Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
2007-0717 Council Mtg Packet
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0717 Council Mtg Packet
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit
written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed.
Except for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public
participation. If you wish to speak, please fiU out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers.
The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the aJl1Qu~t 6ftime allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, thenurnber of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
July 17, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session to discuss: pending litigation pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h), and
employment of public officers, employees and agents pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a).
6:45 p.m. Annual General Meeting for Hospital Board and City Council
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES [5 minutes]
1. Executive Session meeting minutes of June 8, 2007
2. Continued Regular Session meeting minutes of June 8, 2007
3. Executive Session meeting minutes of June 15, 2007
4. Executive Session meeting minutes of June 19, 2007
5. Regular Council meeting minutes of June 19, 2007
6. Executive Session meeting minutes of June 27,2007
7. Special Meeting minutes of June 27, 2007
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Update on Status of Oregon Shakespeare Festival "bricks"
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Intergovernmental Agreement - City of Medford Building Department
3. Approval of Grant Distribution Greater than $75,000 (OSF)
4. Appointment to Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors
5. Approval of Sole Source Two Public Contrac};> with Hunte~Communication~D ta and
Radio Fiber Optic Network Services -- bdJ J fJ tf(l01M .
6. Expansion of Sanitary Sewer Service at the ASh1lanf~ort f Entry Il ~ -.....
7. Approval of Public Contract Greater thqJl$75,000 Janitorial Service - Pathways
Enterprises, Inc (QRF) ------___________.... /> /I " , .
8. Approval of the Fiscal ar 200~ree=~nt ~th RVTD -c-~) fULU1 ifYl ~d
CUI 'M~ll \1LiDT-.JC;S ARE BROADCAST LlVL 0:\ CIL\NNLL ()
VISIT ITIL (TI Y (JI. X)l!L;\ND'S WLB Slll:;\ I \V\V\V.i\SJ!L\ND,UR.US
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject
of a Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 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 Exempting from Competitive Bidding for the Ashland Solar
Pioneer II Photovoltaic System
2. Public Hearing to consider and Appeal of Planning Action 2006-01784 - Request for a
Physical Constraints Review Permit for Development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway,
regrade a portion of Grandview Drive and extend utilities to serve a single-family
residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less,
depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. NFINISHED BUSINESS
Prioritize Desired Library Services [15 Minutes]
City Attorney Recruitment Process Update [10 Minutes] / I
J., LUBA 2007-113 (Deliberation only) PA 2006-02354 [10 Minutes] g: 7/)1
t&J Adoption of 2007 City Council Goals
5. Follow up on items related to Mt. Ashland
6. County rural use ordinance comments
XI. W AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
(1. 1 Renewal of Cooperative Marketing Agreement with the Bonneville Environmental
V Foundation for the Sale of Green Tags [5 Minutes]
2. Approval of Sole-Source Procurement Greater than $75,000 - Cable Modem Termination
System Please Note: staff report will be provided ASAP.
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for
Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2007-2008"
2. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City of Ashland Clarifying Certain
Conditions of Employment for Management and Confidential Employees and Repealing
Resolution 2006-16 and 2006-20"
3. First Reading ~ title only of and Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland gJd-1J ^ 1
Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Conversion of Extisting Rentals into U
For-Purchase Housing in Multi-Family Zoning Districts"
4. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC
3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected
Officials"
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XIV. 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).
VlSrl I HF~ Cl'r\' or.' ASHLAND'S Wl:B Sll L;\ r \\'W\V;\Sl!!.ANDJ)JUJS
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL AIEETING
JUNE 8. :;007
PAGE I of I
MINUTES FOR THE CONTINUED REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 8, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Mayor Morrison called the continued meeting of June 5, 2007 to order at 1 :34 p.m. in the Civic Center Jury
Room.
Councilor Jackson, Chapman, Silbiger, Navickas, and Hardesty were present. Councilor Hartzell was absent.
Mayor and council immediately recessed into an Executive Session in order to discuss pending litigation
pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h) and employment of a city official pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a).
There was no further action by council after returning into Regular session from the Executive Session.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Martha Bennett, City Administrator
John W. Morrison, Mayor
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL iHEET/NG
JUNE 19, 2007
PAGE 1 0(8
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASlll.,AND CITY COUNCIL
June 19, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Silbiger called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hardesty, Chapman and Navickas were present. Councilor Jackson arrived at 7:08 p.m.
Councilor Hartzell arrived at 7: 10 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Executive Session meeting of June 1, 2007, and Executive Session and Regular Meeting
minutes of June 5, 2007 were approved as presented.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
2. Liquor License Application - Vic's Mongolian BBQ.
3. Appointment to Historic Commission.
4. Intergovernmental Agreement - Oregon Building Codes Division.
5. Approval of ODOT Local Agency Agreement No. 23719 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Grant - Diesel Retrofit.
6. Designation of Finance Director to Execute Documents Required to Close Sale of Lot #103,
Strawberry Lane.
Councilor Chapman/Hardesty mls to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing to Consider Utility Rate Increases.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report and provided the proposed
increases for the Water, Wastewater, Street Fund, Transportation and Storm Drain fees. The key issues on all
of the areas were noted and a comparison table that indicated the impact on a "typical" house was also
provided.
Mr. Tuneberg summarized the proposal and noted the FY 2006-07 budget was adopted with increases
contingent upon more review and need, the Electric Fund increase and surchage decrease was deferred to
January 2008, and no increases have been done in FY 2006-07. He stated the base revenues for FY 2007-08
were accepted with budget increases equal to 6.7% and the proposed increases would be less than 3.5% a
month (which is approximately $5.89 depending on water use).
Mr. Tuneberg clarified that all departments made various adjustments within their budgets to accommodate
the Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) debt. He also provided a brief update on the progress of the Street
Financing Task Force and stated they should have a report ready to submit to the Council by October.
Mr. Tuneberg commented on the issues raised last night at the Study Session meeting, including adding
additional tiers, creating a larger change between the tiers, programs available for low income assistance, and
the role of conservation. He explained that a rate redesign is difficult to do "on the fly" and noted the need for
0" r
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL ;\1EET/NG
JUNE 19, 2007
PAGE:: o(S
better information to accomplish this. He suggested a professional be brought in to do a proper study of the
rates and rate structures, and to perform the rate modeling. In regards to the low income and senior assistance
programs, Mr. Tuneberg stated the Council could decide to loosen the requirements for participation. He also
commented on the transportation fee exemption for churches and places of worship. It was explained that
some of these accounts do have residential fees associated, however the building of worship itself is
exempted. Mr. Tuneberg stated the Council could decide to change this exemption, but recommended against
it until a more thorough review is performed.
Mr. Tuneberg commented on the possibility of postponing the Street Fund increase until the Street Financing
Task Force has completed their work. He suggested that if the Council decides to wait, that they not repeal the
1999 resolution and authorize staff to use the ENR adjustment.
Public Hearin2 Open: 7:44 p.m.
Brice Brandt/280 Meadow Drive/Questioned the discussion on the increase of rates and why the Ashland
Fiber Network (AFN) is not listed as a separate department in the budget. He asked that the Council pay down
the AFN debt and not take on any new projects until this debt is paid off.
Public Hearin2 Closed: 7:47 p.m.
Mr. Tuneberg explained the budget process and how the budget is based on revenue streams (ie: rate
increases). He noted the City has gone 15 months without any rate increases and explained if the City does not
keep up on the maintenance of the streets, waterlines, and infrastructure, it will cost a great deal more in the
future when something fails. He also noted that the AFN debt was shared City wide, AFN is contributing
towards the debt, and AFN is a separate department.
2. Public Hearing Regarding Conversion of Existing Rentals into For-Purchase Housing in Multi-
Zoning.
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman presented the staff report and background on the proposed
ordinance. He explained staff drafted the ordinance based on direction from the Council and an ad-hoc
committee made up of Planning and Housing Commissioners. He stated there was general consensus that the
sliding scale method was a creative means of achieving both rental and affordable housing. Mr. Goldman
stated the Housing Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and made no motion, but provided clear
consensus that the methodology proposed had merit and accomplished the intended goals. He explained the
Planning Commission also reviewed the ordinance, however voted 5-2 to recommend that the Council not
take action and not adopt the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Goldman commented on the ordinance and how it differs from the previously proposed and existing
ordinances. He explained the existing ordinance has a flat requirement that if an owner converts
condominiums into for purchase housing, at least 25% of those units need to be affordable; and the only
limiter is that these units be occupied by households that earn 80% median income or less. Mr. Goldman
noted the proposed ordinance states that such a conversion would be a permitted use within the zone and no
longer a conditional use. Additionally, affordable housing units would no longer be required, but would
rather be provided in trade for relief from non-conformities. If no relief for non-conformities is requested, the
project could proceed if a percentage of the units are retained as market rate rentals.
Mr. Goldman stated it is staffs opinion that the ordinance as drafted serves the stated goal in providing an
incentive base for the inclusion of affordable housing. He stated the ordinance creates more affordable
housing than the existing ordinance and provides market rate rental housing, which the existing ordinance
does not provide for. Mr. Goldman noted a conversion where all units go to ownership would still be allowed
0' r
ASJ/LAND CITY COUNCIL /\4EETING
JUNE /9. 2Um
PAGE 30(8
for complexes that are four units or less, and stated in the event a four unit complex sought relief from non-
conformities, their 25% affordability would be met by providing one ownership unit targeted at 80% AMI.
Mr. Goldman addressed the concern of whether staff would be able to manage the eligibility criteria and stated
that depending on the number of deed restricted affordable units; it may become prudent for the City to
consider contracting out the income verification process.
Public Hearin2 Open: 8:11 p.m.
Devian Aguirre/2305 Ashland Street #C446/Stated the ordinance is a step in the right direction, but
believes the lack of a comprehensive affordable housing policy will exacerbate the condition of the lack of
focus of affordable housing. Ms. Aguirre expressed concern that including specific demands will further
contribute to the micromanagement of an issue that has not yet been addressed in a bigger forum. She
commented that conversion of apartments is one of the ways apartment complex owners generate revenues to
conduct refurbishing of the property and also provides opportunity to first time homebuyers. She stated these
conversions serve a purpose and cautioned the Council not to act too quickly and to look at this ordinance as
one piece of the pie.
Bill Street/180 Meade StreetlThinks this is modest proposal and it tries to stop the loss of rental housing and
affordable housing in Ashland. Mr. Street stated the proposed ordinance creates a methodology that is easy to
apply, provides a sliding scale, and addresses the needs of those who own small rental complexes in town. He
recommended the Council act now and voiced support for moving forward with this ordinance.
Public Hearin2 Closed: 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Goldman clarified he views the Housing Action Plan as the guiding document for affordable housing.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls to approve first reading and place on the next Council meeting's
agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman voiced concern that the ordinance did not
receive approval from the Planning Commission. Councilor Navickas voiced his support for the motion. He
stated this is something the community needs and stated the Council should support it. Councilor Jackson
commented that this is a creative approach, but questioned if the ordinance would address the problem.
Councilor Hartzell encouraged the Council to approve this ordinance tonight, and if necessary come back
with modifications to alleviate any concerns. Councilor Navickas encouraged the Planning Commission to
forward their concerns to the Council and stated it is in their best interest to allow the Mayor to participate in
this discussion when he returns.
Councilor Navickas/Jackson mls to continue this issue to the July 17, 2007 Council Meeting.
DISCUSSION: City Administrator Martha Bennett voiced concern that the Council may not be able to get to
this item at the July 17 meeting due to the land use hearing. Councilors Chapman and Hardesty indicated they
would be not be present at the August meeting in the event this issue does not get resolved at the July meeting.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson, and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Chapman and
Navickas, NO. Motion passed 3-2.
PUBLIC FORUM (None)
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
Council Chair Silbiger opened discussion of the Utility Rate resolutions. He commented that the rate
increases were included in the 2006-07 adopted budget, and were also discussed and incorporated in the 2007-
08 budget. He noted the possibility of postponing the transportation rate increase until the Street Task Force
p r
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL /"!EETlNG
JUNE /9, 2007
PAGE 4 of'8
Committee completed their work, but voiced support for passing the remainder of the rate increases. He also
suggested the Street Task Force report on whether their process was successful, and if so, Council could
consider doing the same thing with the other rates.
Councilor Hardesty voiced support for a task force to look at the other rates. She stated the task force could
look into promoting conversation and fairness, as well as reviewing the low income program and making it
more effective.
1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution adopting a transportation utility rate schedule
pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.26.020 and repealing Resolution 1999-31."
Councilor HartzelVJackson m/s to approve Resolution #2007-21. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson
noted there are two versions of the resolution in the meeting materials. Mr. Tuneberg clarified staffs
recommendation is for the 15% increase, which is included in the resolution motioned for adoption.
Councilor Navickas stated he would like to see some rate restructuring or at least some discussion of this
before he is willing to approve the resolution. Councilor Hartzell noted that if this resolution does not pass,
they will be faced with the challenge of making cuts to the budget. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell,
Chapman, Jackson, Hardesty, and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
2. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution adopting a storm drain utility rate schedule pursuant
to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.27.050 and repealing Resolution 1999-32."
Councilor HartzelVChapman m/s to approve Resolution #2007-22. DISCUSSION: Mr. Tuneberg
clarified there were two versions of this resolution as well. Councilor Hartzell clarified her intention is to
approve the 50% rate increase. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, Hardesty and
Hartzell, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Council discussed the possibilities of forming a task force and conducting a rate study. Councilor Hartzell
voiced support for adopting the remainder of the proposed resolutions. She stated conducting a rate study
would cost the City money and has not been budgeted for, and recommended this be placed in next year's
budget. Councilor Jackson voiced support for adopting the remainder of the resolutions, but would also like
staff to look into the formation of a task force. Councilor Hartzell encouraged staff to come back in the next
few months with some scenarios on how to accomplish the goals expressed by Councilor Hardesty in a cost
effective way and some strategies on how to get there, but not necessarily tied to a task force. Councilor
Hardesty stated a small task force to meet with staff may be a good way to begin. Mr. Tuneberg voiced support
for Councilor Hartzell's suggestion for staff to bring back some strategies.
Councilor Hardesty/Jackson m/s to direct staff to bring back a strategy to the Council within the next
three months on rate restructuring, including recommendations for citizen involvement.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman stated he does not want to specifically state they are going to do a rate
restructuring.
Councilor Silbiger/Hartzell m/s to amend motion to read "possible rate restructuring". DISCUSSION:
Councilor Hardesty commented that the amendment is not necessary since they were only asking staffto bring
back a strategy. Councilor Hartzell noted the amendment makes their intent clear. Councilor Navickas
requested that any councilor who does not support a possible rate restructure vote 'no' on the motion so that
staff does not have to perform any unnecessary work. Voice Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Silbiger, Chapman,
Navickas and Jackson, YES. Councilor Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Voice Vote on Amended Motion: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
.. r
ASHLAND CITY COUNCn ;\,fEET/NG
JUNE /9. 2007
PAGE 50(8
3. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution revising rates for water service pursuant to Ashland
Municipal Code Section 14.04.030 and repealing Resolution 2005-23."
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2007-23. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell,
Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
4. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution revising rates for wastewater service pursuant to
Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.035 and repealing Resolution 2005-24."
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2007-24. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell,
Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
5. Second Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1,
2007 to and Including June 30,2008, Such Taxes in the Sum of $11,314,046 Upon All the Real and
Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of
Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon."
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to approve Ordinance #2940. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson,
Hardesty, Silbiger, Navickas, Hartzell and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Repealing Resolution 2007-18 and Adopting the
Annual Budget and Making Appropriations."
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to approve Resolution #2007-25. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty,
Hartzell, Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
7. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election
Held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on May 15,2007."
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2007-26. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell,
Jackson, Navickas, Chapman, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
8. Proclamation regarding the Special Election held in the City of Ashland, Oregon, on the 15th of
May 2007.
Councilor Jackson/Harztell m/s to approve Proclamation. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas,
Hartzell, Chapman, Silbiger, Jackson and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Councilor Hardesty/Navickas m/s to reconsider the Council's vote from the June 5, 2007 Council
Meeting to extend sewer service to 2995 Hwy 66. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty commented on the
property owner's plans to develop the site with several new building and noted the sewer service could be
extended to those new buildings. She stated when Council voted on this issue at their last meeting, it was her
understanding that service would only be extended to the existing buildings.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen restated the motion from the June 5, 2007 Council Meeting:
"Approve the request for sewer connection so long as the owner agrees to meet the site design criteria
prior to annexation; and to stipulate that the tanks either be removed or filled, but in someway
stabilized so to not pollute and that the number of toilets be held to nine."
DISCUSSION (Cont.): Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello noted the property owner's proposed plan
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL iHEE7JNG
JUNE /9, 20m
PAGE (j or8
to build five new buildings, which was referenced in the Council Communication, and commented on the
provision in the Ashland Municipal Code regarding replacement buildings. He clarified if the property owner
wishes to connect the new buildings to the City's sewer system, the Public Works Director would have to
determine whether the replacement buildings generate any greater impact to the system. Mr. Appicello added
the Council could clarify that if and when there are new buildings, that this determination be made by the
Council instead of staff. Councilor Jackson questioned why they needed to reconsider since the first motion
limited the number of toilets that can be connected to the City' system. Councilor Navickas voiced his concern
that this is not the right way to go about development of properties within the Urban Growth Boundary. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, and Navickas, YES. Councilor Jackson, Chapman, and
Silbiger, NO. Motion fails 3-3.
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to direct the Public Works Director to inform the Council when the
property owner moves forward with additional buildings on site. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty,
Hartzell, Silbiger, and Navickas, YES. Councilor Jackson and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
2. Discussion of RVTD Funding and Priorities.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer noted the Study Session that was held on this issue and the nine different
options that were presented. She stated staff's recommendations are to: 1) Stay with the current RVTD fare
subsidy, and 2) Place a cap on the amount used to subsidize the fare and use the remaining amount of budgeted
funds to hire a transit planning consultant. She requested Council provide direction to staff so that a new
contract with R VTD can be prepared and brought back for Council approval.
Councilor Chapman voiced support for placing a cap and doing the same as they did last year, however he
voiced his opposition to hiring a consultant until it is clear what the consultant would do.
Councilor Hartzell commented on increasing the ridership levels and suggested they look into putting some
money aside for high school students in need of fare assistance.
RVTD General Manager Julie Brown addressed the Council and briefly commented on their limitations under
ADA. She also suggested the City consider doing a survey instead of hiring a consultant.
Councilor Navickas voiced his support for the hiring of a consultant and stated there are a lot of different
options that the consultant could evaluate.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to approve staff recommendation Option 4, Option 9 and the pursuit
of Options 6, 7, and 8 as outlined, with the addition of $2,000 for youth passes and $1,000 for senior
passes to be administrated through the Ashland High School and the Ashland Senior Program.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell commented that this would be a way to get people back on the bus who
need it. Councilor Chapman stated that without knowing the need, this may be a "shot in the dark". Voice
Vote: Councilors Jackson, Hartzell, Silbiger, Navickas and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Chapman, No.
Motion passed 5-1.
3. Reconsideration of Vote regarding Adoption of findings for Planning Action 2006-02354, Kistler.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello advised the Council to take this item off the agenda and not take
action on it tonight. He explained he would file a motion at LUBA and return to Council for reconsideration;
and asked that the Council not engage in any ex parte communications during the interim.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to differ this item to a future agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
AS'HL4ND CITY COUNCiL A4EETlNG
JUNE 19, 20117
PAGE 70(8
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Councilors Jackson,
Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty and Navickas, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
3. Re-Affirmation of Resolution No. 2007-17 Adopting Findings for the Nevada Street LID.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello noted that staff had asked that the effective date for the Nevada
Street resolution be delayed until the Findings could be revised. He stated the Findings are now complete and
before Council for approval and requested Council reaffirm the resolution and adopt the findings.
Councilor Jackson/Hardesty m/s to reaffirm Resolution #2007-17 and adopt the Findings. Roll Call
Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas, Chapman, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO.
Motion passed 5-1.
5. Mt Ashland - Timber Settlement Sale Purchaser Decision and Related Items.
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained there are two issues before Council tonight. The first is a
decision regarding a draft letter to be sent to the United States Forest Service (USFS) authorizing the USFS
Timber Settlement Sale Contract be authorized with Mt. Ashland Association as the "Name of Purchaser".
Ms. Bennett explained this would be a departure from what has been done before, but noted the letter is
drafted to express the concerns that were expressed in the 2005 Resolution and asks that the Forest Service
continue to support the activities the Council set forth in the resolution.
Ms. Bennett stated the second issue before Council is regarding the Quality Assurance Quality Control
(QAlQC) Team. She noted Council's previous motion to appoint an advisory committee that included two
members of the City Council, two members of the Mt. Ashland Association Board, and two citizen members.
She noted the function identified for this group and requested Council's input as to whether this is still the
direction in which they would like to proceed. Ms. Bennett also questioned if they would like to appoint this
committee prior to or during the RFP process.
Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer StreetIVoiced concern with how much time the Council has worked on this in
Executive Session and in mediation session. He stated the public has not been involved in this and has not
been made aware of where the Council is on this matter. Mr. Copeland voiced concern with the lack of public
input and stated there are qualified experts in this region who could comment and provide input that would
improve the RFP. He also voiced concern with Mt. Ashland Association being responsible for the selection of
the QAlQC Team. Mr. Copeland recommended the Council: I) postpone the timber settlement sale contract
until they have the restoration fund reset, 2) reaffirm their commitment to the principles of the 2005
resolution, including the business plan and restoration fund, and 3) have the RFP postponed until public input
has been provided.
Councilor Jackson clarified the Council has had to discuss this issue during Executive Session due to the
pending litigation. She also commented that if they delay the settlement sale, they will have breached the lease
agreement with Mt. Ashland Association and will be taken to court, and voiced support for sending the letter
to the Forest Service.
Councilor Hartzell noted she had submitted suggested changes to the draft letter and briefly reviewed her
proposed modifications.
Councilor Navickas commented that action does not need to be taken at this time and stated the Council needs
to make a firm stand that until the resolution is met, they will not release the timber sale. He recommended the
Council submit a letter to the Forest Service stating they will maintain the directive through the City, and also
send a letter to Mt. Ashland Association indicating they will not move forward with this until they have an
agreement on the 2005 resolution. He added that this is not about stopping the expansion, it is about
.. r
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL iHEET/NG
JUNE /9, 20(}7
PAGE 8 0(8
protecting the City from liability.
Councilor Jackson noted that the letter clearly states the City is not convinced the $200,000 amount is
sufficient to cover restoration costs. She stated this letter to the Forest Service would keep the City moving
forward in reaching an agreement on the restoration value and the QAlQC Team.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve the letter as drafted with the revision to paragraph two,
sentence one; the spelling correction; and changing the word "two-hundred thousand dollar bond" to
"surety bond". DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty expressed concern that if they send this letter it gives
Mt. Ashland Association permission to cut the timber. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Silbiger, Chapman and
Jackson, YES. Councilors Hartzell, Hardesty and Navickas, NO. Motion fails 3-3.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Draft Ballot Measure Interim Funding for Ashland Public Library.
Item delayed due to time constraints.
2. AFN Retailer (ISP) Agreement.
Item pulled for future Council Meeting.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS-continued
9. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland
Municipal Code, Chapter 2.12, City Planning Commission."
Item delayed due to time constraints.
10. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To
Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials."
Item postponed to the July 17, 2007 Council Meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. First Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Supporting the Employee Free Choice Act."
Item delayed due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Russ Silbiger, Council Chair
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL AIEETING
JUNE 27.2007
PAGE I of5
MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 27, 2007
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
Councilor Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman were present. Councilor Jackson arrived at
7:06 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing on a Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations
within the 2006-2007 Budget.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report on the proposed budget
supplemental.
Public Hearin2 Open: 7:04 p.m.
Public Hearin2 Closed: 7:04 p.m.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to approve Resolution #2007-27. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty,
Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Jackson was absent during the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Transferring Appropriations Within the 2006-2007
Budget."
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report on the proposed transfer of
appropriations. He explained that the transfer of appropriations are being done to avoid any budget violations
and is erring on the safe side. He noted the different departments where the transfers are needed and made
clarifications on the transfer from contingency for the City Recorders Office and the Fire Department.
Councilor Navickas/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2007-28. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
Calling a Special Election to Submit to the Voters a Funding Initiative to Levy up to $.58 per $1000
Assessed Property Value for the Purpose of Operating the Ashland Public Library for a Period of
Two Years."
City Administrator Martha Bennett presented revised language for the proposed library levy. She explained
that under this proposal, the levy would be up to $0.58 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value and
highlighted the minimum proposed library services. Ms. Bennett explained the City would negotiate a base
contract with the County through an intergovernmental agreement and expects a Request for Proposal by the
end of July for contract services.
Ms. Bennett continued to clarify the proposed library services and base contract for the facilities. She
explained the decision for who is going to maintain the building needs to be resolved, and that this could be
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL A1EETING
JUNE 27, :l007
PAGE 2 of5
done through a negotiated contract
It was suggested that the Summary be changed to replace the language "receives federal funding for the
library" with "reopens the Ashland library",
Council briefly discussed whether to include firm numbers and if the hours of operation should be specified in
the language.
Bronson Fitzgerald/248 N 2nd Street/Expressed his appreciation for the City proposing to keep the libraries
open.
Amy Blossom/140 Susan Lane/Spoke on behalf of a large number of people who want to express their
appreciation to the City for proposing to keep the libraries open by placing this before the voters. She noted
appreciation on the cooperative effort with the school districts, and agreed that the wQrd "federal" should be
removed from the ballot language. Ms. Blossom invited the community to attend Monday night meetings
beginning in July to discuss library issues.
Josh Gordon/945 Cedar Way/Presented suggested language for the proposed ballot measure, raised concern
with reducing services too far, and urged the Council to be forward looking when considering services.
Council discussed the proposed language change "reopens the Ashland Library." Ms. Bennett stated the
problem of turning the library back over to the County cannot be dealt with by this measure and would need to
be dealt with through an intergovernmental contract She noted her concern is that because the County is
supporting the opening of the libraries by the local jurisdictions, they and are not feeling the pressure to open
the libraries themselves.
It was suggested that more information be presented in the explanatory statement that is clear on when the tax
would be levied. Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that he understood what needed to be in
the explanatory statement Ms. Bennett noted her concern that the County may shift future dollars from
Ashland to other jurisdictions if this levy passes. She stated that this needs to be controlled through the
Intergovernmental Agreement rather than through the explanatory statement She also clarified the City
would not levy this assessment if the County approves an assessment
Council reached consensus to deal with the concerns raised through the Intergovernmental Agreement Ms.
Bennett offered to add more clarity to the explanatory statement, but noted that there is no more room in the
summary of the ballot measure to elaborate. Staff was directed to work with the summary statement to reflect
the concerns raised while keeping within the word limitations.
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2007-29. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson,
Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Hartzell requested that before negotiations are entered into with the County that a cost benefit
analysis be completed on the City assuming ownership of the library. Council raised concern with
privatization issues and Mayor Morrison suggested that Councilor Hartzell discuss her issues further with
staff.
2. Selection of Facilitator for Council Goal Setting.
City Administrator Martha Bennett presented the facilitators and recommended Caryn Tilton. Council
discussed what they wanted to accomplish through this process and concern was raised that Ms. Tilton's
proposed process was too involved.
CiTY COUNCiL SPECiAL MEETiNG
JUNE 27. :;007
PAGE 3 of5
Council reached consensus to secure Jon Lange to facilitate their goal setting session.
3. Mt. Ashland QA/QC Team.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to take this topic into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation
pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h). Motion was withdrawn.
Council discussed how to proceed and what could be discussed in Executive Session.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to hear from the public and then move into Executive Session
pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h). Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, Navickas and Chapman,
YES. Councilor Silbiger and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Suzanne Frey/l042 Oak Knoll Drive/Asked Council to not take actions that would be an interference with
the expansion or a violation of the lease agreement. She also requested the Council not spend public funds
and tax dollars on unnecessary lawsuits and legal fees. Ms. Frey stated the substantive issues are
environmental and will be decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She asked the Council to act in a
responsible way and reminded them that there is considerable community support for the expansion.
Allen Baker/l042 Oak Knoll DriveNoiced concern with the amount of money the City is spending on
lawyers to fight Mt. Ashland and commented on other needs this money could be used for. Mr. Baker urged
the Council to allow the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to make the decision and to stop spending money on
this.
Steve Pierce/700 Butler Creek Road/Stated the City is spending too much money on this and suggested they
treat Mt. Ashland Association as they would the Oregon Shakespeare Festival or the Ashland Community
Hospital. Mr. Butler asked the Council to allow the professionals at Mt. Ashland to "run the show" and to
allow them to proceed without further interference.
Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer StreetlRecommended the City resolve its relationship with Mt. Ashland
Association before they rush ahead with expediting a timber contract. He reminded the Council that the ski
area only plans to cut timber this year and do not plan to take further action until next year. Mr. Copeland
asked the Council to not rush into things with a false sense of urgency and asked that they allow the Courts to
make the decision.
Council moved into Executive Session at 8:23 p.m.
Council returned from Executive Session at 9:33 p.m. and continued the Special Meeting.
Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to direct staffto draft two letters, one to the Forest Service and one to
the Mt. Ashland Association which expresses clearly that no authority is given to Mt. Ashland
Association at this point to take over the timber sale contract; and, pending further discussion
regarding the 2005 resolution, their intent is to allow Mt. Ashland Association to be the timber sale
contractor.
Councilor Hartzell motioned to amend motion to remove the word "pending" and replace with
"including". Both motions were withdrawn.
.. r
CiTY COUNCIL SPECiAL MEETiNG
JUNE 27.2007
PAGE 4 (~f5
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty mls to send a letter to the Forest Service stating that it is our intent to
assign Mt. Ashland Association as the purchaser ofthe settlement timber sale, that we are still working
with Mt. Ashland Association on the 2005 resolution and it is our intent to put their name on the
contract. We will send a second letter to Mt. Ashland Association expressing our interest in continuing
to dialogue with them about the terms of the 2005 resolution. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell stated
she believes the motion reflects what was discussed during the Executive Session. Councilor Jackson
expressed concern with adding the discussion of the resolution into the letter to the Forest Service. City
Administrator Martha Bennett commented on the letters to be sent to the Forest Service and Mt. Ashland
Association and stated she understands that Council wants more explanation in their letter to Mt. Ashland
Association than they do in the letter to the Forest Service. She also clarified both letters would be circulated
to the City's legal counsel for review. Councilor Navickas commented that the letter needs to be clear that
they are giving no authority at this point. Councilor Hartzell, Silbiger, Navickas, Jackson, Hardesty and
Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
4. Discussion Requested by Councilor Chapman on Next Steps for Mt. Ashland Matters.
Councilor Chapman voiced frustration because they have not been able to identifY a clear direction on this
matter. He noted that the 2005 Resolution was a request and Mt. Ashland Association was never required to
comply. He also commented that the two main concerns are protection of the watershed and financial liability
and stated if they were truly concerned about cutting off the City's financial liability, giving up the Special Use
Permit (SUP) would be the way to go. He added if the SUP is released, there should be a contractual agreement
with Mt. Ashland Association (MAA) in place to protect the watershed.
Councilor Hartzell voiced her interest in focusing on the QAlQC Team and speaking with Mt. Ashland
Association about the 2005 resolution. She added that she is not interested in discussing the SUP and is not
convinced relinquishing it would remove the City's liability.
Councilor Silbiger commented that the City would only give up the SUP if they were ensured zero liability in
return. He suggested their immediate next step is solidifYing the QAlQC Team and then they should begin
working towards an agreement on the restoration value and obtaining the business plan.
Mayor Morrison requested the remaining councilors also voice their ideas for future strategies.
Councilor Hardesty noted her skepticism about releasing the SUP unless they had firm commitments in place
and voiced support for continuing to work toward the formation of a QAlQC Team and obtaining the business
plan.
Councilor Navickas/Chapman mls to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Hardesty, Navickas, Chapman and Jackson, YES. Councilor Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Navickas voiced his opposition to giving up the SUP and pointed out problems at the waste
treatment facility. He stated Mt. Ashland Association is not doing a good job of mitigation and suggested the
City take action on these problems.
Councilor Jackson stated she is willing to discuss the transfer of the SUP and commented on the need to
establish a working relationship with the Mt. Ashland Association Board in order to move forward. She also
voiced support for the QAlQC Team RFP to go forward.
Mayor Morrison voiced concern that the strategy they have been using is leading them into more court cases
instead of developing a coherent plan to move things ahead. He voiced support for developing a strategy based
on the best leverage the City has, and stated the SUP is far stronger leverage than the timber sale contract. He
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL A1EETlNG
JUNE 27. 2007
PAGE 5 of5
recommended they discuss exchanging the SUP for a better document that helps the City gain the protections
they are seeking and stated that a legal document is far better than a resolution. Mayor Morrison commented
on the need to have a publicity campaign that carefully states what it is they want and provides direction to
staff so that they can develop strategies.
Councilor Hartzell commented that she struggles with the lease and sees flaws in it that were not anticipated.
She cautioned them that in whatever steps they take, it is difficult to anticipate what the future will bring.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas mls to adjourn meeting. DISCUSSION: City Administrator Martha Bennett
questioned if the Council was going to provide direction on the QA/QC Team. Councilor Hartzell indicated
she was not prepared to have this discussion. Councilor Hardesty expressed her desire to discuss this issue,
but noted that her comments may take longer than the time available. Ms. Bennett noted that the Council could
decide to discuss this at their July 17, 2007 meeting. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Silbiger,
Hardesty, Navickas, YES. Councilor Chapman and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSfON
JUNE 18. ]007
PAGE 1 014
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 18, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Silbiger called the Study Session to order at 5: 15 p.m. in the Civic Center Council
Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Jackson and Chapman were present. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 5:25
p.m. Mayor Morrison was absent.
1. Look Ahead Review.
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Look Ahead document. She clarified the
Study Session on June 25, 2007 with the Chamber of Commerce will be held in the Siskiyou Room at 51
Winburn way, and noted the following night there is a voluntary joint Study Session with the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Bennett announced the Special Meeting scheduled for June 27, 2007 will address the wrap up of the
budget issues as well as the interim Library funding ballot measure. She stated the Study Session on July
16, 2007 will be a discussion of surplus City property, and noted the Regular Meeting on July 17, 2007
will include the McDonald Property appeal. Ms. Bennett noted Council's preference to have the PERF
item bumped if necessary.
Ms. Bennett clarified staff is waiting to schedule a discussion on Economic Development until after the
Council has had their discussion with the Chamber of Commerce. Comment was made suggesting the
Council discuss Economic Development at the August 20, 2007 Study Session. Ms. Bennett noted
Economic Development is scheduled for the Regular Meeting on August 21, 2007 and the Council is free
is discuss any item at the Study Session scheduled for the next nights meeting. Request was made for this
item to be specifically added to the Study Session agenda and Ms. Bennett agreed.
2. Discussion of Follow-Up on Council Goal Settin2 Plannin2.
Ms. Bennett commented on the need to pick a facilitator and confirm the location of the Goal Setting
session. In regards to the facilitator, she recommended Council review the proposals received to date and
then make a decision at the June 27, 2007 Special Meeting. She noted if staff receives any additional
proposals between now and the Special Meeting they will be forwarded to Council. In regards to the Goal
Setting location, Ms. Bennett suggested either the Siskiyou Room or the meeting room at the Parks
Office.
Councilors Hartzell and Hardesty voiced support for the Parks room. Councilor Jackson questioned if
there is enough room at the Parks room for citizens and department heads. Ms. Bennett noted that the
Council must decide whether they would like to have the department heads present at the Goal Setting.
Comment was made that typically staff reviews the goals after they have been proposed and then provides
feedback, and that it may not be necessary to have them at the Goal Setting session itself. Opposing
comment was made suggesting that department heads be present at the goal setting for a short period of
time and then have the Council hold a Study Session shortly thereafter to meet with staff. Councilors
Chapman and Jackson voiced support for not having the department heads at the Goal Setting session.
Councilor Hartzell agreed as long as they receive materials in advance from staff that addresses their
questions. Councilor Navickas agreed that Council alone should be making the decision on the goals.
," T
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE /8. 2007
PAGE 2 ol4
Councilor Hardesty voiced support for just the Council being present and then holding a Study Session
with the department heads.
Ms. Bennett noted her suggestion to have Council prepare their list of goals in advance of the session. She
also noted that input from the City's commissions, committees and boards may be delayed. Councilor
Hartzell noted her request to have the CCBs come before Council once or twice a year to provide updates
on what they are working on and asked that they reinstate this process.
Comment was made voicing support for the facilitator contacting each of the councilors individually to
determine their expectations.
3. Review of Re2ular Meetin2 A2enda for June 19, 2007.
AFN Retailer ISP Agreement
Information Technology Director Joe Franell commented on the ISP agreement. He spoke regarding
Section 2.1 (Required Modems) and clarified the City tests modems for compatibility and requires that
customers only use modems that have been tested and certified. He added if a customer or retailer had a
new modem they wanted tested, the City would do so. He also noted that the modems retailers are using
have all been tested.
Comment was made that sentence number two in Section 2.1 seems to preclude the customer from
purchasing their own modem. Mr. Franell clarified this was not the intent. Suggestion was made for staff
to bring back revised language to clarify.
Mr. Franell commented on the need for AFN to meets its financial targets. He noted that Council had
previously decided if the retail partners could not meet the targets, the City would become an active
retailer. He stated he had spoken with the retail partners about this, and they indicated they were not
aware of what those targets were and requested these be incorporated into the contract. Mr. Franell
explained that if collectively the retailers do not meet the targets, the City could become a retailer. He also
noted that if a particular retailer is failing to pull their weight, they can be let go and clarified when the
termination right could be exercised.
Concern was expressed that Section 4.4 (Requirement to Meet Revenue Targets) was too vague. Mr.
Franell clarified he did not list a specific dollar amount in the contract since this amount changes and if
included would require the contract to be changed every year. Comment was made that a retailer might
not feel comfortable signing a contract that is vague on what the City's expectations are. Additional
comment was made that there needs to be more predictability in the contract. Mr. Franell stated he would
consider this and bring back an option for tomorrow nights meeting.
Draft Ballot Measure for Interim Library Funding
Concern was expressed with the inconsistency regarding the statements in the Summary and the
Explanatory Statement pertaining to the Central Library. Ms. Bennett noted the Council could revise the
sentence in the Summary to read, "Services will not include central program support for children's
services or reference services" or they could remove the sentence completely. She noted Council will not
be making a final decision on the language at tomorrow nights meeting and stated staff would note that
this sentence is a problem and bring back possible revisions.
Ms. Bennett briefly commented on the possibility of charging out of town users and stated staff is fairly
certain it is legal to do so. She also commented that in order to have access to the central library service,
the County has stated a clerk would need to be hired to handle the transfer of materials.
.. r
crn COUNCiL STUD Y SESSfON
JUNE /8. 2007
PAGE 3014
Comment was made requesting staff provide a scenario that drives the rate down by having accessing to
the central library but having reduced hours of operation.
Reconsideration of Vote - PA 2006-02354 Findings, Kistler
Comment was made questioning why they need to attach Council Findings if the appeal has been
withdrawn.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified all they really need to submit is Findings on the
jurisdiction decision, and stated nine of the pages in the document could be deleted. He submitted a
shortened version of the Findings to the Council and stated at tomorrow's meeting they could motion to
reconsider the vote and then adopt the revised Findings.
Condominium Conversion Ordinance
Community Development Director David Stalheim briefly commented on non-conforming uses. He
stated the existing code does not address how to deal with non-conformities; however the proposed
ordinance does address this.
Comment was made questioning whether the current ordinance states 80% AMI or 60% AMI.
Mr. Stalheim stated he believes the current ordinance states 80% however he will check on this and have
an answer by tomorrow night.
Comment was made questioning why the Housing Commission did not make a formal recommendation.
Mr. Stalheim clarified there was general acceptance even though a formal motion was not made.
Reconsideration of Vote - Sewer Service at 2995 Highway 66
Councilor Hardesty commented on adding this item to the agenda. She voiced her concern with the
possibility of leakage and whether providing a hook-up to the City's system will give the owner a "leg
up" to annexation. She suggested the Council vote to reconsider the motion at tomorrow nights meeting in
order to consider the benefits and the costs of annexing the property.
City Engineer Jim Olson clarified the contract has not been signed yet and noted that he had spoken with
the developer and informed her that there was some reconsideration happening. Councilor Hardesty
requested the developer attend tomorrow nights meeting.
Councilor Jackson left the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
4. Discussion of Utility Rate Increase.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg provided a presentation on the Utility Rate Increases, and
addressed:
. Water Charge and Water Fund Operational Budget,
. Key Water Issues,
. Water Fund Operational Revenue, Operating Expenses, Operational R/E Comparison, and Water
Summary,
. Wastewater Charge and Wastewater Fund Operating Budget,
. Key Wastewater Issues,
. Wastewater Fund Operational Revenue, Operating Expenses, Operational R/E Comparison, and
Wastewater Summary.
. Street Fund and Street Fund Operational Budget.
. Key Street Fund Issues
p ,
eln COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE /8. ]OO?
PAGE 4 0(4
. Street Fund Operational Revenue, Operational Revenue, Operational Expenses, and Operational
R/E Comparison.
. Transportation Utility Fee and the Revised Resolution.
. Storm Drain Utility Fee and the Revised Resolution, and
. Summary and Options.
Mr. Tuneberg clarified that no rate increase is adopted until the Council specifically does so; however
these increases were included and approved as part of the budget process.
Suggestion was made for additional tiers to be added so that those who use the most water pay the most.
Additional comment was made regarding the possibility of different sized increments. Mr. Tuneberg
noted that only the water fee is driven by consumption, the others are a flat rate. Ms. Bennett cautioned
that the utility rates need to be legally defensible.
Comment was made questioning what would happen ifthe Council did not approve the rate increases. Mr.
Tuneberg explained they would have to look at making cuts to the budget and services levels may be
affected.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSiON
JUNE 25, 2007
PAGE J (~(3
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 25, 2007
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the Study Session to order at 5:20 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
ATTENDANCE
Councilors Navickas, Chapman, and Silbiger were present. Councilor Hartzell arrived at 5:25 p.m.
Councilors Hardesty and Jackson arrived at 5:30 p.m.
Chamber of Commerce Representatives Sandra Slattery, Mary Pat Parker, Graham Lewis, Jac Nickels,
Mark Marchetti, Dennis Slattery, Pam Hammond, and Mike Morris were also present.
1. Expectations for Future Workin2 Relationships
Mayor Morrison and Chamber of Commerce President Graham Lewis offered introductions. City
Administrator Martha Bennett commented on City Council's goal to refine the Economic Development
strategy and their desire to work with the Chamber of Commerce on this endeavor. She stated that staff
believes the City's Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated, but there also needs to be an action and
operational plan.
Community Development Director David Stalheim commented on his prior experience with this type of
endeavor and presented a draft Economic Development Strategy to the group. Mr. Stalheim explained the
three themes that emerged as a result of the Economic Opportunities Analysis were:
1) Preservation and enhancement of the quality of life,
2) Creation of a diverse and sustainable economy, and
3) Improved coordination and processes of civic and government sectors.
Mr. Stalheim commented on the need to identify which entity will lead this effort, who should be
involved, when it will be done, how it will get done, and how much it will cost. He also proposed the
following five actions as a possible task list:
1) Create an Economic Development Task Force,
2) Determine interim staffing needs,
3) Review existing economic development programs within the city, region, and state,
4) Development and economic development strategy for the City of Ashland, and
5) Implement the economic development strategy.
Mr. Stalheim provided a possible timeline, and stated the Task Force could be established in August, the
review of the existing programs and first draft strategies established this fall, public review the first part
of next year, and adoption of the strategy by the summer of2008.
Ms. Bennett noted the need for full support and participation from the Chamber of Commerce in order for
this to be successful and stated it is important to not only have the strategies and goals outlined, but to
have specific tasks assigned to the agencies. Ms. Bennett noted that these tasks would be incorporated
into any new contract between the City and the Chamber.
Mr. Lewis thanked Mr. Stalheim for providing a strong framework and voiced support for the proposed
actions and timeline. Councilor Hartzell voiced concern that the timeline may be too optimistic and
encouraged them to take the time needed to do a good and thorough job.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE 25, 2007
PAGE 2 (~f3
Comment was made expressing concern regarding Mr. Stalheim' s assessment that additional staffing or a
hired consultant would be needed. Staff clarified there is currently no funding in the budget for this
endeavor and it was noted that even with citizen volunteers, the public participation process will require
appropriate staffing.
The issue of raising the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was briefly mentioned. Dennis Slattery
commented that it would be unfortunate to start off this process with that kind of a wedge. Ms. Bennett
clarified this was only brought up because there is no existing revenue to take on this task.
2. Discussion of Current Workine: Relationships
Chamber of Commerce Director Sandra Slattery provided a brief background on the Chamber's
Economic Sustainability Committee and Rapid Response Team and reviewed the Draft Proposal included
with the meeting materials. Ms. Slattery stated the mission of the Committee is to improve the economy
of Ashland and improve small businesses. She stated the only issue they have had to deal with is how to
involve the Council more without facing the issues associated with public meetings law, quorums, and
confidentiality. Ms. Slattery clarified that it is the businesses who often asks for confidentiality when
meeting with the Chamber, however this portion could be handled by the Rapid Response Team.
Ms. Bennett noted the issue of deciding which individuals attend the Economic Sustainability Committee
meetings. Support was voiced for the idea of rotating the councilors in and out. Mayor Morrison
commented on the need to clearly spell out the membership of the Committee and who is responsible for
making the appointments.
Ms. Slattery listed a few of the Chamber's completed projects. She noted the labor workshops and the
global conference on business and culture that was held. She also commented on the creation of a
brochure to explain the City's permitting process, the updates to the Chamber's website, and the
upcoming Food and Wine Classic.
Ms. Bennett commented on the tracking process for the Chamber and recommended that for the next
contract the Chamber be asked to report not only on activities, but also provide data reports.
Ms. Slattery spoke regarding shoulder season and winter month activities. She noted the monthly themes
that have been developed and noted the packages that are being developed for the off season.
The group briefly discussed the possibility of increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax. Comment was
made that there is often a "knee jerk" reaction to this idea, however many places in Oregon, including
Medford, have a higher TOT rate than Ashland. Mr. Slattery commented on this issue and noted that since
the TOT was initiated there has been constant discussion about whether previous promises will continue
to be honored. He noted that no matter the reason for the increase, there will be strong opposition in the
community. He suggested that the Council have a direct discussion with the business owners who would
be directly impacted by an increase prior to making any sort of decision. He added the best way to deal
with this would be to be proactive and bring these individuals into the process early. Ms. Bennett
commented that the City would need the Chambers assistance in conducting this conversation and would
need their input and participation in the process.
3. Discussion of 2007-2008 Contract
Ms. Bennett commented on the desire to simplify the City's contract with the Chamber and recommended
they include the increase in off season activities for the Visitors and Convention Bureau in the contract
since the Chamber is already doing this. Ms. Bennett also noted staffs proposal to have a one-year
contract, and general support for this idea was voiced from the group. She noted that staff has not finished
preparing the proposed contract, but would submit it to the entire group when it is ready.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE 25, 20()7
PAGE 3 of3
Commented was made regarding the perception that the Chamber does not have the same reporting
requirements as the other grantees, and suggestion was made for the Chamber to have more detailed
reporting requirements.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7: 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
May 17th, 2007 Regular Minutes
Roll Call: Secretary Selene Aitken, David Young, Matthew Seiler, Julia Sommer, Jim Olney
Tom Burnham, Michael Church (absent)
Council Liaison: David Chapman
Staff: Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Steve McLennan, Police Officer
RVTD liaisons: Steve Maluk, TDM Planners (absent)
High school liaison: Vacant SOU liaison: Nathan Meyerson (absent)
Call to Order
Aitken called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.rn.
Approval of Minutes - April 19th, 2007
OlneylBurnham m1s to accept the minutes of the April 2007 meeting as presented. Voice vote: All AYES.
Motion passed.
Public Forum
None.
It was noted that several members needed to leave early, and it suggested that items with outside speakers be
addressed first out of agenda order out of consideration for citizens who were in attendance with items to discuss.
Introduction of New Members
New members Seiler and Sommer were introduced to the Commission.
Subcommittee & Liaison Reports
It was noted that the Wheeldon family had contacted the Public Works Director, and that their preferences for a
memorial were for a tree and bench with a plaque to honor Carole Wheeldon's memory. It was noted that the
subcommittee would be working with Public Works to finalize placement of the bench and selection of the tree, as
previously approved by the full Commission.
Alternative Bike Parkina for 308 Laurel Street
Severson explained the bicycle parking requirements from Ashland's Land Use Ordinance, and noted that there is an
option for applicants to pursue alternative methods if they meet certain ordinance standards and are approved by the
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission. Severson noted the alternative design proposal provided by the applicants, and
explained that for the Planning Staff the biggest concerns with the alternative proposal has to do with the standards
in AMC 18.92.040.1.2 which require bicycle racks to hold bicycles securely by means of the frame, with 1) locking
the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front
wheel; 2) Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists
leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and 3) Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not
longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel.
Applicant Rick Landt explained his proposal for an alternative bicycle rack design, consisting of a I-inch diameter
bar of schedule 40 steel, powder-coated and installed by bolting on wood blocks and mounted horizontal on the side
of the building within the breezeway at a height of 36-inches above finished grade. Under discussion, members
expressed concern not only with the locking requirements raised by staff but also with potentially narrowing the
width of the travel corridor for the breezeway to a degree that would create an accessibility concern, and with the
height of the installation, the ability to accommodate bikes of different sizes, and the possibility for a locked bike to
roll along the bar. Members suggested that mounting the same bar horizontally might address these issues, as well
as having it extend farther from the wall face than the four inches proposed. Members added that extending 10-
inches from the wall face might be more flexible to accommodate a broader variety of bikes, and it was noted that
horizontal and vertical installations could be staggered. It was noted that the applicants were proposing to install
2007-0517 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 1 of3
three racks more than were required by the parking standards of AMC 18.92.
SommerNoung m/s to recommend that the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission is agreeable to an alternative
bicycle parking method in this application provided that the applicants demonstrate that the proposed
alternative method can accommodate the locking requirements found in AMC 18.92.040.J.2 and do not create
access or circulation issues for the Building Division or Fire Department. Discussion: Members noted that a
combination of horizontal and vertical installations would be appropriate. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
Chapman and Olney exited at 6:02 p.rn. to attend the Budget Committee meeting. Prior to leaving, Chapman
presented a draft Greenway Map being produced with the financial assistance of Siskiyou Velo. He asked for
comments, and noted that the map would be presented both to Siskiyou Velo and to the Parks Commission over the
coming weeks. He suggested that further comments would be welcome in either of these venues.
Bike Safety for Adult Riders (Matt Warshawsky. TSC)
Matt Warshawsky of the Traffic Safety Commission noted that while bicycle safety education has been a focus of
the commission, bicycle safety education for adults has often been neglected. He called for a focus on adult
education, requirements for licensing and registration of bicycles, the creation of diversion programs, helmet laws,
and for efforts to better integrate parents into the bicycle safety education curriculum offered in Ashland's schools
through the cooperative efforts of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission, the Traffic Safety Commission, and the
Bicycle Transportation Alliance. Under discussion, it was noted that there are several bicycle safety education
instructors available within the community and that Parks is set up to offer classes for adults, and that it seemed like
a fairly feasible task to create adult bicycle safety education classes to be offered through Parks that could also
address bicycle commuting in general, and which could serve as a traffic school/diversion program for the
Municipal Court. Officer MacLennan, Traffic Safety Commissioner Warshawsky, and those present indicated an
interest in forming a task force/subcommittee to work further on this issue.
Election of Officers
Severson noted that with the departure of Robbins and Harding, both the Chair and Vice Chair positions were open.
He noted that Aitken had been elected secretary a relatively short time ago.
David Young was elected as Chair by a unanimous vote of those present.
Julia Sommer was elected as Vice Chair by a unanimous vote of those present.
Severson questioned whether all present were agreeable to Aitken remaining as secretary and she was elected
by a unanimous vote.
Aitken left the meeting at 6:34 p.m.
Goal Setting
This item was postponed until the July meeting, and Young requested that it be the only item on the agenda to allow
for adequate discussion time.
Bicycle. Pedestrian & Skateboard Ordinances
Burnham noted that he had found Grants Pass's ordinance requiring a three foot buffer zone for motor vehicles
passing cyclists and was interested in a similar ordinance for Ashland. Members indicated that they would read up
on the ordinance materials prior to future discussion. Traffic Safety Commissioner Warshawsky indicated that he
would like to be present for this discussion, and left some materials for inclusion in the packets.
Updating Educational Materials
This item was postponed.
2007-0517 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 2 of 3
Liahts. Helmets & Pedometers
Burnham/Seiler m/s to purchase 43 front bicycle lights, to supplement the 43 rear lights remaining in stock at
the Police Department, for an amount not to exceed $300 from the Commission's remaining Program Funds.
Discussion: Members suggested that lights could be distributed from a single point along with helmets and
pedometers through the Parks Department. Severson indicated that he would verify that Parks was
agreeable to this arrangement. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Burnham/Seiler m/s to purchase 50 pedometers for distribution through the Parks Department, for an
amount not to exceed $500 from the Commission's remaining Program Funds. Voice vote: All A YES.
Motion passed.
BurnhamfYoung m/s to purchase bicycle helmets with the approximately $900 of the Commission's
remaining Program Funds. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
New Business
Young noted that the next meeting with ODOT to discuss the two freeway interchange area master plans (lAMPs)
would be held on Wednesday, June 20th at the Community Center. [NOTE: This meeting has since been canceled;
the next Citizens Advisory Committee meeting will be on Wednesday, July 18th, at 5:30 p.m. The first Public
Workshop for lAMPs 14 and 19 will be held on Thursday, July 19th, from 5:00 to 7:00 pm at the Rogue River Room,
Stevenson Union building, SOU Campus, in Ashland. It is the building at the corner of Siskiyou Boulevard and
University Way. The Public Workshop is open to the public, and is intended to educate and receive comments from
the public on the lAMPs.]
Burnham reported that the bump which had been a concern on the Greenway near the Dog Park has been repaired by
Parks.
Dubois expressed concern with the way the Central Ashland Bike Path crosses Wightman Street near its intersection
with the railroad tracks and the placement of the crossing just before a stop sign. He asked that Traffic Safety be
advised and that the stop sign be relocated to before the path.
Aaenda Items for Next Month
Vice Chair Sommer asked that the Commission begin to consider "Car Free First Fridays."
Chair Young asked that the next meeting's agenda be dedicated entirely to goal setting, which has been an on-going
unfinished item since January.
Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Upcomina Meetinas:
Regular Meeting - June 215" 2007 at 5: 15 p.m.
2007-0517 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Minutes
Conservation Commission
OS/23/07
These Minutes will be reviewed by Conservation Commission at the July 25, 2007
Conservation Commission Meeting.
May 23, 2007
6:00 pm
Community Development Building
51 Winburn Way
Ashland
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Chapman called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community
Development Building.
ROLL CALL
Attendees: Risa Buck, Russ Chapman, Ross Finney, Jim Hartman, and Melissa Schweisguth. Stuart
Corns, Kathryn Houser and Tracy Harding were not present.
City Council Liaison: Dave Chapman
Staff Liaison: Cathy Cartmill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Chapman asked for an approval of the minutes.
The following corrections were noted:
Under Chris Thomas, change products to recycling
Spelling of Congregational Church and Wagner Architect
Change compostable garbage to eat ware
Remove Green from Conservation Department brochure
Commissioner Chapman made a motion to approve the minutes of April 25, 2007 with the stated
corrections and Commissioner Buck seconded the motion.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon commented on a few subjects: June was energy month in Congress, gas prices will rise
to 6-10 dollars a gallon, Independence/oil dependence day, and the calculation of 50 square miles of water
would be needed to grow enough food for our town.
cc min 05 23 07 .doc
Page 1 of 3
ASHLAND SANITARY & RECYCLING UPDATE:
Cathy Cartmill referenced an article about New York City's yellow taxi fleet becoming hybrids in 5 years, a
total of 13,000 vehicles.
Commissioner Buck reported:
. The Rogue Valley's Hazardous Waste Disposal days yielded the highest participation to date:
1.235 household cars and 55 participants in the business program. The gross weight of material
processed was 122, 031 pounds
. Free nursery plastic recycling drop off at the Water Street depot will continue until June 1,2007.
They have collect 7 bags of approximately 420 pounds of nursery plastics.
. Talent Elementary school collected the most telephone books in our annual drive, and received a
$400.00 check. Walker Elementary was 2nd and received a $200.00 check. She also mentioned
Talent composts on site all their pre and post consumer food material and eventually use it in their
school garden.
. The Association of Oregon Recyclers Annual Conference is June 21_23rd in Redmond, Oregon and
will be attended by Commissioners Chapman and Buck.
. The Conservation Commission has 2 more free composting classes left, June 16th and July 21 at
the recycling center. The May 1 ih class had 30 participants.
. Discount Day at the Transfer station is Saturday, June 16th. Participants will receive a $3.50
discount and Ashland Sanitary will donate $1.75 to ACCESS Food Bank for every customer that
comes out that day.
. Ashland Sanitary has 2.532 Residential Green Debris customers, 27 Commercial Green Debris
Customers and 17 Commercial Compost customers including 3 Ashland schools.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Formation of sub-committee to support new goals
Set aside, put on next agenda.
B. Meeting Time
Set aside, put on next agenda.
C. Rainwater Collection update
Commissioner Buck reported she met with Robbin Pearce of the Conservation Department
and gathered more information, but not much progress was made in May due to other
employees absent/vacation. They will update more in June.
D. Solar Project II update
Chairperson Chapman gave a brief report of the Council meeting where it was determined to
form a sub-committee to explore the options for the Solar Pioneer Project II. First meeting will
be June 6, 10:30am at the Electric conference room. Commissioner Buck would not be able
to attend the sub committee meeting and expressed her support for the program that would be
creating a new tier of community involvement in solar energy, increasing the ability for more
participation.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Plastic Bag Ban update
Set aside to address budget. Commissioner Buck
B. Budget
Commissioner Hartman made a motion to allocate $100.00 to the Adopt A Street program,
Commissioner Chapman seconded the motion.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
cc min 05 23 07 .doc
Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Hartman made a motion to allocate $160.00 of green tags to offset the
transportation for the Conservation Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Chapman.
Voice vote: all Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS
None
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The Commissioners decided if Tracy could commit to the 7pm meetings, the next meeting would be at
7pm, and she responded she would be able to commit
Commissioner Hartman left at 6:50, ending the needed quorum for the Commission.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next meeting date, June 27, 2007 7pm
Community Development Center
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm.
Commissioner Buck briefly discussed the information she found out about banning plastic bags, the need
to collect and repurpose them. She also would like to find out how other cities have been addressing this
issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant to
Electric/Telecommunications Department
cc min 05 23 07 .doc
Page 3 of 3
MINUTES FOR THE MEETING
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION
April 10, 2007 - 5:30 PM
Community Development, 51 Winburn Way
MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Brock (Chair), Anthony Kerwin, Jim Lewis, Dan Maymar,
Joseph Vaile, Zach Williams
Members Absent: Diane White
Staff Present: Marty Main, Nancy Slocum, Keith Woodley
Non-Voting Members Present: Eric Navickas
Also Present: Chris Donaldson, SOU Student
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Richard Brock called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM in the Siskiyou
Room. He noted that this was his, Diane White's and Joseph Vaile's last meeting. Zach Williams
noted his many time constraints and he wanted to resign from the commission as vacancies are
filled.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vaile/Lewis m/s to approve the minutes of March 13,2007 as
submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: None
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: Election of commission chair was added to the agenda
and New Business was moved to the top of the agenda. Commission agreed.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of New Commission Chair - LewisN aile m/s to nominate Tony Kerwin as Chair.
Motion passed unanimously. KerwinlWilliams m/s to nominate Dan Maymar as Vice-Chair.
Motion passed unanimously.
B. AFR Implementation, Mitigation and Monitoring Comments
Vaile, Maymar, Brock, Main and Darren Borgias met as the subcommittee directly before the
commission meeting. Linda Duffy had proposed a 30 day advance governmental review of the
Ashland Forest Resiliency (ARF) FEIS whereby the City would review the completed FEIS
and offer collaborative feedback to the Forest Service in advance ofthe formal public 30-day
objection period. The subcommittee planned on meeting once per month to draft
recommendations to present to the commission for review and a vote.
Borgias had previously worked out a monitoring framework for AFRCA and would email the
commission his work. The subcommittee discussed the importance of an implementation plan
to decrease the need for future mitigation. The subcommittee recommended fmancing
monitoring work before and after implementation with City money or grants for a contractor.
There is still a question as to how the commission (City of Ashland) will interact with the
Forest Service. Navickas perceived threatening comments from Duffy at the last meeting when
she said they (the Forest Service) would take their money elsewhere if the City did not
cooperate fully. He would like to emphasis that the goal is a collaborative relationship. Kerwin
thought Duffy's comments came from an institutional reality. Brock thought the comments
came from her own personal frustrations with past and present projects involving Ashland
citizens.
C :\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOCALS-l \T emp\APR 10 07.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 1 of2
.. r
Brock gave an example of a potential recommendation regarding mitigation as the need to
provide detailed planned corrections on all the roads for mitigation of sediment. Navickas
could not understand why there had been no maintenance on existing fuel breaks. He wanted a
maintenance plan and budget added to the commission's comments to the Forest Service.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Winburn Management Plan - The commission reviewed the section on Large Woody
Material. The commission agreed that the general goal for L WM was to retain existing snags
and recruit new snags up to the level that the fIre risk increases. In addition they agreed to
retain trees for snags that will fall or die within the next fIve years. Main volunteered to
rewrite the general notes on down log distributions.
The commission also reviewed the section on Wildlife with the goal being to maximize
biodiversity. Commission agreed that the section needed to be expanded to include wildlife
other than the spotted owl. Kerwin will rewrite the section and bring it back to the commission
for review.
B. Maintenance Needs for Lower Parce1- No further discussion was needed.
VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commission extended their appreciation to Joseph Vaile, Diane White and Richard Brock for
their work on behalf of the commission and the City of Ashland.
VII. ADJOURN: 7:25 PM
Richard Brock, Chair
Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Slocum, Clerk
C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\LOCALS-I\Temp\APR 10 07.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2 of2
. r
/'''':':':h<<t
ASHLA:Jf" F
J
Communit
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ant ony erwin (Chair), Jim Lewis, Dan Maymar, Chris Iverson
Members Absent: Zach Williams
Staff Present: Keith Woodley
Non-Voting Members Present: None
Also Present: Marty Main
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Kerwin called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM in the Siskiyou
Room.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Jim Lewis / Dan Maymar m/s to approve the minutes of April
10, 2007 as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
III. PUBLIC FORUM: None
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: None
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Winburn Management Plan
Commission reviewed pages 16 through 23 of the draft "City Forest Lands Restoration Project
For The Winburn Parcel." Edits to sections on Hydrology, Forest Pathogens, Fire History,
Cultural Resources and Monitoring were discussed. Chair Kerwin will forward edits to Nancy
Slocum for updates to the document. Commissioner Maymar will review Monitoring section
with Darren Borgias for suggested edits. Chair Kerwin asked Commissioners to review the
sections to determine if additional changes need to be made to any of the sections.
B. Prescribed Fire Project
Commission reviewed the Prescribed Fire Project Summary provided by Marty Main. General
consensus that it was a "light bum" as a result of concern for preservation of adequate ground
cover for erosive soil conditions. Commission decided to schedule a Forest Lands Commission
site visit of the Prescribed Fire Project for educational purposes on July 10th, in lieu of holding
their regularly scheduled Forest Commission meeting in the Siskiyou Room.
C. AFR Implementation
Commission briefly discussed the letter from Linda Duffy requesting additional information from
the City regarding how mitigation measures or the monitoring framework meets the City's
interests. The Monitoring Subcommittee has not met to begin to assemble this information due to
the recent expiration of the terms of service of the Commissioners who were working on this
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\TempVUN 12 07.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 1 of2
project. Commissioner Maymar is the only remaining subcommittee member of the Commission.
Chair Kerwin ask;ed that this issue be the priority agenda item for the next meeting.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Council Goal-Setting:
Commission discussed suggestions for City Council goals for the 2007/08 fiscal year. Decision
to direct staff to send a memo to the City Council offering three
suggested goals for City Council consideration: (1) Continued City involvement in, and support
of, the USFS Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, (2) City Council support of Commission's
efforts to prepare the Winburn Forest Parcel Management Plan and complete the work prescribed
in the plan, (3) City Council support of Commission's efforts to complete a Noxious Vegetation
Management Plan for City owned lands.
B. 2007/08 Work Projects:
Marty Main presented the list of current and proposed work projects for City-owned forest lands
and explained the status of those projects currently underway. Commission approved the list in
the general order of prioritization as presented, but recognized that a number of the projects were
moving forward concurrently. Work on the USFS Ashland Forest Resiliency Project is a high
priority, but provides limited opportunity for additional effort until Survey & Management work
is completed this summer by USFS contractors.
VII. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
VII. ADJOURN: Motion by Commissioner Maymar to adjourn at 7:30 PM.
Anthony Kerwin, Chair
Respectfully Submitted, Keith E. Woodley, Fire Chief
C:\DOCUME-1\ship1etd\LOCALS-1\Temp\JUN 12 07.doc
ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2 of2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
May 2,2007
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Terry Skibby, Henry Baker,
Keith Swink, Jim Watkins
Absent Commission Members: Sam Whitford
Council Liaison: Eric Navickas (8:00 pm)
Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner; Billie Boswell, Administration
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING
At 7:10 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the Historic Commission meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Shostrom said he was contacted by Jay Leighton and she declined the nomination for the Individual
Historic Preservation award.
Mr. Krach made a motion to approve the minutes as presented and it was seconded by Mr. Baker. The motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM: No speakers
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Planning Action 2007-00567
900 Iowa Street
Conditional Use permit for a new Travelers Accommodation
Applicant: Bob & Cheryl Therkelsen
Chairman Shostrom read the description of the proposed project. Chairman Shostrom asked if there were
conflicts of interest or exparte contacts. Mr. Skibby disclosed that he had spoken to the applicants briefly during a
site visit.
Ms. Harris explained the applicants want to convert their house and living space above the detached garage to
Travelers Accommodations. Two units plus the owner's unit will be in the main house. Two additional units will be
in the detached living space. Except for the addition of one parking space, no exterior changes are proposed to
the site or existing buildings as part of this proposal. Ms. Harris stated staff has preliminarily approved the
application.
The applicant, Bob Therkelsen, explained the minor upgrades they were planning to make the house such as
plumbing, electrical, thermo windows and additional insulation. Mr. Watkins asked where the additional parking
would be located. Mr. Therkelsen said they had four spaces and needed six. They were planning on converting
the garage back to parking and an old carport would be removed but the pad would remain for parking. Mr. Krach
asked about the unpainted brick extension and Mr. Therkelsen said it was a covered brick walled patio that was
enclosed 15-20 years ago. The brick was left unpainted.
There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the public meeting.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
6/26/2007
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Mr. Skibby stated he liked the project as it would be a good improvement.
With a motion by Mr. Baker and a second by Mr. Giordano, the Historic Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the planning action for a Conditional Use Permit.
B. Planning Action 2007-00503
Subject Property: 105 Nutley Street
Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Stephen Casey
Chairman Shostrom read the description of the proposed project. Chairman Shostrom asked if there were
conflicts of interest or exparte contacts. Chairman Shostrom disclosed that he had spoken to the contractor,
Stephen Dewey.
Ms. Harris explained that the existing structure is only 2 feet 4 inches from the property line so a conditional
use is required to add a second story addition. She said a requirement for matching the existing siding
instead of using Hardiplank was a condition of the Pre-Application meeting with the Historic Commission.
There being no one representing the applicants and no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public
meeting was closed.
Mr. Skibby said there were two houses moved onto the property. Chairman Shostrom felt the plans submitted
were insufficient in showing what is existing and what is proposed. Mr. Swink stated that the plans submitted
still showed Hardiplank siding and it wasn't clear what materials would be used where. It was also pointed out
that the floor plan did not match the elevations on window placement.
With a motion by Chairman Shostrom and a second by Mr. Swink, the Historic Commissioners voted
unanimously to recommend the application be continued because insufficient information is provided to
evaluate the architectural changes to the residence. The Historic Commission can not analyze the proposal
in relation to the Conditional Use Permit criteria - specifically architectural compatibility with the impact area
and the Historic District Design Standards. Recommend the following information is provided in the
application.
. Elevations clearly depicting all proposed changes.
. Existing elevations with accurate window and trim sizes.
. Height - is the ridgeline changing, getting higher? Address the existing roof form and proposed
modifications.
. Clarify existing siding types and what the plan is to integrate with new additions.
. Detail on the proposed window sizes, location and trim details.
. Clarify roof materials and location (existing and proposed).
. Provide floor plans that accurately reflect window locations in relation to elevations.
. Highly recommend applicant attend Historic Commission meeting to answer questions.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Planning Action 2007-00545
11 First Street
Review of Building Permit
Applicant: Ron Yamaoka/Bill Emerson
Mr. Giordano recused himself because of his involvement on the project and left the building. (He didn't return).
Ms. Harris passed out the original conditions of approval for the 3-story structure and explained that the
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
6/26/2007
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
building has been modified to a 2-story structure but that the original conditions still applied.
The applicant's representative, Bill Emerson, said the applicant had decided to use real brick instead of the
narrow brick facing. He showed the brick color choices in a smooth finish. The stucco siding colors were also
shown and he said the color would be added to the stucco finish rather than painted on.
Mr. Emerson also passed out a revised landscape plan showing the new curb and ramp, the low wall and
guardrail. He explained that the original plan does not show these details because he was under the
impression that those items would be decided on site during construction. Ms. Harris confirmed that they
needed to be part of the building permit submittal.
Chairman Shostrom asked about the height of the cornice. Mr. Emerson said it was designed to hide the
heating and AlC units. He also confirmed that no decision had been made on awnings and signs. Those
would be submitted for separately.
With a motion by Mr. Swink and a second by Mr. Skibby, the Historic Commission unanimously recommended
approval of the Building Permit.
Mr. Navickas, City Council Liaison, commented that he didn't like the arched stone detail above the window
because he felt it didn't reflect the real design of a lintel. He also disclosed that he had ex parte contact
because he had made comments on this project in prior Planning Commission meetings where this action
was heard.
Chairman Shostrom introduced Gary DeCock, project manager from Heery International for the Ashland
School District.
B. Review Board -
Ma
Ma
Ma
Ma
leted Shostrom
Saladoff
Swink
Shostrom
Skibb
Giordano/Baker
Shostrom
lete - DELETE Saladoff
Swink
Swink
Krach
Shostrom/Giordano
Whitford
Krach
Whitford
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
6/26/2007
3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
D. National Historic Preservation Week 2007 - "Preservation Works!" - Mr. Skibby said he would have the
pictures available to Mr. Swink by Friday for framing.
E. Ashland School District - Chairman Shostrom said he has been attending the School Board meetings. He
also met with Julie DiChiro regarding the school bond projects and has attended the design meetings. He
said the High School remodel and addition proposal looked good. There was also a meeting last night at
Bellview School with Gary DeCock, the architects, the Design Committee, the Planning Commission, Julia
DeChiro and planners from the City's Planning Department. George Kramer said the school was built in 1929
with several additions. There are several buildings still standing from the original community logging town
located near the school. Mr. Swink suggested the building could be registered on the National Register and
may be eligible for tax incentives. He also stated that he had attended three of the original School Bond
meetings and he brought up preservation of the historically significant building which contradicts statements
made by the Tidings. Mr. Krach felt a rebuttal addressed to the Tribune editor was needed. He also
suggested contacting the National Trust who may be interested in helping the Historic Commission protect the
historic schools. Mr. Krach offered to draft a letter to the Tidings editor and ask for the opportunity to rebut as
a guest opinion article. There was consensus by the Historic Commissioners.
F. Lithia Sprinqs National Reqister Nomination - Ms. Harris said she would check on the meeting that was
suppose to have been set by the Parks Department for the lease renewal. Chairman Shostrom asked that she
also check to see if the property owner is required to sign off on a National Registration of a property.
G. Sinqle Familv Residential Desiqn Standards - No report
H. Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - No report
DISCUSSION ITEMS -
Mr. Krach suggested the Commissioners read about "Congress for the New Urbanism" at www.cnu.orq
Ms. Harris stated that she had passed out the 2005 Goals and there would be an agenda item on the June
meeting to update those goals for 2007/2008.
Ethics Ordinance - Chairman Shostrom asked Mr. Navickas when the Ethics Ordinance would be going to the
City Council. Mr. Navickas said it would be heard at the next Study Session.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The next Historic Commission meeting will be on June 6, 2007 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Chairman Shostrom and a second by Mr. Baker, it was the unanimous decision of the
Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.rn.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
6/26/2007
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 24, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Street called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building,
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Other Commissioners present were:
Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Sunny Lindley, Absent
Bill Street, Chair
Richard Billin Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty, Present
Aaron Benjamin
Regina A vars Staff Present:
Carol Voisin Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Liz Peck Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
Bill Smith
Absent Members: Steve Hauck
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the April 26, 2007 Housing Commission meeting were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forward to speak.
MUL TI.FAMIL Y LANDS HOUSING INVENTORY
The Housing Commission requested a housing inventory within multi-family zoning districts to determine a unit count. The
work was begun by the SOU Planning Issues Class beginning in 2005 and was completed by this year's class. The maps
provided show multi-family units and commercial buildings. Goldman thanked Pat Acklin and her class for doing this work.
Pat Acklin introduced her students. The students explained the work they did. They provided maps and explained their
methodology. They used the maps from the 2005 survey to identify and locate vacant parcels or parcels missing data and
checked the accuracy of the 2005 data. Most of the data was accurate. They ground checked the data. They found a lot of
apartments converted to condominiums as well as new condominium development. They thought it would be useful to have
aerial photographs for the next survey to match up what is on the ground. They made the following suggestions: 1) Regulate
the number of units reserved for rent within condominium conversions, and 2) Provide incentives for condo owners to provide
rental units, and 3) Provide incentives for apartment owners to maintain as apartments instead of converting to condos.
It was suggested that this survey be updated every five to ten years and in advance of a buildable lands inventory.
RENTAL NEEDS ANALYSIS
Steve Ferrarini, Ferrarini & Associates, Inc. presented his report and findings. The findings are outlined in his memo dated May
5,2007 and assess the current rental market in the city, forecast future rental housing needs, recommend public policy solutions
to the city's housing needs, and establish a methodology for updating the needs analysis on a regular basis in the future. The
forecast suggests the type of units needed in Ashland is studios. There should be 74 new rental units being developed in the
city annually. Two significant barriers: 1) It is much more financially attractive to build multi-family units and sell them
rather then renting them, and 2) the City does not have enough buildable land to accommodate efficient multi-family
development. There is going to be a pressure to increase rental rates.
The City of Ashland's rent problems break down to these three items:
1. There is a production problem. (There is a need to build rental units and the rental units are not being built.)
2. There is an affordability problem. We need affordable units that do not exist. To solve the production problem,
developers need to make more money on rent for development of rental units. However, if that happens, that can
harm the affordability problem.
3. The City does not have enough vacant land to meet the need for rental units. Most of the inventory of vacant land is
on very small parcels. A larger parcel can aid in development efficiencies (cost). Secondly, the most effective
program for building affordable housing is the tax credit program. To use the program, the projects need to be about
25 to 30 units.
Consequently, Ferrarini suggested the City needs to do the following:
1. Create strong policies and follow-up with action and leadership.
2. Allow staff to develop the expertise in affordable housing.
3. Develop programs that make development of affordable housing more financially attractive.
4. Reduce SDC and permit fees.
5. Be proactive about directing state and federal funding.
6. Be proactive about dedicating staff time to grant writing and contacting the state about funding - what's available,
acquiring funds and directing funds.
7. Increase the land supply.
8. Have current information so programs and policies can be revised accordingly.
Bill Smith said SOU is trying to identify vacant land. Smith said there is currently a waiting list for SOU housing.
Hartzell is concerned the survey is skewed because so many young people have cell phones and those are not listed number
and therefore could not be contacted to be surveyed. Ferrarini said that is a problem and if they were included in the survey the
rent burdened number would be greater.
Hardesty said the Commission has discussed the need for two and three bedroom units because that would draw in children, yet
the population trends show that studios are the units we need. Ferrarini said he talked to about six property management
companies and they indicated studios, one bedroom and three bedrooms are the most difficult for renters to find available.
Three bedroom units are not as economically viable.
The final rental needs analysis report will be coming out on May 30,2007.
Voisin left the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE UPDATE
The City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance on April 1 ih. At that time, the Council instructed staff to continue the
public hearing and bring back a revised ordinance. They asked staff to remove the development agreement section as well as
addressing a goal of providing rental housing as primary and affordable housing additionally. There is a memo from Goldman
dated April 24, 2007 in the packet covering those changes. An ad hoc committee was formed consisting of: the Land Use
subcommittee of the Housing Commission (Bill Smith, Regina Ayars, Alice Hardesty and Bill Street) and two members of the
Planning Commission (Michael Dawkins and Tom Dimitre). They looked at this briefly last week in terms of the options for
conversions that would be allowed. Instead of having 75 percent ownership/25 percent affordable, staff has now come up with
a set of sliding scales (the matrix is included in packet). The Planning Commission is scheduled to review this at their June
12th, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting. It will go before the Council on June 19,2007.
The Housing Commission reviewed the conversion table options and asked Goldman to bump up the number of market rentals
and affordable rentals by capturing a lower cutoff point (number of units). Leave the numbers but change the percentages
required to increase the number of affordable units. Goldman wants to present just one table to the Council. The Housing
Commission endorsed the concept of the matrix and sliding scale, but asked Goldman to look at ways to increase the number of
affordable rental units. Billin noted that his concern with using Option 3 might end up reducing the overall inventory of market
rentals. Hardesty heartily endorsed the concept. Street suggested inviting a small focus group of apartment owners before it
goes before the Planning Commission or the Council to see if there are any concerns that come up for them.
REPORTS AND UPDATES
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Education - An R VTV show is scheduled for June 21 5t from 6 to 7 pm on Channel 9 to discuss employee housing.
Guests will include: Carolyn Johnson, Ashland Community Hospital, Bill Smith, SOU, and Kyle Hopkins, Sky
Research.
Finance - They looked at the Housing Commissions' response to the mission statement and at priority uses for the
Housing Trust Fund.
land Use ~ They discussed the condo conversion ordinance (noted above).
Liaison Reports
Council- Hardesty said it was suggested at a Council/Budget meeting that because the City's economic
needs are so great that the proceeds from the sale of the Strawberry property might be better spent on
something other than affordable housing, however, for the time being that idea has been dropped.
Schools - Street said he thought the Board of Directors would be meeting the afternoon of May 25th in a
study session to discuss affordable housing.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2
MINUTES
MAY 24, 2007
Planning - At their meeting on May 8th, they discussed the Economic Opportunities Analysis data. They
talked about goals, the relationship between transportation and affordable housing, planning and public
process, sustainability and the environment and housing. They also talked about land supply and possible
expansion ofthe Urban Growth Boundary as a component that should be seriously considered. They
discussed mixed use, higher density, and careful consideration of condos as well as the use of public lands.
They said the Croman site and the Railroad property should be dedicated to industrial use. The City received
a grant to work on a master plan for the Croman site.
Parks - no report
Tripartite - They did not meet in May. The next meeting will be June 20th.
Pre-App Review Board - no report
Goldman announced there was a Fair Housing presentation last night. It was web cast throughout the state.
UPCOMING EVENTS
The August Housing Commission meeting was changed from the 23rd of August to the 30th of August at 5:30 p.rn.
Hardesty will be absent.
May 315\ 5:30 p.rn. - RVCDC Groundbreaking at Siskiyou near Park Street
June 215\ 6 to 7:00 p.rn. (Channel 9) Housing and Employers RVTV Show
Next Housing Commission Meeting - Community Development and Engineering Services Building, June 28th, 2007,
5:30 -7:30 p.rn.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted by.
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 24, 2007
3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
MAY 29, 2007
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main
Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Olena Black
Tom Dimitre
John Fields
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
Dave Dotterrer
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present
Staff Present:
David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
MEASURE 37 CLAIMS - SOU STUDENT PROJECT
Pat Acklin, Associate Professor of Geography, introduced her students who presented the research they conducted for the
Planning Department on six properties that have filed Measure 37 claims with proximity to the City of Ashland.
The properties include:
1. The Gerber and Billings properties at the far northwest end of the City. The presenters were: Whitney Vonada, Josh
McPhearson, and Gustavo Monteverde.
2. The Maddox and Pearson claims that are just north of the City. The presenters were: JoJo Mickey, Lyndsey DeWitt
and Kate McGuire.
3. The Saunders and Provost claims at the southeast end of town. The presenters were: Diane Lightrnan and Terry
Eubanks. Brianna Bergman worked on the project but was unable to attend tonight's meeting.
Each group gave a short presentation giving a description of each property, lot area, and zoning, history of the ownership, site
description, slope, and soils along with the potential for development. They will give the research data and a full report and
CD to the City Planning Department. Acklin said she'd make herself available for questions, clarifications or methodology.
Stalheim thanked the students for their hard work. The idea of doing this was a way to start the discussion that we might want
to have as a City and a Commission about the Measure 37 claims. Stromberg said the Commission will need a briefing in the
near future in order to get our bearings on what our role is concerning Measure 37 claims.
WETLANDS & RIPARIAN ORDINANCE UPDATE - Presented bv Bill Molnar. PlanninQ ManaQer
Molnar discussed the four parts of the program and the initial template for an ordinance. They are: 1) Conduct a local
inventory of wetlands and riparian (approved by the state in 2007),2) Adopt inventory into the Comprehensive Plan, 3) Revise
and update existing ordinances, and 4) Public education and outreach.
Mike Morris is the Planning Commission committee member. Molnar said they'll be make planning revisions to the draft in
the next month and bring it to a Planning Commission study session.
Molnar gave a more detailed explanation of the finer points of the draft ordinance as outlined in his PowerPoint presentation.
Depending on how long the approval process takes for the ordinance, we might come forward and adopt the inventory.
PUBLIC MEETINGS AND QUASI.JUDICIAL MATTERS TRAINING - Presentation bv Paul Nolte. LeaQue of OreQon Cities
Nolte gave a PowerPoint presentation briefly explaining the legislative process. His overriding reminder to the Commissioners
is to ask themselves "What Would a Judge Do (WWJD)? He then reviewed the quasi-judicial decision making and the strict
procedures required from noticing, public access, reading of a script, and the opportunity to be heard to providing an impartial
decision-maker, and in certain circumstances, allowing a continuance of a hearing or leaving the record open for more evidence
or argument. A decision is made that is supported by findings. A record is kept of the hearing and there is notification of a
final decision.
Nolte reviewed ex parte contacts. His advice to the Commission was to avoid ex parte contacts. A judge would never allow ex
parte contacts. Difficulties arise when ex parte contacts occur. A Commissioner's decision has to come from the facts
presented to them by the parties that appear before them. That evidence has to be publicly disclosed. Anything in the public
domain has to be made part of the record. It is problematic and he would discourage a Commissioner from doing hislher own
research. Let the applicant bring information to you. If you do your own research, it must be disclosed. Don't forget: the
burden of proof is on the applicant. Bringing one's own general knowledge to the meeting is acceptable.
With regard to bias, he would strongly discourage Councilors from attending quasi-judicial hearings. He would discourage
Planning Commissioners from serving on other commissions or attending other commission meetings if they plan to discuss
anything that would come before the Planning Commission. If a Commissioner does attend other commission meetings, they
need to make a full disclosure before the Planning Commission.
When it involves trusting someone that comes before the Commission, unless it's clear on the record that what is being said is
incorrect, you can't use that against them. Nolte said bias is very hard to prove at the appellate court level.
Nolte said the Commission can decide how they want to elicit bias challenges. The Planning Commission can decide to
require a bias challenge in writing or verbally, with or without time limits.
Nolte discussed conflicts of interest.
PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT
Stalheim went over the tentative agenda and Molnar reviewed the site tour. Stromberg asked each Commissioner to think
about possible goals. When they talk about how they work together, Stromberg would like to have each person spend a couple
of minutes talking about their background and what brought them to the commission.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JUNE 28, 2007
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
RETREAT
JUNE 2, 2007
MINUTES
ATTTENDANCE
Planning
Commissioners:
Others:
Staff:
John Stromberg, Chair, Mike Morris, Dave Dotterrer, Pam Marsh, Melanie
Mindlin, Tom Dimitre, Olena Black Michael Dawkins and John Fields. There
were no absent members.
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison
David Stalheim, Bill Molnar, Maria Harris, Brandon Goldman, Angela Barry and
Derek Severson
I. CALL TO ORDER. 9 a.m.
II. TOUR. A tour of the following sites took place: North Mountain, North Main (Siskyou Eye
Center), Downtown (Pioneer Lot) and Croman mill site.
III. WORKING TOGETHER.
Commission members and others provided information on their background and interest in
planning. Commission members were asked about what they would like to improve on. Topics
that appeared to have agreement on were:
· Clarity regarding criteria and keeping the commission and public focused on the
criteria during land use hearings; potential training on use of criteria
· Need to find opportunities for policy discussion
· Need to explain to the public reasons for vote since discussion is often centered around
only one part of a larger, complex project.
IV. PERMIT PROCEDURES.
David Stalheim presented an outline of potential changes to permit procedures. The Commission
had very little time for questions and discussion and agreed to continue the discussion with the
full commission at the next available opportunity.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
, r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JUNE 12, 2007
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg, sitting in for Pam Marsh, called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic
Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Dave Dotterrer
Michael Dawkins
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Cate HartzeIl, absent
Staff Present:
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. To be approved at tonight's meeting.
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-00798
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 80 Wimer St
OWNER/APPLICANT: Thomas Peterson
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an addition to an existing residence located at 80 Wimer St.
and exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area for a single-famify dwelling in the Historic District by approximately 22 percent.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391 E05DD; TAX LOT:
8000.
The Historic Commission did not make any recommendations at their meeting on June 6, 2007.
This action stands approved.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-00445
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 247 Otis Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Sage Development LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 to subdivide the
property into 18 lots for new single family homes, including one lot containing the existing structures on the site, for the property
located at 247 Otis St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA T/ON: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5P; ASSESSOR'S MAP
#: 391E 04BC; TAX LOT: 400.
This action was called up for a public hearing.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-00804
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 635 Lit Wy/1655 Siskiyou Bv
OWNER/APPLICANT: Roderick Newton
DESCRIPTION: A request for Commercial Site Review approval to convert the 932 square foot residential living space and 250
square foot garage of the mixed use building to commercial clinic use and construct a 1,000 commercial clinic addition on the
south side of the previously approved commercial clinic use, bringing the total commercial clinic square footage to 5,442 square
feet. The property is located in the Detail Site Review zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial/Single Famify
Residential ZONING: C-1/R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 15AB; TAX LOT: 7300.
This action stands approved.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 1 :37 p.rn.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 12, 2007
CALL TO ORDER
Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Fields, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Tom Dimitre
John Stromberg
Mike Morris
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members:
Olena Black
Pam Marsh
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present
Staff Present:
David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Dave Dotterrer reported that at the June 5th Council meeting, the Council ran out of time to discuss the proposed changes to the
Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities. They are schedules to discuss Roles and Responsibilities at their June 19th
agenda. Stromberg offered to step in for Dotterrer ifhe is unable to attend.
Stromberg handed out an agenda with some proposed changes to it along with the times allotted for each item. He asked if the
Commissioners would approve of allowing unstructured public input from the audience on tonight's agenda.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item: Public Hearing Format - Stromberg suggested taking input from the Commissioners, and then he and David can jointly
revise it and bring back a suggested final version to the Study Session on July 26th.
The Commissioners approved of the agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
o Dimitre/Fields m/s to approve the March 27,2007 Joint Study Session minutes. Voice Vote: The minutes stand
approved as written.
o Dimitre/Mindlin m/s to approve the April 24, 2007 Study Session minutes. Voice Vote: The minutes stand approved as
written.
o Mindlin/Dotterrer m/s to approve the May 8,2007 regular Planning Commission meeting. VoiceVote: The minutes
stand approved as written.
o Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to approve the May 8, 2007 Hearings Board. Voice Vote: The minutes stand approved as written.
PUBLIC FORUM
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison, talked about the project on North Main & Glenn Streets recently approved by the Planning
Commission and subsequently appealed by the Council. Swales had a problem with bias expressed by Commissioner Mike
Morris. He believes this introduces some ethical issues. The Commission might want to become better acquainted with how the
legal workings of the appeal process work.
ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, handed out "Glenn Street Development Appeal, Helman Springs Dev. Hearing" and discussed the
appeals procedure and "Improving Procedural Integrity." He noted the following points:
1. Put documents online as they're scanned, not at the last minute.
2. Send notice to all parties to the Outline Plan.
3. Make the findings decision on hearing night.
4. Schedule findings earlier in the session.
5. If there's a 7-day record extension, schedule decision for study session, not the next month.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
PROPOSED PLANNING ACTION PROCEDURE REVISIONS
Stalheim presented the Land Use Procedures Proposed Changes in a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment "A" of the meeting
minutes). The changes would involve eliminating the Staff Permit procedure and combining it with a revised Type I hearings
process and moving some Type II's to Type I's. The purpose of the changes would be to streamline the process and allow for staff
efficiencies.
After hearing the presentation, some of the Commissioners supported the general direction of the changes, felt this was a good first
step and wanted to keep the process and discussion moving forward. There was general interest in involving interested parties
including developers of large and small projects and others who would have valuable input regarding the impact of the changes.
Stromberg asked that between now and the time this is brought to the Commission again, input can be sent to him.
The following items were noted that need further discussion and clarification.
Input on Planning Actions:
1. 100 foot width and length issue
2. Cost of appeal- currently free
3. Fiscal impact to citizens for appeal process
4. Note: distinction between "call up" process vs. public hearing
5. Evidentiary Hearing - ramifications to record
6. Trigger points - residential transition, other?
7. Trust, monitoring?
8. Reconsideration process - think about ramifications about public process
9. Notice area and standards (distance, signs, etc.)
10. Why on the record vs. de novo?
11. Length of time
12. Staff net cost in terms of time efficiencies
13. Which projects would fall into different categories - expedited land divisions, evidentiary hearings
14. Appeal vs. reconsideration vs. call up
Process:
1. Distinction between existing process and new is not great (i.e. Hearings Board)
2. Public input (developers, citizens, etc.) - invite stakeholders
3. Next time would be a public hearing
4. Public input would be on a proposal written in a user friendly format that focuses on the changes, not on the final
ordinance - flow charts, etc.
(Secretary's Note: A motion and vote were taken regarding the procedural changes at the end of tonight's meeting and can be found near the
end of the minutes.)
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE
The Council recently reviewed the modified ordinance and they decided they wanted to achieve the goal of rentals and particularly
affordable rentals in Ashland. They asked City staff to re-write the condo conversion ordinance. An ad hoc committee made up of
two Planning Commissioners (Tom Dimitre and Michael Dawkins) and the Land Use subcommittee of the Housing Commission
(Bill Smith, Bill Street, Regina Ayars and Alice Hardesty) met to make changes. The Housing Commission reviewed the
substantive changes at their meeting on May 24th. In this latest version, three options would be given to an applicant that is
outlined in the memo dated June 12,2007 from Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist. Staff developed a sliding scale so
the larger the complex size, the greater percentage of rental units had to be maintained. (There are exceptions.)
Commission Comments:
1. What percentage of units is non-conforming?
2. Not enough information.
3. Would like to see more affordable units.
4. After Legal reviews the ordinance, it could change everything again.
5. Like the general concept of this ordinance.
6. Less concerned about affordable rentals than losing rentals.
7. How do you motivate the private sector to do affordable housing?
8. Do we want to socially engineer housing?
9. The options and formula provided are reasonable.
10. We won't be seeing any new apartments built - only condos.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 12, 2007
MINUTES
2
." ,
11. We have the sense this ordinance will gain us something, but we don't really know the outcomes.
12. This is a complicated and complex subject.
13. Disallow condos and only allow rentals.
14. The only way to get more apartments is to subsidize them.
15. There are two companion goals that start to compete with each other. To get affordability you have to do it by
incentive. If you take away all potential incentives, by protecting every single rental unit at market rate, what can
you offer as an incentive? There is a trade-off between protection and creating incentives.
16. Build an ordinance addressing just condominiums.
17. We have only a limited number of apartments that will convert because all new construction will be built as
condominiums and no one will ever build a new apartment again.
18. Wary about layer of government that is involved and the amount of regulation this ordinance might take as well as
the cost to regulate it.
19. Rental Needs Analysis has shortcomings. Survey did not include those who carry cell phones.
20. The market is challenging for low income individuals.
21. No other examples of condominium conversions we can draw from in the State of Oregon even though many other
communities are facing the same problems.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
AARON BENJAMIN - The basic objective is to preserve as many affordable rentals from the threat of condo conversations in as fair
a way as possible. Believe Goldman's formula presents something that they believe will work. The market is changing.
COLIN SWALES - He said "condominium" is an ownership type. It is not "for purchase" as implied in the title of the ordinance.
Condominium conversion is a conditional use. What is a use and what isn't a use? Conversion of an ownership type to
condominium ownership is not a use. A use is still residential. Owner occupied is a different kind of use than rental occupation.
No conversions from multi-family zoning to condominium ownership.
Stalheim said we have no regulation on condominiums. There is no process under state statute that requires the City to have a
process other than the City surveyor.
Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
Stromberg wanted Staff to summarize this for the Council. He recommended the Council members view the last 45 minutes of
tonight's video.
Due to the growing complexity of trying to resolve this ordinance, Fields moved not to adopt the current ordinance as it has evolved.
Dotterrer seconded the motion. Mindlin suggested an amendment asking the Council to gather more information on how this will
work. Fields said the proposed ordinance as it has evolved has gotten more complex without having enough corroborating data or
outcomes or knowing the general net affect of it. As a result, we are not willing to support the ordinance changes this time.
Roll Call: Morris, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Fields and Dawkins voted "yes." Dimitre and Stromberg voted "no." The motion carried.
Hartzell said as someone who has watched this evolve, she would ask the Planning Commission to step forward and help with this
problem.
MOTION TO MOVE THE PERMIT PROCEDURES FORWARD
Stalheim is requesting a motion to initiate the changes to the code and to go through the public process.
Stromberg felt reluctant to move to do this because there has not yet been a meaningful discussion on tonight's changes.
Fields/Morris m/s to discuss the revision to the Type I and Type II's to streamline the process in our ordinance. He'd like to see staff
carry it forward and start articulating it in the form of an ordinance. Roll Call: Fields, Mindlin, Dimitre, Dotterrer, Dawkins, and Morris
voted "yes" and Stromberg voted "no."
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 12. 2007
MINUTES
3
.. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2007
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Olena Black
Tom Dimitre
John Fields
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
Dave Dotterrer
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, present
Staff Present:
David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
The City Council was invited to join the Planning Commission for the following presentation. Councilors Cate Hartzell, Russ
Silbiger, David Chapman, Kate Jackson and Eric Navickas were present. Mayor John Morrison and Alice Hardesty were
absent.
INTERCHANGE AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS (lAMP's), EXITS 14 & 19
Stalheim introduced JOHN WIEBKE, Transportation Planner and CHRISTIAN SNUFFIN, Traffic Engineer, both with David Evans
and Associates, Inc. They were later joined by MIKE BAKER.
Wiebke gave a PowerPoint presentation describing the lAMP. He explained that both interchange projects will be happening
concurrently. A citizens' advisory committee (CAe) has been formed in Ashland and met for the first time last month.
Interchange modifications are being done to last for a 20 year cycle. The final plan will ultimately be adopted by the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Ashland. Wiebke reviewed the public involvement process. He talked
about the current deficiencies of the exits one of which is the facilities for bike and pedestrians. He is learning how important
this element is in their plans. They anticipate having to widen the bridges and are looking at new ramps for Exit 19 and less
extreme ramps for Exit 14.
Hartzell asked they take into account the winter mountain pass closings that can occur on 1-5 and the traffic hazards and safety
issues that arise with the closing.
Jackson would like to see a model that includes consideration for higher density - in other words, the denser the population, the
more we can use public transit systems, slower speeds to encourage bikes and pedestrians, etc. She does not want to oversize
the system. Chapman added he wants to see a safe and efficient interchange, particularly for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Christian said they were looking at a five lane alternative that would include sidewalks, bike lanes, two travel lanes and a left
turn lane. They showed some samples of bridges and ramps but were looking at a configuration call the divergent diamond.
Stromberg said that sometimes the County has very different ideas from the City's, yet we are just as concerned with the north
interchange as the south. We want to make sure we have a strong voice, role and influence in the process. An audience
member said he would like equal or more neighborhood influence in the planning for Exit 19. Baker said he could bring back
the plan and review it with the Council and Planning Commission, but Exit 19 is out of the City's jurisdiction.
Wiebke said notes from the committee meetings will soon be posted online.
Commissioner Dotterrer is a member of the CAe. He explained it is advisory in nature, however, the City of Ashland is well
represented.
. r
Debriefing - Comments and Concerns:
Would like to see more involvement by the Planning Commission in this process
a Should the Council follow-up or get more involved with Exit 19?
a Can Staff assist the County in accessing a buildable lands inventory? This is important.
a Find ways to invite the public to the upcoming workshop.
a Have the Mayor write a grateful letter for allowing us to be involved and ask them to come before us again
with updates.
a The Planning Commission or City's goals may be divergent from ODOT's goals.
a Send a clearer, stronger statement about what the City's goals are.
a What are the implications of the work ODOT will be doing on land values?
Stromberg asked that anyone who has a particular interest in this project or new ideas to share to let him know.
PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS
Stromberg handed out and read the General Duties and Specific Duties of the Planning Commission. He believes the Planning
Commission is starting to move into a more assertive leadership role in the community.
Stalheim gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the work plan before the Planning Commission for the next 18 months (see
Attachment A - Planning Commission Goals - Draft). The Planning Commission reviewed the points presented and made
some changes reflected in Attachment B - Planning Commission Goals - Adopted June 26, 2007.
Goal 1. Initiate the review and revision, as necessary, of the Comprehensive Plan.
Points the Commission considered leading to their decision to adopt this goal.
1. Get citizen participation up and running as soon as possible.
2. Initiate the review of the Comp Plan as the first step to get rolling.
3. Elicit core values of the community - a must.
4. Core values wi111ead the ideas that form all of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Who is it that should be leading the changes to the Comprehensive Plan?
How much does the Commission want to do and how much should be appropriated to other groups?
6. Form a subcommittee to put together a proposal to bring back models for public participation.
7. Allow the Commission to modify goals when necessary.
8. Need Council's full buy-in for this work and it should be done early in the process.
Black/Dimitre m/s to adopt the goal to initiate the review and revision, as necessary, of the Comprehensive Plan. Roll Call: The
motion was unanimously approved.
Goal 2. Review and amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to address inconsistencies and priority policy issues as outlined
below.
Points the Commission considered leading to their decision to adopt this goal.
1. Confusion about what issues have fallen under "low-hanging fruit." Are there gray areas?
2. Value in segregating out controversial items.
3. The document will end up in a reader-friendly version.
4. Add the wording "...and make recommendations to the 'City Council'..." to Goal 2.
Morris/Marsh m/s to approve Goal 2 along with "Other Items Mentioned."
5. Approve a. - d. Prioritize the rest. Some of the items are not on the study session schedule.
6. Complete the items under Goal 2 in sequence. Work on items g-k as there is time.
7. Build-in ability to reassess the list at six months and to add items, as needed.
8. Preference of the Chair would be to adopt all the goals unanimously.
9. Everyone is familiar with items a. - d. The other items could use further explanation.
Black/Fields m/s to remove items d. - j. Add a Goal 3 with the items d. - j. Roll Call: The motion carried with Mindlin, Black,
Dimitre, Marsh, Dawkins, Dotterrer and Stromberg voting "yes" and Fields and Morris voting "no."
Black/Fields m/s made a sub motion to amend the motion on the table (Morris' motion) to remove items d. - j. Roll Call: The
motion carried with Mindlin, Black, Dimitre, Marsh Dawkins, Fields, Dotterrer and Stromberg voting "yes" and Morris voting "no."
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2007
0" r
3. Review land use plans and standards for Croman Mill Site and Railroad property.
This goal changed to Goal 4.
Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve the new Goal 4.
Points the Planning Commission considered leading to their decision to adopt this goal.
1. The Croman site and the Railroad Property are two very different sites.
2. There is development potential on the Railroad Property.
3. Why not do the Railroad Property, Railroad District and Downtown?
4. The Railroad Property involves clean-up.
Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to amend her motion to include only the Croman Mill Site with the understanding Staff will bring back any
information they have regarding the Railroad Property. Roll Call: The vote was approved unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
JUNE 26, 2007
3
Members Present:
Ashland Traffic Safety Commission
Minutes
May 24, 2007
Doris Mannion, Colin Swales, Alan Bender, Terry Doyle, Matt Warshawsky, Kate
Jackson
Jim Olson, Karl Johnson, Dawn Lamb, Steve MacClennan
Patti Busse
Staff Present:
Members Absent:
I. CALL TO ORDER -
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 26, 2007 minutes approved as written.
III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
IV. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR: With the resignation of Keith Massie from the Commission, Matt
Warshawsky has been promoted to the Chair position. The commission elected Colin Swales as the
new Vice Chair who will be promoted to chair after one year's time. The Vice Chair is elected to fill in
when the Chair is absent and to become the Chair the following year.
A. PUBLIC FORUM ITEMS:
B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS / PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED
1. Conversation with Wayne Jackson, Local Truck Driver
Wayne Jackson, 835 East Main Street, was asked to attend the meeting to discuss the issue of truck
parking from an operator's view. Jackson is a long haul truck driver who lives in Ashland. He is a
commercial long haul driver and operates a 2006 Volvo. The cab and tractor measure 71-72 feet in
length and this is dependent on the coupling device used to connect the trailer and cab and 102 inches
wide. He never carries any hazardous materials. He was approached by a neighbor on Morton Street
who asked that he not park there because the truck was a safety hazard and it blocked the view of the
cemetery and it was an eyesore. Lemhouse said that Medford has an ordinance and tried to keep the
tractors from being within City limits, but it is difficult to ensure a safe place to store the tractors. The
Port of Entry was considered, but they rescinded their original offer. Olson asked Jackson to tell him
what he looks for in a parking area. Jackson said accessibility especially room for maneuvering without
trouble. Used to park at the vacant lot near the Shop and Kart but that has recently been posted as no
parking and the other area was on Wightman. He used Morse because it was close to his house and
he could walk home. He recently began driving for a new company because it offered the opportunity
to be home more often. Bender asked if Jackson had access to another car that he could use to
shuttle to another location. Kate Jackson commented that the lot near the Shop and Kart was causing
problems with abutting neighbors on Takelma hearing and smelling the fumes so the property
manager, Summit Properties posted the site as no parking. Wayne Jackson informed the commission
that when a truck is towed the fee is passed onto the driver and it is upwards of $1,000. Swales
brought up that there were a number of issues with tour buses in the downtown area and an
agreement was made with OSF to have the trucks park on Hersey Street. Wayne Jackson and his wife
have several children, three of their own and two that they baby sit. There would be a hardship for his
wife to wake the children up when he comes into town. He is also concerned with the safety of the
truck. The contents and the truck are his responsibility. He is liable for anything that happens so he
feels more secure having the truck close to his house. Bender said that other cities do have
restrictions, what are the downsides from an operator's standpoint, how do you compensate? Olson
said that the other cities offered alternative parking for the trucks. Ashland does not have an area
large enough to offer this to truck operators. It was brought up to ban parking on residential streets.
Wayne Jackson said that to ban trucks from parking near the operators homes would have a dramatic
impact on the trucking community. The two biggest problems are the getting to and from the truck at
odd hours and for the truck to be unattended. There is not a great deal of crime in Ashland, but to
know the truck is safe makes it easier to go home and relax. The issue is that people don't want to
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc Page 1 of 10
y.' ".; 4" .#
look at the truck. In Atherton California they do not allow any truck parking. He does not know how
the enforcement is handled. He doesn't know how to deal with the intolerance, but he doesn't feel it is
selfish to want to park near his house. If people were to understand how much they rely on trucking
and what we do for everyday lives. Consider how different lives would be without trucking. The
commission needs to know what freight lines mean to everyone and to have respect for the trucking
industry. Bender commented that without trucking we would be back in the stone ages in two to three
days. Bender said the neighbors came to talk to Wayne Jackson about the truck. Wayne Jackson said
that there were two people who came to talk to him and they said it was ugly and they suggested
other places to park the truck, but because of a fire hydrant and some trees it would have been
impossible. The yellow zones on the lower portion of the road limit the parking also. Not really into
parking there, but it was a place that felt safest.
An unknown audience member confronted Wayne Jackson about the amount of time the truck idles.
She felt the truck would idle for 45 minutes and the diesel fumes penetrate her house. Wayne Jackson
commented that he felt he was being disrespected by the people and that he doesn't disagree with
them that the truck is an impediment, but there are not a lot of equitable choices. Warshawsky
explained to Wayne Jackson that he was asked to attend the meeting because the commission had
been approached by neighbors about truck parking and before any action was taken by the
commission they wanted to hear the other side of the situation.
Wayne Jackson explained that Morse and Morton offer easy accesses to Main Street and Lithia Way.
He does not need to idle for long amounts of time because the new trucks do not need as much warm
up time. If the truck runs for 65-70 hours only about 1% of the time is spent idling. The newer trucks
are better equipped. In the worst climate like North Dakota in the winter the trucks still require a
warm up time of 45 minutes, but here the climate is not that severe. The time parked at home varies
depending on the schedule for the week. Typically he is home for two or three days and gone for the
rest of week. The company schedule is not always that set and he has been home more often lately.
Doyle said the time spent parked on the street is an important factor for us to know if we are trying to
make the best decisions. Lemhouse suggested more discussion with the neighbors to come to an
amicable decision. It seems as if some people want to see a draft ordinance presented. If there can
be a discussion to find a safe and reasonable alternative would Jackson be willing to work with the
neighbors. Wayne Jackson said that he would be willing to discuss options with the neighbors, but he
doesn't park on Morton much anymore. There is a truck from Gorton Trucking lines that is now
parking on Morton.
Jim Martin brought this forward to the Commission after discovering that it is legal for a large truck to
park on residential streets. Watkins Shepard, ? , commented that trucks have parked there for a long
time. It is not one driver, it is a logical spot for truckers to park their truck and trailers, it is just
inconvenient to the adjacent property owners. This seems to be a site specific issue and when Wayne
Jackson was not parking there it wasn't an issue for any other area in the City. Trucks are very
important and heavily relied on for freight operation. The problem is how do you choose who can park
there and who can't. There are other similar large vehicles like motor homes. Other trucker drivers
observe trucks parked there and follow suit. How much is safety and how much is less attractive. An
effort could be made to try and find a safe secure place for the trucks to park. There is land that the
City does not own that is out of sight and secure where trucks can park. Mannion asked if other
truckers lived in Ashland and ha similar issues. McClennan only knew of one other on Scenic Drive, but
he has not brought truck home or moved. Swales felt that at the moment the ordinance says this is
perfectly legal to let the truck park in a residential zone. It is brought forward to Traffic Safety as a
safety concern, but really it is a planning ordinance issue for compatible use. A similar issue came up
with the home occupation permits. There has to be a limit on the impact and it does not come down
to truck parking. It is a land use code issue and residential areas are not compatible with commercial
C:\OOCUME-1\Shipl;td\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc
Page 2 of 10
parking. While he respects the need to park and the right to reside nearby this is not necessarily
compatible. He doesn't feel it is up to the City to find parking for the private sector.
Kate Jackson commented that the other complaints were from the idling truck fumes and that was
another part of town. It would be nice to stay away from creating more planning ordinances and more
rules. This group has been looking at this for a couple of months. We need to be careful not to make
a planning decision if we feel this is not a safety issue. If this issue is widespread and will benefit the
community as a whole then look at a draft ordinance. If this is for one or two streets and an alternate
parking needs to be done this could be tough on the truck drivers. We need to look at how this affects
the commercial area. We don't have parking on the arterials and the City parking lots are too small to
accommodate a large truck. If we look at a citywide ban then we need to find an alternative. Wayne
Jackson said that the empty lot near Shop & Cart would make a good parking lot for the truck drivers.
The lot is owned by Leo Zupan and is managed by Summit Investments. Lemhouse asked if it was the
City's duty to find a place to open for lease.
Doyle felt that the commission was getting close to working on what really is a planning problem. We
are here to look at parking for all trucks and what condition we would limit them. Road width is safety
issue and it enters into the calculations. If this is a larger issue than it needs to go to the City Council.
It is up to us to give recommendations. Swales felt a recommendation to Council is as far as we can
go. Doyle said that if an ordinance is drafted he is in support of putting width restrictions on the
vehicle or on the streets, but if the ordinance is to ban all truck parking on residential streets he is not
going to support it. McClennan commented that the difference between the commercial trucks and
some motor homes is inches, even some larger pickups are within the measurement. This would be
difficult to enforce. Warshawsky asked if there is a law that states that you can not park in a way that
would impede traffic. Bender commented that this issue is a difference between safety and dealing
with an eyesore. In terms of safety there is not much ground to stand on because of the common
widths between private vehicles and commercial vehicles. Jackson said that standard parking is eight
and a half feet and maximum truck width is 102 inches. This is very close to width of the parking
space, but if the vehicle is parked up against the cub then the vehicle will overhang over the curb and
not take up the entire eight and a half parking width. There needs to be some common sense in the
person parking. Wayne Jackson commented that with any vehicle you need to take the responsibility
and pay attention. Lemhouse agreed that if a parked vehicle is impeding traffic or blocking visibility,
there already exists rules that can be enforced. There is no need to reinvent the rules. Wayne
Jackson commented that he felt his new truck was handsome and an attractive truck.
The commission thanked Wayne Jackson for coming in to speak to the commission. Doyle asked if the
commission wanted to suggest to the planning department or to the Council that there is a problem.
That there needs to be a place for big rigs to park where the idling and the site of the truck causes a
problem. Does the commission want to suggest that staff prepare an ordinance to ban truck parking
on residential neighborhood streets based on gross weight or some other basis.
Kate Jackson said that the commission had done its due diligence and heard both sides, considered
impacts and asked the questions to see if this is a widespread problem. If this is needed than the staff
would hear more complaints. The police department does not feel that this is a big problem based on
the lack of complaints. McClennan did not see a need to draft an ordinance. The complaints are few
enough to be handled on a case by case basis. He also felt with the increase in fuel costs drivers will
be very frugal in the amount of idling they do. Bender commented that this is more of a red herring as
a safety issue and it is more of a sight problem. This is not our business to deal with this if it is not a
safety issue. He does sympathize with the neighbors.
George McCaffey, 76 Alida Street, said that his lot runs through to Morse Street. He got to know
Wayne Jackson a little. He supports being able to park on the street. If it is the intention of the City to
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc
,....,<..,..:.::...:...::,:. /# ..,.....+..>::...:.::.::.:...:......J<
Page 3 of 10
p r
run working class families out of town this is the first step. He is only trying to support his young
family.
Decision:
Mannion motioned that no action be taken. Bender seconded the motion and it passed six to one.
Swales opposed.
2. Request for 15-Minute Parking Zone at 180 Lithia Way
Mr. Evan Archerd, developer of the Jasmine Building Condominiums at 180 Lithia Way has requested
that a single parking space be designated as a 15 minute loading zone to accommodate deliveries and
quick business visits.
Lithia Way is a commercial street extending from East Main Street to Helman Street. The street has
on-street parallel parking along its entire length (except west of the bridge) and has a two hour limit
on most of the spaces.
There are approximately 82 parking squares between Third Street and the bridge of which four are 15
minute zones. The existing zones are located as follows:
Third to Second Street: One on the south side at 366 Lithia Way (Lithia Realty); One on the south side
342 Lithia Way (former Renaissance Chocolates)
Second to First Street: Two on the north side at the Post Office
First Street to Pioneer Street: None
Pioneer to Oak Street: None
Oak to Helman Street: None
In the past few years, Lithia Way has seen an increase in the number of commercial businesses with
building still continuing. With more business having Lithia Way frontage the need for some short term
parking spaces is apparent. There are currently no 15 minute spaces between First Street and Helman
Street and a 15 minute space would be useful for several businesses. Staff recommends approval of
the request for a 15 minute loading zone at 180 Lithia Way.
Discussion:
Evan Archerd, developer, the addition has exacerbated the problem recently because of the building
under construction is staging construction material in the parking lot. The construction company is
taking up 5-6 spaces. There are going to be condominiums in the structure and it would be nice to
have a space available for quick trips and deliveries. It would be good to have the space anywhere on
the block.
Bender felt this was a cut and dry addition for residents to have an easy access space. Swales said
that the alley in the back also offered some short term parking for twenty minutes. Swales also
thought the spot would be better down the block toward the retail shops and coffee shop. Olson
suggested moving the fifteen spot down to Pucks. Then there would still be the same number of
parking spaces. Doyle had no objection and this seems like a good idea. Jackson felt this was an
intelligent addition. Olson felt that the area could support a fifteen minute parking space on each
block. There are two existing near the Post Office. Doyle utilizes the post offices spaces often and
appreciates them. Archerd said there is an existing fifteen minute space on Pioneer near Maizeys.
Bender asked how many residences will exist in the building; five residents. Archerd added that that if
the affordable housing project is accepted then there will be 11 to 12 residences. Bender said that it is
common for condos to have a fifteen minute space to allow for grocery drop off and such. He is in
support of this proposal.
Decision:
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc
'4l:..::.:::::::.:.:::.::.::!."'::.::.::.:.:::.:::.:.::..:.<::....;.ii:::::.:.:.::::::x.:..<< ~:..i;.
Page 4 of 10
.. r
Doyle motioned to approve staff recommendation and leave the placement of the space. Mannion
seconded the motion and it passed 5 to 1.
3. Traffic Study on Patterson & Crispin Streets
Attached is additional information gathered during a speed study in the Patterson
Street/Crispin Street Intersection. This information was not included in the original packet that
was distributed to Commissioners. A summary of the findings is included below:
Crispin Street - Patterson Street to Oak Street
. Total # of vehicles in study: 1241
. Average Speed: 14.4 mph
. Average 85th 0/0: 17.0 mph
. # of vehicles over 25 mph: 0
. Top Speed Recorded (25 mph zone): 23mph
Patterson Street - Crispin Street to Carol Street
. Total # of vehicles in study: 999
. Average Speed: 16.6 mph
. Average 85th 0/0: 20.5 mph
. # of vehicles over 25 mph: 23
. % of vehicles over 25 mph: 2.3%
. Top Speed Recorded (25 mph zone): 33.2 mph
Discussion:
Staff recommends the trimming of the trees and shrubs and installing a dead end sign. The traffic
study showed the lowest recorded speeds in the City.
Andrew Lyle, 191 Crispin, not an expert with speed studies but felt the location of the cables would not
have picked up the faster speeds because of the right angle curve they were close too. There are
children in the neighborhood including his who play in the street. The diligent parents stand in the
street to slow traffic. The biggest concern is not Patters on corner but from Oak Street down. Two
months ago a car crashed through the mailboxes. This has happened a number of times with people
not negotiating the corner. He has been suggesting the stop sign to help people be prepared to stop
causing them to slow down sooner. There is a place where the greenway crosses the street which
would be a good place to create a narrowing for crossing the street. Jackson drove the road and said
it was difficult with the jog in Crispin to go fast on that narrow street. Lyle said that his perception of
the speed could be off. Doyle thought about the use of speed bumps and if this would be a place to
try or a raised crosswalk. Olson felt the priority for traffic calming should be set for places where there
is a problem. The traffic study shows that this area is not having a problem and that the speeds are
well within the limit. There is not going to be an increase in speeds because the street is too narrow
for drivers to feel secure. This is not a problem area. Oak Street was an area with significantly high
speeds. The 85th percentile was well over 45MPH and now it is down to around 28 MPH. The area on
Dollarhide was similar in that the narrow street gave the perception of vehicles traveling faster than
they actually were. Lyle has a concern for the safety of the children. The street could be made into a
dead end to change the traffic pattern to head to Hersey and out of the way of their street. He would
like to see planters or a stop sign to stop traffic.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc Page 5 of 10
Ni:.:::.:.::.::.:.:::..:.:.::.::.:..~.
Lemhouse thanked Lyle for being a diligent parent who is concerned for his children's safety. He asked
Lyle if he set up visual markers to suggest to drivers to show greenway entrance or green cones.
There are cub crossing signs that might work well. The neighborhood is doing a good job. Lyle lived
in Germany for six years and there were raised crosswalks, yield signs and one way streets all over and
it made drivers more aware to slow down and traffic stopped. There is not a lot of notice of the corner
or greenway. Bender said when the commission looks at vehicle traffic which is low and the speed
which is not a problem compared to other areas of the City this is not a serious issue. There are parts
of the City with dramatic problems. There are all kinds of things to do, but he would like to put the
energy into an area with a problem. Swales told Lyle that he is doing the right thing by owning the
street. Drivers will notice the presence of people more then a stop sign. Lyle commented that the
problem was not people in the area, because they drive very carefully. Make sure if the cub crossing
signs are used they do not block the street. Keep them behind the curb.
Lyle also asked when the bike lane going up Oak Street would be completed. They have to ride in the
street up until Ashland Lumber, then the lane ends and they have to travel in the street with his
children. Olson told him the project for the improvement to the railroad was in process and it will
install a sidewalk over the tracks. The rest of the lane will take longer to improve the rest of Oak to
downtown.
Decision: No action.
4. Request for Parking Prohibition on Lithia Way & Pucks Donuts
Terry DeSilva, Ashland Police Department has suggested that the first parking space east of the
driveway exiting the Pucks/ Modern Barber Shop / Ashland Wine Cellar parking lot be eliminated to
provide better visibility and safer vehicle entry onto Lithia Way.
The lot located at 44 Lithia Way houses Pucks Donuts, the Modern Barber Shop and Ashland Wine
Cellar and provides a small six lot parking lot. The entrance to the lot is off Oak Street at the corner of
Lithia Way and exits onto Lithia Way approximately 150 feet west of the corner. The size of the lot and
the angle of the head in parking within the lot dictates that the traffic pattern within the lot be one-way
from east to west with the exit being on Lithia Way.
There are five parallel parking spaces along Lithia Way between Oak Street and the parking lot exit. All
parallel parking is designated 2 hour.
The first parking space east of the exit, when occupied by a larger vehicle severely restricts the view of
oncoming traffic to a vehicle attempting to enter Lithia Way. The slight curvature of Lithia Way
compounds the site issue as it is difficult to pull far enough from the traffic gap provided by the signal
is lost to vehicles entering from Oak Street and other areas.
The need for better visibility at the exit to this lot is very obvious, however the City has not, in the
past, made accommodations to private lots and businesses by removing public parking. There are 82
parking spaces on Lithia Way between Third Street and Helman Street most of which are fully occupied
during the busy part of the day.
The commission will need to determine if this location is sufficiently more hazardous than other similar
areas to warrant removal of a much needed public parking space. Another option to be considered
would be to create a 15 minute zone at this location in hopes that it would provide more vacancy to
help improve the site conditions. Pucks Donuts and the Ashland Wine Cellar, however, both do very
quick in and out type of business and the 15 minute space might be as fully occupied as the two hour
adjacent parking. The question to be answered is: does this condition severely affect the safety of
traffic on Lithia Way?
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc Page 6 of 10
;y...; >ij
Discussion:
Olson brought up the idea of changing this space to a 15 minute parking space and feels it still would
not help the vision problem that exists. The question is whether we eliminate one more parking space.
Warshawsky asked if mirrors could be put up across the street to help see oncoming traffic. The
mirrors are broken and dirty and hard to maintain. They tried before and it failed. This is an old space
and it is not an issue with a new development. Lemhouse said he frequented the donut shop and this
is a place that is hard to see. Could the vehicle height be restricted in the spot; Olson said that when
this was attempted before the signs were ignored. Doyle said that if a large vehicle like a motor home
or such were to park there no one would be able to see regardless if it is only parked there for fifteen
minutes or not. Jackson commented that the locals use the Beaver Slide and will cut the parking area
to get to the Beaver Slide but others will use the turn around at Hersey. Swales felt that the existence
of the parking lot took pressure off of removing the parking spot. He didn't think a fifteen minute
space would make a difference to them. Mannion suggested removing the space and hoping for the
best. McClennan said there are a lot of close calls at this location. Lemhouse asked if Diamond
Parking could do the enforcement for this spot. Olson said that the City typically did its own
enforcement for height restriction. Bender said it shouldn't be the end of the world to remove one
parking space to mitigate safety. Olson talked to the businesses and they have no problem because
they feel people going into their businesses don't use that space. Doyle felt it was an awful place to
park so why do they park there anyway. Olson agreed that there was some safety element along with
the political issue of removing a parking spot. Warshawsky pointed out that a new space would be
created at the new construction.
Decision:
Bender motioned to eliminate the parking space in the problematic area. Doyle seconded. Swales
opposed the motion, Warshawsky abstained and the vote passed with four in favor.
5. Request for One-Way Designation on Alley Between 4th & 5th Streets
At last month's meeting David Chapman had suggested a possible way in which bicycle and vehicle
conflicts could be reduced on the alley adjacent to the railroad right of way between Fourth and Sixth
Streets. His suggestion was to make the alley one-way to vehicles and mark a bike lane on the
pavement to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians.
The referenced alley is located just to the north of A Street between Fourth and Sixth Streets which
abuts the southerly right of way of the Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad. The alley was created in
1993 with the Railroad Village Subdivision and has a right of way width of 20 feet.
The alley has been paved to a width of 18 feet and additional private head-in parking spaces have
been provided along much of the south side of the alley. The head-in parking is 18 feet deep and
supports the many businesses along the alley's south side. On the north side of the alley, the railroad
right of way is approximately 1.0 feet north of the pavement edge. There is approximately 28 feet
between the alley/railroad right of way and the southerly rail of the main track. As there is no physical
barrier between the two rights of way approximately half of the 28 foot distance is used as an illegal
and unauthorized vehicle parking area. A condition of the subdivision approval required that a fence
be constructed along the north alley right of way line to protect the railroad from trespass. This
condition, however, has not been enforced and there is presently only one short section of fence in this
area.
This alley provides the main connection to the Central Ashland Bikepath and experiences almost equal
shares of bicycle, pedestrians and cars. Presently all modes of travel share the 18 foot wide paved
surface as there are no lines separating bikes from cars, nor direction of travel.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc
iii::'::.:.:::::::':':::::.:.:'::':}!:"'>i' ,,~:,':i;i/:,:::,:,::,::,:,:::.:::.:..Yi:',,:.
Page 7 of 10
There is no traffic control along this alley and previously bike and vehicle conflicts have been reported
at the intersections of Lithia Way and Fourth Streets. This commission addressed that issue on
October 26, 2006. As a result Traffic Regulation 06-12 was approved by the administrator and
forwarded to the street division for implementation. The regulation required placement of two No.
WII-1 "Bike Crossing" signs at the Fourth and Sixth Street intersection.
One-way street systems can provide a good solution to several traffic problems, but they can also add
a unique set of problems that must be addressed carefully before implementation. Some created
problems include:
1. Faster Traffic
With the elimination of opposing traffic the traffic lanes become wider and less congested, often
causing an increase in traffic speeds.
The elimination of opposing traffic also removes the expectation of vehicular conflict, again giving rise
to increased speed and less caution amongst drivers.
2. Lane Widths
The 18 foot width is too narrow for two cars to pass and one vehicle is generally required to yield to
the other, thus slowing traffic.
The existence of head-in parking on the south side of the alley requires that a vehicle entering or
exiting a parking space use nearly the entire width of the alley as a maneuvering space. The need for
the full width for maneuvering into parking spaces precludes the use of a physical barrier separating
bike and vehicle traffic. A painted separation would not provide the protection for bicyclists.
3. Two Way Bike Traffic / One Way Vehicle Traffic
Bicycles are subject to all of the traffic regulations that vehicles must adhere to including directions of
travel. To allow two way bike travel on a one-way street or alley would require a physical separation
between the travel and bike lanes. A painted line on the pavement is usually not considered a physical
separation.
During my observations I have noticed a very broad spectrum of transportation use along the alley. I
have noticed not just vehicles and bicyclists but pedestrian use in a variety of forms, from joggers, to
dog walkers to mothers with strollers. This is the type of mixed usage that we would like to see on all
of our residential streets. This active use by all modes of travels sends the message more loudly than
any combination of signs, enforcements or engineering solutions that all users have equal rights within
this alley and one must expect any and all types of use. This is the very basic premise of the Dutch
proposal of "no boundary" streets in which no bike lanes, sidewalks or street centerlines are marked.
Each user must respect the rights of others and move cautiously.
Staff recommends that the alley not be marked as a one-way system and that the following actions be
considered instead.
1. The signs which were ordered under Traffic Regulation No. 06-12 be installed as soon as possible.
2. 15 MPH signs be installed (3 minimum) on the north side of the alley with signs faces on both side
of the post.
Discussion:
Swales said he would like to see the mix of uses in the alley and it should encourage the slow speed.
All property owners were required to erect a fence and they should do it.
Decision:
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc
;if.:";' .;;ii:::,::,:,:::::::':':::':.~1'::':::,:,::,::,:,:::,:::.",",.:..:.::.::.:.:::.:::.:.:f:.'"
Page 8 of 10
. r
Doyle moved to accept staff recommendation to put in speed signs with no parking signs on the same
posts. Benders seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
6. Status of Fence at B & Water Streets
At last month's meeting the commission considered the status of a missing stop or yield sign at Band
Water Streets. It was pointed out at the meeting that the issue was less about the sign and more
about the fence and the visibility at the corner. Staff was directed to look into the legality of the fence
and any options for improved visibility.
I spoke with Adam Hanks, the City's Code Enforcement Officer, regarding the history of the fence. The
following facts were discovered:
1. The property, which was previously owned by Avista Utilities, was protected by a six foot
high steel chainlink fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. There is no record of
when this fence was installed, but it has been in place for more than 30 years.
2. Several years ago a permit was issued to modify the fence. The section of fence along
Water Street from 20 feet north of B Street was replaced with an 11.5 foot high chain link
fence, with sight obscuring slats. This revision was a joint action between Lloyd Haines and
Avista Utilities and was intended to screen the yard from the view of the condominium on
the west side of Water Street.
3. In 2006, Avista Utilities sold the lot to Mike Young, dba Genesis Construction Co.
4. The property is zoned E-1 (employment district), and as such there are fewer restrictions on
development than found in residential zones. In an E-1 zone there are generally no area or
width requirements nor setbacks.
The over height fence was permitted as a variance. Since the variance is still active it may be possible
to require adjustments in the fence to improve the vision at the corner, such as angling the fence
across the corner rather than bringing it square to the property lines. Additional information regarding
this will be provided at the meeting.
Discussion:
Olson has been getting mixed answers from the Planning department on the fence situation being built
on the property line. Still attorney thinks they should be made to follow vision clearance at corners.
Olson agrees with the attorney. Currently there is a six foot chain link fence but this is still a visual
problem. Olson tried to get a hold of Mike Young to ask him to do an angle across the corner to get at
least a twenty foot of clearance on the leg of the intersection. If Olson gets a good reaction from
Young then see if he would consider relocating the fence on the corner and see if the fir tree could be
trimmed up to the eight foot clearance from the road. Jackson agreed that the vision clearance is not
only the fence but the tree too. Warshawsky asked if this would limit our option in the future or could
we make C-2 Utility move the fence. Olson said there would be no way to enforce the fence as this is
a grandfathered facility and there is no going back after the fact. All we can do is ask. Swales felt that
whether there was authority or not on existing structures any new construction would have to be in
compliance with the vision clearance.
Decision:
Lemhouse motioned to have staff pursue Mike Young at Genesis Construction Co. regarding angling the
fence and commission can revisit if he does not agree. Seconded by Swales. Doyle and Mannion
abstained; four in favor, motion passed.
7. Bike & Pedestrian Issues
Warshawsky reported that there are classes that will soon be offered to adults to go over the rules of
bicycling. He will email to interested commissioners.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc
'.w. .:'17..::::::..::::"::::::..;::.11;;
Page 9 of 10
8. Agenda Items for Next Month
C. Follow-Up on Previous Actions -
A. No Comment.
D. Traffic Safety Education
1. Governor's Highway Safety National Meeting, September 22-25, 2007 Portland
E. Development Review:
1. Planning Commission Agenda
2. Hearings Board Agenda
D. Capital Projects Update:
E. Other:
1. Buckaroo buggies are still being ridden around town. McClennan will keep an
eye out for them. They are giving a bad rap to bicycles by riding in traffic lanes
and not following traffic devices.
2. Laurel Street Traffic Loops are under construction so the light will be on a timer
instead of by actuator loops.
NEXT MEETING DATE: June 28, 2007
V. Adjourned 9:15 PM
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\May 24 07 TSC.doc
";;:':'::::,:'::'::':'::::::.?:;pj,ii "'.j-;;' ......;. "f::..< '.:..{ .,
Page 10 of 10
. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Intergovernmental Agreement-City of Medford Building Department
Meeting Date: July 17, 2007
Department: Community e elopment
Contributing Departme egal Department
Approval: Martha B avid Stalheim
Primary Staff Contact: Mike Broomfield
E-mail: broomfim@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
E-Mail: appicellor@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: Consent
Statement:
On June 19, 2007 Council approved an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Building Codes Division
(BCD) for plan review and periodic inspection in the CoquillelBandon Jurisdiction. Staffprojects this will meet
the revenue target of $42,000 identified in the budget.
The Building Division has negotiated an additional contract with the City of Medford Building Department for
inspection services. The new agreement is an effort to increase revenues for building inspection and to keep our
existing service intact.
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the IGA with the City of Medford Building Department.
Background:
In Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007 actual revenue from building permits was about half of the budgeted amount. As we
discussed with the Budget Committee and Council, staff is projecting that this will continue in Fiscal Year 2007-
2008. The adopted budget both reduces staff and also includes revenue from contracting out service to other
jurisdictions. The attached agreement allows the City of Ashland to provide services and receive revenue from
the City of Medford. Staff expects to do just a few hours of work for Medford each month.
Approving the attached IGA does not restore staffing to the previous levels.
Related City Policies:
City of Ashland Intergovernmental Agreements with City of Talent, Oregon Building Codes Division, and
Jackson County Department of Community Development.
Council Options:
Option 1: Approve the IGA with the City of Medford Building Department (legal review is completed)
Option 2: Amend the draft agreement for further negotiation with The City of Medford Building Department.
Potential Motions:
None.
Attachments:
Draft Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Ashland and the City of Medford Building Department.
r~'
INTERGOVERNMENT AL AGREEMENT
FOR BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2007 by and
between THE CITY OF ASHLAND, Oregon, and THE CITY OF MEDFORD, Oregon.
A. ORS 190.010 permits units of local government to enter into intergovernmental
agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement
has authority to perform; and
B. The City of Medford requires the services of qualified building inspectors for the
performance of routine building code inspections; and
C. The City of Ashland employs building inspectors with the particular training,
ability, knowledge, and experience to meet the needs of the City of Medford; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. RECIT ALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
2. DURATION. [ORS 190.020(1)(e)]. The term of this Agreement shall be after
execution by both parties and shall expire on June 30, 2008, unless administratively extended in
writing as provided for herein. The Ashland City Administrator may extend this Agreement
twice, by twelve (12) months each extension, by indicating in writing to the City of Medford that
an extension of the Agreement is sought under the same terms and conditions, * of this
Agreement. *Provided however, that the rate of compensation set forth in paragraph 4 below is
subject to any cost of living increase paid the applicable City of Ashland Building Department
staff for the extension period. The extension shall be effective only upon receipt of a document
from an authorized City of Medford representative consenting to the extension under the same
terms and conditions*.
3. FUNCTIONS OR ACTIVITIES. [ORS 190.020(1)]. The City of Ashland shall
make available to the City of Medford, City Building Department personnel with the
qualifications and state certifications necessary to perform the inspections requested by the City
of Medford. Inspectors shall be made available on those dates and at those times as are mutually
agreed upon between the Ashland Building Official and the Medford Building Official. A
statement of work is contained in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this
reference. The City of Ashland Inspectors providing services to the City of Medford pursuant to
this Agreement shall have all jurisdiction, authority, powers, functions, and duties of the City of
Medford Building Inspectors with respect to any and all violations of State Law, the City Charter
or ordinances of the City of Medford.
Intergovernmental Agreement for
Building Inspection Services
Page 1 of3
4. PAYMENT. [ORS 190.020(1)(a)]. The City of Medford shall promptly
reimburse the City of Ashland for the actual expenses incurred for the services provided. For
purposes of this Agreement, actual cost shall be considered a flat rate costs in an amount of
$65.00 per hour, not to exceed $ for the initial contract term. Additional
reimbursable costs, if any, shall be set forth and contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
made a part hereof by this reference,
5. REVENUE. [ORS 190.020(1)(b)]. All costs, fees, fines and charges, collected as
a result of the work performed by City of Ashland building inspectors pursuant to this Agreement
shall be the property of the City of Medford. No revenues expected to be derived pursuant to this
Agreement need to be apportioned between the parties.
6. PERSONNEL. [ORS 190.020(1)(c)]. No employees will be formally transferred
pursuant to this Agreement. The City of Ashland will continue to pay its employees and shall
keep accurate records of hours worked pursuant to this Agreement. The City of Medford and the
City of Ashland are subject employers under ORS Chapter 656, and shall procure and maintain
current valid workers compensation insurance coverage for all subject workers throughout the
period of this Agreement. This Agreement does not change the status of any employee,
contractor or officer of the respective Cities.
7. REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY. [ORS 190.020(1)(d)]. There shall be no
transfer of title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this Agreement.
8. TERMINATION. [190.020(1)(f)]. This Agreement may be terminated by
mutual consent by both parties; or by either party at any time, upon sixty (60) days notice in
writing and delivered by certified mail or personal service. In the event of termination of the
Agreement the City of Ashland shall pay for services rendered to the date of termination. Such
termination shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party accrued
prior to such termination.
9. HOLD HARMLESS. It is the intention of the City of Medford to be solely
responsible for the actions of the City of Ashland inspectors while acting pursuant to this
Agreement for the sole benefit of the City of Medford with the full power and authority of the
City of Medford Building Department. Accordingly, to the extent permitted by Article 11,
Section 7, and Article 11, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims
Act, the City of Medford shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Ashland from
any and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage, including injury resulting
in death or damage to property, that anyone may have or assert by reason of the any error, act or
omission of City of Ashland building department personnel, arising out of or in the performance
of his /her duties under the terms of this Agreement. Provided however, the City of Medford shall
not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments or other damages, directly and
proximately caused by the criminal or wanton acts of Ashland employees or the negligence of the
City of Ashland employees. Such indemnification shall also cover claims brought against either
party under state or federal employees' compensation laws. If any aspect of this indemnity shall
be found to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification.
Intergovernmental Agreement for
Building Inspection Services
Page 2 of3
10. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE, SUBMITTING BILLS,
AND MAKING PAYMENTS. All notices, bills, and payments shall be made in writing and
may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices, bills, and payments sent by mail should
be addressed as follows:
City of Ashland
Attn: Martha Bennett
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Phone: 541-488-2100
City of Medford
Attn: Christy L. Davis
411 W. 8th Street
Medford, Oregon 97501
Phone: 541-774-2351
and when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made to the names and addresses of the person to whom
notices, bills, and payments are to be given by providing notice pursuant to this paragraph.
11. MERGER. This writing is intended both as the final expression of the
Agreement between the parties with respect to the included terms and as a complete and
exclusive statement of the terms of the Agreement. No modification of this Agreement shall be
effective unless and until it is made in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two
(2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers, thereunto duly authorized.
Dated this _ day of
,2007.
City of Ashland, Oregon
City of Medford, Oregon
By:
Gary Wheeler, Mayor
City of Medford
By:
John Morrison, Mayor
City of Ashland
Approved as to Form:
Approved as to Form:
Interim City Attorney
City Attorney
Intergovernmental Agreement for
Building Inspection Services
Page 3 of3
["INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A
I
III. STATEMENT OF WORK
Through this Agreement the City of Ashland agrees to perform site built electrical, plumbing, and
structural/mechanical and manufactured home set up inspections on behalf of the City of Medford.
A. The City of Ashland shall:
1. Comply with all requirements and regulations of the ORS's and OAR's
pertaining to the electrical, plumbing, and structural/mechanical programs
and manufactured home programs.
2. Provide State of Oregon certifie<;lllicensed inspectors.
3. Perform electrical, plumbing,structurallmechanical and manufactured home
inspections as requested by the City of Medford with 48 hours.
4. Complete Inspection Report Form at the time of inspection (form provided
by the City of Medford).
5. Provide identification upon entering ajob site and the reason for the site
visit.
6. Comply with the inspection notification requirements of applicable ORS's
and OAR's.
7. Provide to the City of Medford a monthly request for payment to be
submitted with a detailed spreadsheet listing date and location of inspection,
type of inspection and inspection time spent.
B. The City of Medford shall:
1. Provide all necessary forms
2. Give a minimum of one day notice prior to an inspection.
3. Provide site location, type of inspection needed, and permit number and
information.
.. r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of Grant Distribution Greater than $75,000
Meeting Date: July 17, 2007
Department: Administrative Services
Contributing Departments: NA
Approval: Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg ~ ~
E-mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: NA
E-mail:
Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) Economic and Cultural Development
contract.
Statement:
Resolution 2007-08 provides for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival to receive grant funding from the Transient
Occupancy Tax each budget year through the Economic and Cultural Development grant process,
The City Council adopted the 2007-08 budget which included grant funds for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival of
$116,700.
Background:
Resolution 2007-08 states that beginning in Fiscal Year 2007/2008, the City Council will appropriate thirty three
and one third percent of the anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax monies for Economic and Cultural
Development. The amount to be allocated annually to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) for promoting
tourism per the State definition shall be $116,700, which is adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or
deflation established in the Budget process.
The minimum amount for City of Ashland required by the State definition for tourism is $218,715 in FY 2007-08.
This is calculated on the budgeted amount of Transient Occupancy Tax revenue to be received and also based
upon actual money spent in prior years.
The entire amount granted to OSF (for tourism) leaves $102,015 to be spent on tourism by the other grantees to
meet the minimum amount required by the State.
A report from OSF for the prior year's activities is due into the City on January 31 J 2008, and can be used to
evaluate future awards. OSF must report on this contract (FY 2007-2008) by January 2009.
Related City Policies:
Resolution 2007-08
r~'
Council Options:
Approve the Oregon Shakespeare Festival grant contract for signature.
Defer approval awaiting additional information.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to approve the Oregon Shakespeare Festival grant contract for signature.
Attachments:
Oregon Shakespeare Festival contract
Resolution 2007-08
rj.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2007- OS
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 HOTEUMOTEL (Transient
Occupancy) TAX AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2004-32
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council recognizes that the source of monies for the
Economic and Cultural Development Grant program is the Hotel/Motel Tax.
SECTION 2.
The following are the goals which the Budget Committee is attempting to meet by
granting money to applicants for:
a) Tourism Promotion:
1. Attract someone who travels to Ashland from more than 50 miles away to attend
an event.
2. Attract someone who stays the night in Ashland to attend an event.
b) Economic Development:
1. Promote increased number, variety and size of employers.
2. Encourage wages at or above median wage.
3. Promote businesses that employ 5 to 100 people or is locally owned.
4. Encourage use of local resources.
5. Work with Southern Oregon University, especially for international commerce.
6. Discourage businesses that need water, that emit air pollution, or that create
toxic waste.
c) Cultural Development:
1. Increase the number, variety and size of cultural opportunities in Ashland
2. Support diversification of the local economy
3. Showcases local talent
4. Work with Southern Oregon University on cultural programs
SECTION 3.
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2007/2008, the City Council will appropriate thirty-three and
one-third percent (33.3%) of the anticipated Hotel/Motel tax monies for Economic and
Cultural Development. The City of Ashland has determined that as of July 1, 2003,
$186,657 or 14.23% of total Hotel/Motel tax revenues were expended on tourism
promotion, as defined in Chapter 818 of the 2003 Oregon Laws, and will continue to be
spent on tourism promotion increased or decreased annually consistent with the
estimated TOT revenues budgeted. The minimum amount to be spent on tourism in FY
2007-2008 is $218,715.
The amount to be allocated annually to Ashland Chamber of Commerce (COC) and
Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OS F) for promoting tourism per the state definition shall
be $85,330 and $116,700, respectively, adjusted each year by the amount of inflation
or deflation established in the Budget process. An additional amount of $169,740,
1- 2007 TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 final
adjusted each year by the amount of inflation or deflation (increase or decrease in
budgeted TOT revenue) established in the Budget process, will be granted annually to
COC for economic development projects in cooperation with City staff.
Any additional amount for tourism required by Chapter 818 shall be allocated to COC,
OSF or other group during the budget process specifically for that purpose. The
remainder of the monies budgeted for these grants may be allocated to grantees for
activities fitting in any of the three categories set forth in Section 2 of this Resolution.
By January 31 of each year each recipient of a grant greater than $2,500 for non-
tourism programs or any amount specifically intended for tourism per this resolution
shall submit a report to the city council setting forth how the grant funds received were
expended in furtherance of the goals set forth in Section 2. Grant recipients of $2,500
or less for non-tourism programs are required to report its use only when requesting
additional money in a subsequent year.
SECTION 4. The following guidelines and criteria are established for the Economic and
Cultural Development Grants:
a) Grantee shall be a 501 (c) non-profit agency.
b) Grantee shall be a non-governmental agency.
c) Grantee shall promote livability for the citizens of Ashland.
d) The minimum grant proposal will be $2,500.
e) The grant will benefit Ashland in regards to enrichment and activities of an
economic nature.
f) Grantee shall serve the population in Ashland but may encompass other venues in
the Rogue Valley. Monies granted are intended to be used for programs or
service performed or provided within the City of Ashland or immediate areas.
g) Irrespective of sub-paragraph Ib', the City of Ashland Public Arts Commission may
apply for and receive funds.
SECTION 5. Resolution 2004-32 is repealed upon passage of this resolution.
SECTION 6. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the mayor.
This r olution was read by title only in accordance with ASh~~ Municipal Code
~2.0 90 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this;2l) day of . ~~L ,2007.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of ~
,2007.
2- 2007 TOT Expenditure Resolution Repealing 2004-32 final
CITY OF ASHLAND
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARD CONTRACT
CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND GRANTEE: Oregon Shakespeare Festival
20 E Main Street Address: P.O. Box 158
Ashland OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-5300 Telephone: 482-2111
FAX: (541) 552-2059
Term of this agreement: July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008
Amount of grant: $116,700 which will be disbursed monthly for the fiscal year in the amount of
$9,725.00 and is to be used for tourism oromotion oer Resolution 2007-08.
Budget subcommittee: Economic and Cultural Development
Contract made the date specified above between the City of Ashland and Grantee named above.
RECITALS: City grants the identified amount for the stated purpose above. This Grant agreement
(ORS 279A.01 0 (i) (A) (ii)) is not a public contract for purposes of ORS 279 A-C. ORS 279A.01 0 (x).
City and Grantee agree:
1. Amount of Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this contract, the City agrees to provide
funds in the amount specified above. Grant funds shall be utilized or contractually committed in the
fiscal year for what they are awarded.
2. Qualified Work. Grantee has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that
any personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the work
to which they will be assigned in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered,
licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. Grantee must
also maintain a current City business license.
3. Use of Grant Funds. The use of grant funds are expressly limited to the activities in this contract
and per Resolution 2007-08 with modifications, if any, made by the budget subcommittee designated
above or City Council.
Grantee will report in writing on the use and effect of granted monies compared to the original intent of
this contract and Resolution 2007-08 per the following:
a. Within 90 days of the event completion (Single event applications)
b. As part of a subsequent application for grant funds from the City
c. Within 90 days of the end of the current budget fiscal year, whichever is earlier
Grant applicants awarded less than $2,500 are encouraged to maintain documentation to this effect
but are not required to submit a report unless requested by the City except under 2 b. above.
4. Unexpended Funds. Any grant funds held by the Grantee remaining after the purpose for which
the grant is awarded or this contract is terminated shall be returned to the City within 30 days of
completion or termination.
5. Financial Records and Inspection. Grantee shall maintain a complete set of books and records
relating to the purpose for which the grant was awarded in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Grantee gives the City and any authorized representative of the City access to
and the right to examine all books, records, papers or documents relating to the use of grant funds.
6. Living Wage Requirements. If the amount of this contract is $17,342 or more, and if the Grantee
has ten or more employees, then Grantee is required to pay a living wage, as defined in Ashland
Municipal Code Chapter 3.12, to all employees and subcontractors who spend 50% or more of their
time within a month performing work under this contract. Grantees required to pay a living wage are
also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all
employees.
7. Termination.
a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both
parties.
b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days'
notice in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person.
c. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon
delivery of written notice to Grantee, or at such later date as may be established by City
under any of the following conditions:
i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and
continued at levels sufficient to allow for the grant;
ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted
in such a way that the grant purposes are no longer allowable or appropriate for
award under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for
payments authorized by this contract; or
iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Grantee to
provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked,
suspended, or not renewed.
8. Default. If Grantee fails to perform or observe any of the covenants or agreements contained in
this contract or fails to expend the grant funds or enter into binding legal agreements to expend the
grant funds within twelve months of the date of this contract, the City, by written notice of default to the
Grantee, may terminate the whole or any part of this contract and may pursue any remedies available
at law or in equity. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, termination of the contract, stop
payment on or return of the grant funds, payment of interest earned on grant funds or declaration of
ineligibility for the receipt of future grant awards.
In the event of termination, City may stop payment or withhold any Grant funds in City's possession
from Grantee and Grantee shall immediately return all unexpended and unencumbered grant funds.
In addition, City shall be entitled to recover any administrative costs, including attorney fees or
collection costs if encumbered as a result of Grantee's failure to return Grant funds. In the event of
termination, if Grant funds are not returned or it is found that Grant funds were misappropriated,
Grantee shall be ineligible and disbarred from receipt of future grant funds until such matters are
finally adjudicated and settled. The rights and remedies of this section are not exclusive and are in
addition to any other rights and remedies available to the City under the law.
9. Amendments. The terms of this contract will not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or
amended in any manner except by written instrument signed by the parties. Such written modification
will be made a part of this contract and subject to all other contract provisions.
10. Indemnity. Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents
harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogation's, or other
damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death,) or damage (including
loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of
this agreement by Grantee (including but not limited to, Grantee's employees, agents, and others
designated by Grantee to perform work or services attendant to this agreement). Grantee shall not be
held responsible for damages caused by the negligence of City.
11. Insurance. Grantee shall, at its own expense, at all times for twelve months from the date of
this agreement, maintain in force a comprehensive general liability policy including coverage for
contractual liability for obligations assumed under this Contract, blanket contractual liability,
products and completed operations, and owner's and contractor's protective insurance. The
liability under each policy shall be a minimum of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit
for bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and
$100,000 per occurrence for property damage. Liability coverage shall be provided on an
"occurrence" not "claims" basis. The City of Ashland, its officers, employees and agents shall be
named as additional insureds. Certificates of insurance acceptable to the City shall be filed with
the City's Risk Manager or Finance Director prior to the expenditure of any grant funds. Grantee
shall at its own expense provide the following insurance: Worker's Compensation insurance in
compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers'
compensation coverage for all their subject workers.
12. Assignment and Subcontracts. Grantee shall not assign this contract or subcontract any
portion of the work without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract
without written consent of City shall be void. Grantee shall be fully responsible for the acts or
omissions of any assigns or subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and the!
approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation
between the assignee or subcontractor and City.
13. Merger. This contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no
understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified in this contract regarding
this contract. Grantee, by the signature below of its authorized representative, acknowledges that it
has read this contract, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions.
14. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue. This contract shall be governed and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws,
rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City
(and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Grantee that arises from or
relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit
Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a
federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by the
signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction
of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of
defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or
otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
15. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently
available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal
year budget. Grantee understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract
attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City
appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable
administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has
insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract
without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Grantee, with no
further liability to Grantee.
16. Non-Discrimination. Grantee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules,
and regulations on nondiscrimination because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex,
marital status, sexual orientation, age, medical condition, or disability.
GRANTEE
CITY OF ASHLAND
By
By
Finance Director
Title
Date
Date
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
Appointment to Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors
~IY17,2007 ~
'{ ~!ty Reco~~=~AA~
Martha Bel7r ~
Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
488-5307 christeb@ashland.or.us
Estimated time: Consent Agenda
Statement:
Ashland Community HospiJ:al Board is requesting annual appointments of Linda Butler, Harvey
Ray and Douglas Gentry to four year terms, July 1,2007 through June 30, 2011. This
recommendation was approved by the Board of Directors at its regular meeting on June 26,
2007.
Background:
Ashland Community Healthcare Services Articles of Incorporation Article VIII (B) gives the
authority and responsibility to the City of Ashland (Member) to appoint the Corporation's
Directors based on the criteria set forth in Articles IX.
The Bylaws of Ashland Community Healthcare Services Section 4.4 state that the Board shall
consider potential candidates and forward such recommendations to the Member for its
consideration when appointing persons to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors.
The Council approved the request by Ashland Community Hospital to amend the Articles of
Incorporation for the Ashland Community Healthcare Services to permit a full 12 directors plus
retain the past Chair of the Board for an additional year on the Board of Directors.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Ashland Community Healthcare Services recommended appointments.
Staff Recommendation:
None
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve annual appointments of Linda Butler, Harvey Ray and Douglas Gentry to the
Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors for terms ending June 2011.
Attachments:
Letter of recommendation
r;.,
June 28, 2007
Ashland City Council
c/o Barbara Christiansen, City Recorder
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Barbara,
In accordance with provisions of the Bylaws of Ashland Community Healthcare
Services, the annual meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday,
June 26th, 2007. At that meeting, the Board approved a recommendation to the
City for appointment of the following individuals to the hospital's Board of
Directors, for four-year terms, 2007-2011.
- Linda Butler
- Harvey Ray
- Douglas Gentry
Thank you for your careful consideration of this appointment and for your
continued support of Ashland Community Hospital.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Marchetti
Chief Executive Officer
Ashland Community Hospital
Council Communication
Approval of Two Sole-Source Public Contracts with Hunter Communications
Data and Radio Fiber Optic Network Services
Meeting Date: July 17, 2007
Department: Police
Contributing Departments: Inform ti n Technology
Approval: Martha Benne
Estimated Time: Consent Age
Statement:
This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to enter
into two Sole Source public contracts, each of which is for a thirty-six month contract period, with
Hunter Communications. One contract is for radio services and the second contract is for data services.
These support services will be provided through the fiber optic network located between the Ashland
Police Department and the Medford Police Department.
Primary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Secondary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Terry Holderness
holderness@ashland.or.us
Joe Franell
franelli@ashland.or.us
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public contract for data services and the public contract for radio services be
awarded to Hunter Communications. The contract for data services will be billed at a cost of $648.00
per month for a total contract amount of $23,328.00. The contract for radio services will be billed at a
cost of $864.00 per month for a total amount of $31,104.00. Each contract is for a three year period (36
months), which requires Council approval.
Background:
In order for the Police Department's existing dispatch system to operate there needs to be a fiber optic
network connection between the Police Department and Medford Police Department's dispatch center.
That network connection needs to be supported twenty-four hours a day seven days a week to support
police operations. At this time, the only service provider in the area that provides these support
services with around the clock - 24 hours a day and seven days a week - coverage is Hunter
Communications.
Related City Policies:
Section 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority
A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer
may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following:
i. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less;
11. The contract does not exceed a twenty-four month contract period;
lll. The contract provides that the contract may be terminated by the City for convenience
thirty (30) or fewer days following delivery of written notice to the contractor;
iv. Funds are budgeted for the purpose of the contract;
v. The contract has been approved as to form by Legal Counsel unless it meets one of the
exemptions set forth below; in Section 2.50.025, and,
V1. All other requirements for public contract code procurement have been satisfied.
Section 2.50.025 Procedure for Review by Legal Counsel
B. Exemptionfrom Review. Legal counsel review is not required in the following circumstances:
4. The total contract amount is less than $25,000.
Section 2.50.075 Sole Source
The appropriate department head shall determine when there is only one seller or price of a product of
the quality required available within a reasonable purchase area. To the extent reasonably practical,
the appropriate department head shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms
advantageous to the contracting agency. The determination of a sole source must be based on written
findings that may include:
(1) That the efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition of compatible
goods or services;
(2) That the goods or services required for the exchange of software or data with other
public or private agencies are available from only one source;
(3) That the goods or services are for use in a pilot or an experimental project; or
(4) Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from
only one source.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendations
or decline to approve the contract recommendations.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract for data
services and the public contract for radio services to Hunter Communications.
Attachments:
Contract for Data Services
Contract for Radio Services
H
u
N
T
E
R
commun
cat
o n 5
Internet / Intranet Service Agreement
Vo1.9.3.1 - QUO-01500- TOF51 - V.1 - 3/1/07
1. SE RVICES ............................................................................................................... ................................................. 4
1.1. DATA SERVICES
1.2. INSTALLATION SERVICES
4
4
2. TE RMS ................................................................................ .................................... ................................................. 4
3. CHARG ES ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1. DATA SERVICES RATE 4
3.2. INSTALLATION SERVICES CHARGE 4
3.2.1. UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY 4
3.3. LATE PAYMENT, DEPOSIT, ELECTRONIC BILLING 4
3.4. TAXES, FEES, GOVERNMENT CHARGES 3
4. SE RVICE LEVE LS ........ ............................................................................................................................................. 4
5. HUNTER FACILmES AN 0 EQUIPM E NT ......................................... ........................................ "'............................... 4
5.1. REMOVAL 4
5.2. PROPER ENVIRONMENT 4
5.3. DAMAGE 4
6. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CUSTOMER ........................................................................."................................4
6.1. INSTALLATION 4
6.2. PREMISES ACCESS 5
6.3. ACCEPTABLE USE POLICIES (AUP) 5
6.4. SYSTEM INTEGRITY 5
6.5. HUNTER EQUIPMENT MOVEMENT 5
7. TE RMINA T10N ...................................................................................................................... "................................. 5
7.1. CESSATION OF SERVICE 5
7 .2. CESSATION OF ACCESS 5
7 .3. TERMINATION FEE 5
8. NO WARRANTIES................................................................................ .................................. ,................................. 5
9. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN DAMAGES; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDY; EXCLUSIVE REMEDy............. 5
10. UNCONTROLLABLE CON DmONS......................................................................................... ,................................. 6
11. SEVERABILITY...................................................................................................................... ,................................. 6
12. G ENE RAL PROVISIONS........................................................................................................................................... 6
13. HUNTER COMMUNICATIONS ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY FOR HUNTER IP PRODUCTS ANI) SERVICES.............. 6
13.1 PROHIBITED USES OF HUNTER'S SYSTEMS, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 6
13.2 TERMS OF SERVICE 6
13.3 HIGH SPEED DIRECT FIBER CONNECTION 6
H
u
N
T
E
R
commun
cat
o n s
Agreement between Hunter Communications (Hunter) and Customer named below for Hunter's
("Data Services") on Hunter's telecommunications system through its fiber optic network (the
"network" or "system").
Customer Name: City of Ashland (P.O.)
Key Contact: Terry Holderness
Billing Address: 1155 E. Main, Ashland, OR, 97520
Phone: 541.552.2138
Email Address: holdernesst@ashland.or.us
Premises Address (if different): Ashland P.O. to Medford P.O. Radio Connection
Service Address (if different):
Branch Address (if different):
2
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials n
Date
Date l? - A- /J ~
1. Services. Customer shall purchase and Hunter Communications
(Hunter) shall provide to Customer:
1.1. Data Services. Data Services permit access by Customer to
Hunter's telecommunications system at the point of delivery located in the
Customer's premises described above. The point of delivery is that location
where the network and Customer's system are interconnected.
1.2. Installation Services. Installation services consist of
coordinating with Customer the necessary engineering, site survey, system
configuration and other services necessary to provide Customer Data
Services. These services shall be provided up to the date that the service
testing is completed based on Hunter's customary testing procedures and
the service is available to the Customer ("the service acceptance date").
In addition, Hunter will provide the equipment (collectively referred to as
"Hunter facilities") necessary to connect Customer's facilities to the network.
2. Terms. This agreement will be effective upon the date executed by
Hunter and shall continue for 36 months, unless sooner terminated as
provided in this agreement. In the event written notice is not given by
either party to terminate this agreement at least 30 days prior to the
termination date, this agreement shall automatically be extended on a
month-to-month service agreement basis on the same terms and conditions.
Hunter reserves the right to modify charges for month-to-month service
agreements upon 2S days prior written notice to Customer.
3. Charges. Hunter agrees to provide an Internet connection service for
which Customer agrees to provide consideration as outlined below:
Point to Point: $864.00 billed monthly
Level of Service
PTP
Initial
Date
3.1. Data Services Rate. From the service start-up date,
Customer shall pay the rate specified above for each month of service. If
the service does not begin on the first day of a billing cycle, then payments
for the first month shall be prorated on a daily basis. All accounts will be
invoiced on the first day of each month, and all sums shall be paid within 20
days after the date of the monthly billing for services (the "due date").
3.2. Installation Services Charge. Customer shall pay the
installation charge specified below for the installation services provided by
Hunter which charges shall be due and payable upon onsite installation of
the fiber terminating hardware and therefore establishing the due date of
the installation charges and any prorated data services for the start-up
period.
Hardware and fiber Installation: Not Applicable. Renewai
contract.
3.2.1. Uninterruptible Power Supply. Customer shall provide a
form of unlnterruptible power for the fiber termination hardware and any
Hunter facilities or equipment at the Customers location. If the Customer
does not provide a un interruptible power source, Hunter will provide one for
the price listed below.
APC Uninterruptible Power Supply: $200.00 (one needed
for each location)
3.3. Late Payment, Deposit, Electronic Billing. Payments
received after the due date may be subjected to a charge of 1 V,% per
month on the unpaid balance at the discretion of Hunter. Hunter may
require Customer to pay a deposit in advance of the provision of any
service. Hunter shall hold any such deposit in a non-interest bearing
account and used to satisfy (in whole or in part) any obligation of Customer
under this agreement. All invoices will be sent via electronic mail. If
Customer requests paper invoicing, a $5.00 monthly processing fee will be
assessed to Customer's account.
3.4. Taxes, Fees, Government Charges. Customer agrees to
pay any applicable taxes, franchise fees or other governmental charges
imposed upon Hunter Communications by governing body with jurisdictional
authority over this service or for use of public right of ways and easements.
3
4. Service Levels. Hunter will exercise reasonable efforts to provide
Internet service on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-per-week basis. Customer
understands and acknowledges that Hunter does not warrant that its
Internet service will be provided without interruption. Customer also
understands that the rates and speed for this service is based on the
utilization of burstable data transmission methodoiogy where the full
bandwidth contracted for is to be utilized in bursts only and not
continuously. Hunter may monitor Customers' bandwidth utilization in order
to ensure that Customer's transmissions are within burstable utilization rate
guidelines. These guidelines are subject to change at any time by Hunter
acting in its sole discretion, and all such changes shall be binding upon
Customer upon written notice to Customer by Hunter.
In the event of a Internet service outage deemed to be at the Hunter
service level, Hunter will have a technician investigating the issue within 4
hours after receiving notification of the outage from the Customer to the
assigned service number provided to Customer from time to time. With
respect to a failure of continuous interruption which is not excused as
provided in this section or otherwise, which exceeds 24 consecutive hours in
duration, and of which Hunter receives written notice within 48 hours of
such failure or interruption, Hunter shall credit Customer's account with
respect to the affected service by an amount equal to one-thirtieth of the
recurring monthly charge for the service for each 24-hour period during
which the failure or interruption continues. This credit shall be the sole and
exclusive remedy of Customer with respect to any interruption or failure of
the service.
No such credit shall be due, however, if the interruption is caused by
reasons beyond the reasonable control of Hunter or for reasons related to
scheduled network maintenance.
5. Hunter Facilities and Equipment. Any Hunter facilities and/or
equipment installed on Customer's premises shall be and remain the
property of Hunter and may be repaired or replaced at any time and
removed at the termination of service, and may be used to supply other
customers of Hunter whether or not on the same premises. No rent or
other charge shall be made by Customer on Hunter for placing or
maintaining its facilities or equipment upon Customer's premises. Hunter
shall be entitled, at any time, to affix to Hunter facilities or equipment a
label indicating the interest of Hunter.
5.1. Removal. Customer will use reasonable efforts to ensure
that Hunter facilities and/or equipment are not I~emoved or caused to be
removed by any person, other than Hunter or without Hunter's prior written
consent.
5.2. Proper Environment. Customer shall use reasonable efforts
to keep the location of Hunter's facilities and/or equipment in the proper
environment as specified by Hunter.
5.3. Damage. Customer agrees to exercise due care and caution
to protect Hunter's facilities and equipment from the weather, vandalism
and other potential problems. Customer shall be liable for any loss or
damage to Hunter's facilities and/or equipment at: any location arising from
Customer's negligence, intentional act, unauthorized maintenance or other
cause within the reasonable control of Customer, its employees or agents.
In the event of any loss or damage to Hunter's facilities or equipment for
which Customer is liable, Customer shall reimburse Hunter for the lesser of
the reasonable cost of repair or the actual cost of replacement.
6. Rights and Obligations of Customer.
6.1. Installation. Customer shall at IIts expense undertake all
necessary preparations required to comply with Hunter's installation and
maintenance instructions. Such preparations include obtaining all necessary
consents for the installation and use of Hunter facilities and/or equipment in
the building, including consents for necessary aiterations to buildings;
ensuring that any floor loading limits will not be exceeded; providing
suitable accommodations, foundations and an environment to meet the
environmental specifications for Hunter includin<g all necessary trunking,
conduits and cable trays; providing suitable electric power and any other
utilities needed by Hunter to install, test and or maintain Hunter's facilities
and equipment; providing a suitable and safe working environment for
Hunter's personnel, including an environment safe from environmental
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials
n-
Date
Date & - 'I' ,i {
hazards; and taking up or removing, in time to allow Hunter to carry out
installation as scheduled, any fitted or fixed floor coverings, ceiling tiles,
suspended ceilings and partition covers.
6.2. Premises Access. Customer shall provide Hunter or other
persons authorized by Hunter with access (on both a routine and emergency
basis) for the implementation of all service acceptance date; Customer will
provide Hunter reasonable access to the Customer premises where any
Hunter facilities or equipment are installed. Hunter shall not be responsible
for any faults on the network or any failure to perform the provisions of this
agreement to the extent that Hunter, in good faith, requires access, and any
such faults or failures or the continuation thereof are a result of the failure
of Customer to provide access to the place at each iocation where Hunter
facilities and/or equipment are installed supporting the failing service or
connection.
(a) During implementation, Hunter wili normally carry out work required to
install and/or repair Hunter's facilities and equipment during its normal
working hours but may, on reasonable notice, require access at other times.
At Customer's request, Hunter will carry out work to install Hunter's facilities
and equipment outside Hunter's regular working hours, in which event
Customer agrees to pay overtime and any other appropriate charges agreed
between the parties.
(b) Any out-of-pocket costs, reasonably incurred by Hunter, as a
consequence of the denial of access by Customer (or building owner) to any
location shall be paid by Customer. Hunter shall advise Customer of any
such costs on a case-by-case basis.
6.3. Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Hunter's Acceptable Use
Policy (AUP) is posted to our web site and is to be acknowledged and known
by the Customer at all reasonable times. Customer shall comply with
Hunter's acceptable use policies. The acceptable use policies are subject to
change at any time by Hunter acting in its sole discretion, and all such
changes shall be binding upon Customer upon written notice to Customer by
Hunter.
(a) Customer shall be responsible for the use and compatibility of equipment
or software not provided by Hunter. In the event that Customer uses
equipment or software not provided by Hunter which impairs Customer's
Data Services or the network, Customer shall nonetheless be liable for
payment for all service, including without limitation any software provided
by Hunter. Upon notice from Hunter that any equipment or software not
provided by Hunter is causing or is likely to cause an hazard, Interference,
or service obstruction, Customer shall immediately eliminate the likelihood
or hazard, interference, or service obstruction and if Customer fails to do so,
Hunter may take such action as it deems required to eliminate such hazard,
interference or service obstruction.
(b) Customer will only connect to the network using industry standard
equipment, which complies and is compatible with the service specifications
set forth In applicable technical publications. Notwithstanding the
undertaking of Customer in the prior sentence, if, in Hunter's reasonable
opinion, the technical integrity of the network or the service being provided
over the network to Customer or any other third party is being jeopardized
or is likely to be jeopardized as a result of the connection of any Customer
premises equipment to the network by Customer or by any other activity for
which Customer is responsible, Hunter may suspend the provision of the
services to any connection so affected. Following remedial action by
Customer satisfactory Hunter, Hunter will reinstate the service provided
through that connection as soon as possible.
(c) Hunter reserves the right to allow or refuse to allow any make, model or
software revision of customer-provided equipment to be used as a gateway
to any network access. Customer will cooperate with Hunter in setting the
initial configuration for its equipment's interface with the network.
(d) Hunter may from time to time issue technical instructions on the use of
the network to ensure the proper functioning of the services or the
protection of the network from damage or deterioration. Customer will
observe technical instructions.
6.4. System Integrity. Customer to cure any violation (other
than failure to pay) of the provisions of this agreement within 30 days notice
by Hunter.
4
6.5. Hunter Equipment Movement. Customer is obligated to
obtain written approval from Hunter prior to moving any of Hunter's
equipment. Moving of equipment without authoriz,ation may cause damages
and/or an outage. A customer-caused outage, due to the moving of
equipment without written authorization, will be the soie responsibility of the
Customer. Costs for repairs performed by Hunter technicians as a result of
damages due to movement of Hunter equipment shall be borne by the
Customer. No deductions to billing will be made for Customer-caused
outages.
7. Termination Either party may terminate this agreement for cause,
provided written notice is given the other party specifying the cause for
termination and requesting correction within 10 days for failure to pay a
sum due, or within 30 days for any other cause, and such cause is not
corrected within the applicable period. Cause is any material breach of the
terms of this agreement, including the failure to pay any amount when due,
the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against Customer or Customer's
inability to meet obligations when due; or failure of Hunter. Hunter will
furnish copies of such policies upon request.
7.1. Cessation of Service. Hunter may deny Customer access to
the network and cease to provide all or part of any services described in this
agreement without notice if Customer:
(a) violates any provision of applicable acceptable use policies;
(b) engages in any conduct or activity that Hunter, in its sole
discretion, reasonably believes causes a risl< that Hunter may
be subjected to civil or criminal litigation, charges, or damages;
or;
(c) would cause Hunter to be denied access or to lose services
by Hunter's internet provider.
7.2. Cessation of Access. If Hunter ceases to provide or denies
Customer access to the network pursuant to this section, neither Customer
nor any of its customers shall have any right:
(a) to access through Hunter any materials stored on the
internet,
(b) to obtain any credits otherwise due to Customer, and such
credits shall be forfeited, or;
(c) to access third party services, merchandise or information
on the internet through Hunter. Huntl~r shall have no
responsibility to notify any third-party providers of services,
merchandise or information of any discontinuance of any
services pursuant to this section, nor any responsibility for any
consequences resulting from lack of such notification.
7.3. Termination Fee. If Hunter terminates this agreement for
cause, or if Customer terminates this agreement without cause, Customer
shall pay Hunter a termination fee equal to:
(a) one month's charges.
8. No Warranties. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Hunter is
providing the services and the system (includin9 but not limited to the
Hunter facilities and/or equipment and any access to the network) as is and
with all faults, and hereby disclaims all other warranties, if any, either
express, implied, statutory or otherwise with respect to any of the system
and services provided or to be provided under this agreement, including but
not limited warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, of
iack of viruses, lack of negligence or lack of workmanlike effort.
Hunter makes no warranty:
(a) of title, quiet enjoyment or lack of infringement with respect
to the system or services;
(b) that the system or services are "year 2000" compliant; or,
(c) that the operation of the system or service will be
uninterrupted or error free.
9. Exclusion Of Certain Damages; Limitiltion Of Liability And
Remedy; Exclusive Remedy. To the maximum extent permitted by
appiicable law, in no event will Hunter be liable under any contract,
negligence, strict liability or other theory for any special, indirect, incidental
or consequential damages (including but not limited to damages for loss of
profits for confidential or other information, for business interruption, for
personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty including of
good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and for any other pecuniary
of other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to any breach
by Hunter of this agreement, to the provision or use of or inability to use the
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials
Date
Date
",
/ -,?
~
f'L )
system or services or otherwise with respect to any subject matter of this
agreement, even if Hunter has been advised of the possibility of such
damages.
Hunter's total liability to Customer under this agreement and the
transactions contemplated hereby, including without limitation any liability of
Hunter for any damages of any nature whatsoever, including without
limitation direct or actual damages, shall be limited to the direct damages
incurred by Customer in actual and reasonable reliance on the system or
services, which damages shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 100% of the
amount having actually been paid by Customer to Hunter in the twelve
month period immediately preceding the date on which the breach giving
rise to the damages occurred.
Except for the provision of credits to Customer's account as specifically
provided in section 4, the rights and remedies granted to Customer under
this section 9 constitute Customer's soie and exclusive remedy against
Hunter, it's agents, officials and employees for any and all claims arising
under statutory or common law or otherwise.
There are no third party beneficiaries of this agreement. Customer agrees
that Hunter shall have no liability for the negligence, products, services or
websites of Customer; of affiliates; of developers or consultants identified of
referred to Customer by Hunter; or of any other third party, including but
not limited to liability for the content, quality and accuracy of the foregoing
which are accessible by use of the system or services of Hunter.
10. Uncontrollable Conditions. Neither party shall be deemed in
violation of this agreement if it is prevented from performing any of the
obligations under this agreement by reason of severe weather and storms;
earthquakes or other natural occurrences; strikes or other labor unrest;
power failures; nuclear or other civil or military emergencies; acts of
legislative; judicial; executive or administrative authorities; or any other
circumstances which are not within its reasonable control.
11. Severability. In the event that a court, governmental agency, or
regulatory body with proper jurisdiction determines that this agreement or a
provision of this agreement is unlawful, this agreement, or that provision of
the agreement to the extent it is unlawful, shall terminate. If a provision of
this agreement is terminated but the parties can legally, commercially and
practicably continue without the terminated provision, the remainder of this
agreement shall continue in effect.
12. General Provisions. Failure or delay by either party to exercise any
right or privilege under this agreement will not operate as a waiver of such
right or privilege. Customer may assign this agreement only with the
consent of Hunter. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding
between Customer and Hunter with respect to Service provided herein and
supersedes any prior agreements or understandings.
13. Hunter Communications Acceptable Use Policy for Hunter IP
Products and Services.
Hunter Communications Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") for Hunter IP
Products and Services is designed to help protect Hunter, Hunter's
customers and the Internet community in general from irresponsible or, in
some cases, illegal activities. The Policy is a non-exclusive list of the actions
prohibited by Hunter Communications. Hunter Communications reserves the
right to modify the Policy at any time.
13.1 Prohibited Uses of Hunter's Systems, Products and Services.
1. Transmission, distribution or storage of any material in violation
of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes,
without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark,
trade secret or other intellectual property right used without
proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory,
constitutes an illegal threat, or violates export control laws.
2. Sending unsolicited mail messages, including the sending of
"junk mail" or other advertising material to individuais who did
not specifically request such material (e.g., ..e-mail spam..).This
includes, but is not limited to, bulk mailing of commercial
advertising, informational announcements, and politicai tracts. It
also includes posting the same or similar message to one or
more newsgroups (excessive cross-posting or muitiple-posting).
Hunter accounts or services may not be used to collect replies to
messages sent from another Internet Service Provider where
those messages violate this Policy or that of the other provider.
5
3. Unauthorized use, or forging, of malil header information (e.g.,
"spoofing").
4. Unauthorized attempts by a user to gain access to any account
or computer resource not belonging to that user (e.g.,
"cracking").
5. Obtaining or attempting to obtain service by any means or
device with intent to avoid payment.
6. Unauthorized access, alteration, destruction, or any attempt
thereof, of any information of any Hunter customers or end-
users by any means or device.
7. Knowingly engage in any activities that will cause a denial-of-
service (e.g., synchronized number sequence attacks) to any
Hunter customers or end-users whether on the Hunter network
or on another provider's network.
8. Using Hunter's Products and Services to interfere with the use of
the Hunter network by other customers or authorized users.
9. Any open wireless network is strid:ly prohibited. Any type of
unauthorized service sharing will be searched for and
immediately identified. Any Customer unwilling to bring down
any such network will be terminated
Each Hunter IP customer is responsible for th,e activities of its customer
base/representatives or end-users and, by accepting service from Hunter, is
agreeing to ensure that its customers/representaltives or end-users abide by
this Policy. Complaints about customers/representatives or end-users of
Hunter IP Customer will be forwarded to the Hunter IP customer's
postmaster for action. If violations of the Hunter Communications
Acceptable Use Policy occur, Hunter IP customer's Products and Services
reserves the right to terminate services with or take action to stop the
offending customer from violating Hunter's AUP as Hunter deems
appropriate, without notice.
13.2 Terms of Service. To ensure that all Hunter Network users
experience reliable service, Hunter requires users to adhere to the following
terms and conditions. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
Hunter service, call the appropriate contact listed on your monthly billing
statement. Cable Modem customers need to CiJntact their respective ISP
providers.
13.3 High Speed Direct Fiber Connection.
· No reselling of bandwidth services; any wireless devices
distributing internet access or bandwidth on Customer premises
shall be secured and identified to Contractor.
· Bandwidth use will be monitored at the Hunter Head end.
Should a Business Service site exceed the maximum sustained bandwidth
contracted, you will receive a notification requiring your service level to be
upgraded to match the needs of your business usage.
Web Hosting services are permissible uses, such ,as a marketing firm hosting
pages for their customers. Other services not yet implemented may be
allowed by written consent of Hunter Administration.
Customer: City of Ashland - PD
Name: -r Glrl",( v / I
1 - Co L /J I':' . l ,"-' 't. L .I
Title: ( 1.-1 'Ii ,.~ (;.' ,> ~I;!:-, 1.."<.'
Signature: '>7?~ j..-/J--r- Date: ~
"7 - (, /
Hunter Communications:
Richard Ryan, President
Signature:
Date:
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials
Date
Date c., " y
I'r
.)
H
u
N
T
E
R
commun
cat
o n 5
Internet / Intranet Service Agreement
Vo1.9.3.1 - QUO-01499-IPZ6D - V.1 - 3/1/07
1. SERVICES....................................................... ......................................................................................................... 4
1.1. DATA SERVICES
1.2. INSTALLATION SERVICES
4
4
2. TE RMS ............................................................................................................................. ........................................ 4
3. CHARG ES............................................................................................................................................. .................... 4
3.1. DATA SERVICES RATE
3.2. INSTALLATION SERVICES CHARGE
3.2.1. UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY
3.3. LATE PAYMENT, DEPOSIT, ELECTRONIC BILLING
3.4. TAXES, FEES, GOVERNMENT CHARGES
4
4
4
4
3
4. SERVICE LEVELS............. ........................................................................................................................................ 4
5. HUNTER FACILITIES AN D EQUIPM E NT ........................................... ....................................................................... 4
5.1. REMOVAL 4
5.2. PROPER ENVIRONMENT 4
5.3. DAMAGE 4
6. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CUSTOMER ..........................................................................................................4
6.1. INSTALLATION 4
6.2. PREMISES ACCESS 5
6.3. ACCEPTABLE USE POUCIES (AUP) 5
6.4. SYSTEM INTEGRITY 5
6.5. HUNTER EQUIPMENT MOVEMENT 5
7 . TERMINATION ................................................................................................................... ..".................................. 5
7.1. CESSATION OF SERVICE 5
7 . 2. CESSATION OF ACCESS 5
7 .3. TERMINATION FEE 5
8. NO WARRANTIES ................................................................................................................ ".................................. 5
9. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN DAMAGES; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDY; EXCLUSIVE REMEDy............. 5
1 O. UNCONTROLLABLE CO N DITIONS.......................................................................................".................................. 6
11. SEVERABILITY...................................................................................................................."...................... "..."".".,,". 6
12. G EN E RAL PROVISION S.......................................................................................................".................................. 6
13. HUNTER COMMUNICATIONS ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY FOR HUNTER IP PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.............. 6
13.1 PROHIBITED USES OF HUNTER'S SYSTEMS, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 6
13.2 TERMS OF SERVICE 6
13.3 HIGH SPEED DIRECT FIBER CONNECTION 6
H
u
N
T
E
R
commun
cat
o n 5
Agreement between Hunter Communications (Hunter) and Customer named below for Hunter's
("Data Services") on Hunter's telecommunications system through its fiber optic network (the
"network" or "system").
Customer Name: City of Ashland (P.O.)
Key Contact: Terry Holderness
Billing Address: 1155 E. Main, Ashland, OR, 97520
Phone: 541.552.2138
Email Address: holdernesst@ashland.or.us
Premises Address (if different): Ashland P.O. to Medford P.O. connection
Service Address (if different):
Branch Address (if different):
2
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials f/ J
Date
lDate t - '7 - (/ >
1. Services. Customer shall purchase and Hunter Communications
(Hunter) shall provide to Customer:
1.1. Data Services. Data Services permit access by Customer to
Hunter's telecommunications system at the point of delivery located in the
Customer's premises described above. The point of delivery is that location
where the network and Customer's system are interconnected.
1.2. Installation Services. Installation services consist of
coordinating with Customer the necessary engineering, site survey, system
configuration and other services necessary to provide Customer Data
Services. These services shall be provided up to the date that the service
testing is completed based on Hunter's customary testing procedures and
the service is available to the Customer ("the service acceptance date").
In addition, Hunter will provide the equipment (collectively referred to as
"Hunter facilities") necessary to connect Customer's facilities to the network.
2. Terms. This agreement will be effective upon the date executed by
Hunter and shall continue for 36 months, unless sooner terminated as
provided in this agreement. In the event written notice is not given by
either party to terminate this agreement at least 30 days prior to the
termination date, this agreement shall automatically be extended on a
month-to-month service agreement basis on the same terms and conditions.
Hunter reserves the right to modify charges for month-to-month service
agreements upon 25 days prior written notice to Customer.
3. Charges. Hunter agrees to prOVide an Internet connection service for
which Customer agrees to provide consideration as outlined below:
Point to Point: $648.00 billed monthly
Level of Service
.n..
Date ~-i/""
PTP
Initial
3.1. Data Services Rate. From the service start-up date,
Customer shall pay the rate specified above for each month of service. If
the service does not begin on the first day of a billing cycle, then payments
for the first month shall be prorated on a daily basis. All accounts will be
invoiced on the first day of each month, and all sums shall be paid within 20
days after the date of the monthly billing for services (the "due date").
3.2. Installation Services Charge. Customer shall pay the
installation charge speCified below for the installation services provided by
Hunter which charges shall be due and payable upon onsite installation of
the fiber terminating hardware and therefore establishing the due date of
the installation charges and any prorated data services for the start-up
period.
Hardware and fiber installation: Not Applicable. Renewal
contract.
3.2.1. Uninterruptible Power Supply. Customer shall provide a
form of un interruptible power for the fiber termination hardware and any
Hunter facilities or equipment at the Customers location. If the Customer
does not provide a un interruptible power source, Hunter will provide one for
the price listed below.
APC Uninterruptible Power Supply: $200.00 (one needed
for each location)
3.3. Late Payment, Deposit, Electronic Billing. Payments
received after the due date may be subjected to a charge of 1 V2% per
month on the unpaid balance at the discretion of Hunter. Hunter may
require Customer to pay a deposit in advance of the provision of any
service. Hunter shall hold any such deposit in a non-interest bearing
account and used to satisfy (in whole or in part) any obligation of Customer
under this agreement. All invoices will be sent via electronic mail. If
Customer requests paper invoicing, a $5.00 monthly processing fee will be
assessed to Customer's account.
3.4. Taxes, Fees, Government Charges. Customer agrees to
pay any applicable taxes, franchise fees or other governmental charges
imposed upon Hunter Communications by governing body with jurisdictional
authority over this service or for use of publiC right of ways and easements.
3
4. Service Levels. Hunter will exercise reasonable efforts to provide
Internet service on a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-per-week basis. Customer
understands and acknowledges that Hunter does not warrant that its
Internet service will be provided without interruption. Customer also
understands that the rates and speed for this service is based on the
utilization of burstable data transmission methodoiogy where the full
bandwidth contracted for is to be utilized in bursts only and not
continuously. Hunter may monitor Customers' bandwidth utilization in order
to ensure that Customer's transmissions are within burstable utilization rate
guidelines. These guidelines are subject to change at any time by Hunter
acting in its sole discretion, and all such changes shall be binding upon
Customer upon written notice to Customer by Hunter.
In the event of a Internet service outage deE!med to be at the Hunter
service ievel, Hunter will have a technician investigating the issue within 4
hours after receiving notification of the outage from the Customer to the
assigned service number provided to Customer from time to time. With
respect to a failure of continuous interruption which is not excused as
provided in this section or otherwise, which excel~ds 24 consecutive hours in
duration, and of which Hunter receives written notice within 48 hours of
such failure or interruption, Hunter shall credit Customer's account with
respect to the affected service by an amount equal to one-thirtieth of the
recurring monthiy charge for the service for each 24-hour period during
which the failure or interruption continues. This credit shall be the sole and
exclusive remedy of Customer with respect to any interruption or failure of
the service.
No such credit shall be due, however, if the interruption is caused by
reasons beyond the reasonable control of HuntE!r or for reasons related to
scheduled network maintenance.
5. Hunter Facilities and Equipment. Any Hunter facilities and/or
equipment installed on Customer's premises shall be and remain the
property of Hunter and may be repaired or replaced at any time and
removed at the termination of service, and may be used to supply other
customers of Hunter whether or not on the sClme premises. No rent or
other charge shall be made by Customer on Hunter for placing or
maintaining its facilities or equipment upon Customer's premises. Hunter
shall be entitled, at any time, to affix to Hunter facilities or equipment a
label indicating the interest of Hunter.
5.1. Removal. Customer will use reasonable efforts to ensure
that Hunter facilities and/or equipment are not removed or caused to be
removed by any person, other than Hunter or without Hunter's prior written
consent.
5.2. Proper Environment. Customer shall use reasonable efforts
to keep the location of Hunter's facilities and/or equipment in the proper
environment as speCified by Hunter.
5.3. Damage. Customer agrees to exercise due care and caution
to protect Hunter's facilities and equipment from the weather, vandalism
and other potential problems. Customer shalll be liable for any loss or
damage to Hunter's facilities and/or equipment ,at any location arising from
Customer's negligence, intentional act, unauthorized maintenance or other
cause within the reasonable control of Customer, its employees or agents.
In the event of any loss or damage to Hunter's facilities or equipment for
which Customer is liable, Customer shall reimburse Hunter for the lesser of
the reasonable cost of repair or the actual cost 01' replacement.
6. Rights and Obligations of Customer.
6.1. Installation. Customer shall at its expense undertake all
necessary preparations required to comply with Hunter's installation and
maintenance instructions. Such preparations include obtaining all necessary
consents for the installation and use of Hunter fClcilities and/or equipment in
the building, including consents for necessary alterations to buildings;
ensuring that any floor loading limits will not be exceeded; providing
suitabie accommodations, foundations and an environment to meet the
environmental specifications for Hunter including all necessary trunking,
conduits and cable trays; providing suitable electric power and any other
utilities needed by Hunter to install, test and or maintain Hunter's facilities
and equipment; providing a suitable and safe working environment for
Hunter's personnel, including an environment safe from environmental
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials
Jr.,
Date
Date t - '7, C )
hazards; and taking up or removing, in time to allow Hunter to carry out
installation as scheduled, any fitted or fixed floor coverings, ceiling tiles,
suspended ceilings and partition covers.
6.2. Premises Access. Customer shall provide Hunter or other
persons authorized by Hunter with access (on both a routine and emergency
basis) for the implementation of all service acceptance date; Customer will
provide Hunter reasonable access to the Customer premises where any
Hunter facilities or equipment are Installed. Hunter shall not be responsible
for any faults on the network or any failure to perform the provisions of this
agreement to the extent that Hunter, in good faith, requires access, and any
such faults or failures or the continuation thereof are a result of the failure
of Customer to provide access to the place at each location where Hunter
facilities and/or equipment are installed supporting the failing service or
connection.
(a) During implementation, Hunter will normally carry out work required to
install and/or repair Hunter's facilities and equipment during its normal
working hours but may, on reasonable notice, require access at other times.
At Customer's request, Hunter will carry out work to install Hunter's facilities
and equipment outside Hunter's regular working hours, in which event
Customer agrees to pay overtime and any other appropriate charges agreed
between the parties.
(b) Any out-of-pocket costs, reasonably incurred by Hunter, as a
consequence of the denial of access by Customer (or building owner) to any
location shall be paid by Customer. Hunter shall advise Customer of any
such costs on a case-by-case basis.
6.3. Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). Hunter's Acceptable Use
Policy (AUP) is posted to our web site and is to be acknowledged and known
by the Customer at all reasonable times. Customer shall comply with
Hunter's acceptable use policies. The acceptable use policies are subject to
change at any time by Hunter acting In its sole discretion, and all such
changes shall be binding upon Customer upon written notice to Customer by
Hunter.
(a) Customer shall be responsible for the use and compatibility of equipment
or software not provided by Hunter. In the event that Customer uses
equipment or software not provided by Hunter which impairs Customer's
Data Services or the network, Customer shall nonetheless be liable for
payment for all service, including without limitation any software provided
by Hunter. Upon notice from Hunter that any equipment or software not
provided by Hunter is causing or Is likely to cause an hazard, Interference,
or service obstruction, Customer shall immediately eliminate the likelihood
or hazard, interference, or service obstruction and if Customer fails to do so,
Hunter may take such action as it deems required to eliminate such hazard,
interference or service obstruction.
(b) Customer will only connect to the network using industry standard
equipment, which complies and is compatible with the service specifications
set forth in applicable technical publications. Notwithstanding the
undertaking of Customer in the prior sentence, if, in Hunter's reasonable
opinion, the technical integrity of the network or the service being provided
over the network to Customer or any other third party is being jeopardized
or is likely to be jeopardized as a result of the connection of any Customer
premises equipment to the network by Customer or by any other activity for
which Customer is responsible, Hunter may suspend the provision of the
services to any connection so affected. Following remedial action by
Customer satisfactory Hunter, Hunter will reinstate the service provided
through that connection as soon as possible.
(c) Hunter reserves the right to allow or refuse to allow any make, model or
software revision of customer-provided equipment to be used as a gateway
to any network access. Customer will cooperate with Hunter in setting the
initial configuration for its equipment's interface with the network.
(d) Hunter may from time to time issue technical instructions on the use of
the network to ensure the proper functioning of the services or the
protection of the network from damage or deterioration. Customer will
observe technicai instructions.
6.4. System Integrity. Customer to cure any violation (other
than failure to pay) of the provisions of this agreement within 30 days notice
by Hunter.
4
6.5. Hunter Equipment Movement. Customer is obligated to
obtain written approval from Hunter prior to moving any of Hunter's
equipment. Moving of equipment without authorization may cause damages
and/or an outage. A customer-caused outage, due to the moving of
equipment without written authorization, will be the sole responsibility of the
Customer. Costs for repairs performed by Hunter technicians as a result of
damages due to movement of Hunter equipment shall be borne by the
Customer. No deductions to billing will be made for Customer-caused
outages.
7. Termination Either party may terminate this agreement for cause,
provided written notice is given the other party specifying the cause for
termination and requesting correction within 10 days for failure to pay a
sum due, or within 30 days for any other cause, and such cause is not
corrected within the applicabie period. Cause is any material breach of the
terms of this agreement, including the failure to pay any amount when due,
the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against Customer or Customer's
inability to meet obligations when due; or failure of Hunter. Hunter will
furnish copies of such policies upon request.
7.1. Cessation of Service. Hunter may deny Customer access to
the network and cease to provide all or part of any services described in this
agreement without notice if Customer:
(a) violates any provision of applicable acceptable use policies;
(b) engages in any conduct or activity that Hunter, in its sole
discretion, reasonably believes causes a risk that Hunter may
be subjected to civil or criminal litigation, charges, or damages;
or;
(c) would cause Hunter to be denied access or to lose services
by Hunter's internet provider.
7.2. Cessation of Access. If Hunter ceases to provide or denies
Customer access to the network pursuant to this section, neither Customer
nor any of its customers shall have any right:
(a) to access through Hunter any materials stored on the
internet,
(b) to obtain any credits otherwise due to Customer, and such
credits shall be forfeited, or;
(c) to access third party services, merchandise or information
on the internet through Hunter. Hunter shall have no
responsibility to notify any third-party proViders of services,
merchandise or information of any discontinuance of any
services pursuant to this section, nor any n~sponsibility for any
consequences resulting from lack of such notification.
7.3. Termination Fee. If Hunter terminates this agreement for
cause, or if Customer terminates this agreement without cause, Customer
shall pay Hunter a termination fee equal to the lesser of:
(a) the remaining charges applicable through the end of the
scheduled term, or;
(b) six month charges.
8. No Warranties. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Hunter Is
providing the services and the system (including but not limited to the
Hunter facilities and/or equipment and any access to the network) as is and
with all faults, and hereby disclaims all other warranties, if any, either
express, implied, statutory or otherwise with respect to any of the system
and services provided or to be provided under this agreement, including but
not limited warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, of
lack of viruses, lack of negligence or lack of workmanlike effort.
Hunter makes no warranty:
(a) of title, quiet enjoyment or lack of infringement with respect
to the system or services;
(b) that the system or services are "year 2000" compliant; or,
(c) that the operation of the system or service will be
uninterrupted or error free.
9. Exclusion Of Certain Damages; Limit.ation Of Liability And
Remedy; Exclusive Remedy. To the maximum extent permitted by
applicable law, in no event will Hunter be liable under any contract,
negligence, strict liability or other theory for any special, indirect, incidental
or consequential damages (including but not limited to damages for loss of
profits for confidential or other information, for business interruption, for
personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty including of
good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and for any other pecuniary
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials
0-
Date
Date &. y- ,,')
of other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to any breach
by Hunter of this agreement, to the provision or use of or inability to use the
system or services or otherwise with respect to any subject matter of this
agreement, even if Hunter has been advised of the poSSibility of such
damages.
Hunter's total liability to Customer under this agreement and the
transactions contemplated hereby, including without limitation any liability of
Hunter for any damages of any nature whatsoever, including without
limitation direct or actual damages, shall be limited to the direct damages
incurred by Customer in actual and reasonable reliance on the system or
services, which damages shall not, in the aggregate, exceed 100% of the
amount having actually been paid by Customer to Hunter in the twelve
month period immediately preceding the date on which the breach giving
rise to the damages occurred.
Except for the provision of credits to Customer's account as specifically
provided in section 4, the rights and remedies granted to Customer under
this section 9 constitute Customer's sole and exclusive remedy against
Hunter, it's agents, officials and employees for any and all claims arising
under statutory or common law or otherwise.
There are no third party beneficiaries of this agreement. Customer agrees
that Hunter shall have no liability for the negligence, products, services or
websites of Customer; of affiliates; of developers or consultants identified of
referred to Customer by Hunter; or of any other third party, Including but
not limited to liability for the content, quality and accuracy of the foregoing
which are accessible by use of the system or services of Hunter.
10. Uncontrollable Conditions. Neither party shall be deemed in
violation of this agreement if it is prevented from performing any of the
obligations under this agreement by reason of severe weather and storms;
earthquakes or other natural occurrences; strikes or other labor unrest;
power failures; nuclear or other civil or miHtary emergencies; acts of
legislative; judicial; executive or administrative authorities; or any other
circumstances which are not within its reasonable control.
11. Severability. In the event that a court, governmental agency, or
regulatory body with proper jurisdiction determines that this agreement or a
provision of this agreement Is unlawful, this agreement, or that provision of
the agreement to the extent it is unlawful, shall terminate. If a provision of
this agreement is terminated but the parties can legally, commercially and
practicably continue without the terminated provision, the remainder of this
agreement shall continue In effect.
12. General Provisions. Failure or delay by either party to exercise any
right or privilege under this agreement will not operate as a waiver of such
right or privilege. Customer may assign this agreement only with the
consent of Hunter. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding
between Customer and Hunter with respect to Service provided herein and
supersedes any prior agreements or understandings.
13. Hunter Communications Acceptable Use Policy for Hunter IP
Products and Services.
Hunter Communications Acceptable Use Policy (the "Policy") for Hunter IP
Products and Services is designed to help protect Hunter, Hunter's
customers and the Internet community in general from Irresponsible or, in
some cases, illegal activities. The Policy is a non-exclusive list of the actions
prohibited by Hunter Communications. Hunter Communications reserves the
right to modify the Policy at any time.
13.1 Prohibited Uses of Hunter's Systems, Products and Services.
1. Transmission, distribution or storage of any material in violation
of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes,
without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark,
trade secret or other intellectual property right used without
proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory,
constitutes an illegal threat, or violates export control laws.
2. Sending unsolicited mail messages, including the sending of
"junk mail" or other advertising material to individuals who did
not specifically request such material (e.g., ..e-mail spam..).This
includes, but is not limited to, bulk mailing of commercial
advertising, informational announcements, and political tracts. It
also includes posting the same or similar message to one or
more newsgroups (excessive cross-posting or multiple-posting).
Hunter accounts or services may not be used to collect replies to
5
messages sent from another Internet Service Provider where
those messages violate this Policy or that of the other provider.
3. Unauthorized use, or forging, of maiil header information (e.g.,
"spoofing").
4. Unauthorized attempts by a user to 9ain access to any account
or computer resource not belonging to that user (e.g.,
"cracking").
5. Obtaining or atte~ting to obtain service by any means or
device with intent to avoid payment.
6. Unauthorized access, alteration, destruction, or any attempt
thereof, of any information of any Hunter customers or end-
users by any means or device.
7. Knowingly engage in any activities that will cause a denial-of-
service (e.g., synchronized number sequence attacks) to any
Hunter customers or end-users whether on the Hunter network
or on another provider's network.
8. Using Hunter's Products and Services to interfere with the use of
the Hunter network by other customers or authorized users.
9. Any open wireless network is strictly prohibited. Any type of
unauthorized service sharing will be searched for and
immediately identified. Any Customer unwilling to bring down
any such network will be terminated
Each Hunter IP customer is responsible for the activities of its customer
base/representatives or end-users and, by accepting service from Hunter, is
agreeing to ensure that its customers/representatives or end-users abide by
this Policy. Complaints about customers/representatives or end-users of
Hunter IP Customer will be forwarded to the Hunter IP customer's
postmaster for action. If violations of the Hunter Communications
Acceptable Use Policy occur, Hunter IP customer's Products and Services
reserves the right to terminate services with or take action to stop the
offending customer from violating Hunter's AUP as Hunter deems
appropriate, without notice.
13.2 Terms of Service. To ensure that all Hunter Network users
experience reliable service, Hunter requires users to adhere to the following
terms and conditions. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
Hunter service, call the appropriate contact listled on your monthly billing
statement. Cable Modem customers need to contact their respective ISP
providers.
13.3 High Speed Direct Fiber Connection.
. No reselling of bandwidth serviCI!S; any wireless devices
distributing internet access or bandwidth on Customer premises
shall be secured and identified to Contractor.
. Bandwidth use will be monitored at the Hunter Head end.
Should a Business Service site exceed the maximum sustained bandwidth
contracted, you will receive a notification requiring your service level to be
upgraded to match the needs of your business usage.
Web Hosting services are permissible uses, such as a marketing firm hosting
pages for their customers. Other services not yet implemented may be
allowed by written consent of Hunter Administration.
Customer: City of Ashland - PO
Name: T';:,2 'Z7 /-/.> ,. ('> t:,l tv l.. 5 J
litle: (1-11/['; 0,/ PO{..I c..-/~
Signature: ~ ),j~ Date: b' tj. v9
Hunter Communications:
Richard Ryan, President
Signature:
Date:
Hunter Initials
Customer Initials rr.
Date
Date ,) -'f' () \
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Expansion of Sanitary Sewer Service at the Ashland Port of Entry
Meeting Date: July 17,2007 Pnmary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 552-2411 V
Department: Public Works / Engineering E-mail: brownp@ashland.oLus
Contributing Departments: Le al Secondary Staff Contact: Jim Olson, 5S2-2412
Approval: Martha Benne E-mail: olsonj@ashland.oLus
Estimated Time: consent
Statement:
The Oregon Department of Transportation is proposing to expand the current restroom facilities at the Ashland Port of
Entry (pO E) near Mile Post 16 and is requesting City approval in accordance with the agreement dajted November 27,
1974, which granted the original sanitary sewer connection to the City sanitary sewer system.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of ODOT's request to construct an additional restroom facility at the Ashland POE.
Background:
On November 27,1974, the Ashland City Council approved on agreement authorizing the connection of restroom
facilities at the Ashland Port of Entry (POE) to the City's sanitary sewer system. The agreement included two
stipulations with regard to future expansion of facilities:
Stipulation No. 10 . Not allow any connection to any part of the proposed sewer system except for
the proposed port of entry facility as shown on the plan on file with the City without prior approval of
City and Jackson County Planning Commission.
Stipulation No. 14. Not to further expand the proposed facility without first securing the approval of
City and the Jackson County Planning Commission including modification of the monthly rates
charged by the City.
ODOT has provided the City with a \complete set of plans and specifications detailing the proposecl sewer expansion
at the POE. The plans indicate construction of a new restroom facility with six new stalls north of the present building.
The existing building, constructed in the mid -1970s, has a single restroom facility with seven stalls which serves staff
and truckers. At times the wait to use the bathroom facilities is very long. ODOT proposes to construct a new
restroom with six stalls northwest of the existing POE building. The new facility will be more convenient for truckers
and will eliminate their need to enter the POE office complex except for business purposes. The existing building is
currently connected to the City system via a 4 inch diameter force main approximately 5000 feet long. The sewage
from the POE building is collected at a pump station located on the north side of the building when; it is pumped to a 6
inch diameter gravity line located in Eagle Mill Road and Oak Street where it flows to the 12 inch sewer main and into
the wastewater treatment plant. The capacity of the ODOT pump station is 5,950 gallons per day however the
average measured flow is only 350 gallons per day. The proposed new facility will add six new stalls, but the
increased flow will not likely double as the use at the existing facility will significantly decrease.
The new facility will also include a small grinder pump which will pump the effluent into the main pump station. The
flow is determined by monitoring the number of pump down cycles within the effluent holding tank. Each pump down
cycle is equal to 673 gallons. The average number of cycles is measured during the months of January, February and
March to establish the flow for the year which then becomes a flat rate. The rate for service outsicle city limits is twice
G:\pub_wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2007\07- I 0 CC Port of Entry Sewer Service 17 Jul07 .doc
~~,
the in-City rate. Current monthly sewer service charge at the POE is $139.14. All facilities, including the ODOT pump
station, force main, gravity pipe lines and the City's treatment facility are easily able to accommodate the increased
flow. The proposed expansion would have no negative impact on city facilities.
Alternatives to City Sewer:
After the POE was constructed in 1974, the City of Ashland was the only viable sewer connection as Rogue Valley
Sewer (RVS, formally BCVSA) had not expanded that far east. RVS now has facilities in Valley View Road which
serves the business north of the freeway. The POE could conceivably connect to the RVS system but at a high cost. It
would be necessary to construct a new 4 or 6 inch diameter force main to direct the flows northward along the
freeway to Valley View Road. A freeway crossing would also be required which is extremely costly due to the
necessity of boring the line under the freeway lanes, shoulders and medians. Nearly % of a mile of nHW pipeline would
be necessary for this connection
Related City Policies:
AMC Chapter 14.08.031, Sewer System - Rates for connection outside the Urban Growth Boundary
Council Options:
Council has four options:
1. approve ODOT's request to build a new restroom facility a the Ashland Port of Entry as presented by staff;
2. approve ODOT's request with additional stipulations,
3. delay approval of the request pending additional research or clarifications to be provided by staff; or
4. deny ODOT's request to build a new restroom facility a the Ashland Port of Entry.
Justification for Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of ODOT's request to construct an additional restroom facility at the Ashland Port of
Entry. Evidence in support of this recommendation include:
1. The additional restroom is needed to relieve congestion / overcrowding within the Port of Entry office building
which currently has a seven stall restroom facility;
2. The new restroom will add six new stalls but does not appear to significantly increase flows as it is intended
only to supplement the existing facility. The flows will be monitored.
3. The connection to the City's system is the most effective and economical method of sewage connection.
4. An agreement is in place which adequately deals with maintenance responsibilities and payment of fees.
5. The system is more than adequate to accommodate flows far above what is anticipated. The system was
originally designed to carry 5,900 gallons per day. The current flow rate is only about 350 gallons per day.
6. The system has been in operation since the mid 1970s and has proven to be very reliable and trouble free.
7. The additional restroom facility will have no negative impact on the City's wastewater collection facilities or
upon the wastewater treatment facility.
8. ODOT has honored the conditions of the 1974 agreement in requesting the City's approval for the facilities
expansion at the Port of Entry.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to:
1. approve ODOT's request to build a new restroom facility a the Ashland Port of Entry as pmsented by staff;
2. approve ODOT's request to build a new restroom facility a the Ashland Port of Entry with the following
additional stipulations [state those stipulations];
3. delay approval of ODOT's request to build a new restroom facility a the Ashland Port of Entry pending
additional research or clarifications to be provided by staff; or
4. deny ODOT's request to build a new restroom facility a the Ashland Port of Entry.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map
Agreement Dated November 22,1974
Location of New Facility
Council Minutes of June 4,1974
G:\pub_wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEC1\2007\07- I 0 CC Port of Entry Sewer Service 17 JuI07 .doc
!'Al
~ / 0, I )-1~
~ I~~O
,) .~ V ~~
,Jd, :r;:' -J '/ ,"
,~~~
. 7 ~Wh-~' n-Y
~ ~~ r 0--\. "' f../7'
~I _ CO> t ~ A...
f9 ~ _!!..I A l~'~"rr"'/ r -;=
,I I -P\I/~ ~ /. ',11-
I <=;7 ~ . IrY ~ .,,.... L..J j
o U' ., I ~ I' I L ..:.:r-
-;IYI U- I 7 ' rL- 0'
j " ~ I -L' ' V, h--
/ ~ If
Iii L.J ':1" -r.... ---,
/ I ' rr-c Cl '.L I " '0
Iii~ /.~I-rr'~~ ~ / -f ~. "
~ I eLl 1
o ~ / ,-'
I f( \] 'I~~/ ....'''in~. I/J ,\,
Jf \ I. . II, ~YI(t=IT Ci. If
_ . : ~~~~ roo' (rrc7 ~ -6 1"T'I~~.
~ ~,t""Y~ "t;1 ~ t..RTi'''''''.. ". ~ I ~ ~I r -
lri~ 1.).1 l,r~ m~ '-.1 . ' 'C"~.
~/Jl .';:} t /::1'1_ ' "-
~ at Iii. ;-- I I ~ 'T - '
_ _ /1;J >~ - ..~ 11'\ J: T -r -
, ~ "lS )I~O T' ~ 11.~ r!/!:J'! '/i/) j c:: 1)< ~.::]. J '.
J ~ ~ J.H..Lf-, IIlC ,//'m " ". ;.---;
}'l cjl~~ J,., ri'l.~I~~~ ~:t---~' ~ ',> \ ·
~jl )~. ~,l...., o~~ryr~--- -
.....V LJ 1 ~n< ;....r1~--:. ~- 11 -;~~
~/_ _ ~msr:-l_~ ir
~ ~t;tl L-J .n: iC:T"/ ~._' . .J;
~.,. I-I,'~ .
+. I-I ~ liJ 'A_ ~
n 'l-- ~~'"l yO
, t( ~ ,_lJ,~~.l T,,-F-----
.) w n
lJ . ~ '\
I
~~
o~
o~
~z
?;;~
1""\ ~ ~
~t'-- ~o
"-Z~ ~~
O-<~ ~~
>- ...l ~ 2;:S
....,.~ ~~
-..z 2::~
UrJ)u ~@J
~ l-I 0 CI)
> ~ e3
~~
CI)-
~d
~u
0'<
~~
~
I
-
z-<
~t:~:
"'""
...l" ~
Xv> '"
~~~~
~~ffiQ
"'~'"
,....l-:<l
!-<Q:lO:>
o~ffi:;a
'"
~ ~
~ ;l
>-~~CIl~
W ~ Ii; Iii ~
~g~~B
to.
J
'"
~
~
to
Q) :;
2
o
o
to
N to
II ci
.r:.
()
.s
Q)
c
o ~
ci
o
I ..I;U')-'"
~ ~ ~~ ~~~
........ ~~E
Q c"t:l~
~?c ... I.&J !i~
.... ~t~! ~ 3 ~,~
~~g~itn~i~
~i.u ~o c:
lcu~ z ~.~8
... ~E... 0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~
\&. 0 to""t:
~ ~. !,~1
a:: 2 i 0 'f of "'0
~ eA-tkcf~
. '"
~
~
W
....
a::
vi
co
("')
f-'
N
("')
U
CIl
<fl
~1
I
LrAdaFlll+EiLEi/ ,
/
~ y
~ $':/ 1717+
II
"I:: i
II'
"III;
II;
...-::......&- . I I 'I
_ v", I I
--.j'~~~ ~ . li11 I
~~~l~
I i ~ I
~~ I tj "I
-.:t ~
U "1141
~ ~ II .
~ ~ III
~~ ' II
~~
...
..
J9C~ ~
"l
!:d
u.
o
it
l
~
'"
~
~
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
\ "
\ I
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
~
1:1
"i
00+
o
w
t!~
0:3;,
f- ~
l/ll.1. ~.
wO'
0:: .
r-~
~~~
<to::
w
0::
<t
.~
-::,
'-
e
~
"
"
.
~
;<:
\
\
:;'\
~:
OO....r~E:' ,OS's
~a..
. ~~~
~'''~l%
t"~~
~....
;,y'PJ'I',99(l.I:I.
>'
~
:r
- ~~~
~~tli:l
.....
;;::
\
A G R E E MEN T
IIL~
THIS AGREEMENT, made and en tered in to on this :;2.? day of
YltJfflrJbflr: 1974, by and between the STATE OF OREGON, by and through
its Department of Transportation, Highway Division, hereinafter called
"State", and the CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation of the State
of Oregon, by and through its City Officials, hereinafter called "City":
WIT N E SSE r H
RECITALS:
1. The City of Ashland has a sewage disposal system which is
presently in the process of being improved both as to quality of treat-
ment and capacity.
2. The State has a port of entry which is in need of sewage
disposal facilities which can best be served by connection to the City's
system.
NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Recitals and upon the
.u~ual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
THINGS TO BE DONE BY STATE~'
1. State approves the Recitals herein, Things to bE~ Done by
City, and all other provisions of this Agreement.
2. Plans and specifications for the proposed sewage system
shall be to Ci ty standards and shall be approved by the City prior to
the commencement of construction of such system.
3. All costs of construction from the port of entry facility
to the point of connection to City lines shall be at State's expense.
4. Pay to City a connection fee of $1,425.00 at the time the
connection is made to the City lines.
S. Be continually responsible for all maintenance and repair
of the lines from the facility to the point of connection to the City
lines and such maintenance shall be to City standards as they now exist
or may hereinafter be changed.
6. Retain ownership of the line installed by it and from the
facility to point of connection to the City lines.
7. The connection shall not be made until the present plant
expansion is completed and accepted by the City's Consulting Engineer.
The estimated completion date is March 31, 1975.
8. Pay to the City a minimum monthly sewer user charge of
$45.00 plus $.20 per 100 gallons of sewage in excess of 69,750 gallonls
per month or pay to the City a sewer user charge on the same basis as is
charged to other industrial users situated outside of the City as these
rates now exist or may be amended from time to time in the future.
9. Pay to the City an annual capital reimbursement cost of
$53.42 for a period of twenty (20) years as required by the Federal Envir-
onmental Protection Agency.
10. Not allow any connection to any part of the proposed sewer
system except for the proposed port of entry facili ty as shown on the plan
on f.ile wi th the Ci ty wi thout prior approval of City and Jackson County
Planning Commission.
11. The City shall have the right of access at all y'easonable
times and places for the purpose of making such tests includin~ smoke
tests, so as to be assured that there are not any connections to this line
other than as permitted by this agreement.
12. Restore all roadways or private property not owned by the
State to its pre-construction condition.
13. Secure all necessary easements for the sewage lines.
14. Not to further expand the proposed facility without firs t
securing the approval of City and the Jackson County Planning Commission,
including modification of the monthly rates charged by the City.
15. To provide a measuring and sampling station and equipment
for the measurement of effluent volume at or near the point of connection
to the City lines to City specifications.
THINGS TO BE DONE BY CITY:
1. Subject to the foregoing restrictions, receive all effluent
from the sanitary facilities of the proposed port of entry for treatment
of plant.
Z. Provide such data as it has on elevation and capacity of
existing City lines.
The Oregon Transportation Commission, by a duly adopted deleg-
ation order, authorized its Chairman or Vice Chairman to act in its
behalf in approving this contract. Approval was given for this contract
on /'}~r: ,;</}} 19/)Y' by ~-~~ , which approval is
on file in the Commission records. The delegation order also authorizes
the Administrator and State Highway Engineer to execute the c.ontract
on behalf of the Commission.
State of Oregon by and through its
Department of Transportation Highway Div
Highway Engineer
t te 19 way nglneer
Date I~~.~~
APPROVED AS TO FO " :
CITY OF ASHLAND by and through its City
Offic~s :
By: VI" ~~ /ll t41"~
. Mayor /).-/1-1'1
J~<f.~o_'"
Assist4nt ttorney eneral & Counsel
(/
By: (1",-/ a ,8~
/..' Cl ty liecorcier) ;?_/ y- 71'
J .-
\../
DATE: / d-IY-11j
INVOCATIO~
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 21, 1974-Council
Parks , Recreation
May 9, 1974
Hospital 'Board
..iay 17, 1974
npC)'J;:t of ~n.:t1'1'ise\fe-t
e.. p. n.. ne. 'c...t. t'.e.,que.s.t. O. r
'Otlfgon ~tat:~ llWi',
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR ~ffiETING
ASH~~D CITY COUNCIL
June 4, -1974
Rev. Wayne Todd. gave invocation which was followed. by the
Pledge of Allegiance.
The regular meeting was .called to order by Mayor FriLes
in the CouncU Chambers On tb,e above date at 7: 30 p "m.
Soderberg, Prickett, Allen, Roble, Conklin and McCannon
were present.
ConUin as~ed tha t the minutes in the last paragraph (In
page two be corrected to read "Conklin reported for Mayor's
golf cour$c cOlDll\ittee", Soderberg asked that 0.0. page S,
paragraph S relative to the Truck Ordinance be corTc~ted
to re.d '!thatan;Ythillg we do can improve tb,CS oiscrilninat6ry
Ordin~nce". Roble moved to appl'ove minutes of regulat' meet
iT\g of ~faY21, 1974; J>>riclcet~ seconcled. and 1I10ti<<;)1'\ passed
on unanimous voice vote.
.
Prickett Iloved that Jlinutes of the Parks ~ Recreation C01l\-
llli~siQn fot M.a.y, 9. 19.74 be accepted and placed on file;
Allen seconded and llotiQn passei.t on unanimous voice vote.
Roble- lllove<1 tor ac;cep'tanc:e of' ainutes of Hospi tal Board
fOTl1leetiilgof May, 1,7,1974. Soderberg sc.conded an4
Motion to accept and place on file passed unanimously on
voice yot,e.
City A,dm,i.niHt,tQt AlJlquist react letter of req\1cst {ot
seweT ho:o1t~up outside city lilllits froll OregoAStatel Highway
Pivl$iort. fp.r pTOpO$e~ "Pol't (ff Entry'! alJd expa~rte~l that he
had advised the IHvision that such connect would teLke
cp(!,p,c:U actiOn ~d t'~.c~~ded th#.t. if app'Tov~&: SOJli;ec::on-
tr..ctual A1'ran~elllent shoulc1 be entered into. Gat')!' Kennon
aM 1;\.1''1. tJllt.4to~ the lligliw.ay'~Divi$,jon were in. th~ ll~alente.
Roble asked 1:e,nnon why a sept1c tank was not consulend and
it "nl.S .!;,nted thai: $9H te$U i!\dicated tl1at .. septic tank
could not be approved and. the: volume would be grea1ter than
wh.a.t ~o\114 b~. hllnd1~d by th.t llJethod,. Sod~rberg tl~llitndel1
the Council tha,t wheni,t turned. down the oPtlortuni'ty to
jOin in the Bear Cte;ekSanit:llt'). Valley SanitaI:Y Authority
that w~ would pla~ aToUJid it a.nd tbatshe could sel~ no
reason to tUrn dO\1ffi .. state, agency and recommended that the
Or~inance b-e u:ended lor this purpose. Rob le as hili b rl
Putdf if another location had.been con$ il1ered. and'putdy
eXP'laine. d t~a t tJie. pro,~.os.. ed site had. the be~ t . g.. rade fo t
~afety of trucks in pal"bng and leaVing the area. Sod~r-
berg moved that Staff be instructed to draw up an ordinance
to accommodate the reques t. McCannon seconded. Allen
asked what the cost WOuld. be for a mile of sewet' line and
was tOl~ by Purdy apllJ'oximately $62.000. }.{ayor Fries asked
PUl"dyif . the POE would be a source of more revenue to the
state and was assuted that it would. Conklin requested
that llIodon be amended to allow hook-up when sewer trcatmert
plant expansion has been co~pleted. Soderberg changed het
Cl?tion to include request by Conklin. City Attorney Salter
suggested that Ordinance allow hook-up to governmental
buildings erected after July I, 1974. Soderberg restated
her motion to sa)" "Staff be directed to allow sewe:r connect;
,with Council approval; McCannon secc:mded and on telll call
Soderberlt. Allen, Prickett, ~kCannon ,and Conklin ~'oted Y.ES.
Roble opposed .the motion. Soderberg moved that Staff be
directed to write a letter to Ore~on State Highway Division
of in tent to allow connect after npf'roVal of ordinance.
Conklin seconded and motior" passed wi th Soderberg" Allen,
Prickett. Conklin .and McL~nnon voting YES and Roble voting
NO on roll call. Motion passed.
Council Communication
CITY ()F
ASHLAND
Approval of Public Contract Greater than $75,000
Janitorial Services - Pathways Enterprises, Inc. (QRF:~
Meeting Date: July 17, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown; 552-24111
Department: Public Works E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us
Contributing Departments: Finane urchasing Secondary Staff Contact: Dale Peters; 552-2292
Approval: Martha Benne E-mail: petersd@ashland.or
Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
/'
Statement:
This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to enter into a public
contract for city-wide janitorial services with Pathways Enterprises, a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility (QRF). The
annual cost for FY 2007-2008 will be $79,122.09.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public contract for janitorial services be awarded to Pathways Enterprises, Inc.
Background:
Under ORS 279.835-855, the City is obliged to procure goods and services directly from a QRF, lif the contractor
provides the goods and services that meet the City's specifications and the QRF can provide the goods and
services when they are needed by the City. Pathways Enterprises, Inc. meets the City's requirements.
In accordance with ORS 279-835-855, the public contract for city-wide janitorial services has been awarded
annually for the previous three fiscal years (FY 2004-05, FY 2005-06, and FY 2006-07) to Pathways Enterprises,
Inc., a QRF.
The annual cost for FY 2007-08 will be $79,122.09.
: Cost breakdown by building for FY 2007-2008:
LB~i@119 .
City Hall
Community Development
Municipal Court
Police Department
Service Center
Street and Shop
. Grove
TOTAL
.. t.. .. ..~()l1t~lv
$783.06
1,765.91
549.04
1,017.07
1,110.67
537.89
829.86
$6,593.50 .
mm~l1l1u~!IV .
$9,396.69
_ _ __.._~w___.____,___~......
21,190.91
6,588.54
12,204.84
13,328.10
6,454.69
9,958.32
$79,122.09
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\2007 CC Janitorial Services - Pathways Enterprises QRF July 17 07.doc
Page 1 of 5
r;.1
Related City Policies:
AMC Contract Authority:
A contract is greater than $75,000 requires the approval of the Local Contract Review Board
Oregon Revised Statutes:
ORS 279.840 Policy. The purpose of ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.025 (4) and 279C.335 is to further the policy of this
state to encourage and assist disabled individuals to achieve maximum personal independence through useful and productive
gainful employment by assuring an expanded and constant market for sheltered workshop and activity center products and
services, thereby enhancing their dignity and capacity for self-support and minimizing their dependence on welfare and need
for costly institutionalization. [1977 c.304 92; 1989 c.224 943; 2003 c.794 9229c]
ORS 279.845 Duties of Oregon Department of Administrative Services; prices for products and services of nonprofit
agency for disabled individuals; sources of products and services; rules. (1) It shall be the duty of the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services to:
(a) Determine the price of all products manufactured and services offered for sale to the various public: agencies by any
qualified nonprofit agency for disabled individuals. The price shall recover for the workshops the cost of raw materials, labor,
overhead, delivery costs and a margin held in reserve for inventory and equipment replacement;
(b) To revise such prices from time to time in accordance with changing cost factors; and
(c) To make such rules regarding specifications, time of delivery and other relevant matters of procedure as shall be
necessary to carry out the purposes of ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.025 (4) and 279C.335.
(2) The department shall establish and publish a list of sources or potential sources of products produced by any qualified
nonprofit agency for disabled individuals and the services provided by any such agency, which the department determines are
suitable for procurement by public agencies pursuant to ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.025 (4) and 279C.335. This
procurement list and revisions thereof shall be distributed to all public purchasing officers.
(3) The department may not delegate any duty imposed under this section to any person or public ag'~ncy outside of the
department. [1977 c.304 94; 1989 c.224 944; 2003 c.794 9229d]
ORS 279.850 Procurement of product or service; agreements for procurement.
(1) If any public agency intends to procure any product or service on the procurement list, that public agency shall, in
accordance with rules of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, procure such product or service, at the price
established by the department, from a qualified nonprofit agency for disabled individuals provided the product or service is of
the appropriate specifications and is available within the period required by that public agency.
(2) In furthering the purposes of ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.025 (4) and 279C.335, it is the intent of the Legislative
Assembly that there be close cooperation between the department, public contracting agencies and qualHied nonprofit
agencies for disabled individuals. The department on behalf of public contracting agencies and qualified nonprofit agencies for
disabled individuals is authorized to enter into such contractual agreements, cooperative working relationships or other
arrangements as may be determined to be necessary for effective coordination and efficient realization oj! the objectives of
ORS 279.835 to 279.855, 279A.025 (4) and 279C.335 and any other law requiring procurement of products or services. [1977
c.304 95; 1989 c.224 945; 2003 c.794 922ge]
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, may
1. approve the contract recommendation and award the public contract to Pathways Enterprises, Inc.; or
2. decline to approve the contract recommendation to Pathways Enterprises, Inc..
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to
1. approve and award the public contract for the City's janitorial services to Pathways EntEHprises, Inc.
2. deny award the public contract to Pathways Enterprises, Inc.
Attachments:
Supplemental information "How to do Business with a QRF"
Proposed City of Ashland Public Contract for Janitorial Services with Pathways Enterprises, Inc.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\2007 CC Janitorial Services - Pathways Enterprises QRF July 17 07.doc
Page 2 of 5
r~'
Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities
How to do Business with QRF
What is a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility "QRF" and what do they do?
A Qualified Rehabilitation Facility "QRF" is a non-profit organization that puts Oregonians with disabilities to work. It
is a place of business and a training facility; with workshops, equipment, class and meeting rooms, offices and other
business necessities. Many QRFs have other business locations as well, such as a downtown office, bakery or
mailroom.
The mission of a QRF is to help disabled people achieve self-confidence and self-sufficiency by working in the
community in which they live and becoming productive citizens. A QRF often has a variety of programs to help
disabled people achieve maximum economic and personal independence through vocational development. It is
"qualified" because its programs are registered and reviewed on a regular basis by various state and federal agencies
such as the OreQon Department of Human Services (DHS), Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and
the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH ). Disabled people are referred to a QRF from the
Vocational Rehabilitation or Mental Health Divisions of the Oregon Department of Human Services.
A QRF works to put its clients to work. Disabled people want to work just as we all do; doing a good job at
something satisfying, for a decent, living wage. There are approximately 47 QRFs around the state of Oregon. Every
QRF puts a lot of energy into finding and creating opportunities that provide jobs for disabled people, as well as
quality products or services to their customers. Today, QRFs provide work for nearly 6,000 Oregonians through their
varied business enterprises.
What are the reasons to do business with a QRF?
As a purchasing agent or buyer for a taxpayer-supported political subdivision, such as a city, county, school district,
or an agency of the state of Oregon, there are several reasons to do business with a QRF:
1. It is the right thing to do. People who work in a QRF business need your help; jobs depend on business
orders. There are thousands of Oregonians who are out of work because of a disability. As a public
purchasing agent, you can make a difference. Your cooperation and willingness to buy goods and services
from QRF businesses puts disabled people to work.
2. It is the smart thing to do. Oregonians with a disability who earn a wage require less taxpayer money. Your
participation makes a difference to all Oregon taxpayers.
3. It puts you in the driver's seat. A negotiated contract process can allow you to tailor specifications to get
exactly the product/service or performance you want. The long-term relationship with a QRF makes contract
renewals a breeze. It also reduces the time to establish a contract.
4. It is the necessary thing to do. In 1977, the Oregon legislature passed the "Products of Disabled Individuals"
act. This law obliges all state and local governments, school districts, and other tax-supported political
bodies in Oregon to purchase goods and services from QRFs when the product or service is listed on the DAS
Procurement List and meets the agency's requirements.
The details of this act are contained in Chapter 279.835-855 of the OreQon Revised Statutes CORS 279). This
Chapter, "Public Contracts and Purchasing," spells out to all tax-supported state and local agencies how they are to
spend the taxpayers' money on needed goods and services.
When should you do business with a QRF?
Anytime you plan to make a purchase of the types of goods or services listed in the DAS Directory of Qualified
Rehabilitation Facilities (Procurement List), you are obliged to procure it from the listed QRF if it meets your
specifications and is available when you need to have it.
Who's in charge of this program?
The State Procurement Office (SPO) of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) manages the
Products of the Disabled program. SPO approves each QRF in Oregon, and manages the list of those goods and
services determined suitable for procurement by state and local governments, school districts and other taxpayer-
supported agencies. It is the duty of SPO to work cooperatively with the QRF and the agency.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\2007 CC Janitorial Services - Pathways Enterprises QRF July 1707 .doc
Page 3 of 5
~~,
Why doesn't a QRF have to compete with other businesses for Government Contracts?
Taxpayer-supported state and local political subdivisions do business with QRFs on a non-competitive basis. This
means a QRF is not required to bid for your purchases in competition with for-profit contractors. Some of the reasons
for this special treatment of QRF business enterprises are:
1. QRFs are non-profit enterprises. They have a mission to provide employment services to diisabled members
of the community.
2. QRFs provide special employment support to people with disabilities that cost time and money. Workers with
disabilities require accommodations such as special training and job modifications that go far beyond what a
commercial business could be required to provide.
3. The investment in the disabled worker is high, but in terms of public benefit it is returned many times over
when long-term employment can be provided. Stable employment is critical to the success of these
programs.
4. QRF businesses are self-supporting. Their prices for goods and services have to recover all the costs
necessary to train, equip and supervise their workers. They are required by law to pay the prevailing wage
in their area for the type and quality of work being done. Plus, the QRF pays for liability and workers'
compensation insurance, and all the other overhead expenses any business has.
The purpose of the state "Products of Disabled Individuals" law is to encourage and assist disabled people to work,
and to achieve gainful employment. Employment enhances the ability to be as self-supporting as they can be. They
will be less dependent on welfare and costly institutionalization.
Oregon's "Products of Disabled Individuals" law is modeled after federal legislation dating back to 1938. This
legislation is now known as the Javits-Wagner-O' Day Act (JWOD). Over 20 other states have simillar laws and more
are being added each year due to increased acceptance and success of these programs.
How to get started?
Once you have established the need to procure a product or service go to the Procurement List, published on SPO's
website, to see if the product or service is provided by a QRF. If there is a QRF on the Procurement List, contact the
QRF to see if they can meet your specifications and delivery timelines. If they are able to meet your specifications
and timelines you may begin negotiating a contract with them.
When looking to procure a product, ask the QRF representative to provide you with samples so you can make sure
the products are right for you. Talk with the QRF representative if you need some minor adjustment or changes to
suit your particular use of the product. You will find that QRFs have a can-do attitude and are eager to meet your
needs.
When looking to procure a service you may find more than one QRF available. Contact as many of those QRFs as you
wish. Inquire which QRF is interested in servicing your needs. Invite those interested QRFs to meet with you and
tour your facility. Provide them with your specification draft. You may narrow down your candidates through
references, training they provide their employees, and/or by an interview process with the QRF representatives.
Price may be used to determine your choice but the final price is determined by DAS/SPO.
If no source is located on the Procurement List for your specific needs, you may move forward with your agency's
procurement process.
How to negotiate the deal?
If you are purchasing a product, such as plastic bags or blankets, and you are an ORCPP member you may simply
make your purchase from the DAS Price Agreement. Nothing could be simpler. If you are purchasing a product or
service from a QRF and DAS does not have an established contract for that product or service you may work directly
with the QRF to negotiate your own contract. DAS must determine the price of that contract before the contract is
initiated.
If you are a state agency under DAS authority, and the purchase is expected to be over $150,000 in a one time buy
or over $150,000 over the life of the contract, you need to contact DAS for assistance.
If the initial price exceeds your budget estimate, let the QRF know and give them a chance to work through the
numbers with you a second time. There could be a misunderstanding about your requirements or a mistake
somewhere in the figures. It could be that your specifications exceed your budget. make the deall. When the price
submitted by the QRF meets the agency's budget the QRF and the Agency may submit that price to DAS on an
approved form for final determination.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\2007 CC Janitorial Services - Pathways Enterprises QRF July 17 07.doc
Page 4 of 5
r~'
Sometimes, after both sides have negotiated in good faith, the deal just won't work. Usually, it will be price or
specification that will get in the way. As the public purchasing agent, you should know what the limits of the program
budget or specification tolerance will be. The QRF can drop the project or perhaps try again later. There have been
cases where the agency was able to split up the work into smaller pieces in order to have partial QRF participation.
The point here is to act in good faith towards the QRF. Be open and fair in your dealings with them. QRFs are looking
for long-term business partnerships, not advantages.
How to deal with quality assurance and performance problems?
One of the biggest advantages of doing business with a QRF is that it is a relationship, not just a one-time
competitive bidding arrangement. QRF businesses are there to provide permanent jobs for disabled Oregonians, not
to make money by cutting corners. They have a different outlook on your business than the commercial sector. They
are in for the long haul. You should expect quality services and products.
As a purchasing agent, you have the capability to make your agency's QRF contract successful. It just takes
communication and cooperation. Talk to your QRF counterpart. Make sure your program people are introduced to the
QRF representative and that everyone involved in the contract administration process knows what's expected of
them. For example, if you have a QRF doing custodial services, plan a joint walk-through on a weekly basis from the
beginning of the contract. Spend time talking about performance expectations at the beginning of your relationship
and you will each get to know and understand the other.
As your contract relationship settles into a routine, you can cut down on the frequency with which you meet with the
QRF contractor. But still plan on regular meetings with the QRF representative to talk about their performance and to
make adjustments in the contract as needed. Together, write down any changes you and the QRF agree to make.
Amend your contract to reflect the mutually agreed upon changes. This bit of routine "housekeeping" will keep your
mutual understanding of what's to be done fresh and current.
If a problem does surface, however, you must tell the QRF management immediately. Don't wait, hoping things will
get better. They can't fix the problem if they don't know about it. If you have taken the time to get to know each
other at the start of the contract, any issue will be easier to solve.
Again, document any needed changes or complaints and share them with the QRF. Remember the old adage is true;
take care of the little things before they get to be big things!
If, after making these efforts, you cannot resolve your problems, remember that you have authority to terminate the
contract just as you would with any commercial business. If there seems to be no other way, talk candidly with the
QRF about termination. It may be in the best interests of everyone involved.
What is the process for contract renewal with a QRF?
Here are a few points to consider when preparing for the renewal process:
. Plan your annual renewal process well in advance of the ending date of the contract period. For a large
custodial contract, for example, three or four months is not too early to start working with the QRF on the
renewal process.
. Revise and update your specifications to show any changes made during the contract period. At renewal, the
QRF will review its pricing structure, which is to your advantage. Often, they are able to work with the
agency to cut prices or costs as they gain experience with you and understand the fine points of the work to
be performed.
. A quality service or product can potentially be provided to your agency for many years to come, resulting in
long-term benefits for disabled Oregonians and taxpayers alike.
. Remember that DAS must approve any price changes in the renewal process.
Who can you call for more information or help?
Call DAS, State Procurement Office;
Patty Beans, (QRF Coordinator)
Tel: 503-373-0975
Fax: 503 373-1626
E-mail: pattv.beans@das.state.or.us
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\2007 CC Janitorial Services - Pathways Enterprises QRF July 17 07.doc
Page 5 of 5
~~,
Contract for JANITORIAL SERVICES
CITY OF
ASHLAND
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Telephone: 541/488-6002
Fax: 541/488-5311
CONTRACTOR: Pathways Enterprises, Inc.
CONTACT: Eldon Olson
ADDRESS: 722 Jefferson Ave., Ashland, OR 97520
TELEPHONE: 541-488-1536
DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: Julv 4, 2007 FAX: 541-488-5948
BEGINNING DATE: Julv 1,2007 COMPLETION DATE: June 30,2008
COMPENSATION: The total annual cost for FY 2007-2008 will be $79,122.09. Per the cost breakdown on the
attached Price Sheet and individual Costinq Workbooks for each of the seven (7) buildinqs.
GOODS AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: Pathways Enterprises (QRF) to provide city.-wide janitorial
services at the following buildings: City Hall, Community Development, Municipal Court, Police Department,
Service Center, Street and Shop, and the Grove.
ADDITIONAL TERMS:
NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to AMC 2.50.090 and after consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the
CITY AND CONTRACTOR AGREE as follows:
1. All Costs by Contractor: Contractor shall, provide all goods as specified above and shall at its own risk and
expense, perform any work described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and
materials required for the proper performance of such work.
2. Qualified Work: Contractor has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that any personnel
assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the work to which they will be assigned
in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are
so registered, licensed and bonded. Contractor must also maintain a current City business license.
3. Completion Date: Contractor shall provide all goods in accordance with the standards and spl9cifications, no later
than the date indicated above and start performing the work under this contract by the beginning date indicated
above and complete the work by the completion date indicated above.
4. Compensation: City shall pay Contractor for the specified goods and for any work performed, including costs and
expenses, the sum specified above. Goods shall be paid for within 30 days of an invoice after delivery of goods
conforming to the standards and specifications. Once work commences, invoices shall be prepared and submitted by
the tenth of the month for work completed in the prior month. Payments shall be made within 3,0 days of the date of
the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted
to date of termination. Compensation under this contract, including all costs and expenses of Contractor, is limited to
$25,000.00, unless a separate written contract is entered into by the City.
5. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Contractor pursuant to this contract shall be the property of
City.
6. Statutory Requirements: ORS 279B.220, 279B.225, 279B.230, 279B.235, ORS Chapter 244 and ORS 670.600 are
made part of this contract.
7. Living Wage Requirements: If contractor is providing services under this contract and the amount of this contract
is $17,342 or more, Contractor is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a
living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any subcontractor
who performs 50% or more of the work under this contract. Contractor is also required to post the notice attached
hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees.
8. Indemnification: Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless
from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from
injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of
whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Contractor (including but not limited
to, Contractor's employees, agents, and others designated by Contractor to perform work or services attendant to this
contract). Contractor shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs,
judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and proximately caused by the negligence of City.
9. Termination:
a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties.
b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in writing
and delivered by certified mail or in person.
c. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of
Contract for Goods and Services, 7/11/2007, Page 1 of 6
written notice to Contractor, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following
conditions:
i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels
sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services;
ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way
that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are
no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or
iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Contractor to provide the
services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed.
d. For Default or Breach.
i. Either City or Contractor may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by
the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party
written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not
entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as
the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any
time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice.
ii. Time is of the essence for Contractor's performance of each and every obli'9ation and duty under
this contract. City by written notice to Contractor of default or breach, may at any time terminate
the whole or any part of this contract if Contractor fails to provide services called for by this
contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof.
iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in
addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract.
e. Oblioation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or
c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such
termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is
given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Contractor shall immediately cease all activities under
this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination,
Contractor shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are
or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Contractor for work performed prior to
the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract.
10. Independent Contractor Status: Contractor is an independent Contractor and not an employ,ee of the City.
Contractor shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract.
11. Non-discrimination Certification: The undersigned certifies that the undersigned Contractor has not discriminated
against minority, women or emerging small businesses enterprises in obtaining any required subcontracts.
Contractor further certifies that it shall not discriminate in the award of such subcontracts, if any. The Contractor
understands and acknowledges that it may be disqualified from bidding on this contract, including but not limited to
City discovery of a misrepresentation or sham regarding a subcontract or that the Bidder has violated any
requirement of ORS 279A.11 0 or the administrative rules implementing the Statute.
12. Asbestos Abatement License: If required under ORS 468A.71 0, Contractor or Subcontractor shall possess an
asbestos abatement license.
13. Assignment and Subcontracts: Contractor shall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work
without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be
void. Contractor shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or subcontractors and of all
persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any
contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City.
14. Use of Recyclable Products: Contractor shall use recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible
in the performance of the contract work set forth in this document.
15. Default. The Contractor shall be in default of this agreement if Contractor: commits any material breach or default of
any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; if it loses its QRF status pursuant to
the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the work or to qualify as a
QRF if Contractor has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has
instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing
business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in,
or delegate duties under, the Contract.
16. Insurance. Contractor shall at its own expense provide the following insurance:
a. Worker's Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to
provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers
b. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 for
each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. It shall include contractual liability coverage for the
indemnity provided under this contract.
c. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less $1,000,000, or
Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Iniury and Property Damaqe, includinq coveraoe for owned, hired or
Contract for Goods and Services, 7/11/2007, Page 2 of 6
non-owned vehicles, as applicable.
d. Notice of cancellation or chanqe. There shall be no cancellation, material change, n~duction of limits or
intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Contractor or its insurer(s) to
the City.
e. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Contractor shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its
elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies required herein but only
with respect to Contractor's services to be provided under this Contract. As evidence of the insurance coverages
required by this Contract, the Contractor shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work
under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies
or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies, trust
agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent
deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance.
17. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or
proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and
the Contractor that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within
the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal
forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by the signature herein of its authorized
representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be
construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United
States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
18. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL
BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT,
MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR
REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT.
CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
19. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and
authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budgl~t. Contractor
understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the
last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow
City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In
the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this
contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Contractor, with no further
liability to Contractor.
20. Prior Approval Required Provision. Approval by the City of Ashland Councilor the Public Contracting Officer is
required before any work may begin under this contract.
21. Certification. Contractor shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by
reference.
CONTRACTOR CITY OF ASHLAND:
BY
BY
Signature
FINANCE DIRECTOR
Print Name
TITLE
DATE
DATE
CONTRACT AWARD AND FINDINGS DETERMINED BY:
By:
City Department Head
Date:
FederallD#
ACCOUNT #
(For City purposes only)
'Completed W9 form must be submitted with contract
PURCHASE ORDER #
Contract for Goods and Services, 7/11/2007, Page 3 of 6
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, cerltifies that (a) the
number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be
issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is e){empt from
backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IHS) that it is
subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS
has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and
warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the
Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor
enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in
accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally
competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury
that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on
behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent
Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following
criteria:
(1) I carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a
specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business.
(2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are
purchased for the business.
(3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing.
(4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts.
(5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one
year.
(6) I assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided
as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission
insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided.
Contractor
(Date)
Contract for Goods and Services, 7/11/2007, Page 4 of 6
Form W-9
Request for Taxpayer
Identification Number and Certification
(Rev. January 2003)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Reverue Service
N Name
a>
Ol
'"
a. Business name. if different from above
e
o
CIl VI
0.5
~'5
05
:5~
ct-;;
!5 City. state, and ZIP code
CIl
Q.
ell
Q) List account number(s) here (optional)
Q)
Vl
O Individual!
Check appropriate box: Sole proprietor
Address (number. street. and apt. or suite no.)
Give form to the
requestE!r. Do not
send to the IRS.
o Corporation
o Partnership D Other ~ .n..un.n......
O Exempt from backup
withholding
Requester's name and address (optionaO
Enter your TIN in the appropriate box, For individuals. this is your social security number (SSN).
However, for a resident alien, sole proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the Part I instructions on
page 3. For other entities, it is your employer identification number (EIN). If you do not have a number.
see How to get a TIN on page 3.
Note: If the account is in more than one name. see the chart on page 4 for guidelines on whose number
to enter.
Certification
Under penalties of perjury. I certify that:
1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me). and
2. I am not subject to backup withholding because: (8) I am exempt from backup withholding. or (h) I have not been notified by the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of 8 failure to report all interest or dividends. or (c) the IRS has
notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding. and
3. I am a U.S. person (including 8 U.S. resident alien).
Certification instructions. You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup
withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions. item 2 does not apply.
For mortgage interest paid. acquisition or abandonment of secured property. cancellation of debt. contributions to an individual retiirement
arrangement (IRA). and generally. payments other than interest and dividends. you are not required to sign the Certification. but you must
provide your correct TIN. (See the instructions on page 4.)
Signl Signature or
Here .. u.s. person ~ Date ~
Purpose of Form
A person who is required to file an information return with
the IRS. must obtain your correct taxpayer identification
number (TIN) to report. for example. income paid to you. real
estate transactions. mortgage interest you paid. acquisition
or abandonment of secured property. cancellation of debt. or
contributions you made to an IRA.
U.S. person. Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S. person
(including a resident alien). to provide your correct TIN to the
person requesting it (the requester) and. when applicable. to:
1. Certify that the TIN you are giving is correct (or you are
waiting for a number to be issued).
2. Certify that you are not subject to backup withholding.
or
3. Claim exemption from backup withholding if you are a
U.S. exempt payee.
Note: If a requester gives you a form other than Form W-9
to request your TIN. you must use the requesters form if it is
substantially similar to this Form W-9.
Foreign person. If you are a foreign person. use the
appropriate Form W-8 (see Pub. 515, Withholding of Tax on
Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities).
Nonresident alien who becomes a resident alien.
Generally. only a nonresident alien individual may use the
terms of a tax treaty to reduce or eliminate U.S. tax on
certain types of income. However. most tax treaties contain a
provision known as a "saving clause." Exceptions specified
in the saving clause may permit an exemption from tax to
continue for certain types of income even after the recipient
has otherwise become a U.S. resident alien for tax purposes.
If you are a U.S. resident alien who is relying on an
exception contained in the saving clause of a tax treaty to
claim an exemption from U.S. tax on certain types of income.
you must attach a statement that specifies the following five
items:
1. The treaty country. Generally. this must be the same
treaty under which you claimed exemption from tax as a
nonresident alien.
2. The treaty article addressing the income.
3. The article number (or location) in the tax tlreaty that
contains the saving clause and its exceptions.
4. The type and amount of income that qualifies for the
exemption from tax.
5. Sufficient facts to justify the exemption frol11 tax under
the terms of the treaty article.
Contract for Goods and Services, 7/11/2007, Page 5 of 6
Cat. No. '023' X
Form '",-9 (Rev. '-2003)
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
EXHIBIT B
City of Ashland
LIVING
ALL employers described
below must comply with City
of Ashland laws regulating
payment of a living wage.
~~,
Employees must be paid a
living wage:
~ For all hours worked under a
service contract between their
employer and the City of
Ashland if the contract
exceeds $17,342 or more.
~ For all hours worked in a
month if the employee spends
50% or more of the
employee's time in that month
working on a project or
~per hour effective June 30, 2007
(Increases annually every June 30 by the
Consumer Price Index),
portion of business of their
employer, if the employer has
ten or more employees, and
has received financial
assistance for the project or
business from the City of
Ashland in excess of $17,342.
~ If their employer is the City of
Ashland including the Parks
and Recreation Department.
~ In calculating the living wage,
employers may add the value
of health care, retirement,
401 K and IRS eligible
cafeteria plans (including
childcare) beneIits to the
amount of wagE~s received by
the employee.
~ Note: "Employ'ee" does not
include temporary or part-time
employees hired for less than
1 040 hours in any twelve-
month period. For more
details on applicability of this
policy, please see Ashland
Municipal COdEl Section
3.12.020.
For additional information:
Call the Ashland City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 or write to the City Administrator, City Hall,
20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520 or visit the city's website at www.ashland.or.us.
Notice to Employers: This notice must be posted predominantly in areas where it can be seen by all
employees.
Contract for Goods and Services, 7/11/2007, Page 6 of 6
CITY Of
AS H Ll\.N D
CITY 4Df
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Agreement with RVTD ..-
Meeting Date: July 17, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown, 552-2411 f~
Department: Public Works / Engineering E-mail: brownp@ashland.or.us i
Contributing Departments: A ministration / Finance Secondary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer, 5,52-2106
Approval: Martha Benn E-mail: seltzera@ashland.or.us
Estimated Time: consent agenda
Statement:
This item requests Council approval of the Fiscal Year 2007-08 (FY08) Agreement, effective July 1,2007, between
Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the City of Ashland. The agreement is designed to encourage and
increase RVTD ridership within the City by offering reduced fares. As such, the City will pay RVTD the difference in
full fare rates to reduce the cost of fixed route fares to transit riders within the City from $2.00 to $0.50, and will reduce
the Valley Lift paratransit fares within the City from $4.00 to $1.00. Riders within Ashland will pay the reduced rates.
The attached contract has the same provisions as FY07.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for Fiscal Year 2007-08 to
encourage increased transit use within the City of Ashland.
Background:
At the June 5th Study Session and the June 6th and 19th regular council meetings, Council accepted staff's
recommendation to continue with the same service levels as the FY2006-07 agreement with RVTD. The City will
allocate $210,000 to buy down RVTD's fixed route (Route 10) bus fare in Ashland and to buy down the cost of Valley
Lift transit rides in Ashland and to pay for net operating costs for Valley Lift that exceed 9,800 rides per year. RVTD
will continue to provide monthly ridership numbers and will bill the city on a quarterly basis for actual riders and for
Valley Lift rides that exceed 9,800 rides per year. Assuming riders remain the same, the $210,000 cap will cover all
of RVTD's costs for service in Ashland. The attached contract is exactly as written for FY07, but with the change in
General Manager's signature line for Julie Brown.
In addition, Council recommended purchasing Reduced Fare (RF) passes in the amount of $3,000 to provide more
affordable access for students and seniors. The request included $1,000 in RF for low-income Seniors 62 years and
over; $2,000 in RF specifically for Ashland High School students 17 and under. This equates to 86 Heduced Fare
passes. This is not a part of the contract with RVTD. Staff will look at the best way to manage the programs and
arrange to purchase the passes directly from RVTD and then the City will arrange for further transfer of the passes
and have each system managed separately.
The FY2007-08 budget allocates $290,000 to be used towards public transportation. As discussed, RVTD's contract
is not to exceed $210,000, plus an additional $3,000 for passes, leaving $77,000. These additional funds will be
allocated as previously discussed to transit planning and consulting services to evaluate and prioritize:
1. transit needs, funding requirements, funding opportunities and timing
2. transit related opportunities including sidewalk links to transit services and bike routes, etc.
3. the use of smaller electric busses or vans for specialized routes and deviations for high volume transit use
4. ridership within Ashland with respect to other partnership opportunities with businesses for employee
ridership programs and options to RVTD transit use
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\Street_Sidewalk_RR misc\CC RVTD Contract 17Jul07.doc
Page I of2
~j.'
5. the special transit needs including senior services, senior centers/living areas and Ashland's community
services and interests
6. and any other reasonable transit related opportunities including links with schools, partnership services, etc.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code
Ashland's FY 2007-08 Budget
Ashland's Transportation System Plan
Ashland's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan
Council Options:
Council has four options:
1. approve staff's recommendation and accept the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-
08 and authorizing the City Administrator's signature;
2. approve the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-08 with additional stipulations,
3. delay approval of the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-08 pending additional
research or clarifications to be provided by staff; or
4. deny the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-08.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to:
1. to encourage increased transit use within the City of Ashland, Council moves to approve the RVTD / City of
Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-08 and authorizing the City Administrator's signature as
presented by staff;
2. approve the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-08 with the following additional
stipulations [state those stipulations];
3. delay approval of the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-08 pending additional
research or clarifications to be provided by staff; or
4. deny the RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services for 2007-08.
Attachments:
Proposed RVTD / City of Ashland - Agreement for Services; July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\Street_ Sidewalk _ RR misc\CC RVTD Contract 17 Jul07 .doc
Page 2 of2
!'~~
RVTD / CITY OF ASHLAND
July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008
Agreement made effective July 1, 2007 between Rogue Valley Transportation District
(RVTD) and the City of Ashland (City).
R VTD and City agree:
1. REDUCED FARE PROGRAM. In order to encourage and increase RVTD ridership
within the City, the City will reduce the cost of fixed route fares within the City from
$2.00 to $.50, and will reduce the Valley Lift paratransit fares within the City from $4.00
to $1.00.
1.1 Contract will begin on July 1, 2007, and will end on June 30, 2008.
1.2 RVTD will provide $.50 fare service on fixed route buses and $1.00 fare
service on Valley Lift paratransit buses to passengers picked up and
delivered within the City.
1.3 R VTD will bill City for the reduced fares described above based on the
actual number of rides provided within the City. Rides will be detailed in
a monthly ridership report completed by RVTD, and bills will be
submitted on a quarterly basis.
1.4 R VTD will also bill City for the operating costs of providing V allc~y Lift
service if ridership exceeds 9,800 passengers per year. The billed amount
shall equal $15.54 per ride over the 9,800 passenger threshold and shall
apply to the period of July 1,2007 through June 30, 2008.
1.5 City will remit to RVTD, on a quarterly basis when billed by RVTD,
$1.50 for each fixed route ride and $3.00 for each Valley Lift paratransit
ride provided by RVTD within the City.
2. CONSIDERATION: Total payments to RVTD will not exceed $210,000 per
fiscal year.
2.1 In the event that the $210,000 annual allotment from the City will
be/becomes exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year, the program for
that fiscal year will end and fixed route and Valley Lift paratransit fares
will revert to standard R VTD fares for the balance ofthe fiscal ye:ar.
2.2 If either RVTD or City wishes to modify this agreement, both patties shall
meet to negotiate modifications to the agreement.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\Street_Sidewalk_RR misc\RVTD ashland contract 17Ju107.doc
Page 1 of 3
3. TERMINATION:
3.1 Termination for Convenience. This agreement may be terminated by
either party for that party's convenience upon thirty days notice in writing
to the other party. RVTD shall be compensated for all services performed
under this agreement up to the effective termination date.
3.2 For Cause. Either party may immediately terminate this agreement for
cause upon delivery of written notice to the other party or such latt:r date
as may be established by mutual agreement, under any of the following
conditions;
3.2.2 If federal or state laws, rules or regulations are modified,
changed, or interpreted in such a manner that the services
are not longer allowable or appropriate under this
agreement;
3.2.3 If any license or certification required by law or regulation
required for the provision of the services under this
agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or
not renewed.
4. Publicity. Any publicity or advertising regarding the program by the City shall
first be reviewed by RVTD for accuracy and must acknowledge the support of RVTD.
R VTD will provide City with appropriate logo for this purpose.
5. Access to Records. The City and its duly authorized representatives shall have
access to the records of RVTD and any subcontractors which are directly pertinent to this
Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts.
6. Workers Compensation. RVTD, its subcontractors, if any, and all employees
working under this Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Worker's
Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide
workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers.
7. General Liability RVTD, its subcontractors, and all employers working under this
Agreement shall comply with Oregon State Laws related to workers compensation,
employment, payroll taxes and general liability for loss of property, injury to riders or
others.
8. Living Wage RVTD shall comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal
code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees perfonming
work under this Agreement and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the
service work under this Agreement. RVTD shall post the attached notice predominantly
in areas where all employees can easily see it.
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\Street_Sidewalk_RR misc\RVTD ashland contract 17JuI07.doc
Page 2 of 3
9. Miscellaneous Provisions
9.1 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be responsible for delay or default
caused by fire, flood, riot, acts of God, and/or war which are beyond the
party's reasonable control. RVTD may terminate this Agreement by
written notice after determining such delay or default will reasonably
prevent successful performance of this Agreement.
9.2 Amendment. The terms ofthis Agreement shall not be waived, ahered,
modified, supplemented or amended in any manner whatsoever without
prior written approval of RVTD and the City.
9.3 Waiver. Either party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agr1eement
shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of its right to such
performance, nor of its right to enforce any other provision of the
Agreement.
9.4 Federal Government Not A Party. The Federal Government is not a party
to this Agreement and shall have no obligation to any third party absent
the Federal Government's express written consent.
9.5 Attorney's Fees. In case of suit, action, proceeding, or arbitration to
enforce any rights or conditions of this Agreement, it is mutually agreed
that the losing party in such suit, action, proceeding, arbitration or appeal
shall pay the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee in such
amount as set by the court or arbitrator hearing such suit, action,
proceeding, arbitration or appeal.
9.6 Entire Agreement. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties. No representations, warranties, promises, guarantees
or agreements, oral or written, express or implied, have been mad'e by
either party hereto with respect to this Agreement or the vehicles,
equipment or drivers to be provided hereunder.
ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DIST
CITY OF ASHLAND
By
Martha Bennett
City Administrator
By
Julie Brown
General Manager
Reviewed as to form:
Reviewed as to foml:
By
Richard Appicello
Acting City Attorney
Date:
By
David Lohman
Legal Counsel for R VTD
Date:
G:\pub-wrks\admin\PB Council\StreeCSidewalk_RR misc\RVTD ashland contract 17Ju107.doc
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Depart.
Approval:
Exempting from Competitive Bidding for the Ashland Solar Pioneer II
Photovoltaic System
July 17,2007 Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wand,n;'h'~
Electric & Conservation 552-2061 wandersd@ashland.or.us if(!V
Finance, Legal Secondary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg, 488-
Martha Benne~~' 5300 \uneberl@ashland.or.us
../ r \ Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Statement:
The City received approval from the IRS to sell up to $500,000 in Clean Renewable Energy
Bonds (CREB's) in December 2006. This application was submitted to fund a Photovoltaic
System on city facilities at 90 N. Mountain Ave. The system was bid out previously in May
2007 as a construction project with no acceptable bid being received. This exemption would
allow the city to bid out the system and use a point system to award the project instead of solely
least cost. The council needs to grant an exemption to competitive bidding to allow this. Re-
bidding this project dos not commit the City to building the project but allows us to potentially
get get an acceptable bid should the City decide to move ahead with this project.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the council adopt the attached resolution granting an exemption to
competitive bidding to the Solar Pioneer II PV System.
Background:
On Feb 7, 2006, staff proposed a new community solar program that could be funded by the
newly created CREB's and the state of Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC). The
minutes from the discussion by the Council from this meeting were "Direction to staff was to
apply for a $500,000 CREB funding in April." This application was submitted and subsequently
approved by the IRS in December 2006. During this time the Oregon Legislature passed HB
3201, and increased the Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) from 35% over 5 years to
50% over 5 years. Businesses are able to work with entities that have no tax liabilitie:s and
purchase the BETC as a pass-through. This can be done at the net present as an upfront payment
of 38%. The BETC for the proposed system would be around an additional $300,000 that would
be added to the CREB' s to fund a larger system.
The City put the system out to bid this spring as a low-bid construction project with bids due on
May 8th. We held a pre bid conference on April 23, and 15 individuals attended. The system
was bid as two separate systems on two different buildings located at the City's complex, 90 N.
Mountain. We requested that one system be installed and completed by June 30th and the other
1
system completed in conjunction with the enclosure of our covered storage building in the
Summer-Fall of2007.
We received only 2 bids under this solicitation. Neither bidder complied with the Bonding
requirements that the proposal mandated as per state public purchasing rules. Because of this
both bids were rejected. Staff is now proposing to rebid the project where the selection would
rely on a point system to award the contract. Because the bidders would be able to supply their
own schedule for construction, the tight time frame problem in the previous bidding process
should be solved. Also because the bonding requirement for performance will be replaced by a
warranty requirement for output, bidders shouldn't have a problem acquiring the necessary
bonds. The request for proposals would utilize the following criteria to select the winning
bidder:
Criteria
Maximum Score
Cost per Watt (Based on system AC output) 45
Expected annual electricity generation, documented performance, 15
warranty, and acceptance test plan
Bidder experience with similar installations 15
Completeness and thoroughness of design 10
Schedule of work 10
Aesthetics 5
Staff feels that this process should result on more bidders and a lower cost. Re-bidding the
project does not commit the City to build the system but allows us to prepare should we decide to
proceed on this project.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
1) Pass the attached resolution granting the exemption from competitive bidding for the
Solar Pioneer II PV System.
2) Re-bid the system as a low-bid construction project
3) Direct staff not to re-bid the system, and halt work on the Solar Pioneer II Project.
Potential Motions:
Move to adopt the attached resolution and findings, exempting from competitive bidding the
Design and Construction of the Ashland Solar Pioneer Generation System Project.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 2007-
Draft Findings
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FROM COMPETITIVE
BiDDING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ASHLAND SOLAR PIONEER GENERATION
SYSTEMS PROJECT
LCRB RESOLUTION
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
;'71.~;1. s1). oX ,;"'Cp)
SECTION 1. ORS 279.0ts and AMC ~~.B permits the Ashland City Council sitting as the
Local Contract Review Board to exempt contracts from competitive bidding if it finds:
1. The lack of bids will not result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in
awarding the contract; and
2. The exemption will result in substantial cost savings.
SECTION 2. This ordinance provides that in making such findings, the Board may consider the type,
cost, amount of the contract, number of persons available to bid, and such other factors as the Board
may deem appropriate. Where appropriate, the Board shall direct the use of alternate contracting and
purchasing practices that take account of market realities and modem or innovative contracting and
purchasing methods, which are also consistent with the public policy of encouraging competition.
SECTION 3. In order to exempt a public contract from competitive bidding, the Board must adopt
written findings that support the awarding of a particular public contract or a class of public contracts
without competitive bidding. The findings must show that the exemption of a contract or class of
contracts complies with the requirements of AMC ~2.50.030.B.
The Board adopts the attached findings from Dick Wanderscheid to the Mayor and City Council dated
June 26, 2007, as findings justifying the exemption. The Board finds that this exemption will not
result in favoritism or substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract and the exemption
will result in substantial cost savings.
SECTION 4. The Board resolves that an exemption be granted as follows:
Design and Construction of the Ashland Solar Pioneer II Generation Systems. This project is
exempted from competitive bidding. The City shall use requests for proposals (RFP) as the alternative
method in selecting a qualified designer and contractor. The RFP shall set forth the sp(~cific criteria
upon which the selection shall be made and how the proposals submitted in response to the RFP will
be evaluated. The criteria will utilize the qualifications described in the memorandum referred to
above and shall be specific as to final product envisioned by the City. Cost shall be evaluated as a
factor, but shall not be the sole determining factor in awarding the contract.
SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Ashland Solar Electric Generation System
Exemption from competitive Bidding
Draft Findings
June 26, 2007
The City of Ashland is soliciting bids to install a Solar Electric Generating System on
city facilities located at 90 N Mountain Ave. in Ashland, Oregon The project size should
be between 85-95kW of net AC production at PTC. This project was competitively bid
previously as a construction project with the bids due on May 8, 2007. Two bids were
received and neither met the minimum requirements of the project.
The City is proposing to rebid this project as a request for proposals with the criteria for
selection as follows:
Criteria
Maximum Score
Cost per Watt (Based on system AC output) 4"
_I
Expected annual electricity generation, documented performance, F
-)
warranty, and acceptance test plan
Bidder experience with similar installations F
J
Completeness and thoroughness of design 10
Schedule of work 10
Aesthetics 5
Bidding the system in this matter should result in substantial cost savings because: we
should get many more qualified bidders than bidding the system out as a low bid
construction project. Justification for Ashland pursuing this course of action is as
follows:
1. The bidding ofthe system as a low-bid construction project resulted in no firm
submitting a bid which met the City's bidding requirements. Using this
process should result in a more competitive bidding situation.
2. The process proposed will provide the City with adequate operationat, budget
and financial data which will allow the selection of a bidder that gives the City
the best overall value for the project.
3. The public benefit of installing this solar electric system will be accomplished
by bidding the system in this manner
4. Because price will still be the main selection criteria, the City will still be
assured that a quality engineered system that is of good value will be achieved
by this process.
5. Installation of a solar electric system does require specific expertise and since
we will be awarding points based on the bidder experience, the expertise
required will be acquired as a result of this process.
6. The system will be installed to comply with all building, electric and utility
requirements so it will be constructed so as to not compromise public safety.
7. Market conditions, when the system was bid in May 2007, resulted in no
acceptable bids being received by the City. Since the new process awards
points for the schedule of construction, but also allows prospective contractors
the ability to develop their own schedule, we feel that market conditions will
be better than the previous process which have had a rigid schedule within a
very short time line.
8. While this proposal is not technically complex, awarding points for bidders
experience will ensure that the system will be installed by technically
competent installers.
9. Funding sources will remain the same as they were when this project was bid
in May, as a low bid construction project. Based on the City's previous
attempt to bid this project in May and the above reason the Ashland City
Council makes the following findings:
a. It is unlikely that the exemption will encourage favoritism in awarding
ofthis public improvement project or substantially diminish
competition for this public improvement projects
b. The awarding of the public improvement contract under this
exemption will result in substantial cost savings to the Electric
Department.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
An Appeal of Planning Action 2006-01784 - Request for a Physical Constraints
Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, re-
grade a portion of Grandview Drive and extend utilities to serve a singlt::-family
residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive.
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
July 17,2007 i
Planning meulJ1
Martha Be:;;!"
Primary Staff Contacts: Maria Harris, 552-2045, \J'.'~.
harrism@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello, f, {l .
552-2091, appicelr@ashland.or.us '
Time Estimate: 2 hours
Statement:
The public hearing was originally scheduled for the May 15, 2007 City Council meeting.
However, the appellant raised issues of the driveway crossing tax lot 412 without an easement
and timing of the Council Communication. As a result, the applicant postponed the action. The
applicant moved the proposed driveway to address the easement issue, and submitted a revised
Topographic Survey with photos and a revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. The
revised materials are attached to this report. The Council Communication and the re,cord
distributed for the May 15 Council meeting continue to be relevant to the upcoming public
hearing. The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit, with 164 days of extension,
expires on August 31, 2007.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Commission approved the request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. Staff
supports the decision of the Planning Commission as stated in the findings.
To expedite the deliberations, Staff recommends focusing on the areas in the February 13
Planning Commission Findings of Fact. If the Council is in agreement with the February 13
Planning Commission findings, the Council can adopt those findings, or modify and adopt the
findings. The February 13,2007 Planning Commission findings address the approval criteria for
the Physical Constraints Review Permit and the additional issues raised by the appellant (i.e.,
alleged assignments of error).
Background:
The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit, with 164 days of extension, expires on
August 31, 2007. Ideally, the hearing would be completed and a decision made at the July 17,
r.,
CITY IOF
ASHLAND
2007 meeting. This would allow findings to be prepared for an August Council meeting. The
February 13, 2007 Planning Commission Findings of Fact could be adopted, or modified and
adopted for an approval, and draft findings.
Shortly before the originally scheduled public hearing at the City Council on May 15, the
appellant raised the issue of the driveway crossing tax lot 412 without an easement. The
attached revised Topographic Survey delineates the existing driveway and tax lots 411 and 412.
The revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan delineates the proposed driveway and tax
lots 411 and 412. Tax lot 411 is adjacent to the subject property on the east. Tax lot 412 is two
tax lots to the east from the subject property. The appellant acquired tax lot 412 in March 2007,
and subsequently had the property surveyed. The driveway crossing tax lot 412 was discovered
in the appellant's survey. The revised Topographic Survey shows a small triangular area of
approximately three square feet of the existing driveway located on tax lot 412.
The original Topographic Survey (pg. 360 ofthe record) and Preliminary Grading and Drainage
Plan (pg. 361 of the record) included in the approved application by the Planning Commission
did not clearly depict the extent that the existing and proposed driveway cross tax lot 412. The
applicant indicated in the proceedings that the driveway crosses tax lot 411 and the property
owner of tax lot 411, Betty Hulse, had indicated her willingness to participate in an e:asement
(pg. 314 of the record).
The revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan includes moving the proposed driveway
completely off tax lot 412. This results in a shift in the driveway of approximately one foot to
the southwest. The previous proposed driveway included 280 square feet of widening and
paving of the driveway beyond the existing driveway surface (pg. 45 of the record). The revised
estimate for widening and paving beyond the existing driveway surface is 324 squar(: feet.
Therefore, the shift in the driveway off of tax lot 412 results in an additional 44 square feet of
driveway construction outside of the existing driveway to the subject property. This additional
44 square feet is in the regulated 20 feet from the top of the bank ofWrights Creek. All areas
within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation are
classified as Floodplain Corridor Lands in accordance with 18.62.050.A.2. In the past, the
distance of "20 feet of any creek" has been interpreted to be 20 feet from the top of the bank.
The second revision in the application involves the location of the utility trench in thle Grandview
Dr. right-of-way. The applicant agreed to a condition of the Planning Commission approval that
the utility trench in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way would be moved to the north so that the
utility trench is outside of the regulated 20 feet from the top of the bank ofWrights Creek (pg. 34
of record, condition 6). However, in preparing the revised application materials, the location of
the trees on the north side of the Grandview Dr. right-of-way near the intersection with Wrights
Creek Dr. was surveyed. If the utility line is moved outside of the regulated 20 feet from the top
of bank ofWrights Creek, the line would impact the cluster of trees. As a result, the applicant is
proposing to locate the utility line as originally proposed. The revised application submittals
state that approximately 100 lineal feet of proposed utility trench lies within 20 feet of the top of
bank.
2
r~'
CITYOF
ASHLJ\ND
The revised Topographic Survey includes six photo references with arrows, and six
corresponding photographs matching the reference points. Staff believes the applicant submitted
the photographs to illustrate the location of Grandview Dr. and the driveways in relation to the
Wrights Creek Floodplain. In Staffs opinion, photograph 3 and 5 illustrate the situation most
clearly.
Photograph 3 is taken at the intersection of the Grandview Dr. with Wrights Creek Dr. looking
towards the subject property. The fork ofWrights Creek that is the subject ofthe application's
Physical Constraints Review Permit runs along the south side of Grandview Dr. in this location,
and is shown to the left of the gravel driving surface of Grandview Dr. in the photograph. The
plan view of the relationship of this fork ofWrights Creek Dr. in relation to Grandvilew Dr. and
the subject property is shown in the attached aerial photo, Staff Exhibit A.
Photograph 5 shows the point where Grandview Dr. splits into two forks. The fork tlO the left is a
driveway serving properties outside of the city limits. The fork to the right is the existing
driveway that serves the subject property and 507 Grandview Dr. The fork to the right is the
driveway that is proposed to be improved to serve a single-family residence at 720 Grandview
Dr. The fork ofWrights Creek that is the subject of the application's Physical Constraints
Review Permit runs in a pipe from south to north under driveway fork to the left, and the creek
daylights in the wedge between the two driveways.
In Staff s opinion, the proposal with the revisions can be found to be consistent with the approval
criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. Staff believes that even with the additional 44
square feet of driveway development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain due to the shifting ofthe
driveway off of tax lot 412, the proposal minimizes the areas of development in the floodplain.
The proposed development minimizes additional new impacts by locating driveway
improvements, the storm drain and the utility trench to the greatest extent in areas of the Wrights
Creek Floodplain that have already been significantly disturbed through the past strec~t and
driveway construction.
Council Options:
The Council may approve, approve with modifications and conditions, or deny the application.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve the application for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, re-grade a portion of
Grandview Dr. and extend utilities to serve a single family residence for the property located at
720 Grandview Dr. in P A 2006-01784 with the conditions of approval attached by the Planning
Commission as stated in the Findings and Orders dated February 13,2007.
Move to approve the application for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, re-grade a portion of
Grandview Dr. and extend utilities to serve a single family residence for the property located at
720 Grandview Dr. in P A 2006-01784 with modified conditions of approval.
Move to deny the application as submitted.
3
r.l'
CITY 40F
ASHLAND
Attachments:
Staff Exhibit A, Aerial Photograph of Surrounding Area and the Fork ofWrights Cn::ek
Topographic Survey, Corresponding Photos, and Transmittal Letter from TerraSurvey, Inc.
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Transmittal Letter from Thornton Engineering, Inc.
4
r.,
COUNCIL PACKET
for
APPEAL of
PA2006-01784
720 GRANDVIEW DRIVE
Council Communication will arrive on
Thursday
CITY OF
ASHLAND
RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2006-01784
PLANNING ACTION: #2006-01784
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynn & Bill McDonald
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request for a
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading
of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence for the
property located at 720 Grandview Dr. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Single Family Residential;
ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP#391E 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500.
The public hearing scheduled at the May 15 Ashland City Council meeting will also consider alleged assignments of
error from the voluntary remand of the building permit for the subject property from the state Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA), LUBA Appeal No. 2004-201. In December 2004, Bonnie Brodersen appealed the building permit to
LUBA. In April 2005, the applicants chose a "voluntary remand" which entails submitting a local land use application
for the proposed development of a single-family home to address the alleged assignments of error. A voluntary
remand is an option to pursuing an appeal at LUBA. The action was not reviewed by LUBA, and therefore there were
no errors determined by LUBA. The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included six assignments of error including:
1) alleging the subject parcel is not a legal lot, 2) alleging the proposed single-family home is subject to Chapter
18.72, Site Design and Use Standards, 3) alleging a Physical Constraints Review permit is required for development
of the subject property which is in the Wildfire Corridor and Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area,
4) alleging the City's riparian ordinance violated Goal 5, 5) alleging the "The City erred when it chose a method of
measuring the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the property and curve of the driveway to determine the
actual length of the driveway, when it determined that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it
granted a variance for the maximum slope of the driveway without following the ALUO provision for granting
variances. The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and minimum standards of the
UFC for turnarounds an(j deadend streets.", and 6) alleging the "Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates
UFC 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039."
Date Item Pane #
4/25/2007 Notice of Public Hearing set for 5/15/2007, relevant criteria, mailing list, Affidavit
of Mailina, and Notice of Public Hearinq for publication in newspaper 1-5
4/10/2007 Notice of Land Use Appeal submitted by Bonnie Brodersen 6-9
3/30/2007 Findinqs, Conclusions and Orders dated 2/13/2007 and cover letter 1 0-35
3/27/2007 Plannina Commission Minutes (draft) 36-37
2/13/2007 Plannina Commission Minutes 38-39
1/26/07 Public Hearina Notice to newsoaoer for meetina of 2/13/2007 40
1/24/2007 Letter from Mark Bartholomew rebuttinq Brodersen's 1/17 submittal 41-44
1/17/2007 Letter from Mark Bartholomew re: proposed findings of compliance wlrelevant
citeria and the voluntarv remand 45-49
1/17/2007 Memorandum II Addendum from Bonnie Brodersen 50-79
1/17/2007 Memo from Maria Harris, Sr. Planner re: Attachments (4) to 7/11/2006 memo
from Mike Franell, Citv Attornev on Lot Partition 80-231
1/9/2007 Planninq Commission Minutes 232-234
1/9/2007 Memo from Bonnie Brodersen 235-246
1/9/2007 Letter from Mike Thornton, Thornton EnQineerina to Maria Harris, Sr. Planner 247-248
1/9/2007 Reauest for an Extension of the Time Limit ORS 227.178(1) 249
1/9/2007 Ashland Plannina Deoartment Staff Report 250-263
Staff Exhibits 264-314
Staff Exhibit A - DLCD Notice of Adopted Amendment dated 12/8/2005 265-305
Staff Exhibit B - City of Ashland Local Wetlands Inventory & Assessment &
Riparian Corridor Inventorv prepared Julv 2005 306-309
310-314
1 2/20/2006
315-319
12/4/2006 320
11 /22/2006
321-324
9/8/2006 325-327
9/8/2006 328-361
5/4/2005 362-486
r..'
Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland Oregon S7520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-552-2050 wwwashlandorus TTY 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2006-01784
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynn & Bill McDonald
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request for a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the
improvement and widening of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to
serve a new single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Single Family
Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP#391E 05 CD; TAX LOT- 500.
The public hearing scheduled at the May 15 Ashland City Council meeting will also consider alleged assignments of error from the voluntary
remand of the building permit for the subject property from the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), LUBA Appeal No. 2004-201. In
December 2004, Bonnie Brodersen appealed the building permit to LUBA. In April 2005, the applicants chose a "voluntary remand" which
entails submitting a local land use application for the proposed development of a single-family home to address the alleged assignments of error.
A voluntary remand is an option to pursuing an appeal at LUBA. The action was not reviewed by LUBA, and therefore there were no errors
determined by LUBA. The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included six assignments of error including: 1) alleging the subject parcel is not a
legal lot, 2) alleging the proposed single-family home is subject to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards, 3) alleging a Physical
Constraints Review permit is required for development of the subject property which is in the Wildfire Corridor and Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Area, 4) alleging the City's riparian ordinance violated Goal 5, 5) alleging the "The City erred when it chose a method of
measuring the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the property and curve of the driveway to determine the actual length of the driveway.
when it determined that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance for the maximum slope of the driveway
without following the ALUO provision for granting variances. The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and
minimum standards of the UFC for turnarounds and deadend streets.", and 6) alleging the "Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates
UFC 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039."
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
- -:-.. ~:~I - T TCCT -% -,-/
Subject P.-opert)f '_. -1~ ..__-/- _".. -- ,
'-~~l- .~ ~15~<=RN'r~~1 Q"-~\ /.
_ _ I / ...... ...Jfrj.. __l__l.-=Ji I-
I -1 - - - Icr GRANDVIEW DR ~
I --- ~ _- T;lr~T~r-
~ . I.:, -~_J~ /. ...._
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 Ilhe meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I).
I
(I cUllllll-Jt'\ pbnnin~ r\oliCl':" ~li1i1ed 21107 2()1){)-1117S~ C(llHh'il '\rre:i1 dl"
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.62.040.1
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the
following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential
hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered
more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding
area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998,
Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
18.108.110 Appeal to Council
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions described in section
18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part
of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the
appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties
at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council
shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause
copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing,
precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
~
G:'cornm.dev'planning'Notices Mailed'2007'2006-01784 Council Appeal.doc
Easy Peel Labels
Use Averyf'J TEMPlATE 5160.
~
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 602
CROSS W JIP AULA P GREIST
715 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 502
HAINES LLOYD M
51 WATER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 411
HULSE BETTY JANE TRSTEE FBO
863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 405
KITZMAN DAVID M
1780 NE BEULAH
ROSEBURG, OR 97470
PA 2006-01784 391E05 1900
MONTERO LAURIE
821 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD401
VAN VLECK JON/DIANA D
869 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A#2006-0 1784
GIORDANO TOM
2635 TAKELMA WAY
Ashland, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784
THORNTON ENGINEERING
1236 DISK DRIVE
MEDFORD, OR 97504
LLOYD HAINES
96 N MAIN STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
~tiquettes fadles it peler
Utilisez Ie gabarit AVERy8 5160.
I ...
1 Feed Paper
- See Instruction Sheet I ~
- for Easy Peel Feature 1
~AVERVe5160e 1
PA2006-01784391E05CD402
GETZOFF HOW ARD/L YNN W
779 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 412
GOODMAN TERRY/JANIS M
409 COLLEGE ST
NEWBERG, OR 97132
PA 299{; Q17g~ 391E05CD ~Og
HULSE :BETTY J"A,JoJE
g{;3 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLA,JoID, OR 97520
P}. 2QO{; 017&~ 391EQ5CD 110
HULSE :BETTY J:\:tJE TRSTEE F:BO
g{;3 'NRIGIITS CREEK DR
ASHLMID, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 409
HULSE JAMES L/LINDA RAE
416 WIMER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD406
JONES RICHARD J/LEIGH E
705 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P f. 2006 Ql7&~ 391EQ5CD 501
LOUISE }JMJCY
PO :BOX 355
"A.SHLA:tID, OR 97520
RETURNED 12/08/06
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 500
MC DONALD WILLIAM J JR ET AL
8621 OAK BRANCH AVE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 404
ROBBINS EUGENE/BONNIE L B
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD400
RUNDELL ANDREW R/VICTORIA L
545 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 403
565 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 407
705 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A#2006-0 1784
SNELLING KEN
1625 CADY ROAD
JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530
P A#2006-0 1784
TERRA SURVEY, INC.
274 FOURTH STREET
Ashland, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784
BONNIE BRODERSEN
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DRIVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
NANCY LOUIE
507 GRANDVIEW DRIVE
ASHLAND OR 97520
Council Appeal Notice mailed 4-25-2007
By ~ ,~f
3
A
Sens de chargement
Consultez la feuille
d'jnstruction
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On April 25. 2007, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Public Meeting Notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list
under each person's name for Planning Action # 2006-01784. 720 Grandview. ((16 1-111 ( i t l11ih~ I)
/;?
/)
p ( r) C? ^- () c7 /~~
Signature of E"1'~loyee
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 25th day of April, 2007.
"~';;j~~...->':~~\;I>:.:,:;'~... ~~..'<"
_ 0::... ell,! SEAL
CAROLYh THWENDENER
. NOTARy - .,;I_le-OREGON
" COMMISSJ)~, '\]0 390825
MY COMMISSION EXPIF;::~~ ;r.AR. 20, 2009
~~;';<';':::;~~:-"~'):~~,-
4
G:\comm-dev\planning\Forms & HandoutslAFFIDAVIT OF MAILlNG,doc
ATTN: ANDREA - CLASSIFIED
PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to
the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on May
15,2007, at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the public
hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting.
Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request for a
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an
existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a
new single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R.1.10; ASSESSOR'S MAP#391E 05 CD; TAX
LOT: 500. The public hearing scheduled at the May 15 Ashland City Council meeting will also
consider alleged assignments of error from the voluntary remand of the building permit for the
subject property from the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), LUBA Appeal No. 2004-201. In
December 2004, Bonnie Brodersen appealed the building permit to LUBA. In April 2005, the
applicants chose a .voluntary remand" which entails submitting a local land use application for the
proposed development of a single-family home to address the alleged assignments of error. A
voluntary remand is an option to pursuing an appeal at LUBA. The action was not reviewed by
LUBA, and therefore there were no errors determined by LUBA. The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA
brief included six assignments of error including: 1) alleging the subject parcel is not a legal lot, 2)
alleging the proposed single-family home is subject to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use
Standards, 3) alleging a Physical Constraints Review permit is required for development of the
subject property which is in the Wildfire Corridor and Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Area, 4) alleging the City's riparian ordinance violated Goal 5, 5) alleging the "The City
erred when it chose a method of measuring the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the
property and curve of the driveway to determine the actual length of the driveway, when it
determined that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance
for the maximum slope of the driveway without following the ALUO provision for granting variances.
The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and minimum standards of
the UFC for turnarounds and deadend streets.", and 6) alleging the "Ashland Municipal Code
Section 15.28.070 violates UFC 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039."
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 (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).
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
Publish: 5/3/2007
P. O. No. 75803
E-mailed to Tidings: 4/25/2007
5-'
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.
2.
('S; err
035
tJi' .
Attach additional pages of names and addresses if other persons are joining the appeal.
C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed
0;t/7o; OIOc~ion: Planning Action #: Title of planning action:
.-/Icx, '10' I fA :J..OO~-olt;<<l( ;vtc. {)()~/d ffO~f'-by
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@ I am the applicant.
Box A.1. above participated in the public hearing before the planning
qualifies as a party commission, either orally or in writing.
because: L@ I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
L@ I am the applicant.
L@ I participated in the public hearing before the planning
commission, either orally or in writing.
L@ 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.
VI'C,L<...->
fQ 1''''1 t::.
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 ~ttach
additional pages If necessary): 5 e e /Vb y:; l:.€...- t7~ 4r~1 q ~d
t{ltd ~ --60 l11e~o~t\d-" >t<j~,.IJ..J ~ f?!~""'''''''r c..,""h1I:S>/o~ ,h
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashl9fnd Municipal Code
S or other law in S requires that
attach additional a es if necessa
2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is
(attach additional pages if necessary):
CA. flJ, 6t1 ec
k.-t'l--i-h' .
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
S or other law in S requires that
attach additional a es if necessa
3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach
additional pages if necessary):
This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code
S or other law in S requires that
(attach additional pages if necessary):
10
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 $ 286.00 which is the appeal fee required
by S 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Date 7/0 ?
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 ofthe decision sought to be reviewed. Effective
dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18. 108.070.
1
635 Wrights Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
April 10, 2007
Ashland City Administrator
City Hall
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Appeal to Ashland City Council Concerning:
McDonald Property - 391E5CD tax lot 500
NOTICE OF APPEAL
This is an appeal to the Ashland City Council of the decision of March 27, 2007
by the Ashland Planning Commission concerning the referenced property, which decision
approved the issuance of a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit.
A. Standin!!. Of Appellant
Appellant, Bonnie Brodersen, has standing to bring this land use appeal, because
she appeared orally and in writing before the Ashland Planning Commission on January
9,2007 when the referenced matter was heard by the Commission.
B. Tbe Decision oftbe Plannin!!. Commission Sbould be Reversed
The decision of the Planning Commission should be reversed because the
Commission's findings are in direct violation of applicable Code criteria in ALUa
18.62.040 and because of procedural irregularity in that the Commission ruled on issues
which had not been noticed to Appellant or any other participant.
Further, the decision should be reversed because a) the Planning Commission has
approved expansion and development of a private driveway on property in a protected
riparian area, which property was dedicated to the City and is a resource of all citizens of
Ashland; b) the Commission has approved a physical and environmental constraints
permit in violation of the mandatory provision of ALUa 18.62.040(H) and 18.62.070(M)
and 18.62.075 which among other applicable provisions do not allow for driveways to be
built or expanded in a protected riparian area and which require the general topography of
riparian preservation lands to be retained; c) the subject lot is not a "legal lot" as defmed
by the AMC and case law; and d) approval for said permit was granted in violation of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and riparian ordinance both of which are not in compliance
with Goal 5; e) the city has incorrectly designated the slope of the property and has
failed to fmd what percentage of the property will be covered by impervious surface;
f) Planning failed to use a Type I procedure as required by ALUa 18.108.040;
g) Planning failed to require Applicant to meet minimum standards of ALUa 18.76.060
as well as minimum standards of the Uniform Fire Code for turnarounds and dead end
streets. Applicant incorporates herein her Memoranda submitted to the Planning
Commission and her Memorandum submitted to LUBA.
Respectfully submitted,
Bonnie Brodersen
482-0180)
Page 1 ot 1
~
Received from
For
~C:f\r' /
(1).. j(^'\ (
By
CITY OF ASHLAND
'-~Q
) j ~ ',f
I.;2D'-..\
93823
DateI\[)-C:1
Cash d}1
o
Account Number
Amount
~:J1C--
Amount
Check
A~ount Number
'--11 f""\.) tA I 1::>1 f\
--.lL~ /__ Q ~__ __ __
--- -- --- --- ~--- -
I -- --- --- --~----__ _
-- I --- --- ------
I
1===
--- --- --~--_.-
--~OT AL~I /;J'(Vr-f\ -
Cf
CITY OF
ASHLAND
March 30, 2007
Lynn and Bill McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 933.11
RE: Planning Action #: 2006-01784
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McDonald:
At its meeting of February 13,2007, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the property located at 720 Grandview -- Assessor's Map # 39 IE
05 CD; Tax Lot 500.
The Findings, Conclusions. and Orders document, adopted at the March 27,2007 meeting, is enclosed.
Please note the following circled items:
1.
A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of
preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid.
2.
A final plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes invalid.
~:].
There is a IS-day appeal period, from the date of this letter, which must elapse before a building permit
may be issued.
l~y
~ ~.
All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met.
Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application
would have to be submitted.
Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions.
Sincerely/"
!
,
'--
, .
,., ~--,..----.
1--1-
I. _.
Maria Harris
Senior Planner
cc: See attachment A
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
/0
r4.'
Attachment A
Mark Bartholomew, 717 Murphy Road, Medford OR 97504
Tom Giordano, 2635 Takelma Way, Ashland OR 97520
Mike Thornton, Thornton Engineering, 1236 Disk Drive, Medford OR 97504
Nancy Louie, 507 Grandview Drive, Ashland OR 97520
Lloyd Haines, 96 North Main, AsWand OR 97520
Bonnie Broderson, 635 Wright's Creek Drive, Ashland OR 97520
James Hulse, 416 Wimer St., Ashland OR 97520
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
1/
r;.,
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
February 13, 2007
In the Matter of a Request for a Physical and Environmental )
Constraints Review Permit for Development in the Wrights Creek )
Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the Improvement ) FINDINGS OF FACT
and Widening of a Portion of an Existing Driveway, Re-grading of) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
a Portion of Grandview Drive and Extension of Utilities to Serve a ) AND ORDER
Single Family Residence for Property Located at 720 Grandview )
Drive, Within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. )
Applicant: Lynn and Bill McDonald [PA-#2006-01784]
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the Planning Commission for the City of Ashland pursuant to AMC
18.108.030(5), a request for a public hearing on a staff permit for inter alia, a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Permit, originally approved administratively on November 22, 2006.
This is a de novo hearing.
The Applicants received a building permit for a single-family home in October 2004 (BD-2004-
00284). In December 2004, Bonnie Broderson, a neighboring property owner, (hereinafter
"Opponent") appealed the building permit to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA);
the Petition included allegations that certain land use approvals were required. In April 2005, the
Applicants chose a "voluntary remand" and the City agreed to address the Opponent's
assignments of error. The action was therefore not reviewed by LUBA, and no errors were
adjudicated or determined by LUBA. In a normal voluntary remand the City's final decision
maker would provide notice to the participants and remake the final land use decision to correct
any alleged errors. In this case because the original decision was not a land use decision, (a
building permit) the City had not followed land use procedures, so on remand there was no final
land use decision to remake. The Applicants were therefore required to submit a new local land
use application (which may be appealed at the local level to the City Council) for the proposed
development and to address the alleged assignments of error.
The application for staff permit was filed by the Applicant with the Planning Department on
September 8, 2006. The Applicant made several applications, some of which staff determined to
be unnecessary. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is a Staff Permit procedure in accordance
with 18.1 08.030.A.2. The original application was deemed incomplete. Additional materials
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Jd-..
Page -1-
were submitted by the Applicant and the application was deemed completed on November 20,
2006. Staff granted preliminary approval on November 22, 2006. Opponent was provided
notice of the preliminary action. A request for a public hearing was timely made by Opponent
on December 4,2006. The relevant criteria are found in City"s "Ashland Land Use Ordinance"
("ALUO"), Chapter 18.62 and 18.20.
On December 20, 2006, notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on
January 9,2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter 18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area
property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9,2007, hearing was also
published in the Ashland Daily Tidings on December 28,2006. On January 9, 2007, the
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony
presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. On January 9,2007 the hearing was closed.
Prior to the close of the hearing a request was made by Opponent for a continuance or to leave
the record open. The Planning Commission left the record open until January 17,2007 at 5:00
p.m. Written testimony was submitted. The Applicant submitted final written argument on
January 24,2007. On February 13,2007 the Planning Commission convened and deliberated on
the application; the Commission approved the application and directed findings of fact and
conclusions of law be brought back to the March 13,2007 meeting for approval. On March
_,2007, the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were approved
by the Commission and signed by the Chair.
Based upon the evidence in the record, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and
conclusions oflaw:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated
herein by this reference.
2) The subject of Planning Action [P A-#2006-01784] concerns real property located within
the City of Ashland ("City"), and said property is described on the County Tax Assessor's Maps
as 39-1 E-5CD, Tax Lot 500 (the "Property"). The street address of the subject property is 720
Grandview Drive, Ashland, Oregon, 97520.
3) The zoning of the subject property is R-I-I0. (10,000 sq. ft. lots) (Single Family Residential
District). The Comprehensive Plan designation is Single Family Residential.
4) In September 1979, the Planning Commission approved a Land Partition and Variance for
lot depth (P A 79-110). The subject property was one of the three lots created by the land
partition.
5) The Applicants for Planning Action # 2006-001784 are Lynn and Bill McDonald (hereinafter
"Applicants"). Attorney Mark Bartholomew, and Planner Torn Giordano, among others,
represent Applicants.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
/..3
Page -2-
5) The site contains slopes of approximately a 14 percent grade sloping downhill in a
easterly and northeasterly direction. The application survey identifies three trees on the site
including a cluster of plum trees, and two dead poplar trees that are eight and ten inches d.b.h.
The remainder of the site is covered in native grasses.
6) One of the forks ofWrights Creek runs to the south of the subject property. The creek is
culverted to the south of Grandview Dr. and daylights in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way near
the southwest comer of the parcel. The top of the creek bank is partially located in the southwest
comer of the parcel and is identified on the Topographic Survey included in the application.
7) The subject parcel as well as the surrounding properties to the east, west and south are
located in the R-l-lO Single-Family Residential district. The Ashland City Limits is located on
the western border of the property. As a result, the properties to the west of the parcel are under
the jurisdiction of Jackson County. There are several parcels to the north and to the east of the
subject parcel that are also vacant.
8) The project site is a vacant lot situated on the north side of Grandview Dr. This portion
of Grandview Dr. is the western terminus of the city street, and is located west of the intersection
with Wrights Creek Dr. Grandview Dr. in this location is a gravel driving surface.
9) There is an existing gravel driveway in place that serves the subject parcel as well as the
parcel to the west located at 507 Grandview Dr. This existing driveway serving the subject
parcel splits from Grandview Dr. approximately 40 feet east of the subject property. The shared
driveway crosses the vacant comer of the property to the east (391E05CD, tax lot 411). The
property owner of tax lot 411 has authorized the Applicants to proceed with the application, and
is working with the Applicants towards an access easement.
10) Shortly after entering the subject property one driveway turns to the north to serve the
subject property, and the other driveway turns to the west to serve the residence located at 507
Grandview Dr. Grandview Dr. continues to the southwest. The driveway is an existing gravel
drive, and varies from nine to fifteen feet in width. The portion of the driveway serving 507
Grandview traverses the southern portion of the subject parcel. The property located at 507
Grandview has a 20-foot wide access easement that traverses the southern portion of the subject
property. The property located at 507 Grandview Dr. contains a single-family residence and is
located outside of the Ashland City Limits. A portion ofWrights Creek daylights near the
southwest comer of the property and is situated between the driveway and Grandview Dr.
III. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA
1) The Commission finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or
referenced in ALVO Chapter 18.62, including but not limited to the criteria for issuance of a
Physical Constraints Review Permit as described in ALVO 18.62.040.1 as follows:
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
tlf
Page -3-
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have
been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible
actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development
of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land
Use Ordinance.
2) The Opponent points to ALVa 18.62.040 alleging incomplete application material to make
a determination on the application. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the
application requirements of 18.62.040 are not approval criterion for this decision. [January 9, 2007
pA-5] To the extent Opponent also asserts the Purposes are approval criterion for this decision [p
6- 7 January 9, 2007) the Commission finds and determines that purposes are not approval criterion.
The 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 in the record as a whole.
3) The Commission finds and determines that this "development" proposal, including grading,
paving and utility construction in the Flood Plain and Riparian Preservation Area, to support the
construction of a single family residential building meets all applicable criteria for an Physical
Constraints Review Permit described or referenced in the ALva Chapter 18.62; this finding is
supported by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings
set forth herein, and the detailed findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the
"Project NarrativelFindings" document, and supplements to that document, specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereofby this reference.
4) Criterion: [ALVa 18.62.040.1.1.] Through the application of the development
standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
The Commission finds and determines that this criterion requires consideration of the potential
impacts of the proposed development to the property and nearby area and minimization of
adverse impacts. The standard does not specify "no impact." It is through the application of the
development standards of this Chapter that the consideration and minimization of impacts is to
be accomplished. The development standards to be applied are determined by the applicable
land classification for the lands being developed as established under ALva 18.62.050. More
than one classification may apply; however, the restrictions applied are only those which pertain
to those portions of the land being developed and not necessarily the whole parcel. [ALVa
18.62.050.F. ]
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
IS
Page -4-
Portions of the subject property are within two distinct land classifications - Flood Plain and
Riparian Preservation. The property is adjacent to Wrights Creek which is identified as a
Riparian Preservation Creek on the adopted City of Ashland Physical and Environmental
Constraints map and ALua 18.62.050B. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any
creek designated for Riparian Preservation are classified as Floodplain Corridor Lands in
accordance with 18.62.050.A.4. Although the Code does not expressly so provide, the distance
of"20 feet of any creek" has been interpreted to be 20 feet from the top ofthe bank. A Physical
Constraints Review Permit is therefore required for any "development" within Floodplain
Corridor Lands and Riparian Preserve Lands on the subject property in accordance with
18.62.040.
"Development" is defined in Chapter 18.62.030 E. as follows:
Development - Alteration of the land surface by:
1. Earth-moving activities such as grading, fIlUng, stripping, or cutting involving more than 20
cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1000
sq. ft. on any lot;
2. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except that
additions to existing buildings of less than 300 sq. ft. to the existing building footprint shall
not be considered development for section 18.62.080.
3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter.
The Applicants propose re-grading and paving of the existing driveway, including that portion of
the driveway on the adjacent lot [T.L 411] as well as the driveway approach connection in the
Grandview Drive right-of-way. Although the driveway is considerably longer, only a small
portion of the driveway improvement is located within 20 feet from the top of the bank of
Wrights Creek. Grading and driveway construction as well as placement of fill is expressly listed
as development, (provided it exceeds 20 cubic yards on any[ single] lot or disturbance of 1 000
square feet on any [single] lot). Additionally, a private storm drain line and outlet, and a utility
trench connecting the new home to the existing services near the intersection ofWrights Creek
Dr. will be installed; portions of the private storm drain system and of the utility trench are
located within 20 feet from the top of the bank. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds and
determines that a Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for this proposed development
on that portion of the properties identified within 20 feet of the top of bank. (although it appears
possible that there is less than 1000 square feet of disturbance and less than 20 cubic yards of
fill on that portion of Lot 411 included in this request.)
It is important to clarify that the Physical Constraints Review Permit is limited to the
development of the driveway and utility trenches located in the Floodplain and Riparian Area.
Accordingly, the single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the Wrights
Creek Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit.
Because the property is located in the R- 1 -1 0 Single-Family Residential zoning district, a single-
family home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the construction of a
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
I"
Page -5-
single-family home requires a building permit, and does not in itself require this planning action.
However, because of the LUBA voluntary remand, discussion of all assignments of error will
address issues which do not directly relate to the Physical Constraint Review Permit but which
relate to the eventual development of the site.
18.62.070
Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands.
For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood Plain Corridor, the following is
required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Flood Plain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of flood way channels, as defined in section
15.10, and the fIll shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill.
3. The amount of fill in the Flood Plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other
material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater shall be limited to the
following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved public and private
street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not exceed the above
amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the
site, regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then fIll materials
must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to the extent necessary to create an
elevated site for permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from the
portion of the lot in the Flood Plain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the outside edge of the
Flood Plain Corridor as feasible.
The Planning Commission finds and determines that the above fill standards are met or will be
met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as
by the detailed findings set forth herein, and the detailed findings provided by the Applicant,
specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Compliance with the
standards ensures identification and minimization of project impacts on the site and the surrounding
area.
Specifically, the Applicant proposes to fully comply with the applicable fill standards identified in
18.62.070 A [Findings P.8] As regards AI, the reference to the Uniform Building Code is now
outdated and the reference should be to the International Building Code. As regards I8.62.070A2~
Opponent argues the standard is violated because the application findings identify only an eight (8)
foot wide buffer between the top of creek bank (hereinafter TOCB)and the proposed paved
driveway. The standard requires a ten foot separation outside "floodway channels" as defined in
section 15.10. AMC 15.10.050 I. defines "Flood-way" as "that channel of a river or other
watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood
without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one (1) foot." (emphasis
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
/7
Page -6-
added) The definition of floodway includes both the "channel" and adjacent lands sufficient to
accept discharge. Thornton Engineering has also identified the adjacent lands under this standard
are situated well below the top of creek bank. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds and
determines that the standard is not violated. As regards 18.62.070A3., plans indicate in a note
that "All fill material used for driveway construction and utility installation shall be at original
ground elevation (i.e. no fill will impede floodwaters)." Accordingly, the standard in A3. to
minimize fill appears to be met or will be met. Off site materials are limited by A3. to specific
purposes. The reference in A3.b. to "aggregate base and paving materials and fill associated with
. .. private ... driveway construction" clearly authorizes the use of this material and fill in the Flood
Plain in the construction of the proposed driveway. (See also the demonstrated compliance with
standards for driveway construction below) Given the small amount of driveway located in the
Flood Plain the limitation to 50 cubic yards in the floodplain is not exceeded. A subsurface
drainage plan is provided for the driveway as required by standard 18.62.070.A5. The building
site is not located in the Flood Plain rendering 18.62.070.A6 inapplicable.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to
section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer. Stream crossings shall be designed to the
standards of Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100)
year flood without any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider
in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe flood, and
accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be kept to the minimum
necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt from the limitations in section (A) above.
Culverting or bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements
of 18.62.075.
No bridging or culverting is proposed in the Riparian Preservation Area or Flood Plain. This
criterion is inapplicable to the requested development.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter 15.10 to one foot above
the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific elevations
exist, then they must be flood proofed to an eleva~on of ten feet above the creek channel on Ashland,
Bear or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined
in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage ways identified
on the official maps.
No non-residential structures are proposed in the Riparian Preservation Area or Flood Plain. This
criterion is inapplicable to the requested development.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one foot
above the elevation contained in the maps adopted in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in
the official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is greater. Where no specific
elevations exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel on
Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve
creeks defined in section 18.62.050.B; and three feet above the stream channel on all other drainage
ways identified on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow,
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
/~
Page -7-
whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be certified to the city
by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the structure.
No residential structures are proposed in the Riparian Preservation Area or Flood Plain. This
criterion is inapplicable to the requested development.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Flood Plain Corridor
Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Flood Plain Corridor area, then
development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding.
Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands.
This criterion is complied with or otherwise inapplicable to the requested development.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Flood Plain Corridor shall locate all residential
structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Flood Plain
Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in
Corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Flood Plain Corridor that is two feet
or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel
of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D
above.
Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands.
This criterion is met by the proposed development of the residential structure.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood Plain Corridor lands that equal to
or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story
construction may be cantilevered over the Flood Plain Corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the
clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have
minimal impact on the flow of floo~waters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two
feet below the flood corridor elevations.
Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands.
This criterion is met by the proposed development of the residential structure. No cantilevering
over Flood Plain Corridor lands is proposed.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which contain Flood Plain
Corridor land must contain a building envelope on alllot(s) which contain(s) buildable area of a
sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open
space or conservation purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit further
division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the zoning ordinance.
The proposal does not include the creation of lots or modification of lot lines. Accordingly this
criterion is inapplicable.
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing structures or additions located
within the Flood Plain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage, parking, and similar uses are permitted for
residential structures but must be flood-proofed to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
19
Page -8-
Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands.
Accordingly this criterion is inapplicable.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in
Flood Plain Corridor lands.
No storage of prohibited materials is proposed by the application. This criterion is met.
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this chapter
shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood
waters, but not including wire mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any
identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be constructed within
any designated floodway.
No fences are proposed for construction in the Flood Plain Corridor lands. Accordingly this
criterion is inapplicable.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Flood Plain Corridor Lands and at or
below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.C and D, shall be flood-proofed to the standards
contained in Chapter 15.10.
Residential structures are proposed on the subject property outside Flood Plain Corridor lands. No
decks are proposed for construction in the Flood Plain Corridor lands. Accordingly this criterion is
inapplicable.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the Flood Plain Corridor
shall be located outside of the Flood Plain Corridor, except for crossing the Corridor, and except in
the Bear Creek Flood Plain Corridor as outlined below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek Flood Plain Corridor as
part of development following the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. This exception
shall only be permitted for that section of the Bear Creek Flood Plain Corridor between North
Mountain Avenue and the Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in
the general location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally
described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan
shall not be permitted to utilize this exception.
The Planning Commission finds and determines that the above Flood Plain standard prohibits new
development proposals from siting new local streets and associated utilities in Flood Plain
Corridors. The purpose of the prohibition is to keep new subdivisions and partitions from
attempting to utilize Flood Plain and Riparian Lands for subdivision or partition infrastructure. The
existing local street right-of-way and gravel street abutting the subject property, Grandview Dr.
from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the subject parcel, is located within 20 feet from
the top of bank of a fork ofWrights Creek, and therefore is located in Flood Plain Corridor
Lands and Riparian Preservation Lands. Grandview Dr. is a public street right-of-way and the
section of Grandview Dr. from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the southeast comer of
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
~(;
Page -9-
the subject parcel was dedicated as street right-of-way in 1971. The portion of the Grandview
Dr. right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject parcel was dedicated as right-
of-way as part of the land partition process that created the parcel in 1979. Chapter 18.62,
Physical and Environmental Constraints including development standards for riparian corridor
lands was adopted in 1986. The existing gravel street and right of way do not violate the Code,
because they were legally established at the time the Flood Plain Corridor standards were adopted.
It has been asserted by Opponent [p.5-6, 1-9-07] that the above referenced provision prohibits
driveway construction and single family residential utility connections running from the existing
City street to the proposed single family residential unit on the existing lot. Opponent asserts that
only crossings are permitted. The Planning Commission finds and determines that full
improvement of the Grandview Drive right-of-way including utilities would be permitted under this
provision, including any necessary crossing of Wright's Creek Flood Plain and Riparian
Preservation Area. This provision of the Code does not prohibit grading or improvement to the
right-of-way or the construction of driveways and private utility lines to service individual homes.
Driveways and their associated stormwater drainage are expressly authorized in the Flood Plain
Corridor in 18.62.070' A.3.b and A~5. Similarly, fill and culverting for access (which clearly
included driveways contrary to Opponent's assertion - p.7, January 9, 2007) and utilities is
expressly permitted in Riparian Preservation Lands [18.62.075.A.3.]. Opponent's interpretation of
this section negates these substantive ALva provisions. In addition, while non-perpendicular
crossing of Flood Plain Corridors and Riparian Preservation Lands is to be avoided, such right
angles are required only to the greatest extent feasible. Nevertheless, to address Opponents
objections to the private water and sewer connections crossing into the Flood Plain Corridor and
Riparian Preservation Areas, the Applicant stipulated to moving the lines outside the 20 foot TaCH
mark.
The Planning Commission finds and determines that the above Flood Plain Corridor standards
are met or will be met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the
whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, and the detailed findings provided
by the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents, specifically incorporated herein
and made a part hereof by this reference. Compliance with the above standards ensures
identification and minimization of project impacts on the site and surrounding area.
18.62.075
Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands.
A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B),
shall comply with the following standards:
1. Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands
(18.62.070)
2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h. shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at
right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
~I
Page -10-
Based on the detailed findings set forth above for Flood Plain Corridors referenced in
18.62.070.A.l., the Planning Commission finds and determines that the above Riparian
Preservation Land standards are met or will be met by the proposal as evidenced by competent
substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, and the
detailed findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents,
specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The Commission finds
and determines that trees are preserved to the greatest extent feasible and that the general
topography of Riparian Lands is retained. Specifically, contrary to Opponent's assertions to the
contrary, the proposed driveway construction will maintain generally the existing grade and
topography as per the note on the Applicant's plans. The preservation of topography is qualified by
the word "generally, " accordingly, absolute in situ preservation of Riparian Preservation Areas is
not required by the Code; alteration is permitted under many specific standards listed irt Flood Plain
standards noted above, to require otherwise would render these provisions moot. This development
is consistent with those standards. Mitigation measures which enhance and improve the existing
altered condition of the riparian area are not inconsistent with this standard. Compliance with the
standards herein ensures identification and minimization of project impacts on the site and
surrounding area. This criterion is met.
5) Criterion: [ALVa 18.62.040.1. 2.] That the Applicant has considered the potential
hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the
potential hazards caused by the development.
The Planning Commission finds and determines that the above criterion is met or will be met by
the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as well as by the
detailed findings set forth herein, the findings set forth above, and the detailed findings provided by
the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents, specifically incorporated herein and
made a part hereofby this reference. The Commission finds and determines that compliance with
the standards identified in ALva 18.62.040.1.1 above ensures identification and minimization of
project impacts and hazards on the site and surrounding area. In addition, the record reflects
Applicant has considered potential hazards and proposed suitable implementation measures to
mitigate the potential hazards. The portions of the proposed development in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain include improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of
the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of
utilities to serve a new single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr.
The areas of development in the tloodplain have been minimized and the potential hazards due to
those areas of development have been mitigafed. As noted below, the impacts to Wrights Creek
occurred in the past when Grandview Dr. and the subject shared driveway were located and
developed.
Specifically the Applicant has proposed drainage and erosion measures identified in the
Applicants findings and plans, as well as suitable placement of improvements, permeable
driveway surfaces and re-vegetation to mitigate impacts and hazards.[Findings pp. 7-9]. The
proposed development minimizes additional new impacts by locating driveway improvements,
the storm drain and the utility trench to the greatest extent in areas that have already been
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
~~
Page -11-
disturbed through the past street and driveway construction. A relatively small area will be
newly disturbed that is located between the existing driveway and the top of the bank including
approximately 280 square feet of new driveway area, 40 lineal feet of storm drain trench, 25
square feet for the storm drain outlet and 20 lineal feet of utility trench._Accordingly, the
Commission finds and determines that with modification of the drainage structures as provided in
Condition 5 below, the potential hazards have been considered and appropriate mitigation measures
proposed. This criterion is met.
6) Criterion: [ALVa 18.62.040.1.3.] That the Applicant has taken all reasonable steps to
reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered
more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall
consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
The Planning Commission finds and determines that the above criterion is met or will be
met by the proposal as evidenced by competent substantial evidence in the whole record as
well as by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings set forth above, the
findings provided by the Applicant, including specifically the Findings documents,
specifically incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. The Commission
finds and determines that compliance with the standards identified in ALVa 18.62.040.1.1.
ensures identification and minimization of project impacts on the site and surrounding area.
In addition, the record reflects Applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce or minimize
adverse inpact on the environment.
The record reflects the existing condition of the property and surrounding area, including
Riparian and Flood Plain areas is significantly altered. This inquiry into existing conditions
on site and the surrounding area is required. The maximum permitted residential density as
reflected in the record for this parcel is one single family unit, which is the same as the use
proposed. No other development can be accomplished pursuant to this application. The
proposal, considering the existing conditions and maximum density allowed will only
improve the existing conditions through mitigation.
The floodplain was obviously altered at some time in the past in the construction, improvement
and maintenance of Grandview Dr. (1971 and 1979) and the adjacent driveways. The section of
the driveway that serves the subject property is an existing driveway that is improved with a
gravel surface. In review of the 1979 Land Partition file that created the subject parcel,
Grandview Dr. was in place and was required to be re-graded as a condition of the planning
approval. This indicates that the gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Dr. was in
place at least as far back as 1979. In addition, the easement for the adjacent property to the west
located at 507 Grandview Dr. was established in the land partition process in 1979. The
Applicants can not control the location of Grandview Dr., or change the fact that it was platted
adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthermore, the Applicants did not have any influence
over the location of Grandview Dr. The Grandview Dr. and driveway location and development
occurred before the requirement for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. Chapter 18.62,
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
~!
Page-12-
Physical and Environmental Constraints including development standards for Riparian Corridor
Lands was adopted in 1986.
The previously established location of the street right-of-way dictates the location of the
driveway access and utility connections to serve the subject parcel. Given the location of the
Grandview Dr. right-of-way, there are no alternative locations available for the driveway or
private storm drain line located outside of the Wrights Creek floodplain. In addition, an
alternative access to the subject parcel is not available because the subject property is not
adjacent to any other street right-of-ways, nor does it have any other available access easements.
The impact to the Wrights Creek floodplain and preservation area occurred prior to the current
proposal when Grandview Dr. and the existing shared driveway were located and constructed.
Furthermore, regardless of the development ofthe subject parcel, the driveway will continue to
serve the home on the adjacent parcel to the west at 507 Grandview Dr.
The square footage of the shared driveway in the Wrights Creek floodplain should it be fully
improved is approximately 700 square feet in size. This includes the area of the existing shared
gravel driveway. According to Staffs calculations, there is approximately 280 square feet of
widening and paving of the driveway outside of the existing driveway surface, and it is located
mostly in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way. The improvement is located above the top of the
bank where a top of the bank is currently existing. The proposed paving and widening of the
driveway minimizes the impact to the floodplain to the greatest extent possible by following the
existing driveway location. Since the existing driveway is in place, the impacts to the Wrights
Creek floodplain have largely occurred and the driveway improvement will not create
significantly different impacts than those that have occurred.
The private storm drain includes a rock outlet to slow the water entering the drainage and to
prevent erosion in the area of the outlet. The utility trench connecting the subject parcel to the
public utilities near the intersection of Grandview Dr. with Wrights Creek Dr. is located in the
driveway and then turns east and runs near the northern edge of the existing Grandview Dr.
driving surface. There is approximately 20 feet of trench that extends beyond the driveway
towards the top of the bank. The existing Grandview Dr. driving surface is located between the
majority of the length of the utility trench and the top ofthe bank ofWrights Creek. The trench
is located above the top of the bank, and is not entirely with the Wrights Creek floodplain. There
is approximately 15 feet of unused street right-of-way to the north of the Grandview Dr. driving
surface. It appears there is enough space to locate utility trench further to the north and further
away from the Wrights Creek floodplain, (Applicant has stipulated to locating outside the 20 foot
area but still in the right of way). However, it appears the adjacent parcels may be using this
area as private yard space and have installed fences in the right-of-way. The Planning
Commission finds and determines that the adverse impacts of the private storm drain line have
been mitigated by use of the rock outfall, as modified. Additionally, the utility trench will not
adversely impact the Wrights Creek floodplain as the trench will now be out of the 20 feet
TaCB area. The utility trench that extends outside of the driveway towards the top of the bank
has been minimized. This criterion is met.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
:J.tJ
Page -13-
IV. OTHER ALLEGATIONS NOT RELATED TO APPROVAL
CRITERION, AND OPPONENTS LUBA ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The written materials provided by Opponent make several assignments of error; when the
assignment of error relates to an approval criterion it is addressed under that criterion above.
Assignments of error not related to approval criterion and related to LUBA assignments of error
are addressed here.
· January 5, 2007, January 9, 2007 & January 17,2007. Request for Continuance.
Opponent alleges she was substantially prejudiced, claiming the notice of the Planning
Commission's action was defective and misleading. The basis for the allegation is that the notice
did not expressly mention consideration of the LUBA assignments of error and that the staff
report was not available seven (7) days before the original hearing. On January 9,2007
Opponent asked for a continuance or for the record to be left open to correct this alleged error.
The Planning Commission left the record open for eight days. Opponent submitted 12 single-
spaced pages of argument and evidence on January 9, 2007 and 19 more pages on January 17,
2007. Planning staff asserted that the staff report was available seven days before the meeting.
Regardless, the Planning Commission finds and determines that with leaving the record open for
eight days, the Opponent has had more than ample notice and opportunity to present her
objections to the application and the supplement her original arguments as regards the original
LUBA assignments of error. As the Applicant pointed out, the Opponent was well aware that the
City was required to address the assignments of error in this planning action as part of the
voluntary remand. Opponent received notice of and called up the administrative decision. The
City is not required to agree with Opponents assignment of errors; that is to say the City is not
required to process applications the City does not believe apply to this type of development.
City herein makes findings as regards what it believes to be the applicable criteria. The
Planning Commission finds and determines that Opponents substantial rights were not
prejudiced. Unlike most remand proceedings, Opponent has the right to a local appeal to the
City Council.
· January 9, 2007 & January 17,2007. Requirement for a Legal Lot.
· LUBA Assignment of Error.
Opponent's LUBA brief, included an assignment of error alleging the subject parcel is not a legal
lot. The determination of legal lot status is not an express approval criterion for issuance of
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit; Nevertheless, owing to the LUBA
remand and to avoid any unnecessary separate action as regards the building permit for this
application, the Planning Commission finds and determines that if legal lot status is found to be
necessary for this Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit or for the subsequent
Building Permit, including the Planning Department's zoning compliance determination on this
property, the subject lot is determined by the Planning Commission to be legally created
pursuant to the recorded 1981 partition plat, and that recorded plat is valid.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
~5
Page -14-
Opponent makes two claims in this proceeding. First, a substantive collateral attack on the prior
plat approval stating that no variance was permitted to the maximum lot depth requirement for
partitions and therefore the 1979 variance and associated plat were unauthorized and
jurisdictionally defective. Second, Opponent makes a procedural collateral attack that an alleged
six (6) day delay between [November 9, 1981 and December 15, 1981] in a thirty (30) day
recording requirement (per the 1962 ordinance) voids the plat and therefore the lot. The
Planning Commission find and determines that lot is a legal lot for purposes of the proposed
development, including building permit, and that the plat is valid. The Commission incorporates
by reference and adopts as its own the analysis of the Ashland City Attorney Mike Franell, dated
July 11, 2006 and included in the record. In sum, the Planning Commission had the legal
authority to consider and approve a variance to the maximum lot depth at the time the land
partition was approved in 1979. Partitions were included within the Scope (17.04.020) of the
Title and the variance provisions (17.32.020) authorized relief from all regulations in the Title.
The 1979 Planning Commission considered the variance and determined it met the relevant
criteria. Thus, the lot was legally created and the Opponent's challenge is a prohibited collateral
attack of a prior un-appealed decision. Similarly, that the 1962 ordinance in effect at the time the
tentative plat was submitted provided for the plat to be recorded within thirty (30) days of the
last signature is not a jurisdictional requirement voiding the plat; Prior to submission of the final
plat, the 1962 Ordinance was repealed and replaced with the 1979 ordinance which provided for
sixty (60) days for recording [18.80.050.H] where the 1962 ordinance provided for 30 days.
The Applicant could take advantage of the favorable change in the law. Furhter, noncompliance
with such a procedural requirement would make the matter voidable only, especially in light of
reliance on the plat, not just by lot purchasers over the last 26 years but also by the City in
accepting the dedication of right-of-way on Grandview Drive.
· January 9, 2007 Request to incorporate 2004 LUBA appeal into the Record.
Opponent's submission [pA] requests that the record include "all documents referenceing the
Physical and Environmental Constrains Review Permit from the 2004 LUBA appeal file and
from the City's file in this matter." While Planning Staff did include substantial documents into
the record, the above specifically identified documents were not prepared or introduced by
Opponent or by staff. These items are not included in the record.
The record of a land use proceeding is defined by the administrative rules applicable to the Land
Use Board of Appeals and relevant case law. OAR 661-010-0025(1)(b) provides:
(1) Contents of Record: Unless the Board otherwise orders, or the parties otherwise agree in
writing, the record shall include at least the following:
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
~,
Page -15-
(b) All written testimony and all exhibits, maps, documents or other written materials
specifically incorporated into the record or placed before, and not rejected by, the final decision
maker, during the course of the proceedings before the final decision maker.
(c) Minutes and tape recordings of the meetings conducted by the final decision maker as
required by law, or incorporated into the record by the final decision maker. A verbatim
transcript of audiotape or videotape recordings shall not be required, but if a transcript has been
prepared by the governing body, it shall be included. If a verbatim transcript is included in the
record, the tape recordings from which that transcript was prepared need not be included in the
record, unless the accuracy of the transcript is challenged. Absent local provisions requiring
incorporation, or actual incorporation by the final decision maker, the record of a decision by the
governing body does not include tapes of planning commission meetings.
The rule is that the record is comprised of those matters specifically incorporated or placed
before the final decision maker. The requested documents were not placed before the
Commission nor were they specifically incorporated into the record by the Commission. The
record is now closed. In Nash v. City of Medford, 48 OR LUBA 647 (2004) LUBA found:
Among other things, OAR 661-01 0-0025( 1) (b) requires that a local government include all
"materials specifically incorporated into the record or placed before, and not rejected by, the
final decision maker, during the course of the proceedings before the final decision maker."
However, petitioners do not claim the city council formally incorporated the DDA into the
record or that the DDA was ever placed before the city council during the local proceedings in
this matter. As intervenor points out, mere references to a document, without more, are not
sufficient to make the document a part of the record. Hillsboro Neigh. Dev. Comm. V. City of
Hillsboro, 15 Or LUBA 628, 629 (1987).
Accordingly, such items are not included in the record. Should this matter be appealed to the
City Council, the Opponent should either place the items before the Councilor ask for their
specific incorporation.
· January 9, 2007 & January 17,2007. Applicability of Site Design Criteria.
· LUBA Assignment of Error.
Opponent's LUBA brief and submissions [po 13, January 17, 2007] included an assignment of
error alleging the proposed single-family home is subject to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use
Standards. While building permits for single family homes undergo a zoning compliance
determination, the provisions of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards have not been
applied to single-family residential development in the past. This is because Single-family
homes on individual lots are excluded (regardless of size) from the Site Review process at the
StaffPerinit level (see 18.72.040.A.3 below).
18.72.040 Approval Process.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
~1
Page -16-
A. Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Staff
Permit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed as a Type I permit at the discretion of the
Staff Advisor.
I. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the
City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces.
2. Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever
is less, to a building.
3. Any use which results in three or less dwelling units per lot, other than sine:le-familv homes on
individual lots. (emDhasis added)
4. All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone. Installation of disc antennas shall be
subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any disc antenna for commercial use in a
residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). (Ord. 2289 S5, 1984;
Ord. 2457 S4, 1988).
5. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of Section
18.72.180, in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the
following approval process:
Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding
Existing Structures Support Structures
Structures
Residential Zones( I) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-l CUP CUP Prohibited
C-I-D (Downtown)\~) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-l - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP
E-l Site Review Site Review CUP
M-l Site Review Site Review CUP
SO Site Review CUP CUP
NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Historic District\~) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
A-I (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP
HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
(I) Only allowed on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this section in
residential zoning districts, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast. or tower
structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless
communication facilities.
(21 Permitted on pre-existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet in the Downtown Commercial
district. Prohibited in all other districts within the Historic District, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
A'S
Page -17-
6. Any exterior change to any structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places." (ORD
2802, S2 1997) (Ord 2852 S3, 2000; Ord 2858 S6, 2000)
The text and context of the Ordinance is cumulative based on intensity of use. Staff procedure is
the least intense, but excludes single family homes on individual lots, which are not subject to
any process other than building permits. Type I procedure builds on the staff permit process by
requiring additional process for more intense matters, but excluding matters covered by, [and
naturally those exempted from] staff process, owing to the intensity of development. Pertinent
here is the fact single family lot development is exempt from staff review without reference to
size, while three or less requires staff review and four or more requires Type I procedure.
B. Type I Procedure, The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the
Type I procedure:
1. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g.,
from residential to commercial as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code.
2. Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a lot.
3. All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except for developments included
in Section 18.72.040(A). (emphasis added)
While B. 3 could be made clearer it does reference the less intense staff review provisions as
being excluded from Type 1. The fact remains single family lot development is of an intensity
which does not require staff review, let alone Type I procedures, regardless of the size of the
structure. The reference to 18.72.040A is enough to capture the exemption imbedded therein.
Furthermore, the Site Design and Use Standards address Multi-Family and Commercial
development, but do not include standards addressing a single-family development. The
Planning Commission finds and determines that Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards
and the Site Review approval do not apply to single-family homes on individual lots. The
proposed interpretation proffered by the Opponent is expressly rejected as contrary to the full
text and context of the Code. No such review is required for this application and the Commission
fintis the standards in Chapter 18.72 are not approval criterion for a single family unit
development on a single family lot.
Notwithstanding the above, the Applicant submitted findings in support of site design review in
the event it is determined that such criteria do apply to the application. The Planning
Commission finds and determines, that should the Site Design Review Criteria be applied to this
application, the findings of support in the application demonstrate compliance with the criteria.
· January 9, 2007 & January 17,2007. Physical Constraints Review.
· L UBA Assignment of Error.
The Opponent's LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging a Physical Constraints
Review permit is required for development of the subject property which is in the Wildfire
Corridor and Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area. The Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation issues are addressed above. As regards the matter of Wildfire Lands, a
permit is not required under the text of ALUO 18.62.090 A. (Fire Prevention and Control Plan
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -18-
029
requirements for subdivisions, partitions and performance standard developments) however
compliance with the requirements for structures in ALUO 18.62.090 B. (Fire Break) will be
required prior to commencement of construction with combustible materials. The application
addresses the Wildfire Lands requirements for construction of a new structure including the
provision of primary and secondary fuel break and that the roof of the proposed residence is a
metal standing seam material. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds and determines that
a Physical Constraints Review Permit is not required for development of Wildfire Lands in
accordance with 18.62.040; however, the construction of a structure in Wildfire Lands must
comply with the Development Standards for Wildfire Lands in 18.62.090.B.
This criterion is met or will be met.
. January 9, 2007 & January 17,2007. GoalS and Comprehensive Plan Violations.
. LUBA Assignment of Error.
The Opponent's LUBA brief and submissions (p. 9-11 January 9, 2007 and p. 14, January 17,
2007) include assignments of error alleging the City's Riparian ordinance Chapter 18.62 violates
GoalS and the City's Comprehensive Plan. At the time the 2004 building permit was issued, the
City's ordinance had mistakenly, not been acknowledged. After the LUBA remand, Chapter
18.62 was properly acknowledged by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development on December 23,2005 (see Staff Exhibit A). Opponent was not a participant and
was not required to be provided notice. Opponent's renewed challenge to the sufficiency ofthe
ordinance based on the Comprehensive Plan, GoalS and the administrative rules in this quasi-
judicial land use proceeding action is an impermissible collateral attack on a previously
acknowledged land use ordinance. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the only
question for the Planning Commission is whether the application complies with the existing
ordinance, not whether the ordinance violates the goals, comprehensive plan or Oregon
Administrative Rules (OARs).
Even if the OARs implementing GoalS were found to directly apply to this land use application,
the Safe Harbor inventory provisions of OAR 660-023-0090 permit the City to "determine the
boundaries of significant riparian corridors." Significant riparian corridors have setback
distances of 50 feet depending upon the annual stream flow of the resource. Wrights Creek was
not determined as a significant riparian corridor because it is not fish bearing. As a result,
Wrights Creek was not identified as significant in the City's Local Wetlands Inventory and
Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory prepared by Fishman Environmental Services, July
2005. See the attached Staff Exhibit B including the applicable section of the Local Wetlands
Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory. Opponent disputes the fish bearing
status of the waterway, noting recommendations for preservation despite barriers to fish passage.
Regardless of fish bearing status, the Safe Harbor provisions of OAR 660-023-0090 permit the
City to allow exceptions in the buffer zones. Specifically, OAR 660-023-090(8) sets forth
parameters for ordinance adoption, including allowance in the ordinance for exceptions to the
general prohibition on development in the significant Riparian Corridor. For example, the City
is permitted to create exceptions for intrusion for the following:
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -19-
.J~
(A) Streets, roads, and paths;
(B) Drainage facilities, utilities, and irrigation pumps;
(C) Water-related and water-dependent uses; and
(D) Replacement of existing structures with structures in the same location that do not disturb additional
riparian surface area.
Accordingly, if the safe harbor provision which the City may apply to Goal 5 lands are directly
applicable to this property the exemption which the City may apply are equally applicable.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds there is no conflict between the proposed
development and the provisions of Goal 5 or the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
. January 9, 2007 & January 17,2007. Driveway Requirements.
· L UBA Assignment of Error.
The Opponent's LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging the "The City erred when
it chose a method of measuring the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the property
and curve of the driveway to determine the actual length of the driveway, when it determined
that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance for the
maximum slope of the driveway without following the ALUa provision for granting variances.
The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUa 18.76.060 and minimum standards
of the UFC for turnarounds and dead-end streets."
The flag drive requirements are met by the application as addressed below:
The driveway serving the property is subject to the flag drive requirements because it is greater
than 50 feet in length in accordance with the definition of driveway in 18.08.195. The definition
of a driveway and the flag drive requirements are listed below for reference.
18.08.195 Driveway.
An accessway serving a single dwelling unit or parcel of land, and no greater than SO' travel distance
in length. A flag drive serving a flag lot shall not be a driveway. Single dwelling or parcel accesses
greater than 50' in length shall be considered as a flag drive, and subject to all of the development
requirements thereof.
18.76.060
B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a
minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots, the
flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12
feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20
feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. (Ord. 2815 SI, 1998)
Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or
other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two
or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
EI
Page -20-
and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be no parking 10
feet on either side of the flag drive entrance.
Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted for flag
drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such
variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100.
Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall
provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire Work
Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic
sprinkler system installed.
Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the
Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof.
Flag drives greater than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the
Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090.
The Planning Commissibn finds and determines that the proposed flag drive on the Applicant's
property meets the flag drive requirements. The width of the shared driveway is 15 feet with 20
feet clear width and the single driveway serving the new residential home on the subject property
is 12 feet in width with 15 feet clear width. The storm drainage will be collected through the
permeable paved driving and in a drainage ditch to the east side ofthe driveway, and directed
underground to the discharge structure, (as modified by the Planning Commission). There is no
parking in the vicinity of the shared driveway. The finished driveway grade is shown as ten and
11 percent on the engineered preliminary grading and drainage plan, which is under the
maximum permitted grade of 15 percent. The application states that an automatic sprinkler
system will be installed in the home in lieu of a fire work area. The driveway will be built as a
fire apparatus road to support a 44,000 pound vehicle. A fire truck turnaround is provided south
of the proposed residence which is according to the application approximately 110 feet from the
entrance to the property, and is 150 feet from the connection of the driveway to Grandview Dr.
Specifically, a turnaround is required to be provided for flag drives greater than 250 feet in
length. A fire truck turnaround is provided south of the proposed residence which is according
to the application approximately 110 feet from the entrance to the property, and is 150 feet from
the connection of the driveway to Grandview Dr.
Chapter 18 does not specify a method for measuring length. It is a standard accepted practice to
measure at the centerline of an accessway (i.e. driveway, private drive, alley, street). The
Planning Commission finds and determines that measuring length from the centerline is an
appropriate method for calculating driveway length. This criterion is met.
Opponent (January 17,2007 p. 17) asserts Grandview Drive itself is subject to the flag drive
standards and must be improved unless the Fire Chief has waived applicable requirements. In
the event of such waiver Opponent alleges the waiver is unconstitutional. The Planning
Commission finds and determines that such standards are inapplicable to a City Street. Further,
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -21-
~:z.
if Opponent is correct in her assertion that this City street requires improvement to Flag lot
standards, such an off-site exaction would be disproportionate to the impacts of the proposed
development - i.e. one single family residence. Accordingly, such an exaction shall not be
imposed, nor shall improvement to full City street standards be imposed for this single unit
development.
· January 17,2007. Fire Code Requirements
· LUBA Assignment of Error.
The Opponent's LUBA brief and January 17, 2007 submission (p. 16) included an assignment of
error alleging the "Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates UFC 101.4 prohibiting
less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039." ORS 368.039 states that a city may adopt
standards for roads and streets that prevail over the fire code. The City adopted road and street
standards in an acknowledged ordinance in Chapter 18, (Land use regulations which contrary to
Opponent's assertions implement ORS Chapters 92 and 227). The State Fire Marshall's office
has also acknowledged that local road and street standards may prevail over the fire code
requirements (see attached Staff Exhibit C, January 2,2007 email from Margueritte Hickman).
The flag drive requirements require a fire truck turnaround for drives greater than 250 feet
whereas the fire code requires a turnaround for drives greater than 150 feet. The proposed
turnaround meets both standards as the turnaround is located 150 feet from the intersection of the
subject driveway with the Grandview Dr. driving surface. Compliance with this criterion is met.
· January 9, 2007 Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan.
The Opponent's January 9,2007 submission (p. 11) identifies the City's Stormwater and
Drainage Master Plan as an approval criterion. The Commission finds and determines that this
plan is not an approval criterion for individual development applications; notwithstanding this
finding. See Condition 5. The non-manditory requirements of the Plan are met by the imposition
of this condition.
· Zoning compliance.
The Applicant submitted findings of fact and evidence regarding zoning compliance 18.20 as
regards the proposed development of the Lot. To the extent such review is implicated by the
LUBA remand, the Planning Commission finds and determines that zoning compliance is
demonstrated and incorporates the findings of compliance as set forth in the application
materials.
V.ORDER
In sum, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a Physical and Environmental
Constraints Review Permit, represented in Planning Action 2006-001784, to develop in the
Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area, the improvement (grading and
paving) and widening of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -22-
83
Drive and extension of utilities to serve a single-family residence for the property located at 720
Grandview, within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon is in compliance with all
applicable approval criterion. Further, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the
Assignments of Error in LUBA case 2004-201, as they remain applicable to the new
development application processed approved herein, are herein addressed and decided, subject to
determination on de novo appeal to the City Council.
Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and based upon the
evidence in the whole record, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Planning Action
#2006-01784, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth herein.
Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason
whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-01784 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 an access easement for the portion of the driveway on the property to the east
(391E05CD, tax lot 400) shall be recorded and submitted prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3) That the area of disturbance for the private storm drain trench shall be landscaped to
prevent erosion, and shall be addressed in the landscape plan submitted with the building
permit submittals.
4) That a landscape and irrigation plan to re-vegetate the area between the driveway and the
top of the bank shall be submitted with the building permit. The landscaping shall be
installed and irrigated prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
5) That the storm drainage from the roof and driveway shall be directed to a retention and
water quality treatment system including but not limited to a planter box, vegetative
swale or a filter strip. The retention and water quality treatment system shall be reviewed
and approved by the Ashland Engineering and Building Divisions.
6) That the public utility trench and lines shall be moved more than 20 feet from the top of
bank ofWrights Creek.
7) That an encroachment permit from the Ashland Public Works Department for driveway
improvements in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way shall be obtained prior to site
disturbance and construction in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way.
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -23-
34
Ashland Planning Commission Approval
. -'\ ~ --+ -- ,,--;('-""
'v ,J' "')
/ ( L'--'/""--- __I
Chaittnah )'0 ield;" / l (", .
~
Sigoature authorized and approved by the full Commission this ~y of March, 2007
,'} /]'/ ' 7
Date: .>.- d-- ()
COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
Page -24-
s~
-DRAFT-
Stromberg said the Council can decide on an annexation based on the criteria of whether the proposal is good for the
community in general. He hopes someday the Council directs Staff to create a matrix for analyzing the complete spectrum of
cost and benefits to the community.
Goldman said they've established that the minimum square footage of affordable units should comply with the HOME
program based on the number of bedrooms. The HOME program also has a square footage ceiling to qualify for receive a
subsidy.
Marsh favored the Housing Commission looking at some of the alternative options. She did not see anything that mentions
what kind of housing units have to be developed to meet the affordable standard if there is a mix of single family homes,
townhouses, etc. They need some clarity about this because it can make a lot of difference.
Fields noted that developers tend not to know anything about the affordable housing market, but agree to it during a hearing
and then they are stuck with having to do something. He thinks it will come to paying money in lieu of units or dedicating land
where the developer can step away from the responsibility of creating it.
[8:45 pm] PUBLIC INPUT
GREG WILLIAMS, 744 Helman Street, said when a developer is required to do more, and things become more onerous, it will
cause the developer to charge more for the other homes because the developer has to make money. In response to the list of
items, Williams had the following comments:
Construction timing - a good idea, however, include within a three period so it's not tied to a percentage. Just state
that the affordable housing has to happen within three years.
Construction standards - if someone is building a more energy efficient home, they might use a different construction
process. Should they be required to do that on affordable housing? He agrees it should be architecturally compatible.
Distribution of affordable housing - don't want "the projects" but in AsWand we're not talking about a lot of units. Is
it really a problem or are we just perceiving it might be a problem?
Percentage of affordability - he applauds flexibility
Land dedication - non-profits know affordable housing. We need to work with the non-profits.
Cash in lieu fees - no comment
Stromberg suggested simplifying the ordinance to require giving a certain amount ofland to the City. Then the City can
control what would happen to the land. Hartzell wondered if we could create a zoning category and the land in it would be
bound to build rental housing.
[9:00 pm] BRENT THOMPSON, 47171? Allison, said the first Affordable Housing Commission meetings many years ago,
established the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. We should be looking to see how that ordinance is working, asking if we
can liberalize it, can we modify it to make it work better for us? An accessory unit can not only make an affordable unit for a
tenant but make it possible for homeowners to cope financially too. With regard to infill, we have a bunch of little lots
centrally located. He's always favored the City investigating the potential of "substandard- in- size-lot- partitions". Or, maybe
there is room for someone giving a lump sum of money for affordable housing.
The next Housing Commission meeting will be held at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building
tomorrow from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Hartzell left the meeting.
~OPTION OF FINDINGS
PA2006.01784, 720 Grandview, McDonald
Molnar said because of the history of this application, the Findings were prepared by Richard Appicello, Assistant City
Attorney. This application went to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) once on the issue of the building permit. There
were items on the remand from LUBA that Appicello felt needed to be entered into the record.
Ex Parte Contacts - No one had an ex parte contact.
{t
Black believes the way the Findings are worded, the City is taking on a liability and she considered submitting a minority
report because at some point they will say this action compromised access for a whole group of land owners.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
MARCH 27, 2007
3'
3
-DRAFT-
Other Commissioners felt uneasy approving Findings on something that was not discussed at the Planning Commission
hearing.
Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve the Findings for PA2006.01784. The motion carried with Dotterrer, Fields, Marsh and Stromberg
~oti~ "yes" and Dimitre and Black voting "no."
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
MARCH 27, 2007
4
~'7
CITY OF
ASH.LAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
MINUTES
(Note: The approximate time will be shown in brackets [ ] throughout the minutes in order to enable the reader to follow along with the video version
of the meeting.)
roo:00:001 CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main
Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Fields, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Olena Black
Tom Dimitre
John Stromberg
Pam Marsh
Dave Dotterrer
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
Absent Members:
No absent members
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, absent
Staff Present:
David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no announcements.
rOO:01 :201 APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS
January 9,2007 Hearings Board Minutes: Marsh!Dimitre m/s to approve. Voice Vote: The minutes were approved. Morris
commented that he is concerned that an accessory residential unit was approved at the Hearings Board but the gross habitable floor
area was calculated a different way for the main house than it was for the accessory residential unit. Will this set a precedent?
January 9, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes and Findings: Marsh!Dimitre m/s to approve. Voice Vote: The minutes were approved.
January 23, 2007 Study Session: Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to approve. Black added to Questions & Comments 13. "...and environmental
science." Voice Vote: The minutes were approved as corrected.
rOO:09:001 PUBLIC FORUM
Philip Lang, 758 B Street, discussed the condominium conversion ordinance. The ordinance has nothing to do with public policy, but
market forces. Lang submitted his written comments.
r~00:12:001 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-01784 (CONTINUED)
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview Drive
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynn & Bill McDonald
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the
Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an
existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandvi'ew Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new
single-family residence.
Fields announced the public hearing has been closed on this action.
STAFF REPORT
Harris said Staff has reviewed the materials that have been submitted and still believes the decision for the Commission is the Physical
Constraints Review Permit outlined in the original Staff Report for the driveway and utility changes. The bulk of the information
received is the supporting documentation to the City Attorney's memo on the legality of the lot. It was submitted to make the record
complete.
f [00:17:00] Harris read the four Conditions.
""" I. All proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval.
:s&'
2. That an access easement for the portion of the driveway on the property to the east shall be recorded and submitted prior issuance
of a building permit.
3. That the area of disturbance for the private storm drain trench shall be landscaped to prevent erosion and shall be addressed in the
landscape plan submitted with the building permit submittals.
4. That a landscape and irrigation plan to re-vegetate the area between the driveway and the top of the bank shall be submitted with
the building permit. The landscaping shall be installed and irrigated prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5. That the storm drainage from the roof and driveway shall be directed to a retention and water quality treatment system including
but not limited to a planter box, vegetative swale or a filter strip. The retention and water quality treatment system shall be reviewed
and approved the Ashland Engineering and Building Divisions.
[00:29:00J
6. That the public utilities shall be moved more than 20 feet from the top of bank from Wright's Creek Drive.
7. That an encroachment permit is obtained for work in the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
DawkinslMorris mls to approve PA2006.01784 with the seven Conditions as outlined. Roll Call: Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Marsh,
Morris, Dimltre, Stromberg and Fields voted "yes" and Black voted "no." The motion carried.
[00:31:00J PLANNING ACTION: 2006-02354 (CONTINUED)
SUBJECT PROPERTY: N. Main Street & Glenn Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Raymond J. Kistler Architecture
DESCRIPTION: Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant
parcel at the southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to aI/ow a
10-foot front yard setback where a 20-foot front yard for properties abutting arterial streets is required. An
Exception to the Street Standards is required to provide a curbside sidewalk on Glenn St.
Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Since the last meeting Stromberg, Black and Morris had another site visit. Morris called Ray
Kistler after the laSt meeting and apologized to Kistler for the lack of civility he was afforded at the last meeting. They did not talk
about the planning action. No other Commissioners reported a site visit this month.
[00:35:ooJ STAFF REPORT
Harris reported this action is continued from the January 9,2007 Planning Commission meeting. After reviewing the applicant's
request, she suggested the Commission focus on the Variance to the Special Setback Requirement. Staff believes the site design
standards have been met. She showed the alternate site plan that changed the footprint of the building.
The Historic Commission's original concerns have been remedied. Their list of recommendations is in the packet. They
recommended approval of the revised proposal with the ten foot setback, but because they did not have enough design details, also
recommended a condition that the plans with architectura1 details are submitted for review of the full Historic Commission prior to
submission of the building permit application.
[oo:43:ooJ Harris explained the Variance.
[00:5O:ooJ Harris said if the Commission is moving toward approval, Staff is suggesting 19 Conditions with two added Conditions.
20. That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the
building permit submittals.
21. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant flow requirements
shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
[01 :oo:ooJ The Commissioners asked Staff questions.
PUBLIC HEARING
[01:10:ooJ ART BULLOCK, 91 Glendower, said he believes the alternate plan satisfies the code and the fact the revised plan exists
means the Variance is self-imposed. The 12 percent grade is not a unique circumstance. The negative impact is that with a ten foot
setback, this will diminish the light, air and space, landscaping and pedestrian friendliness. The Variance would set a precedent. He is
supportive of the Historic Commission review of the details.
[01 :16:ooJ JEROME WHITE, 253 Third Street, read from the LCDC Infill Redevelopment Handbook regarding variance criteria under
Review Procedures. He spoke about how applicants are required to maintain the historic fa~ade line of streetscapes. The Commission
has to balance several issues. He also read from The Pattern Language concerning building fronts, and light and air. He showed the
ASHLANDPLANN"G COMMISSION
REGUlAR IEETING
MlWTES
FEBRUARY 13,2007
2
61
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLlCATIL.S (ANDREA)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission, February 13, 2007 at 7:00
p.m. at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is
entitled to be heard.
Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an existing driveway,
re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence for
the property located at 720 Grandview Dr.
Request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the vacant parcel at the
southeast corner of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a 10-foot front
yard setback where a 20-foot front yard for properties abutting arterial streets is required. An Exception to the
Street Standards is required to provide a curbside sidewalk on Glenn St;
Request for Subdivision approval of an eight-lot subdivision consisting of seven lots for future development and an
eighth commonly-owned lot to accommodate landscaping, parking and circulation, for the properties located at 165
Lithia Way and 123 North First St. Site Review approval is requested for the proposed parking lot and perimeter
landscaping. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove four trees six-inches in diameter at breast height and
greater in size. [Note: This application is similar to a proposal under the Performance Standards Options chapter
18.88 on last month's agenda, but a new application has been submitted for consideration under the Subdivision
chapter 18.80.J
Request for Site Review approval for a two-story, mixed use building located at 479 Russell St., comprised of retail
and office space on the ground floor and five residential units on the second floor. The proposed building is
approximately 7,762 square feet in size. The property is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and is also subject
to the Large Scale Development Standards.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the aty
Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Manager
Bill Molnar
Publish: 2/1/07
Date e-mailed: 1/26/07
Purchase Order: 75781
1ft)
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. Homecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Hassen
R. Ray Heysell
H. Scott Plouse
P. David Ingalls
Adam T. Stamper*
Joseph E. Kellerman
James A. Wallan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-8900
Fax: (541)773-2635
http:www.roguelaw.com
Richard L. Billin
*Stefanie L. Burke
Mark S. Bartholomew
Jake R. Whitmire
Eric B. Mitton
**Erik C. Larsen, LL.M.
Of Counsel- Fred M. Aebi
Retired - B. Kent Blackhurst
Ervin B. Hogan 1927-2000
* Also admitted in California
** Also admitted in Idaho
January 24, 2007
RECEIVED
Ashland Planning Commission
c/o Planning Department
20 East Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
JAN 2 4 ZOO?
City of Astlland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
Re: 2006-01784
Dear Planning Commissioners:
This letter is in rebuttal to Ms. Brodersen's January 17 submittal. We have responded
to her various arguments below.
Applicant does not propose to construct a road or a driveway pursuant to this
application. Applicant is merely widening and improving an existing road for added fire
safety purposes and to comply with other code requirements. Ms. Brodersen argued that
such widening and improvement are not permitted within the floodplain corridor. That is
incorrect. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for "development, as defined in
18.62.030D, in areas identified as flood plain corridor." 18.62.040A. "Development is
defined as, among other things, "construction of a building, road, driveway. .." 18.62.030.
The fact that the code requires a Physical Constraints Review Permit for the construction of a
road or driveway in a flood plain corridor can only be interpreted to mean that such
construction is permitted in the flood plain corridor, so long as an applicant obtains the
permit. Additionally, 18.62.070, governing the development for flood plain corridor lands,
states that fill is permitted for aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with
approved "public and private street and driveway construction". 18.72.070A(3)(a). If street
and driveway construction were not permitted in flood plain corridor lands, as Ms. Brodersen
contends, then fill would not be permitted for "public and private street and driveway
construction." The only reasonable interpretation of 18.62.030D, 18.62.040A, and
18.72.070A(3)(a) is that street and driveway construction are permitted in flood plain
1/
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL
January 24, 2007
Page 2
corridor lands, so long as Applicant complies with all other relevant approval criteria.
Finally, the safe harbor provisions of the Oregon Administrative Rules, which govern local
riparian and flood plain protection, permit the City to allow "streets, roads, and paths" and
"drainage facilities" in the flood plain corridor. OAR 660-023-090(8)(a)(A-C).
Furthermore, state rules also permit replacement of existing structures in the same location
that do not disturb additional riparian surface area. OAR 660-0230090(8)(a)(D).
The relevant code and state administrative rules indicate that roads and driveways
may be built in the flood plain corridor. Applicant's proposal does not even rise to the level
of construction. It merely includes the slight widening and improvement of the existing
travel lane. Such improvement will not result in any additional adverse impacts to the flood
plain corridor.
Ms. Brodersen stated that the utility trench is not permitted in the flood plain corridor.
As stated in our last submittal, we have elected to relocate the utility trench so it is no longer
in the corridor. Ms. Brodersen's contention in that regard is now moot.
Ms. Brodersen also claims that the storm drain outlet is prohibited in the flood plain
corridor. This is also incorrect. She does not cite to any code provision that prohibits it.
Both the development standards for flood plain corridor lands (18.62.070) and riparian
corridor (18.62.075) are very detailed in what type of development is or is not prohibited.
There is no mention of storm drainage outlets. The proposed storm drain outlet is filtered
and dissipated to prevent any adverse impacts. Discharge of storm water into a creek is a
common and accepted practice. Discharge of storm water into a natural waterway is
permitted by the code, which was confirmed by Bill Molnar, and echoed by Ms. Brodersen.
Additionally, "utilities" are permitted in the flood plain corridor. Finally, as noted above,
state administrative rules allow certain types of development in flood plain corridors. Under
OAR 660-023-0090, the City may permit "drainage facilities."
Ms. Brodersen states that storm drainage systems are not utilities, but does not cite
any authority to that effect. The code does not define "utility," nor does it expressly state
whether or not a storm drain is a utility. However, when storm drainage is referenced by the
code, it is clear from the context that it is considered a "utility." For example, 18.72.060K
requires site review plans to show the "location and size of all public utilities," with the
locations of water lines, sewer, and storm drainage. This indicates that storm drainage
systems are thought of as utilities. Additionally, 4.27.070 provides for the establishment of a
"Storm Drainage Utility." This gives further support to the correct interpretation of storm
drainage facilities-that they are "utilities."
Ms. Brodersen also contends that property lines are unclear from the application and
that any improvements cannot be done on property that is owned by the City of Ashland.
However, she does not cite to any code provisions for authority. In oR~C~I\tED
1/~
JAN 2 4 ?OD?
City of Asnland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL
January 24, 2007
Page 3
building permit, it is not necessary to determine boundary lines. The City can require, as a
condition of development, the widening or improving of public streets. This is a frequent
requirement for approval of much larger projects. Additionally, driveways commonly
encroach on the public right of way, by extending to the curb face. There is nothing that
prevents Applicant from improving City owned property.
Ms. Brodersen also briefly addressed the following arguments, which we have
followed with our response:
A. Ms. Brodersen questioned what type of excavation will be performed in
connection with a retaining wall. Any retaining wall would be located far outside of
the flood plain corridor, and is not part of the scope of the Physical Constraints
Review Permit.
B. Driveway length. Ms. Brodersen's issues with driveway length are rendered
moot because of the proposed turnaround, which has been approved by the fire
department.
C. Submittal of all materials. We believe that Applicants have submitted a
complete application, with all materials. Staff deemed the application complete.
D. Lot coverage. Submitted site review findings indicate that the lot coverage
easily meets all requirements.
E. Sewage. Consideration of sewage is not an applicable criterion.
F. Fill in the riparian corridor. "Fill" is permitted for "streets, access, or
utilities." 18.62.075A(3). Ms. Brodersen attempts to imply that "access" does not
include driveways and ascribes a meaning of "access" that is unsupported by any
relevant authority. Driveways are commonly thought of as providing "access" to
properties. It is impossible to interpret "access" as not including a driveway.
G. Flag drive compliance. The flag drive is 20 feet where it serves two dwellings
and 15 feet after the split. We agree with staff that this complies with the code.
H. "Ruling" on the request for continuance. Ms. Brodersen requested the City to
"rule" on the request for a continuance. Weare not sure what she means or why this
is applicable. We believe that the City "ruled" by holding the record open for her to
submit additional evidence, per ORS 197.763. There is no error by the City.
/II
RECEIVED
Lf3
JAN ? 4 ?8nl
City of Ast1land
o Field 0 Office 0 County
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL
January 24, 2007
Page 4
The subject application was thoughtfully prepared to prevent any adverse effects to
the surrounding environment and to comply with all relevant criteria. We appreciate your
consideration and respectfully request approval.
H:\USER\FILES\26116\PC letter.doc
RECEIVED
LI'I-
JAN 2, 4 ?nn7
City of Asnland
o Field 0 Office 0 County
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. Hornecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Hassen
R. Ray Heysell
H. Scott Plouse
P. David Ingalls
Adam T. Stamper*
Joseph E. Kellerman
James A. Wallan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-8900
Fax: (541)773-2635
http:www.roguelaw.com
Richard L. Billin
*Stefanie L. Burke
Mark S. Bartholomew
Jake R. Whitmire
Eric B. Mitton
**Erik C. Larsen, LL.M.
Of Counsel- Fred M. Aebi
Retired - B. Kent Blackhurst
Ervin B. Hogan 1927-2000
* Also admitted in California
** Also admitted in Idaho
January 17, 2007
Ashland Planning Commission
c/o Planning Department
20 East Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: 2006-01784
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Attached are proposed findings of compliance with the relevant approval criteria and
the voluntary remand on the above captioned matter. By the terms of the voluntary remand,
the City has agreed to address all of the issues raised by Ms. Brodersen on appeal. The City
does not have to agree with Ms. Brodersen, but must address her assertions in its findings.
We agree with staff that the application meets all approval criteria, and we also agree with
staff's findings that Ms. Brodersen's assignments of error are incorrect.
Ms. Brodersen's January 9, 2007 memorandum included several items that need
clarification. The memorandum questioned the amount of widening and paving outside the
existing driveway surface, and stated that it was premised upon estimates by staff. We have
consulted with the project engineer, Mike Thornton, P.E., and he has determined that staff
was correct in its determination that 280 square feet of widening and paving will occur. It
also should be noted that we intend to widen and pave that portion because the fire
department is requiring widening and paving for safety purposes.
The memorandum also states that utilities are only permitted to "cross" the floodplain
corridor. This point is now moot, because we are prepared to stipulate that we will keep the
utility trench more than 20 feet from the top of bank.
RECEIVED
Lt5
11'lt JOl"1"7
L ,.' v
I.h-
t ',. )~: ~."1
Comrt' ;u(,: ,I; Duvciopment
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL
January 17, 2007
Page 2
It should be noted that Ms. Brodersen's memorandum to the Planning Commission
raised issues of notice. Ms. Brodersen implies that it would be erroneous for the City to
address matters not in the notice. Ms. Brodersen is mistaken. Lack of notice is only an error
by the City when it is a prejudice to the substantial rights of Ms. Brodersen. Crowley v. City
of Bandon, 41 Or LUBA 87 (2001). In this case, Ms. Brodersen had notice of the hearing.
Additionally, she had knowledge that the City would have to consider the other assertions
contained in her original petition to LUBA. This is because she did not object to the
voluntary remand agreement, which requires the City to address all of her assignments of
error. Because Ms. Brodersen is the person who wrote the assignments of error and
submitted the appeal, she obviously is aware of the issues that the City must consider on
remand. Furthermore, Ms. Brodersen gave oral testimony in opposition to the application at
the January 9, 2007 hearing, and has supported her oral testimony with written testimony.
Her substantial rights have not been prejudiced.
We are requesting a building permit, which is a permitted use in the underlying zone.
We agree with staff's opinion that the application is extremely low impact and sensitive to
the environment. It is important to remember that the access to Applicant's proposed
dwelling is already in existence and has been used for access to numerous other dwellings for
decades. Permitting one additional house to take access, with the degree of sensitivity to the
surrounding proposed in the application, will not harm the riparian corridor or run afoul of
the land use ordinances.
We respectfully request approval of the application.
)~
RECEIVED
11
~
(..' ,. '.,..~ i
'.. ';-'" ,e'vpment
COj~~';:. ...Ji , 1 u......\'.....
H:\USER\FILES\26116\PC letter. doc
'I"
Proposed Findings of Compliance with Approval Criteria and Voluntary Remand for
Planning Action 2006-01784
1. The City Erred as a matter of law when it failed to make required findings as
to whether the subject unit of land was a legal lot as required by LUG
18.08.350 or in the alternative found that the subject property was a legal lot
contrary to the evidence.
Discussion: Petitioner contends that the city erroneously awarded a variance
to the applicant at the time of the 1979 partition. Furthermore, Petitioner
argues that the submittal of the final map was untimely.
Discussion and Finding: The subject parcel is a legally created lot. The city
attorney's analysis of the issue is in the record. The Planning Commission
finds that subject parcel was legally created in 1979. The Planning
Commission further adopts the city attorney's memorandum to Bill Molnar
dated July 11,2006 as its finding on this issue. The Planning Commission
also finds that Petitioner's assertion that the map was untimely filed is a
collateral attack on a final decision.
2. The City's decision is flawed by procedural errors that prejudiced the
substantial rights of the Petitioner, because the Respondent City processed
Intervenors' application for a permit without a Site Design and Use Standards
(SDUS) review, which review requires a Type I procedure providing for
notice and opportunity for a hearing.
Discussion and Finding: Respondent City has provided Petitioner with notice
and an opportunity for a hearing. Applicant has also included findings of
compliance with SDUS. The Planning Commission adopts Applicant's
findings of compliance with SDUS.
3. The City erred when it failed to require a Physical Constraints permit for
development on the subject property which is a Flood Plains Land, is in the
Wrights Creek Riparian Preservation area and is in a Wildfire Corridor and
when it failed to require a simultaneous application for a Physical Constraints
Review permit in the Grandview rightofway.
Discussion and Finding: Respondent City has processed the application with
a review for compliance with Physical Constraints Review standards. The
Planning Commission adopts staff's findings of compliance with Physical
Constraints Review standards.
RECEIVED
47
1 1
rJr
t 1(" <>
Ce.;'
'17 ~ii:;;" ,;;opment
4. The City's riparian ordinance violates Oregon Administrative Rules for Goal
5 resources and is not in conformance with its acknowledged Comprehensive
Plan.
Discussion and Finding: The Planning Commission finds that this allegation
of error is an impermissible collateral attack on an acknowledged ordinance.
The Planning Commission further finds that the ordinance, even if
unacknowledged, does not run afoul of Statewide Goals because of its
compliance with the Safe Harbor provisions.
5. The City erred when it chose a method of measuring the driveway which did
not factor in the slope of the property and curve of the driveway to determine
the actual length of the driveway; when it determined that only one dwelling
is accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance for the
maximum slope of the driveway without following ALUO provision for
granting variances. The City failed to comply with minimum standards of
ALUO 18.76.060 and minimum standards of the UFC for turnarounds and
dead-end streets.
Discussion: Petitioner apparently used this argument, at least in part, to
further Petitioner's assertion that the original approval was not ministerial and
thus required a public hearing. Additionally, Petitioner alleged that if the
driveway was greater than 250 feet in length, a fire turnaround is needed.
Discussion and Finding: The Planning Commission adopts the staff report's
findings of compliance with flag drive standards. The Planning Commission
finds that Applicant is constructing a turnaround, thus rendering the threshold
distance interpretation for a turnaround moot. Additionally, the Planning
Commission finds that the driveway has been measured by using the
centerline length.
6. Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates the UFC Section 101.4
prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039.
Discussion and Finding: The Planning Commission finds this assignment of
error moot. Applicant is placing a turnaround 150 feet from the entrance to
the driveway. The Planning Commission finds that the city may adopt less
stringent standards for roads and streets, per ORS 368.039 and the advice of
the State Fire Marshall's office. The Planning Commission adopts the
findings contained in the January 2, 2007 letter from Marguerite Hickman.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed turnaround meets both the
Ashland Code requirements and the Uniform Fire Code requirements.
RECEIVED
1 '3"
rP
Jf<i
"j
Ce....':... '~"f' )..:lPment
~ THORNTON
. fNGINffRING INC.
January 9,2007
Planning Commission
City of Ashland
Fax Transmission: 541.552.2050
Subject:
Planning Action: 2006-01784, 720 Grandview Drive
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit
In order to supplement the information in the record regarding the flood elevations for the
drainage way adjacent to Grandview Drive, I present in this letter my estimation ofthe
100-year flooding depth. The depth of flow will be approximately three feet. This is well
below the top of bank as delineated on the plan which accompanies the application.
This estimation is based on theoretical methods using the following assumptions:
100-year Flow Rate = 100 cfs
Channel Slope = 4%
Bottom Width = 2 feet
Side Slopes = 1: 1
Channel Roughness Coefficient = 0.055
Please call me if you have any questions.
By:r-(/Ct fir<-
Michael P. Thornton, President
-
Sincerely,
Thornton Engineering, Inc.
RECEIVED
;, 11
CJr
,:"".:' ;,,',......"f
Cor'", ::;, ,; [;""c,;;opment
if'!
Office (541) 857-0864 Fax (541) 857-1947 1236 Disk Drive Ste, I, Medford, OR 97501
,........~.""
. "l1"--
4.. ,~', f~ 3:<'U!' , ~)
:>;"c' lJ _"
To: Ashland Planning Commission
From: Bonnie Brodersen
Petitioner in LUBA Appeal No. 2004-201
Voluntarily Remanded To City of Ashland 6/21/2005
Re: Planning Action #2006-01784
Subject Property: 720 Grandview Dr.
Date: January 17, 2006
i r. 1
PI
(
<';ity m .211"
o Field 0 Office [l COUI"
MEMORANDUM II
ADDENDUM TO MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON JAN. 9, 2007
Note: This Memorandum II is in addition to the Memorandum submitted to the Planning
Commission on January 9,2007. Although, Petitioner has tried not to include
information already submitted in the January 9th Memorandum, sometimes, in the
interests of clarity, it could not be avoided. Relevant Ashland Land Use Ordinances
(hereinafter ALUO's) are in both memos.
PETITIONER REOUESTS THAT THE CITY RULE ON HER REOUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE
AND IN SUPPORT OF A CONTINUANCE STATES mAT THE NOTICE OF mE JANUARY 9.
2007 PLANNING COMMISION BEARING WAS DEFECTIVE AND MISLEADING. PETmONER
BRODERSEN'S RIGIIT TO A FAIR BEARING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED. WHEN
BECAUSE OF LACK OF NOTICE. SHE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO ADEOUATELY PREPARE
OTHER ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR FOR THE HEARING. TO COMPOUND THE DEFECTIVE
NOTICE ERROR. THE STAFF REPORT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER AT
LEAST SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AS REOUlRED BY STATE STATUTE. A
CONTINUANCE WOULD RECTIFY THESE SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS
App6cable Oregon Revised Statute (emphasis added):
ORS 197.763 Conduct of local quasi-judicial land use bearings; notice requirements; bearing
procedures. The following procedures shall govern the conduct of... planning commission, hearings body
or hearings officer....:
(1) An issue which may be the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals shall be
raised not later than the close of the record at or following the final evidentiary hearing on the proposal
before the local government. Sucb issues shall be raised and accompanied by statements or evidence
sufficient to afl'ord tbe governing body, planning commission, hearings body or bearings officer, and
tbe parties an adequate opportunity to respond to eacb issue.
(3) The notice provided by the jurisdiction shall:
(b) List tbe applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to tbe application
at issue;...
(e) State that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to
provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the
issue precludes appeal to the board based on that issue;
(i) State that a copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least seven
days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost;
.5~
1
The City has not ruled on Petitioner's request for a continuance and she again
requests a continuance and the City's decision placed in the record. Without adequate,
timely notice giving a clear description of what issues will be heard, Petitioner was
unable to adequately prepare for the hearing. Petitioner did not have an opportunity to
adequately prepare or present evidence when the City of Ashland failed to give Notice in
a timely manner that it intended to have the Planning Commission issue findings on all
six assignments of error that were voluntarily remanded from a LUBA appeal. The
Notice sent out to Petitioner in December only gave notice that one assignment of error _
that concerning the physical constraints & environmental review permit -- would be
heard at the Planning Commission Hearing. By his own words, Applicant's attorney, Mr.
Bartholomew, admits that the Notice was defective: "Maybe in a perfect world the
assignments of error would have been included in the Notice." But then Applicant's
attorney seems to be making a claim that the Staff Report provided Notice of what would
be heard at the hearing. The Staff Report is not a Notice document and does not substitute
as such. And if, by farfetched reasoning, it could be considered "Notice," the City was
also derelict in not providing the Staff Report to Petitioner in the time required by Statute.
Petitioner would have liked to have addressed all the Assignments of Error at the hearing,
but the development proposal had undergone changes since Petitioner had worked on the
issues in 2004. Petitioner needed sufficient time to review the case file, review the
ordinances vis-a-vis the changes in the development and prepare evidence. Petitioner has
been waiting for the City's response since the remand order in June, 2005 and any delays
in addressing the issues on remand have been at the hand of the Applicant or the City.
Surely, when the City/Applicant have taken over one and one-half years to address the
assignments of error remanded, Petitioner Brodersen is not remiss in requesting a couple
of weeks to prepare her response. Because of defective Notice, Petitioner had
insufficient time to prepare. A continuance is necessary to rectify the substantial
prejudice to Petitioner because of the City's defective Notice and delay in making the
Staff Report available.
IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED HOW MUCH DEVEWPMENT ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION
OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE DONE ON LAND DEDICATED TO THE CITY. WHETHER
PLANNING HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION
OF A pmv ATE DRIVE ON PuBUC PROPERTY AND WHERE EXACTLY mE PROPERTY
DEDICATED TO THE CITY IS LOCATED. THE CITY MUST DO ITS OWN SURVEY
The driveway proposed and part of the Existing private drive is located on property
owned by the City. This property is not merely an easement for public purposes. It
is property dedicated to the city for pub6c benefit
The maps, including the topographic, do not give a clear indication where the
southeast comer of the private property begins and where the property dedicated to the
City is located. For those Commissioners who have done a site visit this will be
confusing, because it's easy to assume that the private property and driveway begin at the
split in the road. However, for several feet after the split the property has been dedicated
to the City. Even though it appears one is on a private drive by taking the dirt drive going
off to the right, that is incorrect. The length of the Applicant's pro~rty on the JVestern 19t
"
51
1/\ i\: -1 7 ':: 1. l
2
\j t.: "~r
o Field ': CHf;0,f. fI (;o! ," ,.
line is 280.96' and on the eastern lot line 275.02'. The approximately 6' difference in the
lengths of the east and west lot lines makes the southern lot line uneven. A pin on the
topo map for the southeast corner cannot be found - but is probably near the power pole.
Much of the already established private dirt/gravel drive used by the property adjoining
Applicant's is on the public land dedicated to the City. An official county map shows
that the unit of land dedicated to the city when the lot was created was 26.96 feet
southeast part of the lot line and 20.42 feet on the southwest part of the property line.
Applicant's submitted survey states, "Boundaries shown are from record and are not
the result of a detailed boundary survey."
The City of Ashland needs to have the area surveved to Determine Exactlv Where
the ProDertv is that Has Been Dedicated to the City of Ashland for Public Pumoses
. Even if Planning could approve the development under the floodplain/riparian
ordinances, which it cannot if it enforces the mandatory, substantive, objective
requirements of the ordinances, Planning cannot approve driveway construction for
private property or expansion of a driveway, and use of fill on a property dedicated to the
City of Ashland. In other words, the Planning Department and Planning Commissioners
do not have authority to allow private development or expansion of a private drive on
property previously transferred to the City for public use. The transfer was not an
easement for utility use; it was an actual dedication to the city. In fact, Applicant's deed
to the property shows that the Applicants property only extends south to the northerly
line of Grandview Drive. The portion of the property south of Applicant's lot abutting
Grandview Drive, which was dedicated to the City in 1981, is not part of the metes and
bounds description in Applicant's Deed. That portion is public property owned by the
City of Ashland. The property was transferred to the City for public, and not private, use.
The neighbor owning the property to the west of Applicant's is using the private drive-
a significant part of which Petitioner believes is on public property. That use of the drive
by Applicants adjoining neighbor may be grandfathered in - possibly as an easement by
prescription -- but any expansion of that use or new or additional uses would not be
grandfathered in or lawful. The City needs to do its own survey of the property. This is
a City asset that belongs to Ashland. Without a survey, it's impossible to know where the
Applicant's property lines are and where the publically-owned City property begins.
COMMISSIONERS CAN GRANT APPLICANT A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS PERMIT ~ IF THEY FIRST FIND THE ApPLICANT HAS MET THE
MANDATORY OBJECfIVE PROVISIONS OF ALUO 18.62.040(H) AND 18.62.07O(M) AND
18.62.075. ONLY IF COMMISSIONERS FIND THAT THE OBJECfIVE PROVISIONS HAVE
BEEN MET BY APPLICANT, CAN THEY PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE SUBJECTIVE ISSUES
CONCERNING MmGATION OF IMPACfS PURSUANT TO CRITERIA LISTED IN 18.62.040(1).
ApPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE MANDATORY OBJECflVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
FOREGOING ORDINANCES, AND THEREFORE THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT EVEN
CONSIDER THE CRITERIA OF 18.62.040(1) CONCERNING MITIGATION OF IMPACTS.
The issue of how to proceed in applying an ordinance was litigated previously in a
case involving the City of Ashland. In Neuenschwander v. City of Ashland, 20 Or Luba,
144 (1990), the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) found that failure to comply with
! "- !,. 1 '1
---I ;-' ' .. ~
5~
3
\! t;.
o Field
('-~-f: r:~
~ ;r. ,;.
the substantive criteria of the ordinance would presumably lead to denial of the permit
and denial of the development:
"AL ua 18.62.040 is a relevant approval criterion for the proposed development.... We agree
with petitioners that they may raise the city's failure to require approval of the permit as an
issue in this appeal proceeding....ALUO 18.62.040 (E) and (G) contain substantive
criteria. Failure to find compliance with these substantive criteria would presumably
lead to denial of the permit, as well as denial of the proposed development requiring the
permit. (Emphasis added.) Issuance of a permit is conditioned on Applicants compliance
with these substantive criteria." Neuenschwander v. City of Ashland
ALUO 18.62.040(H) (floodplain corridor) and 18.62.075 (riparian corridor)
contain substantive, objective, approval criteria for the proposed development. Failure to
fmd compliance with these ordinances must lead to a denial of the permit as well as
denial of the proposed development requiring a permit.
In deciding this matter the Planning Commission cannot move to part two of the
ordinance, that is deciding if the impacts of development in the floodplain/riparian
corridor have been mitigated under 18.62.040(1) until they have decided part one -that is
that the Applicant's development does not exceed and is not different from that limited
development which is allowed by the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (hereinafter ALUO)
18.62.040(H) and 18.62.075. Only if the Commission finds that the proposed
development is within the limited development for protected riparian and floodplain
corridors outlined in ALUO 18.62 should it consider the impact criteria - have the
impacts of the development allowed by ALUO 18.62 been mitigated.
Step 1 :. Has Applicant shown and Staff found that the development is no greater
or different than than that which the ordinance allows? To know what the ordinances
allow, the Commissioners must read the applicable mandatory sections of ALUO
18.62.070 and 18.62.075 and 18.62.04000 concerning what minimal development
can occur.
Step Two: Only if the Commission finds that no greater or different
development is being done than that allowed by the mandatory Ordinance provisions in
the ordinances cited above, does it need to proceed to step 2 which is to determine if
impacts have been mitigated pursuant to ALUa 18.62.040(1). If the Commission
correctly assesses the kind of development proposed for the protected area and abides by
the ordinance, it will not proceed to step 2. The critieria for determining mitigation of
impact of the development requires Step 1 to be addressed before applying the three
subjective criteria, because the ordinance tells us that the application of the development
standards of chapter 18.62 must be applied. The pertinent phrase is boldfaced:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter the potential impacts
to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. ALva
18.62.040(1)
In other words, the mandatory development standards of the riparian and
floodplain ordinances must first be applied and the substantive, objective standards must
be met before moving on and determining the impacts of development. If the
Ii
5-3
4
o Field -
J '~-;" -'r...,
Commission determines the substantive, objective standards are not met by the proposed
development, it does not have to determine if the three subjective criteria concerning
impact are met. Ifthe Commission did get to Step 2, and Petitioner doesn't think they
can, then Applicant must prove that she has mitigated the negative impact of the limited
development allowed by the ordinance. As a hypothetical: if any application for
development showed that the developer wanted to build a bridge to cross the corridor, the
applicant would have to show how he/she had minimized the negative impacts of the
bridge/bridgeconstruction on the riparian/floodplain corridors - that he/she had
implemented measures to mitigate potential hazards caused by the development and had
taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. However, if
the substantive criteria have not been met by the proposed development, as in the case at
hand, then the development standards have not been met and Commissioners do not need
to proceed to this Step 2 - assessing impact.
The Aoolicant's Prooosal does not meet the mandatorv standards of the Ooodolain
corridor ALUO orovidinl! that the only kind of develooment allowed in the
tloodolain corridor is that of allowinl! streets and utility connections to CROSS the
corridor.
Applicable Ordinance for Floodplain Corridor:
ALVO 18.62.070M provides that "Local streets and utility connections to developments in and
adjacent to the Floodplain Corridor shall be located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except for
crossing the Corridor... "
Applicant has proposed to place part of a driveway in the floodplain corridor and
to upgrade part of an existing driveway that is in the floodplain corridor: "Portions of the
driveway and utility alterations are located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Lands." (Staff Report, 3). In its Project Narrative, Applicant states,"The
Civil Engineer's drawing shows the location of the proposed driveway (to both TL 500
and 501). Because of the existing easement agreement between TL 500 and 501, much
of the proposed driveway is in the 20 foot setback from the top ofthe [Wrights]
creek bank." (page 7) (Petitioner adds that much of the proposed driveway is in the area
dedicated to the City of Ashland as a public area.) At the hearing Applicant's
representatives talked of widening the portion of the existing driveway: Mr. Giordano
stated, "First of all that's an existing driveway that's been there. It has been constrained
so we're going back to 15 feet." And Commissioner Fields asks, "All ofthe work has
been done on an existing driveway, correct?' Planner Harris replies, "They have to
extend this part of the driveway to 15 feet in width. I don't believe it's that wide now."
Neither the construction of a new portion of a driveway or the upgrading of an existing
driveway is allowed pursuant to ALVO 18.62.070(M). Further, much of the work
proposed is being done in an area within the Riparian Corridor which was dedicated to
the City. This area is owned public land owned by the citizens of Ashland. The permit
must be denied.
The only development the applicable floodplain ordinance permits is to have a
street or utility connection CROSS the corridor. The ordinance is specific and objective
and does not allow any other use of the floodplain/riparian corridor. It does not allow for
5f
5
o Field -
any part of a driveway to be placed in or to cross the corridor; it does not allow for
utilities to be laid inside the corridor -- other than to cross the corridor - in the case at
hand, to get from the north side of the corridor to the south side of Applicant's property.
Applicant has made no such proposal for utilities but rather proposes laying electric lines
in the corridor - parallel to the riparian area - not crossing it.
One Commissioner commented at the hearing that the City has allowed some
kinds of development in the Riparian!Floodplain Corridors in the past. What the City
has allowed in the past is irrelevant. If in the past, the City allowed a driveway to be
constructed in a protected Corridor, the City violated the applicable Code
provision. And if the City grants a Physical Constraints Permit that allows for placement
of part of a driveway in the protected Corridor or allows for utilities in the protected
Corridor (storm dnin trenches and storm dnin pipes are not utilities) other than to
CROSS the Corridor, then the City will violate the Ashland Code. To reitente, the City
is not entitled to violate the floodplain/riparian land use ordinances, just because it
has done so in the past. The city ordinances are the law that the Planning Department
and Planning Commission are to enforce and abide by. It is not in the jursidiction of the
Planning Department, Commission or City attorney to make the law or approve
deviations from the established ordinances when it's convenient to do so.
A Private Storm Dnin is Not a Public Utility and is not a Utility "Conneetion" and
Cannot be Placed in the RiDarian Corridor
The storm drain, part of which is proposed to be located on public property and in
the riparian protected area, is not a "utility" and in the case at hand is not "public." AMC
Title 14 is the utility Title. It has chapters addressing Ashland's utilities including
chapters on water, sewage and electricity. But there is no chapter in Title 14 about storm
drainage systems because storm drainage systems are not utilities. The Floodplain and
riparian ordinances only allow utility connections to cross the protected riparian or
floodplain area. The Floodplain and Riparian ordinances are specific about what is
permitted. Because the private storm drain pipes + dissipater are NOT utilities they
cannot be placed in the protected floodplain/riparian area. To do so would be to violate
the clear, objective provisions of the ordinances. But it appears that Planning Staffhas
proposed to allow such a violation:
The Staff Report states that "[T]here are no ahemative locations available for the
driveway or private storm drain line located ouside of the Wrights Creek floodplain."
(page 5-6). The Grandview Drive right-of-way giving access to the property is in the
Floodplain Corridor and in the Riparian Corridor. (Staff Report 5) "According to Staff's
calculations, there is approximately 280 square feet of widening and paving of the
driveway outside of the existing driveway surface, and it is located mostly in the
Grandview Dr. right-of-way." (Staff Report, 6).
(Staff errs when it calls this area a ROW. The area has been transferred to the
City for public puposes and is not even described on Applicant's deed.)
Mr. Molnar stated at the hearing that the Building Code allows for storm drainage
by:
a) drywell
b) Public system
65'
<r
6
o Field --
c) Natural waterway.
Not only is a storm drain not a utility and therefore not allowed in the protected area for
any purpose, but also, Applicants propose to dump the storm drainage into a natural
waterway system. A requirement for using that method is that the natural waterway be
on one's own private property. Piping storm water to a public waterway is not allowed.
And if the City is doing that, it probably has to follow strict DEQ regs. Because of
deficiency of Notice of Hearing Petitioner has not had time to properly research this issue
further.
Nan, the property owner whose property abuts the riparian area and also abuts the
Applicant's property, stated at the hearing, "You have all these million dollar houses that
are draining into the culvert and they are causing a mess down there. All this storm
drainage is really causing havoc on that fork and on Wrights Creek and that's a City
issue. "
Even if pursuant to the ordinances, Applicant could pipe her stormwater directly
into the City- owned Wrights Creek Riparian corridor, which would violate City
ordinances, it's clear from the testimony of Nan, that there is a drainage problem and the
impact of additional storm runoff being piped into the area would have a negative
unmitigated impact on the area.
If the City had done a SDUS review, as required by ordinance, (see below
concerning SDUS review) it would have included a review of storm water and drainage
issues on the property. The City has a "Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan"(2000)
which was formally adopted by the City Council on June 18, 2002. (Resolution 2002-15)
Concerning Wrights Creek, the Plan provides:
"The creek is relatively undeveloped and the upper, steeply sloped reaches of its watershed
are still heavily forested. With its preserved vegetation, the watershed provides an
opportunity for a vegetated wildlife link between the National Forest and the Bear Creek
Greenway. Future development should be reviewed carefully because it would increase
erosion and flooding problems and reduce the possibility of a wildlife connection." (p.3-
II)
Clearly the City has stated that its natural waterways are to be protected and not used as
storm drainage dumps. In a Table presenting goals for the protection ofWrights Creek, the
protection method for the WR-4 area in which the subject property is located is "protect from
future development." (City of Ashland Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan, pp. 4-14 &
4-15). Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 4.27.020(0) specifically defines "Storm Drainage
Facilities" as not including Wrights Creek:
"Storm Drainage Facilities shall mean any structure(s) or configuration of the ground that
is used or by its location becomes a place where storm water flows or is accumulated
including, but not limited to, pipes, sewers, gutters, manholes, catch basins, ponds, open
drainage-ways and their appurtenances. Ashland Creek, Bear Creek, Wrigbts Creek...are
not storm drainage facilities." AMC 4.27.020(0)
Further, if the City had required an SDUS review, the site plan would have had to
include, along with the proposed method of drainage on the site, the location of drainage
ways in and adjacent to the development. ALUO 18.72.060 K, L & M. Criteria for
approval of a development plan includes "adequate capacity of city facilities for urban
5Ct,
7
uField -
storm drainage." ALVO 18.72.070D. This is important because a better idea for drainage
might be availble.
Part of an Exisone: Dirt/Gravel Drivewav Is in the Proteded Floodolain and
Rioarian Corridon and in the Publicallv-owned area. However. an existine:
intrusion does not e:ive the Citv the abilitv to violate the current land use ordinances
bv exoandine: on that intrusion or bv theorizine: that since there's alreadv an
intrusion. the citv wiD allow further dee:radation to the rioarian or floodolain area.
The work that was done to create a short existing dirt/gravel driveway is "grandfathered"
in, but no additional damage/driveways can be grandfathered in. Because there is an
already existing intrusion does not give the City the where-with-all to validate further
intrusions in violation of the current land use ordinances. The City must look to enforce
the current land use ordinances and not expand a current violation of the Code.
The Aoolicant's Prooosal does not meet the Mandato" Standards of the Rioarian
Corridor ALUO orovidine: that fill shall be oermitted for streets. access or utilities
onlv.
Applicable Riparian Ordinance:
ALUO 18.62.075 A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in
section 18.62.050(8), shall comply with the following standards:
1. Development shall be subject to the standards for floodplain corridor lands. (18.62.070)
2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h. shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
3. Fill and Culverting shan be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at
right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of riparian preservation lands shall be retained.
It is not even necessary to review the proposal to see if it meets the mandatory
provisions of the riparian ALVO, because Applicant's proposal does not meet the
mandatory standards of the Floodplain Corridor ALVO (which standards are also
applicable to the riparian corridor) reviewed above. The Applicant must meet the
Mandatory standards of BOTH the floodplain and riparian ordinances. If anyone of the
applicable mandatory standards of anyone of the ordinances cannot be met, then
the permit must be denied.
If the Commission finds that the proposed development violates the Floodplain
protection ordinance, and Petitioner thinks that is the finding the Commission must make,
it does not then need to move on to consider Applicant's proposal applying the riparian
ALVO mandatory requirements. However, if it did want to consider the riparian
ordinance, it would find that Applicant's proposal does not meet the mandatory standards
of the riparian ordinance either. Like the floodplain ordinance, the mandatory riparian
ordinance does not permit placing any part of a driveway in the riparian corridor.
Applicant proposes to do just that by constructing a portion of a new driveway and
57
8
rJEeld
widening and upgrading a portion ofan existing driveway. The short driveway used by
the home on the property adjacent to Applicant's property is "grandfathered in." But to
widen or alter that driveway, or allow the use of that driveway by a new development or
to construct a new driveway in that area transferred to the City and in the public domain
the protected area, is not "grandfathered in." Any further development violates the City's
ALUO's, the City's stated Comprehensive Plan Policy of preserving riparian areas in
their natural state, and the City's stated goal of purchasing riparian areas. (see Daily
Tidings article attached as Exhibit A). THE REAL IRONY IS THAT THE PROPERTY
IN THE RIPARIAN CORRIDOR THAT THE CITY PROPOSES BE IRREVERSIBLY
ALTERED HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND - NOT TO BE
USED AS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY OR FOR A PRIVATE STORM DRAIN BUT
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL ASHLAND CITIZENS.
"Access" is not the Same as a Driveway
Further, Applicant proposes to place fill in the protected riparian corridor. The
ordinance permits fill ONL Y for streets, access or utilities. The Record does not show
precisely what the fill will be used for, but we can assume Applicant cannot be using it
for a street. It couldn't be used for access because Applicant already has "access" to her
property and the Record shows she is not accessing her property by crossing the most
vegetated part of the protected area. To use fill to widen or construct a driveway would
violate the ordinance, because driveway construction is not one of the limited types of
development that fill can be used for in the protected area. It is easy to confuse access
with a driveway. One gets access to her property from a public street or road, but once
she is on the private property, she has accessed it and traverses it using a driveway.
Building a driveway is not the same as getting access. We can extrapolate from the
ordinance that the Council was thinking in terms of access being obtained by constructing
a bridge or walkway crossing a riparian area - they were not thinking in terms of
constructing a driveway in the riparian area.
Weil!hinl! of ImDacts
If the Commission evaluates the proposed development applying the objective
standards outlined in the riparian/floodplain ordinances above, it will not get to step 2.
However, for the sake of thoroughness, Petitioner states that the kind of evidence
Commissioners would have to consider to meet the subjective standards of the three
criteria that must be met in 18.62.040(1). Even potential impacts to the property being
developed and impacts to "nearby areas" must be considered. Wrights Creek proper is a
"nearby area" The Creek is fishbearing and is a tributary of Bear Creek which is
designated as a ''water quality limited" Creek with special protections. The Ashland
Comprehensive Plan (CP) has as two of its Goals: to "(p]rotect the quality of riparian
resource lands, and preserve their wildlife habitats" and "[t]o preserve and protect
significant wetlands, and to mitigate potential impacts on these areas due to development
and conflicting uses." (CP page IV-I 1&13 attached as Exhibit B) The Wrights Creek area
is home to abundant wildlife which Petitioner and other neighbors have observed (and
heard in the case of coyotes) including: wild turkey, quail, bear, porcupine, bobcat,
coyotes and more common wildlife like deer, skunk, etc. Impact considerations include,
"1
.5g
9
o Fie\d
but are not limited to, the temperature of the water, the amount of sediment being
displaced into the creek, and the additional pollutants entering the creek. With the
disturbances proposed: fill, laying of asphalt within 8 feet of the top of the bank,
trenching, piping of storm water into the Creek - the considerations of the adverse
impacts to nearby areas to be minimized include loss of natural habit and additional man-
generated pollution of the natural habitat. There has been no discussion of the affect of
significant sedimentation from the development which will enter the Creek. And we do
not even know what is proposed for sewage disposal. Is the intention to pump sewage up
Grandview to the Grandview/Wrights Creek area or to have a drainfield? Where will the
pump and infrastructure be located? What measures will be taken to prevent sewage
leakage into the Creek in the event ofa flood in the floodplain area? Futher, when
Applicant proposes to put a paved driveway within eight (8) feet of the top the the
Creek bank, to place large rocks (riprap) in the riparian area, to put a drain pipe and
energy dissipater in the riparian area and directly into the creek water, to place fill
material in the riparian area, an irrigation system in the riparian area, and bank
stabilization measures in the riparian area (Applicant Narrative, pp. 7-8) the riparian area
is not being maintained in its natural state as required by the City's CPo These things are
the negative "irreversible actions" whose impact must be weighed.
Prior to the remand, the Planning Department had granted Applicants a variance
to allow for a slope of up to 18% for up to 200' of the proposed driveway. (This was one
of the issues appealed to LUBA.) Now the proposal is to reduce driveway slope to 10 or
11 % in some areas. There is no indication in the Record about the type and amount of
excavation needed to reduce a slope of up to at least 18% down to 10% or 11 % and
possibly down to 2%. How will sediment from excavation affect the Creek; how will the
topography of the riparian area be affected. Applicants also now propose the use of a
retaining wall. There is no information in the Staff Report or the Applicant's Narrative
about the height, material used and amount of excavation needed to place the retaining
wall.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions.
And again under these criteria "...the Planning Commission shall consider ...the
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordianance." It is
reiterated in the 3rd criteria concerning impact that only the maximum development
permitted by the ordinance can be considered (which by ordinance does not include
driveways). Any development greater than that allowed by ALUO 18.62.070 and
18.62.075 is not permitted.
A~olicant's Develooment Prooosal Must Also be Analvzed Under the Severe
Constnints Land Ordinance which is Part of the Phvsical Constnints Chaoter
This property, which is in the Wildfrre Zone (See Wildfire Map, Exhibit C), which has
the entire southern lot line area in the Riparian area and in which the south-southwest
portion of the property is in the Floodplain corridor and on which it can be intuited that
major excavation will be done to put in an underground bottom floor, retaining
wall(height and other dimensions not in the record), to build a driveway (length not in the
record, but a guesstimate based on the length oflot lines + slope is in excess of250'), to
put in a fire turnaround, and put in the entire underground infrastructure (sewage, storm
5f
10
o Field -
drainage, electric, TV lines, etc.) is a "Severe Constraint Property" and the proposed
development, which has changed significantly since the first application, must be
considered under the Severe Constraint Lands ordinance, ALVa 18.62.100 which is part
of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter. The Commission is already
reviewing the development under the Riparian/Floodplain provisions, but the changes
elucidated in part by Mr. Thornton at the Hearing, show that the Severe Constraint Lands
ordinance applies.
Applicable ordinances:
ALUO 18.62.100:
A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling, or vegetation
removal and, whenever possible, alternative development sbould be considered.
B. Development of Roodways is not permitted except for bridges and road crossings. Sucb crossings
shall be designed to pass the 100 year Rood without raising the upstream Rood height more than six
inches.
ALUO 18.62.050 (E)
Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics which generaDy limit
normal development. The following lands are classifted as Severe Constraint Lands:
1. All areas which are within the Roodway channels, as defined in Chapter 15.10.
2. All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent
Approval of a physical constraints permit for the proposed development which
calls for placing of underground utilities, an underground storm drain and construction of
part of a driveway in the riparian/floodplain must be denied for a severe constraint
property. A property in three regulated zones (riparian, floodplain, wildfIre) and where
significant excavation and change of the topography of the property is proposed, and
where Applicant proposes excavation in all three of the regulated areas and fill in two of
the regulated areas (amount of fill not in the record or application), this development us a
severe constraint development.
The Purpose and Intent of Chaoter 18.62
Throughout its deliberation a consideration for the Commission will be the
purpose and intent of Chapter ALVa 18.62.010 and the strong mandate coming from the
residents of the City who look to the Commission to protect our riparian resources as
evidenced by the following statement appearing in an Ashland Daily Tidings article of
January 9, 2007: "The Parks Department has a goal of acquiring much of the riparian
land in Ashland city limits." Ashland does not need to purchase this Wrights Creek
riparian corridor because it already owns it. The question becomes is it going to protect it
as a valuable resource and as required by Code and CP.
Applicable ALUO:
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts
characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit
alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment
and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.
Physiographic conditions and significant natural features can be considered to include, but are not
limited to: slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide
areas, natural and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural
vegetation.
~()
11
o Field
THE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP REOUIRED BY ORDINANCE IS INCOMPLETE AND FACT FINDERS
HAVE MADE DECISIONS USING INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE INFORMATION.
18.62.070(M) (topographic map)
Finally, ALVa 18.62.040 (H)(k) requires additional information not submitted by
the Applicant. I have addressed this issue in my January 9th Memo to the
Commissioners, but it should be noted that the topographic map requirements are
mandatory and necessary so that decisions can be made on substantive facts.
The following pertinent information for development impacting a riparian/floodplain
corridor have not been identified on the topo map:
Indicate total area of disturbance, total percentage of project site proposed for disturbance, and
maximum depths and heights of cuts and fill.
the location of parking spaces, .
The proposed method of erosion control;
Natural features on adjacent properties potentially impacted by the proposed development shall
also be included, such as trees with driplines extending across property lines;
Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building sites, and
other construction areas.
Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts associated with the
proposed development. ALUO 82. 62.040(H) 1.
THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF HEARING ARE
BEING RAISED/ADDRESSED VERY BRIEFLY FOR PURPOSES OR PRESERVING PEITIONER'S
RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF AN APPEAL. IF PETmONER HAD BEEN GIVEN ADEOUATE
NOTICE THAT THE CITY INTENDED TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEAR AND
MAKE FINDINGS ON OTHER ISSUES THAN THE ONE "NOTICED." SHE WOULD HAVE LIKED
TO AND HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND IN MORE DETAIL
Petitioner will respond very briefly to the Other Assignments of Error and issues
for which she needs to do more research and review of the Record. If Petitioner had been
given adequate notice she would have responded in IllOre detail with case law citations
for these issues. Petitioner has been substantially prejudiced because she did not get
Notice of all the Assignments of Error to be heard at a public hearing and a copy of the
Staff Report was not available seven days before the hearing. Even if she could, the
Petitioner cannot be expected to turn her life upside down trying to research and prepare
analysis for this matter with limited time, because the City fails to provide Notice and
Staff Report as required by Statute.
A) Applicant's property is not a "legal lot" as required by AMC 18.08.350 and a
development permit cannot be approved for a lot that is not legaL
Petitioner included evidence/argument concerning this issue in the Memo
submitted to the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007. If Petitioner had been given
adequate notice so that she had time to prepare, she would have responded in greater
detail with futher analysis of Oregon cases concerning the "legal lot" issue.
'/
12
o Field
B) The City's decision prejudiced the substantial rights of the Petitioner, because
the Respondent City processed AppUcant's appUcation for a permit without a Site
Design and Use Standards (SDUS) review, which review requires a Type I
procedure providing for notice and opportunity for a hearing.
Petitioner is not able to respond as she would have liked to by reviewing the
history of the applicable ordinance. Because she was not given adequate notice, she is
not able to respond in detail and was not able to respond at the hearing.
ALva 18.108.020(B) provides that all planning actions shall be subject to
processing by one of four procedures: Staff permit procedure, Type I procedure, Type II
procedure, or Type III procedure. Pursuant to ALVa 18.108.040A(8)(c) new structures
greater than 2,500 square feet are subject to a Type I Procedure:
"A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure:
7. Variances for: d) Parking in setback areas.
8. The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section
18.72.040.B: ....
c) All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet...."
ALUa 18.108.040A(8)(c)
The proposed development is greater than 2,500 square feet; the proposed
development provides for a paved parking area in the northern setback. (Site Plan) The
proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions which would preclude the
necessity of a Type I Procedure for a house greater than 2,500 square feet and for parking
in a setback. The City has failed to comply with the express wording of its ordinance.
The City's failure to follow the statutory requirements for notice and the opportunity for a
hearing prejudiced the substantial rights of the Petitioner.
Planner Harris states in the Staff Report (page 8) that Site Design and Use
Standards for single-family homes are excluded from the Site Review process and that
that language was inadvertently omitted from the applicable ordinance. If that's truly the
case, the remedy is to amend the Code - not to violate it - because the language ofthe
SDUS ordinance is clear and objective: "all new structures or additions greater than 2500
square feet" are subject to SDVS review. That is the law to be applied by the City and
Planning Staff takes on a legislative role when it decides what the City Council meant
when it passed the ordinance. Further, even if an SDVS was not required for Applicant's
home (in excess of2,500 square feet) - which Petitioner believes was, an SDVS review
is required for parking spaces placed in the northern setback.
Requirements of a Type I Procedure and SDUS
The Type I procedure requires that the application shall be approved or denied
within 14 days and the Staff Advisor shall enter fmdings and conclusions to justify the
decision. ALVO 18.108.040(B)(2) The Type I procedure requires that notice of the
decision shall be mailed within seven days of the decision. The notice shall provide the
procedure for requesting a public hearing and challenging the decision. The Type I
procedure requires that notice be mailed to all property owners within 100 feet of the
subject property. ALVO 18.108.040(B)(3). Petitioner owns property within 75 feet of
t:,~
13
o Fie\d -
Intervenors' property. The City indisputably failed to follow the Type I procedure by not
performing any of the preceding mandatory requirements.
Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.030 the City was required to apply Site Design and Use
Standards (SDUS) to the development:
"Site Design and Use Standards shaH apply to all zones of the City and shall apply to
all development indicated in this Chapter..." ALUa 18.72.030
The proposed development is development indicated in Chapter 18 [R-l Single Family
Residential District], (Rec. 7) and therefore, subject to SDUS. The City erred when it
failed to require SDUS review for the subject property.
A structure in excess of2,500 feet will be buih on the subject property. There
was a failure on the part of the Respondent City to properly construe and apply its
applicable land use ordinances, which require SDUS and a Type I proceeding. Further,
the City's refusal to provide a hearing prejudiced the substantial rights of Petitioner by
preventing Petitioner from participating in the decision-making process and responding to
erroneous interpretations of City ordinances and factual errors. The substantial rights ofa
party include the "rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and
a full and fair hearing." Warren v. City of Aurora, 25 OR LUBA 11, 16 (1993) [quoting
Muller v. Polk County, 16 Or LUBA 771, 775 (1988)], interpreting the term "substantial
rights" from ORS 197.835(7)(a)(B). Factual issues about which Petitioner and other
neighbors had substantial concerns included, among others, protection of riparian area,
storm drainage issues, wildfrre safety issues and ingress and egress issues. The City's
failure to follow requirements for notice and the opportunity for a hearing prejudiced the
substantial rights of the Petitioner.
C) The City's Physical Constraints and Review Permit Ordinance, in so Car as it
affects Goal 5 Resources, violates the City's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and
violates Oregon Administntive Rules Cor Goal 5 Resources.
Petitioner has addressed this issue briefly in her Memo submitted to the
Commission on January 9,2007. Because of inadequate Notice of Hearing, Petitioner has
not been able to respond to this issue in more detail and with more analysis. But a most
important aspect is that because the Physical Constraints ordinance had not been
acknowledged by DLCD when Applicants applied for a building permit, and the physical
constraints ordinance contains provisions affecting Goal 5 resources, it is incumbent upon
the City to now apply the safe harbor rules to this application. Those rules require a 50
foot riparian setback for Wrights Creek riparian area.
Futher, the City, which had its Physical Constraints ordinance acknowledged in
June, 2005 did not follow proper procedure including notice to Petitioner, who was a
party to a LUBA appeal where the issue was raised, 45 day notice to others, and inclusion
in the ordinance either ESEE or safe harbor provisions, as required for Goal 5 resources,
in the final ordinance. There is substantial and prejudicial error in the way the City
handled this PAPA and it substantially and prejudicially affected Petitioner's rights.
D. THE PROPOSED FLAG DRIVE HAVING A NARROWER PAVED SURFACE THAN REQUIRED
BY ORDINANCE AND A TURNAROUND THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE "CITY APPROVED
t5
o Field L4
TURNAROUNDS" VIOLATES ASHLAND'S MUNICIPAL CODE. IT DOES NOT MEET THE 20'
FLAG DRIVE REQUIREMENT.
Because of deficient Notice of Hearing Petitioner has not had time to do sufficient
research and analysis concerning this issue which substantially prejudiced her rights to a
fair hearing. However, a limited analysis is included:
Length of Driveway is Unknown:
Applicants have modified their driveway since LUBA's remand, in an attempt to
meet the flag drive standards. The Staff Report and Applicant's Narrative/application do
not give the length of the driveway. The site plan showing length of driveway is the site
plan done in 2004. The driveway has since been modified. The length of the proposed
driveway is significant, because if the driveway is over 250 feet in length a City
approved fire apparatus turnaround is mandatory pursuant to ALVa 18.76.060B & C (It
now appears that it is voluntary and the proposed turnaround is some funny form of one
of three city approved turnarounds.) (attached exhibit D).
ALva 18.76.060B & C ....Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access
Roads under the Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives greater
than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards
Guidelines in 18.88.090....
Applicant has included a modified turnaround as part of the development (it appears from
the that the turnaround is not a mandatory Planning Department requirement) but the
turnaround is not one of the City approved turnarounds. No dimensions are given
concerning the turnaround and whether these modifications meet turnaround standards.
A Flae: Drive Shared bv Two ProDerties Must be 20' Wide with 15' Daved surface
Applicable Ordinance:
ALVO 18.76.060(8) Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall
have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots,
the flag drive shall be 10 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the fint lot, aDd 11
feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 10 feet,
with a 15 foot paved driving surface. (Ord. 2815 SI, 1998)
Part of the drive is shared by two properties and the ordinance addresses that
issue: "Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of20 feet, with a 15 foot
paved driving surface." Applicant, however, proposes two different widths for her flag
drive - part of the drive will have a 12' paved surface and part a 15' paved surface.
While the entire driveway is not shared by both properties, they do share part of one
drive. In fact, it's common in the City that both properties sharing a flag drive do not use
the entire drive. The ordinance standard does not change just because one of the
properties uses less of the length of the drive than does the other property.
Also, the proposed development which has a site map showing a 12' wide
driveway running directly up against the western lot line doesn't appear to even meet the
15' requirement of the ordinance. The requirement is that the driveway have a 20' width
and 15'paved surface.
~1
15
o Fie\d--
Finally, which is the ''rear lot," which undoubtedly requires a 15' paved surface?
It appears Applicant's new development is being built on the rear lot.
E. ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.28.070 VIOLATES THE UFC SECTION 101.4
PROHIBmNG LESS STRINGENT AMENDMENTS AND ORS 368.039.
Petitioner regrets that because of defective Notice of Hearing she can not respond
in a more detailed, yet concise manner, because she lacks the time to do so. She
disagrees with Staff that the State Fire Marshall's opinion is the final word on this matter
but has not had time to research this issue in full.
Ashland has adopted the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), (AMC 15.28.010) which sets
the minimum fIre standards for all local jurisdictions in the state of Oregon. Local
jurisdictions may amend the UFC, but an amendment must be more stringent than the
comparable UFC provision:
Modifications to this [UFC] code shall not be less stringent than the minimum fire
and life safety code adopted by the State Fire Marshal. UFC Section 101.4
UFC Section 902.2.2.4 provides that "Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of
150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision for the turning around of fire
apparatus." Ashland has amended Section 902.2.2.4 to a less stringent standard requiring
an approved turnaround for a dead-end fIre apparatus access road in excess of250 feet in
length. AMC 15.28.070D. Ashland's standard is less stringent than the UFC standard
and violates the UFC provision which allows for more stringent bot not less stringent
amendments.
ORS 368.039 provides that road standards adopted by a local government
supersede standards in the fire code, but only if those standards are adopted pursuant to
the ORS chapters listed in the statute:
ORS 368.039: Road standards adopted by local government supersede standards in fire
codes; consultation with fire agencies. (1) When the governing body of a county or city
adopts specifications and standards, including standards for width, for roads and streets
under the jurisdiction of the governing body, such specifications and standards shall
supersede and prevail over any specifications and standards for roads and streets that are
set forth in a uniform fire code adopted by the State Fire Marshal, a municipal fire
deparbnent or a county firefighting agency.
(2) This section applies to specifications and standards for roads and streets adopted by
the governing body of a county or city in a charter, acknowledged comprehensive plan or
ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS chapter 92, 203, 221 or 368....
But at the time Applicant filed her application (later remanded from LUBA),
Ashland's Amendments to the UFC, which provide for less stringent standards, were not
implemented pursuant to any of the chapters listed in ORS 368.039. Ashland's amendments
were not implemented pursuant to ORS chapter 92 - Subdivisions and Partitions, 203 _
County Governing Bodies, 221 - Organization and Government of Cities or 368 - County
Roads. The Amendments, enacted in 1998, were written with the sole purpose of amending
the UFC and are in the AMC Chapter titled "Fire Prevention Code." The amendments,
implemented to lessen the impact of the UFC on proposed development in Ashland, violate
state law.
~5
16
o Field _..
Minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060
The subject property, which is in a WildfIre Corridor that experienced two severe
wildfIres in 1910 and 1959, was granted an exemption to the requirements of the UFC.
Respondent City stated in its conditions of approval that the proposed driveway is a flag
drive subject to the requirements of ALUa 18.76.060.
ALUO 18.76.060 ...Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access
Roads under the Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives
greater than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance
Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090.
Initially, Intervenors were required to provide a fIre apparatus twnaround on the subject
property, but Planning Department Staff did not approve the proposed turnaround, because
Intervenors proposed to locate it in the protected Riparian Preserve. (Rec. 7/23/04)
Subsequently, the City reversed itself and determined that no turnaround would be required
for Intervenors' development, located in a WildfIre Corridor.
While the City considered turnaround standards for the driveway, it failed to
consider whether Grandview Drive meets the turnaround standards of the UFC.
Grandview Drive is a dirt road in excess of250' in length, which is the only road for
ingress and egress to the area in which the subject property is located. It dead-ends near
the southwest corner ofthe subject property. There is no evidence or fIndings in the
record concerning the turnaround capabilities for Grandview Drive. We do not know if
the fIre chief waived UFC turnaround standards for Grandview Drive. UFC 902.2.1
gives the tire chief the ability to modify UFC standards. And only Chief Woodley
would have authority under the UFC.to modify standards -- but not to completely waive
UFC standards. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defInes "modify" as follows:
1. To reduce in extent or degree; moderate. 2. To change somewhat the form or qualities of; as
to modify the terms of a contract.
The UFC gives the Fire Chief the ability to modify the standards:
"Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with approved provision for the turning around of fire apparatus." UFC 902.2.2.4
Exceptions: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic
fire sprinkler system, the provisions of Sections 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may be modified
by tbe cbief. (emphasis added)
The Ashland Code does not delineate the circumstances in which the Fire Chief may use
his authority to modify the UFC. Because no applicable criteria have been developed by
the Ashland City Council to guide the fIre chief as to when and what modifIcations may
be made, the decision to forego minimum UFC requirements for the development of
Intervenors' property in a WildfIre Corridor was not only discretionary but also arbitrary
and capricious. Further, Petitioner's constitutional right of due process is violated when,
the fIre chief, an un-elected government official can make exceptions to the UFC without
legislated guidance. Without such guidance the fIre chief s modifIcations may be
arbitrary, as in the case at hand. There is no legislative authority given to the fIre chief to
waive or make out right exceptions to the UFC. See Washington ex rei Seattle Title &
,~
17
o Field -
Trust Co. v. Roberge.. 278 U.S. 116 (1928). Modifications may be based on partiality,
irrelevant factors or no factors at all.
OrnER ISSUES:
Lot Coverage:
Maximum coverage (defined in 18.08.160 is "total area of all structures, paved driveways
or other soil disturbances that will not allow normal water infiltration...") shall be 40% in
the R-l-lO district. (ALUO 18.20.040(E). Maximum Coverage for the proposed
development is not given and can't be determined from application. Applicant has not
submitted a new site plan with the changes proposed since the first site plan was done in
2004 and it is impossible to know the maximum coverage. "Coverage includes the
retaining walls, fire turnaround, parking area, driveway, home footprint, etc. The Record
shows applicant will use a new asphalt surfacing for the driveway which is considered
pervious, however, how pervious is a question for debate. Infonnation from people
familiar with the pervious driveway surfacing is that it works better than impervious
asphah, but not as well as nonnal water infiltration and that it easily clogs Up with
sediment. This relatively new, untested ashpalt looks like rice crispie bar. It has mini
tunnels. Any dirt on the top layer will block its percolation ability. The laying of
''pervious asphalt" does not affect the "coverage" requirement of ALUO 18.20.040(E).
The property is "covered" whether it be pervious or impervious asphah when nonnal
water infiltration will not occur. So, the City must get more facts about the percentage of
property "covered." This is an important aspect when deciding mitigation of impact
factors.
Sewage Lines:
Is there City sewage infrastructure running from Wrights Creek Drive down
Grandview Drive? There is no information in the Record of how/where sewage will be
disposed of. Will a pump be used? A drainfield?
Declassifying Wrights Creek as a Significant Riparian Resource
The City's Planning Dept has taken it upon itself to attempt to classify Wrights
Creek as a "non-significant" riparian resource. This action has not been approved by the
City Council. Is Planning attempting to classify Wrights Creek as "non-significant" in
order to promote development of the UGB to the west ofthe Creek? It will certainly be
easier to develop the area if Wrights Creek is not a protected resource. And by approving
development incursions into the riparian area, Planning becomes better able to promote
further development in the area by using the theory that the area is already developed so
why protect Wrights Creek -- it is already developed. It's development which hinders
protection of the Creek, and it's Planning which has allowed unlawful development. It's
not unlike saying, "There's already a driveway within the riparian setback, so we might
as well expand on that mistake. We can't protect the Creek because it's already harmed."
The very development which prevents protection of the Wrights Creek riparian area was
permitted by the City of Ashland because, in the past, it has failed to enforce its Code,
failed to live up to the standards of its Comprehensive Plan and failed to protect GOAL 5
resources as required by statute. Our community is replete with organizations trying to
(..1
18
flm\d -
protect our natural resources including, to list just a few of the many, National Center for
Conservation Science & Policy, Sierra Club, Lomakatsi Restoration Project, Ecology
Center of the Siskiyous, etc. Yet, our City, by failing to enforce existing ordinances, and
by dragging it's feet on protection ofOoal5 resources is allowing the irreversible
destruction of those resources on an ongoing basis. The City has been and is actively
engaged in promoting such destruction by:
1. Attempting to d~lassify W rights Creek as a "Significant Resource"
2. Permitting violations of the Riparian protection ordinances of the Code
3. Refusing to establish even minimum riparian setbacks (both State
Statutes and Jackson County Ordinances have far more stringent
setback and development requirements than the City of Ashland)
4. Putting it's electrical lines out in the county in PPL's territory
in violation of State Law
It's a finger in the dike. But a majority of the Residents of Ashland want strong
protection for our riparian resources. Nothing short of enforcement by the Planning
Department of the, at present, insufficient ordinances protecting our resources will
suffice. I think most Ashland residents would agree with property owner, Nan's statement
at the hearing, "You have to protect the creek."
The proposed development is not ''just about 280 square feet of gravel," and even though
it is one house on one lot, it demands the same consideration/deliberation from the
Commission as a larger development. The degradation that occurs when the City violates
its own ordinances and allows development in areas of protected resources can be
witnessed throughout Ashland. If the Planning Commission enforces the
riparian/floodplain ordinances, as it is required to do, it will deny a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Permit for the proposed development.
~f
19
o FIeld
PlPl......[/)Oj
[/) '0 ~ ('0 ~
Pl ~..o. [[/) :E
S~[/).,..::T~
~. :;- ~ 5" 00' III
OPlO~"":Z:
~M-8~~Z
('0 t:1 0 ~ _. '^
~ CD [/) 0.. ~ ...
PlS.....rnClq(j
S"gqSliO"Z
g:~g;;:e
::l""O"'('OSI
[/) ro c:::: Pl
8.,E;o..tn~
Pl ('0 ~. '"'l 'i:I
c.:> @ a.s. q [/) '"'l
......[/)oo::T('O
~ 00' t:;j 0 ('t) ~.
CO c.y; ~ :e ~
E; ::l 5' .,.. :::.: ~
I I)'q 0 to--' M-
5':;-.we:.S ~~ ::;-<~
....::;-<;=;.. [/) %0 ql; 0..
~~~~~~.oo~~ a:
;.~. g- 5: E; Jg 'g 0" g- g
rn ::T _. .0 :>;' '"'l .,.. Pl
l ::l ~ CO q ;so CO liS :e .....
i.:g.~.,..Pl :;-s-[/) 8q
r.g e:. g: ~ ~ @ ~. ~ g
, ('t) .- ~ oo'::?~ t=: g. ~
~=?c::::rn(O~.o moo
:,;CO tnOj'"'l co ~g-Pl:e
-::l. s:: w...... ~ '<:::.:
, 0......, rn.,.......rn:;-::T.....
~~g:.ggPl(,o~O'"
. P<;::Trn '"'l<;co
:- S8('Ocog.~0[/)
!... ~[/)~;'<t'"'::l('O
, S aq' ::r:: c; Pl ('0 CIq ::t
· ('0 l:l ~ 0 ::P;S.""
;" ::te:.~:;S~Fg-S-
g [!:.1t t'j ~ @ g- t'"'
'"'l 0 [/) ~ -..,.. ('0 ~
~ ;=;. ; c; ~ 0.. Pl i!:: ~ 5'
, ;...... S 0 rn.::l 00 S
, ...., 8 g ::l g- 0 ~ _. ~
L g S '< ~:e ...., 8.~. ~
i q 8 0 _. _. W Pl 5 0..
j g,.~= ~=Qr:<qq'~
~. M- 1-01'< ("'t- ("'t- ~ ::s ~
: %~. ~('O[/) ::T
[/)..0 ~ ~ O'g ~
g 0"'0.....15:>;' [/)
o..CO~""o..('O .,..
~ ~ 5' ~ g. e g-
::l co CIq ::T % ~ "0
('0 ...., ~ ('0 N l:l Pl
~ :ego..~~O" ~
~~ ~ 5: ~ ~ ::T
8 tE 0 e::;. i!5 ;=;.
I I ~('t) ('t) I f/J....
'o..'::'l:l~~ ~OOj
(t) "'"' co ~. == """'0 C"'t" Qj
~ ('0 o..[/),< ......,..::T:::.:
~. :< "0 ..... ::T ~ ('0
.S ~ Pl d 1to..Ojrn,<
CIq '"'l ....."0 ..... ~ s:: 00
::T' 0 0 ~ '< ~ e;. ::r::
_. ~ l:l 00 _. . 0.. s::
S _.~ e:. ~ 0'" ~
=......... j:l..Ctl I::f')~
. .,.. S 0" g. >=0.
::T"O ('0 rf 00 '"'l 0 :g
('0 '"'l...., l:l"O co ~l:l
.g '"'l. ('0 _.'
S:o~ ('OOj ~
, ::::: [/) ;. t'j g. s:: CIq ~
o' ('0 0 0.. ~ .,.. ~
::l .........,~ 0.. - ::T('O
[/)coOj~co[/) ('0><
l:l~'1;] ai!;::l [/) ~
rp.....::T '"'lPl co.
.co;=;' ~6'c; ~
o.._.Pl ('0 5'0 _.Pl
~g[:;sClq:;S g[
;J;-
~ b:I
o '<
~ g
p. CD
::;1~
~ =-
~ CD
'"' ::I-
~. 'rei
(1)
...
~
=~
(1)\
=-.:
~
~.
~
=
(I)
~
o
(I)
~
=
Q..
~
o
-...
o
o
o
=
o
~
~
~
~
o
o
~
(I)
~
o
~
~
~
~
8., ~ g;- S S' i!; S ~ 2. S''g
i!; >-3 0 ...., ('0 5' 0 5" ~ ~ CIq 5' ~ >-3
::T ::T g F2::l 00 s:: 0 .,.. ('0 ~ S' S ::T
o ('0 0..0 S'CIq '"'l ......,.. 0...0 CIq co co
'0 rn~ ...;'"'lCJ'Q::T <; ::l
.....s.:-'O~ 0 ~.~ Pl Pl ::Too .,.. ~
~co::l [/)S::""s::""o..co...., ::T
o Pl ~g...., l:l<<::l ~ '"'l::l::TS.....
'S:: fj,::l::T 0... 0.. 0 Pl .,.. 0 0 Pl
::l0::T.,..0[/).,..[/)s::::p::Tg.<::l
0.. ....,.....'< g,. ~ ::T' ..... ('0 ('0 0..
[/) ... ~ 8 [/) ..... rp 0.. S' ~ 0.. 0.. 'i:I
..... ~ 0.. I '0 "0..... fj, 00' 0 Pl
o l:l' 8, ~ '" ~ rp ::T..... ::l '"'l
:;. ~, g:=: ~ * ~ ~ g-~. (f) Fr
't' 't' ::D::T 0 tt. P' 0 ... ~ f'i
~ 5 p' .5; S" fL. ~ ~ ~(J~~, ~
.................0 ~ M- 0 ~ ...... rt- ("'t- -J ~ ~ n :::h to-' 0 n M- M- ~ t"'. Qj ~
~ ro ~. ('O::l 0 ~ ::T _. 00 ...... ('0 ~ '"'l ~ s:: ::;:::T::T '"'l "<- 0'" <:
o..~~'a>-3~rnS.....coe:.~~'OC;>-3~o..""''<;=;'ro~@ro:::':_
[/)ror'o.oo..::Tt::::ho..::l,.,PlO::T roo 0 ro ~::l
..... t: liO" 0'" ro '"'l co _. '"'l ~ i:I ro 'E. ..... >< ...., S" ....,., ::l rn Pl
g-~~:;-s '"'lCO[/)~~.....tE8~~~g-~~::lqs5"~S;;
,<osroPl ~"'S' .....[/)oCO~<:ro .....fj,0" "0 s:: 0..00 0..
o :;-..... ~ :>;' 2.. g 1t ~ .g ~ l:l ::t ~ 8' :8<< i=: ~ 8., ro ~ <'..... ~
::l ro ::T:::.: ro .:: 00 S c.., Z ....:::.: Pl <; ~..... 00 .... 0
...., ('0 ~ "0 co 0'" g- ('0 g: ('0 .....:e ~ ~ 5" l:l Pl &> co l:l [!:. 0"
ro g-...., ~...... ~ ~ i!5 S'l:l ;:::. < 0 .... E3 Pl ~ 0.."0 ::T ~ 0 g ~ '"'l
o Il'Q ::;. S e: ~ ro Pl Pl ..... [!:. Pl ..... S- 00 S S,., -..... ~ ('0
~ "0 '< rn [/) .... 0.. s:: O"'::T 0 0.. '"'l ::T 00.... s:: Pl ~ ~ [/) ~ ~ 41
~~:;-So.. ~S-~ro~P~~:;-~ ;:~::l~[~~1t~
. r'roE<;i rog'"'l.....rnO"'>-3.....'=">coro ,,~ g-...... . '"'l^,
~.""::l ::T~('O::T'"'lO ... ~-VJrn.....ro-~
>-3Pld""~ ~ ('Oo",m('Ore~"o~ ::t~.rn~s::~::T~ l:l
::T"O ~ t::::h 0 Il'Q ('0 0.. ... ..... P ..... l:l S ..... ro ..... Pl co &> [/) 0..
:~. ;: a] '< 5: g 3: ~ 'g 5...... g ~ S' ~ t::::hF g-"O S i=: ~ <:
~ oro g- ~ m ~ ~ 00 ~. ~ 1t s- g- 5'''0 :;- :;- ~ :;- 0" ~. s:: ~ e;. Pl
.. ...., ::;. ',"::; r.r << tEl:l 0..:;S Pl ::;'CIq::;:: ('0 co @ ('0 @ :;- ~ 0..:;S 5:
~ 00...., ..... ~"O '"'l:e '" ..... ~
p.....('O ~~~ O~~::T~
>-3o..~O"Ojl:l~'"'l......~.....~coS
=:r ..... 0.. E; s:: 0.. liS l:l 0.. ro ..... 0.. 00
('0 g- 5' e:. .,.. Q ~ :- ~ g '"'l 'E.~ 0
~ n.1l'Q ..... ~ ('0 :;-...., ~ g ~ "0 ~
6:> ..... _~ ::T:>;,rn ('0 ::Too . l:l Pl t:l
i=:'< ?E l:l n>. ..... '< ~ ~ 0 00 ., .....
~~~o..@ g-e;Il'Q?':::s~:>;'~
0..2..%'g '6('O:,.~:::::~o..
'i:lS-~ g:~ ~ g.,Sj ~O"o..15
~ (tl ""~. d (t)5 C'+- {'t)'-; ~
lo;''< ;r e:. ~ l:l::l. e: ~ 5" g- g-
oo ...., '" < ('0 ~ 00 <; S .........
O~~O~ ~CIq...... ::T('O:::l"
o ~ ~ ~ e:. .... S- w ~ 00 ;- f!J.
~.:::::.,.. Oro-:! ro~<o..
.... Pl . ro ('0
~....,"O ....,~..........rn
. S..... '"'l ~ .... ...., ::T 0.. 0
r.r rntE9 =rq~ ;=;.~'98.,
;J;-
III b:I
~'<
Q.~
tlD'
~!
'<
...,"Cl
~f.
CQ
III
...
,..;. .
--
. .,..
~ . -..:
0- __
r-
S- ~~
("t) ~. ~
,- -.
Ci <
0-.
r:r: u:
~ 0-.
fE S
~ ~
0... 'J"
~
~
'-<
~;!
~iii
f~
a~
g~
~:z:
~i
s-"
~g
:..:m
=m
3ll1l;
~~
[QI
'<m
Illn
::lO
Q.~
s-mJ
Illn
o~.
~~ III
a.g i
~~..
-'< -
~ =<; 1ii'
Q.1ll=:
. Q;"'<
5.~
ei"
CQ
'"
..~
~ g:. S' ~ g:. s- ;=;. S-~ ~. S- S- ~ S-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~;. ~ ~ g:. ~ ~~. g ~ g- S- ~ ~.
('0 ('0 Il'Q ('0 d ~ ~ ro ~ .....~. ('0 ('0 ('0 ~ 0 c. s:: P ::l "0 .,.. S ~ d ('0 S ro ..... S 00 ~ ro o..::l
'"': g 0 ~ s:: "0 ~ ..... ~ ('0 s:: ~....,.... ~::l 0 I:l ~ ~ r;' ~ ::I. s:: ~. ~ 00 g-. 0
S s:: :::s ~ ~ 1;] '< ~ ::s .,.. ~ ~:::.: ~ ~ ~ ...., ::l 2: 0.. ro ~.... ~~ ~ ~ e. ~ 0.. S- 0 ,....;1l'Q J"'"
1l'Q::lt:."t .::TSj~o..g-O"l:l~'<O". roo. ('O'"'lo ::T' oo",~'<p;coS('O"o~.,..
~ 2:.E 00 S 0.. 00 ..... n. 0.. ~ ...., 00 "0 ~ ~ ~ 0.. ~ ...., Q.... ~ l:l ~ ~ Pl l:l '"'l ('0 .,.. e: g g-
'-'....,E:!.Plc....~~p;.... SO.oO '"'l~"":;:!l .,..~...'('O<._~~('O ::T'>....
g. 8 a o;::r 0"" ~ l:l '< s:: 00 g ~ ~ ~ ...., ;."" ~ ~ '< ~ g:."O fii' S- ~ ::T ~ g. ('0 P;- 0.. 0::
0.. g.::?, g : S' s.('O ~. ~ ~ gj 8 o. "0 ~. ~ ~ ::T S- .,.. ~ > S- g S" o' '"'l:< ~ 8., ~ "0 · ef ~
:: ~ s 2: ~ ~ ~~ i ~ o..~ ~;- ~ e:. 15 ~ ~ ~ g- :: s ; g:~.::l ~ g g :;- re ~ ~.g
o 0 S S..... 0 0 ::;;"0 0"'''0 ~., 0 0.. 00 ~ '" ::T g ('0 ;::l:>CIq e:.;+ 0 ';:. ('0 0 00 ~.,..
~ S' ~ ('0 Il'Q ~ 3 as ~ ~ a:;:~ 00 ~~ S-?' ::T 6:> ~ ('0 .<] ~~.,., ~ g- ~ ::I. n. ...., 0.. ('0 ~
00'" ro~ ....., .=:r....~00" 0('0 ~::T('O"O.....rn.....OPl SrnqPlro .
"0 ~ "0 ~ . Pl :g ii)' ('0 0 c. liS i!5 ~ f!J. ,., < ~ '"': d ..... ~ S 0.. Il'Q e-:. s:: "0 ~
S O"S::~ s::"O l:l oo::T<""15 ~s.:rn C.O ('0 l:l S g ~~"O e'< ~.....g.~s-~ g g-
. ;;l g;. 1t~ .,..rn~ g.s- S'::T15 g ......0"1l'Q o..g.~~ [/).~ g 0 0'0 l:l S gj 00
OJ :;-'" a 00 ~ ~. s.:'g ~ ~ s- ~.1l'Q g; 2: S. Q ~ E; ~ ~ ~ ~. co ~ Q l:l ~ S co e;.
a ('0 :g <;" 8., e:. 0..' ::l ~ '9 ;=;.:;- t:+; ~ s- 00- r.r q 0.. e:. a ~ e:.::s ::t;+ q s- 00 ,<::t s- ~
gj
lz:I
~
o
z
:g
o
lz:I
:.
w
;J;-b:I
"''<
~~
[!
O"Cl
~!
...,$
,. ....
~
... .
-
i--
....
(fj
r--
;;...:....,
....
t""'
-
t""'
=-
~
o
-
....
-
::::....
('<.
c-
....
....
q
~
-
,.....
~ ~
~ 0
~<
en ("'D
en
i-oI
~ rl-
~ 0
S. ~
~ ~
,-.I. .
en
~
~
o
o
i---<
CP
874
a:
;:j
.
CJQ
~
-
'-
,......
....
>-
--
2:
'"
t>]
t>]
rn
o
c:
o
Z
'U
).
O""'''''w'''''s::o.. S::Ol:lrn. .....c. .....Plo:e ?
s::>=O::To>=O~ro '"'lS::o::;::To mCl'Q....,-. r;
.....::l ro ,.....::l .... i:I W ('0 '"'l""'< ~ ('0 i:I :>... .., w::::: ~ L
s- 0.. s:: .'-' 0.. ~ ""::T ~ @ g- 0'" > ~ 0 "0 E; % g 0" ~. :.
~ [~.:;- [ ~. 8., ~ ~ g. ~ So ~ ~;::: ~ ~ ~ S- S ~ :,;
[/) ~ ~ ro ~.z wo<< g. &. ,., ~ ~ S- ~ C ~ g ~ :; r.. "
e;."'" [!: 0,., 00 Pl '< 0 g ..... >-J. ,., 00 2 ... ;:l T' 1
0.. ('0 ".,: '"'l co 0'" C::p- . l:l < tn' 8 ::t1 g ~ ::;'::T o;~ ,. I."
[/) s:: '< ~ 0.. s:: ..... ro 0..... 5' . ~ 0..... "0 ~ ~ ..., " !/ !,
o "0 ..... 0 _. 0.. ::T '"'l s:: ~ n 5 ro c ..., "0. rr
8 ..... ::T l:l "0 CIq -, r. ........, ro ..... n '" 0 r W. ,. t.
o P' '0 '" [/) ,~-Cl'Q o..;.v'''-: ro ,.,..., c' 'I
~ ~ rt c 5 rt -., S 5' ~ r/J r; - I c, :: ~ ~. ~
ro o~. 6.jI)Q w' E::. :::-: ~ ~ ,:) ~ c." ;.~,' c. c.. "
o ~ ~. C1 r/~ ~ ~ ....' ...,: 1-+, ~<~ ::'"
~ ~ ~ rr; rr, ~ ,'" ~ ~' :' 2, tJ >"1
ft- .... 'l' ., ';-' ....-- t' r' r ~, ..'
, ~' .t""
:rl
'<I
~I
~
~
:E
Vi
:z:
m
III
...
o
~
III
"0
.....
::T
III
::;.
"0
..,
o
"0
III
~
-
'..
-
,,'
:::
>-
,......
~
:3"
c-
C
e
.....
o
..,
"0
..,
o
"0
n>
~
.....
::T
ro
n
~'
o
~
::l
V>
~
:3"
lC
..,
ro
III
~
0'"
C
.....
iil
Q.
.....
III
"0
III
III
::l
Q.
"0
Q.
;:.:
Q'
III
..,
ro
::T
III
9 III
~ g.
S'll
lC c:.
~i
~
'tI
~
"'i.
il
" .
J ~.
t ~ "I.
:,,:
\,
;j
if
Minimum Turn-Around Standards
90'
ao'
-('
20'
~learance Area
+
I
) L20'
Lx~~b/t 0
,
1
. 20~.
~J
I
1
20'
J
j,-~ /6;;}~ vJ!-
~;$6"6 IJ.~-=
(
10[
~~
)
...
--
11III
~
111I
I~
..
..
REFERENCE
LIBRARY USE ONLY
DO NOT REMOVE
FROM BUILDING
City of Ashland
Stormwater and Drainage
Master Plan
Final Report
June 2000
r "'"
11:
'"
Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc.
7080 SW Fir Loop
Portland, Oregon 97223
in Association with:
Greenworks, PC
ASHlfi 1\Jr) 11,1;) 1\ ~CH LIBRA R .
410 ('/C'\'.y,r-, , , . y
.. , ,1/ II EV ARD
ASHLAND, OREGON 975::20
/'j/
I
APPENDIX 6
~
~
;
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.,
If
If
Table 3-6. Wright's Creek Evaluation
...3. DRAINAGE SYSTEM EVALUATIUN
Wright's Creek lies in the northwest portion of Ashland. The creek is relatively
undeveloped and the upper, steeply sloped reaches of its watershed are still heavily
forested. With its preserved vegetation, the watershed provides an opportunity for a
vegetated wildlife link between the National Forest and the Bear Creek Greenway.
Future development should be reviewed carefully because it would increase erosion
and flooding problems and reduce the possibility of a wildlife connection.
Reach Location
WR-l
From confluence of
Bear Creek to 1000
feet upstream.
Reach Photo
-- - --..
< :..:_~2;-~::4i~:~~
Reach Condition
.
Moderate vegetation coverage.
Northern half of reach has
major blackberry coverage.
No threat to buildings or other
structures
Bank has been severely eroded,
along southern half of reach
Slopes average 2%
.
.
.
WR-2
From 1000 feet
upstream to culvert
at Highway 99.
. Good riparian vegetation
coverage
. Moderate encroachment from
property owner along stream
bank
. Stable bank condition along
95% of reach
. Slopes average 2%
3-11
1~
I
City of Ashland Storm water ar . T)rainage Master Plan...
\-
Table 3-6 (continued). Wright's Creek Evaluation
Reach Location
WR-3
From culvert at
Highway 99 to
intersection near
Bimam Wood Road
WR-4
From Birnam Road to
Nyla Road
Reach Condition
3-12
'J3
.
.
Full riparian vegetation
coverage along the entire
stream reach
No major encroachment of
buildings or structures
Reach bank is in stable condition
.
.
Good vegetation coverage
along stream reach
Moderate encroachment of
private residences along east
side of stream reach
Bank condition is stable and
shows no major signs of
erosion
.
.
"I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
I
,_,
. ..3. Fn 4JNAGE SYSTEM EVALUATION
Table 3-6 (continued). Wright's Creek Evaluation
Reach Location Reach Photo Reach Condition
WR-5
From Nyla Lane to
intersection near
Strawberry Lane
From Nyla Lane looking South
. Northern section of reach has
moderate vegetation due to
encroachment along the
stream bank. Banks show
some signs of erosion in this
area.
. Southern section of stream
reach has good vegetation
coverage and little
encroachment. Banks are
intact and show little sign of
erosion
WR-6
Tributary from
confluence to
intersection with
Ashland Mine Road
No Photo Available-
Private Property not accessed
. Moderate vegetation c~verage
along upper section of reach.
. Reach is encroached at lower
end by private property owner.
Reach has been piped under
property to confluence with
main stem
. Bank stability conditions
unknown
. Slopes average 7%
WR-7
Tributary that
parallels Ashland
Mine Road
No Photo Available-
Private Property not accessed
.
Moderate vegetation coverage
along upper section of reach.
Reach is encroached at lower
end by private property owner
Bank stability conditions
unknown
Slopes average 4.5%
.
.
.
WR-8
.
Good vegetation coverage
along stream reach.
Reach is encroached by private
property at confluence with
main stem
No Photo Available -
Private Property not accessed
.
3-13 1 f
-
City of Ashland Storm water and Drainage Master Plan...
I_I
I
Table 3-6 (continued). Wright's Creek Evaluation
Reach Condition
II
.
I
Reach Location
WR.9
From Bimam Wood
Road to 500 feet
Reach Photo
No Photo Available-
Private Property not accessed
. Good vegetation coverage
along stream reach
. No encroachment from any
structures
. Bank are in stable conditions
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
II
II
II
II
-
II
WR-lO
From Grandview
Drive to Orchard
Street
. Moderate vegetation coverage.
Major patches of blackberries
along stream bank
. Reach is highly encroached on
either side of the stream bank
. Bank conditions are moderate
WR-l!
From Orchard Street
south, parallel to
Westwood Street
along east side
. Good vegetation coverage
along entire stream reach
. Moderate encroachment due to
road along west side of reach
. Bank conditions are moderate.
Reach shows some signs of
erosion
.
3-14
15
...4.EVA T,UATION OF IMPRUVJ!;Mb;NT~
CREEK IMPROVEMENTS
Recommendations for creek system improvements are based on the inventory and analysis
of each stream reach and the project goals of protecting property, protecting and enhancing
water quality, and enhancing riparian habitat. Tables 4-1 through 4-7 list the
improvements by stream reach, which are shown in Figures 4-7 through 4-13. Each
recommendation is one of the following types of project:
. Channel Stabilization-The focus of these projects is to stabilize
streambeds and streambanks to protect property and infrastructure and
alleviate sedimentation problems. This type of project requires on-site
professional expertise to determine appropriate measures to stabilize the
streambed or streambank. The City should fully evaluate bioengineering
concepts as the first choice for these projects, as opposed to traditional
riprap solutions. Cost estimates for these projects are based on similar
projects in Oregon, with input from local consultants. Cost-sharing
suggestions included in the tables are assumed in the estimates.
. Riparian Corridor Restoration-The focus of these projects is to restore
natural plant communities as much as practical to reduce stream
temperature and sedimentation and to restore riparian wildlife habitat.
Cost-sharing suggestions included in the tables are assumed in the cost
estimates for these projects.
. Community-Based Enhancement-These projects provide water quality
benefits and riparian habitat enhancements through local neighborhood
improvements using volunteer involvement with some City resources. City
contributions might include plant materials, site preparation, volunteer
coordination, etc. The focus of these projects is to eliminate blackberry and
other invasive exotic plants and to plant desirable native species that will
reestablish the riparian forest canopy and wildlife habitat.
. Protection from -future development-This strategy focuses on protecting
existing riparian corridors and native vegetation by implementing stream
buffer zones regulations in areas where future development might occur.
4-13 -7~
__ _______ _ ._..~ _. . __.._.........J.
City of Ashland Stormwater and Draina,;e Master Plan...
,
Table 4-1. Stream Corridor Recommendations-Wright's Creek
-
Main goals for the enhancement and protection of Wright's Creek are as follows:
-
I
1. Protection of undeveloped land along stream corridors and specifically in the
upper reaches of the Wright's Creek basin and at the confluence with Bear
Creek.
I
2. Reestablishment of riparian plant species and removal of blackberries by local
community groups and landowners.
I
Location
Protection Method
Amount
Cost
Participants
Benefits
I
WR-l Riparian enhancement 37,500 ft2 $18,750 County and City Reduction of water temperature and
Channel stabilization 1300 feet $123,500 County and City sedimentation. Increase of riparian
species diversity and wildlife habitat
Protect banks from future - - County
development
WR-2 Protect existing farmland from - - Landowner with County and Reduction of water temperature and
future development City involvement sedimentation. Increase of riparian
Community enhancement 65,000 ft2 $16,250 Community with City help plant species and wildlife habitat
WR-3 Protect from future development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-4 Protect from future development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-5 Community Enhancement 50,000 ft2 $12.500 City and future developers Reduction of water temperature and
(Northem section) sedimentation, increase in plant
Protection from development City Project diversity and wildlife habitat
- -
WR-6 Community Enhancement 20,000 ft2 $5.000 Landowner with City Reduction of water temperature and
Protection from development involvement sedimentation, increase in plant
diversity and wildlife habitat
~._-
WHo? Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-8 Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
-~ .-
WR-9 Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
W!{.lO Community Enhancement 50,000 ft2 $12.500 Community with City help Reduction of water temperatures and
(Removal of Blackberries) increase in diversity of plant species
and wildlife habitat
WH.ll Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
4-14
77
II
_.__ _____._. _.__...._...,....,.,.......-= ~-_..-............=~-"-.-:-C"!--..,-c:-,........--.,....,._.-..----~-,- _, -____---:- _--c----;-;--- -,.,-~--,-'--..-: -~-:.-:-_~~.
...4. r~T4LUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
Figure 4-7. Wright's Creek Stream Reaches
4-15 18
.Q
t: !
~
--+ I
~ I !
ttl
~ ! -.;Q ~ .. c:!
~
t+-t !~
i
b I!
::n ~ ~
~ ~
.........
. .....
~
. ---S:>
~
~
11
f
>h""_ ~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
Date:
From:
To:
Re:
January 17, 2007
Maria Harris, Senior Planner ~.~ '
file
Attachments to July 11, 2006 Memo from Mike Frane" on Lot Partition
for Record for PA 2006-01784, 720 Grandview
The applicant included a memo in their planning application for 720 Grandview, P A 2006-01784
from Mike Franell, City Attorney to Bill Molnar, Planning Manager, dated July 11, 2006
addressing the partition of the subject property. Several days after the January 9, 2007 Planning
Commission public hearing on P A 2006-01784, the appellant, Bonnine Broderson, inquired as to
whether the attachments were included with the memo in the applicants' submittal. The
attachments to the memo were not included with the applicant's submittal. As a result, Staff is
placing the memo and the attachments in the record for P A 2006-01784.
RECEIVED
JAt~ 1 7 2007
City of Ashland
Community Development
Tel: 541/488-5305
Fax: 541/488-6006
TTY: 800/735-2900
'it:;
r.,
Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
CITY Or
ASH LAN D
Memo
DATE:
July 11, 2006
TO:
Bill Molnar
FROM:
Michael W. Franell
RE:
July 11, 2006
Bonnie Brodersen appealed the issuance of a Building Permit for the property located at 507
Grandview Drive, Ashland, Oregon. One of the grounds stated for her appeal was a
contention that lot on which the residence was to be built was illegally created when it was
partitioned in 1979. In support of her contention, Ms. Brodersen cites ALUO 18.20.040 as
prescribing a maximum lot depth of 150 feet, ALUO 18.08.770, which defines "Subdivide
Land," and ALUO 18.08.540, which defines "Partition." Ms. Brodersen contends that the
variance to the maximum lot depth was only available for subdivisions and was not available
for lots created through the minor partition of land. You have asked that I review and render
an opinion as to whether the lot Was legally created.
In order to determine the applicable regulations to the partition, it is necessary to determine
when the application for partition was filed. By cover letter dated, August 17,1979, attorney
Glenn Munsell submitted the application for partition and variance to the maximum lot depth
requirements. (Attachment #1). The application was received by the City of Ashland Planning
Department on August 20, 1979. The application cites the applicable design standards as set
forth in Chapter 17.08 of the subdivision ordinance. The Ashland Planning Commission
granted the variance and the partition application on September 14, 1979. (Attachment #2).
No appeal was filed to the action granting the variance and partition.
Contrary to Ms. Brodersen's contention that the applicable standards were set forth in ALUO
18.20.040, 18.08.770 and 18.08.540, the applicable provisions were found in Title 17 of the
Ashland Municipal Code. (Attachment #3). The provisions cited by Ms. Brodersen were
enacted by Ordinance No. 2052, which the City passed on second reading on December 18,
1979 and which became effective January 17,1980. (Attachment #4). AMC 1~~2'ED
provided:
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
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney
Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Mgr.
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
gJ
I
JAi~ 1 7 2007
~Ashland
~ I Development
17.04.020 Scope of Reaulations. Subdivision plats, minor land partitioning,
and streets and ways created for the purpose of partitioning land shall be
approved by the planning commission in accordance wit these regulations. No
person shall subdivide land, partition land by creation of a street or way, or
engage in minor land partitioning without complying with this title and state law.
AMC 17.08.040A provided the relevant lot size and shape standards, including the 150 feet
maximum lot depth standard. Chapter 17.16 contained the procedure and conditions for
granting minor land partition approval. Chapter 17.32 contained the provisions for granting
variances to the standards in Title 17. In particular, section 17.32.020 provided in relevant
part:
17.32.020 Variance - Application. When necessary, the planning commission
may authorize conditional variances to the requirements of this title. '"
Since the application was subject to the procedure and conditions of approval set forth in Title
17 of the Ashland Municipal Code. And since the minor partition conditions were contained
within Title 17, it was proper for a variance to be filed and considered to the maximum lot
depth requirement. The planning commission decided in favor of granting the variance. There
were not any timely appeals decided to the decision. Therefore, it is the opinion of the legal
department that pursuant to AMC 17.32.020 the planning commission had the authority to
consider a variance to the maximum lot depth requirements set forth in 17.08.040A. The
planning commission considered the variance and determined it met the relevant criteria.
Therefore, the partition lot was legally created.
RECEIVED
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
fA
JAi'll ) c"J7
Tel: (541) 488-5350
Fax: (541) 552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney
Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Mgr.
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
~OfAshlana
~ I ty Deve:opment
('
I
"
Attachment #1
~J
RECEIVED
JA I~ 1 7 ~'007
City of Ashland
Community Development
GLENN H. MUNSELL
ATTORNEY AT LAW
607 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
POST OFnCE BOX 820
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
AREA CODE 503
TELEPHONE 482-1511
August 17, 1979
City of Ashland
Planning Commission
City Hall
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: Proposed Partitioning - Morse/Nitzberg/ Von Shillagh
Gentlemen:
Enclosed herewith you will find the following:
{I} Planning application for a Minor Land
Partitioning and sub-division Variance
on minimum lot'Width.
{2} EXHIBIT "A" being a proposed plat.
../
{3} EXHIBIT "B" showing prior partition of
similar lots adjacent to property
proposed for partitioning.
{4} EXHIBIT "c" being proposed findings of
fact.
{5} EXHIBIT "D" being copy of assessors plat
for orientation and location purposes only.
{6} Trust account check in the amount of
$105.00 covering the required filing fees.
'Kindly process the' application and advise me as to each stage
of the staff proceedings at which action on the application
will be taken at which I should be present.
Sincerely,
~ ~.~~/ -
~. MU L RECEIVED
GHM : hk
Enclosures/6
JAN 1 7 2007
i'4
City of Ashland
Community Development
PLANNING APPLICATION
D..lte re~eived-L.~o .77' .
Land Use: Zoning R IS ItJ
APPLICATION IS FOR
'Fil.e No .1;;--#-7,-/(0 F~ling .Fee tJT/O.s-~?c:I. .
Comprehensive Plan des_ignation.Rt.(R~'-R.f.rl~t/~'
(K~ Land Partition ( ) Subdivision # 'of uriits~ ( ) Zone Change
Sub-Division
(X~ ~ Variance . ( ) P; U . D . 4f of units ( ) Comp. Plan Change
( ) Conditional Use Permit () Site Review
( ) Boundary Line Adjustment ( ) Annexation
Application pertains to of the Ashland Muncipal Code.
chapter, section, subpart
APPLICANT
Name R. MICHAEL MORSE and JEROME NITZBERG Phone 482-1511
Address c/o Glenn H. Munsell, 607 Siskiyou Blvd., P.O.Box 820., Ashland, Or 97520
PROPERTY OWNER
Name CAROLEE VON SHILLAGH
Address 507 Grandvlew Diive~
I have notified the mortgage
Phone
Ashland. Oregon 97520 . ___________
holder, which is Lester F. Allen and Myrtle Allen
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER,ARCHITECT (if appropriate)
Name
Address
None at this time
Phone
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (attach legal description)
Street Address 507 Grandview Drive, Ashland, Oregon (Legal on Exhibit "A")
. Assessor's Map No. ~ ~ _2.f]) Tax Lot(s) 50'0 ____ -: -:-_ -,-.'-- ~ ,-...,....
Above described property was. acquired by owner on January 9, 1976
' . . . month day year
List any covenants, conditions or restrictions, concerning use of property,
of improvements contemplated;' as well 8.8 yard set-back and area or height
requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision.tract -developers.
Give date said restrictions expire.
None RECEIVED
.! hereby certify that the statements. and information contained in this
application, including the attached drawings and the r~quired findings of
fact, are in all respects true and correct.. I un~erstand that all property
pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon site inspection. In the
event that the pins are. not shown or their location found to be incorrect,
the owner assumes full responsibility.
I further tmderstand that if this request is subsequently contested, the
burden will be on me to establish: that I produced sufficient ~actual
evidence at the hearing tQ support this request; that the evidence adequately
justifies the granting of the request;. that the findings of fact furnish.ed
by.meare adequate, and further that all structures or improvements arr:;
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 any
structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at
my expense. .If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional
a~. ice and assistance.
~K~~
? 1'2, 71
A
Date
.As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood
the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner.
f~~~~
P~~neh~ ~~~r's rign ure .: ? I
Lit ,j /);lA.-~1<-Jr:tqW(.~ij ttL\U~ IW~vlj 7CJ
NOTICE: Sec'tion 15.04.240 of the Ashland Muncipal 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 insure
completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnecticn of
utilities.
'7/l;-/7f
( t /
Date
RECEIVED
JAN 1 7 2J07
<;(,
City of Ashland
Community Development
EXHIBIT "C"
FINDINGS OF FACT
MORSE / NITZBERG
PARTITION AND SUB-DIVISION VARIANCE
APPLICATION
1. The parcel sought to be partitioned is a portion of a larger
tract lying partly within the city limits of the City of Ashland
and partly within the county.
2. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the
tract under the same ownership will not be impeded as:
a) Access to remaining land will be facilitated
by the partitioning and the extension of Grand-
view and Wimer Streets;
b) Utilities (sewer, water and electricity) are
presently readily accessible and the partitioning
will facilitate any future utility service to the
remaining parcel. Water and electric service are
presently on the property.
3. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or
access thereto will not be impeded as:
a) All adjoining tracts are presently served by
existing streets, (Wimer, Grandview and Wrights
Creek Drive) and all have access to city utilities;
b) A portion of the adjoining tracts will be
benefited by the partitioning, as both Grandview
and Wimer Streets will be improved at the time
actual construction of any improvements on the
partitioned lots is commenced.
4. The tract of land has not been partitioned within the last
twelve (12) months.
RECEIVED
JA'.1 1 -, >'''07
11 I / ~,j'
~7
City of Ashland
Community Development
-1- Exhibit "c"
5. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law or ordinance
or resolution applicable to the land except as stated below as to
lot depth.
6. The partitioning is in accordance with the design standards
of Chapter 17.08 of the sub-division ordinance with the exception
of lot depth and a variance is requested simultaneously with the
partitioning application.
7. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con-
ditions applying to the land which circumstances do not apply
generally to other land in the same district in that:
a) The lot width between the city limits on the
west and the easterly boundary line of the property
is 85.82 feet and it is not possible to have addi-
tional lot depth at this time;
b) The parcel to be partitioned lies entirely with-
in the city limits and since the "Hill Amendment"
to the zoning ordinance, the 1/2 acre lot mipimum
makes any other lot size impossible to achieve from
the tract lying within the City of Ashland city limits.
8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserva-
tion and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner
in that under the present zoning it is not possible to create any
other size lots within the tract to be partitioned and without
the variance the petitioners would be limited to one parcel for
a building site which would be of the same depth as requested, and
516.43 feet long (twice the length of the proposed lots). The
result would be an extreme financial hardship on petitioner,
a waste of valuable land lying within the city limits ~8E~
loss of a valuable building site and lot.
JAI~ 1 / ~J07
t:J~
City of Ashland
Community Development
-2- Exhibit "C"
a) The parcels to be created by the partitioning
exceed the requirements of the ordinance for lot
area in square footage. Each lot will be .58 of
an acre as compared to a required .50 of an acre
and the lots meet all other criteria of the ordi-
nance.
9. The granting of the application will not, under the circum-
stances of this particular case, be outweighted by any adverse
effects to the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will
not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or im-
provements in said neighborhood because:
a) A similar size parcel (83.825 feet x 239.20
feet) was approved by the Ashland Planning Commis-
sion on July 6, 1978, which lies to the south of
the property to be partitioned, and is directly
across Grandview Drive from the property which is
the subject of this partition request. Thus the
lot size is not out of line with existing patterns
of the neighborhood.
b) The property to be partitioned is served on the
north by Wimer Street and on the south by Grandview
Drive with 85.82 feet of dedicated street frontage
for both parcels.
c) The parcel to be partitioned is presently
served by a city water line which ,enters the property
on Wimer Street. Sewage service will be provided
for by a pump station from the low point of the
property to the existing city pump station on Grand-
view Drive.
d) Ground water run-off from the improvements of
Wimer and Grandview will be channeled onto adjoining
property owned by the applicants and into the existing
creek. No run-off will affect adjoining non-owned
properties.
e) Access to the property is adequate on both Wimer
and Grandview Drive and the partitioning and d~WED
ment of the lots will not cause any adverse impact on
the neighborhood due to access.
JAN 1 7 2007
~e;
City of Ashland
Community Development
-3- Exhibit "c"
f) The remalnlng portion of the tract which lies
outside the city limits of the eity of Ashland and
within the urban growth boundary will be able to be
developed off the extensions of the existing streets,
Wimer and Grandview Drive, and any future development
of that portion will not be impeded or adversely af-
fected by this partitioning.
g) The character of the neighborhood is residential
in nature and the development pattern is for residen-
tial lots varing in size from 80' x 125' to 83.825' x
239.20'. The surrounding larger tracts have all been
partitioned into one or more smaller lots.
RECEIVED
J " · I 1 - '~"07
I~;\J I L\)\
Cfe;
City of Ashland
Community Development
-4- Exhibit "e"
r
\
Attachment #2
OJI
RECEIVED
JAN 1 7 2007
City of Ashland
Community Development
C I T Y
o F
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
telephone (code 503) 482-3211
ASHLAND
C I T Y
HAL L
September 14; 1979
R. Michael Morse & Jerome Nitzberg
c/o Glenn H. Munsel I
P. O. Box 820
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Glenn
At its meeting of September 14, 1979 ,the Ashland Planning Commission
approved your request for Minor Land Partition & Subdivision Variance (PA#79-110)
for the property at 507 Grandview Drive
tax lot(s) 500 , assessor's map 5CD
Findings of Fact and the Commission's Orders wi I I fol low within two weeks.
Please note
G
Q
o
the fol lowing circled items:
A final map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within
one year of the date of prel iminary approval; otherwise, approval
becomes i nva lid.
2.
A final plat map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted
within six months of the date of prel iminary approval; otherwise approval
becomes i nva lid.
10
There is a ~-day appeal period which must elapse before a bui Iding
permit may be issued.
AI I of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully
met before an occupancy permit may be issued.
5.
Planning Commission approval is val id for a period of one year only,
after which time a new appl ication would have to be submitted.
Please feel free to cal I if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~ tt/~ RECEIVED
Dick Wanderscheid
Associate Planner
JM;
~..JOl
0\1: jm
Cf~
City of Ashland
Community Development
PUBL I C HEAR I NG
PA1f.79-110
M I NOR LAND
PART IT I ON &
ASSOC I ,A,TED
SUBDIVISION
VAR:ANCE
t-lORSE/N I TZBERG
DESCRIPTION:... Planning Action 1179-110 is a request for a Minor
Land Partition and associated Subdivision Variance to divide
a 5.9 acre parcel located at 507 Grandview Drive into 3 lots.
The subdivision variance is necessary to creete two lots of
295' in depth instead of 150' maximum depth as required by
ordinance. Comprehensive Plan designation: Rural Residential.
Zoning: R-l :8-10 Single-Fami Iy Residential. Assessor's map Ii: 5CC.
Tax lot: 500. .
APPLICANT: R. Michael Morse and Jerome Nitzberg
STAFF REPORT: Wanderscheid gave the staff report stating the
subject property is a 5.9 aCI-e parcel of which abo<.;t 1.2 acres
are within the City Limits. The appl icant Is proposing partitloning
that portion within the City Limits into two parcels about .58
acres each. There Is an existing dwel I ing located on propcsed
parcel #3 which is in the county, but is served by C1ty water
from Wimer Street. A SUbdivision variance is also being requested
as the proposed parcels #1 & #2 are 85' wide and 295' in de~th
which is in excess of the 150' maximum lot depth at lowed by
APC, 9/13/79 I Pa~le 4
RECEIVEU
J /1 ~,;
q~
City of Ashland
Community Development
ordinance. The Fire Department has looked at this proposal and
their memo is included as part of the steiff report. A portioh
.of parcel #2 wi I I have to be dedicated for street. purposes to
bring the width of Grandview to 47'. Also both of the extensions
of Wimer and Grandview wi I I have to be graded to City specifications
as specified in section 17.16.130 of the City subdivision ordinance.
If in grading the street, any power poles need to be relocated,
the cost must be borne by the applicant. Also the appl icant
wi I I be required to have a private pump for sewage, but Publ ic
Works has indicated that eventually a City pump system wi I I need
to be i nsta II ed to serv i ce th i s area and the app I icant will be
required to join in this neighborhood pump system when it
becomes necessary. He then stated that the findings were
adequate and he went over the suggested conditions. They are
1} that the appl icant dedicate enough property to bring
Grandvlew Drive to 47' in width; 2} that the appl icant join
in the Grandview assessment district; 3) that the extension
of Grandvlew Drive and \vimer S-r-reets be graded to City
specifications; 4) that the appl ,cant sign in favor of
joining a neighborhood pump system when it becomes necessary;
5) that any method of providing water and sewer be approved
by the City Pu[)1 Ie \'V'orks Department and that any sewer and
water easement be provided Oil the final plat; 6) that
applicant sign in favor of future improvements of the
extension of Wimer Street; and 7) that fire hydrants be
provided to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department,
if they deem them to be necessary on~e the future structure
locations have been determined. He then showed an expanded
plot plan and showed the area of parcel #2 that needed
to be dedicated to bring the width of Grandview to 47'.
Reid asked what the minimum jot width was In that particular
zone. Wanderscheid stated !t was 80'.
Barnes asked if It was necessary for the appl icants to grade
the streets. Wanderscheid stated yes, as the subdivision
ordinance required that the appl icant bring the streets up
to City standards at the time a bui Iding permit would be
issued for the parcels.
PUBL I C HEAR I NG:
1. Glenn Munse! 1,627 Siskiyou Blvd., representing the applicants,
stated that he had no problem with any of the conditions and they
were agreeable to al I of them. There were other lots of the
same configuration in the area and the lots are in keeping with
the size of the recent Hi I I Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He
also believed that the request was justified.
RECEIVED
2. BI I lings asked the applicant if there was ~ccesses avai lable
to both lots. Munsel i stated that when the appl icant graded
\1 I mer and Grandv I ew Streets they wou I d both have 3ccess.
J ^ "
"'.,
, ; I ~
3. Munsel I asked for the findings to be Included as part of the
record.
City of Ashland f2 ~
Community Dev8lopm~nt 4. -,
Barnes wanted to know the .plcJils or the larger parcel outside
in the county. Munset I stated they had no plans at this particular
time.
The public hearing was closed.
COfvllV11 SS ION 0 I SCUSS ION ,"NO MOT ION:
1. Barnes moved to approve PA#79-110 with applicant's findings
and suggested conditions; seconded by Bi I lings; motion passed
unanimously.
RECEIVED
l.' ;~l '
qS
City of Ashland
Community Development
PLANNING ACTIOr~ #79-110
MINOR LAND PP.RTITION AND SUBDIVISION VJI,RIANCE
R. MICHAEL MORSE & JEROME NITZBERG
APPLICANT I S STATEMENT OF UL T H~l\TE FACTS llND gP-.S IC FACTS I N SUPPORT:
See an.ached.
STAFF INPuT:
Subject property is a 5.9 acre palcel of which about 1.2 acres is within the
City I imits. Applicant is proposing partitioning that portion within the
City into two parcels ofabout-.58 acres each. Ihel~e is an existing dwelling
loc_a-fed on proposed parce I 113 wh i ch is in the county, but is served by City water
from Viimer Str'3et. A subdivision Variance is also being requested as the proposed
parcels #1 & 62 are 85' widB and 295' in depth which is in excess of 150' maximum
lot depth al fow'ed by ordinance. Tho Fire D3pariTnent has looked ot this proposal
and their memo is included as part of this staff report. A portion of Parcel B
wi I I have to be dedicated for street purposes to bring the width of Gra~dview DrivG
to 47'. Also both the extensions of Wimer and Grandview wi I I have to be graded
to City specifications as specified in Section 17.16.130 of the Subdivisicn Ordinance.
If in grading tile street, any powel- poles needed to be relocated, the cost must
be borne by the appl ica~t. Also, the appl icant wi I I be required to have a Drivate
pump for sewerage, but Public Works had indicated that eventually a City PUffiO
system wil I nsed to be inst~1 led to serve this area and that the appl icant wi! I
be required to join in this neighborhood pump system when it becomes necessary.
Findings are adequate.
RELEVANT COMIvlENTS FROM THE PUBL! C HE/\R I NGS & COi'>1M I 5S ION 0 I SCUSS ION:
. ,
t.."
" 't'"
STAFf__IT.!.-::>ORT: \'Jando'"scheid gave the staff report stating the
subje=t rroperty is a 5.9 acr2 parcel of whi~h about 1.2 acres
are within the City Limits. The appl icant is proposing partitjoni~J
that portion within the City Limits into two parcels about .58
acres eactl. There is Bn existin~ dwel ling located on proposed
parcel ~3 which is in 1.he county, but is served by City water
from Wimer Street. A subdivision variance is also being requests:
as the proposed parcels #1 ~ #2 are 851 wide and 295' in deoth
\~'hich is in excess of ihfo l5()! rnaxirr:um lot depth a! 100ved by
ordinance. The fire D~partment has looked at this pr.oposal and
their lTlemo is included ciS part of H:€: staff repor.1. A por.tion
of perce I 1/2 will have i-o be ded i cated for s-l-r-ee"l- pU~pOS8~; to
bring i-he \'dd~h of GI"andview to 471. Also both of the exi.onsicl"tRECEIVED
of Wimer and Grandview wi I I have to be graded to City specificatic15
as specified in section 17.16.130 Gf the City subdivision ordinanc~.
1-[ in gradir;; the s-rre8-;., any pov:er poles nei'd to be relociJted/JAN
the cost must DC- born8 by the apr! i cant. A I so the app I i cant
\'Ii II he n;;quired TO have 0 private pump for 5e~!age, but Public
~ ~_ City of Ashland
--, WI Community Development
-I
PA#79-110
Page 2
Works has indicated that eventually a City pump system wi I I need
t6 be instal led to service this area and the applic~nt wi I I be
required to join in this neighborhood pump system when it
becomes necessary. He then stated that the findings were
adequate and he went over the suggested conditions. They are
1) that the appl icant dedicate enough property to bring
Grandview Drive to 47' in width; 2) that the applicant join
in the Grandview assessment district; 3) that the extension
of Grandview Drive and Wimer Streets be graded to City
specifications; 4) that the appl icant sign in favor of
joining a neighborhood pump system wh~n it becomes necessary;
5) that any method of providing water and sewer be approved
by the City Pul)l ic .\vorks Department and that any sewer ar-d
water easement be provided on the final plat; 6) that
appJ icant sign in favor of future improvements of the
extension of Wimer Street; and 7) that fire hydrants be
provided to the satisfaction ef the City Fire Department,
if they deem them to be necessary once the future structure
locations have been determined. He then showed an expanded
plot ~jan and shewed the area of parcel #2 that needed
to be dedicated to bring the width of Grandview to 47'.
Reid asked what the minimum lot width was in thqt par-ticular
zone. Wanderscheid stated it was 80'.
Barnes asked if it was necessary for the appl icants to grade
the streets. Wanderscheid stated yes, as the subdivision
ordinance required that the appl icant bring the streets up
to City standards at the time a bui lding permit would be
issued for the parcels.
PUBL I C HEARING:
1. Glenn Munsell, 627 Siskiyou Blvd., repr-esenting the applicants,
stated that he had no problem wfth any of the conditions and they
were agreeable to al I of them. Thore were other lots of the
same configuration in the area and the lots are in keeping with
the size of the recent Hi I I Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He
also bel ieved that the request was justified.
2. Bi I I ings asked the applicant if there ~as accesses aVai lable
to ~oth lots. Munsel I stated that when the appl icant graded
Wimer and Grandview Streets they would both have access.
3. Munsel I asked for the findings to be included as part of the
r-ecord.
4. Bornes \."anted to know tIle plans for the laroer pal-cel out::.ids
--' . RECEIVED
in the county. ;.1unsE:: II stated they had no plans at th j s part I cu r2::-
t:me.
,,-U\N
1. Barnes moved to 2rpr-oVe fll\f!79-110 with oDplicant's findings
and suggested cond i T ions; seconded by Bill i ngs; moi- i on passed
unanimously.
;\,^,-7
'11
City of Ashland
Community Development
PAfl79-110
Page 3
CONCLUSION Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission concluded that the a~pl icant adequately met the required
burde~ of proof in support of the assertion of ultimate facts; and that the basic
facts presented by the applicant, staff, and persons speaking at the public hearing
were sufficient reasons in support of the ultimate facts and Commission approval of
Planning Action 1/79-110 (Minor land Partition and Subdivision Variance).
COND IT IONS:
1. Appl icant dedicate enough property to bring Grandview Drive to 47' in width.
2. That the applicant join in the Grandview Assessment District.
3. ..That the extension of Grandview Drive and Wimer Streets be graded to City's
specifications.
4. That the appl icant sign in favor of joining a neighborhood pump system when it
becomes necessary.
5. That any method of providing wa+er and sewer be approved by the City's
Publ ic Works Departtnent and that any sewer or vlater easement be provided
on the final plat.
6. c.1\ppl ;cant sign in favor of future improvement to the extension of Wimer Street.
7. That fire hydrants be provided to He satisfaction of the City Fire Department,
if they deem them to be necessary once the future structure locations have bee~
determined.
. RECEIVED
, ,
....J ,!"
qg
City of Ashland
Community Development
EXHIBIT "e"
FINDINGS OF FAc'r
NORSE / NITZBERG
PARTITION AND SUB-DIVISION VARIANCE
APPLICATION
1. The parcel sought to be partitioned is a portion of a larger
tract lying partly \';i thin the ci ty limits of the City of Ashland
and partly within the county.
2. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the
~cra.ct 'Jnder the same ownership will not be impeded as:
a) Access to remaining land will be facilitated
by the partitioning and the extension of Grand-
view and Wimer Streets;
b) utilities (sewer, water and electricity) are
presently readily accessible and the partitioning
will facilitate any future utility service to the
remaining parcel. Water and electric service are
presently on -the property.
3. Thec1evelopmcnt of the remainder of any adjoinins Jand or
access thereto \d 11 not be impeded as:
a) All adjoining tracts are presently served by
existing st_reets f (Wimer, Grand'liew and Wrights
Creek Drive) and all have access to city utilities;
b) A portion of the adjoining tracts will be
benefited by the partitioning, as both Grandview
and \Virr~er Streets ~,!ill be improved at the time
actual construction of any improvements on the
partitioned lots is commenced.
4. The tract of land has not been partitioned within the last
twelve (12) months.
RECEIVED
. : AN < .\(17
U j i ::....)0
99
City of Ashland
Community Development
--1-- Exhibit lie"
,
'j
i
5. The parti.t.ioning is not in conflict: ivi th any law or ordinance
or resolut.ion applicable to the land except as stated b2.1ow as to
lot depthti
G. The partitioning is in accordance with the design staadards
of Chapter 17.08 of the sub-division ordinance with the exception
of lot depth and a variance is requested simul t.aneously v,i th the
partitioning application.
7. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con-
. di tions applying to the land which circumstances do not. apply
generally to other land in the same district in that:
a) The lot width between the city limits on the
west and the easterly boundary line of the property
is 85.82 feet and it is not possible to have addi-
tional lot depth at this time;
b) The parcel to be partitioned lies entirely with-
in the ci ty limits and since the "Hill AInendment"
to the zoning ordinance, the 1/2 acre lot minimum
makes any other lot size impossible to achieve from
the tract lying within the City of Ashland city limits.
8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserva~
tion and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner
in that under the present zoning it is not possible to create any
other size lots \'li thin the t,ract to be partitioned and without
the variance the petitioners would be limited to one parcel for
a building site whi.ch would be of the same depth as reque2ted., and
516.43 feet long (twice the length of the proposed lots). The
result would be an extreme financial hardship on petitioner,
a waste of valuable land lying within the city limits and the
loss of a valuable building site and lot.
RECEIVED
JAN 17.107
I I '..~ I
/~t)
City of Ashland
Community Development
--2-- Exhibi.t lie"
a) The parcels to be created by the partitioning
exceed the requirements or the ordinance for lot
area in square footage ,. Each lot wi 11 be .58 of
,:=;m acre as compared to a required .50 of an a.cre
and the lots meet all other cyiteria of the onli-
nance.
9. The granting cf the applicai:ion vlill not, under the circum-
stances of this particular case r be oubveighted by any adverse
effects tc the health or safety of persons re siding or '-larking
in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant" and will
not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be materially
. detrimenta.l to the public wel fare or injur.ic)us .to pyoperty or im-.
provements in said neighborhood because:
a) A similar size parcel (83.325 feet x 239,20
feet) ,,,as approved by the Ashland Planning Comrnis-
sion on July 6, 1978, \<Thich lies to the south of
the property to be partitioned, and is directly
i'lcross Grandview Drive from the property which is
t~8 suhject of this partition request. Thus the
lot size is not out of line with existing patterns
or the neighborhood.
b) The property to be partj.tioned is served on the
north by Wirner St:rcet 2.nd OH the south by Grandview
Drive with 85.82 feet of dedicated street frontage
for both parcels.
c) 'The parcel to be partitioned. is presently
served by a ci-ty wat-..er line ';vhich enters the property
on Wimer Street. Sewage service 'vill be provided
for by a pump staUoH from t-..he lov.' point of the
property to the existing ci ty pump station on GTe.i.d--
view Drive.
d) Grou.nd "vater X'lm--off from t.he irdprovement.s of
~Hmer and Gr-:,ndview will be channeled onto adjoin.ing
propert:y owned by the applicants and int.o the existing
creek. No run-of~ will affect adjoining non-owned
properties.
e) Access to t.he property is a.dequate on both Wimer
and GJ:-andvievJ Dri ve Clnd the part.iticrLLng and deFU!OOlVED
ment of thli:' lots VIilJ not cau.se any adverse impact on
the neighborhood due to access.
JAN 1 .~.:r)7
I I...,"'\..!
I(J I
City of Ashland
Community Development
_ -J _ T,',..".. -: )..";.)- Ii: (t;'j
f) The remaining portion of the tract which lies
outside the city limits of the City of Ashland and
within the urban growth bcunda:.y v1i11 be able to be
developed off the extensions of the existing streets,
Wimer and Grandview Drive, and any future development
of that portion vlill not be impeded or adversely af-
fected by this partitioning.
g) The character of the neighborhood is resi.dential
in nature and the development pattern is for residen-
tial lots varing in size from 80' x 125' to 83.825' x
239.20'. The surrounding larger tracts have all been
partitioned into one or more smaller lots.
RECEiVED
Ji,"J
/o~
City of Ashland
Community Development
-4- Exhibit "e"
STAFF REPORT
September 13, 1979
APPLICATION: Planning Action #79-110 - ~1jnor Land Partition & Subdivision Variance
APPLICANT: R. Michael Morse and Jerome Nitzberg
LOCATION: 507 Grandview Drive (tax lot 500, assessor's map 5CD).
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 17.16. 17.32
ZONING: R-l :B~'t) Single-Fami Iy Residentia!.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Residential
SUBSTANTIVE:
Subject property i,s a 5.9 acre par'cel of which about 1.2 acres js within the
City limits. Appl icant is proposing partitioning that portion w1thin the
City into two parceis of about .58 acres each. There is an existing dwel ling
located on proposed parcel #3 which is in the county, but is served by City water
from Wimer Street. A subdivision variance is also being requested as Hle pl'oposed
parcels #1 & #2 are 85' wide and 295' in depth which is in excess of 150' maximum
lot depth al lowed by ordinance. The Fire Department has looked at this proposal
and their memo i~ included as part of this staff report. A portion of Parcel 8
will neve to be ded1cated for street purpose~ to bring the width of G,'andview Drive
to 47'. Also both the extensions of Wimer and Grandview wi I I have to be gradcct
to City specifications as specified in Section 17.16.130 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
If in grading the street, any power poles needed to be rslocated, the c051 must
be borne by the app! icant. Also, the appl icant wi I I be required to have a private
pump for sewerage, but Pub! le 'darks had i nd i cated that ~wentua II y a C]ty pump
system wil I need to be instal led to serve this area and that the applicant wi! I
be required to join in this neighborhood pump system when it becomes necessary.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
See attached.
RECEIVED
PROCEDURAL:
---
Findings are adequate.
JAN 1 7 L007
SUGGESTED CONDiTIONS:
. -
City of Ashland
Community Development
1. Appl icant dedicate enough property to bring Grandview Drive to 47' in width.
2. That the appl icant join in the Grandview Assessment District.
3. That the extension of Gr'andview Drive and ItJirnet' Streets be CF'aded to eltyls
spec i f leat ions.
4.
That the appl icant sign
becomes nocl:;ssar.y.
. f ' . . . I 03 ~ bId i < t
In -a./or OT JOllllng a nelgll oriOO' pum? sys -em WI,cm j
5. That any method of providln] water and S0wer be approved by the City's
Pub lie Works Depar-irnent and that any seder or water C'dsement be provi dad
on the final plat.
6. ~. App I i cant sign in favor of futUl-e i mprovementto tho ex!-ens i on of ~iilner Stt-eet.
7. That fire hydrants be provided to the satisfaction of the City Fire Department,
if they deem them to be necessary once the futUI'8 stl-UCl-llre locations have been
dete rm i nod.
RECEIVED
JAN : I
"0'
\) i
/0'1
City of Ashland
Community Development
(
Attachment #3 .
/1/5
RECEIVED
JAN 1 -. I,O~
: / (U i
City of Ashland
Community Development
.,;
Subdivisions
17.04.010
Title 17
SUBDIVISIONS
Chapters:
17.04
17.08
17.12
17.16
17.20
17.24
17.28
17.32
Definitions and Scope of Regulations
Design Standards
Approval of Streets and Ways
Minor Land Partitioning
Preliminary Plat
Final Plat
Improvements
Exceptions, Variances and Enforcement
Chapter 17.04
DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE OF REGULATIONS*
Sections:
17.04.010
17.04.020
Definitions.
Scope of regulations.
17.04.010 Definitions. As used in this title the
masculine includes the feminine and neuter and the singular
includes the plural. The following words and phrases, unless
the context otherwise requires, shall mean:
A. "Block" means the land surrounded by streets and
other right-of-way other than an alley, or land which is
designated as a block on any recorded subdivision map.
B. "Building line" means a line on a plat indicating
the limit beyond which buildings or structures may not be
erected.
C. "Development plan" means any plan adopted by the
planning commission for the guidance of growth and improve-
ment of the city, including modifications or refinements made
from time to time.
D. "Easement" means a grant of the right to use a strip
of land for specific purposes.
E. "Lot" means a portion of a subdivision intended as
a unit for transfer of ownership or for development.
*
For statutory provisions requiring all subdivision-p.~~ts
located within the city limits to be submitted ij6C~D
planning commission, see ORS 227.100; for provisions
regarding plats and subdivisions generally, see ORS
Ch. 92. JAN 1/
240
/p(,
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
17.04.010
1. "Corner lot" means a lot abutting the intersec-
tion of two or more streets other than an alley.
2. "Reversed corner lot" means a corner lot, the
side street line of which is substantially a continuation
of the front lot line of the first lot to its rear.
3. "Through lot" means an interior lot having
frontage on two (2) parallel or approximately parallel
streets other than alleys.
F. "Minor land partitioning" means partitioning of
land other than subdividing land or creation of a street or
way.
G. "Pedestrian way" means a right-of-way for pedestrian
traffic.
H. "Person" means an individual, firm, partnership,
association, corporation, estate, receiver, syndicate,
branch of government, social or fraternal organization, or
any other group or combination acting as a legal entity,
and including any trustee, assignee, or other representative
thereof.
I. "Planning commission" means the planning commission
of the city.
J. "Plat" means the map or drawing on which the sub-
divider's plan of subdivision is presented and which he sub-
mits for approval and intends in final form to record.
K.. "Private way" means a private easement established
by deed for vehicular access to property.
L. "Right-of-way" means the area of a street or other
easement.
M. "Street" means a public right-of-way for roadway,
sidewalk, and utility installation including the terms
"road," "highway," "lane," "place," "avenue," "alley," or
other similar designations.
1. "Alley" means a narrow street through a block
primarily for vehicular service access to the back or side
of properties otherwise abutting on another street.
2. "1\.rterial" means a street used primarily for
through traffic.
3. "Collector" means a street used to some extent
for through traffic and to some extent for access to abutting
properties.
4. "Cul-de-sac" means a short dead-end street termi-
nated by a vehicle turnaround.
5. "Half street" means a portion of the width of a
street, usually along the edge of a subdivision where the
remaining portion of the street could be provided in another
subdivision.
6. "Marginal access street" means a minor street
parallel and adjacent to a major arterial street pr~~~D
access to abutting properties but protected from tht~~
traffic.
JAN
"...1
241
/67
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
171, '4.020--17.08.020
7. "Minor street" means a street intended primarily
for access to abutting properties.
N. "Subdivide land" means to partition or commence
partition of a parcel of land into four (4) or more parcels
of less than five (5) acres each for the purpose of transfer
of ownership or building development, whether immediate or
future, when such parcel exists as a unit or contiguous units
under a single ownership as shown on the tax roll for the year
preceding the partitioning.
o. "Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing
land or a tract of land subdivided as defined in this section.
(Ord. 1318 Sl, 1962).
17.04.020 Scope of regulations. Subdivision plats,
minor land partitioning, and streets and ways created for
the purpose of partitioning land shall be approved by the
planning commission in accordance with these regulations.
No person shall subdivide land, partition land by creation
of a street or way, or engage in minor land partitioning
without complying with this title and the state law. (Ord.
1318 S2, 1962).
Chapter 17.08
DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
17.08.010
17.08.020
17.08.030
17.08.040
17.08.050
17.08.060
17.08.070
Acceptability--Principles.
Streets.
Blocks.
Lots.
Lot grading.
Large lot subdivision.
Land for public purposes.
17.08.010 Acceptability--Principles. The subdivision
shall conform with any development plans and shall take into
consideration any preliminary plans made in anticipation
thereof. The subdivision shall conform with the requirements
of state laws and the standards established by this title.
(Ord. 1318 S22, 1962).
17.08.020 Streets. A. General. The location, width,
and grade of streets ghall be considered in relation to exist-
ing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, to
public convenience and safety, and to the propose~~~lvao
the land to be served by the streets. The street system
shall assure an adequate traffic circulation system. Inter-
section angles, grades, tangents, and curves shalJ.A~el 7 ~U07
242
/01
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
l7.~4.020--l7.08.020
7. "Minor street" means a street intended primarily
for access to abutting properties.
N. "Subdivide land" means to partition or commence
partition of a parcel of land into four (4) or more parcels
of less than five (5) acres each for the purpose of transfer"
of ownership or building development, whether immediate or
future, when such parcel exists as a unit or contiguous units
under a single ownership as shown on the tax roll for the year
preceding the partitioning.
o. "Subdivision" means either an act of subdividing
land or a tract of land subdivided as defined in this section.
(Ord. 1318 Sl, 1962).
17.04.020 Scope of regulations. Subdivision plats,
minor land partitioning, and streets and ways created for
the purpose of partitioning land shall be approved by the
planning commission in accordance with thes~ regulations.
No person shall subdivide land, partition land by creation
of a street or way, or engage in minor land partitioning
without complying with this title and the state law. (Ord.
1318 S2, 1962).
Chapter 17.08
DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
17.08.010
17.08.020
17.08.030
17.08.040
17.08.050
17.08.060
17.08.070
Acceptability--Principles.
Streets.
Blocks.
Lots.
Lot grading.
Large lot subdivision.
Land for public purposes.
17.08.010 Acceptability--Princip1es. The subdivision
shall conform with any development plans and shall take into
consideration any preliminary plans made in anticipation
thereof. The subdivision shall conform with the requirements
of state laws and the standards established by this title.
(Ord. 1318 S22" 1962) .
17.08.020 Streets. A. General. The location, width,
and grade of streets shall be considered in relation to exist-
ing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, to
public convenience and safety, and to the proposedo~~~IRED
the land to be served by the streets. The street ~~~
shall assure an adequate traffic circulation system. Inter-
section angles, grades, tangents, and curves ShallAbe ~ ..nn7
J N 1 I ',','\
242
10,/
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
17.08.02"0
appropriate for the traffic to be carried and to the ter-
rain. Where location is not shown on a development plan,
the arrangement of streets in a subdivision shall either:
1. Provide for the continuation or appropriate pro-
jection of existing principal streets in surrounding areas;
or
2. Conform to a plan for the neighborhood approved
or adopted by the planning commission to meet a particular
situation where topographical or other conditions make
continuance or conformance to existing streets impractical.
B. Minimum Right-of-Way. Unless otherwise indicated
on the development plan, the width of streets in feet shall
not be less than the following:
Type of Street
Minimum Right-of-Way
Arterials
Commercial and industrial streets
Collector streets
Minor streets
Radius for turnaround at end of
cul-de-sacs
Alleys
80 feet
80 feet
60 feet
47 feet
45 feet
20.feet
Where existing conditions, particularly the topography
or the size and shape of land parcels, make it otherwise
impractical to provide buildable lots, the planning commis-
sion may accept a narrower right-of-way with suitable allow-
ance for increased width at strategic locations for turning
lanes, parking bays, or similar special design features.
C. Reserve Strips. Reserve strips or street plugs
controlling the access to streets will not be approved
unless necessary for the protection of the public welfare or
of substantial property rights and in these cases they may
be reguired. The control and disposal of the land composing
such strips or street plugs shall be placed within the juris-
diction of the city under conditions approved by the planning
commission.
D. Alignment. All streets as far as is practical shall
be in alignment with existing streets by continuations of the
center lines thereof. The staggering of street alignment
resulting in "T" intersections shall wherever practical leave
a minimum distance of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet
between the center lines of streets.
E. Future Extension of Streets. Where necessary to
give access to or permit a satisfactory future subdivision
of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary
of the subdivision and the resulting dead-end streets may be
approved without a turnaround. Reserve strips andRs6~
plugs may be required to preserve the objectives of street
extensions.
JA N 1 -\107
I / ';:'.
243
I/o
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
17.08.020
F. Intersection P.ngles. Streets shall be laid out to
intersect at an angle as near to a right angle as practical,
except where topography requires a lesser angle. Property
lines at intersections with arterial street~ shall have a
minimum corner radius of twenty (20) feet and property lines
at other street and alley intersections shall have a minimum
corner radius adequate to allow sidewalk and utility space
and a curb radius of ten (10) feet.
G. Existing Streets. Whenever existing streets adja-
cent to or within a tract are inof adequate width, addition~l
right-of-way shall be provided at the time of subdivision.
H. Half Streets. Half streets, while generally not
acceptable, may be approved when essential to the reasonable
development of the subdivision, when in conformity with the
other requirements of these regulations, and when the planning
commission finds it will be practical to require the dedica-
tion of the other half when the adjoining property is sub-
divided. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to
be subdivided, the other half of the street shall be platted
within such tract. Reserve strips and street plugs may be
required to preserve the objectives of the half streets.
I. Cul-de-sacs. A cul-de-sac shall be as short as
possible and shall have a maximum length of five hundred
(500) feet. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate with a circular
turnaround unless alternate designs for turning and reversing
direction are approved by the planning commission.
J. Street Names. No street name shall be used which
will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing
streets in Ashland and vicinity except for extensions of
existing streets. Streets which are an extension of, or are
in alignment with, existing streets shall have the same name
as the existing street. Street names and numbers shall con-
form to the established pattern in the city and shall be sub-
ject to the approval of the planning commission.
K. Grades. Street grades shall not exceed the follow-
ing:
Type of Street
Maximum Grade
Arterials
Collector streets
Minor streets
7 percent
10 percent
15 percent
Where existing conditions, particularly the topography,
make it otherwise impractical to provide buildable lots, the
planning commission may accept steeper grades. In flat areas
allowance shall be made for finished street grades having a
minimum slope of one-half of one percent (0.5%).
L. Streets Adjacent to Railroad Right-of-Way. ~~@xer
the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent toR~vta11~oad
right-of-way, provision may be required f?r a street
J "'.I 1 - "n!
J\!~ i / '_~;'
244
/ II
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions '
l7{vS.030--l7.0a.040
approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-
way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of the
land between the streets and the railroad. The distance
shall be great enou9h to provide sufficient depth to allow
screen planting along the railroad right-of-way.
M. Marginal Access Streets. Where a subdivision abuts
or contains an existing or proposed arterial street, the
planning commission may require marginal access streets,
reverse frontage lots with suitable depth, screen planting
contained in a nonaCCess reservation along the rear or side
property line, or such other treatment as may be necessary
for adequate protection of residential properties and to
afford separation of through and local traffic.
N. Alleys. Alleys shall be provided in commercial and
industrial districts, unless other permanent provisions for
access to off-street parking and loading facilities are made
as approved by the planning commission. (Ord. 1318 S23, 1962).
17.08.030 Blocks. A. General. The length, width,
and shape of blocks shall be designed with due regard to
providing building sites for the use contemplated, considera-
tion of needs for convenient access, circulation, control,
and safety of street traffic, and recognition of the limita-
tions and opportunities of topography.
B. Sizes. Blocks shall not exeed one thousand three
hundred twenty (1,320) feet in length, except blocks adja-
cent to arterial streets or unless the previbus adjacent lay-
out or topographical conditions justify an exception.
c. Block Width. Blocks shall have a sufficient width
to provide for two (2) tiers of lots.
D. Easements.
1. utility Lines. Easements for sewers, water mains,
electric lines, or other public utilities shall be dedicated
wherever necessary. The easements shall be a minimum of ten
(10) feet in width.
2. Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed
by a watercourse such as a dra~nage way, channel, or stream,
there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage
right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the
watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for
the purpose. Streets or parkways parallel to major water-
courses may be required.
3. Pedestrian Ways. When desirable for public
convenience, pedestrian ways may be required to connect to
cul-de-sacs, to pass through oddly shaped or unusually long
blocks, or to provide access to schools, parks, or other
public areas. (Ord. 1318 S24, 1962).
17.08.040 Lots. A. Size and Shape. Lot si~E~e,
width, and orientation shall be appropriate for the location
of the subdivision and for the type of use contemfAl~atr1.;;o7
245
II~
City of Ashland
Community Development
In ..-Y-
Subdivisions
17.08.050
The width of every lot shall be at least sixty (60) feet
except that corner lots shall have a width of at least sixty-
five (65) feet to permit appropriate building setbacks from
both streets. In the case of irregular lots, the width shall
be measured from the front building line. Lots shall have an
average depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet unless
existing conditions make it mandatory that lots be reduced
in depth, in which case the lot depth may not be less than
eighty (80) feet. Lots shall have an average depth of not
more than one hundred fifty (150) feet except when the lot
width at the front building line is in excess of one hundred
(100) feet. These minimum standards shall apply with the
following exceptions:
1. In areas that will not be served by a public
sewer, minimum lot size shall be increased to conform with
the requirements of the county health department and shall
take into consideration problems of water supply and sewage
disposal;
2. Minimum lot standards shall not conflict with
city zoning standards;
3. Where property is zoned and planned for industrial
or business use, other standards may be permitted at the
discretion of the planning commission. Depth and width of
properties reserved or laid out for commercial and industrial
purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street
service and parking facilities required by the type of use
and development contemplated.
B. Access. Each lot shall abut upon a street other
than an ~lley for a width of at least forty (40) feet except
in the case of lots located upon the curved portion of cul-
de-sacs or other streets or in the case where topography
warrants narrower access. In no case shall a lot abut upon
a street for a width of less than twenty-five (25) feet.
C. Through Lots. Through lots shall be avoided except
where essential to provide separation of residential develop-
ment from major traffic arteries or adjacent nonresidential
activities or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography
and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least
ten (10) feet, across which there shall be no right of access,
may be required along the line of lots abutting such a traf-
fic artery or other disadvantageous use. Through lots with
planting screens shall have a minimum average depth of one
hundred ten (110) feet.
D. Lot Side Lines. The side lines of lots, as far as
practicable, shall run at right angles to the street upon
which the lot faces. (Ord. 1318 ~25, 1962).
the
the
17.08.050 Lot grading. Lot grading shall cO~ffi\/~
following standards unless physical conditionsr~e~~~~ate
propriety of other standards:
A. Cut slopes shall not be steeper than one JAIfP ,o;:t1e"S~alf
246
116
City of Ashland
Community Development
bd' " I
Su 1V1S1ons
It. AI. 060--17 .12.010
(1-1/2) feet horizontally to one (1) foot vertically.
B. Fill slopes shall not be steeper than two (2) feet
horizontally to one (1) foot vertically.
C. Cut slopes and fill slopes along side and rear lot
lines shall be planted with ground cover and shrubs or trees,
or by some other method approved by the city. (Ord. 1318
S26, 1962).
17.08.060 Large lot subdivision. In subdividing tracts
into large lots which at some future time are likely to be
resubdivided, the planning commission may require that the
blocks shall be of a size and shape, be divided into lots
and contain building site restrictions to provide for exten-
sion and opening of streets at intervals which will permit
a subsequent division of each parcel into lots of smaller
size. (Ord. 1318 S27, 1962).
17.08.070 Land for pUblic purposes. A. The planning
commission may require the reservation for public acquisition,
at a cost not to exceed acreage values in the area prior to
subdivision, of appropriate areas within the subdivision for
a period not to exceed one (1) year providing the city has
an interest on the part of the State Highway Commission,
school district, or other public agency to acquire a portion
of the area within the proposed subdivision for a public
purpose, including substantial assurance that positive steps
will be taken in the reasonable future for the acquisition.
B. The planning commission may require the dedication
of suitable areas for the parks and playgrounds that will be
required for the use of the population which is intended to
occupy the subdivision. (Ord. 1318 S28, 1962).
Chapter 17.12
APPROVAL OF STREETS AND WAYS
Sections:
17.12.010
17.12.020
Creation of streets.
Creation of private ways.
17.12.010 Creation of streets. A. The creation of a
street shall be in conformance with requirements for subdivi-
sion except that the planning commission shall approve the
creation of a street to be established by deed without full
compliance with the regulations applicable to subd~visions
when any of the following conditions exist: HECEIVED
1. The establishment of the street is initiated by
the city council and is declared essential for the p. ur~ose.
JAN 1 I '''0"7
, I.v I
247
/1'-1
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
17.12.020
of general traffic circulation and the partitioning of land
is an incidental effect rather than the primary objective of
the street;
2. The tract in which the street is to be dedicated
is an isolated ownership of one (1) acre or less.
B. In those cases where approval of a street may be
given without full compliance with the regulations applicable
to subdivision, a copy of the proposed deed shall be submitted
to the city at least five (5) days prior to the planning com-
mission meeting at which consideration is requested. The
deed and such information as may be submitted shall be re-
viewed by the planning commission and, if not in conflict
with the standards of Sections 17.08.010 through 17.08.070,
shall be approved with conditions necessary to preserve
these standards. (Ord. 1318 S18, 1962).
17.12.020 Creation of private ways. A. Any easement
of way providing access to property and which is created in
order to allow the partitioning of land for the purpose of
transfer of ownership or building development, whether im-
mediate or future, shall be in the form of a street either
in a subdivision or as provided in Section 17.12.010, except
that a private way to be established by deed without full
compliance with these regulations shall be approved by the
planning commission if it is the only reasonable method by
which the rear portion of an unusually deep lot large enough
to warrant partitioning into two (2) parcels may be provided
with access.
B. If, at the time an access way is proposed, the
existing lot is large enough so that three (3) or more par-
cels meeting the lot size minimums, of the zoning ordinance
in effect at the time may be created and two (2) or more of
the parcels would not have frontage on an existing street,
. a private way will not be acceptable and a street shall be
dedicated.
C. A private way shall be at least twelve (12) feet
wide.
D. A copy of the proposed document for creation of a
private way shall be submitted to the city at least five (5)
days prior to the planning commission meeting at which con-
sideration is requested. The document and such information
as may be submitted shall be reviewed by the planning com-
. mission and shall be approved if assurance of adequate utility
and vehicular access is indicated. (Ord. 1318 S19, 1962).
RECEIVED
J!\N 1 7 :2007
248
/15'
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
. 17..~6.010--17.16.020
Chapter 17.16
MINOR LAND PARTITIONING
Sections:
17.16.010
17.16.020
Conditions for approval.
Procedure for approval.
17.16.010 Conditions for approval. A. Proposals for
minor land partitioning shall be submitted to the city for
approval except under the following conditions:
1. Partitioning within a recorded subdivision pro-
vitled all resulting parcels will comply with city zoning
standards;
2. Partitioning within an area which has been desig~
nated by the planning commission on an adopted development
plan as containing no problems of access provided all result-
ing parcels will comply with city zoning standards.
B. Proposals for minor land partitioning shall be approved
by the planning commission when the following conditions
exist:
1. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder
of the tract under the same ownership will not be impeded;
2. The development of the remainder of any adjoin-
ing land or access thereto will not be impeded;
3. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law
or ordinance applicable to the land being subdivided;
4. The partitioning is in accordance with any develop-
ment plan adopted by the city planning commission and with
the standards of Sections 17.0B.OIO through 17.08.070. (Ord.
1318 S20, 1962).
17.16.020 Procedure for approval. Minor land parti-
tioning shall be approved under the following procedure:
A. There shall be submitted to the city four (4) copies
of a sketch map eight and one-half (8-1/2 x 11) inches, or
eighteen by twenty-four (18 x 24) inches, in size with the
following information:
1. The date, north point, scale, and sufficient
description to define the location and boundaries of the
parcel to be partitioned;
2. Name and address of the owner and of the person
who prepared the sketch map;
3. Approximate acreage of the parcel under a single
ownership or, if more than one ownership is involved, the
total contiguous acreage of all owners of land dirir~CEIJrb
volved in the partitioning; -
4. For land adjacent to and within the parcel to
be partitioned, the location, width, and names of all streets;
~~~!\ 1\; ~ ~ .1_J07
249
/I/P
City of Ashland
Community Development
In
Subdivisions
17.16.020
5. Outline and location of existing buildings to
remain in place;
6. Layout showing size and relationship of land
parcels to existing or proposed streets and utility ease-
ments;
7. Such additional information as may be required
by the planning commission;
8. A filing fee of twenty dollars ($20.00), no part
of which is refundable.
B. The sketch map shall be submitted to the city engi-
neer who will check it with any development plan for the
area. If the sketch map conforms with the development plan,
the minor land partitioning may be approved without being
submitted to the planning commission.
C. If the proposed minor land partitioning does not
appear to comply with the requirements for routine administra-
tive approval, the sketch map shall be submitted to the
planning commission. The planning commission may require
dedication of land easements and may specify conditions or
modifications in the sketch map necessary to carry out the
development plan. In no event shall the planning commission
require greater dedications or conditions than could be re-
quired if the parcel were subdivided.
D. If the parcel of land to be partitioned exceeds
five (5) acres and is being partitioned into more than two
(2) parcels within a year, anyone of which is less than one
(1) acre, full compliance with all requirements for subdivi-
sion may be required if the planning commission should deter-
mine that the entire parcel being partitioned is in the
process of being divided into small parcels.
E. When a sketch map has been approved, all copies
shall be marked with the date and conditions, if any, of
approval. Two (2) copies shall be returned to the applicant,
one (1) copy shall be retained by the city, and one (1) copy
shall be retained in the planning commission files. (Ord.
1689 ~2, 1971; Ord. 1318 ~21, 1962).
Chapter 17.20
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Sections:
17.20.010
17.20.020
17.20.030
17.20.040
17.20.050
17.20.060
Tentative subdivision sketch.
Submission.
Scale.
General information.
Existing conditions.
Land partitioning--Proposed plan. "
RECEiVED
" .~ \
250
1/1
City of Ash!ilnd
Community Development
Subdivisions
17 ,b.010--17.20.040
Sections: (Continued)
17.20.070
17.20.080
17.20.090
Partial development.
Explanatory information.
Tentative approval.
17.20.010 Tentative subdivision sketch. A subdivider
shall submit a sketch to the city of a tentative scheme for
the layout of property to be subdivided. Following prelimi-
nary consultation and discussion, the sUbdivider may proceed
to prepare a preliminary plat for submission to the planning
commission. (Ord. 1318 S3, 1962).
17.20.020 Submission. The subdivider shall prepare a
preliminary plat and other supplementary material as may be
required to indicate the general program and objectives of
the project, and shall submit three (3) copies of the prelimi-
nary plat to the office of the director of public works/city
engineer at least fifteen (15) days prior to the planning
. commission meeting at which consideration of the plat is
desired. The copies of the plat and supplementary materials
shall be accompanied by a subdivision plan check feet of
five dollars ($5.00) for each lot being created or amended.
All except twenty dollars ($20.00) of said fee is refundable
in the event that the preliminary plat is disapproved by the
planning commission, or if a final plat is not filed in
accordance with Chapter 17.24, relating to final plats.
(Ord. 1689 Sl, 1971: Ord. 1318 S4, 1962).
17.20.030 Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn
on a sheet eighteen by twenty-four (18 x 24) inches in size
or a multiple thereof at a scale of one (1) inch equals one
hundred (100) feet, or, for areas ove~ one hundred (100)
acres, one (1) inch equals two hundred (200) feet. (Ord.
1318 S5, 1962).
17.20.040 General information. The following general
information shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
A. Proposed name of the sUbdivision, which must not
duplicate nor resemble the name of another subdivision in
Jackson County and shall be approved by the planning commis-
sion;
B. Date, north point, and scale of drawing;
C. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map
is a preliminary plat;
D. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define
the location and boundaries of the proposed tract;
E. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and
engineer or surveyor. COrd. 1318 S6, 1962). RECEIVED
IA~\; ~ --- ."\f'i7
l, ,h i / ,JllJ.
251
II ~
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
17:~J.050--17.20.080
17.20.050 Existing conditions. The following existing
conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat:
A. The location, width, and names of all existing or
platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together
with easements and other important features, such as section
lines and corners, city boundary lines, and monuments;
B. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas
subject to flooding;
C. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes,
wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees; .
.D. Existing uses of the property, including location
of all existing structures to remain on the property after
platting;
E. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract. (Ord. 1318
S7, 1962).
17.20.060 Land partitioning--Proposed plan. The follow-
ing information shall be included on the preliminary plat:
A. The location, width, names, and approximate grades
of streets, and the relationship of the streets to any pro-
jected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by
the planning commission or, if there is no development plan,
as suggested by the city to assure adequate area traffic
circulation;
B. The location and purpose of easements;
C. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed
lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks;
D. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than
single family dwellings. (Ord. 1318 S8, 1962).
17.20.070 Partial development. Where the plat to be
subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled
by the subdivider, the planning commission may require a sketch
of a tentative layout for streets in the unsubdivided portion.
(Ord. 1318 S9, 1962).
17.20.080 Explanatory information. The following in-
formation shall be submitted in separate statements accom-
panying the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be
shown on the preliminary plat:
A. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivision,
streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed sub-
division and showing how proposed streets may be extended to
connect with the existing streets;
B. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form;
C. Where there are slopes in excess of ten percent (10%)
within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary grading plan
may be required by the planning commission. The grading plan
should show existing and finished grades on lots a~~~s
proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading
plan shall be approved by the planning commission. (Ord.
1318 '~lO, 1962). ....t..
252
/19
City Of l<h!"lid
Community D8ve1op.'l1',nt
Subdivisions
;
l7~~O.090--l7.24.0l0
17.20.090 Tentative approval. A. Within thirty (30)
days from the first regular planning commission meeting fol-
lowing submission of the plat, the planning commission will
review the plan and may give tentative approval of the
preliminary plat as submitted or as it may be modified or,
if disapproved, shall express its disapproval and its reasons
therefor.
B. Approval of the preliminary plat shall indicate the
planning commission's approval of the final plat provided
there is no change in the plan of subdivision as shown on
the preliminary plat and there is full compliance with the
requirements of this title.
C. The action of the planning commission shall be noted
on two (2) copies of the preliminary plat, including reference
to any attached documents describing conditions. One (1) copy
shall be returned to the subdivider and the other retained by
the planning commission. (Ord. 1318 Sll, 1962).
Chapter 17.24
FINAL PLAT
Sections:
17.24.010
17.24.020
17.24.030
17.24. 040
17.24.050
17.24.060
17.24.070
17.24.080
Submission.
Information.
Supplemental information.
Technical review.
Approval.
Agreement for improvements.
Bond.
Filing.
17.24.010 Submission. Within six (6) months after
tentative approval of the preliminary plat, the subdivider
shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be sur-
veyed and a final plat prepared in conformance with the
preliminary plat as tentatively approved. The subdivider
shall submit the original drawing, the cloth copy, five (5)
prints of the final plat, and any supplementary information
to the city. If the subdivider wishes to proceed with the
subdivision after the expiration of the six (6) month period
following the tentative approval of the preliminary plat by
the planning commission, he must resubmit his preliminary
plat to the planning commission and make any revision con-
sidered necessary to meet changed conditions. (Or~~Cbi~~D
S12, 1962). C c
\.' ,:\ \;
253
I~~
City ot Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
17.24.020
17.24.020 Information. In addition to that otherwise
specified by law, the following information shall be shown
on the final plat:
A. The date, scale, north point, legend, and controlling
topography such as creeks, ditches, highways, and railroad
right-of-way;
B. Legal description of the tract boundaries;
C. Name and address of the owner, subdivider, and engi-
neer or surveyor;
D. Reference points of existing surveys identified, re-
lated to the plat by distances and bearings, and referenced
to a field book or map as follows:
1. Stakes, monuments, or other evidence found on
the ground and used to determine the boundaries of the sub-
division,
2. Adjoining cor~ers of adjoining subdivisions,
3. Other monuments found or established in making
the survey of the sUbdivision or required to be installed
by provisions of this title;
E. The exact location and width of streets and ease-
ments intersecting the boundary of the tract;
F. Lines with dimensions, bearings or deflection angles,
radii, arcs, points of curvature and tangent bearings for
tract, lot, and block boundaries, and street right-of-way
and center lines. Tract boundaries and street bearings shall
be shown to the nearest ten (10) seconds with basis of bear-
ings. All distances shall be shown to the nearest one-
hundredth (0.01) feet. No ditto marks shall be used;
G. The width of the portion of streets being dedicated,
the width of any existing right-of-way and the width on each
side of the center line. For streets on curvature, curve
data shall be based on the street center line and, in addi-
tion to center line dimensions, the radius and central angle
shall be indicated;
H. Easements denoted by fine dotted lines, clearly
identified and, if already of record, its recorded reference;
if an easement is not definitely located of record, a state-
ment of the easement; the width of the easement, its length
and bearing and sufficient ties to locate the easement with
respect to the subdivision must be shown; if the easement
is being dedicated by the map, it shall be properly refer-
enced in the owner's certificate of dedication;
I. Lot numbers beginning with the number "1" and num-
bered consecutively in each block;
J. Block numbers beginning with the number "1" and
continuing consecutively without omission or duplication
throughout the subdivision. The numbers shall be solid, of
sufficient size and thickness to stand out and so placed as
not to obliterate any figure. Block numbers in &lE~~~tlon
to a subdivision of the same name shall be a continuation of
.'\ "
,..,,'......;
254
/ ~/
City of {i,sillancJ
Community Develop..,ent
Subdivisions
li.~4.030--17.24.040
the numbering in the original subdivision;
K. Land parcels to be dedicated for any purpose,
or private, to be distinguished from lots intended for
L. Building setback lines, if any are to be made
part of the subdivision restrictions;
M. The following certificates which may be combined
where appropriate:
1. A certificate signed and acknowledged by all
parties having record title interest in the land, consenting
to the preparation and recording of the plat,
2. A certificate signed and acknowledged as above,
dedicating all parcels of land shown on the final plat and
intended for any public use, except those parcels which are
intended for the exclusive use of the lot owners in the sub-
division, their licensees, visitors, and servants,
3. A certificate signed by the engineer or surveyor
responsible for the survey and final map (the signature of
the engineer or surveyor to be accompanied by his seal),
4. All other certifications now or hereafter required
(Ord. 1318 S13, 1962).
public
sale;
a
by law.
17.24.030 Supplemental information. The following
shall accompany the final plat:
A. A subdiviSion guarantee or other report from a title
insurance company which shows all of the parties who are
either the fee owners or mortgage or lien holders concern-
ing the land to be subdivided;
B. Sheets and drawings showing the following:
1. Traverse data including the coordinates of the
boundary of the subdivision and showing the error of closure,
if any,
2. The computation of all distances, angles, and
courses shown on the final map,
3. Ties to existing monuments, proposed monuments,
adjacent subdivisions, and street corners;
C. A copy of any deed restrictions applicable to the
subdivision. (Ord. 1750 Sl, 1972; Ord. 1318 S14, 1962).
17.24.040 Technical review. Upon receipt by the city,
the final map and other data shall be reviewed by the city
engineer who shall determine whether the subdivision as shown
is substantially the same as it appeared on the approved
preliminary plat and that there has been compliance with
provisions of the law and of this code. The city may make
such checks in the field as are desirable to verify that the
map is sufficiently correct on the ground and city representa-
tives may enter the property for this purpose. If the city
engineer determines that full conformity has not been made,
he shall advise the subdivider of the changes or ~~~
that must be made and shall afford the subdivider an oppor-
tunity to make the changes or additions. (Ord. 1318 S15,
1962) . \.! A N 1 ~
255
I tI:. ~
City of Ashland
Community Development
(
.
Subdivisions
17:_~.050--17.24.070
17.24.050 Approval. If the city engineer determines
that the final plat is in full conformance with the approved
preliminary plat and other regulations, he shall so advise
the chairman of the planning commission. The chairman of
the Planning commission and the city engineer may then sign
the plat without further action by the planning commission.
If the final plat is not in full conformance or if the city
engineer elects, he shall submit the plat to the planning
commission. If the final plat is referred to the chairman
of the planning commission for signature without submission
to the planning commission, he may elect to submit the plat
to the planning commission for further review. W~en sub-
mitted to the planning commission, approval of the final
plat shall be by a majority of those present. If the plat
is signed without further review by the planning commission,
the action shall be reported to the planning commission by
the chairman of the commission at the next regular meeting.
Provided, however, that prior to certifying its approval
on the final plat, the planning commission shall require
the subdivider to file the agreement and bond or make the
deposit required in Sections 17.24.060 and 17.24.070. The
approval of the final plat shall not be deemed to constitute
or effect an acceptance by the public of the dedication of
any street or other easement or way shown on the plat. (Ord.
1467 (part), 1966: Ord. 1318 ~16, 1962).
17.24.060 Agreement for improvements. Before planning
commission approval is certified on the final map the sub-
divider shall either install required improvements or shall
execute and file with the city recorder an agreement between
himself and the city, specifying the period within which he
or his agent or contractor shall complete all improvement
work required by or pursuant to this title, and providing
that if he shall fail to complete such work within such
period the city may complete the same and recover the full
cost and expense thereof from the subdivider. The agreement
shall also provide for reimbursement of the city by the sub-
divider for the cost of inspection by the city engineer.
Such agreement may also provide for the construction of the
improvements in units, for an extension of time under condi-
tions therein specified, and for the termination of the agree-
ment upon the completion of proceedings under an assessment
district act for the construction of improvements deemed by
the city to be at least the equivalent of the improvements
specified in said agreement and required to be constructed
by the subdivider. (Ord. 1467 (part), 1966: Ord. 1318 ~16A,
1962) .
17.24.070 Bond. A. The subdivider shall f~~~~~~D the
agreement, to assure his full and faithful performance thereof,
one of the following:
1. A personal bond cosigned by at least \J<A~e 1ap4001ional
256
I,,~
City of Ashland
Community Development
,j
Subdivisions'
17.24.080
person who shall not be related to the subdivider by blood
or consanguinity; the subdivider and cosigner shall submit
evidence of financial responsibility and the financial re-
sources of those signing the bond shall provide reasonable
assurance of the ability of the subdivider to proceed in
accordance with the agreement;
2. A surety bond executed by a surety company au-
thorized to transact business in the state;
3. Cash.
B. Such assurance of full and fai~hful performance
shall be for a sum approved by the city administrator as
sufficient to cover the cost of said improvements, engineer-
ing, inspection, and incidental expenses, and to cover re-
placement and repair of existing streets and other public
improvements damaged in the development of the subdivision
and must be approved by the city attorney as to form.
C. In the event the subdivider fails to complete all
improvement work in accordance with the provisions of this
title, and the city has completed same, or if the subdivider
fails to reimburse the city for the cost of inspection,
engineering, and incidental expenses, and to cover cost of
replacement and repair of existing streets or other improve-
ments damaged in the development of the subdivision, the city
shall call on the surety for reimbursement, or shall appropriate
from any cash deposits funds for reimbursement. In any such
case, if the amount of surety bond or cash deposit exceeds
all cost and expense incurred by the city, it shall release
the remainder of such bond or cash deposit, and if the amount
of the surety bond or cash deposit is less than the cost and
expense incurred by the city, the subdivider is liable to
the city for such difference. (Ord. 1467 (part), 1966: Ord.
1318 ~16B, 1962).
17.24.080 Filing. The subdivider shall, without delay,
submit the final plat for signatures of other public officials
required by law. Approval of the final plat is null and void
if the plat is not recorded within thirty (30) days after
the date the last required signature has been obtained.
(Ord. 1318 ~17, 1962).
Chapter 17.28
IMPROVEMENTS
Sections:
17.28.010
17.28.020
17.28.030
Improvement procedure.
Improvement requirements.
Underground utilities--Required.
RECEiveD
JM;
257
/ .:; 'I
City of Ashland
Community Development
-~--
Subdivisions
j
l7.~8.0l0--l7.28.020
Sections:
(Continued)
17.28.040
17.28.050
17.28.060
17.28.070
Underground utilities--Exceptions.
Underground utilities--Costs.
Underground utilities--Rules and regulations.
Safety street lighting.
17.28.010 Improvement procedure. In addition to other
requirements, improvements installed by the subdivider either
as a requirement of these regulations or at his own option
shall conform to the requirements of this title and improve-
ment standards and specifications followed by the city. The
improvements shall be installed in accordance with the follow-
ing procedure:
A. Work shall not begin until plans have been checked
for adequacy and approved by the city. To the extent neces-
sary for evaluation of the subdivision proposal, the plans
may be required before approval of the final map;
B. Work shall not begin until the city has been noti-
fied in advance, and if work has been discontinued for any
reason, it shall not be resumed until the city has been
notified;
C. Improvements shall be cons.tructed under the inspec-
tion and to the satisfaction of the city. The city may re-
quire changes in typical sections and details if unusual
conditions arise during construction to warrant the change
in the public interest;
D. All underground utilities, sanitary sewers, and storm
drains installed in streets shall be constructed prior to the
surfacing of such streets. Stubs for service connections
for all underground utilities and sanitary sewers shall be
placed to such length as will obviate the necessity for
disturbing the street improvements when service connections
are made;
E. A map showing all public improvements as built shall
be filed with the city administrator upon completion of said
improvements. (Ord. 1467 (part), 1966: Ord. 1318 S29, 1962).
17.28.020 Improvement requirements. Improvements to be
installed at the expense of the subdivider are as follows:
A. Streets. All streets shall be graded for the en-
tire right-of-way width, and roadways shall be improved with
paving, curbs, gutters, and drainage. The subdivider shall
improve the extension of all subdivision streets to the center
line of existing streets with which subdivision streets inter-
sect;
B. Structures. Structures specified as necessary by
the city, for drainage, access, and public safety s~btl~~D
installed;
C. Sidewalks. Sidewalks need not be installed unless
required by the planning commission;
, .
~ /\i\
. :.\
258
/!LS
City of Ashland
Community Development
Subdivisions
17.28.030--17.28.060
D. Sewers.' Sanitary sewer facilities connecting with
the existing city sewer system shall be installed to serve
each lot. No septic tanks or cesspools will be permitted
within the city. Storm water sewers shall be installed as
required by the city;
E. Water. Water mains and fire hydrants of design,
layout, and locations approved by the director of public
works as conforming to city standards shall be installed;
F. Street trees. Street trees may be required by the
planning commission and shall conform with the city street
tree plan;
G. Monuments. Upon completion of street improvements,
monuments shall be reestablished and protected in monument
boxes at every street intersection and all points of curva-
ture and points of tangency of street center lines. (Ord.
1467 (part), 1966: Ord. 1318 S30, 1962).
17.28.030 Underground uti1ities--Required. All on-site
utility lines, including but not limited to, electric, com-
munications, street lighting, and cable television, shall be
installed underground; except as provided in Section 17.28.040.
For the purpose of this section, appurtenances and associated
equipment such as, but not limited to, surface-mounted trans-
formers, pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets,
terminations for concealed ducts in an underground system,
and street lighting structures and fixtures may be placed
above ground. This section does not apply to utility lines
which do not provide service to the area being subdivided.
(Ord. 1745 Sl(part), 1972: Ord. 1318 S30-A, 1962).
17.28.040 Underground utilities--Exceptions. Minor
land partitions shall not be required to provide underground
utilities, provided that all new service for residential uses
shall have installed a service panel and stubbed conduit to
convert to underground utilities at a future date. (Ord.
1745 Sl(part), 1972: Ord. 1318 S30-B, 1962).
17.28.050 Underground uti1ities--Costs. The utilities
shall bear all costs of new service facilities in new sub-
divisions, except trenching and backfilling, and any required
conduit in place, which costs shall be the responsibility of
the developer. (Ord. 1745 Sl(part), 1972: Ord. 1318 S30-C,
1962) .
17.28.060 Underground uti1ities--Ru1es and regulations.
The common council may, by resolution, adopt rules and regula-
tions governing the installation and allocation of costs for
underground utility extension within residential sU~X~R~qns.
Such rules and regulations shall not supersede the ~~~~ldl
tion of the public utility commissioner or duly filed tariffs
of utilities or be inconsistent with ORS 758.210 toJ58.270
L1J-\!\ i.: i.l\L
259 / ~ ~
City of Asrl/and
Community Development
Subdivisions
17.28.070--17.32.020
relating to conversion of aerial to underground service.
(Ord. 1745 Sl(part) , 1972: Ord. 1318 S30-D, 1962).
17.28.070 Safety street lighting. Safety street light-
ing shall be provided by the developer in new subdivision and
in private developments of five (5) acres or more. Developer
shall bear all costs except wiring, maintenance and energy.
All street lighting improvements shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the electric superintendent in accordance
with the specifications on file in his office. The amount
and intensity of illumination provided for street lighting
shall be in accordance with the standards established by the
Illuminating Engineering Society, American Standard Associa-
tion, as approved by the electric superintendent. (Ord.
1745 Sl(part) , 1972: Ord. 1318 S30-E, 1962).
Chapter 17.32
EXCEPTIONS, VARIANCES AND ENFORCEMENT
Sections:
17.32.010
17.32.020
17.32.030
17.32.040
17.32.050
Exceptions--Large scale development.
Variance--Application.
Variance--Action.
Appeal.
Penalties.
17.32.010 Exceptions--Large scale development. The
planning commission may modify the standards and requirements
of this title if the subdivision plat comprises a complete
neighborhood unit, a large scale shopping center, or a
planned industrial area. The planning commission shall
determine that such modifications are not detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare and that adequate
provision is made within the development for traffic circula-
tion, open space, and other features that may be required in
the public interest. (Ord. 1318 S3l, 1962).
17.32.020 Variance--Application. When necessary, the
planning commission may authorize conditional ~ariances to
the requirements of this title. Application for a variance
shall be made by petition of the subdivider, stating fully
the grounds for the application. The petition shall be filed
with the preliminary plat of the subdivision. Before a vari-
ance may be granted, the planning commission shall ~I\rED
determine:
A. That there are special conditions affecting the
property that are not common to all property in th~:,!ar;e.a;
'W , '4 I '. ~.
260 /117
City of h;h!and
Corr;muni:y Devolo;:mlent
..
Subdivisions
17.32.030--17.32.050
"I
B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the peti-
tioner and extraordinary hardship would result from strict
compliance with these regulations because of the special
circumstances or conditions affecting the property;
C. That the variance complies with the spirit and in-
tent of these regulations and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to other
property in the vicinity. (Ord. 1318 S32, 1962).
17.32.030 Variance--Action. In granting a variance,
the planning commission shall make a written record of its
findings and shall specifically describe the variance and
any conditions which the commission may designate. The city
shall keep the findings on file as a matter of public record.
(Ord. 1318 S33, 1962).
17.32.040 Appeal. A. An appeal from any decision or
requirement of the city engineer pertaining to this title
shall be made to the planning commission. Written notice
of the appeal shall be filed with the city within ten (10)
days after the decision or requirement is made. The planning
commission shall hold a hearing on the appeal within forty
(40) days from the time the appeal is filed. Following the
hearing the planning commission may overrule or modify the
decision or requirement made by the city engineer if the
decision of the commission complies with the spirit and in-
tent of the title.
B. Any person may appeal to the city council from any
decision or requirement made by the planning commission.
Written notice of the appeal shall be filed with the city
within ten (10) days after the decision or requirement is
made. The notice of appeal shall state the nature of the
decision or requirement and the grounds for the appeal.
C. The city council shall hold a hearing on the appeal
within forty (40) days from the time the appeal is filed.
The council may continue the hearing for good cause. Follow-
ing the hearing the city council may overrule or modify the
decision or requirement made by the planning commission if
the decision of the council complies with the spirit and
intent of the title. The disposition of the appeal shall
be final. (Ord. 1318 S34, 1962).
17.32.050 Penalties. In addition to penalties provided
by state law, any person who violates or fails to comply with
any provisions of this title is, upon conviction thereof,
punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.010. (Ord. 1810
(part), 1974: Ord. 1318 S 36, 1962). RECEIVED
, ^ l. i
J f~ '\
261
/~s
City of hh!and
Cornmunily Dev( :q__,""c""
Attachment #4
1~1
RC:CElvT~U
. ,
>..i' i1, .~
City of ft.sr :Iand
Community Developlnent
In .
~
t,
ORDINANCE NO ~ ~~$iL
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND REPLACING IN
'THEIR ENTIRETY THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 17 AND 18
OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ZONING AND
SUBDIVISION MGULM'IONS or TIfE CIl'Y OP ASHLAND.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 1318 as amended and Title 17 relating
to SUbdivisions, and Ordinance No. 1361!"as amended and Title 18
relating ~o Zoning, shall be replaced in their entirety as set
forth in Exhibi~ "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, ex-
cept as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
,
. SECTION 2. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1943vand Section 4.14.030
of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
"4.14.030 Filing Fees. At the time of submitting the
required application, a filing fee shall be submitted
as required in Section 18.108.060 of the Municipal Code."
SECTION 3. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 1943:' and Section 4.14~0&0
of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
"4.14. 040 Public Hearing. Publ~c hearings shall be held as
set forth in Section 18.108.080 of the Municipal Code."
SECTION 4. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2019;- and Section 14.04.040(A)
bf the AShland Municipal Code shall be amended by amending the first
two lines thereof ~o read as follows:
MA. When wa~er main is provided by subdivider pursuant to
Chapter 18.80:"
SECTION 5. Section 2 of Ordinance No. 2019~ and Section l4.08.025(A)
of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by amending the first
three lines ~hereof ~o read as follows: .
RA. When sewer trunk line is provided by subdivider pursuan~
to Chapter 18.80, (outside of subdivisions only):"
";'
SECTION 6. Section 40f Ordinance No. 2012, and Section 15.04.095
of the AShland Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
"15.04.095 Building Permits - Required Street Dedication~.
In issuing building permits for proposed buildings, dedication
of abutting streets shall first be made to the City of Ashland
RECEIVED as follows:
A. Dedication of Streets -- Public Need. Whenever a property
JAN 1 ~ [007 owner requests a building permit, land' partition or subdivision
approval, and such proposed use of the land or division of the
land causes ~ public need for increased stree~ right of way, the
City ,of Ashland property owner shall dedica~e such addi ~ional right of way to the
Communltv Developmentc . f h d .. h ' bd . . ,
' 1ty 0 As Ian before approval 1S g1ven to 1S su 1v~s1on,
-1- /30
n---,------....-
l.
land partition or application for a building permit. In
determining public need the following factors shall be
considered.
1. Accommodation of increased traffic generated by the
development.
2. The ability to provide traffic circulation to neighbor-
ing properties in order to make the most economic use
of land, thereby fUlfilling the intent of the City Com-
prehensive Plan and State Planning Goals.
3. The health, safety, and welfare of future residents of
the area, if the area is developed ~hrough flag partitions
or other piecemeal, irregular means, causing inadequate
access.
4. Such other factors as may be found relevant during con-
sideration of a particular application.
B. Dedication of Streets -- Width established. Whenever a
property owner reqUests approval ot" a land partition, sub-
division or building permit, and his property abuts on a
street shown on Exhibit "An attached to Ordinance No. 2012
which is hereby incorporated herein, and the street at that
location is not dedicated to the widths required by Section
18.80.020{B) of this Code, approval of his application shall
only be granted after the property owner has dedicated such
required additional right-of-way to the City of Ashland. For
purposes of this Section, all streets not designated on Exhib-
it "An as arterials or collectors, shall be designated as
minor streets.
C. Dedication of Streets -- New Streets. Whenever a property
owner requests approval at a iand partition, SUbdivision or
building permit, and his property abuts on a planned street
Which has been adopted by resolution of a Planning Commission
as a part of a precise street plan for an area, approval of
his application shall only be granted after the property owner
has dedicated such required right of way to the City of Ashland.
D. Setbacks. All setbacks required under Title 18 of this
oode- shall he measured from the new right of way line estab-
lished pursuant to subsections A through C, above."
SECTiON 7. Section lS.04.190{B) (3) of the Ashland Municipal Code
shall be amended by ohanging the reference therein to Chapter 17.28
to "Section 18.80.060 of the Municipal Code."
SECTION 8. Ordinance No. 1433/and Chapter 15.32 of the Ashland ~uni-
cipal Code are hereby repealed.
SECTION 9. Severability. It is hereby declared to be the legis-
RECEIVE~tive intent of tne Council that if a provision, sentence, olause,
section or part of this ordinance is held illegal, invalid or uncon-
stitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstance, such
JAN' iA~eqality, invalidity, unconstitutionality or inapplicability shall
ribt affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, sentences,
clauses, sections or parts of the ordinance, or their application to
City of Ash'aother persons and circumstances.
Community pevc!ornent I ..:3/
-2-
. .
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in
accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on
the 4~ day of ~, 197f, and duly PASSED and ADO~TED
this /~ day of ~(J__jL~ , 19'?1.
ATTEST:
~~ ~~:..-
"NlamtlE. Franklin
City Recorder"- Treasurer
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~~*- day of
RECEIVED
\..i;:\ ,;
''\i1''
City of /\"hlal1d
Communi.y DeVt.,lc c'!il'ml
/ !;>:2-
-3- .
, 1971.
~t2
" .
EXHIBIT liB"
1. Add Section 18.08.135 to definitions to read as follows:
.18.08.135 Condominiums. A development providinq for
1ndivi!ual ownership of units or airspace in a multi-
unit structure or structures, in which the underlying
land and/or structures are held under joint dominion."
2. Add Section 18.08.305 to definitions to read as follows:
"18.08.305 Home-Oriented Commercial Activities. The
operation of small local-convenience businesses within
the Railroad District as identified by the Ashland
Historic Commission and approved by the City Council.
Such businesses may include grocery stores, barber
and beauty shops and similar uses, provided the resi-
dential character of the property is maintained and
no additional off~street parking shall be required."
3. Amend Section 18.20.040(0) in fifth line to remove comma between
the words -design" and "features".
4. Add a sentence to Sections 18.20.040(D), 18.24.040(0) and
18.28.040(0) to read:
ItThe Planning Commission shall adopt guidelines to be
used by the Staff Advisor in administering the 50%
decreases in the standard yard requirement, which
shall give due consideration to the protection of solar
access." .
5. Amend first sentence of Section 18.24.030(1) to read: "Retail
Commercial Uses located in a dwelling unit, within the Railroad
District as identified by the AShland Historic Commission and
approved by the City Council."
6. Amend Section 18.24.030 and 18.28.030 by adding new subsections
to be designated "J" and "I" respectively, to read:
"Condominiums arid condominium conversions of rental
units, subject to a demonstration of public need and
.lack of detrimental effect on the supply of ren~al
units or land for such units."
7. Delete subsection (D) from'" l'l 111 on .1l1{J _..il"'Section 18.44.030.
8. Delete subsection (D) from Section 18.48.020.
9. Amend subsection (A) of Section 18.48.030 to changeR~Q~gDto
last word in first line to "structure".
; '~
'0.'
,:li,i
-1-
/33>
City of Ashland
Community Development
..
; .
10. Amend subsection (A) of Section 18.60.050 to read: "A. The
City may top any tree which 1s in excess of those maximum
heights listed in Sections 18.60.020, 18.60.030 and 18.60.40,
or locate apprbpriate lights or markers on those trees as a
warning.-to the operators of aircraft."
11. Amend subsection (e) of Section 18.68.010 to read: "C. The
height of fences and walls in rear yard setback areas abutting
a public street shall be 48 inches or less if said fences or
wa1mare within 10 feet of the public street right of way."
12. Amend subsection (G) of Section 18.76.060 by changing the words
"City Recorder" in first line to "Planning Director".
13. Amend Section 18.80.020 by adding to subsection (B) (2) the follow-
ing sentence: "In the event the Planning Commission shall require
a street standard other than the basic standard, the recommendation
of the planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council
for final approval."
14. Amend subsection (D) (2) of Section 18.80.020 by revising the
first sentence to read: "Each lot shall abut upon a street,
other than an alley, for a width of at least forty (40) feet,
except in the case of lots located upon the curved portion of
CUl-de-sacs or knuckles, Or in the case where topography warrants
a narrower width."
15. Amend subsection (E) of Section 18.80.050 to change all references
from "City Engineer" to "City Surveyor".
16. Amend subsection (F) of Section 18.80.050 to change reference in
third line from "City Recorder" to "City Engineer."
17. Amend subsection (G) (2) of Section 18.80.050 to change both
references to city officials to "City Engineer".
18. Amend subsection (A) (5) of Section 18.80.060 to change refer-
ence from "City Administrator" to "City Engineer".
19. Amend subsection (C) of Section 18.84.040 to change reference
from "City Building Inspector" to "City Building Official".
20. Amend the first sentence of Section 18.88.020 to read:
"PUD development may be in the form of a mix of use
types (single-family, duplex, multiple-family), or one
may predominate. Commercial uses permitted in theC-5
District may be incorporated to serve the immediate area.1I
Racl~IVEDelete the second sentence of" Section 18.88.030.
22. Amend subsection (K) of Section 18.96.040 by adding the words:
Jj,\ ~ Nuld the Railroad District as identified by the Ashland Historic
Commission and approved by the City Council."
City of AshlUld
Community Developm'lnt
/~4-
-2-
.: .,
.
t
)
f'
23. Amend Section 18.96.040 by adding new subsections (L) and (M)
to read as follows:
"L. No Bulletin Boards shall be permitted.
M. No Murals shall be permitted."
24. Amend last two lines of Section 18.108.060 to read:
$50., all but $10. of
which is refundable if
appeal is successful."
25. Amend "Guidelines to be used -for requiring conditions" under
Chapter 18.72 relating to Site Review, to require report from
State Watermaster if existing irrigation ditches are located
upon or adjacent to the subjec-t property, as to the effect the
developme~t may have on such irrigation ditches.
26. Add a new Chapter 18.6.2.10 provide for an Ashland Creek Greenway
Overlay Oistrict to read:
"Appealfrom Commission or
Hearings Board decisions
"Chapter 18.6:2.
ASHLAND -CREEK GREENWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sections:
18. 6.t. 010 Purpose
18.~.020 Permitted Uses.
18.~.030 General Regulations
18.~.010 Pu~se. This overlay district is intended to be applied
to properties along Ashland Creek Which lie within areas designated
by the Federal Flood Insurance Study for the City of Ashland subject
to flooding, labeled AO or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM); or to areas designated as Open Space along Ashland Creek on
the City Comprehensive Plan.
18.6(.020 Permitted Uses.
A. Permitted uses in floodplains shall include all uses per-
mitted in the parent zone SUbject to the provisions of
Section 15.04.250.
B. Permitted uses in floodways shall include only recreational uses
18.6A.030 General Regulations.
RECEIV~ Before a building permit may be issued in the floodplain; site-
review and approval shall be required pursuant to Chapter 18.72,
with particular emphasis given to the retention of natural feat-
Jf\N ,:07 ures including streambed, vegetation and rocks.
B. A conditional use permit shall be required for the excavation
City of Asl,land or placement of fill material in the floodplain or f100dway or
Community Developmenfor the: removal of rocks, or t;;~over six inches" in diame€er. "
_":1_
~"r-"-" ,
j~'d-
'I.
. r----,
~: .(:'"
..,...",
, .
~:..
.... .....
~
~.. 4.
....,:
l.and Use
~aEt~!.! :
18.,04
16.08
le.~?
18. 15
10.20
18.24
16.23
18. :$2
."8. 36
.. ,
18.40
-16.~4
'a.48
16.52
18.%
t 8.60
18.58
16.72
16.75
18. 80
18.84
18.68
18.92
18.96
18.100
18.104
18. 1 08
18.112
Sections:
------
LAND USE OROINA~CE
('.enen~ I Prov is ion:;
Defl n it ions
Districts and Zoning r,1ap
R-R Rural Residonti~1 District
R-j Singlo-Family R(;5id~ntial Distrlct
R-2 low Densit'y Multip/a-FCimily Residenti<::1 District
R-3 ~i~)h Oons,ity t-\J(tipla-Family Residentiul District
C-l P~tail Ccmmerci~1 District.
C-2 Dormtown Com.~rdbl Distr!ct
C-3 Hoavy CGrn!T'.orcii~ I District
"C-4 Tc'uris't Colflmel'cial District
C-5 No) gilDorhood Comlll~rci a I Oi strl ct
1>1-1 Light Industrial District
~1-2 l1'e~v)' I ndustrl a I (Ji s1 rJ ct
." Ai rport Overlay
Genoral Regulations
Site Review
Partitions
Subdivisions
t<bb 11 e Homes
Planned Unit Development
Off-Street Parking
Sign Hegula"l"ions
Variances
Conditional Us.e Permits
land USA and Ordinance C~anae Procedu~e~
Enfor'cement
'pt\a~ter ~1B..C1.
GfN[RA~_ Pf<()VIS~*
1 ~ '>4. 1 01 T t 1" I e
18.0".020 Purpose
1l3. 04 . Ole
~
. i
:
.18.04.010 T!t'!c. This Title shall b.;! I...nownas the "'_and Use Ordir.ancetl
OT1hO City. -
',\'~ f\,H." J;t,;~Vjory-pro\fj:~on5 ena~i-ng ;!1In~ -;0 :-::m;).:;~ ~;77.220; Tor ';CJilins
c"'provl:.:t~-)ns o'?nera!lv, see ORS 227..:-10".227.310. For ::,;1'a-:t!tos rolrding to
P\!rlHlon ane; $ubdi~i5i:>fl , SUC' Oi~ Chepter 92.
~ctk~~ /2/
Community lJe'lei,)piTNlt -.;J ~
. EECEIVED
Land IJSG
18.04.0~~O...;-18.08
~.!g~.._020 Pu':.P.o~~. The purpose of this Title is to encourage the most
'eppropriate use ',A land; to protr.(;~e orderly growth; to provide adequate
open ~.pa(.e for ! i ght and air; to COnserve and stab i I i ze the Vel I ue of
prop$rty; to pro1ect and improve theesthelic iind visual-qualities of the
living environment; to aid in socurina saf0.ty from fire and other dangerlJj
to facilitate adquate provisions for ~ajntaini~g sanitary conditions;~to
provide 10r a.jequate access to property; and in general to promote the
public health, safety,and the general welfure; all of which is inaccordanc~
\\'ii-h and 111- implementation of, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ashland.
1~.04.9)~~actment and Eff~.t. This Title shal I apply to all actions
wh i ch hfJve not reached the fo II Ow i 09 steps:
A. Site review: final approval by Staff Advisor or Con~ission.
13. Par-titionlng and Subdivision: approval of prellr.dnary plat.
C. Plnnned Unit Developmonts: final approvai by Commission.
O. Signs: final approval
r E. Variances and Conditional Use Permits: Commission approval.
F. Zone text or map change: ()I d i nance enactment.
r"
18.08.010
18.08.020
18.08.030
i8.08.040
18.08.050
18.08.060
i8.08.070
18.08.080
18.08.090
18 . 08. 1 00
18.08.110
- 18.08.120
Hs.OB. un
18.0n.140
18. 08. 150
18.08. HiD
lB.08.170
18.08. 180
18 . 08. 190
18.08.200
18.08.210
10.08.220
18.08.230
i8.0B.240
18.08.2,0
18.08.260
18.08.270
Chcipter 18.0~
.DEFIN ITJ..ONS
Generally
Accessory str'ucture or use
Agriculture or ~gricultural use
Agricultural structures
Airspace obstructions
AI ley
Architectural Pr'ojection
Block
Board i n[~--rooming house--group home
Bui Idin!) line
City
Commercial, cr cor.~rcial use
Comrnls~ion
Counci I, or common councl I
Coul"'t, inner
Coverage, lot or s i 1"e
Day care, or nursery, or kindergarten
Devolopment plan
Oi stri ct
Owe I ling, single-tami Iy
D\'Iell ing, two "fami Iy or ciuplex
Dwell infl, mul1iple-fami Iy
bW81 I in~ or dwel ling unit
Easement
Fami Iy
Garage, private
Gar-age saie
ReCEiVED
>,.. 1-'~ "
137
City of Ashland
Community DevOlopment
Land Use
r
18.08.280 Grade.
18.08.290 H~ight of buildl~g
18.08.300 Home Occupution
18.08.310 Hospital
18.08.320 Hotel
18.08.330 Indus+ricl~ or indus'frlal use
18.08.340 . Kennel
18.08.350 lot
18.08.360 Lot area
18.08.370 Lot corner
18.08.380 Lot depth
18.08.390 Lot, fl.ag
18.08.400 Lot, interior
18.08.410 lot line
18.08.420 Lot I ine> front
. 18.08.430 Lot line, rear
. 18.08.440 Lot' ine, side
18.08.450 Lot, reversed corner
18.08.400 Lot, through
18.08.470 Lot width
18.08.480 Map
18.08.490 ~bbile home
18.08.500 Mobile home court, park or SUbdivision
18.08.510 Mote!
18.08.520 Nonconforming si"ructur"e or use
18.08.530 Parking space
18.08.540 ?artitlon
18.08.550 . Partition, major land
18.08.560 Partition, minor land
18.08.570 Pedestrian way
18.08.530 Person
18.08.590 Planned unit development
18.08.600 Plat
18.08.610 Private way
18.08.620 Recreational vehicle or travel trai ler
18.08.630 Residential, or residential use
18.08.640 Secretary
18.08.650 Setback
18~08.660 Staff advisor
18.08.670 Street
18.08.680 Street, at-terial
18.08.690 Street, collector
18.08.700 Street, cui de sac
18.08.710 Street, half
18.00.720 Street, marginal access
18.08.730 Street, minor
18.08.740 Story
18.08.750 Structure or building
18.08.760 Structural alteration
18.08.770 Subdivide land
18.08.780 Subdivision
18.08.790 Tract, or area, of land
,-...
/38
i
\ ,
.8.08
RECEi\/ED
City of A;-;hland
Cornmunitj' Developrnent
Land Use
,
i .08.010--18.08.120
18.08.800 Temporary use
18.08.810 Use
18.08.820 Vision clearance area
18.08.830 Yard
18.08.840 Yard, front
18.08.850 Yard, side
18.08.860 Yard, rear
18.~.010 Generally. As used in this Title, the masculine includes the
fern I n i.ne and the neuter and the 5 I ngu I ar i nt I udes. the pI ura I.
18.08.020 Accessory structure or use. A structure or use Incidental and
subordinate to the main use of the property, and which is located on the same
lot with the main use. Private gar.ages and carports are accessory buildings
. when not attached to the"main bui Iding.
"18.08~030 "AQriClilture or aqriculturaluse. The use of the land for crops
r- nl'ld tree farming; the tlll'.ng of the soil; the raisi.ng of flelrl and tree crops.
18.08.040 A~ricult~ral structures. Structures intended primarily or
exclusively for support of an ~gricultural function, and exemplified by,
but not restricted to: barns, sl los, water towers, windmi lis," greenhouses.
18.08.050 Airspace obstructio~. Any structure, tree, land mass, or use of
land which penetrates a transitional, horizontal, or conical surface of an
airport, airport approach, or airport overlay as defined by this Title and/or-
regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.
18.08~060 "AI ley. A narrow streot, twenty feet or less in width, through
a block primeri Iy for vehicluJar service access to the back or side of
properties otherwise abutting on another street.
18.08.070 ArchItectural Projection. Eaves, decorative extensions, bay
..--.. windows, having no flQOr spacej or other portions of a building having no
living space nor key structural "value.
18.08.080 Block. The land surrounded by streets and other r.i ght-of-way
other than an a II ey, or I and wh i ch is designated as a block on any recorded
subdIvision map.
18.08.090 BoardinQ--roomin~ house--~roup home. A dwelling or- part thereof,
other than a hote I or mote I, '....here I odg i ng with or without mea Is is
provided, for compensation, for three or more persons.
18.08.100 Sui IdinQ lin~. A line on a plat Indicating the limit beyond
which buildings or structures may not be erected.
18.08.110 City. The City of Ashland, Oregon.
.L8.08.120 Commercial, or commercial "use. Any activity invorv~ff~~EBle
of goods or services for profit.
1 :'..,: d
/3t!f
City of Ashland
Community Development
land Use
,
f
18.08.130--18.08.760
&08. 130 Corml i ss i on .
The Planning Commission or HeiJrlngs Board of the City.
18.08.140 COHnc! I 01' common coulici ,. The Common Cou/Jcf I of thf; City.
18.08.150 Court. Inner. Area upon whICh any of fOLlrdwel1 i,ng units in
opposing (facing) dwel I ings opens.
18.08.16LCovera~e, lot or site. Total area of all structures, paved drive-
ways, or other soli disturbances that wi II not allO\'1 normal water infi Itra-
tion. The coverage Is expressed as a percerti~ag0 of such area In relation to
the total gross area of the lot or site. Landscaping which does not
negatively Impact the natUl-al water r'etention and soil characteristics of
the site shal I not be deemed part of the lot or site coverage.
r'
, 18.08.170 "Day care, or nurserY.z...:..2..':_ldnd(;)I'oar-ten. A school or care center
housl,ng five or more ch I I dren . for no mor~ than twe I ve hou rs per day where
the student-to-staff ratio is ten to one or less.
18.(}8.180 Development pLan. Any plan adopted by the Planning Commission
for the guidance ,of growth and Improvement of the City, Includi,ng modi fica..
tlons or refinements made from time to tl"~.
18.08.190 District. A zoning district.
A. "R" district Indicates any residential zoning dlstr'lct,.
B. "e" district Indicates any commercial zoning distrkt.
C. "M" district indicates any industrial zoning district.
O. "A" district Indicates the airport overlay district.
18.08.200 Dwell ino, sinole-fami I~. A detached bui Iding containing one
dwelling unit.
18.08.210 Dwell inQ. two fami Iv or duplex. A detached building containi,ng
two dwelli~g units.
,-.
18.08.220 Dwellino~ 'multiDle-famil~. A bui Iding containing three or more
dweJ I i,ng units.
18.08.230 Dwelllno, or dwel Ilno unit. One or more rooms designed for
occupancy by one fami Iy and not havi:1g more than one kitchen or cooking
fa'ci I Ity. For the purpose of this Tit!e the term "dwell lng, or dwel ling
unit" does not include the term "trailer house."
18.08.240 Easement. A grant of the right to use a strip of land for
specific purposes.
18.08.250 Family. An Individual, or two or more persons related by
blood, marriage, legal adoption, or guardlanshipi not more than five
persons who are not related by blood, marri.age, legal adoption, FlE~~'flef)
ianship.
18.08.260 Garaqe, private. An enclosod or open <Car-port) roofeq'acce,ss<;)ny
structure designed to house vehicles owned by occupant(s) of a reiideritf~~
structu re.
I~~
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
18.08.270--18.08.310
18.0B.2?O',-.Qarage 5ale. A temporary activity conducted on the, premises of a
private residence for the purpose of disposal of goods or belongings of the
residents of the dwell ing. Such activity shall have a dur-ation of not more
. than i-wo days, nor shall it occur more than twice within any 365 day period.
Such activity shall not be accompanied by any off-premise advertisement. For
the purposes of this Title, garage sales shall not be considered a convnercial
activity.
18.08.280 Grade or Ground Level. The average of the finished ground level
at the~entei= of all walls of the building. .In case a \'/all is parallel to and
within five feet of a sidewalk, the ground level shall be measured at the
sidewalk.
18.08.290 tie i ~ht of bu i I d i nqs.. The ver't i ca I d j stance from the "grade" to the
highest pc i nt of tho cop i ng 04' a f I at I~oof or to the deck line of a mansard
noof or to the average height of the highest gable of'a pitch or hip root.
;--,
18.08.300 Home occupation. An 'occupation commonly carried on withIn a dwell ing
by members of the tami Iy occupying the dwell lng, provIded that tne residentIal
character of the building is maintained and the occupation is conducted in such
a manner as not to give an outward appearance nor outwardly manifest any char-
acteri stl c of a bus i ness J n the ord i nary mean I ng of the term except as permi tted
In any ordinance regulating signs, nor infringe upon the right of neighboring
residents to enjoy the peaceful occupancy of their homes. A home occupation
does not involve the r-etai I sale of a product or service on 'the premises other
than teaching, tu-toring~ or counsel ing involving traffic impact of not more than
one automobile at a time, no: more than eight persons per day.
18.08.310 Hospital. An establishment which provides sleeping and eating
facilities to persons receiving medical~ obstetrical~ or surgical care and nursing
service on a continuous basis.
/"""'
18.08!320 Hotel. A bui Idlng in which lodging is provided to guests for com-
pensation and in which no provisions are made for cooking in the lodging rooms.
18.08.330 Industrial, or Industrial us~. An activity related to the manu-
facture, production or storage of product to be transported elsewhere for retal I
sale.
18.08.340 K~nel. Any premises' \o!here four or more dog~ or cats are kept or
permitted to remain, except veterinary cl lnics.
18.08.350 Lot. A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision, or C:I
unit or conti~guous units of land under single ownership, which complies with
al i appl icabl~ laws at the time such lots were created.
18.08.360 Lot area. The total horizon'~al area within the lot lines of a lot,
soid area to ~e exclusive of street;rights-of--way.
18.08.370 l.2.t corner. A lot abutting the intersection of two of~~~'VJ1.l?eets
other than an:al ley.
j !- \ i ~-;
I 1 ~ ; ~ i I
I~/
City of Ashland
Community Development
Tn
land Use
(
18.08.380--18.08.5iO
16.08.380. Lot depth,. The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front
lot I ine to the midpoint of the rear lot line.
t8~08.390 Loi', flag. Any lot not having standard legal ac.cess to a City street,
and which is provided with access by a driveway parallel to the lot line of a
lot having standard access. .
18.08.400 Lot. interior. A lot ather than a corner lot.
18.08.410 Lot I ine. The property I ine bounding a lot.
18.08.420 Lot line, front. In the case of an interior lot, the lot line separ-
ating the lot from the street other than an alley. A corner lot shall have one
street line considered the front lot line. The narrower street frontage shall
be the front lot line ~xcept when the Staff Advisor determines topographical or
access problems make such a designation impractical.
. .
.18.08.430 Lot line, rear. A lot line which is opposite and most distant from
,-. ~he front lot' line. and in the case of an irregular, iTlangular', or oj'her shaped
lot, a line ten feet in length within the lot paral lei to and at a maximum
distance fr'om the front lot line.
18.08.440 lot Iloe, side. Any lot line not a front or rear lot line.
18.08.450 Lot. t'eversed corner. A comer lot. the side street I ine of which
Is substantially ~ continuation of the front line of the first lot to its rear.
18.08.460 Lot, throuQh. An interior lot having frontage on two parallel or
approximately parallel streets other than 01 lays. Such a lot shal I have one
front yard fronti ng on -the primary pub lie street.
18.08.470 Lot width. The average (mean) horizontal distance between the side
lot lines, ordinarily measured parallel to the front lot line.
~ 18.08.480 ~~P. A diagram or drawing of a partition or subdivision or any other
land use or land development matter.
18.08.490 Mobile home. A bui Iding or vehicle which is portable or which was
originally designed to be portable and which was constructed or modified to permi'~
occupancy for dwelling purposes. This term shall include self-propelled mobile
homes, pickup campers, mobile homes, travel trailers, trailers, and other similar
equipment which may be utilized for dwelling purposes.
18.08.500 Mobile home court, park or subdivision. A plot of ground upon which
one or more mobile homes occupied for dwel ling purposes are located, regardless
of whether a charge is made for such accomodation.
18.08.510 Motel. A building or- group of buildings on the same lot containing
guest units for rental to transients, with separate entrances ~~iVri[jxterior
and consisting of individual sleeping quarters, detached or in connecTed rows,
with or without cooking facil ities.
~lA N '! ,"
1,,":(
City of Ashland
Community Development
-~---
land Use
18.08.520--18.08.650
"18.08.520 Nonconforrnln~rstr.uctlJte'or USe.' An existing structure or use lawful
at the 'time the ordiiiance codified in this 'Title, or 'any anlendment thereto,
becomes effectl ve, and 'r'/h I ch does not con form to the requ i rements of the zone in
which It is located.
18.08.,530 Parkin~ space. A rectangle not less than twenty feet long and 'nine
feet wide together with access and maneuvering space sufficient to permit a
standard automobile to be parked within the rectangle without the necessity of
moving other vehicles, said rectangle to be located off of the street right-ot-
way.
18.08.540 Partition. To divide an area or tract of land into three or fewer
lots within twelve months.
18.08.550 ~~tion, ma.iol~ land. A partition which necessitates the creation,
of c road or street.
18.08.560 Partition, minor land. A partition that does not necessitate the
~ creation of a road or street.
18.08.570 Pedestrian wa~. A right-of-way for pedestrian traffic.
18.08.580 Person. An individual, firm, partnership, .assoclation, corporation,
estate, receiver, syndicate, branch of government, social or fraternal organiza-
tion, or any other group of combination acting as a legal entity, and Including
any trustee, assignee, or other representative thereof.
18.08.590 Planned unit develop~nt. A development on land under unified control
according to comprehensive plans and a single development plan for uses and
buildings related to the character of the district with a program for operation
and maintenance of common areas.
18.08.600 Plat. A diagram, drawing or replat containing all the descriptions,
locations, specifications, dedications, provIsions, and information concerning
r-- a sUbdivisfol1.
18.08.610 Private way. A prIvate easement or ownership established by deed
for vehicular access to property.
18.08.620 Recreational vehicle or travel trailer. A self-propelled or towable
mobile unit used for temporary dwelling purposes by travellers.
18.08.630 Residential, or residential use. Any activity, as contrasted with
commercial and industrial activities, Which involves the peaceful, private
conduct of pursuits related to the living environment.
1Jh.Q.?640 Secretary. The Secretary to the Planning Cormdsslon who is the
Director of the City Planning Deparmtent.
r-'
18.08.650 Setback.. The distance between the center I ine of a sfF,~~t_lc:h'feYthe
special bas~ line setback from which yard measurements are made, measured horizon-
tally and at right angles from said center line.
I~~
Cily of Ac;!~:and
Community Development
lalld Use 18.08.660--18.08.790
18.08.660 Staff advisor. The Secretary or his representative.
j].Jllh.670 Street.. A pub,1 Ie right-of-\<:ay,fer roadway, sidewalk, and uti I ity
Instal fation including the terms "roadll, "highway", "land", "place", "avenue",
"alley", or other simi lar designations. The entire width between the right-of-
way lines 'of every way which provides for publ Ie USe for the purpose of vehicular
and pedestrian traffic.
18.08.680 Street, Drterial. A street used primarily for through traffic.
18.08.690 Street, col lector. A street used to some extent for through traffic
and to soroo extent for access to abutting properties.
18.08.700 Street,__cul de sac. A short dead-end street terminated by a vehicle
turnaroun d.
r"
18.08.710 Street. half. A portion of the width of a street, usually along the
edge of a subdivision where the remaining portion of the street could be pro~
vlded In another subdivision.
.
18.08.720 Street. marqlnal access. A minor street parallel and adj4lcent to a
major arterial street providing access to abutting properties but protected from
through traff Ie.
'18.08.730 street, minor. A street intended pi-irnari Iy for access to abutting
propert I es.
18.08.740 Story. That portion of a bui Iding included between the upper surface
of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the top
story shal I be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of
the top floor. and the eel ling above. If the finished floor level directly above
a basement or cellar is more than six feet above grade, the basement or eel iar
shall be considered a story.
~ 18.08.750 str~cture or but IdinQ. That whiCh is built or constructed; an edl fice
or bui Iding of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed
of parts joined together In some definite manner and which requires location on,
In; or above the grOund or which Is attached to something having a location on,
in or above the ground.
18.08.760 Structural alteration. A change to the supporting members of a
structure including foundations, bearing wal Is or partitions, columns, beams or
girders, or the roof.
18.08.770 Subdivide land. To divide an area or tract of land into four or more
lots within twelve months.
18.08.780 Subdivision. An act of subdividing land or a tract of land subdivided
as de fined in th is sect Ion. RECi'::iVED
18.08.790 Tract, or area, of land.
sIngle oW~ership.
A unit or contiguous units of land under
c..'t..,ij
14'1
City' of Ashland
Community DeveloprnliUU
Land Use
18.08.800--18.12.020
18.08.800 Temporary use. A short-'~~rmJ seasona I J qr' Intermittent use." Such
use sha II be approved by Cond itlona I" Use Permi t on I y, with suchtond i t ions oS
the Comrnission deems reasonable in accordanc~ with the Conditional Use standards.
, .
1l..08.81O Use. The purpose for which land or a structure Is des,lgned, ar:~f.lnged)
.or intended, or for which It is occupied or maintained.
18.08.820 Vision clearance area. A triangular area on a lot at the Intersection
of two strel~ts or a str'eet and a ra II road, two s I des of wh I ch are lot I i nas
measured from the corner Intersection of the lot! ines for a distance specified
in these regulations. The third side of the triangle Is a line acrose; the corner
of the lot joining the ends of the other two sides. Where the lot I ines or
Intersections have rounded corners, the lot lines will be extended in a straight
I ine to a point of intersection.
is.08.83~~.. An open space on a lot which Is unobstructed from the ground
u.pwa rd .
I"" 18.08.8"0 Yard, front. A yard between side lot lines and !:;easured !1orizontally
at ri ght angf es to the front lot line from the front fot line to the nearest
point of the bui Iding.
18.08.850 YaD!.t.. side. An open space between the front arid rear yards measured
horizontally and at right angles from the side lot line to the nearest point of
the building.
JJ!~...Q8._860_-"yar..9..z......S~~. A yard between side lot I ines and measured horizontally
at right angles to the rear yard line from the rear yard I ine to the nearest
pvlnt of the bui lding.
Chapter 16.12
,"-'"
DISTRICTS AND ZONING MAP
Sections:
18.12.010 Compliance required.
18.12.020 Clessification of district.
18.12.030 Zoning map.
18.12.040 District boundaries.
18.12.050 Similar uses.
JJ!.J.2.01O Compl iance l~equired. No structure or lot shall hereafter be used or
occupied and no structure or part thereof shall be erected, moved, reconstructed,
extended, enlarged, or' altered contrary to the provisions of this Title..
18.12.020 Classification of districts. For the purposes of this Title, the City
is d i v i ded into zon. i ng d I s tr I cts des i gnated as fo II ows : RECEIVED
.', ;'i 1 7 - L007
li5'
City of Ashland
Community Development
l.and Use
18.12.020--18.16
~!MDistricts
Airport Ovei-l ay
Res I den-tia I
Residential
Residential
Res i denti a I
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Industrial
Indus~Ti a I
.... "Rural
- Single Family
- Low density multiple family
- High density multi~le fam! Iy
- Retai I
- Downtown
- Heavy
.:.. Touri st
- Ne i ghborhood
- LI ght
- Heavy
Map Symbol and
Abbreviated DesiQnati~n
A
RR
R-l
R-2
R-3
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
M-l
M-2
r
~.030 ZonlnQ Map.
A. The location and boundaries of the districts designated In Section 18.12.020
are established as shown on the map entitled "Zoning t.1ap of the City of Ashland,"
dated with the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, and signed by
the Mayor .andCity.Recorder and.hereaft.erreferred to as the "zoni.ngmap."-
B. The signed copy of said zoning map shal I be maintained on file In the
office of the City Recorder and Is made a par-t of this Title.
18.12.040 Di strict bound~. Un less otherw i se speci f ied, di stri ct boundari es
are lot lines, the center lines of streets, and railroad right-of-way, or such
lines extended. If a district boundary divides a lot Into two districts, the
entire lot shal I be placed in the district that accounts for the greater area of
the lot by the adjustment of the district boundary provided the boundary adjust-.
ment is for a distance not to exceed twenty feet.
.".......
18.12.050 Simi Jar uses. Where a particular use is not I isted as permitted or
conditional use in a given zone, the Planning Commission may, after appropriate
analysis; determine that the use is simi lar to those listed in type, kind, and
fu~ctlon, and therefore properly allocated to that zone.
Chapter 18.16
RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.16.010 Purpose.
18.16.020 Permitted uses.
18.16.030 Conditional uses.
18.16.040 General ~egulations.
RECEIVE;)
1'1"
City of i\.~I'!a',d
Comrnunify r ?'F:')~r,:'nent
Land Use
18.16.010--18.16.040
18.16.010 Purpose. ThepurpCiSGof ~the RR district 'ist-ostabi lize and pr01"ect
the rural residential charaderbtics of areas which, because of topography,
. level of services, or other natural or deve!opmental factors are best served by
a large lot designation.
18.16.020 Permitted uses. The fellowing uses and their accessory .uses are
permitted outright.
A. Slngl~ fa~i Iy dwel lings.
B. Agriculture and farm uses, except animal sales yards and feed yards, hog
farms, and any animals fed garbage.
c~ Public schools, parks and recreation faci litles.
O. Residen"j-ial Planned.Unit Developments when authorized in accordance with 'the
Chapter on Planned Unit Development.
r-
c::
... .
Home occupations.
18.16.030 Conditional uses. The fol lowing uses and their accessory uses are
permitted w.hen author'ized in accordance with the Chapter'on Conditional Use
Permits.
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convalescent homes.
C. Parochial and private schools, including nursery schools, kindergarten, arId
day nurseries; business, dancing, trade technical, or similar' school.
D. Public and public uti Ilty bui (dings, structures and uses; but not including
corporation, storage or repair yards, warehouses, and slmi lar uses.
,-.-
E. Private recre~tlonal uses and facilities, including country clubs, golf
courses, swilMling clubs, and tennis clubs, but not including such intensive
commercial recreational uses as a driving range, race track, or amusement park.
F. Riding instruction~ and academies.
G. Cemeteries, mausoleums, colurr.bariums, crematoriums.
H. Excavation and removal of sand, gravel, stone, loam, dirt, or other earth
products, subject to Section 18.68.080 (Commercial Excavation).
I. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges, and clubs.
18.16.040 General reqi.J1ations.
A. Minimum loi- area: Minimum lot areas in the RR zone may be '~EbEfVEe.5
acres, depending on the topographic nature, service aval labl I Ity and surrounding
land uses, and other relevant characteristics of the area.
.; /i N 1-'
1'-17
City of Ashla~ld
Commun'ty Development
Land Use
i
\
18.16.040--18.20.020
B. Maximum lot coverage:
1. ' One-half acre lots (RR-.5): twenty percen1- maximum..
2. One acre ,lots (RR-1): . twa! ve percent max imum.
3. T'rIo and one-hat f acr~, lots (RR-2.5): seven percent maximum.,
C. '~inlmum'lot width: AU Jots shall beat least one hundr-o::Jfeet In''\ldd1h.
D. Lot depth: AI I lots shar I be at least one hundred fifty feet in depth. No
lot depth shail be more than three times its width.
E. Minimum front yard: There shall be a front yard of at least twenty fe~t.
F. Minimum side yard: The're shal I be a minimum side yard of five feet, except
ten feet along the side yard facing the street on a corner lot.
G. Minimum rear yard: ,Ti1e-re shall be a minimum rear yard of ten feet.
'H. Maximum bui 'ding height: No structure shall be over thirty-five feet or
r- two ~nd one-half stories in height, wh1chever is less. This does n.it include
agricultural structures fifty feet or more from any property line.
Chapter 18.20
R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICl
Sect i on~:
18.20.010 Purpose
18.20.020 Permitted uses.
18.20.030 Conditional uses.
18.20.040 General regulations.
.--
18.20.010 Purpose. The purpose of the R-l district is to stabilize and proJect
the suburban characteristics of .t-he district and to promote and encour.age a
suitable environment for fami Iy life.
18.20.020 PermiTted uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted outright:
A. Single family dwelling.
B. ,Duplex on corner lots, provided that no two such uses shel I be contigu0us,
excepT That this provision shall not apply to any area \'ihich has been developed
or is pari' of an existing subdivision or establ ished platted neighborhood at tha
time of enactment of this ordinance. Such structures sh~1 Ibe subject to
provisions of the Site Review Chapter.
C. Agriculture.
RECCIVEO
D. The keep i ng of livestock except sw i ne p rov i ded thai':
., ,
,
1"1'(
City of Ashland
Community Devolopment
land Use 18.20.020-- 18.20.40
1. No livestock shal I be kept on any lot less than one acre in area.
2. No more than two head over the age of six months may be maini-ained
per acre.
3. Barns, stables, and other bui Idi,::gs and structures to house said
livestock shall not be located closer than fifty feet to any property
line.
E. Pub I Ic school,s, parks, and recrea.~ion facilities.
F. Residential Planned Unit Developmerts ~/hen authorized In accordance with
the Chapter on Planned Unit Development.
G. Horr~ occupations.
18.20.030 Conditional uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted when authoriz~n accorda~ce with the Chapter on Conditional Use
Permits.
,,-. A. Churches and simi lar rei igicus Ins"tltutions.
B. Hospitals, rest, nursing, or convalescent homes.
C. Parochial and private schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens, day
nurseries; business, dancing, trade, technical or similar schOQI.
D. Pub Ii c and pub Ii c lit i I Ity bu II dings, structures, and uses; but not i nc I ucl i ng
corporation,' storage or repair yards, warehouses, and similar uses.
E. Recreational uses and facilities, including country clubs, gol f courses,
swimming clubs, and tennis clubs; but not including SIJch' intensive commercial
recreational uses as.a driving r~mge, rac.:: '~rack, or amusement park.
r
F. Off-street parking lots adjoining a C or M district subject to the pr0vislons
of the Chapter on Off-Street Parking.
G. Public and quasi-public hal Is, lodges, and clubs.
U. Duplexes on corner lots, subject to provisions of the Site Review Ch::w~er.
18.20.040 General requlations.
A. 'Minimum lot crea: Basic minimum lot area in the R-l zone shal I be 5,000
square feet except 6,000 square feet for corner lots. R-l areas may be designated
for 7,500~ or 10,000 squnre foot minimum lot sizes where slopes or other condi-
tfons make larger sizes necessary. Permitted lot sizes shel I be Indicated by
a number following the R-l notation which represents allowable minimum square
footage in thousands of square feet, ~s follows:
R-1-5 5,000 square feet
R-1-7.5 7,500 square feet
R-l-10 10,000 square feet RECEIVED
,\
,\ ,
If'!
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
.18.LO.04Q--18.24
8. Minimum lot width:
Interior lots:
Corne riots:
All R-l-1.5 lots:
All R-i-l0 iots:
fifty feet
s i x-t'y f(":6 l
sixty-five feet
seventy-fj~e feet
C. Lot depth: AI i lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty feet, and a
maximum depth of one hundred fifty feet unless lot conf.igllretion prevents
further development of the back of the lot. No lot shall have a width greater
than its depth, and no lot sha! I exceed on~ hundred fifty feet In width.
./'"
D. Standard yard requirement: Yards shall be of sufficient \'1idth to allo~: for
a distance from property I ine to bui Iding equal to the blli Iding height in front Dnd
rear yards, and ene-half the bui Iding height for side yards. The Staff Advisor
may decrease the stan.dard reC::Jirement by up to 50% (with a minimum of three feet)
wheH-e topography, design, features, or othei- factors necessitate, and where th~~rE:
wi II be no significant ne::iative impact on adjacent property. Yards shall be
Increased by 40% of the standard equivalent on the northerly side of a lot.
Since the standard allo\'15 conside:'able design flexibi I ity, vi:lri'ilnces are
strongly discouraged, and should be allO\ved only when.';! there are significant and
compe II ing un I que except I ona lei r(;'.irnstances.
E. Maximum building height: No structurB shall be over thirty-five feet or
two and one-half storie~ in helght, whichever is less.
F. Maximum coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty pc/cent in an R-1-5
District, forty-five percGnt in an R-1-7.5 District, and fori-y perc~nt in an
R-l-:l0 Oi st,i cL
Chapter_l~24
R-2 lOW DENSITY MUUIPL!:-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DiSTRICT
,-...
Sections:
18.24.010 Purpose.
18.24.020 Permitted uses.
18.24.030 Conditional uses.
18.24.040 General regulations.
RECEIVED
;\ N
/ ~ . ~ '.
I~~
City of Ashland
Community Deveiu;xnent
land Use
18.24.010--18.24.030
18.~~~O:0 Purp~. This district is designed to provide an envIronment suit-
able for urban I iving. The R...2 distr-ict is intended for residential uses and
appurtenant community services; this district is designed' in such a manner that
.it can'be applied to eJ wide range of areas due to the range of residential
densi1-ies possible.. ,In addition, \'/hen appropriately located and. designed., pro-
. fessJonal off-icas and small. home":'oriented comm~rcial 9ctlvities designed to
aHract pedestrians In the Rai I road District are allowed.
18.24.020 Permitted uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted outright:
A. Single fami Iy dwerl filg's and two fam; iy dwell i,n95.
B. Multi-family dw~tl Ings.
9...Boarding or rooming.houses, fraternity or soror:-Ity houses, and dormitories.
~ D. Home occupations.
E. Agriculture.
F. Public schools, parks, and r-ecreatlon facilities.
. .
G. Nursery schools, kindergarten, dnd day nurseries.
H. . Res Ident i a I Planned Un i t-Deve I opments when author I zed In accordaR(;o wi t:i
the Chapter on Planned Unit Development.
18.24.030 Conditional uses. The fol lowing uses and their accessory USE'S are
permitted when authorized in accordance with the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
~
B. Parochial and private schools; business, dancing, trade, technical, or
simi lar school.
C. Mobile home parksj traveler accomodations, provided that any permit granted
for travelers' accomodations shall be for a periOd not to exceed twelve. months,
and the app! icant she I I be requ I red to present data as to conti nu I ng need prior
to renewal of such permit by the Planning Commission. The period during which
trave Ie rs' accomodat ions sha II be a I lowed sha I I be spec I f i ed by the P I ann i n9
Commission upon, granting such permit.
v
D. Pub I I c and quas i -pub I ic ha II 5, lodges and clubs.
Eo Professional office or clinic for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist,
Designer, doctor, or other practitioner of the healing arts, engineer, insuranc~
agent or' adjuster, investment or managernent counselor, or surveyoRrl- _ .
. cCEIVt:J
F. Hospitals, rest, nursing, and convaleSc61)t homes.
, ~ I, I ~' , ,_
G. Limited personal service establ ishments in the home such as tb9~uti<lian:s,
masseurs, and the uses listed in sub-sectiGn E above.
15'/
City of AS!'iand
Community Development
L;~nd Use
18.24.030--18.24.040
H. Wholesale plant nurseries including accessor'y structures.
",
,. Retai I convnercial uses located in a dwell ing un it with i n the Ra i I road
District as Identified by the Ashland Historical Commission. Such business
shal i be no greater than six hundred square feet in total area including all
"storage" arrd "accessory uses, and sha II be operated on' y by the occupant of tho
dwell ing Ul1i1" and the equivalent of one-ha1f tlrne"h(upto tw-enty-five hr')urs"per
week) employee. Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian
t,-affic, and shell I be located on a street having a fully improved sidew31k on
at least the sid~ occupied by the DUS ir.ess. The st,-eet shall be a fully
improved street of residential City standards or greater.
18.24.040 General reoul~ti6ns.
- ....~--
A. Minimum 10"1- area: Minimum lot area shall be 5,000 squ.::re feet for the
first dwel I iog unit, and 2,000 squ~re feet for each additional unit.
-
B. Minimum lot width: "Minimum lot width shall be fifty feet.
c. lot depth: AI I lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty feet. No lot
depth shal! be more than two and one-half times Its width.
D. Standard yard requlr-ements: Yards shal I be of sufficlcnt wld1-h to allow for
a distance from pr'operty line to building equal to the bui Iding height in front and
rear yards, and equal to one-haif the bui Iding height for side yards. Except
where a multiple-fami Iy dwell ing abuts a sln"gle-tami Iy dwel I ing, the Staff
Advisor may decrease." fhe shmdard requirement by up to 50% (with ~ miniml'mcf
three feet) where topography, design features, or other factors necessitate, and
when~ there wi II be no significant negative impact on adjacent property. Yards
sha II be i ocreased by 40% I f the standard requ / rement on the norther I y side of
~he lot.
Since the standard allows considerable design flexibility, variances are
strongly disc'Juraged, and should be allowed only where there are slgnlflcan"!" &~Id
compel I lng unique exceptional clrcu::1stances.
.-
E. Special yards--distances between buildings:
1. The distance between any principal building and accessory building
shut I be a minimum of ten feet.
2. An I nnor court prov id I /19 access to a doubl e ro\... dwe II i ng. group sha II be
a minimum of twenty Tset.
ReCEIVED
" :1
i. I" \
/6~
City of Ashlar Id
Community Development
Land Use
(
19.24.040--18.28.20
. 3. The dtsfapce between principal bui 'dings shall be at least one-half
the sum of the h€dght 0;- both but Idings; p,-ovided, however, that in
no case sha II tho d t stance be. loss 7hun t\'Ie I v.e feet. Th i s requ t rement
shall 8.lso apply. to portions of the same but Idi.ngs separated from each
other by a court or other open space.
F. Maximum height:. No steucture .shall be over. thir.ty~five feet or two and one-
half stories in .h~ight, whichever is less.
G. Maximum coverage: Maximum lot coverage shal I be sixty-five percent.
Chapter '18.28
R..3 HIGH DENS!TY t.il.!.LTIPlE-FAMLLY RESI~ENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
-
,.
18.28.010 Purpose.
18.28.020 Permitted uses.
18.28.030 Conditional uses.
18.28.040 General regulations.
18.28.010 Purpose. This district is designed to provide the type of environ-
ment suitable for" urban living. The R-3 district Is intended for residential
uses and app'urtenant community services; this district is designed in such a
manner that It can be applied to a wide range of areas due to the range of
residential densities possible. In addition, when appropriately located ann
designed, pro.fessional offices are allowed.
~.28.020 Permitted _~. The foll~~ing uses and their accessory uses are
permitted outright:
~
A. Single family dwellings and two family dwellings.
B. Multi-family dwel lings.
C. Boarding or rooming houses, fraternity or soro,-Ity houses, and dormitories.
D. Home occupations.
E. Agri cu Iture
F. Pub I Ie schoo Is, parks and recreat ion faci I t ties.
G. Nursery schools, kindergarten, and day nurseries.
. H. Residential Planned!UliJit Developments when authorized in accordance with
the Chapter on Planned Unit Development.
18.28.030 Conditi~~. The fol lowing uses and their accessory uses are
llAN 1 7 2007
RECEIVED
/5'3
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
t
18.28.030-- 18.28.040
permitted when authorized In accordance with the Chapter on Conditional Use
Permits.
A. Churches and similar re~igious institutions.
B. Parochial 'and private schools; business, dancing, trade, technic~I, or
s Imi lar school. .
C. Mobile home parks; travelers' accomodations, provided that any permit granted
for travelers' accomodations shall be for a period not to exceed twelve months,
and theappJ icant shal.1 be -required to present data as to continuing need p!~ior
to renewal of such permit by the Planning Commission. The period during \vhich
travelers' accomodations shal I be oj lowed shal I be specified by the Planni.ng
Commission upon granting such permIt.
o. Publ ic and quasi-public halls, lodges and {:lubs.
.-
,
E. Profess!onal office or cl inic for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist,
designer, doctor, or other practition~r of the heal ing arts, erl!:}ineer, insl.!rar,ce
agent or adjuster, Investment or management counselor, or surveyor.
F. Hospitals, rest, nursing, and convalescent homes.
G. Limited personal service establishments in the home such as beauticians,
masseurs, and the uses listed in sub-section E above.
. H: Wholesale plant nurseries including accessory structures.
18.28.040 General reQulations.
A. Minimum lot area: Minimum lot area shal I be 5,000 square feet for the first
dwelli~g unit, and ',200 square feet for each additional unit.
-
B. Minimum lot width: Minimum lot wldthshal I be fifty feet.
C. Minimum lot depth: AJ I lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty feet. No
Jot depth ~hal I be more than two and one-half times its width.
D. Standard yard requirement: Yards shall be of sufficient width to al iaw for a
distance from property line to bul :dlng equal to the bui Iding height in front and r'63r
yards, and equal to one-half the building height for side yal~ds. Except where a
multiple-fami Iy dwell ing abuts a single-fami Iy dwel' lng, the Staff Advisor- may
decrease the standard requirement by up to 50% (with a minimum of three feet)
where topography, des I gn fea'~ures, or other factors necess itate, and \\'here there
wi II be no significant negaHve Impact on adjacent property. Ytirds shed I be
increased by 40% of the standard requirement on the northerly side of a lot.
Since this standard allows considerable design flexibility, variances are
strongly discouraged, and should be allowed only where there are significant i.ir;d
compel I ing unique exceptional circumstances. RECEi\lED
l ;\ t\~ ~.,
IS~
City of Ashland
Community LJevclopment
Land Use
18.28.040--18.32.020
E. Special yards--distances between buildings:
1. The "distance between any principal bui Jding and accessory bui Iding shall
oe a minimum of ten feet.
2. An Inner court providing access to a double row dweJlI.ng group shall be
a minimum of twenty feet.
3. The distan~e between principal bui Idings shal I be at least one-half the
sum of the height of both buildings; provided, hoWever, that in no case
shal I the distance be less than twelve feet. This requirement shall
also apply to portions of the same bui Idings separated from each other
by a court or other open space.
F. Maximum hei ght: No structure sha r I be over f j fty feet In hei ght.
G. Maximum coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be seven-ry-five percent.
,,-...
Chapter 18.32
C-1 RETAIL CO~~ DISTRICT
Sections:
18.32.010 Purpose.
16.32.020 Permitted uses.
18.32.030 Cqnditional us~s.
18.32.040 General regulations.
18.32.010 Purpose. This district is designed to stabi I ize, improve, and protect
'the commercial characterisfics of shopping centers and areas.
16.32.020 Permitted uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted outright:
.I""
A. Professional, financial, and business offices, and personal service establish-
ments such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, clothes and laundry pick-up
stations.
B. Stores, shops, and offices supplying commodities or performing services,
such as a department store, antique shop, artl$t's supply store~ and including
a regional shopping center or element of such center, such as a major department
store. "
RECEIVED
,::~;'~ 1
/5~
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
--
18.32.020--18.32.040
C. Eal" I n9, enterta I nment, and danc I ng estab II shments.
D. Thoatr"es, but not including a drive-in.
E. Commercial parking lots for passenger vehicles, subject to the requirements
of the Chapter on Site Revie~'1.
18~32.030. CondItional Uses. The following uses and -~heir accessory uses are
permmed \A/hen author (zed .Tn accordance wi .th the Chapter on Gond i t I ana I Use
Permits.
. A. Publ ic and quasi-public and public uti I ity and service bui Idlngs, structures,
and uses as appropriate to and compatible with the C-1 district.
B. Laundry, cleaning, and dyeing establ ishments.
r-
c. Bowl ing al leys,.auditoriums, skating rinks, dance halls, and drive-In
theatres.
D. Automobile service stations, new and used car sales, boat, trailer, and
recreational vehicles sales and storage areas.
E. Hotels and motels, mobile holO'3 parks.
F. Residential uses, subject t~ all the requlrernen.ts of the R-3 district.
G. Mortuaries.
H. Kennels.
I. Veterinary clinics.
J. Prlntl~g, publishIng and lithography.
...-- K. Persona I storage fac II it i es.
l. Temporary uses.
18.32.040 General reQu/ations.
"A. Area--wid1-h--yard requirements: There shall be no minimum lot a ream width,
cOverage, front yard, side yard, or rear yard, except: as requIred under the
off-street parking and loading requirementsj except where required or increased
for conditIonal IJsesjand except wher.e required by the Site Review Chapter of
this "Title. .
B. Maximum bui Iding he.ight: No structures shall be greater than forty feet in
height.
RECEIVED
i f. ~ i
,,,,-jf~,1~ :' i~
IS6
City of Ashland
Community Development
land Use
18.36--18.36.030
Charter 18.36
C-2 DOWNTOWN Ca~~ERCIAL DISTRICT
Secti.ons:
18.36.010 Purpose.
18.36.020 Permitted uses.
18.36.030 Conditional uses.
18.35.040 General regulations.
18.36.010 Purpose. This district is designed to stabi I ;ze, improve, and protect
the commercial characteristics of the central business district. Due to the
interdependence of the various comrnerclal uses upon pedestrian traffic and the
necessity for joint provisions and uti lization of off-street parkina facilities,
off-street parking is not required for individuol commer'CiaJ use.
~ 18.36.020 Permitted uses. The fol lowing uses and their accessory uses are
permitted outright:
A. Stores, shops, and offices supplying commodities or performIng services for
residents of the surrounding community, such as a department store, antique shop,
artist's supply store.
B. Eating, drinking,enfertainment.anddancing establishments.
c. Medical .and dental offices and clinics, professional offices, financial
offices, including banks, and other general business offices.
O. Manufacture or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such
manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 square feet or less, and is contiguous
,- to the permitted retai I outlet.
18.36.030 Conditional use~. The following uses and their accessory uses are.
permitted when authorized in accordance with the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.
A. Public Bnd quasi-public and public utility and s&rvice buildings, structures,
anc uses as appropriate to and compatible with the C-2 district.
8. laundry, cleaning, and dyeing establishment.
C. Bowl ing alleys, auditoriums, theatres, skati~g rinks, and dance hal Is.
D. Hotels and motels.
E. Residential uses, subject to al I the requirements of the R-3 ~~A~i~~t)pro-
vi ded such res i denHa I uses are not a gl-ound floor use and are sorvte~'fM~l1" as to
not impede the commercial characteristics cf the area.
~J r~ N 1 / " il
Itr1
City of Ashland
Community Development
land Use
18.36.030--18.40.020
F. Commercial purking'lots for p()ssenger Vehi'cles, subject to the requlre'lll0nts
of the Chapter on Off-Street Parking.
G. Printi~g, publishl~g or lithography.
'H. Adu'I't bookstores and adu1t movie houses: provi dad the $:ame arei ocated a
minimum to five hundred feet from parks, p'aygroun~s, librarl&; p~bllc or private
schools, excluding'col leges and. universities.
,. Temporary u.ses.
18.36.040 General~ulations.
A. Area--w i dth--yard requ I r'ernents: There sha II be no mi n Imum lot area, wi dth,
coverage, front yard, side yard, or rear yard, except: as required under the off-
street parking and loading requirements; \'ihere required or increased for cc>ndi~
~ional uses; and where required by the Site Review Chapter of this Title.
'f,"';;-'
\.,'
~. Off-street p~rking: .
1. 'Residential uses Including transient facilities such as hotels and motel~
and permanent facll ities such as multiple fami Iy dwel I I.ngs and apartment
houses shall provide off-strE\e'; parkIng as required in the Chapter on
Off-Street Parking.
2. Ail other uses in the district are not required to provide off-street
parki ng and loadl ng, though any such faci 11t1 es provided shou I d camp I y ,
;.:", 'w.j'i'h .a11.desrgn.s1~andards.of the:Off':'Stree1-Parking Chapter.. '
C. fJ.aximum building height: No structuro shall be greater than fifty-five feet
in height.
".. .
.~. ..... of..
Chapter 18:40
. C- 3 HE!. VY Cfh'4t~ERC i AL 0 I STR I CT
C Sections:
18.40.010 Purpose.
18.40.020 Permitted uses.
18.40.030 Conditional uses,
18.40.040 General regulations.
lS',40.010"Purpo.se. This district is designed to provide a location for the
necessary heavy commercial uses and services.
18.40.020 Per'mifted uses. The followi.ng uses and their accessory uses are
permitted outright.
A. Bui'ldir:g material sales yard but not including concrete or afR!@Et\..W<;h or
mlxi.ng plunts.
B. Cabinet, car;>entry, electrical, furnitul'0, machine, plllml'dn~MW- ~e,atJw sh~)P.
prlnti~g, publ ishlng, or lithogrQpny, upholstery.
Is-'!
City of Ashialld
Community Development
land Use
18.40.020--18.44.020
C. Contractor equipment storage yard, or storage and rental of equipment
commonly used by a contractor.
D. Automobile, boat, trailer, and recreational veh1cle sales and storage, farm
implement sales, automobile and truck repair, service and repair establishment,
tire recapping.
E. Publ ic uti I ity buildings and service yards, and other public and quasi-public
bui ldings, structures and uses.
F. Sto~age and warehousing, wholesale business.
G. Commercial parking lots for passenger vehicles.
18.40.030 Conditional uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted when authorized in accordance with Conditional Use Permits.
,.--
A. Kennels and veterinary clinics.
18.40.040 General requlations..
A. There shall be no firea or width requirement except as may be. required under
the off-street loading requirements, or requirements for conditional uses.
..
..-: .
B. There shall be no yard requirement except when a lot or parcel adjoins a
.. resi c'!eJ)).lq L d Lsttlct; ..1 O-.w.h-i en:. c;as~.: ~ fr:9Clt ,. .$ i9j3, ".and.. tear ya.rd..bf.at. l.eQ.st
feet shal I be required, and except as re~uired in the Site Review Chapter of
this Tlt!e. .
t(m ..
.. .
C. Maximum bui IdIng height: No structure shall be gr-eater than forty feet in
height.
."'-"
Chapter 18.44
C-4 TOURIST C~~ERCIAL DISTRICT
Sections:
18.44.010 Purpose.
18.44.020 Permitted uses.
18.44.030 Conditional uses~
18.44.040 General regulations.
18.44.010 Purpose. This district Is des,.igned to prOVide for the needs of
travelers a~d tourists making stops of duration of several days or less.
18.44.020 Per:mifted uses. The following uses and their accessofYE~~lt~5e
permitted outright..
A. Automobile service stations.
,_: i.... ~
IS'!
City of Ashland
Community lJeveiopment
III".
Land Use
18.44.020--18.48.010
B. Gift shop's.
C. Eating, drinking, entertainmen1, and dancing establishments.
D. Hotels and motels. '
E, Accessory uses riecessary to convenience of -the travel ing publ ie, when i-hey
are located in the same buflding, or on the same lot as'; the permitted uses to
which they are accessory. Accessory uses are such items as (not an exclusive
listing): .,
1. Barber or beautv shops.
2. Clothing shops,'
3. Trave I bureaus'.
4. Drugstores.
5. Parki rig lot,
6. Laundry.
7. Plays or dramatic productions.
/'
18..44.030 Conditioned uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
allowed in accordance with the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.
A. Publ ic and quasi.,..publ ie and publ ic uti I ity and service bui Idings, structures,
and uses compatible with the C-4 district. '
. - . . '.
';,.~' , ,:; B...~. Over!1i .ght.~,:tr~y~I,.tt:~.i Je.f-;9r:r;~~.reatipnaJ__ V9~Js,1 6_ ~C?l,lr:rs" Qr ..9'tmpj,1') 9 , f8~I,/:i tl es,'
'C. Truck service stations.
D. Residential uses subject to al I the requirements of the'R-3 district.
18.44.040 'General requ!ations.
,-
A. Area--width--yard requirements: There shall be no minimum lot area, width,
cove,age, a front yard~- side yard, or r'ear y'ard requirement, except: as required
under the off-street park I ng chapter; except where requ I'red or I ncreased for
, coodl t lona I uses; and !2lxcept as requ i red under the'S ite Review Chapter of th is
Title.
.. ,
B. Maximum building height: No structure shall be over thirty-five feet or
two and one-ha' f storl es in he I ght, ~/h I chever Is' ess.
ChiJ.p-,ter 18.48
C-5 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
, R:::CEIVED
Sections:
- """07
:., " ,.,
r'" .~ J I~l).,
18.48.010 Purpose.
18.48.020 Permitted uses.
H3. 48. 030 Cond i tiona', uses'.
18.48.040 General regulations.
C;tv of Ashland
COlTimunity Deve:oprnent
1"0
18.48.010 . Purpose., This district is intended to provide for the location of
small focal-convenience buslnessEls within or' adjacent to residcn':ial areas of
i-he City. Ousinesses within a C-5 district sholl not crGate architectur'a!,
~s'i'hetic, noise, or traffic cordi icts with n<:dghoor irlg properties. A C-5 disir-ic:i
---IT -r
land Use
18.48.010--18.48.040
shall have a maximum gross area of 15,000 square feet, and shall be located no
nearer than one-half linear mile to any other C-5 district, and one-quarter mi Ie
to any other commercial district. C-5 districts shall be located on arterial
or collector streets, In one quadrant of an intersection.'
18.48.020 Permitted uses. The followrftg uses and their accessory uses are
permItted outr.1 ght:
A.
Grocery, dr:ug and. general. goods stores.
B.
Barber and/or beauty shops.
c.
...
Clothes cleanIng pick-up ~gency.
(:~
O. Automobile service station; (provided that repairs made are of a minor
...nature such as tire changes, lubrication and tune-up, and not including engine
overhaul, transmission work, etc.> subject to strict approval standards relating
to the criteria cited In Section 18.48.010 above.
18.48.030 Conditional uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
penmltted when authorized In accordance with Conditional Use Permits.
A. ResIdential dwel ling unIts, when not on the ground floor of a dwelli~g, and
.In accordance with the regulations of the predominant surround.ing.resldential
zone.
B. Restaurants, includIng the sale of alcoholic beverages, but not including
entertainment or dancing.
18.48.040 General.roQulations.
r-
......- . .
A. Minimum lot area: No requirement.
'B. Minimum lot width: No requIrement.
C.
D.
MInImum lot depth: No requirement.
Minimum front yard: Minimum front yard shall be twenty feet.
E. Minimum side yard: Minimum side yard shall be ten feet, to be increased by
ton feet for each story or portion thereof a building exceeds one story.
F. MInimum rear yard: Minimum rear yard shall be ten feet, to be increased by
ten feet for each story or portion thereof a building ex~eeds one story.
G. Maximum building height: No structure shall be over thIrty-five feet or
two and one-half stories In height, whichever is less.
HECElVED
I ..Dn]
161
City of AS'liand
COiilrr'unity Dev('I()p'-nf~nt
~_._-~--- ---rr--..-T
Land Use
.'
18.52--18.52.030
Chnpter 18.52
M-l LI GHT INDUSTRIAL .01 STRIGT
Sections:
18.52.010 Purpose.
18.52.020 Permitted uses.
18.52.030 Conditional uses.
18.52.040 General regulations.
18.52.010 Purpose. This district is designed to provide for industrial uses
having minirnalimpact on surrounding area In relation to noise, odor, vibration,
or visual nuisance, and to provide a suitable ond stable environment for such.
uses.
. ,.....
18.52.020 Permitted uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted outright.
A. Light manufactur.ing, assembly, fabricating, or packaging of products from
previous I y prepared mater I a I s such as cloth, p lasti c, wood (not i ncl udi ng sa~...,
planing, or lumber mil Is or molding plants), paper, cotton, precious or seml-
pr'eeious metals or stone.
B. Manufacture of electric, electronic, or optical instruments and devices.
.-. .
C. Adml n i strati ve or rese~rch estc.b Ii shments.
D. Manufacture of food products, pharmaceuticals, and similar items, but not
including the production of fish or meat products, or fermented foods, such as
sauerkraut, vinegar or other materials have significant potential for odor, or
the r'endering of fats or oi Is.
---
E. Cold storage plants.
F. Printing, publishing, and book binding.
G~ Publ ic and publ ic uti lity bui Idings and yards.
H. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments.
I. Bakery, bottl"ing plant, cleaning and, dyeing establishment, laundry, cl-eamery.
J. Mini-warerouse and simi lar storage areas.
18.52.030 Conditional uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are
pennitted when authorized in accordance with the Chapter on Conditional US9 Permits.
A. Banks, restau rants I or other conven i ence estabf I shments des i gnEf<<.::{!}[i~ye
persons working or 1 ivlng In the zone only.
8. . Kenne I sand vEiteri nary c Ii nics.
:Jh;'.;
16~
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
18.52-040--18.56.020
i8.52.040 General requlatJons.
A. Minimum lot area: Minimum lot area shall be 8,000 square feet.
B. Minimum lot width: Minimum lot width shall be eighty feet.
C. Minimum lot depth: Minimum lot depth shall be one hundred feet.
D. 1\1lnimum front yard: Minimum fl'Ont yard shall be twenty-five teet.
E. Minimum side yard: Minimum ?ide yard shall be five feet, except fifteen
feet on the side facing the str~$t on a corner lot.
F. Minimum reer yard: No requireloon1.
G. Maximum building height: No structure shall be greater than forty feet in
height.
.----
Chapter 18.56
M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL D)STRICT
Sections:
.18.56.010 Purpose.
. .18.56.020 Permitted uses.
18.56.030 Conditional uses.
18.56.040 General regulations.
18.56.010 Purpose. This distrIct is designed to encourage sound industri~1
development in the City by providing a protective environment exclusively for
such development.
.,-...
~.020 Permitted uses. The following ;uses and their accessory uses.are
permitted outright.
A. Any manufacturIng, processing, assembling, research, wholesale, or storage use.
B. Railroad yards and freight stations, trucking and Il)Otor freight stations and
facilities.
C. Public and public uti Ilty service buildings, structures, and uses.
D. Owe I I jng for a caretaker or.watchman employed on the premises.
E. Building materials sales yard, including concrete or asphalt batch or mixing
plants.
F. Uses permitted in the M-l District.
RECEVcD
~;i-~ lv
II., 3
City of Ashland
Community D0veloprnent
Land Use
18.56.030--18.60.010
18.56.030 Condjti~1 uses. The following uses and their" accessory uses are
permitted when authorized in accordance with the Chapter on Conditional Use
Permits.
A. Junkyards and auto wrecking yards.
B. Excavation'and rernoval of sand, gravel; stone, loam, dirt, or, other earth
products, subjec'I' to General Regulations.
C. Kennels, veterinary clinics.
18.52,.040 General re~ulatlons.
A. Minimum lot o."ea: r'1inimum lot droo shall be 8,000 square feet.
B. ' Minimum lot width: Minimum 'lot width shall be eighty feet.
-
~
C. MiniMum lot depth: Minimum lot depth shall be one hundred feet.
O. Minimum front yard: Minimum front yard shall be twenty-five feet.
E. Minimum side yard: No requirement, except twenty feet where adjoining a
residential district.
F. Minimum rear yard: No requirement, except twenty feet where adjoining a
res I denti.a,1 -di stri ct. .
G. Maximum bui Iding height: No bui Iding shall be greater than fifty-five feet
in height.
,..-.
Chapter 18.60
A-AIRPORT OVER~Y DISTRICTS
SectIons:
18.60.910 Purpose.
18.60.020 DistrIct Al.
18.60.030 District A2.
18.60.040 District A3
18.60.050 Generai' provisions.
18.60.010 Purpose. These overlay districts are interid~d to be appl ied to prop-
eri"ies ~/hich I ie within close proximity to the Ashland Airport. where aircraft
are I ikely to be flying at relatively low elevations. FUI'thor, the districts ar€
intended "to prevent the establ ishment of airspace obstructions in such areas
through height restrictions and other land use controls. Appl iccft.!aERlEl!)he
d I stri cts does not a I tel- the requ i rements of the parent zone except as spec if lea II 't
prov I ded here in.
'\ ,,' "'07
J;, i~ j f LV,
I''f
City of Ashland
Community Development
-----nr-r"
"
, .
.A
land use
18.60.020--18.60.060
18.60.020 District AI.
A, PermItted Uses shall Include non-residentIal structures, and commercial
and Industrial uses not serving the public on site, end hevlng no more than
one person per 500 square feet of. floor area, not to exceed 10 persons.
B.. V~xJmum heIght of structures, trees, or other airspace obst~uctlons shall
be twenty feet.
C.. Minimum lot size shall be one-half acre.
01-
18.60.030 District A2.
.. A. Pe'rr.lltted Uses shall Include slngle-fami Iy dwellings, and cOlMlerctal and
_. IndustrIal structures subject to the requlre~nts of 18.60.020CA), if
perm I tted by the parent zone. ~
.-;-
I
'--
B. Maximum heIght of struct~res, trees, or other aIrspace obstructIons shall
be thIrty feet.
. ,
C.
MInImum lot size shall be five acres for'resldentlal uses, one-half acre
for a II others.
~---
18.60.040 District A3.
c
A. MaxImum height of structures, trees, or other airspace obstructIons shall
be thIrty-five feet.
18.60.050 General provisions.
A. The Clfy may top any tree which Is greater than thIrty-five feet In
heIght or locai~ approprlateltghts or markers on those trees as a warning
.to the operatol3 of aircraft.
B. No use shall be made ofl and or water withIn this zone district In such
a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or
radio communication between airport and aIrcraft, make it dIfficult for
pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare
rn the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair vIsibility in the vicinity
of the airport, orotherwJse create a hazard which may In any way endanger
the.landJng, takeoff or maneuvering of aircraft using the airport.
C. The regulations prescribed by this section shall not be construed to"
require a property ,owner to remove, lower, or make other changes or altera-
tions of any structure which legalty existed prior to the enactment of
thl s section.
18.60.060 Limitations on action. No variance shall be gran~~~~~ights
In excess of those I isted in Sections 18.60.020, 18.60".030, and 18.60.040.
JAN 1 7 2007
l,r
, City of Ashland
Community Development
---
,...... ".
\.:-
\?'
land Use
18.68--18.68.020
Chapter 18.68
GENERAL REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.68.010 Fences.'
18.68.020 Vision clearance area.
18.68.030 Access.
18.68.040 Yard measurements.
18.68.050 Special setback requIrements.
18.68.060 Special yard exception.
18.68.070 Land surveys.
48.68.080 Conmercial excavatlon--removal of earth products.
~8.68.090 Nonconforming uses and structures.
--18.68.100 Slope; hillside protection.
18.68.110 Front yard--general exception.
18.68.120 Utilities.
16.68.130 lot size requlrements--general exception.
16.68.140 Accessory buildings.
18.68.150 Special bui I'ding height I imitation.
18.68.010 Fences. Fences, walls, hedges, and screen plantl.ng shall be subject
to the following,standards:
A. In any required front yard provided they do not exceed three and one-half
feet in height.
B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half feet
In height.
C. The height of fences and walls in rearyard setback areas abuttIng a public
streot shall be 48 Inches or less.
D. The framework for newly-constructed fences and walls shall face toward the
builder's property, except where fences are jointly constructed.
E. Fences shall lean at en angle from the vertical plane no greater than 1%
<'12 Inches per foot). In cases where this I imitation Is exceeded, the property
owner shall be notified In writing of the problem. If the offending fence is not
repaired within one month of receipt of notice, a citation shal I be issued..
18.68.020 - Vision clearance area. Vision clearance areas shal I be provided with
the following distances establishing the sizo of the vision clearance area:
A. In any R dlstiict, the minImum distance shall be twenty-five feet or, at
intersections including an alfey, ten feet. .
REqf.IV~~all other districts except the C-l and C-2 districts, the minimum distance
shal I be fifteen feet ort at intersections, including an al ley, ten feet. Whon
JAN t.,he, ~n~e of intersection between streets.. other than an al ley.. is less than
th I rN deg rees, the d I stanco sh. II be twenty- g (t fee t .
CitYCl.Asii~rte vision clearance area shall contain <0 plantlngs, fences, walls, struc-
communftN~g~p'B1D temporary or permanent obstructi ons exceed i ng two and on~-ha I f teet
in helgh1 measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding
this height m~y be located In ihis c:rea, provided all branches and foliage are
. - '-
Lanci Use
18.68.030--18.68.080
. .
18.68.030 Access. Each lot shat I abut a minimum width of forty feet upon a
publ Ie street (other than an al ley). This requirement may be decreased to
twenty-five feet on a cu.l-de-sac vehicle turnaround area. Except with an approved
flag partition, no lot shalt abut upon a street for a wIdth 6fless than
twenty-five feet.
18.68.040 Yard measurements. .AII yards, measurements to and between bui idings
or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or slmi ~ar requirements
sha II be made to the Dul Iding or' nearest projection thereof and sha II be unob-
'structed from the. ground upward, except that arch itectura I projecti ons may intrude
eighteen inches into the ya rd requ i rement . .
. /""'"'
18.68.050 Special setbackreauirements. To p~rmit or afford better I ight, air,
and vision on more heavi Iy traveled streets and on streets of sub-standard width,
to .protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter
named streets, every yard abutting a street., or portion' thereof, shall'be
measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot
line separating the lot from the street:
Street
Setback
East Main street between City I imJts
and Llthla Way
thirty-five feet
Ash I and Street (H I ghway 66) between _...
City .Hmlts and Siskiyou .Boulevard .
sixty-five. -feet
Also, front yards for properties 'abutting all arterial streets shall be no less
than twenty feet, \'/ i th' the except I on of the C-2 d j str I ct.
18.68.060 Specia~d exception. Where slope conditions adjacent to a public
street cause special .hardsh.tp-In' the location .of- privategareges, -the Staff
Advisor may authorize 8 yard depth of' a minimum of two feet for' the garage only.
Such author i zat Ion sha II . be given upon the recommendat i on of the 0 i rect.or of Pub I I c
.;- Works, \lJho shell I determine the extent of the problem _and the .best means of
solution.
18.68.070 land surveys. Before any action is taken pursuant to thl~ Title which
would cause adjustment or realignment of property I Jnes, raqui'red yard 81'eas, or
setbacks, the exact lot lines shal I bevalidafed by location of official survey.
pi n's or by a survey performed by a' licensed surveyor. . .
18.68.080 Commercial excavation-~re~val of earth products.
A. Before a cOrlcfitional use permit for the commercia,'e.xcavatlori arid removal
"'of earth 'products can be 'granted, plans and specHlcatlons shm'ling the location
of premises, grading plan, existing and proposed drainage, proposed truck access,
-::~~\j. ~ai Is of regrading a~d reveg:ta!ioil of the site Shall be submitted to,
Rt:.~ ~proved .by, the Planning CommiSSion. .
.. B. Any deviation from the plans as apptoved wi II serve as ground to revoke the
.J\\conditional use permit.
c,RtJlf\;Jfl,n<<revltewing the application, the Commission may consider the most appropriate
Com'T1M~~Dof!at!J!ll!n land, distances from property ')W7 the protection of pedestrian,:: apd
land Use
I"
18.68.080--)8.68.100
vehicles, the prevention of the collection and si'agnation of water at all
stages of the operation, and the rehabi litatjon of the land upon termination
of the operation.
D. A bond may be requ i red to i nsu re performance.
18.68.090 NonconforminC] uses and structures.
r-
A. A nonconforming use or structure may nolo be enlarged, extended, reconstr'ucted,
substituted, or structurally altorcd, except~as follows:
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
the Conditioned Use Chapter, a nonconforming use may be changed to
one of the same or a more restricted nature.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
the Conditional Use Chapter, an existing bui Iding, structure, or land
may be' enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally alterod,
except that a Conditional LIse Permit need not be obtained to enlarge
or extend a sing I e-fami I y horoo in the res I dent i a I d I strl ct, prov I ded that ThE
add i ti on or' extens i on meets a II requ i rments of th 1sT I tie.
B. Discontinuance: If the nonconforming use of a ;bui Iding, structure, 'or premises
ceases for a period of six months or more, said use shall be considered abandoned;
and said but Idlng, structure, or premises shall thereafter be used only for uses
permitted in the district in which it is located. Discontrnuance shall no1'
include a period of active reconstruction.fo,1 lowing a flre .or other result of
natural hazard; and the Planning .Comfo!ssion may extend the discontinuance perIod
in the event of special unique unforseen circumstances.
;-..
c. Building or structure: Nothing contained in this Title shal I require any
change In the plans, construction, alteration, or designated use of a structure
for which a building permit has been issued and construction has commenced prior
to the adoption of the ordinance codified herein and subsequent amendments
thereto, excep1' that i f the des I gnated use will be non con form i ng It sha II, for
the purpose of sub-seclion B of this section, be a discontinued use if not in
operation within two years of the date of issuance of the building permit.
18.68.100 SIC?I~,e; hillside protection. In order to prevent development which will
cause undue slope destruction due to rapid erosion and runoff, the following
requ i rements sh<;ll' be met I n a II res i denti a I deve lopments where any port I on of
the lot falling within '~he definition of lot coverage exceeds twenty percent slope:
A. lot coverage shall be decreased by fifteen percent for each five percent
of lot slope in ex~ess of twenty percent, as follows:
Coverage
Reduction <%>
Slope <%)
20-24.99
25-29.99
30-34.99
35-39.99
15
30
45
60
RECEIVED
JA N 1.~
."In7
. 'I"~
/6 ?
City of Ashland
Community Development
land Use
18.68.100--18.68.140
B. No developwent shall be permitted in the R-l zone. in excess of 39.99 percent
nor in the R-2 or R-3 zones at slopes in excess of 29.99 percent.
C. For purposes of calculating lot slope. portions of the lot having greClt€lr
than the maximum allowable slope shal I not be included as part of the area within
the lot coverage.
o. The Planning Department shall have on fi Ie a general identification of areas
of greater than twenty percent s lope. It sha II be the respons i b i I i ty of the
developer to provide certification of the average slope by a Registered Surveyor.
In lieu of such certification, the City may, by request, establish the average
slope for a fee of $50,
18.68.110 Front vard--~eneral exception.
~. If there are dwel lings or accessory bui Idings on both abutting (even if
separated by an alley or pr-ivate way) lots w!th yards of less than the required
,,-. depth for the district, the yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of
the abutting structures.
B. It there is a dwelling or accessory buildings on one abutting lot with a yard
of I ass than the requ I red depth for the d I st r I ct I the ya rd need not exceed a
depth one-half way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required yard
depth.
C. The front y'ard may be reduced to ten teet on hills i de lots where the terra in
has an average steepness equal to. or exceeding, a one foot rise or fall in two
feet of horizontal distance within the entire required yard; said vertical rise
or tall to be measured from the natural ground level at the property line.
18.68.120 Uti I ities. The erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance by
public uti lity or municipal or other governmental agencies of underground or over-
head gas, electrical, steam, or water transmission or distribution systems,
,-- collection, communicati.on, supply, or disposal systems, including poles, towers.
wires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police
equlpmen1 and accessories In connection therewith, but not Including bui Idings,
shall be permitted in any district. Uti I ity transmiSSion and distribution lines,
poles and towers may exceed the height limits otherwIse provided for this Title,
except in the Airport Overlay District.
18.68. J 30 Lot s i ze requ I rements--~ene ra I except i On. I f a lot or the aggregate
of contiguous lots or land parcels held in single ownership and recorded in the
office of the county clerk at the time of passage of the ordinance codified
herein has an area or dimension Which does not meet the lot size requirements
of the district in which the property is located, the lot or aggregate holdings
may be occupied by a use permitted outright in the distrIct subject to al I other
requirements, provided it compiled with al I ordinances when it was recorded.
18.68.140 Accessory bui Idins:ls. Accessory bui Idings shall com~~qhIVtf~11
requirements tor the principal use except where specifically modified by this
Title and shall comply with the fol lowing I imitations:
JAN 1 7 .~007
I ~ If
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
18.68.140--18.72.20
A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwell ing .In an
R district.
B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwel ling pro-
vided there are no kitchen cooking facl I ities in the guest house.
c. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a
residential district a side or rear yard may be reduced to three teet for an
accessory structure erected more than t! fty feet from af1Y s';-reet, other than
a II eys, prov I ded the structu re Is dei'ached and sepi;'lrated from othl)r bu i I d i figS
by ten feet or more, and is no more than fifteen feet in he i ght.
18.68.150 Special but'ldlnq heiqht-1.lmitatlon~ In any area having generally
iO% slope or greater, no 5trl!~tlJre on the downslope side of a street running
<::ross-slope shall be more than one story, or fifteen feet In height, above
the grade of the street.
r
Chapter 18.72
SITE REVIEW
18.72.010 Site approval required.
18.72.020 Plans required.
18.72.030 General standards.
18.72.040 Review.
18.72.u50 Procedure.
18. -/2 . 060 T I me I i m I ts .
18.72.070 Campi iance.
18.72.080 Applicable conditions.
18.72.090 Site alteration.
t'"
18.72.010 Site aQProval -reguired. Site revi€w and approval is required
prior to Issuance of b~ildlng permits for:
A. All residential developments which result in more than two dwelling units
p~r lot or common-ownership d~velopment.
B. AI I commercial and industrial uses.
C. All alterations to use types requiring site review whIch affect the use,
intensity of use, floor area, structure I~cation, or significant elements
of the site plan or design.
1~.72.020 Plans roquired. An applicant for a bui Iding permit who is subject
to site review shall submit three eighteen by twenty-tour inch copies of the
followl ng 'to the Staff Advisor (except one copy of I tem C) :
RECEIVED
A. A site plan dra\~n to scale showing all existing and proposE;d structures
(and distinguishing them). and Indicating all natural features and genera'
JA Ntopegrap,-h y. I f -the averiJge 51 cpe is greater than ten percent. cOntours sha II
be' Indicated at five foot interVals. The site plnn sh<11' show hui (ding elevations,
public and private easements. sQ;;are footage and number of units. and all other'
Citj~~ents such as drlvewuys. pedestrian walks. recreation or common ar'eas,
CommufiwrRf~~~h, fences. walls, off-str'eet parking <1nd loading ar,,}3S. rai I rOad
tracks and adj acent pub I I c and p" I vote streets. ' The 5 j ~p I an shall i nd i cate
how uti lity service and drainage are to be provided. I ~
Land Use
18.72.020--18.72.030
B. A landGcaping plan showing in detail the location, type and variety, size
and other pertinent features of proposed landscaping and plantings at time of
Installation, at one-year interval, and at full growth. Such plan shall include
layout of irrigation faci lities, ~nd show the relationshi~ of plantlngs and
irrigation to structures, streets, and other site features. Trees used as
part of the landscape p I an slla II be of a var i ety that does not tend to destroy
sidewalks, underground pipes, or other similar Items as a result of root growth.
C. Plans as required by the Uniform Building Code in relation to elevations
and exterior structural design feattlres, but not including drawings or interior
structural design, support systems, etc. Such plans shal' indicate,the material,
color, texture, shape and other design features deemed appropriate by the Staff
Advisor in relation to the type and location of 'development. Plans shall be
complete for all proposed structures, Including signs, accessory bui Idings, etc.
,I""!'
D. The plans required above shall Include computation of 7he amount and percentage
of each of the following: building coverage, landscape coverage, paved areas
(parking, walkwaysl and driveways), lot area, number of units, living area, and
usable recreation area.
18.72.030 General standards.
A. With the noted possible exception~ there shall b~ a m,lnlmum percent of lot
area to be landscaped as indicated on the following chartl with the minimum
va I ue of sa I d I andscap i ng to be two percent of the to1-o I cost. CTh i s requ ired
minimum value may be increased during plan review.) Special consideration cal:
be given to: downtown C-1 and C-2 developments where, due to party walls, and
zero lot lines, littlel if a~y, landscaping Is possible; sites with existing
vegetation (in determining values of landscaping); and sites in which a substuntial
amount of landscaping is required for oft-street parking.
Minimum % ~f lot Area
Zone to be Landscaped
,-.
R-2
R-3
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
M-1
M-2
35%
25)
15~
10%
10%
15%
25%
15%
5%
B. TherA shal I be specified minimum areas of open space for usable recreation
areas within R-2 and R-3 developments equal to fifteen percent of the square feet
of living area in the development, which shall be considered a part of the
required landscaping.
c. All required setback areas abutting public streets shal I be landscaped
(except allowed parking facilities), such areas to be included in both area
Att~rJ~e computation.
D. All open areas between the property line and the travel surface of the public
J~tre~t. al:\~'l the s i de\...~ I k shed I be I andscapeu, and sha II be i nc I uded as part of
~~e maintenance requIrements and the landscaping value computations.
City of Ashland
Community Development
/11
Land USH
~8.72.030--18.72.040
Eo There shall be view-obscuring shrubb8ry, walls, or- fences along property
lines Whf,lre appr'oprlute and around unsightly area~ such as trash and equipment
storage areas and Industrial and heavy commercial activities.
F. Underground irrigation (or certification by a licensed landscape architeci-
of the ability of plantlngs to survive without Irrigation) shall be provided;
except i"hat the Commission may waive this requirement if a development Is 'of such
sma II sea I e that it is not necessa ry.
G. A II access ways to requ I red of f-street pc rk I ng wh I ch i nvo I ve a II eys sha II be
fulJy irnproved either- to a minimum width of twenty feet or the width of the
access way to City shmddrds along the full length to the nearest City street.
".-..
18.72.040 Review., In approving an application for a building permit, the Planning
Commission or its $-.'aff J\dvisol~ may impose any or ::III of the following conditions
with a reason or' reasons for each cond i t i 011 be i n9 noted by thE' Comm i 5S i on or
StaffA~visor and such reasons kept on file ..lith each application.
A. Requ'ire the value of the landscaping to be above two percent but not great
than five percent of the tota I proj ect cos j- as determ I ned f rom the bu lid I n9
pe rm it.
B. Require such modifications in the landscape plan as wi II assure proper
screen i n9 and esthet"i c appearance.
C. Require plantings or groundcover to be predominant, not accessory, to bark
or other non-living groundcover.
O. Require the retention of the clearances from specified trees, rocks, water
ponds or courses and ot~er natural features, such retained features to be
consldeced as landscaped area pursuant to 18.72'"030(A)
E. Requ I re the landscape p I an" to be prepared by a I icensedl andscape arch I teet.
F. Require City Engineer's approval of a grading plan and/or drainage plan for
~ the collection and transmission of" drainage. "
G. Require size, placements, and grades for pedestrian and vehicle access.
H. Require sidewalks, dedication of rights-of-way fpr streets and pedestrian
way~, and easements for utilities, waterways, or slopes.
I. Require the appi icant to sign in favor of any future street improvement.
J. 'Require the rr~difica~'ior. or revision "of the design of structures, signs,
accessory bui Idings, etc. Such modification or revision shall be required only
wher. the Commission considers a specific design feature to be sufficiently detrimental
to the est"hetics, property values, or general stability, health, safety, and
welfare and diversity of the neighborhood or the City that correction Is necessary.
Applicant shail be advised in writing of the specific reasons for the requ~e"
modification or revision, and alternate means of solution shall be suggested. '~/Vt:D
No additional criteria shal I be added that wil I modify this section.
K. Restrict heights over thirty-five feet and increase setbacks up to an
additional twenty feet.
/i
tI,...,
11"
c'
Corn Ity Ot A~"
rnUnity 0 ", . ""0
e~.,".,..
"'"c/.Jn1ent
La nd USQ
18.73 10--18.72.050
L. Require on-s.ite fire hydrants,~ith pr'oteci-ive barr-jcades it. specified.
M. Require the type and placement of lights for outdoor circulation and parking
facilities.
N. Require commer~ial or industrial developments to pr-ovide lImited, controlled,
access from the frontage r'oad venti ng ord 0 a' major street by means of traft i c
signals, traffic control and turning islands, landscaping, or any other means neces-
sary to insure the viabi I ity, safety, and ini-egrii"y of the major street as a
through corridor, where the cumulative effect of individual access would impair
such viabi I ity, safety, or degrade the esthetic 'environment.
o. Require residential or light commercial and office uses to provide improved
access to City streets intersecting major streets instead of ve:nting directly
onto a major street, where the cllmulc:.Tive impact of SLlch direct access would
Impair the vlabi Ilty, safoty, anJ effectivoness of the major street.
r-
P. "In the area affected by the South Ashland Moratorium, the Site and Design
Review process will be conducted In keeping with recognition of the fact that
the South Ashland area Is a rapidly developing commercial center serving the
southward residential and tourist-oriented growth of the City. Accordingly, the
following standards shal I be observed in the review process:
1.' Strip commercial development characterized by one-business, one-
access development along Highway 66 shall not be permitted except In
unavoidable pre-determined circumstances related to lot shapes,
building locations, etc. Development shnll be coordinated in terms
of frontage access roads, pedestrian walks within and between
developments, access points onto major streets, and any other
appropriate site o,~ area-wide features of planning importance.
,-..
I
2. The relationship of site and structural design shal I be such as
to create an environment of human scale, rather than one characterized
by expanses of aspha It. The shepp i ng and I i vi ng envi ronment sha II
be designed for people as well as automobiles, not simply for the
temporary storage of the vehicles of shoppers. landscaping .and structural
features shall be in proportion to this concept, and of a qual ity,
quantity, and type which wi I I Improve and enhance the area.
3. Nothing in these standards is lnt~nded to produce a monotone or
thematic appearance. Individuality and innovation are encouraged
within the broad outlines of subsections 1 and 2 above.
18.72.050 Procedure. Appl ications shall be processed as follows:
A. Applicant submits required application materials to the Planning Department.
B. Staff advisor shall review materials to determine impact on the area
as well as conformance with all appl icablela\'/s alld ordinances.
or City,
1it.:."C .
12/1/
~. 'f:: D
C. Staff advisor shall" note any required changes or corrections necessary to
comply with laws or ordinances, and 'shall describe any changes requested i~,
order to improve the safety, appearance, or. impact of the development. . Such
notes and descriptions shall be made on "the aPl-'ticant's plan, with a cop)'
kept in the Planning Depari"m€nt. C000~!YOi/ls,
'7/lyD' /)Iq
e f)(j
V&/o.o
'lr}ef)f
17~
'Lond Use
18.72.050--18.72.060
D. Within three \'Iorking days folloloJing submittal of the application, the Staff
Advisor shall notify i-he appl icant or action taken on the materials.
.E. Staff Advisor sha' I meet with the appliccnt to discuss the staff review. At
this meeting, appl icant and staff shal i agree on the site plan and other
materials, Including changes and correction; if agreement is not reached, the
matter shal I autcmatically be set for hearing before the full Commission at
the next avai lable meeting.
F. If agreement Is reached, public notice shal I be sent to al I adjacent or
immediately affected property owners advising them of the project, and giving
them seven \'tol~king days from the date of mai I ing to fi Ie remonstrance regarding
specific aspects of the materials submitted.
G. On the first working day after the remonstrance period, the Staff Advisor
sha II:
/""
-_1. Notify the applicant of final approval by telephone and letter if no
remonstrance has beon received; or,
2. Set a meeting with applicant if r-emonstrance on a minor, resolvable
Issuo has been rece i ved; if the app Ilcant Is will i n9 to correct the s i tuat I on
to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisor, final approval shall be given;
or,
3. Automatically set the issue for the next available meeting of the full
COlTlrnission _if there is any significant remonstrance which is not eelsi I)'
resolvable, or if the appl icant does not agree to the proposed cOI-roctiotl of
a mi nor remonsttan-ce iteril;u
H. The Staff Advisor shall bypass steps C. through G. above,and refer any item
to the ful I Commission at any time he deems an application to be of a nture
that involves significant policy or area impact questions.
I. The Staff Advisor or COIMIis5ion may approve a 'general ized schematic
~ landscape plan showing the location and general typos of plants, pending
submittal and approva~ of a final landsc e plan prior to building permit issuance.
18.72.060 Time limits. Adecfsion must be rendered by the Planning Commission
wIthin sixty days Of-filing all required Information, unless such time is
extended by mutual consent of fhe applicant and Commission. The decision of
the Commission or Staff Advisor sha.!1 become effective fifteen days following
such decision, and no work shall commence on the approved project until the
decision is effective.
The Plnnriing Commission and the Staff Advisor to the Planning Commission shall
have the authority to allow applicants a reasonable time period in which to
complele specified requirements, if it appears there is good reason t9 do so.
In order to assist the Staff Advisor to the Planning Commission and the Plann~C~/1
Commission in imposing .more consistent requirements as above set forth, the V~D
Staff Advisol~ to the Planning Commission shall develop, maintain, and from
timeto time :~evisc written critsria and guidelines for the imposition of
i"hose of -~hG above requ i rements wh i ch he deems neGd more spec if i cnt ions.
These written criteria and -guidel ines Shall be subject to approval a~I];I})Ji(}bjicatlon
or deletion by the Planning Cornmission and shall be made avai lable to thel.t~~i?'h~l),..,
L/ $~ ~
upon n)qu9st. /7 O/O/J/l}
. %
Land Use
18.72.070--18.72.090
.18.72.070 Co!!)Q!larlco. Any development subject to this SeGtion shal.! be
carried out in accordance with appl'oved plans and conditions imposed by the Plonning
Commission or the Staff Advisor 10 the PliJnning Commiss:on, and shall be maintained
as a cont i nuaus cond i't i on of use and occupancy. The bu II d i n9 off i cia I sha II
not grant a certificate of use or occupancy, €>r release utilities, unless and
unti I satisfied of substantial compl ian<;:e with the approved plans. However, the
building official may, unless otherwise directed by the Planning Co~~ission, release
a temporary certificate of use and occupancy and a temporary release of utilities
prov i ded (n there is proof that the owner lias entered into a contract \'Ii th
a reputable installer for the completion of the landscaping and other design
requi remcnts within a specified time and ther'e remains nothing for the owner
1-0 do prior to insta Ilation; or (2) the owner has posted a satisfacrory performance
bond to insure the i nsta II ation of SC'l i d I andscap i ng and des i gn requ i n~men-rs wi th j n
a specified time. Any approval or permit granted pursuant to this Sec'l-ion shal I
be deemed automatically revoked if not used within two years ~f the date of
issuance.
18.72.08~~cabl~onditions. The Staff Advisor to the Planning Commission
/"". shall mai I a copy of aj I conditions Imposed by various City departments in the
approved Site Revlew to the applicant by registered m~il within seven days
following the decision. Such conditions shal.' not subsequently be altered
or added to unless such alteration or addition is essential to the property
function of public services, or the protection of public safety.
18.72.090: .Si.te alteration. N<;>person shall make, or cause to be made, significant
changes to the slope, soil conditions, drainage, vegetation, or other natural
aspect of a parcel of land within one year prior to the tln~ application Is
made for site revi ew of. said peweel. Th j s provi s ion i nc I udes such work as
grading for access, or the proposed removal of trees over six feet in height,
hedges OVer' three feet in height, lawns or grass cover, or other simi lar vegetation.
It does not include such minor brush or weed clearance as may be necessary to
reduce fire hazard or drainage obstl'uction. If such prohibited alten:itlon has )
been made, the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor may require actions to be
taken which wi I I substantially return the site to its original state.
",-..
Rr '.
C~IV""'J
/75'"
City of 10, ,
Camm . . '''. .tUI ,d
unity Oevel
oprr.e/lt
GUIDELI~ES TO BE USED FOR REr.~!RING CONDITIONS
The following guidelines are to give a better indicat.ion.as to when
conditions wi II be required. . The Planning CO!Mlission or Staff Advisor
can vary from th~se guidelines, but only according to the procedures
stated in Section "JII, Procedure .for Guidel ine Variation.
A. ReQu i ri nq _I andscap i n9 va I ue t9~re:lter than two percent. The va I ue
of landscaping shal I be increased when any of the fol lowing conditions
exist:
J.
r..
A high quality of landscaping is essential to insure compatibi lity
. with adjacent land uses. (For example surrounding property is
highly landscaped or above average plant sizes ere needed to
immediately obstruct an unsightly area).
2. The cost of construction is below the average for the type of
development.
B. ReQuirinq view obscurinQ shl"ubb~!:1J-!!.~~or fences. Shrubbery,
wal Is, or fences shall be required when any of the fol lowing conditions
apply:
I .
c.
Where parking, driveways, and turnaround areas abut a single or
two-family dwelling, a wall, fence or hedge will be constructed
from three to six feet high. Such faci lity will conform to al I
setback requirements. In cases where auton~bi Ie noise and head-
lights in f r i nge upon the I i vab i I i ty of surround i ng res i dences,
additional landscaping or possible buffer zones may be required.
2. Where par-king, driveways and i-urnarounds abut view areas of
adjacent structures, the requirements of item one may be requested.
3. Unsightly development, such as tt~ash receptacLe~, mechanical
apparatus or storage areas shal I have sufficient screeni~g or
buffer zones to protect people from unattractive v~ews, noise, or
odors.
Retention of the clearance from specified trees. rocks. water pond~
or courses or other natural features.
I. Rivers, streams and natural water cour"ses, as we! I as f tcod
plains,. shall be retained in their natural stute. Areas adjacent
to streams and water courses which are above flood levels wil I
also be retained if slopes or construction work Infringe upon
the previouslydeslgna1'ed areas.
2. Ponds and lakes shal I be retained In their natural state, including
marsh areas adjacent to the water areas.
3. Any modification to the natural vegetation in section I and 2 must
be specifically approved, and can not diminish the value of the
natural area in terms of erosion control, water holding capacity,
or general appearance.
4. Items such as trees, r.ocks and other natural features shall be
retained if such item presents a unique feature tor the town and
neighborhood.
S. AI I trees over six inches in diameter measured four feet above
the ground level shall be retained unless the Staff Advi~~re\\;-:D
Planning Commission gives its approval during the review"~~~s~.
Reasons tor permitting tree cutting are as foltOI'/S:
".-
1 fl \,j
uhi~
11'
City of Ashland
Community Development
-
"
,.....
a. The trunk of the tree is, at ground level, inside or within four
feet of any proposed exterior wall.
b. The tree is within a driveway access area o~ parkl~g area which
cannot be east Iy altered to~liminate the.need for ~emovlng the
tree.
c. The tree is dead, diseased, or weakened In such a manner to cause
Imminent danger to persons or property.
d. The tree is adjacent to oi'her trees which will benefit from its
remova I .
e. The tree, because of its general growth characteristics, will
threaten existing or proposed facilities.
D. ~ grading plan anqLor a draina~lan must be submitted whon the followinq
conditions exist:
1. There fs an average slopG of fifteen p.ercent or more on the proper'ty,
or there is a slope of twenty-five percent or more on any portion of
the property.
2. Areas where soi I; geological, or drainage features present a graqing
or drainage problem to development of the parcel.
.3. The development alters the existing grade of the lot such that It wll I
not take natural run off of water from any adjacent lot, or so that
water drainage of the development lot is changed to run at a different
location or intensity than prevlousJy, and that .change could create a
hazardous condition to any adjacent lots. The City Engineer shal I
approve the grading plan unless the grading, either excavations or
fills and/or drainage will endanger the public health or safety, or
which apparently will result in. physical damage directly or indirectly.
to another' lot or pajcct of land or to the publ ic street or publ ic
property, including removal or reduction of lateral support, or which
will change the natural drainage to the detriment of surroundi~g pro-
perty.
E. Sidewalks.t-pedestrian ways. or bikeways may be required when any of th49
followinq conditions exist:
1. Where the development is near a major pedestrian traffic generator such
as a school or park.
2. Where the development is In or near a commercial district.
3. Where the surrounding area either has sidewalks or is part of a
general community effort to provide sidewalks.
4. Where the development is on or near a known pedestrian route.
5. Where any other condition exists in which the Planning Commission or
Staff Advisor finds that provision of sidewalks is essential to the
abi lity of the development to fit in with the surrounding area, and
where the health, safety, and convenience of City residents is mater-
i a I I Y affected.
P. Pedestrian ways or bikGways within a development wi I I be required if
~LL the fol lowing conditions are found:
a. The development obstructs a logical pedestrian or bike route.
(Connection of CUl-de-sacs, unusually long blocks, access to
schools, parks, and so forth.> Rr::C'::t1-iJ
b. There is enough I and so that the easement does not resTr~ cf!" L
develo'pment or normal operation ot the par'cel.
c. The way can be lighted and/or seen such that it wil I n9t be
conducive to vandalism or other criminal activities. v',
177
City of AU"d':d
Community Develop, :lent
.,......
F. Fasement20. streets and access.
1. Uti I ity e8sements-ZS~7s, waf'er I ines, cable TV, el~ctricar lines, 8':ld
other publ ic uti I ities) shall be ten feet wide, and be located where
necessary to serve the development. Easements for adjacent properties
may be required if neces~ary to adequately serve'those properties if
such easements don't unduly restrict development of the lot.
2. Where a development is traversed by a watercourse such as a drainage
way, channel, or stream, there shall be provided a storm water,easement
or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of the
watercourse, and such further wIdth as wil I be adequate for the purpose.
3. Slope easements wil I be 'required when the slope required (two to one in
normal sol Is) tor required fac; I ities extends outside the area owned or,
contro II ed by the agency i nsta II ing the tac i II l' i es.
4. Street dedications will be required to brfng the adjacent half-street
rlght-ot-way up to City requirements as listed in the Subdivision
Section of this Title.
5. The owner of the property sha II si gn in favor of future street i mprove-
ments whenever the development abuts a street which is not up to City
standards (unimproved or partially improved>' Such ,agreement shall run
with the land and be bind!ng on future land owners.
6. Vehicle access shal I comply with all zoning regulations and reasonable
safety regulations; and shall not have grades greater than the maximum
p~rmitted undor the "Standard Driveway Design" on file at the Publ ic
Works Department.
7. Except for existing detached single-family residences, vehicular parking
arrangements shall not encourage or al.low for backing into publ ic
streets.
8. Methods of pedestrian access shall he provided to all developments.
G. Setbacks shal I be Increased under the fol lowin~ conditions:
1. When the existing adjacent use is designed to specifically uti lize
(for example, by a preponderance of glass area) a particular view,
the deve lopment will block that vi ew, and I ncreased setbacks w I I t
alleviate or partially al laviate the problem, then an increased setback
wi II be requi red.
2. When there must be increased distance between buildings to allow
accessibility for fire apparatus.
H. On-site fire hydrants are required accordin~ to Chapter 15.28 of the City
Fire Prevention Code.
I. L1Qhtin~.
1. Lighting shall not be directed onto adjacent property where such
lighting is not conducive to the original design of the adjacent
, structure.
2. Outdoor lighting shal I not exceed twelve feet in height.
3. All parking, driveways and pedestrian ways which are to be used at night
shall be adequately lighted.
4. All intersections involving bikeways, pedestrian ways, and driveways
sha II be lighted to an adequate I eve I. (Recogn i zing the Inherent
hazardous conditions in such intersections.)
J. Procedure for Ruideline variat~. It is acknowledged that al I situations
can not be addressed in an ord i nance, so i'here will be I nstances wehffi::-;t.~~\......
Commission, Staff Advisor, or appl icant \o/III wish a variation 'from tM;!L..~&iI(ffil4>nes.
Such variations shall be allowed according to the following procedures.
1. Variation from exlstin~ conditions: Before conditions can ,Q~viate
. - \)';i!\-
r--
179
City of Asi':',illd
Community [;,;vulopment
r'
from the guidel ines the Planning Commission or Staff Advisor must find
that all of the following conditions exist:
c. There are special cl rOCUri1sta~ beyond the appl icant's control
where strict interpr~tation of the guidelines would (1) result in
hardship inconsistent \'lith the purpose of the zoning ordinance or,
(2) deprive the appl icant of substantial property rights.
b. Allowance of Othe variation wi I I not have a substantial adverse
oaffect'on +he standards previously set forth for natural features,
neighborhood, future users, City plans.
c. The varla1ion is the minimum change required which wll I alleviate
the problem identified.
d. The variation will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with I imitations which wouid be, or have been, Imposed
on other similar properties.
K. ChanQinQ the QUldelines; requiring additional conditions. The Planning Com-
mission may alter the guidelines where such change is in conformance with the
Site Review Chapter, al I provisions of this Title, and the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission may also impose conditions in a specific case where the Site Review
Chapter and Guidelines do not directly orovide guidance though it is apparent
that the Intent of such regulnticn is reflected in the additional conditions.
TheoCommisslon shall evaluate whether such conditions should be made part of the
guidelines for application in al I circumstances, and, if so, shall make such
change.
.,,-...
RECEIVED
J!Ai'W
/11
City of Ash,,,,. Id
Community Development
land Use
Sections:
r-
18.76.010
18.76.020
.18.76.030
18.76.040
18.76.050
18.76.060
18.76.070
18.76.080
18.76.090
18.76. 100
18.76.110
f 8. 76. 120
18.76. 130
18.76.140
18.76.150
18.76. 160
18. 76. 170
18.76.180
'18.76.010--18.76.030
. Chapter....:. I 8.76
.EMili T ION S
Proposa I s to be subni itted.
Prel iminary step.
Preliminary map requirements.
Admi n i strat i va pre 1 i m i nary approva I.
Pre I iminary approval by the Planning Commission.
Prel iminary approval of flag partitions.
Notification.
further lot division.
Conditions may bo set.
Final step.
Final map requirements.
Acceptance of the final mar.
Final approval by the Secretary.
Lot line adjustments.
Issuance of bui Iding permits. . .
Selling and negotiating for land.
Exterior unimproved streets.
Private Ways.
18.76.010 Proposals to be submitted. Proposals for minor and major land
partitioning shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor.
18.76.020 Prel iminary step. The appl icant shall submit to the Planning
Department a preliminary map of the proposed partition.
18.76.0.30 Prel iminary map requi ren.ents. The pre', iminary map shall have
,,-.. a minimum size of eight and one-halt inches by eleven inches and contain
the following information:
A. A map describing the boundaries of all contiguous land in the same
ownership.
B. The date, north point, 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.
O. The location, name, and right-of-way width of al I streets, alleys, and
private ways.
E. The location and width of al I publ ie 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. ,:A,
RECEiV.~.U
I f(C
City of A~, h! an(j
Community Development
Land Use
18.76.040--18.76.060
H. The location of all existing and proposed structures on the property
including struc-tures on adjacent properties that ar-e within twenty-five feet
of the subject lot lines.
I. The approximate location of areas subject to inundation or storm water over-
flow, .al I areas covered by water, and the location, width and direction of flow
of al'. water courses.
J. The names of the record owners of all land adjacent to the partition.
K. An indication of the directlo~ and appr'oximate degree of slopes.
/"'"'
18.76.040 Admlni.:;trafive prel iniinary .M!proval_. If the Staff Advisor determines
that the prel imlnary map of ~ny partition satisfies the conditions of Section
18.72.050 and consists of Ic)';'s which cannot be furthe~ divided, the partition
shall be adminlstratively.considered for preliminary approval by the Director of
Public Works, the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and the Secretary to.the
Planning Commission, or their representatives. .
18.76.050 Pr'al iminary aIJProv.~.LJ2.'Lthe Plannin~ CO'!1mission. If the proposed
partitlol1 does not appear to comply with the requirements for routine administrative
approval, the prel Irninary map shall be submitted to the Planni.ng Commission and
approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract under the
same ownership will not be impeded. .
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto
wi II not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for twelve mohths.
D. The partitioning is not in contI iet with any law, ordinance, or resolution
applicable to the land.
".-
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the Design and Streets Standards con-
tained in the Chapter on Subdivisions. .
18.76.060 Preliminary approval of flaQ.~i!l1J~. Partitions involving the
creation of flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the
fol lowing conditions are satisfied:
A. Conditions of the pr"evious Section have been met.
B. The partition does not cause undue harm to adjacent property owners.
C. The flag drive for one flag lot shal I have a minimum width of fifteen feet,
and a twelve foot paved surface. For drivos serving two lots, the flag drive shall
be twenty-f i vo feet with fifteen feet of pavement to the back of t~,,:"~i.l:JV;_~,tot,
and fifteen feet anC1 twelve feet, respectively, fGr the rear lot. lSPTWS !Iti~red
by adjacent properties shal I have c width of twenty feet, with a fifteen foot
paved surface. F I a9 dri ves sha II be constructed so as to pr'event j~\~lace dra i nage
/ f'1
City of Ashland
Community Development
land Use
18.7~.oto--la.76.09~
from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways.. Flag drives shal J be in. the-
same ownership as the flag lots served. There shall be no pbrking for ten
feet on either side of the flag drive entra~ce.
D. Each flag lot has at least tour parking spaces situated in such a manner
as to ~I imlnat~ .the .n~~es.sit.y. for backl.ng out.
E. Curb cuts have been minimized, were posslblel through the use of common
driveways. ,
F. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence,
wa III or eve.rgroen hedge to a he, I ght of from fou r to s I x feet except in the
front yard setback arE:!a where startt ng five feet from the property I I ne the
height shal I be from thirty to forty-two Inches In the remaining setback are3.
Such fence or landscaping shull be placed at the extrome outside of the flag
~rive in order to ensure adequate fire access.
G. The applicant has executed and filed with the City Recorder an agreement
,/""'. between himself and the City for paving and screenIng 01 "rhe fl.ag drive. Such
',_/ an agreement shal I specify the period within which the applicant or his ?gent
or con1-ractor shall ,complete the paving to standal~ds as specified by the Dirr~ctor
of Public ~/orks and screening as required by this section, and providing that
If he shall fal I to complete such work within such period the City may complete
-lhe same and recover the fu II cost and expense the'reof' from the appl i canot. An
.agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of .the pavi.ng and screening to
standards as indicated In this section and the insurance that such maintenance
shall be continued.
H. A site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. The site pl~~
shall be approved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles
are satisfied. Such a site p.lan shall conta'n the map requirements I isted in
Section 18.76.030 and the fol lowing information:
p.,
'.
1. The location of all proposed structures in the partition.
2. The location of driveways, turnarounds, and parking spaces.
3. The location and type of screeni~g.
I. No more than two lots are served by the flag drive.
18.76.070 Notification. On any partition where the number of lots Is increased,
property owners that are within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of
the proposed partition shall be notified by mai I at feast ten days before the
application is considered for preliminary approval.
18.76.080 Further lot division. ~/h(m the iots of a partition can be further
divided-, the Planning Commission may require a development plan for tht' tract or
land. If the Com:nisslon determines that an area or tract of land haa~twf!5 is
In the process of being divided into four or more lotsl they Cdn require fu! I
compliance with al I subdivision regulations.
JAN '
18.76.09'1 Conditions may be set. The Planni.ng Commission or tho Staff ~dvisor
may requi ro dedication of land or easements, sign ing in fuvor of s1-reet Improv€-
ments, and cond it ions or rood if i cat ions re I ati ng to improvements such C~'tOtf$:t~e'W<;l1 J.:t~"
- ./ S' =-.. ' GOmmunI Y ueV8rOplf,en
Land Use
18.76.090--18.76.110
uti I ities, landscaping, or other !tenrS necessary 1"0 conform to state laws,
and the st<JncJards of the Subdivis:on 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
was ~ubdivlded. Underground lItiI itie!.> shall be required In connection with
all land partition appl ications as set forth in Subsections 18.80.060(C)
through 18.80.060(F) of this Title.
18.76.100 Final'step. \~ithin twelve months of the date of preliminary map
approval, the tract of land shel i be surveyed, pins set at al I corners, and
a ft na I map suomi tted to the P I ann i I\g Department i ncorporat i ng any cond i t ions
or modifications of the map's preliminary approval. If the applicant has
not comple-j-ad the fO're9Oin9 \<dthin the six month period, he must re-submit
the partItion fvr preliminary approval consideration.
18.76.110 Final Ma~ReQuirements. The map to be filed with the County
Clerk sha! I be legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced by a process guaranteeing
a permanent record in black on polyester base film having a minimum
,,-. '~b i cknc:;s of .003", 1811 x 24". If: nk.i s used on po I yester base f i I ffi,
the ink surface shall be coated with a suitable substance to insure
permanent legibility. An autopositive in black on polyester base fi 1m
shall also be fi led \'lith the ~ounty Surveyor. A reproducible copy of the
final map shall be fi led with the City Engineer. The map shal I Incorporate
the following items before approval will be given:
A.
.8.
C.
D.
E.
,,-... F.
G.
Title block, top and center' specifying "minol~ or m~jor partition",
the p:?rtitlon number, City of Ashland.. and the aoplicant's name.
Name of the property owner and daveloper.
Number of" each lot in the partition.
Date, Scale, and N0rth Point (arrow) generally pointing to the
top of the map.
Basis of bearing determined by solar observation, polaris observation
or true bearing determined from t~e national Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Survey Net (formerly Coast and Geodetic Survey>.
The name and right of ..,lay width of i.idjacent stre'3ts, alleys, and
private ways.
Irrigation and drainage easements. Those portions of land within
the boundaries of the partitioning subject to periodic inundation
wh i ch effect the i ni"ended use of the I and together \<d th the method
or Source of such determination. Also, other easements of record
or conditions which affect the title of land or the use of land.,
H. All stakes, monuments, or other evidence, found and used to
establish boundaries of the partition. Any lines or boundaries
shown by approximation clearly identified as such.
I. Established centerlines by the City of adjoining streets.
J. The length of all arcs, radii and central angles. Adjust al I
dist~nces to the nearest one hundredth of a foot except on curves
\<ihich may be shown closer. Adjust all bearings to the nearest
ten seconds. The error of fie I d closure sha II not exce(~d oAECEI\lED
foot in five thousand.
K. Area of each parcel expressed in either squar~ feet or acre5.
JAN
I '/3
City of Ashland
Community De',eiopment
land Use
18.76.110--18.65.140
1. MONUMENTAl ION
A. All monuments shall be a minImum diameter of 5/8'1 for iron pins
and a minimum inSide diameter of ~Il for iron pipes. For concrete
monuments refer to O.R.S. 92.060 as amended by Senate BI II No. 487.
B. Witness corners may be se.t when it is imp ract I ca I or I mposs I b I e
to set a" moriurrie"nt in Its true posTtlon providing course and
distance is given to the true position,
C. All monuments shall be clearly identified \"ith the surveyor's
or engineer's name or registration number.
2. CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL BEFORE FILING WITH COUNTY CLERK AND
COUNTY SURVEYOR.
A. Signatuie of approval on the face of the map by the Executive
Secretary of the Planning COHlmission or his representative.
r--
B. Dedication of easelTlents for utilities, and/or widening of
street shall be made on the face of the map. Statement of
dedIcation byowner-developt.:r with signature attested to by
notarization.
C. Surveyor's certificate is to be shown with his seal and signature
on the face of the map.
D. Signature of approval by the City EngIneer Is required when
dedication of streets or easements Is made on the map.
3~ DISCOVERY OF ERROR AND OMMISSIONS.
,,-..
A. All corrections or additions on a final map shal I be made In
ink suitable for the material and sprayed with suitable plastic
material for preservation, including those prior to recording.
B. He shal I file an affidavit stating the nature of the error with
the County Recorder.
C. The map then "shal I be corrected and initialed by the
surveyol- under the d i red ion of the County Surveyor.
O. The affidavid dOcument number and date shall be placed
on the face of the map that 15 '-ecorded.
18. 76. 12.Q " Acceptance of the fins I ma~. Fins I maps offer'ed for app rova I sha II
not be accepted if the individual or agent of a corporation being responsible
for the final map is acting simultaneously as the surveyor or engineer for the
applicant or developer and the entity having jurisdiction of the minor and
major partitioning.
18.76.130 Final approval by the S~cretary. When the Staff Advisor det~rmlnes
that the final map conforms to the final map requ.irernents and specificatIons
and the conditions (if any) of prelimlndry approval, the Secretary or his
representative shQl1 date and sign the final map.
RECEIVED
18.76.140 Lot I I neadJ ustments.. The adj ustment of a lot line by the re loca-
tion o"t a common boundary, wher"e the number of parcels is not changed and all
JAhj 1z~nll1g requirements are met shall be accepted by the City provided the require-
" ment5 of sections 18.76.090thr-ough 18.76.130 arEl' satisfied, in addition 1'0
se~tion18.76.170 where the lot adjustr'1ent/~Jlj5ps access to be changGd to an
City o~~2J)d~ht un improved street. ?f .,.
Community Devefop
Land Use
18.76.150--18.76.180
18.76.150 Issuance of building permits. The final map shall receive final
approval and pins set before the issuance of a bui Iding permit.
18.76.160 Sell inq and nerlotiatin~ for land. A podion or portions of a
tract or area of land shall not be sold, leased, or the right of possession
changed without prior final approval of a partition. . However, a person may
offer or negotiate to sel I. lease, or change the right of possession of any
aprcal prior to the approval ot afinat partition map.
,-.
J8.7Q.170 Exterior unimpoved streets and access ""<'lYS. HIe following improve-
ments are required for property being minor land partitioned adjacent to an.
unimproved street. Major land partitions shall comply 'tJith the requirements
of the Subdivision Chapter relating to streets. These requIrements shall
apply to streets which are dedicated in whole or in part, or where the Planning
Commission finds that it is essential to the foture development and interior
access or circulation of an area for dedication to be provided. Such improve-
ments pertain to onl'yhalf the required rfght-of-way width fronting on the
subject property and are to be instal"led af the expense of the land divider.
A. The final elevation of the street be established as specified by the
Director of Public Works oxcept where the establishment of the elevation would
produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this
case, the lot's slopes shall be graded to meet the final street elevation.
",...
B. The street be graded (cut and fi I led) to its standard physical width prior
to issuance of buHding permits for construction on any new or existing pro-
perty in the partition.
C. Drainage ditches be provided at the probable curb and gutter location.
D. Pedestrian ways (unimproved sidewalks) be provided within the street
right-of-way between the drainage ditch and the property 1 ine.
E. The street be surfaced with compatible and durable road material (e.g. gran-
Ite, If appropriate) as specified by i"he Director of Public Works.
F. Functional, not leg~l, access may be obtained through use of a deeded
easement where serving not more than two dwel lingsj and access shall meet the
requtrements for a flag drive.
18.76.180 Private Ways. Private ways may be created as provided In 18.80.030(8)(1)
RECEIVED
..
, 1-:1 1
: it
City of Ashland
Community Development
195
Land Use
18.80.010--18.80.020
Ch~f~1er 18.80
SUBDIVISIONS
Sections:
18. 80.0 10
18.80.020
18.80.030
18.80.040
18.80.050
18.80.060
18.80.070
Proposals to be submitted.
Design standards.
Approval of streets and ways.
Pre I imi nary' p lat.
Final plat.
Improvements.
Exceptions, variances and enforcement.
.. 18.80.010 Proposa I s to be submi tted. Proposa Is for subdl vi s Ion of' I and sha II
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval through the Director of
Public Works. Such proposals shall conform to an provisions of this Chapter.
18.80.020 Design standards.
A. Acceptabil ity--.pdnciples: The subdivision shall conform with any develop-
ment plans and shall take into consideration any preliminary plans made in
anticipation thereof. The subdivision shal I conform with the requirements
of state laws and the standards established by this Chapter.
B. Streets:
1. General. The location, width, and grade of streets shall be con-
sidered in relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical
conditions, to public convenience and safety, and to the proposed use
of the land to be served by the streets. The street system shall
assure an adequate traffic circulation system. intersection angles,
grades, tangents, and curves shall be appropriate for the traffic to
.r- be carried and to the terrain. Where location is not shown on a
development plan, the arrangement of streets In a subdivision shal I
etther:
a. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of
existing principal str'eets in surrounding areas; or
b. Conform to a plan for the neighborhood approved or adopted by
the P I ann I rIg .commlss Ion to meet a pa rt I cu I ar s i tuat Ion where
topographical or other conditions make continuance or conformance
to existing streets Impractical.
1"'""
RECEIVED
.~t',N 1 7 .'
l<g(,
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
i
18.80.020
2. The minimum right-of-way and improvement width of streets shall be
not less than the tollm.rj nG, subject to pmvisions noted below:
Improvement Width
(f n teet)
Type of Street Minimum right-of-way L L L L P P S S ,..,
\"
Major Arteri a I 80 12 12 12 12 10 10 5 5 1
Minor Arterial .&0 12 12 10 10 5 5 1
CoI lector. (1) 47 10 10 8 8 4 4 1
Residential (1) 47 10 10 8 8 4 4 1
AI ley (2) --- 20
Cu I-de--Sac (3) 90 (dl~) 80 (dia. )
(1) Standards variable based on specific situation.
(2) Alley pavement width d~pendent on access needs and conditions.
(3) Standard given Is for baste curcular cul-de-sac without islands or parking;
/"' specific situation may necessitate other desiglls and standards.
L= Traffic lane
P= Parking
S= Sidewalk
C= Curb .
These standards are a basic mInimum. The Planning Commission shall examine
each proposal and staff reports individually, and may require other than the
basic standard if special considerations, such as topography, lot shape, esthetic
character of the surrounding area, or other features make it appropriate. Each
proposed street development shal I be accompanied by a report from the DIrector
of Public Works and the Planning Director (or their designees), recorr~nding
street standards based OR present and future conditions of load, usage, and
area characteristics.
.r-
RECEIVELJ
II, f,! "
\,1 f-\ Iv :
1<;7
City of Ashlc(iC]
Community Deveiof.-ment
land Use
<Q.80.020
3. Reserve strips: Reserve strips or street plugs controlling the access
to streets wi I I not be approved unless necessary for the protection of
the public welfare or of substantial property rights and in these cases
they may be required. The control and disposal 'ot the land composing
such strips or street plugs shell' be placed within the jurisdiction of
the City under conditions approved by the Planning Commission.
4. Alignment: All streets as tar as Is practical shal I be In alignment
with existing streets by continuation ot i-he center I iTles thereof.
The staggering of street alignment resulting in liT" intersections
shall wherever practical leove a minimum distance of one hundred
twenty-five feet between the center lines of streets.
/"""
5. Future extension of streets: Where necessary to give access to or
permit a satisfactory subdivision of adjoining land, streets shall be
extended to the boundary of the subdivision and the resulting dead-end.
streets may be approved without a turnaround. Reserve strips and
street plugs may be r-equ i red to preserve the object i ves of street ex-
tensions.
6. Intersection angles: Streets shall be laid out to intersect at an
angle as near to a right angle as practIcal, except where topography
requires a lesser angle. Property lines at intersections with arterial
streets shall have a minimum corner radius of twenty feet and property
lines at other street and alley Intersections shal I have a minimum
corner radius adequate to allow sidewalk and utility space and a curb
'radius of ten feet.
7. Existing streets: Whenever existing streets adjacent to or within a
tract are of inadequate width, additional right-ot-way shal I be
provided at the Time of subdivision.
/"'"'
8. Frontage and limited access roads may be required as defin~d in
Sections 18.72.040 el) and 18.72.040 'CM) of this Title.
9. Access to subdivision: All major rr.eans of access to a subdivision or
major partition shall be from existing streets fully improved to City
standards, and which, tn the jUdgment of the Director of Public Works,
have the capacity to carryall anticipated traffic from the development.
10. Half streets: Half streets, while generally not acceptable, may be
approved when essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision,
when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations,
and when the Planning Commission finds it will be practical to require
the dedication of the other haif when the adjoining property is sub-
divided. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tr'act to be subdlvidud,
the other half of the street may be platted within such tract. Reserve
strips and street plugs may be required to preserve the objectives of
the half streets.
11. Cu l-de-sacs: A cu I-de-sac sha I ~ be as short as poss i b I e ~U;~Lj) have
a maximum length of five hundred feet. All cul-de-sacs shall terminate
tJAN 1
I ftf
City of Ashland
Community Development
Land Use
. 80.020
\~jth a circular turnaround unless alternate designs for turning and
reversing direction are approved by the Planning Commission.
12. Street narr~s: No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be
contused with the names of existing streets in Ashland and v4cinlty
exc~pt for extensions of existing streets. Stl~eets which -are an'
extension of, or are in alignment with, existing streets shall have the
same name as tho existing street. Street names and numbers shall con-
form to the estob Ii shl3d pattern for the Ci ty and she II be subject to
the approval of the Planning Commission.
13. Grades: Street grades shal I not exceed the following (streets in steeper
areas shall use curvi linear, contour-oriented construction):
r-
Type of Street
Arteri a Is
Collector streets
Minot' streets
~,1axi mum Grade
7 percent
lOpe rcent
10 percent
Where existing conditions, particularly the topography, make It other-
wise Impractical to provide bui Idable lots, the Planning Commission may
accept steeper grades. In f I at areas a II owance sha II be made for'
finished street grades having a minimum slope of ane-half of one percent.
14. Streets adjacent to rai Iroad right-of-way: Wherever the proposed sub-
division contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-ot-way, provision
inay be required for a street approximately parallel to and on each side
of such right-ot-way at a distance suitable for the appropriate use of
the land between the streets and the rai I road. The distance shel r be
great enough to provide sufficient depth to allow screen planting along
the rai I road right-of-way.
,.,-..
15. Alleys: Alleys shall be provided In commercial and industrial districts,
unless other permanent provisions tor access to off-street parking and
loading faci litles are made as approved by the Planning Commission. No
unpaved alleys shal I be allowed in commercial or industrial districts,
nor I n any res I dent i a I d I str i ct where the s lope exceeds five percent.
Alleys shall be paved to a minimum width of twenty feet.
C. Blocks.
1. General. The length, width, and shape of blocks shall be designed with
due regard to providing building si+es for the use contemplated, consid-
eration of needs for convenient access, circulation, control, and
safety of street traffic, and recognition of'the limitations and opport-
unities of topography.
2. Sizes. Blocks shal I not exceed one thousand three hundred twenty feet
in length, except blocks adjacent to arterial streets or unless the
previous adjacent layout or topographical conditions justify an
exception.. REeF!,,,, .J
3. Block width. Blocks shal I have sufficient width to provrde fOr~wo
tiers of lots.
,'/!, :~
1?9
City 01 Ac;' .Id: 'd
Community Deveie;prnent
~"
r' ~
~,
>J
land Use
'').80.020
4.
Easements.
a. Utility linos. Easements for sewers, water matns, electric lineS,
or other public utilities shall be dedicated ~harever necessary.
The easements shall be a minimum of ten feet In width.
b. ~latercourses. Where a subdIvision is traversed by a watercouf'se
such as a drainage way, channel, or stream; there shall be provided
a storm water easement or drainage rlght-of~way conforming sub-
stantially with the lines of the water.course, and such further
width as wi II be adequate for the purpose. Streets or parkways
parallei to major watorcourses .may be requi red.
e. . Pedestr I an ways. When des I rab I e for pub I Ie conven I ence, pedestr'l an
ways may be required to connect to cUl-de-sacs, to pass through
oddly-shaped or unusually long blocks, or to provide access to
schOOls, parks, .or othor publIc areas.
"
D. lots.
1. lots shal'.meet the requirements of the zone In which the subdivision
is located: These minimum standards shall apply \-lith i-he fol lowing
exceptions:
a. In areas that wi II not be served bya publ ic sewer', minimum
lot size shall be increased to conform with the requirements
of the County Health Department and shall take Into consideration
problems of water SUpply and sewage disposal.
b. MInimum lot standards shall not conflict with City zoning standards.
.' c~ Where property is zoned and planned for industrial or business
use, other standards may be permitted at the discretion of -the
PJanning Commission. Depth and width of properties reserved or
lal.d out for commercial and Industrial purposes shall be adeqoate
to provide for the cff-str:-eet service and parking facilities
required by the type of use and development contemplated,
2. Access. Each lot shal I abut upon a street other than an alley for
a \', i dth of at I east forty feet except In tl;le V3se.o~ trlts I oca~ed
upon the curved portion of Cul-de-sac~vr-other streets .6r In the
case where topography warrants narrower 4~~OS~, tn no case shall a
lot abut upon a street for a width of less than twenty-five feet.
.3. Through lots~ Through lots shal' be avoided except where essential
to provide separation or residential development from major traffic
arteries or adjacent nonresidential activities or to overcome specific
disadvantages of topography and orIentation. A planting screen
easement of at least ten feet, across which there shall be no right
of access, may bo requi red a long t!1e I ine of Jots abutti 09 Such a
traffic an-ery or other disadvantageous use. Through lots with
,planting screens shalf have a minimum average depth of one hundred
ten feet. .
4. lot sIde lines. The side lines of lots, as far as practicable, shall
rUn at right angles to the street upon which the lot faces.
E. lot gradIng. lot grading shal I conform to the following standardg unless
physical conditions demonstrate the propriety of other standards.
1'. Cut slopes shall not be s-!-eeper then one and one-helf feet horizo:1tally
to one foot vertically.
2. Fill slopes sha II not be steeper ihan two feet hori zonta 11~Ef<dE6\{f:iD
foot ve d i ca I I y.
3. Cut slopes and fill slopes along side and rear lot lines ~~~I I, be
diN; .
IqV~
City of Ashland
Community Development
r
.'-'
land Use
'.80.020--18.80.030
P I anted "lith ground cover and shrubs or trees, or by some other
method approved by the City.
F. large lot subdivision. In ~ubdividing tracts into large lots which at
some future time are lik~ly to be resubdivided, the PlannIng Commission may
requtro that the blocks shal I be of a size and shape, be divided Into lots and
contain bui Idin9 site restrictions 1-0 provide, for extension and opening of
streets at intervals which wi II permit a subsequent division of each parcel
Into lots of sma I ler size.
G. land for public purposes.
1. The Planning Commission may require the reservation for public acquisi-
tion, at a cost not to excel)d acreage values in the area prior to sub-
dIvision. Of appropriate areas within the subdivision for a period not
to exceed one year providing the City knows of an intention on the part
of the State Highway Corrmission, school district, or other public
agency to acquire Q por+lon of the area within the proposed subdivision
for a public purpose, including substantial assurance that positive
steps wi I I be taken in the reasonable future for the acquisition.
2. The Planning Con~ission may require the dedication of suitable areas
for the parks and pI eygr lJunds that w III be requ I red for the use of
the population which is intended to occupy the subdivision.
H. landscaping. The Planning Comniis~ion shall ensure that lot coverage
requl rements of the zoni ng d i stri ct are met appr'opr I ate Iy. I f lot di stul'bance
exceeds the perc~ntage allowable, the subdivIder shal I submit as part of the
FInal Plat procedure, a landscaping plan to be approved by the Commission, and
which wi II conform with the lett€r and intent of the zone district requirements,
the slope requirements In the General Regulations of this Title, and any
other appl icable section. Performance shal I be assured as in Section 18.80.050
of th i s Chapter.
I. Exceptions--Iarge scale deve lopmcnt-. The Planning Commission may modi fy
the standards and requIrements of this Chapter if the subdivision plat comprises
a comp I ete ne i ghborhood. un it. a I a rge sea Ie shopp i.ng cente r, or a planned
industrial area. The Planning Commission shall determine that such wJdifica-
tions are not detrimental to the publ ic health, safety, and welfare and that
adequate pt'ovislon is made within the development for traffic circulation, open
space, and other features that may be required in the public interest.
J. The Planning f.omrnission may modify the standards and requir'ements of this
Chapter where the applicant pres~nts innovative design concepts that will
assist in providing livable housing at reasonable cost. Such modification of
standards shall be made only in conformance with the intent of this Chapter",
and In conformance with all applicable portions of this Title.
18.80.030 Approval of street~.
A. Creatfon of streets.
1. The creati.on of a street shal I be in conformance with requirements
for subdivision except that the Planning Commission shal I approve
the creation of a street to be established by deed without full
compl iance with the regulations applicable to subdivisions when any
of the following conditions exist: RECEIVED
a. The establishment of a street is initiated by the City
Council and is declared essential for the purpose of general
traffic circulation and the partitioning of land is,)~~ if~idental
Itf;
City of Ashland
Community Deve'op, Dent
land Use
,- 80.030--18.80.040
effect rather than the primary objective of the street.
b. The .tract in whiCh the street Is to be dedicated i~ an Isolated
ownership of one acre or. less. ..... ."
2. In those cases where approval of a street may be given without full
compliance with the regulattonsapPllcable.to subdiv~sion, a copy of
the proposed deed shall be submitted to the City
prior to the Planning C~mlssion meeting at which consideration is
requested. .The deed and such information..as may besubml.tted shall
be reviewed by the PI anni ng Corr.ml ss ion and, if not in. conf Ii ct wi th
the design standards (Section 18. .020), shall be appr.oved with
. conditions necessary to preserve these standards. Within 90 days
fOllowing approval, the strp-$.t. $.hill I b'e surveyed, mapped, and duly
recorded \'li th the CountySurveye~. ...
("';;-'
'.....
B. Creation of private ~ays.
1. Any easement of way providing access to property and which is created
In order to allow the partitioning of tand for the purpose of tran3fer
of ownership or building development, whether Immediate or future,
shall be In the form of a street either In a subdivision cr' as provided
In "A" above, except that a private way to be established by deed
td thout fu! I comp I i ance with these regu I at ions sha II be app roved by
1he Planning Coimlisslon If it is the only reasonable means of access.
to a landlocked parcel. Such way shall meet all flag drive standards
and shall serve no more than two lots. .
18.80.040 Preliminary plat.
C'
A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight copies. of a preliminary
plat and other supplementary material as may be required.to indicate the
general program and objectives of the project to the office of th~ Director
of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor.
B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a shoet eighteen inches
by twenty-four Inches In size at a scale no smaller than one Inch equals
one hundred feet.
c. General-information. The following general information shall be shown o~
the pre I Iml nary p I at:
1 . Proposed name of the subd I vi s ion, wh I ch must not dup I I cate nor .
. resemble the name of another subdivision In Jackson County and shall
pe approved by the Planning Commission.
2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing.
3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminar-y
plat. .
4. location of the subdivision sufficient to define. the location 'and
boundaries of the proposed tract.
.5. Names. and addressesHof the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
D. Exist!ngccndi-tlons. The following existing condltion~ shall 1RE€hg~19n
the pre limi nary plat:
1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets
within or adjacent to the tract, together \'lith easements ~!1.1iJ ojher
important features, such as section lines and corners,
/ " tt..
City of Ashland
Community DeVelopment
land Use .80.040
and monuments.
2. location and direction of al I watercourses and areas subject to
flooding.
3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas,
and Isolated preservable trees.
4. Extstfng uses of the property, including location of all existing
structures to remain on tile property after platting.
5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
6. Contours at an i nte rva I 0'[ five fee't.
on the
1.
F. land division--proposed plan. The following information shall be included
."-
2.
3.
pre I iminary p lat. .
The location, width, names and approxim~te grades of streets, and the
relationship of the streets to any projected streets as shown on any
deve loprnent p I an adopted by the P I ann i ng Comm i ss i on, or if there I s no
development plan, as suggested by the CIty to assure adequate traffic
circulation.
The location and purpose of easements.
The iocation, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and ulock
numbers, for al I lots and blocks.
Sites, if any, al located for purposes other than single fami Iy dwellings.
. 4.
G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part
of the tract owned or control led by the subdivider, the Planning Commission
may require a Master Plan for the unsubdlvided portion.
:
H. Explanatory information. The following information shal I be submitted in
separate statements accompanying the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall
be shown on the preliminary plat:
1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivlsionl streets, and unsubdivided
land adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing how proposed
streets may be extended to connect with the exi5ting streets.
2. Proposed deed restrictions, If any, In outline form.
r' 3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten percent within the area to be
subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be required by the Planning
Commission. A grading plan should show existing and finished grades
on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin,
the gradinq plan shal I be approved by the Planning Commission, which
may request a review and report from the City Engineer.
I. Tentative approval.
1. ~lthrn.thirty ~aY7 from the first regular Planning Commission meeting
ollowlng submISSI(:>n of t~e ~Iat, the Planning Commission will review
the ~Ian and may.glve teno,at,ve approval of the preliminary plat as
o ~ubml:ted ~r as It ~y pe modified or, if dIsapproved, shai r express
~ lts disapproval and rts reasons therefor.
RcCEtlVE~prova I o.f the p:e Ii mi nary plat sha II i. nd I cate the PI ann i ng Commi ss Ion f s
ppr~v?r .of the final plat provided there is no change In the plan of
S,U~dlvlsl~n as shown on the prel imlnary plat and there Is full com-
JAi~ 1 7 .Jl(f7iance. WIth the requl rements of this iitle.
3. Thfe act Ion of the P: ann i ng Comm! 55 I on sha I r be noted on hlo cop' 1 es
o l' he pre I' . I l' . .
City of Ashland I mt nary p a , I nc I ud I n9 reference to any attached documents,
Community Development
If.E
Land Use
13.80.040--18.80.050
describing conditions. One copy shall be returned to the subdivider
and the other retained by the Planning Com'lliss.i.on.
18.80.050 Frnal Plat.
A. Submission. Within twelve months after tentative approval otthe preliminary
plat, .the subdivider shall cause the subdlv.ision or any part thereof to be
surveyed and a tinal plat prepared in conformance with the preliminary p.fat
as tentatively approved. The subdivider shall submit the original drawing,
an exact or auto positive copy, five prints of the final plat, and any supple-
mentary i nformat I on to the City. I f the subd I v i der w I shes to proceed \'/ i th the
subdivision after the expiration of the twelve month period fol lowing the tentative
approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission, he must resubmit
his preliminary plat to the Planning Commission and make any revision con~:dered
necessa ry to IlY..:'let changed cond i t ions.
r-
B. Information. In addition to that otherwise specifi~d by law, the following
[nformation shall be shown on the final plat:
1. The date, scale, north point, legend, and controlling topography suh
as creeks, ditches, highways, and ..a I I road right-of-way. .
2. Legal description of the tract boundaries and the file number of the
subd I'vi s i on.
3. Name and address of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor.
4. Reference points of existing surveys identified, related to the plat
by distances and bea rings, an.d referenced to a fie I d book or map as
follows:
a. Stakes, monuments, or oth~r evidence found on the ground and used
to determine the boundaries of the subdivision.
b. Adjoining corners of adjoining subdivisions.
c. Other monuments found or establlsbed in making the survey of the
subdivision or requir-ed to be installed by provisions of this Title.
5. The exact location and width of streets and easements intersecting the
boundary of the tract. .
6. Lines 'with dimensions, bearings or deflection .angles, radi i, arcs,
points of curvature and tangent bearings for tract, lot, and boundaries
and street bearings sha!1 be shown to the nearest ten seconds with
basis of bearings. All distances sha! I be shown to the nearest one-
hundredth feet. No ditto marks shall be used.
7. The width of the portion of streets being dedicated, the width of any
existing rlght-ot-way and tho width on each side of the center line.
for streElts on curvature, curve data sha II be based on the street center
line and, In addition to center line dimensions, the radius and central
angle snail. be indt.cated.
8. Eas.ements denoted by flne dotted I fnes, clearly identified and, if
a I ready of recol~d, its recorded reference; if an easement is 'not
definitely located of record, a statement of the easement; the width
of the easement, its length and bearing and.suffident ties to locate
, the easement with respect to ihe subdivision must be shown; if the
R.....CEIVED easement is being dedicated by the map, it shall.be properly reff!renced
C tn the owner's certificate of dedication.
9. Lot numbers beginning with the number "1" and continuing consecutively
. ,-without omission or dupl katlon throughout each block of the subdivision.
.~
Gill; of Ashland
Community Development
Ir'l
Land Use
'~.HO.050
~"
10. Block numbers beginning with the number "1" and continuing consecutively
without omission or duplication throughout the subdlvlston. The
numbers sha II be so lid. of suff i c tent s j ze and "th i ckness to stand out
and so p I aced as not to ob I i terat€; any f t gure. - 810ck numbers in add i _
tion to a subdivision of the same name shall be a continuation of
the numbering In the orJglnal subdivision.
11. land parcels to be dedicated for any purpose, public or private, to
be d"istinguished"from lots intended for sale. " "
12. Building setback lines, It any, are to be made a part of the subdivision
restri ct j ons ,-
13. The fol lowing certificates which may be combined wher~ appropriate.
a. A" certificate signed and acknowledged by all parties having
record title interest in the land, consenting to the preparation
and recording of the plat. _
b. A cart i fi cate s i gnad an d acknow I edged as a bOVA, ded i cat i ng a II
parcels of land shown on the final plat and intended for any public
use, except those parcels which are intended for the exclusive use
of the lot owners in the subdlvlsicn, their licensees, visitors,
and servants.
c. A certificate signed by the surveyor responsible for
the survey and final map (the signature of the engineer or sur-
veyor to be accompanied by his seal).
d. All other certifications now or hereafter required by law.
14. Survey Requirements
a. Basis of bearing determined by solar ob~ervation, polaris
observation or 1-rue bearing determined from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Survey Net (formerly
Coast and Geodetic Survey.)
b. All monuments shall be minimum diameter of 5/8" for iron
pins and a minimum inside diameter of i" for iron pipes.
For concrete monuments refer to O.R.S. 92.060 as amended
by Senate Bi I I No. 487.
c. All monuments shall be clearly identified with the sur'veyor's
-name and/or registration number.
d. Witness corners may be set when it is impractical or impossible
to set a monument on its true position pr<;>viding course and
distance is given to the true position.
e. Marking interior monuments after recording of plat may be
accomplished under the following conditions:
1. That an approved bond or cash deposit be furnished to
the City of Ashla:1d in an amount equal to the estimated
cost of performing the work.
2. That al I conditions set forth under O.R.S. 92.065 be
adhered to.
t5. Discovery of Error and Ommisslons
1. AI I corrections or additions on a final map shall be made
in ink suitable for the material and sprayed with suitable
plastic material for preservation, including those prior to
RECEIVED "" record i 09.
" - - 2. ~/hen a.n errol- is d j scovered on a recorded survey, the
surveyor who made the error may make corrections providing:
a. Errors shal I be corrected by lining out and no erasures
wIll be permitted.
"('\"
,d'
- ........
Citv 01 Ashla.nd
comrnu'"ity [~e'/elopment
I~~
III .-----
Land Use 18.80.050
b. He shall fi Ie an affidavit s1-nting the nature of the error
or errors with the County Recorder.
c. The map then shall be correct~d and initialed by the
surveyor under the d i rEoct Ion of the COL:nty Surveyor-.
d. The affidavit dOCUMent number and date shall be placed
on the face of the map that Is recorded.
C. Supplemental information. The fol lowing shall accompany the final plat:
1. A sUbdivision guarantee or other report fr'om a title insurance
company which sho\>/s all of the parties who are either the fee owners
or mortgage or lien holders concerning tne land to be subdivided.
2. Sheets and drawings showing the fol lowing:
a. Traverse. data including the coordlo;jtes 0f the boundary of
the subdivision and showi~g the error of closure, tf any.
b. Theco!TIputatioft of all distances, 'anglos, and courses sho...m on
the fina I map.
c. Ties to ex i s.t i ng monuments, proposed monuments, adj acent
subdivisions, and street corners.
~ 3. A copy of any deed restrictiens applicatle to the subdivision.
4. Plans for the disposition, dGveI opment, and maintenance of any common
open space-, i nc' ud I n9 I ega I agreeme.!1ts ,-e I c::ted thereto.
D. Technical review. Upon receipt by the City, the final map and other- data
shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and Staff Advisor wtlO shall determine
wheth~r the subd Lv is i on as shmm is substant i a I I Y the s,ame as 1 t appeared on
th~ approved preliminary plat and that there has been compl lan~e with provi-
sions of the law and of this code. The City r~y make such checks In the fip,ld
as are deSIrable to verify that the map Is sufficiently corroct on the ground
and City representotives may enter the property for this. purpose. I f the City
Engtneer determines that ful I conformity has not been. made, he shall advise
the subdivider of the changes or additions that must be made and sha! I afford
the subdivider an opportunity to make the changes or- additions.
E. Approval. If the City-Eogjnae.r and Staff Advisor determine thut the final
,- plat is In full conformance with the approved preliminary plat and other
regulations, he shall so advise the Chairman of the PLantliug Commlss;on.
The Chairman of the Planning Comnliss.ion and the City'E~gineer-~ay then sign
the plat \'tithout further action by the Planning CommiSSion. if -:-he final
p I at is not In fu II confonr.ance or if the CiiyEngi neer e fects, he sha II
submit the plat to the Pianning Commission. It tfl~ tinal plat Is referred
to the Chairrnan of the pranning Commission for signature ""thoui' submission
to the Planning Commission, he may elect 'to submit the plat to the Planning
- Commission lor further revievl. \'Ihen submitted to the Planning Commissio:l,
a.')p rova I of the. f i na I p I at sha II be by a major i ty of those present. I f the
plat is signed without further review. by the Planning Commission, th.:: action
shal I be reported to the Planning Commission by the Chairman of the Commission
at the next regular meeting. Provided, however, that prior to certifying its
RECEIWDrova I on the f i na I p I at, the P I ann j ng Camml S5 i on sha II requ ire the sub-
divid~r to fi II the agreement and bond or make the deposit required in tn!s
Section, F and G belew.
Citv oj Ashland
Comm:_-~ity Development
Iqb
--~ --- ----rr-T---
Land Use
18.80.050
F. Agreement for improvements. Before Planning Commission approval is certI-
fied on the final map the subdivider shal I eitper.install required improvements
or shall execute and file with the City "Recorder an agreement betweennimself .
and the City, specifying the period wifhin'~nlchhe or his agent Or contractor
shal I complete al I i~provement work required by or pursuant to this Title, and
providing that if he shall fall to complete such work within such period the
City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from
. t~e subdivider. The agreement shall also provide for reimbursement of the
City by the subdivider for the cost of inspection by the City Engineer. Such.
agreement may also provide for tho Construction of the:. improvements in units,
for an extension of time under conditions therein specified, and for the
termination of the agreement upon the completion of proceedings undar an assess-
ment district 8<;t for the construction of improvements deemed by the City to
be at least the equivalent of the improvements specified in said agreement
and required to be constructed by the subdivider.
The time period for completion shall not exceed eighteen months for a subdivision
~~ or one of not more than thro3 phases of Q subdivision, each cc~taining no f&wer
than twenty units. Following expiration of the allowed time period, fai lure
to complete may be met by the City completing the work as specified above,
or by vo i d tng of the f I na I p I at. The course cho~>en sha II depend on the stagfl
of completion, it any, and the nature of the surrounding area. The decision
regarding completion or plat voiding shall be made by the Planning Commission.
.-
G. Bond.
1. The subdivider shall fi Ie with the agreerlk':lot, to assure his ful I and
faithful performance thereof, one of the following:
a. fl.n iI'revocable letter of credit payable to the CIty in
the event the agreement for improvements is not performed.
b. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to
transact busines~ in the state.
c. Cash.
2. Such assurance of ful I and faithful performance shall be for a sum
approved by fhe City Administrator as sufficient to cover the cost
of s.aid improvements, -engi-!leeri:nS; lnspAction, andlncidental expenses,
and to cover replaceoont and ,"epair of existing streets and other
publk Improvements damaged in the d~~E>JoDment of the subdivision
and must be approved by the City Attorney as to.form.
RECEIVED
~ '
, '
"n-
,,,
/97
City of i'l,shland
Comrmw,;iy Development
---rr--.-
land Use-. ~.80.050--18.3G.060
3. In the event the subdivider- falls to complete al I improvement work in
accordancG with the provisions of this Tttle, and the City has com-
pleted same, or If the subdivider fal Is to reimburse the City tor the
cost of inspection, engineering, and incidental 'expenses, and to cover
cost of replacement and repair of existing streets or other improvements
damaged I n the deve IOp/ll';,1nt of the subd i vis i on, the City sha II ca II
on the surety for reimbursement, or..s-hall appropriate 'from any cash
depos tts funds for re I mbursement . I n any such cas.e, if the amount
of SUiety bond or cash deposit exceeds all cost and expense incurred
by the City, it shall rG~ease the remainder of such ,bond 01- cash
depcsit, and if tht-; amount cf the surety bond or cash deposit is less
tha~ the cost and expense incurred by the City, the subdivider shal I
be liable to the City for' such difference.
H. Filing. The subdivider shal I, without delay, submit the final plat for
signatures of other pub I i c off i c I a I s requ I red by law. Approva I of the f l na I
plat is null ;"Jnd void if the plat is not recorded within sixty days after the
date the last required signature has been obtained.
~. 18.80.060 I 'tIP rovements.
A. Improvement procedure. In addition to other requirements, improvements
installed by the subdivider either as a requirement of these regulations or
at his own option shall conform to the requirements of this Title and improve-
ment standards and specifications followed by the City. The improvements shal I
be installed in accordance with the fol lowing procedure;
1. Work shal I not begin until plans have been checked for adequacy and
approved by the City. To the extent necessary for evaluation of the
subdivision proposal, the plans may be required before approval of
the f i na I map. ,
2. Work'shall not begin until the City has been notified inadvance, and
If work has been discontInued for any reason, it shal I not be resumed
unti I the City has been notified. '
3. Improvements shall be constructed unde,r the inspection and to the
satIsfaction of the City. The"City may require changes in typical
~ sections and detai Is if unusual condi1'ions arise during construction
to warrant the change in the pub lie interest. '
4. All under.gr'olind uti i ii-ies, sanitary sewers, and storm drains installed
Tn streets shall be constructed prior- to the surfacing of such stree:ts.
Stubs for service connections tor all underground uti 11ties and sani-
tary sewers shall be placed to such length as will obviate the nec-
essity for disturbing the street improvements when service connections
are made.
5. A reproducible map 5ho',\:1~ a-!~ public Improvements as built shall be
filed with the Cit~ Administrator upon completion of said improvements.
B. Imp rovernent req u i rements. Imp rovement$ to be i nsta II ed at the expense of
the land divider are as.follows:
1. Interior stroets. All interior streets shall be graded for the entire
Rr=CEIVED right-of-way W:dih, and roadWayS shall be improved with paving, curbs,
'- gutters, Gind drainage. The subdivi,der s.hall improve the extension of
all subdivision streets to the center I i,ne of existing streets with
which subdivision streets intersect.
~, ".(':
, !:2~; Exterior unimproved streets. (i'nen part of a proposed subdivision or
major land partition abuts an existing unimproved street, the property
City of Ashland owner or his representative shall satisfy the minor land partition
COnlll1unityDevelopmentmprovement requirements and sign '"egrE;em~nt in favor of improving
-- - -n:--.
. Umd Use
'.80.060
~
said street in the future to full City standards as outlined in this
Section.
3. .Structures. ,Structures specified cIS. necessary by the City, for drain-
age, access, and public safety shall be installed.
4. Sidewalks. Sidewalks may be required on one or both sides of the street
at the discretion. of the Planning Commiss.ion.. Such requirement shall
be related to the general level and type of development in the area,
.the anticipated level of pedestrian traffic, and the safety and con-
venience of children and other pedestrians.
.5. Improvements to be installed or provided by subdividers include all
items required by the Director of Public Works at the time of the sub-
divider's plat and construction plan and specification.approval.
6. Sewer~. Sanitary sewer faci lities including laterals connecting with
the existing City sewer system shal I be instal led to serve each lot.
No septic tanks or cesspools wit I be permitted within the City. Storm
water sewers shall be installed as req~ired by the City.
7. Water. Water- mains and services, fire hydrants of design, layout, and
location~ approved by the Director of Pu'bl ic Works as conforming to
City standards shed I be installed.
8. Street trees. Street trees may be required by the Planning Commission
and shall conform with a City street tree plan or specific requirelT'ants
of the Commission relating to tree type, size and spacing.
9. landscaping on lots where the allowable p.ercentage of lot disturt.ance
has been exceeded. .
10. M::>numents. Upon completion of street improvements, monuments shall
be re-established and protected in monument boxes at every s1'r€Jet
intersect ion' and at a 11 fib ints of intersect i on, or at a II . po i nts of
curvature and points of tangency of street center I inas.
C. Underground uti I itles'"'-required. All on-site uti I ity I ines, inclUding but
not limited to~ electric, communications, street lighting, and cable tele-
vision, Shall be instal led underground; except as provided in "0" below.
For the purpose of this section, appurtenances and associated equipment
such as, but not limited to, surface-mounted transformers, pedestal-mounted
,-- terminal boxes and meter cabinets, terminations for con'cealed ducts in ~f1
underground 'system, and street lightillg strLlctures and fixtures may be
placed above ground. This section does not apply to uti lity lines which
do not provide service to the area being subdivided.
D. Underground utlities--exceptions. Minor land partitions shall not be
required to provide underground uti I itles, provided that al.1 new service
for residential uses shall have instal led a service panel and stubbed
conduit to convert to underground uti I ities at a future date.
Eo Underground uti I ifies.--costs. The developer- shall deposit wlth the City,
the total estimated costs of new service and on-site distribution facili-
ties in new subdivisions and rr~blle home parks except trenching, back~
filling and any required conduit l.n place, which costs shall be the
lU8UldO\OA80 i\)I\Ji~tpbns i b i I I ty of the deve I oper. The ut i I j ty sha II i nsta II the requ ired
PUFi4SVlO^lf1ci I ities and shal J keep an accurate accounting of <;111 costs. Upon COIO-
pi et ion of the \'Iork, the ut i I i ty sha II I~ender a statement of costs to the
LU0-;' developer including a refund if the project cost is less than the amount
OJ/\IT)]U
/99
land Use
B.80.060--18.84.
,-...
on deposit, or 0 bl! ling for an additional deposit if the project cost exceeds
the amount on dcpos it. 'The d'~ve loper sha 11 then have the opt i on of se I ect i ng
either of the to II ow i ng cost rcc<y"ery plans:
1. The developer may enter into an.agreE'ment \-{ith the uti 1 ity for a
refund of the per lot costs of electric service at the time of
appl icatlon for ser'vice in accordance with the followi'ng schedule:
a. Within one year of the furnishing of the statement of costs by
the utility, one hundred percent.
b. Within two years, eighty perc~nt.
c. Within. three years,.sixty percent.
d. WIthin four years, forty percent.
e. Within five years, h:enty percent.
f. After five years, no portion thereof is refundable.
2. In subdivisions only, the developer may submit an appl ication \';'i'lhln
thirty days fOI- bonding severty-five percent or the costs thereof
under the Bancroft Bonding Act and Article IX, Section 3 of the AShland
City Charter, no part of whiCh is refundable. The remaining twenty-five
percent of the costs shall be refunded to the developer in accordance
with the schedule set forth in number 1 above.
f. Underground uti lities--rules and regulations. The Common Counci I may, by
resolution, adopt rules and regulations governing the installation and al loca-
i-ton of costs for underground uti I ity extension within r"esidential subdivisions.
Such rules and regulations shall not supersede the jurisdiction of the Public
utility Commissioner or duty filed tariffs of utilities or be inconsistent
with ORS 758.210 to 758.270 relating to conversion of aerial to underground
service.
-
G. Safety street Ilgl1tlng. Safety $treet Ilghting shall be provided by tho
developer In new subdivisions and in private developments of five acres or more.
Developer 5hall bear all costs except wiring, maintenance and energy. All
street I ightll1g improvements shall be Installed to the s3tisfactlon of the
electric superintendent I.n accordance with the ~pecificatlons on file in his
office. The amount and' intensity of illumination p,'ovlded tor street lighting
shall be in accordance with the standar"ds establ ished by the Illuminating .
Engineering Soc'iety, American Standard Association, as approved by the Electric
Superintendent.
Chapter 18.84
MOBI.LE HOMES
Sections:
18.84.010
18.84.020
18.84.030
REg~~t~;g
18.84.06C
Purpose.
General provisions.
Design standards..
Storage and tell';porary occupancy of mob!l'e homes.
Non conferming mobile home courts.
licensing procedure.
~~~tJ'- c; ''-','/:L~: ~d
Cor-ire, n, ';'F,{l",!'\ -,.-~t
~~"
-- .---------rr-.-
land Use
i.84.010--18.&L030
18.84.010 Purpose. The purpos~ of this Chapter is to encourage the most
appropriate use of land for' rrobile home court purposes; to encourage design
standards which wi II create pleosing appearances; to provide suff.lcient open
space for I ight, air, ClOd recreation; to provide adequate access to and parking
for mobile home sites; to refer minirnum uti I ity service faci I ities to approp-
riate City codes; to aid in securing safety from fire and other dangers; and
to conserve and stabi lize the value of property; and In general to promote 'the
public health, scfety, and general welfare.
18.84.020 General provisions.
A. I~o person shall establish, opel~ate, manage, maintain, alter or enlarge any
mobile home court contrary to the provisions of this ordinance.
B. All .('bi Ie homes occupied by persons for dwell ing purposes and intended
as resic..\.c6s shall be located within mobile home courts.
C. In addition to the requirements of this Chapter, all mobile home courts
.,-.' shafl oonform to the regu!ationsof ORS Ch~pter 446, together with slJch admin-
Istrative rules as may be adopted trom time to time, except where such regula.-
tlons are exceeded by the requirements of this Chapter, in which case the more
stringent requirements shall apply.
o. Mobile home courts shall be subject. to regulations of this Chapter and
shal I be located only on sites approved for use under the provisions of such
Chapter. .
18.84.030 De!:;i!=ln standards.
A. Mi n I mum court size. A mobile home court shall occupy a site of not less
than two acres in area ano ~ha II prov ide fac II I ties for not I ess than fifteen
rob il e homes.
B. Density. The maximum density permitted shall be 10 mobile homes per acre
."-" of deve loped COil rt a rea.
C. Mobile home sites. Not less than fifty percent of the mobile home sites
within a cour't shall be at least forty-five feet In average width and at least
seventy feet In average length. No n~bi Ie home site shal I be less than
th I rty-fi ve feet I n average width and s! xty feet in average length.
D. Roadways. All roadways shall be paved with a permanent material and shall
have a minimum width of t\'lenty feet where parking is prohibited; twenty-eight
feet minimum is required .".hen parking is provided on one side; thirty-six feet
minimum is required when parking is provided on both sides.
E. Park i ng areas. Prov i s ions shed I be made for not I ess than one paved off-
road parking space on or adjacent to each mobile home site and a total of not
less than two paved parking spaces per each mobile home site S~Ar:!i{1J?.rovided
within 1he court.. .A. parking space shall not be less than nine %~,.. ofY-wenty
feet.
.1D I
City of Ashland
Community Development
land Use
.84.030--18.84.050
F. Recreation area. In addition to the space devoted to each mobile home
site, there shall be an area, or areas, consisting of at least two hundred
square feet per trai ler site, devo-red exclusively to recreational purposes.
Each recreation area shall have not less than 4,000 square feet of space of
such design as to permit efficient util ization.
G. landscaping and fencing. Landscaping and fencing shall conform to the
following requirements:
1. All areas of a court not occupied by paved roadways or pathways,
and not otherwise occupied by court faci I itles, shall be landscaped.
2. M::lbi Ie home sites alonJ The exterior boundaries of a court shall be
so designed that any part of a mobile home shal I be set back at
least twenty feet from a public street and at lea5t five feet from
any other property line.
r--
H. uti lities. Provision for electric, water, and sanitary service shall be
made in accordance with established City procedures and law, including number,
size, qua! ity and location of fixtures, connections and fad I ities. Telephone
and el~ctric lines shall be placed underground.
18.84.040 Storage and temporary occupancy of mobile homes.
,
A. Nothing in this Chapter shal I be deerr~d to prohibit the storage of any
mobile home on the home premises of the owner for any length of time when
not usep for living purposes; provided, however, that all units so stored
shal I abide by the yard requirements for accessory bui Idings in this Chapter.
B. No mobile home shall be stored on a public street excep1 for temporary
maneuvering purposes.
C. Temporary occupancy of a mobile home as a residence on the premises of a
residence which premises do not meet the requirements of this Chapter for a
mobile home court, may be permitted for' a period not to exceed thirty calendar
days upon the granting of a permit by the City Bui Iding Inspector. Said
r- permit sha II not be renewab Ie with in a six month period beg! nn I n9 at the first
date of tssuance, except with approval of the City Planning Commission.
18.84.050 Non-conforming mobile home courts. ^ mobile home court, and an
individual mobile home uti Ilzed for living purposes on the effective date of
this ordinance or of amendments thereto, which does not conform to the
regulations of this Chapter, shal I be deemed to be non-conforming and may be
continued; subject to the fol lowing regulations:
A. Routine maintenance and repairs may be performed within the mobile home
court or upon individual mobile homes.
B. No non-conforming mobile home court sha! I be enlarged, remodeled, or
lTlOdernized except in conformance with al I requirements of this Chapter,
except that an area of less than two acres for a court to be enlarged, re-
modeled or modernized may be approved through the variance proc~~~ined
within this Chapter.
,'/':,'; 1 7 LOO'"
~():J..
City of Ashland
Community Development
land Use
3.84.050--18.88.030
C. No mobile home shall be located on the 5 i te of I' or subst i tuted for I a
non-conforming mobile hon", the use of \'Jhich has been discontinued, except
within a mobile home court holding a certificate of sanitation issued by the
Board of Health, State of Oregon: Issued prior to the effective date of this
Chapt~ r . .
D. If a non-conforming rrobile home court holding a certificate of sanitation
iss~ed by the Board of Health, Stat~ of Oregon, ceases operation for a period
of six months or rrtOre, said court shall be considered abandoned, and sha! I be
reinsituted only in conformance with the requirements of this Chapter.
Chap;-~r 18.88
pL~~NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
.,-
Sections:
18.88.010
18.88.020
18.88.030
18.88.040
18.88.050
18.88.060
18.88.070
Purpose.
Alternatives.
Parent Zone Requirements.
Ownership.
Site and design review.
Approval process.
Findings.
18.88.010 Purpose. The Planned Unit Development provision is designed to
produce innovative, esthetically pleasing housing and to allow building options
which result in hou,sing at lower than average costs for slmi'lar dwel-ing types.
The intent is to help the pressing housing needs in a time of rapidly rising
. costs of land, labor and materials through cooperative design effods between
developers and the City.
- 18.88.020 A I ternat i vas. PUD deve loprnent may be in the form of a m I x of use
types (single-fami Iy, duplex. multiple-family), or one may predominate.
Commercial uses may be incorporated to serve the immediate area. The emphasis
shall be on innovafive, energy efficient design, within a cohesive overall
design framework including provision of adequate common open space.
The PUD Overlay z:)ne is appl ied in single-famIly zones \'/here services, acce3S,
and quantity of vacant land are suitable. The Overlay is intended to encourage
moderate cost housing co~bjned with lm~ginative, esthetically pleasing design
as an alternative tC' the standard subdivision or the application of the
higher-density R-2 or R-3 7.ones.
18.88.030 Parent Zone Requirements. DE;nsiti.es shall be calculated by dividing
the gross site.square tootage by th~ allo'r/able units/acre density of the parent
zone. thel-eby creating a densitv incentive, .,s street areas are not included
innthe O\fp.r~11 requi remeni's. None of J~e standards relating to Ft~~~ck
~reas shell applY.. Where the PtJD Overlay is appl ieel, units/acre a-~sl;-Y may
b~ as great as I~O% th~ allowable density of the parent zone. The additional
\..:A.,N 1 7 l
. L:l
~D~'
City of Ashland
Community Development
~
--
land Use
"n,88.030--18.92
j
50% is intended to function as a density incentive.
18.88.040 Ownership. All units in a given development'shall be bui It by the
owner-developer and may remain under one ol'mership or may use combinations of
ownershIp of land and structures pr~vided that no less than 10% of the gross
lot ar~a (in addition to coverage and landscaping requirements) is maintained
in common open space and is developed and maintained as either active or passive
recreation area.
18.88'.050 Site and design revie...,:. All structures and devolopment features
shall be subject to the provisions of the Site Review Chapter in addition to
the provisions of this Chapter. Additionally, to ensure that the intent of
this Chapter is fulfi 1,Ied in relation to design, all daveloprnents shall be
carefully reviewed by the Planning Commission both for internal integrity and
relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Review of structure design shal I
be conducted in relation to materials, color, texture, shape, bulk and other
design features relating to overa! I architectural design and appearance.
18.88.060 Approval p-rocess. PUD appr'oval shall be understood to be discretion-
ary on the part of the Planning Commission due to the highly individual nature
of each proposed development and its site. ,The'Commission may require such
alteration In the proposal as it deems necessary to fulfi II the intent of this
Chapter. Proposals will be, forwarded to the Commission' only when materials
submitted are complete and of sufficient clarity and accuracy to faci I itate
Commission review. The Staff Advisor to the Commission wi! I take all steps
necessary to encourage PUD development and approval, recognizing the importance
of alternative design to housing provision.
Plat submittal and approval and required contents shal I bs as provided in the
Subdivision Chapter with bui Iding design material submitted separately. Such
bui Idlng design drawings shall also be approved in the manner of subdivision
plats and shall become a binding pal~t of the approval. The Corr~ission ~JY
Impose reasonable time periods for phasing and consTruction of the development,
requiring assurance of capability on the part of the applicant.
18.88.070 Findin~s. With his application, the applicant shal I submit fino!ng5
demonstrating how the site arid structural design features meet the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan and this Chapter, and minimize any potential negative
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. The Planning
Commission shall llpprove,.a Planned Unit Development appl ication only if it
thoroughly meets the requirements of this Section.
Chapter 18.92
OFF-STREET PARKING
Sect i 9.ns:
18.92.010 Off-street parking--general Iy.
18.92.020 Spaces required.
HECEIVED
.,., 1" 'no"
'i~ !'. ,I LU i
jotf
City 0: ,^,shland
Comrnur.ilj Development
Land Use
18.92.030
18.92.040
18.92.050
18.92.060
18.92.070
.92--18.92.020
Llmitations--Iocation--use of faci I ities.
Design requirements.
Construction.
Alterations--enlargements.
Loading faci lities.
18.92.010 Off-street parkinq--~eneral!Y. In al I districts, except those spec-
ifical Iy exempted, whenever any bui Iding is erected, enlarged, or the.use Is
changed, off-street parking shall be provided as set forth in this Chapter.
18.92.020 Off-street parkin~--spaces re9uire~.
Use
r-
A. Residential uses.
1. Single family dwellings
2. Multiple fami Iy dwellings
3. Clubs, fraternity and
sorority houses, rooming
and boarding houses,
dorm I tor I es
4. Hotels
5. ~tels
6. Mobile home parks
-
7. Planned Unit Developments
B. Commercial uses
1. Auto, boat or trai ler sales,
retal I nurservies and other
open space uses
2. Bowling alleys
3. Business, genera! retai I
and personal services
Standard
Two spaces per dwelling unit~
ODe and one-half spaces per one bedroom
unit; 'one and three-fourths spaces per
two bedroom unit; and two spaces per
th ree or more bed room un It. . .
Two spaces for each three guest rooms;
in. dormitories, 100 square feet shall
be equ iva I ent to a guest room.
One space for each two guest rooms.
One space for each guest room, plus one
space for the owner or manager.
One space on each trailer site, plus one
space per site for guest parking In a
convenient location.
In addition to the requirements set forth
above for dwel ling units, one space per
two units for guest parking may be
required by the Planning Commission.
One space per 1,000 square feet of the
first '10,000 square feet of gross land
area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet
for the excess over 10,000 square feet
of gross land area, or one per two
employees, whichever is gl~eater.
Three spaces per a II ey ,p I us add it i ona I
spaces for auxl liar,! activities set for"th
in this Section~ . ". RECEIVED
a. General--one space for 300 square
feet of gross f loor S~Jear 7 i.DC!
;.. eJ !"
C'tv of A,hi31ld
CO:ilP~Uliity De\feL)pn" .:-' "It
Land Use 92.020
4. Chapels and mortuaries
5. Offices
6. Restaurants, bars, ice
cream parlors and simi lar
uses
~
7. Skating rinks
8. Theatres, auditoriums,
stadiums, gymnasiums,
and _s i mi I ar uses
.-
C. Industrial uses.
1. Industrial uses, except
warehousing
2. Warehous i ng
b. Furniture and ap~ljances--one space
per 500 square feet of gross floor area.
One space per four fixed 'seats in i-he ma i n
chapel, and for every twenty-eig'h"t s'1tli'Jr'e
feet of seat i ng area where there are no
fixed seats; plus one space for each two
employees.
a. General and professional, one space
-for each 300 square feet of gross
floor area.
b. Medical and dental, one space Tor
each 200 squar'o feet of gross floor area.
One space per four fixed seats and for
every twenty-eight square feet of seating
area where there are no fixed seats, plus
one space per two employees on the largest
shift; a minimum of ten spaces is required.
One space per twenty-eight square feet
of rink area, plus one space per four
fixed seats and for every twenty-eight
square feet of assemb I y area where there
are no fixed seats.
One space per four fixed seats and for
every twenty-e i gh 1- square feet of seat i ng
area where there are no fixed seats, p I us
one per two employees; a minimum of ten
spaces is required.
One space per two employees on the largest
sh I ft or for 'each 500 squar'e feet of gross
floor area, whichever is greater, plus one
space per company vehicle.
One space per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area or for each two employees,
whichever Is greater, plus one space per
company vehicie.
One space per two employees on the largest
shift, plus one space per company vehicle;
minimum of two spaces required.
3. Public utIlities (gas,
water, telephone, etc.)
not including business
off ices
D. Institutional and public uses.
1. Chi Id care centers One space per two employees; a minimum of
two spaces is required.
2. Churches . RECEIVED One space per four fixed seats, and for
every twenty-eight square feet of seating
area in the main auditorium wher-e there
~ .,'
~~ : ~
City of Il"'>li",,j
Community D'.jvelopment
~o"
Lan d Use
3. Golf courses, except
minature
4. Hospitals
5. Nursing and convalescent
homes
6. Rest homes and homes for
the aged
7. Schools~ elementary and
junior high
,.-..
8. Schools--hlgh schools
9. Colleges, universities
and trade schools
92.020--18.92.030
are no fixed seats.
Eight spaces per hole, pius-additional
spaces for auxil~ary uses set forth in
this Section.
One and three-fourths spaces per patient
bed.
. One space.per three patient beds.
One space per two patient beds.
One and one-half spaces per classroom,
or the requ i rements for pub lie assenlb I y
areas as set forth herein, whichever is
greater.
One and one-half spaces per classroom,
plus one space per ten students the
school is designed to accomodate, or the
requirements for public assembly areas as
set forth herein, whichever is greater.
One and one-half spaces per classroom,
p I us one space .per five students the
school is designed to accomodate plus
requirements for on-campus student housing.
E. unspecified uses. Where parking requirements for any use are not specifi-
cally defined in this Section, such requirements shall be determined by the
Commission based upon the most comparable use specified herein.
18.92.030 Off-street parkin~--limitatJons--location-_use of facilities.
A. locati,on. Except for single and two family dwer'lings, required parking
. facilities may be located on an adjacent parcel of land, or separated only by
an alley, provided said adjacent parcel is maintained in the same ownership as
the use it is intended to serve. Except in the heavy industrial district,
required parking shal r not be located in a required front and side yard setback
area abutting a public street nor in any side yard of less than twenty feet.'
The Commission may approve parking on land not adjacent to the use it is
intended to serve, it said parcel is under the same ownership, and is within
two hundred feet of the use it is intended to serve.
,,-...
B. Mixed uses. In the event that several uses occupy a single structure or
parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street parking shal I be the
sum of the requirments for the several uses computed separately. The Planning
Comm!ssion may reduce the total requirement for mixed uses by not more than
fifteen percent.
C. Joint use of facilities. Required parkin~l:9G:,blJt!i!Ys of two or more uses,
structures, Ol~ parcels of land, may be satisfie~"by' the same parking faci I ities
used jointly, to the extent that it can bE) shown by the owners or operators
, . I'" ~ \ i
, ,." ..
(~07
City of As'lli'nd
Community Deveiopment
land Use
,92.030--18.92.040
that the Need for the faci lities does n~t materially overlap (e.g., uses
primari Iy of a daytime vs. ni.ghttime nature) and provided that such right of
Joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or similar written instrument
establishing such Joint use.
D. Availability of facl lities~ Required parking shall be available for parking
of operable passenger vehicles of residents, customers and employees only, and
shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles or materials.
18.92.040 Off-street parkinQ--desl9..n requ{ rements.
A. Size and access. Al I required. parking areas shal I be designed In accordance
with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. AI I parking spaces
shall be a minimum of nine feet by twenty feet and shal I have a twenty-four foot
backup space except where parking is angled.
/"'
.. B. Dri veways and turn-arounds. Dri veways and turn-arounds provi d i n9 access
to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dweiling shal I have a minimum width of
nine feet, a shared driveway serving two units shall be twelve feet.
2. Except for a single or two fami Iy dwel J'ing, groups of more than two
parking spaces per lot shal I be provided with adequate aisles or
turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a
forward manner.
3. Except for. a single one or two-family dwelling, more than two parking
spaces shal I be served by a driveway designed and constructed to
facilitate the How of traffic on and off the site, with due regard
to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently
marked and defined. In no case shall two-way and one-way driveways.
be' less than twenty feet and twelve feet respectively.
C. Vertical clearance. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall
have a mintmum vertical clea'rance of twelve feet for their entire length and
width.
,-..
D. Vision clearance. Service drives to public streets shall have a minimum
vision cleardnce area formed by the intersection of the driveway center line,
the street right-of-way line, and a straight line joining said lines through
points twenty feet from their intersection. No obstruction over forty-two
inches in height with a cross section over twelve Inches shall be permitted
in such area.
E. Development and maintenance. Such development and maintenance shall apply
In all cases, except single and two family dwel lings:
1. Paving. All outdoor vehicle sales and par-king al-eas, aisles, turn-arounds
and driveways shal I be paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable
surfacing, constructed to standards on fi Ie in the office of the City
fng I neer.
2~ Drainage. AI I outdoor vehicle sales areas and parking area, aisles and
turn-a~ounds, shall have provisions made for the on-sit~r-~~~ion
of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such water'sldii 'dldewalks,
public rights-ot-way, and abutting private property.
d.,~~
.IAN !; L007
City of Ashland
Commur.ity Development
Land Use
.92.040--18.92.050
",-..
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved \'lith concrete surfacing
constructed to standards on fi Ie in the office of the City Engineer.
In t~e event that a'street is not paved, this is not necessary until
the street is paved.
4. Marking. AI I spaces shall be permanently and clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum-of four inches in height.
and width, and six feet in length; shall be firmly attached to the
ground, and.so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops
shall be provided where appropriate for ai' spaces abutting property
lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shal I overhang a pUblic
right-of-way.
6. War Is and hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or
evergreen hedge screen of thirty to forty-two inches in height
shal I be established paral lei to and not nearer than five feet
. from the right-ot-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size
and number to provide the required screening within twelve months
after installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street
line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately main-
ta i ned by a permanent i rr I gat i on system, .and sa i d wa II or hedge
shall be .maintained In good condition.
b. In all zones, except single family zones, where parking faci Ilties
or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural
zones, schOOl yards, or like institutions, a Site-Obscuring fence,
wa II, 0 r eve rg reen hedge not I es s than five feet no r more tha n six
feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from
the high grade side. Sa i d wa ii, fence or hedge sha II be reduced
to thirty to for'ty-two Inches within required setback area, or within
ten feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good
condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to
provide the required screenlng.within twelve months after installation.
Adequate provisions shall be made to. protect walls, fences or plant
materials from being damaged by vehitles using said parking area.
7~ Landscaping. In all zones, except single family and R-2 zones, al I
parking facilities shall Include landscaping to cover not less than
seven pe.rcent of the area devoted to outdoor parking faci I ities, in-
cluding the landscaping required .in subdivision 6a rtbove. Said land-
scaping shall be uniformly distributed throug~out the parking ar~a, be
provided with Irrigation facilities, and protective curbs or raised
wood headers. It may cons I st o.f trees, p I us Shl'ubs, ground cover or
I-e I ated mater I a I .
8. Ughtlng of parking areas within one hundred feet of property in
residential or agricultural zones shal I be by maximum ten foot high
down-type light standards, and sha II be d I rectedi nto . or on the site
and away from property lines.
18.92.050 Off-street parklnq--construction. The required parking tucll'ties,
including design standards, shall be instal led prior"to a release of a
certificate of use and occupancy or a release of uti Iltles, and shal' be
permanently maintained as a condition of use. However, the B~J~i~!~ficlal
may, unless otherwise directed by the Pianning Commission or ~~~~dVfsor,
release a temporary cer'ti ficate of use and occupancy and a temporary .elease
",-..
,..!AN 'I {OOf
~01
City uf i\sh!imd
Community D8"eiopment
-
r' .11I
, 30'
~~ 12' ';1
~....p=-+~
j
f
...
PARALLEL
""4IMll
f
'~
30.
2"-10" IS' 2"-'0"
r~~, --1'" "1
61'-8"
600
~
I 20'-6" I '2'~ 17'-3- }.'7'-5" 1-'2' 2O.-6".....f
... _111I ... .... .... ~.....
"./ .
t
I
4~. OVERLAPPED
.&"'l~_ ~
rw~'(?-- ~tT
~ JL-4.
f
PASSENGER VEHICLE
RIGH T TURN DESIGN
20' 24' 20'
t~. "I~ "I- -,
~.
4~O
.J t
64'
900
J
· I
I- 20'-6" . ~- 17'-3~ 1.17'-3: 11'2' I r 20'-6"
,,/ /
~Jo
PAR KING LAYOUT
CiTY OF ASHLAND-DEPT OF-PUBuc W(}R~?-r?~n ~'!3.~B_O
t
4~O HERRINGBONE
~,it\ Nl
RECETv'E8
City of ,6,,;hln! I(J
CommUi'utv 'lent
t
~p'pr~vl)d n n "-'J:"'_
p-(
land Use
~. 92.050--18.96
of uti I ities beforo t.he instClllation of said faci I ities provided (1) there is
proof that tho owner has entered into a contract with a reputable installer
for the completion of the parking including design stan~ards, with a speci-
fied time and that there remains nothing for the owner to do prior to install-
ation, or (2) the owner hus posted a satisfactory performance bond to insure
the installation of said parking faci I ities within a specified time.
18.92.060 Off-street parkin~~erations--enlar~ements. The required parking
faci lities shal I be constructed when an existing bui Iding or dwelling is altered
or en I arged by the add i t I on of c.Elatl on of guest rooms o.r dwe I ling un i ts; Qr
when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or
change in use.
~.92..070 LoadinQ ~ci I ities. The follol-ling provisions apply to requil-ed
loading facil itias:
A. The mInImum area required f?r commercial and'industrial loading spaces is
as follows:
...-- 1. Two hundred f i f1"y square feet for bu i I dj ngs of five thousand oto
twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area.
2. Five hundred square feet for buildings of twenty thousand to fifty
thousand square feet of gross floor area.
3. Seven hundred fifty square feet for buildings In excess of fifty
thousand square feet of gross floor area.
B. The minimum required loading area shall notbe less than ten feet in width
by twenty-five feet in length, and an unobstructed height of fourteen feet.
C. Required loading areas shall be screened from public view, from public
streets or adjacent properties.
~
D. The required loading faci I itles, including design standards, shall be
installed prior to release of a certificate of use and occupancy or a release
of uti lities, and shal I be permanently maintained as a condition of use.
Chapter 18.96
SIGN REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.96.010 Purpose.
18.96.020 Deofinitlons relating to signs.
18.96.030 Exempted signs.
18.96.040 Prohibited signs.
18.96.050 Classification of signs.
18.96.060 Sign permits, fees and inspections.
18.96.070 Generaf sign regulations.
18.96.080 Residential districts.
F(ECEIVEO
:;.. I (
City oi hsi'-f.:1nd
Comm:v:>iy Cie';e:op:nent
land Use
;.96.--]8.96.020
18.96.090
18.96.100
18.96. 110
18.96.120
18.96. 130
18.96.140
18.96. 150
18.96. 160
Commercial-downtown district.
Commercial and industrial districts.
Freeway sign zones.
Abandoned signs.
Abatement of nuisance signs.
Abatement of billboard and off-prernlse advertising.
Construction and maintenance standards.
Enforcement.
18.96.010 Purpose. This Chapter shal I hereafter be known and designated as
the "Sign Ordinance of the City of Ashland", and is adopted in recognition of
the important function of signs and the need to safeguard and ehance the econ-
omic and aesthe1ic values in the City of Ashl03nd through the regulation of such
factors as size, number, location, illumination, construction and maintenance
of signs; and thereby safegual~d the public health, safety and general welfare.
r
18.96.020 Definitions relatin$l to siqns. '
A. AlteratlED.. shall mean any change in the size, shape, method of illumination,
position, location, construction or supporting structure of a sign.
B. Area shal I mean the area included within the outer dimensions of a sign.
In t~ase of a multiple-faced sign, the area of each face shal I be included
In determining sign area, excepting double faced signs placed no more than
twenty-four inches back to back.
C. Billboard shall mean a sign which advddises a business, commodity or
activity which is sold, offered or conducted other than on the premises where
such sign is located, and which may be sold, offered, or conducted on such
premises only incidentally, if at al I.
;""--
D. Bulletin board shall mean a sign of a permanent nature, but which accomodates
changeable copy, indicating the names of persons associated with, events con-
ducted upon, or products or services offered upon, the premises upon which sign
is located.
E. Business. Commercial or industrial enterprise.
F. Business frontaqe shall mean the lineal front footage of a building or
portion thereof, devoted to a specific business or enterprise, and having an
entrance/exit open to the general publ ic.
G. Constru.ction s.i!,:ln shall mean a sign stating the names, addresses or tele-
phone numbers of t.hose individuals or businesses directly associated with a
construction project on the premises.
H. Direct il Jumination shal I mean a source of illumination on the surface of
a sign, or from within a sign.
I. Flashing siqn .shall mean a sign incorporating intermitte~OOI!H\1iE[cal
impulses to a sOlJrce of illumination, or revolving in a manner which creates
the illusion of flashing, or which changes color or intensity of illumination.
:A~' ,"
v : ~ ! I :
~ I :2..
City of Ashland
Community Develoi'ment
land Use
:8.96.020--18.96.030
.1. Fronta~e shall n~an the single wall surface of a building facing a given
direct i on .
K. Indirect illumination shall Inean a source of illumination directed toward
such sign so that ~he beam of light falls upon the extertor surface of the sign.
l. Neighbo~hood identification shal I mean a sign located on a wall or fence at
the entry point to a single family subdivtsion comprising not less than two
acres, or a sign identifYing a multiple-family development of ten or more
dwelling units.
M. Parcel or premises shat I mean a lot or tract oflpnd under separate ownership,
as depleted upon the county assessment rol Is, and having frontage abutting on
a pUblic street.
. ,,-..
N. Real estate sign shal I mean a sign indicating that the premises on which
- the sf gn I s located, or any portion thereof, is for sa I e, lease or rent.
o. ~ shall mean any writing (including letter, word or numera~); pictorial
presentation (inClUding illustration or decoration); emblem (including device,
symbol or trademark); flag (including banner or pennant>; or any other device,
figure or similar thing which is a structure or any part thereof, or is at-
tached to, painted. on, or in any other manner represented on a building or
structure or device; and is used to announce, direct attention to, or advertise;
and is visible from outside the bui Iding or structure.
P. Street frontage shall mean the lineal dimension in feet of the property
upon which a structure is built, each frontage having one street frontage.
Q. Wind siqn or device shall mean any sign or device in the nature of a
,series of two more. more banners, flags, or other objects, fastened in such a
manner as to.move upon being subject to pressures by wind or breeze.
.-.
18.96.030 Exempted si~ns. The fol lowing signs and devices shall not be subject
to the pr~visions of this Chapter:
A. Signs placed by the City of Ashland.
B. Memorial tablets, cornerstones, or similar plaques not exceeding six square
feet.
C. Flags of the NationaJ, State or local Government.
D. Signs within a bui Iding, provided the same do not primarily identify the
business to persons outside the bui Iding.
E. Temporary political signs not exceeding four square feet, provided the
stgns are erected no more than thirty days PTior to, and removed within seven
days following, the election for which they were Intended. RECEIV::"D
F. Temporar'y non! I !uminated real estate (no more than one per tax lot) or
construction signs /lot exceeding six square feet In resldential\Rre,as, or
~/~
City of P.;) .l.
Community DevGll ,: :leflt
land Use
,
{
i8.96.030--18.96.040
..
twelve square teet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are
removed with ill fj ftaen days f rom the sa Ie, I ease or renta I of the property, or
within seven dClysof the completion of the project.
G. Temporary signs for new businesses, wben authorized by the Staff Advisor
for a period not to exceed ninety days.
H. Temporary advertising displays for grand openeing not exceeding seven days
when authorized by the Staff Advisor and for special City events when authorized
by the City Counci I. Signs shal I not exceed forty square feet in size.
I. Nan~plates indicating the name, address or profession of the occupant, not
exceeding one square foot.
.-
J. Small convenience signs displayed stri'ctly for direction, safety or con-
venience of the pUblic, including signs which identify restrooms, pUblic telc-
.. phones, parking area entrances and exits, freight entrances, and credit card
signs, provided said signs do not exceed two square feet in area per sign, nor
more than four in number on any parcel of property.
K. . Temporary paper signs placed upon a window in conjunction with a non-
residential use, when such signs do not obscure more than twenty percent of
such window area, and are maintained for a period not exceeding seven days.
L. Graphic designs on a building facade, which are at least four times the
size of the primary sign on the frontage, and which are intended for e::rthstic
enhancement, and are in no way representation31 of, nor intended to advertise,
the business or occupancy within the structure. Such designs shall be subject
to Section 18.96.060(A) and 18.96.060(D).
18.96.040 Prohibited siQns.
.-.
A. No billboard or o~hel- off-premise advertising sign, moveable sign, temporary
sign, bench sign, wind sign or device, or captive bal loon shall be permitted,
except as may be provided in Section 18.96.030 hereof entitle "Exempted Signs".
B. No flashing signs shall be permitted.
C. No sign shal I have or consist of any moving, rotating or otherwise animated
part.
D. No three-dimensional statue, caricature or representation of persons, animals
or merchandise shal I be used as a sign or incorporated into a sign structure.
E. No pCblic address system or sound devices shall be used in conjunction with
any sign or advertising device.
F. No roof sign or sign placed on the roof of marquees shall. be permitted.
G. No exposed sources of i Iluminetion shall be permitted, i~gllJa~\h~CblJt not
limited to neon or fluorescent tubing, incandescent bulbs, except when a sign
_MJ ) 7
;{/tJ.
City of Ashland
Community Develc;.~p'c;nt
land Use
.96.040--18.96.050
is internally illuminated or the source of illumination is fully shielded
from public view.
H. No ground signs in excess of five feet i.n height shall be permitted except
in the C-4 district.
I. No internally illuminated sign shal I be permitted which, when lighted,
appears to be giaring a pure white, causing a dangerous and displeasing effect
on motorists and pedestrians.
J. Any ground sign, the support or base of which is less than one-third the
dimensio~ (in any horizontal plane) of the sign face, except in the C-4 district.
K. Signs which use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects, il] the
downtown cor~rcial district.
-
Ja..96~05Q..~sification of siqns. All signs shall be classified in the
following categories:
A. Ground s i go. A sign wh i ch i s \~ho II y or part i a II y supported by a structura: .:
element placed permanently in the ground, including pole signs, free-standing
signs or pylon signs.
B. Wall s1gn. A sign which is affixed to or painted upon a wal I or windo~
of a building with the display surface of the sign in a plane parallel to said
wall. Wall signs may be placed On jnd~pendent decorative eaves (sometimes
called false mansard roofs>, if the sign conforms to all other wall sign reg-
ulations, the sian does not exceed an area of twenty-five percent of the
fa~ing on which it Is placed, the pitch Is twelve inches to twenty-four inches
or groater, and the sign is separated from the interior of the building by a
one-hour fire wal I~
r'
RECEIV
. ~ ~;
~ I~'
City of k".
Community Dr,.,
land Use
.96.050
C. Projecting sign. A sign which projects from and is supported by a wall
of a bui Iding, with the display surfaces of the sign in a plane other than
paral lei to said wall.
D. Marquee sign. A sign which is painted on, attached to, or supported by a
marquee or awning.
E. Roof sign. A sign located upon or above the roof of a building, or above
a parapet wal I of a bui lding.
.-
18.96.060 Sign permits, fees an~ inspe~ions.
A. Sign permit required. It shall be 'Jnlawful for any person to erect, estab-
liSh, permit to remain, alter or relocate any sign, or cause the same to be
done, without first obtaining approval from the Staff Advisor to the Planning
Commission and a sign permit from the Building Official, except that signs that
were lawfUlly erected prior to t-he effective date of this Chapter and which are
not hereby declared a nuisance are penmitted to remain except as hereinafter
set forth. For purposes of review by the Staff Advisor and Bui Idiilg Official,
and eighteen by twenty-four inch drawing to scale shal I be submitted which
indicates fully the material, color, texture, shape.. relation and attachment to
buildings and other structures, signs on the applicant's bui Iding, and dimensions
and structural elements of the proposed sign. Permits shal I not be required for
minor maintenance and repairs to existing signs, or for changes in sign copy.
,..-.
B. Unsafe or i I legal signs. If the Building Official or Staff Advisor shel I
find that any sign is unsafe or insecure, or any sign erected or established
under a sign permit has been carried out in violation of said permH or this
Chapter, he shall give written notice to the permittee or owner thereof to
remove or alter such sign within thirty days. The Building Official or Staff
Advisor may cause any sign which is an immediate peril to persons or property,
or any sign erected without a permit, to be removed immediately, and said sign
shall not be reestablished until a valid permit has been issued therefor.
Failure to remove or alter said signs as directed, shal I subject the permittee
or owner to the penalties prescribed in this Title.
C. Permit record requil'ed. The 8ui Iding Official shall keep a copy and perm-
anent record of each sign permit issued which shal I show the permit number.
The permittee shal I be required to permanently display the permit number on the
sIgn or sign structure.
D. Signs shal I be SUbject to the procedural and substantive design
review portions of the Site Review Chapter.
Rr::CE:: :;
l\ ._i
, Aj'J
.t/~
City of I' 'd
Community Dc;, \. :"i'illent
Land Use
.8.96.070
18.96.070 General sign regulations. Tho fOllowing general provisions shall
govern all signs in addition to all other applicable provisions of this Chapter.
r--
A. limitation on placement of signs.
1. Near residential. -No sign shall be located in a commercial or
industrial district so that it is primarily visible only from a
residential. district.
2. Near freeways. Except as provided in Section 18.96.110 hereof
entitled "Freeway Sign Zones" and excepting real estate and con-
struction signs, no sign shal I be erected within six hundred feet
of a f/'eeway so that it is primarily visible only from such freeway.
3. Near street intersections. No sign or portion thereof shall be
erected at the intersection of pUblic streets with public alleys,
within the triangular area formed by a line connecting points
twenty-five feet from the intersection of property lines, unless
the same is less than two feet In height, or the lowest portion
of the display surface is at least eight feet above grade and
its means of support has a cross-section of not more than twelve
inches. .
4. Near driveways. No sign or portion thereof shaJ I be erected
within ten feet of a driveway unless.the same is less than three
feet In height, or the lowest portion of the display surface is
at least e.lght feet above grade and Its means of support has a
cross-section of not more than twelve inches.
5. In future street right-or-way. No sign or portion thereof Shall
be erected within future street right-of-way; as depicted upon
the Master Plan of Artel'ial Streets, unless and until and agreement
is recorded .stipulating that the sign wil I be removed or relocated
Upon street widening at no expense to the City.
"*"
B. Hazardous signs. No unofficial sign which purports to be, /s an imitation
of, or resembles an official traffic sign or signal, or which attempts to
direct the movement of traffic, or which hid~s from view any official traffic
sign or signal, shal I be permitted..
c. Obstruction by signs. No sign or portion thereof shall be placed so
that it obstructs any fire escape, stairway or standpipe; interferes with
human exit through any window of any room located above the first floor of
any building; obstructs any door or required exit from any bUilding, or ob-
structs any required light or ventilation.
D. Context of signs. The lettering and advertising matter on all signs wi.~hin
the City, except as provided herein, shal I indicate the name or nature of the
business done or service rendered upon such premises. References to price
shall be I imited to no more than t\'Ieniy percent of the area of a permitted
sign. .
E. PI ctor i a I ca r i catu res or representat Ions. PI ctor i a I ca r i catu res or
representat ions may be incorporated I nto a sign. p rov i ded the sa'At:~\"..
Itmited to no more than one-third of the area ofa permitted sIgn.
, ,.
r-\ i\
~/7
City of A,
Community Dc:,
. . ~~
,:..':11
land Use
,.96.080--18.96.090
18.96.080 Resid~ntial districts. Signs in res'idential districts shall conform
to the fOllowi,ng regulations:
A. Special provisions.
1. No sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of
the premises on which such sign is iocated.
2. Directly illunimated signs shal I not be permitted.
3. Nothing contained herein shal I be construed as permitting any type
of sign in conjunction \-Jith a commercial use aJ lowed as a home
occupatiqn.
,.--
B. Types of signs permitted.
1. Namep I atas. ,One namep I ate sha II be permi tted for each occupant, not
exceeding an area of one square foot, attached to and paral lei to
the exterior wall of the bui Iding.
2. Neighbo/-hood identification signs. Two signs shall be permitted at
each entry point to single-family developments, not exceeding an area
of eight square feet per sign, with lettering not over nine inches in
height, located nof vver five feet above grade. Multiple-fami Iy
developments of ten units or more shall be permitted one sign not
exceeding an area of ten square feet, attached to an paral lei to the
exterior wall of the bui Iding.
3.' Conditional uses. Uses authorized in accordance with the Chapter
on Conditional Use Permits, except commercial uses al lowed as a
home occupation, may be permitted one ground sign,or bulletin board
not exceeding an overal I height of five feet and an area of fifteen
square feet, set back at least ten feet from property I ines; or one
wal I sign in lieu of a ground sign not exceeding an area of fifteen
square feet. Such signs shal I be approved in conjunction with the
issuance of such conditional use permit. Reta! I commercial uses
allowed as a conditional use in the P~i I road District shall be per-
mitted one ground or wall sign not to exceed a height of three feet
if a ground sign, and a tOTal area of six square feet.
---
18.96.090 Commercial-downtown district. Signs in the commercial-downtown
district shal I conform to the fol lowing regulations:
A. Special provisions.
1. frontage. The number and area of signs allowed by virtue of a given
frontage shall be placed upon such frontage, and no bui Iding or
premises shall be credited with more than two frontages.
2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs allowed for
each business shall be two signs for each frontage with an entrance/
exit open to the general public.
3. Aggregate area of signs. The aggregate area of all signs established
by and located on a given street frontage, sha! I not exceed an area
equal to one square foot of each lineal foot of street frontage.
Aggregate area shal I not include nameplates, and temporary real estate
and construction signs. F\ECEIV~.)
4. Residential uses. Signs for residential uses Shall conform to the
provi s Ions of Sect ion 18.96.080 hereof.
.,
, ,
;'/f
City' of As/'
Community De,;<, , ' ;1
Lund Use
-.96.090
B. Types of signs permitted.
1. Wal I signs.
a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for
each business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses
occupying a single common space or suite.
b. ^rea. Signs shal I not exceed an area of twenty percent of the
wall area of the business to which the sign pertains, but not
exceeding an area of sixty square feet.
c. ProJection. Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches from
the face of the bui Iding to which they are attached, provided
they lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet above
grade.
d. Height and extension above roof line. Signs shal I have a maximum
face height of five feet, and looy not exceed above the roof or
eave line of the bui Iding.
2. Ground sl gl1s.
a. Number. One sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street
frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Two or more parcels
..r- of less than fifty feet l!1~y be comb i ned for purposes of meet I ng
the foregoing standard, provided that al I such businesses are
identified on such signs.
b. Area. Signs shal I not exceed an area of one square foot for
each two lineal feet of street frontage, with a maximum area of
sixty square feet per sign.
c. Placement. Signs shal I be placed on the central fifty percent
of the street frontage on properties with less than tWQ hundred
feet of frontage, or a minimum of fifty feet from an abutting
property upon properties within excess of two hundred feet of
frontage. Signs on corner properties may be placed near the
intersection of street property lines.
d. No sign or portion thereof shal I extend beyond any property line
.of the premises on which such sign Is located.
3. Projecting signs.
a. Number. One sign shall be permitted for each business or group
~ of businesses occupying a single common space or suite In ~ieu
of a ground sign.
b. Area. Signs shal I not exceed an area of one square foot for each
two lineal feet of business frontage to which the sign pertains.
The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be thirty square feet.
c. Projection. Signs ~~y project from the face of the building to
\Yhich they are attached a maximum of one foot It located eight
feet above grade, two feet if located ten feet above grade, and
three teet if located twelve feet above grade, the maximum pro-
Jection of any sign being three feet. Signs which project
into alleys and driveways shall be located a minimum of fifteen
feet above grade to the lowest portion of same.
d. Height and extension above roof line. Signs shal I not exceed
an overal I height of twenty-four feet above grade, and may not
extend .above the roof line, eave or parapet wa II CVl~~I~~fJ ding
to which they are attached.
4. Marquee signs.
a. Number. One sign sha II be permi 1 ted for each bus i j~NS'l .~
r:-1'9
City of Ashiw1rl
Community De', '.:'- '-:''1t
--
,
/*"'
Land Use 1.96.090--18.96.100
b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of eight square feet.
c. Projection.' Signs may not pr'oject beyond the face of the marquee
If suspended, or above or below tho face of the marquee if attached
to an para I Ie I to the face of the marquea.
d. Height and clearance above grade. Signs shal I have a maximum face
height of nine Inches, and the lowest portion of the sign shall
not be less than 'seven feet s I x inches above grade.
18.96.100 Commercial and indus!rial districts. Signs in commercial and
i ndustl~i al di stri cts, except i ng the commen~i a I-downtown di stri ct, sha II conform
to the following regulations:
A.
Special provisions.
1. Frontag0. The number and area of signs allowed by virtue of a given
frontage Shall be placed only upon such frontage, and no bui Iding or
premi$es shall be credited with more than two frontages.
2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs al lowed for
each lot shall be two signs for each frontage. In shopping centers
and developments in~luding five or more businesses, One identification
ground sign shall be al lowed in addition to the two wal lor marquee
signs permitted for each business.
3. Aggregate area of signs. The aggregate area of al I signs established
by and located on a given street frontage, shall not exceed an area
equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage
but not to exceed twelve square feet in the C-5 district. Aggregate
area shall not include nameplates, and real estate and construction
signs.
4. Residential uses. Signs for residential uses shal I conform to the
provisions of Section 18.96.080 hereof.
5. No sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property I ine of
. the premises on which the sign is located.
B.
Types of signs permitted.
1 . Wa II signs.
a. Number. "Two signs per bui Iding frontage shall be permitted for
each business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses
occupying a single common space or suite.
b. Area. Signs sha! I not exceed an area of twenty percent of the
wall area of the business to which the 'sign pertains, but not
exceeding an area of sixty square feet. .
c. Projection. Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches from
the face of the bui Iding_to which they are attached, provided
the lowest portion of such sign is at least eight feet above
grade.
d. Height and extension above roof line. Signs shaJ I have a maximum
face height of five feet and may not extend above the roof or
eave line of the bui Iding.
2. Ground signs.
a. Number. One sign shall be permitted for each lot with ~ street
frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Two ~~~V~bts of
less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the
-------... .
v: .'\ N' (:
~;;;.~
City of A"hli.mcl
Comffidnity Develorr: ",.
Land Use
'.96.100--18.96.110
-
foregoing standard, provided 1-hat all such businesses are
identified on such sign.
b. Area. Signs Shclll not exceed an area of one square foot for
each hiO r ineal feet of street front3ge~ with a maximum area
of sixty square feet p~r sign.
c. Placement. Signs shall be placed on the central fifty percent
of the street frontage on properties with less than two hundred
feet of frontage, or a minimum of fifty feet from an abutting
lot upon properties within excess of two hundred feet of frontage.
Signs on corner properties may be placed near the intersection of
street property lines.
3. Marquee signs.
a. Number. One sign sha II be permitted for each bus i ness.
b. Area.. Signs shal I not exceed an area of eight square feet.
c. Projection. Signs may not project beyond the face of the
marquee if suspended, or above or below the face of the marquee
if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee.
d. Height and clearance above grade. Signs shall have a maximum
face he I ght of nine inches, and the 100'{est port i on of ~;:jme
shall not be less than seven feet six inches above grade.
e. Materials. Si,gns of less than thirty-five square feet and
at least twelve feet from any bui Iding can be made of noo-
treate9 wood. AI I signs over twenty feet from any building
can be made of non-i-reated wood.
~~110 Freeway siqn zones.
A. Purpose. This special overlay zone Is intended to provide for and
regulate certain on-premise ground signs which identify freeway oriented
businesses In commercial districts located at freeway interchanges. For
purposes of this section, a freeway oriented business shal [ mean a business
with the primary purpose of providing highway related services, lodging or
Products to non-resident. travelers on interstate freeways.
.~ B. Es1ablishment and location of freeway sign zones. Freeway sign zones
shall be superimposed upon the basic districts depicted on the official
Zoning Map of the City, and shal I encompass an area of seven hundred feet
from the Intersection of center"1 Inos of a freeway and an intersecting street
or' highway with access to such freeway.
...
Estab I j shment of base e I evat ion. A common base e I evat j on j s hereb~'
~Iished for each interchange, as the higher elevation of the two inter-
~~nterl ines (e.g., one thousa~d nine hundred ninety eight feet for
~6 centerline as it intersects the Interstate 5 Freeway
ll")ns.
shal I be permitted for each lot in lieu of the
,~ed under Section 18.96.100 of this Cha,e.tef. r
.:111 not exceed an area of three hundrecR~~rvd='feet
'\
..fA ~~
~~(
City of Asfllai:(,
Community DeveiG" !," ,.
r".
r'" .
Land Use
(
d.96.110--18.96.150
3. Height. Signs shal I not exceed a height of sixty feet above the
base elevation as established herein.
18.96.120 Abandoned signs. All signs pertaining to businesses or occupants
whose products or serv I ces have ceased to be offered to the pub) icon the
premises shal I be removed within thirty days.
18.96.130 Abatement of nuisance signs. The fol lowing signs are hereby
declared a pub) ic nuisance and shall be removed or the nuisance abated as
fo I lows:
A. Flashing signs visible from a.public street Ot~ highway.
B. Abandoned signs pertaining to businesses or occupants whose products or
services have ceased to be offered to the publ ic on the premises.
C. Temporary and moveable signs.
18.96.140 Abatement of bi I I boards and off-Qremis~ adv~rtislnR' All bi 11_
boards and 01"her off-premise advertising signs are hereby declared a pUblic
nui sance and sha II be removed by December 20, 1978.
18.96.150 Construction and maintenance standards.
A.
Materials of construction.
1. S~ngle and two family residential districts. AI I signs and their
supporting members may be constructed of any material, subject to
the provisions of this Section.
2. Comrrorcial and industrial districts. All signs and their supporting
members shal I be constructed on Incombustible materials or fire
retardant treated wood which maintains Its fire resistive qualities
when tested in accordance with the rain and weath~ring tests of the
U.B.C. Standard No. 32-37, unless otherwise pr'bvlded in this Section.
3. Non-treated signs. All wall, ground, marquee and projecting signs
of twenty square feet or I ess may be constructed of non-treated \'Iood.
4. Rea I estate and consiruct j on signs. A I I sign s may be con st ructed of
compressed wood particle board or other material of similar fire-
resistivity.
5. Directly illuminated signs. All signs r Ilumlnated from within may
~e faced with plastics approved by the Building Code.
6. Signs within buildings. AI I signs located completely inside a building
or structure may he of any material not prohibited by other require-
ments of this Section. -
7. Glass. AI I glass used in signs shaJ I be shatter resistant.
8. Wo~d.. Wood in contact with the ground shal I be foundation grade
redwood, foundation gr-ade cedar, all heart.....ood cypress, or any
species of wood which has been pressure-treated with an approved
preservative. Trim and backing strips may be constructed of wood.
RECEIV~_D
8.
Construction methods.
1. Al I signs shal I be constructed of such materials or treated in such
..iAN 1
:< ,;( ;2-
City of Ash>
Community DENt" , "'ilt
Land Use9.96.150--18.100.010
a manner that normal weathering wi II not harm, deface or otherwise
affect the sign.
2. AI I letter, figures and similar message elements shal I be safely and
securely attached to the sign structure. .
3. AI I signs shall be designed and constructed to resist the applicable
wind loads set forth in the Building Code.
C. Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained at all times in a state of
good repair, and no person shall maintain or permit to be maintained, on any
premi ses owned or contro II ed by hi ro, any sign wh i ch is in a saggi ng, lean i n9,
fallen, decayed, deteriorated or other dilapidated or unsafe conditions.
18.96.160 Foforcement. The portions of this Chapter relating to the structural
characteristics and safety of signs shall be enforced by the Building Official;
arl other portions shal I be enforced by the Staff Advisor.
,-.
Chapter 18.100
VARIIlliill
Sections:
18.100.010 Variances--purpose.
18.100.020 Application.
18.100.030 Effect.
--
18.100.010 Variances--purpose. Where practical difficulties, unnecessary
hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this Title
may result from the strict appilcation of certain provisions thereof, variance
may be granted as provided In this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to
al Iowa use that is not in conformity with the uses sp~9jfled by this Title
for the district in which the land is located. In granting a variance, the
City may fmpose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to
protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners,
the neighborhood, or the City as a whole.
18.100.020 Application. The owner or his agent may make application with the
Staff Advisor. Such application shal I be accompanied by a legal description
of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed dev-
elopment. Also to be included with such appl ication shall be a statement and
evidence showing that all of the foll9\\'ln9 circumstances exist:
A. That there are e~ceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applying to the land, bui Idlng, or use referred to in the appl ication, which
circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, or
uses in the same district; and
B. That the granting of the application is necessary for the fttf:~f\i!tipn and
enjoyment of subsfant-ial property rights of the petitioner; anit- '- ,.--
";:~ \
~;t..3
City at Ash_
Community Devc i,
Land Use
. 100.030-- J 8. 104.020
C. That the granting of such application wi II not, under the circumstances
of the particular case, be outweighed by the adverse effects to the health
or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property
of the applicanT, and wil I not, under the circurustances of the particular
case, be materially detrimental to the publ ic welfare or injurious to
property or improvements in said neighborhood; and
D. That the circumstances or conditions have not been wi ffully or purposely
se I f-i mposed.
...-
18.10Q.030 Effect. No building or zoning permit shall be issued in any case
where a variance is required unti.l fifteen days after the approving of the
variance by the Commission, and then only in accordance with the terms and
conditions of sdid approval. An appeal from the action of the Commission
shal I automatically stay the issuance of the bui Iding or other permit until
such appeal has been completed and the Councl I has acted thereon. In the
. event the Counci I acts to grant said variance, the bui Iding or zoning permit
may be issued Immediately thereafter, in accordance with such terms and con-
ditions as may have been imposed on said variance.
Chapter 18.104
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Sections:
18.104.010 Conditional use permits--purpose.
18.104.020 Appl ication.
18.104.030 Conditions.
18.104.040 Expiration.
18.104.010 Cpnditional use permits--purpose. Uses designated as conditonal
~ uses may, for a given zoning district, be permitted, enlarged, or altered in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. The purpose of conditional
use approval is to al low the p~oper integration into the community of uses
which may be suitable only on certain conditions and at appropriate locations.
/'
.--
18.104.020 Appl ication. The owner or his agent may make application with
the Staff Advisor to the Planning Commission. Such application shall be accom-
panied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations to show
the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shal I be
a statement and evidence showing that:
A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. If the IJse is allowable in any zone, that the proposed use better serves
the public neod than the utilization of other property.
RECEiVE.
C. That the general public need is sufficient to justify the burden of any
negative impact on the area immediately surrounding.
,,\\
~ ;( '-I
City of /,'ihla:
Community Develc,
land Use
i
\ .
'. ]04.030--18.108.020
.
18.104.030 Conditions. In granting a conditonal use permit, the City may
impose conditions in addition to those required for uses within each district
In order to protect the best interests of the surrounding property, the
neighbol~hood, or the City as a whole. These conditions may include increasing
the lot size, setbacks, or yards, control ling the size, location, and number
of vehicular access points, increasing the right-of-way and paving width of
}he street or streets, limiting the height of bui Idings to protect the light,
view, and air of adjacent properties, requiring screen plantings and other
specified landscaping, increasing the amount of off-stree1. parking or loading,
granting a revocable permit or a permit for a term periOd, or other provisions
necessary to minimize any conflict between the proposed conditional use and
the use of adjacent properties. Change in use, expansion, contraction, or
a I terati on of s':-ruct'ure, site, or uses cl ass if I ed as condi tiona J uses exi sti ng
prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, shall conform
to all regulations pertaining to conditional uses. Administration of temporary
uses may be delegated to the Staff Advisor by the Pfannlng Commission.
~ )8.104.040 Expiration. Conditional Use Permits shal I be granted specifically
to the owner/app Ii cant and sha r i rewa i n va lid on I y so long as sa i d owner/
applicant retains ownership, control and management of the property. A Permit
shal I expire six months after discontinuance or abandonment of the approved
use.
Sections:
,-...
18.108.0]0
18.108.020
18.108.030
18.108.040
18.108.050
18.108.060
18. W8.070
18.108.080
18.108.090
18.108.100
Chapter 18.108
LAND USE AND ORDINf,NCE CHANGE PROCEDURES
Amendments--Generally.
Amendment--Initiation.
Amendment--Action by Commission.
Amendment--Actlon by Common Counci I.
Appeals.
Fees.
New applications.
P~hlic notice and hearing.
Effect.
Application deadline.
... .-.----..
18.108.01Q.. .!.mendments-Generi!..!.!.Y.. - This Title lTIay be amended by changing the
boundaries of'dlsTricts or by changing any o"ther provision thereof, whenever
the public need, the need to correct mistakes in the Title, the need to adjust
to new (:on~itions, or compel ling circumstances relating to the general public
welfare require such amendment, by foi lowing "the procedure of this Chapter,
and by conforming with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable State Planning
Goals.
RECEIV.;)
]8.108.020 A~endment--lnitiation.
may be initiated by:
An amendment to the text or the zoning map
.;~ \
~ ;.. S-.
City of As" J
Community Dc" 'C: it
Land Use
d. 108.020--18. 108.040
A. Resolution of intention of the Planning C.o"mmission.
B. Resol ution of intention of the Cornmon Counci I.
C. Application by one or more property owners, or their authorized agents,
of property affected "by the proposed amendment. The appl ication shall be
filed with the Staff Advisor to the Planning Commission and shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property or properties affected,
and a map showing the property or properties affected within a radius of
three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries thereof.
18.108.030 Amendment--Action by CO~lmission.
r
A. Fol lowing t~e aforesaid hearing, the Commission shal I make a report of its
findings and recommendations with respect to the proposed amendment and shal I
file with fhe Cocncil, an attested copy of such report within ninety days
after notIce of said hearing; provided that such time limit may be extended
upon the mutual agreement of the parties having an Interest in the proceedings.
If the Commission deems It advisable, it may recommend that the area under
consideration for change In classification be enlarged or diminished or be
reclassified to a district other than the district originally Initiated.
B. Upon the consent of the Commission, any petition for amendment may be
withdrawn upon the written application of a majority of al I persons who signed
such petition. The Councilor the Commission, may be resolution abandon any
proceedings for an amendment ini-tiated by its own resolution of intention,
provided that Such abandonment may be made only when such proceedings are
before such body for consideration, and provided that any hearing of which
public notice has been given sha' r be held.
,-..
18.108.040 Amendment--Actlon by Common Counci I.
A. Upon the fi I ing of the Planning Conrnission's report-""with the Counci I or
upon the expiration of such ninety days, as aforesaid, the matter shall be
set for public hearing as provided in Section 18~108.080 of this Chapter.
B. The Co~ncil shall render its decision within sixty days after the receipt
of the report and recommendation of the Commission, or within sixty days after
the expiration of such ninety days as aforesaid.
C. I f the Counci I proposes to adopt an amendment that is substanti ally al tered
from the recommendation of the CommissIon, the Counci I may refer said proposed
amendment back to the Commission for report .and recommendation before adoption.
The Commission shal I consider said oITendment within thirty days of said referral
and report thereon at the next regu I ar meeti ng of the Counc i I . Fa i I ure to
so report wi II be deemed to constitute approval by the Commission.
D. Amendment sha II -be by Ord i nanee on I y. Such ord i nanee sha II conta i n a II
find i ngs of fact as req u i red by sta1"e I aw and I oca I regu I at i on:l1E~M-~d i n-
ance and amendment shall be val id only in relation "to the findings conlained
therein. Findings shall address publ ic need questions in relation to the zoning
district generally, not only for a specific use.
,~,~~ \
i i
~""
City of Ash,(j
Community Devl. (.; "\lent
land Use
3.108.040--18.108.050
E. An ordinance arrending the zoning map to a classification permitting
intensification or establishment of a residential use shall be void eighteen
months after enactment unless the applicant has made substantial improvements
as speci fied by the Counci I. This I imitation is intended to address State
.Planning Goals and City Comprehensive Plan goals and policies relating to
provision of adequate housing, efficient use of public faci~ales, and ma.i-n-
tainlng a compact urban form through use of available urban land prior to
commlting new land to development. It shal I also be construed to serve as
support the the appl icant's derronstration of a sincere desire to meet an.
existing public need.
18.108.050 Appeals.
A. The Commission shall have the power to hear and decide appeals based on
the enforcement or interpretation of the provisions of this Title.
--
B. Any appeal from a decision relating to the enforcement or interpretation
of this Title, unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Title, sha! I
be in \':riting, and shall be fi led with the Commission within fifteen days
after such decision <except ten days for minor land partitions); such appeal
shall set forth the reasons therefor.
.'
C. The COmmission shall consider such appeal and render its decision within
sixty days after the fi ling thereot.
D. In case any interested person Is not satisfied with the action of the Com-
mission on his appeal, he may within fifteen days atter the action of the
Commission appeal In writing to the Common Council.
E. Notice shall be given to the Commission of such appeal and a report shal I
be submitted to the Counci I setting forth the reasons for action taken by the
Commission or it shall be represented at the Council meeting.
F. The Oomnon Counci I shal I affirm, reject, or modify the Commission's
~ decision within sixt~ days after the filing Qf such appeal.
/
--~
18.108.060 Fees. Fees for applications under this Title, and for the related
land use actions of annexation and comprehensive plan amendments shall be as
follows: <fees are non-refundable, except as noted)
Plan or Ordinance Changesj
Annexations and Urban Growth Boundary.
Boundary Amendments
$500" plus $250. on each concurrent
action on the property.
Planned. Unit Development.
$200. mInimum, plus $20.
per lot for the first 10
lots; $5. per lot thereafter.
Variance, Condltlqnal
Use Permit
RECEIVED
$50. minimum, plus $10. for
each $1,000. of value to $20,000.
$5. per $1,000. of value thereafter,
total fee not to exceed $250. for a
variance or $500. for a conditional
use permit.
Citv of l _~!-,iand
COml";1u"n;ty [I_'''iuloprnent
~~7
Land Use
U S08.050--18.108.0BO
Site Review
$50. mInimum for administrative
items, $100. minimum for all
others, plus ~5. per residential
un i t or each. 1 00 square feet of
commercial floor space, or each
100 square feet of Industrial space,'
the latter not to exceed $500.
Signs
$10. plus $1. per square foot
$125., al I but $25. of which is
refundable if appeal is succes~ful.
Appeal from Commission
or Hearings Board decisions.
r
16.108.070 New applications. In case an application is denied by the Com-
mission, or, on appeal by the Council, unless specifically stated to be without
prejudice, it shall not be 01 igible for resubmlttal for one year from date of
said denial, unless, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence is sub-
mitted or conditions have changed to an extent that further consideration Is
warranted. This shall not apply to appl ications for a given property which are
significantly different from the original appl ication.
18.108.080 Public notice and hearing. Publ ic notice shal I be given as follows
except that Notice for Hearings before the Counci I involving Comprehensive Plan
or implementing ordinances related to zoning shal I be given three times within
the week of the meeting in a newsp~per of general circulation within the City.
Notice Shall be sent by mal I at least ten days prior to the initial hearing
(exce~t for changes in the text and maps of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Suhdivision Ordinance, and other implementation measures, in which
case thirty days notice shal I be given prior to the meeting of the Citizens'
PI ann I ng Advl sory Comml ttee) to the followi ng persons:.
A. The applicant.
.--.........-
~ 8. In all actions involving changes In the text or maps of the Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, or other implementation measures,
notice shall be given to al I property owners or contract purchasers of record,
and 1:1 I I renters where It is knmln that a dwe I I I ng un it- Is bei ng used as a
rental, within three hundred feet of the property which Is the subject of the
application. In actions involving conditional use permits, variances, subdiv-
isions, and partitions, i'he Notice distance shal J be two hundred feet, except
as lited in the fol lowing sentence, and notice shal I be sent to al I property
owners or contract purchasers of record. For actions Involving conditional use
permits which wouid al low no intensification or change in character of use in
relation to permitted uses, variances not involving complete existing or
contemplated residential, commercial, and Industrial structures, and partitions
subject to administative approval, the Notice distance shal I be one hundred
feet, and notice shal I be given to all property owners or contract purchasers
of record. In actions involving site review and Temporary Use Permits,
notice shall be given to property owners with property either con1-iguous or
immediately adjacent. The failure of the property owner, contrlaCjGp~nc~ser,
or renter to receive Notice shal I not invalidate the action if a good faith
attempt ~Jas made to notify al! persons entitled to personal Notice.
'JIAN
~~~
City of i.. ."d
Community L ' .,I(,8nl
r-
,,-.
Lan d Use
.'
1.108.080--18.112.020
C. Any other person or neighborhood organization requesting Notice in writing,
if the person or persons so requesting demonstrate that they may be signifi-
cantly and directly affected by the outcome of the hearing.
D. Notice shall a/50 be gIven by publication in a newsp~per of general
circulation in the City at least ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. The hearing may be continued from time to time as necessary to gather
additional information on the application, and no additional Notice need be
given unless so ordered by the CouncIlor Commission; provided hO\...ever, that if
the proposal is tabled wIthout a date and time certain, that additional Notice
as originally requi red herein shall be necessary. A Publ ic HearIng shall be
held withIn sixty days of appl ication, with final decision rendered by the
Commission ",lithin ninety days of appl ication.
.18.108.090 Effect. No bui Iding or zoning permit shall be issued for any
Planning Commission action under this Title until fifteen days after the
decision on such action. An appeal from the Commission decision shal I stay
permit issuance unti I action by th~ Counci I _I f the Counci' finds in favor
of the app I leant, the perml t sha I I be Issued i mmed i ate Iy thereafter.
18.108.100 Application deadline. AI I applications for hearing before the
Planning Commission shall be submitted three calendar weeks before the first
regular meeting of any given month. This shal I not apply in the case of text
or map changes to the Comprehensive Plan or Implementing ordinances, in which
case appl ication shall be made six "'leeks prior to the meeting.
Chapter 1.8.112
ENFORCEMENT
Secti ons:
18. 112. 0 10
18.112.020
18.112.030
18.112.040
18.112.050
18. 112 .060
18.112.070
18.112.080
18. 112 .090
Zoning permits.
Maintenance of minimum requirements.
Revocation--permit expiration.
Revocation--conditions violated.
Pub I Ie hear j ng.
Duties of officer.
I nte rp retat Ion.
Violations--nuisance.
Penalties.
18.112.010 Zoriln~ permits. Zoning permits or approval shal' be required for
all bui Idings and structures, hereinafter erected, constructed, altered, re-
paired, or moved within or into any district establ ished by this Title, and
for the use of vacant land or for a change in the character of the use of land
- 'er.vp-~Idings, within any district established by this Title. Such permit
Rt:C~yl-oe a part of fhe bui Iding permit.
18.1 ~.020 Mainten~mca of minimum requi rements. No lot area, yard, or other
.'i\ open:-pace, or requ~lredoff-street parking or loading area existing on or
flfter the effective date of -the ordinance codified herein shall be l~educed in
~'I&H\Qa;y1ddimension, or size below the minimum required herein, nor shall any lot
A( , :-d~~'it~o~rjltd, or other open space or off-street parking or loading area which
~ . is required by this Title for one use be used oS the lot area, yard, or other
oren space or off-street parking or loading ar-ea requirement for any other use.
land Use
.112.030--18.112.070
18.112.030 Revocation~-permit expiration. Any zoning permit, planned unit
development permit, conditional use permit, or variance.granted in accordance
with the terms of this Title shal I be deemed revoked If. not used within one
year from date of appi~oval. Said permit shall not be deemed used unti I the
permittee has actually ontained a bui Iding permit, and commenced construction
thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use on the premises.
18.112.040 Revocation--conditions viola1.ed. Any zoning permit, planned unit
development permit, conditional use permit, or variance granted in accordance
with the terms of this Title may be r.evol~ed if any of the conditions or terms
of such permit or variance are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated
in connection therewith.
18.112.050 Public hearing.
/-----
A. The Co~mission shal I hold a hearing on any proposed revocation after
giving written notice to the permittee and owners within two hundred feet of
subject property as provided in the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.
B. The Cotmlission shal I render Its decision within thirty days after the
conclusion of the hearing.
C. In case the permittee is not satisfied with the action of the Commission,
he may within fifteen days appeal in writing to the Common Council.
D. The Counei I shall set a date for public hearing andshal I give notice
thereof in the manner provided in the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.
Notice shall also be given to the Commission of such appeal, and a report
shal I be submitted setting forth the reasons for the action taken by the
Commission, or it shall be represented at the hearing.
./""'-
,
E. The Council snal I render its decision within sixty days after the filing
of such appea I .
18.112.060 Duties of officer. All departments, officials, and employees of
the City vested WiTh the duty or authority to issue permits shal I conform to
the provisions of this Title and shal I issue no permit, certificate, or
license for uses, buildings or purposes in confl let with ~he provisions of
this Title; and any such permit, certificate, or license lssued in conflict
with the provisions of this Title, intentionally or otherwise, is null and
void. It shal I be the duty of the building official to enforce the provisions
of this Title pertaining to the erection, construction, reconstruction, moving,
conversion, alteration, or addition'to any bui Iding or structure and the use
of .any land, building, or premises.
18.112.070 !nterpret?tion. The provisions of this Titleshal I be held to
the minimum requirements fulfil ling its objectives. Where the conditions
imposed by a provision of this Title are less restrictive than comparable
conditions imposed by any other provisions of this Title or of any other
ordi nance, resol ut ion. or' regu I at i onl the provi sons wh i ch CfliEOOIVrr:estrl cti ve
sha II govern. .
;i 5~
t~-: '; V :.:/ /;)111(",
,,(ii '\":~':;'j Gevc;
------- ----rr-I
,
It
~r
land Use
1~ t12.030--18.112.090
.
"
18.112.080 Violattons--n~isanc~. Any building or structure set up, erected,
constructed, altered, enlarged, converted, moved, or maintained contrary to
the provisions of this Title, and any use of any land, building} or premise
established, conducted, operated, or maintained contrary to the provisions
of this Title, shall be and the same is hereby declared to be unlawful and a
public nuisance, and the .cIty Attorney of the City may, or upon order of the
Common Council shall, immediately commence action or pnDCeedings for the
abatement and rEm-oval and enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law,
and may take such other steps and apply to such courts as may have juriSdiction
to grant such rel'ief as will abate and renx:5ve such building or prevent any
person from setting up, erecting, building, maintaining, or using any such
building or structure or using property contrary to the provisions of this
Title. The remedies' provided for herein ShC;l11 be cumulative and not exclusive.
.. 18.112.090 Pena 1 tlee;. Any person, firm" or corporation, whether as pri nc I pa I,
-'agent, en~loyee, or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of
the provisions of this Titl~ has committed an Infraction, and upon conviction
thereof is pun I shab Ie as prescrl bed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashand 11.un I cl pa I
Oode. Such person, firm, or corporation Is guJltyof a separate violation for
each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this Title
Is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation.
(
,
REGEl ",.U
.i AN,
~(
Cityoi /-. \i.,
Community C "(.:,,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 9, 2007
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street,
Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Fields, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Olena Black
John Stromberg
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
Tom Dimitre
Dave Dotterrer
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison:
Kate Jackson (Council Liaison, does not attend
Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid
conflict of interest.)
Staff Present:
David Stalheim, Community Development Director
Bill Molnar, Planning Manager
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS - Fields introduced and welcomed David Stalheim, the City's new Community Development Director.
There will be a study session on January 23,2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. Bob Parker, ECONorthwest will
review the draft Economic Opportunities Analysis. The Council will be invited to attend.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dawkins moved to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Black asked for a
correction on page 2, paragraph 4. The third sentence should read: She doesn't feel the bulk and scale against the sidewalk is
out of character with other historic examples in Ashland and in southern Oregon. Stromberg seconded the motion. Voice
Vote: The minutes were approved as corrected.
PUBLIC FORUM
ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, gave the Commission an update on the current court case concerning the Park Street apartments
converting to condominiums. With regard to the Commission's process, he said that there has been considerable ambiguity
surrounding the request for a continuance of a planning action. He thought the findings should be approved at the same
meeting at which the action is approved.
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, said he recalled some time back the subject of the findings was discussed by the
Commission. He thought the previous Planning Director had said that findings could be written that were straightforward and
referred back to the record and videotape of the findings.
RICHARD APPICELLO, Assistant City Attorney, corrected some of the statements concerning requests for a continuance and
further explained how an extension to the 120 day limit is requested and granted.
Fields announced that PA2006-01787, 479 Russell Street, has been postponed.
GPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 2006- 2006-01784
REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE WRIGHTS
CREEK FLOODPLAIN AND RIPARIAN PRESERVATION AREA FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WIDENING OF A PORTION OF AN
EXISTING DRIVEWAY, RE-GRADING OF A PORTION OF GRANDVIEW DRIVE AND THE EXTENSION OF UTLIITIES TO SERVE A
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCTED AT 720 GRANDVIEW DRIVE.
APPLICANT: LYNN AND BILL MCDONALD
_I / Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Black bad a,;te visit and ",0<1 the Jackson Connly Front Connie< web,ite to look at all the
V county lands located to the west of the property. She understood the County is going through a process to extend their
~a~.
driveway ordinances for fIre upgrades. Dotterrer had a site visit and just looked at the driveway portion. Dawkins and Morris
had a site visit. Stromberg, Fields, Mindlin, Dimitre and Marsh did not have a site visit.
STAFF REPORT
Harris noted three items were handed out tonight to the Commissioners: A request for a continuance dated January 5th, a memo
from Bonnie Broderson and letter from Thornton Engineering both dated January 9,2007. The request for continuance also
included a request to leave the record open for seven days. Staff is recommending leaving the record open for seven days.
Harris gave a history of this action as outlined in the Staff Report beginning with a request for a building permit The applicant
is trying to address alleged assignments of error that were brought up in the appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
through a local process. If there are questions on elements other than the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review
Permit, the Commissioners should wait until they deliberate to discuss them.
Harris described the proposal also outlined in the Staff Report. The Physical Constraints Permit covers development in the
Wright's Creek Floodplain Corridor land. There are four things happening in the protected area: 1) The re-grading of
Grandview Drive to come in line with the new paved driveway, 2) the paving of the existing driveway, widened to meet a fIre
apparatus access road requirement of 15 feet where shared and 12 feet where it splits into the two distinct pieces, 3) build a
utility corridor to connect the new single family home to the existing utilities farther up Grandview Drive, and 4) a private
storm drain for storm drainage from the house that enters the Wright's Creek Floodplain as well as an energy dissipater at the
end (rocks to slow the water). In this proposal most of the driveway and the single family home are not located in the
Floodplain.
Staff believes the application meets the approval criteria for a Physical Constraints Permit. The proposal minimizes the impact
because they have located the driveway in the location of the existing driveway. They are trying to stay within the area that's
already been disturbed and the same for the utility corridor connection.
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK BARTHOLOMEW, 717 Murphy Road, Medford, OR 97504, represents the applicant. They do not object to leaving the
record open for seven days. They would like to have seven days to respond, and reserve time for oral rebuttal at tonight's
meeting. They agreed to a voluntary remand because there was some question as to whether there was a discretionary element
in how the length of the driveway was measured. By having a public hearing remedies one of the assignments of error.
They have done everything they can to mitigate any adverse impacts in the area by the plan they submitted. They are
following the existing driveway, using pervious asphalt to minimize runoff and will obtain an easement from a neighbor to
allow the applicant to traverse the neighbor's property in order to stay as far away from the-creek and top of bank as possible.
They are going to be placing rock outfall to slow down the water and prevent erosion.
The Staff Report and Bartholomew covered the Assignments of Error.
TOM GIORDANO, 2635 Takelma Way and MIKE THORNTON, Thornton Engineering, 1236 Disk Drive, Medford, OR 97504 spoke.
Thornton referred the Commissioners to Sheet 1 that showed the changes on his drawing. He said FEMA doesn't map these
creeks. The City's 1989 Floodplain Corridor doesn't map the streams either. They have proposed the improvements will be at
grade. All the work they have done is within the existing gravel roadways.
Mindlin asked if the utility trenches could be moved farther from the top of bank. Thornton thought that would be possible.
NANCY LOUIE, 507 Grandview Drive, lives nearby in the county. The driveway is a single lane gravel driveway. It cuts through
her lot, and the fork of Wright's Creek goes onto her property. They just need to take care of the creek and she is confIdent the
Planning Commission will be able to fIgure it out.
LLOYD HAINES, 96 N. MAIN STREET, owns the lot abutting the McDonald's lot. He does not oppose the application and
believes it will be an asset to the community. It will not adversely impact his lot or the other lots in that area.
w
LYNN MCDONALD, 8621 Oak Branch Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93311, said they want to build on this lot and move to Ashland.
They are willing to comply with all the regulations and would like the Commission to approve the application.
BONNIE BRODERSON, 635 Wright's Creek Drive, disagreed with Bartholomew that the Assignments of Error have been
addressed. She did not receive an official notice that has occurred. The only thing officially noticed to the public was the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
-~ ~
JANUARY 9, 2007 ~ J 3
Physical Constraints Review Permit. The Staff Report states there are approximately 280 square feet of widening and paving
of the driveway outside the existing driveway surface, located mostly in the Grandview Drive right-of-way. She requested the
LUBA record be made a part of this record. Broderson explained that the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance
was not finalized correctly by the City with DLCD. She said the Safe Harbor rule applies to the proposal. Chapter
18.62.070M has no provision for placing a driveway in the floodplain corridor or extending a driveway. A private storm drain
line and an outlet energy dissipater in a protected area violate the ordinance. Certain information that is required has not been
provided on the topographic map. The proposed development will degrade and destroy the riparian area. The proposal
violates Ashland's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan and the provisions of Goal 5 resources. Broderson is concerned with
the amount of paving there will be.
JAMES HULSE, 416 Wimer Street, said his parents divided many of the lots in this area. He was here during two floods. The
part of the road and the driveway included in this proposal were not affected by the floods.
Fields noted that there are certain impacts we allow to happen in a riparian area. Staff looks at the impacts and whether or not
they can be mitigated.
Molnar said the Assignments of Error are included in the Staff Report in order to have it part of the record but it is not part of
tonight's review.
The drainage system was discussed. There is a perforated subsurface drain pipe under the driveway. There is a drainage ditch
on the east side of the driveway area.
Fields asked if anyone from the public who participated would like to rebut. No one came forward.
ADDlicant's Rebuttal - Giordano said the impact of the drainage is from a single family resident on the riparian area. They are
trying to take steps to minimize the impacts by using a perforated pipe, rock for erosion control and enhancing the vegetation.
They are impacting 280 square feet.
Thornton said they can pull the improvements back farther than 20 feet from top of bank. In order provide emergency access
to meet the code requirements, they are doing some improvements within 20 feet of the bank where there are no floodwaters
and no riparian vegetation. With regard to the drainage, they are taking it within 20 feet from top of bank so they don't
discharge it uphill from the neighbor. They are mitigating any disturbance.
Bartholomew said a notice is not in error as long as there is no any prejudice. Since Broderson wrote the Assignments of Error
and agreed to the voluntary remand, there is no surprise they are being considered and therefore no prejudice.
Fields closed the public hearing and announced there will be no public testimony taken at the next meeting. The record will
remain open for seven days until 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, on January 17th. Then the applicant will have seven days to submit
I written arguments. This action Is continued to the February 13, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to be held at the Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
PLANNING ACTION 12006-02354
REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE VACANT
PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF N. MAIN ST. AND GLENN ST. A vARIANCE IS REQUESTED
TO ALLOW A 10-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE A 2o.FOOT FRONT YARD FOR PROPERTIES ABUTTING ARTERIAL
STREETS IS REQUIRED. AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A CURBSIDE SIDEWALK ON
GLENN ST.
APPLICANT: RAYMOND J. KISTLER ARCHITECTURE
SIte Visits and Ex Parte Contacts . The Commissioners all had a site visit. Black noticed a large, historic granite rock at the
site.
STAFF REPORT
Harris noted this application is looking for three approvals:
1) Exce,ption to Street Standards: Staff feels the Exception to Street Standards is justified and meets the approval criteria
because the Glenn Street frontage is relatively short and the opportunity for a parkrow is limited to about 50 feet between the
comer and the proposed driveway apron.
ASHLAND PLANNING COIMSSION
REGUlAR IEETING
_UTES
JANUARY 9, 2007
3
~3tf
To: Ashland Planning Commission
From: Bonnie Brodersen
Petitioner in LUBA Appeal No. 2004-201
Voluntarily Remanded by City of Ashland 6/21/2005
Re: Planning Action #2006-01784
Subject Property: 720 Grandview Dr.
Date: January 9, 2006
RECENED
;: .. 9 iDOl
("'!y ~f }'.,?h!~:;1
Oomrni.llli,y Dt>velopmtft
MEMORANDUM
I hereby request that a continuance be granted in this matter so that all Assignments of
Error to be heard by the Commission can be decided at one hearing. In the alternative, I
request that the Record be held open for at least 7 days so that I may present further
evidence concerning the Assignment of Error before the Commission today - that of a
Physical Constraints Permit.
A. Historv
This is a "Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit"
for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area. On
October 20, 2004 Petitioner was denied a hearing before the Commission concerning a
building permit issued by the City for development on property that included portions in
the Wrights Creek riparian and floodplain area. Petitioner challenged the issuance of the
building permit by filing an apeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals (hereinafter
LUBA). On June 21,2005 the LUBA action was voluntarily remanded by the City of
Ashland. Petitioner's LUBA appeal was based on six "Assignments of Error." By
agreement of the Remand, the City is to address all of the Assignments of Error.
One ofthe issues brought before LUBA was that the subject property was not a
legal lot. Ahhough this issue is not before the Commission at this time, the Commission
Packets include a Memo from the City attorney giving his opinion that this is a legal lot.
Petitioner respectfully disagrees with the City attorney's opinion. Ashland's definition of
"lot" requires a Maxwell inquiry:
AMC 18.08.350: Lot: A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision, or a unit
or contiguous units of land under single ownership, which complies with aU
applicable laws at the time such lots were created. (Emphasis added.)
Ashland's code specifically requires that a lot be a legal lot -- a lot that "complies with
all applicable laws" at the time it was created. The definition also requires that the "lot" be
created by "a partition or a subdivision." Intervenors' lot was created by both -- a partition
using a subdivision variance. Partitioners, by definition, did not create a "lot," as defined in
the Code, and to the extent Intervenors relied on a recorded deed, recordation was a void
action. The deed which conveyed the property from Partitioners to the Intervenors has a
"buyer beware" warning in capital letters which states: "This instrument will not allow use of
the property described in this instrument in violation of applicable land use laws and
regulations. . ." The subject unit of land was created by Partition and by a Subdivision variance
in 1979 by Planning Action #79-110. (Supplemental Rec. 12 & 28) It did not comply with all
~~5"
applicable laws at the time it was created. The unit of land had a width of85' and a depth of
295'. In 1979 ALUO 18.20.040 provided that the maximum depth for a lot created by
Partition was 150 feet.
17.08.040 Lots.
A ...Lots shall have aan average depth of not more than one hundred fifty (150) feet
except when the lot width at the ion building line is in exess of one hundred (100) feet.
~
gn
::1 ..;"
~ :4.
o "~.
ct& .')
<: -::..
r-i. ';
il
The Ashland Municipal Code required strict adherence:
AMC 17.04.020 Scope ofRel!ulations. Subdivision plats, minor land partitioning, and
streets and ways created for the purpose of partitioning land shall be approved by the
planning comission in accordance with these regulations. No person shall subdivide
land, partition land by creation of a street or way, or engage in minor land partitioning
without complying with this title and the state law.
In 1979 there was no provision in the Ashland Code which would permit a lot
depth variance for lots formed by a Minor Land Partition. Applicants, who could not
partition the property because of its depth, applied for a lot depth variance using an
ordinance which applied only to subdivisions. Applicants state in Planning Action #79-
110: "A subdivision variance is also being requested as the proposed parcels #1 and #2
are 85' wide and 295' in depth which is in excess of 150' maximum lot depth allowed by
ordinance." But the applicable ALUO's explicitly distinguished between a Minor Land
Partition and a Subdivision:
AMC 17.04.010 N Subdivide land means to partition or commence partition of a parcel
ofland into four (4) or more parcels ofless than five (5) acres each.... (1979 Code)
AMC 17.04.010 F Minor land partitioning means paritioning ofland other than
subdividing land or creation ofa street way. (1979 Code)
The applicants had created three units of land by Minor Land Partition, as stated in their
application. The subdivision variance could not be used to bring a non-conforming unit of
land created by a Minor Land Partition into conformity. In Woolsley v. Marion Co., 118 Or
App. 206, 846 P2d 1170 (1993), the Appellate Court affirmed the County's denial ofan
application for a replacement dwelling on property that had, earlier, been unlawfully
partitioned.
There was no jurisdiction to approve a lot depth variance for a lot formed by minor
land partition, because there was no provision under the Ashland Code for such a variance or
for a waiver of jurisdictional requirements. The lot depth requirements could not be waived by
the Planning Commission nor could they be waived by stipulation. (A jurisdictional
requirement may not be waived by stipulation. City of Hermiston v. Employment Relations
Ed, 280 Or 291,570 P2d 663 (1977).) The planning commission is given authority to make
recommendations to the City Council pursuant to AMC 2.12.060. Legislative powers are
reserved for the Ashland City Council, made up of elected members. AMC 2.04. The
planning commission possesses only those jurisdictional powers as are expressly conferred on
it by state statute or city ordinance. The planning commission did not have jurisdiction to
grant partitioners an exception to the Ashland Code. Unable to set aside the lot depth
requirement of the Code, a new entity - a partition/subdivision was devised. There was no
~~0
2
~
2:
::n
m
o
m
~
o
<.0
es
~
provision in the Code for such an entity or for a subdivision variance being applied to a
partition.
Further the subject lot is an illegal because the plat was not timely filed and therefore
is null and void. Ahhough the Ashland Planning Commission gave preliminary approval for
the partition-subdivision on September 14, 1979, a final map was not recorded until December
15, 1981, over 27 months later. In a letter from the City Planning Department to the
applicants, then Associate Planner Wanderscheid noted that a final map must be submitted
within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise approval becomes invalid.
The relevant 1979 Code provision provided:
17.24.010 Submission. Within six months after tentative approval of the preliminary plat, the
subdivier shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed and a final plat prepared.
And the final plat had to be recorded within 30 days afthe date of the last required
signature:
17.24.080 Filinsz. The subdivider shall, without delay, submit the final plat for signatures of
other public officials required by law. Approval of the final plat is null and void if the plat is not
recorded within thrity (30) days after the date the last required signature has been obtained.
There is a final document that the planning commission secretary and president signed on
November 9, 1981, which states "We certify that pursuant to authority granted to us by
the Ashland planning commission in an open meeting of September 13, 1979, this map is
hereby approved by the Ashland Planning Commission this 9th day of November 1981."
The city engineer signed a statement on the document: "Examined and approved this 26th
day of February, 1981." (Rec. 15-16) This final map was approved over 26 months after
preliminary approval on September 14, 1979. The plat was not timely filed and is null
and void because it was filed on December 15, 1981. The final official signature was
added on November, 9, 1981. The plat was not recorded within 30 days ofthe last
signature and is null and void.
The matter pending before the Planning Commission is in reference to
Petitioner's Third AssignmentofError: "The City erred when it failed to require a
Physical Constraints Review permit for development on the subject property which
is in the WildfIre Corridor, is a Flood Plains Land and is in the Wrights Creek
Riparian Preservation area and when it failed to require a simultaneous application
for a Physical Constraints Review permit in the Grandview rightofway."
Petitioner has not received official notice from the City that the other fIve
Assignments of Error in the LUBA appeal have been addressed and that a fInal decision
has been made by the City concerning those Assignments of Error. The Staff Report
addresses some of the other Assignments of Error, but they were not "Noticed" in the
public notice or in the notice sent to Petitioner and other neighbors. Therefore,
addressing any of those Assignments of Error without would be inappropriate at the
January 9, 2007 Commission hearing. In the interests of all concerned and for efficiency
it seems best that the issues raised in respect to the development of the subject property
be heard at one hearing and not in a piecemeal fashion. For that reason, this matter
should be continued with proper Notice given for all issues raised in the LUBA appeal
which can be heard by the Commission. The only issue before the Commission now
concerns the request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit.
RECEIVED
~~1
JAN 9 200~
c::'::..: t."1'~'::".1
ComIl'..Jn;,v Dtilli3looment
QECEIVED
JAN 9 2007
B. Rec:ord
C . ",'.,-']
Corti''!'''';''';' D0v,,;opment
Petitioner hereby requests that all documents referencing the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit from the 2004 LVBA appeal file and from the
City's file in this matter be made part of the Record.
C. Applic:ant's Proposal for Development does not meet the Development Standards
of ALUO Chapter 18.62
The criteria for a Physical Constraints Permit are in ALVO 18.62.040.1 which for
the subject property, requires application ofthe development standards for Floodplain
Corridor Lands and Riparian lands in 18.62.070. By ordinance, an application for a
Physical Constraints Review permit requires Applicants to submit plans that include,
inter alia, "accurate location of all existing natural features" on the subject property and
on neighboring properties, the location of natural drainage ways and easements (of which
there are at least two), location of trees with drip lines extending across property lines,
"the proposed method of erosion control, water nmoff control, and tree protection for the
development," location of all land disturbance including cuts and fills and the maximum
heights of cuts and fill and the location for disposal of all excess materials resulting from
cuts. ALVO 18.62.040H(1) Required information has not been provided.
Both the Staff Report and the Applicant's "Project Narrative" state that
development ( "portions of the driveway and utility alterations" and storm drainage pipes
and tap) will occur in the Floodplain Corridor/Riparian area (the riparian area was
previously dedicated to the City of Ashland and is in the Grandview ROW).
1. ADPIic:ants Need to Provide Additional Information Because Information in the
Applic:ation is Inadequate for a Dec:ision
ALVO 18.62.040 lays out the plan requirements for any development requiring a
Physical Constraints Review. Relevant information is missing from the application and
Planning Staff made a decision without that information and used their own
guestimations to approve a Physical Constraint permit. The decision is not based on
factual information in the application. (See Staff Report)
ALVO 18.62.040 (H)(k) requires the following information. I have highlighted in red
information that is missing and necessary to a decision in this matter:
A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of not less than two feet nor greater than five
feet. The topographic map shall also include a slope analysis, indicating buildable areas, as shown in the
graphic.
1. Location of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and on-site circulation.
m Accurate locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, all trees as required in
18.62.080.D.1, including those ofa caliper equal to or greater than six inches d.b.h., native shrub masses
with a diameter of ten feet or greater, natural drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs, or creeks on the
site, and outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Natural features on adjacent properties potentially
~o~
4
-'~------_._--- ----- -.------
impacted by the proposed development shall also be included, such as trees with drip lines extending
across property lines. In forested areas, it is necessary to identify only those trees which will be affected
or removed by the proposed development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
n The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control, and tree protection for the development as
required by this chapter.
o. Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that contain only buildable area, as defined
by this Chapter.
p. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation lines.
q. Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways, building sites, and other
construction areas. Indicate total area of disturbance, total percentage of project site proposed for
disturbance, and maximum depths and heights of cuts and fiU.
f. Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts associated with the
proposed development.
s. Applicant name, firm preparing plans, person responsible for plan preparation, and plan preparation dates
shall be indicated on all plans.
t. Proposed timeline for development based on estimated date of approval, including completion dates for
specific tasks.
2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080, 18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of
this Chapter.
A few examples of pertinent information missing from the application as stated in the
StafIReport:
"The application does not address the amount of surface area of the driveway located in
the Wrights Creek Floodplain" (StafIReport, page 3). "The application does not quantify
the earth work in cubic yards or surface area disturbance involved in the private storm
drain line or utility trench. According to Staff's calculations, approximately 40 lineal feet
of privte storm drain line is located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain with an additional 25
square foot area for the storm drain outlet/energy dissipater." (page 4) "According to
Staff's calculations, there is approximately 280 square feet of widening and paving of the
driveway outside of the existing driveway surface, and it is located mostly in the
Grandview Dr. right-of-way." (StafIReport, page 6) "It is not clear from the application,
but it appears the proposal also involves the pavement of the portion of the driveway on
the subject parcel that serves the existing residence on the property to the west" [in the
floodplain and riparian corridors]. (StafIReport, 3).
ALVa 18.62.040 clearly states what information the Applicant is to provide so
that Planning can make decisions based on factual information about the development.
When the application does not contain the required information, the antidote is to return
the application to the Applicant as incomplete. The ALVa does not allow for StafIto
make their own "guess-timations," as it did in this matter. Staff's approval ofa permit
emanating from guesswork is invalid.
2. The Development. which includes constructin2 part of the driveway in the
Floodplain Corridor and placin2 utilities in the Floodplain Corridor. fails to meet
the standards of Chapter 18.62 as follows:
The ALVa does not permit construction of a portion of the driveway within the
Floodplain Corridor - the ALVa refers only to local streets and utility connections -
which cannot be buih in the Floodplain corridor but which can cross the Corridor 'RECEIVED
~a~
JAN
9 2007
- -- -~~-~--~~-- -_..__._-~ ---
CeU'I'ill..'~~. \.. I,' r ~":\V,Q~1'Vt'\Ant
RECEIVED
JAN 9 2007
Relevant Ordinance:
C', ,":, ":~"~';'1
COrn{;'i,';"..' C/iN:;;opment
ALUO 18.62.070M provides that "Local streets and utility connections to developments in and
adjacent to the Floodplain Corridor shall be located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except for
crossing the Corridor... "
The Staff Report states that "[T]here are no alternative locations available
for the driveway or private storm drain line located ouside of the Wrights Creek
floodplain." (page 5-6). The Grandview Drive right-of-way giving access to the property
is in the Floodplain Corridor and in the Riparian Corridor. (Staff Report 5) "According
to Staff's calculations, there is approximately 280 square feet of widening and paving of
the driveway outside ofthe existing driveway surface, and it is located mostly in the
Grandview Dr. right-of-way." (Staff Report, 6). It appears that Planning has approved
constructing part of a private driveway in the public Grandview Dr. ROW which is in the
Floodplain and Riparian Corridors. There is strong community support in Ashland for
protection of its natural resources and specifically riparian areas. When Planning allows
construction of a driveway in a riparian area that has been dedicated to the City of
Ashland, it disregards the values of its community which wants to see the riparian areas
protected. The ordinance allows for protection, but the Planning Department in its zeal
for development approval, fails to uphold the Ordinance.
The ALVO does not allow for the construction of the driveway or utilities (other
than to cross the Corridor) in the Floodplain Corridor. Planning has erred in approving
the location ofa portion of the driveway and utilities in the Corridor. The permit must be
denied. While there may be no alternative locations available for the driveway or private
storm drain, that is not cause for granting a permit in violation of the Code. There is no
inalienable right to develop a property if it cannot be developed without violating
applicable Code provisions.
Further, while it appears the City may consider a private storm drain to be a
utility, the validity (under case law and state statutes) of designating a private storm
drain as a utility needs to be researched.
3. 'tannine Erred When It Approved Construction of part of the Drivewav in the
Riparian Corridor
Relevant Ordinances:
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts
characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit
alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment
and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.
Physiographic conditions and significant natural features can be considered to include, but are not
limited to: slope of the land, natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide
areas, natural and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural
vegetation.
ALUO 18.62.075 A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in
section 18.62.050(8), shall comply with the following standards:
~"'o
6
3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall be at
right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
The Riparian ALVa allows for limited fill for "streets, access, or utilities." It
does not allow for fill brought into the protected riparian area for driveways. If we
consider the purpose of the Physical Constraints Chapter - "to limit alteration of
topography and reduce encroachment upon any natural environment" -- along with the
Code requirements for Riparian Preservation, retaining a protected riparian area in its
natural state is a mandatory priority. In its Project Narrative, Applicant states: "The
Civil Engineer's drawing shows the location of the proposed driveway (to both TL 500
and 501). Because ofthe existing easement agreement between TL 500 and 501, much
of tile proposed driveway is in the 20 foot setback from the top of the [Wrights]
creek bank." (page 7) While the ALVa allows for limited fill and culverting to get
access to a property, it informs us that "the crossing (inferentially to provide access) shall
be at right angles to the creek channel to the greatest extent possible." Applicant's
proposal, to place a portion of the driveway in the riparian corridor, is not the same as
providing a crossing for a creek channel for the purpose of obtaining access to the
property. If the intention was to allow a driveway to be constructed in the protected
Corridors, the word "driveway" would have been used in the Code provision. There is no
provision in the Code which allows for part of the driveway to be constructed in the
riparian corridor. The protected riparian area will be irreversibly ahered by applicant's
driveway proposal, and such construction violates the AMC provisions protecting the
riparian area.
4. Furthermore. the Prooosed Develooment Violates the ALUO Because the
General Toool!raohv of the Rioarian Area Will Not Be Retained
The ALVa requires that the general topography of the riparian area be retained.
Relevant Ordinance:
ALUO 18.62.075 A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in
section 18.62.050(B), shall comply with the following standards:
g
::1
-'
::: ~:-)
~ '.,'
-; -<'
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
,;.:': :.j}
While the ALVa does not define "topography," Websters Dictionary provides: 0 ;~
Topography - ~. ;t
1. The description of a particular place. ~ Q,
2. The art or practice of graphic and exact delineation in minute detail, usually on maps or ~
charts, of the physical features of any place or region.
The topography (physical features) of the riparian area will be significantly and
irrreversibly ahered by the proposed development which, according to the Applicant
Narrative, will include a paved driveway within eight (8) feet from the top of the
creek bank (hereinafter TOeD); the placing oflarge rocks (riprap) (energy dissipater)
located at the end of the drainage pipe; fill material - the amount and type of which is
not specified; new vegetation planted in the riparian area; a proposed irrigation system in
the riparian area; and bank stabilization measures. (Applicant Narrative, pages 7-8) The
~4'
c....
)>
z
:0
m
()
m
<:
m
o
<..0
~
7
foregoing are not natural topographical features of the riparian area; they are manmade
additions which will destroy the natural state and topography of the riparian area.
Further, the present topography of the area will be unrecognizable when a
driveway (of which there is no recording of the accurate length but which appears to
exceed 260 square feet) is constructed at a finished grade of 10-11 % when, in it's intial
approval in 2004, the City had granted a variance to allow for a slope of 18% for up to
200 feet of the driveway. The kind of grading required to reduce the slope will
irreversitbly change the topography of the area.
The Staff Report emphasizes and reiterates that the Wrights Creek riparian
corridor was damaged years ago when "Grandview Dr. and the existing shared driveway
were located and constructed." The standard that Planning appears to adopt in the Staff
Report is that the Wrights Creek riparian corridor was previously damaged. Therefore,
continued/additional damage caused by the proposed development is OK. This kind of
reasoning violates the preservation goals of the ALVa. This development not only
violates the Code, but also violates Ashland's Comprehensive Plan which has as two of
its Goals: to "[p ]rotect the quality of riparian resource lands, and preserve their wildlife
habitats" and "[ t]o preserve and protect significant wetlands, and to mitigate potential
impacts on these areas due to development and conflicting uses." (CP page IV-ll&13),
5. ADDUeant's ADDUcation Does Not Provide the Necessary Information
Conceminl! Fill
Relevant Ordinance:
ALUO 18.62.070 For all land use actions which could result in development of the Floodplain
Corridor, the following is required in addition to any rquirements of Chapter 15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor lands:
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of tloodway channels, as
defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill.
Although Applicant's Narrative states that they plan to comply with the foreoing
section of the ALVa, the Narrative gives no information about how the toe of the fill will
be kept at least ten feet outside of the floodway channel when there is a downward slope
to the creek in the area of the proposed driveway and when Applicant proposes to build
the driveway in the floodway channel within 8 feet of the TOCB.
D. If the Maximum Permitted Development Permitted by the Land Use Ordinance
Is Considered, the Proposed Development Can Not be Approved for a Physical
Constraints Review Permit
ALVa 18.62.0401 (3) provides as criteria for approval:
That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the
environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff
Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the
maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance.
RECEIVED
JAN
9 2007
8
~ t./~
C:'.' ~::1~ .~ ."~,,t".:""':r;
Con;, ,:,T,,}' 0;)lic;;vpment
If Planning or the Commission considers the maximum permitted development
permitted by the ALUO, the proposed development cannot be approved. As outlined
above, the development proposed exceeds/violates the guidelines of the ALUO for
floodplain/riparian corridors.
And if Planning considers the "existing development of the surrounding area the
will fmd that development will occur in a relatively undeveloped area on the city-county
line. The Ashland City Limits is located on the western bo~der of the property. There are
parcels to the north and to the east of the subject property that are undeveloped.
D. The Staff Report Incorrectlv states that Wrie:hts Creek is not a "sie:nificant
Riparian Corridor because it is not fish bearine:." (Staff Report. 11)
Staff relies on a consultant's report completed in July, 2005 which has not been
adopted by the City Council to deny Wrights Creek's status as a "Significant riparian
corridor,." The consultant's report flies in the face of the official "Bear Creek Watershed
Analysis"done by the U.S. Forest Service which establishes Wrights Creek as fishbearing
- in the lower two-tenths of the stream -- and found that a barrier (which could possibly
be removed) blocked fish from the upper reaches of the Creek. Brent Crowe, with the
ODFW - Rogue District Watershed writes concerning Wrights Creek:
"Regardless of whether or not the barrier completely blocks fish passage, ODFW would recommend
protecting the riparian areafor the entire length of the stream. The riparian area is valuable in controlling
water temperatures by shading the stream. Wood thatfalls into the stream provides habitat complexity and
nutrients for a variety of creatures which can eventualy be eaten by fish and wildlife.
The topo map shows the lower reaches ofWrights Creekflowing through relatively flat terrain. We
frequently findfish using these types of steams as winter refuges during high flows. " Brent Crowe, ODFW,
1-5-2007
Of course, for purposes of the proposed development it is not necessary to find
that Wrights Creek is a "significant riparian corridor." It is only necessary to find that it
is a designated for riparian preservation -. which it is pursuant to ALUO 18.62.050B:
"Riparian Preservation - The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian
Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks.
E. The City's riparian ordinance violates Ashland's Comprehensive Plan and
Statewide Planning Goal 5
Wrights Creek is designated as a protected riparian area by ordinance. Ashland's
riparian ordinances must be in conformity with its Comprehensive Plan. The Ashland
Comprehensive Plan (CP) has as two of its Goals: to "[p]rotect the quality of riparian
resource lands, and preserve their wildlife habitats" and "[t]o preserve and protect
significant wetlands, and to mitigate potential impacts on these areas due to development
and conflicting uses." (CP page IV-l 1&13), Policy 25 requires the City to "Examine the
Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter of Ashland's Land Ordinance
concerning wetland and riparian areas, and insure that existing zoning regulations RECEIVED
~L/j
JAN 9:j
rl(' '
I:UU,
COl":':"..~ ct., ",.J;.lIi ient
maintain these valuable areas in a natural state." (CP page IV-14). Given the express
language of Policy 25, requiring that riparian areas be maintained in a natural state, the
City's Physical Constraints ordinance, ALUO 18.62.040 violates its Comprehensive Plan
when it fails to include adequate setbacks for the City's protected riparian areas and when
it allows development which destroys the natural state of the protected areas. The City
has failed to comply with the mandate of Policy 25 to insure that zoning regulations
maintain the riparian areas in a natural state. Further Wrights Creek riparian area is home
to diverse wildlife including black bear, quail, and wild turkey. Protecting the wildlife
habitat is a CP goal, and as Mr. Crowe points out, development on any portion of the
Corridor affects the habitat of the entire stream.
Earthmoving activities and other development affects a much larger area than the
immediate area bulldozed or backhoed. Damage to the protected area may occur from
depositing of sedimentation, water runoff and loss of habitat due to development on any
part of the unit ofland. The building plans/site plan show a home with the bottom floor
underground, which one can conclude will require digging a deep recess for the
underground floor. There is no discussion in the Staff Report about the effect of
significant sedimentation on the Wrights Creek area.
The City has no ordinance providing for Goal 5 mandated minimum setbacks.
And in 1997 and 1998, when the City amended its riparian ordinance, it failed to adopt
setbacks mandated by OAR 660-023-0090(5) or to do an ESEE review. Local
governments are required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA when the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource. OAR 660-023-0250(3). A PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource
when "[ t ]he PAP A creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan
or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5" OAR 660.023.0250(3)(a).
However, in December, 2005 the City was able to obtain DLCD
acknowledgement for the amended ordinance but failed to give 45 days notice, as
required by statute (except in the case ofan emergency) and failed to give Petitioner
Brodersen written notice, even though she was a party to the LUBA appeal (still pending
because of the remand) in which the issue of unacknowledgement was raised. Even if the
2005 acknowledgement is upheld, the McDonald's application should be reviewed under
the ordinances in effect at the time it was made back in 2004. The application being
reviewed is not a new one but a revised application. If it were a new application
Applicants would be required to pay application permit fees - which fees were not
required. As such because the City of Ashland did not do an ESEE review before
amending the ordinance, it must determine that the development is in compliance with
Goal 5 by applying the safe harbor OAR, which would require, at a minimum, a 50 foot
riparian setback.
OAR 660-023-0090(5):
"As a safe harbor in order to address the requirements under OAR 660-023-0030, a
local government may determine the boundaries of significant riparian corridors within
its jurisdiction using a standard setback distance from all fish-bearing lakes and
streams shown on the documents listed in subsections (a) through (f) of section (4) of
this rule, as follows: RECEIVED
~ Lfy
JAN 9 2007
(:..' '...' lP
Corl1,;."';il~i D.:;,~:Cipment
-- --~---~------~-_._.- -
(a) Along all streams with average annual stream flow greater than 1,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs) the riparian corridor boundary shall be 75 feet upland from the top of each
bank.
(b) Along all lakes, and fish-bearing streams with average annual stream flow less than 1,000 cfs,
the riparian corridor boundary shall be 50 feet from the top of bank. OAR 660-023-090(5).
E. The Proposed Development Violates the Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan
and theAMC
The City has a "Storm water and Drainage Master Plan"(2000) which was
formally adopted by the City Council on June 18, 2002. (Resolution 2002-15).
Concerning Wrights Creek the Plan provides:
"The creek is relatively undeveloped and the upper, steeply sloped reaches of its watershed
are still heavily forested. With its preserved vegetation, the watershed provides an
opportunity for a vegetated wildlife link between the National Forest and the Bear Creek
Greenway. Future development should be reviewed carefully because it would increase
erosion and flooding problems and reduce the possibility of a wildlife connection." (p.3-
11)
In a Table presenting goals for the protection ofWrights Creek, the protection method for the
WR-4 area in which the subject property is located is "protect from future development."
(pp. 4-14 & 4-15) Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 4.27.020(0) defines "Storm Drainage
Facilities":
"Storm Drainage Facilities shall mean any structure(s) or configuration of the ground that
is used or by its location becomes a place where storm water flows or is accumulated
including, but not limited to, pipes, sewers, gutters, manholes, catch basins, ponds, open
drainage-ways and their appurtenances. Ashland Creek, Bear Creek, Wrights Creek...are
not storm drainage facilities." AMC 4.27.020(0)
Even though Ashland has clearly designated Wrights Creek for protection and
AMC 4.27.020(0) states that Wrights Creek is not a storm drainage facility, the proposed
development provides for storm water to be piped directly into the protected Creek and
storm water piping + tap to be placed in the riparian area. (Narrative page 7) Further, it
appears a portion of the storm drain will be placed in the Grandview right-of way riparian
corridor dedicated to the City. (See Staff Report on page 6)
F. The City erred in finding that the driveway is already constructed and that
paving a driveway is not activity prohibited in the regulated area.
The site plan shows that the proposed driveway will enter the property on the southeast
side. The protected riparian area runs the length of the south side of the subject property. The
southeastern marker for the property is in the eastern part of the riparian area, which area has
been previously dedicated to the City. (Rec. 48) The City has mistakenly found that a
driveway exists. There is no existing driveway crossing the property (on the unimproved
property). What the City refers to as an existing driveway is a short, unfinished dirt driveway
that has been used by the adjacent property owners to access their property.
RECEIVED
Conclusion:
JAN 9 2007
~45" 11
" ;' _,'C, "',:, ':r::!
COr,j".,r' i c..c'J:opment
The Planning Commission should overturn the Planning Department's approval of a
Physical Constraints Permit for the subject property because by the Planning Department's
own admission the development can only occur in violation of the ALVO: "Given the location
ofthe Grandview Rightofway, there are no ahemative locations available for the driveway or
private storm drain line located ouside of the Wrights Creek floodplain." (page 5-6).
Addendum: In reviewing the Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan, it appears a turnaround
(gravelpave) has been added and changes made to the driveway which would change the square
footage of impervious surface that was calculated on the site plan from 2004. The impervious
surface calculations, which are especially pertinent in a flood/riparian corridor, need to be
recaluculated to determine if they meet Code requirements.
RECEIVED
JAN 9 2007
t;~'f r;t ,.."~,~ ~.~,j
Commur.:!y Deyelopment
:J.. Lf"
12
Jan 09 2007 3:46PM
Thornton Encineerinc Inc. 541-857-1947
p. 1
Letter of Transmittal
RECEIVED
Date:
January 9, 2007
To:
Maris Harris
City of Ashland Planning Department
Subject: McDonald Residence 2006-01784
JAN 9 2007
CIty d Ashland
Community Development
From: Mike 1bornton
The following item(s) arc being sent to you:
(1) Letter
o Submit specified item
o As requested by:
o For your use and information
o For review and comment
Remarks:
Thornton Engineering, Inc.
By:~j)~
File: 06-034
~ "l- 7
Jan 09 2007 3:46PM Thornton Encineerinc Inc. 541-857-1947
p.2
<~: .':J~ORNTON ;' .
.-: ......fNG1NEfRING.I~c...
. . .
. JaDwiry 9~ 2007
(
. 'PlaIming Com~i$Sion
... . G.ifiY .of Ashland '. . .
. .. F~ t~sion~ '.541..5.52.2050
.. .
'. . . ,'.' . .
Subject: .' P)8on'i~ Action: 2~01784, 7~O: orBndvi~w Drive
. PhYsical ~ ~nmen1Bl ConstJ'ainis ~.,w.Permit
. In QrdCr to supplement the mfmmation h1 the. record reg~ ~ flood elevatjons for tb~
<Ira'inaP way adjacent .to ~d~ew .Prive, I present in this ;leuer my estimation oftbe'
. . ...... . .. J
.1 OO-~ fl~.~..:The depth offlQW will ~ appro~ly three feet. This is well
be1~die'.iOp ofbank as..de1Jneatetfon the ))1811 which icco~es the application.
. . '. .' '.
. 'fhis.estimatipn is based ontlicoreticai riletbDds 1jaing ~(cillowing.assumptions:
.:.lOO-yearFlowRate= l00~ . . ..' ':. ....
.C~lSlope-4% .' . ".
BOttom Width = .2 feet.
. Si~ ~Iopes = 1: 1 . . .'
~~ Ro~ess Coefficient ='0,.055
'. .
Ple&$.e call me ify~u _ve'rmy ~tions.
. 'S~~y,
. ...~n~,Inc.
. .
"By:~~.' ~.
.' Mi~l P. 'Thornton, .President
,'"
:~.'4..~
. .
. . .:';" .: : . ': '. ; ~.: . . .
. .
. ottIce (541) 857_ Fax (5411857.1~7 1~ Disk D~ St.. I: Medford, OR 97501
.' .:. . t . ..... :~ ,,',:.,1;' .:. '. ::... ..... .......:. :, . . " . r .,: ',,:': 't. .'
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-01784, Request for a e-L REQUEST FOR
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the -L AN
Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and -L EXTENSION
widening of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of --L OF THE TIME
Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family -L LIMIT
residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr. ) ORS 227.178(1)
APPLICANTS: Lynn and Bill McDonald
Applicants request a 60-day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1).
~'JmtL{rJ..,
Applicant
U&~~U~
Applicant
I /OL/! t001-
Date
( - O-Y - ~ () () 'l
Date
RECEIVED
JAN 9 2007
.,.
~., .
c:;/. d :~';'j.~~~~:~i
Communi,y' Davelopmert
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."]
~4-1
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
January 9,2007
PLANNING ACTION: 2006-01784
APPLICANT: Bill and Lynn McDonald
LOCATION: 720 Grandview Dr.
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-I0
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 20, 2006
120.DAY TIME LIMIT: March 20, 2007
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.20 R-l Single-Family Residential District
18.62 Physical and Environmental Constraints
REQUEST: Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the
Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of
an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the
installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family
residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
The application was administratively approved as a Staff Permit on November 22,2006.
Subsequently, Bonnie Broderson, a nearby property owner requested a public hearing. A
Physical Constraints Review Permit is a Staff Permit procedure in accordance with
18.1080030.A.2.
The applicants received a building permit for a single-family home in October 2004 (BD-
2004-00284). In December 2004, Bonnie Broderson appealed the building permit to the
state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). In April 2005, the applicants chose a
"voluntary remand" which entails submitting a local land use application for the proposed
development of a single-family home to address the alleged assignments of error. A
voluntary remand is an option to pursuing an appeal at LUBA. The action was not
reviewed by LUBA, and therefore there were no errors determined by LUBA.
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
~60 Page1of14
In September 1979, the Planning Commission approved a Land Partition and Variance for
lot depth (P A 79-110). The subject property was one of the three lots created by the land
partition.
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The project site is a vacant lot situated on the north side of Grandview Dr. This portion
of Grandview Dr. is the western terminus of the city street, and is located west of the
intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. Grandview Dr. in this location is a gravel driving
surface.
There is an existing gravel driveway in place that serves the subject parcel as well as the
parcel to the west located at 507 Grandview Dr. This existing driveway serving the
subject parcel splits from Grandview Dr. approximately 40 feet east ofthe subject
property. Grandview Dr. continues to the southwest. A portion ofWrights Creek
daylights near the southwest corner of the property and is situated between the driveway
to the subject parcel and Grandview Dr.
The existing shared driveway splits shortly after entering the subject property with one
driveway going to the north to serve the subject property, and the other driveway going to
the west to serve the residence located at 507 Grandview Dr. The driveway is an existing
gravel drive, and varies from nine to 15 feet in width. The portion of the driveway
serving 507 Grandview traverses the southern portion of the subject parcel. The property
located at 507 Grandview has a 20-foot wide access easement that traverses the southern
portion of the subject property. The property located at 507 Grandview Dr. contains a
single-family residence and is located outside of the Ashland City Limits.
The shared driveway crosses the vacant corner ofthe property to the east (391E05CD, tax
lot 411). The property owner of tax lot 411 has authorized the applicants to proceed with
the application, and is working with the applicants towards an access easement.
The site contains slopes of approximately a 14 percent grade sloping downhill in a
easterly and northeasterly direction. The application survey identifies three trees on the
site including a cluster of plum trees, and two dead poplar trees that are eight and ten
inches dbh. The remainder of the site is covered in native grasses.
One ofthe forks ofWrights Creek runs to the south of the subject property. The creek is
culverted to the south of Grandview Dr. and daylights in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way
near the southwest corner of the parcel. The top of the creek bank is partially located in
the southwest corner of the parcel and is identified on the Topographic Survey included
in the application.
The subject parcel as well as the surrounding properties to the east, west and south are
located in the R-I-I0 Single-Family Residential district. The Ashland City Limits is
located on the western border of the property. As a result, the properties to the west of
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
~51
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 2 of 14
the parcel are under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. The are several parcels to the
north and to the east of the subject parcel that area also vacant.
1. Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit
The applicant is requesting a Physical Constraints Review Permit to improve a
portion of an existing driveway, to re-grade the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive, to install a private storm drain and to extend utilities in the
Grandview Dr. right-of-way. Portions of the driveway and utility alterations are
located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands.
The transition from the street driving surface to the driveway will be re-graded to
match the new finished grade of the driveway. The driveway will be widened and
paved as a fire apparatus access road. A private storm drain will be constructed in
the driveway and extend to an outlet in the Wrights Creek drainage channel. A
utility trench will be constructed connecting the property to the existing public
facilities at the intersection of Grandview Dr. and Wrights Creek Dr.
The top of the creek bank is partially located in the southwest comer of the subject
parcel and is identified on the Topographic Survey included in the application.
Additionally, the top of bank is identified off of the site in the Grandview Dr.
right-of-way. The existing driving surface of Grandview Dr. is located within 20
feet of the top of the bank. The top of the bank and creek itself are not in place in
the section of Grandview Dr. between the first driveway access to the south and
the driveway to the subject parcel. The creek and the associated riparian area was
altered in the past with the installation of the Grandview Dr. gravel driving
surface, installation of driveway accesses from Grandview Dr. and installation of
culverts adjacent to Grandview Dr.
The shared driveway will be improved to 15 feet in width with a 20-foot wide
clear area until the point where the driveway splits in two. The single driveway
serving the subject parcel will be improved to 12 feet in width with a IS-foot wide
clear area. The driveway will be improved with pervious asphalt pavement. It is
not clear from the application, but it appears the proposal also involves the
pavement of the portion of the driveway on the subject parcel that serves the
existing residence on the property to the west at 507 Grandview Dr. The
preliminary grading and drainage plan shows the finished grade of the driveway at
ten and 11 percent.
The application does not address the amount of the surface area of the driveway
located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain. According to Staff's calculations,
approximately 700 square feet of the shared driveway is located within the
Wrights Creek Floodplain. An additional 935 square feet of the driveway to the
adjacent property at 507 Grandview Dr. is located in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain. In order to build a single-family home on the subject parcel, the
applicant is not required to improve the portion of the driveway on the subject
parcel that provides access solely to the property at 507 Grandview Dr.
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
~ 6' ~ Page 3of14
The application does not quantify the earth work in cubic yards or surface area
disturbance involved in the private storm drain line or utility trench. According to
Staff's calculations, approximately 40 lineal feet of private storm drain line is
located in the Wrights Creek Floodplain with an additional 25 square foot area for
the storm drain outlet/energy dissipater. According to Staffs calculations,
approximately 100 lineal feet of utility trench is located in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain.
II. Proiect Impact
A. Physical Constraints Review Permit
The project could be interpreted to require a Physical Constraints Review Permit because
the existing driveway will be re-graded and paved, and portions of the driveway
improvement are located within 20 feet from the top of the bank ofWrights Creek.
Additionally a private storm drain line and outlet, and a utility trench connecting the new
home to the existing services near the intersection ofWrights Creek Dr. will be installed.
Portions of the private storm drain system and of the utility trench are located within 20
feet from the top of the bank.
A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for "development" within Floodplain
Corridor Lands and Riparian Preserve Lands in accordance with 18.62.040. Wrights
Creek is identified as a Riparian Preservation Creek on the adopted City of Ashland
Physical and Environmental Constraints map. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal
distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation are classified as Floodplain
Corridor Lands in accordance with 18.62.050.A.2. In the past, the distance of "20 feet of
any creek" has been interpreted to be 20 feet from the top of the bank.
Development is defined in Chapter 18.62 as follows.
18.62.030.E
Development - Alteration of the land surface by:
1. Earth-moving activities such as grading, filling, stripping, or cutting involving more
than 20 cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area
greater than 1000 sq. ft. on any lot;
2. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other structure; except
that additions to existing buildings of less than 300 sq. ft. to the existing building
footprint shall not be considered development for section 18.62.080.
3. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter.
It is important to clarify that the Physical Constraints Review Permit is limited to the
development of the driveway and utility trenches located in the floodplain. Accordingly,
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
~ 53 Page 4of14
the single-family home and most of the driveway are not located in the Wrights Creek
Floodplain, and as a result are not subject to the Physical Constraints Review Permit.
The property is located in the R-I-I0 Single-Family Residential zoning district, and a
single-family home is an outright permitted use. As an outright permitted use, the
construction of a single-family home requires a building permit, and does not in itself
require a planning action.
In Staffs review ofthe proposal, the application meets the approval criteria for a Physical
Constraints Review Permit. The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are
described in 18.62.040.1 as follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have
been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible
actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing
development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted
by the Land Use Ordinance.
The section of Grandview Dr. from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the subject
parcel is located within 20 feet from the top of bank of a fork ofWrights Creek, and
therefore is located in Floodplain Corridor Lands. Grandview Dr. is a public street right-
of-way and the section of Grandview Dr. from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to
the southeast comer of the subject parcel was dedicated as street right-of-way in 1971.
The portion of the Grandview Dr. right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary ofthe
subject parcel was dedicated as part of the land partition process that created the parcel in
1979. Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints including development
standards for riparian corridor lands was adopted in 1986.
The floodplain was obviously altered at some time in the past in the construction of
Grandview Dr. and the adjacent driveways. The section of the driveway that serves the
subject property is an existing driveway that is improved with a gravel surface. In review
of the Land Partition file that created the subject parcel, Grandview Dr. was in place and
was required to be re-graded as a condition of the planning approval. This indicates that
the gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Dr. was in place at least as far back
as 1979. The applicants can not control the location of Grandview Dr., or change the fact
that it was platted adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthermore, the applicants did
not have any influence over the location of Grandview Dr. The previously established
location of the street right-of-way dictates the location of the driveway access and utility
connections to serve the subject parcel. Given the location ofthe Grandview Dr. right-of-
way, there are no alternative locations available for the driveway or private storm drain
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
'" ,,} ,Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
010....0 , Page 5 of 14
line located outside ofthe Wrights Creek floodplain.
An alternative access to the subject parcel is not available because the subject property is
not adjacent to any other street right-of-ways, nor does it have any other available access
easements. In Staffs opinion, the impact to the Wrights Creek floodplain occurred prior
to the current proposal when Grandview Dr. and the existing shared driveway were
located and constructed. Furthermore, irregardless of the development of the subject
parcel, the driveway will continue to serve the home on the adjacent parcel to the west at
507 Grandview Dr.
The square footage of the improved shared driveway in the Wrights Creek floodplain is
approximately 700 square feet in size. This includes the area of the existing shared gravel
driveway. According to Staffs calculations, there is approximately 280 square feet of
widening and paving of the driveway outside of the existing driveway surface, and it is
located mostly in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way. The improved is located above the top
of the bank where a top of the bank is currently existing. The proposed paving and
widening of the driveway minimizes the impact to the floodplain to the greatest extent
possible by following the existing driveway location. Since the existing driveway is in
place, the impacts to the Wrights Creek floodplain have largely occurred and the
driveway improvement will not create significantly different impacts than those that have
occurred.
The private storm drain includes a rock outlet to slow the water entering the drainage and
to prevent erosion in the area of the outlet. The utility trench connecting the subject
parcel to the public utilities near the intersection of Grandview Dr. with Wrights Creek
Dr. is located in the driveway and then turns east and runs near the northern edge of the
existing Grandview Dr. driving surface. There is approximately 20 feet of trench that
extends beyond the driveway towards the top of the bank. The existing Grandview Dr.
driving surface is located between the majority of the length of the utility trench and the
top of the bank ofWrights Creek. The trench is located above the top of the bank, and is
not entirely with the Wrights Creek floodplain. There is approximately 15 feet of unused
street right-of-way to the north of the Grandview Dr. driving surface. It appears there is
enough space to locate utility trench further to the north and further away from the
Wrights Creek floodplain. However, it appears the adjacent parcels may be using this
area as private yard space and have installed fences in the right-of-way. Also, it is unclear
if the lines could be engineered to move further to the north. In Staff s opinion, the
adverse impacts of the private storm drain line have been mitigated by use of the rock
outfall. Additionally, the utility trench will not adversely impact the Wrights Creek
floodplain as most of the trench except for a 20 feet length is located either in the private
driveway or to the north of the Grandview Dr. driving surface. The utility trench that
extends outside of the driveway towards the top of the bank has been minimized.
B. Flag Drive and Wildfire Lands Requirements
The driveway serving the property is subject to the flag drive requirements because it is
greater than 50 feet in length in accordance with the definition of driveway in 18.08.195.
The definition of a driveway and the flag drive requirements are listed below for
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
A'5b
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 6 of 14
reference.
18.08.195 Driveway.
An accessway serving a single dwelling unit or parcel of land, and no greater than 50'
travel distance in length. A flag drive serving a flag lot shall not be a driveway. Single
dwelling or parcel accesses greater than 50' in length shall be considered as a flag drive,
and subject to all of the development requirements thereof.
18.76.060
B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall
have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving
two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of
the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent
properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. (Ord. 2815
S1,1998)
Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from flowing over
sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag
lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall
be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot
or lots. There shall be no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance.
Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may be granted
for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than 18% for no more than 200'.
Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in
18.100.
Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in 18.08.290, shall
provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet of the structure. The Fire
Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure serv~d by the drive has an
approved automatic sprinkler system installed.
Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the
Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof.
Flag drives greater than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the
Performance Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090.
In Staff s opinion, the proposed flag drive meets the flag drive requirements. The width
of the shared driveway is 15 feet with 20 feet clear width and the single driveway serving
the new residential home on the subject property is 12 feet in width with 15 feet clear
width. The storm drainage will be collected through the permeable paved driving and in
a drainage ditch to the east side of the driveway, and directed underground to the creek.
There is no parking in the vicinity of the shared driveway. The finished driveway grade is
shown as ten and 11 percent on the engineered preliminary grading and drainage plan,
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
~s,
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 7 of 14
which is under the maximum permitted grade of 15 percent. The application states that
an automatic sprinkler system will be installed in the home in lieu of a fire work area.
The driveway will be built as a fire apparatus road to support a 44,000 pound vehicle. A
fire truck turnaround is provided south of the proposed residence which is according to
the application approximately 110 feet from the entrance to the property, and is 150 feet
from the connection of the driveway to Grandview Dr.
C. Alleged Assignments of Error
When the applicants elected to voluntarily remand the action, the purpose was to address
the alleged assignments of error that were submitted by the appellant. The following list
is a brief summary of the alleged assignments of error.
1. Legal Lot
The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging
the subject parcel is not a legal lot.
This issue is addressed in the memo from Mike Franell, City Attorney to Bill
Molnar, Planning Manager dated July 11, 2006 and included in the application
materials. The opinion of the Legal Department is that the Planning Commission
had the authority to consider a variance to the maximum lot depth at the time the
land partition was approved in 1979. The Planning Commission considered the
variance and determined it met the relevant criteria. Thus, the lot was legally
created.
2. Applicability of Site Review, Chapter 18.72
The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging
the proposed single-family home is subject to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use
Standards.
Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards has not been applied to single-
family residential development in the past. Single-family homes on individual
lots are excluded from the Site Review process at the Staff Permit level (see
below). In Staffs opinion, this was the intent ofthe Type I process, but the
language was inadvertently left out of the section of Type I procedures.
Furthermore, the Site Design and Use Standards address Multi-Family and
Commercial development, but do not include standards addressing single-family
development. Staff believes the Planning Commission can find that Chapter
18.72, Site Design and Use Standards and the Site Review approval do not apply
to single-family homes on individual lots.
18.72.040 Approval Process.
A. Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to
approval under the Staff Permit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed
as a Type I permit at the discretion of the Staff Advisor.
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
11') If!!.. i Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
~";;J Page 8 of 14
1. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which
requires a greater number of parking spaces.
2. Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's
square footage, whichever is less, to a building.
3. Any use which results in three or less dwelling units per lot, other than
single-family homes on individual lots. (emphasis added)
4. All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone. Installation of disc
antennas shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any
disc antenna for commercial use in a residential zone shall also be subject to
a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). (Ord. 2289 S5, 1984; Ord. 2457 S4,
1988).
5. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the
requirements of Section 18.72.180, in addition to all applicable Site Design
and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process:
Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding
Existing Structures Support Structures
Structures
Residential Zones(1) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited
C-1-D (Downtown )(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP
E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
SO Site Review CUP CUP
NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Historic District(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP
HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
(1) Only allowed on existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the
purposes of this section in residential zoning districts, existing structures shall
include the replacement of existing pole, mast, or tower structures (such as
stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of their previous use and wireless
communication facilities.
(2) Permitted on pre-existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet in the
Downtown Commercial district. Prohibited in all other districts within the Historic
District, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
~5f{
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 9 of 14
6. Any exterior change to any structure listed on the National Register of
Historic Places." (ORD 2802, S2 1997) (Ord 2852 S3, 2000; Ord 2858 S6,
2000)
B. Type I Procedure. The following types of developments shall be subject to
approval under the Type I procedure:
1. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general
use category, e.g., from residential to commercial as defined by the zoning
regulations of this Code.
2. Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a lot.
3. All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except for
developments included in Section 18.72.040(A).
3. Physical Constraints Review Permit Required
The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging
a Physical Constraints Review permit is required for development of the subject
property which is in the Wildfire Corridor and Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Area.
The planning application is for a Physical Constraints Review Permit for
"development" in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Lands. The
proposed development in the floodplain includes the paving and widening of a
portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to
Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of
utilities to serve a new single-family residence for the property located at 720
Grandview Dr.
A Physical Constraints Review Permit is not required for development of Wildfire
Lands in accordance with 18.62.040. However, the construction of a structure in
Wildfire Lands must comply with the Development Standards for Wildfire Lands
in 18.62.090.8. The application addresses the Wildfire Lands requirements for
construction of a new structure including the provision of primary and secondary
fuel break and that the roof of the proposed residence is a metal standing seam
material.
4. Validity of Physical and Environmental Constraints, Chapter 18.62
The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging
the City's riparian ordinance violated Goal 5.
At the time the City's ordinance had not been acknowledged. Chapter 18.62 was
acknowledged by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
on December 23,2005 (see Staff Exhibit A). Accordingly, the appellant's
challenge to the sufficiency of the ordinance based on Goal 5 and the
administrative rules in this land use action is impermissible on a previously
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
A..e1
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 10of14
acknowledged land use ordinance. The only question for the Planning
Commission is whether the application complies with the existing ordinance, not
whether the ordinance violates the goals, comprehensive plan or Oregon
Administrative Rules (OARs).
Even if the OARs implementing GoalS were found to directly apply to this land
use application, the Safe Harbor inventory provisions of OAR 660-023-0090
permit the City to "determine the boundaries of significant riparian corridors."
Significant riparian corridors have setback distances of SO feet depending upon
the annual stream flow of the resource. Wrights Creek was not determined as a
significant riparian corridor because it is not fish bearing. As a result, Wrights
Creek was not identified as significant in the City's Local Wetlands Inventory and
Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory prepared by Fishman Environmental
Services, July 200S. See the attached Staff Exhibit B including the applicable
section of the Local Wetlands Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor
Inventory.
Additionally, the Safe Harbor provisions of OAR 660-023-0090 permit the city to
allow exceptions in the buffer zones. Specifically, OAR 660-023-090(8) sets
forth parameters for ordinance adoption, including allowance in the ordinance for
exceptions to the general prohibition on development in the significant riparian
corridor. For example, the City is permitted to create exceptions for intrusion for
the following:
(A) Streets, roads, and paths;
(B) Drainage facilities, utilities, and irrigation pumps;
(C) Water-related and water-dependent uses; and
(D) Replacement of existing structures with structures in the same location that do
not disturb additional riparian surface area.
5. Driveway Requirements
The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging
the "The City erred when it chose a method of measuring the driveway which did
not factor in the slope of the property and curve of the driveway to determine the
actual length of the driveway, when it determined that only one dwelling is
accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance for the maximum
slope ofthe driveway without following the ALUO provision for granting
variances. The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUO
18.76.060 and minimum standards of the UFC for turnarounds and deadend
streets. "
The flag drive requirements are met by the application and addressed in section B
above. Specifically, a turnaround is required to be provided for flag drives greater
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
~,,,
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 11of14
than 250 feet in length. A fire truck turnaround is provided south of the proposed
residence which is according to the application approximately 110 feet from the
entrance to the property, and is 150 feet from the connection of the driveway to
Grandview Dr.
Chapter 18 does not specify a method for measuring length. It is a standard
accepted practice to measure at the centerline of an accessway (i.e. driveway,
private drive, alley, street). Staff believes the Planning Commission can find that
measuring length from the centerline is an appropriate method for calculating
driveway length.
6. Fire Code Requirements
The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included an assignment of error alleging
the "Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates UFC 101.4 prohibiting
less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039."
ORS 368.039 states that a city may adopt standards for roads and streets that
prevail over the fire code. The City adopted road and street standards in an
acknowledged ordinance in Chapter 18. The State Fire Marshall's office has also
acknowledged that local road and street standards may prevail over the fire code
requirements (see attached Staff Exhibit C, January 2,2007 email from
Margueritte Hickman).
The flag drive requirements require a fire truck turnaround for drives greater than
250 feet whereas the fire code requires a turnaround for drives greater than 150
feet. The proposed turnaround meets both standards as the turnaround is located
150 feet from the intersection of the subject driveway with the Grandview Dr.
driving surface.
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040.1 as
follows:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential
impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have
been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the
development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on
the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible
actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
:Z6!
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 12 of 14
development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted
by the Land Use Ordinance.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
In Staff s opinion, the proposal is consistent with the approval criteria for a Physical
Constraints Review Permit. The portions of the proposed development in the Wrights
Creek Floodplain include improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading
the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain
and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence for the property
located at 720 Grandview Dr. The areas of development in the floodplain have been
minimized and the potential hazards due to those areas of development have been
mitigated.
The impacts to Wrights Creek occurred in the past when Grandview Dr. and the subject
shared driveway were located and developed. The section of Grandview Dr. from the
intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the subject parcel is located within 20 feet from
the top of bank of a fork ofWrights Creek, and therefore is located in Floodplain
Corridor Lands. Grandview Dr. is a public street right-of-way and the section of
Grandview Dr. from the intersection with Wrights Creek Dr. to the southeast corner of
the subject parcel was dedicated as street right-of-way in 1971. The portion of the
Grandview Dr. right-of-way adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject parcel was
dedicated as part of the land partition process that created the parcel in 1979. In addition,
the easement for the adjacent property to the west located at 507 Grandview Dr. was
established in the land partition process in 1979.
The floodplain was obviously altered at some time in the past in the construction of
Grandview Dr. and the adjacent driveways. The section of the driveway that serves the
subject property is an existing driveway that is improved with a gravel surface. In review
ofthe land partition file that created the subject parcel, Grandview Dr. was in place and
was required to be re-graded as a condition of the planning approval. This indicates that
the gravel driving surface that constitutes Grandview Dr. was in place at least as far back
as 1979. The applicants can not control the location of Grandview Dr., or change the fact
that it was platted adjacent to and in a riparian corridor. Furthermore, the applicants did
not have any influence over the location of Grandview Dr. The Grandview Dr. and
driveway location and development occurred before the requirement for a Physical
Constraints Review Permit. Chapter 18.62, Physical and Environmental Constraints
including development standards for riparian corridor lands was adopted in 1986.
The previously established location of the street right-of-way dictates the location of the
driveway access and utility connections to serve the subject parcel. Given the location of
the Grandview Dr. right-of-way, there are no alternative locations available for the
driveway or the private storm drain that are located outside the Wrights Creek floodplain.
Finally, an alternative access and utility connection is not available to the subject parcel
because the subject property is not adjacent to any other street right-of-ways, nor does it
have any other available access or utility easements.
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
J.~:t
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 13of14
The proposed development minimizes additional new impacts by locating driveway
improvements, the storm drain and the utility trench to the greatest extent in areas that
have already been disturbed through the past street and driveway construction. A
relatively small area will be newly disturbed that is located between the existing driveway
and the top of the bank including approximately 280 square feet of new driveway area, 40
lineal feet of storm drain trench, 25 square feet for the storm drain outlet and 20 lineal
feet of utility trench.
Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions attached.
1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified here.
2) That an access easement for the portion of the driveway on the property to the east
(391E05CD, tax lot 400) shall be recorded and submitted prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3) That the area of disturbance for the private storm drain trench shall be landscaped to
prevent erosion, and shall be addressed in the landscape plan submitted with the
building permit submittals.
4) That a landscape and irrigation plan to re-vegetate the area between the driveway and
the top of the bank shall be submitted with the building permit. The landscaping
shall be installed and irrigated prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Planning Action 2006-01784
Applicant: Bill and Lynn McDonald
:2,h6
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh
Page 14 of 14
Staff Exhibits
~'4
Dregon
Staff Exhibit A
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor
Department of Land Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
Salem, Oregon 97301-2524
Phone: (503) 373-0050
First Floor/Costal Fax: (503) 378-6033
Second Floor/Director's Office: (503) 378-5518
Web Address: http://www.oregon.gov /LCD
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
TO:
Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan or Land Use Regulation Amendments
~
December 8, 2005
FROM:
Mara Ulloa, Plan Amendment Program Specialist
SUBJECT: City of Ashland Plan Amendment
DLCD File Number 003-97
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of
adoption. Copies of the adopted plan amendment are available for review at DLCD offices in Salem,
the applicable field office, and at the local government office.
Appeal Procedures*
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: December 23, 2005
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption with less than the required 45-
day notice. Pursuant to ORS 197.830 (2)(b) only persons who participated in the local government
proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA).
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government.
If you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of
the notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received
written notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be
served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).
Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
*NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION
WAS MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN
MAILED TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAN IT WAS MAILED TO
DLCD. AS A RESULT YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAYBE EARLIER
THAN THE DATE SPECIFIED ABOVE.
Cc:
Gloria Gardiner, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist
John Renz, DLCD Regional Representative
~J"-~ lJL~'iCity"m,~~lA
fgF:(~r=i \IEO
<paa> yl
Dre' 1 9 '}il!,
L I:' (.uvJ
:)., ~ S-
City of Ash/ark
o Field 0 Office [l GOUl 1(\
@
"FORM2
, 'J) LCD. NOTICE OF'ADOPTIoNJEPT OF
Tbia tbma _tilt be ~.IIM to DLCD...... 5 WDrIrIII. daft...... tlte fl... d'
p<<:ORS 197.'tOtOAR.a..,.660.~ 1,8 . C 05 2005
(See nMlI"lIe 111M for ~""IeauirN,k'\otIl~
tAND CONSERVATION
A~D DEVELOPMENT
lurisdictiOJl: (III:; /if AshLtNbi Local File No.: 98 - //5 .
(lfao......... _....)
Date of AdoptiOn; ..!iOVUl7W Aazp,. DateMailed: --U~, .
Date the NQtice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to DLCo:' IIJ I ,2/1999 (~o!u1 ''I
, ' . . . , . /, ' L~Rtf J
' - Comp!eheosive Plan Text Amendment _ Compreheosive Plan Map Amendment '
X. Land Use Regu1ation'Amendmen~ _ Zoning Map AIDendment
_ New Land Use Regulation Other:
~~1)pe~AocbI)
S~8rize the.adopted amendment. Do not use technical tCuns. Do not ~te ice Attached~
", J'
an ord./lNlCe t2mmrl1J Ik Utr;d I q;v~~~'
,11nzo~aI~1s ~h- (/JJ,t.2)1 ~ /Mft..d~11/ _ __ Ie. ~
auk", ,<?d1fJ1'J' (.l~ I ~4zd~. '
Descn"be 'how the adopted amendment ,differs fiom the proposed amendr.neot. If it is the same; write
. ~e.5 If)'Ou did not give notice for the proposed amendment, write AN/As
.'!J:~,,:;:;::: j~ d> d& /r; ~t'er~
. ~pI<u/ it ::;~{)8 j ~It. a./kJ....!.
(j~ ~ ~tfJ3'1
Plan Map CbAQged fiom :
Zone Map ChAQgeCi from:
,,---
to
--
-
to
-
Location:
.--:-
Acres Involved:
Specify Deosity: 'Previous: __
AppIi~le. Statewide PJ~ing Goals: 1}. .
Was an Bxception'Adopted? Yes:L No: .
New:
-
DLCD FiIo No.: (20 g / I:j 1 \ ~'t" ) .:2. (, ~
III I
. .
. DId lIIe~ of Load 'Wi....... iad~,IIEIiID .llOIIceofProp....d
~ Ves: No:X
If DO, do. CIao 8tatewiclo p~.. ~ apply. Yes: X
If..o, did Tho Bm~ ~ ReqQiro immediltoldoption. Yes:
. .
. Aft'ected S1Ite or PecIenI Asencios, lA>>caI Govematcilts or $peciaI Districts:
No:
-
No: ><
-
-
...~ Coatect: am, dl1der~
~: f)() E.. (Vlmh I <;lru-l
Zip~: ',1~ey)J) . '.
Area C'4do + Phone Number. '/5'1/652. 20'14
-
City: fk;, /~ .
Bmait'~:""L;/J~4JOAA/~lY: ~
"':""':");.""" .
\
ADOPTION St1BMrrrAL REQUIREMENTS
, This loan.......... to DLa> -"5 ~ft ~ tile..... dedi.. . ,
: 'perORS 1"'.610. OAlt.l1IIpw660;.DiviIiaa I'. .
, . 1.' JsadJUs Fbnn'~c.TWO pl C-.... 9fh AdnnIM ~t tq:
A~ON:PLANA&iENDMENT~
DEP~ OPLAND CONSERVATION AND DBVELoPMJI:NT .
635 CAPrrOL BI1laT Pm, SUI"IB 150 .
'. 8ALDI, QJlEQON t7311-2540 ,
.:. .. .....:.
2. SallmIt TWO (Z) oopIeo lIIe .............. If copies _ ~ .....1IIllmlt. TWo (2)
co.......,.. of~ _.... , . ,
3;.. ~ Adopmd........_ be -110 DLCD IIOt IaIw dqj, lIIVB (5) -......,.
lbIIowioallledaleofllle....cIecUioooDdIli--.at; ..... .
4. .. SIllImiaaI oftlda Nolloo of AdopIiaq _ iDoIudo lIIe latt,ofllle ""--pla.....
..finMnplDd~~ .
5. - Tho ~ to 8ppeaI wfII DOt be ~.,,,. IUbmft tIds DOCieo ofMt.,cioo wi'" five
"oddaa. oftbo .......oa.. AppotIa to WBA maybe 8104 within 'I'WI'.NTr-oNE
(21) 'daJI ofebe elite, tbeANodeo ~f AdopIiqaa... to D~. '
j ~j 1- :. ... ~ ,: :..\;..:. ,'.
6.
In 1dditi0ll to -.14-. thO ANOCico of Adoptioa8 to'DUD, JOU IIl1IIt DOCitY 1*'lOIII who
Pllticjpated in.thO 100II......._ ~ lIOCioo of'" ..........
. .
.. ...
7.
. . .
N.... Mon CopIea, You CIa copydU ~ OIl to I:lDxll .... Daer ~ or.OIIl tho
DLa> 0Iic0 It (503) 373-0050; Qr PIX )WI' nqIIeIt to:(503) 378-5518; or BmIi1 JOUr
. IeqUeIt to Mlra.UIloa@ate.or.us- A1TBNTION: PLAN AMBNDMBNT SPBCIALlST.. .
I~ :< "1 "'-':0Mtt2G02
ORDINANCE NO. ~ fa 'I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PHYSICAL AND
eNVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS CHAPTER (CHAPTER
18.12) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE 'TO MAKE
CERTAIN 8ECnoNS CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.62.040.J of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
SECTION 2. Section 18.62.080.8 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hilllide Lands shall be reviewed
considering the following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of
developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access
to the pad.
b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
SECTION 3. The first sentence of section 18.62.080.0.5 of the Ashland Municipal Code
;s amended to read: '
Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum
number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel
reduction If the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by
findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one
or more of the following conditions:
SECTION J.. Section 18.62.080.D.6.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
Replacement trees shall be Indicated on a tree replanting plan. The naplanting
plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree
planting detail..
SECll0N ~. Section 18.82.080.D.6.c of the Ashland Municipal Code Is deleted.
SECTION 6. Section 18.62.080.8.5.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
PAGE 1 - ORDINANCE G:V>AUl~on...
~G.~
...
FlIlapelIhIII not exceed - total V8IbJ height of 20 feet. The toe of the flU
elope .... not uIIIIdIlQ atruaIanI .......18 .... be . mlntmwn of aIx fMt from
the ft.... property h.
The foregoing ordlnllnce MIa ht read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter 0" the.z.. d8y of NoVember, 1998,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this I""" day of MN.eM ber . 1898.
~ d .$;.1~
Derek D. Seftnoi .r
.4.rsmanllo I_ city R6eorde,.
SIGNED and APPROVED this ,~ day of N.ut:ItIlf!r
. 1898.
~J~
Catherine M. ShM, Mayor
R~d aa to fp~'
r(((.~. /~':,t.-.../ ..
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
,
PAGE 2 - ORDINANCE Q:IWJLIII..""~-'~ n' InI_.,
~"1
ORDINANCE NO. J. g oS
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.82 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE. LAND USE ORDINANCE,
ADOPTING NEW HILLS IDa DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance is
replaced in it's entirety by Exhibit MAM.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with ArtIcle X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 18th day of November, 1997,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of ~
, 191.7
tk~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of ~ . 1997.
~,:Qk-.z~
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
r as !o !off" ~
w.0~
Paul Nolte, City Attomey
~/O
f
,
-'
CITY OF ASHLAND
~ of Cmnnulmty Deve10pmem
PItwring DivUIon
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 25, 1997
TO:
Homrable Mayor 8Dd City Council
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
Hillside Standards - Second R-4ina
FROM:
RE:
The athd1ed version of the Hillside Standards (2.7) contains the chanaes made by the
Council during fint readiDg. The chaDges proposed by staff aDd the commiuec to the
Council prior to first reading were. iDcorporated into this draft aDd appear as regular
text. The chanaes made by the COUDCll are indicated in RPikee1ll aDd _
Page 2: Item F. A DeW definition for "Designer" was added. This addresses
the issue raised by Bill Emerson. The definition IaDguage was chaused to reflect
consistency between the building code and this ordintl~,
Item I.
The definition for Floodway Channel was modified as
requested.
Paae 3: The graphic for slope was cbanpd - the bottom liBe was chauaed to read
"DEGREE OF SLOPE = ARC TANGENT OF VIH". This is the accurate relationship
between degree of slope and pen::edl of slope.
Paae 24: Item d. near the top of the paae reprding ridgeline exposures was cbanpd
from a ma'1datoly staDdard to a I'OCOID1DeDdation. .
Item 2a. near the middle of the page regardiDg Hillside BuiIdiua Height
was cqed from 30' to 35'. The graphics were changed accordiJJgly.
Paae 25: Item e. regarding roof forms was cbaDged from a lI18.tory staDdard to a
recomlllfm(Jation.
Item f. regarding decks was cbanpd from a mandatory staDdard to a
recommeDdation.
~71
Item g. regarding color selection was changed from a mandatory standard
to a recommendation.
Page 26: Item F. regarding foUDdations designed by an engineer or architect was
clarified by adtling the sentence regarding designers who may prepare house plans shall
be required to use an engineer for the foundation design.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance with the amendments.
Hilla.... OnIlnlnce Mllllo
Second R_dlng
November II, 1117
Page 2
~1~
Ch~ 18.62
PHYSICAL .1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Sealant:
18.62,010
18.62.D20
18.62.030
18.62.D40
18.62.D50
18.62.D60
18.62010
18.62.D75
18.62.080
18.62.090
18.62.100
EXHIBIT
II A"
Purpoee and Intent.
Reeufatlone.
Definltlone.
Approval ana Permit Rectulred.
Land ClaHlflcatlone.
OffIcial Mape.
Development Standarde for Floodplain Corridor Lande.
Development Standarde for Riparian Preeerve Lande.
Development Standarde for Hlllelde Lande.
DeveloprMnt Standarde for W1ftJfire Lande.(Ord Z747, 1994)
Development Standarde for Severe Conetralnt Lande.
18.62,010 Pu~ and Intent. The pt.I"pOI5e of thle Chapter Ie to prwtae for eafe, orderly and
beneficial development of dletricte characterized by dJverelty of phyel~raphlc conditione and
elgnlflcant natural featuree; to limit alteration of 'topo6raphy and reduce encroachment upon,
or alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide for eeneltlve development In areae
that are conetralned by variooe natural featuree. Phyel~raphlc conditione and e1enlflcant
natural featLlf"ee can be coneld~ to Include, but are not limited to: elope of the land, natural
dralnsee waye, wetJande, eoll characterfetlce, potentfallandellde arese, natural and wfldllfe
habftate, fbreeted areM, elgnlflcant treee, and elenlflcant natural Ye(Jetatlon.
18.62.D20 ~ulatione. The twe of ~ulatlon applicable to he land depende upon the
claeelflcatlon In which the land Ie placed, ae proWJed In Section 18.62.D50. If thoee
~ulatlone conflict wfth other ~ulatione of the City of Aehland'e Municipal Cade, the /1'1OI"e
etrlneent of the two ~ufatlone ehaff eavern.
18.62.0:30 Deflnltlone. The foIfowfng terTne are hereby defined ae they apply to thle Chapter:
^ Architect - An architect llceneed by the St.te of O!"efOl1.
. B. Aver-see elope - average ~ for a parcel of land or for an entire project, for
the ~ of detem1lnlne the area to remaIn in a natural etate ehall be .
calculated before eradlne uelne the foIlow1ne formula:
5 = .D0229n)(LJ
A
~73
where "5" Ie the averaee percent of elope; ".00229" Ie the c;onverelon factor for
eq,uare feet; "I" Ie the contour interval In feet; "L" Ie the eummatlon of leneth of
the contour IInee In ecale feet; and "A" Ie the area of the parcel or project In
acree.
C. 8ullda"le area - That port;lon of an exIetlne or propoeed lot that Ie free of
"ulldlng reetrfctlone. For the pUrp06e of thle ordinance. a "ull~a"le area cannot
contain any eet"ack areafj. eaeemente, an~ eimilar building reetrlctlone. an~
cannot contain any land that Ie I~entlfled a9 Floodplain Conidor Lan~e. or any
land that i!!i greater than .35% elope.
D. Cohe!!ilve Solie - Reeidual or traneported eoile. ueually orIelnating from parent
rock which contalne elenlflcant q,uantitiee of mlnerale which weather to clay.
CoI1eelve oolle have a P1aeticlty In~ex of ten or 1'nOr'e. "aeed on laboratory
te!!itlng accordlne to M5HTO methode. or a elte-epeelflc eclentlfic analyele of
a particular eoIl material.
E. Development - Alteration of the land 6urface by:
1. Earth-moving actlvJtJee euch ae; eradlng. fllllne. etrfpplne. or cutt1ne
InvoMne more than 20 cubic yarde on any lot. or earth-moving activity
~leturl1lng a eurface area greater than 1000 eq,. ft. 011 any lot;
2. Conetruction of a buildlne. roa~. driveway. parking area. or other
etructure; except that ad~ltlone to exIetlng bull~lnee of Ieee than 300
eq,. ft. to the exIetlne "ulldlne footprint el1all not "e coneldered
~evelopment for eection 18.62.000.
3. Culvertlng or ~Iverelon of any etream ~eelgnat&:l by thle chapter.
.)""'J'~"":" ~. !.,.....~.~'r" "",', -'f'~:".,,"':"'~" ,,~~;,iJl <:I"'!."";~C". ~:r t:"".~'''~r:--. ;.."'P"""::'~D .~~.\ ~;'JJ"'"
;,.-'!J .:It'!:~" ~;::., ~:., :'tf,..r.) "~''''''~., ",'d ;,'-;'''''::'' :'-&.. '}'., ~fI: ~t"i'" .~D fa!? ~\(!...:"'t'~ :,y ,:1--:-
:.. -" ^ :,::!J~.
G. Engineer - A regletered profee!!iional engineer Iiceneed by the State of Oregon.
H. Ene1nBBrlng Geologi5t - A regi5terea profe!!ielonal engineering geologlet Ilcen5ed
by the State of Oregon.
I. Floodway Channel - The fJoodway channel ael defined 11'1 $"'" Fleed! l"et:lra",e8
6t~ f6r 1.3hlal1d1, Q~8n. pl:lj,II~"'edi j,y tl,,, Fedi""",1 E",,,~,,""3 t.1'1I'a~""'''I1~
~811B)f 81'" ~'~"""~.:~:;i :;"'JI".I,J' ~:'.
J. Geotechnical Expert - An engineering geologlet or an engineer with
demon5trable expertlee In geologic hazarde evaluation and eeotechnical
en!:jlneerlng.
PbyskaJ _d EmiroIuaeat81 COIIItnIIItI Ordh.~ Rerillion
Hillside Standards
City CoUIIdI Adopted Venlon - Second ReacUna (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 2
~'74
K. Gully - ^ drain. Inc;lelon. commonly caue&f by eroelon. which doee not
~ reeular or eeaeonal etream flow. 'l7ut doee act ae a channef for n.I1ofT
durfl'16 perfcc::fe of h16h rainfall.
L Landeca"" Profeeelonal - arl:7orie't certlfl&ll7y 'the International Society of
Ari1orIcufture. landeea"" architect llcen~ by the State of O~. or other
expert; with demonetral7le expertlee In tree ana eroelon cont:rol veeetatlon
maln'tenance. and eroelon cont:rol veeetatlon methew:te.
M. Na'tural Grade - 'the
elevation of 'the eround
level In Ite natural
e1iate. l7efbre
conetructlon. flIIII'16. or
excavation. (see Ejraphlc)
P.
N. Natural State - all land S&t::T rDN
ana water that remaine
undeveloped and undletu,""ed. Thle rnea1e that eradlne. e:xcavatl"El. fllll"EI
andlor 'the conet:ructlon of roadw.. drlvew.. parld"Ef areae. and etruc:'tul"ee
are prohll7lted. Incidental minor Ejradl"EI for hllclne tralle. I1lcycle pathe. picnic
arese and p1antlMEj and landecapl"Ef which Ie In addltfon to and enhancee 'the
natural environment Ie permltt&f. Incidental I1nJeh removal for lot maIntenance
and ecoe)etem health Ie permltt&f. Further. vq,etatlon removal for 'the
purpoeee of wildfire control In~unctlon wI'th an approv&l fire prevention and
control plan ehall aleo l1e permitted.
o. NOI1-coheelve Solie - Reeldual or traneporte,d eoIle contalnlne no or very little
clay. ueually from cryetalllne Ejranitlc parent rocIc. Non-coheelve eoJ/e have a
Plaetlclty Index of Ieee 'than 'ten. l7ae&:l 011 lal1oratory 'teetIMEj accorv.flMEj to
MSHTO methew:te. or a pul:1lleh&l eelentlflc anal)ele of a particular eol/ tYP'.
ProFeeelonal ^ri7or1et -
arl:7oriet c;ert;lfIed by 'the
International Society of
ArPoricultl..lr'l!l a,nd Ilc;en~ by
the State of Oreeon State
Landeca"" Contractore Board
or Conetructlon Contractore
Board. or Jandeea"" architect
llceneed by the 5tate of
Oreeon.
.LAP. ~ -$L4:'P'.
.-
~ ..
--
~.- --
.-- -----
.- ~~nF_
- - ':.- ~. GJ.rI'-
- - "". .~,.
~.-!. ~ ~
4/fO ~..-r
..O~,~~ P"'~.
(M)
"
.LD~. GAL.C:UL.ATION. H
DEGREE OF SLOPE = Ar.C TANGENT OF VIH
--
--
\O'r~..,.
V-.:rICAL..
c>I."..NC. (v)
oJ,
Pb1IkaI ... ............... CaaICnIatI OPM-...,. lleriIIoa
HiIIaide StmdInIa
CIty Cn-eII Adopted V.... - Seca8d II...... (2.7) - ~ 2, UJ7
PIp 3
;) 7~
Q. Riparian - That area aeeoclated with a natural water COU/"f)e InclLldlne Ite
wIlt.fllfe and veeetatlon.
R. Slope - The deviation of a eurFace from the horizontal, ueually expree~ In
percent. (eee eraphlc)
5. Strlpplne - Any activity which elenlfleantly dleturbe v~etated or otherwl5e
etabl/lzed f)OfI eurFaee, InelLldlne cleatine and eru""lne operatlone.
T. Tree Removal - the followine actlvltlee are defined ae tree removal:
1. The removal of three or more IMnEl treee of over elx inch"" diameter at
breset heleht (d.b.h.), or the removal of five percent of the total number
of IIvlne (or dead treee) over elx Inchef) d.".h., whichever Ie ereater, on
any lot within five year period, or any form of commerclall~ell1(fj
2. The removal of one or more lIv1ne conlfel"f) ereater than two feet d.".h., or
lIv1ne broadleaf treee erester than one foot d.b.h.;
V. Wildfire - Fire caueed by combuetlon of native ve(fetatlon, commonly referred to
ae foreet fire or brueh fire.
18.62.040 ^wroval and Permit Ret(ulred. ^ Phyelcal Conetrainte Review Permit Ie r&iu1red
for the following actlvltlee:
A. Development, ae defined In 18.62.030.0, In arese identified ae Floodplain
Corridor Land, Riparian Preeerve, Hlllelde Land, or Severe Conetralnt land.
B. Tree removal, at!) defined in 18.62.o3O.R., In areae identified ae Floodplain
Corridor Land and Riparian Preeerve.
C. Commercial ~el~, In areae Identified ae Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian
Preeerve, Hlllelde Land, or Severe Conetralnt Land.
D. Tree removal, In areae Identified ae Hlllelde Land and Severe Conetralnt Land,
except that a permit need not be oi:1tained for tree removal that Ie not
aeeoclated with development, and done for the pu~ of wildfire manaeement
and carried out In accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by
the Fire Chief.
E. If a development Ie; part of a Site Review, Performance Standarde Development,
Conditional Vee Permit, Subdlvlelon, Partition, or other Plannlne Action, then
the Review ehall be conducted eimultaneouely with the Planning Action.
PIIysIaJ and EDl'IroIIInatal CollltraJats 0rdIaaDc:e RmIioD
Hillside Standarda
City CouacU Adopted Ventoa - SecoDd Readbtg (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Pase 4
~76
F. If a ~llc!lrlt Ie C!l)(CfI.lelve of.,y other P1.,nlne ActIon. ae not&::f In
Su~ 6. then the Ph~1 Conetralnte ~ew ehall pe proc~ ae a
Staff PC!II"mIt.
G. ~ere It appeare that the propoealle part of a more extenelve development
that v.w/d "",\ulre a maeter eJte plan, or other p1annJne action, the Staff
Advleor ehall t'etiul", that all n~ary appllcatione pe flied elmuftan~ly.
H. Piano ~ulrcd. The followlne plan& ehall pe I"eliulred for any development
t'etiulrlne a Ph~lcal Conetralnte ~(!lW:
The plM1e ehall aontaln the following:
a. Proj<<;t name.
b. Vicinity map.
c. Scale (theecale ""all be at lealJt one Inch ~ualo 50 feet 0/"
lareer) utilizing the lareeet ecale that flu on 22" x:34" paper.
Multiple plane 0/" /ayere ehall be p"'pared at the Nme ecale,
exc:ludlne ....etafl drawlnee.
North arrow.
Date.
Street namee and /oc;st/Qne of all exlet1ne and propoeed etreete
within 0/" on the tJoundary of the propoeed development.
Lot l")Out with dlrnenelone for all lot I/nee.
Location and uee of all propoeed and exletJne l1ulldlnee, fencee
and etructu~ within the propoeed development. Indicate which
l7ulldlnee .", to remain and which a", to I7e ",moved.
location and elze of .11 pul1/lc utJlltfee affecUtJ by the propoeed
development.
location of drainage waye 0/" pu"I/c utility eaeernerrte In and
adjacent to
the
propoeed
deveIopmen
t. location
of all other
eaeernenu.
A
to~raphlc
map of the
eJte at a
contour
Interval of
not Ieee DulaW. Ala - ..
--... ChM or
co !5'1.
1.
d.
e.
f.
e.
h.
I.
j.
k.
5IofM~-..
...", unIIbmt .,.
(MChln Me) ", t:he IMIdmum
PbJIkW ad EInik_tIItaI ~ ~1ICt .......
HWaide bIdII'da
City ~ Adopted V... - s8coad ....... (2.7) - ~ 2, ltf7
PIle S
~77
than two ~ nor Brester than five feet. The ~raphlc map ehall aleo Include a elope
analYl'le. Indlca1;lne bulL::l.ble areae. ae ehown In the eraphlc.
I. location of all parkins areae and epacee. insree5 and eereee on
the elte. and on-elte circulation.
m. Accurate locatlone of all exJetlne natural fe.aturee Includins. but
not IIml~ to, all treee ae r~ulrM In 18.62.080.0.1, lncludlns
thoee of a caliper ~ual to or Brester than elx Inchee d.I1.h..
native ehnJb maeeee with a diameter of ten feet or g~ater.
natural dralnaee, ewalee. wetlande. ponde, epringe. or cruke on
the eite. and outcropplnee of roclce, bouldere, etc. Natural
featuree on adjacent propert;iee potentially Impact&::! I1y the
propoe&:f development ehall aleo l1e Included, euch ae treee with
drlplinee ex'tendlne acrofie property IInee. In foreeted arese, It Ie
neceeeary to Identify only thooe treee which wllIl1e affected or
removed l1y the propoeed development. Indicate any
contemplated modlflcatlone to a natural feature.
n. The propoeed method of ~Ion control, water runoff control,
and tree protection for the development ae req,uired I1y thle
chapter.
o. 6ulL::llns envelopee for all exlet1ns and propoeed new parcele that
contain only pulL::laple area. ae defined I1y thie Chapter.
P. location of all imeatlon canale and major Irrieation IInee.
q. Location of all areae of land dleturl1ance, IncludlnB cute, fllle,
drlvewaye, pulL::llne eJtee, and other conetructJon areae. Indicate
total area of dieturoance, total percentaee of project elte
propoeed for dleturoance. and maximum depthe and helehte of
cute and fill.
r. Location for etoraee or dlepoeal of all tD(Ceee mater/ale rel5ultlne
from cute a5fiOC1at&::l with the propoeied development.
e. Applicant name, firm prepar/ne plane, person reeponeiple for plan
preparation, and plan preparation datee ehalll1e indicated on all
plane.
t. Propoeed timellne for development l1aeed on eetlmated date of
approval, Includins completion datee for epeclflc ta6lc:e.
2. Additional plane and etudle5 ae r~ulrM In SectIon518.62.G70,
18.62.080. 18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of th/e Chapter.
I. Criteria for approval. A Phye/cal Conetralnte RevIew Permit ehalll1e leeued I1y
the Staff Advleor when the Applicant demonetratee the foflowlns:
PbysIcaJ aad Ermroameatal COIIItniDts Ordh-- RmIIoa
Hillside Standuds
CIty CoundI Adopted Venloa - Secoad Readllll (2.7) - Dec:saber 2, 1m
Paae 6
~1<j
1.
Throush thl!J appllc4rtlon of thl!J dMopml!Jl11; etand...-tJe of thle ch"pt<<-.
thl!J pot<<ItIa/lmpacte to thl!J pt~'ty and Marby a,..,ae h8Vl!J Pl!Jen
c:one/tJ~. and ~ Impacts haw Pt:a1 m1nlmlz&t.
That thl!J applicant h_ coneltJ<<'l!JtJ thl!J pot<<ttlal hazarde that thl!J
d~ may c~ and Impll!Jm~ m&leUI"l!Je to ml~atl!J thl!J
pot<<ttlal hazartJe ca~ I1y thl!J dl!JV~t.
That thl!J applicant hae talc:l!Jn all ,..,.eonap/e. etepe to reduce the adverse
Impact on the <<Ivlronm<<lt. IrT'eVeI"l5lp/e actIone' ehall pe coneltJm-etJ more
eeriouely than reverell1ll!J actlone. The 5taff AtJv/eor or Flannlne
Commleelon shall conelder the exletlng development of the eutTOuntJlng
a,..".. and the maximum permitted dl!JVelopment permitted Py the Land
Uee Ordinance.
2.
3.
J. The Staff ~v1eor or Plannln(!l CommlHlon hae the power to amend plane to
Include any or all of the foIlow/ne conditione If It It; deemed neceeeary to
mltl(!latl!J any potentUll nl!l(!latlve Impact caueea Py the dl!JVelopml!Jnt:
1. ~ulre the retention of ti-t:ee. rocket pontJe. wetlande. eprinee. watl!Jr
GOUreee and other natural featuree.
2. ~ul"" plan revtelon or moc::flflcatlon to mltl(!latl!J poeelble nl!l(!latlve or
1rt"l!MtrfJlble effect upon thl!J tapoeraphy or natural featLll"'ee that the
propoeed d~ may cauee.
:3. ~eq,ul'" a performance ~u..antee ae a condition of approval.
4. ~ul"" epeclall!JValwrtion Py" ~nlz&t profeeelona/. A profeeelonal
coneultant may be hired to l!JValuate propoeale and make
""OOmmentJatlone If the hearing authority fin. that outside expertIee Ie
needed. The profeeelonal will h.,e expertIee In the epecfflc area or In the
potential atJveree Impacte on the.,..,.. A fee for theee eervIcee ehal/ be
char"(!led to the applicant In addition. to the application fee.
18.62.050 Land ClaeeIflcatlone. The foIlowIne factore ehal/ be ueed to determIne the
c1aeelflcatlone of varloue lande antJ their COMetralnte to l1ul/tJlne and d~ on them:
^ Flcn:fplaln CorTVJt:lt' Lande - u.ntJe with potential etresm flow and flood hazard.
The foIIowIn6 lande a", claeelfled ae Floodplain ConitJor Jande:
1. All land contalnea within the 100 ~r floodplain ae deflnea I7y the
Feaeral E~l!Jncy Man~mnent A(!Iency. In mapa atJoptetJ I1y Chapter
15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area deflnea ae FloodplaIn Corridor IantJ In mapa
atJoptetJ I1y the Council _ provIdea fur In eectIon 18.62.060.
PIv*-I.... .y........... c........... ()rII-1ICt.......
H1Uaide ScIadInIa
City CoadI A......... V.... -...... p....... (2.7) - n.-ber 2, lW7
PIp?
6<7Cf
:3. A1llanae which have phyelcal or hletorical evidence of f100dlneln the
hletorlcal pet.
4. All areae within 20 feet (horizontal dletance) of any creek deelgnatea
for Riparian Preeervatlon In 18.62.D50.6 ana depicted Be euch on mapa
adopted t1y the Council ae provided for In eectlon18.62.D60.
5. All areae within ten feet (horizontal dletance) of any draln~e channel
deplct&:l on mapa adopted t1y the Council !1ut not deeJenated ae
Riparian Preeervatlon.
B. Riparian Preeervatlon - The following Floodplain Corridor Lande are aleo
deelenated for Riparian Preeervatlon for the purpoeee of thle eectlon and ae
lIeted on the Phy&lcal and Environmental Conetralnte Overlay Mape: Tolman.
Hamilton. Clay. Bear. Kitchen. Aehland. Nell and Wrlghte Creeke.
C. Hillelde Lana@ - Hillelde Lanae are lande which are eul1Ject to damaee from
eroelon and elope failure. and Include areae which are highly vle''''e from other
portione of the city. The followlne lande are claeelfled ae Hillelde Lande:
1. All areae defined ae Hillelde Lande on the Ph,yelcal Conetrainte Overlay
map and which have a elope of 25 percent or greater.
D. Wildfire Lande - Lande with potential of wildfire. The following lande are
clae5ifled a6 Wildfire Lande:
1. All areae defined ae wildfire lande on the Ph,yeical Conetralnte Overlay
map.
E. Severe Conetralnt Lande - Lande with eevere development cI1aracterletlce
which eenerally limit normal development. The following lande are claeelfled ae
Severe Conetralnt Lande:
1. All areae which are within the fioodway channele. ae; defined in Chapter
15.10.
2. All lande with a e;lope greater than :35 percent.
F. Claeelflcatlone Cumulative. The al:1ove claeefflcatlorie are cumulative In their
effect and. If a parcel of land falle under two or I'rIOI"e clae;elflcatlone. It ehall be
eu"ject to the reeulatlone of each claeelflcatlon. Thoee reetrictlone applied
enall pertain only to thoee portione of the land being developed and not
neceeearlly to the whole parcel.
18.62.D60 OffIcial Mape.
A. The City Council ehall adopt official mapa denoting the above Identified areae.
Subetantial amend mente of theee mapa ehall be a Type :3 :procedure.
B. Minor amerle/mente' of the mapa to correct mapping erT"0t"6 when the
amene/mente are intended to more accurately reflect the mappl"6 criteria
Physic:aI and EaYiromneotal COIIIItnints 0rdIaaac:e Revision
Hillside Standards
CIty CouadJ Adopted Venloa - Seeoad ReadIag (2.7) - n.-.ber 2, I",
PageS
:< r6
c:ontaIn&:A In thIe chapter' or In tho flndlnge of tho Council In """peine an offtclal
map IT1ay po proc:t:eeed _ a TWO 1 ~LI"O.
18.62,070 D~nvJnt Stauiarde for Floodplain COI1"idor Uinde. For all land ueo actlone
which could ""'ult In developmont of tho Fl(lIC)Qplaln ConitJor. tho followlne Ie ~ulrotJ In
addition to any ~ulremente of Chaptor 15.10: .
A. Standarde for flllln Fl(lIC)Qplaln Corridor Iande:
1. Fill ehall Po dl!mlgnod ae ~ulred by tho Uniform BuildIng Code. Chaptor
70, whero appllcaPIe.
2. Tho toe of tho flll ehall pe kept at leaet ten foot outeldo of flClOt:lway
channele, a!!5 deflnod In eoctIon 15.10, and the fill 5hall not exceed the
anele of repoee of the material ueod for fill.
3. The amount of fill In tho Floodplain ConitJor ehall PO kopt to a mInImum.
FII/ and other materfallmported from off the lot that could dleplace
fl(lIC)Qwator !!5hall pe IImJtod to tho following:
a. Poured concrete and other l1'UI't;eriale neceHary to l1ulld
pormJtt&:f !!5tnJctu"", on the lot.
11. ^eel"e6aU l1aee and paving rrurterlale, and flll aHOClatod with
approvod public and private !!5treet and driveway COt1!!5tnJctlon.
c. Plante and other Iand!!5Caplng snd aericultural material.
d. ^ totsl of 50 cuplc yard!!5 of other Impot'"t&! flll matmal.
e. Tho al10ve IImlt!!5 on fill !!5halll1e l'11Oa!!5ured from ^priI1989, and
ehall not exceed tho al10ve amounte. Theee amounte are the
max/mum cumulative flll that can l1e Import&:l onto the !!5Jte.
l"e6ardleH of the numper of permtte IHued.
4. If additional fill 115 n~eary beyond tho permlttod amount!!5 In (3) al1ove,
then flll materia Ie muet be obtalnod on the lot from cuttlne or
excavation only to tho e:Ktent n~ary to create an e1evatod !!5Jte for
permitted development. All additional flll material eh.-II pe obtalnod from
the rn-tlon of the lot In tho FloodplaIn Corridor.
5. ^"equ.ee dralnaeo !!5hall be proWJod for the 5tablllty of the flll.
6. FII/ to ral!!5e e1evatlon!!5 for a pulldlng elte ehall PO located Be cloee to the
OIJtelde ec:Iee of the FIood""'n ConitJor ae fea!!5/ple.
B. Culvertlne or Prldelng of any waterway or creek Identlfled on the official map!!5
adopt&! pur!!5uant to !!5eCtIon 18.62.D60 mU!!5t pe doelened by an ene'Mor.
Stream croeelnee enall bo deelgnod to the etandarde of Chapter 15.10, or where
no f1Cl1CJdway hae been identified. to pa!!55 a one hundred (100) year flood without
any Increaee In the up!!5tream fl(lIC)Q heleht elevation. The enelnee!" ehall COM!!5lder
In the deelen the probaplltty that the culvert will pe bIoclcod by dOPrie In " eevero
f1ClOt:1, and accommodate expectetJ overflow. Fill for culvertlne and pridelng ehall
. pe kept to the mInImum n~ry to achIeve property SCce!!5e. but Ie l!IKempt
from the IImltatlon!!5 In !!5eCtIon (^) above. Culvertlng or I7rIdelne of etreame
PIv*-I.... ~ CoaItnIIIts Or-H--. ......
HiUaicIe SIIDdards
CIty CoImdI Adopted VenIoa - Seeoad ReadIDc (2.7) - ....... 2, I",
PIp 9
~'81
Identified ae Riparian P~atlon are eu~Jec1i to the r~ulrement6 of
18.62.D75.
C. Non-reeldential etructuree 5hall ~e flooeI-proof to tl1e ~tandarde In Chapter
15.10 to one foot; al10ve the elevation contained In the mape adopted by chapter
15.10, or up to the elevation contained In the official mape aefoptedl7y eectlon
18.62.060, whichever hel~ht I~ ~reater. Vvtlere no epeciflc elevatlone exi~t, then
they muet be flooelproofed to an elevation of ten feet a~ove the creek channel
on Aehland, Bear or Nell Creek; to five feet arove the creek channel on all otl1er
Riparian Preeerve creeke defined In eectlon 18.62.050.6; and three feet arove
the etream channel on all other draln~e waye Identified on the official map",
D. All reeldentlal etructuree ehall be elevated eo that the Ioweet haj,ltaj,le floor
ehall j,e raleed to one foot alxNe the elevation contained In the mape adopted
In chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained In the official map" adopted by
eectlon 18.62.000, whichever hel~ht Ie greater. v.A1ere no epeclflc elevatlone
exIet, then they muet j,e conetructed at an elevation of ten feet aj,ove the.
creek: channel on Aehland, Bear, or Nell Creek; to five feet alxNe the creek
channel on all other Riparian Preeerve creeke defined In eectIon 18.62.050.6;
and three feet above the etream channel on all other dralna~e waye Identified
on the official mape, or one foot aj,ove v1elj,le evidence of hl~h flood water flow,
whichever Ie greater. The elevation of the flnlehedlowMt haj,ltaj,le floor ehall be
certified to the city l7y an e~lneer or eurv~ prior to leeuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the etructure.
E. To the maximum extent feaei"le, etructuree ehall "e placed on other than
Floodplain Corridor Lande. In the caee where development 'e permitted in the
Floodplain conidor area, then development ehall be limited to that area which
would have the ehalloweet f100dlne.
F. Exletl~ lote with j,ullda"le land outelde the FlooeIplaln Corridor ehalllocate all
reeldentlal etructuree outek:le the Corridor land, un Ieee 50% or more of the lot
Ie within the Floodplain Corridor. For reek:lentlal ueee propoeed for exietlne lote
that have more than 50% of the lot In Corridor land, etructUre5 may be located
on that portion of the floodplain corridor that Ie two feet or Ieee j,elow the
flood elevatlone on the official mape, "ut In no caee cloeer than 20 feet to the
channel of a Riparian Preeervatlon Creek. Conetructlon 5hall j,e eubject to the
r~ulremente in par~raph D arove.
G. New non.reeldentlal ueee may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor
lande that ettual to or arove the flood elevatlone on the official mape adopted
In eectlon 18.62.060. Second etory conetructlon may be cantilevered over the
floodplain corridor for a dletance of 20 feet If the clearance from flnle;hed ~rade
Ie at leaet ten feet in hel~ht, and i5 ~upported l7y plllare that will have minimal
Impact on the flow of ~watere. The finieh&:! floor elevation may not I:1e more
than two feet be/ow the flood corridor elevatlon~.
H. ^"1~ modlfl&:! l7y lot line adJu~tmen~, or new lote created from late which
contain Floodpl~ln Col"I"idOl" land muet contain a building envelope on alllol:;( f))
Phy'" 8Dd Em1roDmeDtaJ CoastraIDts OrdI...wq RmsIoII
Hillside Standards
City Co1llldl Adopted Version -Seeoad Rea"" (2.7) - December 2,1'"
Pap 1 0
~g~
I!.;:
I.
which contaln( e) pulltJ.11Ie .",. of . eufflclent elze to accomrnoc::tate the ueee
permlt't&l In the underline zone, LI1leee the action Ie for open ep.-ce or
COf"Ie<<V~ purpoeee. 111le eection ehall apply even If the effect Ie to prohlpft
further dlvlelon of late that are larger than the minimum elze permitted In the
zonll16 orc:Ilnance.
8aeemente.
1. Hapltaple paeemente are not permlttea for new or exIetlne etructuree or
addltlone located within the Floodplain Conidor.
2. Non-haplta~le paeemente, ueed for etoraee, partclne, and elmllar ueee
are permitted for reeldentlal etructuree Put muet pe flood-proofed to
the etandarde of Chapter 15.10.
Storage of petroleum producte, peetlcldee, or other hazardoue or toxic
chemlcale Ie not permitted In Floodplain comb lande.
Fencee conetructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preeervation Creek
dee~nated I:1y thle cl1apter !thall ~e limited to wire or electric fence, or elmllar
fence that will not collect det7rle or ol1etnJct flood watere, Put not IncludlnE! wire
meeh or chain link fenclnE!. Fencee !thall not Pe con6'tructed acroee any
Identified riparian draln"EIe or riparian ~rvatlon creeIc. Fencee !thall not pe
conetructea within any dee~nated fIoodway.
Declce and etructuree other than ~ulldlnee, If conetnJcted on Floodplain Conib
Lande and at or Pelow the levele epeclfled In 5eCt1on 18.62.a70.C and D, ehall pe
flood-proofed to the etandarde contained In Chapter 15.10.
Local e'tr'eete and utility connectlone to developmente In and adjacent to the
Flooc::Iplaln CorrIdor ehall pe located outelde of the Floodplain Conidor, ~ for
croeelne the Conidor, and except in the Bear Creelc:fIoodplaln corT'Idor ae
outlined below:
J.
K.
L.
M.
1. Public etr-eet conetructlon may be. allowed within the 8ear Creek
floodplain COt"Iidor ae part of development 1bIlowIne the adopted North Mountain
Nelghl1omood Plan. Thle exception ehall only Pel permitted for that eectIon of
the Bear Creek floodplain COtT'Idor between North Mountain Avenue and the .
Nevada Street rieht-of-way. The new etrel!Jt ehall be conetn.Jcted In the eeneral
location ae Indicated on the neiehPorhood plan map. and In the area eenerally
deecrtbed Be havlne the ehalloweet potential for fIoodlne within the corridor.
2. Propoeed development that Ie not In aCGOrd with the North Mountain
Ne1ahl1omood Plan ehall not 17e permitted to utilize thle exception.
18.62.075 DevetQpl11Mt Standarde for Riparian Pl"eMrVation lande.
A. All development In ,.",. Indicated for Riparian Preeervatlon, Be defined In
eectlon 18.62.050(8). ehall comply with the followine etandarde:
...,..... &.ylk-....r COIIItraIaII ~.......1Mle ReYIIIoD
HilIIide Stmduda
City Cwd Adopted v...... - s.:o.I R--.. (2.7) - Dee: .... 2, I".,
"11
:< ~3
1. Development &hall t;le &ut;lject to all Development Standarde for
Floodplain Corridor Land& (18.62.070)
2. My tree (Her &lx Inchee d.b.h. ehall pe retained to the greatest extent
fea&I"le.
3. Fill and Culverting &hall be permltt&:f only for etreete, accee&, or utllitiee.
The cro&elng &hall t;le at right angle~ to the creek: channel to the
greateet extent po55lt;1le. Fill ehall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general to~raphy of Riparian Preeetvation lande ehall "e retained.
18.62.000 Development Standard& for HIII&ide Lande. It ie the pUrp05e of the
Development Standarde for Hlllelde Lande to provide eupplementary development ~ulatlone
to underlying zonee to eneure that development OCCUI"6 In euch a manner ae to protect the
natural and to~raphlc character and Identity of theee areae, environmental reeourcee, the
aeethetic qualltlee and reetoratlve value of landt>, and the public health, t>afety, and general
welfare "y lneurlng that development d0e5 not create ooil eroelon, 5edlmentatlon of lower
elopee, elide damage, fJoodlng pro"leme, and eevere cutting or ecaning. It Ie the Intent of
theee development etandarde to encourage a eeneltlve form of development and to allow for a
reaoona"le uee that complemente the natural and vieual character of the city.
A. General Requlremente. The following general requlremente 5hall apply In Hlllelde
Lande:
1. All development ehall occur on lande defined ae having "ulldat;lle area.
Slop&.; greater than 35% ahall be coneidered unt;lulldat;lle except ae allowed
peJow. Varlancee may be erant&:f to thle requirement only ae provided In eectlon
18.62.000.H.
a. Ex/etlng parcele without adequate bullda"le area Ieee than or
equal to .35% 5hall be coneldered bulldat;lle for one unit.
b. Exieting parcel5 without adequate buildable area I~ than or
equal to.35% cannot be ~ubdMded or partitioned.
2. All newly created lot~ either by eubdlvielon or partition ehall contain a
buildl~e envelope with a elope of .35% or Ieee.
3. New etreete, flae drivee, and drivewaye ehall t;le conetruct&:f on lande of
Ieee than or equal to 35% 510pe with the following except lone:
a. The 6treet 16 indicated on the City'e Tran5portatlon Plan Map-
Street Dedlcatione.
b. The portion of the etreet, flag drive, or driveway on land greater
than 35% elope doee not exceed a length of 100 feet.
PI1ysIcaI aud Eavtroma.... CoDltralnts Qrdl-nee RmsJon
Hillside Standards
City COUDdI Adopted Venloa - Secoad R...... (2.7) - Dec:anbeF 2, 1m
Page 12
~8'f
4. GeotechnJc.l 5I;ut.flee. For all appl~ on HllleW., Uinde InvoMne
eul1c:1MeIone or ~one. the foIlowIne Mc:IJtIonallnformatlon Ie rew'1.ull"l!td:
^ ,eotechnJc.1 etudy prep.1"l!td Py. ,eot;echnlcal expert Indlc::atln, that the elte
Ie eta"le fur the ~ uee and c:levelopment. The etuc:ly eI1aUlnclude the
foIlowfne Information:
a. Index. map.
t1. Project c:leec::riptlon to Include Ioc;atlon. topography. c:lraln""e.
ve,etatIOl1. c:l1l!J(;ueelon of prevJoue M:lrlc ant:! c:l1l!J(;UHIon of fleld
exploration methoc:le.
c. Site g<<>>Jogy, 17aeec:l on a eurfJclal eurwy. to Include elte geol~lc
mape. c:leec:riptlon of "&:lrack and eurflclal rnsteriale. Including
artlflclaJ flU. locatlone of any faulte. foIc:1e, etc.". and etnJctural
data Including l1&:lc:Iing. jointing and ehear ZOI1ee, eon c:lepth and
eoIl etructure.
d. OIl!J(;ueelon of any off-elte geol~lc conditione that may poee a
potential hazard to the elte. or that may l1e affect&:l Py on-elte
development.
e. Sultal1lllty of elte for propos&:i development from a geoloelc
etandpolnt.
f. Speclflc recommendatlone for cut and flU elope eUl1lllty, eeepage
and drainage control or other deeJen criteria to mltleate geoloelc
hazarele.
g. If deemed neceeeary Py the qlneer or geologlet to eeta""eh
whether an area to 17e affected Py the ~ development Ie
eta17le, aeldltlonaletuellee and eupportlve data ehalf Include
croee-eectIone ehowlng eul7eutface etructure. graphic loge with
eul7eutface ~oratlon. l'lt.5ulte of lal7oratory teet and retferencee.
h. SJenature and regletratlon num17er of the en,lneer and/or
,eoIoelet.
I. ~J1;IonallnformatJon or analy5ee ae neceeeary to evaluate the
elte.
J. Inepectlon l!J(;h&:lule fur the projec::t ae rew'1.ull"l!td In 18.62.080.6.9.
k. location of .lIllT1eatlon canale and major Irrt,atlon plp'"n.,.,.
B. Hlllelele Gr.-dlng and Eroelon Control. ^" development on lande claeelfl&:l ae
hlllelde ehall provide plane conformll16 with the foIlow1ne lteme: .
1. ^"graellne. 1"l't;a1nlne wall deeJen, drainage, and eroelon control plane for
development on H!lfelde Lande eI1all t1e dee!ened I1y a ,eotechnlcal expert. ^/1
cut6. erac:ilne or fllle ehall confonn to Chapter 70 of the Uniform 6ulJeJlng Code.
PII1*aI ... Bull....... CoaIIntbID Ok--H -~ .....
HUlaide SCIadards
cu, C-CMd Adopted VenIoD - SeeoJId R....... (2.7) - Decem_ 2, lW7
Plae 13
~rgS-
El"05ion control meaeuree on the development elte ehall be retiulretf to mInImize
the eollde in runoff from dletur17ed areae.
2. For development other than elngle family homee on Individual lote, all
gradIng, drainage Improvemente, or other land dlaturbancee ehall only occur
from May 1 to Octo17er 31. ExcavatIon ehall not occur during the remaIning wet
monthe of the year. Eroelon control meaeuree ahall be Inetalled and functional
l7y Octo17er 31. Up to 30 day mOc:flflcatlon~ to the Octo17er 31 date. and 45 day
I'l'IOdlflcatlon to the May 1 date may 17e made 17y the Planning Director, 17aeed
upon weather condItione and In coneultatlon with the project geotechnical
expert. The moc:llflcatlon of datee ehall 17e the minimum neceeeary, 17a5ed upon
evidence provided ~ the applicant, to accompll&h the neceeaary project goala.
.3. Retention In natural 6tate. On all project6 on Hille/de Land6 Involving
partition a and 6u17dlvleione, and exJ6tlng Iota with an area greater than one-half
acre, an area eq,ual to 25% of the total project area, plue the percentage
figure of the average elope of the total project area, ehall /1e retaIned In a
natural etate. Landa to be retaIned In a natural etate &hall be protected from
damage through the uee of temporary conetructlon fencing or the functional
equIvalent.
For t:xample. on a 25.(}OO !H.f. ft. lot with an allt:rage 51opt: of 29%.
25%+29%::54% of tht: total lot area shall Pt: retalntJd In a natural state.
The retention In a natural etatt: of areae greatt:r than the minimum percentage
requIred ht:re ie encouraged.
4. Grading - cute.
On all cut elope5 011
areae cla56ifled a6
H1II51dt: land5, the
followIng etandarde
5hall apply:
a. Cut
elope anglee
ehall be
determined In
relation5hlp to
the type of
material5 of
which they are
com~.
Cut Slope and
FIJI Slope
Requlremente
Not; to Scale
For lIIuetratlon Only
PbysIcaJ and Eaviroameatal CoastraIuU OrdI....nce Rerisioa
Hillside Standards
City CouadI Adopted Venioa - Seeoad Readlag (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 14
~ r,
w'ere the eo" permlte. limit the toeal aru ~ to prec;lpltatlon and eroelon. Steep cut
elopee ""'.111178 ~Ined with 5tacked rock. ~lnll16 walle. or functional ~ulvalent to COf'1trooI
eroelon and ~ elope etablllty when neceeeary. ~ere cut elopee are l"et1.ulred to pe laid
pack (1:1 or Ieee eteep). the elope ehall pe protect&:i with l!lr'Oelon control nettll16 or etnJctural
l!lC{ulvalent Ine~11ed per manufacturere ePeClflcstlone. and reveeetat&:l.
P. Expoe&:f cut elopee. euch .Ie thoee for etreete. driveway
acc~. or yard areae. greater than eeven feet In height ehall pe
terraced. Cut facee on a terracec.l eectlon ehall not exce&:I a maximum
height of five feet. Ten-ace wldthe ehall pe a minimum of three feet to
allow for the Il1'troc.luctlon of veeetation for er-oelon control. Total cut
elopee ehall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See
Graphic)
The top of cut elope5 not utilizing etructural r~inlng walle ehall "e
located a minimum eetpsck of one-ha/f the height of the cut elope from
the neareet f""OPel"t;y line.
Cut elopee for etructure
foundatlone encouraging
the reduction of effective
vleual pulk. euch ae epllt
pac.l or etepped footInge
ehall "e exempt&:l from the
height Ifmltatlone of thle
eection. (See Graphic)
~UC4t EfIfectIve V1eual
5uIk by UtlllzJne
Stepped FOUft4IfM;/one
c. Revegetation of cut
elope terracee ehalllncluc.le
the provIelon of a planting
plan. Introduction of top
l!5O/l where neceeeary. ana
the uee of Irrigation If
neceeeary. The Vl!J6etat1on ueea for theee illreae ehall Pe native or
epeclee elmllar In reeource value which will eurvlve. help reduce the vleual
Impact of the cut elope. anc.l aeelet In provIc.llng lone term elope
eta"f/lzatlon. Treee. "ueh-type pfillntlnge anc.l caecac.llng vine-type
plantlnge may pe appropriate.
5. Grac.llng - fllle. On all fill ejopee on Iande clseelfled ae Hlllelde Lande. the
following e~arde ehall apply:
PIIpIcaJ .... I'.a.h_.... CoaItrd.t. 0rwH..... ........
HiI1aJde StIDdarda
CIty CoImdI Adopted V.... - Seeaad ...... (2.7) - Dea.aber 2,1'"
PIp IS
;1~7
a. Fill elope a~lee ehall pe determined In relatlonehlp to the type of
materiale of which they are compoe~. Fill elopes ehall not exceed a
total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill elope area not
utilizing etructural retaining ehall pe a minimum of elx feet from the
neareet property line.
b. Fllle/opee ehall be ~ with an et"05/on control netting.
!:1/anket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankete ehall only be ue~
In conjunction with an organic mulch euch ae etraw or wood fiber. The
planket muet "e appll~ eo that It Ie In complete contact with the eoil
eo that et"05lon d~ not occur beneath It. E/"05ion nettl~ or !:1lankete
ehall be 5eCurely anchored to the elope In accordance with
manufacturer'e recommendatlone.
c. Utllltle5. Whenever po5el"le. utilltfee ehall not "e located or
Inetall~ on or In fill elope5. When determined that It neceeeary to
Inetall utilitlee on fill elopes. all plane ehall be de5lgn~ j,y a geotechnical
expert.
d. Rev~etation of fill elope5 ehall utilize native v~etatlon or
v~etatlon elmllar In l"e5Ource value and wI1lch will eurv/ve and eta"illze
the eurface. lITigation may be provided to eneure growth If neceeeary.
Evidence ehall "e requlr~ Indicating long-term v1a"illty of the propoeeel
v~etation for the purpoeee of eroelon control on dleturo~ areae.
6. Rev~etatlon requlrementfi. Where required j,y thle chapter. all req,ulred
rev~etatlon of cut and fill elopes ehall be Inetalled prior to the leeuance of a
certificate of occupancy. elgnature of a req,ulred eurvey plat. or other time ae
determined j,y the hearing authority. V~etation ehall "e Inetall~ In euch a
manner ae to "e eubetantlally eetabliehed within one year of 1Ml!~tallatlon.
7. Maintenance. Security. and Penaltlee for Eroelon Control Meaeure5.
a. Maintenance. ^" meaeuree Inetalled for the pUrpol5e5 of Jone-term
eroe/on control. including !:1ut not limited to v~eta1;lve cover, rock walle,
and landecaplne, ehall "e maintained In perpetuity on all arese which
have veen diaturl1&:f. including puvlic rl~ht5.of-way. The applicant ahall
provide evidence Ind/cat/ne the meehanleme in place to eneure
maintenance of meaeul"e5.
b. Security. Except for Individual late exietlng prior to January 1,1998.
after an E/"05lon Control Plan Ie approved j,y the hearlne authority and
prior to conetl"uction, the applicant ahall prcMde a performance bond or
Physical aad Eavlroameatal COIIItraIata 0nIIaa0ee RevIsIon
HWaide Staoduds
City CouudI Adopted Veniou - Second .Readina (2.7) - December 2, 1m
Page 16
~Y1
other f1MnCIaI e~ In the amount of 120% of the value of the
ero&/on c:ontrof meaeuree neceeesry to etaDJlIze the elte: Any financial
eWlrat1'tee InetnJl1'IeI1t ~ other than a pet fOtfnance bond ehall ~e
a~ by the City Attorney. The financial euarant;ee Inetrument ehall
~e In effect for- a period of at leaet one year. and ehall l1e releaeed when
the P1annlne Director and Pul7l1c Work., Director determine, jointly, that
the elte hae been etabJlIud. All or a portion of the eecurfty ~Ined by
the City may ~e withheld for a period up to five yeare ~~d the one
year maintenance period If It hae ~een determined by the City that the
elte hae not been eufflclently eta~"1ud aealnet eroelon.
8. Site Gradlne. The eradine of a elte on HllleJde Lanae ehall coneJder the
eeneltlve nature of theee areae. Grad1ne plane ehall ~e reviewed ooneJderJne the
foIlow1ne factor'e:
a. T erraclne ehould be deelened with emall Incremental etepe.
avoldlne wide etep terraelne and laree areae of flat pade.
P. Retain exIetlne eradee to the ereateet extent poeel~le. Avoid an
artificial appearance by creatine ernooth f10wlne contoure of varying
eradlerrte. Avoid eharp cute and fllle and lone. linear elopee that have
uniform erade.
c. Avoid hazardoue or unetal7le portIone of the elte.
d. 6ulldlne pade ehouldl7e of minimum elze to accommodate the
etructure and a reaeonal7le amount of yard ep'lCe. P ade for tennle
courts, ewJmmlne poole and faree lawne are alf)couraeed. Ae much of
the remalnlne lot area ae poeeI~le ehould l7e kept In the natural etate of
the orIelnal elope.
9. Inepectlone and Final Report. Prior to the aGCeptance of a eul7dlvleJon
by the City. elenature of the final eurvey plat on pareltJone. or '"Wlnce of a
certificate of occupancy for Individual etructuree. the project eeoeechnlcal
expert ehall pt"OvIde a final report Indicating that the approved eradlng.
dralnaee. and eroelon control rneaeul"'ee were Inetalled ae per the approved
plane. and that all echeduledlnepectlone. ae per 18.62.o80.A.4J were
conducted by the project eeotechnlcal expert periodically throuehout the
project.
C. Surface and Grounawater Dralnaee. ^,I development on Hllle/de Lande ehall
conform to the followlng etandarde:
~ ..... ~ If.' CGaIanIau 0....-- ......
HiIIalde StaDdInIs
CIty C-GUIIdI Adapted V.... - 8ecoDd p_dl.. (2.7) - n--__. 2, 1".,
Paae 17
A'5~
1. All facllttlee for the collection of etormwater runoff ehall be M:\ulrea to
be conetructed on the elte and accordlne to the followlne requlremente:
a. 5tormwater facllltlee ehall Include etorm drain eyeteme
aeeociated with etreet conetructlon. facllltiee for accommodatine
draln~e from drlvewaye. parklne arese and other Impervioue eurfacee,
and roof drainaee eyeteme.
V. 5tormwater facilltlee. when part of the overall elte Improvement5,
5hall be. to the greateet extent feaelble. the fi",t Improvemente
con5trUct&:l on the development 51te.
c. Stormwater facl/itlee 5hall "e deelgned to divert 5urface water
away from cut facee or 510plne 5urfacee of a fill.
d. Ex/5tlng natural draln~e eyeteme 5hall be utilized. a5 much ae
poeelble. In their natural 6tate. recoenlzlng the eroelon potential from
increaeed etorm dralnaee..
e. Flow-rm;ardlng dev/cee. 5uch a6 detention pond5 and recharee
"erme. ehall be u5ea where practical to minimize Increaeee In runoff
volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility 5hall
con5ider the need5 for an emereency overRow eyetem to eafely carry any
overRow water to an acceptable dl6poeal point.
f. Stormwater facl/itlee 5hall be de5igned. con6tructed and
maintained In a manner that will avoid eroelon on-5lte and to adjacent
and downetream propertlee.
e. ^lternate 6tormwater eyetem5. euch a5 dry well 6yeteme.
detention pond6. and leachflelde. 5hall be deelgned by a regleterea
engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the CltY5 Public WOrk6
Department or City Bulldlne OffIcial.
D. Tree Coneervatlon. Protection and Removal. ^" development onHIII51de Land6
6hall conform to the following requiremente:
1. Inventory of ExIetfng Treee. A :tree 6urvey at the 6ame ecale a6 the
project 6ite plan ehall be prepared. which locBtee all treee; greater than elx
inchee d.b.h.. Identified by d.b.h.. epeelee. approximate extent of tree canopy. In
addition. for arese propoeed to be di5turbed. exietlne tree "see elevatlon6 6hall
be provided. Dead or dleeaeed treee 5hall "e identified. Groupe of treee In
clo5e proximity (I.e. th05e within five feet of each other) may "e d~lgnated ae a
PIIysbJ and EnvlroameIItaJ ConstnJnts 0rdInaate Rerislon
Hillside Standards
City ColIIidI Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 18
~10
clump of treee. wtth the predomInant I'Jpeclee. eetllNlted num"et and .verase
dr-meter Indlc.ttJd. All tree 1'Jurve,ye l'Jhan h~ an ~cur~y of pIUI'J or mlnul'J
two feet. The name. I'Jl6n.rtLlt"e. and adareee of the I'Jfte l'Ju~ rel'Jponl'Jl"'e for
the ~ur~ of the l'Jurvey l'Jhalll7e provfded on the tree l'Jurvey.
PortIonl'J of the lot 0/" project area not ~ to "e dll'Jturl7ed /1y development
need not "e Inc/udl!td In the Inventory.
2. Evaluation of Sult.ll1lllty for Conl'Je/'Vatlon. ^" ~ IndIcated on the
Inventory of exIl'Jtlne treee l'Jhall all!lO "e IdentIfied .Ie to their eulta"lIlty for
coneervatlon. ~en ""tulred /1y the hearing authority. the evaluation ehall "e
condtJCted /1y a landecape profettl'Jlonsl. F actore Included In thll'J detennlnatlon
ehall Inch.lde:
a. Tree health. Healthy treee can "ettet wlthetar1d the ~ of
development than nOf1-vteoroue treee.
". . Tree Structure. TI"C!teI'J with aevete decay 0/" eu/1etantlal def~
are /'rIOt'"e likely to reeult In dal'r1S6e to people and property.
c. Speclee. Species vary In their al:1Jllty to toletBte Impacte and
damaee to their environment.
d. Potentla"oneevfty.
e. Vatiety. A variety of native tree epeclee and aeee.
f. Size. Laree tr-eeI'J provide a ereater protectlon for ~Ion and
ehade than emallet treee.
3. Tree ConeervatlOf1ln Project Deelen. Slenlflcant treet!I (2' d.".t!. 0/"
erester conlfere and " d."n. 0/" Brester /1roadleaf) l'Jhall /1e protect&:f and
Incorporated Into the project deelen whenever f'OHl"'e.
a.
Streete. Site Planning
arlvewaye. I&:!..~"... ' ReeponeJve to
pullalnee. _. : : :.::: .
utllltlee. ,.' ':. . I ': . \. : Tree Locatione;
parklne areae. ~': : ~ : EIdecIne 5tte
and other elte ):.: . W with e/tnlflcant
dlf5turt1anCCI'J . ' . " . tfolIae
t!lhall "e i,~'.'... ~~:'.j"-:
Ii..:-. . .UJ.i.I _ .
~.
. .
.
, .
'. ..- .
.. 'Yo' "
I~. ,... .
: .... . ..
.. '.
:- :
5erleItlve ~ '.{'
optbt for~ '
Ph1*aI_ Ema---w CaaItraIag ~_ .....
HiIIaidc StaInIa
CIty CWIIdI Adopted v..... - SecoH :ae.cu.. (Z.7) - ~_ 2, 1m
Page 19
~ 11
locat&::leuch that the maximum number of exIetlne treee on the elte are
pre5erVed. while recoenlzin{:l and followine the etandarde for fuel
reduction If the development Ie Iocat&::l In Wildfire Lande.
b. Bulldlne envelopee ahall be located and elzed to pre~rve the
maximum number of treee on elte while recoenlzlne and followln6 the
etandarde for fuel reduction if the development ie located In Wildfire
Lande.
c. Layout of the project aite utility and eradlne plan ehall avoid
dleturbance of
tree protection
areae.
a. All treee
deelenlrtee:i for
conaervatlOl'l
ehall be clearly
marlc&l on the
project elte.
Prior to the
etart of any clearine. etrippine. etockpiline. trenchlne. eradlne.
compaction. pavlne or chanee In 6round elevation. the applicant aha"
Inetall fencln6 at the drip line of all treee to be preeerved adjacent to or
In the area to be altered. Temporary fenclne
ehall be eetabliehed at the perimeter of the
drlpline. Prior to eradlne or leeuance of any
permlte. the fencee may be Inepected and
their location approved j,y the Staff !\dvieor.
(eee eraphic)
4. Tree Protection.
On all propertlee where
treee are req,ulred to be
preaerved durine the
couree of development.
the developer ehall follow
the followine tree
protection etandarde:
Q Tree Coneervation
~ Guideline
T
,
,
......--'... Dripllne
, "..
Tree Ca~E>' ....
-'....... \
I
.. ,
~ I
, I
, I
"-'-----"
b. Conetructlon elte actlvltlea. Includlne
but not limited to parlclne. materlal etoraee.
eoil compaction and concrete waehout. ehall
To provWll mInlmllll f"C'Uctlon to tho
~ .... take the ,reateet /'lIiJJue
from trunk to ""'110 ..... crato .
retiUr c:Irdo. ~ the kIn,eet rallll&.
mil<<' tIwl to fob .n IrnfeuIar.
80ve ,,-oun4. ~ tree drIp11ne.
Pbysk:a1 aDd EnviroameDtlll COllltral.... Ordl_~ Revision
Hillside Standards
City CoUDdl Adopted VenJoa - SecoDd Readlag (2.7) - December 2, 1m
Paae 20
~9~
l1e a~ eo - to prewm; dleturt7ancee within tree protection a/"eM.
c. No ,radlne, etrIpplne, compaction, or el,nlftcam; chqe In ,round
elevation &hall I1e permlt~ within the drip line of tree& deeJenated for
con&tltVatIon unleee Indicated on the eradlne plane, ae aF'f""OVed I1y the
City, and landecape profeHlona/. If ,radin, or conetructlon Ie approved
within the drlpllne, a landecape profeeelonal may l1e ~ulred to l1e
~ durlne eradlne operatlone, and ehall have authority to ~ulre
protective meaeUre5 to protect the 1"OOt5.
d. Chaneee In 5011 hydroloeyand elte dralnaee within tree protection
area., ehalll1e mlnlmlz&::l. Exce55lve.,1te run-off &hall l1e dlf"C!lCted to
appt oprIBte etorm drain facllltlee and away from treee; deelenated for
coneervatlon.
e. Should encroachment Into a tree ~Ion area occur which
caueee In-eparal1le da""see, ae determlnedl1y 4andecape profeeelonal,
to treee, the project plan &hall l1e revI&&I to compeneate for the Joee.
Under no clrcul1'l5tancee &hall the developer l1e relieved of I"'e5ponell1l1ity
for compliance with the provI.,lone of thl& chapter.
5. Tree Removal. Development &hall l1e deeJened to ~ the INDCimum
numl1er of treee on a elte, when l1alanced with other provtelone of thle chapter
and ~nlzln, and foIlow1ne the etandarde for fuel reduction If the
development It5 located In ~L:fflre Lande. \4A1en juetlfledl1y findlnee of fact, the
hearlne authority may approve the removal of treee for one or more of the
foIlowJne condition.,:
a. The tree Ie located within the l1ulltJlne envelope.
11. The tree Ie located within a ~ e~, driveway, or parkin,
area.
c. The tree Ie located within a water, eewer, or'other pul111c utility
eaeernent.
d. The tree 15 determined I1y a landeespe profeeelonaf to l1e dead or
dleeeed, or It COI1&tltute5 an unacceptal1le hazara to life or property
when eva/uatedl1y the etandarde In 18.62.o8O.D2.
e. The tree Ie located within or adjacent to arese of cute or fill.,
that are deemed threatenlne to the life of the tree, ae aetermlnedl1y a
land&cape profeeelonsl.
...,....... ~ CGIIItnbD 0..--.. .......
HlUajde StaInla
at, C4MIDdI Adopted VenIoD - Semad ....... (2.7) - Deaaaber 2, I""
PIp 21
).1E
6. Tree Replacement. Trees a~ for removal. with the exception of
treee removed 11ecauee they were detennlned to 11e dleeaeed. dead. or a hazard.
ehall be replae&::l In compliance with the followln~ etandarde:
a. Replacement
treee ehall be
Indicated on a tree
replantine plan.
Replacement tree!;
ahall be of elmllar
reeource value S5 the
tre~ removed. The
replantln~ plan ehall
Include all locatlon5
for replacement
t~. and 5hall aleo
indicate tree plantln~
detall5.
Tree Planting
Guideline
&" ..... Upt
e ..... tnri:
St'*-~ Iftreo '- ....
to tItft ... Ite -.
... ... - law _ ,..,.....
..... . IIDIHIIeto6 ~
~,..... _1IIINlI. ~
_ a.. ...1IIa.. ~... My
~ ... ....... ... ..... ,.". III
t.bnI ~ to cantaIn-...
Sottoplll~".""""""""
Ftw IIII'IIp /loan tnri:, ...
lwp .... ......
b. Replacement
tre~ ehall be
plant&:! 5uch that
the tree5 will In time
re5ult In canopy
equal to or ~reater than the tree canopy preeent prior to development
of the property. The canopy 5hallbe d~lgned to mitigate of the impact
of paved and developed arese. reduce eurface eraelon and Increaee elope
etabllity.. Replacement tree locatlone ehall conelder Impact on the
wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearln~ authority ehall have the
diecretlon to adjuet the prop05ed replacement tree canopy baeed upon
eite-5peclflc evidence and te5tlmony.
c. The hearing authority may, InateseA of requirlne replacement
tr~. r~uire Implementation of a revegetation plan. Thie plan may be
eu17etituted In heavily foreet&:! areae or In areae determined to 11e
appropriate a5 determined by a!'land5Cape prof~lonal and approved by
the hearing authority. The developer ehall be required to enter into a
written agreement with the City obligating the developer to comply with
the requirement5 of the revegetation p~ram. ^ 5eCurlty depoait. not
exceeding the coat of the revegetation plan Implementation. may be
required to eneure that the agreement Ie fulfllled.
Ph)'lbl aad EDnrolllDental CODStnbIts OrdI..nee RevIsIon
Hillside Standards
City CcnmdI Adopted VenAOD - Secoud ReadlDa (Z.7) - December 2, 1m
Page 22
:Jf:J'f
d. M"lnterulnce of rep"'cement tree& ehaD I1e 'the reeponell11/ltyof
'the property owner. ~ulrea repl"GeI'nen't treee eh."II I1e continl.lOlJely
1'NI1n'talned In .. healthy manner. Treee 'th..-e die within 'the flret five
yeare after Initial p1an'tlne muet I1e replaced In kind. after which a new
five year replacement perfcd ehall I1~ln. Replantlne muet occur within
W aye of notification unleee otherwlee noted.
7. Enforcement.
a. ^" tree removal ehall I1e done In accord with the approved tree
removal and replacement plan. No treee dl!:5Jenated fur coneervation
ehall I1e removed wl'thout prior approval of the City of ^ehl..nd.
11. Should the developer or developer'e aeent remove or aeetroy any
tree that he I1een deeJenated fur coneetvation. the developer may I1e
fined up to three tl~ the cun-ent approaleed value of the replacement
treee and C06t of replacement or up to three t111'1ee the cun-ent marlcet
value. ..e l!:5tal1"ehed I1y a profeeelonal ..rbor/et. whichever Ie ereater'.
c. Should the developer or developer'e aeent da~ any tree that
hae I1een deelenated for protection and coneervatlon. the developer ehall
j,e perudlzec:f $50.00 per eCar. If neceeeary. a profeeelonal "rboriet'.,
repore. prepared at the developere expenee. may be I"'et\ulrea to
determine the extent of the damaee. Should the damaee reeult In IDee
of appraleed value e~ than determined al:7ove. the hleher of the two
v"IUl!:5 ehall Pe ueed.
E. Bulldlne location and Deelen
Standarde. ^" I1ulldlnee and I1ulleUll1le
areas f'I"OPOl'&I for Hlllelde Lande ehal/ I1e
deelened and conetructed In compliance
with the foIlowine etandarde:
1. Bulldlne Envelopee. ^" newly
created tote. either I7y eul1dlvlelon or
partition. enall contain I1ulldlne
envelopes conformlne to the
foIlowine et..ndartle:
a. The I1ulldlne envelope
511.11 contain a I1ulldal1le area
with a elope of :35% or Ieee.
T(f~~~-,~
UM. Yot<<P &MIa' JtI
,.... .....P1".... I
Y~P ,'-'AIM. J..-JtIiCWtUP
C...,.~,,) I ,'L,;,.'-l'" YMP
-L \,,' J MLoIH.
C>>wrlrM.
~r ~d '-;-':)
(Mr~IC) I ~ .....ft) , _'..,.
, I _ I ......". VMo
..;....*-..~. ~.U/Ja~.f.L..-
~T It.. -T ~.o.w.
-..'-'-'..-..--...-.. .._..~
. ....,... ad EDYh__eIItIII eo.tnIIa 0rH-""V ......
HUIaide StIadarda
Clt)" CouadI Adopted V..... - Seeoad Readlac (2.7) - o-ber 2, 1m
"'23
~qr
l7. Building envelopee and lot de6l6n ehsll addreee the retention of a
percentS(fe of the lot In a natural etate a5 req,ulred In 18.62.080.6.3.
c. 6ulldlne envelopee ehall be deeigned and located to maximize tree
con5etVatlon Bfi ~ulr&:lin 18.62.o00.D.3. fwhlle l"eC06nlzlng and
following the etandarde for fuel reduction If the development Ie located
In Vv'Ildfjre Land5
d. .:,d~, ~~:.:.;-';;;"':"';;';'It:~ I.j.~'ij:~ :":;'Jildlng envelope locatlone _6"all
l7e locat&::l to avoid ridgel/ne
expo5uree. and deelgned euch
that the roofIine of a l7uilding
within the envelope doee not
project abOv'e the rldgel/ne.
~ of hlleide
charaaer .nd natunll
eIopol1yavoldlne
rWeellne
1oc8tion!l
2. 6ullding Deelgn. To reduce hlllelde dleturl7ance throU6h the uee of 610pe
re6poneive deeign technlq,uee. bullding5 on Hilleide Land5. excepting thooe land5
within the deeignated Hletoric Dletrlct. ehalllncorporate the following into the
building deeign and Indicate feature5 on required building permit5:
a. HiII5ide 6ulldlne Height. The
height of all 5tructuree ehall be
meaeured vertically from the natural
grade to the uppermoet point of the roof
&:Ige or peak. wall. parapet. maneard. or
other feature perpendicular to that
grade. Maximum Hlllelde Building Height
ehall be II ~ feet. (eee graphlce)
b. Cut bulldlnge Into h/lleldea to
reduce effective vleual bulk.
~...../
/~~
Permitted ,...;;
......../ ~~
/../ ~
/'~
(1). Split pad or etepped footlnge ehall be incorporated Into
17uildln!3 defilgn to allow the etructure to more cloeely follow the
elope.
Not
(2). Reduce bulldine ma5e by Permitted
utlllzln!3 below grade roome cut
Into the natural elope.
.....
.....
///}
c. A building eupback ehall be
required on all downhill building wall!!>
PbysIeaI _d EnvIroDllleatal CoJIIItnJIIClI Ordt-- Revision
Hillside Standards
City CoundI Adopted VenIon - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, .m
Page 24
;;''16
greater th.., 20 feet In hl!lleht. ., meaeuntd al:tove
natural erade. SUpPacke ehall be a mInImum of ebe n,.,e.
No vertJ~ walle on the downhJJ/ eJevatlone of new
l1ul/e.llnge ehall ~ a maximum height of 20 feet al10ve
natural grade. (eee graphIc)
d. ContInuoue horizontal
"ufldlng planee ehall noe exceed a
maximum length of:36 feet. Planee
loneer than :36 feet ehall Include a
minimum ~ of ebe feet. (eee
graphIc)
e. Ie:., ~mert'" 'Chat ~ forme and roof IInee for new
etructuree l1e l1roken Into
a eerlee of emaller l1ul/ding
componente to reflect the
Irregular forme of the
eurroundlne hl/lelde. l.one.
"n~r unbroken roof "nee
are dlecouraged. Large
gal:1le ende on downhill
elevatlone ~ "e
a'IOIded. however emaller
gal1lee may l1e permitted.
(eee erapJ'lIc)
...-
~~~
~
.......
--0rl8n1; Rtx:it~~
..- "'-.e-- 5Iope IlIIth Ihe ~
...- tweWe e
...-
..-
:r
f. It Ie recom-ntJt1tJed
~ of Jower~
level~ l1e ueed to
provide deck or outtJoor "pace for upper floor Ievele. The uee of
overhanel~ with vertical eupporte In exceee of 12 feet on downhlJl
elevatlone ~ l1e awltJed.
g. It Ie recom~ th~ ~~or eelectlon for new etnJctUl"t:e l1e
coordInated with the predomInant colore of the eurroundlng la1decape
to minImize contraet l1etween the etrvctut"e and the natural
environment. "Fhle 1" ~tlfelel1 5hall 8"'.'1 apply tie I'I~ clIM""ne tfl'lH;e
eet1"'''~ el'l HII/eWe ~11alI5. Ceter ael~I.eI'I NIllt"....,"."''*a ahall J,e
I"CMSMe.ll aa .. ,""",aM en"e "....,~)I. ~ler~.eI'I MlttIIM"'e11U
ehafllPe Mee,llIe.ll aa a ~an4; 8$ 1;he $I",e M filnal al:ill"'.~' "I. fer all
atf"clIl'.~alen5 a11. fHII""'el1a fer l'Ial ~5 ~ HIII"I." UlI,"'e.
~17
F. All etructuree on Hlllek:le Lande ehall have foundatlone which have j,een
dee~neel j,y an enelneet" 01" architect with demonetraj,le ec!lOtechnlcal deelen
~p~lerce. ~.-lltJf)ler1~,... d~~.1I not ocmpfete.WOt1clne.drawl~!!I witho~
ha\llne fo...rttJ.-t~or1& :4if~et.f ~ ar; ~lneer.
G. All newly creat&:llote 01" late modified j,y a lot line adJuetment muet Include a
j,ullding envelope on alllote that centalne a j,ullelaj,le area Ieee than 35% elope
of eufflcient elze to accommodate the uee5 permitted In the underlylne zone,
unleee the dlvielon 01" lot line adJuetment ie for open epace 01" coneervatlon
purpoeee.
H. Aelminletratlve Variance From Development Standarde for Hllleide Lande _
18.62.080. A variance under thle eectlon Ie not euj,ject to the variance
requlrement6 of eectlon 18.100 and may j,e granted with reepect to the
development etandarde fOl" Hlllelde Lande If all of the following clrcumetance5
are found to exlet:
1. There 16 demonetraj,le difficulty in meeting the epeclflc requlremente of
thle chapter due to a unique or unueual aepect of the elte 01" propoeeel
uee of the elte;
2. The variance will re5ult in equal or greater protection of the reeourcee
protected under thle chapter;
3. The variance Ie the minImum neceeeary to alleviate the difficulty, and
4. The variance Ie coneletent with the etateel Purpo5e and Intent of the
PhyelcaJ and Environmental Conetraint5 Chapter and eection 18.62.080.
AppeaJe of decielone Involvin~ admlnletratlve varlancee ehall be ~5eel ae outlined in
18.108.070.
18.62.090
A.
Development Standarde for Wildfire Lande.
Requiremente for 5ubdlvlelone, Performance Standarde Developmente, or
Partitione.
1. ^ Fire Prevention and Control Plan 5hall be required with the 5ubml59ion
of any application for an outline plan approval of a P Mormance
Stanaarde Development, preliminary plat of a eubdlvlelon. or application
to partition land which contained arese dee1enateel WllelfIre Hazard
areae.
2. The Staff Advioor ehall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to
the Fire Chief within 3 daye of the receipt of a completed application.
The Fire Chief 9hall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and
PbysIcal and EDvIronmeatal COII8traInts 0rdI1IIIDCe Revtsloa
Hillside StaDdards
City COUIIdI Adopted Version - Second Readiug (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 26
".. q f
eulm11t a wrIt;ten report; to the Staff ~eor no IeH than 7 ""')'5 I1<<ore
the ech~ul~ hearlne. The Fire ChlePe ~ ehalll1e a part of the
rec:ord of the Plannlne. ktIon.
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the earns !tea Ie ae the
development plane, ehalllnclude the followlne Jteme:
a. ^" anal)'!Jie of the fire hazarde on the eJte from wllc:Iflre, ae
Influenced t1y exJetlne veeetatlon anc:l topography.
11. ^ map ehowfne the areae thst are to I1e cleared of deac:l, d~ne,
or 5eVerely dlees~ vegetation.
c. ^ map of the areae that are to be thtnn~ to reduce the
tnterlocklne canopy of treee.
d. A tree man~ement plan ehowln6 the location of all treee that
are to l1e preeetved and rernovec:I on each lot. In the cee of
heavily ~ parcele, only tteee ech~u~ for removal ehalll1e
ehown.
e. The areae of Primary and Secondary Fuel 5reake that are
""'lulred to l1e Inetalled around each etructure. ae ""!.ulred t1y
18.62.090 5.
f. Roade and drlvewaye eufficlent for em8r6ency vehicle ace.,.,., and
fire euppl clSelon actlvltlee. Includln6 the elope of all ro*,e and
drlvew~ within the W1kffire Lande area.
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearfne authority ehall approve the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan when, In addition to the flndlnee ~ulred t1y
thle chapter. the ac:Ic:Iltlonal findln6 Ie mac:le that the wllc:Iflre hazar de
preeent on the property have l1een reduced to a reaeonal1le dl!l6ree.
l1alanced with the need to ~ and/or plant a eufflclent numl1er of
treee and plante for eroelon prevention, wildlife hal1ltat. and aeethetlce.
5. The hearfn6 authority may t'etiulre, thl"OtJ6h the Impoeltlon of conc:Iltlone
.-ttach~ to the approval, the followln6 ~~.,,~ .e deemed
appropriate for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of areae of heavy vegetation to l1e thinned and a
formal plan for euch thlnnlne.
11. Clearfn(f of eufflclent V8E1etatlon to reduce fuelloac:l.
c. Removal of all dead and d~ne treee.
d. Relocation of etructuree and roade to reduce the rleke of wllc:Iflre
anc:Ilmprove the chancee of eucceeeful fire euppreeelon.
6. The Fire Prevention aneI Control Plan ehall l1e implementc!:eA durine the
pul1l1c Improvernente r&{ulred of a eul1dlvlelOl1 or Performance Standarde
Development, and ""all be coneJdered part of the eubdlvlder'e oblJeatlone
for land development. The Plan ehall be Implemen~ prior to the
,"uance of any bulltJlne permit for etnJcturee to I1e ~ on Iote
c~ t1y partltlone and for eul1dlvl5lone or Performance Standarde
..,... ... ~ CoaItnIIIts ()r.III--ee ReriIIoII
HiUaicIe Stmduda
City COUDdJ Adopted V.... - SeeoM R--..., (2.7) _ n.-... 2, I",
PIle 27
~tf1
developmente not requlrlne put711c Improvemente. The Fire Chief, or
d,"lenee, ehalllnepect and approve the Implementation of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan ehall not be coneldered fully
implemented until the Fire Chief hae €lIven written notice to the Staff
Advioor that the Plan wae completed ae approved by the hearlne
authority.
7. In eubdlvielone or Performance Standarde Developmente, prov!elone for
the maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan ehall be
included In the covenante, conditione and reetrictlone for the
development, and the City of Aehland ehall t7e named ae a beneficiary of
euch covenante, reetrictlone, and conditione.
8. On Iote created by partltlone, the property owner ehall be reeponeible for
malntalnine the property In accord with the requiremente of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearlne authority.
B. Requlremente for conetructlon of all etructure6.
1. All new conetructlon and any conetruction expandine the elze of an
exletlne etructure, ehall have a "fuel break" ae defined below.
2. A "fuel break" Ie defined ae an area which ie free of dead or dyine
veeetation, and hae native, faet-burnine epeclee eufflclently thinned eo
that there Ie no InterJocklne canopy of thie twe of veeetatlon. ~ere
neceeeary for eroelon control or aeethetlc purpoeee, the fuel break may
be planted In elow-burnlne epeclee. Eetabliehment of a fuel break doee
not Involve etrlpplne the eround of all native veeetation. "Fuel Breake"
may include etructuree, and ehall not limit dletance between etructuree
and reeidencee beyond that required by other eectlone of thie title.
3. Primary Fuel Break: - A primary fuel break will be Inetalled, maintained
and ehall extend a minimum of .30 feet, or to the property line, whichever
Ie Ieee, in all dlrectione around etructuree, excludine fence6. on the
property. The eoal within thle area Ie to remove eround cover that will
produce flame lenethe In exceee of one foot. Such a fuel break ehall be
Increaeed by ten feet for each 10% Increaee In elope over 10%. Adjacent
property ownere are encouraeed to cooperate on the development of
primary fuel breake.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A eecondary fuel break will be Inetalled,
maintained and ehall extend a mlt1lmum of 100 feet b~d the primary
fuel break where eurroundlne landecape ie owned and under the control
of the property owner durlne conetruction. The eoal of the eecondary
fuel break Ie to reduce fuele eo that the overall intenelty of any wildfire
;e reduced thro~h fuele control.
5. All etructuree ehall be conetructed or re-roofed with Claee B or better
non-wood roof coverlnee, ae determined by the Oreeon Structural
Specialty Code. All re-roofIne of exIetine etructuree In the Wildfire Lande
area for which at leaet 50% of the roofIne area requiree re-roofIng ehall
Pbyskal and Envlromnenta1 CoDStnblts 0rdinaDee RevWon
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Readlag (2.7) - Deeeaaber 2, 1997
Page 28
3<'0
l1e done under approval of a zonl~ permit. No etnJctur't: ehalll1e
conetructeQ or re-roofed with wooden ehlMfflee. ehalc:ee. wood-f'I"Oduct
material or other coml1U5tll1le I"ClOfjnEl material. at') aeflned In the Cltyt')
l1ullall1(f c:orJe.
C. Fuel 11"".lc:e In arese which are a!eo Eroelve or Slope Failure Lanae ehall "e
Included In the eroelon control meaeuree outlined In eectlon 18.62.080.
D. Implementation.
1. For lana which have t1een eut1alviaed and ~ulrea to comply with A. (6)
al:7ove. all ~ulremente of the Plan ehall "e compiled with prior to the
commencement of conetnJctlon with com"uetlt1le materiale.
2. For all other etnJcturee. the v~etatlon control r&iulremente of eectlon
(6) al:1ove ehalll1e complied with "efore the commencement of
conetructlon with com"u5tll1le materiaJe on the lot. (Ord. 2657.1991)
:3. Ae of Novem"er 1. 1994. exIetll1El teelaencee In eu"dlvielone developea
outelae of the Wildfire Lande one. "ut later Included aue to
amenal11er1te to the zone t10unefariee ehall l1e exempt from the
l"eC\ulrement5 of thle zone. with the exception of eectIon 18.62.090 6.5.
al:1ove. All new reeldencee ehall comply with all etanaarae for new
conetructlon In 5eCt1on 18.62.090 B.
4. 5ut1alvielone developed outelde of the wildfire Iande zone prior to
Novem"er 1, 1994, l1ut later Included ae pare of the zone ~ary
al1'1et'ldment.ehall not "e ~ul",a to prepare or Implemerrt Fire
Prevention ana Control Plane outlined In eectIon 18.62.090 A. (Ord
2747. 1994)
18.62.100 Develo.prMnt Stanaan:l~ for Severe Conetralnt Lande.
^' Severe Conetralnt Lande are extremely t')eneltlve to development. EJradlne. fillll1(f.
or v~etatlon removal and. whenever poeel"'e. alternative development ehould "e
conelaerea.
6. Development of floodw. It') not permitted except fur ~ee and road
crQHlnEJe. Such croeell1(fe ehall t1e aeelElned to paee the 100 year flood without
ralell1El the upetream flood heieht I'I1OI"e than elx Inchee.
C. Development on lande EJreater than :351. elope ehall meet alll"eC\ulremente of
eectlon 18.62.080 In .aaltlon to the ~ulremente of thlt') eec:tlon.
D. Development of land or approval fur a p1annlnEJ action ehall t1e allowed only when
the followi"EI etudy hae "een accompllehed. An enEllneerll1El EI~lc etuc:fy
af'f'"'Ved by the Cltye Pul1l1c Worke Director ana P1annl"EI Director eetal1liehee
that the elte Ie etat11e fur the propoeea uee and devdoprnent. The etudy &hall
Include the foIlowinEJ:
1. Index map.
2. Project dtJeCriptlon to Include location. toposraphy. aralMEJe. v~etatlon.
alecueelon of prevIoue woric and dl5Cueelon of field exploration methode.
PII,pIaI.... ~ CaIIItnIaaI ()rAa~ .........
IIiUside Stmdmb
City COIIIIdI Adapted V.... - Secaad It....... (2.7) - Dec8aber Z, I",
PIle 29
a () I
3. Site ~eoloeY, "ae&:! on a eumclal eurvey, to Include elte ~eologlc map5,
deecrlptlon of "edroc~ and eumclal materlale, Includln~ artificial fill,
locatlone of any faulte, foJde, etc., and etructural data Includln~ "eddln~,
jointln~ and ehear zonee, eoll depth and eon etructure.
4. Dlecueelon of any off-elte geologic conditione 'that may po5e a potential
hazard to the 5ite, or 'that may be affected by on-elte development.
5. SUlta"iIIty of elte for propoeed development from a geologic etandpolnt.
6. Specific recomment.latlone for cut elope 5ts"lIlty, eeepaee and dralnaee
control or other deelgn criteria to mitigate geologic hazarde.
7. If deemed neceeeary by the en~lneer or geologlet to eeta""eh whether an
area to "e affected by the propoeed development Ie eta"le, additional
5tudlee and eupportlve data 5hall Include Cro5fli-eectione ehowin~
eubeurface etructure, ~raphic log5 with eu"eurface exploration, reeuite
of laboratory teet and referencee.
8. SI~nature and reeietration number of the en~lneer and/or ~eologiet.
9. Additional Information or anal~ ae neceeeary to evaluate the elte.
18.62.110 Denelty Tranefer. Denelty may be traneferred out of unbullda"le areae to "ullda"le
areae of a lot provided the following etandard5 are met:
A. Partitlone and eu"dlvielon5 involving deneity tranefer ehall "e proc~ under
Performance Standarde, Chapter 18.88 of the Aehland Municipal Code.
B. A map ehall "e eu"mltted ehowin~ the net buildable area to which the deneity
will be tranefen-ed.
C. A covenant ehall be recorded Iimitin~ development on the area from which
denelty ie tran5ferred.
D. Denelty may not be traneferred from one ownerehip to another "ut only within
the lot( e) owned by the 5ame pereon.
E. Denelty may "e traneferred only 011 contlguoue lote under common ownerehip.
F. The deneity of the builda"le area may not "e fncreaeed to more than two (2)
timee the permitted denelty of the underlying zone. Fractional unite are to be
rounded down to the next whole number. (Ord. 2528, 1989)
18.62.130 Penaltlee. The following eectione are in addition to the enforcement actlone that
may be taken and penaltiee which may be impoeed In chapter 18.112 for a violation of thie
chapter:
A. Mlenever any work Ie being done contrary to the provieiOl1e of thie chapter or
whenever eroelon control meaeuree, tree protection meaeuree, wildfire control
meaeuree, or floodplain corrk:lor development meaeuree are not bel~ properly
maintained or are not functioning properly due to faulty Inetallation or neelect, the
director of community development or the director'e deeignee, may order the work
etopp&:l "y notice in writing eerved on any pereone engaged In the doing or caueing of
Pbysical and Eaviromneatal CoastnInts OrdInance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Coundl Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1m
Page 30
jOi'-
euch werle to I1e t.IoM. and any 5UCh pereorte ehall fmmedfGely etop wort untfl
authorized by the tlfrector or tle5fen~ to pr-ocet:d with the wort.
e. All tleveIopment untIer thle chapter and all work or conetnJctlon for which a
permit Ie l"eC\ufred under thle chapter &hall be eubject to Inepectlon by the dlrectol" of
community development or the dlrectol"'e deel6nee. Y.11en an Inepection Ie made under
thle eection or when it Ie neceeeary to malee an Inepection to enforce thie cotIe, or
when the director or de5fenee hae reaeonable cauee to believe that there exfete upon
Hlllelde Lande a condition which Ie contrary to or In violation of thle chapter which
makee the premi5ee uneafe, tlan6erotJe or hazardoue, the tllrector or deel6nee may
enter the premfeee at reMOnab'e t1mee to Inepect or to perform the dut/ee Impoeed by
thl5 chapter. The d'rectol" or deel6nee ehall flret make a reaeortab'e effort to locate
the OM1er or other pereon havl"6 ch8f'Ele of the preml~ and r"eC{ueet entry.
C. The City may refuee to accept any develof"1'1l'l1t permit application, may reYOIc:e
or euepend any development or bulldl"6 permit, or may deny occupancy on the f""OPi'I'"ty
until eroelon contro, meaeuree, tree protectfon meaeuree, wildfire control meaeuree. or
floodplain corrIe.tor development rneaeLlr"ee have been 'netalled properly and are
maintained In accordance with the ~ufremente of thle chapter.
D. The owner of the ~y from which eroelon occure due to failure or n~fect of
eroelon ~ rneaeure&, together with any pereon or partlee who cauee Dueh eroeIon
ehall be re5ponelb'e to mltl6ate the Impacts of the eroelon and prevent fut....., eroelon.
~ ..... ~ CeaIentats OrM.-.ace ReriIIoa
HilIaide Staaduda
CIty CoadI ~dopted V..... - SecaDd p--.. (2.7) - Deamber 2, 1".,
PI&e 31
:303
ORDINANCE NO. ; f81
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PHYSICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS CHAPTER (CHAPTER
18.82) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE
CERTAIN SECTIONS CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.62.040.J of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
SECTION 2. Section 18.62.080.8 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed
considering the following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of
developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access
to the pad.
b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
SECTION 3. The first sentence of section 18.62.080.0.5 of the Ashland Municipal Code
is amended to read:
Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum
number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel
reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by
findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one
or more of the following conditions:
SECTION ~ Section 18.62.080.D.6.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting
plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree
planting details.
SECTION 5. Section 18.62.080.D.6.c of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
SECTION 6. Section 18.62.080.8.5.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
PAGE 1 . ORDINANCE G:\PAUl\PlANNIN~cWa.wpcI
~o4-
FlIIopeIIhaI not excled . total vertic81 height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill
elope -- not utilizing 8truc:tw.a retIrining "'all be . minimum of six feet from
the n...... property One.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) ~ the City Charter on the ~ day of November , 1998,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 17'" day of IJDvUtll ber t 1998.
~ Ai. s~
Derek D. Sevenoa jer
.4.\'~'ISIQnllo lite City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this I~ day of N.~ ba
,1998.
~~
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
R~ as to f,OIT(r.'
r (t {../. /~ -'Lt..../ ..
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2 - ORDINANCE G:VWl.RMr.'~lIeIIdnlMonlwpd
a c 6'"
Staff Exhibit B
CITY OF ASHLAND
LOCAL WETLANDS INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
& RIPARIAN CORRIDOR INVENTORY
-.
....
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Prepared for:
City of Ashland
Bill Molnar, Senior Planner
Community Development
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Prepared by:
Fishman Environmental Services
a Division of SWCA Environmental Consultants
434 NW 6th Avenue, Suite 304
Portland, Oregon 97209
July 2005
SWCA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
306
provide the most accurate inventory of wetlands inside .the Ashland urban grown
boundary.
Riparian Corridor Inventory (OAR 660-023-0090)
Riparian Corridor Definition
Goal 5 definitions:
"Riparian area" is the area adjacent to a river, lake, or stream, consisting of the area of
transition from an aquatic ecosystem to a terrestrial ecosystem.
"Riparian corridor" is a Goal 5 resource that includes the water areas, fish habitat,
adjacent riparian areas, and wetlands within the riparian area boundary.
"Riparian corridor boundary" is an imaginary line that is a certain distance upland from
the top of bank...
Riparian Corridor Methodology
The method for conducting a riparian corridor inventory is not prescribed. The Goal 5
Rule permits the application of a "Safe Harbor" setback distance to all fish bearing lakes
and streams. The standard setback is 50 feet for streams with more than 1000 cubic feet
per second (cfs) stream flow and 50 feet for fish bearing lakes and str.eams with less than
1000 cfs. The rule also lists the following resources that must be consulted when
completing the riparian corridor inventory:
· Oregon Department of Forestry stream classification maps
· USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map
· National Wetland Inventory Maps
· Oregon Department of Wildlife (ODFW) maps indicating fish habitat
· Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps
. Aerial photographs
Fishman/SWCA has prepared the riparian corridor inventory using a modified on-site
method. Time and budget constraints typically make it unfeasible to conduct an on-site
delineation of all riparian corridors in the City. Therefore, we conducted brief on-site
field visits to document vegetation and topography adjacent to streams at several
locations along each stream to determine the approximate location of the riparian
corridor. The location of the riparian corridor was hand mapped on the aerial photo base
map (photo date 2001, scale 1 inch to 300 feet). Two foot contour data and vegetation
signatures on the aerial photos were used to approximate the location of the riparian
corridor for areas that were not field verified. For areas. where permission to access was
not granted, off-site data was collected if possible by viewing the site with the use of
binoculars from adjaCent roads, parking lots or public properties. No field data was
collected for Strawberry Creek or Twin Creek since permission to access the properties
City of Ashland Local Wetlands & Riparian Corridor Inventory & Assessment, July 2005
Fishman/SWCA
Page 12
307
containing these small sections of stream was not granted, and the streams were not
visible from adjacent public roads. Field work was conducted on June 3, 4, 5, 24, 25, and
26, 2003.
Riparian summary sheets include the site name, Township, Range, and Section location,
sample plot numbers (if any), dates(s) of field work, dominant vegetation, and general
riparian corridor description. Riparian summary sheets are included in Appendix 8.
Riparian Corridor Units
Riparian corridors were mapped along all streams in the study area, which include:
o Ashland Creek
o Ashland Creek Tributary 1
o Beach Creek
o Bear Creek
o Bear Creek Tributary 1
o Cemetery Creek
o Clay Creek
o Clear Creek
o Emigrant Creek
o Fordyce Creek
o Golf Course Creek
o Hamilton Creek
o Hamilton Creek Tributaries 1 & 2
o Kitchen Creek
o Knoll Creek
o Mountain Creek
o Neil Creek
o Paradise Creek
o Paradise Creek East
o Pinecrest Creek
o Roca Creek
o Strawberry Creek
o Tolman Creek
o Twin Creek
o Wrights Creek
o Wrights Creek Tributaries 1 - 5
Determination of Significance for Riparian Corridor Areas
Significant riparian corridors mapped using the Safe Harbor criteria identified under
OAR 660-023-0090(5). The Safe Harbor criteria establish a standard setback distance
from all fish-bearing lakes and streams as follows: .
a) Along all streams with average annual stream flow greater than 1,000 cubic
. feet per second (cfs) the riparian corridor boundary shall be 75 feet upland from
the top of each bank. (Top of bank is defined by the DSL as "bankfull stage," and
in the absence of obvious tops of bank can be approximated by the two-year flood
City of Ashland Local Wetlands & Riparian Corridor Inventory & Assessment, July 2005
Fishman/SWCA
Page 13
809
elevation. Most streams in the City of Ashland have well-defmed channels and
the top of bank is in most cases easily observed in the field.)
b) Along all lakes, and fish-bearing streams with average annual stream flow less
than 1,000 cfs, the riparian corridor boundary shall be 50 feet from the top of
bank.
c) Where the riparian corridor includes all or portions of a significant wetland, the
standard distance to the riparian corridor boundary shall be measured from, and
include, the upland edge of the wetland.
d) In areas where the top of each bank is not clearly defined, or where the
predominant terrain consists of steep cliffs, local governments shall apply OAR
660-23-030 (the inventory process defmed in the subject document) rather than
apply the safe harbor provisions.
Fish-bearing streams were determined based upon ODFW StreamNet data and a map "
from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife showing stream segments where fish
presence was documented based upon ODFW observations during electroshocking and
snorkel surveys conducted in 1997 through 2000. The ODFW map identifies Ashland
Creek, Bear Creek, Emigrant Creek, Kitchen Creek, Neil Creek, and Tolman Creek as
being fish-bearing within the study area. According to the Safe Harbor criteria, a 50 foot
buffer is required adjacent to these streams.
Most of the streams in Ashland are not documented as fish-bearing, and therefore would
not be protected under the safe harbor requirements. Short sections of Clay Creek,
Hamilton Creek and Wrights Creek located downstream of the study area were mapped
as fish-bearing; however, the streams are not documented as being fish-bearing within the
study area, so a safe harbor has not been applied to these streams. The City currently
requires 10 to 20 foot buffers adjacent to all streams within the Ashland urban growth
boundary, including those that are not fish-bearing. The City of Ashland is currently
discussing alternatives for additional inventory, assessment, and regulation of riparian
corridors not addressed under the Safe Harbor.
Staff Qualifications
As required by L WI rules, technical staff qualifications are described below.
Project Manager: Daniel Stark, AICP, Natural Resource Planner I GIS Program
Manager
Responsibilities: Dan provided project management and coordination with the City of
Ashland Planning Staff, provided coordination of the GIS database development, and
assisted in preparing the Goal 5 report.
Dan Stark is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners and provides land
USe expertise and public service sector personal experience. Dan's specialties include
natural resource planning, GIS, and land use planning. Dati had more than five years
City of Ashland Local Wetlands & Riparian Corridor Inventory & Assessment, July 2005
FishmanlSWCA
Page 14
3~'1
~I~H~~r~~l~d:~~~~rr(n~:ol~!\;i'lPtion~~~_.~...:'~=.~, ~<. , ~.~~~_ =:=~:~:-., ~~_~~.::=~.._. , "".,, _~M
-:'-:]~~~
Staff Exhibit C
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Margueritte Hickman
Harris, Maria
1/2/2007 4:22:38 PM
Fwd: Re: Ashland Code Adoption
Maria -
Richard asked me to forward this email to you. This email was the Oregon State Fire Marshal's response
to Ashland's fire code ammendments that were less restrictive than the state's requirements.
Note item number 2 below where John Caul references ORS 368.039 as it relates to Ashland's
ammendment of the turn-around length.
I have reviewed the turn-around drawing dated 11/15/06 by Thornton Engineering. While this turn-around
is not required by the fire code, it could meet the requirements of the turn-around dimensions providing the
length of the turn-around is increased by 3 1/2 feet. The length of the turn-around is required to be 50'
from the centerline of the driveway. I have advised Tom Giordano of this.
If you have any questions or need further information, please let me know.
-m
Margueritte LR Hickman
Division Chief / Fire Marshal
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
541.552.2229
www.ashland.or.us
>>> "John Caul" <John.Caul@state.or.us> 11/16/059:32 AM >>>
Margueritte,
I have reviewed your draft ordinance adopting the 2003 International
Fire Code as amended by the Office of State Fire Marshal and further
amended by the City of Ashland.
I did find two areas that appeared to be in conflict with the state
adopted minimum fire code but after further review the Office of State
Fire Marshal has determined that they are not in conflict based on the
following.
1) Section 15.28.070A - the deadend length of 250 feet is ok as this
change follows ORS 368.039 which allows the fire code to be superceded.
2) Section 15.28.070E - It appears you have elected to use Section
B103.1 - Decreases of the 2004 Oregon Fire Code in your adoption to
reduce the fire flow from 1,000 gpm to 750 gpm.
On behalf of State Fire Marshal Nancy Orr, I would like to express our
appreciation for the remarkable job Ashland Fire has done in minimizing
your local amendments and in administrating the fire and life safety
standards in a consistent manner a set forth by this office.
2;/0
Please forward an adopted and signed copy of the ordinance and
amendments for our files.
John Caul, Deputy State Fire Marshal
Oregon Office of Homeland Security
Office of State Fire Marshal
Codes & Technical Services Unit
503-373-1540 x269
iohn.caul@state.or.us
cc:
Appicello, Richard
:a I (
To: The Ashland Planning Commission
From: Bonnie Brodersen, Petitioner in LUBA Case No. 2004-201 from which this
matter was voluntarily remanded to the City of Ashland
Date: January 5, 2007
Re: Planning Action #2006-01784
Subject Property: 720 Grandview
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
Pursuant to AMC 197.763(6)(a) I request a continuance of the captioned matter so
that all Assignments of Error reviewable by the Commission may be heard in one
hearing. The following is submitted in support ofthis request:
A) The Staff Report for the captioned hearing was not available for public perusal at
least seven days prior to the scheduled hearing, as required by ORS 197.763(4)(b).
(Planning staff indicated the Report may have been on the departmental computer, but no
hard copy had been made and placed in the Planning file and the Report was not made
available to the public. Planning staff stated that, in the future, all staff would be
instructed that hard copies ofthe Staff Report should be placed in the planning file.)
B) The Notice of Hearing references only one Assignment of Error: that concerning a
required Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development of the
captioned property. A copy ofthe Staff Report, made available to me on January 4,
2007, addresses other Assignments of Error, some of which are reviewable by the
Commission. However, because the Notice of Hearing does not provide notice that other
Assignments of Error will be heard (in addition to that concerning the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit), they cannot be properly brought before the
Commission at the January 9th hearing. Having received the Staff Report at this late date,
there is inadequate time before the January 9th hearing for me to prepare a response to the
other Assignments of Error addressed in the Staff Report.
C) In the interest of efficacy and efficiency the Commission should hear all reviewable
Assignments of Error in one hearing. This will also facilitate having the case heard in its
entirety at one hearing in the event of an appeal.
D) I am obligated to be in Eugene on Tuesday, January 9,2007 (the date ofthe
scheduled hearing) and, depending on weather and traffic, may not make it back to
Ashland until approximately 8:30 p.m. Prior to the agenda being finalized for the January
9th Planning Commission hearing, I asked Planning to have this matter placed on the
agenda after 8:30 p.m., which request was denied. In the event that a Continuance is not
granted, I hereby request that this matter be moved to a time after 8:30 p.m., so that I can
present oral evidence.
RECEIVED
JAN 0 5 2007
a I"
City of Ashlanc
Page Two
Planning Commission
In light of the foregoing, I respectfully request a Continuance pursuant to
ORS 197.763(6)(a).
In the alternative, I request that the record be held open for at least 7 days pursuant to
ORS 197.763(6)(b) so that I may submit further evidence concerning the request for a
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit.
1-$- -0 '1
Date
( .~~:~-_.._--_.._-"._..
-t- Bonnie Brodersen, Petitioner
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
Ashland, OR 97520
482-0180
cc: City Attorney
Mark Barthlomew
RECEIVED
JAN 0 5 LUUI
3/.3
City of Ashlanc
2 January 2007
Maria Harris, Senior Planner
Ashland Planning Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: 720 Grandview (P A2006-0 1784) - New Home
Dear Maria:
I am the owner of the flag lot (Tax Lot 411) located to the east of The McDonald's property.
Lynn and Bill McDonald have asked me to write a letter supporting their new home construction
and to allow them to pave a small portion of the comer of my property (along Grandview Drive)
for an entrance driveway.
I have no problem with this proposed paving request and will participate in an Easement
Agreement with the McDonalds when this Planning Action is finally approved. If there are any
questions, please don't hesitate to call me (482-2048).
Sincerely,
:1:07
RE~t=I\lED
,I.b "I
? .
,4..~
City of Asmanc.
o Field 0 Office 0 COUlIL}
gF(~I='\JED
'Cl
8/4
City at t\5.uanc.
o Field 0 Office 0 Caul Il)
~-,
Planning Department 51 Wint", Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-552-2050 www,ashiandor,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2006-01784
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview Dr.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynn and Bill McDonald
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints ReL'iew Permit for development in the
Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an
existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Single
Family Residential: ZONING: R-1-10: ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 1E 05 CD: TAX LOT: 500
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
-1
1-
.- T-. J ~-- Jl-~-=', . LT=:\~- ,~-
- - ---.-:A200:O~~ -l I -1 1 ' \,' \ ~. / ./
720 Grandview I .._':.-
Subject Property '_. ~_. __.~.,
'~'i---1 FERNWOOD DR_.", (
;' -~-I-~l- ~ \~ \
1-11 -I~I- -~-!-- -i 1--
/ -tt1I_. J .. i _ _J,g I
./ f - - I~ rGTNIl'E~ OR r- ..
~ ~I'-l ~j -~ I-
I :tel --1 L I
I ~~I f ---.--~ ~-\' J
--~--- ,
i
i ./ \
I -=--===_
/
~JI-..
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before
the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,
Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice, Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this
application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specifiCity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the
issue. precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the
objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues
relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specifiCity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and
will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will
be provided at reasonable cost. if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and
Engineering Services. 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have
the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a
participant so requests before the conclusion ofthe 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, feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-5305.
PHYSICAL It ENVIRON~'~TAL CONSTRAINTS 18.67 "40.1
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the
Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property
and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented
measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall.be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning
Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 Sl, 1998)
(Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040] "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
2;J~
G:\,comm-dev\planning\ Notices Mailed\2007\.2006-Q 1784 .doc
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 602
CROSS W JIP AULA P GREIST
715 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 502
HAINES LLOYD M
51 WATER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD411
HULSE BETTY JANE TRSTEE FBO
863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 405
KITZMAN DAVID M
1780 NE BEULAH
ROSEBURG, OR 97470
PA 2006-01784 391E05 1900
MONTERO LAURIE
821 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 401
VAN VLECK JON/DIANA D
869 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A#2006-0 1784
GIORDANO TOM
2635 TAKELMA WAY
Ashland, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784
THORNTON ENGINEERING
1236 DISK DRIVE
MEDFORD, OR 97504
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 402
GETZOFF HOW ARD/L YNN W
779 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD412
GOODMAN TERRY/JANIS M
409 COLLEGE ST
NEWBERG, OR 97132
Pf.200~ 01781 391E05CD 108
HULSE BETTY Jf.NE
8~3 'NRIGHTS CREEK DR
.^.SHL\ND, OR 97520
PI. 2006 01781 391E05CD 110
HULSE BETTY JANE TRSTEE FBO
863 \VRIGHTS CREEK DR
i\SHL\ND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD409
HULSE JAMES L/LINDA RAE
416 WIMER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 406
JONES RICHARD J/LElGH E
705 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 501
LOUISE NANCY
PO BOX 355
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 500
MC DONALD WILLIAM J JR ET AL
8621 OAK BRANCH AVE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 404
ROBBINS EUGENE/BONNIE L B
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 400
RUNDELL ANDREW R/VICTORIA L
545 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 403
565 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 407
705 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A#2006-0 1784
SNELLING KEN
1625 CADY ROAD
JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530
P A#2006-0 1784
TERRA SURVEY, INC.
274 FOURTH STREET
Ashland, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784
BONNIE BRODERSEN
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DRIVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
E, 17
-:\
('"
Ii ~--
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On December 20,2006 I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on
this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2006-01784 720
Grandview Drive.
ffL~
Signature of Employee
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 20th day of December, 2006.
.~
Nota Public for State of Oregon
My ommission Expires: ~ -e:?t9-CIf
Comm-Dev\Planning\ Templates
Bit
ATTN: LEGAL PUBLlCATk .5 (ANDREA)
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission, January 9, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled
to be heard.
PLANNING ACTION #2006-01784 Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the
Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an existing
driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence for the
property located at 720 Grandview Dr.
PLANNING ACTION #2006-01787 Request for Site Review approval for a two-story, mixed use building located at Russell St.,
Lot 4 of Falcon Heights Subdivision, comprised of retail and office space on the ground floor and five residential units on the
second floor. The proposed building is approximately 7,762 square feet in size. The property is located in the Detail Site
Review Zone, and is also subject to the Large Scale Development Standards.
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02354 Request for Sne Review approval to construct a two-story office building located on the
vacant parcel at the southeast comer of the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. A Variance is requested to allow a 10-
foot front yard setback where a 20-foot front yard for properties abutting arterial streets is required. An Exception to the Street
Standards is required to provide a curbside sidewalk on Glenn St.
PLANNING ACTION #2006-02357 Request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a seven-lot subdivision for the properties
located at 165 Lithia Way and 123 N. First St. Site Review approval is requested for the proposed parking lot and perimeter
landscaping. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove four trees six inches diameter at breast height and greater in size.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the aty
Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
By order of the Planning Manager
Bill Molnar
Publish: 12/28/06
Date e-mailed: 12/20/06
Purchase Order: 75772
61'1
---rr---r
635 Wrights Creek Drive
Ashland, OR 97520
December 4, 2006
City of Ashland
Planning Department
Ashland, OR '97520
I-, ,., C) f' ('u v'\ d Vi 't. I,.V
Re: McDonald Property ~ 'I ^. ~
391E5CD tax lot 500
Planning Action #2006-01784
I am hereby requesting a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission
concerning the decision of the Ashland Planning Department to issue a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the captioned property because, among
other things, the Site Plan does not comply with Ashland's Land Use Ordinances-
including Chapter 18.62 and does not comply with Oregon Statutes mandating a 50 foot
riparian setback.
~~tfuny~ ,;;-
~~~[~
Bonnie Brodersen
482-0180
-.
't~
RECEIVED
DEe 4. ',)G
e~~'.* (",f J."-~~~!~r1
Comrnul1i,y Developmllt
3:;"0
~-,
Planning Department 51 Winl I Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-552-2050 www.ashland.orus TIY 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2006-01784
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynn and Bill McDonald
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints RI~view Permit for development in the
Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the improvement and widening of a portion of an
existing driveway. regrading 01' a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-
family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TION: Single
Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP # 391E 05 CD: TAX LOT: 500.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL:
DEADLINE FOR REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING:
I
l I lm.
/'
~~,RNWOOD DB-_,~
10::: '---r \~
I~ \~
',_IW C5
'ml' '..'r ".~ _mGRANDV. fEW'OR-
I I -I~~~! ~IL-rl
_ ~L _= _~: - -(1__/ J_ _~_ _"~-
PA2006-01784
720 Grandview
Subject Property
-+-
J
The Ashland Planning Department Staff approved this request with applicable conditions on the approval date indicated above.
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 3:00 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. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above,
there will be no public testimony permitted.
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 &
Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. I
?) c-1.. !
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.
(, ClltlHll-dc\ pl:lIlnltl.~ '\jt1tICC:, r-.bilcd :(1116 =O(Jh-(lj':-;.112 I: Oh l'\1lTCcted d;.~
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMF~ .TAL CONSTRAINT...5 18.62 "'40.1
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the
Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property
and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented
measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning
Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted
development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 283451, 1998)
(Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998, Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
~~~
G:\comm-dev\planning' Notices Mailed\2006\2006-01784 12.12.06 corrected. doc
----_._.~~--- -_._--------~----------_.._- -.---
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 602
CROSS W JIP AULA P GREIST
715 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 502
HAINES LLOYD M
51 WATER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD411
HULSE BETTY JANE TRSTEE FBO
863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD405
KITZMAN DAVID M
1780 NE BEULAH
ROSEBURG, OR 97470
P A 2006-01784 391 E05 1900
MONTERO LAURIE
821 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 401
VAN VLECK JON/DIANA D
869 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A#2006-0 1784
GIORDANO TOM
2635 TAKELMA WAY
Ashland, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784
THORNTON ENGINEERING
1236 DISK DRIVE
MEDFORD, OR 97504
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 402
GETZOFF HOW ARD/L YNN W
779 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA2006-01784391E05CD412
GOODMANTERRYflANISM
409 COLLEGE ST
NEWBERG, OR 97132
PA299(; 91781 391E05CD 408
HULSE BETTY JANE
8(;3 ',''RIGHTS CREEK DR
ASIILJ\}ID, OR 97520
Pl,200(; Ql784 391EQ5CD 410
HULSE BETTY Ji\NE TRSTEE FBO
863 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
:\SHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 409
HULSE JAMES L/LINDA RAE
416 WIMER ST
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 406
JONES RICHARD J/LEIGH E
705 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 501
LOUISE NANCY
PO BOX 355
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 500
MC DONALD WILLIAM J JR ET AL
8621 OAK BRANCH AVE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93311
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 404
ROBBINS EUGENE/BONNIE L B
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA 2006-01784 391E05CD 400
RUNDELL ANDREW R/VICTORIA L
545 WRIGHTS CREEK RD
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 403
565 WRIGHTS CREEK DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784 391 E05CD 407
705 GRANDVIEW DR
ASHLAND, OR 97520
P A#2006-0 1784
SNELLING KEN
1625 CADY ROAD
JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530
P A#2006-0 1784
TERRA SURVEY, INe.
274 FOURTH STREET
Ashland, OR 97520
P A 2006-01784
BONNIE BRODERSEN
635 WRIGHTS CREEK DRIVE
ASHLAND, OR 97520
O~1
\ JP.
\~ ~V-
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON
County of Jackson
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On November 22.2006, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Public Meeting
Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set
forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2006-01784. 720
Grandview Dr.
~*2 JcJAL/~"h
Sign re of Employee
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 22 day of November, 2006.
!-.," H"_
~'..,IAL SEAL
, . r\ BOSWELL
'./ '~OTAR'V PUBLlC-OREGON
. . . COMMISSION NO, 391525
MY CC:I\f!~IS.~ION EXiJ!RES APR. 07, 2009
"'""'"~>'<\'''',:il~y<~""",
~
Notary Public for State of Oregon /\9
My Commission Expires: cf-7-u
3~~
G:\comm-{jevlplanning\Forms & HandoutslAFFIDAVIT OF MAILlNG.doc
. .
'~.1I .
~ -a ~ Planning Deparbnent
C IT Y 0 F 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
:,..:.... .,'-'
PLANNING APPLICATION
File# fA - }JJti"-d78'-!
Date Received
9-S-0~
Type 5f-a. -PI;
Filing Fee $ -e-
iJ,,", 1-~ .
/~ (Yl.tVUA....
pRA
,
o
Zoning
Comp Plan Designation
Minor Land Partition Outline Plan (# Units) Zone Change
Variance Final Plan Comp Plan Change
Conditional Use Permit Site Review Staff Permit
Boundary Line Annexation Solar Waiver
APPLICATION IS FOR:
Application pertains to
(chapter, section, subpart)
of the Ashland Municipal Code.
APPLICANT E-Mail
Name j.:(~ 14 ~ ~\LL Me... \2)N,AlO Phone (for e-mailingStaffReport)
~,c- cA. ~~?11
Address BG.?~\ ~ 15~~ 1JtV:J CitY~~J Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name ~
Phone
Address
City
Zip
SUVEYO~ ENGINEE~ ARCmTECT~ LANDSCAPE ARCmTECT ~\
Name ~ 6 \Of<-~. Phone
Address 2lo3t::J \:U<~ ooy cit~'D zi~'::::JI5C6
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address 3~ <2t~\') Vl bL<J
Assessor's Map No. 39 laJ~Ctl Tax Lot(s) ~
On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of the property 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 >>
3 :JS"
G:\comm-dev\p1anninglFonns & Handouts\P1anning Application Form.doc
'-" "'-
\.)....
( "
\ .~.
FINDINGS OF FACT
0~
\.jl
Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and
enclose i~ 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 findings criteria and the
evidence that suooorts 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) that the findings offact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that !ill structures or improvements are properly located o.n 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 re~ce thereon being required to be removed at my
expense. If I have any doubts, I am a . sed to seek competent professional advice and
assistance. '. / ,/
,,/
...,....
Applicant's Signature
""
/"
""
",,""
..//...
/
Date
As owner of t
application all
erty i olved in this request, I have read and understood the complete
quences to me as a property owner.
Date
NOTICE: Section J 5.04.240 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. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or
disconnection of utilities.
G:lconun-devlplanninglForms & HandoulsIPlanning Application Fonn.doc
3 ;<'-
FINDINGS OF FACT
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 findings criteria and the
evidence that SUDDorts 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) that the 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 have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and
-l ~:i::~~ W"' \ . A ~ ~~
I' ~l~t's Signature ~ f"t
q~6 - ZIirio
Date
As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete
application and its consequences to m;n:roperty owner. _
i~~J W~0 . ~JJ J. Q-6, 1ffi(p
er' "Signature { rf 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. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or
disconnection of utilities.
G:ltonun-dev\planninglFonns 8< HandoUlSIPlanning Application Fonn.doc
8:J.;
RECEIVED
NUV 2 0 2006
ARCH ITECTU RE
LAND PLANNING
C' ";' . 'Y^~1
Commu;'ii~~1 Dev;)lopment
PROJECT NARRATIVE/FINDINGS
8 SEPTEMBER 2006
PROJECT NAME: McDonald Residence
TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: - A request for a Site Review (Chapter 18.72), Physical
and Environmental Constraints Review Permit(Chapter 18.62) and a Tree Removal Review
Permit (Chapter 18.61) for a proposed residence in the single family zone district (Chapter
18.20).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Lynn and Bill McDonald
8621 Oak Branch Ave.
Bakersfield, CA. 93311
Tel: 661-665-2111
AGENT:
Tom Giordano, Planner/Architect
2635 Takelma Way
Ashland, OR. 97520
Tel: 541-482-9193
BUILDING DESIGNER:
Ken Snelling
1625 Cady Road
Jacksonville, OR. 97520
541-899-2925
SURVEYOR:
Terra Survey, Inc.
274 Fourth Street
Ashland, OR. 97520
541-482-6474
1
3;( ~
2635 Takelma Way, Ashland, OR 97520 . Phone and Fax (541) 482-9193 . E-Mail tomarch@charter.net
RECEIVED
CIVIL ENGINEER:
Thornton Engineering
1236 Disk Drive
Medford, OR. 97504
541-857-0864
NUv 2 0 2006
c:-" Cl,~'.;;~"""1
Commw;ii(y'Devalopmert
PROJECT ADDRESS:
720 Grandview
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
39-IE-5CD Tax Lot 500
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential, (10,000 S.F. Lots)
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-I-I0
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Area of property
Lot 500
.54 acres (23,522 S.F.)
BACKGROUND:
In 1979, Tax Lot 500 was divided into three parcels (PA-79-11O), see Minor Land Partition Map.
Lot 501 remained outside the city limits but within the city's Urban Growth Boundary (DGB).
This parcel has a county zone designation ofRR-5, which allows for one residential unit per five
acres. Lots 500 and 502 are within the city limits and zoned R-I-lO, which allows 10,000 S.F.
Lots.
The owner of Tax Lot 500 submitted an application for a new residence on February 18,2004.
A Building Permit was issued on October 20,2004. In November 2004, Bonnie Brodersen, a
neighbor, appealed the issuance of the building permit to the city's Planning Commission
without success. The neighbor then appealed the application to the State Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA). LUBA remanded the appeal back to the city to address and resolve each ofthe
assignments of error.
Both the Ashland City Attorney, Mike Franell, and the applicant's attorney, Mark Bartholomew,
have determined that the 1979 application for a minor Land Partition and Variance for lot depth
was created legally, see attached memo and letter. Except for lot depth, the current application
for a Residential Building Permit, in regard to the general regulations of the zone designation
2
3:<1
(Chapter 18.20.040) will be reviewed by the City for current compliance. Further, a Physical
and Environmental Permit (Chapter 18.62) will be reviewed for the area adjacent to the creek in
the southwest comer of the lot as well as a Tree Removal Permit (Chapter 18.61) for the three
existing on-site trees. Although the Land Use Ordinance is unclear to whether a single family
home building permit requires a Site Review (Chapter 18.72), the applicant is also providing
these Findings.
The applicant and prior owners of Tax Lot 500 have gained access across the comer of the
parcel to the east, see Site Plan. A formal easement agreement does not exist, therefore, the
applicant has requested an easement from this neighbor.
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Land Use -
Originally the development pattern of the property was large undeveloped land with some
agriculture uses. Over the years this land has been partitioned and subdivided into residential
tracts. The present lot sizes in the neighborhood (within city limits) average about 10,000 S.F.!
.25 acres per lot, see Parcel Map. Most of these existing lots have residences, see aerial
photograph.
Land Use and zoning immediately adjacent to the subject property is as follows:
North - Vacant (TL 502), zoned R-I-lO
South - Grandview Street, creek drainage and single family residence, zoned R-I-I0
East - Vacant and single family residence, zoned R-I-10
West - Single family residence, zoned RR-5 (County)
The subject property is zoned R-1-1O which allows single family homes at 10,000 S.F. per lot.
The allowable density for this property under the Performance Standards Option (Chapter 18.88)
is one dwelling unit (2.4 x .54 = 1.29), or two dwelling units under Chapter 18.20.
Physical Characteristics -
The subject property slopes down (to the west) approximately 12.5%, see Survey, Topographic
Map. There are no structures on the property; however, there is one structure on Lot50 1. There
are three trees on the property. These trees are two dead poplars and a cluster of small plum
trees. A branch of Wright's Creek Channel and riparian vegetation is located off the property to
the south, see Site Plan and Survey Topographic Map.
RECEIVED
NUV 2 0 2006
3
C">, r:' ;~."l'~";,,1
Cor.~~~uni,y Development
a 50
Utility and access to property-
Lot 500 is accessed by Grandview Drive (83.82 feet of frontage) on the south. In this location,
Grandview is an unimproved gravel road. A 10 foot wide public utility easement is located on
the west boundary of the existing parcel. City utilities are located within the Grandview ROW,
see Survey Map. An access easement to Lot 501 is located along the south property line, see
Site Plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Request -
The applicant desires to construct a 3,273 S.F. (Two Story) single family home and 648 S.F.
garage. The City Attorney has determined that the original partition is legal, see Background
section above; therefore, the applicant is requesting review of the Physical/Environment
Constraints Permit (Chapter 18.62) and the Tree Preservation, Protection and Removal Permit
(Chapter 18.61). Information regarding this review is discussed in the Findings of this document
and shown on the Site, Survey and Civil Plans. In addition, the applicant will show compliance
with the Zoning Chapter 18.20, the Solar Standards (Chapter 18.70) and Site Review (Chapter
18.72) for the proposed home. The lot has direct frontage on Grandview Drive.
Street Improvements! Access -
The subject property is accessed from Grandview Drive. This street has an existing a 47
serpentine ROW, see Site Plan and Surveyor's Map. All new on-site driveways will be less than
15% grade and comply, in general, with the Flag Lot Partition Standards of Chapter 18.76.060
and the City's Fire Code requirements. The length and thickness of each driveway will vary.
There is sufficient area on TL's 500 and 501 to allow easy turning without having to back out on
a city street, see Civil Site Plan.
FINDINGS:
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 18.20
Residential District
The permitted use for the R-I-lO Zone District is a single family residence at 10,000 S.F. per
dwelling unit. The lot size is .54 acres which would allow one dwelling unit (2.4 x .54 = 1.29)
under the Performance Standards Option (Chapter 18.88) or two dwelling units under the
minimum lot size (23,522 S.F. divided by 10,000 = 2) allowed by Chapter 18.20.040. The
applicant is proposing one single family residence.
RECEIVED
4
331
I~ln 2 0 2006
c: . c '. : "~ 1
COr.1L,W,..;' D8,'.:opment
The minimum lot width for the R-l-l 0 Zone District is 75 feet. The existing lot is 84.35 feet,
see Site Plan. The maximum lot depth is 150 feet. The existing lot is 275 feet; however, a
variance was approved along with the minor land partition which allowed the lot depth to exceed
the 150 foot length.
As shown on the applicant's Site Plan (sheet 1), the front and rear setbacks (15 foot and 10 foot
per story, respectively) meet or exceed the requirements of this residential zone. The side yard
setback is six feet. The Site Plan shows a trellis on the north side yard boundary within the six
foot setback. This trellis will be removed from the drawings. The side yard setback on the south
boundary exceeds the six foot setback. The maximum building height allowed is 35 feet or two
and one-half stories in height, whichever is less. The applicant's west and south Exterior
Elevations did not show the building height; however, when these elevations are measured, the
height is approximately 28 feet which is far less than the maximum requirement of 35 feet. The
height is measured from finish grade to the midpoint of a sloping roof. Further, the proposed
home is two stories an therefore less than the 2 1f2 story maximum requirement.
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 15
Fire Safety
It is the applicant's belief that the access driveway is not required to meet the standards of a Flag
Partition (Chapter 18.76.060) because the partition and variance was approved in 1979, see City
Attorney Letter; however, the applicant will comply with these standards and certain
requirements of the City of Ashland's Fire Department and Fire Code (Chapter 15). These
requirements are:
1) A fire fuel break
2) Driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access, and
3) Amount of water and pressure of other fire suppression system to control fires.
Fuel Break
As mentioned in the Site Description, the site has no trees except the two dead poplars and the
plum. The two poplar trees will be removed, see Tree Removal Permit and recommended plant
list. These trees will be replaced with city recommended ornamental and native trees and
shrubs. The existing grasses and ground cover will be either replaced by suitable plantings or
mowed to reduce flame lengths to less than one foot high.
The proposed roof for the new home is a metal standing seam which is approved for high fire
areas.
RECEf\JED
5
Nuv 2 0 "
aa~
r:: . ~,./ .f.. ;,r"..~
Corrii'''~~;, DU>'8iopment
Driveways
The Civil Site Plan includes notes and dimensions that specify that the driveway will have a 15
foot wide clear area, except for ground cover, with a 12 foot wide all weather surface (capable of
supporting a 44,000 pound vehicle). Further, where the driveway enters the property and shares
the driveway to TL 500, the combined driveways (all less than a 15% grade) will have a 20 foot
wide "clear area" and a 15 foot wide all weather surface. Two address signs will be located at
the entrance to the lot.
The 12 foot wide driveway connects to a fire turn-around which is approximately 110 feet from
the entrance of the property. The fire turn-around is located in front of the retaining wall, see
Civil Site Plan. The turn-around will have a surface capable of supporting 44.000 pounds. The
turn-around is within 150 feet of the farthest comer of the house/garage, see Civil Site Plan.
The applicant will also provide a residential automatic fire sprinkler system instead of providing
a "fire work area" and because the height of the house may exceed 24 feet in some locations.
Also, no gate is proposed, therefore, a "knox box" will not be necessary.
Access to a Fire Hydrant
The nearest fire hydrant is located at the north west comer of Grandview and Wrights Creek
Streets. It is approximately 500 feet from this intersection to the begining of the 12 foot, on-site
driveway, see Civil Drawings. This distance is less than the 600 foot maximum allowed by the
Fire Department.
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 18.70
Solar Access
As shown on the applicant's West Exterior Elevation (sheet 5) and calculations, the proposed
house is in compliance with the Solar Access Ordinance.
COMPLIANCE with CHAPTER 18.62
Physical and Environmental Constraints
There are two sections in this Chapter that apply to the proposed project. These sections are
Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands (Chapter 18.62.075) and Development
Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands (Chapter 18.62.070). A Physical and Environmental
Constraints Permit can be issued when the following criteria have been addressed by the
applicant:
1) That the development will not cause damage or hazard to persons or property upon
or adjacent to the area of development. RECEIVED
6
33~
Nuv 2 0
c.' c.:; ",<..,t'~-',:""'1
Comr.-"..;_;!" [:'j"siopment
2) That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may
create and implemented reasonable measures to mitigate the potential hazards
caused by the development.
3) That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reverse the adverse impact on
the environment. I"eversible actions shall be considered more seriously than
reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the
existing development of the su"ounding area, and the maximum permitted by the
Land Use Ordinance.
4) That the development is in compliance with the requirements of the Chapter and all
other applicable City Ordinances and Codes.
The Surveyor's Map shows the location of the top of Creek Bank (TOCB). The TOCB is
located on a small portion of the subject property, in the south west comer. The TOCB is also
located along the ROW of Grandview Drive. The normal City setback requirement from the
TOCB is 20 feet. The 20 foot setback would be planted with riparian vegetation. This 20 foot
wide buffer would be difficult, if not impossible due to current location of the existing roadway
and easement to Tax Lot 501, see Surveyor's Map.
The Civil Engineer's drawing shows the location of the proposed driveway (to both TL 500 and
501). Because of the existing easement agreement between TL 500 and 501, much of the
proposed driveway is in the 20 foot setback from the top of the creek bank. It is the intent of the
Civil Engineer, to minimize adverse impacts of the Creek Channel; therefore, the following
measures are shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan:
1) Drainage will be directed under ground along the west boundary of the subject property and
empty into the creek channel. Large rocks (energy dissipater) will be located at the end of the
drainage pipe to slow the water and prevent erosion, see Drainage and Grading Plan.
2) As shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan, the 12 foot wide paved portion of the driveway
is located as far away from the TOCB as possible. This will allow for an eight foot wide buffer
area between the paved area and TOCB. This area will be planted in riparian ground cover and
shrubs which will assist in screening possible pollutants from entering the creek.
3) Further, the applicant will utilize permeable asphalt for the driveway surface to both control
drainage as well as filter possible pollutants through the driveway base (sand and gravel).
Chapter 18.62.050 (A) classify flood plain lands as all areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance)
of any creek designated for riparian preservation and depicted on such maps adopted by the city
council. As mentioned above, the TOCB was located by the Surveyor along th~q.yv Sf
REC....,V....D
7
NUv 2 0
;3,+
f'-' . ~: , ~ . '<, ..,'....:;
Cor"" ".i ; UU\ ';;;opment
Grandview Drive and within the subject property. Portions of both the existing gravel paved
Grandview Drive and proposed asphalt paved private driveway are within the 20 foot setback.
To minimize adverse impacts caused by fill material, the applicant will conform to the standards
listed in Section 18.62.070 (A) as well as the development standards for riparian preservation
lands, see Civil Drawings.
It is the applicant's belief that the above measures will not cause either damage or hazard to
persons or property and mitigate the potential hazards and possible adverse impacts to the creek
environment. As stated above, in compliance with the residential district findings and the
Background section of this narrative, the proposed single family residence is in compliance with
the requirements of this chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes.
In addition, the following grading/drainage and erosion control measures are recommended:
Drainage and Erosion Control - Where new vegetation is incorporated as part of the erosion
control strategy, a temporary and/or permanent irrigation system will be provided to guarantee
the establishment of vegetation.
General erosion and sediment control
Grading of the driveway and the revegetation will take place prior to fall rains.
a. Only grade where necessary
b. Preserve and protect existing vegetation wherever possible
c. InstalVapply bank stabilization measure well in advance for fall rains.
All slopes created as a result of grading to be planted with ground covers and grasses.
a. Fill slopes not to exceed 3: 1
b. Cut slopes that exceed 2: 1 to be hydro seeded and interplanted with ground
cover.
Where it is necessary to create slopes along road construction exceeding 50%, storm
flows above the slope will be directed away from the top of the slope to a point where
more gradual slopes allow for controlled traversing into drainage systems.
a. Cut slopes exceeding 75% use pinned mats and hydro seeding as stabilization
measure.
b. Stabilize existing and proposed drainage ways
Existing drainage ways must be protected during construction. Silt fences can be used to
keep sediments out of the system along with hay bales.
HECi:.J\,ED
8
33S-
NUV 2 0
CO!~ "', ....)\.~'0i')ment
A combination of a "V" ditch and underground drainage pipes will convey the runoff
down the proposed private drive. A Detail Drainage Plan is provided by the Civil
Engineer.
Further, energy dissipaters such as large rocks will be placed in front of the drainage
channels/pipes prior to the water entering Wrights Creek.
RECEIVED
I~ U v 2 0
COMPLIANCE with (CHAPTER 18.61.080)
Tree Removal Permit
CO"li.'~ii '/:;>' 'upment
An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are
satisfied.
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 18.62.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval 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 proposedfor 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
9
33"
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 criteria 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.
The Site Plan and Survey Map shows the location of the two dead poplar trees (to be removed)
and plum tree which will be saved. These are the only trees on-site.
HAZARD TREES
#1
#2
10"
10"
15 Dia.
12 Dia.
Populus, Cottonwood
Populus, Cottonwood
The hazard trees listed above are considered by the City as a hazard tree and prohibited from use
as a street tree. Roots of these type of trees can be easily damaged by construction which cause
entry for bacteria and disease. Further, these trees can drop limbs periodically through out their
life span. Most importantly, however, these two trees are dead, see photograph.
RECEIVED
NON-HAZARD TREES
None.
l~ U V 2 0
Protection of Existin~ and Proposed Trees
.' ".. ~.. ..'-.~ ""-'""'1
Corm,',v '. '-I"" Q,opment
A. Landscape adjacent to the project area shall be protected from damage. No storage of
equipment or materials shall occur within drip lines of trees to be preserved which are those
identified on this plan. All damage caused by construction to existing trees shall be
10
331
compensated for, before the project will be considered completed.
B. Trees that are shown on the plans to remain shall be protected with fencing as shown on
plans. Fencing shall be 6' tall temporary orange fencing panels installed with metal connections
so that all panels area integrated, these fences shall be installed so that it does not allow passage
of pedestrians and/or vehicles through it.
C. Exceptions to the tree protection specifications may only be granted in extraordinary
circumstances with written approval from owner's representative.
D. Pieces of work that will require disturbance of tree protection fences include the following:
1) When tree roots over 2" are cut due to required site work, cut cleanly at a 90-degree angle to
the root.
2) Place damp soil around all cut roots to a depth equaling the exiting finish grade within 4
hours of cuts being made.
F. Do not raise the soil level within the drip lines of existing trees to achieve possible drainage,
except to match grades with sidewalks and curbs, and in those areas, feather the added topsoil
back to existing grade at an approximately 3: 1 slope.
G. Inspection schedule:
1) Fencing locations and installation technique shall be approved by owner's representative
before demolition or rough grading begins.
2) Routine inspections of fencing and site conditions will occur on a weekly basis, work shall
cease if fencing is damaged or moved without written prior approval for specific parts of work.
3) At completion of project to determine ultimate condition of trees.
4) To determine further measure to ensure tree survival or replacement at end of project.
5) If needed, an Arborist, will be retained by the applicant to insure compliance with the above
measures. The Arborist can also be available to recommend additional protection measures,
such as root pruning and fertilization, during the construction of the driveway and homes.
The applicant is also recommending the following plant list to be considered in the replanting of
the site:
Fire Resistant and Retardant Plant List -
Fire resistant and retardant plant list adapted from:
"A Homeowners Guide to Fire and Watershed Management at the chaparral/urban
interface"
"Western Gardening Book"
"Defensible Space"
"Planning for Survival"
RECEIVED
Groundcovers -
NUV 2 0
Achillea tormentosa W ooly Yarrow
Arctostaphylos uva ursi Bearberry
C''''f" r"'.' ",...::~,,:t.'.':-"':~
Cor,'ir".,: ,; D~\ ~:ivpment
11
~~~
Baccharis pilularis Twin Peaks Coyote Bush
Mahonia nervosa Oregon Grape
Cistus spp Rock Rose
Vinca maior and minor Periwinkle
Ceanothus gloriosus 'Point Reyes' Point Reyes Ceanothus
Aiuga reptens Carpet Bugle
Hemerocallis Day Lily
lrisspp
RECEIVED
MJY 2 0
Shrubs and Small Trees -
,-,..!;
Co;-,',,, "'" ,,,' UU\ ::.;opment
Amelanchier ssp Serviceberry
Hamamelis spp Witchhazel
Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel
Rhododendron spp Rhododendron
Rhus spp Sumac
Ribes spp Currant
Trees -
Acer sacharum Sugar Maple "Green Mountain"
Betula papyfifera Paper Birch
Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry
Gleditsia triacanthos Honeylocust
Ouercus clnysolepis Canyon Live Oak
Robinea psuedoacacia Black Locust
COMPLIANCE with (CHAPTER 18.72)
Site Review
The Planning StafI/Planning Commission can approve a Site Review when the following criteria
have been addressed:
A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development
The above Narrative and Findings address the applicable city ordinances regarding the proposed
house. The applicant, however, believes the Site Design and Use Standards were not intended
for a single family home on a single lot but were for a multi-family performance standard,
12
2;31
employment, commercial and industrial type developments. In fact, page 13 to 16 of the Site
Design and Use Standards only address design guidelines for multi-family residential
development and there are no single family guidelines. However, Chapter 18.72.040 (B) does
mention that a Type 1 procedure approval is necessary for all new structures or additions greater
than 2,500 S.F. except for developments included in section 18.72.040 (A); therefore, the
applicant will provide the findings. Also see above findings regarding compliance with all other
applicable city ordinances and codes.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
See Project Description in narrative and the information below.
The applicant is providing a written Narrative and Findings as well as a Site Plan, Civil
Engineering Plans, Topographic Survey, Aerial Photograph, Parcel Map, photographs of the site
and Building Elevations drawings. This information is provided in the Application Package and
addresses the submittal requirements of Chapter
18.72.060.
The Landscape Standards of Chapter 18.72.110 requires a minimum of 45% of the total
developed lot to be landscaped. The applicant is providing a minimum of 55 percent.
The applicant will locate a trash/recycle area within the garage and/or parking area. This area
will be screened from view. Covered bicycle parking areas are provided in the garage. All site
and building lighting will be directed away from adjacent properties. Also, see the approval
standards below.
C The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
the implementation of this Chapter.
B. Multi-Family Development
As mentioned above, the approval standards are for multi-family residential development;
however, the applicant will respond to these standards where applicable.
Approval Standards: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the following
design standards:
ll-B-l) Orientation
Il-B-la) Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street when they
are within 20 to 30 feet of the street.
Il-B-l b) Buildings shall be set back from the street according to ordinance requir~f!I~h
13 i I
~~'O
I~ ij Ii L G
t ....~
CO,"i!i;"
.,"~\ .,vpment
is usually 20 feet.
Il-B-Ic) Buildings shall be accessedfrom the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall not
be located between buildings and the street.
The proposed house is oriented toward Grandview Drive. The proposed setback is 175 feet
which is greater than the 15 foot minimum (or 20 feet for garages). The guest parking area (one
space required) is located behind the house at the end ofthe driveway, see Site and Civil Plans.
ll-B-2) Streetscape
Il-B-2a) One street tree for each 30 feet of frontage, chosen from the street tree list, shall be
placed on that portion of development paralleling the street. Where the size of the project
dictates an interior circulation street pattern, a similar streetscape with street trees is required.
II-B-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in residential neighborhoods,
with appropriate changes to decrease water use.
There is approximately 84 feet of frontage on Grandview Drive. The applicant will provide
three trees (one per 30 feet) along this frontage. These trees will be native riparian types since
this location is adjacent to the drainage channel.
ll-B-3) Landscaping
II-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one year of
installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years.
II-B-3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and
shrubs andfloweringplant species well adapted to the local climate.
II-B-3c) As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably feasible.
II-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least 10 feet in
width.
II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be
adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses.
II-B-3j) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. Refer to parking lot
landscaping and screening standards for more detail.
Upon approval of the landuse action, and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant
will submit a Landscape Plan. The Landscape/Irrigation Plan will conform to the above
RECEIVED
14
'J tf \
J~,j ~ 2
,. ..,,,r
C(j'"":. i .J" ,.~,;)ment
findings. The above Tree RemovallProtection Plan addresses the existing trees. Also, the
suggested plant list, above, can be used. The applicant intends to utilize as many native plants as
possible and locate these plants in appropriate locations to encourage healthy plant development,
to utilize natural climate control, and to enhance suitable plant communities.
ll-B-4) Open Space
II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for
recreation for use by the tenants of the development.
II-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other groung covers which do not provide a
suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this requirement.
II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for
children are requiredfor projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to indudefamilies.
The applicant is providing most of the site for private recreation openspace. The private
recreation/openspace areas include the front porches, patios, and second story decks. The
common openspace requirement for tenants is not applicable.
ll-B-5) Natural climate control
II-B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the
south sides ofbuildings which are occupied and have glazingfor summer shade and winter
warmth.
See Finding II-B-3, above.
ll-B-6) Building materials:
II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area.
Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are
unacceptable.
The materials used for the proposed home are shown on the Exterior Elevations. These
materials are indicative of a craftsman style.
The colors selected by the applicant (body, trim and windows) will be earth tones. Sample
materials and colors will be presented to the city planning staff for review and approval prior to
receiving a Building Permit.
RECEIVED
15
i~ U v 2 (;
?;~2
C",~..
c'" >~'pment
RL.~.It~,I\/ED
:\1
" r
t' U
, ._.1
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
Cc',":;'
,,'::J;jment
APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be
required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the
recommended list of street trees found in this section.
lI-E-l}
Location for Street Trees
Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated
planting strip in the right of-way, or the sidewalk is greater shall include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of community
Development.
1I-E-2}
Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
1) All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such
as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as
follows:
Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees
shall be evenly spaced, with variation to the spacing permitted for specific sit limitations,
such as driveway approaches.
b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of
streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the
back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for
public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to
any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 ~ feet from the face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not
interfere with those lines.
.f) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however,
larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root
16
3~.3
system and add to the hearth of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface
may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on
sand, or paver blocks.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above
sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces.
h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the
development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and
elevation may be utilized to save existing trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-3)
Replacement of Street Trees
1) Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with
those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species
similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-4)
Recommended Street Trees
1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
The above approval standards (II-B-1 to II-B-6) also address these standards.
D. The adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
The Civil Engineering Drawings show the existing and proposed utility lines that connect the
proposed home to the city services in the ROW of Grandview Drive. This ROW is 47 foot wide.
Paved access on Grandview Drive is neither necessary or desirable because: 1. the existing
gravel road has a 10% or less slope and therefore for public works standards does not need to be
surfaced with asphalt, 2. a gravel surface will minimize runoff into the creek environment, 3. the
gravel road is capable of supporting emergency vehicles (44,00 pounds) and 4. paving of the
road would necessitate land acquisition of neighboring properties along Grandview Drive to
accommodate the serpentine ROW, see Survey Map. Also see Physical Constraints Findings
above.
The proposed home would only generate ten more vehicle trips per day which is insignificant
even when the five possible and existing homes using Grandview are added (60 vehicle trips per
day total).
BECEI\/ED
17
~ t+4-
" '
1:'
r- ,^',
l ,:
'- ..~
C""
, '
, ,~, ",' ,ji)!':lent
CITY OF
7l\SHLAND
Memo
RECEIVED
If P b
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
July 11, 2006
Bill Molnar
C~tv tf ft~~:i1f~~r;i
Commur.itj Deve;opment
Michael W. Franell
RE:
July 11, 2006
-=ffQ
Bonnie Brodersen appealed the issuance of a Building Permit for the property located atSiOiJ
Grandview Drive, Ashland, Oregon. One of the grounds stated for her appeal was a
contention that lot on which the residence was to be built was illegally created when it was
partitioned in 1979. In support of her contention, Ms. Brodersen cites ALUO 18.20.040 as
prescribing a maximum lot depth of 150 feet, ALUO 18.08.770, which defines "Subdivide
Land," and ALUO 18.08.540, which defines "Partition." Ms. Brodersen contends that the
variance to the maximum lot depth was only available for subdivisions and was not available
for lots created through the minor partition of land. You have asked that I review and render
an opinion as to whether the lot was legally created.
In order to determine the applicable regulations to the partition, it is necessary to determine
when the application for partition was filed. By cover letter dated, August 17,1979, attorney
Glenn Munsell submitted the application for partition and variance to the maximum lot depth
requirements. (Attachment #1). The application was received by the City of Ashland Planning
Department on August 20, 1979. The application cites the applicable design standards as set
forth in Chapter 17.08 of the subdivision ordinance. The Ashland Planning Commission
granted the variance and the partition application on September 14,1979. (Attachment #2).
No appeal was filed to the action granting the variance and partition.
Contrary to Ms. Brodersen's contention that the applicable standards were set forth i~ ALUO
18.20.040,18.08.770 and 18.08.540, the applicable provisions were found in Title 17 of the
Ashland Municipal Code. (Attachment #3). The provisions cited by Ms. Brodersen were .
enacted by Ordinance No. 2052, which the City passed on second reading on December 18,
1979 and which became effective 'January 17,1980. (Attachment #4). AMC 17.04.02
provided:
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
3*~
Michael W. FraneU, City Attomey
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney JA1
Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Mgr. ... ... ..... ..
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary .
17.04.020 Scope of Reaulations. Subdivision plats, minor land partitioning,
and streets and ways created for the purpose of partitioning land shall be
approved by the planning commission in accordance wit these regulations. No
person shall subdivide land, partition land by creation of a street or way, or
engage in minor land partitioning without complying with this title and state law.
AMC 17.08.040A provided the relevant lot size and shape standards, including the 150 feet
maximum lot depth standard. Chapter 17.16 contained the procedure and conditions for
granting minor land partition approval. Chapter 17.32 contained the provisions for granting
variances to the standards in Title 17. In particular, section 17.32.020 provided in relevant
part:
17.32.020 Variance - Application. When necessary, the planning commission
may authorize conditional variances to the requirements of this title. ...
Since the application was subject to the procedure and conditions of approval set forth in Title
17 of the Ashland Municipal Code. And since the minor partition conditions were contained
within Title 17, it was proper for a variance to be filed and considered to the maximum lot
depth requirement. The planning commission decided in favor of granting the variance. There
were not any timely appeals decided to the decision. Therefore,' it is the opinion of the legal
department that pursuant to AMC 17.32.020 the planning commission had the authority to
consider a variance to the maximum lot depth requirements set forth in 17.08.040A. The
planning commission considered the variance and determined it met the relevant criteria.
Therefore, the partition lot was legally created.
RECEIVED
~ ~
.,
','
~:.':; / l'.f: :',~j(i
Comrnunity Development
E Lt6
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
Beth Lori, Assistant City Attorney IAI
Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Mgr.
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary . .., . '. ,.. .... .
JH1~-1l-C:U'JO Wl::.U !u;'+'l Hl'I I1vlXti H1IUt<:.1~t:Y" H! LHW
1
i ~ I~T-
~i' L
~
"
I~,t~
\ .j.S rlll;lli
i
i
,
I
I
I I
~==+----- 6
! I
i
I
~
II
Ii
""'Ii
11
L
I
, I
i
I
I
b..--..
.\
I
. I !
~ ,-_.~_.:
i
,
,
I
.--....-
rHl\ 1'lU, 0'+1 I {t! c:t:Joc:
1, ua
\..".... --..-
j
I
I
I
I
.1
.fl
.
I
..~"._-..~
Ii
Ii
I
I!
'I
I
RE~.r.:'\/E I
1:1.;1::1 / .D ,
~\
-----~
----------
2.'/-J
....-;..;.~~~--
tct.)f':,'. );.,)'~;ent
\
::E
~
Ck:
0...
R-1-7.5
I
Ck: ~.
q ~
FER N \tJ\:S>
~:enald EJ \
~\ ~ GRANDVIEW DR.
OOJ R-1-10
SUNSHINE
V)
f-
I
L.:J
~
Ck:
~
ORCHARD
>-
f-
:::J
Z
-1
<!:
~
[KEENBRIAR PL.
MAPLE
I
HDSPIT AL
~u~
:I
u
~A
V.
~
CAT
\
\
ST.
'WIMER
T.I.D. IRRIG.
<C::
J' ~"7.
k' )- '1-.0 L-
(' 1':
.-p ~
('-
If\
ST.
RR-.5
f-
V)
'WEST
<[
f-
-1
<!:
Ck:
q
~I
L
L
u
~
z
w
u
V)
ST.
~ANZAI
~
RECE!VED
["P;.<:,1. ~ It , . ~: ''1c;nt
'tll
McDonald Residence - Vicinity I Zone Ma~
n.t.s. B '1 &:l
,
SEE MAP 39 1E 5
'. 50~'3Q'n'( 1315.&1'-
?cn
.... 0 ~I;
-N
,... 'i: ~
....
~ ~I iI::~
...
<:>
)16'.';'
~t>
s:.....
r:;
I'
111 . 11' ~
~~ ~
8: ~Q ~
.....
(.01 -0
(J1 ~
""
."
t
'11.5&'
~ .~
~
"8'~';~~"3-+.:\-I
i '
91,.12 '
,
o
~
Z
S3
~
I
9].H'
.3.11 '
~.......
r::O
~-
1; :"
- -
IZQ,22 '
;;.
'.Oi,W
~ ~.....
""" ~~
::! ?i 0
't,
'1'
^"
jJ,
..........
IOl,W
~ ~ [XI
" _0
n --
~
!'>
-
~
..
~
?aJ
100.>>0
-~
~
::: Ut
~:!-
r==--~)
". -5F
J) /
~
i~
~!
"'tl~
I~
~~
-.<d
::tI
&H, IS'
Sf
~
:::j
lO'
"
~
n
o
(0
(.JI
<<::)
-
~
~
~
~
c.TI
I
CD
(J1
C)
....
GO
..
~
~
~
'"
(J1
:::
'"
'"
.
~
'0 '
~e2, JJ
~
c.>
(J1
1St, !i
!~U1
....
'"
C)
~'t.~\;\~
,-
~c>
.,,-
~-
:..'"
~
~
~
~
c.>
'"
~
-
'"
.
H~.D2
Hl.3J
~ 11~.3~'
0)
~~
10 '
&~ .S~.
:,.~
s, !.~911! I'ft
?t)
f::QD
P
C> "':!
-
...
'I'HCRI'roN
'WAY
.
~~
g:--
r;
4.I.~iI'
ffi
~
~
."
i
~
...
.... S~ '
~1. g "
~ .---=:.
:,~::"0
:..~~ ~~UI.;
'" - ~-,
~ ~ 0--
~ -....;.~...--
... - ~\
lJl' ..........
:\
::~
~
'"
:E,
.........
:s::.
)~ :
~~
~ t
,
"
"
"
::
~"
~ ::
~ "
~ ::
~ Ii
...... "
... __. ., c:..... i:
. 'm.m~',',-~--'-'J:!
\" .I f)'....cc
J ~~
/=Hm__: 8 8 W
----- -------~,r-:~~::::
~ ! i t .-( ~
i i 0) ~
~i . : i :::e:
::o';Huu- i!H --Hun_ ~H
SI .-HH/r
, ' '
, ' '
, ' '
, ' '
I ' '
, ' '
" -~ '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
~
'Ol.W
C~EEK
, '
, :
DRIVE
..
-
,'" !~,QO'
'\ ac.w
(J1 --
<D - -
C) CD (J1 -
~ <D CQ
:'.: <> C)
~
.;;. :-.,............"",
, 11.00'
12c'OO':CIIC'
Ill. 0' I
CD
'" co c...
o N 0 ri~
~ 0:""0
125' 1; ~~
;22, QO~
s::
?o
~
~
100.00' t.ni
I~O ,ao'
gUI' i :
, '
, '
-, '
0: :
(,oj , -
: = -
: ~ :z
;j.- ---:: -11""'>.1 -
~ : :
~ ' '
Z ~ ~ ~i~
=E :~ (JI
8 "" : !'
11l.tl' H
tj :: ~
~
....
(J1
.,'"
~...
-~3~
47 '
ffI&l
~(J1
....,
C>
Z
\
V"'\-s
~ ;' .-
V\ ~
~~
V t:
V' ~
lH.n'
~
'"
~
~-
~~
;;:::
~
~
<>
C>
~OCOO' ~
L
_ ~~==~~Il,)C"----;
-------1
i
?"'"
~o
c
1;
i
,
- '
N
o
(J1 -
,g ~ -
C> ......
'" ~
I'..> ~
0
I<.l
Joo.: <.-
- :
(J1 N :
g - '
-
~, ...
Ii <>
.....'
~:
--
-,--
~ N
c.> (.01 N
0) N
~ "" 0)
~ c.>
... :;; C)
,
:~
~
....
~~
, :
j "'" m 1>'iT
~
~
..... <> c.>' -
~ ~ (J1' N
ri 01
, '
, '
1.,Ie' ;
8C,/0/
~
(J1
....
~ t ---
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
, '
- ~_~h
f
fI
-
- "., - ..."........
"
en
(")~
0""
::0
'11.GO'
-~: ;-.
~~, : :
, ,
iti
f:;i
<,,)
(:'1
""')
,,",Ii
, ,
..-.......I: :
___h_ (-i
,'J
:J
:3
:1 "
'.. )
.."
t'tJ
....
~
c.>
:;,
, '
, .
1.~
:~z
~ ' t:I
, ,.c:
" \~
...-... ......-..-..
c.>
'"
CD
--th._.
-~--~~ ~ ---
:J
....
rH__H
,
~ - - --
WALNl1I'
-- I
~ .,;;r' .. ~-~"""~1'" ,.",
<, '~" . ,," ~,'I" ,,' ''lI''
,Jij",!' ~'# "'~' ,~
'''III'' "co,' ;~.."
~\,.\, ~, ~~ ~
"..tw'
A
'1:
" 1',,,,
'~ij~l ~J 't"
-0..
3
:1 .'
",.
"",
"
,d.~
,/
.~;~~~~;.;i; , . _
~ ~ .. ~;:., .-,...."'......~ L . 't
~~:3:~ '- ~ "j;(:' ',,'
.! ~ ..._~\ ';:.~..J~ ..., ..: _ ~ ~~t._. ." ""..
to -f.. ..~.s..."'~""".. ~ I' ....".~,.,., ~ . ~l~....." ..... ,......>-l ,.
~.~ ~ . .;:~ ,<: ';~~~~~~::h..!~i::;;';~~~~~;:r~,
\J\~ \L ~\
~
~\J (~) ~ \0
b
~':;'[~I c: /' ~h~,'l.rd
1unity Development
~S~
:;;,.-. '~.'.-. ..
"~~~~i~~
1lC ~,....
~
...:: J"
( " RECEIVED
\j\EW TO ~~\ AlCN~ 6.~'E'N Oi'<,~CNI)
k
('I oi" A,,!~ '.:,,6
mit'y' Development
'-J\eN ,0 ~OL1l1+ C'-W~\q1+Th C~~\<) Tro1
~~~WteN tx<, (roW)
853
RECEIVED
)f ~ 8
)r ;\'hl,,-~j
Development
V\S'N r;;rr IJ~ ~mY \0 \t\t-
W)Rn+ - WD ro~'-AR~~ f\D~ ~ l}\ ~GJ!l~D
:....~......,;;~~'
~ll1Itl'tllr::~.
1,,'.<<1~~i-~~>' " '{h' t_".,.~ t;".", .I!'. ::. . " ",~'''~'g'''''1-t~.~~ . ;.
!RA~jL7b."'~'"W'''Jt,_..._t~''\..::~ ';."'!~,\ ~'7 \,:.. ~lt._:';'. ._-~."'~"~~",'i"~:';~:..1"i..'S-.t'"'::...y
'\f\E'\N (fr 0~ ~~\Y lV
"1t\-e- N~ c64
. - /'~~l
.r -.".'.. '-'::''':...'..'-' -.
,/ .... ;:--::
/
/
~.. -,.., ~
.. l.
.~,.,
~. ...
>vi'D
\J\e:w TL ~\
~
~O~)~ lV
c:
s
.". - ~."'( .:" :,' '.~ ,_ ::"~.~J'" ...~ ";;",, I
.." ....... .'~ "~.. ..,......J I' .. \. 'T ,..;
'i, ".... ."'"",:' ',',,~ t..,....~~-' ""r~'-..""~;' f.~t
... ~ :;). ..:.. . -\ -\ ." ..... '~",'"';;' .~ i' .,...;-"'~' ."
. . ~ ..... L ... · ..' ... '\ ~w:...... 1- ...~~. I . l
t ~ .. r t - . . '. It ,. -! .. tf~. ~ .. ~ .: ~ . . ,... -- ~~t4 "'. .. ; "".'
II' ".. __ ';'4 :$\": #~ . .~._~ ,'- _" ~. ~C>._~ ~ ;1/1 ~ ~'p. j .-p '_~ i~...~' :1_
'!-Il .~ . _'. I .' II . . 0( 3.. ""_:,\,l~",,,;. ".. .i., ,.. ,;, .' 1- '.,
".~~ "....~. ~.;;. .~. ._..' ,..:-> i~':;-~. ( t.. i'I ,>~:'c <2:1'.-_;)...(',. 'I; \',.
i;'-.~-~_ ~ "1~""~ _.: ... '"I :~l ~-~ ~ 't. :;".,,:-;, ~;~~~ . ~~'::.: '.
'., ..:' . "_,, ~~, "1,' .~t.: r~~-~-."t"
k:.'!i ;'. . :~,:..., '"" ;!.tilL~.,.. ~~-'.e';~ ':t ~. ..j~::I:: '~.
\~~6- -:~..' ..:...t~~~t-'~ J~:~rf{!J~,..l ;:"~-:>=-~~~. _: . :,..r-::a.~~~~;;.1."-:
" ".." "'t"'-' _" '_ .,.,_......~..t'~ __...._ ~ ~- .-. ~~ '= ~,.tII.r"
~~~' .. ~~~. ,'~ .,.'~~'-:c ..I_.,..~.;..~r- ~ {... - :,... / ...~,'"
.!- ...,,:"\~: -_....;J~"S;;.~.....;~~,;...:.....:'IoJ,;,....;.' - ..--- ':.";"- '~'1.
;.. __ _~'_ _.~:. '--[~';'_~',,"!.'_,' ~ :'~t':j' '(0' -. - ~'J . .'.: ,,~r.:fr
."'1.'1 . _'";>If":... ..~"__'_ . \_';.:.~~~d~.. ~~;;_.:z~.~15..!'.'
:~ .::.:::~_~:.. i~' '"-.. -~.t ...._"n.I:"...4.0.. _.~lt;':':::;1}-"lf
t; ~.::- ?~~~i;~ _ -. -". \:;t~~l.<~/"l ",~ t.:~'ltJ?:
1'~ti- __.,~ .0; "'. '.;r~ ~...1~
< . ~ ," . _~-..- ' ~f- (
1-y.' .. _1.0.\ . -'!r f>'~ .~," "- ..~.
-{?f':1~'::L ::~':<<4;'" ~:: ~ '- ~~~..;-~
I. :';,'. .-..,.......~., --:-- ~~.
. ?'$~ _:_. .,~_.,..')~l...~~ II. -J r
. 'Il.' ~ .J- ,'w,~~.4t
......~"C?:....'l't<~ ~ ...~ -
:';J;;',~~~' ~~ts~~;.~~ ~< .
~~fi~-":~~~'~~ ~~"'f ~..~~...fj~..;:..~'.'
~."-",,,,~.~.-.....-y-;.~:~, ~~. ;:-;.~~..~..~'..-.
~.. p# ~.................-":.~ ;r..... ~ .---~ #' ~..~..,-...~ _Jo,.:_~
~~-:--_'i..~,-":;"-~#'-"~""L~ ~~N ~ ~...",~......;.~~~....
~ ''''._ .... ..~.......:..~~.~~~;. ~""-':':-1 I"'".r.~_"'';.~'"'' - ~
. :t,- ..:. ..~.t"'J.h;.' . t.~~~:';';~~a. r. ....~,.~ ~~ ~;:~.c:.~ --'~..r~~".~:.
';(:._~,,; ;-r-.-j. -~~-"J~'::,,",~i""~~ rilf.!.~;{~-~ '~.J~ ~~.. '!'.~~~......-....:. - -.-# ~.".
r:. ~"""":":'--:-"'Y':~~"'C'; t.:::........-tr'..::...~.:,,:-$:~-~~'" .~::.e; .;r:~. 'I'-~ ~...~ . ,-:~;,,;r~~~~~::~~~"" ..~.. -~.
~ .... __~ rt'k:1.-!'" ~ ..__p.,pi.....~..~.,......--~:..r.._ ...'.;L:r~~-__ l~' ..:9-~...~'S;:4~'""I'-~~....- --rA-.... ~ '_V" ...
~~... ~-:. '-';71.. ~'-'_ :-.%~';::-~)~;'~..;A.~~i~~~ ....>~..{...~~:.~~~~-'t.:~.~~~:..~~'4'-v.;.-:.~"~~.~,.: :;"t..~..... ......:t...
_';, ._~'~..' ......~;..,.?;... :;:.~~:'::;-'.i':Z;y:~~~~;......~~.~~~...""'~:lS.;;~.~~< ~:-."..;;.. ~~...;...~:.. .,-'-- ~ ::
.,.,.,ri4.....-~~" S-, ...~~~~...~ ""~;-':~:..~~~ . ~'L.._...;ct.~~_~~~~,,:~.......\....a:~~....:'"'.:r..!..~~/~.....~.\J ...-,:- -~..:- J-o - ~
~--'~~_" .~,~_:.__~:'.!"~.:~....__.... ;.tl~"1. ~:~':.,.:-c.r.~.A~~~2;'-~~'J~ -to.: .....\.:....=- --~, :. _..~..
, ... ....._ _ ~~....11't.-.....:-i, "'t;:-...........,-i ,:"",-,,::,*~~)C",,"-~.~...~j!."".~ .. _':-:9"~~""-r.~ ,,"1...- ~ "to - - ..::...
. '''". ......._ _ '..~ .J'~.. ~":r~ ;-;....,,_':j_~_;..""..::..~1~1>"':..~......,-.......l.,....:'. _:".
"
" J."
....
.
'-
~...,- .~.
.r;'" ...
;-
;t ~"t;,....
/
'..
"~
-
'."
~ 'l\!::-W \D B~/QT -N-.O~~ ~~'OV'\E})
8 DR. CRo:NJ 36&
I '
t . .., ...
....\.f""
. ~_.
L ". - ~.- .<.
~ .. "to-'.. '.;"',
~ -.
.. ..'
;: ...
- ,.... '..
-----
\/\E\N TO 'WJ-r
.
- . .,' -.;- ...,..~.- - ," c' .
~ '... ...
, . Jl.. ~ " _
.;.v.t"'t ,. *"'"
"0 " . ..~ '... 1: _-:
-.. ;: .. - ;:-'
. ,
. ..
- ..., -.. '.
A\.LN~ 6.~'E'N or<.0oW)
-JleN"TO WLl11-l- C-W~\qt-\-Th c~\<.) -Tm"\
~~WteN Q\:<, (row) ask,
V\~'N orr- ~~ ~my \0 \1-\E
~ - WD ro~t.ARCJ ~ f\.1J'M ~ {}\ ~~Q::lJND
\/\E'\N O'F 0~ ~~\Y lV
-r-t\e N~ 3;7
~
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
II I
I : P ',I,
. : ~ ~ ~II
. . I ('; il
I ....1 II \ all
: I. . . . . . \ I ~
~ ~ ~.~..~ In
. I 7-- '- i . .. II,
I I " .....
.. ..:. \ "]"
} I \ II,
: \: . .) I I"
I \ It... I
I ,
:" \ i I
\ ..- . . - . . \ "r. . . . .
II \ \ ~ ~ =
~'\\ \ I'll
I. ~
. - '11~- - -:-MO"~~I~"';!I~ - - (I _ - - ~
~ I ! I i
I, -11---
IJ _--------
McDonald Residence KEN SNELLING
Grandview Drive DESIGN ASSOC.
Ashland 0 1625 Cady Road
, regon Jacksonville, OR
(541) 899-1236 (541) 941-0241 cell
.::;1l(J)
R!~
.. "-
" ."
~8
o ~
..
-90
~ I j ~ j il~
~_ ~i i ~
a ~ il
o
C'D w~ ~~wJi?!'!
~ i~ ~PHl
:s
r-
o
Dl
C.
!'!
~~~~~i B~ ~; ~ a
~ ~ 1 j ~ l i ~ .~ ~ ~ ~.
.~(D:;OtC Q 5. r+
~ o2!;J ~ s-
i ;1l"-1II 9 t:S
-",'g nO'
~ I ~ ~
....
0-
:s
2l~~~
3~~~
"?~~~
;r ..
<=
~ ~~
;" ~~
reG)
~ :g ~
~ ~~
Sl Sl
00
:,- :,-
~ ;0 '" co .... m '" ... w '" ~ en
::I:
AI ~ '" (J) 0 ." 0 m
~ .. i ~
fi: is' g ~ m
J2 ;; ~ ~ .....
~ '" "- gl
~ ~ ." '" fli- z
0 i ~
n II ~ 0
g 9 " ~ '5 m
~ :!: il % )(
~ :J1
'" ~ ~
"
~ ~
'5
I
g-
III
..
J2
~
Rj~& ~~~j 11
1l
'"
"
rr~
, ~
!i-
~cn
~:I:
m
~m
~-t
2..a.
\ r'.~.'-..~\~"-"-'.r'\'
'\ I -+-- -----~~n--__n_. ~ \
'\. I I . \
.'\ : I I I \
'\1 ---I \
\1 I \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'\
: ~ \ t.
.... .
~(I) \ I
~::2 \.
I>> .
;j ~
.\
I
^ /1
~ /
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
\
/
I
,
i ~
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I.
I
I
~
I
1
I
I
I
I \1 I
I ~ I
I ~ \ I
1-1-\1
.----1 i
/
11
/
I-
I JI \ I
I n \.
I-II
I .
I II ~ . \
I il~ \\
\ I " : i \
\-: \
I \
\ 1 \
JI i \
/\ I I \
I
\. \
:, jl \
I .
: 1\
I .
I . \
! ~ /
: V
I /.
I .
1/ I
/:
/ :
/ I
/
/
r"
II
,/
'\
"
"'\ ~
~ ~
\/
\
\
I
I
. /
i
~
i--
I
I
I
I
I
Ii I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L_
~m
~ ><
: r+
II CD
......,
~ O'
..,
m
-
CD
<
Q)
t:t
o
:J
en
,-
Ii
I
I
I
L_
('
~,
'"~
./1
""j
,M"y
"
-"j
r:J
..
~
E3
[E]
[!J]
Ill-JI
'U
lis
ib
t
.
ij
()
..
E9
'\
!~~
~Ii
lis
Ib
~ ~ McDonald Residence
=m
t -I Grandview Drive
2(11
Ashland, Oregon
II
~
~~n.
I- " ~~
I \ e'_
l~
" Ii \\
"
~ .
~ -
';!.
~ \-" ~
o.
\f\
-
i
~ \
.
f '1\
i ~
ff
W,\ i!
'u
1 v; h~
( -
-
-
-
-
\ -
-
0--
'i" ~
~ f--.--
f---\ ~
-.
~
=====
mm - f----
u -
I .-
._~-~
.--..--.-
I-------- B;
I---
1--. -IL
II" T :1
...-
f--.--..
I--- . I
IIEm
1--- 1-----
~ ~I
~ W LJ
t::
F= I
n \
I
\
\
\
~.lO U.
1;1 la;
~
en
o
c
-
::J'
I
ji
~j
B
KEN SNELLING
DESIGN ASSOC.
1625 Cady Road
Jacksonvnle, OR
'- (541) 899-1236 (541) 941-0241 cell ./
... ~~
<0 :!!U)
l/l ~-
f-iU)
'" ~~ ~
~ '"
l<1 ~ 0;
1'> "'aJ B
~ ~~ 'f ~
'" ;J:::tJ ~:~~~
... -
'" "'z
B :q(;') ~~~gs ~
i\iU) !):: ~ CI 8
... :.. PI - I
;:! -< ~ ~ : ,. ~
~ ~~ n.~
'" p
g ~ ~ ~...
iO is ..
a~
t:~
~~
g ~ ~
i'l i'l i'l
... ".
gi 5~ ~g:~~~~~~
~~
i! ~J ft~~~~~~
~: ~!~~ Ji~i
"~o"i~~<;\~
~i fj ~~';',. ~ !l<;\
~14l>:; li~a
~~ ~~ dg~~i ~
;oj.., h :<...~tI,., k.~
-<~ ai~:!it~~~
Ul.. ~2~
~ "f~ ch ~~Pi
~ i'I" ~~:aPliJ"~
2'- ..~~:;;i'liJiUlI
,. ~~ ;ljill ~~'"
'" ~d~"q~
~ ,.~
ill ::Jill ~aqi~l~~
~ ~t
~~ "'lilt~~Uli'i",
~ ..l ~ ;-t;i3~n2';
ill Ii ~~ii:ii:!~iill
~ ..~ :~;~jil~
!it ~a ~::..l ~ a
lllg~ is;;
i'l
\})
~
o
-1
;gtrl
~~~~
~ i~~~~~
~ t::: c~ ~ C
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
",ilJrntrl
~!:l ~:<
d-
GlZ
o
!2
S
o
..,
~ti ~a
!~ ~~
i i ;.~ U
~ b ~j ~~
l: l; ~; ~~
~//~ (;.~ ~~\
~I--' r: ---.""'- ~'C~'F'. -. - -.. - -- -- - - -..- -.--- - .l...----- -. - - - - - -. -- -""1~ "-"-"-"-".
,/ .... ,'* "\ :'"
: .I g~~li f:a r
I ,/~" l' ~~
. t ,,-~i ':~ //
I I. ~ -/ I ,. 40.'/
I "" . - ~)"<f4 '. ':or
, {= ./' ./ "n9'" l ///rfi ",,"
I ,...?1.; / . j ~ ~ I
V : ~S"J' ~ t i~" l~' ~~. .[ ~,;:~J.. -'~'l (+~ W~ '. '. n 9'" . ,/ / ~ ~
~/j::~'~J;~' / \ .il ~ n, :..~ .'1 j'''8''l ( I :
. ~--~- '?;"4, ' ,:' '. ,I :: : __ ..._ .._...... :: " _ _.': ~
\ J,....' . -- ~ .."
... .. ,'. t . "t ... ___o~az--'--_.-- ..-.- - n__ _____..________u_____ 2'60-._.. ....__.__ ___. g , -to 2-
, ... . , " \i \;. "': ~ M ...--.- '. " ..<!''1' ';
. ,',~, ~_ _____ . ____.-...................-- -'-"'::_' -A- ... ~~~.._.._.._._
.\':.:~~.~\..\ // \~i (..1 " r $., €9~
\, .9,~l. "" /\~ . \ , i
-:,-. ...... \ s.." f ~
. \; \, { \ _0\t f J ~ :;0::
'\ \:", >"y .f ..i,
.. \(, '.~,. 1-';\
\ . ~ ,i wJ \
v -. ...-1 / " !
\:~'<~;:. ~\
. - ,.~- .<-'1
\. . ", .9<'1'" "
:I'~<\~,.': J
. ;
\ ~d/l
s. \~.':. .\
\ ., \. . < \
~ : t .; ..~
, 2' ~~09JZ-~1
: ~ \. ~a: 1 ~
I - , () I ,.
ro, l,~ 1 f"1 I-
~ !-"",1) ir , ___u_u____u_u_u_
I ~ 1.~ f r- .
- !. 1 .
I ~ I.::J !
:------t",..1 I
, ,~ .
j: l;:,:.i N
/:- ~J "
,_ I
t'9!l:'?"~.1
1.:~lc:'1
! .. ~ f
./ .r:L~G,
'('1.,
I "
\
\
\
.
.
\
.
,
,
,
.
,
/
/
/
,
,
I
~
-:fl:" ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ,~
I~.. "
0-"-0-1. ~
~ i " I
'" ~
,. ~
~ ~
'< ~
I
:
,
'ft "
..;Il .
~o~ .____.._.._u_.._.._.__u_
;
JA lliD
)/JJ<I:>
S 1 ... ~ 'II M
... ..
~
~ S
Q
'"
tll
>
~
[!loor'
~~i
:2oz
[!l:>j;o
b~tll
. :tI-
n>r''1l
>Zr'O
r'()~:ll
:;; :r: 0
0>0
:tI <; 0
Z trl Z
.... Z>
> c: r
(Otrltl
C.Il
C.Il
'<
...
III
.. ~ ~
III
r-
f"l
(;')
f"l
Z
C;J
f
~~ODJ~Do 0
<3~f~~~i:!~1
$$
?lI"lI ....
; ~ "1J
5 J
.
'. '
g
~~ij ~
"~!it ~
~., "
~..~ ~
8i~ ~
t;S2
<l 'J::
~~~
I
~
~
t
z
;;:
~
::l
,
~ i ij I :
l;l i'I .. l! ~
~~:i~
-< Ole I
~ ~ ~ ..
~ i'1 ~
~ Oft ~
~ ~
~
"
!
i i ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ;:
i!i ~ "
g ~ ~
~ ;. ~
" '"
2 ~
i ~ ~
~ ~
i ill
~ ~
E
~
I ! !
"lI ;5j ;!
~
~
t ~ 0
;;C ? ;Ii
:a i: ~
i ~ 6
~ !q ;!l
~ ~
..
i:l
i
~
~~~~j
~J~~~
... : g ~
1:; ili ,. ~
~ ~ ~
a -4 i
'"
g
i!i
~
~
~
<:
~
1:;
~
o
B
~
~
~
~
Oft
i'i
:1
.g
:3
CD
:J
...
..xl
rn
i" )
~n
~:.
IT
o
>"'<1
Ulr-v
:to
l'o
>~
z>
.oz
00
~<
trI-
Otrl
O~
Zo
(l)~
"'<1....
Ol<
l\)tr1
o
~
o
"
o
Cl
;0
>
"
::r:
~
n
[j)
c:
;0
<
t:T:l
~
~
~
~
~
~
::tJ
~
~
~
~
~
<>
Qo
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~
<
I
~
~
~
~
b
::tJ
d~
!;;~
;;t:i1
~~
~
~~
C)o
;:00
>-z
z>-
or
<0
-;:0
[1'1[1'1
~Ul
06
;:0[1'1
-z
<n
[1'1[1'1
I---"
M
!
~~
",'"
"''''
~a;
g~
~~
-~
"-",
-~
.;;:
,~'l11)
\~l\~
~~
",~/'r'~
x '"
~ g
'"
G.l
_1.0
r-
'"
I
~f"'l
'"
In
o
D
- J
I
Ii
d
'"
-rtl -
~
~
s
o
5j
A
!;J
~
-.
J<
~
~ ~
-
~~
~ ~
~ tJ
01"-
'"
o
~
'"
~
;;:
;g
<:,,, S6
~~ 0
'"
~~ ~
o:::! ;u
c::0 [;l
(;1<: <5
0 \;I
ill ~
~ I
c!" I
;u~ I'~ r\
~~ i~
,;u
OJ< !~
~~ ,;;: !
~~ ';;:
" Ii
~d ~
-<'" 0>; r:: ~
ox ~~ ~!
;;u~
"" .t~ ~
1~;'1 o " Ii
zc 8 '" I
" S!
-< G; <1
;0 ~
'" .:r:
'"
~g~~
a0~~
o<:Ci~
<:O;u<:
"0 -.
~?~6
<:-1>;U
~~~~~
GP~~
;u .-'"
::i~o~
0_ A
<:i2itl<:
.-",'"
::o.-.~
~ ~
~ ~
Y1
I Ul '" 'I
i i!i~ J).,
I o~; II q
1l
c::
;"
;0'"
",x
~iil
0-<
"'z
ti"
'"
~\;!
(;)
~;-i
~1l
,,0
8~
;u
, '"
; ,'::---... 0
\11: ~~
I I::
:;.: "I"''f.: ",-,,;
'" Ii !',~, -
",,,,or;i. :',. ~'~,~
~C::C::,. '" ...........
:,;"';::1 Li "
~~~ ",
~~~ I -R/W
~f"1~ '
~~~ 't
Cl:!"" ~r.
;u <: 01;t;1~~-9.
"", <( 'l!~1
~~ Cc
;ul<>
o
Q
G.l
-.1.0
r-
g:f"'l
-In
o
D
R/W
J>
1) '"
'" 1) 0
x ;0 "
u; 0 '"
-< x
Z '" 0
" l> ."
0 ;;1 '"
x
0 b ~
z
-< 1)
0
c 5ii G)
;0 ?!
V> ill <
~ l> P
z
1) .^ '"
0
~ l>
1) 0
-< 0
0
1) ."
5ii '"
x
u;
ill <
l>
Z 0
^ '"
l>
<
'"
r
'"
0
l>
0
"'Y~
,../'-, ~
:::6
........
~
t;1
~
........
~
~ ~
~ ~
r>1
~ ~ ~
~ (] ~
:;;j ~
~ ;;:
.~ ! i
,..",
<..:
c
;:0
fTl
:z:
fTl
~
}>
r
o
}>
-j
fTl
N
.......
LN
.......
N
o
o
-.j
~~
"'-<
~p
"01
~I
:>'0
0,-
~..
C)Q)1lV)
~'~~
~__d~
~t)~~
"'~r>1"
~~t;jg
;u" 0
R~~
'" 1!;;:
I<>~~
~~!:>
:g~~~
tjg~
<:e;
~8t.5
IN
-.1.0
r-
:!::f"'l
o
In
o
D
G.l
-.1.0
r-
:!::f"'l
In
o
D
~Vl()):..
~~~:::
~:::~~
"'C::'-
"''''''
t:~6~
~ a~~
;:::: ::o)..~
r- Ci~"'"
_~tj P\}l.f)--
3:: :t>: c: ~ c::J:r: u,
~ r-:::-ifrl . a .
l::jC)et;:j:!i~~
"'~~Cl ~~~
~~;;:;u c::~~
C) t:)~t::I ~ 00
t:J [1)~ ~ Q) <:::j
~'-s;" '" ~
"l~o;~ ~~"
~~~"'\ ~:x:,
'<: g l!! '"
"''''
,,'" .
s~
:t::o
----
II ..--"'
'"
~~
V
;;::
"'.
"'0
,-,'"
j';"
".-
",\:C
~<:
~~
~~
(;)~
~g
,,'"
o~
'co
",1>
o
0<3
'"
~0
"'I<>
~~
~~
~"
~~
"'~
A
]'1
~G'
-.1l
,,\;I
AI
~~
~~
02
A
"
A<O
il~
~~
""
l!!'"
"'<0
-~ ~
",,,
i'J:X:
"A
s;'"
~
~1I1():k.
P1$;~r::
~J:::~~
~~~r::
j:: ~~~
~a:C:~
F:~~~
l: ~ c::
\)r-~~
~(;)etj c:
"'~~:!l ,;:!
~a~~ I ~
'" "'~ a! '<J
~~s;n\ ~
01 ,,:::!~ "
.~~)' ~-~-
1----_-
--_...-------
<o~\;!
!~Qj ~
~~~ ~
;uc::'" ~
0" J: .. J
~~~ ~
"'~~ I t;5
<:1\
C)~ I ~
--_ _ l--f-'j ~
__~// j 1 ~
--+-- 0 I
\\ I
\\ '"
'1\ II I
\~'-(f
t
"''''
",x
~U)
0-<
"'z
tiG
'"
- -7---- 7 ------------- -, :'
~ ~ """"'"
.--------
'"
u,
N
0.
'"
0.
,"
x
u;
-<
z
"
~
0
~
Z
l>
G
'"
()
;::
;;;
;0
0 0 -<
.;:: l> ;0
~ ;;I l>
~
8 "' -0'
.....
~ "
.....
~ ;0 0
g '" 0>
.,;
Z Ul
0 0
~ z
z Ul
0
~
F
z
0
~
;:;
'"
8
;
'"
~ ;;
'"
x
u;
;-i
-<
o
1)
o
."
ill
l>
Z
^
...............
.............
- '"
,,~ I ,~ ~;;q2~~~~8r;)f'>~!lJ~
~6 (J)" ~ ~ ~ :-~f)f)
o '"
'"
II s;:;;: ~~!il~~\;I~8 g""''''''
~~"'(;)i5"'~"'~ <: <:~~E,)!;J
'" "'-.:r::t<:~"o ~[;1"'<:,,:r:
~o<:i"~"~"'~"':';;;:~~~
~-;;~~C) ~8....;=;t~r;;C) ~
~ 1> f;)J;! <:~~ ~ l"')-to8C)
~ 1:I-t tJ '"11::tic)
" '" ",;u ,,"'<:
~ .-
t:i j;: ~ ~ ~
1l ;!! ;)! ~ 01
~ ,. '"
.- ~ ~ ~
~
~ I
;u >: I U6<'l~~~~~s;gr<>q;~
-< ~
;!! I <: '" '" ;I:<:",
A c::
<: ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
A "l"l'" ;u<:"'~~ l!!o<:~~
] :0:0 Vi Q :t:l::l~~ ~~?)~:t~i:
:s:: VI" :b.r-::n::n :o~~c:
~ ~~O()~~~"'(-<~c::~~ t:
ii1~C::A 1::1
::; 1ii:,;~a:;;: ~~~':i~
~ ~ ~~-<-<'"
VI :ti:o r"
'" r-"
A '"
is "l ~
"l ~ \;I {I
t:i '-- :c
LW8A
,4 ,,......L
60"",-.. Sr.l.f'.SU
'e,~*;.M~#
LtA&A.
Alo. aooy- 2 e I
vs.
(! ;+., 00{. A-.s~'._J
tte.f',d'l~
.I\..}
~.-II.-,,,, .. L,,.,, ,.,..O...I~
%,,~&""'f. ·
~..,...,...t .
f{t-,Y:,-.~ ~t" R..~...~
f[::::C";'~:' ..:~ :~"~'::; ff\\n
! : i. ! )..----.------..... .. 1 \;1 \ \
l.,..,l ij j
~-l\ MAY - 4 2005 i1J)
-.i
5~~
2
4
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
6
8 BONNIE BRODERSEN, )
PdnIDue~ )
10 )
vs. )
12 )
CITY OF ASIll..AND, )
14 Respondent, )
)
16 and )
)
18 WILLIAM & LYNN MC DONALD)
Intervenors-Respondent. )
LUBA No. 2004-201
20
22
PETmON FOR REVIEW
24
26 Michael M. Reeder OSB #04396
Michael W. Frauell OSB #90268
28 Cny of Ashland
20 East Main Street
30 Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-5350
32 Attorneys for Respondent
Bonnie Brodersen
635 Wrights Creek Dr.
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 482-0180
Petitioner
34 Alan Harper
Mark Bartholomew
36 Hornecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell,
717 Murphy Road
38 Medford, Oregon 97504
(541) 779-8900
40 Attorneys for Intervenors-Respondent
42
44
~~E3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PETITIONER'S STANDING........................................................ .......................1
ST~TE~l'f1l O~ ~ <:~E........................................................................:l
~. Nature of the Land Use Decision and ReliefSought..................... .............2
B. Summary of Arguments....................................................................3
<:. Summary of Material ~acts.................................................. .................4
WHY ~ <:HALLENGED DE<:ISION IS ~ L1\ND USE DE<:ISION
SUBJECT TO ~ JURISDICTION O~ ~ BOARD....................................5
~IRST ~SIG~l'f1l O~ ERROR: The <:ity erred as a matter of law when .................. 8
it failed to make satisfactory findings as to whether the subject unit of land was a
legal lot as required by ~UO 18.08.350 or in the alternative found that the
subject property was a legal lot contrary to the evidence.
SECOND ~SSIG~NT O~ ERROR: The City's decision is flawed by procedural.......15
errors that prejudiced the substantial rights of the Petitioner, because the Respondent
City processed Intervenors' application for a permit without a Site Design and Use
Standards (SDUS) review, which review requires a Type I procedure providing for
notice and opportunity for a hearing.
TIllRD ~SIG~NT O~ ERROR: The City erred when it failed to require a ............ .19
Physical Constraints Review permit for development on the subject property which
is in the WildfIre Corridor, is a ~lood Plains Land and is in the Wrights Creek
Riparian Preservation area and when it failed to require a simultaneous application
for a Physical Constraints Review permit in the Grandview rightofway.
~OURTH ~SSIG~NT O~ ERROR: The City's riparian ordinance violates ................28
Oregon ~dministrative Rules for Goal 5 resources and is not in conformance
with its acknowledged Comprehensive Plan.
RflH ~SIG~NT O~ ERROR: The City erred when it chose a method of......... ....3:l
measuring the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the property and
curve of the driveway to determine the actual length of the driveway, when it
determined that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it
granted a variance for the maximum slope of the driveway without following
~UO provisions for granting variances. The <:ity failed to comply with minimum
standards of &UO 18.76.060 and minimum standards of the ~C for turnarounds
and deadend streets.
SIXTH ~SIG~NT OR ERROR: &hland Municipal Code Section 15.:l8.070 ..........36
violates ~C 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039.
CONCLUSION....... ............................. ..................... ........... .................. .....39
3"i-
I.
PETmONER'S STANDING
A. Statutory Standing
2
Petitioner has standing to bring this appeal and has satisfied the requirements of
4 ORS 197.830(3) for the following reasons: This appeal challenges the primary building
permit issued by the City for intervenors' house on October 20, 2004. (Rec. 3)
6 Petitioner met the requirements of ORS 197 .830(3)(b) by filing a timely Notice of
Intent to Appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within twenty-one days
8 of the date she bad adualootice of the city's decision. (Rec. 27)
The decision was a land use decision, yet the City failed to provide notice of the
10 application or decision to surrounding neighbors as required by ORS 197.763(2). As
explained below, the decision was also a "permit," but the City failed to provide
12 individual mailed notice as required by ORS 227.175. (petitioner lives within 75 feet of
the subject property.) Prior to the City's issuance of the building permit, Petitioner, as
14 well as other neighbors, sent letters to the Planning Department and Ashland city
attorney challenging the issuance of the permit and requesting notice and a public
16 hearing. (Rec. 45, 46, 50, 54) Petitioner also spoke to Planning Department staff on two
occasions subsequent to the issuance of the building permit and was incorrectly advised
18 by staff that the building permit for the referenced property bad not been issued. The
City failed to notify Petitioner that a building permit had been issued. (Rec. 27) On
20 November 15, 2004 Petitioner noticed activity on the property and telephoned the
Planning Department, at which time Planning staff confirmed that a building permit had
22 been issued on October 20, 2004. (Rec. 38 handwritten note at bottom) Petitioner filed
a Notice ofIntent to Appeal within 21 days of the day she learned that the building
24 permit had been issued.
;'5
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (hereinafter ALUO) 18.108.040(A)(8)(c) provides
2 that all new structures greater than 2,500 square feet are subject to Site Design and Use
Standards (hereinafter SDUS) and that such review must be made under a Type I
4 procedure. A Type I procedure provides for notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
ALUO 18.108.040B. Notice and an opportunity for hearing is also required for
6 development in floodplain corridor land or riparian preserve land, which development
requires a Physical Constraints Review permit. ALUO 18.62.040(A). The subject
8 property is in the riparian preserve and the floodplain corridor. (Rec.4) Petitioner is
adversely affected by the City's decision to issue a building permit without notice and a
10 hearing. Petitioner would have participated in a hearing on the permit in opposition to
its approval had one been available. On this basis, Petitioner has standing to appeal,
12 and the appeal is timely. Citizens Concerned with Medical Waste Burning v. Sherwood,
22 Or LUBA 390,395 (1991).
14 B. Justiciability
Petitioner resides on land that is separated by only one lot from the subject
16 property and she lives within sight and sound of Intervenors' property. The proposed
development will occur on an unlawfully created unit of land, for which the Respondent
18 City has approved a building permit. (Rec. 4) As a member of the Ashland community,
Petitioner is adversely affected when the City fails to abide by land use ordinances
20 enacted by the Ashland City Council. Petitioner will further be affected because her
property is endangered when the City approves development in the WildfIre Corridor,
22 but tails to require Intervenors to meet the fIre safety standards for development in the
Corridor -- which standards help to protect neighboring properties from a wildfIre.
2
Petition fur Review
3~~
Further, Intervenors' development proposal firlls to protect the Wrights Creek riparian
2 area and will significantly disturb the rural quality of the area.
ll. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
4 A. Nature of the Land Use Decision and Relief Sought
Petitioner seeks review of the City's land use decision to issue a building permit
6 to Intervenors to construct a home in the R-l Single Family Residential District. The
property is in the wildfire corridor, protected riparian preserve and the flood plain
8 corridor. The Respondent City issued a permit without a land use review. (Rec. 4)
Petitioner challenges City's interpretation of applicable law. Petitioner requests that
10 The Land Use Board of Appeals reverse or remand the City's decision.
B. Summary of Arguments
12 First Assignment of Error: The City erred as a matter of law when it firlled to
make findings as to whether the subject unit of land was a legal lot as required by
14 ALUO 18.08.350 or in the alternative found that the subject property was a legal lot
contrary to the evidence.
16
Second Assignment of Error: The City's decision is flawed by procedural errors
18 that prejudiced the substantial rights ofthe Petitioner, because the Respondent City
processed Intervenors' application for a permit without a Site Design and Use Standards
20 (SDUS) review, which review requires a Type I procedure providing for notice and
opportunity for a hearing.
22
Third Assignment of Error: The City erred when it firlled to require a Physical
24 Constraints permit for development on the subject property which is a Flood Plains
Land and is in the Wrights Creek Riparian Preservation area and when it failed to
26 require a simultaneous application for a Physical Constraints Review permit in the
Grandview rightofway.
28
Fourth Assignment of Error: The City's riparian ordinance violates Oregon
30 Administrative Rules for Goal 5 resources and is not in conformance with its acknowledged
Comprehensive Plan.
32
Fifth Assignment of Error: The City erred when it chose a method of measuring
34 the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the property and curve of the driveway
to determine the actual length of the driveway, when it determined that only one
36 dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance for the
3
Petition for Review
~"7
maximum slope of the driveway without following ALUO provisions for granting
2 variances. The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and
minimum standards of the UFC for turnarounds and dead-end streets.
4
Sixth Assignment of Error: Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates
6 UFC section 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039.
8 C. Summary of Material Facts
Intervenors' property was created by a partition/subdivision, approved by the
10 Ashland planning commission in 1979, with the final plat recorded in December, 1981.
(Supplemental Record 4-5) The Ashland code (AMC 18.08.540) defined the division of
12 a tract into three units of land as a partition. (Appendix 1) Because partitioners could
not meet the mandatory lot depth requirement of the Code for two of the lots, they
14 applied for a variance, under a code provision which was applicable to subdivisions but
not to partitions. (Supplemental Record 13 & 27) In April, 2001 Intervenors, Mr. &
16 Mrs. McDonald, purchased one of the lots from Mr. & Mrs. Nitzberg, who, along with
Mr. Morse, had applied to partition the property in 1979. On February 18, 2004,
18 Intervenors applied for a building permit to build a single family home on their
previously undeveloped unit ofland which is in the R-l Single Family Residential
20 district inside the Ashland City limits, bordering on the county line. (Rec. 2 & 60) The
entire property is in the Wildfire Corridor Lands; part of the property is in the Flood
22 Plain Lands and in the protected Wrights Creek Riparian Preserve. (Rec. 4 +
Supplemental Rec. 34) Access to the subject property is by crossing an adjacent
24 neighbor's property or by crossing the protected riparian area. (Supplemental Rec. 33 &
Appendix 2-3) The riparian preserve, which is dedicated to the City of Ashland, runs
26 along the entire south side of the subject property. (Rec. 4) Petitioner and other
neighbors wrote letters to the Planning Department requesting a hearing as required for
4
Petition for Review
3'8
a Type I procedure, for a structure in excess of2500 square feet, for parking in a
2 setback, and as required for a Physical Constraints Permit. Petitioner and other
neighbors pointed out inaccuracies on the site pIan, including inaccuracies in the width
4 of the property, the location of the pins and the proposal for storm drainage. (Rec. 46-
47,50) Petitioner also questioned the legality of the lot based on information in
6 planning action file 79-110 which contained documents related to the partitioning.
(Sqpplemental Record) Intervenors' application was processed by the City without
8 notice or a hearing. (Rec. 21) On October 20, 2004, approximately eight months after
the initial application, Respondent City issued a building permit to Intervenors. (Rec. 3)
10 m. WHY THE CHALLENGED DECISION IS A LAND USE DECISION
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
12
The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has exclusive jurisdiction under ORS
14 197.825(1), because the Respondent City's decision is a statutory "land use decision" as
defined in ORS 197.015(10). This case involves the issuance ofa building permit, for an
16 application that was pending from February 18, 2004 - October 20, 2004, for property in .
Ashland's Wildftre Corridor Lands, Flood Plain Corridor Lands and Riparian Preserve.
18 (Rec 4) A land use decision is a final decision or determination that concerns the
application ofland use regulations. ORS 197.015(1O))(aXA)(iii). Even if there is not a
20 hearing or formal process in making the decision, a decision by the City is a land use
decision if it involves the exercise of "significant factual or legal judgment." Flowers v.
22 Klamath County._98 Or App 384,391-92, 780 P2d 227 (1989); Heceta Water District v.
Lane County. 24 Or LUBA 402,408 (1993). The City exercised significant policy and
24 legal judgment when it determined: (1) a Type I procedure was not required; (2) Site
Design and Use Standards were not required; (3) the "driveway" ended at a point that was
5
Petition for Review
~~,
240' from the entrance; and (4) that a simultaneous Physical Constraints permit was not
2 required. Respondent City's decision is a land use decision within the meaning of ORS
197.015(10(aXA)(ili), because land use regulations were applied during the building permit
4 decision making process, and as explained below, the City's decision was the discretionary
approval of the development of land, and therefore, was a "land use decision." Sullivan v.
6 City of Ashland. 27 Or LUBA 411, 414, rev'd on other grounds, 130 Or App 480, 882 P2d
633 (1994). (A decision to approve a building permit is a land use decision, because it
8 required the interpretation and application of discretionary land use standards.)
The City's decision is a land use decision under ORS 197.015(1)(b)(B), because the
10 City approved a building permit which was issued under land use regulations that were not
clear and objective. As explained below, Respondent City's interpretation of the definition
12 of "driveway" to determine that the proposed driveway would be 240' long is a land use
decision, because the City's definition of "driveway" is not clear and objective. It
~
.14 neces~arily required the City to exercise significant factual and legal judgment regarding
the interpretation of the meaning ~rav~ance" in the definition and in determining the
16 length of the driveway. Similarly, Respondent City's interpretation of the term
"development" and its determination that paving a driveway and installing underground
18 electrical cables is not "development" is a land use decision. Because the definition of the
---
term "development" is not clear and objective, it necessarily required the City to exercise
20 significant factual and legal judgment to determine whether Intervenors needed a Physical
Constraints permit.
22 In a memo from city planner Maria Harris to the City attorney and other planning
staff: planner Harris admits that the City did not use clear and objective standards when she
24 states: "I think we need to do two things. 1. Make a decision whether or not to issue the
6
Petition for Review
S10
permit." (Rec 53) If the City was using clear and objective land use standards for issuing
2 the building permit, the City would not be engaging in a discretionary decision about
whether to issue the permit. The City was interpreting land use ordinances that are not
4 clear and objective, and as Ms. Harris' statement indicated, the City made a discretionary
decision to issue a building permit for an application that had been pending for over eight
6 months. (Rec 26) Accordingly, the City's decision is a land use decision reviewable by
LUBA under ORS 197.825.
8
Respondent City's decision is also a land use decision within the meaning ofORS
197.015(10Xa)(A)(i), because its decision involved the application ofa Goal 5 Resource
10 through a land use regulation which fails to comply with OAR 660-023-0030, protecting a
Goal 5 riparian resource. (Rec. 4)
12 In the alternative, the City's decision is a land use decision because the building
permit constituted a "permit" as that term is used in ORS 227.160 and 227.175, because it
14 involved the discretionary approval of the development of land. The proposed structure
exceeds 2,500 square feet in size (Rec. Site Plan) and is subject to the city's review and
16 approval under its code and Site Desi~w and Use Standards (SDUS).
ALUO 18.72.030: Site Design and Use Standards shall apply to all zones of the City and
18 shall apply to all development indicated in this Chapter...
The proposed development is indicated in Chapter 18 under R-l Single-Family
20 Residential District. (Rec. 7) LUBA's analysis in Davis v. City of Ashland, 37 Or
LUBA 224, (1999) is applicable:
22 "In the third assignment of error, petitioner argues that the proposed driving range
involves the addition of parking spaces, the installation of mechanical equipment, and
24 cr~tion ofa structure (the net and poles) that exceeds 2,500 square feet in size; each of
which, if true, would appear to subject the proposed use to the city's review and
26 approval under its code and Site Design and Use Standards. If the proposed use is
subject to the city's discretionary approval under applicable city legislation, then any
28 city decision allowing the proposed use is properly characterized as a "permit" as
defined by ORS 227.160(2)."
7
Petition fur Review
87/
A building permit which is subject to discretionary approval under the Site Design and Use
2 Standards is a ''permit'' as defined by ORS 227.160(2). Approval of this permit should
have followed the processes described in ORS 227.175(3) and ORS 27.175(5).
4 See also LUBA's Order denying Ashland's Motion to Dismiss in this case.
IV. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
6
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The City erred as a matter of law when it
8 failed to make required findings as to whether the subject unit of land was a legal
lot as required by ALUO 18.08.350 or in the alternative found that the subject
10 property was a legal lot contrary to the evidence.
12 In Maxwell v. Lane County, 178 Or. App. 210, 35 P.3rd 1128 (2001) the court
addressed the legal lot issue: "[A] local government entity must determine the legal
14 status of a unit of land in connection with a current proceeding involving that unit of
land if required to do so by applicab~e legislation. Applicable legislation includes not
16 only the local enactment governing the particular proceeding at issue, but also other
related enactments."l
18
In a proceeding involving land use issues land use definitions are related to the
outcome. Ashland's definition of "lot" requires a Maxwell inquiry:
20 AMC 18.08.350: Lot: A unit ofland created by a partition or a subdivision, or a
unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership, which complies with all
22 applicable laws at the time such lots were created. (Emphasis added.)
24 Ashland's code specifically requires that a lot be a legal lot -- a lot that "compli~s
with all applicable laws" at the time it was created. Challenging the legal statuS of the unit of
26 land does not constitute an impermissible "collateral attack," because the Ashland Code
requires a legally created lot. The definition also requires that the "lot" be created by "a
28 partition or a subdivision." Intervenors' lot was created by both -- a partition using a
1 The Board has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to ORS 197.015(IO)(aXA)(iii).
8
Petition fur Review
57:<
subdivision variance. (Supplemental Rec. 16) Partitioners, by definition, did not create a
2 "lot," as defined in the Code, and to the extent Intervenors relied on a recorded deed,
recordation was a void action. The deed which conveyed the property from Partitioners to
4 the Intervenors has a "buyer beware" warning in capital letters which states: "This
instrument will not allow use of the property described in this instrument in violation of
6 applicable land use laws and regulations. Before signing or accepting this instrument, the
person acquiring fee title to the property, should check with the appropriate city or county
8 planning department to verify approved uses..." (Appendix 4)
A. Subject property unlawfully created
10 The subject unit of land was created by Partition and by a Subdivision variance
in 1979 by Planning Action #79-110. (Supplemental Rec. 12 & 28) It did not comply
12 with all applicable laws at the time it was created. The unit ofland had a width of85'
and a depth of295'. (Supplemental Rec. 13) In 1979 ALVa 18.20.040 provided that
14 the maximum depth for a lot created by Partition was 150 feet. (Appendix 1)
16
18.20.040 General Ree:u1ations.
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty feet, and a maximum
18 depth of one hundred fifty feet....No lot shall have a width greater than its depth, and
no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty feet in width.
20
The Ashland Municipal Code required strict adherence:
22
AMC 18.12.010 Comoliance Reauired. No structure or lot shall hereafter be used or
24 occupied and no structure or part thereof shall be erected, moved, reconstructed,
extended, enlarged, or altered contrary to the provisions of this Title.
26
In 1979 there was no provision in the Ashland Code which would permit a lot
28 depth variance for lots fonned by a Minor Land Partition. Applicants, realizing that
they could not partition the property because of its depth, applied for a lot depth
30 variance using an ordinance which applied only to subdivisions. Applicants state in
Planning Action #79-110: "A subdivision variance is also being requested as the
9
Petition for Review
813
proposed parcels #1 and #2 are 85' wide and 295' in depth which is in excess of 150'
2 maximum lot depth allowed by ordinance." (Supplemental Rec. 13) But the applicable
ALUO's explicitly distinguished between a Minor Land Partition and a Subdivision:
4
6
AMC 18.08.770 Subdivide land. To divide an area or tract of land into four or more
lots within twelve months. (1979 Code)
AMC 18.08.540 Partition. To divide an area or tract ofland into three or fewer lots
8 within twelve months. (1979 Code)
10 And ALUO 92.046(5) required strict adherence:
12 AMC 92.046 (5) "No tentative plan ofa proposed partition may be approved
unless the tentative plan complies with the applicable zoning ordinances and
14 regulations and the ordinances or regulations adopted under this section that are
then in effect for the city or county within which the land described in the tentative
16 plan is situated." (1979 Code)
18 The applicants had created three units of land by Minor Land Partition, as stated in their
application. The subdivision variance could not be used to bring a non-conforming,
20 unit of land created by a Minor Land Partition into conformity. In Woolsley v. Marion
Co., 118 Or App. 206, 846 P2d 1170 (1993), the Appellate Court affirmed the County's
22 denial of an application for a replacement dwelling on property that had, earlier, been
unlawfully partitioned. The Court looked to county legislation that forbade land use -
24 approvals on property that was in violation of any county ordinance. In Maxwell the
Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed its decision in Woosley:
26
28
30
32
"For similar reasons, this case i~ unlike Woosley v. Marion County. 118 Ore. App. 206, 846P2d
1170 (1993), where LUBA and we affirmed the county's denial of an application for a
replacement dwelling on property that, earlier, had been unlawfully partitioned. The basis for
that decision was county legislation that forbade land use approvals on property that was in
violation of any ordinance of the county."
As in Woosley, there is corresponding legislation that bears on this application. The current
ALUO definition of "lot" requires compliance with all laws in effect at the time the lot was
34 created.
10
Petition for Review
3 7'1
It is incumbent upon the City to provide substantial evidence about ifIhow it
2 determined compliance. A review of the documents in P A 79-110 (the planning action
creating the unit of land) will show that the lot depth requirement for lots formed by partition
4 was not met at the time the Intervenors' unit of land was created. (Supplemental Rec. 9) A
Minor Land Partition Survey Map (recorded 12/81) which includes the subject property is in
6 the record. (Rec. 16-17) It appears from the Affidavit of Senior Planner Maria Harris that
the City did not do a review to determine the legality of the lot. The City only reviewed the
8 file to determine if a survey had been completed. (See Maria Harris' Affidavit in Support of
City of Ashland's Response to Objection to the Record.) (Appendix 5) Senior Planner
10 Harris states in her Affidavit: "I was not asked by the City Attorney to review P A 79-110 to
determine whether or not the subject property was a legally created lot, but only to assure'
12 that a survey had been completed. I affrrm that my decision to approve the zoning permit'
portion ofthe building permit application was not based on my determining the legality of .
14 the creation of the lot." The City needed more than the Minor Land Partition Survey Map to
determine the legality of the lot under ALVO 18.08.350. To determine ifit complied ''with.
16 all applicable laws at the time the lot was created," the City needed to review the Planning.
Action file containing the Partition documents and the applicable 1979 Code sections.
18 Checking on whether a survey was completed was insufficient to determine the legality of
this unit of land. The Maxwell court required more. In deciding Maxwell, the Court of
20 Appeals presented a lengthy analysis of the legal lot issue considering legal lot cases up to
the time of Maxwell. In Yamhill County v. Ludwick, 294 Or 778,663 P2d 398 (1983) the
22 Oregon Supreme Court "concluded that the original subdivision or partition of the land had
occurred in violation ofORS chapter 92 and that, consequently, the tracts were not "existing
24 legal lots of record" as required by the applicable zoning ordinance....That conclusion was
11
Petition fur Review
37~
not dependent on whether the sales of the tracts to the owners were void or voidable under
2 contract law. . . Rather, the court was concerned "only with the legal status of the lots for the'-.
purpose of land use planning." Id at 790, 663 P2d 398. The court then proceeded to review
4 its decisions in McKay Creek Valley Assn. v. Washington County, 118 Or. App. 545, 848
P2d 624 (1992) and Marshall v. City ofYachats, 158 Or App 151,973 P2d 374, rev. den.
6
328 Or 594, 987 P2d 541 (1999) and concluded:
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
"Reduced to their essence, the described cases establish that a local government entity must
determine the legal status of a lot or parcel "in connection with" a current proceeding involving the
parcel. if required to do so by "applicable legislation." See McKay Creek, 118 Or App at 548, 848 P2d
624. That much is clear, and we do not revisit that basic holding.
Second, and equally significantly, none of the described cases provides a satisfactory answer to the
question of what legislation properly is deemed "applicable." Again, in Ludwick. the particular county
ordinance governing the particular proceeding at issue expressly required consideration of the parcel's
legal status; accordingly, the court was not called upon to look further afield. In McKay Creek,
although other local ordinances may have... shed light on the question, we apparently based our
analysis entirely on the ordinance governing dwelling permit proceedings....Given PGE, it is
unremarkable that, in determining whether a local government must consider the legal status of a
parcel "in connection with" a current proceeding involving the parcel, the local government must
consider not only the particular ordinance that governs the current proceeding, but also must identify
and construe the orqinance in light of any other relevant, applicable legislative enactment." Maxwell,
[d.
It follows that Respondent City had to review the applicable city ordinances in effect
at the time of the creation of the unit of land to "determine the legal status" of the unit of
26 land. The City bas made no findings on whether the partition, which created the unit of land,
complied with all applicable laws. As explained above, a review of the applicable ordinances
28 in effect in 1979 shows that the referenced unit of land is not a legal lot. ALUO 18.08.350
requires that a unit of land is a legal lot only if it was created by a partition or subdivision
30 which complied with all applicable laws at the time it was created. The 1979 partition did
not comply with the lot depth requirements and thert( was no provision in the Ashland Code
32 for a variance for the lot formed by partition.
34
12
Petition for Review
'j 7 (e,
A. The planning commission exceeded its jurisdiction when it made a
2 substantive determination that applicant could use a subdivision variance to
effect a partition.
4
The Ashland planning commission lacked jurisdiction to approve a lot depth .
-
6 variance for a lot formed by minor land partition, because there was no provision under
the Ashland Code for such a variance or for a waiver of jurisdictional requirements. The
8 lot depth requirements could not be waived by the planning commission nor could they
be waived by stipulation. (A jurisdictional requirement may not be waived by
10 stipulation. City of Hermiston v. Employment Relations Bd, 280 Or 291, 570 P2d 663
(1977).) The planning commission is given authority to make recommendations to the
12 City Council pursuant to AMC 2.12.060. Legislative powers are reserved for the
Ashland City Council, made up of elected members. AMC 2.04. The planning
14 commission possesses only those jurisdictional powers as are expressly conferred on it
by state statute or city ordinance. The planning commission did not have jurisdiction to
16 grant partitioners an exception to the Ashland Code. Jurisdiction includes the power of
a commission to make the decision it is asked to render. "Subject matter jurisdiction is
18 never waived and one will not be estopped from obj~ting on this basis." State ex rei
Children's Services Div. v. Campbell, 122 Or App 371,857 P2d 888, reconsideration
20 den. (Oct. 13, 1993). Unable to set aside the lot depth requirement of the Code, the
planning commission, in order to approve Applicant's request, created a new entity - a
22 partition/subdivision. LUBA should reverse the City's decision pursuant to ORS.
197.835(9)(a)(A), because the local planning commission exceeded its jurisdiction
24 when it failed to uphold the statutory lot depth requirement for the partition and when it
created a new legal entity - a partition-subdivision. Any recordation ofthe referenced
26 unit of land as a "lot" is null and void.
13
Petition for Review
~17
B. Submission of the final map was not timely.
2
Although the Ashland Planning Commission gave preliminary approval for the
partition-subdivision on September 14, 1979, a final map was not recorded until
4 December 15, 1981, over 27 months later. (Supplemental Rec. 4-5) In a letter fromthe
City Planning Department to the applicants, then Associate Planner Wanderscheid
6 noted that a final map must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary
approval; otherwise approval becomes invalid. (Supplemental Rec. 12) The relevant
8
Code provision provided:
10
12
18.76.100 Final Step. Within twelve months of the date of preliminary map approval,
the tract ofland shall be surveyed, pins set at all comers, 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 six
month period, he must re-submit the partition for preliminary approval consideration.
14
There is nQ evidence in the record for P A 79-110 that a final map was submitted within
twelve months, and there is no evidence in the P A 79-11 o record of a re-submission of
16 the "partition for preliminary approval" There is a final document that the planning
commission secretary and president signed on November 9, 1981, which states "We
18 certify that pursuant to authority granted to us by the Ashland planning commission in
an open meeting of September 13, 1979, this map is hereby approved by the Ashland
20 Planning Commission this 9th day of November 1981." The city engineer signed a
statement on the document: "Examined and approved this 26th day of February, 1981."
22 (Rec. 15-16) This final map was approved over 26 months after preliminary approval
on September 14, 1979. The final map was not submitted in the time required by
24 ordinance, and therefore, the City's decision should be reversed
26
14
Petition fur Review
37'8
4
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The City's decision is Dawed by
procedural errors that prejudiced the substantial rights of the Petitioner, because
the Respondent City processed Intervenors' application for a permit without a Site
Design and Use Standards (SDUS) review, which review requires a Type I
procedure providing for notice and opportunity for a hearing.
ALUO 18.108.020(B) provides that all planning actions.2sball be subject to
2
6
8 processing by one of four procedures: Staff permit procedure, Type I procedure, Type
II procedure, or Type III procedure. Pursuant to ALUO 18.1 08.040A(8)( c) new
10 structures greater than 2,500 square feet are subject to a Type I Procedure:
12
14
"A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure:
7. Variances for: d) Parking in setback areas.
8. The following developments subject to the Site Design and Use Standards in section
16 18.72.040.B: ....
c) All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet...."
18 ALUO 18.108.040A(8)(c)
20 The proposed development is greater than 2,500 square feet; the proposed development
provides fur a paved parking area in the northern setback. (Rec. Site Plan) The
22 proposed development does not meet any ofthe exceptions which would preclude the
necessity of a Type I Procedure for a house greater than 2,500 square feet and fur
24 parking in a setback. The City has failed to comply with the express wording of its
ordinance. LUBA's authority to review a local land use decision is derived from a
26 statute which requires LUBA to reverse or remand a decision ifLUBA finds that the
local government "improperly construed the applicable law." ORS 197.835(9)(aXD).
28 See Yamhill County v. Ludwick, 294 Or 778, 789,63 P2d 398 (1983). The City's
failure to follow the statutory requirements for notice and the opportunity fur a hearing
2 The Ashland Land Use Ordinance defines a planning action as: "A proceeding pursuant to this
ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are determined, and any appeal
or review of such proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not
include a ministerial decision or a legislative amendment" ALUO 18.08.595
15
Petition for Review
~7q
prejudiced the substantial rights of the Petitioner. Therefore, the City's decision should
2 be remanded.
A. Requirements or a Type I Procedure: and SDUS
4 The Type I procedure requires that the application shall be approved or denied
within 14 days and the Staff Advisor shall enter findings and conclusions to justify the
6 decision. ALUO 18.108.040(B)(2) The Type I procedure requires that notice of the
decision shall be mailed within seven days of the decision. The notice shall provide the
8 procedure for requesting a public hearing and challenging the decision. The Type I
procedure requires that notice be mailed to all property owners within 100 feet of the
10 subject property. ALUO 18.108.040(B)(3). Petitioner owns property within 75 feet of
Intervenors' property. Neighbors of the subject property wrote the City and requested
12 an opportunity for a hearing (Rec. 47), and Petitioner wrote the City and asked to be
notified when it issued a building permit for the subject property. (Rec. 45) The
14 Respondent City failed to notify Petitioner when it issued the permit (Rec. 30), and the
City did not respond to neighbors' requests for a hearing. The City indisputably failed
16 to follow the Type I procedure by not performing any of the preceding mandatory
requirements.
18 Pursuant to ALUO 18.72.030 the City was required to apply Site Design and
Use Standards (SDUS) to the development:
20 "Site Design and Use Standards shall apply to all zones of the City and shall apply to
all development indicated in this Chapter..." ALUO 18.72.030
22
The proposed development is development indicated in Chapter 18 [R-l Single Family
24 Residential District], (Rec. 7) and therefure, subject to SDUS. The City erred when it
failed to require SDUS review for the subject property.
16
Petition for Review
~ ~D
ORS 197.835(9)(f,l) provides that LUBA may reverse or remand a land use
2 decision if the local government: B) failed to follow the procedures applicable to the
matter before it in a manner that prejudiced the substantial rights of the petitioner or D)
4 improperly construed the applicable law in making its decision. A structure in excess of
2,500 feet will be built on the subject property. There was a failure on the part of the
6 Respondent City to properly construe and apply its applicable land use ordinances,
which require SDUS and a Type I proceeding. Further, the City's refusal to provide a
8 hearing prejudiced the substantial rights of Petitioner by preventing Petitioner from
participating in the decision-making process and responding to erroneous interpretations
10 of City ordinances and factual errors. The substantial rights of a party include the
"rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full and fair
12 hearing." Warren v. City of Aurora, 25 OR LUBA 11, 16 (1993) [quoting Muller v.
Polk County, 16 Or LUBA 771, 775 (1988)], interpreting the term "substantial rights"
14 from ORS 197.835(7)(a)(B). Factual issues about which Petitioner and other neighbors
had serious concerns included, among others, protection of riparian area, storm drainage
16 issues, wildfire safety issues and ingress and egress issues. (Rec. 46-47; 54-57) The
City's failure to follow requirements for notice and the opportunity for a hearing
18 prejudiced the substantial rights of the Petitioner. The City's decision should be
remanded.
20 B. Stonnwater and Drainage
A SDUS review would have included a review of stormwater and drainage
22 issues on the property. The City has a "Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan"(2000)
which was formally adopted by the City Council on June 18, 2002. (Resolution 2002-
17
Petition for Review
3'8/
15) (Appendix 6) Petitioner requests that the Board take official notice of the
2
Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan. Concerning Wrights Creek the Plan provides:
4
6
8
"The creek is relatively undeveloped and the upper, steeply sloped reaches of its
watershed are still heavily f<>rested. With its preserved vegetation, the watershed
provides an opportunity for a vegetated wildlife link between the National Forest and the
Bear Creek Greenway. Future development should be reviewed carefully because it
would increase erosion and flooding problems and reduce the possibility of a wildlife
connection." (p.3-II)
10
In a Table presenting goals for the protection of Wrights Creek, the protection method for
the WR-4 area in which the subject property is located is "protect from future
12 development." (Appendix 6 pp. 4-14 & 4-15) Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
4.27.020(0) defines "Storm Drainage Facilities":
14 "Storm Drainage Facilities shall mean any structure(s) or configuration of the ground that
is used or by its location becomes a place where storm water flows or is accumulated
16 including, but not limited to, pipes, sewers, gutters, manholes, catch basins, ponds, open
drainage-ways and their appurtenances. Ashland Creek, Bear Creek, Wrights
18 Creek...are not storm drainage facilities." AMC 4.27.020(0)
20 The current site plan shows "storm drainage to creek" with an arrow pointing west to
Wrights Creek. There is no other information on the site plan or in the record showing how
22 storm drainage will be handled on the property. (Rec. Site Map) If the City had required an
SDUS, the site plan would have to include the proposed method of drainage on the site and
24 the location of drainage ways in and adjacent to the development. 3 ALUO 18.72.060 K, L &
M. Criteria for approval of a development plan includes "adequate capacity of city facilities
26 for urban storm drainage." ALUO 18.72.070D.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that LUBA remand or reverse the
28 City's decision, because the City failed to follow the applicable procedures in a manner that
prejudiced the substantial rights of Petitioner. The City's failure to provide the requisite
3 Planning Staft'received advice from the City's legal department concerning storm drainage as related to
the issuance of a permit "Mike [addressing Ashland City attorney, Mike Franell], it was my
understanding last time I spoke to you that it was your opinion that the permit should be issued pending
storm drainage issues that you were going to discuss with Pieter." (Rec. 53)
18
Petition fur Review
a<j~
notice and opportunity for hearing before making its decision deprived Petitioner and other
2 neighbors the opportunity to have the City consider their concerns and the City's decision
should be remanded.
4 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The City erred when it failed to require a
Physical Constraints permit for development on the subject property which is a
6 Flood Plains Land, is in the Wrights Creek Riparian Preservation area and is in a
Wildfire Corridor and when it failed to require a simultaneous app6cation for a
8 Physical Constraints Review permit in the Grandview rightofway.
10 ALUa 18.62.040 requires a Physical Constraints Review Permit for
development in areas identified as, inter alia, Flood Plain Corridor Land or Riparian
12 Preserve. For purposes ofCbapter 18 "riparian" is defined as ''that area associated with
a natural water course including its wildlife and vegetation." ALUa 18.62.030Q. The
14 subject property is in the Floodplain Corridor Lands 4(Rec. 4); and is in the Wrights
Creek riparian protected area5 (Rec. 43).
16 A. The Respondent City erred in not processing a physical constraints
permit simultaneously with the other planning actions involved with
18 the app6cation.
20 Respondent City found that Intervenors are required to get a Physical
Constraints Permit for work that extends into the Wrights Creek protected area to
22 satisfy "conditions of approval for the permit in the Grandview rightofway." (Rec. 4)
However, the City then interpreted ALUa 18.62.04 to allow Intervenors to apply for
24 said permit at a later date. (Rec. 4) Such interpretation is contrary to the express
wording of the ordinance. ALVa 18.62 expressly calls for simultaneous applications:
26 ALVO 18.62.040
4 "The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian Preservation for the
purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps:
Tolman, Hamilton...and Wrights Creeks." ALVO 18.62.050(B)
S Flood Plain Corridor Lands are defined as: ... All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek
designated for Riparian Preservation in 18.62.050B... ALVO 18.62.050A
19
Petition for Review
~~.3
2
4
6
8
10
12
E. If a development is part or a Site Review, Performance Standards
Development, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning
Action, then the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning
Action.
F. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted in
Subsection B, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff
Permit.
G. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive
development that would require a master site plan, or other planning action, the Staff
Advisor shall require that all necessary applications be filed simultaneously.
The Land Use Board of Appeals addressed this very issue in Neuenschwander v. City of
Ashland, 20 Or Luba, 144 (1990), where the Board found that failure to comply with the
14 substantive criteria of the ordinance would presumably lead to denial of the permit and
denial of the development:6
16 "ALVO 18.62.040 is a relevant approval criterion for the proposed development.... W e
agree with petitioners that they may raise the city's failure to require approval of the permit
18 as an issue in this appeal proceeding....ALUO 18.62.040 (E) and (G) contain substantive
eriteria Failure to find compliance with these substantive criteria would presumably lead
20 to denial of the permit, as wed as denial of the proposed development requiring the
permit. (Emphasis added.) Issuance ofa permit is conditioned on Applicants compliance
22 with these substantive criteria."
24 In the case at hand, the City required Intervenors to submit a site plan which
went through several revisions over the 240 days that the application for a building
26 permit was pending with the City. (Rec. 6 & 48. 49) It is impossible to know what
revisions the City mandated subsequent to the submission of the original site plan,
28 because according to Planning Staff, previous site plans were discarded when a revised
site plan was submitted. The City used discretionary standards regulating the physical
30 characteristics ofuse of the property, including standards concerning construction of the
driveway, storm drainage, and solar requirements and turnaround requirements. (Rec. 4
32 & 6 & Site Plan) The issuance of the building permit was not a ministerial decision, but
rather a planning action which required significant discretionary judgment. The City
6 The issue was addressed in LUBA's consideration of petitioner's ability to raise the issue of the city's
failure to require physical constraint review permit approval when petitioner hadn't raised the issue in the
hearing below.
20
Petition fur Review
?;'BL{
required a site plan as part of intervenors' application. Either a site review or site plan
2 requirement - indeed any ''planning action" will trigger 18.62.040.7 Intervenors'
development was reviewed as a planning action, and ALUO 18.62.040 E or G, either of
4 which requires a simultaneous application for a physical constraints permit, is
applicable.
6 B. Respondent City's findings are inadequate making it is impossible to
know what activities are proposed for the regulated area.
8
The City bas found that there will be "activities" in the regulated area, but except for
10 constructing a driveway, the ''proposed activities" are not identified. (Rec. 4) Are these the
kinds of activities that would trigger the need for a Physical Constraints Permit? Is this
12 where the septic pump will be placed? Is this where the storm drainage facilities will be
built or where the underground electric cables will be placed to connect with the electric
14 cables on Grandview? Will access to the property be through the riparian area, and if so,
what "activities" will be required to provide such access?
16 What the Site Plan does not show is that at the present time, the only form of
ingress and egress is by crossing the southwest comer of the adjacent property. There is
18 no direct ingress and egress to Grandview Drive from the southern lot line because the
regulated riparian area is between the lot line and Grandview Drive. Grandview Drive
20 is a narrow, unfinished dirt road with the protected riparian area on its north side. The
confusion arises because the riparian area is not shown on the Site Plan. If it were on
22 the site plan, it would be clear that the riparian are~ is between the subject property and
Grandview Drive. In order for Intervenors to access Grandview Drive they will have to
24 cross the riparian area, which has been dedicated to the City or ther will have to cross
the adjacent neighbors' property, for which no easement of ingress and egress is
7 Planning required Intervenors to submit a site plan which was revised several times. (Rec. 48-49)
21
Petition fur Review
~~~
recorded. (Appendix 2) The site plan is inaccurate as to the location of the survey pins
2 on the southeast and southwest part of the property (Rec. 48) The partition map shows
that part of Grandview Drive (which is partly riparian preserve) was dedicated to the
4 City. (Rec. 15-16) The dirt path Intervenors use to access their property is not
Grandview Drive, but a dirt drive that is on the adjacent neighbor's property.
6 Grandview Drive splits at the point indicated in the map and the neighbor's private dirt
drive veers to the right. (Appendix 2 & 7) Planner Harris, in a letter to Intervenors'
8 representative stated that the "property lines and comers appear to be off and the site
plan must be updated with accurate property lines and corners." (Rec. 48) There is no
10 evidence that an amended site plan with accurate property lines and comers was made
part of the record and was used by the City in determining whether to issue a building
12 permit. An application for a Physical Constraints permit would require accurate
information about ingress and egress and property lines.
14 An application for a Physical Constraints Review permit would require
Intervenors to submit plans that include, inter alia, "accurate location of all existing
16 natural features" on the subject property and on neighboring properties, the location of
natural drainage ways and easements (of which there are at least two), location of trees
18 with driplines extending across property lines, "the proposed method of erosion control,
water runoff contro~ and tree protection for the development," location of all land
20. disturbance including cuts and fills and the maximum heights of cuts and fill and the
location for disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts. ALVO 18.62.040H(l)
22 Submission of the required information, would have answered questions posed in letters
to the Planning Department by neighbors. (Rec.46-47; 54-57) The application for a
24 Physical Constraints Permit is required before construction begins on any area of the
22
Petition for Review
~ ~,
property. As it stands, there is no evidence in the record to substantiate the City's
2 fmding that "[N]o additional impact will be made in the protected area with the
proposed construction." (Supplemental Rec. 32)
4
6
c. Respondent City erred in finding the proposed activities in the
regulated area do not qualify as "development" and do not require a
Physical Constraints Permit.
8
The City exercised discretion and used significant factual and legal judgment
when it found that the ''proposed activities in the regulated area shown in the building
10 permit do not qualify as developemnt (sic) as defined in Chapter 18.62, and therefore,
the building permit does not require a Physical Constraints Permit." (Rec.4)
12 ALUO 18.62.040 provides:
14
16
18
20
A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for the following activities:
A. Development, as defined in 18.62.0300. in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land.
Riparian Preserve, Hillside Land or Severe Constraint land.
B. Tree removal, as defined in 18.62.030 in areas identified as Flood plain Corridor Land and Riparian
Preserve. ALUO 18.62.040
To determine whether a Physical Constraints Permit is required, the City must ascertain if
22 "development" as defined in ALUO 18.62.030D will occur. Development is defined as:
Development - Alteration of the land surface by:
24
26
28
30
1. Earth-moving activities such as grading. filling. stripping. or cutting involving more than 20
cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1000 sq. ft
on any lot;
2. Construction ofa building. road, driveway, parking area. or other structure;...ALUO
18.62.030E
The City found that:
32 "Wrights Creek protected area (20' from top of bank) crosses the south end of the subject
property. Develop~ent as defined in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) in the
34 protected area is not permitted without a Physical Constraints Permit - this includes
earthwork and removal of vegetation/trees, construction or culverting or diversion ofa
36 creek. The proposed activities in the regulated area shown in the building permit do not
qualify as development as defined in Chapter 18.62, and therefore the building permit
38 does not require a Physical Constraints Review Permit." (Rec 4)
23
Petition fur Review
~g7
The City erred when it interpreted the ALUO to require a Physical Constraints permit
2 only if development occurs within the protected riparian area. (emphasis added)
(Rec 4) The proposed development will entail earthmoving activity disturbing a
4 surface area of more than 1000 sq. ft, because a driveway, that the Site Plan states will
be 4,416 feet will be constructed. Also, the building plans/site plan show a home with
6 the bottom floor underground, which one can conclude will require digging a deep
recess for the underground floor. (Rec. Large Exhibits Building Plans & Site Plan) The
8 ALUO definition of "development" does not limit the activity which triggers a Physical
Constraints permit to the regulated areas. It is sufficient that the subject lot contains
1 0 land in the Flood Plain Corridor or riparian preserve land. Earthmoving activities and
other development affects a much larger area than the immediate area bulldozed or
12 backhoed. Damage to the protected area may occur from depositing of sedimentation,
water runoffand loss of habitat due to development on any part of the unit of land. The
14 definition looks to the entire lot. ALUO 18.62.030(E) defines development in terms of
listed activities "OR any lot. " Reading the two ordinances together, ALUO
16 18.62.030(E) in conjunction with 18.62.040, there is a requirement for a Physical
Constraints Permit if development occurs anywhere on the lot. ALUO 18.62.040
18 requires a Physical Constraints Permit if development, defined as certain activity
occurring on any lot, occurs in an "area" of a Flood Plain Corridor or Riparian Preserve.
20 There is no Code definition for "area." Websters's Collegiate Dictionary defines "area"
as ''vicinity.'' It follows that activity which triggers ALUO U~.62.040 can be activity
22 occurring anywhere on a lot which has Flood Plain Corridor or riparian preserve land.
Under the City's current ordinances, there is no way to ascertain if construction activity
24 will occur in the regulated areas on the property unless an application for a Physical
24
Petition fur Review
~~~
Constraints Review Permit is made. That application requires a showing of where
2 construction activities will occur. For the foregoing reasons, LUBA should reverse or
remand the City's decision.
4 D. The City erred in finding that the driveway is already constructed and that
paving a driveway is not activity prohibited in the regulated area.
6
The City found that the proposed driveway will be 240' long and will cross the
8 protected riparian area. (Rec. 43) The site plan shows that the proposed driveway, which
must be paved to a width of 12 feet, will enter the property on the southeast side.8 (Rec. Site
10 Plan) The protected riparian area runs the length of the south side of the subject property.
(Rec. 4 & Appendix 7) The southeastern marker for the property is in the eastern part of the
12 riparian area. (Rec. 48) The City found that "A small portion ofthe driveway is in the
regulated area However, the driveway is existing, and therefore the proposal does not
14 involve the construction of a driveway." (Rec. 44) The City has mistakenly found that a
driveway exists. There is no existing driveway on the south side nor is there a driveway
16 crossing the property. (Supplemental Rec. 33 & Appendix 7) What the City refers to as an
existing driveway is a short, unfinished dirt path that has been used by the adjacent property
18 owners to access their property. Further, even if there were an existing driveway, the record
shows that the City did not have substantial information to know where the so-called
20 "existing drive" was located in reference to the riparian area, in part because the site pian has
incorrect property lines and comers: (Rec. 48) In reality, the only access to the subject
22 property, without trespassing on an adjacent neighbor's property, is through the protected
riparian area on the south side of the property. (Appendix 2 & 7)
24 "I conducted a site visit yesterday and was shown what appear to be the pins for the
southwest and southeast property comers. The southwest property comer appears to be
lJ To access Grandview Drive from the southeast comer oftheir property, Intervenors will need an
easement to cross their adjacent neighbor's property. (Appendix 2-3) No easement has been recorded.
25
Petition for Review
;89
2
4
in the riparian area. Also, it appears that the southeast property comer is located near the
point of the "stake at top of bank" further to the south and west than is shown. Based on
this information, the property lines and comers appear to be off..... (Letter from Planner
to Intervenors' agent) (Rec. 48)
6
Using the City's interpretation that to trigger a Physical Constraints review,
development must be in the protected area, one still finds that development, as defined in
8 ALUa 18.62.030E, will occur in the protected area. The City found that "The proposed
work in this 140 square foot area [protected riparian area] is potentially paving the existing
10 driveway to meet Fire Department access requirements, and for the connection of utility
lines." (Rec.43) Pursuant to ALUa 18.62.030(E) "construction of a driveway" is
12 development. While, Petitioner disagrees that the only work needed to construct the
driveway in the regulated area, is to pave it, (That is a Planner's statement made without any
14 evidence in the record.) even if that were the case, paving of a driveway is part of the
construction process, and the City erred when it failed to include the act of paving the
16 driveway as part of the "construction" process. Even if construction of the driveway in the
protected area is limited to paving (which is unsubstantiated), (Appendix 7) paving a
18 driveway is part of the act of constructing a driveway and is therefore "development" under
the City's definition. In the alternative, the definition of "development" is not clear and
20 objective when "construction of a driveway" is interpreted to not include paving of a
driveway.
22 The construction of the driveway will involve disturbance of an area in excess of
1000 sq. ft. on the lot and although there are no findings, one can deduce that to reduce the
24 slope of the driveway from the 20 percent slope shown on the contour map (Rec. 33) to 15
percent, as required by the ALUa, that there will be "earthmoving activities involving more
26 than 20 Cll. yds." on the lot.
26
Petition for Review
aqo
Finally, Intervenors' unit of land is an undeveloped property which must have all of
2 the utility lines placed. (Rec. 43) The City found that "the connection of utility lines" would
take place in the regulated area. But what the City failed to clarify is that the utility lines on
4 the property will connect to the utility lines on Grandview Drive, which are underground
cables. The City of Ashland does not place overhead utility lines; it places underground
6 electric cables. Intervenors will have to dig trenches to lay underground cables on their
property that will connect to the underground cables on Grandview Drive. There is no
8 substantial evidence in the Record about the amount of digging/cutting that will be necessary
for placement of the electrical cables. But there is evidence in the record that digging and
10 trenching will have to occur in the regulated area: "The proposed work in this 140 ~e
foot area [protected riparian area] is potentially paving the existing driveway to meet Fire
12 Department access requirements, and for the connection of utility lines." (Rec.43)
The City exercised its discretion and used significant filctual and legal judgment
14 when it determined that paving a driveway and laying of underground electrical cables is not
"development" as that term is defined in the ALUO and when it determined that a Physical
16 Constraints Review Permit is not necessary for the property - part of which is in the Riparian
Preserve area. The City's decision was, as the Board stated in Davis v. Ashland, "subject to
18 standards that require interpretation." Davis v. Ashland,. 37 Or LUBA (1999). The City
erred in not requiring a Physical Constraints Permit for Intervenors' development. LUBA
20 should reverse or remand the City.
22
24
27
Petition for Review
3'11
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The City's riparian ordinance violates Oregon
2 Administrative Rules for GoalS resources and is not in conformance with its
aclmowledged Comprehensive Plan.
4
A. City's riparian ordinance violates Oregon Administrative Rules for GoalS
6 resounes
8 The City's riparian ordinance contravenes statewide land use planning GoalS and
LCDC rules; the requirements in those provisions cannot be waived by the City. Riparian areas
10 are Statewide Planning Goal S resources. Wrights Creek has been identified as a Goal S
resource land in Ashland's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and in its land use ordinances.
12 ALUO 18.62.0S0B. OAR 660-023-0000 which sets out OLCO requirements for complying
with GoalS Resources became effective 9/0111996. Usually, a city does not need to amend its
14 acknowledged Plan and land use regulations to comply with subsequently enacted Oregon
Administrative Rules until its next periodic review. However, in 1997 and again in 1998,
16 subsequent to acknowledgement of its Comprehensive Plan and subsequent to the enactment
of new state administrative rules protecting Goal S Resources, Ashland amended its riparian
18 ordinance.9 (Appendix 8 & 9) The new ordinances are "post-acknowledgement plan
amendment[s]" as defined by OAR 660-023-001O(S). They are amendments to a land use
20 regulation (Ord. 2834) (Appendix 9)and adoption of a new land use regulation (Ord. 2808)
(Appendix 8). It was incumbent upon the City to meet the minimum standards outlined in
22 OAR 660 for protection of riparian land and to submit the new ordinance to OLCO to be
acknowledged:
24 The requirements of this division [23] are applicable to PAPA's [post acknowledgement plan
amendments defined in OAR 660-023-00 I 0(5) as including adoption of a new land use
26 regulation] initiated on or after September I, 1996... OAR 660-023-0250(2)
9 ALUO 18.62.075, enacted 1210211997, provides that development standards for Riparian Preservation
lands shall be subject to all development standards for flood plain corridor lands. ALUO 18.62.070,
enacted 12/0211997, sets standards for development in flood plain corridor lands but does not provide for
a riparian setback. (Appendix E)
28
Petition for Review
a9~
Local governments are required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA
2 when the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. OAR 660-023..0250(3). A PAP A affects a
Goal 5 resource when "[t]he PAP A creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an
4 acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal
5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5" OAR 660.023.0250(3Xa).
6 The City's riparian ordinance enacted in 1997 which classifies protected lands (ALUO
18.62.050) does not meet the minimum setback standards of OAR 660. Further, as a
8 OLCO official states in his letter, OLCO has not received "this ordinance [Ord. No.
2808] from the city as a post-acknowledgment plan amendment pursuant to ORS
10 197.610 to 197.625 (Appendix 10) DLCD also has not received Ordinance No. 2834.
(Appendix 10) The riparian land use ordinances remain unacknowledged, because the
12 City failed to follow the requirements of ORS 197.625 as follows:
An amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation is
14 not considered acknowledged unless the notices required under ORS 197.610 and,
197.615 have been submitted to the Director of the Department of Land
16 Conservation and Development and:
(a) The 21-day appeal period has expired; or
18 (b) If an appeal is timely filed, the board affirms the decision or the appellate
courts affirm the decision. ORS 197.625
20
The notices required under ORS are as follows:
22
(l) A proposal to amend a local government acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use
24 regulation or to adopt a new land use regulation shall be forwarded to the Director of the
Department of Land Conservation and Development at least 45 days before the first evidentiary
26 hearing on adoption.
28 (2) When a local government determines that the goals do not apply to a particular proposed
amendment or new regulation, notice under subsection (I) of this section is not required. In
30 addition, a local government may submit an amendment or new regulation with less than 45
days' notice if the local government determines that there are emergency circumstances
32 requiring expedited review. In both cases:
(a) The amendment or new regulation shall be submitted after adoption as provided in ORS
34 197.615. (ORS 197.610)
36 (l) A local government that amends an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use
regulation or adopts a new land use regulation shall mail or otherwise submit ton38 the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development a copy of
the adopted text of the comprehensive plan provision or land use regulation
40 together with the findings adopted by the local government. The text and fmdings
29
Petition for Review
a'13
must be mailed or otherwise submitted not later than five working days after the
2 final decision by the governing body. ORS 197.615
4 Ashland's ordinances amending the riparian ordinance are not acknowledged:
An amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation is
6 not considered acknowledged unless the notices required under ORS 197.610 and
197.615 have been submitted to the Director oftbe Department of Land
8 Conservation....ORS 197.625
10 At a minimum, when the City revised its riparian ordinance, it had to meet the new safe
harbor rules of OAR 660-023-0090(5):
12 "As a safe harbor in order to address the requirements under OAR 660-023-0030, a
local government may determine the boundaries of significant riparian corridors
14 within its jurisdiction using a standard setback distance from all fish-bearing lakes
and streams shown on the documents listed in subsections (a) through (f) of section
16 (4) of this rule, as follows:
18 (a) Along all streams with average annual stream flow greater than 1,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs) the riparian corridor boundary shall be 75 feet upland from the top
20 of each bank.
(b) Along all lakes, and fish-bearing streams with average annual stream flow less than
22 1,000 cfs, the riparian corridor boundary shall be 50 feet from the top of bank. OAR 660-
023-090(5).
24
Wrights Creek is a fish-bearing stream which, in a portion of the Creek, carries
26 stee1head and rainbow trout (Appendix 11 -- "Bear Watershed Analysis", U.S. Forest
Service. Petitioner respectfully requests the Board to take official notice of the "Bear
28 Watershed Analysis," which is an official report of the U.S. Forest Service.) and which
has an unknown average annual stream flow. At the time the City amended its riparian
30 ordinance, it was required to provide at least a 50' setback to meet the least stringent
standard of OAR 660.0250(2) for streams with an annual average stream flow of less
32 than 1000 cfs. "Adoption of new land use regulations must comply with the Goals,
state statutes and administrative rules." ORS 197.250; Andrews v. City of Brookings,
34 27 Or LUBA 39 (1994). The City's land use ordinance which has no setback provisions
is a less stringent standard than the 50' setback requirement of the OAR. The ALVO
36 does not meet the minimum setback standards. While acknowledgement forecloses
30
Petition for Review
:''1'"
challenges to land use regulations based on noncompliance with the statewide planning
2 gOalS,10 it does not foreclose challenges based on noncompliance with Oregon
Administrative Rules. LUBA has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to ORS
4 197.015(10Xa)(A)(i), because this concerns a final decision made by a local
government that concerns the application of the goals. LUBA should reverse the City
6 and find that the City is subject to the safe harbor rules of OAR 660.
B. The City's riparian ordinance violates Ashland's Comprehensive Plan
8
The Wrights Creek area has been established as a significant wetland by the City
10 and is also designated as a protected riparian area by ordinance. Ashland's riparian
ordinances must be in conformity with its Comprehensive Plan. The Ashland
12 Comprehensive Plan (CP) has as two ofits Goals: to "[p]rotect the quality of riparian
resource lands, and preserve their wildlife habitats" and "[t]o preserve and protect
14 significant wetlands, and to mitigate potential impacts on these areas due to
development and conflicting uses." (Appendix 12. CP page IV-ll&13), Policy 25
16 requires the City to ''Examine the Physical and Environmental Constraints chapter of
Ashland's Land Ordinance concerning wetland and riparian areas, and insure that
18 existing zoning regulations maintain these valuable areas in a natural state." (Appendix
12 - CP page IV-14). Given the express language of Policy 25, implementing State
20 Goal 5, requiring that riparian areas be maintained in a natural state, the City's
Physical Constraints ordinance, ALUO 18.62.040 supra, which allows for development
22 including tree removal and earth-moving activity in a protected riparian preserve,
violates its Comprehensive Plan. The City has failed to comply with the mandate of
24 Policy 25 to insure that zoning regulations maintain the riparian areas in a natural state.
10 See Dem/ow v. City of Nil/sharo, 39 Or LUBA, 307 (2001).
31
Petition for Review
3qS
Further, the riparian ordinance contravenes the CP when it tails to include setbacks for
2 the City's protected riparian areas. Policy 18 under the Goal to protect the quality of
riparian resource lands, and preserve their wildlife habitats provides that the City:
4 18) Identify, protect and seek conservation easements throughout significant riparian areas
(streams, stream banks, and flood plain areas), and wildlife habitat areas. (CP IV-II)
6
The City has no ordinance providing for OAR-mandated minimum setbacks. And in
8 1997 and 1998, when the City amended its riparian ordiriance, it failed to include
setbacks mandated by OAR 660-023-0090(5).
10
Under "Wetlands" the CP provides that "conflicting uses" in wetlands include
1) residential and commercial development 2) road construction 3) urban stonn...runoff
12 4) livestock grazing and 5) failing septic systems. (Appendix 12 - CP page IV-12) Yet
for the subject property, the City approved the placing of an underground septic system
14 in the regulated area and approved urban storm runoff into Wrights Creek. (Rec. Site
Plan) The City has violated its own CP and the City's decision should be reversed.
16 FIFm ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: The City erred when it chose a method of
measuring the driveway Which did not factor in the slope of the property and
18 carve of the driveway to determine the actaallength of the driveway; when it
determined that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it
40 granted a variance for the maximum slope ofthe driveway without foUowing-
ALUO provisions for granting variances. The City failed to comply with
22 minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and minimum standards of the UFC for
tt1marounds and dead-end streets.
24
A. Length of Driveway
26 . In the absence of further definition ALUO 18.08.195 defining "driveway" is
ambiguous, because there can be different interpretations as to where a driveway ends.
28 Driveway is defined as:
ALUO 18.08.195 Driveway: An access way serving a single dwelling unit or parcel of
30 land, and no greater than 50' travel distance in length. A flag drive serving a flag lot
shall not be a driveway. Single dwelling or parcel accesses greater than 50' in length
32
Petition fur Review
39'-
shall be considered as a flag drive, and subject to all the development requirements
2 thereof: .
4 The City determined that the "driveway" ended at some indeterminate point prior to
reaching the garage or front of the home and then proceeded to do a horizontal
6 measurement of the driveway. The length of the proposed driveway is significant,
because if the driveway is over 250 feet in length a fire apparatus turnaround is
8
mandatory:
10
12
14
ALUO 18.76.060B & C ....Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus
Access Roads under the Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. Flag drives
greater than 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance
Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090.:..
An accurate measurement of the driveway length is necessary to determine if the
property is subject to the turnaround standards of ALUO 18.76.060B & C. The City
16 found that Intervenors' driveway will be 240 feet long. (Rec. 4)
The phrase ''travel distance" in the definition of "driveway" is not clear and
18 objective. Logically, the ''travel distance" ends at the point where a car could no longer
proceed forward For the subject property, it is plausible that the access way ends when it
20 reaches the garage or the turnaround area in the northern setback. (Rec. site pIan) But the
City, by determining that the length of the driveway was 240 feet, interpreted "travel
22 distance" to be some arbitrary point significantly short of the garage or parking area. 11 In
Tirumali v. City ofPortland~ 169 Or App.241, 7 P3rd 761 (2000), Petitioners appealed the
24 issuance ofa building permit, disagreeing with Respondents on the meaning of "finished
surfi1.ce." In Tirumali the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the relevant city provisions
26 were not clear and objective, stating:
We emphasize that our inquiry here is not to determine what the relevant terms in fact mean but
28 only to determine whether they can plausibly be interpreted in more than one way. If so, they
are ambiguous, and it would follow that the relevant city provisions are not ~clear and
30 objective," ORS 97.015(10)(b)(B), and that they cannot be applied without interpretation, ORS
II The City's determination of the driveway length changed over time from 230' to 240' (Rec. 50)
33
Petition for Review
397
2
4
191.015(lO)(b)(A); see St. John v. Yachats Planning Commission, 138 Or.App.43, 47,906 P.2d
304 (1995). Consequently, if the terms are ambiguous, the city's. application oftbe provisions
would constitute "land use decisions" that fall within LUBA's jurisdiction, and a remand for
LUBA to decide tbe merits of the appeal would be necessary.
6
The ALUO definition of "driveway" is ambiguous, because there can be different plausible
interpretations as to where a driveway ends. The definition which includes the phrase ''travel
8 distance" is ambiguous and is not clear and objective pursuant to ORS 197.015(lO)(b)(B)
and cannot be applied without interpretation. ORS 197.015(10)(b)(A). The paved travel
10 distance of the driveway shown on the site plan is significantly longer than 240 feet. (Rec.
Site PIan)
12 Not only did the City not have a clear and objective standard to determine where the
driveway ends, the City did not use an accurate basis of measurement because it failed to
14 factor slope and curve into the driveway measurement. Intervenors' site pIan shows a
property with an east lot line of275' and west lot line of280'. The proposed driveway will
16 originate at the southeast corner and then curve down a slope which reaches at least 20.
percent, (Supplemental Rec. 33) to the western lot line where it runs parallel to the lot line
18 until it reaches the garage - 14 feet from the northern property line. (Rec. Site Plan) Even if
the driveway were built in a straight line to the garage, running south to north, without any
20 slope, the length would be 266' ifwe use the western lot line length (280' - 14'). Ifwe use
the length ofthe eastern lot line, the driveway would be 261' (275'-14'). But this driveway
22 does not run in a straight line. It is a curved driveway crossing a sloped property. The City
erred in arbitrarily calculating the length of a driveway without factoring slope and curve
24 into its calculations. (Rec. Site pIan)
26
28
34
Petition ror Review
?;'1i
2
B. City erred in granting variance for driveway slope without the following
proeedure for variances in ALUO 18.100
4
The City applied the flag drive standards of ALVO 18.76.060 to Intervenors'
application. (Rec. 4) The City granted Intervenors a variance to allow for a maximum
6
driveway slope of 18% for up to 200 feet of driveway. The applicable ordinance provides:
8
10
12
Street and private drive grades in Performance Standards Developments shall not exceed a maximum
grade of 15%....Variances may be granted for private drives for grades in excess of 15% but not
greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for
approval as found in 18.100. ALUO 18.88.050
The City granted the driveway slope variance without following the procedures
14
required by ALVO 18.100 for variances. Those procedures are:
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
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.
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
oftbeCity. (Ord.2425 SI, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions bave not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (Ord. 2775,
1996) ALUO 18.100.020
Further ALVO 18.100.030 provides by implication for approval of such variances by
the City planning commission, which approval was not given for the variance herein:
30
32
34
36
38
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.
ALUO 18.100.030
PetitiOner requests that LUBA reverse the decision of the City to grant a variance to
40 the mandatory maximum driveway slope, because the City granted said variance without
following the procedures required by ordinance.
42
35
Petition for Review
;~9
C. The City mistakenly determined that only one dwelling is accessed by
2 driveway
4 The City also incorrectly determined that the driveway is an access for one dwelling
unit or parcel of land. (Rec. 4) The neighbors to the west of the subject property have a
6 recorded easement of ingress and egress over Intervenors' property to access their dwelling
located on a separate parcel (Rec. 43) While they will not use the entire length of the
8 driveway, they will use the southern most portion of the driveway to access their property.
The requirements for flag driveways differ depending on whether one or two units are
10 served:
Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot shall have a
12 minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface. For drives serving two lots,
the flag drive sball be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of driving surface to the back of the first
14 lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall
have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. ALVa 18.76.060(B)
16
The City determined that the Intervenors driveway must be built to flag drive standards,
18 (Rec. 4) but then mistakenly found that the driveway will serve one dwelling when, in
reality, a portion of the driveway will serve two dwellings. (Rec. 43)
20 SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OR ERROR: Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070
violates the UFC Section 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS
22 368.039.
24 Ashland has adopted the Uniform Fire Code (UFC), (AMC 15.28.010) which
sets the minimum fire standards for all local jurisdictions in the state of Oregon. Local
26 jurisdictions may amend the UFC, but an amendment must be more stringent than the
comparable UFC provision:
28
Modifications to this [UFC] code shall not be less stringent than the minimum fire
and life safety code adopted by tbe State Fire Marshal. UFC Section 101.4
30
UFC Section 902.2.2.4 provides that "Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of
32 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision for the turning around of
36
Petition for Review
tfo~
fire apparatus." Ashland bas amended Section 902.2.2.4 to a less stringent standard
2 requiring an approved turnaround for a dead-end fire apparatus access road in excess of
250 feet in length. AMC 15.28.070D. Ashland's standard is less stringent than the UFC
4 standard and violates the UFC provision which allows for more stringent but not less
stringent amendments.
6 ORS 368.039 provides that road standards adopted by a local government
supersede standards in the fire code, but only if those standards are adopted pursuant to
the ORS chapters listed in the statute:
8
10
12
14
16
18
ORS 368.039: Road standards adopted by local government supersede standards in
fire codes; consultation with fire agencies. (1) When the governing body of a county or
city adopts specifications and standards. including standards for width. for roads-and
streets under the jurisdiction of the governing body, such specifications and standards
shall supersede and prevail over any specifications and standards for roads and streets
that are set forth in a uniform fire code adopted by the State Fire Marshal, a municipal
fire department or a county firefighting agency.
(2) This section applies to specifications and standards for roads and streets adopted by
the governing body of a county or city in a charter, acknowledged comprehensive plan
or ordinance adopted pursuant to ORS chapter 92,203,221 or 368....
20
But Ashland's Amendments to the UFC, which provide for less stringent standards,
were not implemented pursuant to any of the chapters listed in ORS 368.039. Ashland's
22 amendments were not implemented pursuant to ORS chapter 92 - Subdivisions and
Partitions, 203 - County Governing Bodies, 221 - Organization and Government of Cities
24 or 368 - County Roads. The Amendments, enacted in 1998, were written with the sole
purpose of amending the UFC and are in the AMC Chapter titled "Fire Prevention Code."
26 The amendments, implemented to lessen the impact of the UFC on proposed development
in Ashland, violate state law.
28 A.- Minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060
The subject property, which is in a WildfIre Corridor (Rec. 59) that experienced
30 two severe wildfires in 1910 and 1959, was granted an exemption to the requirements of
37
Petition for Review
4/)/
r
the UFC. (Rec. 4) Respondent City stated in its conditions of approval that the proposed
2 driveway is a flag drive subject to the requirements of ALua 18.76.060. (Rec. 4)
ALUO 18.76.060 ...Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access
4 Roads under dte Uniform Fire Code and subject to all requirements dtereof. Flag drives
greater dtan 250 feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance
6 Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090.
8 Initially, Intervenors were required to provide a fire apparatus turnaround on the subject
property, but Planning Department Staff did not approve the proposed turnaround, because
10 Intervenors proposed to locate it in the protected Riparian Preserve. (Rec. 26 note of
7/23/04) Subsequently, the City reversed itself and determined that no turnaround would
12 be required for Intervenors' development, located in a Wildfire Corridor.
While the City considered turnaround standards for the driveway, it failed to
14 consider whether Grandview Drive meets the turnaround standards of the UFC.
Grandview Drive is a dirt road in excess of250' in length, which is the only road for
16 ingress and egress to the area in which the subject property is located. It dead-ends near
the southwest comer ofthe subject property. (Supplemental Rec. 33 & Appendix 2)
18 There is no evidence or findings in the record concerning the turnaround capabilities for
Gratidview Drive. We do not know if the fire chief waived UFC turnaround standards
20 for Grandview Drive. UFC 902.2.1 gives the fire chief the ability to modify UFC
standards. And only Chief Woodley would have authority under the UFC.to modify
22 standards -- but not to completely waive UFC standards. Websters New Collegiate
Dictionary defmes "modify" as follows:
24 1. To reduce in extent or degree; moderate. 2. To change somewhat the form or qualities of; as
to modify the terms of a contract.
26
The UFC gives the Fire Chief the ability to modify the standards:
28 "Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided
with approved provision for the turning around of fire apparatus." UFC 902.2.2.4
38
PetitiOIl for Review
'-teA.
-,
2
4
E:s:eeptions: L When buildings are completely protected with an approved
automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of Sections 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may
be modirted by the ehiet (emphasis added)
The Ashland Code does not delineate the circumstanc~s in which the Fire Chief may
6 use his authority to modify the UFC. Because no applicable criteria have been
developed by the Ashland City Council to guide the fire chief as to when and what
8 modifications may be made, the decision to forego minimum UFC requirements for the
development ofIntervenors' property in a Wildfire Corridor was not only discretionary
10 but also arbitrary and capricious. Further, Petitioner's constitutional right of due
process is violated when, the fire chief, an un-elected government official can make
12 exceptions to the UFC without legislated guidance. Without such guidance the fire
chiefs modifications may be arbitrary, as in the case at hand. There is no legislative
14 authority given to the fire chief to waive or make out right exceptions to the UFC. See
Washington ex rei Seattle Title & Trust Co. v. Roberge!1278 U.S. 116 (1928).
16 Modifications may be based on partiality, irrelevant factors or no factors at all
A decision requiring discretionary judgment or the exercise of policy judgment
18 is a land use decision, which can be appealed. See Friends of the Creek v. Jackson
County, LUBA No. 98-158. See also, Demlow v. City of Hillsboro, 39 Or LUBA 307
20 (2001). The City's decision should be reversed because the City's amendments to the
UFC violate statutory requirements and because there is no evidence in the record that
22 the fire chief waived requirements of the UFC for the driveway or applied UFC
requirements to Grandview Drive.
24 V. CONCLUSION
Based on this brief and the record, petitioner respectfully requests that LUBA
26 reverse the decision of the Respondent, because the subject unit of land is an illegally
39
Petition for Review
4-1J~
-.---- --- - - -T
created lot as a matter of law. Reversal, as opposed to remand, is appropriate because the
2 decision being challenged is wrong as a matter of law and cannot be legally corrected.
Dept of Land Conservation and Development v. Columbia County, 117 Or App 207, 843
4 P2d 996 (1992) (questioning why LUBA remanded rather than reversed where a zoning
ordinance that permitted partition without application of approval standards was ''wholly
6 invalid" under statute). Further, LUBA should reverse the City's decision, because
Ashland's riparian ordinance, which is unacknowledged, violates OAR 660 and Ashland's
8 acknowledged Comprehensive Pian.
In the alternative, petitioner requests that LUBA remand the decision for
10
proceedings to achieve the above-requested relief: _ ~
Dated May 3, 2005. ~ ~~.
Bonnie Brodersen, Petitioner
12
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 4,2005, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Petition for Review by hand deliverylU.S. postal service on the following persons:
16
18 Michael Reeder
Michael Franell
20 Attorneys for Respondent
20 East Main St.
22 Ashland, OR 97520
DLCD
635 Capitol Street, NE, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301-2540
(503) 373-0050
24
Alan Harper
26 Mark Bartholomew
Homecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell,
28 717 Murphy Road
Medford, Oregon 97504
30 (541) 779-8900
Attorneys for Intervenors-Respondent
32
34 Dated: S -1- (j;-
36
~-;~~
Bonnie Brodersen
Petitioner
40
Petition for Review
J.fo4
"I
2
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
4
I certify that on this 4th day of May, 2005, I filed the original and four copies of the
foregoing PETITION FOR REVIEW on the Land Use Board of Appeals, 550 Capitol NE,
Salem, OR 97310 by first class mail, postage prepaid, through the United States Postal
Service. ~ _~
r-' --~
Bonnie Brodersen, Petitioner '--
6
8
Petition fur Review
J.f~~
41
Land Use
fhapt01's:
18..04
18.08
18.12
18.16
18.20
18.24
18.28
18.32
18.36
18.40
18.44
18.48
18.52
18.56
18..60
18.62
18.64
18.68
18.70
18.72
18.76
18.80
18.84
18.88
18,92
18.96
12.100
18.104
18.108
18.112
Sections:
18.04.010
18.04.020
18.04.010
TI'l'!,E 13
LAND USE
General Provisions
De.fini tions
Districts and Zoning Map
R-R Rural Residential District
R-l Single-Fami.ly Residential Dist,rict
R-2 LOVI Density Multiple-Family Residenti.a1 District
R-3 High Denisty 1-1ultiple-F'amily Residential District
C-l Retail Commercial District
C-2 Downtown Commercial District
C-3 Heavy Commerical District
C-4 Tourist Commerical District
C-5 Neighborhood Commercial District
M-l Light Industrial District
M-2 Heavy Industrial District
A Airport Overlay
Ashland Creek Greenway Overlay District
"SO" Southern Oregon State College District
General Regulations
Solar Access
Si te Revie\...
Partitions
Subdivisions
Mobile Homes
Planned Unit Development
Off-Street Parking .
Sign Regulations
Variances
Conditional Use Permits
Procedures
Enfor'cement
Chapter 18.04
GENERAL PROVISIONS*
~_.
Title
Purpose
18.04.010 Title. This Title shall be known as the "L~nd Use
Ordinance" of the City.
*For statutory provisions enabling cities to zone, see ons 277.220;
for zoning provisions generally, see O~S 222.210--227.310. Fer
statutes relating to p~rtition and subdivision, see ORB Chupter 92.
302
J-fOh
Revised Sept. 19GO
,'A,.,t) 101"..-1 d .' v
1.ol1d Use
18.04.020--18.0~.030
~.8,0:'_:...23.Q__Yt1..~J~~)S~. The purpose 'of this Title is to encouraS2
t:he most api:H'opriat(~ wc;e of land; to promote orderly grO\vth; to
provide adequate open space for ligh~ and air: to conserve and
f:tabilize Lh':~value of property; to protect and improvl? the
esth(~tic and visual qualities of tht~ Li.ving environment; to aid in
sccuring safety from [ire and other dangers; to facilitate adequate
provisions for maintaining sanitary conditions; to provide for .
adequate access to property; and in general to promote the public
health, safety and the aeneral welfare; all af which is in accord-
ance ,.'lith and in implem~ntation of, the Comprehensive Plan. of the
City of Ashland. (Ord. 2052, 1979) ".
18.04.030 Enactment and Effect. This Title shall apply to
all actions which have nbt ~eached the fol16wing steps:
A. Site review: final approval by Staff Advisor or Co~~issic~
B. Partitioning and Subdivision: approval of preliminary. plat
C. Planned Unit Developments: final approval by Commission.
D. Signs: final approval "
E. Variances and Conditional Use Permits: Commission approval
F. Zone text or map change: ordinance enactment.
G. Uses ,permitted outright in C-l & C-2 Zones. (Ord.2097,,11,lS
Chapter 18.08 u
18.08.010
18.08.020
18.03.030
13.0tL040
-18.08.050
18.08.060
18.08.070
18.08.075
18.-08:030
18.08.090
18.08.100
18.08.110
18.08.120
18.0.8.130
18.08.135
18.08.1110
18.08.150
18.08.160
18.08.170
18.03.180
18.08.190
13.08.200
18.08. :n.O
18. O~~. 2/.0
18.0(;.230
18 . 0 {3 . 2.1 0
18.0B.~~SO
1. 8 . 0 8 . :~ G 0
18.08.270
DEE' IN I'l'IONS
Generally
Accessory structure or use
Agriculture or agricultural use '
Agricultural structures
Airspace obstructions
Alley
Architecturnl P~ojectio~
^utQm.QbiJ,~ -S~rvice Station
Block .
Boarding--rooming house--group home
Building line
City
Cor.~ercial, or co~~ercial use
Con-Juission
Condominimus
Councillor common council
Court, inner
Coverage; lot or site
Day care, or nursery, or kindergarten
Development plan
Di~~ trict
Dwelling,. single-family
D,','eJ.ling I b\'o family or duplex
D.,\'c.;lling 1 mul tiple- family
Dwell ing, 0:;: d\.jclllng unit
Ea~~emen t
Fumil'l
G(tr~l(~F~, priva to.
Gura<jc sale
J.I L'?
303
~t?c. .:'. '1:; 1 :z..(v' , /,' C,"/
Land Use
18.08.280
18.08.290
18.08.300
18.08.305
'18.UU.310
18.08.320
18.08-.330
18.08.340
18.08.350
18.08.360
18.08.370
18.08.380
18.08.390
18.08.400
18.08.410
18.08.420
18.0B.430
18.08.440
18.08.450
18.08.460
18.08.470
18.08.480
18.08.490
18.08.500
18.03.510
18.08.515
18.08.520
18.08.530
18.08.540
18.08.550
18.08.560
18.08.570
18.08.580
18.08.590
1a.08.600
18.08.610
18.08.620
18.08.630
18.08.640
18.08.650
18.08.660
18.08.670
18.08.680
18.08.690
18.08.700
18.08.710
18.08.720
18.08.730
18.03.740
18.08.750
18.08.760
18.08.770
18.08.780
18.08.790
18.03.79~
r
18.08
Grade
Height of building
Home occupation
Home-or iented Cammer ica1 l-\cti vi ties
H0spital.
Hotel
Industrial, or industrial use
Kennel
Lot
Lot area
Lot corner
Lot depth
Lot, flag
Lot, interior
Lot line
Lot line, front
Lot line, rear
Lot liJ:'le, side
Lot, reversed corner
Lot, through
Lot \-lidt.h
~lap
Hobile Home
Hobile home court, park or subdivision
Notel
I.iural
Nonconforming structure or use
Parking space
Partition
Partition, major land
Partition, minor land
Pedestrian Way
Person
Planned unit dev~lopment
Plat
Private \'lay
Recreational vehicle or travel trailer
Residential, or residential use
Secretary
Setback
Staff advisor
Street
Street, arterial
Street, collector
Street, cu1 de sac
Street, half
Street, marginal access
'Street, minor
Story
Structure or building
Structural alteration
Subdivide land
Subdivision
Tract, or area, -of land
Travellers Acco;~~cCations
1ft' $1'
304
Revised Sept. 1930
.l,ano use
~D.UD.U~V--~O.UO.LLV
18. OB. 800 '1\~liipor':l}~Y use
18.08.8:10 Use
l8.08.H20 Vision clearunce area
18.08.330 Yard -
18.08.840 Yardl front
18.08.SS0 Yardl side
18.08.8GO Yardl rear
18.08.010 Generally.
includes the feminine and
the plural.
18.08.020 Accessory structure or use. A structure or use
incidental and subordinate to the main ~lse of the property I and
which is loc~ted on the same lot with the main use. Private
garages and carports are accessory buildings when not attached
to the main building.
18.08.030 Agriculture or agricultu~al use. The use of the
land for CrOl)S and tree farming; the tilling of the soil; t:he
ra~sing of field and tree crops.
18.08.040 Agricultural structures.. Structures intended
primarily or exclusively for support of an agricul t.ural function I
and exemplified by, but nei res~ricted to: barnsl sllosl water
tower~, windmillsl greenhouses.
As used in this Titlel the masculine
the neuter ~nd the -singular includes
18.08.050 Airspace obstruc!:ion. ~.ny structurel trecl land
mass, or usi of land which penetrates a transitionall horizontal,
or conical surface of an airport I airport approach I or airport
overlay as defined by this Title and/or regulations of the Fede~al
Aviation Administration.
18.08.060 Al1e:'(. A narrow streetl tv.;enty feet or less in
width, through a block primarily for vehicular sqrvice access to
the back or side of properties otheniise abutting on another strcs.;:
18.08.070 Architectural Projection. Eaves, decorative
e-xtenswnsr bay windo\vs, having no floor space; or other pOl-tions
of a building having no living space nor key structural value.
1~.08.075 Automobile Ser~ice Staeion. A business providing
service to the motoring public. Such uses can include light re-
pairl tune-ups I transmission or drive train repairs to aut~nobiles
or light ~rucks. No outside storage of any automobiles or.mate-
rials such as tiresl auto partsl etc:., is allowable. (Ord.212ls1/1SG
18.08.080 Block. The land surrounded by streets and other
right-of-way other than an alleYI or land which is designated as..
a block on any recorded subdivision map.
18.08.090 Boarding--rooming house--grd~p home; A dwelling
or part thereof I other than a hotel or motel, ...,There lodging ,./i th
or ,./ithout meals is providedl for compensation, for three or more.
persons.
18. OB. 100 Build i~.g line. A line on a plat indi"ca ting the
limit beyond which buildings or structures may not be erected.
18.08.110 City. The City of Ashlandl Oregon.
13.08.120 Con~mercia1, or cOr.1mercial use. l~ny activity
involving (fle-sale of goods or ~ervices for prof it.
3051( 09
Revised Mar. 1981
I.Jund Use:
18 . 0 B . 130- .-"18 . 0 B . 2;)~'
18.0 U .130 Ccmmis~3ion.
Board-o[-'1:11c cTt:~;.-'
'rhe 1'lanniI19.Con:nission or l!::~i.:rinS:3
18.08.]35 Condominiu~s. A dovelopment providing for in-
dividtwJ:-'cJ\.;nersh-{p of unii.'-s'-.oJ:" Clirsp.-lce in j.l multi-unit struct.u;";:;
. or struc lures, in \,-,hieh the unelerly ing land and/or s t.[uctures a::,::,
helel urider joint dominion.'
18.08.140
the City.
Councilor common council.
rfhe Common Council of
18.08.150 Court, inner. Area upon whicl1 any of four dwelli~~
units lD'Opj;;osij-1g--( facing f-'2f-.-;ellinCjs 0))2.n5.
18.08.160 Covc!:-ag~~, lot or ::;:;.;:e. Total area of all strue'.:::.::::::::
'paved-drh;C:\'~2)~S~---O):. otJ1er ~so{l dif;l:l11::bdnces th<:t wiU not a110\'.'
normal water. infiltration. The coverage is expressed as a fer-
centagc of such area in relation to the total gross area of the ___
or site. Landscaping \'Jhich does not ne.ga1:ivc:ly impact the n:3.ti.1:C'.:
water retention and soil characteristics tif the site shal.l not be
deemed part of the lot or site coverage.
18.08.170 ])C\Y care, or nurs0ry~ or kindcrqarten. A schoc'~ c::
care ccnt~(~r hans:;')].; five 01: more dlIJc1renfoJ~-r;o-lfiOJ:-e thd.'.1 t\-:el\;,;l
hours per day where the student-to-staff ratio is ten to one or ~~~=
18.08.t80 De~eloprnent plan. Any plan adopted by the Pl~n~i::;
COllLllissfonfor the guicfariceofg::-:-O\!th and illiprO\lcment: of the Ci"t:_,
. 1" d''''''' """ - f' t" t t."
lnc ucu.ng mo l....lcat~ons or re.L lner.1Cpts maae -)"CTI 11110 -.O'lr.~e.
18.08.190 District. A zoning district.
A. "R" cUs-i:rict indicates any residci-lLial zoning dist.rict.
B. "e" district indicates any cornnerci~l zoning district.
C. "Mil district indicates any industrial zoning district"
D. "A" district indicates the airport overlClY ~jstrict.
18. 08. 20~!,,'}elling, single-farnily. A detached buildins;
containing one dH(-~lling unit.
18.08.210 Dv:elling, hm family 01: duple)~. A detached bu il:::--
in9 containing two dwelling units.
18. OS. 220 p\..'elling, multiple-family. A buildinCj containir:~
three or mOj~C d\.:e 1.1in9 units.
18.08.230 D\'lellinc.;, or dHelJ.inq unit. One 0):: more roor.-lt;
designed toro~;cuj)anc); byoi=le fam{i~7- und not having more th~n OL2
kitchen or cooking facility. For the purpose of this Title th2
term uch:011ing, or (1\'1211ing unit" does not includc the tenll
"trailer house".
land
18.08.240___ La_sern~n t. A grant of the right to
for speciricpurposcs.
use
a strip'c~:
1H.08.250 F<..mily. ;"n indivic":u<,l, or t',\7() or morc~ perSO:1~
rc-:llate-ZCT)'y--blo,HT,-liiarl-"'ia<je, 10<]Cl1 i:'.c1opJ.:ion, or guardL"1Pship; ::1.:'(:
more th~n five persons \.'ho are not r21atcd by blood I marriage,
legal adoption, or guardianship. ~ /i;
.,,,c
1").- .. . .: ,...,...:,,! .Y -, \.... , (' a r,
""""T' . --------...--- -
'La~lc1 Use
18~02.2~O-71R.D8.340
18.08.260 G<:i~~u.(je, private. An enclosed or open (ccu:po.r.t)
rcofeu-,,\Cccssory-:;trllct.1.1re--dZ;signed t.o house vehicles o\';:1Cd by
occupant(s) of a residential structure.
18.08.270 Garage sale. A temporary activity conducted on the
premises of a pri v-atcresidcnc:e for the purpose of disposal of goe:'.
or belongings of the residcllts of the dwelling. Such activity shal
have a duration of not more than blO days, nor shall it occur more
than twice within any 365 day period. Such activity shall not be
accompanied by any off-premise advertisement. For the purposes of
this Title, garage sales shall not be considered a commercial act-
ivity.
18.08.280 Grade or Ground Level. The average of the finishG~
ground level at the center of all walls of the building. In case a
wall is parallel to and within five feet of a sidewalk, the ground
level shall be measured at the sidewalk.
18.08.290 Height of buildings. The vertical distance from
the "grade" tothe --h LgJieEt -i~oint of the coping of a flat roof or
the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the
highest gable of a pitch or hip roof.
l- ~,
"_'J
18.08.300 Home occupation. An occupation commonly car1~ied C:-.
\'1i thi11 a dwell ing by memhl~'l:S -of the. family OCCurT{.1.ng i:he dwelling,
provided that the residential character of the building is maintai..
and the occtlpat.ion is conduct.ed in such a nanner as nol: to give :~:1
outward appearance nor outwardly manifest any char~cteristic of a
business in the ordinary meaning of the term except as permitted i:-:
any ordinanc8 regulating signs, nor infringe upon the right of
neighboring r>2sidclJ.t;s to ('~njoy t,hc psaceful occupancy of: their 1,c~'~-':':
A home occupation does. not involve the retail sale of a pr6duct or
service en the premises other than teaching, tatorinq; or:- CG~1.r.\.se1j.~-_
involving traffic impact of not more than one au tomcbile at a tii::,e,
nor more than eight persons p8r day.
18.08.305 Home--Oriented Commercial l~ctivi ties. Ttll~ operai::Lc:~
of smaIT-local-conve11ie-nce businesses \'lithlli the Railroa.d Distric<:
as identified by the Ashland Historic Commission and approved by t:.
City Council. Such businesses may in81ude grocery stores, barb0~
. and beau ty shops' and similar uses, provided th~; residentia.l
character of the pr-operty is. maintained and 1.10 additional off-sere::
parking shall be required.
18.08.310 Hospi tal. An establish:nent "'ihich pr:ovides slc:cpi::~
and eatii\g rdcifIl.iesto ;::>ersons n:~ceiving medical, obstetrical, c::::
surgical care and nursing service 011 a continuous basis.
18_-".0~...:}20 ...J:!..otel. i\ building in Hhich lodging is provided t8
9t1estS fOl~ cor:\pe:l1sation and in '.'ibid\ no provision~) are made for
cooking in the lodging rooms.
18.08.130 Industrial, oi industrial use. An activity relats_
to the m:lrlu-facture, . nrodllc l:1~-)l1OrsToraCie of product to be trans-
ported elsewhere for'retail sale. - J
18.08 . 34 O. i{(~nncl. ,'.ny prem i.ses. ,",here .(our or nlm.:e dogs or
cats are-r~-ept or I.)eri.nitl:ed to n~milin, except veterinary clinics.
Jfl/
Rcvir;e:cl .Jan. 1980
307
,.
l-,andUse
;-". "
. 18.0B.350--18.D8i49J
18.08.350Lot. A unit of land created by a partit:on or a
subdivision, or a unit or continguous units of land under single
oHnership, \\'hich complies with all applicable laYls at the time
such 19ts were cr~ated. Any contiguous ownership of non-conformin~
.lots wlll be consldered one tract of land. (Ord. 2097s1, 1980) -
18.08.360 Lot area. The total horizontal area within the
lot lines of a lot, said area to be exclusive of streek rights-
of-way. .
18.08.370 Lot corner. A lot abutting the intersection of
two .or more streets other than an alley.
18.08.380 Lot depth. The horizontal distance .from the mid-
point of the rea~ of lot line.
18.08.390 Lot '. flag. Any lot not having standard legal
access to a City Street, and which is provided with access by a
driveway parallel to the lot line of a lot having standard access.
18.08.400 Lot, interior. A lot other than a corner lot.
18.08.410 Lot line. The property line bounding a lot.
18.08.420 Lot line, front. In the case of an interior lot,
the lot line separating. the lot from the street othei tha.n an aIle.::'
A corner let shall have one street line considered the front lot
line. The narrower street frontage shall be the front lot line
except \-lhen the Staff Advisor determines topogra?hical or. access
problems make such a designation impractical.
18.08.430 Lot line, rear. A lot line which is opposite an~
most distant from the front lot line, and in the case of an
irregular, triangular, or other shapeu lot, a line ten feet in
length within the lot parallel to and at a maximum distance frow
the front lot line.
18.08.440 Lot line, side. Any lot line not a front or rear
lot line.
18.08.450 Lot, reversed corner. A corner lot, the side
st.reet line of \'lhich is substantially a continuation of the front
line of the first lot to its rear.
18.08.460 Lot, through. An interior lot having frontage en
two parallel or approximately parallel streets other thuD alleys.
Such a lot shall have one front.yard fronting on the primary public
street.
l8.n8.470 Lot width.
beb~cen tJl(; side lot lines,
front lot line.
The average (mean) horizontal distanc2
ordinarily measured parallel to the
18.08.480 Map. A diagram or drawing of a partition or suh-
division or any other land use or land development matter.
18._08.. :1.90 no~)ile home. P. buildj ng or vehicle \.;hich is port-
able or ,~hich \Vas originalf~, designed to be pOJ:taLle a,:c' \dlic:h ~.'c.S
constr~cted or modified to perloit occupancy' for dwelling purposes.
'fhis term shilll incl ucle sel [-pr<)pe lied mobile homes, l)ickuil c.J.:i:p:::::~
mo])}'l"" 11()1.'1"<' tr",,('l tl--;" "'t'e- Ll--,i:)""'-c- -nd at-'J1"'r- L,.j 1'1'1 -,- '-'r-\,~ ...-'- ...-
.. - ....~ . """ .~v... .0...... "'.":'1 .u~'J".:;.:. ct _ ,., "'~" ..<l.... '.'..1 ._:_....,.-.
Land Use
la.08.500-~18.08.620
which may be utilized for dHelling purposes.
18.08.500 Mobile home court, park or subdivisio~. A plot of
ground upon which one or more mobile homes occupied for dwelling
purposes are located, regardless of wheth(~r. a charge is made for
such accomodation.
18.08.510 Motel. A building or group of buildings on the
same lot containing guest units 'for rental to transients, with
separate entrances directly exterior and consisting of individual
sleeping quarters~ detached or in connected rows, with or without
cooking facilities. (Ord. 2052, 1979)
18.08.515 Mural. A graphic design on a building which re-
presents a perSOD~ place, scene or other artistic endeavor. This
definition do~s not-include architectural enhancement of a build-
ing facadel however, this would be'subject to the procedural ar.d
- substantive C:esign revie'it! portion of the Site Revievl Chapter.
(Ord. 2097 S2, 1980)
18.08.52'0 Noncon:fm:minq structure or use. An existing
structure or .use la\vful at the time the' ordfnance codified in this
Title, or any amendment thereto, be.com~s effective, and tvhich does
not conform to the require."11ents of the izone in which it is located.
18.08.530 Parking space. A rectangle not less than twenty
feet long and nine feet \-lide together \~ith access and maneuvering
space sufficient to PErmit a standard automobile to be parked wi tl-:-
in the rectangle without the nece:ssity of moving other vehicles,
said rectangle to be located off of the street right-of-way.
18.08.540 Partition. To divide an area- or tract of land into
three or fe....e-r- lots withfn- twelve months.
18.08.550 - P~rti.ti.on.,'maior 'land.,. A part.i tion which necess-
itates the creation or a l:oad- orstree~:;. ..
18.08.5'60 Partition,. minor land. "A partition that does r:ot
necessitate the creation of a road or street.
18.08. ~;?O _ Pedesct.rian way. A rigbi:.t-of-\'lay for pedestrian
traffic.
18.08.S-EO Person. An individua1,~ firm, partnership, assoc:.a-
tion, corporation, estate, receiver, syndicate, branch of govern-
ment, social or - .fr'aterna~ organiz,ation,', or any other group of
combination, acting 'as' a.J.egalenti ty, and including any trustee,
assignee, o~cther representa~ive thereof.
18.08.,;5'90 Planned ur..it development. A development on land
under unified. control ace ord'i ng to comprehensive plans and a singlE:
development plan for ,uses and buildings related to the character of
the district with a program for operation and maintenance of COI:'C::,~:'_
areas.
18.08. 600 -'P:lta.t;-.;~- - A diagram, dra\ving 0:::' replat containing all
the de sc r il) tia..'1sc,- _aDc,ati_ons~ spec i f iea t ions, ded ic a t i on s ( pr \) vis i c:-, :.
and information 'Concerning a 'subdivision.
18.08.610 Private way. A private easement or ownership
established by decd...for ve11icular access to property.
18. OS. 620 Rec.t:(i-a tiof1<l. 1 vehicle or travel traiJel:. 7\ seJ.f-
propelI'ncfor l:.O\ii3S;"I€ mObiTc 'uni t uS2d for telnporary (i~::Gl,~::.r:g
purposes by tr~v~~Qers.
309
~i-E
Revised Sept. 1980
Land ,J~jC
18 . 0 B .GJ ()- -1 B . 0 a . -;~. U
1. ~~_~!3 ~-~~;~(~-- !S.~ ~;! (!~ n 1.:..~:.; .:~--~"~!~ ~:~.i_c~ c n..~~.!~ Jr:t-("~' ~.~'?~\~.1 J:. t"..; l\e.~.1. ~V," \G,,_, ~!' ~ c~'. :,,'1 i '.~.'I'. ~!{. :..' r..'} ,:..-, ~.~,:,._: ....,.
contr,lsLc'J \'lit11 COI!li:i('>l.ciiJi ar.d i!ieJtl:-;ccL,l.L .-'- ,L ~ 1-'- _'
the pCiJceful, private conduct of pursuits related to the livj~0
. environment.
18 . 08. 640 Se(~ r(~ tt~ r~.~ .. T11 (~ S(~C ):'(~ ta ry t() the PI c.l1ni11g Ci);.ilii!.i ::-: E. i '::. .n_
. vlho i'5- the -Directol.~-ol--tJi'C: City PJcmniny Departinent.
18.08.650 Setback. The distance between the center line of a
s'crect and the spc~cial bcJ.se line setback from \vhich yard measure-
ments <u-e made ,measured horizontally and at right angles from
said center line.
-----..-.---------
18.08.660 Staff advisor.
The Secretary or his reprcsentatj~~.
18.08.670 Street. A public right-of-way for roadway, sid~-
\-/aU::, ---aridutil:i. t~-;-I11~j(al12t.ion inc1 uc1ing the terms .. road" I "11i::::1;--
. vlay", "land" ~ "p) ace", "<1venue", "alley", 0:1'.' other similar des is:r:--
ations. . 'llhe ent.in~ uidtt1 b(-!t\-l(~<o'\n the right-of-vwy lines of evc1:'1'
way Wllich provides for pvblic use for the purpose of vehicular an~
pedestrian traffic.
18.08.680 Street, a~terial. A street used primarily for
througTr'- tra ff fc:------.----
18.08.690 Street, collector. A street used to some extent
for 1:h)~U9h tl:afficillld-t'o' som~:-'ex.tent for access t.o abuttin~j
properU.8s.
18.08.700 Street, cui de sac. A short dead-end street
t,ermii1iitE~d by a v'~hicle --tu~::-narouncf.
18.08.710 Street, half. A portion of the ~idth of a stre2~,
usually' along the--edge oI='-a-"s\,lbdivision \vherc the remaird!1g po~:ti':::,:-;
of the street could be provided in anotheJ:- subdi v i::.-:ion.
18.08.720 Street, marginal access. A minor street p~tallGl
and adjacent to a roaror ci'rterial street providing access to abul.:tir:~;
properties but protected from through traffic.
13.08.730 Street, minor. A street int.ended pd.~n<lrily for
access to abutting properties.
18.08.740 Story. That portion of a building included bet-
'<lcen the upper surfac8 of any floor and the upp2r surfa.ce of tiE'
floor next above, except that the top story shall be th~t portion'
of a building included bet\\.een the upper surface of the top flco?~
and the ceiling above. If the finished floor level directly a0c~e
a basement or cellar is rno:cc than six feet above grade, tl:e b:::sc--
meot or cellar shall be considered a story.
18.08.750 Structur0 or buihling. That \.,Thich is built or
constrtlcted; <111 e'di!:lcG or buildingof any' kind or any piece of
t-Jork artificiall}' built lIt) or cOlnl)Osed of p..J.l"'ts joined tOS-2t11f~r ~..r:
some de fini te manner ;:md \'.'hich requires locati.on on, i. n, or a.:x. '.,.::,
the groul1G or ,..'hichi S cd:. tachec1 to someti1in-:; ~1av ing c' locat ion 0.-:,
in or above the ground.
310
If/f
~0visect ~nn. 1980
...........A.'-4 V,-,_
~U.VU.'VV ~V.~.~.VLU
._. .~., 7,....' ~.' '..'
"....18. 08..,J6.0_."s.tructur:al ,.al taration. A change to the suppo!"tin9
members of a' structere includinSJ founda.tions( bearing walls or
partitions, columns, be,,:ms 01:' girders, or the reof.
18.08.770 Subdivide land. To divide an area or tract of land
into four or more lets within twelve months.
'18.08.780 Subdivision. An act of subdividing land or a tract
of land subdivided as defined in this section.
18.0B.790 Tract, or area~ of land. A unit or contiguous
units of land under single ownership. (Ord. 2052, 1979)
18.08.795 Travellers Accommodations. Any establishment havin~
rooms or apartments rented or kept for rent to travellers or tran-
sients for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for rental or use of
such facilities. (Ord. 2097 S3, 1980)
18.08.800 .remporary use. A short-term, seasonal, or inter-
mittent use. Such use shall be approved by Conditional Use Pernlit
only, ,-lith s11ch conditions- as the Commission deems reasonable in
accordance with the Conditional Use standards.
18.08.810 Use. The purpose for which land or a structure is
designated, a-rranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied or
main.tained.
la.08.320 Vision clearance area. A triangular area on a lot
at t.he intersectiol1 of 'CdO streets or a street and a railroad , blO
sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection
of the lot lines ror. a. distance specified in these regulations.
The third side of the triangle is a line acro~s the corner oithe'
lot joining th~ ends of the other tvlO sides. \\1here the lot lines
'or intersections have rouaded corners, the lot lines will be
extended in a straight line to a point of intersectich*(Ol"d.2052,19~
H3.08.830 Yard. An open space on a lot which is unobstrnctet:
by a structure from the ground up.,...;ard. (Ord. 20.97 s4, 1980)
~8.08.840 Yard, front. A yard bet\"leenside lotplines and
measured horizontally at rtght angles to the front lot line fron
the front lot. line to the nearest point 'of the building.
1~.08. SSO .' Yard, side. An upen space beb~ecn the front and
rear yards measured norizontally and at l.'i.ght angles from the s:Ld~
lot line to the nearest point of the building.
18. OS. a 60 Yard, rear. A yard bet\olee n side lot 1 ines and'
tneas'l.lred-horizontally ciFright angles to the' rear yard line from
the rear' yard line to the nearest point of the buil2.ing.
ChaDt~r 18~12
DISTRICTS AND ZONING 11AP
Sections:
18.12.010 Compliance required.
18.12.020 Classification of district.
18.12.030 Zoning map.
18.12.040 District boundaries
18.12.050 Similar uses.
18.12.010 Compliance required. No structure or lot shall
hereafter 0(; used or OCCUpf0d and no structure or part thereof
shall he ere.:;teci, moved, reccnst.ructed, extended, enlarged, or
altered contrary to the provisions of this Title.
\
.)
--iii-.-- i-/ I 5
Revised Sept. 1980
'-1'
)
)
1..'-1 nc1 U ~:: (.
le.12.020--1B.IG
l~:}..:?-=-2,~_0_ __{~!l~~::::_J~~:~'::~~L!~_~)r~__<2.;:,_51~~~~E~~_~~:~~" J<'or thc pur-pO;",:':!;; c.::
t.:hi.s 'Ii t 1(~, tJI':': Ci ty j::, L~j_V ided j n LJ zon,Hlc,: (1 is ::ricU] desiglic1 h::;;t '
~\S fOlJO'd::-;:
ZOll {ll'-' "', i v j..... t- c:
.L J 1] _~_~..=-~~:~~..:.:::
, !-iap Syml>ol dn,l
~bb rev ~ a toed D"~~:;.i 9 1'1(,[ ~~~~..:.~
Idrport Overlay
Rural
Single f'i;~rr.ily
1.0'\'1 density multiple family
HiSJh density n:u1 tipJe family
Hecdil
A
RR
,R.,.l
R-2
R-~
C-l
C-2
Residential -
, Residential
Residential
Res i(1(~n tial
Comr:,,~rcia1
Conm;(-:]~ C 1. a 1
C(.'m:11'21~ r: i ell
Comm(~re:La 1.
COnT!i,:~ J:'C ia 1
Industrial
Indu::;trj .:.1
- l)~)\..!n t~Q~'lll
- Ilca'J-Y
'I'onr is t
C-3
C-4
C-5
H-l
1-1-2
'- N;:' ighborhood
.- Li'Jht
- J-:8<lVY
~-.:.12:. 0 ~2..-.-!~nin~L3';~2 ~
A. Tho location and boundaries of the districts designated i~
Scctio"! 13.12.020 ore establislwd as SliO"1,l on the m~1p eiltJ.tlcc;
"Zonins [,ja:J of the Cit:,( of llshland", dated\1i'::-'h the cffccti'.T;2. dcl'~('
of u)(~ o:(GinaJlce cadi f loc, hen~in, and Siqn8u by the if;~tyor 2,~ld Ci-c
I{'e~e(J'''('-'''- "j}V'!' h"",-","Fte'- )-"'f~'rrea' to ~s tl'e:' "z",p~na 'n"p)"
". .t~.... '. .--.. 1J...._L\o..C..L ..L. ~~.,.,,; n - _ 1 -"y_..J.. J ..s ~-"'l: .
B. r;,'he d,gned copy of said zoning map sh<.:ll l,Je nlitin~:ain8d cr. .;:~ 1,...
in the office of the Ci ty Recoule:r and is made ;~ P?:rt, efthis, 'Ii-:.:,~:.,-
18.12.040 ~istrict b0u~da~ics. Unless otherwise specifieJ,
c1:striC-;:-bOl'''1~a0n'' ar(~--)(')t ---l-1.7'l--l;'::-S--th'" ""El'l'-nr ~J'PP'" ot stree'~:~:.,
, '.'-, .,.' '-,. U L< ,,_ ,- ~ ,,' '_ _ , ,"'" l~ ',- l.- <.::: -,-,. -__')
a.nd rail.r.oad riDht,-of--'!."i(lv, or such lines ex'tended. If a c1ist.ric::
bOundarydivi~e; a lot i~to two districts, the entire iot ~h~l~ b0
placed in the district that aCCOl1nts for. the 0reate:r: area of the
lot by theCtdjl,l~H::n(~nt of the dis.trietboundal:;{ provid(;d the
boundary adjusLn.cni.: is for a distance not to exceed U!~nt.y fGe~::.
18.12.050 Similar use~. l'lhere a particular use is not ] istsc
as permitte-.j"or condiflonc.l -use in a given zone, the PlannillS CC;T,-
mission may, after appropriate analysis, c'etecrnine that the use is
similc..r to thoselist8u in type I kind, and function I and thereto:,'c
prop8)~ly alloeat:.ed to th~t zone.
~l~clptcr. 18.15
RR RUP1\L RESIDENTiAL DISTHTC'l'
-_.__.__.~-_.._-----:----
See t5,ons ~
18.16.010
18.16.020
18.16.030
] (i . 1 G . O!iC
PurIJOsc::.. .
l~(~ rI::i t 'lcd uses.
C\,1nd i t i()nal uses.
Ger!erc=.l ro<;ula'li,ons.
312
;.f/~
Revised Jnn. 1980
!'
-- ~~~l~.::.~l::o-,-:!?~~~P()_~.~; ThG {Ju~~p'bse 'of the RH district is to
staLili~a and protect the rcral residential characteristics of
area~; vlhich, bcc;:r.lSc of t(iposraph~' I level of services, or otheJ:'
naturJl or development factors are best served by a large lot
designation.
l_~..:l~2.~O___Tcr~_~t~~_~.ses. The follm'ling uses and their
. accessory uses aJ:-e peruL:.ted outright.. .
A. Single family dVlellings.
B. Agricuiture and farm .uses, . except animal sales yards and feed
yards, hog farmsl and any animals fed garbage.
C. Public schools1 purl:s and recreation facili.ties.
D. ResidenU.al Planned Unit Developments lyt.en authorized in
accordance wj.th the CI)~ptcr on Planned Unit Development.
E. Home occupations.
18.16.030 Conditi?!2~l~ses. 'rhe following uses and thcdr
accessory uses are pcrmit-.t<?Q when authc.rizcd in accordance v:ith
the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.
1'.. Churshe:3 and similar religious institution::>.
B. l1as;;>it<lls, restl nursing and convalescent: homes.
C. Parochial and private schools I -in::luding nursery schools;
kindcrgc:'rten, and day nurseries; business, dancing, trad(;.!
technical, or similar schoo]..
D. Public and public utility buildirrgsl structures an~ uses; but
not . including corparationl storage or repair yardsl ~larehous~sl
and similar uses.
E.Private recreational uses and facilities, including cO\Jntry
clubs, golf courSes.. s,,:iitu-ning clubsl and tennis clubs, but not
inclu.dirlq such intensive commercial recreational uses as a
driving i:-angc, race t.rac:lL or amUScHrnent pad:.
F. Riding instructions and academies.
c. Ceracteries, mausoleums, COlumbariums; crematoriums.
H. Excavation and replOval of sand, gravell stone, loam, dirt, OJ::
other earth products, subject to Section 18.68.080 (Commercial
Excavation) .
I. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges, and clubs.
18.16.040 General regulations.
P.. Hinimum lot area: Hinimum lot areas in tJv:! RR zone ffi2Y b2 .5, L
or 2.5 <teres, depending on the topoSjraphic l1ature,scrvice .::v:1il-
ability and surrounding land uses, and other relevant charac~er-
is tics of the area.
113
- 117
Revised Jan. l)?O
r
Lancl Uf.;e
18.1G.040--18.20.020
B. Haxim\.un lot covcri1qc:
1. One-hal~ acre lotti (RR-.5): twenty percent maXlmum.
2. One acre lots (J{[{-l): t\-Jclve percent maxil:mra.
3. '1\\'0 and one--hCllf acre lots (RP.-2.5): seven percent maxim~;:-'.
C. Minimum lot width: All lots shall be at least one hundr~d fe~t
. in "lidth.
D. Lot depth: All lots shall be at least one hundred fifty feet
in depth. No lot depth shall be more than three times its Hidth.
E. Hinimum front yard: There shall.be a front yard of a least.
b/cnty feet.
F. Hinimun, side 'yard: There shall be a minimul}1 sid8 yard of five
feet, except ten feet along the side yard facing the street on a
corner lot.
G. Iv1inimum rC'<:tr ya:r.d: '1'11e1'e shall bE~ a minimum real.- yard of: ten
feet.
H. Naxinmm building height: No structure shall be over thirty...
five feet or hlo and one'-hali stories in height, \.!hJchever is less.
~'his does not include agricul tural struct.ures fifty fect or men.::;
from any prop2rty line.
Chapter 10.20
R-l SINGI.E-FAr-nLY RESIDEN'l'IAI. DIS'flUCT
Sect.ions:
18.20.010
18.20.020
18.20.030
18.20.040
Purpose
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Genera~ regulations.
11J.20.010 Purpose.. The purpose of th{~R-l district.. is to
stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of the dist:rict
and to promote a.nd encourage a suitabJ,.e environment for fand..Iy JiL.,
18.20.020 Permitted uses. The follO\~ing uses and their
accessory uses are pe):-mitted outright: -
A. Single family d\velling.
B. Dllplex on corner lots, provided that no t\vO such uses shc~ll be
contiguous, except that t.his provision shall not apply to any area
which has been developed cr 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
5i te Rovie,., Chupter.
C. hgriculturo.
D. The keeping of livestockexcc;pt swine pro"Jided that:
1. No livestock sh<.11] be kept on' any lot less t.h.:1.U on(~ aCl:e:
in area.
314
If I g
Revised Jan. 19B0
2. Ho more than t\'lO h(~a.c1 OV0.1: the age of ~;ix Inr)l:t.hs ma:r n:.:
maintained per acre.
? .~. . ....
3. Barns, stublcs, and othCl~ buildirigs and struct.urcs to ho...;:::
said livostock shall not be located closer than fift.y feet t.o
any property line.
E. Public schools, parks, and recreation facilities.
,
F. Residential Planned Unit Developments when authorized in accorc
ance \-lith the Chapter on Planned Unit Development.
G. Home occcpations.
lB. 20. 030 Conditional' uses. The follo\-.ring uses and t.heir
accessory' u-sec; arc permitted\','hen authorized in accordance "lith
the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Hospitals, rest, nursing, or. ~onv~l~scent h6mes.
C. Parochi<:ll and privat.e schools, including. nursery schools I
kindergartens, day nurseries, busine~s, ciancing, trade, technical
or similar schoolsi
D. Publtc and public utilit.y buildings: s.truc.t:ures, and uses.
(~r~. 2121$2, 1981}.
E.
golf
such
race
Recrc.:;tional uses and facilities, includin) COUl)"..:::;:-y club'3,
coun;es, s,\./i)'f.rning clubs, and tennis clubsi hut not inc:lud.'.;-l<::
intensi.ve' ccnU11ercial recreational uses as a driving range;
track, or amusement park.
F. Off-street pat-king lots adjoining a C OJ: t.! district subject: t::..
.the provisions of the Chapter on Of: f"'S~reet Pct!:'}:ing.
G. Public and quasi-public halls, .lodges, and clubs .
H. Duple,xes on corner lots, sul:>ject to provisions of the Site
Revie\'.J Clmpter.
18.20.040 General regulations.
r .'
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot 8re2 i~ the R-l zone shall
be 51000 square feet except 6(000 square ferit for corner lots. R-l
areas may be desisnated far 7,500, OJ:" 101000 squdre foot minir:-::.m,
lot sizes where slopes or other conditio~s make larger sizes
necessary Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number
follo~ing the R-l n6t~tioriwhich ~epreserits al16wabl~ minimum
square fout~ge In thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-I'-5 5,000 square feet
- R-1-7.5 7,500 square fect
R-l-10 10 10.00 sc!uare feet
13.
MiniDu~ lot width:
lnterior 101:s:
Corner lots:
All 1',--1-7.5 lots:
l'.11 H--l-IO lots:
fifty f(:et
six ty fe(~t
sb~ ty- fi ve 'feet
3::vcn~-;~vc feet
'-;1 .;~~.~.
~." ... .
_.-_I'..~- . .
Hev i~3\;d
["1(1 rei1 l~) E j.
.'
.. -
-- .., .. .~ .... . " . .., ~ ... .. - . .. .., ..... '-'
C. Lot depth: '~ll lot.s shalJ have u minilllU!ll depth of eight.y
feet, dnd a maximum depth of one Jlun~rcd fifty feet unless lot
configuration prevents further development of the back of the
lot. No lot shall h<lve a width greater than its depth, and no
lot shall exceed one hundred fifty feet in \vi,.dth. (Ord. 2052( 1979),
D. . Standard Yard Requirements: Front Yard--20 feet; Side Yards
....-6 feet; The sideyard of-a corner lot abutting a public street
shall have a 10 foot setback; Rear Yard-~lO feet plus 10 feet for
each story in excess of one star)', In addition, the setbacks
must comply with Chapter 18.70 of this Title which provides for,
Solar Access. (Ord. 2097s5, 1980; Ord. _2121s3, 1981).
E. Maximwn building height: No structure shall be over thirty-
five feet or two and one-half stories in height, \-lhichever is less.
F. l>1aximum coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent
in an }\-1-5 District, fortY--five percent in an R-1-7.5 District,
aild forty percent in an. R':"-l-lO District.
Chapter 18.24
R-2 LOl'J PENSITY'HULTIPLE-F:AIHI,Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
S~ctions:
~ '-.
18.24.010-
18.24.020
18.24.030
18.24.040
Purpose.
Permitted uses
Conditional uses.
8eneral regulations.
18.24.010 Purpose. This district fs designed to provide an
e.nvito~rrientsun:able for urban living. The R-2 district is inter-d-
edfor residential uses and appurtenant community services; this
district :is designed in such a_manner that it can be applied to c.
wide range of areas due to the range of residential densities
possible. In additi<>1l, \'lhen appropriately located C!nd designed,
professional offices and small home....oriented commercialactivit.ies
designed to attract pedestrians in the Railroad District are
. a1lm'led. ..
18. 24. 020 Permitted uses. The follmdng uses and their
acceSSory uses are permitted outright:
A. Single family d\vellings and bID family d\vellings.
B. Multi-family dwellings.
. _.
316
1f:20 '
Revised March 198i
r
.J(1\;lU)on \.,oumy l'rom t;oumer Appncanon
Page 1 or 1
II.......,.... ..~+. ~.:....... ~+....til.........
. . . ". .... ..,
. . · , ZOC)M ZOOMzQOM %O(,M
'C' ''''' IN ""T .....FULL
..
....
'f'
PAN
II II~C!,
SELEC. T DESELECT BUFFER PRINT ASSE$SOR_. .
TAXLOT TAXLOT TAXLOT MAP MAP . .'.
w f','~k\s:
C 'tee. '
<<16 SEARCH RESULTS
'41 ~(:t~r -.c ~Jr 'PI,. C, j::rl
1 Record found for 391EOS
sot
.12
*
liitQick to View Ass!
@t~ck to zoom ma
A
602
-407
403
Owner ~
~
~
Account it ~
Map &TL ~
Situs Address ~
Code Tax it ~
Status ~
E"...d DR
~ f'(t 1'\ ~v ,'e vJ Ar.-
391E05
1ll1lO
I.".,.,~. ""'<C'" iIlPM
~ Create mailinc
Search took 0.016 seconds
-~"".'
r..1
http://www.smartmap.org/FCNindex.cfm
~t2/
5/3/2005
A Pfe,'\d.,')(.
:A
{!)I l6
01 14738 JACUOR COUNTY TrrLB 97409ja In
DIVI8rOll OF LA1fYBRS Trn.B DSlJRARCJ: COUOUTroll
502 W. Main Street (P. O. Box 218) Redford. OR 97501 (541) 779-2811 I I
TBRARTS BY D1TIRBTY
WAIUlAIlTY DBBD
JalOW ALL tIlDf BY TJIBSK PIlBSIJITS. that .
JerOllle Nitzberg and Esther Nitzberg and R. Michael Morse and Frances P. Morse
hereinafter called the Ch-antox. for the cODlliduatJ.oR bua1.naftu .tatad. to Ckanto:t'
paid by
William J. McDonald. and Lyn J. MCDonald
husband and wife. Grante... do hereby grant. barGain. sell and convey Wlto the Ckant....
aa tenaats by the entirety. the beirs of the survivor and their .ssigns. that cutain
real property. with the t__te. beredit:aaents and appurteDaDCe. ther_to belonging
or appertainillg. situat.d in the CoWlty of Jackson . State of Oregon. descJ:'ibed
as follows. to wit.
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
R. Michael Morse and Frances P. Morse consideration is paid to an Aex:oohulator pursunat to
1031 Exchange.
TO RAVE AND TO HOLD the saae unto the said Grantee and GJ:aI1tee's heirs. successors
...d assigus forever.
And Grantor hereby COV8DlUlta to and with GJ:'ant..s and the hurs of the survivor ...d
their assigus. that GJ:'antor is lawfully .eised in fee simple of the above granted
preatses. uee froa all encUl8brances. BCJ:PT
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
and that GJ:'antor will warr...t: _d forever defend the .aid preais_ aDd eveq ~t and
~ce1 thereof againat the lawful claias and de.anda of all persODS wboasoever. except
those claLaing under the above described 8I1CU8branc.s.
THE '!'RUB: AHD ACTUAL COllSmBRATIOH paid for this tr....fer. stated in te,... of doll...,.
is $ 128.000.00
WBBRB THE CORTEXT SO RBQU:rRBS. the siDgular includes the plural and all gr_tical
changes shall be implied to make the ~ovisions hereof apply equally to individual. and
to corporations.
:IN WITlIBSS WBBRBOI'. the grantor has executed this instrument this .3 day of
~~.~ . ~.
IS IHSTaUIIBJIT WrLL ICOT ALWW USE 01' THE PROPBRn DBSCRrIlBD :rII THIS DlS'l'RllNRHT rllT
VIOLATIOR 01' APPLrCAJlLIr LAND USE LAJfS AND RBGULATIORS. 8lrPORK SIGHDfG OR ACCBPTrHG THIS
, :IHSTRtfKBII'r. THE PUSON' ACQUZRDfG PBB TITLE TO THE PROPBlln SHOVLD CBBCII: 1fI'1'B THE APPRO-
PRnTS aft OR COUMTY P DBPARTIIBMT TO V'BII.II'Y APPROVBD US1l8. AHD TO DETBRMDlB ANY
. ~ . ;.'OIf..~UZTS ST I'ARIIDCG OR POUST PllACTICJ:S AS DBl'nnrD rR ORB 30..93 0 . .
'"~. ......"'- '" ~ ~
:-, Esther Nitzberg
:p
,-
:. .
\,,~ '. lAt4 ,.f'""",
,., ... ... v
The foregoing instrwaeat _s
by
~. tmf
Jerome Nitzberg and Esther Nitzberg
. OfRCW.SfAl
CIWININ 0lillY
NlJTNn' PUt!lJC.Or:: "'ON
, COMMISSIONNO.:<T>1,2
MrCOfMtSSION BCPIRfSJUN 2.2l!O3
Mail Tax Statcaents to.
E~ i)~
~a ,
#~~..'
APPENDIX if
01 14738
97409ja
RXRl:BXT A
COlllmencing at the northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 5 Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County,
Oregon; thence North 89057'55" East 284.13 feet (record North 89059' East 284.00 feet);
thence South 00031'54" East (record South 0030' East) 23.50 feet; thence North 89057'55"
East 49.55 feet (record North 89059' East 49.68 feet); thence South 00031'5." East 301.37
feet to the true point of beginnLn9; thence North 89057'55" East 83.82 feet; thence South
00031'54" East (record South) 275.02 feet to the northerly line of Orandview Drive; thence
along said northerly line, along the arc of a 266.267 foot radius curve right, 84.33 feet;
thence NorLh 00031'54" West 280.96 feet to the true point of beginning, beLng Parcel No.
Two (2) of Minor Land Partition filed December IS, 1981 in Volume 4, page 89 of Minor Land
Partition Records in Jackson County, Oregon, and filed as Survey No. 9119 in the office of
the County Surveyor.
(Code 5-01, Account #1-005559-6, Map .391E05CD, Tax Lot '500)
Subj ect To:
1. Right of way for water ditch, as granted by instrument recorded in volume '7 page 316
of the Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
2. Perpetual non-exclusive easement for irrigation waters and ditch, as granted by
inst~t recorded January 9, 1976 as No. 76-00286 of the Official Records of Jackson
County, Oregon.
3. Agreement, subject to the ter&lS and provisions thereOf, With the City of Ashland,
Oregon, recorded November 16, 1981 as No. 81-21079, Official Records of Jackson County,
oregon, regarding participation in the Grandview Assessment District, neighborhood pump
system, and future improvements to the extension of Wimer Street.
4. A public utility easement affecting the west 10.0 feet as shown on the minor
partition filed December 15, 1981 in Volume 4, page 89, Minor Land Partition Records in
Jackson County, Oregon, and filed as Survey No. 9119 in the OfUce of the Jackson County
Surveyor.
5. Easement for ingress and egress, 20.0 feet in width, as granted by instrument
recorded May 5, 2000 as No. 00-18850, of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
(Affects southerly portion)
JacklOft CouIdr. Qqon
lecordecI
OmclAllECOlDS
APRO ,.
.J.: 1<' ~~
1n,....J>J Q.
COUNTY CLERK
d-
~ ~,.;,
1
2
3
4 BONNIE BRODERSEN,
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
5
Petitioner,
l
LUBA No. 2004-201
6 vs.
7 CITY OF ASHLAND,
8 Respondent,
9 and
10 WILLIAM & LYNN McDONALD,
11
12
13
Intervenors/Respondents.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF ASHLAND'S RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO
14 THE RECORD
15
16 I, Maria Harris, being duly sworn, say:
17 1. I am the Senior Planner for the City of Ashland and have been employed as
18 a planner for the City for over seven and one-half years. I review current planning
19 development proposals for the City of Ashland, including the zoning permit portions of
20 building permit applications.
21 2. I was the planner assigned to review the subject building permit application
22 for the Planning Department to confirm that the application met the criteria found in the
23 Ashland Land Use Ordinance and any applicable planning action conditions.
24 3. I affirm that I reviewed the material from Planning Action (PA) 79-110, which
25 created the subject property as a legal lot, only at the request of the City Attorney,
26 Michael W. Franell, in order to identify that a survey on the subject property had been
completed. I was not asked by the City Attorney to review P A 79-110 to determine
PAGE 1 - MARIA HARRIS' AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF ASHLAND'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO THE RECORD G:\legaI\Reeder\PLANNINGIBrodersen lUBA Appeal\Brodersen LUBA Response
to Record Objection - Affidavit (Harris).wpd ~ '" Li
Micheal M. Reeder ,Assistant City Attorney, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 + (541) 488-5350 '7 "-7
APPENDIX 5
1 whether or not the subject property was a legally created lot, but only to assure that a
2 survey had been completed.
3 4. I affirm that my decision to approve the zoning permit portion of the building
4 permit application was not based on my determining the legality of the creation of the
5 lot.
6 5. I affirm that I relied on PA 79-110 in determining whether or not to approve
7 the issuance of the McDonald building permit, only to determine whether or not a
8 survey had been completed.
9 6. I affirm that PA 79-110 contains a survey signed by the City of Ashland.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DATED this ~ day of January, 2005. ~ f1
Maria arris
Senior Planner
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO befo~ day of January, 2005.
. <<=> --
Notary Public for Oregon ) r-
My Commission Expires: O~/"'l. ~
OFFICIAL SEAL
RAYMOND D SMITH
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 378839
MY COMMISSION E)(PIRES MAR. 23,2008
PAGE 2 - MARIA HARRIS' AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF ASHLAND'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO THE RECORD G:\IegaI\Reeder\PLANNING\Brodersen LUBA Appeal\Brodersen LUBA Response
to Record Objection - Affidavit (Hams ).wpd . ."
Micheal M. Reeder ,Assistant City Attorney, 20 East Main, Ashland, OR 97520 .. (541) 488-5350 #:2.5
REFERENCE
LIBRARY USE ONLY
DO NOT REMOVE
FROM BUILDING
City of Ashland
Stormwater and Drainage
Master Plan
Final Report
June 2000
11:
Tetra Tech/KCM, Inc.
7080 SW Fir Loop
Portland, Oregon 97223
in Association with:
Greenworks, PC
ASHLA "Jf') RQ ^ "JCH LIBRA "y
410 SI<'".y,--,,, ,~ K
. ., ;"!I EVARD
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
APPENDIX 6
l
1~i:,
-
I
Table 3-6. Wright's Creek Evaluation
Wright's Creek lies in the northwest portion of Ashland. The creek is relatively
undeveloped and the upper, steeply sloped reaches of its watershed are still heavily
forested. With its preserved vegetation, the watershed provides an opportunity for a
vegetated wildlife link between the National Forest and the Bear Creek Greenway.
Future development should be reviewed carefully because it would increase erosion
and flooding problems and reduce the possibility of a wildlife connection.
I
I
I
I
I
Reach Location
WR-l
From confluence of
Bear Creek to 1000
feet upstream.
-
I
Reach Photo
v _,u....L<>i--_.CW->Co
...3. DRAINAGE SYSTEM EVALUATIUN
Reach Condition
. Moderate vegetation coverage.
Northern half of reach has
major blackberry coverage.
. No threat to buildings or other
structures
. Bank has been severely eroded
along southern half of reach
. Slopes average 2%
II
I
WR-2
From 1000 feet
upstream to culvert
at Highway 99.
I
II
. Good riparian vegetation
coverage
. Moderate encroachment from
property owner along stream
bank
. Stable bank condition along
95% of reach
. Slopes average 2%
II
.
"
~
~
~
3.11
1~7
City of Ashland Stormwater ar . T)rainage Master Plan...
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-6 (continued). Wright's Creek Evaluation
Reach Location Reach Photo Reach Condition
WR-3
From culvert at
Highway 99 to
intersection near
Birnam Wood Road
. Full riparian vegetation
coverage along the entire
stream reach
. No major encroachment of
buildings or structures
. Reach bank is in stable condition
WR-4
From Birnam Road to
Nyla Road
. Good vegetation coverage
along stream reach
. Moderate encroachment of
private residences along east
side of stream reach
. Bank condition is stable and
shows no major signs of
erosion
3-12
If~t
_ __ _.__._____r_".~,<p"e......; ......""'. """~. ~Y:'f"~;'_'''I.":';'~!,:::,,,:'.."f''''
...3. P""4.JNAGE SYSTEM EVALUATION
Table 3-6 (continued). Wright's Creek Evaluation
Reach Location Reach Photo Reach Condition
WR-5
From Nyla Lane to
intersection near
Strawberry Lane
From Nyla Lane looking South
.
Northern section of reach has
moderate vegetation due to
encroachment along the
stream bank. Banks show
some signs of erosion in this
area.
Southern section of stream
reach has good vegetation
coverage and little
encroachment. Banks are
intact and show little sign of
.
erosion
WR-6
Tributary from
confluence to
intersection with
Ashland Mine Road
No Photo Available-
Private Property not accessed
.
Moderate vegetation coverage
along upper section of reach.
Reach is encroached at lower
end by private property owner.
Reach has been piped under
property to confluence with
main stem
Bank stability conditions
unknown
Slopes average 7%
.
.
.
WR-7
Tributary that
parallels Ashland
Mine Road
No Photo Available-
Private Property not accessed
.
Moderate vegetation coverage
along upper section of reach.
Reach is encroached at lower
end by private property owner
Bank stability conditions
unknown
Slopes average 4.5%
.
.
.
WR-8
.
Good vegetation coverage
along stream reach.
Reach is encroached by private
property at confluence with
main stem
No Photo Available-
Private Property not accessed
.
3-13 1f~1
City of Ashland Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan...
Table 3-6 (continued). Wright's Creek Evaluation
Reach Location
WR.9
From Birnam Wood
Road to 500 feet
Reach Photo
No Photo Available-
Private Property not accessed
Reach Condition
. Good vegetation coverage
along stream reach
. No encroachment from any
structures
. Bank are in stable conditions
WR.IO
From Grandview
Drive to Orchard
Street
. Moderate vegetation coverage.
Major patches of blackberries
along stream bank
. Reach is highly encroached on
either side of the stream bank
. Bank conditions are moderate
WR-ll
From Orchard Street
south, parallel to
Westwood Street
along east side
. Good vegetation coverage
along entire stream reach
. Moderate encroachment due to
road along west side of reach
. Bank conditions are moderate.
Reach shows some signs of
erosion
3-14
i:Eo
"..."..,...m"',..."<"'>."""'''''"...'''.''">..,,.''''.,....,..,..'?''"'c,.,",". _
L.!IIi'~t__.....~
..A.EVA r,UATION OF IMPRUV1!;M1!;N1'~
CREEK IMPROVEMENTS
Recommendations for creek system improvements are based on the inventory and analysis
of each stream reach and the project goals of protecting property, protecting and enhancing
water quality, and enhancing riparian habitat. Tables 4-1 through 4-7 list the
improvements by stream reach, which are shown in Figures 4-7 through 4-13. Each
recommendation is one of the following types of project:
. Channel Stabilization-The focus of these projects is to stabilize
streambeds and streambanks to protect property and infrastructure and
alleviate sedimentation problems. This type of project requires on-site
professional expertise to determine appropriate measures to stabilize the
streambed or streambank. The City should fully evaluate bioengineering
concepts as the first choice for these projects, as opposed to traditional
rip rap solutions. Cost estimates for these projects are based on similar
projects in Oregon, with input from local consultants. Cost-sharing
suggestions included in the tables are assumed in the estimates.
. Riparian Corridor Restoration-The focus of these projects is to restore
natural plant communities as much as practical to reduce stream
temperature and sedimentation and to restore riparian wildlife habitat.
Cost-sharing suggestions included in the tables are assumed in the cost
estimates for these projects.
. Community-Based Enhancement-These projects provide water quality
benefits and riparian habitat enhancements through local neighborhood
improvements using volunteer involvement with some City resources. City
contributions might include plant materials, site preparation, volunteer
coordination, etc. The focus of these projects is to eliminate blackberry and
other invasive exotic plants and to plant desirable native species that will
reestablish the riparian forest canopy and wildlife habitat.
. Protection from -future development-This strategy focuses on protecting
existing riparian corridors and native vegetation by implementing stream
buffer zones regulations in areas where future development might occur.
4-13 #-6/
-- "~ .- '....!;
City of Ashland Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan...
Table 4-1. Stream Corridor Recommendations-Wright's Creek
Main goals for the enhancement and protection of Wright's Creek are as follows:
1. Protection of undeveloped land along stream corridors and specifically in the
upper reaches of the Wright's Creek basin and at the confluence with Bear
Creek.
2. Reestablishment of riparian plant species and removal of blackberries by local
community groups and landowners.
Location
Protection Method
Amount
Cost
Participants
Benefits
WR-l Riparian enhancement 37,500 ft2 $18,750 County and City Reduction of water temperature and
Channel stabilization 1300 feet $123,500 County and City sedimentation. Increase of riparian
species diversity and wildlife habitat
Protect banks from' future - - County
development
WR-2 Protect existing farmland from - - Landowner with County and Reduction of water temperature and
future development City involvement sedimentation. Increase of riparian
Community enhancement 65,000 ft2 $16,250 Community with City help plant species and wildlife habitat
WR-3 Protect from future development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-4 Protect from future development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-5 Community Enhancement 50.000 ft2 $12,500 City and future developers Reduction of water temperature and
(Northem section) sedimentation. increase in plant
Protection from development City Project diversity and wildlife habitat
- -
WR-6 Community Enhancement 20,000 ft2 $5,000 Landowner with City Reduction of water temperature and
Protection from development involvement sedimentation, increase in plant
diversity and wildlife habitat
WR-7 Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-8 Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-9 Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
WR-IO Community Enhancement 50.000 ft2 $12,500 Community with City h.elp Reduction of water temperatures and
(Removal of Blackberries) increase in diversity of plant species
and wildlife habitat
WR-ll Protection from development - - City Project Preservation of riparian corridor
4-14 4- E:L
I ...4. .,.....4LUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
I
a
~
~
I
I
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1
I Figure 4-7. Wright's Creek Stream Reaches
I
I
4.15 I,L 6.3
Photo: The photo shows the dirt path used for ingress and egress by neighbors
living on the property west of Intervenors' property. The dirt drive splits off to the right
in the photo. Grandview Drive splits off to the left in the photo. The dirt drive shown on
the photo is on an adjacent neighbor's property. Intervenors' eastern property line is at
the post (on the right side of the photo - see the blue ink: arrow pointing to the eastern
line). This dirt path which ends abruptly immediately after it passes the post at the
eastern property line, is what the City describes as an existing driveway.
APPENDIX 7
4~t/
ORDINANCE NO.
J~08
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.62 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE,
ADOPTING NEW HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance is
replaced in it's entirety by Exhibit "A".
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 18th day of November, 1997,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of ~
,19i7
(!k~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this <3 day of ~ ,1997.
~ ~~~~
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
~ved as to Iolf': J
w0~
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
4~!'
APPENDIX 8
f
,
-./
Chapter 18.62
EXHIBIT
IIA"
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Section!5:
18.62.010
18.62.020
18.62.030
18.62.040
18.62.050
18.62.060
18.62.070
18.62.075
18.62.080
18.62.090
18.62.100
Purpooe and Intent.
Regulation6.
Definition6.
Approval and Permit Required.
Land Cla66ification6.
Official Map!:i.
Development Standard6 for Floodplain Corridor Land6.
Development Standard6 for Riparian Pre6erve Land6.
Development Standard6 for HiII6ide Land6.
Development Standard6 for Wildfire Land6.(Ord 2747,1994)
Development Standard6 for Severe Con6traint Land6.
18.62.010 Purpo6e and Intent. The purpooe of thi6 Chapter i6 to provide for 6afe, orderly and
beneficial development of di6trict6 characterized by divereity of phy€iiographic condition6 and
6ignificant natural feature6; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon,
or alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide for 6en6itive development in area6
that are con6trained by variou6 natural feature6. PhYfilographic condition6 and 6ignificant
natural feature6 can be con6idered to include, but are not limited to: 610pe of the land: natural
drainage way€i, wetland6, roil characteri6tic6, potential land6lide area6, natural and wildlife
habitat6, fore6ted area6, 6ignificant tree6, and 6ignificant natural vegetation.
18.62.020 Requlation6. The type of regulation applicable to he land depend6 upon the
cla66ification in which the land 16 placed, a6 provided in Section 18.62.050. If th06e
regulation6 conflict with other regulation6 of the City of A6hland'6 Municipal Code, the more
6tringent of the two regulation6 6hall govern.
18.62.030 Definition6. The following term6 are hereby defined a6 they apply to thi6 Chapter:
^' Architect - An architect Iicen6ed by the State of Oregon.
B. Average 610pe - average 610pe for a parcel of land or for an entire project. for
the purpooe6 of determining the area to remain in a natural 6tate 6hall be
calculated before grading u6ing the following formula:
S = .o0229(1)(L)
A
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2,1997
Page 1
#.3'
where "S" iB the average percent of Blope; ".00229" iB the convereion factor for
Bquare feet; "I" iB the contour interval in feet; ilL" iB the Bummation of length of
the contour IineB in Bcale feet; and "N' iB the area of the parcel or project in
acreB.
C. Buildable area - That portion of an exiBtine or propooed lot that iB free of
building reBtrictionB. For the purpooe of thiB ordinance, a buildable area cannot
contain any Betback areaB, eaBementB, and Bimilar building reBtrictionB, and
cannot contain any land that IB Identified aB Floodplain Corridor LandB, or any
land that i~ greater than 3570 Blope.
D. CoheBive SoilB - ReBidual or tranBported ooilB, uBually originating from parent
rock which containB Bieniflcant quantitieB of mineralB which weather to clay.
CoheBive ooilB have a PlaBticity Index of ten or more, baBed on laboratory
teBting according to MSHTO methodB, or a Bite-Bpecific Bcientific analyBiB of
a particular ooil material.
E. Development - Alteration of the land Burface by:
1. Earth-moving activitieB Buch aB grading, filling, Btripping, or cutting
involving more than 20 cubic yardB on any lot, or earth-moving activity
diBturbing a Burface area greater than 1000 Bq. ft. on any lot;
2. ConBtructlon of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other
Btructure; except that additionB to exiBting buildingB of leBB than 300
Bq. ft. to the exiBting building footprint Bhall not be conBidered
development for ~ection 18.62.080.
3. Culverting or diveroion of any Btream deBignated by thiB chapter.
.)"...::;~.. ~... ;,. '!.'''''''''~.~''f' .. ':,'", "'~~:~;G;.,....:--~'::I ;.:;~: ;;"' ~,...:."....:.!~;: ~:':. f~"'~.~ !':(~-. ;..rr::....~:.....:f) .~~.' :"~.~I....
J,o"' t) :J!:~;::" 4.::"" ~::.-.: ~',;:,"r 0) ...:........~;? <J'd ;:~-~.:... :",.. ~"., ~.~ :;Jf~..l... .~!) ~.!7 !:.\"<~.n~~.':. :'~i :t-=:
:... .:).0', :~....::Af~.
G. Engineer - A regiBtered profeBBional engineer IicenBed by the State of Oregon.
H. Engineering GeologiBt - A regiBtered profeBBional engineering geologiBt IicenBed
by the State of Oregon.
I. Floodway Channel - The flood way channel aB defined II"! tl,e Flo~ II"!sural'1Oo
Study for !\sl,ltll'ld, O~{m, pul9lisl1ed I9y the FedeNlI EI"ler~oI'l6Y ~.ial'a~el'l'lel..t
f~ClI1~ or" ~'~"":".""~':~~:;i :;..{;:",Oo:;' :::-.
J. Geotechnical Expert - An engineerine eeologiBt or an eneineer with
demonBtrable expertiBe in geologic hazardB evaluation and geotechnical
engineering.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 2
.It!;?
K.
L.
Gully - A drain~e incieiion, commonly caUeied by eroeilon, which doeei not
experience r~ular or eiea~al eitream flow, but doeei act aei a channel for runoff
durin~ periods of h~h rainfall.
Landscape Profeeieiional - arboriei't certified by the Inumational Society of
Arboriculture, landscape architec't licensed by the Stau of Oregon, or o1;her
expert with demonstrable experti~e in tree and erooion control v~etation
maintenance, and eroeiion control v~eta'tion methotlei.
M.
Natural Grade - the
elevation of the ~round
level in itei natural
sta'te, before
coneitruction, fillin~, or
excavation. (eiet:: ~raphic)
,,~NJl>TU!e.Al- 6lCADJiE
"..,. , ~...,..~.." ......"..
I"~~~~p~
~ __ ~~~ 1
GUT AWD FIL.L c~'S S..:::T ION
N.
Natural Stau - all land
and waur that remainei
undeveloped and undieiturbed. Thiei meanei that ~radin~, excavating, filling
and/or the coneitruction of roadwayei, drivewayei, parking areaei, and eitructureei
are prohibited. Incidental minor ~radin~ for hikin~ trailei, bicycle pathei, picnic
areaei and planting and landeicaping which iei in addition to and enhanceei the
natural environment iei permitted. Incidental brush removal for lot maintenance
and ecO!5yeium health iei permitted. Further, v~etation removal for the
purpoeieei of wildfire control In conjunction with an approved fire prevention and
control plan eihall aloo be permitted.
o.
Non-coheeiive Soilei - Reeiidual or transported ooils containin~ no or very little
clay, usually from crystalline ~ranitic parent rock. Non-cohesive ooilei have a
Plaeiticity Index of leeiei than ten, baeied on laborawry testing accordin~ W
MSHTO methodei, or a published scientific analyeiis of a particular soil type.
P.
Profeeieiional Arborieit -
arborist certified by the
Inumational Society of
Arboriculture and licensed by
the Stau of Or~on S'tate
Landscape Contractors Board
or Construction Contractors
Board, or landscape architect
licensed by the State of
Or~on.
-SLope CAl.CUL-ATION = H
DEGREE OF 5LOPE = ARC TANGENT OF V/H
-,,~1
Ge.~PJS ~ ~L-OPJS ~~.
~~
e~O~~~~ --
.&i'/. ~~ __ 'r
;)J ~~ ___ \0 p.e;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~€. ".R.T'Ic.AL...
~ ~ -:-- ~ G'fJ'" DI'M'....NC.S (v)
~ ;,; -'--vJ '0 ~
~-.AfO Falli" ~
HO~I%.ONT""1.. PIST....."'C.SO: '1
(~)
"
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version -- Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 3
'-I~y
Q. Riparian - That area af;oociated wi-ch a natural water couree including it!:;
wildlife and vegetation.
R. Slope - The deviation of a f;urface from the horizontal, uf;ually expref;f;ed in
percent. (~ee graphic)
S. Stripping - Any activity which ~ignificantly dlf;turb~ vegetated or otherwif;e
etabilized eoil eurfa.ce, including clearing and gru""ing operationf;.
T. Tree Removal - -che following activitiee are defined ae tree removal:
1. The removal of three or more living tr~ of over eix inchee diameter at
breaet height (d.b.h.), or the removal of five percent of the total number
of living (or dead treef;) over eix inchee d.b.h., whichever ie greater, on
any lot within five year period, or any form of commercial logging;
2. The removal of one or more living conifere greater than two feet d.b.h., or
living broad leaf tree~ greater than one foot d.b.h.;
U. Wildfire - Fire cauf;ed by combu~tion of native vegetation, commonly referred to
ae foreet fire or brueh fire.
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required. A PhYf;ical Conetrainte Review Permit ie required
for the following activitiee:
A. Development, ae defined in 18.62.030.0, in areae identified ae Floodplain
Corridor Land, Riparian Preeerve, Hilleide Land, or Severe Con~traint land.
B. Tree removal, ae defined in 18.62.o30.R., in areae identified ae floodplain
Corridor Land and Riparian Preeerve.
C. Commercial logging, in areaf; identified af; Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian
Preeerve, Hilleide Land, or Severe Conf;traint Land.
D. Tree removal, in areae identified ae Hilleide Land and Severe Conetraint Land,
except -chat a permit need not be obtained for tree removal that ie not
aeoociated with development, and done for the purpooee of wildfire management
and carried out in accord with a Fire Prevention and Control Plan approved by
the Fire Chief.
E. If a development i~ part of a Site Review, Performance Standarde Development.
Conditional Uee Permit. Subdivif;ion. Partition. or other Planning Action. then
the Review f;hall be conducted 6imultaneou61y with the Planning Action.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 4
~.39
F. If a development iB excluBive of any other Planning Action. aB noted in
SubBectlon B. then the PhYBical ConBtraintB Review Bhall be proceBBed aB a
Staff Permit.
G. Where it appearo .that the propooal iB part; of a more extenBive development
that would require a maBter Bite plan, or other plannjn~ action. the Staff
Advioor Bhall require that all necesBary applications be filed BimultaneouBly.
H. PlanB Required. The following planB Bhall be required for any development
requiring a PhYBical ConstraintB Review:
1.
The planB Bhall contain the following:
a. Project name.
b. Vicinity map.
c. Scale (the scale shall be at leaBt one inch equalB 50 feet or
larger) utilizing the largeBt Bcale that fitB on 22" x 34" paper.
Multiple plans or layero shall be prepared at the Bame Bcale.
excluding detail drawings.
North arrow.
Date.
Street names and locationB of all exiBting and propooed Btreets
within or on the boundary of the propooed development.
Lot layout with dimenBionB for all lot IineB.
Location and UBe of all propoeed and exlBting buildingB, fenceB
and BtructureB within the propoeed development. Indicate which
buildingB are to remain and which are to be removed.
Location and Bize of all public utilitieB affected by the proposed
development.
Location of drainage waYB or public utility eaBementB in and
adjacent to
the
propooed
developmen
t. Location
of all other
eaBementB.
A
topographic
map of the
Bite at a
contour
interval of
not less
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Slope cateeory areae are
areae of unifonn elope
(within 57.) of the maximum
Indicated.
k.
5ulkJal1le Area -- an
areae 1e55 than or
ual to :357..
Slope ~ mc,,",urcul
perpendicular to contour
IInce
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2,1997
Page 5
41.10
than two feet nor greater than five feet. The topographic map 5hall aloo include a e;lope
analye;ie;. indicating buildaVle areae;. ae; e;hown in the graphic.
I. Location of all parking areae; and e;paceei, ingree;e; and egre~ on
the e;ite, and on-e;ite circulation.
m. Accurate locatione; of all exi5ting natural featureei including. but
not limited to, all treeei a5 required in 18.62.080.0.1, including
tho~e of a caliper equal to or greater than ~ix inche~ d.b.h.,
native e;hrub mae;e;ee; with a diameter of ten feet or greater,
natural drainage, 5walee;. wetlande;, ponde;. ~pring5. or creeke; on
the e;ite. and outcroppinge; of rocke;. bouldere. etc. Natural
featureei on adjacent propertiee; potentially impacted by the
proposed development 5hall aloo be included, ~uch ae; treeei with
dripline~ extending aCroBe; property line~. In foreeited areae;, it i5
nece~e;ary to identify only thooe treee; which will be affected or
removed by the proposed development. Indicate any
contemplated modificatione; to a natural feature.
n. The proposed method of erooion control. water runoff control,
and tree protection for the development ae; required by thl~
chapter.
o. Building envelope~ for all exi~ting and proposed new parcel5 that
contain only buildable area. ae; defined by thie; Chapter.
P. Location of all irrigation canale; and major irrigation Ii nee;.
q. Location of all area~ of land die;turbance, including cut~, fill~.
drivewaye;. building ~itee;, and other cone;truction areae;. Indicate
total area of die;turbance. total percentage of project 6ite
proposed for die;turbance. and maximum depthe; and heighte; of
cute; and fill.
r. Location for e;torage or die;pooal of all excee;~ materia Ie; re6ulting
from cute; ae;oociated with the propoe;ed development.
e;. Applicant name. firm preparing plan~. peroon ree;pon6ible for plan
preparation. and plan preparation date~ e;hall be indicated on all
plane;.
t. Propoe;ed timeline for development ba6ed on ee;timated date of
approval, including completion datee; for e;pecific ta~ke;.
2. Additional plan5 and ~tudie5 a5 required in Section5 18.62.070.
18.62.080.18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of thie; Chapter.
I. Criteria for approval. A Phye;ical Con5traint~ Review Permit ~hall be ie;e;ued by
the Staff Advie;or when the Applicant demone;trate~ the following:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2,1997
Page 6
4'1/
1. Through the application of the development etandarde of thie chapter.
the potential impacte to the property and nearby areae have been
coneidered. and adveree impacte have been minimized.
2. That the applicant hae coneidered the potential hazarde that the
development may create and implemented meaeuree to mitigate the
potential hazarde; caue;ed by the development.
3. That the applicant hae; taken all reaoonable etepe; to reduce the ad verne
impact on the environment. Irrevereible actione e;hall be cone;ldered more
e;erioue;ly than revernible actione. The Staff Advloor or Planning
Commie;e;ion ehall cone;ider the exie;ting development of the e;urrounding
area. and the maximum permitted development permitted by the land
Uee Ordinance.
J. The Staff Advioor or Planning Commiee;ion hae; the power to amend plane; to
include any or all of the following conditione; if It ie; deemed neceee;ary to
mitigate any potential negative impact caue;ed by the development:
1. Require the retention of treee. rocke;. ponde;. wetlande;. epringe. water
cournee; and other natural featuree;.
2. Require plan revieion or modification to mitigate fX'!5eible negative or
irrevere;ible effect uPon the topography or natural featuree; that the
profX'!5ed development may caue;e.
3. Require a performance guarantee ae a condition of approval.
4. Require e;pecial evaluation by a recognized profee;e;ional. A profee;eional
cone;ultant may be hired to evaluate propooale; and make
recommendatione if the hearing authority fjnde; that oute;ide expertiee ie;
needed. The profee;eional will have expertiee in the epecific area or in the
potential adverne Impacte; on the area. A fee for thee;e eervicee e;hall be
charged to the applicant in addition to the application fee.
18.62.050 land Clase;jfjcatione;. The following factorn shall be ue;ed to determine the
clase;ifjcatione; of various lands and their cone;traints to building and development on them:
A. Floodplain Corridor lands - Lande with potential e;tream flow and flood hazard.
The following lande; are c1aeeifjed ae; Floodplain Corridor lande;:
1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain ae; defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. in mape; adopted by Chapter
15.10 of the Ae;hland Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined ae; Floodplain Corridor land in mape;
adopted by the Council ae; provided for in e;ection 18.62.060.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 7
#JI.~
18.62.060
A.
3. Allland5 which have phy.:;ical or hi5torlcal evidence of flooding in the
hi5torical pa5t.
4. All area5 within 20 feet (horizontal dl5tance) of any creek de5ignated
for Riparian Pre5erVation in 18.62.050.B and depicted a5 5uch on map5
adopted by the Council a5 provided for in 5ection 18.62.060.
5. All area5 within ten feet (horizontal di5tance) of any drainage channel
depicted on map5 adopted "y the Council but not de5ignated a5
Riparian Pre5ervation.
B.
Riparian Pre5ervation,~ The following Floodplain Corridor Land5 are aloo
de5ignated for Riparian Pre5ervation for the purpo5e5 of thi5 5ection and a5
1i5ted on the Phy.:;ical and Environmental Con5traint5 Overlay Map5: Tolman.
Hamilton. Clay. Bear. Kitchen. A5hland. Neil and Wright5 Creek5.
C.
HiII5ide Land5 - HiII5ide Land5 are land5 which are 5ubject to damage from
er05ion and 510pe failure, and include area5 which are highly vi5ible from other
portion5 of the city. The following land5 are c1a55ified a5 HiII5ide Land5:
1. All area5 defined a5 HiII5ide Land5 on the Phy.:;ical Con5tralnt5 Overlay
map 'and which have a 510pe of 25 percent or greater.
D.
Wildfire Land5 - Land5 with potential of wildfire. The following land5 are
cla55ified a5 \Nildfire Land5:
1. All area5 defined a5 wildfire land5 on the Phy.:;ical Con5traint5 Overlay
map.
E.
Severe Con5traint Land5 - Land5 with 5evere development characteri5tic5
which generally limit normal development. The following land5 are cla55ified a5
Severe Con5traint Land5:
, 1. All area5 which are within the flood way channel5. a5 defined in Chapter
15.10.
2. Allland5 with a 510pe greater than 35 percent.
F.
Cla55ification5 Cumulative. The above cla55ification5 are cumulative in their
effect and, if a parcel of land fall5 under two or more c1a55ification5. it 5hall be
5ubject to the regulation5 of each cia 55ifi cation. Th05e re5triction5 applied
5hall pertain only to th05e portion5 of the land being developed and not
nece55arily to the whole parcel.
B.
Official Map5.
The City Council 5hall adopt official map5 denoting the above identified area5.
Sub5tantial amendment5 of the5e map5 5hall be a Type 3 procedure.
Minor amendment5 of the map5 to correct mapping erroro when the
amendment5 are intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 8
'-I'fJ
contained In thi5 chapter or In the finding5 of the Council in adopting an official
map may be proce55ed a5 a Type 1 procedure.
18.62.070 Development Standard5 for Floodplain Corridor Land5. For all land U5e action5
which could re5ult in development of the Floodplain Corridor, the following i5 required in
addition to any requlrement5 of Chapter 15.10: .
A. Standard5 for fill in Floodplain Corridor land5:
1. Fill 5hall be de5igned a5 required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter
70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill 5hall be kept at lea5t ten feet out5ide of flood way
channel5, a5 defined in 5ectlon 15.10, and the fill 5hall not exceed the
angle of repooe of the material U5ed for fill.
3. The amount of fill in the Floodplain Corridor 5hall be kept to a minimum.
Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could di5place
floodwater 5hall be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other material5 nece55ary.to build
permitted 5tructure5 on the lot.
b. Aggregate ba5e and paving materlal5, and fill a500ciated with
approved public and private 5treet and driveway con5truction.
c. Plant5 and other land5caping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yard5 of other imported fill material.
e. The above limitE; on fill 5hall be mea5ured from April 1989. and
5hall not exceed the above amount5. The5e amount5 are the
maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the 5ite,
regardle55 of the number of permit5 155ued.
4. If additional fill i5 nece55ary beyond the permitted amount5 in (3) above,
then fill material5 mU5t be obtained on the lot from cutting or
excavation only to the extent nece55ary to create an elevated 5ite for
permitted development. All additional fill material 5hall be obtained from
the portion of the lot in the Floodplain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage 5hall be provided for the 5tability of the fill.
6. Fill to rai5e elevation5 for a building 5ite 5hall be located a5 c100e to the
out5ide edge of the Floodplain Corridor a5 fea5ible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official map5
adopted pureuant to 5ection 18.62.060 mU5t be de51gned by an engineer.
Stream Ct"055ing5 5hall be de51gned to the 5tandard5 of Chapter 15.10, or where
no floodway ha5 been identified, to pa% a one hundred (100) year flood without
any increa5e in the up5tream flood height elevation. The engineer 5hall con5ider
in the de5ign the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debri5 in a 5evere
flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging 5hall
be kept to the minimum nece%ary to achieve property aCCe55, but 15 exempt
from the Iimitation5 in 5ection (A) above. Culvertingor bridging of 5tream5
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 9
~4 '-I
identified a~ Riparian Pre~ervation are ~ubject to the requirement~ of
18.62.075.
C. Non-re~idential ~tructure~ ~hall be flood-proof to the ~tandard~ In Chapter
15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the ma~ adopted by chapter
15.10. or up to the elevation contained in the official ma~ adopted by ~ection
18.62.060, whichever height i~ greater. M1ere no ~pecific elevation~ exi~t. then
they mu~t be flood proofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel
on A~hland. Bear or Nell Creek; to five feet above the creek channel on all other
Riparian Pre~erve creek~ defined in ~ection 18.62.050.B; and three feet above
the ~tream channel on all other drainage wa~ identified on the official map~.
D. AIl re~idential ~tructure~ 5hall be elevated 00 that the lowe5t habitable floor
5hall be rai5ed to one foot above the elevation contained in the ma~ adopted
in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained In the official ma~ adopted by
~ectlon 18.62.060. whichever height i~ greater. Where no ~pecific e1evation5
exi~t. then they mU5t be con~tructed at an elevation of ten feet above the
creek channel on A5hland. Bear. or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek
channel on all other Riparian Pre5erve creek~ defined in 5ection 18.62.o50.B;
and three feet above the 5tream channel on all other draInage wa~ identified
on the official map5. or one foot above vi5ible evidence of high flood water flow.
whichever i5 greater. The elevation of the fini5hed lowe5t habitable floor ~hall be
certified to the city by an engineer or ~urveyor prior to i55uance of a certificate
of occupancy for the ~tructure.
E. To the maximum extent fea5ible, ~tructure5 ~hall be placed on other than
Floodplain Corridor Land5. In the ca5e where development i~ permitted in the
Floodplain corridor area. then development 5hall be limited to that area which
would have the ~hallowe5t flooding.
F. Exi5ting lot5 with buildable land out51de the Floodplain Corridor 5halllocate all
re~idential 5tructure~ out5ide the Corridor land. unle55 5010 or more of the lot
i~ within the Floodplain Corridor. For re5idential U5e5 pro~ed for exi5ting lot5
that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land. 5tructure~ may be located
on that portion of the floodplain corridor that i5 two feet or le55 below the
flood elevation5 on the official map5. but in no ca5e clooer than 20 feet to the
channel of a Riparian Pre5ervation Creek. Con5truction 5hall be 5ubject to the
requirement~ in paragraph D above.
G. New non-re~ldential u~e~ may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor
land~ that equal to or above the flood elevation~ on the official ma~ adopted
in ~ection 18.62.060. Second 5tory con5truction may be cantilevered over the
floodplain corridor for a di5tance of 20 feet if the clearance from fini5hed grade
i~ at lea~t ten feet in height. and i~ ~upported by pillar~ that will have minimal
impact on the flow of f1oodwatero. The fini~hed floor elevation may not be more
than two feet below the flood corridor elevation5.
H. Alllot~ modified by lot line adju5tment~. or new lot~ created from lot5 which
contain Floodplain Corridor land mW.7t contain a building envelope on alllot;(~)
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 10
if 'i r
which contain(5) buildable area of a 5ufficient 5ize to accommodate the U5e5
permitted in the underling zone, unle55 the action i5 for open 5pace or
con5ervation purpo5e5. Thi5 5ection 5hall apply even if the effect i5 to prohibit
further divi5ion of lot5 that are lar~er than the minimum 5ize permitted in the
zoning ordinance.
I. Ba5ement5.
1. Habitable ba5ement5 are not permitted for new or exi5ting 5tructure5 or
addition5 located within the Floodplain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable ba5ement5. U5ed for 5torage, parkin~, and 51mllar U5e5
are permitted for re5idential 5tructure5 but mU5t be flood-proofed to
the 5tandard5 of Chapter 15.10.
J. Storage of petroleum proauct5, pe5ticiae5, or other hazardou5 or toxic
chemlcal5 i5 not permitted In Floodplain Corridor lana5.
K. Fence5 con5tructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Pre5ervation Creek
de5ignated by thi5 chapter 5hall be limited to wire or electric fence, or 5imllar
fence that will not collect debri5 or ob5truct f100a water5, but not Including wire
me5h or chain link fencin~. Fence5 5hall not be con5tructed aCr055 any
iaentifjed riparian draina~e or riparian pre5ervation creek. Fence55hall not be
con5tructed within any de5i~nated f1ooaway.
L. Deck5 ana 5tructure5 other than builain~5, if con5tructed on Floodplain Corriaor
Land5 ana at or below the level5 5pecified in aection 18.62.o70.C and D,5hall be
f1ooa-proofed to the 5tandard5 contained in Chapter 15.10.
M. Local atreet5 and utility connection5 to development5 in and adjacent to the
Floodplain Corridor 5hall be located out5ide of the Flooaplain Corriaor, except for
cr055in~ the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek floodplain corridor a5
outlined below:
1. Public atreet conatruction may be allowed within the Bear Creek
floodplain corridor a5 part of aevelopment following the adopted North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan. Thi5 exception 5hall only be permitted for that 5ectlon of
the Bear Creek floodplain corriaor between North Mountain Avenue and the
Nevada Street ri~ht-of-way. The new 5treet 5hall be con5tructed in the ~eneral
location a5 inaicated on the nei~hborhood plan map, and in the area generally
de5cribed aa having the 5halloweat potential for flooding within the corridor.
2. Propo5ed development that la not in accord with the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan 5hall not be permitted to utilize thia exception.
18.62.075 Development Standard a for Riparian Pre5ervation land5.
A. All development in area5 indicated for Riparian Pre5ervation, a5 defined in
5ection 18.62.o5O(B), 5hall comply with the following atandard5:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 11
Jf~to
1. Development ehall be eubject to all Development Standarde for
Floodplain Corridor Land6 (18.62.070)
2. Any tree CNer 6ix inche6 d.b.h. 6hall be retained to the greateet extent
feaeible.
3. Fill and Culverting ehall be permitted only for etreete, aCCe6e, or utilitiee.
The crD6eing ehall be at right anglee to the creek channel to the
greate6t extent f'06eible. Fill 6hall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preeervation lande ehall be retained.
18.62.080 Development Standard6 for HilI6ide Lande. It ie the purpooe of the
Development Standarde for HiII6ide Lande to provide 6upplementary development regulation6
to underlying zonee to eneure that development occure in euch a manner ae to protect the
natural and topographic character and identity of the6e areae, environmental reoourCe6, the
aeethetic qualitie6 and reetoratlve value of lande, and the public health, eafety. and general
welfare by in6uring that development doe6 not create 60il eroeion. eedimentation of lower
elopee, elide damage, flooding probleme, and eevere cutting or ecarring. It ie the intent of
the6e development 6tandarde to encourage a een6itive form of development and to allow for a
reaeonable U6e that complemente the natural and vi6ual character of the city.
A. General Requiremente. The following general require mente 6hall apply in Hilleide
Land 6:
1. All development ehall occur on lande defined ae having buildable area.
SIope6 greater than 35% ehall be CDn6idered un buildable except a6 allowed
below. Variance6 may be granted to thi6 requirement only ae provided in 6ection
18.62.o80.H.
a. Exi6ting parcel6 without adequate buildable area le66 than or
equal to 35% 6hall be coneidered buildable for one unit.
b. Exieting parcel6 without adequate buildable area Ieee than or
equal to 3570 cannot be eubdivided or partitioned.
2. All newly created late either by 6ubdivieJon or partition 6hall contain a
building envelope with a 610pe of 3570 or lee6.
3. New etreete. flag drivee, and drivewaye ehall be conetructed on lande of
Ieee than or equal to 35% elope with the following exceptione:
a. The etreet ie indicated on the City'6 Tran6portation Plan Map -
Street Dedicatione.
b. The portion of the etreet, flag drive. or driveway on land greater
than 3570 elope doee not exceed a length of 100 feet.
Physical and Environmental ConstraJnts Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 12
~f7
4. Geotechnical Studle5. For all application5 on HiII51de Land5 involving
5ubdivi5ion5 or partition5. the following additional information i5 required:
A ~eotechnical 5tuay prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the 5ite
15 5table for the propooed U5e and development. The 5tudy 5hall include the
followin~ information:
a. Index map.
b. Project de5crlption to Include location, to~raphy, draina~e,
vegetation, di5cu55ion of previOU5 work and di5cu55ion of field
exploration method5.
c. Site geology, ba5ed on a 5urFicial 5Urvey, to include 5ite geologic
map5, de5criptlon of bedrock and 5urficlal materlal5. including
artificial fill, [ocation6 of any fault5. fold5, etc.... and 5tructural
data including bedding, jointing and 5hear zone5. 5011 depth and
0011 6tructure.
d. Oi5CU55ion of any off~5ite geologic condltion5 that may ~ a
potential hazard to the 5ite, or that may be affected by on~5ite
development.
e. Suitability of 5ite for propooed development from a geologic
6tandpoint.
f. Specific recommendation5 for cut and fill 510pe 5tability, 5eepage
and drainage control or other de5ign criteria to mitigate geologic
hazard5.
g. If deemed nece55ary by the engineer or geologi5t to e5tabli5h
whether an area to be affected by the propooed development i5
6table, additional 5tudie5 and 5upportive data 5halllnclude
Cr056-6ection5 6howing 5ub5urface 5tructure, graphic log5 with
5ub5urface exploration, re5ult6 of laboratory te5t and reference5.
h. Signature and regi5tration number of the engineer and/or
geologi5t.
i. Additional information or analY5e5 a5 nece55ary to evaluate the
5ite.
j. In5pection 5chedule for the project a5 required in 18.62.o80.B.9.
k. Location of all irrigation canal5 and major irrigation pipellne:5.
B. HiII5ide Grading and Et'05ion Control. All developmen"t on land5 cla551fled a5
hiIl5ide 5hall provide plan5 conforming with the following item5: .
1. All ~,rading, retaining wall de5ign, drainage, and er05ion control plan5 for
development on Hilh:;ide Land5 5hall be de5igned by a geotechnical expert. All
CUt5, grading or fill5 5hall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code.
Pbysi~1 and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City CouneU Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 13
J.j'ff'
El"'05ion control mea5ure5 on the development 5ite 5hall be required to minimize
the oolid5 in runoff from dl5turbed area5.
2. For development qther than 5in~le family home5 on Indivlduallot5. all
~radln~. dralna~e Improvement5. or other land di5turbance5 5hall only occur
from May 1 to October 31. Excavation 5hall not occur durin~ the remainin~ wet
month5 of the year. Eroolon control mea5ure5 5hall be in5talled and functional
by October 31. Up to 30 day modificatlon5 to the October 31 date. and 45 day
modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Plannin~ Director. ba5ed
upon weather condltion5 and in con5ultation with the project ~eotechnical
expert;. The modification of date5 5hall be the minimum nece55ary. ba5ed upon
evidence provided by the applicant. to accompli5h the nece55ary project ~oaI5.
3. Retention in natural 5tate. On all project5 on HiII5ide Land5 Involvln~
part;itlon5 and 5ubdivl5ion5. and exI5tin~ lot!:; with an area ~reater than one-half
acre. an area equal to 25'Yo of the total project area. plu5 the percentage
fi~ure of the average 510pe of the total project area, 5hall be retained In a
natural 5tate. Land5 to be retained in a natural 5tate 5hall be protected from
dama~e throu~h the U5e of temporary con5tructlon fencing or the functional
equivalent.
> For example. on a 25.000 5q. ft. lot with an averaqe !3lope of 29%.
25%+29%=54% of the total lot area !3hall be retained in a natural f}tate.
The retention in a natural 5tate of area5 greater than the minimum percenta~e
required here 15 encour~ed.
4. Grading - CUt5.
On all cut 5lope5 on
area5 cla55ified a5
HiII5ide land5. the
followin~ 5tandard5
5hall apply:
a. Cut
510pe angle5
5hall be
determined in
relation5hip to
the type of
material5 of
which they are
comp05ed.
Cut Slope and
Fill Slope
Requlrement!5
ZO'
Mcud_
RII Slope
Helpt
.,.
Not to Scale
For lIIuetratlon Only
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 14
#'1-9
Vv'here the ooil permit!5. limit the total area expooed to precipitation and eroolon. Steep cut
alopea ahall be retained with atacked rock. retainlne walla. or functional equivalent to control
erooion and provide alope atablllty when neceaaary. 'M1ere cut alopea are required to be laid
back (1:1 or leaa ateep). the alope ahall be protected with eroaion control nettine or atructural
equivalent inatalled per manufacturera apecificationa. and reve{3etated.
b. Expooed cut alopea. auch aa th06e for atreeta. driveway
acceaaea. or yard areaa. greater than aeven feet in heleht Bhall be
terraced. Cut faceB on a terraced Bection 6hall not exceed a maximum
height of five feet. Terrace widtha ahall be a minimum of three feet to
allow for the introduction of ve{3etation for erooion control. Total cut
BlopeB Bhall not exceed a maximum vertical heieht of 15 feet. (See
Graphic)
/'
The top of cut BlopeB not utilizine Btructural retainlne wallB Bhall be
located a minimum Betback of one-half the heieht of the cut Blope from
the neareat property line.
Cut alopea for atructure
foundatlon6 encouraeine
the reduction of effective
vieual bulk. 6uch aB Bplit
pad or 6tepped footineB
Bhall be exempted from the
heieht IimitationB of thiB
Bection. (See Graphic)
c. Reve{3etation of cut
elope terraceB Bhall include
the proviBion of a plantine
plan. Introduction of top
Boil where neceBaary. and
the uee of irrleation if
neceBBary. The ve{3etation UBed for theBe areaB Bhall be native or
Bpeclea aimllar in reoource value which will Burvive. help reduce the viBual
impact of the cut Blope. and aBBiBt in providine lone term Blope
BtabiIization. TreeB, bUBh-tyPe plantineB and caBcadine vine-type
plantineB may be appropriate.
Reduce Effective Vleual
Bulk: by Utillzl~
Stepped Foundatione
5. Gradine - fillB. On all fill Blopea on landB cIaBBified aB HiIIBide landB, the
followine !.?tandard!.? Bhall apply:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 15
J./ So
a. Fill elope an~lee ehall be determined in relationehip to the type of
materlale of which they are compoeed. Fill elopee ehall not exceed a
total vertical hei~ht of 20 feet. The toe of the fill elope area not
utllizin~ etructural retainin~ ehall be a minimum of eix feet from the
neareet property line.
b. Fill elopee ehal! be protected with an eroeion control nettin~,
blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankete ehall only be ueed
In conjunction with an or~anlc mulch euch ae etraw or wood fiber. The
blanket muet be applied 60 that it ie in complete contact with the 60it
60 that eroeion doee not occur beneath it. Eroeion nettin~ or blankete
ehall be eecurely anchored to the elope in accordance with
manufacturer'e recommendatione.
c. Utilitiee. 'Nhenever poeeible, utilitiee ehall not be located or
Inetalled on or>in fill elopee. When determined that it neceeeary to
inetall utilitiee on fill elopee, all plane ehall be deei~ned by a geotechnical
expert.
d. Revegetation of fill elopee ehall utilize native vegetation or
vegetation eimitar in reeource value and which will eurvive and etabilize
the eurface. Irrigation may be provided to eneure ~rowth if neceeeary.
Evidence ehall be required indi~atin~ long-term viability of the propoeed
vegetation for the purpoeee of erooion control on dieturbed areae.
6. Revegetation requiremente. Where required by thie chapter, all required
revegetation of cut and fill elopee ehall be inetalled prior to the ieeuance of a
certificate of occupancy, eignature of a required eurvey plat, or other time ae
determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation ehall be inetalled in euch a
manner ae to be eubetantially eetabliehed within one year of inetallation.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penaltiee for Er06ion Control Meaeuree.
a. Maintenance. All meaeuree inetalled for the purp06ee of lon~-term
eroeion control, includin~ but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walle,
and landecaping, ehall be maintained in perpetuity on all areae which
have been diBturbea, includinfJ public rifJhtB-of-way. The applicant ehall
prOllide evidence indicating the mechanieme in place to eneure
maintenance of meaeuree.
b. Security. Except for individuallote exieting prior to January 1, 1998, .
after an Eroeion Control Plan ie approved by the hearing authority and
prior to c.onetruct.ion, the applicant ehall provide a performance bond or
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 16
J.!GI
other financial guarantee~ in the amount of 120% of the value of the
erooion control mea~ur~ nece~~ary to 5tabilize the 5ite. Any financial
guarantee in~trument propc>6ed other than a performance bond ~hall be
approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee in~trument ~hall
be in effect for a period of at lea~t one year, and ~hall be relea5ed when
the Planning Director and Public Work~ Director determine, jointly, that
the ~ite ha~ been ~tabilized. All or a portion of the ~curity retained by
the City may be withheld for a period up to five year5 beyond the one
year maintenance period if it ha5 been determined by the City that the
~ite ha5 not been 5uffjciently 5tabilized again~t erooion.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a ~ite on HiII5ide Land5 ~hall con~ider the
~n5itive nature of the~e area~. Grading plan~ ~hall be reviewed con~idering the
following factor5:
a. Terracing 5hould be de5igned with ~mall incremental 5tep5,
avoiding wide ~tep terracing and large area5 of flat pad5.
b. Retain exi5ting grad~ to the greate~t extent po55ible. Avoid an
artificial appearance by creating ~mooth flowing contoUr5 of varying
gradienw. Avoid ~harp cut5 and fill5 and jong, linear ~lope5 that have
uniform grade.
c. Avoid hazardou5 or un5table portion5 of the ~ite.
d. Building pad5 5hould be of minimum 5ize to accommodate the
~tructure and a rea50nable amount of yard ~pace. Pad~ for tenni~
court~, 5wimming pool5 and large lawn~ are di5couraged. A5 much of
the remaining lot area a5 po55ible ~hould be kept in the natural 5tate of
the original 5lope.
9. In5pection~ and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a 5ubdivi5ion
by the City, 5ignature of the final ~urvey plat on partition5, or is~uance of a
certificate of occupancy for individual structures, the project geotechnical
expert shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading,
drainage, and erooion control mea~ures were in~talled as per the approved
pJan~, and that all ~heduled in~pection~, as per 18.62.D80.A.4J were
conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the
project.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Land~ ~hall
conform to the following ~tandard~:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 17
J.f5~
1. All facllitie5 for the collection of 5tormwater runoff 5hall be required to
be con5tructed on the 5ite and according to the following requlrement5:
a. 5tormwater facilitie5 5hall include 5torm drain 5y.:;tem5
a500ciated with 5treet con5truction, facilitie5 for accommodating
drainage from driveway.:;. parking area5 and other imperviou5 5urfaCe5.
and roof drainage 5Y5tem5.
b. Stormwater faciIitie5. when part of the overall 5ite improvement5.
5hall be. to the greate5t extent fea51ble, the firot improvement5
Con5tructed on the development 5ite.
c. 5tormwater facilitie5 5hall be de5igned to divert 5urface water
away from cut face5 or 510ping 5urface5 of a fill.
d. Exi5ting natural drainage 5y.:;tem5 5hall be utilized. a5 much a5
po55ible, in their natural 5tate, recognizing the erooion potential from
increa5ed 5torm drainage..
e. Flow-retarding device5. 5uch a5 detention pond5 and recharge
berm5. 5hall be U5ed where practical to minimize increa5e5 in runoff
volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility 5hall
con5ider the need5 for an emergency overflow 5y.:;tem to 5afely carry any
overflow water to an acceptable di5p05al point.
f. 5tormwater facilitie5 5hall be de5igned. con5tructed and
maintained in a manner that will avoid er05ion on-5ite and to adjacent
and down5tream propertie5.
g. Alternate 5tormwater 5Y5tem5. 5uch a5 dry well 5Y5tem5,
detention pond5. and leachfleld5, 5hall be de5igned by a regi5tered
engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City'5 Public WOrk5
Department or City Building Official.
D. Tree Con5ervation. Protection and Removal. All development on HiII5ide Land5
5hall conform to the following requirement5:
1. Inventory of Exi5ting T ree5. A tree 5Urvey at the 5ame 5Cale a5 the
project 5ite plan 5hall be prepared. which locate5 all tree5 greater than 5ix
inche5 d.b.h., identified by Gl.b.h.. 5pecie5. approximate extent of tree canopY. In
addition. for area5 prop05ed to be di5turbed, exi5ting tree ba5e elevation5 5hall
be provided. Dead or di5ea5ed tree5 5hall be identified. Group!? of tree5 in
clo5e proximity (i.e. th05e within five feet of each other) may be de5ignated a5 a
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 18
"'/51,
,.
clump of tree5. with the predominant epeciee. e5tlmated number and average
diameter Indicated. All tree eurv~ ehall have an accuracy of plue or minue
two feet. The name. eignature. and addre5e of the eite eurveyor re5poneible for
the accuracy of the eurvey ehall be pro.tided on the tree eurvey.
Portione of the lot or project area not propooed to be dieturbed by development
need not be included in the inventory.
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Coneervation. All treee Indicated on the
inventory of exigting tree5 ehall aloo be identified ae to their euitability for
coneervatlon. v.Jhen required by the hearing authority. the evaluation ehall be
conducted by a landecape profeeeional. Factore included in thie determination
ghall include:
a. Tree health. Healthy tree5 can better withetand the rigore of
development than non-vigoroue tree5.
b. Tree Structure. Treee with eevere decay or eubetantial defect6
are more likely to reeult in damage to people and property.
c. Speciee. Speciee vary in their ability to tolerate impactg and
damage to their environment.
d. Potential longevity.
e. Variety. A variety of native tree epeciee and age5.
f. Size. Large treee provide a greater protection for ero!5ion and
ehade than gmaIler treeg.
3. Tree Congervation in Project Oeeign. Significant treee (2' d.b.h. or
greater conifere and l' d.b,h. or greater broadleaf) ehall be protected and
Incorporated into the project degign whenever po!5gible.
a,
Streete. Site Planning
drivewayg. fftrf-.,.. .~ ...., . ReBponBive to
buildingg, p:, ' , '..: '.
utilitieg. I.' ..,. .,:: '.: Tree LocationB
parking areag, :::': ~.' Cd5ting 5ite
and other eite \>: . .' ~ with 51gnificant
digturbancee .' . tree5
ehall be l~~'.Ct{'::':.:.i.
5en5itive Qeveloment
option for property
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2,1997
Page 19
1-/5'-1
located eiuch that the maximum number of exleitin~ treeei on the eiite are
preeierved. while reco~nizing and following the eitandardei for fuel
reduction if the development iei located in Wildfire Landei.
b. Buildin~ envelopeei eihall be located and eiized to preeierve the
maximum number of treeei on eilte while r~nlzin~ and follONin~ the
eitandardei for fuel reduction if the development lei located in Wildfire
Landei.
c. Layout of the project eiite utility and ~radin~ plan eihall avoid
dieiturbance of
tree protection
areaei.
a. All treeei
deeii~nated for
coneiervation
eihall be clearly
marked on the
project eiite.
Prior to the
eitart of any clearing. eitrippln~. eitockpiling. trenching. ~radin~.
compaction. paving or change in ground elevation. the applicant eihall
ineitall fencing at the drip line of all treeei to be preeierved adjacent to or
in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing
eihall be eeitablieihed at the perimeter of the
dripline. Prior to grading or ieieiuance of any
permitei, the fenceei may be ineipected and
their location approved by the Staff Advioor.
(eiee graphic)
4. Tree Protection.
On all propertleei where
treeei are required to be
preeierved during the
coureie of development,
the developer eihall follow
the following tree
protection eitandardei:
o Tree Con6ervation
~ Guideline
,
,
I
tionaI 3' Prolcc:tion
~ ARa - Hand Excavate
Only - No Heavy
EqUIpment or Puking
.......--'...,Dripline
'" ,.'
Treecan~1'Y8' \/
'....... \
r ,
\ J
, ,
'- ,
........ ---~/
b. Coneitruction eiite activitieei, including
but not limited to parking. material eitorage.
soil compaction and concrete waeihout. ehall
To provik minimum protection to the
root; area. take the greateet nullU6
from trunk to drlpllne and create a
regular circle. U6ing the Iong~t radiu~.
rather than to foDow an Jrreeular,
allove ground. eKi5tine tree drlpUne.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) -- December 2, 1997
Page 20
J./ 5~
ve al'Tanged 00 a5 to prevent di5turoance5 within tree protection area5.
c. No grading. 5trlpping. compaction. or 5igniflcant change in ground
elevation 5hall ve permitted within the drip line of tree5 de5ignated for
con5ervation unle~5 indicated on the grading plan5. a5 approved Py the
City. and land5Cape profe55ional. If grading or con5truction 15 approved
within the dripline. a land5cape profe55ional may ve required to ve
pre5ent during grading operation5. and 5hall have authority to require
protective mea5ure5 to protect the root5.
d. Change5 in 50il hydrology and 5ite drainage within tree protection
area5 5hall ve minimized. Exce55ive 51te run-off 5hall ve directed to
appropriate 5torm drain facilitie5 and away from tr~ de5ignated for
COM5ervation.
e. Should encroachment Into a tree protection area occur which
caU5e5 Il'Teparable damage. a5 determined Py ~land5cape profe5510nal.
to tree5. the project plan 5hall ve revi5ed to compen5ate for the 1055.
Under no circum5tanCe5 5hall the developer ve relieved of re5pon5ibility
for compliance with the provi51on5 of thi5 chapter.
5. Tree Removal. Development 5hall ve de5igned to pre5erve the maximum
number of tree5 on a 5ite. when valanced with other provl510n5 of thi5 chapter
and recognizing and following the 5tandard5 for fuel reduction if the
development i5 located In Wildfire Land5. 'When jU5tlfled Py flnding5 of fact. the
hearing authority may approve the removal of tree5 for one or more of the
following condition5:
a. The tree i5 located within the building envelope.
v. The tree i5 located within a propooed 5treet. driveway, or parking
area.
c. The tree i5 located within a water. 5ewer, or.other public utility
ea5ement.
d. The tree i5 determined Py a land5cape profe55ional to ve dead or
di5ea5ed. or it con5titute5 an unacceptavlehazard to life or property
when evaluated vy the 5tandard5 in 18.62.080.0.2.
e. The tree 15 located within or adjacent to area5 of Cut5 or flII5
that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree. a5 determined by a
land5Cape profe55ional.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hills.ide Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997hPage 21
J./56
6. Tree Replacement. Tree5 approved for removal. with the exception of
tree5 retl1OY'ed becau5e they were determined to be dl5ea5ed. dead. or a hazard.
~hall be replaced In compliance with the following ~tandard~:
a. Replacement
tree!'; 5hall be
Indicated on a tree
replanting plan.
Replacement tree!';
5hall be of ~imilar
re50urce value a5.:the
tree!'; removed. The
replanting plan 5hall
include alllocation5
for replacement
tree5. and 5hall al~o
indicate tree planting
detail5.
Tree Plantjn~
Guideline
3" IlUch apt
6"JTom tnd
5tM4~fWeIe"""'"
to etIM on 1I:e-.
MIl ttMe _low.. poMllIle
wlIlI a IlClIt1lIlOtaII et.lIb.
~ pldne _...,.... be 3-5
tIIlIO!t the etu at the r'IlOClral,.... only
NItMo eclI ...,.... be ..... far lID.
I.bnol ~ to contoI.. _.
Set top at r'IlOClral at ......... '-l.
Free Niap from tnri. ....
bop .... ......
b. Replacement
tree~ ~hall be
planted 5uch that
the tree5 will in time
re5ult in canopy
equal to or greater than the tree canopy pre5ent prior to development
of the property. The canopy 5hall be de5igned to mitigate of the impact
of paved and developed area5. reduce 5urface ero5ion and increa5e 510pe
5tability.. Replacement tree locatlon5 ~hall con5ider Impact on the
wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority 5hall have the
di5cretion to adju5t the propooed replacement tree canopy ba5ed upon
~ite-~pecific evidence and te~timony.
c. The hearing authority may. in5tead of requiring replacement
tree5. require implementation of a revegetation plan. Thi5 plan may be
~ub~tituted in heavily fore5ted ~rea5 or in area5 determined to lie
appropriate a5 determined by a}land5cape profe55ional and approved by
the hearing authority. The developer ~hall be required to enter into a
written agreement with the City obligating the developer to comply with
the requirement~ of the revegetation program. A ~ecurity depooit. not
exceeding the coot of the revegetation plan implementation. may be
required to en5ure that the agreement i5 fulfilled.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 22
"151
d. Maintenance of replacement tree5 5hall be the re5pon5ibility of
the property owner. Required replacement tree5 5hall ve continuou51y
maintained in a healthy manner. Tree5 that die within the firet five
yeare after initial plantine mU5t be replaced In kind. after which a new
five year replacement period 5hall beein. Replantine mU5t occur within
30 daY5 of notification unle55 otherwi5e nated.
7. Enforcement.
a. All tree removal 5hall be done in accord with the approved tree
removal and replacement plan. No tree5 de5ienated for con5ervation
5hall be removed without prior approval of the City of A5hland.
b. Should the developer or developer'5 aeent remove or de5troy any
tree that ha5 been de5ienated for con5ervation. the developer may be
fined up to three time5 the current appral5ed value of the replacement
tree5 and C05t of replacement or up to three time5 the current market
value. 215 e5tabli5hed by a profe55ional aroori5t. whichever 15 ereater.
c. Should the developer or developer'5 aeent damaee any tree that
ha5 been de5ienated for protection and Gon5ervatlon. the developer 5hall
be penalized $50.00 per 5car. If neCe55ary. a profe55ional arborl5tl5
report. prepared at the developerl5 expen5e. may be required to
determine the extent of the damaee. Should the damaee re5ult in 1005
of apprai5ed value ereater than determined above. the hieher of the two
value5 5hall be u5ed.
E. Bulldine Location and De5ien
Standard5. All buildine5 and buildable
area5 propooed for HiII5ide Land5 5hall be
de5igned and con5tructed in compliance
with the followine 5tandard5:
1. Building Envelope5. All newly
created lot5. either vy f)uvdivi5ion or
partition, 5haII contain building
envelope5 conformine to the
followine 5tandard5:
a. The buildine envelope
5hall contain a buildable area
with a 510pe of 35% or le55.
rrLoT l.INES ~
,-s-_._.~.
· tJ;Nc. YAIlO WNe,-)
/tIIAL eu,a.PAtN.I! I
YAIlI). ~ A UA. .l--1C1icW'~&P
(~TeoAClr.) I 1----1 if '(AW
~ ':\ \; . J &UlI..OING
CD VSIl:AlS&:
T r~.' ~ I ~1"Ot~ WIllE
FItANT" I '-'-
v.....P YA!l:p UNa'!> ~
(s..~I<) . t-re.o<lC. a.INn) I ItSQ..UIC&:D
~ I __ · FlIDNT VM.P
..:.-.. --~~~.IAIa~.I-L_~-
SoT ~e: ET ~.O.W.
--..--...--.-----... .---..-
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 23
I./S-b'
v. Building envelope5 and lot de5ign 5hall addre55 the retention of a
percentage of the lot in a natural 5tate a5 required in 18.62.o00.B.3.
c. Building envelope5 6hall ve de5igned and located to maximize tree
con5ervatlon a5 required in 18.62.080.0.3. l11while recognizing and
following the 5tandard6 for fuel. reduction I(the development i6 located
in Wildfire Land5
d. .:,d~" ~~:,~,:'';;':''':'''t:~~it:" t~j.~'iJ:. :""::-Jilding envelope locatlon5 ~~laf51'lall
.~t
ve located to avoid ridgeline
exp05ure6. and de5igned 5uch
that the roofIine of a vuildi~g
within the envelope doe5 not
project avove the rldgeline.
Retention of hiU5idt:
charactt:r and natural
5Iopt: I7y avoiding
/idem1nt:
locatlona
2. Building Oe5ign. To reduce hill5ide di5turvance through the U5e of 510pe
re5pon5ive de5ign techniq,ue5, vuilding5 on HiII5ide Land5. excepting thooe land5
within the de5ignated Hi6toric Oi5trict, 5hall incorporate the following into the
vuilding de5ign and indicate feature5 on required vuilding permit5:
a. HiII5iae Building Height. The
height of all 5tructure5 5hall be
mea5ured vertically from the natural .
grade to the uppermoot point of the roof
edge or peak. wall. parapet, man5ard, or
other feature perpendicular to that
grade. Maximum HiII5ide Building Height
5hall be. eg feet. (5ee graphic5)
./
v.~~
.:-:... ~
./ ~\V>."
Permitted ,..-::;
,/./ ~'f>>~
././ c;~
//~
v. Cut building5 Into hill5ide6 to
reduce effective vi5ual vulk.
(1). Split pad or 5tepped footing5 5hall be incorporated into
building de5ign to allow the 5tructure to more clo5ely follow the
5lope.
Not
(2). Reduce building ma55 \:Iy Permitted
utilizing below grade room5 cut
into the natural 5lope.
-"
-"
/-~}
~~~~ ~
.- 'MVf.
....-:: ~\~
,f}\l
~(..\
~(:J~&
c. A building 6tepback 5hall be
required on all downhill building wall!:)
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance R.evision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second R.eading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 24
~Sfj
greater than 20 feet in height, a6 mea6ured above
natural grade. Stepbacl<6 6hall be a minimum of 61x feet.
No vertical wall6 on the downhill elevation6 of new
building6 6hall exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above
natural grade. ( 6ee graphIc)
d. Continuou6 horizontal
building planoo 6hall not exceed a
maximum length of 36 feet. Plane6
longer than 36 feet 6hall include a
minimum off6et of 61x feet. (flee
graphic)
. \
I I
I 6' Minimum , MS~um ~
!M~_j
e. It:if, recommer.de.d 'that ~ form6 and roof Iine6 for new
6tructuroo be broken Into
a 6erie6 of 6maller building
component6 to reflect the
irregular form6 of the
6urrounding hill6ide. Long,
linear unbroken roof Iinoo
are di6cOuraged. Large
gable end6 on downhill
elevationslli1.5l~ be
avoided, however smaller
gable6 may be permitted.
(see graphic)
l.& -----
"+(\~\~\'" ../"'.
../ "+(\~9)'(I"V
___~\'(\f6
.-/"
.-/" ..-orlen~ Roof '60'<>>'(,)-
../" ~ 610pe with the ~ ~&
.-/" HiReide 0'C
-----
../"
:} Si
f. It i5 recom."end~
"Poofs of lower floor
level5-fflflJ' be used to
provide deck or outdoor space for upper floor .Ievels. The use of
overhanging.~~~s with vertical 6Upports in exce66 of 12 feet on downhill
elevation6 illill~ be avoided.
g. It if) recommendea th8t ~fclcr 6election for new 6tructure6 be
coordinated with the predominant COI0r6 of the 6urrounding land6cape
to minimize contra6t between the 6tructure and the natural
environment. 11'1is pro',,;Si81'1 shall ol"lly apply te Mev. d';f'e1li11~ ul"lit!;
GOl'lstruetad Ol"l HiIlsiae Land!>. Color seleetlon ~6tuirt)111el'lts 511all 190
~e8rdtld as a OO\'81'1al"lt Ol"l tl,e property, Calar 601o~iel'l ~6tui~mt)l'TI>5
shall 19.:3 I"ooerded as a 6~I'Ial'lt at tl1e time of nl'1fd survey plat fur all
su!l7di'(isieI1!> al'ld partitiel'l5 for new let5 01'1 Hillside Lal'lds.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 25
Jfi,c
r
F. All structurea on Hillside lands shall have foundations which have been
desl~ned by an en~ineer,or architect with demonstrable ~eotechnical desi~n
exp~erce. 1'..J;je6lg(l~, a9 d~n&$l;~all not. <ACmptete..wGt1dn~rdrawit:lg~ witho:Jt
havin~ fo..mdat:0:"te1:&ie6Ign&:i: 'by ar. ~eineer.
G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a
buildin~ envelope on all lots that contains a 17uilda17le area le66 than 35% slope
of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlyin~ zone,
unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation
purpoees.
H. Administrative Variance From Development Standards for Hillside Lands -
18.62.080. A variance under this section is not subject to the variance
requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with reapect to the
development standards for Hillside Lands if all of the following circumstances
are found to exist:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meetin~ the specific requirements of
this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed
use of the site;
2. The variance will result in equal or ~reater protection of the resources
protected under this chapter;
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpoee and Intent of the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 18.62.080.
Appeals of decisions involvln~ administrative variances shall be processed as outlined in
18.108.070.
18.62.090
A
Development Standards for Wildfire Lands.
Requirements for Subdivisions. PerfotTl1ance Standards Developments. or
Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Pian shall be required with the submission
of any application for an outline plan approval of a Performance
Standards Development. preliminary plat of a subdivision, or application
to partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard
areas.
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to
the Fire Chief within 3 days of the receipt of a completed application.
The Fire Chief ~hall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan. and
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2,1997
Page 26
J./6/
~ubmit a written report to the Staff Advioor no le~~ than 7 daye before
the ~cheduled hearing. The Fire Chief'~ report ~hall \:7e a part of the
record of the Plannin~ Action.
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the ~ame ~cale a~ the
development plan~, ~hall include the followin~ item~:
a. An analyei~ of the fire hazard~ on the ~ite from wildfire. a~
influenced by exi~ting v~etation and to~raphy.
\:7. A map ~howin~ the area~ that are to \:7e cleared of dead, dyin~,
or ~everely dl~a~ed v~etation.
c. A map of the area~ that are to be thinned to reduce the
interlockln~ canopY of tree~.
d. A tree management plan ~howin~ the location of all tree~ that
are to be pr~erved and removed on each lot. In the ca~e of
heavily fore~ted parcel~. only tree~ ~cheduled for removal ~hallbe
~hown.
e. The area~ of Primary and Secondary Fuel Break~ that are
required to 17e in~talled around each ~tructure, a~ required 17y
18.62.090 B.
f. Road~ and drivewaye !5ufficient for emergency vehicle aCce!5!5 and
fire ~uppre~~ion activiti~, including the ~Iope of all road!5 and
drivewaye within the Wildfire Land~ area.
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority !5hall approve the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan when, in addition to the findlng~ required by
thi!5 chapter, the additional finding i!5 made that the wildfire hazard!5
pre~ent on the property have 17een reduced to a reaoonable d~ree,
balanced with the need to pre!5erve and/or plant a ~ufficient number of
tree~ and plant~ for e~ion prevention, wildlife habitat, and ae!5thetic~.
5. The hearing authority may require, through the impo!5ition of condition!5
attached to the approval, the following requirement!5 a!5 deemed
appropriate for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of area~ of heavy v~etation to be thinned and a
formal plan for ~uch thinning.
17. Clearing of !5ufficient v~etation to reduce fuel load.
c. Removal of all dead and dying tre~.
d. Relocation of ~tructure~ and road~ to reduce the ri~k~ of wildfire
and improve the chance~ of ~ucce~!5ful fire ~uppr~~ion.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan ~hall be implemented during the
public improvement~ required of a ~ubdivi!5ion or Performance Standard!5
Development, and ~hall be con~idered part of the ~u17divider'~ obligation!5
for land development. The Plan ~hall be implemented prior to the
i~~uance of any building permit for ~tructure~ to be located on lot~
created by partition!5 and for ~ubdivi~ion~ or Performance Standard~
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 27
J.I'~
developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or
deelgnee, ~halllnspect and approve the implementation of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fully
Implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff
Advioor that the Plan was completed as approved by the hearing
authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developmente, provisions for
the maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
included in the covenants, conditions and reetrictions for the
development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of
such covenants, restrictions, and conditions.
8. On lote created by partitions, the property owner shall be reeponsible for
maintaining the property in accord with the requirements of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority.
B. Requirements for construction of all structures.
1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an
existing structure, shall have a "fuel vreak" as defined below.
2. A "fuel vreaku is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying
vegetation, and has native, fast-vurning species sufficiently thinned 00
that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where
necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposee, the fuel break may
ve planted in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does
not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks"
may include structuree, and shall not limit distance between structures
and residencee veyond that required by other sections of this title.
3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel vreak will be installed, maintained
and shall extend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever
is less; in all directions around structures. excluding fences. on the
property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will
produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel vreak shall be
increased by ten feet for each 10io increase in slope over 10%. Adjacent
property owners are encoura~ed to cooperate on the development of
primary fuel breaks.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel vreak will ve installed,
maintained and shall extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary
fuel break where surrounding landscape is owned and under the control
of the property owner during construction. The goal of the eecondary
fuel vreak ie to reduce fuels 00 that the overall inteneity of any wildfire
ie reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall ve constructed or re-roofed with Clase B or better
non-wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural
Specialty Code. All re-roonng of existing structures in the Wildfire LandB
area for which at lea~t 50% of the roofjn~ area require~ re-rooFing ~hall
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 28
1-/'3
C.
D.
18.62.100
A.
be done under approval of a zonin~ permit. No 6tructure 6hall be
com;tructea or re-roofed with wooden 6hin~Ie5, 6hake6, wood-product
material or other combu6tible roofin~ material, a6 defined in the CitY6
buildin~ code.
Fuel break6 in area6 which are aloo Ero6ive or Slope Failure Land6 6hall be
included in the er06ion control mea6Ure6 outlined in 6ection 18.62.080.
Implementation.
1. For land which have been 6ubdivided and required to comply with A. (6)
above, all requirement6 of the Plan 6hall be complied with prior to the
commencement of con6truction with combu6tible material6.
2. For all other 6tructure6, the v~etation control re'1uirement6 of 6ection
(6) above6haU be complied with before the commencement of
con6tructlon with combu6tible material6 on the lat. (Ord. 2657,1991)
3. A6 of November 1, 1994, exI6tin~ re6idence6 in 6ubdlvi6ion6 developed
out6ide of the Wildfire Land6 one, but later included due to
amendment!!; to the zone boundarie6 6hall be exempt from the
requirement6 of thl6 zone, with the exception of 6ection 18.62.090 B.S.
above. All new re5idenCe6 6hall comply with all 6tandard6 for new
con6truction in 6ection 18.62.090 B.
4. Subdivi6ion6 developed out6ide of the wildfire land6 zone prior to
November 1,1994, but later Included a6 part of the zone boundary
amendment, 6hall not be required to prepare or implement Fire
Prevention and Control Plan6 outlined in 6ection 18.62.090 A. (Ord
2747, 1994)
B.
Development Standard6 for Severe Con6traint Land6.
Severe Con6traint Land6 are extremely 6en6itive to development, grading, filling,
. or vegetation removal and, whenever p066ible, alternative development 6hould be
con6idered.
Development of f1oodwaY6 16 not permitted except for brit::!~e6 and road
cr066ing6. Such cr066lng6 6hall be de61~ned to pa66 the 100 year flood without
rai6in~ the up6tream flood l1eieht more than 6ix inche6.
Development on land6 ~reater than 35% 610pe 611all meet all requirement6 of
6ection 18.62.080 in addition to the requirement6 of thi6 6ection.
Development of land or approval for a plannin~ action 6hall be allowed only when
the followin~ 6tudy ha6 been accompli6hed. An en~ineerin~ ~eolo~ic 6tudy
approved by the CitY6 Public WOrk6 Director and Planning Director e6tabli6he6
that the 6ite i6 6table for the propooed U6e and development. The 6tudy 6hall
include the following:
1. Index map.
2. Project de6cription to include location, topography, draina~e, vegetation,
di6cu66ion of previou6 work and di6cu66ion of field exploration method6.
C.
D.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 29
if' tf
3. Site geology. l7a5ed on a 5urFicial 5Urvey. to Include 5ite geologic map5.
de5cription of l7edrock and ~urficial material~. including artificial fill.
location~ of any faulta, fold~, etc., and 5tructural data including bedding.
jointing and ahear zone~. ooil depth and 0011 5tructure.
4. Di~cU~5ion of any off-~ite geologic condltion5 that may po5e a potential
hazard to the aite. or that may l7e affected by on-~ite development.
5. Suitability of ~ite for pro~ed development from a geologic 5tandpoint.
6. Specific recommendation~ for cut 510pe 5tability. ~eepage and drainage
control or other deaign criteria to mitigate geologic hazard5.
7. If deemed nece55ary l7y the engineer or geologi~t to eatabli5h whether an
area to be affected by the pro~ed development i5 ~table. additional
5tudiea and ~upportive data ahall include croB~-~ection5 5howing
aub~urface atructure. graphic log~ with ~ub5urface exploration, re5ult~
of laboratory te5t and reference5.
8. Sienature and reeiatration number of the engineer and/or geologi~t.
9. Additional information or anal~5 a5 nece~5ary to evaluate the aite.
18.62.110 Den51tv Tranafer. Deti~ity may be tran5ferred out of unbuildable areaa to buildable
area5 of a lot provided the following ~tandarda are met:
A. Partition~ and ~ubdiviaion~ involving den5ity tran5fer 5hall be proce55ed under
Performance Standard5, Chapter 18.88 of the A5hland Municipal Code.
B. A map 5hall be 5ubmitted ahowing the net buildable area to which the den5ity
will be tran~ferred.
C. A covenant ~hall l7e recorded limiting development on the area from which
den5ity ia tran5ferred.
D. Den5ity may not be tran5ferred from one ownerehip to another but only within
the lot(5) owned by the ~ame pereon.
E. Den5ity may be tran5ferred only on contiguou5 lot5 under common owner5hip.
F. The den~ity of the buildable area may not be increa5ed to more than two (2)
time~ the permitted den5ity of the underlying zone. Fractional unit5 are to be
rounded down to the next whole number. (Ord. 2528. 1989)
18.62.130 Penaltie5. The following 5ection5 are in addition to the enforcement action5 that
may be taken and I'enaltiee which may be impoeed in chapter 18.112 for a violation of thi5
chapter:
A. V\lhenever any work i5 being done contrary to the provi5ion~ of thi5 chapter or
whenever eroBion control mea5Ure5, tree protection mea5ure5, wildfire control
mea5ure5, or floodplain corridor development meaaure5 are not being properly
maintained or are not functioning properly due to faulty in5tallation or neelect, the
director of community development or the director'5 de5ignee, may order the work
5topped by notice in writing 5erved on any pereon5 engaged in the doing or caw;ing of
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version -- Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 30
if'S-
euch work to be done. and any euch peroon!5 ehall immediately etop work until
authorized by the director or deeignee to proceed with the work.
B. All development under thie chapter and all work or conetruction for which a
permit ie required under thie chapter ehall be eubject to in!5pection by the director of
community development or the director'e deeignee. 'When an inepection ie made under
thie eection or when It 15 neceeeary to make an inepection to enforce thle code. or
when the director or deeignee hae rea50nable cauee to believe that there exiew upon
Hillelde Land5 a condition which 1!5 contrary to or In violation of thl!5 chapter which
makee the premi!5e6 un6afe. dangeroue or hazardou6, the director or deeignee may
enter the premiee!5 at reaoonable tlmee to in!5pect or to perform the dutiee Imp06ed by
thle chapter. The director or deeignee !5hall firet make a rea!5onable effort to locate
the owner or other pereon having charge of the premiee!5 and requeet entry.
C. The City may refu5e to accept any development permit application, may revoke
or !5u5pend any development or building permit, or may deny occupancy on the property
until er05ion control mea!5uree, tree protection mea5Ure!5, wildfire control mea!5uree. or
floodplain corridor development mea!5ure!5 have been In5talled properly and are
maintained in accordance with the requirement5 of thi5 chapter.
D. The owner of the property from which er0!5ion occure due to failure or neglect of
er0!5ion control mea5Ure!5. to~ether with any peroon or partie!5 who caU5e 5uch erooion
5hall be re6pon!5ible to mitigate the impact6 of the ero5ion and prevent future er0!5ion.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.7) - December 2, 1997
Page 31
~"
ORDINANCE NO. ~ fi? 1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PHYSICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS CHAPTER (CHAPTER
18.62) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE
CERTAIN SECTIONS CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 18.62.040.J of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
SECTION 2. Section 18.62.080.8 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed
considering the following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of
developing a level building pad and for providing vehicular access
to the pad.
b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
SECTION 3. The first sentence of section 18.62.080.0.5 of the Ashland Municipal Code
is amended to read:
Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum
number of trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel
reduction if the development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by
findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the removal of trees for one
or more of the following conditions:
SECTION 4. Section 18.62.080.0.6.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting
plan shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree
planting details.
SECTION 5. Sedion 18.62.080.D.6.c of the Ashland Municipal Code is deleted.
SECTION 6. Section 18.62.080.8.5.a of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read:
PAGE 1 - ORDINANCE G:\PAUL\PlANNING\HILLSIDBamendmentord.wpd
1-/'7
APPENDIX 9
~"'. .,
Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill
slope area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from
the nearest property line.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the ~ day of November. 1998,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 11'" day of Ncvuva be.,.- . 1998.
~,d~~
Derek D. Severson jer
AsslSlant /0 the City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this I~ day of NDvaYI ~
, 1998.
~~
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
Re~d as to fprn;r."
. .
.,.--' I /\ :~.
'. c( <. <. \. . L L- . .f
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2 - ORDINANCE G:\PAULIPlANNINGIHILlSIDElamendmentord.wpd
J.f~ f
. -Oregon
',. ..' 1'heodore R.lCulor1pi, Govf!1'l\OI
May 2, 2005
Department of Land Conse rvation and Development
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
Salem, b~gQl'l. 97301 ~2524
Phone: (503) 373-0050
First F oor/Coastal Fax: (503) 378-6033
Second Floorl Director's Office: (503) 378--5518
Web Addres: ': http://www.oregon.gov /LCD
~
Bonnie Brodersen
635 Wrights Creek
Ashland, Oregon 97520-1665
Re: Status of Acknowledgment on City or Ash!and Ordinance 2808 ane 2834
Dear Ms. Brodersen:
Ordinance No. 2808 amends Section 1, Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland M micipal Code, to
be replaced in its entirety. This proposal was subn1itted to the DepartmcI It of Land
Conservation and Development (OLeD) on October 2, 1997 and remaw :Cd to the city by
the Land Use Board of Appeals on September 24, 1998. As of April 29, lOOS, DLCD has
not received this ordinance from the city as a post-acknowledgment plar. amendment
pursuantto ORS 197.610 to 197.625.
Ordinance No. 2834 amends the Physical and Environmental Constraint I chapter
(Chapter 18.62) of1he Ashland Municipal Code to make certain section: are clear and
objective. Again, as of April 29, 2005, DLCD has not received this ordiJ .ance from the
city as a post-acknowledgment plan amendment pursuant to ORS 197.6: 0 to 197.625.
I hope this information is satisfactory. If you have further questions are 1 equests, please
contact Mara Ulloa, Plan Amendment Specialist, at (503) 373-0050 extc nsion 238, or
mara.ulloa@state.or.us.
Yours tmly,
~~
Community Services Division Manager
cc: John McLaughlin, City of Ashland
Mara Ulloa, Plan Amendment Specialist
DLCD P A file Ashland 003-97
APPENDIX 10
~
J.f' '1
iii
Appeadis E
e.L..,
\
'HiStoric and Current Miles of Fish Habitat
',JJear Wat8lS/red AnalysIs .Atea (Estimated}
Coho S8Imon StMlhead Rainbow Trout Cutthroat Trout
'.
s...... Historicl Curnnt Historic I CWNnt HIstoric H . Current
....... In__ ~. (Miles of 8""")
---
of N N 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.1
waa... Ck. :
.-eom Gulch N N 0.8 N 0.8 N 0.8 0.8
c.nyon N N 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 N
1WiIfI..... Ck. N N 1.8 0.4 1.8 0.4 1.8 N.,
AlIUnd Ck. .2.2 N 4.5 2.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 .', 1.5 q
E.ForIc N N . 4.5 .> 'N 4.5 0~8 . 4~$ 4.7
w. Fork N N 4.8 N 4.8 0.5 4.8 4.8
......1Iton Ck. 1.3 N 2.3 0.2 2.3 0.2 2.3 N
_CIL 3.8 N 8.9 8.1 8.9 8.1 8.9 2.7
T..... elL 0.9 N 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.9 N
0.9 N .1.9 0.4 1.9 0.4 1.9 N
ItOTAL IlLES 8.9 0 33.9 13.0 33.9 17.0 33;9 15.4
APPENDIX 11
Appendix E-l
+7~
1.;
M--"'i'-::'-' .
/
J
I
1
I
J , ;,",
llj;;f~f:'
~~
~, ,~
"i::: :-
1Pl.
~.
C(JC.
-, ::l
::l n
~ .e.
..,.. V>
Of .........
.~"...,~
C
.-,
,2g.,8i
(1i . .-. ::l ,
~-..':':~
o '...:.". C' r;:
t-t, -,0 ~ h
tT "0 ..... 5'
.to: 3 ::r (Ie.
< ~
Co '"". ~ -, C
C :::J ::l ~ en
;::r> (JC, V; is ~
~ 0 p; C
:::J ,...;.,0..,-, ~.
::l ...,.... n 'v
5'tn~' ~g
< 8.' ~.~.....
e... ~ tf ~ ~
~ r.-+ t-:""'- (b
<0 . .... (JC, 0..
~cc::rp;
S- <" _. ~ 0-
~ 0, ~;:; <
~ :::l 0 ~
C.Il'f"""+ en ~
o::;';;;j~
1-1'~. _
cr'~~'-<
::J . 0.. ..,
~ ~ 3
pj:::J"'O
....0 ~
0-'0
-, 3 .....
-, ~ .....
~_::r
o-<~
cp;..o
.., V> C
o tn PJ
Oe:=:
~ !2.~
.~ PJ ~
2':~::l
r.r.o..o..
, .f$)........ <'~Cl.. (Jq.....,~, ~,;,~, ,::r S- ....
: ,..4'!t,/" . 0 '.,.,. '-' 'c.,-~'~;', .C ". ',0 ~ ~
~,~ V>~~o~~a 3tn~~
.., ~, '0 Q:....., 0' ...., . (U" 0 0 ~
'yO .'"1 :;r.... (l; ~ ~ '.c... . ..... a (3 :::l tn
;::J, 3" g::r ':!J ~ .(;~: 0", tr t: 0 C'
"'0 Et ;:;J - (b '.... M.." :::-.'.' '.p.".' : ne,,' '. C 0.........,.....
.~ ;::J ~ .-. -",< ..... .,'-< .
.., ~ "'" ""'0 .::t.. .,...n '~a 0 ~ ~
;.... en ::t V;. (/e;.::l::r (t' .., .... '"1 0
~ (U 0 ~ ~. P 't-: S' ~" . g ~ R
.... 0 tn .... ..... tr.: ,. (. ~, 'v r.r.
.::r e 0 '.~'(U ~." ;:J !C E,' ;:J ..0 tn
~ 0 ~. :;:(. C <, .t.$tt '. n (JC. C PJ
cr (JC. '<:: ., ~ -; -..... ;..." cu>' p; 0
~: _. t-: A: cr' ~.' c ;:::- . p ~'3
P g @'.;:1 A:t5,cl .:;cJ~~; .., .' <r.
~- ..,o..::l__~ n IV>
~~
'a
~
:::
...."
(I)
~
:::
Q.
~
:::
...~
a
~
-
~
-.)
~
.....
(I) ll:i ::r .... ,N
::r_ ll:i ,~ .....'
0...0""'';--:'
E.~s:oS;
Q. c:,.... ::;
i'-J,~ ,.... ......
~a ~ '~.~.
~ tIi '"'f ::l ....
:::. rJ ;",~ g
. if ;- '~ '~ a
I:l) tn :;:;. "0 ..,
::: ::roo - ~
.. 0 P C
Q. c tl ::l
P_c-......c:::
2P.l:l"'~
~g[[~
8 0 (D 0
o""'x~C'
c.. ::r C;;'tl ..,
ll:i -..... _. 3
.... ctQ. (DE.., ,,,
(D::r::l__
...._ I":l _....
::r~!DVJ~
~ ....-
::ro~~::r
,~ ::l. ~ 2: ::.
E:qPI":lI":l
...." S'::r ~
~ ll:i"" P
;;: ~ ~.' [9-
:;::; ....- '-< ::.
~~~o~
~ -< '" ::I ,:1
_ (l) (l) .
$ ~ e; .g. g
9-3 ~ ~ a
(D (l) rn~. a
~e S'::l ';'
I
.~
"-
y
.......
~ I
>-t
-<
I
......
I-<
.~ P. "0' N
a ~. g.'~.~
'. ' _. :r.- .....
~. C10 n>' ~
~..:tl _..:::f
~. (D q" (D
....~;t c~
~' a ;'. "6.
(D -. .:0,
,..,.. = -'fil'-
t3.... ~ .on
::.;' .J~ :=:- os::
CIl'"'f ;>.-- '
. (l)' (!l
g ;- c:
~. 0" :::,
-..... :=.- ~
~ N-
o .... I'D
Od:- $
p p s:.:5
-;:J ..,
c 0. <'b
CIl CIl ..,
~ /") .;
~ rt
cr'E. ~
~::l 8
(!l (tC; 0. .
- ~ "'.
~ 3 ::::;
t"'fo (0 .2
f: =. fJ:
....... ~
!:oJ ;0' C'
::I VJ ..,
0. ~ ...
"0 g (r.
(t> ..... C
o.:c c
'.-p ~
~ a R.
:!. '"
c.? ~ f'D
:::J <':l ;-"z'
:l~
tn /")
,C;: ,!:oJ 0
.;-,,n i:
.;-- .~',~
.~E~
=- ~a
/'0 /")"10
.., t,j' ,.,
t.: :tl' (l)
;:J ..... "0
q,. t.:l ,J:;;
-<*,g
en~. n
c _~.
~ to) /")
'-.n f":;
"0 fD ~
o en
-M
c ::l
..... lJ)'
c::
c ..,
::3 (!l
,-ro-p.
10
:f
~
....
(!l
:;2
p ~
'f""'f'c~
~ .;n
Cd-
S-c
!""
~ 0.
f*) m
r.. ~.
t'D .......t
v. ::3
9) ./'0'
o..:::s::
c ::r
(':l ~.
,(f,
'~c _
10 ,C;: 00
04""'f"";::;
P-cnc..
_. (D
'g. ~ l:l
':f2. ~..::.
::I ..~.~
I":l "
l'o:) t.:l
'"'f ::I ~
(D .... 0
1:0 ....
~ :!. ~
~ ....
~ ~.
::I ;:!. ~
Q.ClJc..
,-~,::: ~
o..~(l)
-/'0,,"
~. t.) ("J
(;>cno
::r__~
p CIl (D
r::r....
.... ~ ~
"'pp
!;. a ....
p '" o'
.., ~ ::I
ro cn (!l
p .... ClJ
CIl @ cn
~ (D
3 ~
::I
....
tn
0"
~
::l
;r.o
lJJ
......
:::r
..,
10
ClJ C
::I~
o..~
"'0
o
t-<
-
('j
-
.trl
())
..
~~
~()) . .
~;g
t;:10
"'O~
g;q
~~
-<,0
trlc:
>-3~
:I:_
~.~
:;eo
~ ~.
t-<C2
t::1"'O
~~
~~
_ {FJ
~o
>-3~
{FJ:::ti
n
tT1
J./. 7/
~
~.
g
~.
~
;::r
~.,
~
~
~
~
[
~
.~
g
~
~
~
~
g. ~ tJ
::l c: ~
PJ c: c
~.-,&
<'~ ~
-'c ::l
::1. -... n
(b ...... 0
~ 5' g,
....., tn
::r....
(b @
o to:
~ a
o /")
::l 0
c...,
_. .-,
22
.-, 0
o .-,
en
o n
'-"t.:
(b c
~ V>
.... ~
~cr'
..... '-<
o C
n ..,
t;:J cr'
.-, t.:
~ ::l
o 0.
S ~
.., (U
(1) 0
Q..'U
t.: a
a (1)
~ ;:J
,
.,.;6~.~
'.(1/' c
,i,r. 1:.:'
,c.: c-
Oo
8,0
~';:J
i"- c.r.
......
I:.: 2
:::J /")
c......
o'
.:::J
'$)5
:::J
C.
~
't.:
~ _.
-,.., t::l
tJ ctd
~ l:J
<: ~
~ :::J
-(")
.g (b
a
t1l
':::J
.....
C/)
8
..,
3
~
c ,....
::1 . \ J
I 0
Oa
,~ a
~
>;
8.
~
l
~
'-"
A>CIlcr'
:::J r:; ~
o.a:::l
~ 7>
fJ a ~
c:: cr'.-,
en ~ 0
o ~ Vl
~ en g'
@. Q' ~
g C 0.
~ .........
-. cr' c::
.g~a-
~o.o.:
no:::;:
~. <: '-<
:::l 0
O'Q 0- 0-1
.-.. "'0 :::r
.g a (b
0> ....
.q->:::J (U
~ .... 3
~ 0. 0
(b <
~:4e:.
:::; (3 0
~ '-< .-.,
~ en
a ~ ~
_. O'Q
o - a
I":l 0......
o :=: ~
o~c-
~. trg
pj
cr'q->
:::;: 0
~ 3
~
::I
(D
..,
~
"
, '~<'~"" ." ;~'-
r~ ,,::L
. <.;~ '
~:":'::r~~5~"'~";,;, . " ~,' '".;,'. ~,"
.1".:" '00 -~.
'E(/; ',:,v~.:::;: ,< ~ '. c.... c... ,. it, "C 5r ~~:~
r't. , 111" 'n' :::; ,Ei r;, - S, (: .,-. - :.<:c ~ 0: ~' ~' '0-' 'fj
~~,.~~ :c;::.2 ,c.. r~ _. ,. 0> ..> ;1.i;i.:'6~;~ .,:<'11'
? ,tj. ,~ ~.'~'.~: .g1,~. 5': i "C. ~..}L.S;-<
. ::;: ~;';'2' & 'tri.. ~ ~ t;W ~';;?' 6: 0
:..l EZ.,~ :::. ,;;:t;,::,~~.:,,> ;5. ir >;a i ff ~~ n ~ :p r'~
,- ~'~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~..~ ~'(1) ~.
~,'~~'~"&:~"~'~"a [,,~.,
,~, ~ ~ ~ l~ ! i~il~l '. ....PS..~~li ~ ~[ll.,~.1,..',,'i~i,',.'.:.1....,".:.:'.,..',...~~i.,....'.....:"....j...I....::...'..,..:..,'~.:...,~..:;....,.........i..,.....,:.,!.,......~ ,1
. :"'" ~'p ~c.~n, Vo" ~.~ pi '2"~~';tt .... ~' '"' OJ ... ~. ~ ~ CL p
~ C. ,:::l0 .~. :j ~q g-. n..Q .t::.. --0"'-' n."Q V:a'~i~:s~S;~.Ff "'C .~ ~
o ~,c..::J -' P . s:.;: (tIQ. n. P ..... .;:;- (fO;: .\= <: U) 01..." C, " "J::,' .....,. '''',0",'.' ',8OG.., -.
C ::1 ::::r 01 ::1 (fc; ...-1C3-n. (tiP cr ,< ::;.t:;:..., ::r . ""' rr ;:l 0 .~.t: "0 <:
0. ~: (tI P ,01 P C C- en :::: (; ... c. t? 'Q oS ~,~ .~;.;;; .1$: og.;~' ~ re...
<: ciC .p G 0"0 ;:l. .., S' 0 ',.< .-. (') tr- ...... ;r. ::r'" ;:l 8 ~'q..Pi 0 0. 0. t:
~.~ o' Pt/l' E.. <3 ctS. 3 ge; ~ ::;'5 .Ci ~.~ :;. ~. '"0' 8' ~ !"'. t:;,:. ~. ..\= ~. ~
...... 0" r' .... or C ...... ..............w r. -. - <:; ~.......
n~~~~~_~en~C~ ~CO'~~-M~~.~~~<(tI
;;. ::r - ~' 0> (') n -< ::r :::l n ..., , ~ S::J ....., 'n ;:l '< ::r .r-:J..~. ~'t:r~
_ _; 0 0> P ..... fr. _ ;:l a p c. c. 3 ~ - ~ P,l .g- G '~n "0 ~. :::l
...... U': '0'. ~ 0' g- 0 _ C/l <: :::l M '0 (tI ...""" e; ::: . '0- ~ (') 0' Pi' ~
::r ';:tl.., Cl....;:l 0-+,0> ~ ::;'. v. c' . .., ~ . t/l'~," ...... 0 P;:l ~
nO'oog~ :::l_~:::l0~ :::l~~~-~~t/lM~O>~~~~
>; C - 0' ~ n::r ;:l ::r - cr. 0> ...,.. n ., P,l .... a .., .... Vl ....... ~
n. c~. c ~. ~ :;:11 (tI 5 ~ 3 (;' N n ~ ~ v; ::J g 2 ca ~ . Vl Ea ~ Vl.......
~ U': -"2. ri e. (7.' ~ c. :::l n. ::r ~ ~ o' <-. ... ~ ~ ." 0I.:::l .... ~ 3 ~. (;1
...... 0.. p - ...,. 0' 0' ...,. ::J <-. ::r ..... ::J C "0 ~ ~ H>...... ::r", l:::: ,...- Vl
~ Co' -, t:J 0' H> .., '0 3 .... c '< ::r' .., 01 t/l _ c; 0> ~ 0>. .....,... 0.., s:: 0
012 ~ ~ ::J:::l E ~c p !:ie. ~ c n: +>- (j;' ." "0 n 0. ~ ;:lc..:::l Cl 0. ~.
g- ao;:;:l :. c (') ~ c.r. ..... C/l ,7 'rl-; ~ n 00. c' ~ ~." P,l ')::..,' ..~ .g....~ .~. 0 rii
(') r;; C/l n. en 0' (t. .., n. ',' ,-< '" o+>- ~. c ...,. "- ......;::l '" t/l ~ (1)<
_. ;:::; q.' P ::l ..... r' r. ::: ..J..... if, a; ....,. ::n .~ 't/l .(1)(/l ~. ::J.. .' C/l
~2~~~;:::;5~~~~::r c~~g88~Q3&;~~~~~
~ . ~ 3 9 f;; S 17. Qi ::J g:.~ g;. v;- ~ g p :;; ~ ~ n ~ !f. g ~ c. .~ ~
8~3S,~
~ r-+ ,.- ......,
I- o. -::: (l. /:i
E:::lnlf.rv
5-c~~~
(tI '"P 2.:::l (l..
::J C - - ::l
>; ::r~'......
0" ~ _. - ~
(tI _. (Jr:;
::J::r(")p
'O~nC::l
P,l (JC; .., 8 C
~ ~ 8 ~ 2
C '< ;:l .., ::l
~ ~ (") -.-I
on'" p :;j
:::l 3 ~ - ~
rl- tn ,....... 0.., 0.
o C
...... ~;:l 5' E.
::r::r",cC-
OI.~ 0' ~ ~
-- ~ ~ :::: (t
:::l v>' ,
9: 2: ""'1 p' C
<: (JC; (tI ...- "C
...... __ rr. v ;:l
0. n.... c l:::: ....
~ __::::.=(t
~ ""'1 r-+ c... ~
- (') ::J _.
0(Jr:;;:l~
g ~ q>oa ::r
;::l;:::;O';:ln
&~~~g
l:::: ""'::r ~ v:
'<gOla>S
'f:!: "n EL;;~!.~;
~.1I 4--'JJ \-.C> ,.....-.,.
\ ~I ~"~!3~' \
"T1rC7-l7-l
r.; -;:. .., G (l.
0; 0" p (f
;:l (fl ~ 0. c-
oo:; 2 ::J (') (1,
v.(')~O'::J
(1, r.- 0' ::1
~D He ....., ~ E..
~2a2-~
v. N ~ (') ....
'.r 5';:l ::c. c-
~ fIe; C; 0' r.
(1, p;:l C
W:.
~..
.- t:']
M f")
c:
n ....
C ....
c:
::l ....
C ;::
..... ~.
....
....
r. ~
g
R
,,;,,~,~,.l';: r.
~
;.::
'<::
~.
~
a
F.,'
l
g
a
g
a
i
.', (t,;,k..~.,:
n n C 0' ::r'O 3 ..... <: -...!.cr'- ~ ~
r.' -. ;:l 'c '::7.., ... ::r~, a::r{< ;:l 0' ::r
.:;! ::J v () ::l () ~.~ ~ 'i::l ",<v.. 0" ~ ~. (tI
0" 1/1 a ~,n 0'" - ~ ~ 0" ..." (') ....... <-
3 0> ~ C :::J ...,........ ::r ::i ~ P' t:l r+ "0 <:;
. p::r ~ (JC; .~ '0 O! 0. <11' 09: ~ ~ 01
~ '0 p ,<.E:;. M.. :=: '<.:0 "". ':>"':::l ~ :::3' ~
'0 l/l 0 .... 5 ...... ~........ - . aq ....... t/l :::l
G ::r'" p.. 0. 5 a g ~ ~ .., 5 . ~
D. ~ z'~ ~ P' g- l/l G~ g ~ 8 ~
S 5' ~ E 6 >; -.::r. !:l ~ ~ 01 S 52
0> (Jr:; _..... .... O! :::l ~ ~.., ...,..., '" u
c- - 0'....... ~ {JG <: 0' ..... ~ v... ,.;....!:C
. ;:l (JC; :::l !Jl J:: 01' <: 0....... fV . ......
P 0" P,l. P' P. "0 _. C/l r+ ~ :;:r.. (1)
C.., "'c ....... ~ .r !1. '. ~ >-t (J~ "'_' =' c. fr. 0..
C '"T1t;;..~:;l 0..0'.....- 5-P'O~
..... <: 0' l/l ...... P,l - . <-: (") C/lo. (i)::J ....,"" .
""p'" ..............:::l0!;:T' OI~
c-_ n ~ ~..-<~ o.<b l/l?, 0.....
'0 (') ~ ~ 5. ~ ....., ....... s g 9. 0' ~ E'
.., ::r ...... Ov> !::Ie. <;:> ...,. ,...-......:::l (')
~. 5' P '0' ~::n O"....~ '0 ,$\). (JQ' <1l,ttj .
(tI qo ~ ~. "1> P b <lC~::;f .."0'
"1 ,.;.... ., r::., ~', p;i' v>. !:Co.., ~a-?'
< P' ~ 01 _ '. _ C _!::l ....,-~
O! 0. t:r. .... .... OJ ...... (l> W ..'
0. ~o 0 @ ~. &p. ~::::l f:>,")....... n
...... ~t:: n p ..' 0 50 t:f!lH ....
<: :::l ::r ~'(Jq ~~.~....., ...... ..@ ;::l"e ...0>,
~ ~ ~ ;::r::r ~'G .tfi~ e.;.,~' c;:r'~'~
p t:: '"1 ~ g. . c....... Q,:::l .:::l . ...... ~(') ..V>~
::J G (tI O! .'. 0 @(l>'-~' t:l .;:>;"'. m:, .'. ..
p. g ~ ~ ;:l ~ ;:l n. .~ OQ VI ..... P .
~ 0 (1) p. ....... ~g. .<:+. ...."0..... ..!a.... <;+. i,'1..... ~'a.'
.., 0"11' ;:l 0 . .;z!.~, .8..01 .;::r(l> ...... .,
~ .~ . g. ~ ...~K :g~; .t:'" "~ 'g- ~'. (2,
t/l < ;:l ~.-.,...... rl" ft'...... ;.p . Pi (') S:::.. '~ .
<: P,l re. ."'1W'$~0H.g;;~ .~ ~ ",(.~
_..... (ll., .........~.(1!."'" ~,~ . (fl, .
~i'~;.;,i{.;~q~,..~j~ftg&i:),~~t~:Jt~~~ ....<~ '. ....0~s:>;sr.fj .
.....
....
,,/
\~;I:g,~-,k;-;J:
~::;;:;::;:'~ 1'.:
~
~
+-~
fl
......
S.
<r.;
s:
~
(')
c
-
-
c:
....,
r::.
::l
....
;:l
.,J
(j,
...,
D~
~
::t.
~.
(Jq
p
-
c'
;:l
C-
n.
<
n
..-
0'
"0
3
n.
:::l
~
..,
l::::
;:l
a
~
:0'
g.
':'t~';:!i;~t~"~' ::..
" ; '.~~i~d'
..:.O...'......._..Q. ....
~.f .:Ii: 0"0 n
~-~}"t:/') ':'"1 tr.
00 tr. €
~:~ ~::.
c.",.. (f) P
.~ ..'~ ';; p
o' c...<1> :;:r,
p'cr .... p
o ,-<0> s:.:
::::' ~ Qp
0-' (l> 0> n
(1) ... ~ s:.:
>-<
<
I
,...,.
W
~o~~
~.. "'I 5' t5
1Jl'. .m. Jj(l tb
c 0" -<:
('). ;::. ~
i'D' go
...;. .~."C
::r.... IJl
tD...~ ~.
-. '(JCl ("C
'S-"'I
"C . t'D t'D
~g. ;::.
g.':;::I t'D
(Il -. ~
, oQ."t:i
. 0 t:: "'I
>-l). t'D 0
0.Y' (')
t'D {Il t'D
'< t'D 0.
t'D ..... c:
'0 ~,~
"C (') {Il
S ~ ~
(t S" :;::I
::.2 '.~ 0.
.... ':::1 "C
o 0. (t
:I ..,
{Il2. 0'
~. ~..... ..,
~rR.' S
.....~ ~
':::; ::':::1
,(") 0 (")
,~ l:f (t
::.2 ,. tIl
..... S ;-
~,~ :;::I
,.". tIl' 0.
- t:: .~
S::C. .., ..,
:.:s <tl 0.
0. "CIl Y'
'- .....
:::t'
..,
o
c:
cr:=
:::r
t,j
:;::I
0.
.~
::I ::j
~. '-'
o.M
tD ..,.
t:3
.-
c:
t,j
....
(tl
....
:::t'
tD
o
~
.....
;:r'
(C
(')
c~s:.
S _. (C
'E. S
.... ......c
~ .... t:
..... tIl t,j
o' Jl) :;::I
:::I :::I =.
o.~
o ~
""') :::;.' ~
~'::r :c
:::I' -.0.
:;::I
6- ..... ..c
'< ::r c
t'D (t ~
beE:
8"'1'-<:
~ 0" 0
~ ""')
g,C1~
{Il 8 :::.
~. ~ Ei
.... ::r 0.
.:::1 _
!":! ...... "'I
~ 0 (C
:::, c: V>
..... :;::I 0
c
~ ~ ~
7~ ~
~.~"
~, ."~ _.f. r1~
~. ;,~ ':0.: 31:~:3' ~
<Ii ..... .8;0;....... 'D
.t::;........... .Q:,'c C
g~P;.'~: G,;,.O, 5- .
o "'9" <1>~;~\.:to (D-
r ,0;""'0' " ...,
5-'~ St't;.ri c
~ 'l~',[:g ~
.~,s.~,~ 0, c.
c 'f\. 0 ,..;;,::3 n
.:c. C~o,5-' ~ ;:;
~ 3.f?: v,'~ U:
r-f :-. (t.. ,~.
<'15.. 0 "0 ,n ~
v t-t) :::., ~ ::r
r:.:. ::-:r r:'. ''1 ~ v~ ....,
'C n .~ n ~
c. (!; ~ if; P (ICo
~ '\.' ....... t-J
r--. ~ f'1, tf. :::;-
r.it"'1p.......c
~j CT ~ 'c' C
'? I '/ r..r ...,
.'u;;.,1,~"rif !;~:.c~:,~}~: ,~~,'
. ~,. c.. xC.'1; .......:;:1
;:;; '. C "0 0 i~ s;!:+
:r.- ~ g ::;' ~ ~'g
~ "'1 C. !Ii' 'p
s:.: t:.:.....s:.:;s::E~
S' 1t ~ 2 5 5- R
C!c: ..., v. ::J. S 8 s:.:
p o' ....., 8, 'p.; 'D (fG
C C. 0 .....,c. .....:1.
Po"" ....., (1)'~ 0
(\I ....., P 0 t,j- t::
OP.... C. ~ a .~ a"""2
a 2 ....
ro Cb'-;O ':02
,.p. e. -< g 3 ::;
g~2~5
!Ii Ol 8 a 0
P'Cb-O>f=F!
SVi~g
.(b pj (\) en >
::Jp.....c.c.
....CL?)CbB-:
~~ ~ ~J6. c.
~ ..., '" ::J 0
!Ii ......:::; Cb p
a2ac.e.
(/'C'4"~~(')
.... C V> 0 0
c;2.8g~
C c - <:
D:t:.: ~CLO<:
::J .... ~
crc..crpC
(!, cr, <1> C. c..
.' ,;'1l,,~Y~:~~;r ,@ ')<
. 0:& ft ::r ~ '0-
p"'""'. .....:E .!":! '
-'t-lCo>CLO
s- ~'en .... (b ~
!Ii ::3. 8 E" ~ .....
:E ..... o-::J. - 2
t:.: 5 ...... c. 0 0
@:E ~ 1:; "3 g.
..., Cb Cb 0> p
.....,b,5-5;p..
!Ii ~ .... ""-
t:.: pCb.....
....c.;.V> tno 0..
:;engr;-"""e:
0> a: ~ g t.l g.
::l ~ r-< ..., (3 ::J.
0...., ~ ~t-l e:.
""0>00>0..':"
c. .0. t-l ,.
(b C C. :><
..., .... 0. ..., 0- '"d,
...., 0 t.l ~ 0>
o (D. 8 S' ~ ::J
a;:.-p: en
~ ~ (Jc; t.l Cb
O~2CbP:E
@"10v>CLO
c .... '< c
~ p ...... en P' -
....oO.....enCL
......,pCb"Ocr
~"""~a::rCb
"'1 cr::J V> e. t-l
o>CbCL~.....Vl
c9:aov>o
c ~ ~ C C D.
"'1 ..., S' 0: ::+, pj
~(;""'cr~(b
c. f!' !Ii n, c..
--0
o
r-
-
n
.....
tr1
en
~O:::C1
C/:tl10
n>-:3>-:3>
;:j::r:rr-
Ztr1~
C1 ~ 00 >-:3
C Cf:J
~~~~
V1>0~
[J) [J)
>-:3trj
o o.~
fi3~~
>-:3::3>
o-z
0~t::1
trj>-:3~
~trj~
r:-<~o
oo~
~~~
trj...j~
2:;;Cf:J
>-:3r:-<P
~-z
L. ..,. _
t;:jtti::3
n>n
8~~
L. [J) >-:3
~5;;d
o !Ii <1>
Sc.!:2..
c.......~
..., 0 a
0> t.l
.0 ~. ~.
c .....
:::;" oC"
0> p:
n, ....
P !Ii
n, .....
..., ::r
~ 0>
o
::J
a
!Ii
t.'
en
C
...,
..., n,
o en
en ---.
t:: ......
..... 0>
(f)
o Ol
....., en
0..0
...... ...,
~ ~
C Ce
8-g
~
p 0
!":! .....,
!Ii <:
(f) !Ii
..... ....
o r;-
<: ~
!Ii
~<
~ (~
P 0>
0.....
t.l ~
,.., .......-
Cb 0
t:.: p
(f) '--
Jf1J
.s..
'-"
5 ~ 5' ;i ~ E;
c.o.gn,o.
en )0-01 ..., U'.:l"""'"
~. ~ g ~ a;:. g
8::r;p38
~~8:2C::J
0..... ~e.~~
" PJ ..... 0
0> r-< '< Ol c.. c.
u: ...,...." V> en'::J
O::rO C"Q'Q
C ...... - C
" n, S ..... '"d t::
~ S '"d. <: ~. ~
'" ......., 0 0 V;
:E::;-:OC::J
ON<o:OO:
t:~Cb ""'Cb
c: o':E 0- ..... ::J
"', ::J P' 0> ;r C.
-- .........'"::1:
Vioo>::rpo>
0....,...,(1)~0..
..... .0 ....
cr::rco..co
Cb ~ ~ ~ " ~
-.....-.....pj::J
~ ~~. 2 ;:::J
.....Ol~~'<o>
~ ::J ~. C. Q'Q
v>0..8(3e;.
PJ j;.J -........
V>~OO~
~O"""~'-<
P < .....
0> ......::r pj ......
0.. c.. (b p a
c (\I :E 0.'I::l
o A3 0> n, P'
~t-c..()~
...... C p: 2-
o t:.: ::J C :E
p crc.o-<:; 0>
pj 0> tr. - ':< 7'
trl
::l
rt>,
"'I
~
~
'-"
tr:1
:;::I
<
8'
:c
El
(t
:c
,.".
~
-
/
/
I
!
,
; '.
}~'<~~~~t ~~
"J. ~,,'< "'ft.
":::!t' ;:J
"0 .-
:..0 ~
,,"< .,:,c:.. _.
.',' '!E.. '::::J
,S>>
S'g-
'f. ',':0. ..,
,~ (b
<tit:
fr.c
ot"
'1::l .-
E c'
"0 ::J
:::l
....." v;
.., C
l:l n
c.~
~gc~
::rCC::r
~ ET r..:
::l 'A1 O::l
P-g;::>o..
c.::rO
(t> (b ..,
,.., () (b
_. (b
A1 -< ;0;-
O' C
~ >-J::l.
-(J<:;
? (b _.
o (t> ~
:q' t.; ~
v: (b
.- Ul
'i1
.,
o
3
.-
::r
(b
..,
o
en
(l)
:2 p ".
0' 't:l 5 _.
~.~ 0.. ~
.-o~::r
::rX(b(l)
oS;!;,1O
o~o-+,o
.., ..... 0 (J<:;
gfr."'c
;r, '< cr (b
::!l.....g,1O
o .~:'!> <'
a~rr.~
en 2:Z
o I-j f:.l
C 8.::l ~
0.-. (b c. c.
~UlOg
o 0 ~ E:?.
~co."
::r.....;r,c
~ ::r ::!J ..,
::1 0 s;? ~
0..0-+,<:;.....
;,,;~~fmlr.i~~Lt,
" "". .~. "..,.~ '.r",~ .." "" _ _ . . .
',' cf:*~Xg ".~'$"~. '~.';:.,:~..'.: .:..,"~::;'~..-~...,.r ;?"_:." )j
'~'.,-.E ~.' ~ ~,: _. "n..
-, ~ ..- U', f
"'Ci~.., <1-.:.~'''~ ~ Cr (Ft> 'J- ::::i
..~:: Co. ~,:<':i 0 ~ (1J C C ......
~;, - t::,..-;: ~
<::' ~G:.... c.,~ <': ~,'i.'s
. ;~. ,~{~ ~,~ ~ 2-~"
C .:C.". ,...... ~ ~.' s:: ~ t.';Y.2 ::J
o C. '., .'. . IT ~. 5., ~ '<; 't:l ~.
QG ~"'2. ::tt'. ':?' ' c (L '......
-8' :-"'t:, 3. 0 acrc':. '., :<:0 ::l,.:;:r
~ ~. ::::J ;.:l o. Oi ""'i V c.. " (~
........ '-' c.. 0' ~ >- ,~
(1). cT U':.(t> ~' 0 !'" c n' g
~ ~ ct.; '3 ~ 5...' .:3.':'
g:'~ c. ~ (b '::l u: c .,~
=:. p (t> ::f; U': ~ ~ ::J,;,
~ :::: ~ (')::l 0.. 't:l
>-. '< - (')::r.'o. ,c C;; h' ::r
fr Ul ;';' ~.' (Jl:;::l c=. ' C
h'~C (Jl:;3(b 0
N o-+,t:l ::l (l) C. ::l
h' ~(b ;:J , ::l 0.. Po? (J<:; , (JC,
..... (b'::l (l) _ (S'
S;- D E= Ul ~.~ ~ ::l (t
.~. ~ ~ ~8- ~ 2. ~ 2
cr.' ,<< C Cb 0.. ~ cr ::r ..,
.....Ul ::J(b.....'-<~(b
~ 2. cr (b [g ~ ~ &
(') C U': v: a __ ~
(')(')~B~ ~::!:Ir-+
C ::r c cr... ::r-- _. 0 C.
::::J h' ~ ~ C (b
~::J~v:c..<1>-c.~
~ ~ : [(g S .g~ ~
r-+ n :3 . ~ ~ c 5'
5 5 (b SITE. ~. cr. ~
~~n~:::r:-:::i
t:: ;:-;- t.; p c. ~,
~ S: ~~ ~ l/. 2 n
(f; (t ",'" ~:::. a
..., c. ' J 0.. C -' ,.
-' "'Oo..~""
r-+ o-(b ~ ....w::.::J
::r '< (b ---. (b a .
ro ;r,- i1. c. ,. v.
t.; ~ .... ~ .... c
,....,w<-,~('t.c
F-g~gc.~2
t.; ~ (b :3 2 S "
:J ...... ~ ~ ~~.
c.... ::j ~ C .:---c t-f"
v S V > :;-~-c ---.'
(b n n (r. C :: c
8~E:;2:::J~C:~
c '-' (l) ~ '-' 3 ::J
h ~ 2' 2..{3 ~ fIe;
u:::r (') u: ..... 5'
.....c'<c::;cv~
g 17.- ~.a g .~ ~
::Jo-~o3-...Jn
'-' n _ 2 'J,
2? ~ ~ (; 8.. jS .:::
::f; tr. ::c 5 . ::e C tr.
~ <1> h' ~,5' 1; it
~ S'~, u; g- (b ::r
@ (t> .--. OJ 3 ~. ~
r"1 ~ ~.:::
~o..5~<V:'---
(bl"'"\"'~ ()
ri ~ ~J ().< ~ @
<< c ~ @ 6' ~ (b
U': 't:l ;r,- (b r- (') ;r,-
a E ;0;- -',.., ....
~ (b <: ~ & (b .::.
::::::l ~ ::l _, (b ~
tr.c.~;o;-::r
.:,;. -:M
~'~
;l>-
'/.
t:;
trJ
....,
,;:
rr:
t':
~
-
t;'
""l
~
,. r-'
t;; Eo;....'
~"~ to; 5.. ...... -
l!.: C::l 0. N'
~ :::' t.:~ ::r ro' ~
~-~:.:::s
v; c.c ~=.g
5()~2':<~
o.gUl~'O"
~V";.....2o(t)
c:.:. ..... f"""to. en
:::10...... '(1)0
3~;;S-a:;
~ r.: ::;r ~. ~ ~
Vl ,::l 0 ., 0;- Vl
0.='8'00
t.;o.::l-
...., ..... ~ 5"
() 0" _. ::l .,
0(0= ;; 3
::l 0 ...
=. ......, (0 ~ ~
0'::r0'=.....
t.; _. (0 0. (0
..... (JQ~. ....,
~::rVl~::r
=r'Q.....==
(0 .,_'. (0 _. ;:;.
::l 8 ~
::ro(')~_
~ ::!. (0 _ ~
~Q ~VI 0.
S ~ (0 ~ ;::,
.....~2E:.~
~ 0. S' g.,~
- 0. S' ('1>
-, (0 ,.,... ., 0
~ ~ 'I" ~ 3
0. ~ S-'~ ::l
0(0....
0". "C v: ~ .....
t.:c-: , ro ~ .
P'T'l
r:-
c
c
o
-
z
C'J
::::J~'-Otr.85-S"'"
C.---,~.: ;::: ("tI 2 n v. :T
::::J ;r,- "0 . c.. :=: ." :; (b
a::J c E;::- ::!:I(bh'::r
P::J::::J 5 C ~~';;;
fIe; ....,0.".,'---
c~(")a::rc.e.~C3
-' ::::J ~ ~ (b 5' _ r-+ 0
?i: o..::::J C ~ i1.~ OS.
., 5-'< ~i:nc C'< (')
: (b C/) () ::;:! ~ t.;
'-' c;O;- ......~...
an v.O(')::::J~"'"
::J _. ~ C (b V ~ (b C.
r-+ ri ::::J C '"
.< '<: ~ >- ~ ~
COCoo~o..::L9-
~ .....,~., c (Jl:; (b ..,.
::r ~ C n' (') 3 0 ~
(b ::r g- ~ E:?. ;; 2: 3 c
~ p;;- t.-.., C/) oc; C g,. ~
'::::J~OCr-+. ....
o 0.. (') (b :? ::r ~ cr ::l
:: ~ f-g:.~ ~. g'~~
::J ri ::J" r-+ v'
. c.... 3 0 '< 5' @ (b
..,(bO _ ,~Vl
~ (') OCV ol ~ ;:::' 3
::loc::::J(J<:;(bt- 0'
(') ::l ::::J ..... b .., 9" rn ..,
(b 2,< 0 b <1> ~::J .....
2 ~ 0 ....., C/) ::J \0 os. g-
o..(ba'i:lBQ.c.;3~
''-: 0.. '0 C r-+ C. (b
..... ~ cr (b 0.. Do ,;A
0::1.0.,..(br::.._
"03 .......0..-_
.., $ (-. _. V1 ::l
o (b ~ rc; ::J QG' (') ~
.:-;. S ~;! ::l'; 0
;;.;- . 5-........... 0
0.. 0 e;;. P t!>,' 9 ,..
(b ......~. '< U': '. ~
~ >-J
::J ::r
~ CiI
>-0
(') ..... ,
.- '<
o 0
...... H)
~~
002:
P' ~
::l ::l
0..0..
&'0
cv E:;
." ::!.
>-(')
o .....
0'0
o..p;
0(;
..... Vl
V1 .....
~ ::l
.--. .....
cv ::r
.., (b
'\j
-.
o
.....
(b
(')
::!.
o
O::l:!1
,::t. >- 0
'<::..~o
UlOo..
""'i .......
~::l
\0 l/)
-...JC
W..,
.
If 71f"
,(; l~
';'1 !!-'
c .tTl
.....,;,-,
_.~ 3
=r' ....
-::l
l:,j (0
.= .....
~ g--
VJ
'"0
-t"'" ::r
~'c<
= CI>
0. ;:;'
0::"
.., ~
0..::
S' 0.
~ m
::s =
~ :$.
r'Jd
g 3 ;-"
...., <t> .'
~~/
2; .~
::l -
(fCl(j
~ 0
('l) =
.....~
6""
@ = ~,
~ 0. a
- C) VI
e ::l (')
o' 0. ::r
= :l. ~
CIl I .
"C ~~
""I ct "t:l ,~
~. ....g.. .~.~ '
~ :.; ;::. cr'
-. en. ~.
::I '(0':::0 0
ere; 0 _,--
l:,j ., ere; 'c<
::Ig.g~
o.;:r ~VJ 0
= ~'Q.. =.
VJ ~ (0 Q.
c: r'J Q..t,?
.:!...c. r;- ~
= c: ~ _,
~ (;;~ ::-. n;
....0 ilo-iooo
'0 ::. = '-<
c: 0 VJ 't:l
g= ~ c:
;:;. ~ 0.. ;;l
"l'::;' s::
~ t,? (0 (0
...., ...... r'J .....
r'J (0 7 =r
~ <13. ;- (0
VJ (0 ~ c
...... VJ tIl tn
o ~('l)'(O
rA VJ .., 0
~. -< .... .....,
~ S' ~ ~
.... 0" ~ ~
::l ;- (JQ ::I
r'J (0 VJ
~S3tb'
.....~(O.,
~::r::lO
~~~(;8
-~ (0
~ ~-<
::l 8'= (0
0..,0....
'.t.;
;l
,~
~;r.
t.;
.... ::t;.
;-1:;
VJ v:
(0
-< p;
~ =
c . 0.
~
0"=
;-~
~ .,
., ('l)
(0
~ .....
'ton =r
-. ~
::J '.....
~ ~
= ....
~ ~
..... ......
c:=
~(JQ
-N
U:l 0
S =
..... S.
!b(JQ
Z
pl
::!,
o
::l
~
........::!i~t-T) ~t-(
P5 0 ac; 3 ~ U': ;:J
--0(11 c;;.;-......
00..-3-.(b\O
0.. '0 0 :::!l P' 0.. -....l
.-'r- ~ (') 0 ::l >,-.-...J
>,J ,.... ~ (') o-+,~
'-< _. - 0 0 - .....
." ~ cr C. '0 1> g-
tn' 0 c..., r;,
--J C. ~. 0 ;:r:. 'T]
2;: d (b' p) (J<:; P.l (b
'>-. en U': .., ;:J c.
!""'~"""""'~c.(b
---. 0 ~ 3 ""I
~ .... @ n ~, ;;
t.; ~. :::: 0 ::r 3
cr .- (b ::::J <1> (11
Ul 0 -...... ::!. 0.. ""I
::r "'1 't:l ::l __ OCI
(b'O'''' C 0 <1>
0.. .., 0"", ::l
03::l'O()
~(;'t:l(J<:;~,<
::l()'--'0..::1.~
p.1 ~ (1) P5 r;. ~
r-+ 0.. 0.. ...., _. ::l
o(b.-;:J'O~
::l <:: ;[ UlO P' ()'Q
~ CV." (; <1>
.... 0 OCIO::J 3
0.. '0 < 8- S' (b
Gl 3 (b (b ..... ::l
't:l<1>-.......~:::
.., ::::J ::l cbJ (b r
~ ::. ~ 0.. ::::J ~
2 ::l ::J ~ ~ ::l
:3 5-.- e. 0' ~
'" (b 0 --J::l____
,.... ::l (b :? ~ ."
g.~::l(b-rn
5' g g ~ g ~
Lf.. VJ.... 7 ~ 0.. '-"
cr
E,
0:
(b
..,
Ul
(J<:;
<1>
::::J
(b
..,
e.
......
'-<
Vl
::r
c
::l
::l
o
C.
.....
::r
<1>
o
cr
$.
o
c
en
::!J
o
o
0..
'0
-
~
S'
V1
j
I
/
,.. ~.
r:: ::J "J. ::.: tv './. ""'7j
c rt (1, ::J ;-: ;::;- ;::
3 ::J n ~.< v :: ::J ~
3 r-+ ~ ::: ~ C- c...
.-: c.:: ('C y - ';::: ,..
'-' c.. - (1, "1::J
:J ::J c.. C- C- <Ie.
-<c..to:~ ~~
.... 8: if. . C ~'<: if.
(tI _ ::r' ::;J N C- C
.,....,to:c(tlto:~s.
9 ::!:l :$. c (V "1 ~
(tI 0 :J _' .c c.. c R
c. 0 ac c c c.. <Ie. if.
.... c.(fl'" to: to: ;::;. v:
::r '"0 VI:::: S to: ....
(b 5' ol c (v. ::l C
_v:(')cc.. c..c..
o c E3',~ C 'T1 (1,
'2~(t)-'c~c-
VI :J ;!: . to: .~ C c..
o (') ac ., (') c.." ::J
. ol :J '"0 (tI ,.,.. to:
..... (V (tI '<:V C
_ '"0 ::11., c.. - c..
o ...., (') -. (t) (tI (') ~
c (t) ~ 0 c.. g fj. E.
_' :3 :J c.. if.....
t.: c' g -::;- \g 0 t -.
:J 8 ......, (t) (') ......,,-< :J
C. g 2 (t) to: :3 ....
~~p.,o:3(t)::r
0..... ~:Jto:....(t)
, (t) 0 ::J .... ac ::r
.<~o(')::rpc(')
(t) c. (t) (t) ,... . c.. c
f; .-1'"0 _. ~ 2 (fl 9
.....,::r~g(Vc..c:3
...... ..... ..... (t) >-1 (t)
8~. ; ~ ~ ~ ~ e.
c.. ;:1 to: (t) ::r .... ....
..en ~ ~ -.:::; c. ;::;. ~ ,<
::rOlg:Es.::rgc
~ g ac ~ 5' E; ::J ~
(t) Y c:' (V ac; n (V c..
t;
:E v: c.. 0.. if. (')
(b ~ <' <' ~ -
~ ~. c C::E 0
0. if. .... . (t) rl-,...,
(b C :J 0.. to: ..-'
"'""1 f"""t')~ .......\J r-t"
<' c.. ..... :J C r.:
(b~~8;:;.0-
c.. ,.... <:.... to:
......,:J-<~,.....<f,
., P to: -
Oac;V: or.: ff.
:3 (V to: (~...... S-
..... ~ .,' '-' .
::r~~g~;::;-
(t) ~ if. '"0 r <11
c.. ~Y'~c
p <: ~. ~ () 0-"
p3b-~~Cv
ccacch?
v: <: (V :E <i
'"0 (t) v: (V c..
~~~~'"O
r.'''' P c.. g
::!:l5~~r.'
S; . ~ ~ <' ::!:l
-< ,. :J (V C
"" . >-1 o..c. :E
(bl-' ,U:<1I
~. o.~ -.J t.: '""
ol 0;:1 --:] :J' ~
{/l $, ~ ~q.. (b
.~.,........... ~ Ul
o "':,'{/l rb ::;r 0
.... ?'. .... .. . ol c-
, .'"" ""' '"1 pll:> '""
'; i~~l~~t;;~ .~ ..~
:;':j;,'-/.~-
"i'
i' :
r:
::
r.St:7
t'"'. ,... C- r.
C
4 :::J
r.
C- r.
"1
::J C
C-
,r- C
'-.J
r.... 'J.
r' ....
ro-;
C-~
n
c-
f-~
_'"0
-..c'"O
fJ, ~
tJ\ ~
<f.
S~
..-' ,.....
to: ~
"1 .-
0": '-
n C
c c..
~, :::J
~3
~to:
-t--......
C/:.n
l-J) :v
'Jl V
C
...- '< (') ~
'-C 'j} C ::l
I..) C '0- c..
---J '..... C
- n; (') n
...- r..: C;' n
c/:....., <11 C
\.Cr..r.~-,
o ....,
_ (/) 'U (V
to: - . (tI c..
::J ac ....,
c.. 2. ~ ;:1
..-. ~~ n
c;.;8c5
O'\::J :J +-
o,.....c..
~ ..-- ,
C ~ ""'1
C (f. ::::r
C. '---' fj.
if, p :::3
p ~ ~
l7"" '-
c ~ C-
::: v:
,.... (tI
,..... if,
::r-
.... ....
::r::r
(V (tI
(1; ~
;..-: ::J
(') to:
c':;-
c..u
n n
C-V
n c:
"8
::J
..-'
9 tf',
(V
::J .-
c..'"O
~'U
-r-t- -.
~- (V
o c..
::J
fj, ....,
o (t)
......, o.s.
.... 0
::r:J
(t) E-
c:
(/)
:;.
(/)0
08
.-<
;::;-
r.
v.
(t,
~
::J
E-
......
v:
(V
if-
c ;::' ~
'..E. ::::,.. ;::
.- ~c:::..
-::Y ';:: C
(tI ~ ...,
2"' n ..--
;; 'c:.... C
r. 0- C
'<' c..
~ .,:J
::r P v. r.' r;
(V if,::J ~
~c....S-c
E;g:~;~
3(l)~~::r
::l .., ..-' _.
2 ~ g g-(~
::l ...., to: c..
Y:3rin
8 ~ ~ n
::J C (t.
8?E-:
c ~.< 0
'f; ....., (') c
.. ...., P ,.....
<: (t) c ::r
(t) ol Vl 0
-:2~~""'"
...., ::r:
~ g,~(t)
~8~;:;'
...., 'U ~~
C 0 ~ (/)
g """',$ ~
.......r1.5- - (t.l
",. (tI ~ ~
if- 0 .
::J ~
o 0-+,0--1
~E-~
;..-<Jcn
frnc~
n .- '<
~ r::;r
::; r-+ :::i
~c..,-"C
;r~<Js-~
"""nn::r
(V :J to:
r 0 ,.....
...., ......
jS-~::J
(V (/) (tI ....
(')::rp::r
::r~~(t.
~....<1>::J"
<::J~""'S:
~~o::lif,
c:--::::-OCbr-+
" v' c. c.. C
:::. S, 5'~ ......
(tI .-. (JQ ~
v:::roO
<1> " ......,
if< n ~
(/)(tIc::J"
::r~~Ol
$t ~ ~ D.
r-t~----~
::10'<
~;:J:J-
o if. ac P s.,
.....< ::r ""' :J
to:~c..
(t) <: P
;..-: (V '< <1>
g ~ Q ~
(V . .., (t) ....,
c.. -< (t) Ul
v: ~ r
..... (t) ~
::r<1>:J
(V 'V c..
....
..-'
. ::r
s~
-' ~
...~ '-
_ -r'
~ .....
..-' (V
...... 'J.
r.
g~::C
(') ...... '<
::r~c.
-. ..,
fj. 0 0
~::1-
<1> V' a~
,..... P"' ..-.
3 ..(3' (')
if. ~
~......, :J
C 0 ~
c.. "1 .:;;-
-- - ::!J V1
(tI 0 <1>
c..cV:
::l ;;.-
0-0
(t) ......,
.....
~g
-.. (fl
:J (t)
&(0
<11
(')
~
C
P
~.
n
"1
(1,
(V
r
....,
v:
(t.
v:
~: .- /' r' n g )>
::J :: fi ::J to: - (')
r. ~.:2 c.. :3 ~ 8
:;:.~~V:~c..-1
::J :-- C (Ie ~ S:
,~ 0 ~ ~ ~ (t) Jg
.... (D (t) ::J c..
c::r..,o~cS
to: ~ ::1 if<
.~ .;:1,.... 0 a: ....
_ :.r.~0~(V::r
rnoo-~9o(l)
t3,........,..~....:JC
,<~N'<"""
~ 'V ':;< to: '"0 ::r C/l
......~<:c.~(t)
o (V ::!:l
p 0-:2""":2 OCll
.;3::J 0;::'.' 0 S.
_ .....;!:......::rc..-
~ ::r 0 ::r ...., '"0 i""\
:J (t) :E ol l:-' ...,.. b"
0.. ~ ...., n '9. ~. p
noc 00-"" Ul
o ::l <: -. <1>
g.c..o (t)~:J ~
ol ~C"l..,....~
..,"S.- ~9::r....
D-. e. E; '< (ll (ll o'
~ :J 0.. -< ~ e:; ::J
'< ....... 0- (t) ''''
. ::r '-' -. ~ ....
~l:-'~~'""(t)
C ~ :E ':;< ~ $.
C.;::-:::rVlP"
<1> (JQ ........... ac <1>
::r(')OOl
zr-+::r:E......,~
ol (t) ..,::r
~ .., >< '"" 0 ol
<o::rcg
g"V1 &g
(~ g~'-~
nn
...., S
<1> if-
(t)
r
....
::r
....,
o
c
ac
::r
~
::r
ol
:E
(ll
Vl
....
(l)
.,
:J
'"0
~
....,
r-+
o
......,
~
::r
......
~
:J
C.
CI
ol
t-+,
o
'-1
ol'
ol
::l
....
ol
'-1
5'
(JQ
t:P
ol
~
"'1
2. p '2 -. '< 'U ~ r-+ -. ol Ul .., 0 ~
_ 0 < P (l) (t) 0 ::r:J <: "'d (t) "'1 p-'
-< Ol.... ~.., (t) (') ol <1> '"0 ol 0
'" 8..:J (l) .., c' 8.. .., ~ :J (') ~ >< ~
.... _.r-+ P 'V -. ~ :E;:+; n j'.J
.... :J '< Y ol c.. /"'.0 ~ if- _. n' ~ ol
:::.. ac ,..... '"" -. (t).... P ol p-'
.... --.-1- o' ~ ::J 0 '" ::r ~ c. ~
(l) 'U Ol::r .... (t) ~ <:' ..... ;:J en ol ~
:::. S f:; ol C. 'U '"0 ~ ~;:. ~ .... p. ::l
~ (t) Vl ...., ....... -g (t) .... (l) ::r p ::r 0.. 0-0, .
~ P u,' ::r 0 ~ :$. P (ll ;::'.. ol C .
::: . v.' :r.- (t) ~ . (t) ::l ..... (fl C .., N
s., E- p.; 0 ...., :3 :J (JQ :J ~ c.. 0 5' "'d
.... v..""'" ......,;;.. .... ~ '"0 ::1 (b :J (JQ (t)
::r CI.:c; ~:r.- ~ (') (t) ~ ::, ~ '.~ ~
(b . ~ ...., ~ 5' (tI g ~ :J. '< ~ oP (b
Vl rb So (')-<:J 00 (t) ~..,,< p
2 0..::::' 0 .., +-- n 0.. 0- ~ :3 '< ....
~.~ l ~ i i ~t...~~ '. ~. ~ '~.'%.~.
o :J. '< ~. (3 ol g 0 '"1 n ~ t:,.:. 9
.g g: ~ ~ ~ ,g ~..g ::.~ E.~ ga
_ ..... , 0 ''"0 -:;:;:; -".' ::r 0 0.... "c:l ~'V
(1) 0 V'\ """',..,0 0 :::...~. ......, b .(ll ~:"(1)
:::. ~ ~ .~ bC nV: POl ';::1.;::t '.0
o .... >: '"1 n 0 0 >< (') 0 .' ,'.....
? ol ~ ;:j' S' ~ >-1 ::l '"0 8 0. Et-,~'
~. ;J .~. ,g ~ ~ ol {\l ~ '"1 ct q;St
r-+ --.. r-+.' .'r..... ~ '< _..~ (l) ''7:\~''~
_. ol +-- (t) P .... ," ol (t) .... .,..,.. ,.",.,
t:l . ..-;;.:......,.. n (b ~ :;::l', t!' ~., .... '..:0
~. E; ~ ~ 'i:., .e- & '-t O..::;r ~'~. tt
i !;~ ~~.! ~l.tl~!t.
,0' ,\,j .~ 'f!. ,~ ~ 8 ~, Ol: ~,:g-
, '.}r '<7"~~. t . a.'.t!3'. ".....~.
~i:r
~':.;,(-;'::'i',;j:.~.r
if-
o
C
....
::r
(l)
P
Vl
,.....
~
g
~
::l
F-
Oj~
<1> S
P <C
.... v:
V1
&- S.
(D rn
::J- :::J
c" ~
C
~ ~, r: ::J
r~ ~ ~o
~ 2 ~ r: ~
..-, 77 \..-
c- C~. c:.... ~ C
'r r. ~ O~
v. ~,..J;:::-
~ ~. >.: <Jp
... 'I ....r C
G~U'.C(f;
::J 2,; v' ::l t:
'J. r; C ~,< ?
if; r~ ~., <1
g. ::J ::!J 0 '<
'<i' ~ g .;:;. 8
(') c..'U p
: s;' C\I 5'
~ :::!J () ~
o ;... 0 ~. E.
~ c' :<: ....... P
(; :J ~ ti v:
Po......c~
fj, C
<' 'U p <1> :J
(V (V :::: Vl C
....,ac.i"Sj
8. .p,1r-+ t:r'
..... C "'~ ..(t>
r-+ (JQ '-1
~ [;~ v~, slt~,I~I~~t!I~I'Jt~.ttll~WI'~4,i.~.:~ ~r ~:ri t!~;t;
'"1'...... .(':< ,~i;.: .''''' a....'a.,...;, '.';'" :<. '. a.,:J ...... ~ '" c ~ " (To:< . 5 a '4 ~ _ ,...". ~
';:'0 ~g.:~;1~~ E?;~~ 'g ,;5, -; ~ '~ ~,g' ? '~~ ~ g ~ .~. =Q ~g ~
. &.' .....::!....d.............:..'::i!.,? c......... =..' '1.~' c..;::J;:4 ,sc:..' . ....., ---<11. -. C trl 0 'E. ~.'
'.;.,. .(t, E';'~"-iv, . ~. .... c~::::: ''l:i C-3 ""'" ..... Pol. c... n <f; (\) x (')::1 -
, II .~; g, '.::.... [ g' ~ ::: g EO". -' 8.., g .'7") ~o'.. ." ~ 03<. ~. ~ ~ ~ 9' ~.'. ~(\)' g.
(b ~,.~ ~.'. t.: V. c... . (Ie.""'" .-+ 0' -'::r (b ~';r,-;::;'
b ,.., 'r-+ . >-=. (l. ~ l/. ::J. . 'J. ~ v: 0 g, v: f3l p; I .... ;:;.;:; f.l (b
<0 n (i,~; P.. ~. t: ::::J -' t:. 0 v: .-+.c.. trl < . '1 S1 ~ .- ~. "; c..
. C :....... t:... '.'. ,""...," ~ C t:. 0- p O'C.... ::J '< Po: ~
. .;..,. ;::; . 0,:0:':==1-. (t, (], (tv. ~'. ;:1:::'J;:l ...., f::. VJ _(\) 5' '"'10.. to trl '~'8'
. ~ .~ ~~: p.r,:.!-" g.~ 5 c... 0 5. ~ ~ ~ ?;:;:.' O'C~ :-J 0 (\) ~ .'4
-,..,.. "d ..,. "::J Q;. 0 --1 v.' g c... ::;;!:l. 0 0 ~ >--' ~. (b ., V\ trl ~ ., 2;-
~ 0 Q ....~. ...,... ::::J (t, :; 0 c.. --0 ;j 0 Vl tv ~ ..c: ~ v>.g si" (\) e:
....~~~:'~(],::;;!:lo~c... &ZVlR 3(b<.""tvgv:o'.gPo:p~p
:::r-., ......, ,trl.,.;::::;-; .... C .,. "Me C ...... c... V>::::. p.,.-. o'
(\)(lj.' D.... :;T. 0 lJ. C; C <-: '-' c 'l:l (I) ,::2 iA:..,.., ::J.,., (b (b :;:l ::J
;:: ~ 8::~H1J .~. ~ ~.~~. ::E.g,;:40 :; s 8- g g (b (\) sL::-,g ;:
6 if> o.@CTu;";;'2P",--;:l!; c:..; (~ ::!i 0 P ::l o"".g g~ - Or::: ::l
::J 5' ::J'. c;>:- '.. r:: 3 '< ::;;!:l P 0 V> ., 0. . P _ (\) 0.
C fie. ';..... 9- r= >-. t:. 'U .S!" '1 >-= 3 0 3 0 (b ~ ...... .-+ (b Vl 0' ~ (J
C UJ C g,;j .-; c r: (], ::J o' . 0. .-+ :;-:,;:a o' V> p (b 0'-
..... 0 (J, '0 ......' 'd'. ........ CIe. p ,... ... .... 0 0 ..... P" N . P
. .-+c.r.p......_....... E~~'w C ..,..,P<W::l.,.,(\) ::1,<
...... v .~5'" :::r (t c' v'-< "O::J ::1 ~ ...... .-+ ~ ..,.., (b :-J !" n
::;~g~~n~g~2 (\)3o~..g o[w~~o~~V\~.,
n ., .., n.w (J,.... . . ..... c ......, w -., 0 0 u> :::T' (b
::2 . P .... :;- 0 v 'J: cr: ~ c: (J, s;.; S' ., ~. ...... ...... N ~ v: ~ <:..0 (\) (b
~~nn~::J C"'J: ::J~3' ~ V'~no(\)3::l(bCn~
- ::::J 0 :=t..... ::J ~. ....., 2 r: 3' U;' ~ ~_ -..l r::: V> ..,.., flJ Ul ~ !; .,., trl
C n ~ C ~ C ::l:2J '1 .-+ ~ cr, ~ .f'>. ::!..g 0 := ~ ::::J (b P ~
;; 3 if. ~. ,-" ..... ~ 52 21 ::l g 8 E. C/) 2 3 () tv : 0. g (b 3 ~. g
;;; >0 B ~ ~ .:;'.s c ~::J C a (~ g B g N.~ 0 2 3 f} ~ ~ ~
......., cr. c :: .. <i "C 2 ~ (i a 3 n n C ~ ~.::J ::l ..,.., 3 P
(t, P , . r . '"71 c- - t: . (\) t:. 0. _ (\) ., _trl ~ trl
n .-+ ~ ;3 ::J C ..... ::E. ;::: c (f. 2.;:4 ~ .-+ 01 "g _ _. ~ 03 0 0 (b (b
~~ I C-~O~n-' I ~c.. 00..,(b::J(b ::J..,..,~c..
/
;,:.
V.
"M-
t;..
,~:-.~.
~~.;-f'
'ip 'n.
c~;
:r+.1;:..
~~!l
ii'c.; N~' (JC
:,: ~- ~ .~
~, ',::;J"'p.. u;
:M, ....." ~ _
.ft,:::n, "-f::r
....,.g;o>c.
~..~..P ~
'.t~.f;t:,~f;i'~' _~
l' '. "Q. l:;I ~ ::1:;-
'[;~~fIfl :i ~
&j'o""~m
.H' 0 .... ~y $:
.. :0.: '0.' ::::J.-+ ,">-,
. ~ -..... (b ::::J ,Y
;~~.[; [
. ,(1): (b () (\) '<
':;l.g:..~ ~ = g ~ (;
<b:::!. P P ::::J I-' 0; g
~t.n Vl(\)O.,.....
~,...'.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c
.~:;:l::l. (ti' ~ '" 0 ;::;
"'0. . <:. ,w ,w 0'.....
. ~.., .... . (b <:: (b P Vl
. \.~',~'E. g g ~ 2 B-
sr ~. g. &1 0. 0 8.::J
,~'" 'r-r- .P-.. 0 .....
[qg ~ ~ Er _~ 0
,Q:'~ .!!. ~ ;r,- P ~ 0.
-< ';;J() () .::l.:::: ::l c
~/{' 0- c ~ ::::J 0. ::!.
3 :,'.....0.. '.~ <' ::r (b :::: ~
O' .::l (b (b' (b ..,
.(/>o::!l.c ., n >< P ~
.,":" . a 'tj c;j ::::J ~ () a
.~. ~ ::r ::r Pol. v: s:: 0
.'.(b '"0 .l!J P ::l trl <" C.
'H''''' tIl <: ::I ~ (b ......
t:r 0 (b g.. P ...., ::l
(b,:"d gO', ;:; ~ go
~~ g ~ ~ ~ 8 :;-
. :3 "<..s:: ::l. (b b E. ~
(\) . .'~ p (il v: c n ~
v>'~o."d 2 -......:;-
N-<;O> ~c.o...... (b
~::r ::t n '< ~ 0 .,
"'.' :::.: P (\) en 0 ..... (\)
Ai; ;'(1) ll'\ 0.. .-+ . ~ ~
....~..... (\) 0 p; 0 n ~
:;:I.:~ ::l ., (b < 0 0
~'oo (\) c..~..... ~ E.
.:. 0\'(') . P....... 0..
'''''c .,- ::r
. ~ ....... (b .p.:l P :::r 0 0'
'< ' 0. ~ ..... (b (b
;lg~~~o~::l.....
. <b u> 0> .J-'" ::l "d 0> 0 0
~iLt";:t~j~j~hJ~~H\~j~":kJ ,-,; ~~~;lfjf~
~
rn
........
H
)>
p;
c;;-
o
P
v:
<r.
C
3
(b
c.
.-+
::::J
p;
......
:;-
(b
u>
......
""1
(b
P
3
~
o
c
0:
.,
(b
a
flJ
5'
n
o.
S
::l
(b
0.
..... .....
2' ~
3 ....
D(i'OD;(J,5-5->-1
r, (t, ,.... fie (], (t, ::::J
0'" 0 t~~ 2 s: ....., :2J (t
'1 ~, ..... ~ '7")
~ c... fi -g g; 8. g t11
~s."s-::Jc..o.~
. . .......... '< V> '>-..
::::J N-1 <' n..n. (b ~ r
(I) ~n. c... E:; < c V>
'l> P -"1 >-+, <r. (b B 2
En "1 P C 0 v. ...... 0.
2:()::l 3""" 0,<
l!J.,n c..O'"p.,
::J (b t:l:,1 ~ E 0'C_(b. ...., ~
cn.c::J"".....
I) ;r,- :=: if; (\) ::J ~ ~
~ ~ (I) ~ x::J 0
(i ...... (J ::l en' 5' ~ ::J
;r,- 7'..,.. 0. (b (TQ t:S ~
3,;::..,(boO'~,;::..,cJ
(b(b:;-~::::;:>~
~8;?"(b::::J::::Jtrl......
~g>-4;g~z~
~.......:::i'.,...... <:o.(\)
~ ' (\) (\) ::r <; '< ~
trl;1o~o>pt;m
.-+ -o.cr>V>(bCn
:::r o.PJ~;!.?o..cr>
0> <11 (b ...... ........ r:::
~p 0. a P t"I
""""'0 - '<..... n;:::J
~ ::l 0.. ...... <: '-' 0 "d
-..l _ P ::l <;.-+ ......
.f'>. '< ..... 0 P .....0. t"I 0.....
:;:!l P-cr>;:4--6
. ~<:Co..Ulc~
()oo<::o.o' .....Ul
g ~ a ~ 5' ::l (/) (\) 5'
cr> 0. '" O'C (I) ...... ., t"I
...... .- ~ ~.....o '0>=1
C V\ ..... '"
VlV\::::J~(b30..
0> (b (lJ
0.'< ">-..?-'Sog..
(b r .::::...... 0. ......
o~'9)>-<~~
:2J
5-0
(I)' C
>-= e-
n
2 ....,
E.~
~~
c 0
c .,.
c...<
n C-
O >-=
::::J .~
0. -
_.
.-+ ....
o ::::J
::l ~
U1 (I)
0'
'1
0>
n
o
c
E
<
~
~
c.Po:
~ ......
P ::::J
0' 1:1'
~ .-+
't.< '-<
~(;(I):;-(J:;-O(l)P3"'"
::::J....~ ., .......n::J(b::r
(], Ii p ~ n (b 10< c..p (b
::l v;-O'"., (b 00. ~......::l
o fJ g F 0 "1 g. II V> 'T1
::l :::r '" ~ '< 3::l ~ ~
I""\_:::.."'::J""(\)0u:>...... ,;::..,
\ J ~ - -. p...., 0 ....... '>-..
,. ...... -., (b Ul 0 (\) ,Y
~ r:!l:;-~:;:!l' .g o~ 3
o ...... ::::J 0 '>-.. '0 - ~ '"
-(JoV>0>0'y_30":::
o ., 0. ,... ;!.? ~. '" '-'
() (b S' "0 ~............ ,. ..... ::; V>
~ (b (TQ B. t11 en' =2 F- ~ ::::J ~
o>;r,-_~~O(b"""o(b(b
~.~ ~. >2.'< ~......,>--'~
::l (b g.. >-4:;:!l'< 8 01 ego.
...... ~. :::i'0;'8 8'::::J'< r.1
::::J 0 S 0> 0 0\'0 ., S' (b ~
~ ., ~ 'Tl 0. (t' 0- _(b ::l ~ ::I
-. 0' 0. tI1 Vl 0> ~ P 0. ::!l .....
(b(bo..7'Ul~~.,O'OO
- :=-.. ,;::.., c r>3 ....... (b Po:=:o
~ o' >:g g ~ a ~ 0. (b .
.-+ .? n 0 < tI1:::> 0. ::l
::r a P Ul (1l (b S >-4.;;;
'(b ...... (\) ...... < ::l ...... :::i' '<:
trl g P 0. g- g S' p. (\) ~
r::: '< 0. 0 ....... (b m 1:1' '< t:r
::t., 0 o-I......()'U.,o>
~8......... ~ g- ~ ~ 2 ::::J ~ (b
(b ..... _ <: ., 0 (1;':;:;;-
. '< ..... 0'..... <; ...... w
o (b 0 :;:l~. ~ 0 0.. <:
..,..,e;.....S;(b::l(b~0~
:;- ::!l ~ (ti' 0 u> 0'" P ::l o'
(\) () ..,.., :::r '< '0 ...........
'O'C 0 () (b E;;- 0 m ::::J = t;;
.,8.s;; a.....,-;::. 11m
g~~gg;:......~....,.f'>.g
::l e:. g.. < ::J ::::J 0 ::::J 8 <
c..::l,< (b o.B "1 (b _(b
.-+
::J""
(b
'<
P
.,.,
(b
" '. ' " ,', },......."',f,7~.. .." ".
~~~,:~~~}.,:;i',~',:~.r.'~;~f;:., '::'A,k:4~'i$:k ,~!">>':,!:i.~~~~~!.r~,-~' 1";'~-~~";';'
(\)
><
v;-
~
5'
0-<:;
(\)
<:
5:
(b
::l
n
(b
[
0-
~
Vl
arJi.~".: ,
':.,,{:-:~!~, ii:- '~::1/',~-~ti~~j,,\
, '
c,-~-;~~1~~j.'~o',':.;:it:.,?~_;8;,~T;i:-
.J
I
j
{
"'''~'_'.'. ...' '.'~'~',Y1>"_.,..... :n'~... ~" f~ __"~~.""'~~_~~C
. , ,~~ ' ',. . '. . "', ,<' '"~'- ""'" . ''';:''':, ,i "'r'T;.0~'w%,~;:~~tt~f;:f"s'~*~'}t~'1f~{~~f'f~f;!k1;~~"'t;~/~'
.~ t
~f:-3~
:: 2 ~ ~
....J r-t r..
,... 'J. ~ :::;
.-t '..r:
("- '..[
~. --c :.r. ::;
........
"J. :J
r.: c...
c...'U
cr;:!
~ ~
(f. ,....
(""" '-:-'
(J~
o-J ....,
,.J s:.:
s:.:'U
"Q ::r
tr. r.r.
,..
m5
~.::j
n :;" ~ r.
Qcre. r
,...... 'T.
r-< .-.
3a~~~
(\I .>+. ~ ~.
........ ...., s:.:
o 0 s:.: u: n c
....., l-T')::J r.r: :;: ~
& ::!l C- ~,
(too~(U
:::I8,.(Uc-
(1) ,~ Vl cr
~ - :;0'< qo-,
......,(')(U..,..,o(to
;...:..10'< ""an
o ::;:I ::;:I 0 _.
,0 0. OOC '-
o.C~CCN
a(')~(1>-<(to
s:.:(;~ ()r+::;:I
'"0 o.~ 0 0 '"'Cl
~_~czs:.:
~: ::r::;:l ~::;:I
;:r::(1) (U (') 0_
c: ~ ::::; ~ 5'
~ c- s., a (I~
o ~ ~ cr
,g. ~ ?3 0 ~
::;:I P::::;~
~~~~
~ 5. (b" :::
D. ;::!3 a-
2.0"""'-
-oz
U'l c- 0
::;-"0
C p::l
(') .....(U
-2 O. :E
"1 (') ::r
(1) 0 ~
sn 3. g
(1) c-.....
X o~
(') ""1 '-'
.g (U (b".
....(b"0"
_. < s:.:
:::I ~Vl
..... ..... 'ev
~ o' a
::;:I (U
::tVl 9.
-. ~ 'V?
~ 0
o C 0
:J. c: ~
(') cr ~
t::'(U.....
_. "0 ::r
~ (U s:.:
;!. ;j.. ::;:I
\.J ;;:J .rl
~ ;::.' ~
(; 0
o.(t'
8'~
~, cr
,(1)
i'~
.(1)
"1
'. .
(','-
:7
~ r.
" '
:J
0':'
c-s:.:
s:.: :J
r-> c...
s:.:
)>
C-
.- $.
\Cif,
0:0
~,~
C VI
.::;:1 .......-
(bto
if, C
Vl .....
VIe::
05'
'~ OC
~::r
o pl
...., g.
C-.;::+
-' ~
(to cr
o ~
t"""'t.(/';
Vl 2
::;:I ~
C
.....
(1)
u:
.....
::r
ell
::!i ur
o
o g
c-.....
"2.'0
p (1)
_. ~
:::Ie.
.....
......
(1)
0.
S'
.....
::r
o
~.
o
o
0-
"0
S"
S','
~-:c
...... ./
, If',
;:7' tT1
.... .....
.., .
n
..,
,-
r.
t1~ .~ ...J
;:: r...
7;:i:jn1
~nSiJ
..,
c.... r.,;
:J'. g
n
...:.:
, ,
I".
;-.
;:: ::l
~ ::; .-J c- ~J~. '2 :;J
__ :::::. ~ ~ ::l ~ ~'
,. )>
n "/:
..,
f/~
-.--J ,....
.1-
..,
rJ'
:.T.
.';:j, .,~
r~ o-J
-' '
~;. ~ ;"-0
-+ -j', ~ ::6 :I: ~ c ~.
~ 'g :: ~ ~. ~ ~' g.
r- ~ "J; ~"..' p "~'
,.,.. ...<. '- ~ ~< 0- rv n
::;:I :3 C ~ ~ S :r.:J.
(1) r.,; .., ::r' ....,'
~. 'B a~ .., ~ crciC
o "6:::: P ...... ::;:I g C
::Tn 0 ru Os:.: 7'- ::?
::.: -, Pc .... n C
::J ~,.v" C CD C- ..,
~ "g V -r, ~ f; Lr.
.., ~ ~& ~ ~ rl ~
~ :::r C ::r::r ;::r
....,~. c '"1>. " (1) .(V (v.
ET "::r :::r ~ En " .~ ~
en (1) c: 10 ::r (1) .\.0 pl
C<~W--r-t--....)Vl
""1(1)(Uo~::r..{>,"'"
"0 0::---' 0 5. (U C3 @
~.. 0 P: (') Cb. O?"
U': .... . ::l Oo::r
S'-Q 0. &d1 .~ .c-.. .
{jq pl ~ ~. (1) 0' 'Vl. (').
C/l ::;:I ...... ' , 7" 0-; '::r c:
"Oc.. VI ....,~. 0 0 'Vi
0"';:"0 (U 0.::;:1 ~ pl
(l) 0(U 0 C b 0
C. .c-..,;'(U ..,... ~,..(')o. D
p Ca'.. .~.'. '"0 .::;3. C..... (1)
::;:I . (UOG .........::r~
P.- (U ~ ...., pl ~ :!:; (')
....... ~. ...... Vl '....... '''''1' ,t:r"
~ ;;- ~ ~ g F'~ b
~ <: (1) 8 '< .M (') .'~'
'" '<;: ::;:I ..... (1)El ::r ~
5- q.. ..pl C. III pl'
(vo .~o-; . ::;:I>+.
'00 ~ . ~.' ~ '&1' (;
if ~ g g..... Elo-;
(t,:::r t: c... ;::r ~ pl
;r,-. c- ...,. - o.rt::;:l
~
.......-
~
.(-+
"0
""1
o
::r
0:
.....
.....
c.n,
S'
~.
(Ii
':r. <:
ell <V
< qc
(l. (l!
r-<
~
......
c
:::r
ci
;:::l
o
o
D
.C
" (),
n
C
..,
if,
'"
-
p
c.:.
C.
'(I>
0-
:=:.
,cr.
~ ~
~ ;:::
=_ C
~ fV:'
'1':' ,.
~
II
c_ r:
c_ ~ ~
c...~
"'C
,.. c.
n.
--" 'J-
..,
s:.:
n
n
C-
r'
....
:::r-
.,'
-'
e-d
r. n C'
S- :=: [1'
egc
;:p Q... ~.
~ In :::::r
.., ~ (to
<
,~Q ~ .~.
cr. o' ..... l"
(U 0 ~
Zr::;:l ~','
'(V ~ ,Y
:5 a; ..,.... l/l
'n ~ ::J 8
::r (1) a C.
~ ~ < '<
;:1 a.(1) ~
.~ o,~ "'0
C "0
.~ 88!;
.... Vl v: (u'
n 0 (to ::;:I
..... "": 0 C-
O 0...,.,.., '''':: ,
n ('1). Vl 6..
'~'~;~'9'
:@- 'r' .~. g
.(1) P, a r-<
,"0 tv'
('t;'''''-'''
"-3 ::;'
(tl, ,..:..,
::l .....
c-El
cr. ::. ..,
C,CI1
~ n:
"" i::
n~ ~
0; OJ
:0~O~
(1) , " 0-; ..,.
'< :5' 0 (JQ
o (1)
'1; g ..~. t1...~
o " t;:r'C
'<: . ~. p)Ci..i .
,{';;' ~ ":"1' p :f..
....... i:: ;:T. H '''''1,
g 0 <Pi .:::I:'~,
Vl C. 0 (l( ,.It .
~ d. "1 'Tl-,:-,.
>1' ::J& .tfj,'~
'9::... ~.. .~:~. :'tf...
.'. .l:':i .~...>s.,
'~1.' ~~:,~~'
'~'." t- '\i,;ii' .~
':!t(1)C'tli
P4' . ...'
5'
(JC; .
,~':;
.::;:1
:ro+. .'
::r
o
;::!3
6"
::;:I
M
::r
(l!
(')
,::;r'
~
::J
,:::I
~
.~
.0
C
c::
S
o
qe;
(')
c
~
(V
....,
o
;::..;
pl'
~: ~.;e
'-.e 0> ~,
;;; u\ <:>
H," 0
, ..(1), ~ p"
..........Ao,
~ ~cv:, <:>
o >-iEl
g.: 6- 1?
6'~ ~
~li'i
. ,(JQ.ft .
~.....
....
....
~
C '/. :J
c.. r..
n 'f.
:/'.
-' '/
,.j
,....J r- r. ,.._
',f: -5 ~~::J ~
v. _--' C_. r... r~
r.
...-. ~
v:: "T1 ,-
~~. rn ._.1
'/ .-.
~.f.
'-'
, .
::; ...... I ...
~ C-
~'-i r.
:::,
~
'--'
c-
'./.
)..-~
~
......-t-. v' ..-
:::-'/ r_
(1 :::; ,.-.
..-,.., ~ {j c-
o..::::
cere
a () ::l
s:.: 0 (Ie;
"0 ::;:I .-.
.... ::r
o (1;
C
....,
::: .....-:
......-: r...
s:.: p-
-. n.
n
..,
.r~ ~ ~
r.. 0 -..J
;r,- 0 .p.
:::,c-
~C~
c c s:.:
8 c c- ~.
(l! c- 'U ?
::) "0 s:.: ....,
~ E.;:::; ::r
a- ~.:E. n
s:.: P p
~2..~::;:I1)
(V cr s:.:
~ '< v:
tb C c
~if,u:......J
8., cFc cFc <r
.....
::r
ell
s:.:
"0
'U
....,
C
~.
:;:!J
C
o
c-
o
::;:I
)>
(f.
::r
s:.:
::;:I
C-
S3' n
ri ""
if, -(V
..... (U
... ' 7;"
...... .-.
~'<
0:
oc
E"5-:=.g.:;
::;:I(Uga_
0.'< C- ....
o (') "0 ::r ......
~ g s:.: g ~:
o c: 5' h Vi
....., Vl ~ "0"'"
&~o(to~
co ~ c: -, 0.:
::!i E::. C- {tt
C::;:lo-~~
5.. n 0,. p'
"2.c~r;;
[;, ~ s: 2.. g
...., n (/: U1
C'::r~ q
Poc.~c
'~C .....,::;:1 ~
l:1 ~: 0 OJ .....
Cl.::;:I""C-0
N (JQ &::;:1
0(')0 a 8
::;:I 0 ..... C
ell C .....
o.p:C
~, ::;:I 'g.
::l 0 (1)
CIS... ..... ""1
ell cr 0-< &
....., (U ......, , 0
P-' 0. ~ a ::ti'
8. ~' ~ ~ g
~.os,z.g-, .
~'.' oc ,,-,. '.E?"'
p::;:l '~,
c..::;:I ,i.... :::1'
o....,.:;:r ....'
::;:Iv\'-~. '0,;
..... '~
I ::;:I
8".c-
2. S'
r. ::;:I
~ c-
(l> cr
.., 0
(')
7"
(l!
c-
(')
s:.: S
@ ~
s:.: ..,
v: .......
if.
o
7"
::;:I
o
S
,.j
;-,... ..-,
::r
(U
"T1
m
~
)>
~
o
o
c-
::;:I
(Ie;
P
if.
ou>(')crw
nNOell"-"
2 (V S 0 ,::r
3. g ~ ~._~
::;:I (') ell 0 s:z
oc (') (') ~ (;:
S' 0 ~ ::r C/l
..... a pl (1) ~
:::r~r-<;::!3
-{tt g ~ o. ;:j
::!io. b~
C ,~ C CL .:
o (b 2..>-0 "p"
.g- cr ,,~, fI:~
~ C (Ll"::;:I'.l:1
E::. 5;& ~. ;~;,
l:1 ..... <'l> P -.c'
. ::;:1'< 0.:::;1'
~"~ ~:~~
~:~ E}:fE;
i ill;,K
(b o~i5:: .,L
e; "'0, ":
g' (tl>,f~
'Z.U;'
~lVR."'~'~'."'1'!l'~
l~.,~YJ;.}" _' " ., ,:):'1",~~~'--.,..,. ,. ".,)~:A:";
~: .~>;( :-E AE: ~~' ~~<r~~~~ ~r' ~ i~. ~ " ~ -- == ,; ~~
rJ> ...... -- ~. '.."
:T030'::r
o ~ "'0 ('l) .....
C<:_ ~
-!:>' (ll_ ..
0.~3e..g.
o"!:>' (ll ......!:>'
(ll g g o:S
C (ll (ll ~
rJ>!:>'o.CI>""t
8:g 0"' ~ ~.
..... _'< ('l) .....
On' 0 e ~,
'<'"1C1>_
0. 0. ~ tf'
('l) ~ ..... ~. (:l.
() !:>' ::s ::::'('l)
'"1 (t g '< 0-
8.3 (').1::...,-
::S('l)~::JO
('l) ::s 0"' "'Q '... ~
::r r+e W 5t
o -3d
~Q~g~
~. ::::roo ...... 'ft. .,'
:::3 ('l) '"1 (ll'::r
,<'"1~0.~
CIl "0 ~ .0-' ('I)..'
"0 0 ... '<
g ~.:.O .~
-. _. 0. .... ......
01 0> ('l) 0..,.
(') CI> e.Er~
"'O~CI>!:>'-
o~. ::s....
- ::= ~ (').(')
_. ::S('l) ~
~ @ 0.' ~~
-..0' 0Cl r^.....
~. ~. ~ ~~~
'* a' re.~ .~. ,.'
!:1 - -.. 0 .,fi
~ ~ o:=::a'
... ('l) ~ Q.o',
... - 0> """,.."
..... ~ CI> CI> . ..,..'
8. n - W . 'fti
. :::to if (j"R: , '
o '<.'~.'
::s (') C).'
0"' ..... Ef.,i!a'
'< ~'J!":'(ll", .
- ...." '"1 '. "',i
::::r ('I) \:S ~"
0>(') ~ .~. :,g",;
, '~ ,/::;,.,.
~. ~ ~'<.>
. ~. ~:5!,:',
;i a ~;
t;;. '8f:J;
n::ta
::r:'~.' '
~:::3 '
"'0-
. c; ('l)
'"1~
c::
0Cl
::::r
~..'~
-g.." ,lb,.... <
r-. ,.,'
m'..
sc.;'
m'33
z,
.....><
...........
~.=
~.I'.
00
ZO
==
"
.~
.m
m
'2
en
...
c
m.
;g.
..~"
Z
,"U,
,'(3
~."
~.',',.'.'..'
\.-:,..,
.....
"m"'"., ,
'.' .
.-0.
'i'
"''',''..'..',.
"..-.'
""
'-~~:
00
Q
o
F
g,~ ~ <:
...:0 (Ii ,
::rC 1-4
(Ii ~ '-l
~ -.
~t:S
...:
(Ii _.
..., S
en "0
::r...,
(Ii 0
p. ~.
t:S
OQ
~
;-
...,
(J
o
o
'"C:l
(Ii
...,
~
(Ii
~~.....
::J::J-<
0.. 0.. I
1-4
0.. (JQ 0\
(\j ...,
<0';7
(liC,::..
-::J~
o 0..-.
S~S
(\j ~ _.
::J@"t:S
&t...,~
<! ..., ::J
<:(lio..
::ren
_. 0 -.
oc8
::r...,"O
o 0 ...,
~(lio
::J In <
t:S ~ (\j
o ::J r-+.
"':0..;;T
a'O~
(\j '"1 ....
(\j 0 ...
...: ::r ~
~O=::;:
~ _.~
...:...:
(\j ::J'O
...,(\j......
,o~CT
C 0
~ '0 .-+
.........,::r
_.~
-< (") Ul
......e
Ul -...,
.....(");:J>
~ ~ (")
::J (\j
0.
~
..,
0.
Ul
(\j(J.....
~.O -<
~C~
S.g VI
OQ _.
~ -.. '"tl
~ ...,
::r ~
_. (\j
::ro ::J
....
::r
~
en
~
::J
~
0..
<
(\j
. ...,
en
(\j
(\j
~
(")
...:
~
::J
'<
0..
(\j
<
(\j
0'
'0 .
a
(\j
::J
...:
~<:
2:~
~.p.
::J
o..m
~ ::J
~ (")
...0
(\j s::
..., ...,
en ~
::rOQ
(\j (\j
0..'0
~ C
::JO"
0..::;:
......(')
::r~
!!.~
..., ~
o ...,
~ (\j
s:: ::J
en (\j
~ ~
. 0
......
'"C:l
...,
o
0"
0-
a
VI
o
........
~~~~~~
~::S:;d:;d 0..
OQtr:1 "':;d
~ ~"~' z:r:. m
tr:1tn tno
zen >:;dc::
O~--1s~n
~~~~o~
tT.ltij(JOC::m
cn~~c::en
Om zrn~
c:: 0 '"tl
~g~>~>
rn ?::'~.~ ~ q
. -tr:1CfijO
~~zo~
~~~C:::;d
O. '"tlZ~~
-~o-z
cn><:;d....j_
OUiO><N
iJjotI10~
>'TjiJj'Tj....4
:E >-1 0
Z 0 Z
g.s~8<
~. (\j' 0.. .... ~
~~o..g-w
s:: (\j
'go @ ~. g s;::
e; 5- g. e- (\j
(\j~en~o..
o .-+ _. ~ (\j
......J:l t:S.... ~
2' ~ "E..g. 0'
~ [ ~~ i
0.. (;'> 0 "0 t:S
(\j~........::r....
~e~~~
0........., 0"0.....,
(\j -...., ~
'OVlq~o
8 ~ ~ S....,
(\j ::;!.~ ~ ~
::s ,~ (JQ...
&t~~,.og
. t:S 0" en (\j
_. 0.. 0 VI
t:S.:;.-.....
...: ,.;:I.~~
(\j ~. ~ ::s
~. 0 ...... 0..
~::SO~
...... ...:...,
_Vloo..
""....OVl
~~<-
..., ::s ,.. ""
"':0..~0)
o~~u>
...... ..., (JQ (\j
.-+o..(\jo..
::r en ~
(\j
....
::r
a
_.
...:.
s
~
0"
(\j
0..
o
t:S
(\j
en
~
St
'"tl
iJj
o
@
q
@
m
o
c::
.~
~
o
'Tl
iJj
-
'"tl
~
~
.0
s::
~
-..
~.
~
t:S
0..
~.
...
::r
JJ
(\j
::s.
o
C;'
J'2
'"tl
o
t:
(J
-
m
cn
o
...,
o
::s
~
(')
.....
~:
9
2"'
......
e
..,
(\j
o
....
.....
::r
(\j
'0 ...... ...... '0 ...... "0 ...... ......
.., '-l 0\ 0 VI .....p. W
0 '--' '--' '--' o '--' '-"
(') (J (J ~ () (') (J 1-4
(\j (\j
VI 0 ::r ::r VI 0 ?O
~ e ~ ~ ~ e 0\
::J '0 '0 ::J JV
~ ..... ..... 2:
(\j (\j ......
.., .... 00
"0 ...... ....... "0 ~
2- 00 ?O 0
_. 0\ 0\ ~ JV
~ N JV ......
00
::J 0 N ::s 00
......
.0 ..... 0 0 .;f>-
.' ..... ::r ::J ...:
53" (\j _. gi" g
t:S
"0 > OQ '0 0..
0- :s: :s: 0" ......
8 [") ~ 8 00
(\j :.0 (\j 00
::s ~ ::s 00
...... ~ ...... 0
(\j iJj (\j
0- to 0.. ........
.....
..... N N 0" ::r
::r 0 0 '< (1)
..., ::J
0 !b. ::J ...: ~,
e (\j ::r
OQ (\j
::r ~ Qi
...... J:l 0
::r 0.. ::s
(\j 0..
Qi e
VI
J:l (\j
0..
::n
~
...:
::r
(\j
o
o
::s
9:
.....
o'
::J
~
t:S
0..
O.
.....
_.
N
(\j
::J
VI~
.....
::r
(\j
~
~
......
(\j
..,
Ul
::r
(\j
0.
~r
G
I
<.
',.',
.-t
'. ~.- .
-', /
. . ~
. :.
\0
. . - - - ,-
.::: i,tt~;d'.~,l~:tiID;jljii;~;;i~}J..:Gi~i~~~!~~~~~i~~j;~~~~~ij;i~+;{
......
C>
..., -
('ll-<
en I
gtj
...,
(')
g~
..... e.
~t::
s:e
('ll('ll
r-........
::r::r
('ll('ll
().,o
....t::
~~
::s
~:::-.
s'Q
""s::,3
Eit.::s
s::,30..
::S..o
o..t::
s:e.
;:J. ......
:;..~
'''''0
::l...,.,
s:-~
('ll ('ll
......
c:s-
..., ::l
'. c::r 0..
.~
''''0 N
""N
~Y.
th' ;)> .
.....0..
o 0
::s . "Cl
<II......
0,0'
""";:;1
060'
. .~....,.,
0\" <
Net-
00
...,.,~.,
e-~
(:1i....a;.
.::s
.~.
~
~
-
()
.-
tt1
~
0... 0 ~ Q
OZmO
~. ..... -.l.......Fl.. '.. ~
t:m~"
g~~d
z (i)
a~~.~'
d-":"l""1(i)
g}C;;vm
(Ij_o-1~
. CO&i
tt13::
.~3~
0<:)0
O~""O
tt1 trl.~.
~o.
t<~@
~.trlq
~Z(i)
t!J::l-
..~..~.~
~~:!1
t;) '~..'. Q
~z
~.~
Vl
::rs::,3.........,(')~_
~. ::s. .::r.a' 0.. -<
c::r t:l. ~ ~~ . I
-. ('ll"" ()..N
S' 0..-. o'.....
....... ('ll .tl).. ~.
. . < ."-1::s......
c: ('ll ('ll ::r 8 d.
E':o~ ~('ll e:
"""Cl. c::r...... ....
~ 35'::;'0 ~.
o..('lls::,3~o.: _
c::r a ::s ...., (b' g
'<CA~Oa ~
,......... ::r r+ ~...... ~
~:r g .~ s:- -<' @
CA_s::,3('ll"Cl en
('ll "". --'_ 0
...... <II ..., ~ .
"O(').....(')::s 51
Ei"O~o""(')
::;:s::::1 (;. P en ~
....tn ......'"
en _. en "",5
~'g. ::r a 0..
::::1 ..., 0 ('ll .
0..s::,3E.0..~
~. ::l 0.. ('ll""
::::1 t:l. c::r ~.3
..... ('ll ~"~
a ..~. , ~ (it
e.(') g,. g ~
'en 0 (') <:
. a::r('llt:T
3 oq" o'
o::r:;o::r
0."0 ('ll ...,
~""l."""('ll
....... ....~.!:::O"
('ll 0 ..,..~
......:1. EL 0
::r ~ ::s '::::1
('ll'" (JQ ..
.....
00
o-...l
,..N
......
00
'00
p
.....
00
.00
...~
'~.'
::s.
0.,
.....
00
00
00,
'Q
~.
-~~~:
......
o
6'
a
&~~. -
~ 8 c;;.-<
('ll('llt::N
"d EL e. c>
~ 0'....,
....('ll('ll~
::ren-
JA.w c;.-.
~::S,r-t'>('ll
::l~ "Cl d
0..t::0"Cl
"Cl~~0
('ll -('ll ~
0.. en ...... ....
('ll :::;.' en c::r
~('llo(i"
:::1. 0.. ...,.,~
~ 0 s: t::
::s .:~.' 2.: t::.
p) (JQt:l. ~
::::1 ::s :::r: ('ll
t:l. ('ll ~. . .
'-.-. ~
0..' '. g::r ~
(JQ;:J~"""
OQ ('ll c::r ('ll
5'::S ;:;..~
OQ&te@
.. ... ...-
::;...,-~
~.('ll s::,3 ~
.... (')::s ,~
tn"...,o..c..
. ('ll CA
~ (') .~
....~('ll
o "P t>1
::s ....tn
~ ::l
-OQ 6'
t:: ...,
CA
('ll
Y'
~
......
('ll
B-
8.
(')
e.
t\)
0;.
<
fji'.
o
~
N
......
'--'
Vl N
"Cl .0
s::,3"-"
~b6
'ij~
"p) ..N
P.....
00
.~
'9'
.,....
00
00
P
"1--'.'
.<Xl
'. ,'~~
......
00
0\'
..N
.....
00
~
~O\
g.c..
p) ('ll
......::n
CA ::l
c: ('ll
g.~
~fl)
(')......
(')"Cl
~ t::
(nc::r
0...1=:.
o (')
('ll ~
CA (')
......
::l ~'.
o ;:::J
...... ......
_.
..., (b
('llCA
~o
-~
....::s
s.....
~
~@'
ct'E.
..., p)
p)(')
::s $1l
0..
<tt1
~..~
~~
'('ll
"0 .
e.
S'"
....
o'
?
Vl
"Cl
p).
(')
('ll
'i:l
s-
?
.-
-<
,
I--'
\0
......
o
~
....
('ll
~
.~
Y'
c::r ...... -
P)Ef-<
:::SO'
at:: 06
~ QQ.
.r;;, ::r_
:::s0c..
0.. t:: ('ll"
. ....::l
t:!:ien......
o ........
oQ9~
0. S.
t:n"O
"0(')""
-.'" 0
p)::;......
........ ('ll
::s ... (')
p) :1.......
..., "0 p)
('ll .~. ::s
~::!. Q.
'-"'~ en
~ :::s ('ll
~ t>1 ('ll
P"1X"
o..('ll(')
~.~..g
s:'U;'~
-.........,
-...., '.<
~('llp)
::r. '.~. 0'.
p) ~ 0
c::r ~ :::s
""Cf1 ('ll
........~
~ ""l
....0
~~8
('ll s ('ll
~ ::s
. !it
""d
o
t:
()
-
trt
CI)
tT:1
::l
(')
o
c:
""l
~
('ll
S
o
@
"Cl
c:
c::r
-
_.
(')
t>1
(')
(')
('ll
~
0-
t::
....
......
\0
'-'"
......
00
~
..N
~
Ii
II
'I
Ii
~
Ii
I[
I.
II.
f!
I!
II
1['
I
r.
,.
I
(.
......
00
'-'"
.......
00
~
..N
~......
00
~
-..0\
......
00
~
;.0\
......
.00
00
.9
'......
'00
'00
~;r;...
.-
00
00
p
.....
60
00
..~
L,
,.
i
"?'~~fl8
~.~.Q>
I:,:8r:
:Zd
.. '. '.. ,~OO
0Ii~r~~,t1~~ll;~hli~ ~
" i", ,..'.. "'~ q 0 Q
',:", . "hJO' . O.
.~'~~~~o,~
.::~S ~
~~ 0 1'-4
me v
~- ~
HaJnO
'~~~
00::0
~~
>::0
00
tTl~
. ::r.t>) ..... <: 0 ......
. .' M ::::J. ::r<::0. ~
'." ...... ...""...... (b. .(11~. .......
. -. a,..... Vi ~. ..
'.....,..;"~ ~ '..N
",,~. ~-e:-!:::' 9'. '
"..._ an__~,C
. ."~..,........
'.':=;.:0 t,J ~,-~. .,~ ':;:;':
, ....,"C...q-......_.
~; $jEi" S:'o ~
. .o.:.n P2 ... a: .....
.r'"'":P, _....-0
.q:........::s o' ~n
(n.$l).... ......P2
''''''. t:r '"t '. ......-
b'"' 0 s:::......-
(ll ~ .... t:r '<a
(n_ ~ . n_ (/).
(ll 0. -_. :=.. 0
en .... ~ .~
~;8 .s-. 8 P B
p ~..; g t;t ~
a-'en .....P2
O't:r:::lP.....
~ n 0 .~ 0. 0
p....c:nP2t"'t>
o.~_o.!:IO
~ P 0. ~ ~. ....8.
P 0. CT ><8 .
...... ~ CD ~. e. ~
800CDCIl.....
e. 8 ......p ~ CD
~ 3::r8::rg.
......... ......2
3 OQ (')
o ::r :;0 ::r (').
0."C ~ @ e.
~ ::1. f>> L;;' M
nOS' ~ E..
.... .....0 -<
g. ::;"::S ::s -.
CD",:<:OQ ~
~
.....N
00 0\
eo'--'
-J:>. .....
- 00
I'i)'
::JO\
o.j"-J
..... .....
oo?O
. -J
~j"-J
0.....
....., 00
....~
g9'
>.....
~~
(")_0
;..,.,~~ {, j :~.,4;
....P2(')>~
~a ..g-.~. ~
;S--::t~ ,{") ~
.- "C -- '"1' ,
S'~ 0 ~.
.~ ~......, ~'
'a':.~ 2.
s,.....j2: , g'
5:r~ '~. .
~'.., 0.: Ef
5'jl.)ch" (0
::s "'tJ'
Er 0..1: ~,
~. .....p uI
(0 ~ 0. , o'
-< r:: 0 .~
e.ri....
~o.
~ Er.....
g:.~ ~
(ll-tJ
~n(')
.., ~.n
CD CIl (')
~:::t.o
t;j ::I
'5'~ a
Pl 0 ::3
::3 2. 5'
P2::3OQ
20Q ~
j;J ~
..... t.f
~ ::3
~ 0.
(b
~
'-'
(")
tr
Pl
"C
.....
CD
....
, "'I
~
0.
tT1
::3
-<
_.
....
o
S
CD
::3
-
e.
"C m. Pl 0 -
s;:q..........<
a fl' .... 1'-4 I
-.....m.VN
~.~'OQ n -J:>.
g~'~ ~ ~
~ ~ ::3"Cn
CIl c;r8n
..... -< '-' CD _.
o g>~ g~,
5!? -0. :;0 en
,(Jq..<1I . _. t:'I'"
:::l. ' S' "C.' ~. 0
_.. c:::r E.
~CD""""'o.
~ Erg. J'1
g&~g.n
~. CIln 9: <'
CD 8' 0 (') CD
~....""e-<
fi "C'O O'''C
P.rig-~~
fl'en ...... en
.... Cll o.~
CD < P2 _.n
~ -.,2 ri ....
. ::3 ~ (') ::r
OQ _. 7' n
P2 ~'(i"' c:
[g.~ ~
_.::s CD 0
P ......
C ~.
.... ..,
Jj' ~
;>
....
n
o
a
.....
....
Pl
5'
....
en
N
-J:>.
'--'
.....
?O
0\
N
o
.....,
....
::r
n
o
'"0
n
::J
CIl
't:l
PJ
(')
n
'"t:l
..,
o
OQ
...,
p:l
8
i! ~::,~.:~
.';i.J ,..,. .-AL",.., c,
". ~; . c. ;,' .. _.... -, .. : - -'<;L'"' . '.
." ", '-- ..~.. '. >'''. .-
o .~ .-C/> ~_
::J ~~.S: po -<
... ... 00""
CIl'. ..-....... ..~.....
-.OQ '0. be)_
oq.e ..,~. . ,
e.........
. 1:910 ''''''"
(')::3~
~8~
....n -e;-
:~~OQ.
nt: . .
~....a
~p~
Q.. n
.1).). 8..~.
.... t:i
n""loq
.0".... n. '
ti1 Q.. r+
. s= n
o (')
nr::r
::J
,.... """"'.
t:r.c
n s=
_.n
EiJ'1
"Cct>
PJ n
(')-
.....0'"
en Pl
(')
g,.~
o.~
n Pl
<: ::3
CDo.
o
"C
.3
n
::J
.....
o
n
<:
n
o
"C
.~
0.
"C
n
6-
S
PJ
::J
(')
n
N
W
'--'
.....
00
~
..N
.....
00 .
~
_0\
.....
00
00
~o
.....
~
00
~~,,,t: ft~ t -;,i.;~;
en
.......
.....
n
ri
S.
:~
'~.'~~
~~.~ {:t
:t::h
-;~g
.....::J
..~ 0.
~:~
[g
~o
,t:
~
r::r:
....
~
.~
o
8
-So
-
~
....
o'
::J
o
I-+,
~
"C
....
o
(')
&.
~
....
CD'
(/)
~.
n
:::l
8
~
~
tv
~en....._
~~o<:
~. g aw
~PiN
""'G>
::3~"Q
..... 00
t:r'0<<
G ..... en
~ ~oo
o..EnG
G ::r O.
..., :::.'~
~....-
_::3'1:j
eno..::r
E"~~
0.. ::r .....
~ n'~
~::r-
::3~~
0.....,::1
Go..
o ""'G
& 0.. ::I
0>0><:
..., g ::j'
en ::t; 0
QQ' 0' ::I
::3 0.. 8
..... 0>
::!l~::I
n en .....
~ .......~
::1.......-
.....0'-1
0.00>
..., 0. en
~I"'"
.....00 ::l.
::I ..., n
~ 0 c.
(JQ::Io
0> ~ ::I
en
tIlo""s;l)-
~ ......0> en <:
~~~~ w
.....tIlj;)o>~
o..........n
~ ""'..... 'T1
~5.g::!l:::;
::r~tnO>_
0...., '" 0. 0
<: 0..... ..........
'" (II :;:1 ::3
,~. O".....::!l
00 ....... ::r 0
...,tor1:::,,:o>o
0:::;- 0.
o' in r(l'OO
n ::r::rq>
..... ~ e. ~ s'
00 ~. - o'()Q
C:::==c::r~o>
""1 0>-
"00" . ~ ~
~ 0> 0> ::I@
0> X'"~ 0. ~
tIl 0>..... v.
. OO::IO>c.n
.....0>::I=r
..... 0> :5. ~
o@a::::
......0.::1...,
=r 'SO>
(b~ ..0
::I 0> c:
8 o.;:s .....
..-. ,..... ""1
::In~(b
-..0 -
8 s;l)
c:88'O
8 '0 ::s (b
~ en '"1
::s......q3
0> 0> ~ .....
n 0............
(b......::s
~oc;:-
W
N
-
~
00
0..
N
o
.....
.....
::r
0>
w
~
.""-'
~
00
0..
N
o
.....,
.....
::r
0>
>
3:
o
," l""::l ".';:""
:'~;;r:"'r-'~-";-
" ."'~' ..". "," ,-~.
o o.:::,~. 0. ~
...,0>-:;:10>......
.....<:0>....(11,
~ 0> 0> ...... N
o -00 0> (JQ \0
~oc:::o.S
::3 00 g..., ::3' 0
en a...... .....(JQ
~o>n(JQ 0>
cp::so::r <:
S~~: ~
o.~ 2. ~ 8
c::: 0> (JQ 0. 0>
::l. n ::r 0> ::s
::I"'" '0 .....
()Q ~~ 0>
::!l '< o::s S'
0"0 g~ ~
RaSO>C::: ~
..... 0" "Q
::I - (II 0 ::!l
~O>~::s 0
~ g.~ R
~ n::r '"0
::r::r~ ...,
..... ~::r 0
no(b ::s
::r c:"" (b
80:& e;
~O"(b g
0(bCT'
n n (b
n~::1
c:::c:::~
.~ en .......
0> ......
c: '0. en
'"0 .....
en CT' 0
~'<
0>
~
S
w
o
-
~
00
0..
N
o
.....,
.....
::r
0>
>
3:
(1
"~', ,~~. _'l>/j_:;~, "\"' ~~_:,<;:,,::::.:."
~
s;l)
...,
,
::!l
o
o
0.
'"0
f;r
S'
...,
(b
~
~
....
o'
::s
en
.
N
\.Q
-
(j
~~
"'t:l
e..
-Q'
'C::::.
.<n
'0>
,(:).,
'5'
CIi'
::1
o
.....
~
.........s:0.-
::r ::r i:I. 0> ......
0>""1-<:i"
o 0..0> N
oc::::=:-oo
_::;.' ()Q ~ 0
,<::r '0_
n.....::r8::3
o ::r~. G t:!)
0..' Cp g g 0
~"Or.;" 0
::r....tIlO'
'< ~ c:::'
g!.::I n.. "0
n~......,
e.8"~g
~..., G
::le.~~
0.. ~ (JQ ...,
0> ..., ::!. G
::so>n~
S. ~ g. ~
""~c:::_
0.......,_
.... .... G 0
.... o..~ ~
8 0
O>@oo~
::I n 0>::;'
.........,::1(b
e. (b ...,
~ (II ::1
@ c.] ~
(JQ 0 n .....
c::: ::1'. <:
_~~O> (b
~ - en
C. c::: '"0
Oen~O
~8:a-c:::
~ ...,
..... cr
::1 ~
::1
~.N
00 00
0-.-
N.~
o ~.
.....0
..... ,.
::r~
0> ::l
>0..
3:.. tI1
(')N
· "0
S.
::l
~
.n
o
'0..
'r0>
~. Z~.
:g~1"-
l=;: o' ~
~ ::1
g e. ...-i'
0> tor1 t:T
en - Cl>
g&.Q
0. .~
~_.
..., ~. .en
o.::r
~ !:; .~
~
l:1 n
S g
......
~.Er
'"1 c:::
~(b
'"1 ....
~o
F"O
n ~.
Oc.
8 n.
"Q"l:j
'3:~
::l (b
()Q '-.
l:1
~,.....
.....::r
::r(b
~
.--
.--
.'"
o
l-'
-
()
.....
1'11
C/)
. .
..... ::!l"'" -
oo::s<:
::bO::!lw
o 0.0 0
o <= 0
0.<:0.
.....~ ~ Z
::IS~o>
(JQ...,,<~
~ en.v>
@ Vi' 0 ~
'"O8~~
...,...... ....-...
!t::sc:::.9
'-" ""''0 ""
~ a 0 8
~ N'::1 0>
_O>.....::s
(D O"::r....
r-+. n~
o ZOl~
=;g~[
c::: J, ::1 .....
~ ...... ()Q ::1
c::: 2 ...... ()Q
'"1n::r.....,
~ ...... ~ .....
-r;::f""'t.::::
V>.... -
o~Oen
--CT'=r
s.c.n~~
0' 2. 2 :::::
::1Sncr
!" o.g.(b
~::1~
o 0
.....,~
(b
0.
N
..o...J
~'-e..
.-
IJF
~
o
~ ill}~ !~'~I!:miUn:':~"td 1 hf;ii;:wmr: lH ml~ ! ;~~ ;!.:~; ~Ftr~;!
~+";;,lm .c, "I"""'i;i'ta y~,~.~ "";",,~ ,wt'1i4. ",-Y.",,"'''' :\.r." - >d",,'~'4'~' .,~.v., ,< .-'~; 'n, iI,.', " ,. .
Ht:\f,~~: '> ,'~. '..jf :"~;'*.~!\~?' >::t}.~. ~'i(~: ~11 "I.:j~'~~'I':~;:'~' . ,:<~,.~. ::';~;4.i :
,<,,,;.-",'Y~{~~ ~.' 'rtl"" ef.. " ,.,.".~ I' . . ;j!1'''-. ' ',,"> "-Y'
\~ ~.;;.~-. ..-.;:t?~/.',. '~:"; :'.,'}' '............i.:. ," ;"', - '; }.~~..., ._~:1".~1. .-:ti;l- :,.~~.:~:. ,;.
q. r:~~~..:~~..{ "'.~;UI,,~. :~.-lt~;~...~ .::-: ~ ':'-'--;._"~j'Y"'<: ~:"-I,,~J:':'" ~~~~...~~_::', ,':
j'~ }.." "" .1:,0, 1.Jo1i1. . r ~ . ~ ..., ~ l- - r I~"~:; ~. r' "-'" '..- .'.;,,4 .
. ~,#,",". ~1""<'~' ."m.o ':l:r" ~-","'- 'f"'," . ""h ''0'.:..*"., . ~.i' '-'. '.~.,'.-
t~;~1 ..~,;~,~'?~ :. \dii\:~,fi~~ ;'<:~ ".. ~~- d.:;.,~f ~~t?;g;~~'::~;;:',~il" <'..
~,,: ~~""'~ . , 1:3 ,., .'l;t... .. I' '''~' - ", -~ ;;:s .~,g; ,. "~'r'.'"
. ~: - :: :f~ ;) ~i~:.: ~::J ~i,'~ ;~!": ~ ~;;. :~. ~~.. ~~;~ ~~2~a ~.'.>-:;.'~' .-'i}
: ;"~'~' ".... ~-':.l ; . ,\-:::;:~'~.;. ~": :'a/~ ~~:': <-..:,-:>C~: uN!~r ~11'1i)~ ~ji~:"'i " .,'; ',~'t1
""~ '.''''"',' "'fi\+,""t&. .~,."~. -. .,.' '. I"QlS' ,JJIi'~""fll" 1.<." '.
, ~~;.,.... -.. ' .:z~ ~ t~, ~""'.'i; (~ . 'elk "~~ ;;;r",' . ' .. ~. :~~ '.-.' -.... L ~'c' ~ ; . .~', . . -n~ 1t-ti""~" ,; - ....Ut. 'I'~'?:
'-6<\~ :. ',. ,~tlri~"1f . ........ ',~.. .,' ,,,,.,,;' , ",.' . ..1 .' < ., ,.,; ,~.< ,., ".' ',' .' ;tt,
. :,~,,"': .,..;; :-~.:~?1=;,~":,:~; .~: :'" ~':: ~~:, ". ' . .,:~:., {' , ~. eiPi~~;:"'.l'~~ :'.~ ,~~y' '''t':'
'~ ,,' . .A'~N1."''''~O'i;:,.~'' j:-;...J:1;.... J' ,.' ,\ . .. ~ v::S'Qi'" " ,\1,. \11" -1 .~.
. t? /,:::t~~~~'..~ ..>;J,.~.,.,...,:k-:"....'" ;,' ..'!5-~jiij;"'~t1. ~1..~,.-.,,-,..;;'.. )
'0 "-.-a'!!!I'-'J;004"s;?" ,'ol." '-. ..., JRiJ--'!\""<'/;J< ".,'....0...', , .,'
'~~' :':~. .~~~. ..~.~:i ~:~': .::> , :~<': ~ .':'-.~':",~'~.,:~, ~'-i:~:~~~';~ :~;; i;;~:.,,:~~s:i 'r ~ H:'"
JI1 Q, ""'-::"'0 <' ~<1ct:-~.'() -~~: r: ,~;~,~r:f'(l).; .>tl;~ :g.,'qi.kIf.;;:" :'I~ ~.:~.<'.' '; . ,
. <~"'.1 ~~", t: '6~ ~ ~ ...:-0:' .t:!...~ H--;:o7:1: .!:3;tB ~ N' :". ."., ~
~:.z .,;.,. 01.. ~ rn ~ '= ,\_ _ ",m,' ,.,.~.~; o. Q-: .' _.' _, . ,
, <.,~ 'ltI","l;1, l R:...'," > ~;. . Q. '. L.' <- . !ml'1r1l~': 'C1)' ~ (1'~ '''I' ,'. c~,
" (b-~' (N",C (). ~ ""~ .,.t:i-::::t't'F'I~" .\. .. ....,
'.' ,~.,' .'::~(Ef:;' ~:~: "~"'t!a;::: : n~': ;':t;?j,'--~~'gi.-t1.1:;r\ ~:,'.' . ~~'..
o 0 ~.,() .,01., .t::t> ~ l::;f ~. ~ _-, ...,. 1>>,. 't:! ','" " .
..~. '" r:u '. en.. 0 ~. ~ '.<:" P.)'"Q -,.., ~ '. .~... ~
'<; > ~ ~~ET B a ,0. : :0;' ' ~;..q ~ p::' ~ ','"i . t1ft"" .cr " ~,> ~f~.
O ~ . .'~.e; 0. ~ ~ .'~ . H'~'~' <~ ~ .~ :>;--~. a ;a:!5~~ :
/:I] (). . ~ en ..".' >~. .'''1' __. ~ ,"1 '"t ',(n "",t:- ' .'
Z ;I> < ,..... . 0. .... ~ .."Q ; 0 . . .y >. : ; 0'"1 ';t'.CA: ~ '1 '. ". . ~ ." . ~'.'
t:cn e-'~ ..~~.~.~ ~ r's:Qdr8~>" n'j/-:-.
.....~ ,^',<1i . - ;;::<.... ).., .'-1),)'0""'" M.........,Q.,.
t"" ~.gs. 'g. ~ 'pi z z a. ~&;;-~~'.- ~;: fl:
~~ " g, .~~- t1 .~~ ~~...~\~~ g'f
..... . ~"'~ .....Qi~ c:r P.
~ V ~. .~
'.' --. ';:S
;;--,
. 11-''''.: ,'.'
,.
-" .
. ~>' ~....
". . ' ~'- ,,' . ~ ... ,,'
- ~ ,',
::''''.'
..
.o.
W W
--..) 0\ VJ
'-'" '-'" Ul
~ .........
...... ~.
?=' 00
00 ~.
00
::0 0 N
::0 0
....., ::J
N ..... .....
::r l:l
0 dl Qq
::J
() ~ ,..-,.,.
y> ......
s:: po
0 ....:..
~ .,
8
0
...... ----- .
w ::c
-..;...-
'-'-'"
VJ
.4'>,
.........
. ......
.. Od
0\
!-.l
. . ti
~ . , . , - '. . . -' --
.. '
-. _ ,,'i ' . ~ ". . ,; - " . ,- . . ;- , '. - , .
oj;. i.,,,~~~,i~i~,~iJjiik~\~;,{ij~';~~lj1M:~,t:i~Jl;;ii,\U~~ttll~,i~jidYi\;\tktH~~i.t ;i.~i;f,~~.:~ ,,;1;-56.;:.'
.....
90
~.
N. '.
'g,.. '.,
H
t:r' :
Ol,
;p;, ..
~..
0'
w
U;) . .
"-"
,.;;.
00
.0-
N
o
"', .H-,
:'~,~,
..>~"
().
--'''-
....
.,
" . ~
i)'U'<' . . ,~'<!"
;.:&~c:
r: '"" '0
"'" .a' . ......
r: ~: ' . ..,. , , ", .
\~+ · ..::;0. m
~~" .~. ol "(j}
~~>\Il.."
9;..1:;: "ol' .....
ifiif.' ~. ..~
'" ..(ll.. ..~'o. - ~
"'~i~ ~....
.: ~;::G . Q-o'
.~,., ,~:c.~JS:: ~.:::l
~"''"1'' P:"t:! -- .~
~...';'.~,qtl ~ a
. .:" O. . Q">C:: 0Ci
:"'0; '.tt T~ .' ~ "a
': ri ,,~;~. ::I. ~
',<~p. ~'S'
': <ll ...,. ,,<ll .-+
:':~~;f*a? a ~ .~ Q ~
,,~.t:t,<ll ~. "'1 0 ~::I
... .~. _ ol "0 '"1 0
,." ". .......,,]> ..... < '0 c: (ll
;\:~;'fi!0l g'~ ~ 0
.......~.....:'.:r-._. ",~ ..... :::1. c........
. _. .~... .... '"'1
. "til{lo) '"0, t::n. en (ll ~
(ll'" .::1 '"1 =:;. . .... .
(') 'Cl. <ll (ll 0" ~
'........~ 0
.,9..'....'...~'.... 0........... t
.' . .}-<:: .-. '"1' S' ......,
...,,~.::I 0 en 0
, '....CJQO .... 0
...~.,. p a -
.~ < ........
.~
<ll
'0.
,'.
i~;~ ~~~I
~.......:~;.~.~..n...:..... ~........~.:.
. :r>' :en '\oJ Cri ~.,.., "'l3
om>:11'~O~
. m trt,,~: ~ trig}6'
> Otr1 .)>o.....~
'\;j.t1'l'(I') ~ '.?3 Z tt1.
m ;tI.....''':tl....,H.> tI1. )>0 ~.'.'
?omt:J>cn6
.~.E:.. .....')>o............'.~~...:. ;D......... .~::r:...;;...
.t1 "'0' tT.l
. " to-4 : .. -., .
tT1 Z' 3:: "tj.
C.' 0 H.... "'.'. t2~.
. .~ -l. m::r:.(I') fJ
1::0.'. 0 C/) -c n'I"
tr1 ~'J ~ \'J
>.' ....,. Z 0.' t::O :;.tl
Z::c.tT1)>o8
~tT1@<z-<'
?~tT1~~~
O::C'"tj~FO
C C ~. . ::j0 tT1
ZZC/)Z~Z
00530 <
- -
H O~
-- 0
~ z
3::
tT1
Z
8
~
-0- N ..... ..... .~., .~,.
$)) <ll 'C.' ,0, :::l., ....<:;
:t:S. "~'~!:!1' ~. :... ,I .
,0.. ..... 1. ...,.... ~.
CIl ':::S 0.. '.- .... ...
<ll __ ."" '(llOl -
.... <ll "'........ .
:;J ,,:::l 0.. a "~ {Io). 00
..... .... Gi.... s::: ~'""O
':::r - (ill . ...
.01.. 3-d;ii' q. . '.' .".:::r... . ..... .. '.~.
.......I>>:::s ~ ~
,\ .J!::j $))... :::S' ...0. ~' ~..
o . ;:;;..... 0. Of}) 1-1
. c:: N ...:.. ..... . <ll
... <ll 0 0.. fI! ~
.... 0.:::S '"0 ~ .t:t. tn
~ _ ~ .<t<ll '<..". i::.
$)). <;.l=S.' ...to} t!i.' '. P
:::s g J, . 0 'M-
. 0.. __ "d ..g, 0 t:J"
. .'-' c::l.~. A- n. <ll .
::3 ~ O''P''r. '
M- _ ol 01 '"0 n
'::r CII N ,. ':'1 ..r-t.....
<ll 00 () g'<
...... '"0 e. ,:;' () .:=:
\J. '""" ..... '<.', ". .t:l...
..... 0 0($'" ~ ~
~ <:. ~.;;,......
..... ::r w CIl
p) ft... .~... . 0.' '~."
::3 . s:: 0
0. .- ..... '" p)
'-'. .... 0. .~. ::3
~ c:: en . ::3 ::3
0. ::+. -- 0- 0. 0
'pi" ~ 0 C1l en M-
0- ~ "t:I (t r::r
<ll <llo. "1' (ll <ll
g c:r" <ll sa "t:I c::
.......c::a<ll::r'"'1
o ~.... 0 .... r::r
'"'1<llM-.....=~
<ll'"'1'<<llen::3
CI) en 0. _. .....
..... o-o.N
L;o<ll<ll
--..enp..
<:',:
..""" a." .,' ':0.'0 r; 8' <. .......
>f:j '1:j .~ D,) ;1'
'tl).o ....tn ~
o,""or,nW
M-..... t:T ~
~'~.JJ en 9
.>Q. :::t'.rtI .~. ,.t:J
Q ,$lCll otto
(I). .-a_ r.:: t:S
ClIO t:J.'"1.C::
s: ...... ." fl)'(ll
(i"'~~. ii.. ......
. ;::r t:J '< 0
00. .
M-CIl
~.c:: t:r" ~
;:..~ Cbg
@l.... "~'" '.~. ta..
0. if R'~
l:To 0..t:J
.~. ~ E-
'" _ B :::r
'.,;01 . C1l <ll
.~o..:::s CII
tn 0Cl .... ....
01 .t.] .....
.'~ f}) J;;.. <ll
~'.'.-. "'S. '"'1
- _. (1l
ol t:l "d ;S.
0.. $,. tD 01
~eA~
'"1 .....
.... 0 ~ '"0
80::3'"'1
<ll Cia 0. g
:::s ~ C1l <ll
-::3!::jCl)
e.o.ti>en
s::
'"1
<ll
~ ~ ~. ~
0\ Vt ~ W
-- -- -- --
.() () N ()
::r ::r 0 0
~ 1:1) !3. c
"d "t:I ::I
..... .... ::I . , 0
<ll <ll 0Ci .....
'"'1 '"1 --
...... ...... 3:: l"O
00 00 ~ 0
0.- 0.- '3=' --
.....
N N C ~
0 0 en
....... ....... (ll
- - 0
.::r ::r
C1l <ll .......
-
> ~ ::r
3:: <ll
() () ~
, , ~
N
0
~
"~.'..,
';'1",';'
'I1~
; ~ll.).i'~;. ~-",; ~
-
Q\
. -.... t1 .~ .... ...... '. _
::; i:l ~ ::r::1. :;,.<
0"'. n.. 0, .'=:"> .'-0
::1 e:.. .. e ~
~. ' &rsu.. Ce tu
~. ':""0"&1>>
~. . 0 G. . J>> ....:. .t"4
..... . :::s .... tt
0.0.....""""--0
- n t:r s:;. .:3 .. () .
~ <a "t::-b()
::l.g.d 0:. "'1 .....
0:.0 "oq .......o.~
-'''C::rl;l' oq
.1:3 n :::s "'1U1
... "'1. '~o..'~ :::r
() cn~:::r ___ sa
8. P" O:::s cn >-'.0
.~ :::s () no.. n
n c..... ri. 0' l:l
. O"'~ P' e:,.. g
C... n s't:::
:::.; tn !l oq "'1
0. c . .'~
n ::::....... ~ (JQ.
~ o..:::s ..... 0
S' 8' .g...A,l ,
~.oq "'1., ,:;:I
VI "3 g, C1.
e:m .~ ,-;,(h
.... ......... ......0:. c.'.
..... '...........!"!:>-o
.09.. ~g. 'H'''tj
.... ...... C)l'.Q
O~m::r"'1
0"" 'S." t:rP'. ....
. .,~. N ('1)
C. c' :::::.~., 0.
.::::.... :::s..... .... '. ......... ...... .
0. oq- 0": . . .;;;
~.t10 ~".~
:::s '...... t1. .....,..... :::z....
.....'" ;;;;J':::S 0
:::r "d ~:::s
01' ~ 0.. ...;";,,,.
....('1)
.
VI
w
~
Q
q
<"'1:1
0,
--
_...i
~S'<
~...... I.'~."
.....:::r "'"
2:('1) oN
'.!1l c. _.
. .....:::s
O"'cn
~....
::s ~
.......::::
.~ ,~
...... ...-..
s:-
-:::s
~.('1)
5.~
......('1)
:::s-.
'r'+ ('1)
('1)(')
ri. S.
.,~ n
('1)e:.
co..
:::s-'
Q.~
n ;J.
cia g'
"'1 ....
00:"
S:::s
c.. n.
....
~._~
, .....0
'.... C .
('1) ......
(') .....
::r~
E.
fJ
-
q-
VI
N
.............
()
.~"
~ "
.'tJ
o
,.~
- ,...
n '-
.g' .~
..... VI
'10,. .~
't::1
2.?:J
(I)
~.~
.S- t:;.
en ('1)
-00
~::r
"'1."'"
~m
e:. ('1).
@~
en
""0
~. ....,
n ~
.go
(/I' c.
.
~O"'
::s .J:
..e: ,8
0"'"
-i .oi
(/I
qC1.
('1) ('1)
('1) <
:::s (i:
'en ('1)
'. en
0"
0-
('1)
LIt
..c-
~
?O
0\
N,
:0.
~
,~
',';:r ., _ ,
(1)
.....-
1:3<:
c. ~
(3.0
~
~.~
~8
C1. .t::
-.....'''''1
~JJ
O,.n
5.8
.... .~
('1)0.
~-o
n-
('1) .~
c.0l
('1)3
. ~C\l
_:::s
o ....
"Os
3
. ('1) .8"'"
".S:::s
Y'.l4
~'.
o
::1
P'-
en
H>
~.
0"
"'1
('1)
~,
m
VI .
o
~
~
"'~."
N
6
......
8-
P'<
.-.+'
o~
::1.
f:l)'
. Ii"' ~
. .. .. ('1)
.0
~c
ot:;.
on
Pog
1/)'0
:::r~
~en
~
08
~g
~o
-.0
tj :::s
oql/)
........~
(ll. a
'''"In
0.,.
o ~..
~.p.
I/) .
~~
.~ ~
.~2
p ('1)
o ~.
....CA'
o-S"
('1):::s
e,;....
'~
o
'~
('1)
c.
~
10.0
~
~
00
~
'N
'0.
J>;'t>'
l
':;b~;
..... ~ "'"l .....
:::s -00 <:
P' >p, ~ ,~
:::s ~ .' '.00
('1) e~. .'
t1t:::0._
i:l tn'.....r--
('1) ._('1)
"'1 . .......0
oq$l)tnc
('1) 5. s; t:;.
:::s ;::z.~
.Q ('1)0....
<CI>8
f!!. ~ CI> 0
=-. c:::s ~
.... s>> 0 ",
p'....c:
g's't- So
p OQ......~
@oo
~.~ :::s
C.()('1)
'('1)8 .-.
:::s .. ::s
&rS~
mS Ol
S'o g:
. ,0..,'
t:: .~. ~
-....OQ
S"('1).,
~ ....()
('1).::sg:
o (')
1:;:"0 '0-1
en ~.' 0
0.<: ~. g
. . -:::s CI>
OQ
'. 0
E;l~
n
~
00
'-'"
~
00
0'1
J"J
~i:'i
"j~~,.:
-- t='.~ en __
= en (/I' ('1)....l..J <
....CI>....I/)A?c..
(l) .... .' .....O"t:: ....
"-fWocn:=.:n;::j
s:- ~...., s..... ~
'R, .~." .~,.' S '30. '.~
......o..::r 0 :::s :;:l a
.l;:l tn.. ~ ^' ,CI>
. 1'1-~ cn'- "'1
~('1)~oS'> CI>
s:x:g~~ ~
::r~ -. 0"' OQ
~. to) ~. c ff ~.
1:3....s>>::!CI> e
O 0.. :::: 5~ ~ o'
~ ..~.~OQ . . ":::S
('1) $I) -"t:I e: =
~. ::S(),_CI> ()
~JJs~.? 2-
=. (l) 'ct. pt @ tn
0"' S l:T ..0, ....
'<.' ('1).. (I),. .,....:j t:: 0
(') ,~ "t:I '::r ::t. 0"'
-- '.. ~r=(I) CI> ()
~.' Sst __"9 t1
......-.-\.J ..... w
~ .s- p .;=;. ~ ~
CI> '<:.:::. 5"
.~.~ g~' &.
l>> c::t'..-. ('1)
';=~ s g 0..
'.'~ ~.E;l ~
~~. CI>~ ;:
~9; P' 5"
v . j:\)" "'d
-= Ol
\00.
~.
00
.........
~
~
,..0
~.'
.j:L!r
p
4>-'
-,.,J
..........
PLANNING ACTION 2006-01784
720 GRANDVIEW
COUNCIL APPEAL
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(Supplement A)
~~,
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax 541-552-2050 www.ashlandorus TTY 1-800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: #2006-01784
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720 Grandview
OWNER/APPLICANT: Lynn & Bill McDonald
DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Planning Commission decision to approve a request for a Physical and
Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Area for the
improvement and widening of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading of a portion of Grandview Drive and the extension of utilities to
serve a new single-family residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Dr. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Single Family
Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP#391E 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500.
The public hearing scheduled at the July 1]'h Ashland City Council meeting will also consider alleged assignments of error from the voluntary
remand of the building permit for the subject property from the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), LUBA Appeal No. 2004-201. In
December 2004, Bonnie Brodersen appealed the building permit to LUBA. In April 2005, the applicants chose a "voluntary remand" which
entails submitting a local land use application for the proposed development of a single-family home to address the alleged assignments of error.
A voluntary remand is an option to pursuing an appeal at LUBA. The action was not reviewed by LUBA, and therefore there were no errors
determined by LUBA. The appellant's (Petitioner's) LUBA brief included six assignments of error including: 1) alleging the subject parcel is not a
legal lot, 2) alleging the proposed single-family home is subject to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards, 3) alleging a Physical
Constraints Review permit is required for development of the subject property which is in the Wildfire Corridor and Wrights Creek Floodplain and
Riparian Preservation Area, 4) alleging the City's riparian ordinance violated Goal 5, 5) alleging the "The City erred when it chose a method of
measuring the driveway which did not factor in the slope of the property and curve of the driveway to determine the actual length of the driveway,
when it determined that only one dwelling is accessed using the driveway and when it granted a variance for the maximum slope of the driveway
without following the ALUO provision for granting variances. The City failed to comply with minimum standards of ALUO 18.76.060 and
minimum standards of the UFC for turnarounds and deadend streets.", and 6) alleging the "Ashland Municipal Code Section 15.28.070 violates
UFC 101.4 prohibiting less stringent amendments and ORS 368.039."
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: July 17, 2007, roo PM, Ashland Civic Center
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'.
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).
('
G"'comm-dev'planning Notices Mailed 2007 2006-01784 Council Appeal 7-17-0idoc
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
18.62.040.1
I. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the
following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential
hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered
more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding
area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. (Ord 2834 S1, 1998) (Ord. 2834, Amended, 11/03/1998,
Section 18.62.040 J "deleted"; Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
18.108.110 Appeal to Council
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type 1/ decisions or of Type '" decisions described in section
18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part
of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the
appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modified, based on the applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties
at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council
shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause
copies of a final order to t>e sent to all parties participating in the appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing,
precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
A "oJ.
G"comm-dev'planning'Notices Mailedl2007'2006-01784 Council AppeaI7-17-07.doc
-----.-----.-----rr-.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
An Appeal of Planning Action 2006-01784 - Request for a Physical Constraints
Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, re-
grade a portion of Grandview Drive and extend utilities to serve a single-family
residence for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive.
Meeting Date:
Department:
Approval:
July 17,2007 i
Planning meuM J
Martha Be/I'I'{-
Primary Staff Contacts: Maria Harris, 552-2045, \J'.Jr\.
harrism@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello, ~ ?l .
552-209 1, appicelr@ashIand.or.us · '
Time Estimate: 2 hours
Statement:
The public hearing was originally scheduled for the May 15, 2007 City Council meeting.
However, the appellant raised issues of the driveway crossing tax lot 412 without an easement
and timing of the Council Communication. As a result, the applicant postponed the action. The
applicant moved the proposed driveway to address the easement issue, and submitted a revised
Topographic Survey with photos and a revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. The
revised materials are attached to this report. The Council Communication and the record
distributed for the May 15 Council meeting continue to be relevant to the upcoming public
hearing. The item is time sensitive because the I20-day limit, with 164 days of extension,
expires on August 31, 2007.
Staff Recommendation:
The Planning Commission approved the request for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. Staff
supports the decision of the Planning Commission as stated in the findings.
To expedite the deliberations, Staff recommends focusing on the areas in the February 13
Planning Commission Findings of Fact. If the Council is in agreement with the February 13
Planning Commission findings, the Council can adopt those findings, or modify and adopt the
findings. The February 13, 2007 Planning Commission findings address the approval criteria for
the Physical Constraints Review Permit and the additional issues raised by the appellant (i.e.,
alleged assignments of error).
Background:
The item is time sensitive because the I20-day limit, with 164 days of extension, expires on
August 31,2007. Ideally, the hearing would be completed and a decision made at the July 17,
l~
tI~j
r.l'
''''~
2007 meeting. This would allow findings to be prepared for an August Council meeting. The
February 13,2007 Planning Commission Findings of Fact could be adopted, or modified and
adopted for an approval, and draft findings.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Shortly before the originaJIy scheduled public hearing at the City Council on May 15, the
appeJIant raised the issue of the driveway crossing tax lot 412 without an easement. The
attached revised Topographic Survey delineates the existing driveway and tax lots 411 and 412.
The revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan delineates the proposed driveway and tax
lots 411 and 412. Tax lot 411 is adjacent to the subject property on the east. Tax lot 412 is two
tax lots to the east from the subject property. The appeJJant acquired tax lot 4 I 2 in March 2007,
and subsequently had the property surveyed. The driveway crossing tax lot 412 was discovered
in the appeJIant's survey. The revised Topographic Survey shows a smaJI triangular area of
approximately three square feet of the existing driveway located on tax lot 412.
The original Topographic Survey (pg. 360 of the record) and Preliminary Grading and Drainage
Plan (pg. 361 of the record) included in the approved application by the Planning Commission
did not clearly depict the extent that the existing and proposed driveway cross tax lot 412. The
applicant indicated in the proceedings that the driveway crosses tax lot 411 and the property
owner of tax lot 411, Betty Hulse, had indicated her wiJJingness to participate in an easement
(pg. 314 of the record).
The revised Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan includes moving the proposed driveway
completely off tax lot 412. This results in a shift in the driveway of approximately one foot to
the southwest. The previous proposed driveway included 280 square feet of widening and
paving of the driveway beyond the existing driveway surface (pg. 45 of the record). The revised
estimate for widening and paving beyond the existing driveway surface is 324 square feet.
Therefore, the shift in the driveway off of tax lot 412 results in an additional 44 square feet of
driveway construction outside of the existing driveway to the subject property. This additional
44 square feet is in the regulated 20 feet from the top of the bank of Wrights Creek. AJI areas
within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation are
classified as Floodplain Corridor Lands in accordance with 18.62.050.A.2. In the past, the
distance of "20 feet of any creek" has been interpreted to be 20 feet from the top of the bank.
The second revision in the application involves the location of the utility trench in the Grandview
Dr. right-of-way. The applicant agreed to a condition of the Planning Commission approval that
the utility trench in the Grandview Dr. right-of-way would be moved to the north so that the
utility trench is outside of the regulated 20 feet from the top of the bank ofWrights Creek (pg. 34
of record, condition 6). However, in preparing the revised application materials, the location of
the trees on the north side of the Grandview Dr. right-of-way near the intersection with Wrights
Creek Dr. was surveyed. If the utility line is moved outside of the regulated 20 feet from the top
of bank ofWrights Creek, the line would impact the cluster of trees. As a result, the applicant is
proposing to locate the utility line as originaJIy proposed. The revised application submittals
state that approximately 100 lineal feet of proposed utility trench lies within 20 feet of the top of
bank.
2
~~,
A-4.
The revised Topographic Survey includes six photo references with arrows, and six
corresponding photographs matching the reference points. Staff believes the applicant submitted
the photographs to illustrate the location of Grandview Dr. and the driveways in relation to the
Wrights Creek Floodplain. In Staffs opinion, photograph 3 and 5 illustrate the situation most
clearly.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Photograph 3 is taken at the intersection of the Grandview Dr. with Wrights Creek Dr. looking
towards the subject property. The fork ofWrights Creek that is the subject of the application's
Physical Constraints Review Permit runs along the south side of Grandview Dr. in this location,
and is shown to the left of the gravel driving surface of Grandview Dr. in the photograph. The
plan view of the relationship of this fork ofWrights Creek Dr. in relation to Grandview Dr. and
the subject property is shown in the attached aerial photo, Staff Exhibit A.
Photograph 5 shows the point where Grandview Dr. splits into two forks. The fork to the left is a
driveway serving properties outside of the city limits. The fork to the right is the existing
driveway that serves the subject property and 507 Grandview Dr. The fork to the right is the
driveway that is proposed to be improved to serve a single-family residence at 720 Grandview
Dr. The fork ofWrights Creek that is the subject of the application's Physical Constraints
Review Permit runs in a pipe from south to north under driveway fork to the left, and the creek
daylights in the wedge between the two driveways.
In Staffs opinion, the proposal with the revisions can be found to be consistent with the approval
criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. Staff believes that even with the additional 44
square feet of driveway development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain due to the shifting of the
driveway off of tax lot 4 I 2, the proposal minimizes the areas of development in the floodplain.
The proposed development minimizes additional new impacts by locating driveway
improvements, the storm drain and the utility trench to the greatest extent in areas of the Wrights
Creek Floodplain that have already been significantly disturbed through the past street and
driveway construction.
Council Options:
The Council may approve, approve with modifications and conditions, or deny the application.
Potential Motions:
Move to approve the application for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, re-grade a portion of
Grandview Dr. and extend utilities to serve a single family residence for the property located at
720 Grandview Dr. in P A 2006-01784 with the conditions of approval attached by the Planning
Commission as stated in the Findings and Orders dated February 13, 2007.
Move to approve the application for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian
Preservation Area to improve and widen a portion of an existing driveway, re-grade a portion of
Grandview Dr. and extend utilities to serve a single family residence for the property located at
720 Grandview Dr. in P A 2006-01784 with modified conditions of approval.
Move to deny the application as submitted.
3
-.11
._~
A-5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Attachments:
Staff Exhibit A, Aerial Photograph of Surrounding Area and the Fork ofWrights Creek
Topographic Survey, Corresponding Photos, and Transmittal Letter from TerraSurvey, Inc.
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan, Transmittal Letter from Thornton Engineering, Inc.
4
r~'
!~ - (.,
~ JAI-l- EXHIBIT A
,tfJ
o
40
80
160 Feet
1 inch equals 100 feet Ii
N
j
TERRASURVEY,INC. ~
PROFESSIONAL LA~"D SrRVEYORS
27 -i li'OrRTH STREET
A8HLA~'TI, OREGOX 97520
~-~
TELEPHOI'<'E: (541) 482-6474
F.\<'SIMILE: (541) 552-0292
ELE<'TRONIC: terraill@bil;p.llet
i
----__~__~__J
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 6-27-06
.JOB XO: 544-06
TO: ~laria Harris
City of Ashland Planning
SUBJECT: :\leDonald R('siaenee, Grandview Drive
Encl()S{'d is an updated eopy of the topographie survey that was submitted for the
.McDonald Residenc(' and photos of Grand view Drive. The topographic survey is at
a lal'ger scale than the original map and shows mor(' details induding the tr('e8
which screen Bonnie Bro{lersen\; property. I also received permission from the
property own('l'S to th(' south of Grandview to locate the toe of the road
('mbankment and the creek where it crosses their property. I took six pictures of
Grandview driv{-'; these are located by number 011 th(' map. The arrows show the
location where the pictures were taken awl the direction of view.
If you have any qlwstiollS please feel fr('e to call me.
Sineerely,
,{ A , C,--
Stnart :\1. Osmu8
c.c: :\Iark BartholollH'w
I~
,
,I
t J_. . '-,
:~~. .~
:\~,:< ,~
. . ~ ,~, . ../~
.', . 'c"''';'' .~.
It 1,': ., i1;, ' .,' " '.')1, '/
~ :'( . ,'''1':. . I. ,'/ . ".< .... ,,:,("";l' y."'
'T"; . "I" .u ., ........~ ~.i' ':f.!'..~~, SO.' .
~ ""'.J.~~t' ~'.~. . '.~'" .{ 4'~~!~.!,.:.~{~~....:
:~ /f.$~ ~", 'l. ": '~~~'(j~\' ~:' ,;;]1,). "'\ '
..~ '~'..~.' /." ,101;,,", l~' "1~.J.:<;.
.j ~;s' ' ' ~ ,,"';-- ~ I . ...~ ..
). ~.. r .J. v~8~"j;'. ...0.....
.f;: . . . " . \Aw'..Y., ' J
i ,t, ;II, . IIJ"'".}~ l",. .'r >1i. ). '
I, 'j ';; ~ "Jr;, .,'~1":": "t,' ,
, ~ (' 1" ~". .
~'_ II' ;{~ . . . ,'I\, ..'r,.J , .
" J.. t' ' . '-, ~ I' /
'i;Y"r'~( Jo : <;j 'f. '.,. .." f . ~
:i~;' 4"~ '.':;F' ~ ~..' .,' ! ('. t.
,'l ;,.f . 'l:'~ 't ,)':J1'. · .;... ,(,.,
~~~ - r." ~: :J!rH-:;' .: r::i '
. ;/..... la.-'~ {.' ,: " . ,/'.
....J ,;,; ~ ,1 'i1. J '
, . .... ~ '. . '
J.,;.. ;.# I, J'
("f'~
..
,
,.....
~. " '
,-p.
v
..
.
.
r'
I
~
~\
~;
'J
'!I
;:;
!:II
<:
'j
..
\ ,-
..~:..::
,:1 .: -
~
II
:t\ 1:1I
1
.~ I
1:
'"
9.,
L. 'I . 'Ii
I, I
~,.,:.;,' ;..
.il"l'
I'
..
~
~
;'"
'.
< .
I.~ .
,I
,r 't.
I'
,,"
I
; " ,
~. "
.
".-.
~
,
,
" ..21
I.
"t>
:t
o
d
<
.,.;
, i,"f
.. ~. I
';, /.' >1 '
n~/}. 1.1 '
, .'I'f' '';:~
'~;.. i :1.lt.,.. ~...' "
., 4~1 ~" ,. ,.
J ~;Q'~ ;.,)\
I '~I\:
. .'$1' r,
'.1>'
Q' ~
.,
,.,..,.
~'
i ;".
~
w
,~
. .
.
"
l
~
PJ
i
y
,
, ~
) .
I
'I
f
-,
0'
I~
~
~
[
"
\1
;! .
,
i\
..
'"~
. .
'4"
t', '~~'~ \
~ .','
. '
lI)
~
, '
"ff I'
\~ tl~ d,t
, ',. f~\J ;
! i'.
,J
"
~
.
rr r
"
a
II }.. ,
' , ~
~
~
IIlCl [l l \
,
II' .' II b
t
J Ill,
14: n
F
" "
( -C
:J ., ")
.. :7' .,
1:1 i:~ t'
~
~'
"
I
I
I
1\
,
I
.
~ THORNTON
. ENGINfERING IHe.
f:'~. f-' ''::D
.. '...... ~... ~ '~. ~...
Letter of Transmittal
JUN 2 9 2007
C~---
..
---'...';-,r:!cnt
Date. June ~9. 2007
To: M"ris Han'is
ell) \If '\-;hland Planning Deparlml'nl
Subject: 1\'1cDo:1ald Residence 06-034
horn' Mikt'Thornton
The 1ollewiI1611em(s) are being sent to you:
(2) Set... of P;-c1imina,'y Grading & Drainag. Plan... (24 X 3fll
!, , Set'. of Pn"j:m::~,.<; Grathng &. Drainagl: Plllns (II X 17)
.,~,-..-_.~-_.. ~------_._. ..... .~.. -.----....--... .
S:d~;.,!i( '.!":'.l' Jitd itelll
,
As requested by:
Fnr y\)U/' :.1st' arH1 infornwlinn
Foe leVlew and comment
Remark,,:
The endtlsl':! O[:.lIlS :w.\.(' been revised 3S fe!lows:
· Till:' dri'~e~a~' :lllgnrw:nl has b.;:en :"!tghtlv adjusled I,oflLontally.
It A.hjifl(ln~i ";>pograph:c inform,tHolI ha.; rCt"lI pfO\ided.
· T~!e '-ii"C,t ,of :lrivewCl\' 'A.itleninl! ",'i:!.in ::0 feet of th(~ lor os slope ;~2,-t ..;q n.; !tlS
he~n hUlChcJ on the pl:lil.
· ld;';fJnidii 01" utility ~n~ndl ha:-- t.e\ il iicJjlJ",ted horizontally. Appro;,;"na'c!~. !f::n
r. r: of prop:""~cd Ulility trench Ii:;.', ~'ithJn 20 feet of the top of slope.
· .^ ;';'.:! 'If Dn"'-l'way improvement 1a;~1'i heed redUl'ed.
· !'\:kLtj'!ul f'~:i<';lmg e:J"~E1c'~'> an:~ prupt'rt) hundarit:'\ dclmeated Oil :i\i. r';:t1l
1horn'.(;-I: E-.lIgIllCl" lng, llll:.
By: /f)~.". . %iL___.____u
MIL' Ili-.J,t"~-"
File: O()-034
A ,.,~
_. ~-~-
- -----
OffIM (541\ 8,1i7-0R64 Fax (541\ 857-1947 1236 Disk Drtve Ste. I. Medford. OR 97501
...
~
~
I~
I~
I~
i~
G~
~f,l
5
~
.
"
1'1
~
B
~
I
I I
10I "
,illl ~!Ii!
! I! .~III
I, !tl, I!~i~
I I 1~~lii
I ~Iil.
a !li'l
· = I.JlII
: i Illi
I I all~
... ~ III~I
~ I ill
1>
.
"'-
6'
!
..,
~tri
o:;tl
~'", ~"
~~ >
: I~~~~~
! I!~~~"
if!...~~~~
~~~-<
~ ;i .
d-
~2:
()
...
~
...
- -
- -
r --- ----G.
'. wr_~_
/. '-.
/- ------<D---
-;..,.... /- - - - - - - - - - Q.. ()
/ f D~
/ 0
I , g; ~_
" ("). (J)
CD :::r
D~
c.
(")
o
i,)~~.
'1',,.:,, -
",?'.v
"
\
\
I:il
. -liIJ-'
11.1
.1
I
~
01)(
8r-
o
-f
'-Ji(,.
__--------__---.:..--------------etso-- _ _ ---- - ___ __
_ .... ,,';'12 -
. 4 1UIlDn&nY.W~_ "________
I . ------ T
Jr,.
I
, \
,
.
) \ "
\' \
}
\ ('
( ,
. (,
\/"
\\l
\\i
~111
11\
II
)'~
)1
V/:-J
-""
,..""
il ..,.
1
(,"
:,
,I
\
)
i
\
Q
"l
\. " . /,/1"'\~' :
<I...
. 1~"/ .
,/:/..~ / . .
K<~. / ..
'. >- \ / - + /
, i i /
' ',' ' II \
',I ,,: I
':, / I\.'
1 /. , h ,
~// /\./\J'
~ \::-'~~~
!. \-\
(" i ('\~\., --.. '.
I' f \ '1\ i i-
-i;At\Vr ..,
: ." {If'
~. :~ /Jf#
:~/
, I~
\,~ . .' .:.... (l,\\
" 1\" ...... I '\
" "~. / '\
'\ i \;" \~ \\~ . '~.'" '\i~
'\\: :\ ~-V~:
\, 'J~ \~.. ;
~',-.~, N' (\t'. . .
~ / I ; I! ;1
i Ii' ' I
/ \ I:. \
,.. I
," \./ I
I . \ .
/
/
~
...)(
-r-
-0
....
- i-
i!I ::
is ..
I ~
: I~P!; -$--
~ i" h '
I ~ I~~t
i
I
,
-
J
0
"'0
>'-.1 0
rJJ[IJ
Io Cl
l
>0 ~
2;:0 :>
0>
. z -0
00 ..,..
;:0< ....
rrl- -
Cl~ n
o~
z.... 'J)
v
." ;:0 c:
"-'-
~< "
[lJll'J
0 <
rr:
-<
~
... )(
J\) r-
o
....
to
:>
~
[T]OOr
;lj0l-<
t/J ~ Z
~ 0 Z
['l1 :> I/O
r ~ to
.0 ::c ..
n > ~ ;
:> Z '7 ;II
rn.:.,
::;; :c r.
d :> 8
;:c < Z
2 ['l1 >
;; Z r
Co
tJJ [r]
c.:
c.:
.
- -
~t: I i4b~iij!11 I!!!: :f l.
~~ · ~ I I I I I I I I J;;
!~ I III ~ i ; ; ; I : II I'll! U ~
'. ~ 1ft -Ii lIi}i~
h'II,11" I II' III
!! III ~~I
II I
II~I
1111
Ii~
-.
I
I
,
aB
Jqi
C)
-0
f ~ )=-. ~:IJ
2 zO::D
. z~~o } 0 '11;
"-4!(21, (J) m -
. ~m cOO'"
!~~Q r':II en ~
Xo~o <-::I
o ~8 Z !2 0 ~n
c: d20
(I) :D)>
r
\
,
i!I "--
131t/~a )l33-;a-S.LHf)/~A4
l..i
,.,10
r
"" gf"T1
I "'Ul ""
() J
CJ
--""""'1"8-
11
N I
! :t1~
~o
~~
~
~ <::
~ Ii!
;ll ~ I
;g ~
~ 5i
~ ~ {e
~ ~ 8" ~
... ~~ l:l
~ ij\~ <:j
'bn ~
o:::!
~ ~ ~~ is
::tJ ~'" 0 ~
"'c:: "'~ ~ g
"''''
~ ",&j ~
~~
~ :::!~ l..i
~~ ,.,10
~ "
,,-'" r- ~
_0 i;'''' ~f"T1
~ ~ .~
,;< ~~ Ul
C> ~[.'J ~ ()
Qo ~ CJ
~1ii "
~ '>!
~~ ~
~ ~ ~;g ~ [I 1;!l~~8~
~!;;;
~ ~~ ~
lIlfTl t~ ~ Ig~f::~~
~ IX ~~~ ~~ J
8~ ~ I ~~~~~
t z I- tJ 2~1 "8'>!~'0l;:>~5'"
" ~
~ III .>:: ~ n":>I'" 1-";'!'1" "'~
'- ~"'~~ '" ~~N
~ " <:: ~p~~1 O~<:j~
<:: ~ Cl ...: ~...<::;E
<: !'1
;UfTl ::< ?~dl I-~~<::
fTlX
~U; r <:-'b~' :!~::<~
I O-l
~ fTlZ I ~~~'>! I f::~,>!<:j
i'i'" J:>~~' - ",Cl
fTl r-"., ~C);:-t::tJ
~~O~I ~~~~
~ 0 I r~~~1 ",~~~
I ~....~ I -<
~ l..i 15r" ~
...10 I ~ ~ I
b !-
~f"T1 I !'l
. I
::tJ OJ +i
~~ () I
CJ
:~ I
,~ I
@
~~'b
~~~
l:l"'i'5
~C;c:::
~:1>;::j
-.rr;~
~~
~~c):t..
!'1j!':~f::
~""V)::!l
o ",Oil'"
:-l""'~"'"
~~5~
...",~
~~~~
~<:j
~~<::5i
~ ~~
"'~~:!l
~~~~
CltJ'"
~!'1~~
~1"s;:1li
~~:::!I
~5~~
8
~
...
tJ
(;j
~
ill
~
~
1
~
\:!
(;j
:-t
o
...
...
fTl
X
in
....
Z
'"
":
0
~
z
>
"
'"
n
c
<
'"
;U
.. 00 -l
~ ':0, >;u
"- '" ;;:I>
~ ~ . ~
;; '" .
,., 0 '" '=
0 ~ 0
::;; "
0 ~ N
~ '" '"
~ ~ ~"";::)
i 0 :0 $ g
I' g
0 Z 1Il '"
!;1 0 <5
z . z
i ~ Z 1Il
~ 0
~ ...
oJ F
'i z
0
<..
<0
;;;
'"
g
,.,
....
'"
~
-
- -
- -
~ '"
;Y~N~ ~"'" X
in
l c< .... .... 0
z 0 -l 0
'" " " .., 0 ..,
X "
in n 0 '"
.., X 0 JT1
:-' 0 in X
Z 1Il :-' .., ~
'" 6 b 1Il
~ C '" r
;U " ~ 0 "
'" " ~
'" !" JT1
r JT1
;U :< r '"
0 " ;U r
> 0 ;U
0 > 0
0 >
0
i'!
,..-
",-
'" .
"'0
i'"
",P
"'~
It'"
~~
1Ill;;
~~
~~
~
~~
",'b
go
!a_
~'-'
I\>
i1~
i~
~P
lh
",~
~
~i
~--
~~
~'}
~~
~o
~
~
"
""
"
'- .~
~~~~
~~;:g~
~o~~
::6 "'~N?'i
'" ~<:<:j",
o ~~~
~ ~'b'>!
~ 1\>~J1
~ ~~ill
r-.. 'ii :0 ...
~ ;ll~'
..v <:j~~
'" ,>!OiS
~ ~
t!j
~. ~
"'c::
qa
~ "J
"CJ
:j
~
0>
I\l~~
~ ~ ~ I
~ [5
" II
:n
[;1
~)
r .,
N
~
'"
~
r.".r
ni
d
~
I
........
d;
i'1
~
~ ~ ~
,. ,. l:!l
~ ~ ~
II ~ ~
l:!ll:!l '" II
~~"'I
~ ~ 1
~~I-I
-< -< ~
'b "ll ~ I
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~
;:u
JTI
Z
JTI
:E
)>
,
o
)>
-i
[;1
~!5
~~
~li:
..I
be
!I"
'"
"
VI
"
'"
o
o
-...J
~
/'
~~HJ
~-.,!6
0:;J0
......l:l
~o<:j
is'',,
~\:!~"ll
H,
C'l:::!,.
.~-<
klo~
.~~
:g...~
~~'"
iijo'"
t:l;ll~
!:l ~
:!
~
'>!
'"
X
in
:-'
....
o
"
o
..,
1Il
r
o
"
'"
~'>!~<J8\:!~!'1~8~"~~~
tIS"" ~ ~~~ :-~f)f)
~'>! il ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 8 &1""''''~
~~"'Vi~",~<:j;: ~ <:~~i')!Q
"'...>::>::;t~"'0",~~<lJ"'~~
~ ;:;~)i;C'l:::l""~'" ~~i!;~1-
~~~~; ~8-<;;f~~~,,~
"'~~",)O. ill '" ~~"
", ~ ~ ,,"'~
", <:: ~
~ ~ ",
~ ~ ;;f
~
~
~laC'llS~~~~~;g~~~~
~ ~ ~'" ;1:<:"
~~ ~o~~l!l~~,!!n~~~
i'l i'l r< 'b ~"~;t ;t ~!ll ~~;t ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i:: ~~ ~ ~ l'?irR~~~
~~ 0 0 ~~S;~ ~~<::~h,i::~
~Sl~~~ ~~~e~
~ ~f~~~
~ .- ~
~ '"
~ Sl ~
i'I )0. ~
<:j 1-'"
;UfTl
fTlX
~u;
O::!
"'z
i'i"
'"
~~~~~
~oi'\~!6
~:!>::~&l
[')~!;~~
3::<::~M~
~I\)~~~
",0 _
~~~o::<
~ _C):--t
"'\:!;;!M~
~~!:l~
~~~.
01
'b-<
~
9<-
"'0
"'0
~q.,
<'"
'"
X
~
6
"
o
..,
ll!
o
"
'"
~~~
~~~
~"':>I
"'<:;u;:o
~<::",
g~:J:
;;f~~
"'~
~'"
0'"
"'^
'"
~
~
~
~
::t:
~
~
~
~
t:l
~
~
II
:c
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
LUBA 2007- 113 Deliberation onl P A -2006-02354
Meeting Date: July 17, 2007
Department: Legal
Contributing Departments: ~
Approval: Martha Benn~(
Statement: This is a reconsideration ofthe land use approval for P A-2006-02354 pursuant to
OAR 661-10-0021.
Staff Recommendation: Option 2.
Background: The Council approved the findings for this Planning Action on June 5, 2007. At
that meeting two options were presented (1) find no jurisdiction to make the decision and also
withdraw the Council initiated appeal or (2) find jurisdiction to make the decision and rule on the
merits consistent with the Council's oral decision to uphold the Planning Commission. The
Council elected option (3), finding no jurisdictional error but withdrawing of the appeal. The
findings were revised and signed by the Mayor (Attachment A) and the notice ofthe decision
was thereafter transmitted.
On June 18, 2007 at the Council Study session the Council discussed reconsideration ofthe
findings which was an item on the June 19 Agenda. The reconsideration would either (1) affirm
the version ofthe findings signed by the mayor or (2) adopt a shorter version of the findings. A
shorter version was distributed on June 18. However, prior to the June 19,2007 Council meeting
a LUBA appeal was filed. In delivering the notice, lead petitioner stated that the purpose for the
early filing was to remove jurisdiction from the Council to reconsider the findings. At the
Council meeting legal staff advised that a "Notice of Withdrawal of Decision for
Reconsideration" would be filed with LUBA to return the matter to the Council. This was
accomplished; the Council now has 90 days (approx Sept. 21) from the Notice of Withdrawal to
make the final decision and file a copy with LUBA.
This is not a public hearing. The Council may affirm, modify or reverse its decision. The
Council is in deliberation and is not accepting new evidence, testimony or argument.
Related City Policies: Community Development Code
Council Options:
1. The Council can adopt the findings signed by the Mayor on June 5, 2007.
(Attachment A)
1
~..
7/12/2007 ... ~
.' r
2. The Council can adopt the shorter version ofthe findings presented on June 18,
2007 (Attachment B) (findings must be modified to reflect the delay)
3. The Council can adopt findings, finding jurisdiction, not withdraw and make the
decision on the merits. (Option 1 from June 5) (findings must be modified to
reflect the delay) (Attachment C- selected pages)
4. The Council can adopt findings, finding no jurisdiction to consider the appeal and
also withdrawal (Option 2 from June 5) (findings must be modified to reflect the
delay) (Attachment D-selected pages)
5. Other modification or reversal ofthe June 5, 2007 Council decision.
Potential Motions: Move to adopt Option _ and authorize the mayor to sign findings.
Attachments: Exhibits A, B, C, D as written above.
2
"..
7/12/2007 .... ~
. r
EXHIBIT A
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
June 5, 2007
In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a )
Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story )
building for the property located at the southern corner of the )
intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT
the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested ) AND ORDER
to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for )
properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, )
within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. )
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture.
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a
March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review
approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the
intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street.
After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and
a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed
incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2,
2007.
Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter
18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice ofthe January 9,2007,
hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9,2007, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The
application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the
close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and
approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13,2007,
the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit" A" and are specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission
findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair
pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new
material facts.
On March 20, 2007, and on March 23,2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed
calling up the Planning Commission's March 13,2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted
to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the
Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the
variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the
discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page I
CJtT It - P!ktc. I OF /~
Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed. pursuant to ALUO to area property owners
and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1,
2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the
Council. testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record
before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was
continued to May 9,2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the
record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved
the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's
action generally upheld the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as
set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record. the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described
in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern comer of the intersection of N.
Main St. and Glenn St.
3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment).
4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant).
III. JURISDICTION
The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement:
Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110):
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions
described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the
appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by
the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant
approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on
the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent
to all parties participating in the appeal.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 2
A -,Z OF /C:
.. r
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the
public hearing, either orally or in writing. precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Council. by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides:
The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority
vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period. as outlined below.
No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period.
The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the
matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows:
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m1s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concem that they are getting
dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with
this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: CouncilOrs Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman,
NO. Motion passed 3-1.
The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does
the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to
strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence.
(Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that
requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163.171-72 (2004) Brievoael v. Washinaton County. 24 Or LUBA 63.68. aff'd 117 Or ADD 195,
843 P2d 982 (1992) McKa Creek Valle Assoc. v. Washin ton Coun 16 Or LUBA 690 693 1988.
Type I, \I and 1\1 decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2H4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section
18.108.110.A." The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type \I decisions and is subject to
18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides:
The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type \I Planning Procedure,
effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission, unless appealed to the Council as provided in
section 18.108.11 O.A. (emphasis added).
Again, no privately initiated appeal was filed in compliance with this section. The only appeal was the City initiated appeal
pursuant to ALUO 18.108.070 (5) which references the Council's ability to "call up. a decision. The council's appeal was
not as representative of any interested party or group. The Council finds and determines that ALUO 18.108.070 (5) is an
independent source of appeal authority and that the appeal requirements and other restrictions in ALUO 18.108.11 OA do
not apply to the Council. By way of explanation, certain of the "appeal" requirements in ALUO 18.108.11 OA simply do not
make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment.
In addition, the provisions of 18.108.110A requiring the Council to make a decision on the appeal do not make sense if the
Council is the appellant. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the Council has complied with the Code
requirement to hear this appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing.
After due consideration and debate of the matter, the Council independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" or "call up " of
Planning Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit
withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. Specifically, the
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 3
A -0 OF /(;
. r
authority for the Council initiated appeal, ALUO 18.108.070(5), quoted above, does not mandate that the Council "shall"
make the decision on call up. This is in stark contrast to the provisions applicable to a privately initiated appeal pursuant to
ALUO 18.108.11 O.A , which appears to mandate a Council decision on an appeal. Participants in the Council call up
hearing must ascertain for themselves what the requirements of the local code are, and what action is necessary in order
to protect their rights. As the Code does not mandate a decision by the Council as it would a privately initiated appeal, the
Council finds and determines that participants could not have reasonably expected that the Council was required to
proceed to a final decision. Based on this distinction in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, the Council believes that the
exhaustion requirement for participants should not be excused by the Council's call up, as distinguished from the rule for
non-appellant local participants in privately initiated appeals. Accordingly, as provided in Section 18.108.070 "[t]he
Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section
18. 108. 110.An. As there has been no 18.108.110.A appeal to the Council, and the Council has withdrawn its
18.108.070(5) appeal, the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City.
The Council's decision to withdrawal the appeal is advisable and counseled by the fact that the Council was subjected to
extensive ex parte contacts, as reflected in the record, resulting in four (4) of seven (7) members of the decision making
body being challenged for bias and prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council would have had
difficulty acting on the appeal. The Council finds and determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to
make the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this
reference. However, to avoid a wasteful LUBA appeal and further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council
voluntarily withdraws its own appeal of this matter. The record reflects no challenges to the qualifications of Planning
Commission members., accordingly, if exhaustion is excused, and an appeal is had, bias and prejudgment issues should
not impact analysis of the merits. Accordingly, the appeal being withdrawn, the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter
and no provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly, based on the finding set forth herein concerning the
voluntary withdrawal of the appeal by the only appellant, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the Planning
Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Planning Commission's decision is also attached and
incorporated herein by this reference.
In the event, the Council is found to have jurisdiction, that is, the Council's withdrawal of the appeal is found to be
ineffective, the Council sets forth herein all its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, inclusive of findings on bias
and prejudgment challenges.
IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA
1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances.
. The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of
this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options.
. The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 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.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 4
A-~O~ /~
r
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.
. The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
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.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
2} The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public
hearing testimony and the exhibits received, and the whole record.
3} The Council finds and determines that this request for a Site Review approval to construct a two-story building, the
request for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage and the
request for a variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from
twenty to ten feet, meets all applicable criteria for approval described or referenced in the ALUO sections above. This finding
is supported by the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, attached
hereto and specifically incorporated herein by this reference, the detailed findings submitted by the applicant specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, as well as by competent substantial evidence in the whole record.
4} Criteria: [ALUO 18.72.070] The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed developmenl
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 rlght~f-way shall comply with the
Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for Site Review
approval. An office is a permitted use in the Employment (E-1) zoning district. The E-1 zoning district requires at least 65
percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. In this case, all of
the ground floor building square footage is designated as office use which is a permitted use in the E-1 zone. The site is
located in the R-Overlay which allows residential units as a special permitted use. Residential units are permitted at 15
units per acre. The residential density of the site is two units (.136Ac x 15 = 2.04 units). The proposal is to use the second
story for office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of office space and a residential unit.
The E-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning
district. The subject parcel abuts a residential district at the rear (east) of the site. A ten foot per story setback is required
for a rear yard abutting a residential district. The proposed building is 50 feet from the rear (east) property line, and
therefore exceeds the required 20-foot setback requirement for the two-story building. The building is angled at the
northwest corner of the lot adjacent to the intersection of N. Main St. and Glenn St. so that the structure is located outside
of the vision clearance area as required. The proposed building height is approximately 26 feet which is under the
maximum building height of 40 feet in the E-1 zoning district. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which
exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district.
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the off-street automobile parking
requirements of Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking with the attached condition of approval number 19. The original
application required six off-street parking spaces for 2,700 square feet of general office (2,700 sq. ft. /450 = 6 spaces).
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 5
A -S- OF /G<
.' T
The off-street parking requirement is satisfied by providing five spaces on site and with one off-street parking credit
available for the two spaces on the Glenn St. property frontage. The revised proposal, which is the approved submittal,
increased the building square footage by approximately three percent or 89 square feet. As a result, the off-street parking
requirement is increased from six to seven spaces (2,789 sq. ft. 1450 = 6.20). In addition, the applicant revised the
second floor to have the flexibility to be used as office spaces, two residential units, or a combination of the two. Here
again, the off-street parking requirement is slightly over six spaces increasing the required number of off-street spaces to
seven. The Council finds that the building square footage and combination of uses on the second floor can be revised so
that the required number of off-street spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided without a significant effect to the
site or building design. This is addressed with the attached condition of approval number 19. Two bicycle parking spaces
are required, and the site plan shows the two covered bicycle parking spaces located under the exterior stairs in the front
of the building.
The City Council finds that the public utilities and transportation system have adequate capacity to serve the development.
Public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project in the N. Main St. and Glenn St. rights-of-way. Water, sewer
and storm drain services are available in Glenn St. N. Main St. and Glenn St. provide access to the site. N. Main St. is a
state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). N. Main St. is classified as a
Boulevard (arterial) and Glenn St. is classified as a Neighborhood Street. Sidewalks are in place on the N. Main St.
frontage and a portion of the Glenn St. frontage. The applicant will install a sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage
connecting the existing sidewalk to the east of the property on Glenn St. to the existing sidewalk on N. Main St. The
bicycle facilities are a shared lane on both streets. Bus service is provided on N. Main St.
The City Council finds and determines that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for
Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards and Historic District Design Standards. The project lies within the
Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District.
The proposal meets the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development. The primary orientation of the
building is to North Main Street using a recessed entry feature. The front entrance is accessed by the public sidewalk as
required. Parking is located behind the building as required. The proposal will result in 22% of landscaping on site which
exceeds the 15 percent minimum for the E-1 zoning district. The parking area includes 19.4 percent of the area in
landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent of the total parking area in landscaping.
Additionally, one tree is required for each seven parking spaces to provide a canopy effect. Two trees are proposed on the
north end of the parking area and the application states that the existing walnut in the southeast corner will also shade the
parking area. Two street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk on the N. Main St. and three trees are proposed behind
the sidewalk on Glenn St.
The Council finds and determines that the proposed building satisfies the Detail Site Review requirements. The recessed
entry is generously sized, and accented with structural steel columns. The front (west) wall ground floor includes 44
percent in glazing and the Glenn St. (north) wall includes 37 percent in glazing which exceeds a minimum of 20 percent of
the wall are is required to be in display areas, windows and doorways. The front entrance to the building is emphasized by
the entry alcove and awning. The Detail Site Review Standards prohibit bright or neon paint colors on the building exterior.
The applicant provided exterior building materials and colors including Moss Green stucco for the second floor, Mountain
Brown polished-face CMU block for the ground floor, Charcoal Black split-faced CMU block for the base and Vintage 1\1
(dark grey) Zincalume Roofing.
The Council finds and determines that the proposed building meets the Historic District Design Standards. At an average
height of 28.5 feet to the ridge of the roof, the proposed building is a similar height to the one and a half and two-story
structures surrounding the subject property. The building is broken into two modules which creates a residential scale and
reduces the mass. On the Glenn St. side of the building, the ground floor store front exterior treatment is wrapped around
the corner of the building. In addition, an awning system has been added to the ground floor windows on the sides and
rear of the building. The awnings and change in materials on the Glenn St. elevation serve to provide relief in the massing.
The mass of the rear of the building is broken up the recess in the middle of the building. The proposed facade line is in
the same plane as the facades of buildings in the vicinity, (See further discussion under variance criteria incorporated
herein by this reference. The assertion by opponents that the Council is obligated to define the historic fa~de line in
reference to any specific map or date is expressly rejected. The streetscape in this block includes a mix of buildings
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 6
/J -t:: OF /6
considered both historic and non-historic, all of which have a mix of setbacks. As such, the historic fa9Clde line in this
streetscape is ill defined. The Council finds that the fa9Clde line encompassing all structures in this streetscape meets the
intent of the site design standards by avoiding violation of the existing setback pattern. The Council identified the positive
recommendation of the Historic Commission as one of the factors tending to support this interpretation. Similarly, the
attempt to define the fa9Clde line solely by reference to building immediately adjacent to the subject property is expressly
rejected. The reliance upon an interpretation of the word "adjacent" in other parts of the Code, in prior findings, is not
binding in this section which requires a broader analysis. The Council incorporates the findings in the May 1, 2007 Council
Communication authored by the Planning Director in support of this finding. The steep pitched gable roofs match the
surrounding historic buildings. The windows have a vertical orientation which is compatible with the fa9Clde patterns of
surrounding historic structures. The base of the building is differentiated by using a different material with a different color
(i.e. split-faced block in Charcoal Black). The two street facing volumes directed towards N. Main S1. match the orientation
to N. Main St. of buildings in the area. The ground floor front doors are located in a generously-sized entry alcove which is
connected to a plaza and walkway area to the public sidewalk on N. Main St. Finally, the proposed building design is a
contemporary interpretation with different materials and architectural details. As required, the building is clearly not
imitating the style of an older period.
Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in
the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met.
5) Criteria: lALUO 18.88.090) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are 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.
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the
Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage. There is demonstrable difficulty in
meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to the combination of several physical characteristics of the site and
existing sidewalk system on Glenn St. - the length of the property frontage on Glenn St., the location of the driveway and
the existing curbside sidewalk on Glenn St. adjacent to the property to the east. The unique or unusual aspects of the
site, discussed below under variances, are incorporating herein by this reference. A curbside sidewalk is in place on the
south side of Glenn St. from the eastern boundary of the subject property to Orange St. Additionally, a curbside sidewalk
is in place on N. Main St. and the corner of N. Main St. and Glenn St. The opportunity for a parkrow on the Glenn St.
frontage is limited to approximately 50 feet in length between the wheelchair ramp at the corner and the proposed
driveway apron near the eastern property line. A transition from a curbside sidewalk to a sidewalk with a parkrow uses
approximately ten lineal feet. One transition would need to be installed from the comer and another transition to the
curbside before the driveway. The driveway is required to be in this location because the Site Design and Use Standards
require the parking to be located behind the building. After the transitions to and from the curbside sidewalk would be
installed, there would be a relatively short length of parkrow installed on the Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to
the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk will result in a sidewalk that provides the equivalent pedestrian facility
connection as would a sidewalk with a parkrow. The curb side sidewalk will provide a more direct route from the comer of
N. Main St. and Glenn St. to the existing curb sidewalk adjacent to the property. The Exception to the Street Standards to
allow a curbside sidewalk is the minimum variance to alleviate the difficulty by maintaining a sidewalk connection on the
Glenn St. property frontage. The Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk is consistent with the
Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 in that the chapter "is to allow an option for
more flexible design that is permissible under the conventional zoning codes."
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 7
A 7 of /b
. ~ r
~ased on the det~i1ed fi~dings set forth here~n. the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically
Incorporated herein by thiS reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in
the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met.
6) Criteria: [ALUO 18.100.020] The criteria for a Variance are as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
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.
c. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
The City Council finds and determines that the proposed development meets the approval criteria for a Variance to reduce
the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet.
The Special Setback requirement (18.68.050) is as follows:
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width,
to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a
street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line
separating the lot from the street.
. Street Setback: East Main Street, between City limits and Lithia Way 35 feet
. Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet
. Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the
exception of the C-1-D district.
. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
The unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site are the surrounding historic development pattern, the comer
lot location, the bend in N. Main St. the configuration of the lot, (specifically the shallow depth) and access to the site. The
proposed variance to permit a ten-foot setback from N. Main St. matches the fa~de line in the vicinity. The average
distance to the historic front fa~de lines in this area is approximately ten feet. The subject property is a highly visible
location on one of the main gateways in the City and the prominence is accentuated by the location on a corner lot and the
bend in N. Main St. From the perspective of traveling south on N. Main St., the side of the building facing Glenn St. will be
visible. The site has a short lot depth for a commercially zoned piece of property. There are commercial and employment
zoned properties throughout Ashland (e.g. A St., Clear Creek Dr. and Russell Dr.) that allow similar mixed-use types of
development, and these areas have been configured with adequate depth and area to accommodate parking on site.
Additionally, alley systems and shared driveway systems are in place in these same commercial and employment zoned
developments that provide vehicle access and back-up areas outside of the individual lots and building envelopes. There
is 50 feet available between the back of the building and the rear (east) property line. The building footprint can not be
moved closer to the back (east) property line because the parking area and landscape buffer are at the minimum
dimensions. The parking is required to be behind or to the side of the building. Finally, the safest access to the site is
from Glenn S1. Glenn St. has lower traffic volumes and better visibility than N. Main S1.
. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
In January 2007, LUBA stated:
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 8
A -I' OF/b
In Krishchenko I, we found inexplicable the city's apparent conclusion that petitioner's desire to partition the
subject property is a "self-created" hardship. We observed that, "[i]f the mere desire to develop property at a
density allowed under applicable zoning laws is a self-created hardship, then it is doubtful that any variance to
development standards could ever be allowed under... or similar variance standards"
In response Krischenko I, the City of Canby identified "a specific action by petitioner, [that created the hardship] not merely
a general desire to develop property that all variance applicant's presumably share." LUBA stated:
The City apparently understands a "self-created" hardship to exist for purposes of CMC ... when the applicant for
a variance has taken an action in the past that is inconsistent with proposed development of the property that
requires a variance. We cannot say that that view of CMC ... is inconsistent with the text, purpose or policy
underlying that code provision, .... ... the city concluded, petitioner's choice in 2002 to consolidate the two lots to
enlarge his existing backyard was inconsistent with, and had the effect of abandoning any expectation under
common law or the city's variance procedures to obtain future access...
Similarly, the City Council finds and determines that the ALUO variance criteria require that the circumstances or
conditions causing the hardship be willfully or purposely self-imposed. The mere general desire to develop the property
that all applicants share, is not sufficient for willful self-imposition. An affirmative action by the applicant, (like the lot
consolidation in Krishchenko) which occurred in the past, (Le. past tense) which is inconsistent with or creates the
circumstances or conditions is required. In this case, the unusual characteristics of the site, being the surrounding
historic development pattern, the corner location, the bend in N. Main St., the configuration of the lot (shallow depth) and
access to the site have not been created by an affirmative action of the applicant. Therefore, the circumstances
contributing to the request for a variance are not self-imposed. In addition, the ALUO variance criteria are more
permissive than traditional, (Le. variance purposes reference .practical difficulties") as opposed to strict variance terms
such as "necessary for the preservation of property rights."
The City Council expressly disagrees with the interpretation of the variance criterion proffered by opponents as it relates to
self-imposed hardships. The Council finds and determines a hardship is not self imposed merely because there may be
an alternative way to build a development without the specific variance requested. In this case, the alternative plan would
require an administrative variance to address compliance with historic standards. There is no requirement in Chapter
18.100, Variances, to pursue the lesser of competing variances, (e.g. a standard requiring the minimum variance
necessary such as that used in the Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, ALUO 18.72.0890.0,
and Exception to the Street Standards, ALUO 18.88.090). The "minimum variance necessary" is simply not an approval
standard. Similarly, the applicant's stated resignation to the fact that he could develop an alternative, less desirable plan,
and therefore, does "not need this variance", for example, for the preservation of a property right, is not an approval
criterion applicable to the decision. Neither the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the applicant nor the personal desires of
the applicant to maximize use of the property in terms of density and intensity are approval criterion for a variance.
Clearly, in this case, the difference in square footage (intensity) between the plans is inconsequential. This case is not so
crude a choice between compliance with historic standards or compliance with the special setback; the Council strives to
give meaning to each and every provision of the Code, reconciling conflicts between competing provisions when
necessary. The City Council finds and determines that the hardship is not self created in this case. The Council further
finds that when compliance with all the provisions of the City's Development Code creates essentially a no-win situation,
the applicant has not created the hardship. See Sommer v. Josephine County (No self~reated hardship when lot line
adjustment approval condition required rezoning and new zoning district setback precluded proposed development
necessitating variance). The City Council, like the City Planning Commission made an informed decision between
variance alternatives based upon the peculiarities of the site and superior design.
. 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
ofthe City.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 9
A 90F /c:,
The positive benefits of the proposal are maintaining the historic fayade line, streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main
St. The Historic District Design Standards require historic fayade lines of streetscapes to be maintained by locating front
walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. The front fayade line is an important
component in creating a historic development pattern and historic streetscape. If the proposed building is setback 20 feet
from the front property line, the building will be set back further from the street than the existing historic front fayade line on
N. Main St. in the vicinity. As a result, the proposed building setback 20 feet from N. Main St. will stand out from the
historic fayade line and will not be compatible with the historic development pattern.
Another positive benefit of the proposed building location at ten feet from the front property line is maintaining the
streetscape and street enclosure of N. Main St. The proposed building setback at the required 20-foot special setback for
front yards abutting arterials is too far from the sidewalk to provide pedestrians visual interest from the front of the building
or a sense of safety from moving vehicles. The streets that pedestrians find most comfortable and safe feeling are those
where buildings front directly on or near the street. In contrast, when buildings are set farther from the street pedestrians
tend to feel isolated and unprotected. Additionally, the building setback at 20 feet will be further back from the street than
most of the front facades on the east side of N. Main St. in the vicinity thereby making the street more open in this location.
The building front fayade should maintain the historic fayade line because vertical surfaces such as building fronts close
to the street encourage drivers to slow down.
To discount the benefits of the variance, opponents of the variance argue that the historic fayade line is better maintained
without the variance; this argument is based on excluding construction any more recent than 45 years old. As noted
above, the Council rejects this interpretation.
Concerns were also raised that approval of the front yard variance may prevent the installation of bicyde lanes on N. Main
St. at a future date. County and city maps provide general information about the N. Main St. corridor. Based on county
assessor's maps, city aerial maps and the Ashland Street Standards, there appears to be adequate space between the
proposed building and the building on the opposite side of the street at 493 N. Main St. for a future reconstruction of N.
Main St. as a four-lane Boulevard including park rows and bicycle lanes. Accordingly, this cannot be identified as a
negative impact. Additionally, the street corridor is partially located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District (i.e. from the
downtown to Maple St.). The Skidmore Academy Historic District is on the National Historic Register, and the associated
federal regulations could affect street widening projects in listed historic neighborhoods. The 20-foot setback intrudes into
some of the building footprints on both sides of N. Main St. A street widening project could potentially impact the character
of the historic district by reducing front yards and removing historic buildings, and thereby altering the historic development
pattern.
Accordingly, the benefits of the proposed variance will far outweigh any negative impacts on development of adjacent
uses. Finally, the intent and purpose of the variance Chapter includes avoiding practical difficulties caused by strict
application of the requirements of the Code. No use is allowed not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan or Code for
the subject property.
Based on the detailed findings set forth herein, the detailed findings of the Ashland Planning Commission, specifically
incorporated herein by this reference, the findings presented by the applicant, as well as by competent substantial evidence in
the whole record, the Council finds and determines that this criterion is met.
V. QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS
Alleged Bias and Prejudgment
Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor.
The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One
challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris, with supporting evidence, a DVD of
the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock
against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 10
A /0 OF.Jb
Challenoes by Mr. Bullock:
Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal:
Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great
in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance
of impropriety is presenr 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39 1987.
The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous.
This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the
procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The
substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full
and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk Countv. 16 Or lUBA 771. 775 (1988). An allegation of decision maker bias, accompanied
by evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of
Depoe Bay, 39 Or lUBA 702, 710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias.
In Oreaon Entertainment Coro. v. Citv of Beaverton. 38 Or LUBA 440. 445 (2000). aff'd 172 Or APD 361. 19 P3d 918
(2001 ). LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias:
"To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged
the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument
presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].''' (quoting Soierina v. Yamhill Countv. 25 Or LUBA 695. 702
(1993)).
In addition, this burden is significant. That is:
In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a
decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Soarks v. Citv of Sandon. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74
(1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla Countv.
13 Or LUBA 281. 284 (1985). See also Loveiov v. Citv of Deooe Bav. 17 Or lUBA 51.66 (1988).
LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers:
As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected
officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or
LUBA 137,141-44, aff'd 183 OrApp 581,54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. CityofDepoe Bay, 39 Or
LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440,445-47 (2000), affd
172 Or App 361,19 P3d 918 (2001). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part
because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or
76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640
(1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding
individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the
law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law
rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County
(LUBA 2005)
Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both
made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality:
"I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will
make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page II
A - /1 c?F /~
in the record of this proceeding."
Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the
impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B).
The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did
make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code.
Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor
and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Cfatsop County (While
alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in
light of his assertions that d~cision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.)
The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of
Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but
the Mayor and Councilor Jackson both stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the
Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings.
For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although
certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted,
it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the
Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. .viciously attacked") in his
challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other
official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was
arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in
the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr.
Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence
supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him
from speaking and .shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence,
Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and
further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8)
Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman
Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of
written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the
mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's
adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members)
(10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman
Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out
alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park
Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely
unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal
assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from
presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr.
Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and
unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed
Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated.
As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that
Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter
amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson ackhowledged that they had contact and that
she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is
incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the
20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated.
Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His
position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 12
A /~ OF /b
positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he
chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the
proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and
Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be
contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate
in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi-
judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in the
record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear
authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to
Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the
directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial
proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members
of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding
Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him
of rights afforded duly elected members of the Council. The Council finds and determines that this challenge to the
qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded.
It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and
other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or
base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside
such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to
volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a
personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are
inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record
to the applicable standards in the ALUO.
Challenaes bv Mr. Morris:
A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris.
Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the
following statement of impartiality:
"I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will
make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence
in the record of this proceeding."
Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the
impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.100(B). The Council finds
and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their
decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if
any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of
their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. Clatsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a
certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision
maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.)
The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors
in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While
the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the
decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them.
For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgement submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable
verifiable evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission. Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre-
disposition based on public safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 13
A ~5 0:' /~
verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback
over historic standards, an issue in the variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at
the public meeting to call up the appeal, the allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial.
However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing, and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors
would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had, and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the
law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged members are qualified to make the decision and have properly
exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required by law.
VI. FINAL ORDER
In sum, the City Council concludes that the proposal represented in Planning Action 2006-02354, an application for Site Review
approval to an office building, an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property
frontage, and a Variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets has
satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the whole record.
Accordingly, based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the incorporated findings of the Planning
Commission and the findings provided by the applicant, and based upon the evidence in the whole record, the City Council
hereby APPROVES Planning Action #2006-02354, subject to strict compliance with the conditions of approval, set forth
herein. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action #2006-02354 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 the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department prior to building permit submittal, and
the approved plan submitted with the building permit application. Additionally, the placement of any portion of
the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department.
Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance
areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
3) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk improvement shall comply with
approved plans, and submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions
prior to issuance of a building or excavation permit. The concrete color and surface finish shall be the city
standard in accordance with the Ashland Engineering Specifications. Additionally, evidence of approval of
the Oregon Department of Transportation for any work in the jurisdiction of the state shall be submitted
with the engineered construction drawings.
4) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall consist of the City of Ashland's commerciaVhistoric
streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the
public sidewalk along Ashland Street. That the property owner shall install public pedestrian-scaled street
lights to City specifications on the N. Main St. and Glenn St. street frontages.
5) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Building
Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all
public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins.
6) That if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk.
7) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting shall be
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 14
A /;/Or~
installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
8) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as
part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with
those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be
submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
9) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with the requirements of 18.61.200 shall be submitted for review
and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. The Tree Protection Plan shall include
an analysis from the project landscape architect or certified arborist of the impact of the installation of the
pervious paving on the walnut tree to be preserved.
10) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall
be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a
revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building
permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
11) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site
work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation
of tree protection fencing for the walnut tree in the southeast corner of the property. The tree protection
shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B.
12) That public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion
of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering
Division.
13) That the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building shall be at a minimum, the same elevation as the
public sidewalk in front of the building in the N. Main St. right-of-way. Verification of the FFE being at or
above the elevation of the public sidewalk shall be submitted with the building permit for review and
approval by the Staff Advisor.
14) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from N. Main St. Location and screening of
mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
15) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior
of the building.
16) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or
neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited in accordance with
the Detail Site Review Standards.
17) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there
is no direct illumination of surrounding properties.
18) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be
developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That
a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements
of Chapter 18.96.
19) That the building size and number of residential units shall be revised so that the total number of required
off-street parking spaces does not exceed the six spaces provided (Le. five on-site spaces and one on-
street parking credit).
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 15
Ii /~f OF /(,
20) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be
incorporated into the building permit submittals.
21) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including fire apparatus access and fire hydrant
flow requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
22) That the new structure shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land
Use Ordinance. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with the building permit and include the
required setback with the formula calculations, an elevation or cross-section clearly identifying the height
of the solar producing point from natural grade and the solar setback in site plan view called out from the
solar producing point to the north property line.
23) That a seven foot bicycle and pedestrian easement shall be granted to the City of Ashland along North
Main that will allow the city, or designee, to construct, reconstruct, install, use, operate, inspect, repair,
maintain, remove and replace access improvements, including but not limited to street, sidewalk, bike
path and landscaping improvements. (The Applicant agreed to this condition)
Ashland City Council Approval
Date:
1/ft,;b1
~
Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this 5 day of June, 2007
.
Date: .JOt1L,(;",dDD7
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 16
/I /C7 if /~
EXHIBIT B
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
June 19, 2007
In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a
Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story
building for the property located at the southern corner of the )
intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT
the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested ) AND ORDER
to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for )
properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, )
within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. )
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture.
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a
March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review
approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the
intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street.
After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and
a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8,2006. The application was deemed
incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2,
2007.
Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter
18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9,2007,
hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The
application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the
close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and
approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13, 2007,
the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission
findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair
pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new
material facts.
On March 20, 2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed
calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted
to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the
Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the
variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the
discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 1
eX!" <5 - PA~ /,y d"
Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners
and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1,
2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the
Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record
before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was
continued to May 9, 2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the
record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved
the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. On June 5, upon
consideration of the written decision, the Council elected to withdraw its appeal and adopted findings. On June 19, 2007
the Council's findings were reconsidered, and the Council adopted the findings set forth herein. Based upon the evidence
in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described
in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N.
Main 5t. and Glenn 5t.
3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment).
4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant).
III. JURISDICTION
The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement:
Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110):
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions
described in section 18.1 08.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the
appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by
the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant
approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on
the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent
to all parties participating in the appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the
public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main 81. & Glenn 81.
Page 2
.b~;:OFr
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides:
The City Council may "call up" any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority
vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below.
No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period.
The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the
matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows:
Councilor HartzelllNavickas mls that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting
dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with
this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman,
NO. Motion passed 3-1.
The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does
the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to
strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Siuslaw Rod and Gun Club v. Citv of Florence.
{Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that
requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163. 171-72 (2004) BrievoGel v. WashinGton Countv. 24 Or LUBA 63. 68. aff'd 117 Or ADD 195.
843 P2d 982 (1992) McKay Creek Valley Assoc. v. WashinGton County. 16 Or LUBA 690. 693 (1988).
Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2)-(4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section
18.108.110A" The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type II decisions and is subject to
18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides:
The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure,
effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission, unless appealed to the Council as provided in
section 1B. 10B. 110.A. (emphasis added).
Again, no privately initiated appeal was filed in compliance with this section. The only appeal was the City initiated appeal
pursuant to ALUO 18.108.070 (5) which references the Council's ability to "call up" a decision. The council's appeal was
not as representative of any interested party or group. The Council finds and determines that ALUO 18.108.070 (5) is an
independent source of appeal authority and that the appeal requirements and other restrictions in ALUO 18.108.11 OA do
not apply to the Council. By way of explanation, certain of the "appeal" requirements in ALUO 18.108.11 OA simply do not
make sense when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment.
In addition, the provisions of 18.108.11 OA requiring the Council to make a decision on the appeal do not make sense if the
Council is the appellant. Accordingly, the Council finds and determines that the Council has complied with the Code
requirement to hear this appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within the appeal period called the decision up for hearing.
After due consideration and debate of the matter, the Council independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" or "call up " of
Planning Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit
withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. Specifically, the
authority for the Council initiated appeal, ALUO 18.108.070(5), quoted above, does not mandate that the Council "shall"
make the decision on call up. This is in stark contrast to the provisions applicable to a privately initiated appeal pursuant to
ALUO 18.108.11 O.A , which appears to mandate a Council decision on an appeal. Participants in the Council call up
hearing must ascertain for themselves what the requirements of the local code are, and what action is necessary in order
to protect their rights. As the Code does not mandate a decision by the Council as it would a privately initiated appeal, the
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 3
-tj-JOF/'
Council finds and determines that participants could not have reasonably expected that the Council was required to
proceed to a final decision. Based on this distinction in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, the Council believes that the
exhaustion requirement for participants should not be excused by the Council's call up, as distinguished from the rule for
non-appellant local participants in privately initiated appeals. Accordingly, as provided in Section 18.108.070 "[t]he
Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section
18.108. 110.A". As there has been no 18.108.11 O.A appeal to the Council, and the Council has withdrawn its
18.108.070(5) appeal, the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City.
The Council's decision to withdrawal the appeal is advisable and counseled by the fact that the Council was subjected to
extensive ex parte contacts, as reflected in the record, resulting in four (4) of seven (7) members of the decision making
body being challenged for bias and prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council would have had
difficulty acting on the appeal. The Council finds and determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to make
the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this reference.
However, to avoid a wasteful LUBA appeal and further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council voluntarily
withdraws its own appeal of this matter. The record reflects no challenges to the qualifications of Planning Commission
members., accordingly, if exhaustion is excused, and an appeal is had, bias and prejudgment issues should not impact
analysis of the merits. Accordingly, the appeal being withdrawn, the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter and no
provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly, based on the finding set forth herein concerning the voluntary
withdrawal of the appeal by the only appellant, the COUNCIL HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction the Planning Commission's decision is the final decision of the City. The Planning Commission's
decision is also attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
Ashland City Council Approval
Date:
Mayor John W. Morrison
Signature authorized and approved by the full Council this _ day of June, 2007
Approved as to form:
Date:
Ashland Interim City Attorney
INCORPORATED FINDINGS REGARDING QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS
Alleged Bias and Prejudgment
Two parties submitted written bias and prejudgement challenges to the qualifications of Council members and the Mayor.
The speaker request provides that such challenges must be made in writing with supporting documentation. One
challenge to Councilors Hartzell and Navickas was submitted by citizen Mike Morris, with supporting evidence, a DVD of
the City Council's special meeting to consider the appeal. The other challenge was submitted by citizen Art Bullock
against the Mayor and Councilor Kate Jackson and included 17 points against the Mayor and 2 against Councilor Jackson.
Challenaes bv Mr. Bullock:
Mr. Bullock's submittal identifies the following legal standard in his written submittal:
Oregon Supreme Court: "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great
PA 2006-02354
N. Main 81. & Glenn 81.
Page 4
<6 ,,/ OF <f
in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regardless of whether decisions were fair when appearance
of impropriety is present" 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 391987.
The Council finds and determines that the standard identified by Mr. Bullock, the appearance of impropriety, is erroneous.
This is a quasi-judicial decision, not a judicial decision. In a quasi-judicial decision, a local decision maker must follow the
procedures applicable to the matter before it in a manner that does not prejudice the substantial rights' of the parties. The
substantial rights of the parties include 'the rights to an adequate opportunity to prepare and submit their case and a full
and fair hearing.' Muller v. Polk County. 16 Or LUBA 771. 775 (1988). An allegation of decision maker bias, accomoanied
bv evidence of that bias, may be the basis for a remand under ORS 197.835(9)(a)(B). Halvorson Mason Corp. v. City of
Depoe Bay, 39 Or LUBA 702, 710 (2001) Bias as discussed herein includes both prejudgment and personal bias.
In Oreaon Entertainment Coro. v. City of Beaverton. 38 Or LUBA 440. 445 (2000). affd 172 Or ADD 361. 19 P3d 918
(2001 ). LUBA set out the standard for establishing decision maker bias:
"To demonstrate actual bias, 'petitioner has the burden of showing the decision maker was biased, or prejudged
the application, and did not reach a decision by applying relevant standards based on the evidence and argument
presented [during the quasi-judicial proceedings].''' (quoting Svierina v. Yamhill County. 25 Or LUBA 695. 702
(1993)).
In addition, this burden is significant. That is:
In order to succeed in a bias claim, petitioner must establish that the decision maker was incapable of making a
decision based on the evidence and arguments of the parties. Svarks v. City of Bandon. 30 Or LUBA 69. 74
(1995). Further, bias must be demonstrated in a clear and unmistakable manner. Schneider v. Umatilla County.
13 Or LUBA 281. 284 (1985). See also Loveiov v. City of Devoe Bav. 17 Or LUBA 51.66 (1988).
LUBA recently reviewed the impartiality expectations of quasi-judicial decision makers:
As we have explained on many occasions, local quasi-judicial decision makers, who frequently are also elected
officials, are not expected to be entirely free of any bias. Friends of Jacksonville v. City of Jacksonville, 42 Or
LUBA 137, 141-44, affd 183 Or App 581,54 P3d 636 (2002); Halvorson-Mason Corp. v. City of Depoe Bay, 39 Or
LUBA 702, 710 (2001); Oregon Entertainment Corp. v. City of Beaverton, 38 Or LUBA 440, 445-47 (2000), affd
172 Or App 361, 19 P3d 918 (2001). To the contrary, local officials frequently are elected or appointed in part
because they favor or oppose certain types of development. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco Co. Court, 304 Or
76, 82-83, 742 P2d 39 (1987); Eastgate Theatre v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 745, 750-52, 588 P2d 640
(1978). Local decision makers are only expected to (1) put whatever bias they may have to the side when deciding
individual permit applications and (2) engage in the necessary fact finding and attempt to interpret and apply the
law to the facts as they find them so that the ultimate decision is a reflection of their view of the facts and law
rather than a product of any positive or negative bias the decision maker may bring to the process. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. City of Central Point, 49 Or LUBA 697, 709-10 (2005), appeal pending. Heiller v. Josephine County
(LUBA 2005)
Procedurally, after the enumerated bias challenges by Mr. Bullock were summarized, the Mayor and Council Jackson both
made and/or agreed to the following statement of impartiality:
"I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will
make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence
in the record of this proceeding."
Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the
impartiality of the Mayor and Councilor Jackson. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B).
The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and Councilor Jackson are capable of making this decision and did
make their decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 5
&- ~ if ?'
Any bias, if any exists at all, that the Mayor or Councilor Jackson may have had was placed to the side while the Mayor
and Council performed the duties of their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. C/atsop County (While
alleged statements may indicate a certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in
light of his assertions that decision maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.)
The Council finds and determines that Mr. Bullock has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Mayor of
Councilor Jackson in a clear and unmistakable manner. The allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing but
the Mayor and Councilor Jackson both stated the allegations were false and misleading. Several other members of the
Council noted the allegations were completely irrelevant and inappropriate to the proceedings.
For the most part, the allegations submitted by Mr. Bullock are unsupported with reliable verifiable evidence, although
certainly verifiable evidence in the form of City video or audio recordings, findings and minutes could have been submitted,
it was not provided. For example: (1) Mr. Bullock asserts personal attacks against him during the hearing on the
Schofield/Monte Vista LID. Mr. Bullock makes factual assertions and characterizations (e.g. "viciously attacked") in his
challenge, but no record of the Schofield LID proceeding, a public meeting, was submitted. No official minutes or other
official record was submitted. (2) Similarly, Mr. Bullock alleges that his bias challenge in the same proceeding was
arbitrarily limited to three minutes, yet no evidence no support this allegation was submitted. (3) Mr. Bullock also alleges in
the same hearing that he was denied a right to speak on the merits. Again, no evidence was submitted. (4) Again, Mr.
Bullock alleges he was denied a right to make oral presentations of bias and denied his right to speak. No evidence
supports this allegation. (5) Mr. Bullock attributes certain statements to the mayor, including public pressure to stop him
from speaking and "shut him up". No verifiable evidence supports this allegation. (6) Again without verifiable evidence,
Mr. Bullock asserts another personal attack by the Mayor after the close of the record in the Schofield LID project, and
further (7) asserts he had no right to rebut the statements of the mayor made during deliberations in that proceeding. (8)
Mr. Bullock alleged denial of an opportunity to make oral Conflict of Interest challenges from the floor during the Hellman
Bath hearing before the City Council in 2006. No evidence to verify this allegation was submitted, despite the existence of
written findings, minutes and DVD records of the unappealed decision. (9) Mr. Bullock alleges the Council and not the
mayor has the authority to control his conduct at meetings in making oral challenges from the floor. (Despite the Council's
adoption of Roberts Rules of Order and the clear authority of the Presiding Officer to control the conduct of non-members)
(10) Mr. Bullock again asserts the Mayor denied his right to orally make a conflict of interest challenge in the Helman
Baths project. (11) Mr. Bullock identifies an alleged error in the Helman Bath project related to his alleged right to point out
alleged errors from the floor. (12) Mr. Bullock alleges inter alia the mayor conspired to violate the 120 day rule in the Park
Street Condo case and blame him for the delay which led to the mandamus proceeding. These allegations are completely
unsupported. (13) Mr. Bullock alleges he reported misconduct by City employees in 2004 and was subjected to verbal
assaults. His allegations are unsupported by verifiable evidence. (14) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor prevented him from
presenting audio-visual matters in a 2006 meeting. This allegation is not supported with verifiable evidenced. (15) Mr.
Bullock asserts failure of the Mayor to supervise the Public Works Director. The allegation is irrelevant and
unsubstantiated. (16) Mr. Bullock alleges the Mayor is responsible for opposition to Mr. Bullock's position on the proposed
Charter amendment. This allegation is unsubstantiated.
As regards Councilor Jackson, Mr. Bullock makes several allegations, without verifiable supporting evidence, that
Councilor Jackson (1) yelled at him during an encounter while Mr. Bullock was campaigning against the proposed Charter
amendment, a measure Councilor Jackson supported. Councilor Jackson acknowledged that they had contact and that
she was concerned for her safety given Mr. Bullock's behavior. Mr. Bullock also alleges that Councilor Jackson is
incapable of making the decision because she ignores the law and has prejudged this matter because she will ignore the
20 foot setback which is the subject of the variance. This allegation is unsubstantiated.
Mr. Bullock was merely a participant in the proceedings below, and is not the applicant or appellant in this proceeding. His
position in his challenge appears to be that because the Mayor and Councilor Jackson have taken or have political
positions which are contrary to his positions, they should be disqualified from participation in any matter in which he
chooses to participate. In the case of the Mayor, Mr. Bullock's disagreement appears to be primarily in the area of the
proper manner for the conduct of quasi-judicial proceedings. The Council finds and determines that the Mayor and
Councilor Jackson are expected to have political positions as elected public officers. That their positions may at times be
contrary to political positions taken by Mr. Bullock, a citizen of the City of Ashland and that this fact does not demonstrate
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 6
-<3 &OFi
in a clear and unmistakable manner an inability on the part of these elected officials to apply the facts to the law in a quasi-
judicial matter before the City Council. The Councilor and Mayor declared their intent to apply the law to the evidence in
the record and performed their duty. As regards the conduct of public meetings, the Mayor, as presiding officer, has clear
authority to control the conduct of non-members. Nonmembers who disrupt public meeting may be removed pursuant to
Roberts Rules of Order or Criminal statutes. Mr. Bullock is not a member of the governing body, and must comply with the
directions of the presiding officer. That Mr. Bullock feels he should have more opportunity to participate in quasi-judicial
proceedings, specifically to orally making challenges to members or "points of order" from the floor, or question members
of the Council, is not personal bias against Mr. Bullock but simply the normal conduct of a public meeting by the Presiding
Officer. Mr. Bullock, as a non-member, cannot assert bias and prejudice based on denial of the rights and powers to him
of rights afforded duly elected members of the Council. The Council finds and determines that this challenge to the
qualifications of Councilor Jackson and Mayor Morrison is not well founded.
It is unfortunate that at times prejudicial or inflammatory material is introduced into the record of land use proceedings and
other government proceedings. Quasi-judicial decision makers, being human may be tempted to react to such material or
base the decision on improper matters. Accordingly, It is important that decision makers exercise discipline and set aside
such inflammatory or prejudicial matters and exercise their quasi-judicial duties properly. This can be especially difficult to
volunteer Council members in public service, when as in the challenge submitted by Mr. Bullock, is in the manner of a
personal attack. Accordingly, the Council expressly finds and determines that although Mr. Bullocks written materials are
inflammatory and prejudicial, the Council expressly rejects such improper considerations in applying the facts in the record
to the applicable standards in the ALUO.
Challenaes by Mr. Morris:
A prejudgment challenge was made against Councilor's Eric Navickas and Councilor Cate Hartzell by Mike Morris.
Procedurally, after the challenges were summarized, both Councilor Navickas and Hartzell made and/or agreed to the
following statement of impartiality:
"I have not prejudged this application and I am not prejudiced or biased by my prior contacts or involvement; I will
make this decision based solely on the application of the relevant criteria and standards to the facts and evidence
in the record of this proceeding."
Other members of the Council were asked if they accepted the statement and all members did in fact accept the
impartiality of the Councilors. No member requested removal based on ALUO Section 18.108.1 OO(B). The Council finds
and determines that Councilor Hartzell and Councilor Navickas are capable of making this decision and did make their
decision based upon the application of the facts in the record as applied to the relevant standards in the Code. Any bias, if
any exists at all, that the Councilors may have had was placed to the side while the Councilors performed the duties of
their office as related to this quasi-judicial decision. Roberts v. C/atsop County (While alleged statements may indicate a
certain predisposition, that is not enough to provide a basis for reversal or remand, in light of his assertions that decision
maker would consider the application on its merits and vote with an open mind.)
The Council finds and determines that Mr. Morris has not demonstrated bias or prejudgement on the part of the Councilors
in a clear and unmistakable manner, in light of the assertions of impartiality made by the members at the hearing. While
the allegations were not individually addressed at the hearing, both Councilors specifically stated the they would make the
decision based on the applicable law and the evidence before them.
For the most part, the concise allegations of prejudgment submitted by Mr. Morris are well supported with reliable verifiable
evidence, that being the DVD of the City Council's public meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr.
Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code made by Councilor Hartzell which indicate a pre-disposition based on public
safety concerns to maintain the twenty foot special setback. Similarly, Mr. Morris identifies verifiable statements by time code
made by Councilor Navickas which indicate a preference for the twenty foot setback over historic standards, an issue in the
variance portion of the appeal. On the basis of the verifiable statements made at the public meeting to call up the appeal, the
allegations of prejudgment on their face, without more, are substantial. However, in the context of the actual appeal hearing,
and the direct question to the Councilors of whether the Councilors would set aside whatever predisposition or bias they had,
PA 2006-02354
N. Main 81. & Glenn 81.
Page 7
-6 70Ff
and make the decision based upon the facts as applied to the law, the Council finds and determines that the challenged
members are qualified to make the decision and have properly exercised their duties in quasi-judicial proceedings as required
by law.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 8
t3cfa'~
EXHIBIT C
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
June 5, 2007
In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a
Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story
building for the property located at the southern corner of the )
intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT
the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested ) AND ORDER
to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for )
properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, )
within the City of Ashland, Jackson County. Oregon. )
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture.
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a
March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review
approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the
intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street.
After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval. street exceptions and
a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed
incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2,
2007.
Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter
18. Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9.2007;
hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9, 2007. the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The
application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the
close of the publiC hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and
approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13, 2007,
the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit. A" and are specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission
findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair
pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new
material facts.
On March 20, 2007, and on March 23. 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed
calling up the Planning Commission's March 13,2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted
to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney. the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the
Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the
variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the
discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page I
CXT C!.. PA 6~ I (Yo J
,
Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners
and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1,
2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the
Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record
before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was
continued to May 9,2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the
record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved
the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's
action generally upheld the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as
set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described
in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E -OSDA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N.
Main 5t. and Glenn 5t.
3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment).
4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant).
III. JURISDICTION
The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement:
Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110):
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions
described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the
appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by
the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant
approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on
the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent
to all parties participating in the appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the
public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn St.
Page 2
e-~ lYJ
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides:
The City Council may 'call up. any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority
vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period. as outlined below.
No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period.
The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the
matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows:
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting
dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with
this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman,
NO. Motion passed 3-1. .
Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2H4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section
18.108.110.A." However, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) references the Council's ability to "call up' a decision, as distinct from
"appeal.' The Council finds and determines that this provision is an independent source of appeal and that the appeal
requirements of 18.108.11 OA do not apply. In addition, certain of the "appeal" requirements simply do not make sense
when applied to the Council calling up a decision, e.g. specifying error will invite allegations of prejudgment. Accordingly,
the Counc~ finds and determines that the Council has jurisdiction over the appeal, as the Council by majority vote, within
the appeal period called the decision up for hearing.
IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA
1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances.
· The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of
this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way. shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options.
· The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 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.
· The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows:
P A 2006-02354
N. Main 51. & Glenn 51.
Page 3
c -J OF 0'
,
EXHIBIT D
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
June 5, 2007
In the Matter of an Appeal of Planning Action 2006-02354, a
Request for Site Review Approval to Construct a Two-story
building for the property located at the southern comer of the )
intersection of North Main St. and Glenn Street. An exception to ) FINDINGS OF FACT
the street standards is requested to install a curbside sidewalk ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
on the Glenn Street property frontage. A variance is requested ) AND ORDER
to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for )
properties abutting an arterial street from twenty to ten feet, )
within the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. )
Applicant: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture.
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This matter comes before the City Council for the City of Ashland for a de novo appeal hearing. The appeal is from a
March 13, 2007 decision of the City of Ashland Planning Commission approving inter alia a request for a site review
approval, exception to street standards and variance to the special setback on the subject property located at the
intersection of N. Main Street ad Glenn Street.
After a mandatory pre-application conference was held, the subject applications for site review approval, street exceptions and
a variance were filed by the applicant with the Planning Department on December 8, 2006. The application was deemed
incomplete. Additional materials were submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on January 2,
2007.
Notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2007, was mailed, pursuant to Chapter
18, Ashland Land Use Ordinance to area property owners and affected public agencies. Notice of the January 9, 2007,
hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On January 9,2007, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing and considered the oral and written testimony presented, the staff report and the record as a whole. The
application was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 13, 2007. On February 13, 2007, after the
close of the public hearing and process and the close of the record, the City's Planning Commission deliberated and
approved the application, subject to conditions pertaining to appropriate development of the Property. On March 13,2007,
the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of City's Planning Commission were duly signed by the Chairperson of City's
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's findings are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are specifically
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. (In the event of conflict between the Planning Commission
findings and Council findings, Council findings control). An effort was made to request of the Planning Commission Chair
pursuant to Planning Commission rules to bring forth a motion for reconsideration but the Chair declined, citing no new
material facts.
On March 20, 2007, and on March 23, 2007, the Ashland City Council met at duly noticed public meetings and discussed
calling up the Planning Commission's March 13, 2007 decision. Following discussion, by a vote of 3-1, the Council voted
to call up the appeal. As stated by the City Attorney, the reason for the appeal would be to provide guidance to the
Planning Commission on balancing between the special setback standards and the historic standards as they relate to the
variance criteria. The Council finds and determines that this alone is the basis for the Council initiated appeal. Prior to the
discussion, Councilors disclosed ex parte communications and made affirmative statements of impartiality.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main 51. & Glenn 51.
Page I
~ ,..,c'jC"
eX7 ~ ?A(JC / V .
Notification of the de novo public hearing before the City Council was mailed, pursuant to ALUO to area property owners
and affected public agencies. Notice of the appeal hearing was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. On May 1,
2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the City Council chambers; during the public hearing before the
Council, testimony and exhibits were offered and received, in addition to the exhibits and documents reflected in the record
before Council. Pursuant to a request from a citizen the record was left open for seven days and the matter was
continued to May 9,2007. After the conclusion of testimony at the continued hearing, the hearing was closed and the
record was closed. The applicant waived the right to submit final written argument. The Council deliberated and approved
the application in file 2006-02354, with conditions, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council's
action generally upheld the Findings, Conclusions, and Orders of the Planning Commission, with some modifications as
set forth below. Based upon the evidence in the record, the Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions
of law:
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The Nature of Proceedings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2) The subject of Planning Action # 2006-02354 is real property located within the City of Ashland ("City"), and described
in the County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax lot 3600 of 39-1 E-05DA is located at the southern corner of the intersection of N.
Main St. and Glenn St.
3) The zoning of the Property is E-1 (Employment).
4) The applicant in Planning Action # 2006-02354 is: Raymond J. Kistler, Architecture, ("Applicant).
III. JURISDICTION
The May 1, 2007 Council Communication quotes the following ALUO procedural requirement:
Appeal Proceedings (18.108.110):
A. Appeals of Type I decisions for which a hearing has been held, of Type II decisions or of Type III decisions
described in section 18.108.060.A.1 and 2 shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the Appeal Fee at the time the
appeal is filed is a jurisdictional defect.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the
applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by
the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing.
4. The appeal shall be a de novo evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant
approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on
the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent
to all parties participating in the appeal.
P A 2006-02354
N. Main SI. & Glenn St.
Page 2
L)-~ O~ Y'
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the
public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Council, by majority vote.
4. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error.
In addition to the appeal provisions provided above, ALUO 18.108.070 (5) provides:
The City Council may "call up' any planning action for a public hearing and decision upon motion and majority
vote, provided such vote takes place in the required time period, as outlined below.
No appeal was filed by the applicant or by any other person who participated in the public hearing within the appeal period.
The only basis for Council consideration of this action is the Council's own majority vote on March 23, 2007 to appeal the
matter. The Council action on March 23, 2007 was as follows:
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s that Council appeal PA #2006-02354 for a hearing. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Hardesty voiced support for calling this forward. Councilor Chapman shared his concern that they are getting
dangerously close to prejudging this. Councilors Hartzell and Navickas clarified their general concerns are not with
this specific proposal. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Chapman,
NO. Motion passed 3-1.
The record of this proceeding reflects no notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator within the appeal period nor does
the record reflect filing of the standard appeal fee (or transfer of funds) during this period. Unless excused, this failure to
strictly follow the local appeal requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Sius/aw Rod and Gun Club v. City of Florence.
{Where a local filing requirement is "jurisdictional," we stated, neither LUBA nor the local government may disregard that
requirement.) 48 Or LUBA 163.171-72 (2004) Brievoael v. Washinaton County. 24 Or LUBA 63.68. affd 117 Or APD 195.
843 P2d 982 (1992) McKay Creek Vallev Assoc. v. Washinaton County. 16 Or LUBA 690.693 (1988),
Type I, II and III decisions identified in ALUO 18.108.070 (2)-(4) all provide that appeals shall be "as provided in section
18.108.110A" The action approved by the Planning Commission includes Type II decisions and is subject to
18.108.110A. Specifically ALUO 18.108.070(3) provides:
The decision of the Commission is the final decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure,
effective 15 days after the findings adopted by the Commission, unless appealed to the Council as provided in
section 1 B. 108.11 O.A. (emphasis added).
While ALUO 18.108.070 (5) references the Council's ability to "call up" a decision, the City Council finds and determines
that this provision is not an independent source of appeal authority which excuses the Council from strict compliance with
the jurisdictional appeal requirements of 18.108.11 OA. The Planning Commission decision is the final decision of the City
unless appealed to the Council "as provided in section 18.1 OB. 11 O.A ". The Council knows how to clearly excuse itself from
requirements in the Code and chose not to expressly do so in 18.108.11 OA. The provisions of ALUO 18.108.070 (5)
merely add requirements for Council initiated appeals (majority vote within the appeal period). The language used in the
motion to call up the matter was that of "appeal... for a hearing," Finding no authority in the code to excuse compliance
with 18.108.11 OA , the Council finds and determines that the Council did not properly follow its own ordinance in appealing
the Planning Commission decision. Accordingly, the Council has no jurisdiction over the appeal. The jurisdictional
requirements for local appeals not having been met, the Planning Commission decision stands as the final decision of the
City.
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn SI.
Page 3
1J .- ,..5 if Y
In furtherance and support of this determination, the Council also independently "withdraws" its own "appeal" of Planning
Action # 2006-02354. The Council was the only party to "appeal" the decision. The Code does not prohibit withdrawal of
an appeal by an appellant prior to final decision and the Council is the only appellant. The Council's decision to withdrawal
the appeal is counseled by the fact that four of seven members of the decision making body were challenged for bias and
prejudgment. Had such challenges been successful, the Council could not act on the appeal. The Council finds and
determines that the challenged members are in fact qualified to make the decision and adopts the bias and prejudgment
findings set forth below and incorporates them herein by this reference. However, to avoid wasteful LUBA appeal and
further prejudicial challenges and attacks, the Council voluntarily withdraws its own appeal. When an appeal is withdrawn,
the Council loses jurisdiction over the matter and no provision of the Code compels any other result. Accordingly, based
on the finding set forth herein concerning lack of jurisdiction based on ALUO 18.108.11 OA. and the voluntary withdrawal of
the appeal by the only appellant, the appeal is dismissed. In the event, the Council is found to have jurisdiction, and the
withdrawal of the appeal is found not to be effective, the Council sets forth all its findings below, inclusive of bias and
prejudgment challenges.
IV. FINDINGS APPLYING APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA
1) The Council finds and determines that the relevant approval criteria are found in or referenced in the following
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinances.
· The criteria for Site Review approval in 18.72.070 are as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of
this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter
18.88, Performance Standards Options.
· The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in 18.88.090 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.
· The criteria for a Variance in 18.100.020 are as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
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.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
2) The Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public
hearing testimony and the exhibits received, and the whole record.
3) The Council finds and determines that this request for a Site Review approval to construct a two-story building, the
request for an Exception to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on the Glenn St. property frontage and the
request for a variance to reduce the special setback requirement for front yards for properties abutting arterial streets from
twenty to ten feet, meets all applicable criteria for approval described or referenced in the ALUO sections above. This finding
PA 2006-02354
N. Main St. & Glenn SI.
Page 4
iJ - </o:.y
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of Sole-Source Procurement Greater than $75,000 -
Cable Modem Termination System
Meeting Date: July 17, 2007
Department: Information T chnology
Contributing Departments: Legal, e
Approval: Martha Benn
Primary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Secondary Staff Contact:
Estimated Time:
Joseph Franell
franellj@ashland.or.us
N/A
10 Minutes
Statement: This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the Local Contract Review Board, to
enter into a public contract deemed as a Sole-Source Procurement. . The proposed replacement is a Motorola
BSR 64000 CMTS. The Motorola CMTS is the only DOCSIS 2.0 system available that will integrate with our
existing Cable Modem design. This system will provide the features and configurations that we need to provide
the services outlined in our business plan. TVC is the equipment reseller designated to us by Motorola. A Cisco
CMTS option was explored but that CMTS is not currently fully DOCSIS 2.0 compliant.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the purchase of the new CMTS be approved as a sole source action.
Background: Some of the City's key network components are past "end-of-life" and must be replaced
immediately. The most pressing need is the replacement of the Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS). It is
a system of devices located in the cable head-end that allows AFN to offer high-speed Internet access to home
computers. The CMTS sends and receives digital cable modem signals on our cable network, receiving signals
sent upstream from a user's cable modem, converting the signals into IP packets and routing the signals to one of
our Internet Service Providers for connection to the Internet. The CMTS also can send signals downstream to the
user's cable modem. Cable modems cannot communicate directly with each other; they must communicate by
channeling their signals through the CMTS.
Current CMTS New CMTS
Processor Utilization @ 100% Scaleable
DOCSIS 1.1 Compliant 2.0 & Upgradeable
Quality of Service Functionality Minimally Supported Fully Supported
Download Speed 3-5 Mbps Maximum Greater than 10 Mbps
Upload Speed 1 Mbps Maximum Greater than 10 Mbps
Vendor Support (Features, Fixes) No Longer Supported Fully Supported
The new CMTS will allow AFN to provide the next level of internet service with significantly faster speeds and
better quality of service.
Proposal for the Motorola BSR 64000 CMTS: $96,657.84
Funding: Ashland Information Technology Department Capital Budget
r~'
Since the current CMTS is past end of life, replacement parts are no longer readily available, and the
manufacturer no longer services or supports it, the risk of not replacing the CMTS at this time is that we could
have an unrecoverable, catastrophic failure of the system.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code 2.50.075 Sole Source
The appropriate department head shall determine when there is only one seller or price of a product of the
quality required available within a reasonable purchase area. To the extent reasonably practical, the appropriate
department head shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms advantageous to the contracting
agency. The determination of a sole source must be based on written findings that may include:
(1) That the efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition of compatible goods or
services;
(2) That the goods or services required for the exchange of software or data with other public or private agencies
are available from only one source;
(3) That the goods or services are for use in a pilot or an experimental project; or
(4) Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from only one
source.
Council Options:
The Council can approve this request to deem it in the best public interest to accept this public contract as a sole-
source procurement or deny the contract as a sole-source procurement.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the purchase of the new CMTS be approved as a sole source action.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to approve the attached requisition as a sole-source procurement with TVC for a new Cable
Modem Termination System.
Council denies approval of the sole-source requisition with TVC for a Cable Modem Termination System and
requests staff to follow the procedure for competitive bidding.
Attachments:
Requisition for purchase of new CMTS
CMTS Quote
rA'
ATTN. Chad Sobotka
City Of Ashland (Ashland Fiber)
90 North Mountain
Ashland, OR 97520
541-552.2222
VERSION:
2.00
~...;
~
VERSION:
July 11, 2007
MIAMI OFFICE
2105 NW 102nd AVE
DORAL, FL 33172
For further infonnation olease contact:
Yolanda Solis
Ysolis@tvcinc.com
T. (305) 716-2179
Fx. (305) 716-2191
. MOTOROLA
PROPOSAL MOTOROLA BSR6400 WITH DOCSIS 2.0 A-TDMA 2x8 CARDS
ITEM QUANTITY KIT PARTI TVC PRODUCT COMPONENT UNIT PRICE sYsTEM (EXTENDED)
CODE PRICE
1 1 88800014900 TVC . BSR 84000 BASE KIT $ 26.730.00 $ 26.730.00
0 INCLUDED 495539-00 1-00 BSR 64000 HIGH DENSITY CHASSIS MOT BCS $ 11.140.00
0 INCLUDED 486764-001-00 BSR 64000 HD System Controller - BSR Supervisory Routing Module $ 15,590.00
2 0 N/A 486777-oo1-RB BSR 64000 Single Mode Gigabit Ethernet Trunk Module (B-Stock) $ 12,320.00 $
3 1 N/A 493710-oo1-RB BSR 64000 MultiMode Gigabtt Ethernet Trunk Module (B-Stock) $ 12,320.00 $ 12,320.00
4 0 N/A 486778-oo1-RB BSR 64000 101100 Base-TX Ethernet Trunk Module (B-Stock) $ 12.320.00 $
5 0 N/A 493710-001-00 BSR 64000 MultiMode Gigabit Ethernet Trunk Module $ 18.420.00 $
8 4 N/A 486815-001-Re BSR 64000 Hiah Density 2:8 DOCSIS 1.0/1.1/2.0 A-TDMA RF Module (B--Stack) $ 12,000.00 $ 48,000.00
7 0 N/A 486765-001-00 BSR Redundant Supervisory Routing Module $ 21,160.00 $
8 0 N/A 486778-001-00 BSR 64000 101100 Base- TX Ethernet Trunk Module $ 16,420.00 $
9 0 N/A 488272-001-RB BSR 64000 Hiah Densitv Redundant 2:8 DOCSIS 1.0/1 112.0 A-TDMA RF Module (B--Stock $ 31.500.00 $
10 1 N/A 486850-002-00 Tyco NP1200 AG-Io-DC Carrier Class, Power Converter $ 2,400.00 $ 2.400.00
11 1 N/A 502729-00 1-00 Power Cord Set for the NP1200 AC-to-DC Power Converter 3 wire, 2.7 meters, 250 V $ 48.00 $ 48.00
SUB TOTAL BSR SYSTEM $ 89,498.00
12
N/A
486860-001-00
PREMIUM MAINTENANCE 1.YEAR (Mandatory) . 8% of Total Cost of Equipment
7,159.84
TOTAL BSR SYSTEM
98,857.84 1
13 0 N/A 486883-001-00 BSR 64000 OPERATION - 3 DAY TRAINING $ 1,920.00 $
14 1 N/A 486864-001-00 BSR 64000 ADVANCED - 5 DAY TRAINING $ 3,200.00 $ 3.200.00
15 0 N/A 486885-001-00 ON-SITE TRAINING (8 Person Minimum Cost) $ 1,920.00 $
16 1 N/A TVCSUPPORT INSTALLATION 1.Week (Travel and Living Expenses Not Included) $ 6.500.00 $ 6,500.00
SUB TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 9.700.00
ITOTAL
1$
106,357.841
PRICE: US DOLLARS, EXWORKS MOTOROLA PLANT AND/OR TVC WAREHOUSE MIAMI
PURCHASE ORDERS: PLEASE SEND TO 305-716-2191 ATTENTION YOLANDA SOLIS (YSOLlS@TVCINC.COM)
PAYMENT TERMS: TO BE DETERMINED
DELIVERY TIME: TO BE CONFIRMED, B-STOCK SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY.
OFFER VALID FOR 10 DAYS.
NOTE: NOT CANCELLABLE ORDER. 20% RE-5TOCKING FEE + SHIPPING AND HANDLING COSTS APPLY.
TRAINING:
. COST PER PERSON.
. HELD IN MOTOROLA TRAINING CENTER. TO BE COORDINATED WITH CUSTOMER.
. CUSTOMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAVEL AND LIVING EXPENSES.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
. TVC WILL DELIVER A SOW TO BE AGREED WITH CUSTOMER PRIOR THE DELIVERY.
. THE DURATION OF THE SERVICES ARE ESTIMATED, TO BE CONFIRMED AFTER TECH. ASSESSMENT
. TRAVEL EXPENSES NOT INCLUDED.
- PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, TVC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC-
A request for a Purchase Order
REQUISITION FORM
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Date of Request:
THIS REQUEST IS A:
o Change Order(existing PO #
Required Date of DeHverylService:
Vendor Name
Address
City, state, Zip
Telephone Number
Fax Number
Contact Name
TVC Communications
2105 NW 102M AVE
Doral, FL 33172
305-716-2187
Ricardo Simpson
SOLICITATION PROCESS
Small Procurement ~ Sole Source o Invitation to BId
o Less than $5,000 ~ Written findings attached (Copies on file)
o Quotes (Not required)
CoooeratlYe Procurement o Reauest for Prooosal
o State of ORfoNA contract (Copies on file)
intermediate Procurement o Other government agency contract ~ SDeclall ExemDt
o (3) Written Quotes o Copy of contract attached o Written findings attached
(Copies attached) Q Emeraencv
o Contract # o Written findings attached
o Per attached PROPOSAL
Description of SERVICES
Item 1# Quantity Unit
Description of MATERIALS
BSR 64000 CMTS Router
Unit Price
Total Coat
$96,657.84
Project Number ______. ___
o Per attached QUOTE
Account Number~"''- .(J~1J1.fliZ.10Jgp_O
· Items and services must be charged to the appropriate account numbers for the fin8flCials to reflect the ectua/ expenditures accurately.
By signing this requisition fomJ, I C8Itify that the information provided above meets the City of Ashland public contracting requirements,
andl/Je doamenIaIion CM beprovidod l4JOII roquest. ~ A)
Employee Slgnal1n: ~ Suporvlsor/Dept. Head Slgn~~
G: Finenoe\ProcedlJtelAP\\8_Reclulslllon form revised.cloc updated on: 711112007
Detailed itemization of decision to by CMTS from Motorola
07/13/07
Specifications:
1. Current Technology
2. DOCSIS 2.0 compliant as designated by "Cable Labs"
3. Integrates as seamlessly as possible with our current Activation/Management syst.em
The only currently designated Docsis 2.0 compliant CMTS Systems are:
Motorola
Bigband Networks
Motorola
Arris
Arris
2MOT042I
2BIGB341
2MOT0301
2ARRI29I
2ARRI28I
BSR 2000
Cuda 12000 (CI2-DM2x8-2.0
BSR 64000
C4-CMTS- 2100-1
710622
1.0.0TOIP24.TRAU
R6.0.0
4.1.0T04P 15 .KRAU
CMTS_ Y04.00.00.104
4.0.1.45
520025-001-00 Rev 4
Rev 4
CHS-0009-01
2.0
04
Our research has determined that the Bigband and Arris systems would be more difficult for us to
integrate with the CMTS Activation system that we have designed to work with our current Cisco
CMTS systems (most activation systems are off the shelf, and designed for a specific CMTS) and
therefore require much more implementation and personnel time than the Motorola system that mimics
the Cisco system in many ways while providing us with Docsis 2.0 and current technology.
Therefore we contacted Motorola to find out whom we should contact about purchase of their
equipment. They assigned us to TVC Communications who is a V AR (Value Added Reseller) for
Motorola (emails to that effect attached). We then discussed with TVC what the specifications would
need to be for our implementation and received quotes from them.
Richard Holbo
AFN Network Operations
From: Oneill Brian-MGIA0221 [mailto:brianoneill@motorola.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26,2007 12:52 PM
To: Chad Sobotka; Ricardo Simpson
Subject: RE: CMTS Router
Chad,
Mike Cookish asked for some assistance in getting you the support for this.
Let me introduce Ricardo Simpson ofTVC. TVC is Motorola's primary V AR
for the BSR product line.
Thank you,
Brian O'Neill
Motorola
Ph: + 1 (215) 323-2079
Cell: + 1 (267) 228-3045
brianoneill@motorola.com
From: Chad Sobotka [mailto:chad@ashlandfiber.net]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 12:25 PM
To: Cookish Michael-MGIA0468
Cc: Oneill Brian-MGIA0221; Mawyer Colleen-MGI0473; Baile Daniel-MGI0488
Subject: RE: CMTS Router
Thanks for the reply. We currently have three CMTS routers with 1760, 1830,
and 120 subscribers. We want to build a new system that can comfortably
handle 8,000 subscribers with QOS. The only additional services we offer is
VOIP. This is a city wide fiber network; the population is about 40,000.
According to our terms of service our cable modem network is described as
"best effort". We offer no warranty on availability of the service.
However we would like a quote with redundant options and a quote without.
Yes we will need an AC to DC power converter.
Our purchase time frame is ASAP. Weare trying to get all of our new
equipment installed by Aug 1.
Thanks,
Chad Sobotka
-----Original Message-----
From: Cookish Michael-MGIA0468 [mailto:mcookish@motorola.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:34 AM
To: chad@ashlandfiber.net
Cc: Oneill Brian-MGIA0221; Mawyer Colleen-MGI0473; Baile Daniel-MGI0488
Subject: Rd: CMTS Router
Chad,
Thank you very much for your inquiry into the Motorola BSR CMTS product
Family. We would be happy to generate a quote for you. A few questions if
I may so that we can provide an accurate quote and so that we can have our
sales team work with you to provide you with the highest level of support.
* How many subscribers do you normally load onto a single Downstream
currently? We will use this to properly size our recommendation. Do you
see this number changing in the future?
* How many total subscribers are you looking to place on a next
generation system; how large is the opportunity?
*
Do want the following redundancy options to be quoted?
*
Management Module
*
Backbone Networking Module
*
CMTS Module
* The BSR 64000 is powered by -48 VDC. Do you have this power in your
head-end or do you need an AC-to-DC Power converter?
*
What is your purchase time frame?
Thanks,
Thanks,
Mike Cookish
Michael Cookish
Director of Product Management
Connected Home Solutions
Motorola Corporation
111 Locke Drive
Marlborough, MA 01752
Email: mcookish@motorola.com
Desk: 508-786-7639
Mobile: 978-870-7880
Fax: 508-480-6338
-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Sobotka [ <mailto:chad@ashlandfiber.net>
mailto :chad@ashlandfiber.net]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 5:08 PM
To: Baile Daniel-MGI0488
Subject: CMTS Routers
Dan,
I am the network administrator for a city owned fiber network. We currently
are using Cisco 7200 CMTS routers. We are in the process of upgrading our
network and are looking into DOCSIS 2.0 compatible routers. We have about
5,000 subscribers and want to put a solution into place that will handle up
to 8,000 subscribers with room to grow. Can you provide a quote on a CMTS
router that will accommodate our needs?
Thanks,
Chad Sobotka
541.552.2402
Thanks,
Mike Cookish
Michael Cookish
Director of Product Management
Connected Home Solutions
Motorola Corporation
111 Locke Drive
Marlborough, MA 01752
Email: mcookish@motorola.com
Desk: 508-786-7639
Mobile: 978-870-7880
Fax: 508-480-6338
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Martha Bennett
Diana Shiplet
7/16/200711:34:19AM
[Fwd: RE: CMTS Router]
Diana - Please attach to the Council Communication for the CMTS Sole Source approval. With this, it is
okay to go to Council.
Martha
>>> "Richard Holbo" <holbor@ashlandfiber.net> 07/16/07 11 :30 AM >>>
---------------------------- 0 ri gin a I M essag e ----------------------------
Subject: RE: CMTS Router
From: "Oneill Brian-MGIA0221" <brianoneill@motorola.com>
Date: Mon, July 16, 200711:10 am
To: "Chad Sobotka" <chad@ashlandfiber.net>
Cc: "Chawla Sudsy-MGI1344" <schawla@motorola.com>
Chad,
TVC is our value added reseller of Motorola's BSR product line in the U.S.
Do to the complexity of the product, we focus on only one partner rather
than spread ourselves too thin. As such, they receive our best pricing.
Thank you,
Brian O'Neill
Motorola
Ph: +1 (215) 323-2079
Cell: +1 (267) 228-3045
brianoneill@motorola.com
From: Chad Sobotka [mailto:chad@ashlandfiber.netl
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 1 :55 PM
To: Oneill Brian-MGIA0221
Subject: RE: CMTS Router
Brian,
We have received a quote from Ricardo for the BSR 64000. The numbers look
great and we are planning on moving forward. However, because this is for
government use we are supposed to get multiple quotes. How many other
vendors do you have for the BSR product line?
Thanks,
Chad Sobotka
541-552-2402
-----Original Message-----
From: Oneill Brian-MGIA0221 [mailto:brianoneill@motorola.coml
Sent: Tuesday, June 26,200712:52 PM
To: Chad Sobotka; Ricardo Simpson
Subject: RE: CMTS Router
Chad,
Mike Cookish asked for some assistance in getting you the support for
this. Let me introduce Ricardo Simpson of TVC. TVC is Motorola's primary
VAR for the BSR product line.
Thank you,
Brian O'Neill
Motorola
Ph: +1 (215) 323-2079
Cell: +1 (267) 228-3045
brianoneill@motorola.com
From: Chad Sobotka [mailto:chad@ashlandfiber.netl
Sent: Monday, June 25,200712:25 PM
To: Cookish Michael-MGIA0468
Cc: Oneill Brian-MGIA0221; Mawyer Colleen-MGI0473; Baile Daniel-MGl0488
Subject: RE: CMTS Router
Thanks for the reply. We currently have three CMTS routers with 1760,
1830, and 120 subscribers. We want to build a new system that can
comfortably handle 8,000 subscribers with QOS. The only additional
services we offer is VOIP. This is a city wide fiber network; the
population is about 40,000.
According to our terms of service our cable modem network is described as
"best effort". We offer no warranty on availability of the service.
However we would like a quote with redundant options and a quote without.
Yes we will need an AC to DC power converter.
Our purchase time frame is ASAP. We are trying to get all of our new
equipment installed by Aug 1.
Thanks,
Chad Sobotka
-----Original Message-----
From: Cookish Michael-MGIA0468 [mailto:mcookish@motorola.coml
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:34 AM
To: chad@ashlandfiber.net
Cc: Oneill Brian-MGIA0221; Mawyer Colleen-MGI0473; Baile Daniel-MGl0488
Subject: Rd: CMTS Router
Chad,
Thank you very much for your inquiry into the Motorola BSR CMTS product
Family. We would be happy to generate a quote for you. A few questions
if I may so that we can provide an accurate quote and so that we can have
our sales team work with you to provide you with the highest level of
support.
* How many subscribers do you normally load onto a single Downstream
currently? We will use this to properly size our recommendation. Do you
see this number changing in the future?
* How many total subscribers are you looking to place on a next
generation system; how large is the opportunity?
*
Do want the following redundancy options to be quoted?
*
Management Module
*
Backbone Networking Module
*
CMTS Module
* The BSR 64000 is powered by -48 VDC. Do you have this power in your
head-end or do you need an AC-to-DC Power converter?
*
What is your purchase time frame?
Thanks,
Thanks,
Mike Cookish
Michael Cookish
Director of Product Management
Connected Home Solutions
Motorola Corporation
111 Locke Drive
Marlborough, MA 01752
Email: mcookish@motorola.com
Desk: 508-786-7639
Mobile: 978-870-7880
Fax: 508-480-6338
-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Sobotka [ <mailto:chad@ashlandfiber.net>
mailto:chad@ashlandfiber.netl
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 5:08 PM
To: Baile Daniel-MGl0488
Subject: CMTS Routers
Dan,
I am the network administrator for a city owned fiber network. We
currently are using Cisco 7200 CMTS routers. We are in the process of
upgrading our network and are looking into DOCSIS 2.0 compatible routers.
We have about 5,000 subscribers and want to put a solution into place that
will handle up to 8,000 subscribers with room to grow. Can you provide a
quote on a CMTS router that will accommodate our needs?
Thanks,
Chad Sobotka
541.552.2402
Thanks,
Mike Cookish
Michael Cookish
Director of Product Management
Connected Home Solutions
Motorola Corporation
111 Locke Drive
Marlborough, MA 01752
Email: mcookish@motorola.com
Desk: 508-786-7639
Mobile: 978-870-7880
Fax: 508-480-6338
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Resolution amending the pay schedule and Clarifying Conditions of Employment for
Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2007-2008
Meeting Date:
Department:
Contributing Depts.:
Approval:
July 17,2007
Administration
None
Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact:
Secondary Staff Contact:
Tina Gray, 552-2101
grayt@ashland.or.us
Martha Bennett, 552-2103
bennetm@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 has been revised to correct job classifications in Appendix A.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the pay schedule for
Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. 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. Staff is recommending an additional 6.23%
adjustment to the wages for the job classification of Police Sergeant for a total increase of 10.23%.
The Sergeants have been experiencing wage compression with Police Officers and the situation has
worsened as a result of the 2006 contract settlement with the Ashland Police Association.
Staff has calculated the increase of 4.5546% for the elected Municipal Judge and City Recorder
based upon requirements of the City Charter.
Background:
In FY 2006 the City settled contracts with the Police and Fire bargaining units and we are now in
the second year of a contract with the IBEW Electrical union. These three bargaining units
required catch-up to bring them up to the average wage of their comparators. The July 1,2007
COLA for these 3 bargaining units is 5% by contract. The remaining bargaining groups are in
the final years of their contracts and did not require any wage catch-up. The increases for the
IBEW Clerical Technical employees and the Laborers are based upon the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) and will be 3.1 %. The most recent CPI data is 2.8% for May.
r~'
The budget that was approved for fiscal year 2007-2008 included a 4% increase for the non-
represented employees of the City.
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
including Fire Division Chief, Community Development Director, and most recently City
Attorney. 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
4.5546%, and approve 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 # I authorizing staff to adjust wages for all non-represented Management
and Confidential employees by 4% effective retroactive to July I, 2007, and make corrections to
Management Resolution regarding employment conditions for Management and Confidential
employees.
Attachments:
. Resolution amending the pay schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for
Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
. Revised Resolution clarifying certain conditions of employment for Management and
Confidential employees.
. Salary Schedule including proposed adjustments.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008.
RECITALS:
1. The wage adjustment for three of five City Labor unions has been set at 5% based upon
contractual agreement.
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 1,2007.
SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be increased by
4.5546%, 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 s2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of ,2007.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of
,2007.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
FOR 2006-2007
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
4% COLA
501
Step A - First 6 Months $52.9521 $9,178 $55.0702 $9,545
Step B - Next 12 Months $55.5954 $9,637 $57.8193 $10,022
Step C - Next 12 Months $57.8227 $10,023 $60.1356 $10,423
Step D - Next 12 Monts $60.1355 $10,423 $62.5410 $10,840
Step E - Thereafter $62.5341 $10,839 $65.0355 $11,273
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9939 $8,319
504
'"
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9939 $8,319
505
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9939 $8,319
506"-=1II!Irr-"!
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9939 $8,319
5071, . 1t':Illln _._." .m, flil"~..lr' . ".<<' ,
"
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9939 $8,319
508
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9939 $8,319
509
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9939 $8,319
510_ liB --.. T,(~iIIIIW'lli""''''w'! .
It :::::,~, ~,' ::.~ ~ ; "mflV.t~_: '
Step A - First 6 Months $41.0572 $7,117 $42.6995 $7,401
Step B - Next 12 Months $42.6847 $7,399 $44.3921 $7,695
Step C - Next 12 Months $44.3858 $7,694 $46.1612 $8,001
Step D - Thereafter $46.1480 $7,999 $47.9940 $8,319
Last Revised: 311107 Added Perm" Cen.. Manager
Last Increase Aoolied:
4% COLA all classifications
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
FOR 2006.2007
4% COLA
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
$36.4156
$37.9329
$39.4502
$41.0291
$6,312
$6,575
$6,838
$7,112
$37.8722
$39.4502
$41.0282
$42.6703
$6,565
$6,838
$7,112
$7,396
MID-MGMT/SUPERVISORY CaNT...
511
503-' ~~V,
. ........ '" %~
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
$36.2139
$37.7222
$39.2317
$40.7999
Step A - First 6 Months $30.2012 $5,235 $31.4092 $5,444
Step B - Next 12 Months $31.7953 $5,511 $33.0671 $5,732
Step C - Next 12 Months $33.4635 $5,800 $34.8020 $6,032
Step D - Thereafter $35 2306 $6,107 $36.6398 $6,351
523 'Ill .....~!1fZ1 ._I!liliW
-W~^,:: .:, de;j8j,,",~:WLWi\
Step A - First 6 Months $28.3648 $4,917 $31.2693 $5,420
Step B - Next 12 Months $29.5466 $5,121 $32.5722 $5,646
Step C - Next 12 Months $30.7285 $5,326 $33.8751 $5,872
Step D - Thereafter $31.9507 $5,538 $35.2224 $6,105
530
Step A - First 6 Months $29.8675 $5,177 $31.0622 $5,384
Step B - Next 12 Months $31.0538 $5,383 $32.2959 $5,598
Step C - Next 12 Months $32.2772 $5,595 $33.5683 $5,818
Step D - Next 12 Months $33.5624 $5,817 $34.9049 $6,050
Step E - Thereafter $34.9049 $6,050 $36.3011 $6,292
Step A - First 6 Months
Step B - Next 12 Months
Step C - Next 12 Months
Step D - Thereafter
$28.9877
$30.1955
$31.4034
$32.6552
$5,025
$5,234
$5,443
$5,660
$30.1472
$31.4034
$32.6595
$33.9614
$5,226
$5,443
$5,661
$5,887
last Revised: 311107 Added PermttCenter Manager
Last Increase Aoclied:
4% COLA all classifications
2
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
FOR 2006-2007
4% COLA
4% COLA
MID-MGMT.lSUPERVISORY CaNT..
554, _" ,I"
_m, "",,,,11l1li1111%,'
Step A - First 6 Months $26,1809 $4,538 $27.2282 $4,720
Step B - Next 12 Months $27A859 $4,764 $28.5853 $4,955
Step C - Next 12 Months $28.8608 $5,003 $30.0152 $5,203
Step D - Next 12 Months $30.2994 $5,252 $31.5113 $5,462
Step E - Thereafter $31.8143 $5,514 $33.0869 $5,735
521
Step A - First 6 Months $27.8719 $4,831 $28.9867 $5,024
Step B - Next 12 Months $29.0337 $5,032 $30.1950 $5,234
Step C - Next 12 Months $30.1950 $5,234 $31.4028 $5,443
Step D - Thereafter $31.3945 $5,442 $32.6502 $5,659
543
542
Step A - First 6 Months $25.9255 $4,494 $26.9626 $4,674
Step B - Next 12 Months $26.9513 $4,672 $28.0293 $4,858
Step C - Next 12 Months $28.0263 $4,858 $29.1473 $5,052
Step D - Thereafter $29.1385 $5,051 $30.3040 $5,253
557 ,oo
Step A - First 6 Months $24.8538 $4,308 $25.8480 $4,480
Step B - Next 12 Months $26.1635 $4,535 $27.2100 $4,716
Step C - Next 12 Months $27.5365 $4,773 $28.6380 $4,964
Step D - Thereafter $28.9904 $5,025 $30.1500 $5,226
Step A - First 6 Months $22.8237 $3,956 $23.7367 $4,114
Step B - Next 12 Months $23.9528 $4,152 $24.9109 $4,318
Step C - Next 12 Months $25.1668 $4,362 $26.1734 $4,537
Step D - Next 12 Months $26A293 $4,581 $27.4865 $4,764
Step E - Thereafter $27.7405 $4,808 $28.8501 $5,001
528
549
527
529
557
524
Step A - First 6 Months $24A180 $4,232 $25.3947 $4,402
Step B - Next 12 Months $25.3818 $4,400 $26.3971 $4,575
Step C - Next 12 Months $26A075 $4,577 $27.4638 $4,760
Step D - Thereafter $27A579 $4,759 $28.5562 $4,950
Last Revised: 311107 Added p~t Center M_naaer
Last Increase Aoolied:
4% COLA all classifications
3
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL
Salary Schedule
FOR 2006-2007
4% COLA
4% COLA
MID-MGMTlSUPERVISORY CO NT..
546
547
Step A - First 6 Months $20.6401 $3,578 $21.4657 $3,721
Step B - Next 12 Months $21.4638 $3,720 $22.3223 $3,869
Step C - Next 12 Months $22.3220 $3,869 $23.2149 $4,024
Step 0 - Next 12 Months $23.2149 $4,024 $24.1435 $4,185
531
Step A - First 6 Months $19.1167 $3,314 $19.8813 $3,446
Step B - Next 12 Months $19.8828 $3,446 $20.6781 $3,584
Step C - Next 12 Months $20.6737 $3,583 $21.5007 $3,727
Step 0 - Next 12 Months $21 4893 $3,725 $22.3489 $3,874
4% COLA 4% COLA
536
545
CONFIDENTIAL
534
Step A - First 6 Months $15.1844 $2,632 $15.7917 $2,737
Step B - Next 12 Months $15.9483 $2,764 $16.5863 $2,875
Step C - Next 12 Months $16.7438 $2,902 $17.4136 $3,018
Step 0 - Next 12 Months $175646 $3,045 $18.2672 $3,166
Step E - Thereafter $18.4359 $3,196 $19.1733 $3,323
i::
537
Step A - First 6 Months $14.1317 $2,449 $14.6970
Step B - Next 12 Months $14.8313 $2,571 $15.4246 $2,674
Step C - Next 12 Months $15.5563 $2,696 $16.1786 $2,804
Step 0 - Next 12 Months $16.3323 $2,831 $16.9855 $2,944
Step E - Thereafter $17.1463 $2,972 $17.8322 $3,091
ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Recorder
.....~Pi.--
". . """ 7t,W?' " , , "Sffi
JI-_
Municipal Judge
~
elll
"~-
5.10% COLA calculated
per City Charter
4.5546 % 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 eamings may differ from those quoted above.
LAst Revised: 311107 Added Permit Cen.... Manager
Last Increase Aoolied:
4% COLA all classifications
4
RESOLUTION NO. 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND CLARIFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION 2006-16 AND 2006-20.
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. This 2007 resolution shall apply to all management and
confidential employees of the City of Ashland as set forth in Appendix "A", dated July
2007. 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
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."
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION
G:lcity-adminlpersonneIlUNIONIMANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007107 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
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 Employee. A person in any of the classifications listed in Appendix "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 Employee. 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.
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.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.
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-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
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 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 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-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
4.4.3. Coordinatinq. 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 Makinq/Problem Solvinq. 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. Budqetinq. 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.
PAGE 5-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
5. Holidays. Recognized holidays are set forth in AMC 93.08.080. 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 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 Employees.
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.
PAGE 6-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.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 1 9 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 1 9 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 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. 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:lcity-adminlpersonneIIUNIONIMANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.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 lS 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 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.
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
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.
PAGE 8-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
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 off 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
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 wm 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.
PAGE 9-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
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 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. 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.
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:lcity-adminlpersonneI\UNIONIMANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIALI2007107 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.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 93.08.030.8 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 Employee 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.
PAGE 11-RESOLUTION
G:lcity-adminlpersonneIIUNIONIMANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIALI2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.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 Employment. 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. 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.
PAGE 12-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
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 in accordance with sections 3.08.050 and
3.08.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
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.
PAGE 13-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
17. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective as of July 011, 2007.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 92.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of July, 2007.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of July, 2007.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney
PAGE 14-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
APPENDIX "A" Classifications in the Management and Confidential Employee Groups
MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
City Administrator
Exempt
City Attorney
Police Chief
Exempt
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
DIVISION SUPERVISORS
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 15-RESOLUTION
G:lcity-adminlpersonneIIUNIONIMANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
User Support Administrator
Assistant City Attorney
Exempt
Exempt
Permit Center Manager
Projoct/Courts Manager
Fire Inspector
Exempt
Exempt
MID-LEVEL SUPERVISORS
Police Sergeant
Non-Exempt
Water Plant Supervisor
Non-Exempt
Water Quality Supervisor (Distribution)
Wastewater & Water Reuse Supervisor (Collection Plant)
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Associate Engineer
GIS Analyst
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Forest Resource Specialist
Non-Exempt
Maintenance Safety Supervisor
Non-Exempt
Street Supervisor
Police Records Supervisor
Police Administrative Services Manager
Police Accreditation & Training Manager
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
T elecommunications/Computer Technician
Non-Exempt
Paralegal
Legal Assistant/Claims ManagereAt
C.E.R.T. Coordinator
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
CONFIDENTIAL
Executive Secretary
Non-Exempt
Public Works Management Assistant
Human Resource Assistant
Non-Exempt
Non-Exempt
Legal Secrotary
Wen Exempt
Administrative Assistant/Secretary
Non-Exempt
Administrative Secretary
Non-Exempt
Socrotary
Wen Exempt
PAGE 16-RESOLUTION
G:lcity-adminlpersonneIIUNIONIMANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.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 Lon91 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 23i7.071 for
employees at a uniform rate of six percent.
PAGE 17-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
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~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 18-RESOLUTION
G:\city-admin\personnel\UNION\MANAGEMENT.CONFIDENTIAL\2007\07 Management Resolution with all updates 7.07.doc
z
o
~
ms:
~ c:
g s:
~ (C
~ ~
s:
<0
~
om
o (i)
~~
g- ~.
::l
-
![
,-eos:
III Q. (i) c:
g n' .....0-. ::l
CD CD Q) '-
Ul ::j a
(1)<0
o (1)
::r?;o
~iii
::o~
~ g;
Q ~
c. o'
(1) ::l
..... en
r-
III
0-
o
CD
......
(Jl
c
=>
0"
=>
CD
(")
CD
<'
CD
Co
III
-
![
Co
Q.
~
III
3
o
c:
3-
CD
.a
c:
<"
III
CD
3-
0"
w
'#.
'"
",wwww(p~ww
0,0000W0100,
000000000
'#.~cf!.?f!.'if!.?f!.?f!.?f!?f!.
o
o
~
o
'"
"''''W'''W~'''W'''
OONON"'ONO
000000000
?f!cf!.?f!.cf!.cf!.?f!.cf!.cf!.cf!.
'"
o
o
*"
W
WWWWWWW"'W
00000010100
OOOOOtOooo
?f!.cf!.'Cf!.cf!.?f!.?f!.cf!.cf.?f!.
W
W W W '" 0, W W W
0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" '"
0 01
0 0
~ ~
0 0
~ ~ ~ (j) ~ ~ ~ W 01
......
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
~ .j:l. ~ 01 ~ 0, .j:l. 01 01
0 0 0 ...... 01 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'" '" '" '" '" W
01 !'l (j) 00 00 0
(p ...... Co N (p 0,
0 0 0 01 0 0
0 0 0 .j:l. 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0
o
0,
o
~
o
""
::;. ::;.
(1) (1)
oc5'
III ::r
"'0 -
_(1)
III :::t
5' "'0
en III
.....
III
3
(1)
0..
o'
'"
o
o
*"
"
o
;:
"
o
I:
..
1:1
llllI
;;;
o
z
UI
CITY OF
ASH I..AN D
Council Communication
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE ORDINANCE,
CONCERNING CONVERSION OF EXISTING RENTALS INTO FOR-PURCHASE HOUSING IN
MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES,
CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT, DENSITY BONUS AND OTHER VOLUNTARY
MECHANISMS TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE FOR-PURCHASE HOUSING STOCKS AND
AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS
Meeting Date: June 19, 2007
Department: Community Development
Contributing Departments: Legal
Approval: Martha Benne
Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman 552-2076
E-mail: Qoldmanb@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact: David Stalheim 552-2043
E-mail: stalheid@ashland.or.us
Estimated time (45 min)
Request:
Review and action regarding amended provisions within the R-2 and R-3 multifamily zones
(Chapters 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.28.020, 18.28.030, 18.28.040), and procedures
section (18.108.030) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the conversion of existing
multi-family rental units into for-purchase housing.
Background
At the April 17, 2007 Council meeting, the Ashland City Council reviewed a draft ordinance
regarding the Conversion of multi-family rental units into for purchase housing. ThEl City Council
directed staff to explore strategies to provide for rental housing and deed restricted affordable
rentals in Ashland. The City Council's motion also instructed staff to not pursue negotiated
development agreements related to the conversion of multi-family units into for purchase
housing until there is a more comprehensive negotiated agreement structure in place.
Planning Staff developed the attached ordinance language in response to the Council concerns.
Staff presented the draft to an ad-hoc meeting of Planning and Housing Commissioners for their
review and comment. This group consisted of two Planning Commissioners, three Housing
Commissioners and the Council liaison to the Housing Commission.
On April 26, 2007 the full Housing Commission was presented with an update of the ordinance
language at their regular meeting. The Commission had comments on the draft as individual
members, but did not take any formal action recommending the ordinance to the Council.
On June 12, 2007 the full Commission Planning was presented with an update of the ordinance
language at their regular meeting. The Planning Commission voted (5-2 decision) to
recommend that the Council not adopt the proposed ordinance.
Proposal
In an effort to address the goal of ensuring a continued supply of rental housing, staff examined
the existing ordinance and the ordinance as proposed on April 17th. Based on that review, staff
developed a new approach that would more aggressively target provision of rental and
affordable rental housing through the conversion process. Staff found that by creating a sliding
scale by which small developments could convert more units to ownership, and larger units
~.t. ,
could convert less, an ordinance could be crafted that ultimately provided a balance of new
ownership opportunities to retention of rental housing that does not exist under the current
ordinance. Limiting the number of ownership units permitted outright in larger existing
apartment complexes with the sliding scale would function as an incentive for these large
developments to provide more affordable units on a voluntary basis in order to obtain a greater
percentage of market rate ownership units through the conversion process.
In developments of five units or more, the revised ordinance replaces the affordable ownership
option previously presented with deed restricted affordable rental units targeted to households
earning 60%AMI or less. In cases where an applicant chose to create as many market rate
ownership units as permissible, or through obtaining relief from non-conformities, the sliding
scale methodology outlined in the attached tables would effectively increase the percentage of
affordable units from 25% in the current ordinance (either rental or ownership) to a cumulative
42% as affordable rentals only.
Given the nature of small developments of four units or less, deed restricting a single unit as an
affordable rental may prove to be difficult both in terms of finding buyers to manage a one-unit
affordable rental, as well as in enforcing the occupancy by a qualified household. For this
reason it may be reasonable to exempt such small developments from meeting the affordable
"rental" requirement. However, in exchange for relief from non-conformities the City may allow
for the voluntary provision of affordable "ownership" opportunities in duplexes, triplexes and
four-plexes.
There are three different paths a declarant could take to convert existing rentals into for
purchase housing:
1) No relief from non-conformities. When an applicant needs no relief from non-
conformities, and the property is in compliance with site review and density requirements, they
could elect to convert a percentage of the development into for-market ownership and the
remainder would be market rentals. There are two notable exceptions to this general rule, units
of less than 4 units could convert 100% of the complex into for-purchase housing, and
complexes of greater than 49 units could not convert any into for-purchase under this
alternative.
2) Relief from non-conformities, rental option. When an applicant is seeking relief from
existing non-conformities, they could obtain such relief through the voluntary provision of
affordable deed restricted rental units. Complexes of 4 units or less could provide a deed
restricted ownership unit. In this alternative, the applicant must retain a percentage of market
rate rentals. Number of parking spaces (car and bike), fire safety, landscaping and irrigation,
trash and recycling enclosure, driveway screening, sidewalks on property frontage, and street
trees requirements all shall come into compliance with current standards without relief. Density
bonus equal to affordable units provided is allowable.
3) Relief from non-conformities, affordable rental option. An additional option for
consideration would be to allow for a greater percentage of market rate ownership units only
when a greater percentage of affordable rentals are provided. Under the proposed distribution
matrix, for every affordable rental unit (targeted to 60%AMI) provided in excess of the
percentage required in Table 2 (attached), an equal percentage of for market ownership could
be allowed. This voluntary submission to affordability provisions, including but not limited to
relief from non-conformities, would simultaneously increase number of ownership units and the
number of deed restricted affordable rentals.
In these last two scenarios where an applicant either requests relief from non conformities or
voluntarily chooses to provide more affordable rentals on an incentive basis in exchange for
2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
more ownership units, the underlying objective of retaining rentals, and specifically affordable
rentals, is met.
Procedures:
The three separate alternatives above could all be processed as permitted uses subject to a
clear delineation of what relief from non-conformities is explicitly allowable under alternatives 2
or 3 above.
Since this ordinance addresses existing buildings which are not proposed for relocation, the
location, size, and number of units within an existing apartment building is fixed and not subject
to change. As such, the ordinance would grant relief from non-conformities (subject to their
voluntary contributions) for those pre-existing conditions including:
· Maximum Permitted Floor Area
· Minimum density
· Side, Front and Rear Yard Setbacks
· Separation between buildings
· Solar setback
· Building length
· Building height
· Driveway width or length
· Orientation
· Location of existing parking
· Percentage of existing coverage
Other land use standards can be remedied in any conversion process. As such, relief from non
conformities such as number of parking spaces, bike parking, fire code requirements, trash and
recycling enclosures, and adequate public facilities and utilities would not be allowed by this
proposal.
Ordinance adoption process:
The ordinance presented to the City Council at this time incorporates significant modifications
from the original ordinance reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 1 yth 200i'. At that
time the City Council approved the Tenant Rights Ordinance and Building Code Ordinance
amendments relating to conversions.
The City Council initiated their review of the ordinance on April 17th and continued the public
hearing to June 19, 2007. On June 19th the City Council will continue the public hearing and
consider the proposed modifications as a first reading of the proposed ordinance. The City
Council may approve of first reading of the ordinance as presented, or with modifications, and
schedule second reading (July 17, 2007). Alternatively, the council could continue the hearing
for significant changes or deny the proposed ordinance modifications.
Related Policies
A complete listing of related policies was included in the Council Communication dated April
17th, 2007.
The criteria for a legislative amendment to the land use ordinance are as follows:
3
r~'
18. 108. 170.A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text ofthe Land Use
Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive
plan or to me!et other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a
legislative act solely within the authority of the Council.
The establishment of criteria of approval establishing a requirement to retain rental units, or to
provide a percentage as affordable housing, for the conversion of existing apartments into for-
purchase housing is supported by both local Council Goals, elements within Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan, the Ashland Housing Needs Analysis (2001) and Affordable Housing
Action Plan, and the Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines.
Recommendations:
The proposed version of the ordinance currently being presented to Council was presented to
the Condominium Conversion Ad-Hoc Committee on May 17, 2007. The Housing Commission
reviewed the proposal on May 24,2007 and the Planning Commission on June 12, 2007.
Housing Commission and Ad Hoc-Committee Reviews
The Ad Hoc Committee consisted of two Planning Commissioners, three Housing
Commissioners and the Council liaison to the Housing Commission.
· The Ad-Hoc Committee and the Housing Commission both felt the sliding scale matrix
concept had merit in addressing the need to regulate conversions with the goal of
preserving rental housing stock, while still creating opportunities for affordable housing.
There was support for the relief from non conformities to be an incentive to provide
affordable units.
· The Housing Commission and ad-hoc committee both examined the distinction between
ownership and rentals and found that the provision for all units in complexes of four units
or less to be converted to ownership was practical given the difficulty of regulating a 1-
unit rental.
· Members on both the Ad Hoc Committee and Housing Commission stated that the
categories based on number of units could potentially be adjusted to effectively preserve
more rental units. It was discussed that categories could potentially be adjusted as
indicated in the example below to reduce the percentage of ownership allowable overall.
Existing categories
in proposed
ordinance
1-4 units
5-12 units
13-24 units
25-48 units
49 +
% ownership
allowable
(no non-
conformities)
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
potential
cate ories
1-4 units
5-10 units
11-20 units
21-40 units
41 +
% ownership
allowable
(no non-
conformities
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
· Concerns were raised about the complexity of the ordinance, although some members
also expressed that the table for alternatives 1, 2, and 3, based on the number units in a
4
CITY OF
ASHLi\ND
development, simplified the application of the ordinance by readily determining the
number and type of units required in each option.
· It was stated that the alternative that allows for a greater allowance of ownership on a
voluntary basis (option 3) simultaneously reduced the total number of rentals in favor of
affordable rentals. Although the benefit of more deed restricted affordable units would
be realized, a concern was raised that the reduction in market rate rentals (and net
rentals in general) could adversely affect market rents.
Planning Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance on June 12th and a number of
Commissioners voiced specific concerns:
· that the proposal lacked information regarding both the need being addressled as well as
the potential impacts of the ordinance if enacted.
· that the proposal created a staff burden for the City to monitor compliance and
occupancy of affordable rental units once created.
· The imposition of such an ordinance may provide a disincentive to developers of multi-
family units to build apartments in the future.
· Commissioners expressed that the ordinance as drafted is complex and difficult to
understand
· The Commission Chair specifically recommended that the City Council review the last 45
minutes of the June 1 ih Planning Commission meeting in advance of their neview of the
ordinance noting the difficulty in summarizing what was an inclusive discusslion of
various viewpoints.
At the conclusion of the review, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Council
not adopt the proposed ordinance by a 5-2 decision.
Staff Observations
Staff believes the ordinance can be applied to applications for conversion. The ordinance as
crafted serves the stated goal of retaining existing rental units and the objective of providing an
incentive base for the inclusion of affordable housing. Ultimately the ordinance creates more
affordable housing opportunities than the existing ordinance, and those units would be
affordable rental units targeted to households earning 60%AMI as opposed to ownership units
targeted to households at 80%AMI, as is allowable under the current ordinance. The current
ordinance allows conversions where 100% of the complex is converted to ownership and no
retention of rental units is required. The ordinance as proposed will retain rental units for all
complexes excepting developments of 4 units or less.
5
~A'
Council Options:
· Approval of First Reading of the ordinance as presented and schedule second reading
by title only.
· Approval of First Reading of the ordinance and direct staff to incorporate changes as
recommended by Council and schedule second reading by title only.
· Continue the hearing and direct staff to modify the ordinance and return with a revised
draft for first reading.
· Deny the ordinance as proposed.
Attachments:
· Ordinance No.
Amending the Land Use Ordinances Concerning Conversion of existing multi-family
rental units into for-purchase housing (Chapters 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.28.020 and
18.28.030) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance
· Exhibit A: Options for Conversion Matrix
· Exhibit B : Actual Unit Table: Conceptual Conversion Alternatives
Provided in the April 1 ih 2007 Council Packet
· Applicable Oregon Revised Statutes
· Table showing 2007 Fair Market Rents as defined by HUD
· Table showing 2007 Area Median Income including 60% and 80%AMI
· Resolution 2006-13 (SDC Deferral Program)
· Staff Report dated October 10, 2006
· Planning Commission Study Session July 25, 2006
· 10/24/2006 - Planning Commission Public Hearing minutes
· 10/10/2006 - Planning Commission Public Hearing minutes
· 8/21/2006 - Housing Commission public hearing minutes
· 7/25/2006 - Planning Commission Study Session minutes
· 7/20/2006 - Ad-Hoc Committee meeting - and Planning Commissions minutes
· 6/27/2006 - Joint Housing and Planning Commission Study Session minutes
Letters Attached:
· Philip Lang Letter dated March 26, 2007
· Melanie Mindlin Letter dated April 11, 2007
· Don Skillman Letter dated July 28, 2006
· Brandon Goldman response to Melanie Mindlin letter (questions) dated June 11 2007.
6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE, LA,ND USE
ORDINANCE, REGARDING CONVERSION OF EXISTING RENTALS INTO
FOR-PURCHASE HOUSING IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are . and additions are in bold.
SECTION 1. Section 18.24.020. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
add the following new paragraph 18.24.020. K, as follows:
K. Conversion of existing multi-family rental units into for..
purchase housing when authorized in accordance with
Chapter 18.24.040 (L).
SECTION 2. Section 18.24.030.J. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
J. Condominium. conversion of existing rent31 units subject to a Type I
procedure 3nd demonstr3tion th3t 3t le3st 25% of the residentbl units 3re
afford3ble for moder3te income persons in 3ccord with the st3nd3ras
est3blished by resolution of the Ashl3nd City Council through procedures
cont3ined in s3id resolution. Current residents of rent31 units proposed for
conversion to condominiums sh311 h3ve first right of refus31 to purcAase
the unit.
SECTION 3. Section 18.24.040. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
add the following new paragraph 18.24.040. L, as follows:
L. Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling rental units into for-
purchase housing including the demolition of existing multi-family
dwelling rental units, is subject to the following:
1) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to
convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 1
provided that the existing structure meets the following
general regulations of the zoning district: permitted density,
yard requirements, maximum height, maximum lot coverage,
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
1 of8
outdoor recreation space, maximum permitted floor area,
waste enclosures, parking and bike storage.
Table 1
Affordable
Affordable Rentals(per
Ownership (per Section
Number of Dwelling Market Rate Section Market rate 18.24.040.L.5
Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.040.L.5.B rentals .A)
2-4 100% 0% 0 0%
5-12 75% 0% 25% 0%
13-24 50% 0% 50% 0%
25-48 25% 0% 75% 0%
49+ 0 0% 100% 0%
2) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to
convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 2
and the standards below when the existing structure does not
meet anyone or more of the following general regulations of
the zoning district: permitted density, yard requirements,
maximum height, maximum lot coverage, outdoor recreation
space, and maximum permitted floor area.
a. Conversion of an existing multi-family structures to for-
purchase housing shall comply with the following
general regulations and the site design and use
standards of the zoning district: number of bike and
automobile parking spaces, trash and recycling
enclosures.
b. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for-
purchase housing shall demonstrate that there are
adequate public facilities and public services available
to serve the development, including but not limited to
water, sewer, electric, fire protection, and storm
drainage.
c. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for-
purchase housing shall improve the street frontage to
meet adopted Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
and Street Design Standards, including landscaping,
sidewalks and street trees.
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
20f8
Table 2
Affordable Affordable
Ownership Rentals(per
Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section
Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.040.L.5.B rentals 18.24.040.L.5.A)
2-4 75% 25% 0 0%
5-12 56.25% 0% 25% 18.75%
13-24 37.50% 0% 50% 12.50%
25-48 18.75% 0% 75% 6.25%
48+ 0.00% 0% 100% 0.00%
3) As an incentive to provide affordable rental housing units
above minimum requirements in projects of five or more units,
an applicant shall be granted an equal percentage of for-
market ownership units per Table 3.
Table 3:
Affordable Affordable
Ownership Rentals(per
Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section
Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.040.L.5.B rentals 1 a:.24.040.L.5.A)
2-4 na na na na
5-12 68.75% na 0% 31.25%
13-24 62.50% na 0% 37.50%
25-48 56.25% na 0% 43.75%
48+ 50.00% na 0% 50.00%
4) Units designated as market rate or affordable rental units shall
be retained as one condominium tract under one ownership.
This remaining rental tract shall be restricted from furth.er
consideration of conversion to for-purchase housing.
5) Affordable Housing Units provided under 18.24.040 L(2) and
18.24.040 L(3) shall meet the following affordability standards:
a. Affordable Rental Units shall be affordable for rent by
households earning at or below 60% of the area median
income in accordance with the standards established by
Resolution 2006-13, as now or hereafter amended by the
Ashland City Council.
b. Affordable Ownership Units shall be affordable for
purchase by households earning at or below 80% of the
area median income in accordance with the standards
established by Resolution 2006-13, as now or here'after
amended by the Ashland City Council. Resolution 2006-
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
30f8
13 is specifically incorporated herein by this reference
and attached hereto as Appendix A.
6) Prior to offering any units for sale the developer must comply
with section 15.104 of the Ashland Municipal Code
7) Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing
shall comply with the tenant rights provisions under Chapter
10.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. Section 18.28.020. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
add the following new paragraph 18.28.020. K, as follows:
K. Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing
when authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.28.040 (L)
SECTION 5. Section 18.28.030.J. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
J-. Condominium convorsion of existing rent~1 units subject to ~ Type I
i3rocedure ~nd demonstr~tion th~t ~t least 25% of the residenti~1 units are
afford~ble for moderate income persons in ~ccord with the standards
est~blished by resolution of the I\shl~nd City Council through procedures
€ont~ined in s~id resolution. Current residents of rental units proposed for
€onversion to condominiums sh~1I have first right of refus~1 to purchase
the unit.
SECTION 6. Section 18.28.040. of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to
add the following new paragraph 18.28.040. L, as follows:
L. Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling rental units into for-
purchase housing including the demolition of existing multi-family
dwelling rental units, is subject to the following:
1) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to
convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 1
provided that the existing structure meets the following
general regulations of the zoning district: permitted density,
yard requirements, maximum height, maximum lot coverage,
outdoor recreation space, maximum permitted floor area,
waste enclosures, parking and bike storage.
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
40f8
Table 1
Affordable
Affordable ~~entals(per
Ownership (per Section
Number of Dwelling Market Rate Section Market rate 18.28.040.L.5
Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.28.040.L.5.B rentals .A)
2-4 100% 0% 0 0%
5-12 75% 0% 25% 0%
13-24 50% 0% 50% 0%
25-48 25% 0% 75% 0%
49+ 0 0% 100% 0%
2) Existing multi-family rental unit structures may be allowed to
convert all or a portion of the structure as set forth in Table 2
and the standards below when the existing structure dOles not
meet anyone or more of the following general regulations of
the zoning district: permitted density, yard requirements,
maximum height, maximum lot coverage, outdoor recreation
space, and maximum permitted floor area.
a. Conversion of an existing multi-family structures to for-
purchase housing shall comply with the followin~,
general regulations and the site design and use
standards of the zoning district: number of bike cmd
automobile parking spaces, trash and recycling
enclosures.
b. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for-
purchase housing shall demonstrate that there ar'e
adequate public facilities and public services available
to serve the development, including but not limited to
water, sewer, electric, fire protection, and storm
drainage.
c. Conversion of existing multi-family structures to for-
purchase housing shall improve the street frontag,e to
meet adopted Ashland Site Design and Use Standards
and Street Design Standards, including landscaping,
sidewalks and street trees.
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
50f8
Table 2
Affordable Affordable
Ownership Rentals(per
Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section
Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.28.040.L.5.B rentals 18.28.040.L.5.AI
2-4 75% 25% 0 0%
5-12 56.25% 0% 25% 18.75%
13-24 37.50% 0% 50% 12.50%
25-48 18.75% 0% 75% 6.25%
48+ 0.00% 0% 100% 0.00%
3) As an incentive to provide affordable rental housing units
above minimum requirements in projects of five or more units,
an applicant shall be granted an equal percentage of for-
market ownership units per Table 3.
Table 3:
Affordable Affordable
Ownership Rentals(per
Number of Dwelling Market Rate (per Section Market rate Section
Units on Tax Lot Ownership 18.24.080.L.5.B rentals 18.28.040.L.5.A)
2-4 na na na na
5-12 68.75% na 0% 31.25%
13-24 62.50% na 0% 37.50%
25-48 56.25% na 0% 43.75%
48+ 50.00% na 0% 50.00%
4) Units designated as market rate or affordable rental units shall
be retained as one condominium tract under one ownership.
This remaining rental tract shall be restricted from further
consideration of conversion to for-purchase housing.
5) Affordable Housing Units provided under 18.28.040 L(2) and
18.28.040 L(3) shall meet the following affordability standards:
c. Affordable Rental Units shall be affordable for rent by
households earning at or below 60% of the area median
income in accordance with the standards established by
Resolution 2006-13, as now or hereafter amended by the
Ashland City Council.
d. Affordable Ownership Units shall be affordable for
purchase by households earning at or below 80% of the
area median income in accordance with the standards
established by Resolution 2006-13, as now or hereafter
amended by the Ashland City Council. Resolution 2006-
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
60f8
13 is specifically incorporated herein by this refl:!rence
and attached hereto as Appendix A.
6) Prior to offering any units for sale the developer must comply
with section 15.104 of the Ashland Municipal Code
7) Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase h10using
shall comply with the tenant rights provisions under Chapter
10.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
SECTION 7. Section 18.108.030 A., of the Ashland Municipal Code, paragraph
8 is hereby amended and a new paragraph 9 is added to reflect a new Staff
decision:
8. Conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase hc)using
(18.24.020,18.28.020) Other pl~nning ~ctionc not otherNice listed or
deGign~ted ~s ~ Typo I, II or "' procedure.
9. Other planning actions not otherwise listed or designated as a
Type I, II or '" procedure.
SECTION 8 Severability. If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or
paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
sections, provisions, clauses, or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be
given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the
provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 9. Savings Clause. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the
City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement or other
actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for
purposes of all cases filed or actions commenced during the times said
ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative.
SECTION 10. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incol'porated
in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article",
"section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered, or re-Iettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and
boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 5-7) need not be codified.
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
70f8
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2007,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2007.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2007.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, Acting City Attorney
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
80f8
S>z h \ bt+
><
"i:
.....
co
:E
s::
o
en
L-
a>
>
s::
o
o
L-
o
....
en
s::
o
+:
C-
O
A
<Il 0
u c
c - c
"'~o
= "en "Vi
0. C ~
E <Il <Il
o '0 ~
u E 0
.~ :J 0
;>, E :;:
t -- 0
Q) .~ ~
g- E 0
~ Ol-
D. .5 C':
u)"O co
<Il ::> lJ)
:eg~
E .- U
~ lJ) <Il
$'Oc::
C ~ lJ)
o "'-
u -g .~
c <<) 0
0- 0.
C lJ) lJ)
E :;: ::>
<Il c
.g .~ .8
.... ~ ;>,
~~~
~ lJ) <Il
0'<::'"
Z .'!::
:;:
!!1.
I'I:l
....
r::
Q)
IX:
Q),*'Cf?~*,*,
:COOOOO
I'I:l
"'C
a-
~
<
.i1
r::
Q)
E
Q)
a-
::l
C"
Q)
a-
~
.c
C'll
"'C
a-
o
lI::
C'll
o
r::
III
Q)
~
E
a-
.E
r::
o
u
I
r::
o
Z
o
Z
....
Q)
:c
C'll
....
Q)
....
~!!1.
.... C'll
Q)....
..II:: r::
a- Q)
C'll ...
~
';;R.,;:R'::::R.cft.
00000
~~~O
Q) C.
:C.r::
C'll III
"'C a-
a- Q)
o r::
lI:: ~
<0
#.~,*,'#.?ft.
00000
2 c.
&..r::
.... ~
Q) Q)
..II:: r::
a- ~
~O
#.~~'::R
00000
o~~~
III
;t::
r::
::l
....
o
a-
Q)
.c -.:rco
E-.:r~";l"'l+
::l I I (<)U)O)
ZNU)T""N'<t
.~.8""OO)(tl~cV
g~~~~E~~
,~ -"_ z ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.s ~.s:. g- t; .~ :E ~
~ :6 en ~ ~ 5- .~ .~
~~ai-g~~~"C
.2D~~~~ro~
.~ ID -0 ;:..:g ~ -g ~
B ~ .~ ~ ~ 16 ~ ~
~~~~~~~:g
'E a ~ ;;: .g "'C t: ::I
6~{j<ifffi~a=*
c '- ~ _..c C\J
8~-g:o~~.~~
c~~-gfj~OJ~
o .ro<\:l>'curo
~ ~ ~ Co ~ .g .~ ..9
'~~QJ-~-g~~~
'x lIi g> ~ co g- 8 g
~~~~~c...9~
.g ~ 8 ~ b. 6 .~ E
]}~-~~2~8~
~.~:S~~~~~
c Ol _ 'C Q) C\J OJ
~ ~ 0 .!::: ~ ~ 0
....
ot!
'f!. .c
~ ::>
- 0.
111:<:
n; ~
.... <Il
r:: c
Q) ~
IX: 0
~~
~ ~
"'CE
oCi
t:::~
<-
.S!
5~
E 0
,g
?f?cf2.'::f!.~
U)O~O
I'-u)~o
CONcoo
Q)
....
~!!1.
.... I'I:l
Q)....
..II:: r::
... Q)
I'I:l ...
~
~'::f!.~~
00000
~5S~0
#.~'::::R.~;:R
L{)oooo
NOOOO
III
Q)
E
E
a-
o
-
r::
o
u
I
r::
o
Z
a-
.E
-
.!!!
Q)
IX:
2 c.
&..r:: ~~
....~~U)O
Q)Q)U)Nu)
..II::r::I'-COI'-
...~ U)(<)
~o
'cf2.;:R.
U)O
1'-0
o
~o
III
~
r::
::l
-
o
a-
Q)
.c
E -.:rco
::l-.:r~";l"'l+
ZN.A(<)~~
N
~
..c
I'I:l
I-
c.
.r::
III
...
Q)
r::
~
o
....
Q)
..II::
a-
C'll
E
-
o
Q)
Cl
C'll
....
r::
Q)
U
a-
Q)
c.
r::
Q)
III
I'I:l
Q)
a-
U
r::
.S: OJ
"O.cui~
.~ ~ g g ~
~g8:~~;
~~~e~~
..... Q) tIl a.:.o:::; tIl
.E -E ~ ~ .~ .~
~~?::O.E~
:!2Qj2~5:Cui
ga.~og~]!
?: ~ ro 1ij g :g a5
5:::~.9E~~
~~~a.go:g
~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~
g~g>~~~~
~ .~ ~ ~ .9 c ~
.E~~~~~.2
~~~~'E~~
:aero2=b~
oa...::JOo.~"O
m~g~;:~~
C=:IcE::l=:l"O
~~Cll_~~~O
:g ~ N 11 .~ ~ ID
<<l-e~~~.:t::.c
C g ~ .Q u OE g
<( <<l I-- iij .r:: .w c
C'll
;:,
C"
Q)
r::
C'll
...
o
-
Q)
Cl
r::
C'll
.r::
u
><
CI)
r::
!!1.
I'I:l
....
r::
Q)
...
~
.c
C'll
"'C
a-
o
:::
C'll
r::
Q)
III
I'I:l
Q)
a-
U
r::
Q)
....
~!!1.
.... III
Q)....
..II:: r::
... Q)
C'll ...
~
2 Co
1'I:l.r::
~ ~
Q) Q)
..II:: r::
a- ~
~o
!!1.
C'll
....
r::
Q)
IX:
Q)
:c
I'I:l
"'C
...
o
lI::
<
cf2. cf2. ?fi~ ~
co U) 0 1.00
cNU)I'-.O
..- I'- ev:, 0
(<) (<) "<t' U)
~
C'll
....
r::
.2
o
>
C'?
~
.c
III
I-
rocf2.'cF.,*~
cocoa
co co co co co
c c c c c
';f!.cf2.~*
coU)OU)O
Cl'-U)NO
CONCOc:l
COCOU)U)
III
~
r::
::l
-
o
a-
Q)
.c
E
::l
Z
-.:r co
NN-.:r
"'l"";"M.Act
Nu) N-.:r
Lxh\b\+ 5
ACtUAL UNIT 7AJ3 L€
Conceptual Conversion alternatives
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
a a
Number market affordable ma rket rentals rentals
of Units ownership rentals ownership ownership rentals (round up) ownership (round up)
.... 78 0 78 0 NA 78 0 39 39
_ 0 ~
e en 0 62 0 62 0 62 0 31 31
Ql Ql en Ql
~ ~ .2 (; 51 0 51 0 51 0 25 26
lllc..:lE
Q.Ea:> 50 0 50 0 50 0 25 25
<1:8"" 49 0 49 0 49 0 24 25
Total units 290 0 290 0 290 0 144 146
avg % 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50%
en 46 11 35 8 NA 35 3 25 21
Qlco
x..,. 44 11 33 8 33 3 24 20
.!!!"O
Q.e 40 10 30 7 30 3 22 18
E III
o ll') en
UN;!::' 35 8 27 6 26 3 19 16
_ e
e e :l
Ql Ql 32 8 24 6 24 2 18 14
E Ql
t::~ 30 7 23 5 23 2, 16 14
III Ql
Q.J:J
<I: 28 7 21 5 21 2 15 13
Total units 255 62 193 45 192 18 139 116
av % 24% 76% 18% 75% 7% 55% 45%
~ 24 12 12 9 NA 12 3 15 9
e 22 11 11 8 11 3 13 9
Ql
Ql
~ 21 10 11 7 11 3 13 8
Ql
J:J en 19 9 10 7 9 3 11 8
f/)~
Ql e 18 9 9 6 9 3 11 7
x :l
.!!!..,.
Q.N 17 8 9 6 8 3 10 7
E"O
8 fij 16 8 8 6 8 2 10 6
c 15 7 8 5 8 2 9 6
Ql
E 14 7 5 7 2 8 6
t:: 7
III
Q. 13 6 7 4 7 2 8 5
<I:
Total units 290 141 149 101 147 42 175 115
avg% 49% 51% 35% 51% 14% 60% 40%
eni.! 12 9 3 6 NA 3 3 8 4
Ql .-
X e 11 8 3 6 2 3
Ql :l 7 4
- N
Q.~ 10 7 3 5 3 2 6 4
E"O
o e
~ III 9 6 3 5 2 2 6 3
ell')
Ql e 8 6 2 4 2 2 5 3
E Ql
t:: Ql I' 5 2 3 2 2 4 3
~~
<I: Ql 6 4 2 3 1 2 4 2
J:J
,. 1 4 2 NA 2 1 3 2
,)
Total units 352 224 128 172 91 89 223 129
av..% 64% 36% 49% 26% 25% 63% 37%
x x Q) -11 4 0 3
~Q)c. 3 3 0 2
O-c....x
::l 'C 5 ~, 2 0 1
'0-_ "-.
Total units 677 0 400
100% 0% 59%
Page 1 of 3
Melanie,
Thanks first off for the advance questions. It does help ensure that at the meeting I'll be better able to address
the specific questions that would arise. I will attempt to address your questions below in this email, but
undoubtedly there will be more to follow at the meeting.
-~_.. -----~---_._~----" -----------_....._--~-------~--~.__._.. - -"..- -~._- -----~_. - -..---------
1) /n reviewing the Rel1fal Needs Analvsis. / noticed the(o!!owing:
Slide #5 shows rents rising at 2. 70'0, the same as inflation, but income rising 3.2uo. Slide #6 savs we 've seen a decrease of
percentage paidfi'om 56'!'0 to 49 00 over an unknown period of time.
Then on #11, it states that "rental rates wi!! continue to incrcase at ratesfar in excess oOncome growth in the near lerm
drh'ing manv households oul of Ashland Can someone explain Ihe logic here?
The Rental Needs Analysis is conclusive in its projection that rents will rise in the immediate and near future at a
more dramatic rate than historically, In short the dramatic change in purchase prices will place greater demand
on the rental market and also allow those with higher incomes to pay more for rent (now that they are priced out
of buying). The stats you reference are what has happened in the rental market over the last 6 years, however
the Analysis predicts a rental market correction in the very near future, The report even notes that rents have
increased $50-$100 since mid 2006. Essentially there is room to move in the rental market due to the
rental/housing cost ratio, thus rents will move to close the gap,
Below is an excerpt from the Rental Needs Analysis that explains the rationale behind the projection well:
Home Cost Ratio
The ratio of owning versus renting a home is important because in a normal market, as home prices increase,
rents usually follow suit. However, this has not been the case in Ashland, From 2000 to 2006, the median home
price in Ashland increased from $210,000 to $430,000, while rental rates have been flat. As a result:
1. The cost ratio of owning to renting is much higher in Ashland. Currently homeowners pay approximately
four times the amount renters pay on a monthly basis, compared to ownership costs that are only 1.5 to 2.6
times higher than the cost of renting in other areas analyzed in this report,
2. The cost ratio of owning to renting in Ashland has been increasing faster than statewide or national ratios.
Over the last six years, the home cost ratio in Ashland increased by 52%.
The implication of these findings is that rental rates in Ashland are likely to increase substantially in the near
future. To bring the city's home cost ratio back to what it was in 2000, rents would need to increase by an
average of approximately $350 per month. While this magnitude of increase is not likely to bE~ supported by
the market in the near-term, there is clearly a lot of room for rental rates to increase while still remaining at a
substantial discount from home costs. Under these conditions, the market is expected to begin to trend back
toward a lower home cost ratio through increasing rents,
Expert Interviews
with five Ashland rental property managers/owners confirmed these findings. In fact, they all indicated that rents
have already begun to increase. Since early to mid-2006, these experts indicated rental r~tes have risen
approximately $50-$100 per unit. At an average price of roughly $700, this represents a 7% to 14'% increase in
less than one year. This increase was attributed to both the high demand for affordable housing and the rapidly
rising property values in Ashland,
( Rental Needs Analysis attached electronically to this email)
-"'~~.~ --~--~--~,._.~ ._,._--------'~~-----------_..._._-_.,.-
. 2) NOl1vithstanding the solutions o(creating strong policies, leadership and stalrtime to de1'elop expertise, the conclusions
of the analvsis are l'irtua!!l' a!! governmcnt subsidiesfor a/fordoNe rental housing: writi? down land costs, reducefees, and
seek grantsji'om state and federal goverJ1mi!llt, The onl1' suggestion relel'ant to the H'ork of the PC is to increase land
supp1.v with requirements. Is tl1fTi? a reason why restricting condo conversion is not mentioned specifica!!)/!
The Rental Needs Analysis does mention condominium conversions specifically but recognizes that this trend is
not the primary issue facing Ashland's rental market, rather the lack of development of new rentals and market
conditions that don't favor their development (relatively low rents vs high land costs and low availability), Below
is a statement made by Ferrarini regarding condominium conversions in the report:
file://C:\Documents and Settings\goldmanb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM
6/13/2007
Page 2 of3
There are other regulatory tools that may also be considered) including a condominium conversion
ordinance) which would limit the number of rental units that could be converted to for-sale properties.
These policies are helpful) but they do not address the underlying problem) and do not represent a
solution by themselves.
3) This brings me back to a question that was listed in the minutes of the City Council: Can we create zoning which restricb
usage to rental housing? It seems very imp0l1ant to find out the answer to this question in order to understand our options.
The ordinance as presented does "restrict usage to rental housing" by limiting the amount of for-purchase
allowable.
In a more comprehensive approach to addressing Ashland's rental housing needs the question of outright
permissible usesqin multi-family zones is an important one. The question of whether we as a City want mixed
income neighborhoods and variable housing types (owner / renter mix as well), or a rental only zone is part of
that broader policy discussion. Creating a new zoning designation to apply to land yet developed to promote
specific housing types is as you are aware a comprehensive planning issue and one that needs considerable
community input to evaluate fully. Although I can see the clear association between the development of new
housing on our remaining lands, and whether it is rental or ownership housing by design, and the conversion of
existing rentals into ownership, I believe the "options" you are examining go well beyond modifying the
condominium conversion requirements. The ordinance as presented is not intended to eliminate existing
permitted uses in the R-2 and R-3 zones but rather exclusively address the conversion of existing rentals into for
purchase housing.
4) The other questiun which is unwlswered in my mind is: 11'11.1' we are targtting a 5U-5U split between allowed condo
cOl11'ersion and retained rentals as a baseline. 1nmv prel'ious letter I questioned the legalitv of the whole ordinance, und
have not yet heard anv re.\ponse. ,~lv point is. if it is legal to require 50-50, then would it not be legal to require that 75uu be
left rentals? Whv not 900&:; It would seem.fi'om the new proposal that it is thought to he legal to allow a lower amount of
cOI11'ersion for some properties. 1 continue to think that our conl'ersation should be addressing the question of how to
minimize the loss of rentals in general bv 100vering the amount ofconl'ersions. Yet instead ollOlvering the rate ol'erall. we
continue to distrihute u 50-50 rute of conl'ersion. l11'Ould like to know 11'hv that is.
Our present ordinance has no requirement for rentals, 100% of the units can be split into individual units and sold, although
25% would be sold as affordable. The purposes of the revisions was to make the provision of affordable housing a voluntary
act, or an exchange for relief from zoning requirements (non-conformities). This remedies a current concern that the current
requirement could be seen as inclusionary zoning. The loss of rental housing was also a concern and thus both versions of
the proposed ordinance aimed to preserve some measure of rental housing stock. In no case was there any consensus
policy direction provided that the purpose of the ordinance would be to stop condominium conversions. The sliding scale
method presented in the proposed ordinance is an improvement over the existing ordinance in that it does restrict the
conversion of 100% of units into ownership for all developments of 5 or more units.
In terms of the legality of the ordinance the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed the ordinance
methodology while under development and felt that it was defensible means of regulating condominium
conversions. He has not yet completed his review of the written ordinance and thus I can not at this point
respond to the questions of legality. That will likely be a point of discussion at tomorrow's meeting.
5) Somewhere in the no/('s ill/Sf rC'od, fhere \\'as a reql/estfor more II/formatiun on fhe size ofrelllal complexes in Ashland. 1n order fO
make 011 informed dccisinn on the benefits of the range ofcol/l'crsion rates in the new proposal. H'e need to kn011' how ollr rentals arc
distributed amongst these (hf(crel1t sizes o(complexcs. 1 am personallv /lot mmre of a lot o( large apartment complexes in Ashland.
leading me to speclllme that hy goil/g Hith the runge He 11'CJ/lld be decreasing the rental retemio/ls rather than increasi/lg it. H()1l'el'er.
Hi/hout statistical al/olvsis. 1 CU/l't kl/ml' 1I-/1OflH' are accomplishing. Is it possible to get this I17forma/I()/l?
The Commission's packet included a table (attached to this email -actual unit table) that quantifies the total
number of units in each unit size division within the City and further shows the potential distribution of affordable
and rental units depending on the option selected. Looking at the percentages in each category you can assess
the potential impact of the proposed ordinance on the actual complexes in Ashland:
for example 290 units exists in complexes of greater than 49 units and 100% of these wold be retained as rentals
under options 1 and 2, Under option 3 the project could be split into 50% market ownership, and 50% deed
restricted affordable rentals.
------~.,.-.-.._--- ..,- _._._~_.-~-~_.~. .~ -_._-..,-------~--~._---.__._----"--~~--------.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\goldmanb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM
6/13/2007
Page 3 of3
6) Although 1 think that Option 2 of the new propusalls an i/1/erestlng choice. I continue to be dislurbed by the assumplion
that restricting the affordability of some rentals is a good tradejin' having more rentals cOlll'erted 10 ownership as suggeslcd
hv Option 3 o(lhe proposal. 1 notice that questions havc been rais<!d pre1'l'ouslv about this. Whl'do we continue tu include
this option:;
We know that both rental housing in general (market rate) and affordable housing (deed restricted) is needed.
Your question involves a policy consideration as to whether we should focus the regulation to promote one over
another. The Option 3 is included as Staff received direction from Council to craft an ordinance that functioned to
both preserve existing rental housing (market rate) and to provide new deed restricted affordable housing
units. Option 3 uses the incentive of more market rate ownership units to exact more affordable rentals.
Remember that these "affordable" units are targeted to households earning 60% the Area Median income. As an
example a 2 bedroom market rate unit may rent for $750-800 whereas a regulated affordable unit under this
ordinance would rent for just under $600. A Housing Commissioner also voiced concern over the reduction in
total rental units resulting from Option 3 when compared to Option 2. Ultimately it is a policy consideration as to
what target population the ordinance is trying to serve. More market rate renal units would benE:fit households
earning more than 80%AMI, whereas more affordable rentals would benefit households earning less than 60%
AMI. Thus your question is likely better answered by your fellow commissioners and City Council.
7) 1 don't see the new language mentioning "ncgoliutcd" .wlllt/ons. fl' this option no longer being considered?
All mention of negotiated agreements has been eliminated as you noticed. The motion from the City Council
upon reviewing the prior proposal explicitly requested that the concept of development agreements be removed
from the ordinance. In the future, when the City has established procedures for Negotiated Developer
Agreements it may be further considered as a mechanism to utilize for Condominium Conversions, but until it is
developed, Staff was directed to remove such language from this draft.
- -----,-- ---~-_.-.- --_~"_____n_ _.____.__ __"'_~..___,_______,...+
I hope this response helps address some of your questions and as I imagine other Commissioners had similar
concerns this emait likely will benefit them as well. See you tomorrow evening. Brandon
Brandon Goldman
City of Ashland Planning Dept.
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
Goldmanb(ci)ash land .01'. us
541-552-2076
TTY#: 800-735-2900
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon
Public Records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in
error, please contact me at (541)552-2076. Thank you.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\goldmanb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM
6/13/2007
Page I of I
Brandon Goldman - Condo Conversion
..,,,:,, '''''''~,"",,-,'''l--''''''''.'''''' "-~~ ."" .-':,..u,n..'t',;,C.., '~~<('~~"t._~ '.,/;,......" ~~, .~.._t";,-.,,, '--;'. ..""-'":,r-a';,,<:,,,~-,,,.;r!'_"""':J'!of'~~.';<'~~f',"'..,:.:h'"'~"""fi."_; "'!;,~.,.~-...._.....~";""F..~t)""...d;'.iI"'Ai~M .....'.;.,::.::,-ti".-..,.,; J;.;>:a~,..~""",,">,>:'if,1~-,-,--j.<:,,:::v.;.'fI:a""'~~~'';:''-r~'''''''''''''''~I-<l''-\j"..''''',,,_"_..."k"w:"..,~.o/I;!.,~', /Ji",' ,.' c.' _'0>.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Melanie Mindlin <sassetta@mind.net>
David Stalheim <stalheid@ashland.or.us>, Brandon Goldman <goldmanb@ashland.or.us>
4111/20072:02 PM
Condo Conversion
John Fields <golden-fields@charter.net>, Pam Marsh <pam.marsh@gmaiI.com>, Tom
Dimitre <dimitre@mind.net>, Olena Black <plan@aoblack.com>, David Dotterrer
<dotter@mind.net>, John Stromberg <pcstromberg@opendoor.com>, Michael Dawkins
<michaeltdawkins@yahoo.com>, Mike Moms <msquared@mind.net>, Cate Hartzell
<cate@mind.net>
Dear David, Brandon and Commissioners.
I have thought further about our discussion on the proposed Condominium Conversion Ordinance and would like to share these
thoughts with you, inviting your comments, with an eye towards submitting a letter to City Council on the matter.
I) It is the opinion of the Housing Commission, and perhaps all city officials, that having rental housing is the most important
thing we can do to have affordable housing in the City. Analysis of rental housing shows that prices are lower than most of the
state and fall within or close to the targets for income levels targetted by the existing and proposed conversion ordinance. There
are no trends indicating that this will be changing. In addition, as Michael Dawkins brought to our attention, apartment rentals
are generally permanent housing for their occupants which will not be lost due to turnover in ownership.
This raises a question in my mind about why we would want to offer incentives to going for Conditional Use Permit with 25%
permanently affordable housing instead of having 50% rentals. The same applies to the negotiated development agreement. If
we conclude that th,e permitted use is preferable, we should have some discretionary criteria written into the conditional use
permit to give the Planning Commission something to work with. Otherwise the CUP may as well be made an alternate
permitted use, since we will still be in the same situation we are now where there is no criteria on which to deny the application.
2) The main purposc~ of this ordinance seems to be to remove the potential for legal challenge to our current ordinance regulating
condominium conve~rsion on the basis ofinclusionary zoning. This is being accomplished by including an outright permitted
conversion of 50% of the units. The other 50% cannot be converted in the future, creating 50% permanent rental units. If this is
legally permissible and if it is our commission and council's primary policy intent to stop the conversion of existing apartments
into condominiums, I wonder why stop at 50-50; why not allow only 25% to be converted for example?
3) As pointed out by John Fields, it is possible that the existence of any condominium conversion regulation will and is having a
dampening effect on the construction of new apartments. There has been no new construction of apartments in Ash land for
some time. Is this lack concurrent with our current ordinance on conversions? It would be interesting to see statistical analysis
and comparison with other locales to determine whether our conversion regulations are counter-productive.
4) With or without condominium conversion regulation, it would seem that the only way for the City to have apartments built is
to create new policies that address the issue directly. For example, a new zoning designation could be created that addresses
this housing need and land could be annexed into the City to provide an inventory for it. It would not need to be limited
to "affordable housing" but could be limited to a percentage of non convertible apartments. In addition, many localities charge a
hefty fee for the conversion of apartments into condominiums. The City could use such fees to fund the construction of
affordable housing.
Please feel free to rebut or elaborate any of these points.
Thanks.
Melanie
file://C:\Documents and SettinQsIQoltim::mh\ I {)('~ I ~ptt;nnC'\ T <>.....~in.ur I AIV\f\ 1 T T'T'~ ..
Q UTII M. MILLeR
PIDLIP C. LANG. LCSW
758 1) &trcel. Ashland, Orcson 97520
Residence · 48'2-8659
Office/fax . 482-5387
E-mail .philip@mind.nct.ruUl@miod.net
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2007
March 26, 2007
c.... ,,' ..:.';' ~.."..(
Cor:'i{r~;j;.;j~y" D~v&:opment
To: Mayor
City Council
Planning Commission
Planning Dept.
HClI.-s;.'nC} ~.
~ The Future of Condominiumization
Those concerned with the condominiumizat10n of Ashland need hllve no
fear about getting an ordinance prohibiting this get-richer-quicker
scheme of the brokers and developers. We will have an anti-condominium
ordinance when all the condominium conversions are complete. Actually,
we did have an anti-condominium conversion ordinance in 1979 _. with
a "finding of emergency" - but it was undone by later politics.l
machinations.
Ashland is about twenty years behind the condominiumiza tion cr.Bze.
It happened in the Bay Area that long ago. Now it has reached Ashland.
What is its future?
The present major decline in the real estate sector is not over.
There will be no "soft landing". Indeed, an examina tion of thE!
fundamentals indicates that the worst is yet to come. What will
happen in the condominiumization sector is ;.lla1:ready indicated by an
article that probably most p~ople missed in the March 24, 2007,DT.
It is attached for your perusal.
Affordable apartments are being converted to unaffordable condolB.
When these become unrentable Qecause condominium1zation has forl::ed
the rentals to outrageous highs, the condomiunimization q.uick-IDc)Dey
scheme will join the cascade of real estate collapses.
I have heard from some Ashland real estate people that people who buy
homes - or condominiumize apartments have money and will not be affected
by the real estate collapse. Presumably their money is with a etokk
~roker in San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Portland. No real estate
collapse has failed to bring down thH stock market with it.
P~.J:;"G
attached: DT article "Condos switching to apartments" _ 3/24/07
July 28, 2006
Ashland PI81ming Commission
City of Ashland
20 E Main
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Apartment/Condo conversion
Dear Commissioners;
For many years I've owned an apartment building in Ashland. Converting to
condominium units has always been an option, and in fact a goal, for that building.
Concern that available rental units are diminishing in the city, while commendable, is
resulting in suggestions that ignore property rights by uncompensated taking of the ability
to create condos. This results in a "taking" that is remedied by Measure 37.
To enl:ourage rental unit creation, or for that matter, "affordable housing", the City could
consider waiving development fees, adjusting city-imposed building codes, contribute
city street and utility work, and other aids which come from city assets and therefore
equally from all residents.
Sincerely,
Don Skillman
POB } 120
Ashland, OR 97520
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION (DRAFT)
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 12, 2007
CONDO CONVERSION ORDINANCE
The Council recently reviewed the modified ordinance and they decided they wanted to
achieve the goal of rentals and particularly affordable rentals in Ashland. They asked
City staffto re-write the condo conversion ordinance. An ad hoc committee made up of
two Planning Commissioners (Tom Dimitre and Michael Dawkins) and the Land Use
subcommittee of the Housing Commission (Bill Smith, Bill Street, Regina Ayars and
Alice Hardesty) met to make changes. The Housing Commission reviewed the
substantive changes at their meeting on May 24th. In this latest version, three options will
be given to an applicant that are outlined in the memo dated June 12, 2007 from Brandon
Goldman, Housing Program Specialist. Staff developed a sliding scale so the larger the
complex size, the greater percentage of rental units had to be maintained. (There are
exceptions. )
Commission Comments
1. What percentage of units is non-conforming?
2. Not enough information.
3. Would like to see more affordable units.
4. After Legal reviews, it could change everything again.
5. Like the general concept of this ordinance.
6. Less concerned about affordable rentals than losing rentals.
7. How do you motivate the private sector to do affordable housing?
8. Do we want to socially engineer housing?
9. The options and formula provided are reasonable.
10. We won't be seeing any new apartments built - only condos
11. We have the sense this ordinance will gain us something, but we don't really
know the outcomes.
12. This is a complicated and complex subject.
13. Disallow condos and only allow rentals.
14. The only way to get more apartments is to subsidize them.
15. There are two companion goals that start to compete with each other. To get
affordability you have to do it by incentive. If you take away all potential
incentives, by protecting every single rental unit at market rate, what can you
offer as an incentive? There is a trade-off between protection and creating
incentives.
16. Build an ordinance addressing just condominiums.
17 . We have only a limited number of apartments that will convert because all
new construction will be built as condominiums and no one will ever build a
new apartment again.
18. Wary about layer of government that is involved and the amount of regulation
this ordinance might take as well as the cost to regulate it.
19. Rental Needs Analysis has shortcomings. Survey did not include those who
carry cell phones.
20. The market is challenging for low income individuals.
21. No other examples of condominium conversions we can draw from in the
State of Oregon even though many other communities are facing the same
problems.
Public Comments
AARON BENJAMIN - The basic objective is to preserve as many affordable rentals in
as fair a way as possible from the threat of condo conversions. Believe Goldman's
formula presents something that they believe will work. The market is changing.
COLIN SWALES - He said "condominium" is an ownership type. It is not "for
purchase" as implied in the title of the ordinance. Condominium conversion is a
conditional use. What is a use and what isn't a use? Conversion of an ownership type to
condominium ownership is not a use. A use is still residential. Owner occupied is a
different kind of use than rental occupation. No conversions from multi-family zoning to
condominium ownership.
Stalheim said we have no regulation on condominiums. There is no process under state
statute that requires the City to have a process other than the City surveyor.
Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
Stromberg wanted Staff to summarize this for the Council. He recommended the
Council members view the last 45 minutes of tonight's video.
Due to the growing complexity of trying to resolve this ordinance, Fields moved not
to adopt the current ordinance as it has evolved. Dotterrer seconded the motion.
Mindlin suggested an amendment asking the Council to gather more information on
how this will work. Fields said the proposed ordinance as it has evolved has gotten
more complex with not having enough corroborating data or outcomes or knowing
the general net affect of it, and we are not willing to support it at this time.
Roll Call: Morris, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Fields and Dawkins voted "yes." Dimitre and
Stromberg voted "no." The motion carried.
Hartzell said as someone who has watched this evolve, she would ask the Planning
Commission to step forward and help with this problem.
CITY OF
ASHLJ\ND
Council Communication
An Ordinance Revising Ashland Ethics Provisions (AMC 3.08.020)
Meeting Date: Jtinu 10, 2Mf ::r,^,~ L 1 iaQ:)1-
Department: Legal
Contributing Departments: 'Mn"d J~
Approval: Martha Bjl'lfJ
Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
E-mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Staff Contact:
E-mail:
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Statement:
Attached please find two ordinances. The first ordinance is the marked up version the Council has seen thru ApriI200?
The second ordinance (version 2) is a clean copy of the first ordinance with a few recommended changes made after I
discussed the ordinance with the Planning Commission. You have seen this ordinance once before. The differences occur
in Paragraph E, E.? and H and are discussed below. Both ordinances would amend the ethics provisions in Ashland
Municipal Code in accordance with Council direction from last year. The primary change is to also include~ elected officials
and appointed officials in its applicability. A provision restricting appointed officials from representing clients for hire before
any body of the city on a matter that will or has come before the body to which the official is appointed to serve has been
added. (Paragraph EA) Additionally, procedures for addressing the applicability of the code provisions has been added,
with the City Administrator making that determination for applicability to employees and the City Council ('1st ordinance) or
Mayor (2nd ordinance) making the determination of applicability to appointed and elected officials. The Council will be asked
to consider additional Judicial Ethics in a separate ordinance.
Background:
The Ashland City Council held a study session March 6, 2006, to discuss the possibility of amending the Elthics provisions
within the Ashland Municipal Code. After careful consideration the City Council indicated an interest in:
1) Amending the Ethics provisions currently in the Ashland Municipal Code to be applicable to elected and
appointed officials in addition to applicability to city employees;
2) Adding in a procedure for investigating and enforcing the ethics provisions;
3) Adding a provision similar to provisions in the Gresham City Charter which would require Ashland to have
ethics provisions in its municipal code which can be enforced locally.
The proposed ordinance would amend the ethics provisions in the Ashland Municipal Code to apply to elHcted and
appointed officials in addition to employees. Additionally, the amendments would prevent an appointed official from
representing clients for hire before any board or commission or before the City Council on matters which would come before
the board or commission on which the appointed official sits. (Paragraph EA) The proposed changes also add exceptions
for the use of public property for private benefit for instances which are specifically set forth as a benefit of employment and
for the granting of special treatment or advantage to a citizen when provided for by law. (Paragraph D.2) Finally, the
proposed ordinance permits determinations of applicability by the City Administrator for applicability to employees and
determinations of applicability by the City Council (1st) or Mayor (2nd) for applicability to appointed and/or elected officials.
The sanctions paragraph has been amended to provide violations are considered cause for discipline.
After informal discussion of the ordinance with the Planning Commission I recommended a few changes to the draft
ordinance. To address statutory requirements for some Boards and Commissions, the first Paragraph under E now contains
the following disclaimer at the end:
~.,
Nothing herein prohibits a public officer from engaging in any business, profession or employment that is permitted
or required as regards the composition of a Board, Commission or Committee, (e.g. Planning Commissioners
engaged in real estate pursuant to ORS 227.030 or Building Code Board of Appeals, [AMC 15.04.200] members
engaged in specific trades).
Similarly, because state law is sometimes stricter, clarification was added in a new paragraph E. 7
7. More Restrictive State Law Provisions. Nothing in this ordinance relieves or excuses public officers and
employees from compliance with more restrictive state laws applicable to the particular public position, (e.g.
Planning Commissioners are subject to more restrictive Conflict of Interest Provisions pursuant to ORS 244.135.)
Finally, for efficiency, under paragraph H, the determination was given to the Mayor with a possible call up by the Council:
The determination of the Mayor as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation shall be
final, unless a majority of the Council calls up the determination for review by the full Council at the meeting
following the determination.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
The Council could adopt the proposed ordinance (version 1 or 2) amending the Ashland ethics
provisions as stated above.
The Council could suggest changes to amend the proposed draft ordinances.
The Council could reject the proposed changes, thereby, leaving the ethics provisions applicable only
to City of Ashland employees.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council adopt (Version 2) An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To
Apply Ethics Provisions To Employees, Appointed Officials And Elected Officials by title only
on first reading and move to second reading.
Potential Motions:
I move the Council adopt (version 1 or 2) An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 Tel Apply Ethics
Provisions To Employees, Appointed Officials And Elected Officials by title only on first reading
and move to second reading.
I move the Council adopt (version 1 or 2) An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 T() Apply Ethics
Provisions To Employees, Appointed Officials And Elected Officials by title only on first reading
as amended. . . and move to second reading. (Note: If you make amendments, please be sure to
identify the included amendments when making this motion).
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance (version 1 and 2).
~'.
.~~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 3.08.020 TO APPLY ETHICS
PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletiol~
lined through and additions are underlined. ~
RECITALS:
1. The City of Ashland is committed to the highest ethical standards for its public
officials.
2. As a statement in that regard, in addition to any standards set forth by the state,
Ashland has had its own ethics provision applicable to public employees for more
than 25 years.
3. As a sign of continuing commitment to the highest ethical standards Ashland desires
to extend application of its ethics provisions to appointed and elected officials.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 3.08.020 Code of Ethics.
A. Declaration of Policy. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials.
including elected officials. appointed officials and employees be independent, impartial and
responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of
the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have
confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals, there is hereby
established a Code of Ethics for all employeespublic officials, whether paid or unpaid.
The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all employeespublic officials
by setting forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the City of
Ashland. It is also the purpose of this Code to assist emplayeespublic officials in determining the
proper course of action when faced with uncertainty regarding the propriety of a contemplated action,
thereby preventing them from unwittingly entangling public and private interests.
Through adoption of this Code the City hereby expresses its intent to maintain high ethical standards
in the City service, and to increase public confidence in the integrity of City empleyeespublic
officials.
B. Responsibilities of Public Office. EmployeesPublic officials are agents of public purpose and are
employedengaged for the benefit of the public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of this State and to carry out impartially the laws of the nation,
state and the City, and thus to foster respect for all government. They are bound to observe in their
official acts the highest standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office
regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest must be their primary
concern.
Page 1 of4
FILENAME \p G:\Iegal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docG:\Ie~81\Mike\OflliH8Hees\Ethies AmelldltleHts Ort!
~G: \Iegal\M ike\OraiHlffiees-\Ethies f.meFlameHts.doe
C. Dedicated Service. All employeespublic officials of the City should be loyal work to gumm:Lthe
political objectives expressed by the electorate and the programs developed to attain those objectives.
Appointive officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and performance established
as the standard for their positions by the appropriate authority.
Employees Public officials should not exceed their authority or breach the law or ask others to do
so, and they should work in full cooperation with other employecspublic officials unless prohibited
from so doing by law or by officially recognized confidentiality of their work.
D. Fair and Equal Treatment.
1. Interest in Appointments. Canvassing of members of the Councilor Mayor, directly or indirectly,
in order to obtain preferential consideration in connection with any appointment to the City
service shall disqualify the candidate for appointment except with reference to positions filled by
appointment by the Mayor or Council.
2. Use of Public Property. No ~loyee public official shall request or permit the use of city-owned
vehicles, equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit, except when such
services are available to the public generally or are provided as municipal policy for the use of
such employee in the conduct of official business or as a specifically defined benefit in
compensation of employment.
3. Obligations to Citizens. No empleyeepublic official shall grant any special consideration,
treatment or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen except
as otherwise permitted by law or ordinance.
E. Conflict of Interest. No cmployeepublic official, whether paid or unpaid. shall engage in any
business or transaction or shall have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is
incompatible with the proper discharge of that ~loyee's public official's official duties in the public
interest or would tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of that
employee'spublic official's official duties. Personal, as distinguished from financial, interest includes
an interest arising from blood or marriage relationships or close business or political association.
Specific conflicts of interest are enumerated below for the-guidance of employees.~
1. Incompatible Employment. No employee shall engage in or accept private employment or render
services for private interests when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper
discharge of that employee's official duties or would tend to impair independence of judgment or
action in the performance of that employee's official duties.
2. Disclosure of Confidential Information. No epublic official mployee shall, without proper legal
authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government or affairs of
the City. Nor shall any employee public official use such information to advance their financial
or private interest, or the financial or private interest of others.
3. Gifts and Favors. No employee public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the form
of service, loan, thing or promise, from any person, firm or corporation which to their knowledge
is interested directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the City;
nor shall any such employee (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to influence
the employee in the discharge of their duties, or (2) grant, in the discharge of their duties, any
improper favor, service or thing of value.
4. Representing Private Interests Before City Agencies or Courts. No employee whose salary is
paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in behalf of private interests before any agency of
the City. An employee shall not represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the
interests of the City in any litigation to which the City is a party, unless the employee is
Page 2 of 4
FILENAME \p G:\legal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docC:'degal\Mike\OraiRalleesl,Etkie~ Amendments Ore
~G:'degal~fike\OrdiRanee~,Ethies AmeRameRls.aoe
representing himseWherself as a private citizen on purely personal business. No appointed
official shall represent a client for hire before the board or commission to which that official is
appointed or in any action of proceeding before another board. commission or the City Council
on a matter which came or will come before the board or commission to which that official is
appointed.
No employee public official shall accept a retainer or compensation that is contingent upon a
specific action by a-the City agency.
5. Contracts with the City. Any employeepublic official who has a substantial or controlling
financial interest in any business entity, transaction or contract with the City, or in the sale of real
estate, materials, supplies or services to the City, shall make known to the proper authority such
interest in any matter on which that employeepublic official may be called to act in lm official
capacity. The employeepublic official shall refrain from participating in the transaction or the
making of such contract or sale.
Aft employeepublic official shall not be deemed interested in any contract or purchase or sale of
land or other thing of value unless such contract or sale is recommended. approved, awarded,
entered into, or authorized by the employeepublic official in an official capacity.
6. Disclosure of Interest in Legislation. Any employee or appointed official who has a fiinancial or
other private interest, and who participates in discussion with or gives an official opinion to the
Council, shall disclose on the records of the Council or other appropriate authority the nature and
extent of such interest.
F. Political Activity. No employee in the administrative service shall use the prestige oftheir position in
behalf of any political party. No employee in the administrative service shall orally, by letter or
otherwise, solicit or be in any manner concerned in soliciting any assessment, subs(;ription or
contribution to any political party; nor shall an employee be a party to such solicitation by others; nor
shall an employee take an active part in political campaigns for candidates while in the pmiormance
of duties in an official capacity.
No employeepublic official -shall promise an appointment to any municipal position as a reward for
any political activity.
I G. Applicability of Code - Employees. When an employee has doubt as to the applicability of a
provision of this code to a particular situation, they should apply to the City Administrator, who is
charged with the implementation of this code for an advisory opinion, and be guided by that opinion
when given. The employee shall have the opportunity to present their interpretation of the facts at
issue and of the applicable provision(s) of the code before such advisory decision is made. All such
requests for advice shall be treated as confidential. This code shall be operative in all instances
covered by its provisions except when superseded by an applicable statute, ordinance or resolution,
and each statute, ordinance or resolution action is mandatory, or when the application of a statute,
ordinance or resolution provision is discretionary but determined to be more appropriate or desirable.
H. Applicability of Code - Appointed and Elected Officials. When an appointed official or an elected
official has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation. they
should apply to the City Council for a determination. The official seeking a determination shall have
the opportunity to present any facts they deem relevant to the determination. They shall allso have the
opportunity to present any argument they may have as to what they deem an appropriate
Page 3 of4
FILENAME \p G:\legal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docG:\legal\Mike\Offiiftllflces\Ethies f.m(:RomeRts Ore
~G:\leg81\M ike\OfdiR8ftees\Etkies Ameftdmellts.doe
determination. The City Council. the Mayor or the City Administrator may request the City Attorney
to provide an advisory opinion based upon the facts presented. The determination of the City Council
as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation shall be fmal.
I. Definitions:
I) Emplovee - for the purposes of this section. the term employee shall mean one who is hired and
paid a wage or salary to work for the City other than elected or appointed officials.
2) Appointed Official - for the purposes of this section. the term "appointed official" shall mean a
person who is appointed to serve on one of the City's boards or commissions and shall also mean the
City Administrator and City Attorney.
3) Elected Official- for the pw:poses of this section. elected official shall mean one who is elected
by the registered voters of the City of Ashland to serve the city and shall include: the Mayor. the city
councilors. the city recorder. the municipal iudge and the parks commissioners.
IH. Sanctions. Violation of 8ft)' previsions of this eode sHould mise eOftseientious qHestieIls fer the
employee eoneemed as to whether 'Iohmtary resignatioB or other aetioB is iBoieated to promote the
best iftterest ef the City. Violation of any provision of this section. determined after notice and an
opportunity to be heard. shall constitute cause for disciplinary action.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _ day of
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of
,2006,
,2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
FILENAME \p G:\legal\Mike\Ordinances\Ethics Amendments Ord - 2.docG:\Iegfll\Mike\OraiHBflees\Etfiies Amenameflts Onl
~G: \leglll'Mike\Ordiflflfleesl,Etfiies Amell8meftts.aae
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 3.08.020 TO APPLY ETHICS
PROVISIONS TO EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
linod through and additions are underlined.
RECITALS:
1. The City of Ashland is committed to the highest ethical standards for its public
officials.
2. As a statement in that regard, in addition to any standards set forth by the state,
Ashland has had its own ethics provision applicable to public employees for more
than 25 years.
3. As a sign of continuing commitment to the highest ethical standards Ashland desires
to extend application of its ethics provisions to appointed and elected officials.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
SECTION 3.08.020 Code of Ethics.
A. Declaration of Policy. The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials,
including elected officials, appointed officials and employees be independent, impartial and
responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policy be made in the proper channels of
the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have
confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals, there is hereby
established a Code of Ethics for all public officials, whether paid or unpaid.
The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all public officials by setting
forth those acts or actions that are incompatible with the best interests of the City of Ashland. It is
also the purpose of this Code to assist public officials in determining the proper course of action when
faced with uncertainty regarding the propriety of a contemplated action, thereby preventing them
from unwittingly entangling public and private interests.
Through adoption of this Code the City hereby expresses its intent to maintain high ethical standards
in the City service, and to increase public confidence in the integrity of City public officials.
B. Responsibilities of Public Office. Public officials are agents of public purpose and are engaged for
the benefit of the. public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of this State and to carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state and the City, and
thus to foster respect for all government. They are bound to observe in their official acts the highest
standards of morality and to discharge faithfully the duties of their office regardless of personal
considerations, recognizing that the public interest must be their primary concern.
C. Dedicated Service. All public officials of the City should work to support the political objectives
expressed by the electorate and the programs developed to attain those objectives. Appointive
Page 1 of 4
officials and employees should adhere to the rules of work and performance established as the
standard for their positions by the appropriate authority.
Public officials should not exceed their authority or breach the law or ask others to do so, and they
should work in full cooperation with other public officials unless prohibited from so doing by law or
by officially recognized confidentiality of their work.
D. Fair and Equal Treatment.
1. Interest in Appointments. Canvassing of members of the Councilor Mayor, directly or indirectly,
in order to obtain preferential consideration in connection with any appointment to the City
service shall disqualify the candidate for appointment except with reference to unpaid positions
filled by appointment by the Mayor or Council.
2. Use of Public Property. No public official shall request or permit the use of city-owned vehicles,
equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit, except when such services
are available to the public generally or are provided as municipal policy for the use of such
employee in the conduct of official business or as a specifically defined benefit in compensation
of employment.
3. Obligations to Citizens. No public official shall grant any special consideration, treatment or
advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen except as otherwise
permitted by law or ordinance.
E. Conflict of Interest. No public official, whether paid or unpaid, shall engage in any business or
transaction or shall have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible
with the proper discharge of that public official's official duties in the public interest or would tend to
impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of that public official's official duties.
Personal, as distinguished from financial, interest includes an interest arising from blood or marriage
relationships or close business or political association. Nothing herein prohibits a public officer from
engaging in any business, profession or employment that is permitted or required as regards the
composition of a Board, Commission or Committee, (e.g. Planning Commissioners engaged in real
estate pursuant to ORS 227.030 or Building Code Board of Appeals, [AMC 15.04.200] members
engaged in specific trades).
Specific conflicts of interest are enumerated below for guidance:
1. Incompatible Employment. No employee shall engage in or accept private employment or render
services for private interests when such employment or service is incompatible with the proper
discharge of that employee's official duties or would tend to impair independence of judgment or
action in the performance of that employee's official duties.
2. Disclosure of Confidential Information. No public official shall, without proper legal
authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government or affairs of
the City. Nor shall any public official use such information to advance their financial or private
interest, or the financial or private interest of others.
3. Gifts and Favors. No public official shall accept any valuable gift, whether in the fonn of service,
loan, thing or promise, from any person, firm or corporation which to their lmowledge is
interested directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever in business dealings with the City; nor
shall any such employee (1) accept any gift, favor or thing of value that may tend to influence the
employee in the discharge of their duties, or (2) grant, in the discharge of their duties, any
improper favor, service or thing of value.
4. Representing Private Interests Before City Agencies or Courts. No employee whose salary is
paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in behalf of private interests before any agency of
the City. An employee shall not represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the
Page 2 of 4
interests of the City in any litigation to which the City is a party, unless the employee is
representing himself/herself as a private citizen on purely personal business. No appointed
official shall represent a client for hire before the board or commission to which that official is
appointed or in any action of proceeding before another board, commission or the City Council
on a matter which came or will come before the board or commission to which that official is
appointed.
No public official shall accept a retainer or compensation that is contingent upon a specific action
by the City.
5. Contracts with the City. Any public official who has a substantial or controlling financial interest
in any business entity, transaction or contract with the City, or in the sale of real estate, materials,
supplies or services to the City, shall make known to the proper authority such interest in any
matter on which that public official may be called to act in an official capacity. The public
official shall refrain from participating in the transaction or the making of such contract or sale.
A public official shall not be deemed interested in any contract or purchase or salle of land or
other thing of value unless such contract or sale is recommended, approved, awarded, entered
into, or authorized by the public official in an official capacity.
6. Disclosure of Interest in Legislation. Any employee or appointed official who has a financial or
other private interest, and who participates in discussion with or gives an official opinion to the
Council, shall disclose on the records of the Councilor other appropriate authority the nature and
extent of such interest.
7. More Restrictive State Law Provisions. Nothing in this ordinance relieves or excuses public
officers and employees from compliance with more restrictive state laws applicable to the
particular public position, (e.g. Planning Commissioners are subject to more restrictive Conflict
ofInterest Provisions pursuant to ORS 244.135.)
F. Political Activity. No employee in the administrative service shall use the prestige of their position in
behalf of any political party. No employee in the administrative service shall orally, by letter or
otherwise, solicit or be in any manner concerned in soliciting any assessment, subscription or
contribution to any political party; nor shall an employee be a party to such solicitation by others; nor
shall an employee take an active part in political campaigns for candidates while in the performance
of duties in an official capacity.
No public official shall promise an appointment to any municipal position as a reward for any
political activity.
G. Applicabilitv of Code - Employees. When an employee has doubt as to the applicability of a
provision of this code to a particular situation, they should apply to the City Administrator, who is
charged with the implementation of this code for an advisory opinion, and be guided by that opinion
when given. The employee shall have the opportunity to present their interpretation of the facts at
issue and of the applicable provision(s) of the code before such advisory decision is made. All such
requests for advice shall be treated as confidential. This code shall be operative in all instances
covered by its provisions except when superseded by an applicable statute, ordinance or resolution,
and each statute, ordinance or resolution action is mandatory, or when the application of a statute,
ordinance or resolution provision is discretionary but determined to be more appropriate or desirable.
Page 3 of 4
H. Applicability of Code - Appointed and Elected Officials. When an appointed official or an elected
official has doubt as to the applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation, they
should apply to the Mayor for a determination and City Council will be informed of the inquiry. The
official seeking a determination shall have the opportunity to present any facts they deem relevant to
the determination. They shall also have the opportunity to present any argument they may have as to
what they deem an appropriate determination. The Mayor may request the City Attorney to provide
an advisory opinion based upon the facts presented. The determination of the Mayor as to the
applicability of a provision of this code to a particular situation shall be final, unless a majority of the
Council calls up the determination for review by the full Council at the meeting following the
determination..
I. Definitions:
1) Employee - for the purposes of this section, the term employee shall mean one who is hired and
paid a wage or salary to work for the City other than elected or appointed officials.
2) Appointed Official - for the purposes of this section, the term "appointed official" shall mean a
person who is appointed to serve on one of the City's boards or commissions and shall allso mean the
City Administrator and City Attorney.
3) Elected Official - for the purposes of this section, elected official shall mean one who is elected
by the registered voters of the City of Ashland to serve the city and shall include: the Mayor, the city
councilors, the city recorder, the municipal judge and the parks commissioners.
J. Sanctions.. Violation of any provision of this section, determined after notice and an opportunity to
be heard, shall constitute cause for disciplinary action.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the
day of
,2006,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of
,2006.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2006.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
168 North Wightman St.
Ashland
541) 951-2053
! ~ ~~ ;
City Council and Mayor
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
May 28, 2007
Il~1 [~~ (; :;20}i~11
. J! I "
! - I I
f ,
i8' f
L.......::~~.::-=..:.:.--=-.-:----::::-. .:::~_:=.~=~==-j
Dear City Council Members and Mayor:
I currently have the privilege of serving as a member of the Ashland Historic
Commission. As an archaeologist my primary interests in Ashland's history relate to
archaeological resources rather than the architectural styles of historic buildings. During
my time on the commission I've learned a great deal about Ashland's architectural
history from the designers and architects who serve on the commission. I've observed
and sometimes participated in numerous discussions involving design details, mass and
scale and contextual issues as they relate to various proposed projects in Ashland.
In general, these discussions are extremely helpful to the individuals appearing before the
commission. The value of these discussions is due primarily to the insight and
suggestions of the design professionals who are on the commission. These individuals
routinely and meticulously avoid conflicts of interest by recusing themselves if they are
personally involved in a project.
I'm concerned that the new ordinance will lead to the resignations of the very
commission members who are most qualified to discuss issues brought before the
commission. For this reason I urge you to remove the sentence in Section E4 that
contains the phrase". . . or any action or proceeding before another board, commission or
City Council. . ." Failure to change this segment of the ordinance will have the
unintended consequence of substantially weakening the ability of the historic commission
to function effectively
Thank you for your consideration.
rcfrelY, ~
Henry A. Baker, RP A
A
ro~@~. D-W~m
ill] JUN 0 1 2007 IY)
18 y ReU:~ V,'O-- E- 1M; I
==----_.---=..-..~-
1500 WINDSOR STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
TEL: 541-552-1039
FAX: 541-552-1064
\.
June 1, 2007
City Councilors and Mayor
City of Ashland, OR
Honorable Councilors and Mayor,
I am writing this letter to express my concern over the Proposed City Ethics Ordinance,
particularly Section EA. of the proposed ordinance. My understanding is that this
section will prohibit members or officials of a commission or board from representing
clients before any City board, commission or the City Council if the matter in question is
to come before the board or commission to which the member or official is appointed.
Having been a member of the Ashland Historic Commission and being a practicing
architect in the City of Ashland, it is my opinion that this provision represents an
unnecessary limitation on the ability of professionals to serve in a voluntary capacity in
the interest of the City and its citizens. I can understand and agree with provisions
which would require a board or commission member to recuse himself or herself from
hearing matters pertaining to a client before the board or commission on which such
board or commission member sits, but to prohibit the member from representing a client
before any commission, board or the City council on the grounds that the matter in
question may eventually come before the particular body on which the member sits
seems unwarranted.
In my opinion, this measure will discourage capable professionals within the City from
volunteering for positions on boards and commissions that are important to the
community--positions which are difficult enough to fill with qualified and knowl1edgeable
citizens. I don't see a benefit to the City in this provision but I do see a limitation on the
effective operation of the City's vital boards and commissions.
Sincerely,
Allen Crutcher
1
Robert Saladoff, Architect
150 Church Street
Ashland, OR 97520
541-482-3772 541-488-0860 (fax) rob@salarch.com
Ifrjl)' rg'r~l~ il~'\~ -i~ --!I~I II
! ", L::J ~ '" L._ _ II
I 1 I Ii
n "'.. . I i
J'l'. JUN,O 1 200/ rUij
J LJ;
i
IBy ~4 ViA ~-IJ{a;LJ
'--~-""'-~___-...-l
J\1ay 31, 2007
Esteemed Councilors and Mayor,
I recently resigned my position as a member of the Ashland Historic
Commission, after serving two terms for a total of six years. It was very rewarding,
and I believe we provided a great service to the community. During that time, I was
unable to present my client's project before the Historic Commission. For those
projects, either my client or the contractor presented the project before the Historic
Commission. They often felt unprepared and uncomfortable doing so, but I agree
there is conflict of interest for the other Commissioners and myself in those cases. I
was able, however, to represent my client before the other Commissions.
I was deeply disappointed to read in the Ashland Daily Tidings that "'council
members voted to give initial approval for extending ethics rules that apply to paid
employees, to themselves, and the many volunteers who serve on city commissions,
committees and boards." As a former member of one of our city's commissions, and
as someone who would like to serve the community in the future in another
appointed position, I would strongly urge you to reconsider inclusion of proposed
limitations to "volunteers" in this new ethics rule. I refer specifically as it limits
volunteers in section E 4 which reads, "... or any action of proceeding before another
board, commission or City Council."
I believe that if the new ethics rule was extended to volunteers, our city would
lose many of its most highly trained, professionally experienced, and knowledgeable
citizens who have volunteered their expertise for the betterment of our community. I
would, in fact, be unable to take on that role as it would limit my ability to do my job
and pursue my livelihood on behalf of my clients. Many of the most informed,
experience, and competent volunteers currently serving on the committees may also
decide to step down, because of the new broad-sweeping ethics rules that disallow a
volunteer commissioner to testify for a client before other commissions. As a sole
proprietor, there is no other person in my office to take on that role. In addition, my
reading of the new rules would limit others with financial interest in the project (i.e.
partners, employees, ete.) from representing clients of that organization. These new
rules are far too sweeping for a small town like Ashland, and the rules may actually
create a bias against small businesses and owners who also have an interest in serving
their community. It appears to me that the opinions of volunteer commissioners have
been disregarded on this matter and excessive weight has been given to a few in the
commullity.
Individuals or businesses who need to go into the courtroom, hire the best and
most experienced attorney possible because they "know their way inside" the courts
and its proceedings. There is nothing illegal or unethical with that process. Why
would an individual building a house or developing property be limited in who can
represent them before the City or other Commissions?
V olunteers for our commissions offer the benefit of their talents and expertise
to the community without any additional cost to that community. Volunteers serve
because of a passion to serve the community. From this new ethics rule, it appears
that the city would instead encourage the volunteerism of those with no background
and no expertise in the different areas of service.
During my tenure on the Historical Commission, I have seen Commissioners
often recuse themselves at the most innocent connection with any person or project
before our meetings. In addition, I have never seen a Commissioner attempt to
represent any private interest at our meetings, nor have I seen other Commissioners
ever give sway to such relationships because they happened to know a person
bringing an issue before the commission. In fact, I believe that the other
commissioners go out of their way to scrutinize these types of projects. I have actually
experienced that first hand on my own house.
Almost without exception, I have been impressed with the honesty and
decisions about ethics rules by the same people this new ethics rule will now exclude.
If enacted, there will there be any landscape professionals or arborists on the Tree
Commission? There will be no planners, architects, engineers, designers, or
contractors on the Planning, Historic, Housing or Conservation Commissions? I urge
you to reconsider the impact this decision would have on the City of Ashland.
Best Regards,
Robert Saladoff, Architect
KRAMER & COMPANY
!: :11< ~ N~ ('-4-ZI~O ~1~1 A E-M~ D::R~T~
l?ot,!~i0~ (-(\,{t4dl
HIHori< Preservation Consultants
386 Norih Laurel
541-482-9504 [voice]
iYV/'vV. preserveor"eoon .C~ill
.~~preserveOt~eoon .CO!]2
Ashiand, Oregon 97520-1154
541-482-9438 lfax]
Date:
6/3/2007 '
To:
Mayor John Morrison & Members of the CIty Council
Re:
Proposed Ethics Provisions, AMC 3.08.020
Dear Mr. l\layor and Members of the Council,
I am writing to voice some concern over the proposed revisions to the "-\sWand Ivlunicipal Code regarding
Ethical Standards for City employees, appointed and elected officials. Obviously, on its face, the intent of the
ordinance is laudable and better defines the potential issues that can arise from individuals who approve the
pnvilege of employment or appointment for personal gain.
That saId, I know that many of the City's volunteer commissions rely upon professionals in the field for
servICe. I also know that finding qualified individuals, with the willingness to serve as well as some background in
the area of discussion can be challenging if not impossible. This is particularly true of the Historic Commission,
whl[re knowledge of building, design and area architecture are all critical for that body to assist the Staff in reviewing
applications. I know that in years past the State Board of Ethics actually used historic commission members as an
example in which smaller towns have to balance gaining expertise with the occasional conflict of interest. Certainly
when a CommissIon member has such a conflict, they must recuse themselves, leave the room and act accordIngly
but I am hopeful that you will not interpret this ordinance to preclude people with direct training or experience in
the building field from serving on the AsWand Historic Commission.
1-\S an aside, In years past the Historic Commission, CPAC, the Tree Commission and even Traffic Safety
were seen as 'traIning grounds' for appointments to the Planning Commission, assuring that members of that body
had familiarity with both public process and the "-\sWand LDO. We seem to have moved away from that policy,
with several current Planning Comrrussioners appointed with little or no background in planning or in public
process. I do not believe this has been a successful strategy, causing additional delay in the review process,
increased burden for staff, and confusion for applicants. Stringent interpretation of this proposed language,
particularly Section E(4) offers the possibility of forces qualified applicants to all volunteer boards to resign due to a
need to work, removing their knowledge from the process. That isn' a trade-off worth considering. I hope you
will clearly express that such is not the expectation or requirement of this amendment prior to its adoption.
Thank you for attention to thIs matter. I regret 1 will be unable to attend the hearing next Tu.esday but
would like this entered to the record on this proposed amendment.
Sincerely,
,(
~
~---- f- t
.~. \J.r.J
C------~~\ i 1m
~~V'--'~~-
George Kramer, M.S.
1m.' I! @ [~ n ill ~ m
~ I JUN 0 5 2007 W
Proposed City Ethics Ordinance
Testimony for City Council Mtg. June 5, 2007 LBy:.-_~:.~.
My name is Dale Shostrom, and I live at 1240 Tolman Creek Rd.
Ashland. I am presently the chairman of the Historic Commission which I
have served on for the last 10 years. By Profession, I have been a
Designer-Builder in Ashland since 1974.
I am here again to express some concerns I have with the proposed
changes to the City Ethics Ordinance. Previously, I gave testimony on this
subject before the City Council on March 20. I then watched the Council
meeting of May 15, on RVTV and to my surprise, with little debate, the
Council passed the first reading of the Ethics Ordinance as proposed.
Tonight I am asking the Council to reconsider your decision because I
foresee serious repercussions that include discrimination, arbitrary
applications, and unintended consequences if passed as is.
The area of question is: Sec. E - CONFLICT OF INTEREST, Part 4 -
REPRESENTING PRIVATE AGENCIES BEFORE CITY AGENCIES OR
COURTS - The last sentence reads: "No appointed official shall represent
a client for hire before the Board or Commission to which that official is
appointed, or in any action of proceedings before another Board,
Commission, or the City Council on a matter which came or will come
before the Board or Commission to which that official is appointed."
My concern is with the second part, which reads: "No appointed official
shall represent a client for hire in any action of proceedings before
another Board, Commission, or City Council on matters which came or
will come before the Board or Commission to which that Official is
appointed." This portion of the ordinance is too restrictive - it takes
conflict of interest too far. This last sentence should be struck from the
ordinance for the following reasons:
1. As proposed, it would prohibit Architects, Planners, Landscape
Architects, building and landscape contractors, archeologists, or arborists
from presenting their expertise for hire before City proceedings if they
serve the City and the Public as members of a Commission. The greatest
potential negative impacts of this provision, would be the loss of the
present professional members to the Historic Commission, Tree
Commission, and the Building Appeals Board. Since most of the
professionals now on these Commissions are individual business owners,
without other staff to represent them at City required proceedings, most
would be compelled to choose their livelihood over a volunteer
Commission appointment.
2. A significant task of many Commissions is plan review. A Commission
that includes expertise in related fields is paramount to good decision
making by providing intelligent discussion and clarification of planning
issues, architectural design standards, and detailing requirements of the
development standards and city ordinances. This ordinance would make
recruitment of these valuable commission members more difficult in the
future.
3. As proposed it discriminates against equal participation by citizens who
choose to serve on commissions. Depending on your profession, ( i.e.
representing a client for hire) you may be prevented from participating in
any public: proceedings - that's discrimination based on profession.
4. The ordinance is applied arbitrarily, depending on whether a project is
located in a Historic District or not. For instance, on Beach St. the west
side is in the district, the east side is not. If I were hired to plan and
design an accessory unit, which requires a site review planning action, I
would be prohibited to represent a client in the Historic District, but across
the street, to the east, I could testify. The ordinance discriminates against
my livelihood because depending on where a client lives I mayor may not
be able to represent them in the public planning process.
The Ethics ordinance should be revised to eliminate the last portion of
Section E Part 4. because of the discrimination and unintended
consequences it would create. The existing ordinance that prohibits
appointed officials from representing a client for hire before their own
Board or Commission is very adequate protection. To find the solution to
conflict of interest issues in the City of Ashland it is imperative we focus on
the comprehensive education and enforcement of the existing laws that
define and declare ex parte contacts, bias and potential conflicts of
interest.
~ [f@[H!\VJIWTh]'
JUN 0 6 2007 I ~
L .
By Q(!)/'l VI''^- (~tWli(
June 6t\ 2007
Ashland City Council,
I was hoping to speak to the Council last night on the amendment to the Ethics
Ordinance, but do to time constraints the Council ran out of time and there was some
uncertainty as to when it would be back on your docket. Nevertheless, I wanted to
express my thoughts with you:
Since I left my position with the Ashland Planning Department, I've always hoped to
return to civil service in at least the form of a volunteer position on one of the many City
Commissions or Boards that help guide Ashland's future. This is my community - this is
my children's community! I owe it to them for not only the benefits of retaining
Ashland's many attributes, but to also reveal the importance of participating in civic
affairs.
Surprisingly, I've never had much interest with a Planning Commissioner's or City
Councilor's position (after watching last night's 3Y2 hour Council meeting I remembered
why), but instead have gravitated towards the thought of the Traffic Safety Commission,
Historic Commission or School Board. I've also entertained the idea of volunteering on
one of the many appointed committees such as the recently formed Ashland Street /1-5
Overpass Committee or the Mount Ashland Oversight Committee. Unfortunately, this
thought no longer appears to be possible based upon an amendment to the existing Ethics
Ordinance, specifically, Chapter 3.08.020 EA which reads:
3.08.020. EA. Representinf! Private Interests Before Citv Af!encies or Courts. No
employee whose salary is paid in whole or in part by the City shall appear in
behalf of private interests before any agency of the City An employee shall not
represent private interests in any action or proceeding against the interests of the
City in any litigation to which the City is a party unless the employee is
representing himself/herself as a private citizen on purely personal business No
appointed official shall represent a client for hire before the board or commission
to which that official is appointed or in any action of proceeding before another
board commission or the City Council on a matter which came or will come
before the board or commission to which that official is appointed.
Overall, I support all of the proposed changes to Chapter 3.08.020, but for a portion
of the last sentence of section EA. (00. or in any action of proceeding before another
board commission or the City Council on a matter which came or will come before
the board or commission to which that official is appointed.). To me this portion is
not rational and unfair to certain professionals who want to participate in their own
community's affairs. How can it reasonably be expected to obtain "qualified"
professionals such as an Architect to participate on the Planning Commission when
he/she could never present their findings to "another" board commission or the City
Council such as the Historic Commission, Tree Commission, Traffic Safety or City
Council. The same thing applies to a Certified Arborist or Transportation Engineer
who we as a community should desire to sit on the Tree Commission or Traffic
Safety Commission to make the best and safest possible recommendations to staff,
but probably wouldn't because they couldn't represent their clients in front of a
completely different public body such as the Planning Commission or City Council.
This limits our ability to obtain qualified candidates and makes a puddle of a pool to
draw from.
To me, this isn't about ethics as the existing code has a provision regulating against
potential conflict. This is about "unknowingly" diluting our commissions and boards
from qualified citizens that know how to read plans, know how to calculate complex
volume to capacity ratios, know when a heritage tree is going to be impacted, know
how to read traffic impact studies and know how to renovate historic buildings. All of
which is based upon experience.
Unfortunately, this will likely be the end for any new or existing caring citizens who
just so happen to work in an industry that "may" have the occasional need to present
their client's ideas to a completely different commission or board they don't even
serve on. From my years of experience, some of the best and most articulate and most
integras commissioners and board members have also been professionals related in
one way or another to the building industry - Dale Shostrom, John Fields, Colin
Swales, Joanne Krippagne, George Kramer, Lori Sager, Kerry KenCairn, Larry
Medinger, Daryl Boldt, etc.
SpecificaHy speaking about the efforts of the Ashland Historic Commission, I hope
the Council truly understands the nuances of how some of these people have helped
shape this community with not only their passion for historic preservation, but also
their commitment on land use related activities such as the saving of Carpenter Hall,
the demolition ordinance, the max house size ordinance, the big box ordinance, the
site design standards, downtown design standards, etc. In addition, the Historic
Commission provides free consultation every Thursday afternoon to the many
property owners who need advice with their remodel or addition.
Lastly, I have no idea how we're going to fill the future vacancies of the Historic
Commission as under the Certified Local Government (CLG) program (discussed last
night), the State requires "qualified" professionals on these boards. I believe 7 of the
9 members "have to be affiliated with a related field" such as architecture, contractor,
historian, archeologist, etc. The State Historic Preservation Office - nor the citizens
of Ashland want a return of the "hysteric commission" - i.e., we don't want Joe
Ordinary to step from his used car sales lot to advising a citizen on how to best
restore their historic home. I've been their - done that - and it doesn't work!
The CLG program gives the Ashland Historic Commission at least $2,000 every year
for such activities as training, Historic Preservation Week, etc. In addition, because
they're certified, they can receive grants up to $20,000 for items such as the study to
expand some of the Historic Districts and to evaluate individual sites scattered
throughout the City.
The additional wording to 3.08.020. EA. may sound good on the surface, but it's not.
It's a major mistake with repercussions that last 100's of years. What we need is more
Commissioner training not elimination of the most qualified. Thank you again for
your civic contribution and hopefully the majority of you agree that this additional
wording needs to be thoroughly analyzed and publicly discussed prior to final
adoption.
Sincerely,
Mark Knox
276 W. Nevada Street
482-7016
26