adjustment for two City Labor unions has been set at 4% based upon the
Consumer Price Index. One union received 3% July 2005, 2.5% January 2006, and is
scheduled to receive 1.5% July 2006. The two Public Safety bargaining groups are in
negotiations with the City.
2. The City has an interest in maintaining salary differentials to avoid compression between
represented employees and the supervisory/management staff.
3. It is the desire of the City to maintain its management and confidential pay plan at a level
commensurate with other jurisdictions to enhance recruitment and retention in these key
positions.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1'. The overall pay schedule is hereby increased by 4% for Management, Mid-
Management/Supervisory and Confidential employees effective July 1, 2006.
SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be increased by
5.10%, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for Department Heads and
Supervisors as set forth in the City Charter.
SECTION 3. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor or City Council Chair.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of
,2006.
Alex Amarotico, Council Chair
Reviewed as to form:
Mike W. Franell, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND CLARIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES BY
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-23, WHICH REPEALED RESOLUTION 2002-
23. /\ND MAKING SUCH CONDITIONS CONSISTENT \f'.'ITH THE FEDERAL F/\IR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 9718.
Recitals:
A. The City of Ashland has negotiated collective bargaining agreements with all
employees who are members of labor unions;
B. The management and confidential employees of the city are not an organized group
for the purpose of collectively negotiating the terms and conditions of their
employment; and
C. It is in the best interest of the city and efficient and effective government to clearly
set forth the city's expectations for the performance of its management and
confidential employees;
The mayor and council resolve as follows:
1. Scope of Resolution. Resolution No. 97-18 is repealed. This 2006 resolution shall
apply to all management and confidential employees of the City of Ashland as set forth
in Appendix "A", dated June 2006. Where the term "employee" is used, it shall mean
regular full-time employees and probationary employees as defined in section 2.7 Q....aRG
Appondix A This resolution does not apply to any employee who is a member of any
collective bargaining unit.
2. Definitions.
2.1. Confidential employee. As defined in ORS 243.650(6), a confidential employee
is one who assists and acts in a confidential capacity to a person who
formulates, determines, and effectuates management policies in the area of
collective bargaining. Confidential employees are paid hourly for work performed
and they are subject to payment for overtime according to the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Confidential employee includes those classifications in Appendix
"A" under "Confidential."
2.2. Department head. A person directly responsible to the city administrator, mayor
or city council for the administration of a department. Department heads are
exempt from overtime payment. Department heads include those Management
classifications in Appendix "A" under "Department heads."
PAGE i-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and ManagemenCConfidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
T
2.3 Division Supervisor. A person directly responsible to a department head or the
City Administrator for the operational functions of a city department or division.
Division supervisors are" exempt from overtime payment. Division supervisors
include those Management classifications in Appendix "A" under "division
supervisors. "
2.4 Mid-Level Supervisor. A person reporting to a division supervisor or department
head who may receive overtime payment for work outside their normal scope
and duties. Mid-level supervisory positions require autonomy, independent
decision making, planning, and may provide supervision to other personnel.
2.5 Emplovee. A person in any of the classifications listed in Appendix "A" who has
completed the probationary period.
2.6 Management or Manager. Those classifications included in Appendix "A" under
the title "Management" including Department Heads, Division Managers and Mid-
Level Managers.
2.7 Probationary Emplovee. A person appointed to a regular position but who has
not completed a probationary period during which the employee is required to
demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the duties of the
position.
2.8 Supervisor. Any person responsible to a higher divisional or departmental level
authority who directs the work of others and who is not in a collective bargaining
unit.
3. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is set forth generally in the preamble. More
specifically, the resolution has three fundamental purposes:
3.1. To clearly establish which classifications in the city service are management or
confidential.
3.2. To clearly set forth the functions of management and to establish criteria for the
evaluation of managerial performance.
3.3. To establish the personnel policies governing the conditions of employment of
management and confidential employees.
4. Manaaerial Performance.
4.1. Goal Setting. Basic goals for the City of Ashland are set by the mayor and city
council. Resources for achieving those goals are provided via the annual budget.
Operational goals and short- range objectives are set by the city administrator
working with department heads. The single most important factor in achieving
the goals of the City of Ashland is the performance of the city's managers.
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated l.06.doc
,.-
4.2. ManaQerial Responsibilities. Each of the city's managers at a minimum have the
following responsibilities:
4.2.1. Getting the job done properly and on time,
4.2.2. Keeping the workplace safe and healthy,
4.2.3. Encouraging team work and cooperation among employees and
departments,
4.2.4. Developing employee skills,
4.2.5. Keeping records and making reports, and
4.2.6. Actively promoting affirmative action at all levels.
4.3. General Expectations ReQardinQ ManaQement Emplovees. In addition to the
specific performance standards mentioned above, there are also general city
expectations of its managers.
4.3.1. Job Commitment. All management employees are expected to have a
high degree of commitment to the City of Ashland and to their jobs. When
a new manager is hired, the city expects a commitment of continued
service of at least three years unless unforeseen circumstances warrant
earlier resignation or termination.
Management employees are expected to devote whatever hours are
necessary for the accomplishment of their duties as part of their normal
work week. Overtime will only be paid as set forth in section 14.3. 0.:-
-Management employees may take compensatory time off at their
discretion as long as they exercise judgement so that their absence does
not unreasonably interfere with the city's operations.
In the event of voluntary termination, management employees are
expected to give a minimum of 30 calendar days notice in order to give
the city adequate time to recruit a qualified replacement.
4.3.2. Professionalism. Management employees are expected to maintain the
standards of their individual profession. This includes remaining current
with new developments, maintaining memberships in professional
societies, and attending meetings with professionals in their field. Where
professionals have codes of ethics or standards of performance, these
should also be followed in the manager's work for the City of Ashland.
4.3.3. Termination. If at any time a manager's performance is deemed
unacceptable, the city administrator or appropriate department head may
ask for the employee's resignation. In most cases, reasonable time will be
given to the employee to find other suitable employment. The city may
provide severance pay in the event of resignation or involuntary
termination.
PAGE 3-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated l_06_doc
T-
4.3.4. Residency. Residency within the Urban Growth Boundary shall be a job
requirement of the city administrator and strongly encouraged for
department heads.
The following job classifications employoos shall establish their residence
to enable them to report for emergency duty within 30 minutes of
notification including "get ready" and travel time:
Public Works Superintendent
Street Supervisor
Wastewater & Reuse Supervisor \^later Quality Supervisor (Colloction)
Water Quality Supervisor (Distribution)
Water Plant Supervisor
Electric Operations Superintendent
EMStFire Division Chief
Deputy Police Chief
Police Sergeant
Police Captain
Polico Lioutonant
Assistant Fire Chief
Telecommunications Engineer
Network Administrator
Database Administrator
User Support Administrator
Maintenance Safety Supervisor
"'f elecommunications/Computer Technician
Residence shall be established by new employees in these classifications
within these boundaries or limitations within a period of twelve months of
hire or promotion. Department Heads may identify other positions which
require emergency response within 30 minutes to meet operational
requirements.
4.4. Essential ManaQement Functions. The following are the essential functions of all
city management positions and the expected standards for their performance:
4.4.1. PlanninQ. Anticipates future needs and makes plans for meeting them;
recognizes potential problems and develops strategies for averting them;
makes long and short range plans to accomplish city and/or departmental
goals.
4.4.2. OrQanizinQ. Efficiently and economically organizes and carries out
assigned operations; carries out responsibilities in a sound and logical
manner; operates the unit smoothly and in a well organized manner;
effectively delegates authority and establishes appropriate work rules.
PAGE 4-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and ManagemenLConfidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
4.4.3. Coordinatina. Coordinates all activities related to work objectives;
maintains coordination and cooperation with other departments and
divisions; maintains good communication with employees, and allows
employees to make significant contributions to the accomplishment of
objectives.
4.4.4. Leadership Motivation. Creates a climate providing challenge and
motivation to employees.
4.4.5. Decision Makina/Problem Solvina. Analyzes situations and problems,
weighs the pros and cons of alternative solutions, exercises logical
thinking and good judgment, is creative, and is able to make decisions.
4.4.6. Employee Relations. Equitably adjusts grievances among subordinate
employees, properly administers union agreements, and administers
discipline in a fair and progressive manner; trains and develops
subordinate employees.
4.4.7. Public Relations. Maintains a high level of contact with the public,
maintains a sensitivity to the public's needs, and meets the needs of the
public within available resources.
4.4.8. Budaetina. Prepares operational and capital budgets to meet the public's
needs, and expends funds within adopted budgeted limits.
4.4.9. Safety. Maintains a safe, clean, pleasant work environment, and supports
the city's overall safety program.
4.4.10. Self Development. Stays current with new ideas and procedures in
the manager's field of responsibility.
4.4.11. Affirmative Action. Actively supports and implements Affirmative Action
within the manager's area of responsibility, including the hiring and
promotion of women, minorities, and the disabled. Is sensitive to sexual
harassment in the workplace and enforces the City's Harassment and
Non-discrimination policy in their area of responsibility.
"
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
PAGE 5-RESOLUTION
5. Holidays. Recognized holidays are set forth in AMC ~3.08.080. For convenience they
are listed here:
New Years Day (January 1)
Martin Luther King Day (3rd Monday in January)
Washington's Birthday (3rd Monday in February)
Memorial Day (last Monday in May)
Independence Day (July 4)
Labor Day (1st Monday in September)
Veteran's Day (November 11)
Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November)
Day after Thanksgiving (in lieu of Lincoln's birthday)
Christmas Day (December 25)
5.1. Police Sergeants shall receive paid compensation in addition to regular salary for
each of the holidays listed above, in lieu of time off consistent with what is
afforded other law enforcement officers of the City of Ashland. This shall be paid
on the first payday in December of each year. Newly-hired Police Sergeants
shall receive this paid compensation pro-rated from the date of hire. In the event
that a Sergeant terminates employment for any reason, they will re~ceive pay only
for the holidays which have elapsed that calendar year. If more holidays have
been taken as time off than have actually occurred at the time of tHrmination,
those hours overpaid will be deducted from the employee's final paycheck unless
other arrangements are made to repay the City.
5.2. If an employee is on authorized vacation, or other leave with pay when a holiday
occurs, such holiday shall not be charged against such leave.
5.3 Employees working an alternate work schedule will receive compensation in the
amount that constitutes their normal work day. (i.e. employees working four 10-
hour days will receive (10) hours compensation for any holiday that falls in their
regular work day. Employees may be permitted to flex their schedule during a
week which contains a holiday to ensure they receive full pay. In no event shall
an exempt employee receive pay for more than 40 hours/week due to a holiday
or alternate work schedule arrangement.
6. Vacations for Manaaement and Confidential Employees.
6.1. EIiQibilitv. Management employees shall be eligible for vacation with pay in
accordance with the following sections:
6.1.1. Employees with less than four full years of continuous service shall accrue
8.67 hours of vacation for each calendar month of service worked.
6.1.2. Employees with more than four but less than nine full years of continuous
service shall accrue 10.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar
month of service.
PAGE 6-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
6.1.3. Employees with more than nine but less than 14 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 12.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar
month of service.
6.1.4. Employees with more than 14 but less than 19 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 14 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month
of service.
6.1.5. Employees with more than 19 but less than 24 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 15.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar
month of service
6.1.6. Employees with more than 24 full years of continuous service shall accrue
17.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service
(NOTE: The above schedule includes one day of leave which was previously designated as
"birthday holiday".)
6.2. Utilization. Vacation leave takeR shall not be taken in excess of that actually
accrued. at the time it is taken. However, the city administrator has the
discretion to authorize all management employees to take vacation in advance of
accrual when warranted by special circumstances.
6.3. Continuous Service. Continuous service, for the purpose of accumulating
vacation leave credit, shall be based on the regular paid hours worked by the
employee. Time spent by the employee on city-authorized, city-paid absences
shall be included as continuous service. Time spent on unpaid absences shall
not be counted as service, provided that employees returning from such
absences shall be entitled to credit for service prior to the leave.
6.4. Accrual Limitation. Management and Confidential employees are required to take
at least 75% of their annual vacation accrual as time off each year. All
Management and Confidential employees may elect to receive up to 40 hours as
cash on the first paycheck in April each year. twonty five percent of thoir unused
annual ':acation accrual as c3sh on the first pay check in June each year. The
balance of the t\venty five percent not elected for cash payment will be added to
their cumulative vacation accrual. In no event shall the employee's total vacation
accrual exceed twice the amount of the employee's annual accrual without
written approval from their Department Head.
6.5. SchedulinQ. Vacation times shall be scheduled based on the city administrator's
or department head's judgement as to the needs of efficient operations. "
6.6. Payment on Termination. An employee terminated after six-months employment
shall be entitled to prorated payment for accrued vacation leave at the rate as of
the date of termination. In the event of death, earned but unused vacation leave
shall be paid in the same manner as salary due the deceased employee is paid.
PAGE 7-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_ Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
6.7. Administrative Leave. Exempt management employees may be granted up to
one week of Administrative Leave each July at the discretion of their department
head. The purpose of Administrative Leave is to recognize the extra hours
required of exempt managers for which no overtime compensation is afforded.
No cash payment will be made for Administrative Leave, and it can only be taken
as time off durin~ the year in which it is granted. Administrative Leave must be
used by June 30 each year or it will be deemed forfeited. In the event of
termination or retirement, no cash payment will be made for Administrative
Leave.
7. Hours of Work for Confidential Employees.
7.1. Workweek. The workweek, to the extent consistent with operating requirements,
shall normally consist of five consecutive days as scheduled by the department
heads or other responsible authority.
7.2. Hours. The regular hours of an employee shall be 8 1/2 consecutive hours,
including 1/2 hour for a meal period, which shall not be paid.
7.3. Work Schedules. All employees, to the extent consistent with operating
requirements, shall be scheduled to work on a regular work shift, and each shift
shall have regular starting and quitting times. It shall be the responsibility of the
department head to notify employees of their scheduled shifts, workdays, and
hours.
7.4. Rest Periods. A rest period of 15 minutes shall be permitted for all employees
during each half shift, which shall be scheduled by the city in accordance with its
determination as to the operating requirements and each employee's duties.
7.5. Meal Periods. To the extent consistent with operating requirements of the
respective department, meal periods shall be scheduled in the middle of the
work shift.
8. Sick Leave.
8.1. Purpose. Sick leave is provided for the sole purpose of providing financial
security to employees and their families. Under no circumstances shall the city
grant an employee sick leave with pay for time off from city employment caused
by sickness or injury resulting from employment other than with the City of
Ashland.
8.2. Accumulation. Sick leave shall be earned for the purpose stated by each
employee at the rate of eight hours for each full calendar month of service. Sick
~ave must be taken for the purposes specified in section 8.3 as condition
precedent to any sick leave payment. The maximum accrual cannot exceed 960
+W hours. Sick leave shall continue to accrue only during leaves of absence
with pay.
PAGE 8-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
r" ----- "- "- __m__________ ---,-
I
8.3. Utilization. Employees may utilize their allowance for sick leave when unable to
perform their work duties by reason of illness or injury. In such event, the
employee shall notify the department head or city administrator of absence due
to illness or injury, the nature and expected length of the absence, as soon as
possible prior to the beginning of the next scheduled regular work shift, unless
unable to do so because of the serious nature of injury or illness. For absences
longer than 24 hours, employees shall notify their department head on a daily
basis. At the option of the department head or city administrator, a doctor's
certificate of illness may be required as a pre-requisite for the payment of sick
leave.
Confidontial omployees and Mid Lovel Supervisors Non-exempt employees may
be granted sick leave for doctor or dental appointments at the discretion of the
department head. Such time off shall be charged against sick leave time on an
hourly basis. Confidential employoos and Mid Level Suporvisors All employees
covered by this resolution may be granted the use of sick leave for illness in the
immediate family. the illness or injury of a family member in accordance with
Oregon Family & Medical Leave Act (OFMLA), and/or the Federal Family &
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and/or anyone residing at their place of residence.
Use of sick leave to care for ill and injured family members is subjE~ct to
department head review and applicable City policy. The City may request
medical documentation before granting paid sick leave for this purpose.
8.4. Intearation with Worker's compensation. When injury occurs in the course of
employment, the city's obligation to pay is limited to the difference between any
payment received under workers' compensation laws and the employee's regular
pay. In such instances, prorata charges will be made against accrued sick leave
until sick leave is exhausted. Thereafter, the only compensation will be workers'
compensation benefits, if any.
8.5. Sick Leave - Without Pay. Sick leave is provided by the city in the nature of
insurance against loss of income due to the illness or injury. No compensation
for accrued sick leave shall be provided for any employee upon death or
termination of employment, except that upon retirement accumulated sick leave
':,i11 be any loavo will be applied as provided in ORS 238.350. Sick leave shall not
accrue during any leave of absence without pay.
8.6. Pay for Unused Sick Leave. All Management and Confidential employees may
elect to receive 1/3 twonty fivo porcont of their unused annual sick leave accrual
(maximum of 32 24 hours) as cash on their first paycheck in December. If cash
payment is not elected, the unused portion of sick leave will be added to
cumulative sick leave balance or converted to accrued vacation at the option of
the employee.
PAGE 9-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management.Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
T-. on -- - . 0-.0. _u
9. Funeral Leave. An employee may be granted five calendar days funeral leave with
regular pay in the event of death in the immediate family of the employee. An
employee's immediate family shall include spouse, parent, children, brother, sister,
mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-Iaw or other relatives living in
the same household. Leave with pay, for up to four hours may be granted when an
employee serves as a pallbearer.
10. Other Leaves of Absence
10.1. Criteria and Procedure. Leaves of absence without pay not to exceed 90 calendar
days may be granted upon establishment of reasonable justification therefore in
instances where the work of the department will not be seriously handicapped by
temporary absence of the employee. Requests for such leaves must be in
writing. Normally, such leave will not be approved for an employee for the
purpose of accepting employment outside the service of the city.
10.2. JUry Dutv. Employees shall be granted leave with pay for service upon a jury.
Employees may keep any payment for mileage, but all other stipends for service
must be paid to the City. aM Upon being excused from jury service for any day
an employee shall immediately contact the supervisor for assignment for the
remainder of their regular workday.
I .
10.3. Appearances. Leave with pay shall be granted for an appearance before a court,
legislative committee, judicial or quasi-judicial body as a witness in response to a
subpoena or other direction by proper authority; provided, however, that the
regular pay of such employee shall be reduced by an amount equal to any
compensation received as witness fees.
10.4. Required Court Appearances. Leaves of absence with pay shall be granted for
attendance in court in connection with an employee's officially assigned duties,
including the time required for travel to the court and return to the employee's
headquarters.
10.5. Familv Medical Leave. Leave in accordance with the Federal Family and Medical
Leave Act and the Oregon Family Medical Leave Act shall be granted to
employees eligible under those acts and for the purposes described in those
acts. Leave may be unpaid or paid as provided in these acts.
10.6. Military Leave. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with ORS 408.290.
10.7. Failure to Return from Leave. Any employee who is granted a leave of absence
and who, for any reason, fails to return to work at the expiration of said leave of
absence, shall be considered as having resigned their position with the city, and
the position shall be declared vacated; except and unless the employee, prior to
the expiration of the leave of absence, has furnished evidence of not being able
to work by reason of sickness, physical disability or other legitimate reason
beyond the employee's control.
PAGE 10-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
,------..- ----------- --~- --..---.--
11. Discipline and Discharae. The following section applies only to those employees
subject to this resolution who do not have a written individual employment agreement
with the city. .
11.1. Discipline. The city shall abide by the legal requirements of due process prior to
taking disciplinary action. Disciplinary action may include the following:
(a) Oral reprimand
(b) Written reprimand
(c) Demotion
(d) Suspension
(e) Discharge
Disciplinary action may be imposed upon any employee for failing to fulfill
responsibilities as an employee. Conduct reflecting discredit upon the city or
department, or which is a direct hindrance to the effective performance of city
functions, shall be considered good cause for disciplinary action. Such cause
may also include misconduct, inefficiency, incompetence, insubordination,
misfeasance, the willful giving of false or confidential information, the withholding
of information with intent to deceive when making application for employment,
willful violation of departmental rules or this management resolution, commission
of any matter listed in AMC ~3.08.030.B or for political activities forbidden by
state law.
11.2. DischarQe. An employee having less than twelve months of continuous service
shall serve at the pleasure of the city. An employee having continuous service in
excess of twelve months shall be discharged only for cause.
11.3. Due Process. Due process procedures shall be followed before a suspension
without pay, demotion or discharge is imposed upon an employee.
Employees, other than those appointed by mayor and city council, may appeal a
suspension without pay, demotion or discharge to the city administrator. The city
administrator's decision shall be final.
12. Probationary Period.
12.1. New Emplovee Probationary Period. The probationary period is an integral part
of the employee selection process ar:td provides the city with the opportunity to
upgrade and improve the departments by observing a new employee's work,
training, aiding new employees in adjustment to their positions, and by providing
an opportunity to reject any employee whose work performance fails to meet
required work standards. Every new employee shall serve a minimum
probationary period of 12 months after which, upon recommendation of the
department head, the employee shall be considered a regular employee. The
probationary period may be extended upon request of the department head if an
adequate determination cannot be made at the end of the probationary period.
PAGE 11-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and ManagemenLConfidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
12.2. Promotional Probationary Period. An employee promoted into a management or
confidential position will be required to serve a six-month promotional
probationary period. The city may at any time demote an employee on
promotional probationary status to their previous position with or without cause.
13. General Provisions.
13.1. Non Discrimination. The provisions of this resolution shall be applied equally to
all employees without discrimination as to race, color, religion, marital status,
age, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability.
13.2. Other/Outside Emplovment. Outside employment shall be permitted only with
the express prior written approval of the department head or City Administrator.
Such written approval shall be documented in the employee's Personnel File.
The general principles to be followed by the City in permitting or restricting such
outside employment shall be:
1. The need for mentally and physically alert City employees;
2. Insulating employees from potential conflict of interest situations;
3. Maintaining efficiency unimpaired by other employment, particularly for
those city positions requiring employees to be available for duty 24 hours
a day. In the event that the above principles are violated, the department
head or City Administrator may revoke previously granted permission to
hold outside employment.
13.3. Worker's compensation. All employees will be insured under the provisions of
the Oregon State Workers' Compensation Act for injuries received while at work
for the city. Compensation paid by the city for a period of sick leave also covered
by workers' compensation shall be equal to the difference between the Workers'
compensation pay for lost time and the employee's regular pay rate.
13.4. Liabilitv Insurance. The city shall purchase liability insurance in the maximum
amounts set forth in ORS 30.270 for the protection of employees against claims
against them incurred in or arising out of the performance of their official duties.
14. Compensation
14.1. Pay Periods. Employees shall be paid on a bi-weekly basis, on every other
Friday. In the event a regularly scheduled pay date falls on a holiday, the
preceding workday shall be the pay date.
14.2. Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance
with the pay schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. When any
position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the City Administrator shall
PAGE 12-RESOlUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and ManagemenLConfidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
r
~-_.._-_._._----~---
designate a job classification and pay rate for the position. The City
Administrator shall have the authority to amend the salary scheduh~ as
necessary within budgetary constraints to meet the recruitment and operational
goals of the City. Such changes will be included in the official salary schedule
which is published and maintained by the Human Resource Deparltment.
Additional pay that is specific to individual performance such as longevity,
Acting-in-capacity, certification, or meritorious service pay is not included in the
base salary and will not be reflected in the published salary schedule.
14.3. Overtime. Exempt management employees are expected to devote whatever
time is necessary to accomplish their job. For all non-exempt employees, the city
has the right to assign overtime work as required in a manner most
advantageous to the city and consistent with the requirements of municipal
service and the public interest.
14.4. Form of Compensation. The City Administrator, City Attorney, department heads
and division supervisors are not eligible for paid overtime but are allowed
compensatory time off at their own discretion depending on the operating
requirements of the city. Mid-Level supervisors and confidential personnel shall
be compensated in the form of pay at the rate of time and one-half the regular
rate for overtime work or given equivalent time off at the option of the city. No
employee shall have more than 40 hours of compensatory time on the records at
any time.
14.5. Administration of Pay Plan. Employees shall be entitled to pay in accordance
with the current salary resolution. In the event of a vacancy, the City
Administrator may appoint a new employee at any appropriate step within the
pay range.
15. Health. Welfare and Retirement.
The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance
with Appendix "B" for employees subject to this resolution.
16. Compliance with FLSA.
This resolution shall be interpreted in a manner to preserve the exempt status of
the city's bona fide administrative, executive, and professional employees, as
those terms are used in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Such
exempt employees shall not have their pay docked or reduced in any manner
that would be inconsistent with the salary test set forth in the FLSA and they are
not subject to disciplinary suspensions of less than a week except for major
safety violations.
17. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective as of July 01 , 2006.
PAGE 13-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ~2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of July, 2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of July, 2006.
Alex Amarotico, Council Chair John Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Mike Franell, City Attorney
PAGE 14-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and ManagemenCConfidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
T~ -- _u_~n_ --~---_..
APPENDIX "A" Classifications in the Management and Confidential Employee Groups
City Administrator
Exempt
City Attorney
Police Chief
Exempt
Exempt
Electric Utility & TeleGoll1ll1LJRiGatieRs Director
Exempt
Administrative Services/Finance Director
Exempt
Fire Chief
Exempt
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Exempt
Information Technology Director
Exempt
Community Development Director
Exempt
Electric Operations Superintendent Exempt
Deputy Police Chief Exempt
eMS.lFire Division Chief Exempt
Human Resource Director Exempt
Public Works Superintendent Exempt
Telecommunications Engineer Exempt
Planning Manager Exempt
Engineering Services Manager Exempt
Water Plant Supervisor Exempt
AFN Operations Cable TV Manager Exempt
Network Administrator Exempt
Database Administrator Exempt
Management Analyst Exempt
Senior Planner Exempt
Building Official Exempt
Finance Division Manager Exempt
PAGE 15-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
1___ ~__..._.._...____.___m______.__.._.....__, ,--,_._--~ - ~
User Support Administrator
Assistant City Attorney
Exempt
Exempt
Project/Courts Manager
Exempt
Fire Inspector
Exempt
Senier Pr-ogFam Direeter
Exempt
Police Sergeant
FiFe IFIl~;J'}ector Pr:e':ention Omcer
Water Plant Supervisor
Water Quality Supervisor (Distribution)
Wastewater & Water Reuse Supervisor Water Quality S\'!J'}ervisor (Collection Plant)
Associate Engineer
GIS Analyst
Forest Resource Specialist
Non-Exempt
Non Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Maintenance Safety Supervisor
Non-Exempt
Street Supervisor
Non-Exempt
Police Administrative Services Manager
Non-Exempt
Police Accreditation & Training Manager
Non-Exempt
T elecommunications/Computer Technician
Legal Assistant/Claims Management
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
CONFIDENTIAL
Executive Secretary
Non-Exempt
Human Resource Assistant
Non-Exempt
Legal Secretary
Non-Exempt
Administrative Assistant/Secretary
Non-Exempt
Administrative Secretary
Non-Exempt
Secretary
Non-Exempt
PAGE 16-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
TO..
_._.__._-'_._--~._-~.
PAGE 17-RESOLUTlON
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
APPENDIX "B"
Health, Welfare, and Retirement Benefits
The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance with this
appendix for employees subject to this resolution.
1. Health Insurance.
A. Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical Plan V-A, UCR Vision and dental plan III for
employees and their eligible dependents. New employees will begin coverage
on the first day of the month after they are hired.
As of January 1, 2003, the City will pay 95% of the total monthly health premium,
with the employee paying the remaining 5% on a pre-tax basis.
B. Reimbursement for preventative/wellness medical costs as provided in the city's
Wellness Program.
2. Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities life insurance policy for each
employee at one times annual salary.
3. Dependent's Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities $1,000 life
insurance policy for each qualified dependent of an employee.
.
4. Salary Continuation Plan. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities Long Term
Disability Insurance.
5. Retirement. As required by law, the city will contribute to the Oregon State Public
Employees Retirement System for each employee. Enrollment will commence six
months from the date of employment for new employees, unless that person was in
PERS immediately before coming to work for the city. Upon retirement, one-half of
unused sick leave earned will be applied to retirement as provided in statute. The city
will also assume or pay the employees' contributions required by ORS 237.071 for
employees at a uniform rate of six percent.
PAGE 18-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
T ~
APPENDIX "B"
Health, Welfare & Retirement Benefits
Page: Two
6. Social Security. Contributions to Social Security as required by law.
7. Medical Insurance for Retirees. All employees retiring from city employment and their
eligible dependents will have the option of continued participation in the city's medical
insurance program at the same monthly group premium as active employees. The
retiree must be actively covered under the city's group plan at the time of retirement to
be eligible for continued retiree covera~t Retirees must make their health insurance
payment to the city on or before the 15 of the month prior to the covered month to
continue health coverage. The right to participate and medical coverage ceases when
the retiree or their eligible dependent(s) become Medicare-eligible at age 65.
Any employee retiring in a position covered by this resolution who has 15 or more years
of service and who is Medicare-eligible at the time of retirement, shall be provided with
Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/ Plan C, or equivalent plan selected by the city. The
city will pay the premium for the retiree. The retiree must have been participating in the
city's group plan at the time of retirement to be eligible for this benefit.
Early retirees who retire in a position covered by this resolution, and have 15 or more
years of service, and are at least age 60 at retirement shall receive a monthly check
equal to the amount paid for Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C, or equivalent plan
selected by the city, until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. The retiree must
elected continued retiree coverage under the city's group plan to be eligible for this
benefit. Once the retiree turns 65 and establishes Medicare eligibility, the city will pay
the premium directly to Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C or the equivalent plan
selected by the city, on the retiree's behalf.
8. Deferred Compensation. Deferred compensation in the amount of $30.00 per month in
matching funds per employee enrolled in a city deferred compensation program. This
program is at the option of the employee and contingent upon a minimum $15.00 per
month contribution paid by the employee.
PAGE 19-RESOLUTION
G:\City Policies\Union Contracts\Management and Management_Confidential\06 Management Resolution Updated 7.06.doc
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
501
6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Next 12 Monts
Step E - Thereafter
l ,'1,<, ~ ','.
A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
5051
,,,,~Ji(~':,,'
;<<~~~~"~~';~,,.
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
506
'''.:'.\~~-~~
.___:i::~,_"
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
509,
," _r:~j}~J~~:;~~'i~llli~~~!~~~il~<'
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
last Revised: 6/14106
o
r --
3% COLA
4% COLA
FOR 2006-2007
$50.9155
$53.4572
$55.5987
$57.8226
$60.1289
$41.0430
$42.6787
$44.3731
$39.4781
$41.0430
$42.6787
$44.3731
$39.4781
$41.0430
$42.6787
$44.3731
$39.4781
$41.0430
$42.6787
$44.3731
$41.0430
$42.6787
$44.3731
$39.4781
$41.0430
$42.6787
$44.3731
$41.0430
$42.6787
$44.3731
$39.4780
$41.0430
$42.6786
$44.3731
$8,825
$9,266
$9,637
$10,023
$10,422
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
j
$6,843
$7,114
$7,398
$7,691
Last Increase ADolied:
4% COLA all classilications
$52.9521
$55.5954
$57.8227
$60.1355
$62.5341
$41.0572
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$41.0572
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$41,0572
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$41.0572
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$41.0572
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$41.0572
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$42.6847
$44.3858
$46.1480
$9,178
$9,637
$10,023
$10,423
$10,839
$7,117 .7/1/04 Range made equal to all
$7,399 department heads when vacated
$7,694
$7,999
$7,117
$7,399
$7,694
$7,999
Title change 5/29/01
$7,117 Title Change 7/1/05
$7,399
$7,694
$7,999
$7,117
$7,399
$7,694
$7,999
. New Position - Range Create 3/06
$7,117
$7,399
$7,694
$7,999
$7,117 .3/1/03 Range increased to
$7,399 match dept. head range
$7,694
$7,999
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
MID-MGMT/SUPERVISORY CaNT...
3% COLA
4% COLA
FOR 2006-2007
511 J
-"ii>/.'".~
t"~lI~I~'!~)I:!!I~il~~II::;::::,;:,;" '"
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
503:
'.:~~~~
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
$35.0150
$36.4740
$37.9329
$39.4511
$34.8210
$36.2713
$37.7228
$39.2307
$6,069
$6,322
$6,575
$6,838
$6,036
$6,287
$6,539
$6,800
$36.4156
$37.9329
$39.4502
$41.0291
$36.2139
$37.7222
$39.2317
$40.7999
~,"l!i . Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
$6,312 to offset compression 7/1/04
$6,575
$6,838
$7,112
. Deputy Police Chief New
$6,277 position added 7/1/04.
$6,538 . Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
$6,8DO to offset compression 7/1/04
$7,072 Assitant Fire Chief/Fire
Marshal eliminated 7/1105
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
530 ~ '-l'~f.~~ilJt~~~~~irll'"
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Next 12 Months
Step E - Thereafter
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
Last Revised: 6/14106
o
$29.0396
$30.5724
$32.1764
$33.8756
$28.7188
$29.8594
$31.0357
$32.2715
$33.5624
$27.2738
$28.4102
$29.5466
$30.7218
$5,034
$5,299
$5,577
$5,871
$4,727
$4,924
$5,121
$5,325
Last Increase Aoolied:
4% COLA all classifications
$30.2012
$31.7953
$33.4635
$35.2306
$29.8675
$31.0538
$32.2772
$33.5624
$34.9049
$28.3648
$29.5466
$30.7285
$31.9507
Salary Ranges for Water Plant Supervisor and
Wastewater & Water Reuse Supervisor adjusted
to match Engineering Services Mgr range 1/1/06
$5,235
$5,511
$5,800
$6,107
, Added Step E 12/01
$5,177 7/1/06 Title Changed with
$5,383 elimination of CATV Services
$5,595
$5,817
$6,050
. Administrative Svcs/HR Mgr added 7/22/02,
reclassifed to HR Director 7/1/04
.07/01/02 Building Official range
$5,025 made equivalent to Senior Planner
$5,234 . Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
$5,443 to offset compression 7/1104
$5,660
$4,917 . Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
$5,121 to offset compression 7/1/04
$5,326
$5,538
2
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
MID-MGMT.lSUPERVISORY CO NT..
3% COLA
FOR 2006-2007
4% COLA
"Title Change effective 7/1/04
$4,363 $26.1809 $4,538 From Fire Protection/Plans Examiner
$4,581 $27.4859 $4,764 Based on changes to job duties
$4,810 $28.8608 $5,003
$5,050 $30.2994 $5,252
$5,302 $31.8143 $5,514
$4,645 $4,831 "Includes a 3% COLA + additional adj.
$4,839 $29.0337 $5,032 to offset compression issues 7/1/04
$5,032 $30.1950 $5,234
$5,232 $31.3945 $5,442
"New position added 4/17/00
$4,321 $25.9255
$4,492 $26.9513 $4,672
$4,671 $28.0263 $4,858
$4,856 $29.1385 $5,051
"Gis Analyst added 2/04
$3,804 $22.8237 $3,956 "Forest Resource Specialist
$3,992 $23.9528 $4,152 added 7/1/06
$4,194 $25.1668 $4,362
$4,405 $26.4293 $4,581
$4,623 $27.7405 $4,808
$4,070 $24.4180
$4,230 $25.3818
$4,401 $26.4075
$4,576 $27.4579
.~...~...
~'::.~':;":;,,,:i
"tI,:i ", . .)'"1,.'_..'h!K_t...'
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Next 12 Months
Step E - Thereafter
$25.1740
$26.4287
$27.7507
$29.1340
$30.5907
6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Thereafter
$26.7999
$27.9170
$29.0337
$30.1870
6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Thereafter
$24.9284
$25.9147
$26.9484
$28.0178
..~
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Next 12 Months
Step E - Thereafter
$21.9459
$23.0315
$24.1988
$25.4128
$26.6736
_".(lIltl l.~~'~f:t~
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Thereafter
$24.4056
$25.3918
$26.4018
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step 0 - Thereafter
$23.4788
$24.4056
$25.3918
$26.4018
Last Revised: 6/14106
o
$4,070
$4,230
$4,401
$4,576
"7/1/03 Title Change from Communications
Supervisor to AccreditationlTraining Mgr.
$4,232
$4,400 *7/1102 Communications Supervisor
$4,577 salary range made equivalent to
$4,759 Police Admin Services Mgr.
$24.4180
$25.3818
$26.4075
$27.4579
Last Increase ADolied:
4% COLA all classifications
3
"T-n --
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
FOR 2006-2007
MID-MGMT/SUPERVISORY CONT..
4081
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
$27.8728
$29.0342
$30.1955
$31.3992
6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
$24.9284
$25.9147
$26.9484
$28.0178
5461.
.. ~.,t!~~ .$
$19.8463
$20.6383
$21.4635
$22.3220
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Next 12 Months
CONFIDENTIAL
$4,831
$5,033
$5,234
$5,443
$4,492
$4,671
$4,856
$3,440
$3,577
$3,720
$3,869
3% COLA
$28.9877
$30.1956
$31.4033
$32.6552
. New position added 8/1103
$5,025 Salary Range adj. 7/1/05
$5,234
$5,443
$5,660
$25.9255
$26.9513
$28.0263
$29.1385
Salary Range adj. 7/1/05
$4,494
$4,672
$4,858
$5,051
$20.6401
$21.4638
$22.3220
$23.2149
. Legal Assistant/Claims
$3,578 Management Reclassified
$3,720 10/1/2002;
$3,869 Title change to Claims Manager 2/06
$4,024
4% COLA
536
545
534 . Position Reclassifed;
Step A - First 6 Months $14.6004 . $2,531 $15.1844 $2,632 range decreased 10/01/01
Step B - Next 12 Months $15.3349 $2,658 $15.9483 $2,764 . Legal Secretary Added
Step C - Next 12 Months $16.0999 $2,791 $16.7438 $2,902 12/5/2002
Step D - Next 12 Months $16.8891 $2,927 $17.5646 $3,045
Step E - Thereafter $17.7268 $3,072 $18.4359 $3,196
A - First 6 Months $2,355 $14.1317 $2,449
Step B - Next 12 Months $14.2609 $2,472 $14.8313 $2,571
Step C - Next 12 Months $14.9580 $2,593 $15.5563 $2,696
Step D - Next 12 Months $15.7041 $2,722 $16.3323 $2,831
Step E - Thereafter $16.4868 $2,858 $17.1463 $2,972
",m:
Step A - First 6 Months $11.7658 $2,039 $12.2365 $2,121
Step B - Next 12 Months $12.3407 $2,139 $12.8343 $2,225
Step C - Next 12 Months $12.9644 $2,247 $13.4830 $2,337
Step D - Next 12 Months $13.6004 $2,357 $14.1444 $2,452
Step E - Thereafter $14.2609 $2,472 $14.8313 $2,571
ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Recorder
.Ct~.i_.,
Municipal Judge
.,.'~.
q"..~
3.59% COLA calculated per
City Charter
PLEASE NOTE: Hourly rates are accurate to 4 decimal places. A monthly wage is provided
as an approximate salary, but actual monthly earnings may differ from those quoted above.
Last Revised: 6/14106
o
Last Increase Aoolied:
4% COLA all classifications
"-,--- -----.-----
5.10% COLA calculated per
City Charter
4
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE
JUNE 20, 2006
COUNCIL MEETING.
1. - ..._._._--~-
?A.
')..(')()~-OO'J.'6?-
6y-n\ ~+~
&'n\b~ \
E.'l~\~\.\-~
----
,..---
"';......./~
~--
.-------
~...... - . /""'~.--
BL\\\ 'tit L\
~~\\\b,*
'5
j
~. ii-:B ~;0
.# f."
r~
I
I
I
r
}'.:-.
:.t
j
,;
l' -I
1 "": ~i-{
I
[
f
i
.
c
.........
"-..: '"
......:"-..... -.
... "
...
.... ".1
..
,.
"
,
I
I
,--