HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1203 Study Session/Special Mtg Packet
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, December 3,2007 at 5:15 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
5: 15 p.m. Study Session
1. Look Ahead Review
2. Review of regular meeting agenda for December 4,2007
3. Does the Council wish to accept or modify the proposed work plan for implementing the
2007-2008 City Council goals?
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Monday, December 3, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Special Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. 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. After hearing the appeal of the "Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain" Subdivision
for Systems Development Charges (SDC) credit allowance, which of the following
actions does the Council wish to take; Reject the appeal and affirm the staff
calculation of SDC credit at $63,075 or Grant the appeal and award the SDC credits
in a greater amount or partially grant the appeal by considering other aspects of the
developer's improvements that may be eligible for additional credits?
IV. 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).
~.l....l_l.l .J..J..l.L.. '-.1.1.. '-J.l It.,,-}.lJ.~./.l........1.....'U "-L...LI' 1...J.l.l-,-".J\..l ., " "l.:"'~_)l.lL~.!l.;''''J.J.'-),_l''-.'-:.J
~
~
~
~
~
~
ca
~~
Jil:
o
,,91";
Cl
c
:w
QI
QI
:E
'0
C
~~
O'q:
gt:
ca
:E
IIIQ
CC
'0
~
u
!.;;::
*
*
*
*
*
N
o
a::
o
co
~
.....
6
ct:
o
en N
Z ::c 0
o Q. a::
u 0
u
w
X
w
.
IQ) 00
.~ ~
m .~
c Q) :0-
Q) 00 ro
Ie .~ "5
.~ -Q)U 0:
....... a. =:
~ 00 ~_
ro !.~ -
>.-0) Q)
w i.~ g
ro:li:2 ro
:J ._ '5 c
cu.o 'E
CC... 0
<(;:'0
...0_ Q)
.8 ~ ~ 00
~IlIC :J
-11'3:J "0
00 0 C
'c () ro - '0 .~
'E- 0:: C .....J C C :0
o 0 C 0 :J
"0 00 _ <( ._
<( _ _____ 0.
I~ ,*"OQ)Q)o. ro
I~ ..., - m U 0
(5 ~~"Oc~ 0)
..c: E 0. ro C
:::: 0 :J .~ g> ~
~ e c "E'c :0
<(lIloOro ro
(!) ~ooC3 -
:: ~ .E ~ ~ lB
o~ro:JQ) c
--Q)a:::u-o
ro"EI c"E:+=
~ ro .u_ '(3 ro ro ..:2
... ..c: c .~ ~ 000
~ g .g 5 "O.~ Q)
<(esQ.()oesa:::
c
o
'00
00
Q)
00
Q)
>
:+=
:J
u
Q)
X
W
N
'" ...
c
Q)
E
Q)
~
0)
<(
-
c
Q)
E
0.
o
Q)
>
Q)
o
Q)
0)
:m
:>
Q)
"0
~
Ii)
en u
~ ~ fi
Q. Q.
~ ~
w w
Z Z
N
o
a::
o
en
w
a::
~
ro
.0
...
ro
@.
00
.~
ro
c -
<( ~
00 1::
Q) ro
E ~
c ____
:J >.
ro~ c
co. :J
ro 0. 0
00 ()
--u c:.............
_ ~ 'E ~ ~_
c 00 ~-
i ~a 16~
Ql UU 'c
:Ii ~ W .~ ro _
13 Q) 0) 13'~
c a::: c 'c"E i:C
::s Q)"E. .....00_ 0 ----
o Q) ro 00
(.) ... 0) 0 Q) Q)
~ I-Q) Q)OO_
III 00'" O):J 0';
I~ 00 ro C ro"O
'GiOOEQ) ::::c~
O::~OOE (j)rooo
:g~"O I~(j)
<(()53 >'..c:~
E ~-o
~'O<( ro.8Q.
()cc >Q)C
~ 2 ~ Q) m .2
-roo. :J"O~
_ E Q) 0) 0.._
oro> &:JE
2 C3'OO _ C E
Jge53 0~8
OOQ...c: au
_00 _00 ~ :+= C C
... ... 0. ro ro 'c
~ ~ E ::=- ...E .~ C
ro ro - "E ro
~~8@..foc:
00
Q)
.g?
0)
C
:+=
Q)
00
"0
C
ro
>.
.~
(5
0.
00
"0
...
o
U
~
<0
~ ;: ~
.... co '"
N
6
ct:
o
N
o
a::
o
::: ~~~~~6ci
. a:: 0 z W a:: a::
Q. U :J zoo
en en
en en
N
o 0
a:: a::
o 0
Q) -
Q) e>
~ ~ ~Q)
o E:JQ)
0. e ~~
& U5 ----c ---
'6 !E ~~ @.
:J i o___~"O ~
<( Ql ::::? ~ .- 53 --- C
E :Ii = .- ~ E ro
o :2.- @.!::: .- E III C
~::::gc~1::o';'"E
"O~~21::~~Q)0
.~ - (.) ro ro '- ... :+= Q)
:JQ)...-~Q....:Joo
0" .3 .!! 53 "C <(I- 2 0 :J
Q) ----I ~ oo..c: _Q)"O"o
~ C I~ ~ ~ .8 ffi ffi
Q) .2 0:: 0. ---- _ c ~ .....J
g>~ ~~~~~Q)
ro:J rocc :>..c:
..c:U o...c~o-
().!Q (!) 2 8 ro 0. .8
ro~ a<(offia2
E ~ '00 ~ ;. E '00 ~
~.~ .~ ~ <3 ~ .~ :3-
-Q) EOQ)<(Ec
000 Oc:5_oo
cQ) ()Q)...O()Q)
og ~E.g-~u
'00 ro c - ro c' c
00 - '- c 0) ~ '_ ro
a ~ 2'0 .~ ... 2 c
.!Q E ~ ~.~ ~ ~ 'E
0<( 0.<(1-<(0.0
'" ...
~ ~
lO co ....... co 0') 0
T""" 'I"""" T""" 'I"""" T""" C'\I
:E ~
"-x
00-0
~ ill
N.c
8~
N -'
a;-:::J
~tJ
~z
~::J
"9,0
1lIY-
&~
c.
.c
!!l
:i
en
~ ~
Q.
N
::c 0
Q. a::
o
o
::i
"0
C
ro
Q)
Q)
...
U5
>.
1::
Q)
'2:9
0.....J
"0 c
C 0
~o
g@.::i
:0:: c
Ql 0 ili
Ql .- 0
:Ii~_
.- .....J
13EQ)
C E - 00
;:, 0 ro .~
8()~ "5
~O)Q) 0
.!!COO "0
&'00 0 C
&~~ ~
Q) ..c: ~
:5 .!Q 0
>. :0 0.
.0 ro C
coo .Q
o Q) 00
.- 00
E .8 E 'E
53 g>2. E
00 'C >. 0
~ro~()
Q.Q)-O)
I <( C
~ ~ ~.~
c:Jc~
<(0.00.
cIi
Q)
c::
Cll
.c::
u
.s
-
u
Q)
'::"
-g
CI)
'l:J
c::
Cll
'"'"
U.
~
Q
Cll
III
.-
,Ill
.s
.!
o
c::
Q)
CI)
Cll
~
---
@.
N
'"
'"
'"
'"
~
(X)-.JO'>01,J::a.WN....a.
I--
~~~~~~~~
~ g ~. [ iii'~ g g
~~~~~~~.~.
3@~~O!a.~~
3ib'-' ;;00__
~<ffi~m:J::;fz
~ @ ::l ~ 0 ;:. Ql (!)
e!.. 2osSt:J~
(J")IJ) 2i5'o~'cn
~ g.::l (Jl~~
~ iil~"'~CIl
c.n6g'oo
~Ql ::l
a~~
:< =
0' a
(!) Ql
CIl 0.
"U
~ .
;:0 ;:0 ;:0
~ ~ ~
c c c
iii iii iii
... ... ...
() () () .
0 0 0 .
c c c
;:, ;:, ;:, *
~ ~ ~ *
i: . *
i: i: *
1 1 1 . *
J! &' ~' ~' . ;t!
CI) . to"i n
III
III !'-t ~
CI)
~ ~ ~
0
iil' ~ >-
" VI
S ,. ::r
Di
iii' ~ :I
iii' a.
III ~ n
~ 0
t:J c
~ :I
O.
'11 ~
""i Dj
III - tD
~ ~ tD
Q" rt'
III :i'
c:: - IC
~ ~ r-
CI) 0
e') .. 0
- ~ ...
8' ~ >-
e') ::r
~ .... ~ tD
III III
~ a.
CQ ru
!II f-
~
~
- ~
~
c- -
c-
. ..
f-
~
~
I--
:r:
1ii
"::J"
.g:;;u -
6 ~.
8~ ~
c~
z~
Q"N
!:=~
r N
8 8
<;;"
"::J"N
m N Ie
0.00
X " c>> ..
"'~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Status and Implementation Plan for 2007-2008 City Council Goals
Meeting Date: December 3,2007 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.oLUs
Secondary Dept.: All Secondary Contact:
Approval: Martha J. Bennet Estimated Time:
Question:
Does the Council wish to accept or modify the proposed work plan for implementing the 2007-2008
City Council goals?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council accept the proposed work plans for the six City Council "givens" and
the eleven City Council goals, with the understanding that the first step in implementing many of these
goals is further Council discussion about the elements and objectives of each goal project. Staff also
recognizes that many of these goals will need to go through the budget process so the City will have
sufficient funding and staffing to complete them.
Staff intends to provide quarterly reports on progress on these goals, beginning in March 2008.
Staff initially recommended a "check-in" on these goals in January 2008 prior to beginning the budget
process, and staff requests Council feedback on whether that is still desirable.
Background:
On July 142007 the City Council conducted a goal setting retreat to identify the top priority projects
that the Council wanted to work on for the coming eighteen months. On July 18,2007, the Council
adopted the attached list, which includes six projects considered to be "givens" and eleven goals that
represent significant new or ongoing projects.
Since the July 18, 2007 meeting, two things have happened. To begin, staff has developed a proposed
work plan that includes a project schedule, proposed staffing, and estimated costs for each of the
givens and goals. Those proposed work plans for each goal are attached to this Council
Communication. Additionally, the Council has discussed several of the goals and givens. Of the
eleven goals, Council has discussed or acted on three of them.
Also attached to this memo is a conceptual timeline that shows when each project would "start" and
when either final "decisions" would take place or when the project will be complete. As you may
guess, we expect some of these projects to go on for a long time when we get to the implementation
phase.
Givens
All six of the projects identified as "givens" are either underway or nearing completion. For example,
the Council approved the schedule for transitioning to a community oriented policing approach in
Page 1 of3
2007-cc-Council Goals Workplan.doc
rj.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
October. Council also should be acting soon on the Arts Master Plan, and that project will move to an
implementation phase.
Goals
Economic Development Strategy. Council discussed this goal on September 18,2007. Council decided
to defer decisions about funding and staffing the work for this goal project until after they complete a
public discussion about a possible increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax, which is tentatively
scheduled for spring 2008. Staffis assuming that any decisions made about the TOT would be
implemented through the budget and that work on the Economic Development Strategy would resume
beginning in the next fiscal year.
Develop Employee Continui(v Strategy. The first step in implementing this goal is for staff to discuss
all of the factors that need to be considered with the full Council. Staff also believes that this requires
the City to complete a classification and compensation study that looks at the City's competitors. Staff
recommends that this project be budgeted in FY 2008-2009 and begin fully in July 2008.
Complete a Citywide Transportation Strategy. This project is underway. Several key elements are in
process, including Council's discussion of the recommendations of the Transportation Financing Task
Force, Council's direction to form a transportation commission, and the update of the transportation
system plan, which includes an analysis of opportunities to increase transit. Council and staffhave
also continue to work with R VTD on their long range plan, and when the current efforts are complete,
there will be work in conjunction with the downtown plan and the comprehensive plan.
Visioning. As you'll see from the project work plan, staff estimates (based on our research of the
visioning efforts of other communities in Oregon) that this project has a very significant cost to
complete, and that the project will likely take eighteen months to two years. In fiscal year 2006-2007,
there was $100,000 in the budget for this project, but the funds were cut during the FY 2007-2008
budget cycle to balance the budget. Although we understand that this project is very high on the
priority list of several Councilors, at this point, staff believes it would be irresponsible to start a project
of this significance without funding identified. At this point, we are recommending that the
discussions about funding occur during the budget process. If Council would like to proceed with this
project prior to July 2008, then you should direct staff to identify possible sources of funding to begin
the project sooner, and we will bring options back to you in January/ February 2008. If funding is
approved in winter 2008, the project could start in March or April of next year.
Additionally, while the price tag for this project is significant, staff has learned from other
communities that it is very important to have sufficient funds to conduct meaningful public
involvement, to have meaningful data go into the effort, and to ensure that the project transitions into a
concrete implementation plan. All of these things mean that there needs to be sufficient staff and
consulting resources to complete the effort.
Fiscal Stability. The first step in this project is to identify available staffing and to identify whether
additional staff or consulting services are needed. This project, as Lee Tuneberg outlines in the work
plan, has many parts, including developing performance measures, reviewing key revenue streams, and
prioritizing services.
Page 2 of 3
2007-cc-Council Goals Workplan.doc
rj.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Generate 200 Affordable/Workforce Housing Units by 2010. This goal requires the community to add
80 units per year of affordable/workforce housing. As you'll see from the work plan, one of the
questions staff would like the Council to discuss is whether this is a realistic target. Staff has also
outlined the four major approaches that could be taken to help meet this goal.
Increase the Efficiency of Conservation Programs. As outlined in the attached work plan, the first step
in this is identifying the outcomes that Council would like to achieve through this goal.
Workforce Housingfor City Employees. Staffrecommends that this be folded under the Employee
Continuity Strategy because it will need to be considered as part of our possible compensation
package.
City Facilities and Properties. Work for this goal is underway, with a goal of competing before the end
of the fiscal year.
Railroad Property. Given transitions in the Community Development Department, staff recommends
that we kick this project off next summer after the Croman master plan is largely complete. Funds for
this project will need to be rebudgeted.
Downtown Planning. Staffrecommends we start this project after the initial phases of the Visioning
effort are complete so that the downtown plan can be completed within the context of the overall
vision. This would mean starting the project no earlier than July 2009.
Council Options:
· Council can accept the proposed work plan as presented.
· Council can provide direction about the phasing
· Council can ask staff to identify potential sources of funding if it wishes to accelerate the
Visioning effort.
Potential Motions:
None needed. This is a study session
Attachments:
Goal timeline
Goal work plans as submitted by departments
Page 3 of 3
2007-cc-Council Goals Workplan.doc
r~'
Council Goals 2007-2008
Narrative
Council Goal: Complete Planning Process for Croman Mill Site
Elements of the Goal
Accomplishment of this goal would occur through the development of an Area Master
Plan for the immediate Croman Mill site, which would include evaluating off-site
impacts upon the surrounding area. In general, completion of the goal would include
three steps:
. Area Master Plan development phase
. Creation of appropriate implementation measures, such as a special overlay
zoning district, public and private design standards and accompanying land use
code amendments.
. Council adoption of Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments,
Design Standards, and Land Use Ordinance changes
Plan for Achieving Goal
This project is funded in part by the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM)
Program, ajoint effort of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The purposes associated
with the TGM Program includes: strengthening the capability of local governments to
effectively manage growth and comply with the Transportation Planning Rule, to
integrate transportation and land use planning, and to encourage transportation-efficient
land uses that support modal choice and the efficient performance of transportation
facilities and services.
The primary means for accomplishing this goal would be through the development and
City adoption of an Area Master Plan, which emphasizes innovative urban design
standards while fostering business development and employment opportunities. The
Department of Land Conservation and Development with assistance from City Staff
selects a firm from a list pre-qualified consulting firms. DLCD will be responsible for the
administration of the grant, including approval of required products and the processing of
consultant payment requests.
The tentative list of tasks associated with the master planning effort has been compiled by
the DLCD staff and include the following:
Croman Mill Area Master Plan - Draft Scope of Work
. Task 1 - Information Assembly and Review
. Task 2 - Reconnaissance
. Task 3 - Conceptual Plans
. Task 4 - Concept Review
. Task 5 - Additional Refinement and Review - Contingent Task
. Task 6 - Final Products
. Task 7 - Adoption
Approximate Timeline
. Project Kick-Off
. 1 st Public Work Shop
. 2nd & 3rd Public Work Shops
and Master Plan Development
. Master Plan Refinements
(possible 4th public work shop)
. Final Master Plan & Report
. Final Report and Master Plan
Adoption - Public Hearings
December, 2007
January - February, 2008
March - April, 2008
May - June, 2008
June - July 08
August - November 2008
Staffing Needs
. Community Development Director/Planning Manager
It is anticipated that at least .25 - .50 FTE (or greater) will be needed to provide
appropriate local oversight, support and project management.
. Other S tafT time
A combination of Planning support staff and Public Works GIS personnel will be
needed to assist in providing the consultant with relevant background information,
arrangements and logistics associated with key participant meetings and public
workshops, collection and organization of feedback after public workshops and
preparation, publication and mailing of meeting flyers and other public notices.
Legal Departmellt
It is anticipated that several hours of the Assistant City Attorney's time will be
necessary to assist in review of the final map and ordinance amendments.
Costs
. Reproduction copies, mailings, public notices, etc - $750.00
. Meeting arrangements and logistics - $1000.00 - $1,500.00
. 4th Public Workshop and Plan Refinements $15,000
Contill!!ent Task - Not covered by grant award
Council Goal: Adoption of Riparian Ordinance
Elements of the Goal
The Community Development Department has been evaluating existing land use
ordinance regulations related to the community's water resources, which include riparian
areas and wetlands. With the assistance of an informal citizen advisory committee, a draft
ordinance has been prepared that identifies and regulates actions that could adversely
impact'the functions that these areas perform.
Accomplishment of the goal would include two essential elements:
. Adopt official inventory map of citywide water resources
. Adoption of new ordinance - Regulates and requires permits for certain
activities/uses within and adjacent to the identified resources
Plan for Achieving Goal
The steps anticipated in the adoption of a revised resource inventory map and ordinance
would include:
. Work with advisory committee to finalize draft ordinance
. Review and discuss proposed map and ordinance at a study session before the
Planning Commission
. Make revisions to the maps and ordinance based upon feedback from the study
seSSIOn
. Schedule informational meetings for the general public to ask questions and give
feedback
. Schedule a public hearing before the Commission for a recommendation on the
adoption of the map and ordinance
. Schedule public hearing before the Council for adoption of the map and ordinance
Approximate Timeline
. Planning Commission Study Session
. General Informational Meetings
. Public Hearing(s) before Planning Commission
. Public Hearing(s) before Council
November 07
January - February 08
March - April 08
May - June 08
Staffing Needs
. Planning Manager & Associate Planner
It is anticipated that at least .50 FTE (or greater) will be needed to complete this
project.
. Other Staff time
A combination of Planning support staff, Public Works GIS and Legal
Department personnel will be needed to accomplish this goal.
Legal Department
It is anticipated that several hours of the Assistant City Attorney's time will be
necessary to assist in review of the final draft ordinance.
GIS Department
It is anticipated that several hours of GIS staff time will be needed to make
necessary revisions to the final maps.
Costs
. Reproduction copies, mailings, public notices, etc
. Meeting arrangements and logistics
. Public Educational Brochures
$750.00 - $1,500
$750.00 - $1,500.00
$ 2,000
Council Goal: Generate Net Increase in Affordable/Workforce Housing
by a Minimum of200 Units by 2010
Elements of the Goal
This goal would be accomplished by adding 80 units of affordable and workforce
housing each year to achieve the target of 200 units by 2010. It is presumed that this
could be accomplished through various means, including regulatory and financial
assistance. This goal needs to be reviewed and reconsidered to answer questions.
Plan for Achieving Goal
The Council will need to clarify this goal, and perhaps reassess the goal to determine
whether that quantity can be achieved. There are several issues that would need
clarification:
· Is the goal a realistic quantity cOllSidering the city's growth rate? In the past
year, the city has had only 80 new dwelling units constructed. Is it feasible to
foresee that the city could sustain an equal number of affordable and workforce
housing?
· Does the housing have to be constructed, or does land acquisition count
towards the goal? If the city helped facilitate the acquisition ofland that will be
set aside for affordable and workforce housing, does that count towards the goal?
When do you measure the units as meeting the goal?
· What is affordable and workforce housing? Workforce housing is not defined
by the city. It is generally presumed to be 120% of median income. This should
be clearly stated.
· What housing types and mix should be sought? Should the housing be rental or
owner occupied? Should it be single family or multi-family? What is the mix of
affordable to workforce housing?
· What units qualify? Does the construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) qualify as affordable even ifnot deed restricted? Or, do only deed
restricted properties qualify? What length of time is required? 20 years? 30
years? Perpetuity?
Once these questions are answered, then staff, Housing Commission and Planning
Commission can work towards achieving this goal. The following would be areas to
consider:
· Land Use incentives. Higher density allowance, reduced parking requirements,
urban growth boundary expansion and rezoning oflands within the UGB are
examples.
· Financial incentives. Tax exemption for affordable housing (ORS 307.515), tax
exemption for multiple unit housing in core areas (ORS 307.600 to 637) and
waiver of development fees are examples.
· Property Incentive. Provide surplus or other property for development of
housing.
· Subsidize. Use CDBG funds and other state and federal funds to subsidize
housing development. Partner with other non-profits to ensure success.
. Explore Housillg Trust FUIld. To directly subsidize 200 units the cost would
likely exceed $10,000,000, for which there is no identified funding source.
Funding sources should be identified and mechanisms put in place to implement
the fund if determined feasible.
Staffing Needs
The city has a full time Housing Program Specialist. Part of that staff person's required
duties are the administration of the Community Development Block Grant program
(CDBG). The CDBG program accounts for approximately 25% of the Housing Program
Specialist's time. The other duties are based on priorities of the Council and Housing
Commission, including education and outreach, development of ordinances and contracts,
and responding to citizen inquires, etc.
The development of the Housing Trust Fund as a significant component of this strategy
might cause workload issues. In order to accomplish all tasks assigned, it is presumed
that an additional Y4 FTE would be necessary. The alternative would be reduce attention
on other non-discretionary matters of the Housing Program Specialist in order to focus on
this task.
Costs
Depending on approach, the costs for implementing this goal range from $0 to $30,000.
Ifno costs are assigned, the workload of the Housing Program Specialist would need to
be reviewed and prioritized.
Council Goal: Develop a City-led Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy with an Emphasis on Local Economy, Diverse
Population, Risks of Over-Reliance on Single-Industry, and Living
Wage
Elements of the Goal
An economic development strategy for a community should be a vision for the
community to mobilize leadership to create and maintain good jobs at good wages,
cultivate a culture based on entrepreneurship and innovation and responds to the values
of the community.
The citizens and businesses of Ashland place great pride in their community.
Community values, such as conservation, creativity and innovation should be reflective
of the strategies and businesses that the community desires in their economic efforts.
An economic development strategy is meant to provide the principles of what the city is
working toward, and developing a coordinated response to how that might occur. By
organizing and targeting efforts, the community can better utilize scarce resources, build
on strengths, and put outside resources to work more effectively.
Plan for Achieving Goal
The Council reviewed this at the September 18, 2007 meeting and agreed to the
following plan to achieve this goal:
Strategy Components:
1. Review Existing Programs. One of the first tasks would be to review existing
economic development programs within the city, region and state. The city needs
to understand what has already been accomplished, what various groups and
agencies are doing, and how well it is working. This review would include the
city, Chamber, SOREDI, State of Oregon, SOU, and others.
2. Develop Strategy. This would be the heart of the effort and would have to include
extensive public involvement. In order to be an effective project, it is important
that the strategy not only identify what is going to be done, but who will be
making sure it gets done and any resources necessary to carry out the strategy.
3. Implement Strategy. The effort should not end with a document that sits on a
shelf. The strategies are ongoing programs and efforts. As such, it is important
that some sort of implementation and monitoring effort be put in place to ensure
success. This monitoring effort will also enable the city to be flexible and
responsive to changing circumstances.
Start Up Issues:
1. Hire and Assign Staff. The Council wishes to have the work assigned to city
staff, rather than a consultant. Having staff on board is essential to getting the
project organized and the process underway. Organizational issues and budget
considerations must be decided first.
2. Start Immediatelv. Start the Economic Development Strategy without having to
wait for City Visioning effort. Timing might be delayed for hiring of staff person.
There are multiple issues that affect the City right now related to economic
development, and this project has been a Council goal for several years. Strive to
maximize coordination and to avoid citizen confusion between these two projects.
3. Economic Development Task Force. The Council agreed that an Economic
Development Task Force should be appointed. The Task Force would be
composed of 12 to 15 members. Recruitment could begin prior to staff hiring if
desired.
Staffing Needs
The Council wishes to have the work assigned to city staff, rather than a consultant.
Having staff on board is essential to getting the project organized and the process
underway. The city needs to complete an organizational change, develop job
descriptions, recruit and hire. Support from other departments, particularly
Administration and Planning will likely be sought during this process.
Costs
The estimated cost for the project is $150,000 which can be spread across two budget
years. The Council chose to use any funds allocated from a Transit Occupancy Tax
(TOT) to pay for this work. If the TOT is not increased, then the city could consider
using funds set aside for Master Planning ($80,000).
Council Goal: Complete Downtown Planning Process
Elements of the Goal
The City last conducted a comprehensive downtown planning effort in 1988, with an
update prepared in 2001, though not adopted. Copies of those plans and other city
documents may be reviewed at the city's website: WW\v. ashland. or. us. The City began
an update process for the plan in 2005, but that effort was derailed when funding was not
allocated to the project.
Downtown Ashland is seen as the "heart of the city." It is a compact, pedestrian scale,
walkable district of commercial businesses and residences. It serves as a regional
specialty shopping center, while also being the entertainment center for the community as
well as the Rogue Valley. Downtown banks, post office, and local businesses also serve
the resident population as part of their hometown.
The completion of a'downtown plan within the timeline of the council goals should be re-
evaluated. The Council has several major goals that would likely take precedence over
this goal, including the Economic Development Strategy and Visioning effort.
Depending on these other goals, it is possible that a downtown planning process could be
started, but not completed.
Plan for Achieving Goal
This task could be broken into several parts, but first, the Council should address some
fundamental questions about the goal.
Ouestions:
1. How do you define downtown? Does it include the Railroad District? How
about the Railroad property?
2. Can the Downtown Plan be developed prior to a city visioning effort? Prior to
a review and update of the comprehensive plan?
3. What is the Downtown Plan supposed to encompass? Is it a land use plan?
Capital facilities and financing plan? Transportation plan? Other? All of the
above?
4. Is there staff, planning commission, council and community resources
necessary to devote to this effort?
A Downtown Plan could be broken into four segments:
1. Visioning. Work on how downtown relates to the rest of Ashland. Topics to
explore linkages within the city include urban form, economic development,
transportation and housing.
2. Scoping Phase. In order to get the process going, the city could begin by
scoping out the downtown plan. Part of the questions above could be
answered by undertaking this step. A public workshop could be held to
identify the issues that should be addressed in a downtown plan. Based on
that input, consultants and staff could update the process and budget to present
for consideration.
3. Planning Stage. Public input, drafting alternatives and writing up proposed
plans for the agreed upon area would be developed.
4. Implementation State. Adoption of ordinance and any financing mechanisms
would be put in place.
Staffing Needs
This could require considerable city staffing and consultant efforts. At least .5 FTE of
planning staff would be assigned to this task. The task would likely be assigned to the
Planning Manager, Planning Director, and/or Senior Planner. These staff members
would also be assigned to other council goals, including planning for Croman, Riparian
ordinance, economic development strategy, city visioning, transportation strategy,
affordable and workforce housing. In addition, the Planning Commission has a goals of
reviewing and updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Costs
This project is likely a candidate for consultant services. The project costs could be
broken into two parts.
Scoping Phase -- $15,000 - 20,000
Planning Stage -- $150,000 - 400,000
Council Goal: Complete a city-wide visioning plan
Elements of the Goal
Visioning allows citizens to come together to discuss significant trends and issues affecting the
community in a collaborative, proactive way. By focusing on the future, community members
can often find common ground for shared goals. Working "backwards" from these goals,
Ashland citizens can develop new ideas and approaches for addressing current challenges and
solving existing problems. Visioning does not replace traditional forms of planning and decision-
making, but it can make these activities better informed, more strategic and effective.
Accomplishment of the goal would include:
. A collaborative and proactive approach by Ashland citizens, businesses, university and
government to shape the growth and development of the community.
. The development of an action plan or strategic guide to achieve the vision and
identification of current action items that meet the vision
Plan for Achieving the Goal
The steps anticipated in the adoption of a community visioning process include:
. Research city-wide visioning processes conducted in other cities (staff)
. Create a steering committee with representation that includes stakeholders and at large
members (mayor and council)
. Identify visioning focus areas e.g. growth management, parks/recreation, natural
environment, arts and culture, economic development, neighborhoods, diversity
advocates etc. (staff, steering committee)
. Develop and implement comprehensive public involvement process (staff, steering
committee with consultant). This step is labor and time intensive and expensive.
. Record and compile results of public involvement (staff and consultant)
. Develop draft vision statement, strategies, actions and timelines for adoption.
Approximate Timeline
. Form Steering Committee
. Public Outreach
. Vision Statement! Action Plan
. Implementation
Spring 2008
Fall 2008 through Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Ongoing
Staffing Needs
. Based on input from Bend, OR and Hillboro OR, both communities that have recently
completed community visioning, a project consultant is essential.
. In addition to the consultant both communities had a dedicated full time city staff person
plus quarter time staff from each of the city departments.
Costs
. $275,000 - $350,000 over two years depending on the scope of public involvement,
implementation and plan management
Council Goal: Develop a strategy for the Railroad Property
Elements of the Goal
There are two approaches to this goal that should be considered: the city pursuing acquisition of
the property or working with UPPR to achieve cleanup. Both require working closely with
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and remedial actions based on the Record
of Decision (ROD). Given the breadth of remedial work, the council may want to consider
changing the remedial requirement from residential to industrial if consistent with the desired
development of the property. This would reduce the amount of earth to be removed allowing
capping of the more contaminated areas.
Accomplishment of the goal would include:
. Clear direction on the cleanup and development of the railroad property.
. Updates to the RR Master Plan
Plan for Achieving the Goal
The steps anticipated in developing a strategy for the Railroad Property include:
. Review (get a second opinion) on the science, methodology and results identified in the
ROD.
. Review master plan; identify items/issues of public interest: creek corridor, storm water,
transportation, and public facilities etc. to determine if purchase of the property by the
city warrants public interest.
. Consider the options/benefits of the area as an urban renewal district for the purpose of
fmancing public improvements
. Meet with DEQ to explore cleanup options, indemnification etc.
. Meet with UPPR decision makers
Approximate Timeline
. Review ROD
. Review master plan
development workload)
. Meet with DEQ
. Meet with UPPR
Fall 2008
Winter 2008 (subject to community
Spring 2009
Spring 2009
Staffing Needs
. Outside consultant to review ROD.
. Much of this work could be done by current staff but would be dependant on current
workloads.
. Outside legal review if the council decides to pursue land acquisition.
Costs
. $50,000 ROD review
. Unknown amount for land acquisition
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
DEPT:
RE:
November 30, 2007
Martha Bennett
Lee Tuneberg
Administrative Services
Council Goals 2007 - Develop plan to establish fiscal responsibility, manage costs,
prioritize services, and insure key revenue streams.
The City of Ashland has many things in place that support this goal. A specific goal for a concerted
effort to review and update existing standards and processes as well as establishing meaningful new
ones is ideal.
We should note that the City annually goes through an extensive budget process, audit and financial
reporting that not only meet State requirements but earn national awards. The City also has established
and followed for many years a set of financial management policies and accounting methods that are
intended to aid in much of this goal on an ongoing basis. Additionally, many of the studies that rates &
fees, operations and capital improvements are based upon are reviewed on a rolling basis to remain
current and provide needed data for the budget and reporting processes.
However, the City does not have an accepted set of measurements or benchmarks for most services
provided. There probably are many reasons contributing to this absence but the primary one is its level
of (comparative) priority for allocation of sufficient resources. Establishing as many of those that can
feasibly be done should be a part of this goal.
Mv assessment of the goal is that Council would like to:
Establish fiscal responsibility. Whether it is establish, re-establish or better define it, we must work to
agree on what it is, how far we are from it, how we will know when we arrive and what roles each of us
will play to meet the goal as well as the respective roles after it is met. It is likely that considerable time
will be spent reaching consensus among ourselves and with members of the public.
Insure key revenue streams. The community enjoys its diversity of citizens, opportunities and natural
resources. The City should recognize the diversity of resources used to fund all activities is a strength
that many other municipalities do not have. Prior elected, appointed and hired individuals should be
congratulated on the work they did to achieve this.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
Even so, the economy, operations and reliability of revenue streams can, have and will change. Some
revenue streams will change y our own design. External influences will affect others. Identifying major
and minor revenue streams, evaluating susceptibility to change and addressing such changes by
developing action steps is an important part of this goal.
Manage costs. Managing costs is the other side of the ledger sheet to evaluating revenue streams and
remains a significant part of the internal work done annually as part of the budget process. Balancing
the two will playa basic role in the fourth point of this Council goal.
Today there are too few existing tools to help the City formally evaluate how well we do this. The
City's own business experts can address individual activities that they control (by activity, division,
department or fund) but comparative analysis across departments and City-wide is needed at higher
levels.
Agreeing on meaningful measures and benchmarks, and processes to keep them current, must be part of
the goal.
Prioritize services. This portion of the goal has nuances that go beyond the accounting and managerial
perspectives included in the other three. Because of this, agreeing on what is the priority of services,
what levels of service are necessary or desired, and how they are funded will require significant amounts
of analysis and discussion. For informed decisions it will require significant progress in the prior three
elements to be effective.
Steps & Timing:
The City will have difficulty in doing this on its own. This goal demands an intense focus that requires
more resources, and probably a greater skill set, than the City has had to offer for some time. Even
outsourcing this to a consultant will require staff support for development and ongoing management that
is not available today given the day-to-day workload, scheduled projects (some of which will feed
information into this) and breaks in staffing endured in the last five years, today and into the near future.
Also, there may be insufficient appropriations budgeted in FY 2007-2008 to completely do this even ifit
were feasible.
Be that as it may, progress on this goal is imperative for the decisions that will come to Council and the
Budget Committee in this and the next fiscal year(s). With that in mind I would propose the following
process:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
D. L. Tuneberg. Director Tel: 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY 800-735-2900
WIIIW. ashland.or .us
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
1. Identify the internal resources (appropriations and staff) available to support the goal. This will
impact proposed changes in the budget this year and next. January - February 2008
2. Develop a solicitation process (Request For Qualifications and Project Proposals) to perform this
goal and provide additional support not available within the City. March - June 2008
3. Create a timeline for gathering input from stakeholders and identifying deliverables. July-
August 2008
4. Perform the work including evaluation of existing, and the development of new, measures,
benchmarks and systems for monitoring. September - November 2008
5. Report on work to date to Council and subsequent revisions to the project. December 2008
6. Implementation, staff training and incorporation into City budget, operational and reporting
processes. January - March 2008
7. Complete integration into the FY 2009-2010 budget process. April June 2009
Benefits yielded from the goal and supporting proj ect steps will be realized immediately and will
positively impact City decision making and the budget process in this (FY 2007-2008) fiscal year even
though the work on the goal is likely to extend through June 2009. All of the steps and dates presented
are subject to change based upon Council input and what is leamedfrom the proposals received in
calendar year 2008.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel 541-488-5300
20 East Main Street Fax 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY 800-735-2900
WIIIW.ashland.Of us
r~'
Council Goal: Develop a City-Employee Continuity Strategy
ELEMENTS OF THE GOAL
(1) SUCCESSION PUNNING - Requires HR and City Department Heads to work cooperatively to
identify key retirements or turnover points in each Department/Division and create opportunities
to cross-train and grow internal talent to fill future vacancies.
Accomplishment of the goal would include two essential elements:
. HR will analyze the current workforce and anticipated retirement dates.
. HR will work with departments to address skills gaps and create training/mentoring
opportunities.
Plan for Achieving Goal
The steps anticipated in succession planning would include:
. Review employee longevity and identify employees retirement-eligible within 5 years.
. Review and discuss findings with individual Department Heads
. Identify employees within the workforce who have the core competencies and abilities to
training to replace individuals who are retiring.
. Create on-the-job training opportunities and/or apprenticeships which allow for a
transition of duties.
Approximate Timeline
. Workforce analysis complete
. Succession Planning
July 08
Ad Hoc as Department needs
II. retirements dictate
Staffing Needs
. HR Staff time
A combination of HR staff, Department Heads and Division Managers will be needed to
accomplish this goal.
Costs
. Workforce Analysis and identification can be accomplished without additional cost. Once
employees are identified as a potential fit for succession planning, the City will have to
invest time and training to develop the employee. Some overtime expenses may be
incurred as the employees attempt to cover two existing jobs and provide access to
training.
(2) CITY-ASSISTED WORKFORCE HOUSING - This goal would be accomplished primarily through a
cooperative effort between the Housing Program Specialist (Community Development), the
Housing Commission and the HR Department.
Note: Community Development has further defined the goal of generating a Net Increase in
Affordable/Workforce Housing by a Minimum of 200 Units by 2010.
Council Goal: Complete the Public Art Master Plan
Completed November 2007
Council Goal: Work regionally to resolve funding for library
Elements of the Goal
The Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee (CLAC) is meeting regularly and will identify
funding options and meet with regional library groups to coordinate efforts.
Accomplishment of the goal would include:
. Long term funding for Jackson County Libraries and/or long term funding for Ashland
Library
Plan for Achieving the Goal
The steps anticipated in developing a strategy for the Ashland Public Library include:
. CLAC regular meetings
. Research and review alternative funding options
. Prepare recommendation to the council
. Continue with follow through depending on recommendation
Approximate Timeline
. Recommendation to council Spring 2008
(the council would need to make a decision in June of 2008 to place a measure on the
September ballot or in September 2008 for the November ballot)
. Possible ballot measure Fall 2008
. CLAC completes work June 2009
Staffing Needs
. No additional staffing needs required.
Costs
. None
Accomplishment of the goal would include two essential elements:
. HR completed an Employee Survey which provided a baseline level of interest by current
employees in employer-assisted housing.
. HR will work with Community Development Staff and City Council to determine affordable
housing inventory available for employer-assisted housing.
. HR will work with Community Development Staff to establish a Program and set
parameters for employer-assisted workforce housing.
Plan for Achieving Goal
The Council will need to clarify this goal, and perhaps reassess the goal to determine whether
there is adequate funding for City-assisted workforce housing. There are several issues that
would need clarification:
· What level of assistance should current employees who live outside Ashland receive to
relocate to Ashland?
. What level of assistance should the City offer to newly hired employees to help them get
into the Ashland housing market?
. Should the City have specific units that have a City-employee preference, or should the
City focus on loaning money and allowing the City Employee to choose where they live
within Ashland City limits?
Once these questions are answered, then HR staff, Community Development staff and the
Housing Commission can work towards achieving this goal.
Approximate Timeline
. Employee Workforce Housing Survey
. Development of City Program
Completed 2005
As funding and Council Dictate
Staffing Needs
The city has a full-time Housing Program Specialist who has fully researched alternatives and
methods. HR staff will work with him to customize a program for City employees.
Costs
Cost for a City-assisted Housing Program will be determined through clarification by the Council.
(3) CLASS &. COMPENSATION STUDY - Utilizing a consultant's expertise to review job descriptions
and responsibilities to objectively establish salary ranges that are competitive based on job
duties.
Accomplishment of the goal would include three essential elements:
. Consultant would review job descriptions and conduct a total compensation survey of
comparable organizations.
. Consultant would present findings and recommendations to Council.
. HR will work with consultant to identify short and long-term implementation strategies.
Plan for Achieving Goal
The City already went out with an RFP and identified several firms that are capable of providing a
comprehensive comp and class survey.
Approximate Timeline
. RFP for Consultant
. Consultant launches study
. HR Presents Council with an
Implementation strategy and timeline
Completed 2006
6 months to complete
October 2008
Staffing Needs
HR Staff would utilize the expertise of a consulting firm specializing in public sector Compensation
and Classification. Once the study is complete, HR Staff will work with Council to implement
recommendations.
Costs
Costs on the proposals submitted by consulting firms ranged from $20-80K, which is not included
in the FY 08 budget. Depending on the outcome of the salary study, any recommendations for
increasing salary ranges would be agreed to by the Council as part of an overall implementation
strategy. Implementation could be phased in to meet budget goals over a 2-5 year period.
(4) CREATIVE WORK DESIGN - Utilize Labor/Management committee to look at ways to create a
culture that is conducive to attracting and retaining a younger generation of workers. (More time
off, flexibility of work schedule, PTO plans, technology allowance, etc.) This is part of on-going
HR staff responsibility and will become more important as the demographics of our workforce
shift from Baby Boomers leaving the workforce to millennia Is entering the workforce.
HR Staff will be surveying other organizations to ensure we are competitive, and survey our own
employees to see what is important to them. New ideas can be phased in over multiple years
and additional resources could be requested through the annual budget process.
(5) EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAM - Create a program that places value on longevity within
the organization. (Merit pay, service awards/rewards, etc.) Small changes can be made within
months, larger forms of recognition and/or service awards would be a budget item for future
years. No additional staff resources needed.
Council Goal: Provide a timely response to the AFR within USFS Schedule
Why is this goal important to the community?
One of the important goals for the City of Ashland is to protect the Ashland
Watershed as our primary source of water for domestic consumption. In addition,
the City seeks to enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest
ecosystems within the Ashland Watershed which serve as habitat for late-
successional and old-growth related species, including the northern spotted owl.
One hundred years of fire exclusion and the resulting accumulation of wildfire
fuel within the forest ecosystem now presents a high potential for large-scale,
high intensity wildfire within the Watershed and the corresponding potential for
destruction of the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem. The
Ashland Forest Resiliency Project is a strategy designed to mitigate the risk of a
large-scale, high intensity wildfire within the Ashland Watershed.
Elements of the Goal
On December 3,2003, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) was
enacted, which was designed to remove the accumulation of wildfire fuels that
contribute to wildland fires, disease and insect destruction in forest communities.
The City of Ashland submitted a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) to
the Forest Service as an alternative proposal under HFRA in October 2004.
Several collaborative meetings were then held between the Forest Service and
the City of Ashland to further develop a mutual understanding of the CWPP.
Subsequent to Forest Service review of the CWPP, they requested additional
clarification from the City of Ashland by October 2007 regarding how the
proposed mitigation measures and monitoring framework met the City's interests.
The City Council has an interest in the City of Ashland's active participation in
this project, and the significant reduction of wildfire risk in the Ashland
Watershed.
Accomplishment of the goal would include the following:
y Preparation of a position paper by the Ashland Forest Lands Commission
providing the clarification requested by the Forest Service regarding how
the proposed mitigation measures and monitoring framework meet the
City's interests.
y Ashland Forest Lands Commission 30 day analysis and review of the
Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS) prior to public release of the
document.
y Collaboration with the Forest Service in the preparation of a field marking
demonstration of trees listed for removal, stratified by Plant Association
Groups and structural states prior to release of the FEIS and Record of
Decision (ROD).
~ Collaboration with the Forest Service in the installation of Permanent
Baseline Inventory and Monitoring Plots prior to initiating the development
of prescriptions.
~ Collaboration with the Forest Service in the review of prescriptions on a
unit by unit basis prior to initiation of work on the ground.
~ Accompaniment of Forest Service staff in the field as units are marked for
prescriptions.
~ Collaboration with the Forest Service in effectiveness monitoring as each
treatment stage on each unit is commenced. Specific attention will be
directed toward those design features and mitigation measures intended
to protect hydrology, soils, site productivity, botanical resources, terrestrial
wildlife, aquatic species and habitat.
Plan for Achieving Goal
~ Task the Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative Technical
Team (A FR CA T) with the responsibility to provide the technical
information requested by Linda Duffy in her February 2007 letter to the
City of Ashland.
~ Task the AFRCA T with the responsibility to conduct the advance 30 day
governmental review of the FEIS prior to public release of the document.
~ Task the AFRCA T, in conjunction with the Forest Service, with the
preparation of a field demonstration of the marking prescription for tree
removals on selected sites within the project area.
~ Forest Lands Commission will organize public inspection tours of the
marking demonstration sites.
~ Task AFRCA T with active participation in Baseline Inventory & Monitoring,
Prescription Development, Post Layout & Pre-Treatment and Treatment &
Post- Treatment Phases of the project.
Approximate Timeline
~ Provide the USFS with a response to the proposed mitigation measures
and monitoring plan included in the DEIS, as requested in Linda Duffy's
February 26, 2007 letter to the City, by October 1. 2007.
~ Provide the USFS with a response to the Ashland Forest Resiliency
FEIS, in advance of the 3D-day public objection period, during the
special 3D-day governmental review period by February 1, 2008.
~ Provide the USFS with on-going technical support from City staff with
implementation and monitoring plans, after the Record of Decision is
released and continuing through project implementation - April 2008
throuah June 2018.
Staffing Requirements and Costs
Estimated Costs: Costs for technical consulting will be absorbed through our
existing contract for personal services with Small Woodland Services. Existing
Forest Interface Budget contains funds for public meeting facilitation.
Personnel Time: Personnel time will be limited to 20% of Fire Chiefs'time, 10%
of Forest Resource Officer's time, 5% of Forest Lands Commission Secretary's
time and volunteer time provided by the Ashland Forest Lands Commission and
AFRCA TS.
Primary Staff: Fire Chief, Forest Lands Commission Secretary, Forest
Resource Officer, Consulting Forester, Forest Lands Commission, AFRCA TS
Council Goal:
Increase Effectiveness on Conservation Programs and Identify
Specific Targets in Energy and Resource Consumption
Elements of the Goal
The Conservation Division has operated Electric Conservation Programs since 1982 and Water
Conservation Programs since 1992. Targets have been set for Water Conservation and the
Council was updated on the progress on Water Conservation Goals in May, 2006. While no
targets have been set for Electric Conservation, significant staff time, BP A and City monies have
been designated to Electric energy efficiency since 1982. Per capita consumption of electricity
has risen only 45kWh's per person, per year between 1982 and 2005. These numbers
demonstrate the remarkable effectiveness of the City's Conservation efforts since beginning these
programs.
The first step in this goal is to better define the Council's objectives. There are a number of ways
to interpret the goal to "increase effectiveness in Conservation Programs." Does the phase mean
to increase the amount of conservation acquired? This can be done by increasing rebates levels
(i.e. pay $85.00 for a new efficient electric water heater instead of $65.00) and also increasing the
amount of money that is budgeted to purchase conservation. However, increasing the rebate
levels and increasing the budget for conservation alone won't achieve and accomplish more
conservation. Right now a total of 1.75 FTE operate our Electric Conservation Programs. To
increase the amount of conservation more FTE' s would be required to handle an increased work
load.
The reverse side of this question would be to take the regional view of the cost effectiveness of
conservation programs and improve the performance by acquiring more of it for less money.
This would mean that rebate levels would be reduced and therefore more conservation could be
purchased for the same amount of money that we currently expend for these activities. This
action probably would also require more staffing as fewer citizens might follow through with
implementation as rebate funding is reduced. Staff will need direction from the Council on which
interpretation of this portion of the goal, before we layout a path to implement it.
Plan for Achieving the Goal
The Conservation staff needs to determine exactly which of the above options are implied by this
goal before more work on the goal can be accomplished.
The following steps are anticipated to accomplish this goal:
· Have a study session with the Mayor & Council to redefine the desired outcome
of the goal.
. Have staff prepare materials that illustrate ways to achieve the goal.
· Present the material along with a staff recommendation as to how best to
proceed.
· Analyze budget implication of proposed change in program operations and
prepare a budget to implement changes.
. Gain budget approval of revised programs
. Implement changes
Approximate Timeline
Council Study Session
Staff preparation & representation of Data
Budget Preparation
Budget Approval
Implementation
Feb. 08
March 08
March- April 08
May 08
July 08
Staffing Needs
It is anticipated that this project would take between 30-60 hours staff time of the Electric
Director and Conservation staff.
Costs
Depending on the final outcome of this process, there could be increased program and staffing
costs. Until more details are known, it is hard to estimate the extent of the increase at this time.
z
0
<
0
-..J
0
CD
n n
0
-..J 0
'- c:
Ol j
:J (")
0
(Xl
" G)
CD 0
0-
0 Q)
(Xl U;
s:: I\J
~ 0
0 0
(Xl .......
)>
"'Q
0
(Xl
s::
Ol
'<
0
(Xl
0
(5
0
0
C
s::
m
I
U;
::r
-6"
ro
S;
r
0
0
)>
r
en
..'0.
::::;
ro
3
"0 0
0
0 Z
c:: (3
::J
Q" <3
G) to
0
w '- '-
ij; ::;:; ::;:;
IV
0 ~ ~
0
...,
Iv 0
0
0 ~
'f'
..., ~
3 '-
gc ~
S" 0
ro
X
en
00
o CD
-5 ~
co.g
ro Ol
OC/l
o _
:;: ii1
3. CD
o (Q
:;: '<
:J 0'
-0 ~
arst
:J CD
:::eo ;:0
~ ~.
-o=;'"
(3 g
n a.
~ 41
'" 0
-0
CD
~
'<
m::12.~~
cO () I'\.) .....j
ct> m 25~:
ur (J) 0,:1
S" CD ~ ct~
~~itz
Ct> $l ~~:
cO -. -I
-:=:<%~s~
~ :J ~ ctf
6.~ o~:
::::0 en ctf
~ S" ::i"
o 0 ~>
c 0 =~
@ ~ ~l
0< OJ
g ~ ~~
~ g ~~
3 "0 S:
-ga ~~
0(0 S:
:J ii3 ()
3 (t.
'" J:
m g
5.. VI
=i"
tel
<::r
'<:
'"
o 3
~"2..
CD CD
o 3
-0 CD
Ol ~
b~
:J 0
(Q(Q
~ ID
~ 3
3 0
-0-0
OJ a
:J <
(3'il
~ CD
~::::
o c;;
~a:
~ n
~ ([)
;o+J:
ro" 0
'" 5i
~ ::r
0.(Q
-00'
.g Q
~.:<
m ~
-0
o
'<
CD
CD
'"
"'000
CD CD 0 CD
s. ~ 3 ~
n - -0 0
~.g~-o
- -0 CD Ol
~ iil Ol 0
o.:Jo;o+
S" o~~
'" CD . ::::
~ ~ ~. Q
(t) W c.. CD
itig~-;
'< (J) _. m
en ~ 6" ~
< en ::J ""0
CD n -" 0
~~~:4
CDfe."'U~
en m ill 0
.., ~ :::l :J
m~ sa
3- ii1
"'3 ro
Ol (Q
:J '<
Ol
(Q
CD
n
o
'"
en
O;:OOlO
CD CD :J CD
< = m <
CD~3~
on-oo
"'0 CD ::T"'O
Q 0 Ol Ol
~ :J ~. ()
m0.~~
3t5:J~
"'2..rorn.
o .!... g 0
'<:J0l0
~ g-;n3
() fa. () ""0
g.;: g ~
g. ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~" G)
~ 5" <" m 0
Q1t5~8 ~
~ :::: ~ 6
'< ~ "J ~"
CD -0 n
~o
Ol CD
!::!:<
o CD
~::::::l 0"
~3
'" CD
~3.
o C/l
o~
~~
, '<
:;:
s:
0:
CD
~
.z
C/l
-0
CD
n
~
n
"'Q
Q"
;0+
N"
CD
~:
::i"
~~.
c:::
=~
)>
a.
~"
o c.~
o 0 0-
3::::~=)>
30 n3-
O ~ 0:::: S"
'" CD 0
~ ;: ~
-0
c
2:
0"
~ )>
2: a.
0" 3
~~~~~
S" < ~ -" 3
" _:J 3
o
o 0
3 CD
3 :<
o
C1l
"'C
III
;:l.
3
C1l
a
~
o
o
:J
'"
CD
<
!l!.
0"
:J
)>
a.
3
S"
o
o
3
3
o
CD
:<
C/l
<
n
'"
'-
c
b
-..J
)>::::-0003
g-o~~~-,;c
"E.~o..:"O""O co
0" CD CD S[ S[ ~
::::::l (Q __ m CD :J
g,g~ g:-oo
~~-<ct> mo
-g~Cb 5:S 3
55" ~ ~ en ~ ~
O:J~g~~:J
o (J) (J) 0 ~
~~~~~~
~ ~ s: -0 (J) 0"
~ 5. CD ~~:r
S" )>
"
;:0
~
:J
o
(3
3
Ol
:J
G)
<'
Cl>
:J
g: s::
CD
c C/l
~ ~
C/l
'"
n
OJ
CD
a.
c
CO
o
o
3 )>
3 3-
OS"
CD
:<
o
o Cl>
o "'C
,,6:3-o~
~" 3 3 ~ 3
S" 0 CD Cl>
~ 3-
~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, December 3,2007 at 5:15 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
5:15 p.m. Study Session
1. Look Ahead Review
2. Review of regular meeting agenda for December 4, 2007
3. Does the Council wish to accept or modify the proposed work plan for implementing the
2007 -2008 City Council goals?
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
I.
AGENDA
Monday, December 3, 2007 at 6:00 pm
ouncil Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Special Meeting
CALL
III. 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. After hearing the appeal of the "Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain" Subdivision
for Systems Development Charges (SDC) credit allowance, which of the following
actions does the Council wish to take; Reject the appeal and affirm the staff
calculation of SDC credit at $63,075 or Grant the appeal and award the SDC credits
in a greater amount or partially grant the appeal by considering other aspects of the
developer's improvements that may be eligible for additional credits?
IV. 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).
"..1.....111. .l..ll.L... '-_.J...l.1. '-',J l.i......'.lJ.L...:.1.l......J../U ".J.......l..J IJ.l.l.L.:.1l..J. ., ,,. ...'.:.\.....'lJ..L...>.1't........J.../.'-,11"-.\..J,J
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Special Meeting - Meadowbrook II Subdivision SDC Credit Appeal
Meeting Date: December 3, 2007 Primary Staff Contact: Paula Brown 552-2411
Department: Public Works Engineering E-Mail: brownp(a;ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal, Comm Dev Secondary Contact: Pieter Smeenk 552-2413
Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 20 Minutes (Public Hearing)
Question:
After hearing the appeal of the "Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain" Subdivision for Systems
Development Charges (SDC) credit allowance which of the following actions does the Council wish to
take:
};. Reject the appeal and affirm the staff calculation of SDC credit at $63,075?
- or -
};. Grant the appeal and award the SDC credits in a greater amount?
- or -
};. Partially grant the appeal by considering other aspects of the developer's improvements that
may be eligible for additional credits?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council reject the appeal and affirm the staff determination of SDC credits
based on the following:
;;. Credits were given for only the additional requirements from the Planning Commission
findings and are consistent with the proportional impact of the development;
> Credits were based on the developer's actual costs and consistent with the specific location and
type of improvement;
;;. Credits were consistent with approved SDC methodology and were lenient with allocations.
};. Credits are consistent with Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.20.090.
Background:
The City and Developer agreed to provide this appeal hearing of the City's decision to award credits
for E. Nevada Street improvements totaling $63,075. Initially the Developer petitioned for a writ of
review and writ of mandamus in Circuit Court, yet ryas agreed to this hearing. The developer claims to
be entitled to the SDC credit equal to $311,834.25, the full cost of all improvements on E. Nevada
Street and N. Mountain Avenue as affected by the developer. Staff has prepared this report to define
the basis for the SDC allocation, the allowance for SDC credits and the calculations used to determine
the specific calculations.
System Development Charges (SDCs):
System Development Charges (SDCs) are fees imposed on new developments that are collected to
defray infrastructure expansion expenses incurred by the'City as a result of development. The
magnitude of SDC charges varies for each of the different infrastructure enterprises funds. The SDCs
questioned in instance are Transportation SDCs determined in accordance with Resolution 99-42
(attached). The methodology determining the Transportation SDCs was heard and approved in 1999.
Page] of II
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07,doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Transportation SDC is based on a pro-rata share of future transportation system needs, including
new street and street frontage costs (needs) and new trip generation/travel need estimates. The
Transportation System Plan (TSP) outlines transportation system needs for the City. The TSP
identifies project specific needs for street, bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements. Long-range
travel projections used in the TSP have been developed based on future land development projects
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
SDCs are normally paid by the developer at the time building permits are issued. The City has the
option to reduce system development fees by granting the applicant credit for the cost of constructing
public improvements if those improvements are proportionally more extensive than required by the
conditions of approval of their land use decision. 'This type of credit is referred to as an SDC credit.
There are other limitations placed on these credits by Resolution 99-42 and by the Planning
Commission as conditions of approval.
Under Oregon law only a portion of roadway and transit costs are eligible for funding through SDCs.
The maximum portion that can be funded by SDCs is based on a very specific list of projects, and only
a certain percentage of the cost of each of those projects can be funded by SDCs. The table on page 4
of Resolution 99-42 is Ashland's list of eligible projects and percentages. The City can only charge as
much in SDCs as listed in that table. Likewise, the City is limited in how much credit it can award by
that same table.
Based on the 1999 SDC Methodology, a Credit is described as follows:
Credits against the calculated SDC will be given for the cost of qualified public improvements,
in whole or in part, identified on the "SDC Eligible Transportation Improvements" table. Costs
not included in the calculation of the SDC shall not be eligible for SDC credit. Except that the
City may agree that certain costs may, in fact, represent "system" costs that will be considered
for addition to SDC-eligible costs during the next SDC update. If those "non-eligible" costs are
subsequently changed to become SDC eligible, credit will be given in a form of a
reimbursement of a portion of the SDC improvement fees.
As a note, the current Transportation System Plan is being updated for new projects. As a part of this
update, the SDC methodology will also be updated. If this is truly a discussion regarding SDC
methodology, the Developer is welcome to present those concerns at the time of the new SDC
methodology is presented for consideration.
Meadowbrook II Subdivision
The specifics of the SDC credits pertain to the "Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain" Subdivision
(referred to as Meadowbrook Subdivision or Subdivision) which consists of building public
improvements including streets, storm drain, sewer, water, electrical utilities, parkrows, sidewalks and
site improvements. This subdivision is consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan that
was adopted in March I 997. The Meadowbrook Subdivision provides for an 81 lot subdivision
consistent with the Performance Standards Option and consistent with the adopted Street Standards.
During the Planning Commission Hearing on January I 3,2004, the developer was conditioned to
include the widening ofE. Nevada Street by 2 extra feet and frontage improvements to North
Mountain A venue.
Page 2 of I I
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The Issue
The Petitioner, North Mountain Land Company, LLC, is claiming to be due SDC credits based on
construction of public facilities beyond what required by planning findings and development
conditions. The Developer claims that the City did not sufficiently credit the full construction costs of
the required road improvements.
Staff disagrees with the developer's assertion that 100% of his costs are eligible for an SDC credit.
Staff has calculated the credit based on four factors:
1. Planning Commission Findings
2. Engineering's Calculations of Credits Due
3. SDC Methodology
4. Ashland Municipal Code SDC Credits (section 4.20.090)
1. Planning Commission Findings: The Planning Commission findings and decision for the
Meadowbrook Subdivision development dated] anuary 13, 2004, determined in condition number 29
that:
"Specifically, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for asphalt widening from 22' to
24' and curb and gutter on the north side of E Nevada for the frontage of the applicant's
property and tax lot 401 (Cislo). Further, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for
the street improvements abutting tax lots 500 & 600. "
The City's development standards require that the developer provide adequate infrastructure facilities
including key fey City facilities for the new development. In this case, the development would have
required that the developer pave the portion ofE. Nevada Street fronting the development to a width of
at least 22 feet to meet street standards. Because E. Nevada Street is classified as an Avenue in the
Transportation Plan, and because of the ultimate plan to cross Bear Creek in the future, it was
determined that the future street width would need to be paved to at least 24 feet. The Planning
Commission required the widened street section and offered SDC credits for the specific increase from
22 to 24 feet. The Planning Commission likewise offered credits for the entire width in front of Tax
lots 500 and 600 because the developer did not originally propose to pave that segment. No credit was
considered for N. Mountain Avenue improvements as those improvements, except for the crosswalk
and traffic island, were made to the developers own frontage and was a consideration for the
development's sake. The improvements included lot grading, utility backfill, irrigation structure
removal, and asphalt paving that did not increase the capacity ofN. Mountain Avenue. Since
Transportation SDCs are intended to pay for improvements that increase traffic capacity, credit cannot
be awarded for improvements that do not contribute to increased capacity.
Engineering staff did apply credit to the additional 2 feet of improvements along E. Nevada Street and
to improvements in front of tax lots 500 & 600 as determined in the Planning action.
2. Engineering's Calculations of Credits Due: Public Works Engineering staff applied the developer's
own unit costs submitted for this project towards the specific improvements deemed eligible per the
Planning Commission findings to arrive at the portion of the construction that could be considered for
SDC credits. The calculations estimated the proportion of the total quantities, which included costs of
material and labor, required to increase the width and length ofE. Nevada Street improvements on a
straight line volumetric basis. Specific items were removed from the calculations if those costs were
Page 3 of II
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
attributable to a location other than E. Nevada Street improvements (ie; items 8-] 1 which included
sidewalk, ramps, and other frontage improvements on the south side were not given any SDC credits as
they were specifically required as a part of the subdivision plan). In the case of rock excavation, all of
the rock excavation was credited in the proportional calcu]ation as staff lacked the detail necessary to
assign the appropriate proportion. This is very generous from staff's perspective.
The calcu]ations are simple percentages and were based solely on the development's engineering
drawings, the unit costs provided by the developer, the Planning Findings, and Reso]ution 99-42. The
calcu]ations were prepared and reviewed by licensed Professional Engineers (Pieter Smeenk and Paula
Brown), and were also reviewed by Jim Olson, Richard Appicello, and Bill Mo]nar prior to issuing the
letter to Adam Hanks on February 16,2007. The developers own Engineer of Record did not dispute
the calculations. Calcu]ations are shown on the attached calcu]ation's sheet and are based on the
following:
I. Staff's basis for the credit is on the E. Nevada Street portion of the billing from Bill's Backhoe.
2. Only items] - 7 and 12 - 14 are included in the proportional calcu]ation. Items 8 - 11 were on
the developer's side of the street and not included in any credit calcu]ation as they were
required for development's sake.
3. The additional 2 feet of width on East Nevada Street was required on 895 feet of the total
length of 1480 feet - or 60.5% of the street work. Only the additional 2 feet is credited
proportioned over the tot a] 24 feet of width. Items 1 - 4 are street improvements for the extra
width.
4. Tax lots 500 & 600 are 515 feet ofthe total 1480 feet. Items 1 - 4 are street improvements for
the street improvements fronting the lots.
5. In addition, one side of the curb and gutter (item 7) was credited for that additional
improvements on the opposite side of the subdivision (generous)
6. Items 5, 6, 12 - 14 were credited in full and are very generously given.
The developer claims that all of the costs of construction of both E Nevada Street and N. Mountain
A venue abutting the proj ect should be due the developer in full, not just the improvements specified in
the Planning Commission Findings. This claim conflicts with the Planning Findings, and also with
City Reso]ution 99-42, which limits the amount that can be funded by SDCs to only a portion of the
tot a] cost that adds additional capacity beyond what is necessary for the subdivision improvements. As
only the additional 2 feet of width and the improvements in front of tax lots 500 & 600 were added
beyond the proportional improvements for the subdivision, those improvements were the only basis for
the credit due the developer.
3. SDC Methodo]ogy: Public Works Engineering staff used the approved allocation of the growth
capacity percentage assigned for the East Nevada Street project of 65% for SDC charges based on
Resolution 99-42 as the maximum proportion of construction costs eligib]e for SDC credit. Since the
City can only collect 65% of the improvement costs for E. Nevada or N. Mountain Avenue costs as
capacity driven SDCs, it can not reimburse a larger portion than collected. Public Works Engineering
staff concluded that only the capacity increment or 65% of the additional 2 feet of width and
improvements along tax lots 500 & 600 would be eligible as the maximum amount for SDC credit.
Page 4 of ] ]
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
~A'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
4. AMC Section 4.20.090 Credits: "... A credit shall be given for the cost of a qualified public
improvement associated with a development. If a qualified public improvement is located partially on
and partially off the parcel of land that is the su~ject of the approval, the credit shall be given only
for the cost of the portion of tbe improvement not attributable wholly to the development...."
City Engineering staff attributed the majority of the costs of the E. Nevada and all of the costs of the N.
Mountain Avenue improvements to be wholly attributable to the development. Only the additional 2
feet of width on the northern portion ofE. Nevada and the portion along tax lots 500 & 600 as
indicated in the Planning Commission action was beyond the proportional impacts of the development
and were therefore adjusted with the SDC credit of $63,075.
Related City Policies:
Ashland Municipal Code 18.68: Land Use General Regulations
Ashland Municipal Code 4.20: Systems Development Charges; specific sections attached
Resolution 99-42 -Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges (attached)
Council Options:
Council basically has three options:
1. Affirm staffs prior decision and basis for SDC credits and credit the Developer the $63,075.
This is justified as all of the allocable additional and proportional improvements ($97,039.04)
were credited at the capacity growth allocation rate of 65% as adopted by the SDC
Methodology. In staffs opinion, authorizing the full amount for the curb and gutter on the
north side, plus allowing the full cost of the rock excavation is more than generous.
2. Accept the appellant's request forre-determination of SDC allocations and award the developer
all or a portion of the request based on that testimony. There are two options staff could assist
with:
a. Instead of discounting the allocable costs by the growth capacity of 65%, allow the
developer 100% of the associated additional improvements or $97,039 with the
understanding that there is no further action by the developer against the City. As the 65%
is an SDC credit, the additional amount would have to be funded from the City's street
fund ($33,964.04) which is already suffering from lack of funds.
b. The Council could determine in the applicant favor and go against all prior SDC credit
evaluations and set new precedence not requiring the developer to pay for required
subdivision improvements on streets designated as Avenues (N. Mountain and E. Nevada).
In this case, Council could determine that the credit is the capacity portion of all of the
costs for the East Nevada invoice and all ofN. Mountain improvements with the exception
of the street lights (NM item 10) which are on Great Oaks Drive and the removal of the
irrigation structure (9), grading (12) and utility backfill (12) which are not a part of the
street improvement.
This translates to ($216,830.50 + $46,866.25) x 65% = $171,403. The City would pay the
additional $108,328 out of the Transportation SDCs. Staffrecommends against this
Page 5 of J 1
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
r.t. ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
option as Council would be setting precedence in paying credits for what is traditionally a
development driven improvement requirement.
3. Request additional information from staff prior to making a determination.
Unless the Developer agrees with Council's determination of the authorized SDC credits, the Council's
decision can be appealed to Circuit Court under Writ of Review.
Potential Motions:
1. Council moves to affirm the initial determination of $63,075 in SDC credits owed to the
developers of the Meadowbrook Subdivision.
2. Council moves to re-determine the SDC credits owed to the developers of the Meadowbrook
Subdivision and authorizes $97,039 (per item 2a above) for 100% of the additional
requirements.
3. Council moves to set new precedence that does not demand the developer to pay for required
subdivision improvements and further re-determines the SDC credits owed to the developers of
the Meadowbrook Subdivision and authorizes $171,403 (per item 2b above).
4. Council moves to re-determine the SDC credits owed to the developers of the Meadowbrook
Subdivision and authorizes the following amount $ based on the facts as
presented by the developers.
5. Council moves to continue this hearing to the next Council meeting as Council feels that there
is not a clear basis for determination with the information presented and requests additional
information form staff.
With all but motion #1, it is any additional offing would be made with the understanding that there is
no further action by the developer against the City.
Attachments:
1. AMC Sections 4.20 Systems Development Charges (applicable sections copied)
(entire code section is available on the City's web site)
2. Resolution 99-42 - Transportation Systems Development Charge Methodology and Charges
3. Meadowbrook Subdivision Final Planning Findings
4. Meadowbrook Subdivision: February 16, 2007 letter from Pieter Smeenk to Adam Hanks with
attachments including calculations and supporting documentation
5. Homecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell, L.L.P. Letter Dated March 1,2007 & Attachments
6. Homecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heyse]], L.L.P. Letter Dated June 8, 2007
7. Order for Writ of Review
8. Meadowbrook Subdivision Engineering Drawings
References:
1. Meadowbrook Subdivision Final Engineering Plans (web site)
Page 6 of ] I
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
~..
._~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
4.20 Systems Development Charges
4.20.010 Definitions
The following words and phrases, as used in Chapter 4.20 of the Ashland Municipal Code, have the
following definitions and meanings:
A. Capital Improvement(s). Public facilities or assets used for any of the following:
1. Water supply, treatment and distribution;
2. Sanitary sewers, including collection, transmission and treatment;
3. Storm sewers, including drainage and flood control;
4. Transportation, including but not limited to streets, sidewalks, bike lanes and paths, street lights,
traffic signs and signals, street trees, public transportation, vehicle parking, and bridges; or
5. Parks and recreation, including but not limited to mini-neighborhood parks, neighborhood
parks, community parks, public open space and trail systems, buildings, courts, fields and other
like facilities.
B. Development. As used in Sections 4.20.020 through 4.20.090 means constructing or enlarging a
building or adding facilities, or making a physical change in the use of a structure or land, which
increases the usage of any capital improvements or which will contribute to the need for additional or
enlarged capital improvements.
C. Public Improvement Charge. A fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed
after the effective date of this ordinance. This term shall have the same meaning as the term
"improvement fee" as used in ORS 223.297 through 223.314.
D. Qualified Public Improvements. A capital improvement that is required as a condition of
development approval; and is identified in the plan adopted pursuant to section 4.20.060.B. However,
it does not include improvements sized or established to meet only the demands created by a
development. (ORD 2791, S 1 1997)
E. Reimbursement Fee. A fee for costs associated with capital improvements constructed or under
construction on the date the fee is adopted pursuant to Section 4.20.040.
F. Systems Development Charge. A reimbursement fee, a public improvement charge or a combination
thereof assessed or collected at any of the times specified in Section 4.20.070. It shall not include
connection or hook-up fees for sanitary sewers, storm drains or water lines, since such fees are
designed by the City only to reimburse the City for the costs for such connections. Nor shall the SDC
include costs for capital improvements which by City policy and State statute are paid for by
assessments or fees in lieu of assessments for projects of special benefit to a property.
4.20.020 Purpose
The purpose of the systems development charge (SDC) is to impose an equitable share of the public
costs of capital improvements upon those developments that create the need for or increase the
demands on capital improvements.
Page 7 of 11
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
~;.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
4.20.030 Scope
The systems development charge imposed by Chapter 4.20 is separate from and in addition to any
applicable tax, assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or fee otherwise provided by law or
imposed as a condition of development. A systems development charge is to be considered in the
nature of a charge for service rendered or facilities made available, or a charge for future services to be
rendered on facilities to be made available in the future.
4.20.040 Systems Development Charge Established
A. Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of this Chapter or other local or state law, a systems
development charge is hereby imposed upon all development within the City; and all development
outside the boundary of the city that connects to or otherwise uses the sanitary sewer system, storm
drainage system or water system of the City. The City Administrator is authorized to make
interpretations of this Section, subject to appeal to the City Council.
B. Systems development charges for each type of capital improvement may be created through
application of the methodologies described in Section 4.20.050 of this code. The amounts of each
system development charge shall be adopted initially by Council resolution following a public hearing.
Changes in the amounts shall also be adopted by resolution following a public hearing, except changes
resulting solely from inflationary cost impacts. Inflationary cost impacts shall be measured and
calculated annually by the City Administrator and charged accordingly. Such calculations will be
based upon changes in the Engineering News Record Construction Index (ENR Index) for Seattle,
Washington.
(ORD 2791, S2 1997)
4.20.050 Methodology
A. The methodology used to establish a reimbursement fee shall consider the cost of then-existing
facilities, prior contributions by then-existing users, the value of unused capacity, rate-making
principles employed to finance publicly-owned capital improvements, and other relevant factors. The
methodology shall promote the objective that future systems users shall contribute an equitable share
of the cost of then-existing facilities.
B. The methodology used to establish the public improvement charge shall consider the cost of
projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is
related and shall provide for a credit against the public improvement charge for the construction of any
qualified public improvement.
C. The methodology shall also provide for a credit as authorized in Subsection 4.20.090.
D. Except when authorized in the methodology adopted under Subsection 4.20.050A, the fees required
by this Code which are assessed or collected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu
of a local improvement district assessment, or the cost of complying with requirements or conditions
imposed by a land use decision are separate from and in addition to the systems development charge
and shall not be used as a credit against such charge.
Page 8 of 11
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
~..
._~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
E. The methodologies used to establish the systems development charge shall be adopted by resolution
of the Council following a public hearing. The specific systems development charge may be adopted
and amended concurrent with the establishment or revision of the systems development charge
methodology. The City Administrator shall review the methodologies established under this section
every three (3) years, and shall recommend amendments, if and as needed, to the Council for its action.
F. The formulas and calculations used to compute specific systems development charges are based
upon averages and typical conditions. Whenever the impact of individual developments present special
or unique situations such that the calculated fee is grossly disproportionate to the actual impact of the
development, alternative fee calculations may be approved or required by the City Administrator under
administrative procedures prescribed by the City Council. All data submitted to support alternate
calculations under this provision shall be site specific. Major or unique developments may require
special analyses to determine alternatives to the standard methodology.
G. When an appeal is filed challenging the methodology adopted by the City Council, the City
Administrator shall prepare a written report and recommendation within twenty (20) working days of
receipt for presentation to the Council at its next regular meeting. The council shall by resolution,
approve, modify or reject the report and recommendation of the City Administrator, or may adopt a
revised methodology by resolution, ifrequired. Any legal action contesting the City Council's decision
in the appeal shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the Council's decision.
4.20.060 Compliance with State Law
A. The revenues received from the systems development charges shall be budgeted and expended as
provided by state law. Such revenues and expenditures shall be accounted for as required by state law.
Their reporting shall be included in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report required by
ORS Chapter 294. Reimbursement Fees shall be spent on capital improvements associated with the
systems for which the fees are assessed. Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing
improvements. The portion of such improvements funded by improvement SDCs must be related to
current or projected development.
B. The capital improvement plan required by state law as the basis for expending the public
improvement charge component of systems development charge revenues shall be the Ashland Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) or public facility plan and the CIP of any other governmental entity with
which the City has a cooperative agreement for the financing of commonly Dused public improvements
by the collection of systems development charges, provided the plan is based on methodologies
conforming with State Law and is consistent with the City's CIP and the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(ORD 2791, S3 1997)
4.20.070 Collection of Charge not included here
4.20.080 Exemptions not included here
4.20.085 Deferrals for Affordable Housing not included here
Page 9 of 11
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
rj.'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
4.20.090 Credits
A. When development occurs that gives rise to a system development charge under Section 4.20.040 of
this Chapter, the system development charge for the existing use shall be calculated and if it is less
than the system development charge for the proposed use, the difference between the system
development charge for the existing use and the system development charge for the proposed use shall
be the system development charge required under Section 4.20.040. If the change is use results in the
systems development charge for the proposed use being less than the system development charge for
the existing use, no system development charge shall be required; however, no refund or credit shall be
glVen.
B. The limitations on the use of credits contained in this Subsection shall not apply when credits are
otherwise given under Section 4.20.090. A credit shall be given for the cost of a qualified public
improvement associated with a development. If a qualified public improvement is located partially on
and partially off the parcel ofland that is the subject of the approval, the credit shall be given only for
the cost of the portion of the improvement not attributable wholly to the development. The credit
provided for by this Subsection shall be only for the public improvement charge charged for the type
of improvement being constructed and shall not exceed the public improvement charge even if the cost
of the capital improvement exceeds the applicable public improvement charge. Credits paid as a permit
for development will expire five years after paid. The credit shall be apportioned equally among all
single family residential lots (where such credit was granted for subdivisions). Credits for other types
of developments shall be allocated to building permits on a first-come, first served basis until the credit
is depleted. (Ord 2791, S9 1997)
C. Applying the methodology adopted by resolution, the City Administrator or designee shall grant a
credit against the public improvement charge, for a capital improvement constructed as part of the
development that reduces the development's demand upon existing capital improvements or the need
for future capital improvements or that would otherwise have to be provided at City expense under
then existing Council policies. (ORD 2791, S9 1997)
D. Credits for additions to dedicated park land, or development of planned improvements on dedicated
park land, shall only be granted by the City Administrator upon recommendation by the Park and
Recreation Commission for land or park development projects identified in the Capital Improvement
Plan, referred to in Section 4.20.060(B).
E. In situations where the amount of credit exceeds the amount of the system development charge, the
excess credit is not transferable to another development. It may be transferred to another phase of the
original development.
F. Credit shall not be transferable from one type of capital improvement to another.
4.20.100 Appeal Procedures
A. As used in this Section "working day" means a day when the general offices of the City are open to
transact business with the public.
B. A person aggrieved by a decision required or permitted to be made by the City Administrator or
designee under Sections 4.20.010 through 4.20.090 or a person challenging the propriety of an
Page 10 of J I
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
~.1I
...11
CITY OF
ASHLAND
expenditure of systems development charge revenues may appeal the decision or expenditure by filing
a written request with the City Recorder for consideration by the City Council. Such appeal shall
describe with particularity the decision or the expenditure from which the person appeals and shall
comply with subsection D of this section. (ORD 2791, SIO 1997)
C. An appeal of an expenditure must be filed within two years of the date of alleged improper
expenditure. Appeals of any other decision must be filed within 10 working days of the date of the
decision.
D. The appeal shall state:
1. The name and address of the appellant;
2. The nature of the determination being appealed;
3. The reason the determination is incorrect; and
4. What the correct determination should be.
An appellant who fails to file such a statement within the time permitted waives any objections, and
the appeal shall be dismissed. (ORD 2791, S 10 1997)
E. Unless the appellant and the City agree to a longer period, an appeal shall be heard within 30 days
of the receipt ofthe written appeal. At least 10 working days prior to the hearing, the City shall mail
notice of the time and location thereof to the appellant.
F. The City Council shall hear and determine the appeal on the basis of the appellant's written
statement and any additional evidence the appellant deems appropriate. At the hearing, the appellant
may present testimony and oral argument personally or by counsel. The City may present written or
oral testimony at this same hearing. The rules of evidence as used by courts oflaw do not apply. (ORD
2791, SIO 1997)
G. The appellant shall carry the burden of proving that the determination being appealed is incorrect
and what the correct determination should be.
H. The City Council shall render its decision within 15 days after the hearing date and the decision of
the Council shall be final. The decision shall be in writing but written findings shall not be made or
required unless the Council in its discretion, elects to make findings for precedential purposes.
Any legal action contesting the Council's decision on the appeal shall be filed within 60 days of the
Council's decision.
4.20.110 Prohibited Connection not included here
4.20.120 Enforcement not included here
4.20.121 Classification of the Fee not included here
Page II of 11
CC SPECIAL MTG Meadowbrook SDC 3Dec07.doc
r.l'
RESOLUTION NO. 99- '/ d-..
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEW TRANSPORT A TION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND CHARGES,
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Transportation Systems Development report recommended by the
Ad-hoc Systems Development Charge Commit1ee, marked exhibit "A", is adopted by
the Ashland City Council and replaces the current resolution establishing the
methodology and charges for transportation systems development charges.
SECTION 2. The Transportation Systems Development Charges shall be phased in
three steps. Phase one of the charge implementation described in exhibit "AU shall be
effective August 16, 1999, with phase two effective January 2, 2000 and phase three
effective July 1, 2000. Charges shall be adjusted for inflation at each phase.
SECTION 3. The Transportation Systems Development Charge methodology and
charges will be reviewed three years from the date of adoption to ensure consistency
between the Transportation System Plan and the Transportation Systems Development
Charges.
SECTION 4. Transportation Systems Development Charges collected will be
distributed to transportation projects based on the aggregate growth percentage
described in exhibit "A".
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
90 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this r:;t^ day of
July
,1999.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of
JJlv
/
,1999.
V.:tJSk
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
~ ;,~~W
Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION
(F IUSE RIMAC\SDC Commlfesolulion. wpd)
I Exhibit "An 1
City of Ashland
:..j
....~".:.,"i:;+l;L,;.::,
~, ":~
":;:1.
'1:1;1:"
" '~lll'!,
<:~ t:g
':.'::>0/ ,:~;t~,
~ /;,~~ \.e
".~~: f~:
.~. ''''H\.'
"":.i~iiik
'III.,
'!~h,
. ,
\:1,
jeW,
~'
icy
~i
.,;..,
Transportatio11
SystenlS Developn1cnt C1harge
Fee Increase Proposal - Juiy, i 999
.
Jul 1999
INTRODUCTION
Background
In 1996, the City of Ashland adopted its current transportation Systems Development
Chard (SDq which became effective January I, 1997. The current SDC is based on a
pro-rate share of future transportation system needs, including new street and street
frontage costs (needs) and new trip generation/travel need estimates for typical
developments. The future "needs" are not defined by specific projects. The City of
Ashland has developed a Transportation System Plan (TSP) that outlines transportation
system needs for the City within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area. The Ashland
TSP identifies project specific needs for street, bicycle facility, pedestrian and transit
improvements. Long-range travel projections used in the TSP have been developed
based on future land development projects consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan. These land development projections were used by W & H Pacific, Inc. to estimate
the trip generation capacity of/and consumption by the year 20] 7 and define the detailed
methodology for a revised SDC.
The purpose of this report is to describe the revised methodology for implementing a
project specific transportation SDC to fund a portion of the needed transportation projects
within the Ashland UGB by year 2017. This same methodology may be adjusted to
include a revised scope of transportation improvements, as needed. The Ashland
Transportation SDC Methodology is based on similar SDC methods already adopted and
in place by other Oregon jurisdictions, mainly Salem and Portland, Oregon.
Consistency With State Law
ORS 223.297 through 223.314 establishes a uniform framework for governmental units
to impose systems development charges to pay for capital improvements, including
facilities or assets used for transportation. Such charges may be assessed or collected "at
the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development
permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement." ORS 223.299(4)(a).
The statute allows imposition of systems development charges for costs associated with
capital improvements to be constructed ("improvement fees") and capital improvements
already constructed or under construction {"reimbursement fees"). ORS 223.304. The
statute also provides for credits against fees for the construction of qualified public
improvements. ORS 223.304 (3), (4).
As relevant to the City's proposed Transportation SDC, ORS 22.307(2) authorizes
improvement fees on new development to help cover the costs of capacity increasing
capital improvements. Under ORS 223.309( I), such improvements must be identified in
a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan. transportation master plan or similar
plan which lists the capital improvements which may be funded with improvement fee
revenues. Consistent with ORS 223.307(2), the capital improvements identified in the
TSP and included in this report are limited to those which are capacity increasing. Their
City of Ashland - Department of Community Development
1
Citv of Ashland TranstJortation Systems DevelotJment Charf!e
July. 1999
inclusion in a plan as defined in ORS 223 J09( I) assures compliance with that
requirement of the statute.
Under ORS 223.304(2), improvement fees must be established by ordinance or resolution
setting forth a methodology that considers the costs of projected capital improvements
needed to increase the capacity of the system to which the fee is related. The statute
requires no specific methodology. However, there must be a rational basis for the chare,
i.e. the costs imposed on development must reasonably relate to the impacts created by
the development and the overall costs of the improvements.
NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS
Types of Deficiencies
The Ashland TSP indicates that there are a number of projects that will be needed by
2017 to provide sufficient transportation system capacity to accommodate future travel
demand. These improvements include new streets, upgrades to existing streets to urban
standards (i.e., added bicycle lanes, curbs/gutters, sidewalks, etc.), new bicycle lanes
and/or sidewalks, new traffic signals and improved transit to serve expanded public
transportation needs.
New streets and bridges, street upgrades, and new traffic signals provide improvements
resulting in a transportation system that can accommodate higher travel demand
(additional capacity). New buses and shelters provide added capacity to route coverage
serving more transit riders; and together with bicycle and pedestrian improvements
provide the needed capacity that otherwise require major street widening in areas
deficient of adequate right-of-way or compatible land use (e.g., North Main Street
between Helman and Wimer).
Estimated Improvement Costs
Improvement costs are those capital costs that will be required to construct the projects
identified in the Ashland TSP. These projects and the estimated costs (estimated in ]998
dollars) for each project are listed in Appendix A of this document. Improvement fees are
the systems development charges (defined and summarized below) imposed on new
development to help fund the projects identified in the Ashland TSP. lmprovementfees
imposed on new development are used to provide a portion of the funding required for
project improvement costs.
The Ashland Transportation SDC includes improvement fees, but does not include
reimbursement fees. Improvement fees are system development charges that are applied
to improvement costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed.
Reimbursement fees are systems development charges applied to improvement costs for
capital improvements already constructed or under construction.
City of Ashland - Department of Community Development
']
('it)! of Ashland Trans/Jortation Systems Development Charze
July. 1999
To comply with Oregon law, only a portion of the roadway and transit improvement costs
are eligible for funding through an SDC program. Improvement costs to maintain or
improvement the structure of existing roadways and intersections, or costs associated
with transit operations do not provide significant capacity increases. Thus, this portion
of the improvement cost is not eligible for funding through the SDC. As previously
stated, improvement fees are authorized under Oregon law to help cover the costs of
capacity increasing capital improvements, identified in a capital improvement plan,
public facilities plan, transportation master plan, or similar plan. New streets, bridges,
traffic signals, sidewalk, and buses are fully eligible for SDC funding. The cost
associated with street upgrades paid for by the SDC can be based on the proportionate
share of the added street amenities to the total street improvement costs (e.g., bike lanes,
curb/gutter and sidewalks).
Additionally, it is proposed that a portion of local street improvements done through the
LID process be funded through the Transportation SDC. It is estimated that an overall
capacity of 18% will be realized city-wide by the improvement of local streets. This is
based up the buildable lands analysis undertaken by the city which has shown that when
local streets are improved, the opportunity for additional lot splits will be available,
increasing the use of local streets for new trips related to growth.
As such, the AsWand Transportation SDC program will generate funds from
improvement fees that may be used to partially fund improvement projects that provide
additional roadway and transit capacity. As discussed below, the improvement fees are
based on the estimated number of daily trips generated by new development, resulting in
an improvement fee that is fair and equitable. Thus, the program is in compliance with
Oregon law.
City of Ashland - Department of Community Development
3
Cirv of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charf!e
July. 1999
SDe ELIGIBLE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Beach Street - at Siskiyou Upgrade
1-5 Tolman Cr Rd - Siskiyou to UPRR Capacity
6-10 Nevada - Bear Creek to N Mountain Capacity
6-10 Bear Creek Bridge @ Nevada Capacity 65';'
6-10 N Mountain - Hersey 10 Nepenlhe (% slreet) Capacity 65';'
6-10 Tolman Cr - Siskiyou Blvd Approaches Capacity 450/,
6-10 Clay 51 - Siskiyou to Ashland Upgrade 350/,
6-10 E Main - City Llmils 10 N()(mal (wesl) Capacity 25"10
11-20 N Main - Hwy 9910 Fox Upgrade 15"10
11-20 Ashland Mine Rd Upgrade 15"10
11-20 E Hersey - Ann 10 Mountain (y, Slreet) Upgrade 15'
2 11-20 41h 51 ExlenslOn 10 Hersey Capacity 100"10
3 11-20 N Mounlain - Nepenthe 10 Nevada Capacity 65"10
4 11-20 Tolman Cr - Green Meadows to Black Oak Upgrade 15"10
5 11-20 Tolman Cr - Black Oak 10 Siskiyou Upgrade 150/,
6 11-20 E Main - Normal Ave 10 City limits (east) Upgrade
17 11-20 E Main - at Tolman Creek Rd Upgrade
18 11-20 Crowson Rd - Siskiyou 10 Green Springs Hwy Upgrade
19 11-20 Normal Avenue Exlension 10 E Main Capacity
0 11-20 Clay 51 - Ashland 10 E Main Upgrade
1 11-20 Tolman Cr Rd - Ashland 5110 E MaIn Capacity
2 11-20 MisUetoe - Siskiyou to Tolman Creek Upgrade
Dead Indian - Green Springs Hwy Approach Upgrade
INTERSECTIONS
11-20 UPRR CROSSINGS 14) 1,000,000 15% 150,00
11-20 TRANSIT (Local, capital costs) 303,282 25% 75,821
11-20 SIDEWALKS 25% 513,00
11-20 BICYCLE FACILITIES 25% 760,25
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DlS TRleTS 564,321
,
'al;~-I (1) it
~LNDT= 39$~~
ost Per ELNDT
ugust 1, 1999 Cost per
LNDT = $93
anuary 1, 2000 Cost per
LNDT = $154
uly 1, 2000 Cost per
LNDT = $214
City 0/ Ashland - Department a/Community Development
-I
Citv of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charfle
July. 1999
TRANSPORTATION SDC UNIT COST
Introduction
The Ashland Transportation SDC has been developed to provide fairness and equity
among the various types of development that are likely to occur by 20] 7. To reach this
goal, the Ashland Transportation SDC methodology recognizes that the number of trips
generated varies by type of land use. It has been shown that some types of land use
(retail, for example) attract trips from traffic that is already passing the retail site (a
motorist that is going home from work that stops en route to buy groceries). In this
instance, a trip is "generated" by the retail use, but not all generated trips are new to the
adjacent roadway traffic stream, hence the retail use adds lower number of new vehicle-
miles of travel to the roadway system compared to other uses. This type of trip is known
as a "linked trip". A "Linked Trip Factor" has been used to account for this difference in
new trip generation versus total trip generation. When the basic trip generation rates (i.e.
trips per dwelling unit) is adjusted by the linked trip factor and applied t the new
development, the resulting number of new generated trips are called Equivalent Length
New Daily Trips (ELNDT). The ELNDT are used as the basis for the Ashland
Transportation SDC.
Methodology
To develop the City of AsWand Transportation SDC, a summary of the planned land uses
within the UGB was made. From these planned land uses the number of daily vehicle
trips generated on the public street system was made. These trips were added to the
number of existing traffic volumes throughout the study area to estimate the total number
of vehicle trips on the study area street system. Since the SDC is based on trips generated
by new development, the number of new trips divided into the estimated improvement
costs results in the dollar cost per new trip generated. The future planned land use and
new trip generation estimates within the Ashland UGB are summarized in the
attachments.
Future land use estimates and the daily trips generated by new land development within
the Ashland UGB are estimated based on future trip estimates from Ashland's emme/2
travel model, and validated by ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates summarized in
Appendix B. Inherent in these trip estimates is the provision for linked-trip
characteristics by land use type. The Equivalent Length New Daily Trips generated
within the Ashland UGB by the year 2017 is indicated in the table on the following page.
Trip Generation Adjustments
As mentioned previously, inherent in the travel demand forecasting model is the type of
trip by land use and effect of linked trips. The methodology used to determine the
transportation system development charge fee in Ashland is consistent with the ELNDT
concept. This methodology uses the best available trip generation, and linked trip
information. Trip generation rates for each of the land use categories were adjusted using
City 0/ Ashland- Department o/Community Development
5
City of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charfle
Julv. 1999
the trip generation rates reported in Trip Generation, Fifth Edition (published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991). The attachment at the end of this report lists
these trip generation rates and the adjustment factors used to determine the ELNDT
generation rate for each general land use category listed in the ITE Trip Generation
Manual.
Unit Cost Methodology
The Transportation SDC is calculated by dividing the total cost of the SDC-related
transportation improvements by the number of city-wide ELNDT. resulting in an SDC
cost per ELNDT. The Transportation SDC unit cost per trip is summarized as follows:
Ashland
Transportation Systems Development Charge
SDC-Related Transportation Improvement Total CostJELNDT
Costs ELNDT
~%L~~'[ir: 'ieiiJiii IEiJ !I:I'I I :;1 'i\1i,~~
~~i~ ..~1 ~ti~Jlt!t G !l.. .;m --nN'~: '-' ,
Transportation SDC Calculation
The Transportation SDC is applicable to all new land development within the Ashland
UGB and is calculated at $214 per ELNDT The Trio Generation. Fifth Edition is to be
used for all SDC calculations. Tabulations of trip generation rates and linked trip factors
for various land uses are found in the attachments.
The following table identifies the Ashland Transportation SDC fee as applied to various
land use developments such a single-family, multi-family homes, fast food restaurant
(3.000 sq. ft), and industrial centers (30,000 sq. ft.)
Transportation System Development Charge Calculations
.
Single Family Dwelling
Multi Family Dwelling
Fast Food Restaurant (3000 sq. ft.)
Light Industrial (30,000 sq. ft.)
$324
$196
$8,826
$6,123
$2,040
$1,382
$23,131
$50,037
Credits
Credits against the calculated SDC will be given for the cost of qualified public
improvements, in whole or in part, identified on the "SDC Eligible Transportation
Improvements" table. Costs not included in the calculation of the SDC shall not be
eligible for SDC credit. Except that the City may agree that certain costs may, in fact,
represent "system" costs that will be considered for addition to SDC-eligible costs during
the next SDC update. If those "non-eligible" costs are subsequently changed to become
City of Ashland - Department o/Community Development
6
City of Ashland Transportation S}'stems Development Chanle
Julv. 1999
SOC eligible, credit will be given in a form of a reimbursement of a portion of the SOC
improvement fees.
TDM Credits
Credits may be given for developments that implement transportation demand
management (TOM) plans designed to reduce generated vehicle trips. The proponent of
the development must declare an intention to apply for TOM vehicle trip reduction and
Transportation SDC credit as a part of the building permit application. The TDM plan
must be prepared by a transportation planning professional recognized by the Community
Development Director as being proficient in TDM programs.
Oregon law requires that provisions be included in the SDC for alternative methodologies
to calculate the trip generation (ELNDT) for use in calculation of improvement fees.
These provisions are needed in case standard trip generation rates or linked trip factors
included in the SDC do not adequately reflect the true trip generation characteristics of a
particular land use development. These provision s also provide an approach for project
proponents that believe their development does not generate trips in the same way as
described in the SDC.
Credits for TDM vehicle trip reductions will be limited to a maximum of 15% of the SDC
charge calculated without TDM credits. TDM plans must include an annual reporting
plan that will document the amount of vehicle trip reduction that is actually achieved.
Failure to achieve the projected level of trip reduction shall result in the required payment
of the full SDC.
Redevelopment
Redevelopment of existing land use (of which the traffic generated by the existing use is
implied to be already accounted for under existing traffic conditions and will not be
considered as part of the transportation SDC calculation) requiring a building permit that
results in a net change in trip generation (due to either a change in general land use
category - residential vs. commercial, number of dwelling units, or building area) will
also be required to pay a transportation SDC in lieu of the existing use. Specifically, the
transportation SDC will be calculated based on the net difference between the trip
generation (including equivalent and new trip rate adjustments) of the new use less the
trip generation of the existing use. If the new use generates fewer trips than the existing
use no transportation SDC shall be paid, but no reimbursements will be given to the
proposed development.
Implementation
Given the substantial proposed increase in the transportation SDC, it is recommended
that the new charge be implemented using a phased approach, as follows:
City 0/ Ashland - Department o/Community Development
7
('ill' of Ashland Transportation Systems Development CharJ!.e
Julv. 1999
151 Phase
2nd Phase
3 rd Phase
August 16, 1999
January 1,2000
July 1, 2000
ELNDT = $93
ELNDT = $] 54
ELNDT = $2]4
This phasing would result in an implementation schedule and costs for typical
development shown in the [allowing table:
Transportation Systems Development Charge Calculations _
Implementation
Single Family Dwelling
Multi Family Dwelling
I Fast Food Restaurant
I (3000 sq. ft.)
I Light Industrial (30,000
I sq. ft.)
$6,123
$21,780
$36,066
$50,037
City of Ashland - Department o/Community Development
8
ITE Trip Generation Rates &
ElNDT Adjustment Factors
ITE ""rralf' Wtrkday Equivol...t LmCIh Cost Per l1nit
ITE '...nd "" Not.. Lond ITE Trip Rot. Now Daily Trip &.
lln ELNDT Adjultm...t Facto",
Cod.
Rot. 1 Unit(" I Trio Un!tb I Uoked Trio 1111/991 112/001 7/1100
S93 5154 5214
RI:SIDE~TIAI.
"'rn~dt' ramil\' 210 955 ~'~lIing Unit 100 10 1888 51,471 S2.040
\.tuh,-I';unil~' 2:!O n<1 [)y,'elhng Unit 097 10 5584 5966 SI,341
N~suJrnti" CondominilJm :DO 586 Dwelling Unil 097 10 5529 5815 SI,214
\'lanufCk:tured Housmg 240 481 Occupied Ov.'cJling Unit 001 10 5434 5719 5997
K.ecreat.onal HomelCondo 200 3 16 Dwcllinlll'nit 100 10 5294 S487 5675
J~STlTI'T10'l/AL
1 rud -f erminals I 30 985 1.000 ,fGFA I 12 1.0 51,026 51,699 52,357
Bu.; l>epol 5 ~5 1000,fGFA 100 10 52,325 53,850 55,341
1'"rL. I 411 :! 23 Acres 090 10 5187 5309 5429
CI1\ tde"-elopedl 5 50 Acres 090 10 54,185 56.930 S9.615
'el~hborhood (undc'I.'C'Joped) 5 5 Acres 090 10 5419 5693 S961
-'muse-menl HhrmC') 5 80 Acres 090 10 56,696 111.088 SI5,383
i:.lllrC.....Uf~ 2 430 )7 59 Holes 091 10 53,181 55,268 57,309
\1Cl\lt Theatre I 441 I 76 SealS 046 10 575 5125 SI73
l<a\:Qul..1 Club 2 49~ 17 14 1,000 it'GFA 051 10 S813 51.346 51,868
RacQUC1baU 5 40 IOOO,fGF^ 051 10 51.897 53,142 54,359
rl."nms 5 .10 Coun 051 10 51.423 52.356 13,269
\1iJu..aJ''t' Ba..w 501 I 78 Emplov~ 100 10 SI66 5274 S38(
r lemt'nlary School 5:0 10<> Studenl 108 10 SI09 5181 S252
tumor Iligh School 4 I 10 Studmt 108 10 5121 5200 S277
j II!cth ~chool 5JO In Sludent ) 08 10 SI39 S230 S318
lunimTommunilY ColI~ge I .1 540 11.1 Studrnr 108 10 SI34 5221 S307
lnllrcn 560 Q 31 1,000 ,fGF^ 108 1.0 5936 51,550 S2,I51
[),a,.. ("<:ire Ct'nleT/Preschool 2 565 465 Student 0.13 10 599 SI65 S229
:.lbran I 5QQ .;5 SO 1.000 sfGfA 049 10 52,073 53,4n S4,763
It,'spilal 610 1678 l,ooo,fGF^ 0.95 10 51,483 52,455 53.40/'
~ur~nw Horne- 620 200 Occupied Bed 095 1.0 52J0 S380 5528
BI'S'l'iESS &. COMIIURClAL
Ilotd/Motel 310 870 OcCUPIed Room 069 075 54J9 5693 5962
BUilding \faleriaJifl.umbcr BL! 30 Sb l.ooo,fGF^ 049 075 SI,044 11.730 S2,400
'peelallv Retail C~r-r I 814 4067 1.000 ,fGF^ 049 075 SI,390 52,302 53,193
!llsa-lunt Stores 815 7013 l.ooo,fGFA 049 075 S2,397 53,969 55,507
Ilcudware/Painl Simes I 81n 51 1Q 1.000,fGFA 049 075 51,753 52,903 $0,027
'\.urser-.. -Retail 2 817 3608 1.0OO,fGFA 049 075 5 1.2 JJ 52.042 S2.8 J)
'"-ftupping Cemer 810
(ulldl'f 50.000 sfGFA) 820 16759 1.000 ,fGFA 031 018 SI,353 52,240 5~.108
(50.(100 . Qq.999 sf GF A I 820 9165 1.000 ,fGFA OJ) 0.50 SI,406 52)29 53,23 I
"00000 199.999 sfGF"-l 820 7067 1,000 ,fGFA 040 0.61 51.604 S2,655 53.684
11UO 000. ~.999 sfGFA) 8:!0 54.50 1.000 sf GF.~ 049 0.67 51,664 52.755 53,823
(lOtI 000 . J99,9'Q9 sf GF A J 820 4681 l.000sfGF,\ 049 071 51,515 52,508 53.479
1400.000.499.9'99 slGFA) 8:20 4:2.02 1.000 sfGFA 049 073 51,398 52,315 53,211
,;00.000.599.999 ,fGFA, 820 .1865 1.000,fGFA 049 080 51,409 52.B3 53.237
Ihgh lumO'1.'er Sil-Down Restauranl I 832 205 )6 1,000 ,fGFA 019 075 52.722 54,507 56.252
I-a.~ fund Rc=sIauranl 8)) 786.22 1,000 ,fGF^ 00<> 051 SJ)56 55,557 57.710
'\,('w ("a' Salrs 841 ..s7 QI 1.000 sfGFA O.W 075 $2,005 13.320 54 .606
~n. I,,;',,' Station 1..\ 844 1.,u5..s Gasoline Pump 0.Q7 077 5715 51,183 51,642
~upermark~t I 850 8782 Employee 014 046 5526 S87J 51,208
( ~IO\ ~fl1ence Mane! ~ 851 7379') I.OOO,fGFA 0.08 035 51,922 n,I82 54.415
t (l",allenee Market"..,,' Gas Pump .1. ~ 853 ''>4 34 G8$Olin~ Pump 032 on 51.172 52,107 52,923
\~)p.nd Store 3 870 Jl~1 1.000 sfGFA 040 075 SI,069 51.770 52,455
lurmture Store 2 890 ~ .\4 1.000 ,fGFA 049 075 5148 5246 534/
t'anl:Sa\.inl!:lo WaJk.m I 911 14061 1,000 sf GF ^ 017 0.75 51,667 52,761 S3.830
Uank:Savings Drive-in 2 912 :!65.21 1.000 ,fGFA 017 055 S2,306 S3.819 S5.298
OFFICE
f 11ni,- I 6.10 ~J 7Q 1.000,fGFA 053 10 5/,173 51.942 S2,694
tit-ne'faIOffice' 710
Iloder 100.OOO,fGFA) 710 1658 1.000 ,fGFA 065 1.0 5 1.002 51.660 52.303
1100.000.'99.999 ,f GF Al 710 1403 1,000 ,fGFA 065 10 5848 51,404 11,948
C.OO.OOO sfGFA and OHf) 710 11 85 1.000 ifGFA 065 10 $116 51,186 51,646
\ ledical OffiCe' Building no 34 17 I,OOO,fGF^ 0,53 10 51,684 52,789 53,869
(iU'o.cmmcnt Office Bldg I 730 6893 1,000 sfGFA 0.96 10 56,154 510,191 S14,138
~131e Motor Veh,des Depr 731 166 02 I,OOO,fGFA 0.96 10 SI4,822 S24,544 534,052
l S POSI Oflke : 131 87 12 1.000 sfGFA 096 10 57.778 512,880 517,869
Kcsearch Center 700 770 I,ooo,/'GFA 067 1.0 5480 $194 SI,I02
tlusinc5s Park 770 14.37 1,000 sfGFA 0.67 10 5895 51,483 52,057
ITE Trip Generalion Rate. &
ELNOT Adjustment Facto..
ITE A,,"uace """kda)' Equivalent Len~th Cost Per Unir
ITE Land l'.., Noles ....nd IT E T rip Rot. N... D.ily Trip"
ll,. EL:IIDT Adju.tment Futon
Cod.
R.t. 1 V.il{') Trip LcnCth I Linked Trip 8/11991 112/00 1 7/1/00
S93 SI54 Ul4
INUI STR'..\!.
I J~nt1;ll LIght Industrial 110 ^ 97 1.000 sfGFA I 12 10 S726 SI.202 SI.668
( ieneral Hea\ y IndusfTial I 120 I SO I.OOOsfGFA I 12 10 SI56 S259 SJ59
IIldustrl.11 ParI.; 2 110 697 1.000 sf GF.A I 11 10 S726 S1.202 SI,668
\.Ianuf.x(ur'n~ 1"0 H5 1.000 sfGFA I 12 10 S401 S664 S921
'.\ ard-lOuse I SO '88 1.000 sfGFA I 12 10 5508 SM2 SI.168
\lini'\\3I"ehouse 151 ~ bl 1.000 sfGFA 047 10 51 I" SI89 5262
1 .IJ Ijllt"_~ 1 170 101> Employees 100 10 599 SI63 S226
'.\hole:-ale I 860 (} 7.1 l.000sfGFA 049 10 S307 S508 S705
\.bh'~"\I.IIIl;M1S;..dud.: GFA GmYftooJA'c.t.lfldwT~nl;:d
11-0.: roll,.. bo'lO"-"CJI GfA;lM!UOU 1~le arl.'~ te,LA) ai cited (Of shoppiRJ, C('{II......, In IT!' Tnp GtnCQCioft it I... I
rh~ ITF Trip VcncnlioA r;JI~ ;m;: facloft)d I.lJI b\ I~"/..I(J dt",,, (GF" I\,",ckd;n r;llC'l.
"'-<I.t. ~
fl\( 1 n. Trip (.aKrnlio.. has Ie" IhM." ~udics wpponinlC Illls ;I\cr.l,C tlIlc Applicomh;IIT ilrOfllh cncotln8cd 10 .::ondIlO ;MIllor
,1'1\11 c.\patSC. indcpcndcar Inp ~c:acr"'iofI sztldi.3 in ~~n of Iheir dppHnlion
I~' noc rlll~ rehlllonship bcl"C'Cn dw: nu.mba 01 lInKS .nd IbcJt,cr.IIC \Oc:d.doI~ kip CUlcn1ion.as noted ill ITE Trip Gcni;r.llliofllus a
.:..lclTI:iCftt of OOfJ'CI"liotlIRII 0' ku 1"-" II 70 .\pplH:anlS if" ~ro~l~ ClCCNr..,cd 10 ,Oftdua at the... OOo\n C"'<ipalSC illdc:pcndaM
Inp ,.\,-naalicn studies i. ~ 0' lhrir appliclU(ln
'll( 1:,'" stW)" n has. bcO'l ;appro\lnlalod 'roM Ihe pubhYtod p nI peak bouIlrip Itcncr.tlton r.llt AppliCln's ~ S1runll~ COCOIIragcd
'I' ,[)Md....,. ;'llhcl'~,n Upa'lM:. inckpc:ndcm lnp JOtCroltiotl-'ihidk""i in foa4lIPO" Orrbcil-'Pf1'~ion
1.11 \\ ,'!"alt' of I:"lcmcolillr:' iIInd hilh sch..>ollrip ~1K..,::uiotl f:JlCS
1''1 '\:... O'''.fil Tram, Gc-ncratcws s...n Oiqo AS500{I;MiOl1 or Go\.:mlllcnh. M01If"Ch I'N'
ASHLAND - FUTURE LAND USE VALIDATION
LAND USE CATEGORIZATION LAND DENSITY [3J DEVELOPABLE
LAND AREA
FORECAST ITE Sub- ADJUSTED DUsI Employee local 1000 SF 1000
GROWTH [2] GROWTH 51
land Use Category DUs Employees Code Allocation DUs Employees Acre 1000 SF Adjustment GFA/Acre SF GFA Acres
[1] [3] GFA
Single-Family 2558 210 100% 2558 40 NA 640
Residential
Multi-Family 644 220 100% 644 150 NA 43
Residential
Heal/h Care - Semor 180 220 100% 180 15.0 NA 12
Housmg
RelaiVCommerclal 1014
Specially Retail 814 14% 142 1.82 100% 8.83 78 9
Hardware 816 7% 71 0.96 100% 10.64 74 7
Quality Restaurant 831 17% 172 7.46 100% 7.50 23 3
Fast Food Restaurant 834 17% 172 10.90 100% 7.50 16 2
Drive-In Bank 912 20% 203 3.82 100% 7.50 53 7
ShoppIng Center [4) 820 25% 254 1.00 100% 11.00 254 23
Industnal
Light 370 110 34% 370 216 100% 818 171 21
Heavy 245 120 33% 245 1.82 100% 4.51 135 30
Industrial Pari< 399 130 33% 399 2.00 100% 11.06 200 18
Service [7] 145 912 50% 73 3.82 100% 8.00 19 2
848 50% 73 0.94 100% 8.00 77 10
School 200
Elementary 520 50% 100 NA NA NA NA
High School 530 50% 100 NA NA NA NA
Office
Office Pari< 750 50% 0 359 100% 18.16 0 0
General [5] 710 50% 0 3.29 100% 2.24 0 0
Total 3202 2373 3202 2373 0 826
Notes
[1] Consistent with Ashland TSP/City of Ashland
Comprehensive Plan.
[2] Residential = dwelling units; all other uses =
employees
[3] ITE Trip Generation, Fifth
Edition
[4] Assumes 1 employee per 1000
SF GFA
[5] Assumes office building of 25.000 SF GFA (trip generation rates
vary by building size)
[6] Average of 9.5 employees and 4000
SF GFA
[7] Assumes Bank [ ITE 912] and Tire
Store [ITE 848]
ASHLAND - FUTURE TRIP GENERATION VALIDATION
DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA [4)[5] ITE TRIP GENERATION (2-111i
1000 New PM Daily PM Peak I
Use Peak
Land Use Category DUs SF GFA Employees Factor Hour Rate Hour Trips
Rate
Single-Family Residenllal 2558 100% 101 955 2584
Multi-Family Residenllsl 644 100% 063 6.47 406
Health Care - Senior 180 100% 100 300 180
Housing
RelaiVCommerciBI
Specialty Retail 38 100% 493 40.67 187
Hardware 19 100% 474 51.29 90
Quality Restaurant 46 100% 972 7651 447
Fasl Food Restaurant 46 100% 4626 632.12 2128
Drive-In Bank 55 100% 5123 265.21 2818
ShoppIng Center [3J 68 100% 657 167.59 447
Indus/rial
Manufacturing 384 100% 086 3.85 150
School
Elementary 100 100% 3.10 13.39 310
High School 100 100% 2.87 1679 287
Notes
(lJ Trip length variation compared to single-family residential
12] Pass-byllinked trip rate
reduction
13J Assumes 50,000 SF GFA Shopping
center
[4J Based on buildable lands data within the city limits (1/26196) and outside the city limits inside the UGB (10/30190)
(5) Data for buildable lands outside the city limits (inside the UGB) assumes no development or rezoning since 10/90, and assumes any annexation II
expansion
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 13, 2004
IN THE MA ITER OF PLANNING ACTION #2003-158, REQUEST FOR FINAL
PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN 81-LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE
PERFROMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH
MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA WEST OF NORTH MOUNTAIN
A VEBUE, EAST OF BEAR CREEK CHANNEL AND SOUTH OF THE
UNIMPROVED SECTION OF NEVADA STREET. THE APPLICATION
INCLUDES A REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF OUTLINE PLAN
APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING WETLAND,
WHILE MITIGATING ITS REMOVAL THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
ADDITIONAL WETLANDS ELSEWHERE IN THE PROJECT (I.E. BEAR CREEK
FLOODPLAIN).
APPLICANT: NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY, LLC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1) Tax lots 400,501 & 700 of391E 04 AC is located along the west side of North Mountain Avenue, east of
Bear Creek Channel and to the south of the unimproved section of Nevada Street.
2) The applicant is requesting Final Plan approval for an 81-10t subdivision under the Performance
Standards Optioris, located within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area west of the North
Mountain Avenue, east of Bear Creek channel and south ofthe unimproved section of Nevada Street.
The application includes a request to modify a condition of Outline Plan approval to permit the removal
of an existing wetland, while mitigating its removal through the establishment of additional wetlands
elsewhere in the project (i.e. Bear Creek Floodplain).
3) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in the Performance Standards Option
chapter 18.88 as follows:
Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan.
Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space
provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to
another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial
conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to
another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan
shows that:
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved
outline plan, but in no case shaH the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those
shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the
minimum established within this Title.
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten
(10%) percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this
Title and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan
approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance
level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (Ord 2836, S3 1999)
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on January 13, 2004, at which
time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application
subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the request for Final Plan approval for an 81-lot
subdivision under the Performance Standards Option, as well as the request to modify a condition of
Outline Plan approval to permit the removal of the majority of an existing wetland meets all relevant
approval standards described in the Performance Standards Option chapter 18.88 and North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan chapter 18.30.
2.3 The Commission finds that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the project
including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not
cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The following existing and upgraded public utilities
and facilities will serve the project:
· City of Ashland water, sewer and electric service.
· Paved access from North Mountain A venue.
· Paved access from Nevada Street.
· Public sidewalks along all new streets, North Mountain and Nevada frontages.
2.3 The Commission finds that existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands,
floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of
the development and significant features have been, to the greatest extent feasible, included in the
open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. As presented on the Final Plan, the majority of the
area within Bear Creek 1 DO-year floodplain shall be a public park. In addition, a narrow wetland has
been identified along the northerly boundary of the project. Areas of the wetland not disturbed by
street construction shall retained. The area of the wetland impacted shall be mitigated with the
adjoining floodplain.
2.4 The Commission finds that development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Final Plan is consistent with
the street layout and connectivity standards associated with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan,
specifically providing for the extension of streets and other transportation facilities to the south.
2.5 The Commission finds the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards
established under the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and shown on the approved Outline Plan.
The North Mountain (NM) Neighborhood zone sets minimum density standards for developments
within the neighborhood planning area. Specifically, projects shall provide for residential densities
between 75 to 110 percent of that permitted. Density transfer within in a project is permitted if
shown that the density transfer furthers design and access concepts, as well as provides diversity in
size and style of housing types as advocated by the neighborhood plan. The North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan anticipates a residential density for this project between approximately 70 to 100
residential units. Consequently, evidence has been included in the record to show that the proposed
project density is within 75% to 110% of the allowed density within the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposed Final Plan for an 81-10t subdivision under the Performance Standards Option and modification of a
condition of Outline Plan approval, as modified through the conditions of approval, are supported by
evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2003-158. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are
found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2003-158 is denied. The following are
the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals contained within the application shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified below.
2) That all relevant conditions of Outline Plan approval (P A2002-151) remain applicable to the project.
3) That a revised site, size and species specific landscaping plan, which incorporates the recommendations
of the Ashland Tree Commission, be provided prior to signature of the Final Survey Plat. The
landscaping plan shall apply to right-of-way plantings strips and all common areas. Plantings and
grading within the Bear Creek Greenway area shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor for
consistency with Goal 5 with respect to buffer width and riparian plant selection.
4) That street names be reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland for compliance with the City's
resolution for street naming. The public street adjacent to the floodplain shall be named Greenway
Drive, unless determined otherwise by the Staff Advisor.
5) That all fencing be consistent with the provisions described in the NM Zone as well as under the General
Regulations chapter 18.68. Stipulations with regards to fencing shall be described in the project's
CC&R's. Fence heights within side and rear yard areas adjoining a public right-of-way or public multi-
use pathway shall not exceed four feet. All construction boundary fencing shall be chain link with slats.
Construction fencing shall be removed at the appropriate time.
6) The Final Utility plan shall prohibit the installation of underground pipes through the drip lines of
existing trees east of Alley (C). The engineered design shall be consistent with any applicable
methodologies used in the City of Ashland Stormwater and Drainage Master Plan, as determined by the
Ashland Engineering Division.
7) That a Physical Constraints Review Permit for development associated with the construction of the
stClrm water detention facility (bio-filtration swale) and wetland mitigation area shall be approved prior
to signature of the subdivision survey plat. The final engineering design for these facilities shall be
submitted as part of the Physical Constraints Review Permit. The long-term maintenance of the facility
shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association, unless otherwise modified by the Public
Works Director, and described in detail in the CC&R's.
8) That the location and final engineering for all potable water system improvements associated with the
project, be submitted prior to signature of the subdivision plat for review and approval by the
departments of Public Works and Planning. The engineered design shall address the abandonment and
re-routing of the existing 8-inch line along Nevada Street.
9) That additional right-of-way shall be dedicated along the project's Nevada Street frontage (consistent
with City of Ashland Avenue standards) needed to accommodate Nevada Street improvements. In
addition, right-of-way shall be dedicated adjacent to and within tax lot 40lfor the purpose of street
construction. Right-of-way width adjacent to tax lot 401 shall be of sufficient width to accommodate a
minimum street width of24-feet, curbs on both sides, storm drainage facilities, with a 7' to 8' planting
strip, and 5-foot public sidewalk along the south side.
10) That the properties within the project sign in favor and agree to participate in a local improvement
district for future construction ofthe Nevada Street bridge across Bear Creek. The agreement shall be
prepared by the City of Ashland and signed by the property owner prior to signature of the final survey
plat.
11) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowner's Association is provided at the time of Final Plan.
CC&R's to describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common area-improvements including
landscaping, hardscape and water features, as well as pedestrian pathways, planting strips and street
trees. Stipulations with regards to fencing shall be described in the project's CC&R's.
12) That City of Ashland approved street trees shall be installed every 30 feet along street frontages as part
of the overall subdivision improvements or, when appropriate, prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. Street trees shall be installed within the planting strip/park row prior to the certificate of
occupancy. A tree planting detail and the irrigation system plan shall be submitted for review and
approval.
13) That all easements for public multi-use pathways, sewer, water, electric, and streets are indicated on the
final survey plat a required by the City of Ashland.
14) That final engineering for all proposed streets and alleys shall be reviewed and approved by City of
Ashland Planning & Engineering Divisions for consistency with City of Ashland Street Local Street
Standards prior to signature of the final survey plat. Plans to include profiles and cross sections,
indicating cuts and fills.
15) That erosion control and slope stability methodologies for cut and fill slopes consistent with the
standards for Hillside Lands contained in AMC 18.62.080B. shall be submitted with the final
engineering plans.
(l ~That a final engineered grading plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by City of Ashland
___)Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. The grading plan shall
include information on cut and fill slopes resulting from infrastructure construction, and propose slope
stabilization and erosion control measures consistent with the standards described in 18.62.080 (B). In
addition, the grading plan shall address final street elevations and insure the appropriate transition and
extension of streets south of the project.
17) That engineered construction drawings for improvements along the project's North Mountain A venue
frontage (through the intersection with East Nevada Street) shall be reviewed and approved by City of
Ashland Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to signature of the final survey plat. Improvements to
North Mountain Avenue shall include curb and gutter, scored-concrete pedestrian crossings, 8-foot
center landscape median, storm drains, bike lane, curbside parking lane (where feasible), seven-foot
planting strip and six-foot public sidewalk.
18) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, as noted in their pre-application comment sheet
dated July 23, 2002, be addressed prior to the signature of the final survey plat or the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for each new home. In addition, the location of all fire hydrants shall be
identified on the final engineering drawings for public improvements.
19) That prior to the ,commencement of construction activities, including public infrastructure improvements
and individual building construction, the 100-year flood plain boundary must be delineated on-site by a
registered surveyor and maintained until the completion of all construction activities.
20) That proposed residences constructed on lots with frontage on a public alley shall take automobile access
from the alley. No driveway approaches shall be installed along the street frontage.
21) That a certificate of elevation be provided for homes constructed upon lots 1, 14-17, and 21-25. The
certificate shall be completed an Oregon registered surveyor and shall certify that the elevation of the
finished habitable floor level is 2-feet or greater above the base flood elevation as required in AMC
15. 1O.080B. l.a.
22) That a one-foot wide street plug be provided on the survey plat at the terminus of all southerly street and
alley extensions.
23) That the project CC&R's include a statement informing property owners that an area of the subdivision
is located within the Area of Inundation in the case of an Emigrant Lake dam failure, as depicted in the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) study.
24) That a separate Site Review application be processed for all attached housing units (with the exception
of accessory residential units) and mixed-used units (76-96), prior to issuance of a building permit. Unit
design shall be consistent with the architectural renderings, in terms of diversity of materials and
building details, provided in the record as part of Outline Plan approval. Findings of Fact shall
accompany the Site Review application describing consistency with North Mountain Design Standards,
specifically with respect to "Repetitive Elevations".
25) That a Physical Constraints Review permit be processed with Final Plan for all "Development", as
defined in 18.62.030 E., proposed upon Floodplain Corridor Lands.
26) That the applicant agrees to design each "C"- type residential structure along East Nevada frontage with
gates in fences and man-door on garages, landscaping, entrance walks, porch stoops, residential lighting,
windows in second story facades and garages that support a general appearance of front yards. The
design toward Nevada Street shall be consistent with Architectural Elevation provided by the applicant
at the March 11, 2003 Public Hearing.
27) That pedestrian-scaled street lighting installed along North Mountain, East Nevada, Greenway Drive and
all neighborhood streets shall comply with the standards of Ashland's Electric Utility and approved by
the Staff Advisor. In general, the City of Ashland's Cornmerciallight standard (i.e. Sternburg) shall be
installed in the NM-C area, while the City of Ashland's residential light standard (with downward
illumination) shall be installed along residential streets.
28) That the final engineering submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat for all streets and alleys
shall be consistent with City standards addressing distance between driveways, as well as driveway
distance from proposed street intersections. Specifically, with units 66-78. In addition, a shared
driveway approach (12' in width) is required to serve units 48 & 50 and units 57 & 59.
29) That the applicant shall be responsible for the improvement of E. Nevada Street from the intersection
with Greenway Drive east to the intersection with North Mountain A venue. Such improvement shall
include a minimum 24' paved width, curb and gutter on both sides of the street. A parkrow and sidewalk
on the south side of the street from the intersection with Greenway Drive east to end of the applicant's
property shall also be constructed. No sidewalk improvements shall be required at this time for the
right-of-way abutting tax lots 500 and 600 (White and Marr properties). The applicant shall be eligible
for SDC credits for improvement costs beyond those improvements shown on the layout plan for the
subdivision. Specifically, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for asphalt widening from 22' to
24' and curb and gutter on the north side ofE. Nevada for the frontage ofthe applicant's property and tax
lot 401 (Cislo). Further, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for the street improvements
abutting tax lots 500 and 600. Street improvement plans and SDC credits shall be reviewed and
included as part of Final Plan review. All streets shall be constructed and surfaced prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
30) That the written authorization from the Oregon Division of State Lands, and any other applicable Federal
or State permitting agency, be provided for alteration of the delineated wetland prior to Final Plat
approval or proceeding with the constructions of subdivision improvements. If off-site mitigation is
approved, mitigation measures shall be located and carried out in the floodplain and should be associated
with the water quality facility. In addition, the design of the water quality facility shall blend together
with the natural area and habitat associated with the floodplain. A final design for the mitigation plan,
including grading and wetland Planting Plan, shall be provided prior to signature of the Final Survey
Plat.
31) The following Solar Access standards shall be applied to the project:
A. Sin1!le Familv Homes (Tvoe F). - All homes (Type F) with public right-of-
way to the north shall be subject to Solar Standard "A". All other homes (Type
F) that are to be constructed on east/west oriented lots and that do not have a
right-of-way to the north shall be permitted to have their shadow encroach four feet up (measured 4-
feet above the living area's finished floor elevation) upon the neighboring residence.
B. Town Homes (Types H.CD & E). - All town home units with a public
street/alley to the north shall also be subject to Standard "A". Common or attached walls are not subject
to solar access regulations. Where separation occurs between groups of attached units (i.e. "B" units 63
& 64) as indicated above, Standard "A" shall be relaxed and the shadow may encroach four feet up
(measured 4-feet above the living area's finished floor elevation) upon the neighboring residence.
Accessory Residential Units - Accessory Residential Units are subject to the same solar standard as the
primary residence structure, as indicated above.
32) That the following lot coverage requirement be applied to development in each Neighborhood Overlay:
NM-RI7.5 = 45% lot coverage; NM-Rl.5 = 50% lot coverage; NM-MF = 75% lot coverage; and NM-C
= 85% lot coverage.
33) That individual buildings in the Neighborhood Central Overly (NM-C) are limited to 3,500 square feet
of total floor area (18.30.030 E.).
34) That setbacks along the perimeter of the project shall comply with setback requirements of the parent
overlay.
35) That tree protection measures consistent with those described in 18.61 shall be erected and maintained
throughout duration of the project prior to grading or other site disturbances resulting from subdivision
construction. In addition, tree protection measures shall be included to protect the existing large tree on
tax lot 401. Fill within the tree's dripline shall be limited to a depth of no greater than 12 inches, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Tree Commission in conjunction with the Staff Advisor.
36) That lots 1 - 9 as shown on the tentative Final Plat map accommodate only one-unit per lot as identified
on the Outline Plan map. A proposal to increase density on these lots shall be processed an amendment
to the approved Outline Plan and subject to the density transfer provision of the NM Zone.
37) That unless otherwise agreed upon by the City of Ashland, the storm water retentionlbio-filtration
system and mitigated wetland area shall be maintained through the Homeowner's Association. As noted
in the application, Homeowner's Association is responsible for contracting with a utility maintenance
company for the maintenance of the facility. All parameters for maintenance of the facility, including
time lines and enforcement, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department and
described in the CC&R's.
38) That the final CC&R's shall be amended to remove any text referring to the prohibition of drying clothes
outside.
39) That the existing irrigation distribution system for surrounding property owners remains intact. If it is
modified, changes shall be approved by the Talent Irrigation District (TID), with the proposed changes
noted on the final engineering documents.
40) That Final Plan be modified to pull back the sidewalk to within six feet of units 64 and 65, creating a
swale between the sidewalk and Nevada Street. The intent and implementation of the swale shall be to
preserve the existing groundwater seep, maintain the overflow feed from TID, and supplemental
irrigation as any other planting strip improvement would receive. The swale shall be planted with native
or native-like plant materials.
2- /tfJ---oY
Date
~;~:i~~ :!~8~~.~ ~~~~~:
~2 ~~ !~~ 2.~~~!~;: <,~"p~~
~~~~i~' "S~.:!: -:-:"~~;~
...." i '{ <:> ' , 'O.l<::"" .:I ~ 'i~ ~ "l
'~~'l i ~5~'P ~~". M~
";. _. . ,"o~ ~~
~i~~~~!.. ~~~~~~~ ~n~~ 8 i; . ~
~~~n ~ ~~~l~~~ "~Ie~l Z i" g
H~'~ ~!~.h~ i~~'~f~:;; ~ ~
..~. ~~.~ \""!~ ~ n' . g
~, . _" ,.,' ~ , -{ M
~ ~ z
'~~C"<I n' ~ 0
m:~: <<~iaHI~ ~;~~m ~
, " ~~. ~" ~"~ ~I )>
~~~~ ~i ~~~ ~'. 2ol,j :j
~~~" ~ ~~~~ ~~i'""' ~
~ '
;!W~ ~~ m~
22.'" l~ 2.' ~l~~
~e~~~~ .~~~ ~
~~~~~~ ~~ ~~i~
-. ~~. <oS
r: : I Illllll'
, : I i IlIlll
I~~wm~~
~~ ~J 99999
". ""'~1
~ ~~~~~,
,1~
l,iV'\
I,:. I
, .".
~~,j'''.O -
~t' ~~,~~I:ti~~
,~~,~ ~ ~.j~'~~~
:) ~-;;;~~~~~~
· " 1 -i tIll' 0 I~
~ ~ ! , " ~ ' 'I I~
, ~ ~ ' ~ , ? " c.
;;!:~!;~~~~
~ H"! '
~ ~ ~ ~
t 8 G G~ jl ~ C 0
\53'l'1' .~'O
W!'ilSS'1i!ppm8
.;~,!,.:";8;~aiE!~1~l
!Q ~~<~; <,l!i~'.i~93.~
d 8.0 , 0311',13
lj ! .' ~;., ,:\ I
~ ~ ~ ~ f: i ~
\ -{
z
o
~
~~i"~~~~~~ ;
II '
!I ~d
~ ~ j ~
o'
I ~ ~ ~
SB
-~
'i 2
~~~i!.~mmmmml i l~p ~ ~f!.".1f
02\\~~'~~'~o~ ~~I ~ II' !
P~J~~'! ~i,~~.P~i::!~' '
.~~! ,~'; '10 Q ----~j- -
'0 ~ ~ e I ~ Z --1
g~' I' ~. -....--, ' "
, \
~ \,
~ ~
.-
-0
~
=t::t:
o
lAJ
,
!; ,!I!!; 'Ill" "l"'"' , a::
~f "~:.~' ~~~I"1 ~~~~ ~" ~I ~ ~~~- !OF ~~" ," .' --
.~ ~:~~H ",'1 ~~l ~~ ~ ~~ &1~~ ~. ;:".t,t ~~ 'I; }; 1~g' !. · -.~ ".
i~ ;~~~;~ ~~~~~~~ ~ui ;~ !~ i~ i~l; )~ ~h~ ~~ ;~ ~~~ ~~ i~~l !~ :~~;I ;;i~~ a~ ~
~! l~'~" r" I' ~.~~ 't .~. p ... ~ 0 l ,I' ,. .~ 1 ".'~' '-.' !'~ Z
,,',1'" 1l Ii .;'.' \~ I,'. l ! I"~ ',ii '!' ',I !! ,.1, :i ,'J; \'1! .j: ~
I! ;l!lll~!i~ II;! '! ! r. l! I! Ii' li!;l. i !! '. ~Il, !~ ,ll'; ; I;' II' c
I H::lllm ii!1!i i II ill! h! ll!! i Ii lj!l ;1:; !I II Ht ! !!i i1! ~
~ li'\~ .ol~' ~g~. ': . ~iO ""' d~ ,~~ ,~~ b~. ;:jh ;' 0 ~I~ .,'~ '.~
, _",' "'. % o. 0' !81' ,,~ ')8\ ~ ~","'I 'no, ... "
, Hgi~ ;~j ~ li~ I, . ~ ;t~~ ~:3 PI . 'I ~,;\ 1..1 h fl"~' .l;^~ ,~
_".~' " ' ~ '/! 'I a03 ' 'B- ,\",' ., ~.~" .1' 0'
, ."" h'., Ie"' " "". ,;. ," 1 I' ,'" !Ii, " ",Ii ;"; ,;
. ~~h ~!~!: ~ ~ ~c ~ ~~ ~! a ~ig IB' ~ " oj .;1 'l"~' p -~~~' I," ,~
~ ~2d~ i~~~~ 'h~. ~~;: !ll~ :~j ~~~ ;~; 1: ' ~~11! ~~~\.' 1~H l:
~l' 8 <~!~~ HI ' . ~ ,~, ~.~ '5 'oi" ~2"" a'~\ ~'r '"
<" ',', "II ' , , M I" :11 ':, " ' ;"'; ;,:, ",! l'
',~ 3 ~ ~I, ~, 1.' ; >~~, ~~~ l' :~~' ,~~ ,g
, ;: !11 ,I, \~ ,-'. I': 'I"~ 'a
II ~~;j a ~"i:~~ 'i~"'." :i:"
l" ".! j
~~
I .- .~.._~."-
. '........ . \ I
~ '...,.".~ 81:4" .
'" _ ::RQ"Io,~ I
,,-,~-= ~ -=i- ~-
I
~
z
o
X
3:
;;
e
i
z
Ii
&
~
i
~
"
Ii!
t!~rl
9~
i.
.i
i~
~i
i~
~,
~~
}i
};: ~
n S< ~
7< ,-{
(; Q 86
nZ~~~r
o Q' 0
~ ~.-:-< n
Z(;;S~~
~~~~O
o)>~i"z
"z -
mO ~rn
8 ~-~
z 00 j
.9
3:
m
~
o
o
~
OJ
;:::0
o
o
^
\J ~
~ ;=
;:::0 ~
^ ;g
.,,0
Vl o;;i
C" ~
OJ ~
o ~
_ s:
< 6i
Vl
o
Z
1-- ~ .- . ..-.
i ~ . .~:' .~
\ '-== ~!i~J~
.,,,
---,
,
'"
,
"
,
,
, I, e
! I I, t
11'0
III,
"
I I,
:; J: ~I::
[':" 'tt: ~::
! 'I: !!l~:
I. 11,.,,1,
:-:~ Li::
I: ,-~ '11:::
;1:''':'
II _.. '!jll'
1 I ~ I
-1': :
I,
I;
:1
, ,
"'"
~
'"
~
~ ~
~ ~
V> .H~
ZHn
3 ~~g;
<1; ~ ~ n
9 g H ~
>- iq~
~~~~~
~eG~~
:J G)B4;J0
~l: ~ '
I- ~
II u
o ~
2 "
~~
~ ~8 I
~ :::. .3:~ ! ~
~ 3 I h ! ~
% ~ ~~ t~ 1i2
~ .,
~~ "': : '
~ ~ ~~ ~... ' .
~ ",}; .....e [ ~
< ~ V> ~~ ~~ ~
UJ
~~ ~ f- ~. .
i~ 0 .^ ~" ~ !
~~ Z ~~ ~ ~ i
(J ~' .~ ~dg
i~ ~u Z
Z ~~ Q >-~ ~~
i=
I ~~ u~ f- -~ 8g
., u
(J ~~ h :J ...'l: <>0
:::; ~. e~ a:: ~~ ~~
f- Vi f-
~~ UJ u' Z ~~ ~,~
UJ ~~
UJ f-
a:: ~i 0 0 U\J U..
f- Z ~~ 00
V> U
~ -I
~ ~ ~ ,
<:h '"
u... "'..... -. ,
o ~ ~ g ,
5 ~~ j
i: G ~
o "
o 0
t
:; ~
[~
~~
~ ;:;
" ~
~ ~
lliJ
1_ C)
.", ~..,~-
I.... ~<: OJ
~~
!
<:
6-
C>
co 8~ I-
i; ~~ i~
-Lt
i '
t
I ' '
L-1~j
i ' I
I ; I
1_1 I
,T'
I .
1----
,
I
,~
"
Q'
;J
~,
~~
>~
i
i
I
I
--r-
z
o
;::0
-1
I
::s:
o
c
Z
-1
)>
Z
)>
<
m
Z
C
m
.,
I'
~! I
~ :
_ _J._
i
,
,
,
h
n I
:1 ~
If -.ii(
I!
i
I ~
~ '
",0 ';
~~ n ~
'z <: ~
86'= 0 ()
~~ g: "j
;:~~ ~ ~
:).. ~~ )>-
~~'" ~ I
"~ 6 ~
, z
o
0;
~
g
I,
,1-1
e ~
~ i
'"
I~
" ~~i
r g~
"
.'~I'"
;~
~
~ ~
ii ..ml1lIlIIIIIrr
n NORTH
~
lei;
'"
:'"
" Ii
I'
I
iQ;
iti;
!~
IV,
c
/'&
//
/1:
/
I
/
I::
I ~~
~'
p
~a
3~
I ~
~
I
I
~ /
~~I
.;;~
. ,:~~
~c-~..,
I
I
8 8Gi 8
~ ., ' " 8Gi8GiGi 8
~ ~8 ~ ~i ~~ ~ & ~ . ~
~ ~~ ~ a. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ o~ ~ ~~ :~ ~ ~j ~ g
~ 8~ ~ 08 ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, ~~ . ~, ~. ~ ' ~ , 0
~ ~~ ~ I~ 10 0 ~ ; ~ Ii!
~ ;: ~ '~ ,~ . ~ ~ ~
'; J:l~ ~ ~~ i~ ~ i ~ ~
""' "",, <3 <"i);l8 ~ "'Q VI
~ ~o ~ t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ !~ ~ ~~ ~; ~ ; 0 ~
~~ '~ ~~ g~ ; ~ ~ ~
~ g ~~ ~~ ~ ~ : ~
~ I ~ i \~ P ~ ~ I
~ ~ co ~ ~
~ :J
~
~~
..
,
., ~~
:~1l
~.'
'0
~~f
~ :!:~
~~~
~~;
~ :'1
c;:....."
g:~~
~~
,
~ '
...,~~~!- ~'-
","-~'-,
~~3~i I
'~;1 j I
v^<
!~ i
i
.' I
,I ~~
'1
_,
I V, 2v I
I; I I -- I - ,.
I I 1
I I I I
:81 ~ " I
:~ " I
i
~, I^ ,., -I i
I . I ' I "
" I
, I I ;, j~
I~
,~
1/ I I I' "
I I I " f,;
I i't
: I "
I "I" -,
I
:1 I
;1 - ~:
~g Si~ ~
~; ~,
~:
I
:1
~
~:t~
...~
II"
OE:
2~
~8~"
G~~~~
~~~ 't'
~n :
~~~~ I~
~2~~ !
i~~; I
~~~! i;
~:~~ I \
I .'- ,
----. ~~~~
~~^'
'Cv~
,,~~~~
2v~~~
~~e~~
'''~~:~
t~~d:t'
~;;88':
~.'o,
, '" I-
w
, W
I I a:::
, I tL l-
I ,I : V'l
I ';, : ' ~ <(
, '
lj. ;=-J 0
<(
, I >
I UJ
I Z
I
I' I l-
I: V'l
<(
UJ
i~ "II
.~
"" ~~
~5 l I
~"
e" ~~
~I~ ,.
'.
~ , i~
~~ .- ~~
~ti
i~ I ,,~
..
~~ v<
~~ ~.
~i ~!
vO ~~
~~ ~~g
." ii~
2'
,- ,,-.
~s p ~~g
I ~~ !~~
'. ~v e~~
j~ ~ ~
~ ' ;; .l~
~ ~c ~~ ~ ~~:
v~ 8~
88 88 8G8G
"
~
~-
-- I-r-
:i
I'
j;
.il
"
ij
::
:i
t
:1
l
,
:a
::o!
~:
~:
:g
:3
~ ~
6.8~
~~~~
~~~e
8H~
~~~rs
~ ~
I
,
, I
'I I
-i I'r~i!~
I, A '.'~
: lLo;'; ~
I Y ~~_it. ..,
:1 IJ ~o~ "
ild ~ ~
:1 fi~ ~ ~
:1 ~ ~ I
:111 1-
:1 N I
-r~-T
II I
+-1
I [I I
-Ir
I'
,~
i~-
I~
"
.;k__
~~
~l
II
, ~i
! fI
b' .~,]::\118' -t4
os." 's-:;,..e i~
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
6'..iJ J:l'\8:1
Ofl+,r -!>:.J.1B I
I
I
I'
>------- i:
i :i
'i
~~
. v
~ ~
, ~ .;:
;q~
~3
, .
i ""~
I~;~~
~~3H
f--;~-i.~.~
I
~ "
I
I
I
.:J..1 .,:-rCl11
~~
&1:
~jl
():
<n
. ~
~ ~
<(
~(:.
"
1
I ~~~.~
~ ~~~~
I ,9~"t
rr~c.~
I ::~
10
I
I
~
:II %
~ I<
I ~ ,
~ I
i I [
i
~ ,
f
i
8
~
~
~~~~ ~
() "
:-~:b +
8.~. ~ =i "
~ ~~ ~ -< "
2
~ ~~ ~ ,.
~ S ~ 'I' ~~
0 '>= ~ll
, z
0 g~
8 . ' i-
I
~ 0.';3 i~
-8
8.
,
:'"
'"
<n
~~
I
I,
~
I
I
r~ ~
~~;t
c, '"
" :!
"g ~
~ ~
, ,..
~ ~
~~ ...
~~
:;~
m
)>
(/)
-;
Z
m
<
)>
o
)>
(/)
-;
;xJ
m
m
-;
,
,
,
,
: ')'~I
/' ,
, ' ,
~~~ ~
...~... ~ : I
~~~~' t: I ""
~~ ~~ I ~~i
Y
~.~: I
.......:r. I
i~ I
~, I
I
I
!~g
~q
&~;
~&~
~;Jo
,,,.
,~:
~,~
;f
]
~~~g
~~:~
:d"
"~~
~'lIRt
l?"'''-''
~o"
~~~~
~~~~
~~:~
:~~;:;.
~I<~~
~~~~
~~~~
'"
"
e 0eeG 8
,
~
~
j
o
z
z
~
~~~~ ~~& ~ ~ ~
~~,"~~,~~,
(0- iJ~", ,
,~~~ ~~i ~ ~ i
>a^"~!~~~
'l060",'",
<~-;~'~oa'
~.~~ ,~~ ~ . ~
~~~>< ~tQ ~ ~ ~
~~lc ~~ 8 ~ .
~~f~ ~~; 8 ~ ~
~~~~]~':~a
.;;~f~ 0 ~ :c " '"
~~ ~ IF . ~ "
~'~.'~~"~~
~E~~ ~ ~
lJ~~'" ~ '"
~~: ...
a ~
", " Ii
t
" ~ ~
~
.,
~C'I
t~1
~ ,
:;
. ,
~ ~~~~~~~~;~~'
~
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
L
~ ~ .
!~: . '"
:: 8
. -" . ~
1'1: :
'::; I
MA TCHlINE
i ~~m~~~~~1
~
g ~ - ~.
~~ ~ >: ~~
~ ~~ :~ ~! ~~
~ ~ ";! ~~ U ~ ~~ ~~
· ii ! h ~! ~~ : ~n i:
~ ~ ~ ~i ~~ ~~ ~~", ~~
'" ~ ;l( ~~ ~i ~~ ...i r~ ~~ ~
2 l ~ 121 ~~ ~i !~ ~~ ~~ ~
~i '~" ni ;1 ~I ~H;~; <
~ C - "g ~. ,,' ~~ t_:, ~\
: ~ ~ ~<.; ~E ..:12 ~ ~
t:... ... ~<: ~~ :e 9.; 8~ ....;?i~ ;;2
Ii ~~ ~ ~~ ~';i ~o" , ~--~ '0-'; ':J -.; "5 ?~
~ tic! '" l::~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '='~ ..,~ ~ ~.'.
B ~~ ~ 8i B~ ~~ B ~8 "~ o~ a 2
00 e0 0 Gl eGl Gl ~ 0~
I;
, I
I~.t
! i~
W~g
~--q.
!~~~;~
.'!..........: ::'
g : - ~
i~gU
~I<l-"""
~'cC"
g~~~~~
~u~~~n
~ .
H-Lt:lON u
~J:
':1.
"
"
1:1
~;
~~
. .
-J
l- I
UJ I
w
oc
l- I I
VI I
10' I
<( ~-; 1
~~~
0 8 . . I
I
<( ~~i f
~~ > r~ ~
o. I
^. w J
-i Z
~e !
a" I-
,I d Vl I
, J'l~ o;~E <( ~ ..
2~~ W
~~~ i
/ 'I ~~~ ",d.
0 J~~
.;~
"
~;
r':
,t \-~\; l.-L--.~
;' 't.-.. o~ '"," ;;;
~ ~;; ~~ :
~~8."~1
~ ;.
~~ ~
~~
o
~
..!
i
I
I
i
i
_ l
~gl'
~~i'-'
~:~~ I
em.j
I
i
..-+
"
9::l-00Hr
I
~
It-
! - ~
''''''
,"'.
~
ih
1:1
i
----t-
Ilfll I ;3:JNJ
,..t '''''' ~
.9"1~1 3YG
oo+~, :sw
I
i
L ~~
- I ~'~~
jl.~, ~
~~ ~g~rr
~;~ ~~~~.~
il.Lo ~.
c".:!c i
V~i
,
i
i
i
I
--j
"'I til1~~; D~'r'..' s
~I ~a ~ ...
1 - n_,
I I '-1"
--I L__-L
j Jj
I I I
,
OS+P" 'il.S 3rjulHJl.'IfW!
I i j
I 0'
~_ji ~ ~i
(J -~
i
i
I
. ._____1
!
j
~I
-I
-l
o
z 5 ~
:s ~ !;;'
'3 ~l'~~
....... Vl.1'illl:::.
o i ~~ ~
!= g~~~
[j ~~~~
~o~~
~ S
J:: ~
'"
'"
...
~
~ !
I
" ~i
- ~.
..-,
~"''''O
~o;;~1
~~~.~!
'" 0
~ ~
o
'"
~
~
~ ;
o ~ ~
'" . .
~
~
I
,
roZISl TJIllJ
'"'+l\r-S-.:v.e
, ~
I _
"/1'91 -):)113
oo+,.'-SYU
I
~ ~
:5 '" '"
~ ~ ~ ~
"
,
I
'" ,
'" .
~ ~
~ ~
,,-is
'18
I
I
t
i
l.U\u
~il
~ ~
1 8
~~Q~ 4l.
~~~~ ~ 6
~~~~ c
QC)'i ~ Q
B~H ".
~", ~ I
> 5 s;:
, L Z
,0
[;
"'0 I 1;- J~___'S - I 1- "..- 1- 1
"jt~___p -- 1~ +--t~ ~~K-~
J -J -J- -t- ---+ - J - -1:--
i I Ii: I '
I I I ' I I I I
r--! -tnt--1--- 1--1- 1
I.J- _J ~- l~ t-- J - 1_-
rt ~i~ i I I ~." 1
."~, I r~~ I
-l-~i i .-i-J - 1: I :
i ~~a i Iii e - r ---:
i a~~! ! I _J_ I _1
'1-- i~~ I r--- I 1-
i\~' I I I '
I ~'~~~Bl ~---l-- l-~lim\
!~t~~"~I:\.- ~~l i----r' '~:;~n
I ~~~~~~~ 'I I 'I" :~~8 i
I' '~~-I"- :, . i I' -~'ll.
:~.'""~~l ~_ I ~ o'
...---i-..l-;~;'" - +98.96- ~ L ~~I
: .~~~ ~i ~ I" f\ . i~ i
~~ ~~ '-+
i
f.--j
, 'I ..~~i!~
: m%~~
:--~.--~~
I ~ii ~;_~ ~~
~ \ ~ I ~ ~~~ ~i
t- --'" ~~'1-"~~ ~
t'--' ~nd~ ~
II ~I~ ~
: I'"
',! 'I
9~9g9~g9~~~~i
~:c:: -1
~~~~~;~~~~~g~
~
. ~~~ ~~H~~8~~~Hi
nIl
. gi :~ i~: t::~~
~ -
. c
. ~
, is
08808
~8 g ~~ ~~ 0:
;;~ ~ ~. ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~, 2
~i ~ ~~~! 5
~'" ~ ~ ~
go; ~ ~ rn
~~ ~ :
,~~ ~ 1
"'- ^ ~
C'l ~ 2
~ ':l 11
~ :: 'il
~ '- ~
~ ~
,
, ,
1,}j47J
:::;
I
!
~-
II+J1.50
~~
'0:"
~..,
c'
c. ,
"
~ '
~~ I
i~t
:- 1
0.::::.
'm_~ .
~ ~~~~~~~ ~ g:'~' t~':~~: :~~:.
10 ~
llC ~:n:p:1Sl3~ ::5 'g~88~88(;.Hil88.g8gg
~ ~~~:~~: u i~~l<i:~~~~;:;:~::::..;~~..;
;:: ~_"o,
~~~~:;~
~
[-"" .m
<0 i <0 I
"
G I !
a u
~ !
" 0 .
z z
:'i ~ ,
I ~-~!
'<<' "
" o~"'- ,
0 ~~Qt; i
~~g~
~ g~ ~
U ::i;g;~
~u~~ ~
~
-- r
,
,
,
t -
r'
i
.,1
'"
~~
~ -.-
.-
,~\ ~..
'ff...,.... '"' ...;.
='!;: l! H "
~~# ~.. ~
~JJj ,$'
,
" . !
"
~ ~ ~
"
"
+ ~
~ ~ ~
H
~r<:
"
"
+
...
- "
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
g ~ ~
+ 0 .
lQ "'-- :t
_ ~ 1;
~ ~ ~
&; ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
a; ,- i- ~ ,Cb a; ,,~
'''' '''' "S
~~ Ie; i" ,e; !g.
r ,
~-
"''''
~'"
,
,
,
"
<"
<::> ,.
~
~:
~~.
~"
~
a;
e;
r.;.;.
'"
."
.en
~
,
i I
(l--"i ,
: i
e iS0ee G
,- ~ i!ii
o~ "
n_ ~ ~ii
~~ '1~ ~ ~~
~~ ]~ ~ 0
~ !\ ~ ~ " ~ ]~
~ 'i ~x ,
~,:;; ,< ~
~ ~~
?
~~ 0
,
~I ~. . j
e ~I ~: B ~
~g ~ ~ g
{
~
~
;::;~
; l
."
}>
;U
o
}>
^
Vl
n
o
c
. ;U
-1
,I, og;l:;[[~ on 0 on n non nn nn n nn 0 n n n n n 2
"Is ~nm~ ~ ~ "' , " ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ e ~ c " - ~
'I" , "'.. .'., e ~';;" ~ ~ . . .'. , , "~ ~ ~ ~, , ~ ~
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~_O.~~~~~~~~.~~~~n
,'" '"'".... D" - '" '" - "" '<> 0 '-.... '" -" '" '" '" '" "'" _ _ "'...... ,,~
" ,
: ~ ~
a~:~~~ ()
~~~~! ~ ~
~~~~g~ ~
:~~~g~ ~
~~~~"'~ I
~ ~ ;:;
o g
~~
18~8~~88~~8~~~~~8~8~~~~~~~~~~~~!~
. ~
W~~~~~ ~~~. ~ ;~~~~Ii~i~~~~~;~~~
a
';'
a
'"
~
en
<;;
'e.
en
1
~
,en
~~~;~;;~;t~;~~~s;~~::::~~=~:~~1 ,
~.~~~;;~:~:,""~~~~:;;;;",,~,~gl I
~:"""''''''''''''<>'''''''''~~~~'''''''''''''''''''''''''~~~~~;::;'-~.J
H.1.1:10N
~~
~ ~g
_ il-
~~
~ ........':;
>c ~, ' ,
~ a~
1: 0 0
~~;~~
~ ~::~
"
~:'
"
~ u ~
.. '"
~
~ >
~ ~'
t>
~ ~::;:
t ~ 5 ~
ho-
~~~~~UO
~::::~,.,;~~~~
'i....8...'ii:~:::-.
~~~g~~~~
g~--;~~~~
~~~~~~H
~~~~~~;~
~~E~a~n~~
>cO
~iE~~~~;P~~
a~~~~~~~~
'i-~88a"".....
~;;~",,;::~
- '" 8 ..., 's: ':
g~~~ :~~
,8888888
~~~"""~~
~~~~~~~~
""
~~
ii
Ji "
~~
,-
--~~~
~l;~c6aa~
U ,
E ~ ~
"
~ 0 ~i
~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~
~ e ., "
- ~
~
, ~
~ ~
!
~
~
t.~
_L.___.
'i :,~
u,
~~
,"
0,
o~_
"0
~'.,
~a~
"I
")'
r-..:
~\
-!
,,'
::21
-I
i
0
z z
:'S Q .
" >-"
I h~~
, ~
I 0 S~~~
I != ~~~~
~ I 8" -
--- I U :;;~~
.--/'1
f J c ~G~~
1 c ~ 3
;.
::!
l ~1
~ '
i ,
! ~
~
i
I
r
i6:lU3HS;BS
i
t
-O<;"SII'v'.lS
2 :
'"
I"
I"
~-
8 c ~
to
-j;~'
~~
"~
c
c
1
5g't,11
ft:..-rl
>-
<{
S
::x::
0:::
<{
0..
~~8~
~=~:~
~~~a~
<l.. <l.. ~ 'S
" <
c
c
;.
:>
f
'1-
"
I'
I'
"
"
"
"
,I.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
':
:'
"
"
J:;~_l
-. ::~
,~
113
ll"c
i: d
11'j
~~!b
,'51
::~ ,,-
II~ ""
:+~~~~
II~~,--,..
I:,~~-'U
~I ~~tc
i
II i
~ij!-_
I: I
:: i I
~: j ~ ~
:::;1 :~il
:1;;::1 "~S~gll
.I~ \C.......
::.....1 ;~~I
:: I~~i~~i
- _::J~~~~~~
::i
:'
H!
i
o ~ ~
c
-;. c
~ ~
~~ :
c'" _I
3i! I
oU ,
~e ;
I
,
,
1<
, 0
~~~
~<.
~.~
~"8
.g2
~U
~~
~~
>c,
~-
c ,
c'
:':f
- ~
~! s~--~I
-! ....u -!
~:t~;;'
---~"'~~~
~;;~~ '
_I'!'~i
~ ~ .~l
'.
n~
~ ~
'l 'l
~
,~
I
"' ~
~ ~ 0
~~~~ n
~~~~ ~
o O'
~ ~~ ~ ~
~~a~ ~
~ -< ~ <;:
z Z
o
e i
I'
:;: !
i- "" 1-
I~ C:i:'5I~
_____~-~~ VI ~
I- i
1- ~ ]~
l~ l~
1
I
I
-r
i
: !
M:;~luNE sTA 15~50 - Se.E SHEET c.~
~ I
~ \~
, .. I~
I
-t l ~
'.
I I ~
I I ~ i
__: ~_ ~_~~_1_
I 8'lCS. 16 O~
B'o'l:E tfJllSJ
INCS:
""'"
"
...
"
"
I
I
I
I
UU
~i
\ !
- L tr -----t---
\ ~ ~ I -
I '.2 ~ I <;
~ .. 1 ~!
:"f~' ,
',~" I
: I
I I ~ i
I , I
/---~~ +,
i'"'
I
~~
I ~ ~
----'">--+..--
~
8
~
~
',"
c,
'v,
!~
,t;:
I
I
I
,
." :
)> :
~ :
-r -Z:
I \ 0:3
t - ~ - ~ ~ +-)> :;
, ~: I 'm :,'
I "I Ii ,'I ",..ot+9I.W"~
-1 i 1_:J=_n --- - ~ :'
J ^
~~ ~
8. )>
Un'
-<
1- <')~ 1_
i'J C:::S ''-I
-It;- ~ - it;:--
I '
1 I
i-- !
I
-+-
o ~ 1
L_~___
~ !
- .
~ ~ i
~~-~
,
! 2
:~
I:~
:8 :~
IV> :lrl
j
i
-~
I
,
I ~~
" ~%~
- ~ E~
, '
, -
r -r;-
I o~.
i
'"
....
'"
en
"
"<
\~
\
t.o~' Irl[~91 ..~.
(f1l:iflJ"QI-'<>
><T~
~
, ~
I ~
,. ~
~;~
,
7',
""
"'
-------
-------
~ ,
-, ,,-
;'~~i ~~;
~~, ~'~
~~ ~ ~ ~;:
~'"-~ g~~
,J!' ",-
,-
08
~
S
~
z
~
~,
'1
IB", "~Q "ff
~~~:;~~
"~t; ~~, ~,;;! I
~88";2~rj
I:~::~:'!l'
{2.. ~",<>'-13 ~
2,",<:,_, ',,-,' ~I
;~;~~~~ I
~~~~;;i I
.<l1IlIlIIIlIII
~ NORTH
~
~~ ~
~~~;~i;
~ "'~~;~::~
:. ~,,~:: ~ ':' ~
u'
"
<:t::. ...............,...
~ ~~~~~~~
s;.: :::>::::::'.'::''.'::'
~ -""""-
'" ~~E~~~
"
~-~-.."''''
~
~ !~HHi
~ t:;,':?':':: ~ ~
E ~~~~~2~
imHH
~ ...",,,:::-
~-",.",,~~
a
g~
~8
!.
~~
~
,
~ ~
,
-r-T
~2~
~:i~
~'"
~I~ .
I-~
[["
Oii:
2~
~-
ii.:g
~
~
aU~
~
,
f
H
. ~
b g ~E ~_~
~ i :::~ ...~
6 g g~ ~~
~ ~ ~o c
~ ~ 8~ ~~
z
8 e6J e
~13~
~~~
~'-
~
J~
~
UJ
:::J
Z
::c UJ
>
<(
!o- UJ
, ~ l?
~ 0
a:::
UJ
Z
0
l-
(/)
-
~~
~~
~
"<
;j~
~':
,-
~~
C?tj
.'
I ~~
.. .~~
;~
~.
~,
IDlllHsm
V'3'M'V NOI.l'V91.1IW ONVl.L3M
--r------------- .,
\':./[.'" ~
".
"
--- I ~ i ~ ~
.~ 1'~~~l' : ~~
!i~~ ~: '0 ,= I
~~~f.~.~ 0,+01 S:wJ 1
o~~F'O j l ;_
I
Ii:
~~
~~ ~:
-JU -i
, 8'~
; ~~~
. ~mTI
DN
,.>V
~~
"
~2
~ ~
DM
,,.,
':l "
.. f.1::~~1
~
L6 ,r {l ~
<i. <in I
~i
-~ ~-
1;.~
~ ': ~to ,~~
. "o~.~~ gl
;~~;~.~
."..~ ;.mm~
i ,~; i 1
, 12 ~.: I
~ ~.~ ~- i r
: "~.~
i~~
I, .
I':'~
I'"
i
"I
s]
i
"'; to,
~i ~a
III J lJ3HS 335
~~
'" ~8
~^0
m~!
3NI~H:J.lVW
~
. ~ r'~
~. .~
3,
~~
6<;'~rLj KM8
G9GI S.JNI
i!: .:: ;',~':
~.
. ~ I
~ <.J OJ It ,rll
~ ...., <i n
~
~~~~
;.'..
~~~t
l~~~C
I
!
o g
~~~
~~~
~~E
e~~
."
e"
{~g
i~~
8~~
i
~I ~:
~! 0- ~,
~@
~~
{~
~ ~ ~
8 a (\
o
~ ~ ~ 2
I ~...~-
~ ag~~
o ~~"" 2
~ ~gg i
u ~~~~
~u~f
~ ~
ll)i I--QJ
~: ~a
"
"
:!
I !
"
"
~
~
;;,
"
"
~
~ I~
I
~
,-
g,~
~;--t
:~g~
;~~i
- ~'hQJ
~i ~~
-I Q::t.J
l: ~ 8 ~ l~ I 1-'"
u. ~ =1: Ie." ~ ).!~ I ~ ()!:'1 l~
g~ ;. ~ 1 MATel l~ ...... A ']+~~SEESHl C" ~ ~; I~
_ .,./' : nJ'C" .n... I
,e 'I, : ~;;i~~
~,';~ . ~ ~E ,~;j~.L__ -'
>, " 0' ~,:~~r I ,I'r--
.~ '''~ ~~__ i'~ i: ~~~t.L.l--t ~---f-'
,n71]T.:;i" ,I 8VCS: ,ll:5/) I .-
'!" _ SI'CE": ---rp7.0. rJ+50
I I J7J~.~JL
. ,':>;2, !J tl
: i ~ I i 1-
I~ I i -'[u n: -- 1 'i--
e!;J \. .~ll--~~il-=I "~/h -,~ z
~ :1 ~ ,." 8 ~ <.', 8
f'~ __I - 1 ';1'11--11 ::1 :;
0' J< I I' - --i-- - '_p.li 1__ C'l
<;,';~i ' :! m
6*~' "'j' :)>
C> . ~~I : -I - ,--- <
,~~I : . it' m
~~~I : ~ l' rX; t: Z
, ,\ ,:; +-- -- - . C ~ .'~
, a~o I (" ' , - '
'f'- 1m"
~>~~_= __ H~t.t;:; : ~~ ~:
~;9-O -8~ 1~ ~ ~-_. .~- ~~ 'OJ
~I " ~. i~~ ~ ,'= " , ' ",~ -,~~, - J
DI "t I '''' ~-:/ ElI'Cf lill'~Sl '~1O -~...!
" 1 _/:::_'" __~ :E'H_"'~~:?'" ..."
:. " ' r " ~,; ,:;, ry 8;;~1.,L ~ -.-- ~\: ;. J
"H;c----;-I./ '1;,1/1". ce"~~ ~1 8 ' " :-"
~1;tE.. " 0 ~4 b ~: ~~,~~,~ ~~ . ~ . ./ 11/ I
~ >~:~~f~t~:'~~ HI rtr 2 ~~; ; \!i~T:T . ~ . ~ iSJ jJJ )~/ ,I I
is H~f~ i" '~I9" hi . '0<""00 ~~: ,,&;--I; ~~r"~'" ~'" "~,~
i~ir " ii" "," .~;% ~rL:J:'~ ~ ~~..j\\ ~ ~N~'" c
T~~' "' ~'o.oJ, 0 \; ~ ~. ;..,,~,., ""P~ \ n~.:;Sl:";-"--~'L '.' I,
"~ . ,II' '''''' ~ ",. . 7f: ,I ~~' . "'" c"I" :S~ <
'''~' ~ I ~~ : ~I~ '" ~~" .'. ~ i--,~;l ~" . , ~~t~~ ',~
, ,~ " ,. ~ i" ~, ~~ : i;~~i ~ '--~ --------------.
I ~ ".,,-..,~ 51" ':. 8~ ~ .' ,'; , .. " . ""- ~ ".
: . ~ ::'1,:~' :",.,;," r-iJ~L "'~ ~ 8'" J~fi' ~''':~ ",", ~~
, ' , . ''''' i"'''' T j" l~ i; ,0<, ",~ 'l 01."",,,,," " , I , >.. ~;;: ~~
l . I i WI" .ii!' 8vct:: ~ !'S50.... i ~ 1/ .... m;a "c;
I ',~1 J"'l I ~~'i"" ~!; ~', .',. ~<; ,,,
".'"'.' -+-- W', I '.~ '%' -+- ....-11 -! ,," ~............. 5 ~ ~ ~
"~::; ~ ;,,';' ~>' " .: ../j' I~~ 1/ " ." . ~n:; :
~!l'!, i",: i ~~ ". .1';''&1'.;.'1, ,~ , /1'7~~';
'< t;~ ~ 1'8 i~g. I :~.: ~~il!~ " ,m1.:,~' ~ii ,v' '\" ',,'0 '~
g ~o~,: l(,~!tt._l~ ilQ \'~;~~. 81'1 b1~ ~~~ ;~ ~,~ I'. l". t?, . ,'.-, ~'o
, ~ '~~~' \~::~~;I~u~1 -~~~f~ ~:.f~::'; \" :~~i~'~ ;':
, 8" L1 I,.. ,8'1- I ." ~.~ 'o~, .~ "i '.E'" ,'<
I I.. ....~. -~ ~ 'i'~ I' I ''':'' .8. :' btl~' -..:: i ~';; ~ "~"
I 1 ~e J }. .,~- !tHr-~'+ -t ~ '::. 'i' ~ ---.1. ,~}. :~"!
_ I' ~!P~'( , i :i1'; " I i ~d' . \ ' .. II ~.~ ~
'!.::i':'--' . ,'t" f'>" \ \ ' ' '
,..1 "." -13~'~ \ , i : i ~ . '1.-. ':; ~~ ~t ::
I '""1 ,,~'" 1.~"i. " ,0<1 ".~i I ,"',^'~ \ ,,' 1',;"
\_:_ ---1---- _~~.. ~.~" I T~' 1~~~ ~
fO- -!T+ 1\ 1 ..0" ,,; ..
1\ " r' '~~ ~ l~.-c4 ' s \.~ ~ \ ,..-
i > I !" ~c1, ~_!j 1 ~ H~, -- -- " ~\~.~u,~,. I ~
p. 1 \ [7 j ',~ , \',' , :mm,
~,I~j ~*L~.,.'~, )-.' i'--~: ,\~\ W,\\' . ..... -
_ _~ ut-" Jl--l.' " 8~~ ~ ,,'~
, ; ,,' r ~ ~ i- T -.. ~~~
I '~+-'~'ri.- ~ i :__Ic_ ._'~.-
""r" '.' -.' I t
idl ~. B~~'- --.- - : I I . ~ ~~
."~ ~~~~ \, ~~ .J -- ~ - - l---j--- +- !; ~
,. ,.. i l J.;. ~ . I ... I I I'; ~ n
.~ft~n- 'Ii; ~-tii~ --.;.-- t~ I '~,- ~ ~ _m. ,.
~:' ,. ,I, ~~t~fs: i ~~; I : '"I' "'''"''';'1' ~ 'I~~,~'~ " ~ NORTH
"~"'. -\\1 I '.'. '" "."'."'.. > ,e"'
~ \_' --m'-r-t<-~ ':.'~'''.'' g I" ~ "
, I'~ ~ I ~ ii1~;\T II.::: I -- ::.' -- ll,~-
,'" I "I~:\ \ l~ I !~ ~ ~
r
i!~
.
'1-
~; or") "0 ~~~~_ c
~~ !~~~~ ~~~; ~
~~ ~~ \ i~ ~ i:t ~ I
~: ~~~ 9 ~~:
~~ U'~ ~ ~ ~
C>
~~~~~
, ~ ~ ~ !
~ .
~:~~~:
~ ~ I
I 0
I
J~ ~l ~~ ~II:
2, ~
1- ~ ~
,
,
I
+1 )
I' ,
~ 'n:
~$'~' ~/j~
7: I i ~~ ~
~~o ~\~i$. 8
11 I
i I . ~ ~
;: ~ 0
c ~~ ~
:~Hl g
~:~~ ~
~~~~ ~
..., . <;:
~\ z
,0
I
1
~ "! ~ !
1[3j~
1 ~I~
I'"
!*
," [
~ I
~ I
I ~,
I ,i.
- ,
I
,
,,'> l;:
.c' :;;z ~'''o. .Ii
~m~i~ ~~ "'"
,A. . ~z ~~~~, ~~
~~,><>,~~.~. "" ~;. ~
8 .~~:w12
~ . . t~~ r-l: ~
8~. '[fi'~\'~ rlH :::::. ~ ~
i- ~l~ /'~~'~"><~'"
; i i- i,:"1 ;1.,'1 rJ>', ;;;;:::
" 1! "r,'~;iY ~:ti1ff;ff;;;'''f
, I 1 ~L.",jY '#, ._~:j:~ !.
~ -l ~ ~:, ~~l--- ~~ ~~ II
~~_~ rM i~ tI ~ --/
Zr ..... ,.f!J ~/, ..
"I.m~.~.,~.., 'r:!:..-w::,] .,It/. ~~-
n'!":"'>-'< " 'l ---
'~. ~.~~ I rf-A~-~f-- ;
--1;:!Jk ;, 71) ~J< ~ . . -".:0
!~ J: if '~rj ,
; tJ I
08 808
~~ ~ ~~ a ~
~~ ~ ~. ~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~ 6
~~ ~ ~" ~ ~
c;:~ ~ ~~ g ~
.. \ ~ Iq c:
~ > ~ ~
.. ~ ~ i
2 ~
~ '" ~ ~
g ~ ~ a
,a >
t=l '" ~
. ~ Q
~Co
lLuJ.
~ ~
~ ~ J
~ 0
-- -,.",
~ ~~~
., ~~.~
- [7 ~
1
I-
I
'.
-:, . ~~o.,).
"
"
,,-<ji;"
~~
~ ~~~
g ~~~
"r.
~~t'
;~p
"
'fl' ~~
,,"~. ~
...._~~ .;;,;~.::;
~~~ ;;~ ;~~
~ ~~ ~!~
;;;,:
...
'"
/
~H~B~ @
~
"'.... :;;:.:;:;:;. ~
;;::;~~!:'~'l
~... p;:t!lXI\nj'ii
," ";;'lL
~:- TI'l
I~ ~ g'~I~tl'O!~
~ ~ , ~ ~ '~h Ii
~ :;; ';': ~ ~ SI'l
8 ~ 8 ~ HI~1~
~~~~.@1~z
~~'~'~--"'~'~l'
~~~~;~~
I
I
I
~~ .~
llii lIt
~2'2
~,
~~ ~.
'"
~::~
_. - ~: ~
""'J"h~
::t""f;
-:"'b:
...
H.J..t:lON
~
!
~l-~i-l:1
1i~ I I I :
~~ I L _l _.. ll- _,
--j I I
~t~ i--~!..~.. -. . ~I - I
"-" l- e=jl
d--j --";1
, " I ~ ~i
r _ - -'-t
1- ; ~i
i l ~I
I
i
~ ~ ~
~~
~I
~i 5
1M
!~ ~II
~ li' "
h Ii! I
el l "
II' ill' ,
'0111,; l
'11'1 Iii !~ I
" , l~~! E
~ Ii' !~: Illl
~ l~~ i'l jql
~ m!~ ~i i;
8e e ee
~
Qli ~~
~ Q:U
~i(;:._
li~
~ DL99l1
ao+r,!
I
l
I I
I I
, i
. ~ -!
:"'m
, ~~h
~ I i!:j.?
: iU~o
I
!
'"
I @~-~-f~~i;;P~]~'lT~~~I~~.[~ i.~i-~j~ '.,~:~"""'""~ ~!-,.--~--~ ~y~i:
'. ;,0 g'~o ~~' " I , ~} ~ 'fi rq"-~!
" '~'" : - ~~ ~~.~~'i;,"O'o.
I 0 I " ~ ~ ~ ..~~o 'o.oo.,i ;, ..~ _"
gl + b ~~~ ~ 'oJoo ":> """ 'Ie r ~ ". ~ ~\ .
8 ,,-.:fEe, '0 ~~ ~ (,"'" ".1, ; ~"VR'-,! ~ , ~ "\.b :.,:;,.~. ~'~ :>:~
A(UR8IRfTlJRN ll: ~~ ~ \, l8VCe llllJiJ' 1 ~~ r186.95 ~ ~ ~ - ~n ...nJI!I1JIIIJn ('0 ;':\~.~~
1\1 lllP ~6 rc ,I ". _ I" I I i'L'" !i! _ '"' '"- \"..,'.
~~\:'- ,,-, - I -; T""'L- ;'J<-:- -,," -- , ';' ~"s,
-. '. 'I ~ ~ 'tI'Q~l I... ~ InU.9-':.l1--2l.' R 0& <:) l . .: Ul NORTH _ _or, _ ss;.
-- "r)g "..,:1~, ',0 , ~ .' .L,':~:~~J:OC
=. '<; 'J"'fr_~i!~"1 ~'8 '"I~, '0""[ ~~~, ~' ~'~~,
It.!,~,~;!~ ~~~,l{ ~~!~r~:rI{- I: l! :f~~;' \~ fl' r\t~n
~~~r>-J~t<1vg// i I ~]! - -: \ 1 I 21 i;: ~~ ~.. <5 '" 1:\ LL.,_
i ~3:: ~;;,~ 1 ! ~~l~~\i : '\.1 I' ~ ~ ~iii 1:: PI"
-~ 00-" o_,~ ~ ~Cl, .~" ,. , 08888 .,,-,, , . -\.....~~.
;0 U' '<'; ~ ~ ~ I... :~... J - ~ '~"I i~ I z...~ 0.. r--:- , ~~ ~
~; - " ~; ~~ g (- " I~ ,j ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' I--C ,
.0 6 'h . i ~ t g'-I~ I ?~ ?~ ?~ i g I '" ~ '
~ ~ ~ ~ i "(, ) I ~t~ ',' '1'(""+: inn; II I~ L ~~'il
~ H. :' ! ~ .~' 'I' , :1: ! ! ! i I i ,J'], B:' "
, ,~ ~l ~ ',' 'i: n '. I !... ~,~ ~ .r=;,. >J.,'c ~ ~ 0
! 0 : i~ '. !' ~ I, I ~ '.'iff! 21.
r... ~ I ;<1 I \\ i u : l ! i ; '!;",p ~J'
~ . !\~ ;~;:, .... ~.~~ y :/,,~:~.,. i
'I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!:~ I I ~
" " ., , , , .~~~,
I ~ ~ I:,: i'~' ~i 1 i "'" 0 . "'ss..~ j, :l!1~ ~~
: '~~It "; ;1\1~\,;'II! : i',l! ~ ; .07fA' I . ~:.: ~ ' ~:
I... if l:;",.j~! "8 s;: - V -/.1,_ VJ "
~ ~~;~~ ~; j~ ~C~"~ ::~.;: z E~~ /r:::;" j J J ~~ r:<~m'on
~ ~"!~ 0: I !~:"~ii I :;~~ii I 0 ..' II / ~ I~'''~t!
I' ,i ,8 ~! ::\' -- ;~ to. ,-1 '~I ~ '~ ~1 "IA.V; 11;+1 ~ m ~~U;I ;:[
PMI~ Iii ~ :-\ I z ~ _~QiAfj OM' :v.> \j ~ ~;i EEE~~ ~
~~.~.~, ,j: ,I, :' II C ~ . :.II', " 1"--."1,: ~ 000_= ~
~~~9 :, " /, VI ::t-' 0 ~ '"'
-, , " m....~ j/f" ~! .8 R 8 ~
' ~i1 ~ < to ';.1 ".'0/( '" :.~ h.o~
. ~ i ,: "'" "'''''''!'''''': '!'T" H' / I 'JJfJ.~ to ~i '~
Ii I~m ~,11 l.r 1 H ,; ~i / i~~.~ ec. 'J..s ~i
, !~ ~ C ~ I ~ ~:1Iil ~ll~~~ ~I ~~'::i// ! ~~.
,i,OJ'" ,b !,"" ,i.oSO' t~~'.,,,, !~ ~ ~
"96.04 rt; ! ~f I 1fVC[ "95,85-1 !. "'" .' [1791', "rC "~~. ... ~ '. 18,.
'dH Hl~'& . ';;;::;,:,~R ; i~\ I :~~"t j! ~~
L i;;; I ~t I ,;:':~~ ~ I+ ; i ~",lo G ';: I ~{? ::: 0
I '~;t ::: 8'" - ..~['P?'O rc .. g; -i' I l>
0:; ~2.!.:.b'-!.!.J, . ! '~~ ~ ~i'::': -ClP?~ RGlJRN ~ ." i;::r t :.liC.~ \. ~ ~
~: ,,~~~i j'iG{i'~il~l~~L ~I~, ,,}~lr:"~^'T ;~~.>i/ ::;:,1~ ~~.~ ',."',
-'-'~-<: I iill/::JJ.:''12_9a :~~ - g'" fY\:"[ "9Jl91 I I :: ~', :i6C,&..I;, ~ '" ~ ~:~~
~~nl ~C,,:,:~: 1 ;1 i~ ,~~;:;:~:i ~ _ ,.;,J,;:,:~'": .J~J 'i f : ~ ~I. ~\' :~~~
~ t g ~~ I ~'" :."1756ko ~ ~I I s s 8: '1:::r.:; ~" -------.
~~.' ~~<o.y '-: I". :""'']'" i~ r,:i::T~.J ~~~ ._~ ~F~Tt '~ >'.. ~ ~ ~~; ~
., ~lIt:1Q QIm~RN <> '-< I : fi4.J6 rt ~;~ "i:~~ \\ f ' ~ ~ ;~~ -: rTi _,
~ ~1 ~"lrn t~~ ,..~. ~~" ~; :0") f' J". i! 0 r ~i; ;~~~!:EIE,,~Q,c~cli I
" 'i!f' ~~ ~~. I" T, ; > '..'. '[j~. , ~i
ii~~> '\r":~:~:~U)L~ ~ i~ ~I ' . L:' ~g~~~~gp~
o-~~ ('lJJ4rC! ,,"L. ~ I : 11 "r-',)- ':. .<:
~~~ ~ I~~'r'dl'" ::~ ~ I~I ~I "- "{ti- f--:
," d;~ ~\l"';"'''I'' s: ~ ci:: I ~"~~~~~~~~~~"
'f,i r"''''~ I~I __1__ -~r"',- ~.....' ,-ll "!I' ,m ~ ._' : :_'- '::'::-_,!_~'ALLEY 'D" g 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 s: 'i
~: ~~-:l['ii;;! i I" ~ j,~ ~
~'i'~fLH ' !~. . I, , -('I' ;It- i'i ~=~=:". ~I
, , :4 .~, ~~",::"-.::,,,~;. ,I 0.\" ~~ilg~~ '-', O~I
~"'~? 1<;:::=" i~' Jr~:,;~i- .~~ ;~ : }I~~ '\ (_", ~~S~~~ o,:',o_>,_,~ :::
~~~0~~-! ~... ~!: ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~o ~~~ "'. ~B~~g\ <:.s-:;:l;:~~:;':,~~::'~
,Y~',; 1 ~~~I i: :j' Q~ - ~ !; 5'(1 g ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ "~~~.~~~.,,q ,
~"~:i' -. I ~ i~I.1 I !! I ,g; ~~ ~~ I ~~~ ~ E~~~ "-"__"'ii"~ I
~,<> ~ II -l i ~~ t II 'I :-.P ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i~~o t ~ ~; ;l~ ~ S ~Ie ~\<5U
\ i-"I - - ,::; o~ -.. H~i'i~ L,L
ii~ i~ I~ ~~i i~ il~ !~ . ~ ~~
I I
I
1
I
II
J
11
($~' {)~%,
=: =;; ~~
.. ~ ~ .:;:;:
'" "'... ~~
-.. \~
;
,
, ~
I ~
, . ?~n~
~o<'" (')
"'~:o
~<;~Q 3
! I : ~~ ~ Q
., ~ ~~~ ".
_<:::.....0 I
~;;; ~ <;:
~ 5
'I ~ L Z
0
8 ,
" ! ,
I ,
C; I g II
b~
u
~ ~
It;i
~
~
c;
.,.
"
"
~
+
"
"
C7
.1.1.1.1. ,I
C> "'<>J~I;:fl<;;I"~)
',m"'[
;:
",..",.. '"
""f'" ~ "
\;t~..:. ' I ~
I'I~I~ '. ,
2i~I~1 'I'I~~'.
",1'2 . , : .<I~
t+~R~~!~.~1
1~~if~!~.~I;;~I~ ~.
e ~~~~ ~ ~~!~ ~
"-~~-l€" ~~I!,t"I.
0.'" ~ ~~I~I~I
~~Lot: .
I
I~~~~~~:~::~~
~,
~
a
I
ci
:':
li
~~:~i~:~=~.~~
~
'5~8~888gg88888
V~~~~~~~....;':::'':::'...;~~
H..Lt:lON
~
li "
_,1fi-i-
~: ~~
~i
~~2~~~;~~:~;~
~~;~~~~:5:~~~
.
..
III D'
S~ ~I
.....l.l -I
!
D,
~i
Dr
5 ~I
i
C), ~~ 21
~; ~G ~I
o "
3 ~
I I"'" ~
~ :J'z~'!;
o ~~~;
>-- ~ ~s;
I- 0 I:ij ~
U OC:\:;;
i~ui
~ ~
~ ,
r
"
l
I~ ~ ~ ~ 6 a a 3 a ~ a ~ c
'"
'"
, "
, '
a
a
~
~
~~~\~..
~(!! -}
'/.1))11 ~;-
. I
. I
<
i
a
a
~
~~
J>v'
,>V I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~:
~: "1
"
01
:11 UtliJt
108-rl
,.,
~ ~.~
~~~
e '0
:t,:,:t;;
a
a
~
"'
i'(
~~
~ "'-..
~i\
3~ w
" >
~
,. 0::::
~~ 0
f-
a
--l
UJ
L
<(
"0 u
Ii
I'
II
"
l1J1019il!
!:!J'C9C ~!;-CII
,
~ ~ I
~ '~
c ~ ~
<-
"2 I
" ! I
II
I ~
C
G
t
i".
It,~~ <>
~~~;~
~~h~
r
~;~
~ii:
: JJ.il.l6,l1
9 NtJnDti 8tH!:)
r
~
<
a
<
>
Z
r
~
2 ~i':
z ~~
g g~
~ ~~
~ ~~
z
80 e
oI,~", a
2: .'~ ~ ~_I,
- -.ll.l
JJ.;.ii.JS ~>'^-lN 90C.:1i'C
i~ r~
la -I
1 i
1 ~
I
i ,
I j
I i
I ,
I
I 1
~ - l -.
!Q;
la
,a
f-
1
c;;
C;
~~EteEE:EE~~9~eE2~8E9~~~
~;G~,~~~~~~;;;~~ttt~g~~~
:,:;; u. ii <; '" ~ ~ "';;;::; ,.. ~ ~!:!l ~;:;.... '" ii'" ~ ~!;: ~
ggggg888gg8g888gg888888~
~~~~
~~~~
{~ ~
~" ..
. .. . "I~" ~8
"...,... :..: ,-:~..~ ._:"'::i'
~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~s~~;~1
~e~~~~~~~g6GS~~~~~~:~~~~
~C5
~ ~ \ '
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - I ~I
I ~ I \OCGIJ C ole G
lO-f-!U.fn
:;: 18/5.72 rc
a I
a
~ ! ~1;O"Z
r,k c .. c f:trC,";'t
~'~_U,51
'~r125 Fe IJ
r .~
nc ."
. . 03:
I' "
~ C;::o
~ I' ;::0-
" -;0
~ ' " 1
I '+/!J51.CIi' C)
C c . II/lI8"rc 8 m
;::;
+
a ()" <iB ~ntJQN
" IBIO.OSrc
~
~ ~
~ ~
,
"j
~ ~ oj
t:~ ~ ;1
... ~3-~~'"
2~~~~'~~ , I
11.J~lJ.5,.pci
18rl.J9_Ck-L_
~"1- i;;;:,:;_;
~ I +Jr .~_prl
: : 1817/1J It: !
<> i! I
I ~~~)41 r~"'.
't-::-: b~ ii~ ~'1:'
~ j I '~~,' 7~€rk !, -
!im'""~;(- ; ,~
~ ~o J ';,,,1.
-~I :i' ~Ii ~<'g
~ ~.';1~
~ Ij I~ __ _ -~~~~
II J~\ ".,."j
,EVIr[ '81510'
rju- i
1)+2815_5
'1'''''''
t
IJ
r ~~
C
3:
;::0
0
C)
m
0
;::0
i: < 0
' i c
m z
z~
- ~
J!
~
~
l
" ~
.., 'tJ r- :I
I '^C~~ ~
~ j;'~ ~ 0
=::OCl~n~
'6 ." <.
:~g~~8
_ ,s,('):"
~~~~~~
,,,~,,~- c
i~f]3 ~
'"~~~ 5
;, ~ z
- ~~i~!
,~~n
~~~!a
S~~~~
~~~-~~
~i~S
i~~8
o 8
~ '
~~~~~
~.~".
~~~~~
~~~~o
~t.j
5~~ ~
"~~R
i ~
,
~ l:: .,,'1
~~r: i
0
~tcil , ~ .
o'~f:
~~~ <5 .
"~ 0
~.~~ c ^.
~~~ z
z ,.
~. il ~
n 0
@ 8@e 08 88 0 ~
~c: ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0
~~ z
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ c
~~ . ti . n
o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. , "- 0
o~ ~ h ~ ~~ ~ z
Cl:~ 'J~ 'J~ z
~~ ~~ ~ " f ~ ~
'0 ~ ~ , ~
~5 !~ . , g
~~ " ~ j
~. ~ g ~ ~
~.;;; ~ ~
f~ . J
13>' ~ . ~
~ S ~ S
ti
~
T
() i i_
:;i 1-
'''' I~
~ I~ '"
l> :
I
<;:
z
0
I
i~
la
~
~~
:'i NORTH
'"
~ ! ~!I
t- --
I ~~
! ~!l
-TI~
I '
- r:: '
~,;-
G~f"wo)
"
o
~
~ I
n
t ~
~ "', ~8
z g .,
Z dO -'"
g ~ ~~
~ ~ ~;
I- ~ u'"
~0e
u
~
~~
i
0,
~!
i
I
___I
I
I
I
~-
i
I
8'~ i
~ .., ~~~ i
'i~ ~+
~~~~;~j I
'~"H
I' .l"". -
.j;;'~---
~ I
'::':1 ,
ii@
l~
c; p60
1- ,
g -1 ' ~oo_s,
~ ~ ~ 2 ~~+ ~ : ~'r~~;~
" 1e '" rn6,99 'c
~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~.t.
~ ~ ,
. . .~ ,
, ~ I , -'-1
.~ , ,:'i
I " -- ~ 9 ;
l , ~
I
,
-- ,
I
, I
,
+
C)
C)
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
,;;
+
C)
C)
H
D 0
~ <
i
c
i-
i~
;1
I
I
, ~
~ "
~ ~
, l
,1
H
~
8
~1
a~:o n
~ ~~: 3
~ ~~ ~ ~
~ 'H )>
~ ~ ~
, z
;0
\
-.1.
::: i
" !
y ~
C) !
0,
i
1--~
i
,.,~
)>
r
r
m
-<
c)
e
q~
~~ -<
"'... 5
~;:. z
ad
~ rn
~
i
2
~
m
"
III
n
;;:
"-'~--"- ~ ;;:::
Q;
;:;;
;;;
-<
o
~
~
~
z
'"
. ~2~
",0
riD
~-l
.gJ:
~I
-,
~i
'{"
r-
I
~I~ .
I-lii
-- II!d
OL
2:,;
~
"
g ~ ~
~ "' ~ ~
~ ~ ~:tJ
t ~ : ~
~ ~ ~
~ , "-
~ ~ ; ~
2 ~" ~E e ~
o 8 0..; CO: ;:j
~ " R, ~ I
@ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~~ a 8
~ I) e Ele
-~
+-- .
~~ i
}
i
i-
~ 0 ,
~~:: !
~.;:' I
"~:6~ .J
o';;~ ,~
>. OJ'
i:'!~":>, ~
ut'~''lr-
I
!
!
f-
a
3
~ ~- ~
~ H i
I ."-~t
~~;!-
I ~"'.o
I~ah~ II
' a
~I ~I
al
~l
-i
--
OJ
= -!
~
~ ! I
>- I
I I
UJ I
-..:.1 T I
-l
<(
!
I
I oj
; I~ ~ ~~
o .. -~h-'"
-"'<1;;"
- ~ ~-~~~
<~-
~~rH
T--':S'i I
.- ~~ I
1:04
"~~~c;1
8~"';i;O ~
~b~~H-,
I
I
I
1
I
1
(
I
I
1
1
I
~ L-l '-____"
1 I
I I 1
L _ _ -L ~~=-:~/~ - - ; ,-,,- - -
. . ~ ~. ~,r;~,-;:-~,-: ~~
'--I
1 I
I 1
I I
I I
1 1
I 1
1 I
L-i 1
I I
1 1
I I
I L
1
tf)
;:;j
~ ::'J
, r--
~ ~
'J ~ CJ
~ ~ :r:
~2 ~
I ~' tf)
~ ,~
I CJ
~
~ ie>
~ I~
"
~
'I
~
Z
0
" ji co
~
" I
co ;1 a;
1 "
I-
I
T
1
~~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~ 0,0,
\:':: -..'"
.~ ~~
0,0,
"''''
EAST NEVADA STREET
SEE SHEET C4
"
~~
ii NORTH
:11
'I:
, ,
I:
'I[
r,
I I
~
g
; ~::~ ~
. " co
~~~~~ ~
~~~~; ~
~~ ;~ g
3;
~~~
I
~
-I~r
1rT
~i '
> l} ~
r, I
li~
II 1:1,\
~ ~,
'8
,.
~~
~~
GJ.
~
@ (;J Q@ GJ@(;J@@88888 88 8 0
E l~ l~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .' ~~
~ :!:':;; ~~ ~ i ~'~ ~~
~ ~ j; ., ~ , ~~
'" ~, , ~~ ~ ~ :n
g" ~ ~ 8~ ~"
'. . <; ~~
~ l~ B~ ~ ~~
. ~
l~ ,. 2! ~ " 8 '<'
?~ '0. ~i ~ ."
~o ;:
i; ~ '!:!: ~
~~ " . ~~ '< ~ ~.
~~ " ~~
~~
~~ ~ ';l~
~ "
,. ,"
~~ " ~"
~ "'
i~ ~~
,~ ~ ~ ~ti
!~ ~
"
~~
~
:~~
~~
~
~~
~8
~~
/
\ ~ ~
< ~
in
~~ ~
~~ ~
~~ G
~n
~" .
"'~ e
o~ ^
~. ~
~t: 8
Q~ ~
V> ~; ~
t ~l ~~
z _ ,
z
o
>=
~
<(
~
~
:>
'0 0
o~"".
~~~~~~
::j~~~
~~l~3~
'~~~h
~~~~~~
~:...c i.---
I, :
~~ i
~~ 'I
~;
j
~ .
H..Lt:lON:
~'"
~ .
:'i
z
o
~
z
o
>=
~
p.
I ~
I ~
: I'
._m__!__1
! ~-
.m~ .._---j
I :
I ~
-t--
,
m+m_
,
I
L
I
,
I
,
,
I
".,
1 ' ~~o
D133Hsm <. ~,". ~
. 'l:llS~OV^-.3N 3~~ - ~~Jf----
~-- ~ ---~--- ~-- *~<
--~ ~~~~9
~:~;~
~a~2~
-,
.'1
!I
1-
II
I
t-
I
~!
...,
-:
EI
?~
~~~i
~~I:
~g-~
~QS'
. ~~~
~ll
\ \
~
\ I ~
.",11
t:::l ll)j
...' ~i
s! ~i -1
.~, Nou:Jfs SSOHf --
I
----I
I, _
i,:
(
5~1
e;-u+
"'~~
'" w ~~'
~~ii , _~
(~~I 1.- ~
n~~er I ~
~~~: \ ~j~
__:~~i I
\.. I ~
- rL' I
II
: I
n_; \
1\
l.ml j --_ I
--~I ~! ~.I
~ ~! -1
"r NOUJrS sso/lf
I : 1
I
~!
~dt
!~~
I~\'.-
i~e:
10"'2
I~~~
- :~~..
o
z ~ C\
:'i " ~
~ ~~~'"
<( aI:g~
o ~g~~
~ o~~!:l
- o~Cl ~
U ~ >~"
<u
~ ,.
C>
C>
;-
~~lt' ~- ~
i~~~~ ~~ ~
dhil ~~ ~
"'1>.] "ll~:2:
8"~"'~ ~~ O.
~t~tia :i ~
~r-- 8~ '11;;;
~gl~'" ~~
I~~~j ,~
~~2t~ ~~
'>.!~!" "l:::l
~~~.~ ~~
n~~; ~~
~~~~~ ;~
~.> '0
~~2i ~:
,"~" 2~
~ ~,{~ ~
~~~~ ~
F-~:::' -
f
II
, -
, .
;3
~
. '" Z,
~ 0
n D
i ~ i
'"
-~.~~
t;~.~
~.~~
~'b> - --
._ 0 ~:z
~Q~
0.;10
~l~
"~lr ,. .~. . '
I~ii:j llliii Hi' Iql!; :!i miUi~'
, a~.~ 'i i! I' i rl ~i'i, " J
~!;'!i! ~~! ! i :! 11 !I Iii' M~; ~ - .
"I ~i ,., i ~ II'~ ,- .,h~l @
!!<~ 0 'I' ! I' ~. 'I 1 !,!l'\.
"li~~ I~; ; ~ l '!;~ III :!io~: f
s!.,dll!:!!' ~ I 'I ,Ii l!!ill goO' '
h~~a l, ,I "i! !'I o!'~! z
:~!1!: ~~i l! I I ,I !ll ;I"i ~
,:<lil '~l g' : IE ~l ~llll'
!!U~i 11! 'I : I i I! 'l~il! \.
!~\:~! 11 sol ~ ! '~:l,!li "
Ill" 'I -' , ' ,'I II
:l&~ll ;, ~ I ! I j' I, id! ~
r," I' " .. I'
.!.:n ,I ! f ! ' ~ :1 'Ihs:
!ii!, a I i I ! II Ill!!;
I! < i ! l,!;l ~'I;il
i'ilf;i~~'r.~i ,_!~ ,PI~!!li
11!I-ll'ii;'i..I.., '11.-._
-1,,1': I~ll!! 'I .
,1'11'1 ,.0 I
['ii!! jl:.jl:'j , '. ~~
!~i !Iii r~.\11 :~
!l-m "I ~i
Pjit:lil l'
Ii,': ail! ill "'~
I, Q' -_ l. ~
l;~:1I1
---~fJ.;,;0--
-_-"":;".107<
J
'0
~~
.!
~~
.~
~~~
i~~
~.~
~.j~~
~~~~
~- - --
. ,
,
,
,
,
"
!
~.
~:
0'" II
d'i II
i~ ::
5' :: I
" ,
~II~
'~~l :: :,~
~-'i II
"
z
o
~
"
u
~
s
z
o
>=
~
<(
u
~
"
~
,
!
I
9
~:5'i
."
~~~
~~~
'u"
i~~
c:.'::lul
- I
~
,
~ ~~
. u
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~
~~~ ~ ~
~a~ ~ 0
~"Qi' d ~
~~!~ ~ ~
~ ~--.~ :::;-
~~~~
s
-.... ...;'
_", "r'
IbU
'"~
+----
~~~ $ ~~2
~:;a: 2~;
~-. ~Q
~aa
~~~~ >~
~::n...""" ~~~
",,-)c',,,,
::[Cl......~ k~1 :&~.,
~~~~ f~~
/'
~
I! I "
~~ ~ ~?
"
,< .,
:Ui~ 'a
z ~ z I,
~ ~~- 0 I ~ 0 ,.
~g~ >=!;; ~ ~ ~~
u.
we !'2;?
"~ ~~ ~~ l ~ .5 ;;~
?;~~ ,50 , ~ ~~
0:< '" ~ 0:
~.' ~ !: ~ ~ " !: ,-
~,~~ :;;;;
1 ~ ~ . g
.~~ ~ ~.
, ~ I , ~.
.0 ~ ~ ,~
~ o'
:u i ~
"
d ~
0 ~
0
9
. '.
,
~ '
~~
~~oe
&~~'"
~~i~
~:;:."~
".:'->'l!...",
L ~~o.
~~~~
O!~:t~
~-~~~
",':::'1""'"
~ ---
~L___
~
"
i~~~
~~~~
'I ~~~~
~~ "m
<' "
'uh ~
~~~
~ 1 ~~
',,1 c~
; ~~ B 8
'",.~ 'gz >= ,
b~~ ~ ~
'H ~ ~
i ~
,
/
r
,
~h
j:;
23'5
;(~~f
~!S~'-
~~~~
~~~~
,
:;,
~
$
~~
~~
6~
-~
-^~,.
" >
"'x, ~A
j;
Zu'
3~~
oa~
,~ii[
\ /';m
\ )""
" ~
11-',
lo[ ,~~
'l+k'~ 11
,! ~ I ~ ~
, ~ ~
c 7/\ oz
( -\ '- b
11
'l~!
.~~h
iah~
~L___
~
..
~
-~-
~~~
~~H
~a~
"~f
~~~:o.
, l~,,~
_.,l_,i l!"
... ~'t '"
"1',(; ~""
~
~..... ..,'
-~-
~~~
""z
;ai
~;~~
boe;S---
~~~~
~~~~
~I'
, .
, '
il
~ I
,.
~ ~
~ ~
~
Co 0
l .~ ~
~ ~
'. b
~~
~~c:all:'
~.,,~
..U
L' ~a~:~
~ ---
l'l j
I -
I '"
:3 i
0
Z z
:'i ~
I ~~....~
~ :~~~
0 ~~(I)",
~ ...0 :s
8E~~
0 ~g:::i
0
~
z
o
>=
~
"
u
~
~
~
. ,
"
~ i
~ ~
z
o
~
"
u
~
~%~~
~<..,.~'"
;~~~
~ ~'" l'
~,,~.!:
~eo
"0
!'" '<
0'
2~~ ~
"
~ ~
11: .\.
'. ..l. ..,
"'. .,'
~-
,
. ~
i ~
f ~
r--
:.q"':lI0:>
<'l~2"
~~~~
1~~~ --1'
,-"!.!: ~ ~
~80 ~
~~1~ .A'" .~
-~' ~'., I'
f-' i
. _ -:,._ _ _ _-L
, -
, ~..
~ ;r,
~t..
~ ~
~ ~
~
'---- .
"'~ 1q""';;/
~~ ~~~ ~~~~
~~ 3~! !~~,
~ ~; l!~~
~~ ~2a
s~ ~~~
.'
"
d
~~
15
~ 8
'(~-. ......~. ;>
,4-T
" \l'
. ~ I
f----
1-
_. ~'r~
i ~"Ij~' I I
',I ,i
, '-r~f
I~ , I
i~l! dJ
""<Xl...,"
~~~~ 1
-lji~m "
~ ~
~) <..,- ~
~: ;;;.
~~ ~~~
~ ~8 ~~~
~~ ~;::t,
~B ~r:-~
;;~ ;~;
~g \~~
,,~ ~~~
~':: ::'80
~~ i~
~: ~
!~ ~
~~ ~
;~ ~
~
,
q~!
~~~
-"
~;
a~
~;
-~
~a
~~
~~
;~
!~
" ~
~~
,0
~
E~ ~ ~
:r.:r.() ;::;.
~~: ~
~~ g i
.0 0
z
,
~ ,
, Q
~ "
~ ~
i ;
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~.
111
lH
, I AIf
"jJ
-'1
~~;~
"'~~~
:;-~'i;;j
~~"'~
'-~~~
~~a
"0
;~~
-F
i :;!
~ ~ ~
.0"
1; :;:
~ ~ g
> 0
i Z
1
~ ~ r~' ~?, T
~ 0 '.
~ ~ ~~G
Dr,'''' ~
~ ~' f
'" ~ ~ - - "
~ P 1<
~ < tA'
'-:U.
'<
ill - f!il,!i,,~ ~~ -
II ,:i il J Ifill; I[
Ii:ll!!! i'1~j P r
11:!1 "ill 1,1 i':'ii '!,',I".,i,!l I
51 l,lIil' r I
I '1'1":1 i
M~1. , ,!Ih!t!l i
~' j!Jl.()t~!e 11' . ,I ..6 ! III
- iU.J p~~! .~ .j!, I
. .()! .()h Ii! r- 4)0 ~li
.. ; j!j ~illi~ II, I
~11~ k~ I ~'i I
l.~ m I
I ..
i
,
I
1-
,
:: II:
i: ,f II
It \i ,., I
i il'illi II!: il
It. :, .Ii: Ii!
:; Ilill
~ij J : I i I!
Hi! 1 itl i II
~ nq J ~ !I ! U
~
,i
I'
II
ti
c-='T -,- ~'--l' r
't~
111:"'4~j
:J ~:.::.::; I', "
~~.,.-: Gf III'
I ' ..,;-. '. If ,I
i.. I !!;II
~-Y j' Hil,
1/" Ill. _
r~
.....
~ I: ....
~ 1-' .
~ I . ....
1- . . '"
~l
I
, "
I: !l
I'll
Ii Ii
ll'lll
I! ) ~ !
I__,~-==---
I
., .1
,,'%tH
,il I!~l
-I! ~Jl-B'
I 'J'
~.
jl'l'll
II !fljl :i
1'11.1111
I,! I'lll ;"
..' ')"11'1
Illj'II'( "
1t,11'!'lllr
I H ,11,1.1.1/:
ill i
ill; ,
'" I
!q!
I' '
il!I:H/
il,lill,
.1.1,\,
~I
~"
II"~ I
! I'l! r
! Ij1 h J
Itllll!',
,!! Ii! Ii Ii
I III
i HI!
I !Iii
illl"
III!!!
, i II
I' 'I'
.i! (ill
'I! ,;1\
!l,; 'ili
1,1!.lt"
I, j:.Hi;!
i! liiil!il!
Ififlll:ll!U
!Ij
'11111
I .I
iii I
'I
Il',l
111:!I)
i1i!i!h
,I."".
ilL
ill i '
II t ~ I
!:I
1.II!!q
ilililll
. 1.1 ,{.
-
~~~2'~
~ ~ ~
o
Z z
:s ~
I >
~ ~~~"'
o i~Vi~
~ ~~~~
U o::=l..t:li
~~a
o
~
f
; :
~ ,
~ !
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, . .
~ ~ ~
3 ~ ~
~ i ~
. . .
~n..
~il
u
I
l.li!il~' m
I i Ill! ii0'
" !II ~
I !h 'n' Ii
n I!l II
.'
. ~
~ Q
, ,
: !
,
~
o
o~~
~~:o n
;~~: ~
E~~~ ~
"~~~ e;
, I
8 ~
L Z
o
I
.., ~
~' c .
'~ 11 \" ~
~1 ~ 8
!!iijil'ljl
!l!l d III
Hit! Ili
I' II I fH
1 'ii'
;i!l am _ i I
,11 '
1m i
1I!1Jl~
I!![l~
1"...9{
i' II
, I II
1;I~jOCp
; t!lJi. c, I
a:}f'.'~'
1'1 .!ii i
Ii 'll' I
, HI!
" I (
H! II i f
B i '! ~
'I i ~I r
iifi(
i
"
//"," !;
/ /,' - ',,,,,,I.
. < / ' ,/ ~ '<:'
, --... I ----- \ " "
',>:>,,-~~/:' /
I ,\/~, r,~
I!i H II! l
jl;.'\1
,1,1,'
:!illt
1'1 '
i~
:!
l
I
ill
II
li~il!l.'l
I, '
I'! "
I I
I
f II I
l! 'I II! .J Ii
i \.
,I
','I
i!j I ~
!,I
il
1\
I
_1,-1.L" ~
::, :~~ ~ I i
j!1
I! I
\ I
~~ ~.
l' I ;-~ij~ (~
M-cd. , I )~'
li~ -j
i' ;!' ; I 1
~ : 1:1 i I I i ~"-
! I~ ~l L-.
, t!
! Ii i ~j Hi Ii r
1;!'I'I,111
I i!l'i,lll
!'d !.\ j
I I
![L:[~ "
I..... II
!W I"
I I,l
rt-utr,
,. /'
~...,
i:~ti, : ,:. :
) ["";~.,. I el~]
, Ii l!!.l!
-f ,.'
J '
,
,
,
i
!II
'I' 1" '
i1i:,'1 ii' II
Il!l!l' pI Ii
l!! I It! li
-I II
r
..J~
' . [~
_._. IT "
__ F' . if
r-1I
\ Ii
I
I
H:I
'IIi
~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~!~
~.o
i~g
~~~
,,,
~.
~,
~
Uf,f.
It[ :cri
~_.. L~ <I
i!P II.
III
f-Hfr,h
~,
1'1'
r------ -
I 'jr.I'~lil' -, ~~---I
II t' ,r i l -----'''' f
I f:jil!hmr"f~lf I
I H I, I ..
,: ri ' " I
II :" ," i ~' "
,; ,
I "
I 1 I
I a ~ti-' ,; m,<c' &:
'\ ' . i' wi, rr (f1\ .
"fr ~ ~ A .
I ill . i
FHlj
l,111
11111
,~ ,. I!
~I ~!., Hi!
11_ p:.rl>: tl .,
i/Liljilj illl
~i:i ~hih ~ ~I
1[~~ k
~!I
I;.., :It
, 1
,I' i
~7\t
111;
~....l
:~~~
'r
lit H
m~Ht
J I
.[CIS;~JJ il 'J
~ l'..J I
f~ Jih
,~ " .~,: :~l
,~. j' .."
~l' "
'!1-~ w
! If,
'~.,!!'!
;';'Hi
1'"- ~ I
:j1
In
ilj t
]m'l
I, '\'
Ii :J' !
H ..~
1
~'
fi .:1 rt
!~.;'I! !i
.-,:.::{ .!J"
j
I
"
II ~ I
d 11
!!Il
II!I ...
J
I '.,.1 "/
roll :
pHI f f~
I :1 !I! I ~1 I:
"j"\ '~iIJ
~ . 1
~. 1;
<
t ! ~ It
....-' ,.1-<<-,1
i:I'~' !In;'
:, _ J ! I
":~~l: jllHII
~ ~Pl~ Hi~!
,;~!:,~I" "I
"c. ~~I~'~" I- "I(li-!
'!:{ ,!-, " Ibr,
~It. i~ i '[Irll!
. '... ' Illlli'l
~~:Ij ~:~r
1M!1~1
:11
l,H
t !HI I
jl., j'l;l
uH I 1! ~ l~~H I
"l"~' t ~,ll"
lit: - .....J: . -..I-~r":. .;\ ~1l!
~ '~~~SHIIeimI,!. !lll ~JH..~
~ l !I' .-:~ ~ ~~~~!il HI.. ~
~ 1iI:1 III :!. -t l'l.lI el
! n. " __''')~
~:I . ~_M_-'
,:.;-fllll .~
" ",' .., I '.
<j iLj' in, i'
~ ! ... '----.'---
u, I JIf~~";j
... ll!r If
'-- I ,
~
~-!~' rj!j l,:,lf'
~! =~ .
111.1
.:,::::::,:::. } hHI[
g~ itD;11
~'191
II
ill i1
I" ~,
i,l~ ~
nlll
,
.11'.)
III'J!!i
II!iii!lJ
Ll.l1I.t.
ill!
II~' Ii'~, "'"
~ "~'~~11 ~)Il
'4f" } i!iiIi'
l' "'_ J
ill
ill
'I-
hi
'(II'I'!
;, .,11
'j,r.,
II!iii,
,Ur"
" "1111' i
1.,1:; 'i "',' Iii
HI :~l II. f. t. 11i1 i ! Il h
~' i!iH!!:i!'Ii'I !i,llrl
,I. .Iil ii IIi 111j Illil'l' !i
. I' hi ii 111 j:B i. ,'~ ~l
d .... .
f i ';'! ,r' .
': rn. .Ill !1
.ll~'I\.., Ijl
Jj\- ! ~r:;iqi h!
11,ljJ ,Ii!
(;1!
'il I"
:'1 ..,
J!: !
I.ld
.. lilt:.
.,~ lIil
U..!!.:,
i j'l". II
I '.' .r:
" 'II r.
!;-. III "
.~, . ~
~,;"
I 11'1
. ill'
I iiii', J
I ,'" I
I
,
Vj
I '11 '1'
I'! I !II II ih
" 11"'/1'
II j ,11l!I.f
II' 'I"I!!II
i!,jl!L I.
1111 '( '.1
f I "!l'
f4. ~"I
'!Ii" . : i ;lJ'.
1. '! ~ ! ,..11
'"- -,~ l'~1
~"'I.j
LJ . ";'
!
'~ 1.1!1
i~.; lJ~.I!'Il;
-- III fj
c i!ll!!l
-" il!lJd
1'~~tt'L11i1il
I.. t'~ u
~ I! i
I!: .> h!llj
~'t-) ~.
. I t I ~
. ;1 I dJl~~
~, . '~I'fil~
, I Jlli.
II - ~
IJ! ~j"
I!II -. -
"Il~
Ill!
-! :I!l
lmE'-:- I' It! I
.. 'I;
,. 'i:l
"" I'
~@]Il illlifl
:ltf!:il
hh!1!1
1.11 l'i1lll
il-j!I'II,1
ift! 1111 !IIH i
Ilrl; i;1 IIli
rl:! i j 't"lI::
l'Il!: 'f', II:I'
ifil!1 r dlll'r I
! ji"ll! 1'. Idj:
Iljl)H!Illlhm!!!1
, I,
il ~' ,[lJ.'~;~1
. 11 ~.. :
!it ; , II
;! ii, i U ~ i
!II II ill I
Lt I'
"~II_li'
I" I,,'
H:d
, ~!
II. _ 0
" j!lf:
ill"
i ~ I
IIIB !
ill!!l,l
",
.tll,'.j
;' lorj
I'jlj!h
,I. hI..
!Il,
iI!
II_
H
'\I,,'.l
it. hI,
f',lilil
./.1,(.
!
~ ~ f ~
f ti ~ l..l
',' ill
i'ijid!
'j hdi ldqf
! ,I Hi 1, ,i Ji!J
H
;11 _
Illl
Iii
"
'I!I'I')
;, ',fj
Fi!i!ll
lU,l.
r,j-.~
[1~r1I;
, , ~~ Ill~fl '!
~;.:J!
1f~:~~ Ii!
f r, 'I
:1: ,~ il I "
:~!I!
illJ
o
Z z
:'i 8
I '
V'l ~~....
<( :JZl..J",
o ~~~~
~ ~i3~
u 2;loJi
~~c
o
~
~ "
f U I :1':
-'; II
IJ;! hIli
. ~ ,I" II
Illi II
! 01 I 'hI II
~ ff lit !l tfil I
L"c.'::'!ljljl!!
, I, hill
- I 'III!
---;r-- 'I" 0
'L ./11 ~
~ff dill
,
~li!
I gti
. - 'i!1
,
-I
~111
~ijf
~@]III
!II!
Ill"
ii! I
"I
:l{iIirl
If'f!lll
!i!i!i!l
&'."
Ij' l..
.Pl
up
.' Iii
'1',
I
\.~ I."
~ii!!i
J~j)jili.i
~;
~jliJl~1
. - H~! I ~~ Ii
", :\ i!!!i r:
. ,I i I: i!
~. !li!iliilt
. ;1 1!/1. ,I. ,e
, 'i'
"- !'1 f;f ~
- !~H 1:1 t
IlIl Jill
filj i!li
Illr .O!
IHi ::d
I !nrf!!] il
I:! I:! ~ ~ t:! ~
~~~~~~
i*.jl.
" .
~ .. ~
~'
I ji
.,
lilll i
II,
,
'llj" i
~il
~ ~
It
l
~
~
a@
. .. ~
~ ~ ~ i
, , ,
~ ~ ~
'E '" ~ ~
~ ~ li ~
. :;,! JI
o5~ n
~~jgl~
~:~~I 0
~ ~~ il ~
1: s;;
: ; it If
, ,
Filljli
1".j,J,
Illhl'i
,
! Pi
'ill! "Ill
,!i III
'1 ili
"
lilll,"''-.;
'I! , '
l. I i I ., ~ .
I,. ,
! I' ,,\ '.
" "t..
I , t If HUt
!! mnj
! jlH.
~~mi
~~i~
"d"'[)
~:~~
..,<) ~ ~
~8 '
~,
~
II~
D>
)
.(
~~
~~
~g
o~
~
ii
)>
-<
is
z
~g
~~
is
z
o
x
I
I~
I
I
I
;-
!~
~H ~.'r ~ ~l
l;n.~l irr~ III ",:t:;(l) g]m'l.l
l'I~J~~J :UJ~J II I: =t1fh !
...JL, '1!1!~!1
! I III ,,,.,. ,II % !f'll!'fl~ 'li;I;;!
i i 'I' -'. 1 'r f"i'!! iii, "" I, IP:
il,ll [Ib' .~Ilr-Ji i I' hi ",!,l:, !!llH!!I!I!l!llI'I"I'
I 1 ~ ~~ . ! i ~~ l'II ~~ ~Ii~ ~It' ~I~. P .;
i.H, if' . : f L 'II I[,;j ~!!hll ml !~I,'I it
qJI' 'I L L J cJ ; II l!1 II W, W, II,! j 11
':!' r" II I!I;!I;!', I,'
i, I ill I,' I , I
~11'[;11 Ii I
l~i!J1ili' H!I~ !'lll!llll
II~j1II: ,it! I ,;l~:
1",'11'; 'I"':, . . !::i :
' I. I I! I ,"
U I ~i :i ~ ~i : .
,!,[, Ii I 1'1
61 II! !l i III i
,1!1li '
r,if
'I:
{Wlrl!" I
I'll !
! Ii I : ~
11'11'; II
I,' ,
I,"
~ ~ i!
I !illl
, Pi
. . ~n'
~ ~ 'F
~ ~ ~ ~~
'" '" lI~
~ ~ ~~i
~ ~ ~ ~~
; l ~~
~ ~ ~ %
~ ~ ~~ ."
~ ~ :::: ~
~ ~ ~~ ~
! ~ ~.~ ~
~ ' "'0 ~
~~ ~
~~
2~
~!
~~
'0
'R
~
~~
~~
;;
~~
~~
~!
~q
II ~
II
II
~; i'tD' ... l; 1,
~ I Ii ~ - ~ . I
. I
......
-:J t """'"
c ~.;:;.
o
:')
o 'r
S <;:
:; ~
g g
n n
~ >
> ~
<
z
co
,
~ \
\
o I
~
~~
i~
'.
<.
:.~
-.
\ o@
II '
~ \
i \
~ I
~
. .
~~
'('"
'.,
OJ ~.;:;,
-ii
~ r
l;--<
~~
co~
;;~
<;:)>
lIC) ~ e
~~ ~
~ ~~
~~
-.
,D
~':::
;~ I ~
~ ~ ';J;:
~;
~~
.... :\1
"
~~
~o
~~
~"
~~
~~
~
.~
,.
~~
"
'.
~;;.
OVERLOOK 0 rVE
~\;:
:.
~<
h
~~
,~
!~
E
z
z
)>
-<
C
~
)>
~
l~ 1-
g ~.~
.z "'\'"
J \
~~
. .
, .
~~
~
~,
WO~~:~~NO
-On/l
- - -O;!Jil_"_
~' . .l~'-\'~lii!iiii~;;-~" ':
_ /'.J.. _ F .:' <!'~ ')~, "I!, f /:,1.1 /'~7~~ '
---- ~~ ~-, - ~\~. ~ ,,"',/ """"P~~~'r
l ,It :r, e,',. ',r,"~ 'II:" ','<I!:'j<'!'i' ,<~,)
'I ' , c.._:q-' 'I \ 's ,~ .::i~;r:'~ "-
Ii" \,; lL_: 1; I;...,'::...~<U'I' ,(g~'_:t '
"I 'J I ' ' , ~,j .\, ~., ~'",
1 II L ~ L ".,.1 -I\~II h(Q,~l;Q(Q
, ,',ll ~j L~ "I:l ",
t ,t 1:[ ~:' '", ,,'"
'f" ' '-II'U, ~ ~'-~
r ~;1 : "l, ''', ~\ '
,I ilt~~~"
I \~,,~. ~'~\ 't '
; 'tljl q N~\~"'~,,.
, 1.11 ,! U
, '~, i~_ _ L \1"';~~ _
; J2~'~~ :;!~ I
',f.1 : ,'N _ ~ ~ ~H. S
,'1, II' "~~ ~ ~>., K ~.::tc ~"4J ,. ~ 'iit ,.j. l'l . I'
'\j~ " '" ~,'" ~~"l>-.,~,o" ,iY ",o:liii :d: II Uii~
'~I '" \,'\ ,,,,,-. 'ih..'~ ~I-.;;:>' I ' ,<, I ~ '!'!~l,'
i' r-'" C';,r'~l~""'~" - ;i\~ ~ d~! ~~Sl,lI!
" ,'j::--" "'<:./1; ,~. : ''-'''::--'\ I -'~i-':: 1" ..f V1 !'~ ; . I' !,"'I"
: \ ~ j "* ~ ""0" k"" ..L I r ~ i~:l! Jl!! !~~~_h!~'
,,' '-"-""-- --"'I'i-" ~,\ ~ ~ 1- ,I !'<!"
f \ ,.. ,- , ~,;\ c> ,<: g,'ll, H 9 ~.'I"l'o
I: \ ' - c. .--.'tI i\,~ '" I'l, 'I H'!, '!l,! "
"i, I' "j::2., '. , ,,_ ~ m~ if ~1!1! U:l:i:.i
'i:t,~ I I, _ ~'-,~ ~~ ;~TS, _ _
J>'t I', / - _.~ ~. .--'-- /
\l,.D/r;~" 't- \ _.,,,-, _1790 _/
:,Jf .z :~ ?!\- , < ~cU, ~ 1,./, /
_I ~ 7 'L U'l> 1"< - , ,>0 -
'- ;6",.. u~ ~ C/ ;;::=I. ~.t" ~
II ~ Y 8< f7J'" " - ..J-u-A''''',
,I" rt , .. ~- h- -L II ~;', ' "1i."J ~~~q-1;%;itC,~-::: .l\. ~\.-
- ~ 11/ - ",,-- --....~~___': \ , r~_ '-4# ...~__~ ~ // t_5i:!
, -p: J 0.. ~I ~I~..... - .... --09l/--!.. - ~";r 116D-~
: I ~ I Iut;, 'll J~ _~ ~ "' - - ~_~-: , :::" r;r- _~~ ~ --:<~ ~1''''' \,#J
, "',1 ' --'--.._, J y, ".,' ~""I ~"" ~,.",.';:s..P1: ,
l It ,~"" ~"" ~'I' ~-' "",,-,,- -, '-;'- ,,0/
',l..:', '!\i ",,~'~19 [~l !I\~ "'.,,~ .~~,.~~~-- ~I j
[: I I . . '<l _ ' ,r-_. - F= I 1\11~'~~~~'~'~ .--~,: ~l-1sa, ~2:::" I
f 'I .k2.~_=..J1 '~-' l't,"'':':'.':\ 1. ' .. ~::.--- .~.
I~ a! ,II,IIT'~'---,Cf' ~'!I i~ .. "', i, iJ~\\:"'Zi/I' ~I: 1~,L" ,i~ ....1 [Ec I @liJ~,'
i' I . ,'uL e '>- ! lti I " "l~
" :: ,,==-~_,'_~.:' .. :1- '=_~",,[,_' Ili-2..:c~' :0'.;...110" ~ !7}J "'~ '~ '
I: ,: ,~,- i,';e:> :,\__ '", ~ ,~n -::::;;~:::-::~:::-i,
, ,I ~' , , ~ ,,~I' (,' '1 ~ , ','" ' ~
i: '+: ili---~~ ;/ " ", , ::::- n 'I::rr "8[
11,':' S:--Jrl: i~ ,~'Y::Jrllml! I 3 \rJ1Y r 1 ;e I~, J
; I : ~r 1;;' i't-"I, r iT 'm i ~ I ~ J ...
I ,d., J~;, ~ . J', 1QJ ',~ ~,:~ ;" I" ,{, (~: ~: -, , '
; ,;: ' ~' "I,~ I ,i"": II I _--' =----_ _ _ T ,:::- ~~
I~I ~ rt ~,-"--~- ~+fr ~:. : I\~ CC', ,.' ~ .IJ! i
,~ 'F'fLJ:'-i:$''t; -i ;:....J~ ~ -_ f\'--,c ;::::::::=~, -=-P" ~~I ~
, : 1],-' /l~i " "< ~~, ~.,~ ~~ ........J , ~~~ ~,~
I::'j,"t' ~' ~'.'.-"-~ I' =~; ~.\~
I : I II i ~ ' ; I~ ".~ ~ ": ~~
, " 1- '- ' /1, [I . ~~e . .".'
l/ I' rK:~ /' ~ -- 't::'!! ;i ,i, :i'.~ m :;~; I~
III 'j - - ~- - . -:~ "t,,: II I, ~ iii~ ~~ ~t ~~
I W~;:ez,-=-,.....~~~:jl, -- - "~ ~~~~ ~~ ~I ~~
, J'mff=--,_->-::<~ ",:C':=c~~:.~ U!!!!!iili
"DO --------.. >"~ " " . ,8 Gee G
~~
4..-. \&~- -........ -
'...1-
!
,!~ :!
j, ! ~!
)~!! !I
III ~:{ l~.
~,' n! ~:;
.~l .-g !!~
ill i"! '"
~ll ~:i !n
,
fl, Y l~
'. ,~,:,~""," j!'
., ~'.." I~
' "j\
:!l
_ l5lI.
"""
I
_ ~ M
:!~. I'lL ~
~;I~ ! Ii ~ I'
111,1, ,
~,. ::ls; ~1!1 i I
.. - lii;~ !I:" ! ;
1s::1 ,Ii{ ; 1
iIMI;!! ~ ;
~!. ' I
~!d: !!Ij!
Ii , ',,~!,
:j!d~!i!~:,
~.!:<g~I\.,;
~'~i!l"~'~"
d.~lll!~!~~
~,e:'I.h'l;'
.ii!! ',I"!
6o:':;Id ~::; n~
~ 9 I ~ "
~ 8 ~
,
o ~
_ ~H a
...... 2.: ~
e~ ~ H8
~l 0 ~h
~ 5~~
iJ ~~~
~uol!j
Q
~ ~
Oi
G
eo
~ }
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ c! C5 ~ <3 0
I I
~
I I
II
~ ~ i
· ~ ~ H I~
~~~~.~~
~3~~~~
~!g
.'
11
~t:<)". Ii.: '" , " ..
~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~
~d~ ~d..~ ~~
~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~
~~~~ ~J~ '" g
!~i~ ~>~" ~ ~
so, ~~
~~g~ ~ ~; ~
~~~~ i1 ~
~ ~ ~ ~P>o d
~ J? ~ ,~~~ i ~
,"
~H " " ~~
t: ~ :t. ~
"~; f~~ ~~
~~:J
~:~ ~~~ ~~
~~
~i~ ~~; ~~
S e ~ ~ ~
~3~ &~~ ,
~..~ ~3~ : ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i
~ E ~ 2 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~o
;: ,. ~ .
5 <l ! ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~
, ~
~
...",... ~,a" " ~ ,. 'll" B ~ ~ U) I
p "
~g~~ ~~~~ };
~~ .,~~~ ~H <: ~ ~
'" iil ~ c~'f"'lll S~ti:
~~ :-o"';;::~ \? .
i!:","'''' ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~:~ ~ ~ I
~~~~ ~ l:~ '" "'-
" ~ ~~~ to ~ '"
~~ n~~ , ~ \
I~~~ ~ ~; ~ &::~i <: n
~~ : <:>:; '< ~, ~ ~ ~'"
3~~ Cl
~~p 'h ~~~" ;;: \.
~! ~ ~"~ E~~~ ~=~, ~~~ U) ~ q,
~ " -., ~ ~
~~ ~, ~ ' ~~~i ~~:~ 2 "
" , ~ e ~ "
~~ ~~!i~ ~ g ~ 0 ~~~~ ~~~ " ~ \
~t:! ~~~~ ~~i !A....~ "l ~ "
'i :!I '" ~ ~ ~ ~ " n ~
: ~ ~ ; '~~" 6'" a ~ "b-
~~ ~ti ~ ;! ~ ~~~ U) ~
~~~i ,,~<:> 6 ~ ~
~~ ~ ~: " 0 , <: -,
~iJ~ "f;!2 0
ti ~ ~~~i ~~~ (') ~ ~
" 2- d ':ll~ Cl il
, . ~ ~ ~ i ~H~ " ~
'J d, , 2~; :;j
~~ .: g g ~ . ~, ~~~
~' ~t: 5;1 ~"'~ Cl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ It ~;;;8 ~ "
~ !5~ :),,,~ 11 ~
C:"':t. ~ ~;!t $~~ r;::
~ ~!~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ 1&
i B <:>~"'
~
~
"''''to''' ~U~" po- U)
~~ ~. i~~ ~ . P~I !H~ ~i~ ~ ~;,~ };
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;~~~! <:
~ ~ ~ 0 "~~ ~~ . ~ 2" ~, , ;:~J.:i \?
c: ~ ~ e i2~ ~ ~ ~~~S ;~,~ .., ~ : ~ 'E ~~~ ,,~:;, ~ "
~~~~~ a g a , <::J
~~i~ ~~~ ~~ ~~....~ H;i "~ . i
"tj.::J'" ~~=~~ <:
;~Zl ~~ ~oU ~~~ ~H~ Cl
~~: ~ :~~ ~ ~; ~ ~ (: ~ <3 ~ ia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
H ~~2~~
~Sl~ ~ ;::: ~~;~ D;: '" ~ ir ~~~~
i ~ ~ ~~: ~~ ~~~;) im! ~"~ 'l
. . ~~ '" ~'ll ~l:-;j ~!~ ~~~~ ~
" " ~'~ ~ ;:3':'l':;: ~~~~ ~~~; .~~ aH~ U)
'~~ - , ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
" , ~o i ~ ~
~ ~ ~"'~ . 1 ;2~_~ ~.. ~ 8
o. ~~f c ~ <:> ~~!~ ~
~~~ " ~t " ,
l' ~~~~ ~~; ~,.~
~ ~ 'i oJ ~~ i~~~ ,p ~~;~ :;
H ~ ~ '" ~,~o
~~~ " , ~ ~ ~ ~ ^' ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ,~
~~ " \~~~ H~ ~:~~
~ '" \;2 00
~~~ ;1 H ~ ~ ~'~ ~;~~ <;i~'i ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~9
~ ~ ~ ~; '~~ ~ ! i: ~ ~ " ","'~ :..n
~~i ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~
., :~~~ .1
, ~ ~ ~ '" ~~ o ~ 0
~8 \, ., ~~~ , ~~~~ ~~~
8 ~ " 0 ~ i1;:;
~~ I>' ~
! ~ ':> ::: ~ ~
, , l ~
~ ; ,
,
~
, 0 I
~ It m!.
~ I f ~ ~ ;
'::j i, 1" ~._ '. 1,
~
~ [n !! 1 I~
5 H lH
:u j ~
Q ~. :,._ H (
~ c - d;
I: ill iL
! ~ I
\ II
, - I
I 0 ,
~ I
I' :
! 8 I
: ~ II
~'
Il~ !
. I
o '-
'1
~
~ ,~ .:jti'c'::",
~ ~ ~~~~
% i ~ . . .
/~ "H~
, . .
'~ ~~~
8,"
0'<'y~
" ~/."
,l~,/
lit r^ '<
n ..
I~ '~ '
~ -lI
0'{'y~
. ~~"
ii)V
q'
---rl
" ,~ I
i ~"<
~ ~ ~ I
;~I
lJJJ
t 1
~.
,~
I~
.~
'I ~
I ~
I ;
~ I ~ ~ I
;: I ~
1 a
'" . L_'
I <3 ~
, 0
6~~~ ~
0
~~~8 n ~
~.^ 3
~"lb'" ~
,~~~ ~ ~ <
~~~~ \ i ,
'" ~ ,
~ ^
~ ~
] ;!! 21
CITY OF
ASHLAND
February 16, 2007
Adam Hanks
City of Ashland
20 East Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: MEADOWBROOK SUBDIVISION (PW NO. 03-06)
Dear Adam,
I have reviewed the costs that are eligible for transportation SDC credits as prescribed
by final planning conditions for the above referenced project, reviewed the estimates
provided by the contractor, assigned the appropriate percentages according to the SDC
eligibility criteria, and reviewed my calculations and assumptions with the Public Works
Director and City Attorney. Please credit the developer for $63,075 for building permits
that are issued within the subdivision's boundaries.
If you have any questions, please call me at 552-2413.
Sincerely,
11fC\StrYUA~
Pieter Smeenk PE SE
Associate Engineer
CC: Mark S. Bartholomew
Steve DeCarlow
Richard Appicello
Bill Molnar
Paula Brown
Jim Olson
G:\pub-wrks\eng\03-06\5\Meadowbrook Subdivison-SDC credits reccomendation.doc ( 2.16.07)
Public Works Engineeerlng
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5587
Fax: 541-488-6006
TTY: 800-735-2900
~~,
~tr~t>DOWb~ f~R (Of'(\f'JT1~~~ soe CRfPirs
n/so f (J~
'f:RofORJlVl\) \ v-J(, 0 F t..1'lBV {l.,d\ ST. (see 0... ~<\c.\l\eJ\ rY\Of cf de v. ')
S1J\)lON \t'(; ~~ U( ~. NS\JADA :::-r
4455' - 't5"O S 701 (Lt ,7 %) 5\SGY'f\~t FRo1\i-+S N\ MNTNI.Mr<.tlW
4;e s - 3~7 0 :: 5 IS} (3'1. ~ %) SfG)l\ (:t~ T YR.O\\~t:; It. S(JJ i b ()0
3B7o - 2'11 S = ~~o.s~) 5t6N\L.N1 ffi()~ts ('(\fADoWPJ:X)K
l4Bo (\00%) 1"qAL- S~Dnl:;;)lYi~
PR~ORT7DN Of R0AD~9((h.. Sl"l1R-Lt P0( fLf\NNINC fJat'0~
(~~~ (Att~~'r\\'d Cbr~ of p\c~~\~ QJCijy\ cb~,Jh-)n 0J. 211
( 12-') ~o,S~b + 34.. t; 9~ == 3~ I e,% nfJ \~ -\~e'n\s I fhru 4
2-4' i ~\
. I s ~ . \, ~ 3JL Ci... ~, 0) c{ J' 'I r-:l
1 \) -~}.~ 0 t -r . V / 1)::= j ( \ (6 )f\C' h ~ T
· L <;,\oe} l7J I
A\..,'v ap-tcR tYN't: It'EJY\S AR~ fyt'W,t:K- ~'.-I)'( WG;g"f. OR "lOT
A-T Au- Sl,lc..l g~ \~tGAU)t Gt tHf\R, WCA1JD~ (~(t C\~~J
'-~ _\ \ r {2- \ll ,..... \ \ "'\
o,L\ SCI1"t'G'\~, 't, \ ~"('0 'J' \ S ~J()( t1 oe )
~
-r(Y1~\ = ~l) 03'1 ,0 ~
PRD,~Ot<D)~ (IF OJ'\\) &W~I~~l-~ P6t. s'p c (R.fP1T== 0S,%4\
( :ee O\\Nc ~ ~C\ Co Pj oI'ST:lC E:.lL\0I f',cCTel{:'[b P:rA t'D;J I l'WRO V'"'!
,- rPq, C -'" ~ ro-- ~ r-. \ ,.... Ii"" ' . or;;) J \ ~{ 0. --. ~ ..... rl A.,Jf Y I c 9(
I N--\I'I) \ 'OR.T -""'"\ I U '\J :J \ -).~ c.,:.,. C\ \ t - I' }FS J \ U ~ J'\. \) -J !J
=~~ but.
;j, O\C\ opt." f,~ U,Ul'I-c, \ \ '() \ "14 \ boo ~H {" I ~ h; Yrv..( c ~ ~11'1~
/
/
/
/
gates in fences and man-door on garages, landscaping, entrance walks, porch stoops, residential lighting,
windows in second story facades and garages that support a general appearance of front yards. The
design toward Nevada Street shall be consistent with Architectural Elevation provided by the applicant
at the March 11, 2003 Public Hearing.
27) That pedestrian-scaled street lighting installed along North Mountain, East Nevada, Greenway Drive and
all neighborhood streets shall comply with the standards of Ashland's Electric Utility and ~pproved by
the Staff Advisor. In general, the City of Ashland's Commercial light standard (i.e. Stemburg) shall be
installed in the NM-C area, while the City of Ashland's residential light standard (with downward
illu.mination) shall be installed along residential streets.
28) That the final engineering submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat for all streets and alleys
shall be consistent with City standards addressing distance between driveways, as well as driveway
distance from proposed street intersections. Specifically, with units 66-78. In addition, a shared
driveway approach (12' in width) is required to serve units 48 & 50 and units 57 & 59.
29) That the applicant shall be responsible for the improvement of E. Nevada Street from the intersection
with Greenway Drive east to the intersection with North Mountain A venue. Such improvement shall
include a minimum 24' paved width, curb and gutter on both sides of the street. A parkrow and sidewalk
on the south side of the street from the intersection with Greenway Drive east to end of the applicant's
property shall also be constructed. No sidewalk improvements shall be required at this time for the
right-of-way abutting tax lots 500 and 600 (White and Marr properties). The applicant shall be eligible
for SDC credits for improvement costs beyond those improvements shown on the layout plan for the
subdivision. Specifically, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for asphalt widening from 22' to
24' and curb and gutter on the north side ofE. Nevada for the frontage of the applicant's property and tax
lot 401 (Cislo). Further, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for the street improvements
abutting tax lots 500 and 600. Street improvement plans and SDC credits shall be reviewed and
included as part of Final Plan review. All streets shall be constructed and surfaced prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
30) That the written authorization from the Oregon Division of State Lands, and any other applicable Federal
or State permitting agency, be provided for alteration of the delineated wetland prior to Final Plat
approval or proceeding with the constructions of subdivision improvements. If off-site mitigation is
approved, mitigation measures shall be located and carried out in the floodplain and should be associated
with the water quality facility. In addition, the design of the water quality facility shall blend together
with the natural area and habitat associated with the floodplain. A final design for the mitigation plan,
including grading and wetland Planting Plan, shall be provided prior to signature of the Final Survey
Plat.
31) The following Solar Access standards shall be applied to the project:
A. Single Family Homes (Type F). - All homes (Type F) with public right-of-
way to the north shall be subject to Solar Standard "A". All other homes (Type
F) that are to be constructed on east/west oriented lots and that do not have a
right-of-way to the north shall be pennitted to have their shadow encroach four feet up (measured 4-
~~. -j
I
~ I
",I
MI
I
I
I
I
I
I
lI-
It/)
I
I
I
I I
dl~ 'If
01~~;
I ~ I ClC':
OE.!? t
I I ;;;>0 '.
~~ !
I I ;
i
I I
I I
I I
I I -_______________
---'------ ---------- ~
~
:!2
...
STt\ .
41+5~ ....
3I)N3'1.-
N,.-ht,
no" N~IIoN
NIVINn
l-
V)
~~ ~~
ri~. tD lD
L~!t? ~~
-I
-,
O.
.".
. N-t ....
.--.~ ;0;0 ~:a
"''''
~::l
~~
NO
-.--~;;;
..u~j
~ "0
'" >.!!
~O
N~
69:
"l
ON
."
"HO ~
f69
':)
n
3: .,
'"
"
<(
o
<{
>
W
Z
~~ r-q
~~j~
-----1~.____L~_~
3NY1
NOU'tfd
.._'~_.-!-_.-
Cd~~
~ ,tJ-1 ~
Q._._.._._..ui~____co
/.,
I
I
I
I
I
i l
'"
I ~
I ~
I S
'"
I .i
I
I
&
~
;-
i
---- !
~i
~!
_- i
rAWND"-LE PARKWAY i
i
j
i
't::;.-:._",,_
"-';;::::-::~'-,
_ c .
"'vu
",ClO
0"
_V1
en cv
~8g
~V1
._;;-:.:.-:-.:~-::-::;;.
'''-''~",,,-,"
~ .._-,,~"""
~ ................._-...._--,.~-..._.~-_..;
BiU's Back-Hoe Service Inc.
1568 Pacific Lane - Phoenix, Oregon 97535
Telephone (541) 773-3995
BILL REAGAN - Owner
CCB# 21657
Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain
Quantity Estimate to Completion
March 16, 2006
Item East Nevada Street Units Qty Unit Price
1 Excavation (Roadway) t 5~'1IAO CY 2200 $6.50
2 Asphalt Concrete, Class "C" 22~s..I'2. Tons 880 $63.00
3 Base, 3/4"-0" Minus Crushed Rock 2'1 E:)SO.cD CY 3000 $25.00
4 Geotextile Fabric, Non-Woven 1f, SY 5374 $1.00
5 18' Driveway Apron l.. r~ B\ EA 2 $800.00
6 26' Commercial Driveway Apron \~g EA 1 $1,400.00
7 Curb & Gutter 15z.~1,b1 LF 3234 $7.25
8 Sidewalk SF 2480 $4.25
9 Wheel Chair Ramps EA 9 $800.00
10 Sawcut ExisJing Asphalt LF 60 $4.00
11 Remove Existing Asphalt Tons 492 $5.00
12 Construct Natural Green Area 4'l:x; SF 1100 $4.50
13 SDCI (4A) 2~ EA 4 $720.00
14 Rock Excavation ! '2. (X)J LS 1 $12,000.00
~ '1 ?OSi .J4 Sub-Total
Item North Mountain Avenue Units Qty Unit Price
1 Excavation & Haul Away CY 403 $6.50
2 Asphalt Concrete, Class "c" Tons 90 $63.00
3 Base, 3/4"-0" Minus Crushed Rock CY 449 $25.00
4 Geotextile Fabric, Non-Woven SY 862 $1.00
5 Standard Vertical Curb (16") LF 218 $10.00
6 Curb & Gutter LF 381 $7.25
7 Wheel Chair Ramps EA 3 $800.00
8 Sawcut Existing Asphalt LF 480 $4.00
9 Remove Irrigation Structure EA 1 $800.00
10 Street Lights LS 1 $40,325.00
11 Crosswalks LS 1 $8,040.00
12 Lot Grading, Sidewalk, & Utility Backfill LS 1 $16,200.00
Sub-Total
Time Line:
Start April 3, 2006
Complete June 15, 2006
Grand-Total
Total Price
$14,300.00
$55,440.00
$75,000.00
$5,374.00
$1,600.00
$1,400.00
$23,446.50
$10,540.00
$7,200.00
$240.00
$2,460.00
$4,950.00
$2,880.00
$12,000.00
$216,830.50
Total Price
$2,619.50
$5,670.00
$11,225.00
$862.00
$2,180.00
$2,762.25
$2,400.00
$1,920.00
$800.00
$40,325.00
$8,040.00
$16,200.00
$95,003.75
$311,834.25
To Completion
City of Ashland TransDortation Systems DeveloDment Chanze
July. 1999 ~ ~~\(
j'l ~ Q cj\J'
~V Q~ JI
o/~~~" ~~
\&
{~
SDC ELIGIBLE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Beach Street - at Siskiyou Upgrade
1-5 Tolman Cr Rd - Siskiyou to UPRR Capacity
'> 6-10 Nevada - Bear Creek to N Mountain Capacity
6-10 Bear Creek Bridge @ Nevada Capacity
6-10 N Mountain - Hersey to Nepenthe (JI, street) Capacity
6-10 Tolman Cr - Siskiyou Blvd Approaches Capacity
6-10 Clay St - Siskiyou to Ashland Upgrade
6-10 E Main - City Limits to Normal (west) Capacity
11-20 N Main - Hwy 99 to Fox Upgrade
11-20 Ashland Mine Rd Upgrade
11-20 E Hersey - Ann to Mountain (JI, Street) Upgrade
11-20 4th St Extension to Hersey Capacity
11-20 N Mountain - Nepenthe to Nevada Capacity
11-20 Tolman Cr - Green Meadows to Black Oak Upgrade
11-20 Tolman Cr - Black Oak to Siskiyou Upgrade
11-20 E Main - Normal Ave to City Limits (east) Upgrade
11-20 E Main - at Tolman Creek Rd Upgrade
11-20 Crowson Rd - Siskiyou to Green Springs Hwy Upgrade
11-20 Normal Avenue Extension to E Main Capacity
11-20 Clay St - Ashland to E Main Upgrade
Tolman Cr Rd - Ashland St to E Main Capacity
Mistletoe - Siskiyou to Tolman Creek Upgrade
Dead Indian - Green Springs Hwy Approach Upgrade
INTERSECTIONS
11-20 UPRR CROSSINGS (4) 15%
11-20 TRANSIT (Local, capital costs) 25%
11-20 SIDEWALKS 25%
11-20 BICYCLE FACILITIES 25%
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
ugust 1,1999 Cost per
LNDT = $93
anuary 1, 2000 Cost per
LNDT = $154
uly 1, 2000 Cost per
ELNDT = $214
City of Ashland - Department of Community Development
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
June] 1, 2007
Mark S. Bartholomew
7]7 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
RE: Meadowbrook Park II Appeal of SDC credit determination
Dear Mr. Bartholomew:
My office is in receipt of your June 8, 2007 request for an appeal hearing on the City's determination of
the amount of SDC credits owed to North Mountain Land Company, LLC.
Your request will be forwarded to the City Administrator's office for any further action.
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
IfO)~@~DW[E~
t1ll JUN 11 2007 W
Cc:
Richard Appicello, Asst. City Attorney
Paula Brown, Public Works Director
By
CITY RECORDERlTREASURER
20 E Main Street
Ashland, OIegon 9752Q
www.ashland.or.lIS
Tel: 541-488-5307
Fax: 541-552-2059
TTY 800-735-2900
,,~,
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T Ilornecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Hassen
R. Ray Heysell
H. Scoll ptouse
P. Dnid Ingalls
Adam T. Stamper.
Joseph K Kellerman
James A. Wollan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
RyanJ. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Roa d
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 77?S900
Fax: (541)779.2982
hl1p:ww", .roguelll\\' .com
Richard L. Dillin
'Stefanie L. Burke
Mark S. Bartholomew
Eric D. Millon
"Etik C. Larsen, LL.M.
Stephen l. Brown
OJ COlln.sel- Frrd M. Aebi
Retired - B. Kent Blackhurst
Ervin B. Hogan 1927.2000
"Also admilled in California
"Also admilled In Idaho
VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
June 8, 2007
Ms. Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
City of Ashland
20 E. Main S1.
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Meadowbrook Park II Appeal of SDC credit detennination
,
Our File No. 24429B
Dear Ms. Christensen:
Weare requesting an appeal hearing, pursuant to 4.20.100(B), of the City's
detennination of the amount of SDC credits owed to North Mountain Land Company, LLC.
North Mountain Land Company, LLC is entitled to SDC credits as a result of work
performed by the developer for PW No. 03-06.
1. Appellant-North Mountain Land Company, LLC, 3126 State Street, Suite 202,
Medford, OR 97504.
2. Agents for Appellant-P. David Ingalls and Mark Bartholomew, 717 Murphy Road,
Medford, OR 97504.
3. Nature of the Determination Being Appealed-City's determination that $63.075 in
credit is owed to Appellant.
4. The City's determination is incorrect for the following reasons:
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL
Barbara Christensen
June 8, 2007
Page 2
A. The sum of the developer's expenditures is listed, and written, on the document
from Bill's Backhoe Service, Inc. Those handwritten numbers were derived by Pieter
Smeenk. Mr. Smeenk's sum total is $97,039.04. Mr. Smeenk then multiplied this figure by
.65 to arrive at the total amount of credits, which is $63,075. It is unclear to us why
$97,039.04 was multiplied by .65. Mr. Smeenk pointed to a document entitled "SDC
Eligible Transportation Improvements," which states that Item No.3, Nevada - Bear Creek
to North Mountain, is listed with a capacity of 65 percent. It is unclear to us what the 65
percent figure represents. Additionally, we have not found any authority in the
Comprehensive Plan that would indicate that the 65 percent capacity should result in credits
in the amount of only 65 percent of expenditures. The 65 percent is apparently derived from
the SDC portion of the total project and the revised estimated cost of Nevada - Bear Creek to
North Mountain. That is. that the SDC portion of the total project, being $274,560, is 65
percent of the revised estimated cost of $422,400. The SDC Eligible Transportation
Improvements document also seems to indicate that the amount of $239,923 is eligible for
rebate. If that is the case, why is the developer currently only set to receive $63,075? We
believe the developer is entitled to more.
B. It appears that Mr. Smeenk's calculations are erroneous, perhaps due to a
misunderstanding of the figures on the document from Bill's Backhoe Service. For example,
Item No. 1 - Excavation had a total price of $14,300. This figure, along with all other
figures on the document from Bill's Backhoe Service, is the cost of the improvements
abutting tax lots 500 and 600, which by Mr. Smeenk's calculations constituted 34.8 percent
of the total improvements on East Nevada. Mr. Smeenk credited 34.8 percent of $14,300 to
the SDC credits (prior to multiplying it by .65). However, he only gave credit for 2/24ths of
60.5 percent of $14,300 (as well as all of the other items on the Bill's Backhoe Service
document). We believe that Mr. Smeenk was perhaps mistaken about the total cost and was
under the impression that the figures represented the total cost of construction of that portion
of the street not abutting tax lots 500 or 600 or located near North Mountain. Because the
figures from Bill's Backhoe Service already only included the marginal increased costs from
22 feet to 24 feet of street, his multiplication of the portion of expenditures allocable to that
portion of East Nevada by 2/24th should not have been done, because it was already taken
into account prior to submittal of the figures to the City.
C. 4.7 percent of the work performed on East Nevada Street, which on a
handwritten note by Mr. Smeenk titled "Methodology for Computing SDC Credits" dated
11-30-06. was not credited. Mr. Smeenk indicated that this was because it was only parking
and did not increase capacity. 11 is true that the developer only receives SDC credits for
improvements that increase capacity. However, that portion fronting the North Mountain
Avenue right-of-way is indeed a street which connects East Nevada and North Mountain,
thereby enhancing capacity.
Barbara Christensen
June 8, 2007
Page 3
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL
D. Item Nos. 8. 9. 10. and I I on the Bill's Backhoe Service document were UOt
credited. We belicve .hese should be credi'ed. Sawcutling and removiug existiug asphalt arc
nccessary prccursors to the coustruction of 'he road. increasing capacity. Sidcwalks aud
wheel chair ramps are necessary compouents of road construction. also lending '0 capacity.
E The developer also construCted part of North MOuntain Avenue just sou'h of
Ihe previously mentioned 4.7 percent segment I' is apparcnt from Bill's Backhoe Service's
document 'hat 00 credits were awarded for that work. which .otaled $95.003.75. ], is OUr
understanding that the City's position is 'hat 'he approval documen.. paragraph 29. ouly
specificalJy s'atcd 'hat 'he development will be eligible for SDC credits for asphalt widening
from 22 feet '0 24 fcet and curb and gutler on 'he north side of East Nevada. for 'ax lot 401.
and for street improvements abulting tax lots 500 and 600. Although the improvements done
on North Mountain A venue Were not specifically mentioned in paragraph 29 for SDC crcdi.s.
paragraph 29 does mandate. as a condition of approval. 'he improvements the developer did
penoon on N or'h Mountain A venue. Tha. section of North Mountain A vcnue does appear '0
be one of .he SDC eltgible transportation improvements aCCording '0 'ha. document We
believe that 'he Work perronned on North Moun'ain A venue is a qualified public
improvement. which is on 'he City's list of SDC eligible transportation improvements, and.
therefore, SDC credits should be awarded for that Work.
5 . We respcc'fulJ y requcst credit in Ihe amOunt of $311.834.25. as noted on the aUached
document from Bill's Backhoe Service.
Chapter 4 of Ure municipal code does not indicate that 'here is an appeal fec for an
appeal of an SDC credit detennin'lion. Please advise us immediately if a fee is required.
Very truly yours,
:gmr
cc: Richard AppiceJ/o, ESlj_
~
MARK s. BARTHOLOMEW
H:IUSERIFILES\24429BlappeaJ.SDC credits issues doc
HORNECKER, CO'VLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. Hornecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Hassen
R. Ray Heysell
H. Scott Plouse
P. Da,id 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)779-2982
http:www.roguelaw.com
Richard L. Billin
'Stefanie L. Burke
Mark S. Bartholomew
Eric B. Mitton
uErik C. Larsen, LL.M.
Of Counse/- Fred M. Aehi
Retired - B. Kent Blackhurst
Ervin B. Hogan 1927-2000
· Also admitted in California
.. Also admitted in Idaho
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
March 1, 2007
Pieter Smeenk, P.E., S.E.
City of Ashland
Public Works Engineering
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Meadowbrook Subdivision (PW No. 3-06)
Our File No. 24429B
Dear Pieter:
Thank you for your e-mail of February 16,2007, which included a letter from you to
Adam Hanks regarding SDCs, as well as your calculations and an additional sheet titled
"SDC Eligible Transportation Improvements" (attached for your easy reference). Despite the
information you sent me, it is still unclear to us exactly how the City has determined what is
creditable and how that determination was made. More specifically, we have the following
questions:
1. On the page titled "SDC Eligible Transportation Improvements," you list item
no. 3 as Nevada - Bear Creek to North Mountain with a capacity of 65%. We would like to
know from what document this page was copied. It appears to be page 4 to some other
document. Where is the remainder of the document? Was this document adopted by the
Council in 1999 (you reference on your handwritten sheet entitled "Methodology for
Computing SDC Credits" that something was adopted by the Council in 1999)?
2. On the statement from Bill's Back-Hoe Service, you wrote various amounts.
On lines 1-5 and line 7, you wrote a dollar amount lower than the total price charged to Steve
DeCarlow by Bill's Back-Hoe Service. On lines 6 and 12-14, you wrote the same amount
HORNECKER, COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSELL
Pieter Smeenk, P.E., S.E.
March J, 2007
Page 2
charged by Bill's Back-Hoe Service. Additionally, lines 8-11 were not credited. We do not
understand why some amounts were credited for the full amount, while other amounts were
either credited at a lower rate or not credited at all. Please explain this to us. Finally, we ask
for your explanation as to why none of the North Mountain A venue work was credited.
3. Your handwritten notes titled "Methodology for Computing SDC Credits"
include various calculations that are related to your notes on the statement from Bill's Back-
Hoe Service. We would like an explanation of the numbers and calculations because without
answers to the above questions, the calculations appear to be quite esoteric.
We would appreciate receiving answers to our questions within 10 days of this letter.
If that is not possible or if you feel that it would be beneficial to meet with us in person to
explain everything, please let us know. We are looking forward to putting this issue to rest,
as I am sure you are. Thank you for your help and thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
Very truly yours,
/,
~~
:gmr
Attachment
MARK S. BARTHOLOMEW
February 16, 2007
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Adam Hanks
City of Ashland
20 East Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: MEADOWBROOK SUBDIVISION (PW NO. 03-06)
Dear Adam,
I have reviewed the costs that are eligible for transportation SDC credits as prescribed
by final planning conditions for the above referenced project, reviewed the estimates
provided by the contractor, assigned the appropriate percentages according to the SDC
eligibility criteria, and reviewed my calculations and assumptions with the Public Works
Director and City Attorney. Please credit the developer for $63,075 for building permits
that are issued within the subdivision's boundaries.
If you have any Questions, please call me at 552-2413.
Sincerely,
MIe..~J
Pieter Smeenk PE SE
Associate Engineer
CC: Mark S. Bartholomew
Steve DeCarlow
Richard Appicello
Bill Molnar
Paula Brown
Jim Olson
G:\pub-wrks\enQ\03-06\5\Meadowbrook Subdivison-SDC credits reccomendation.doc ( 2.16.07)
Public Works Englneeering
20 East Main Street
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5587
Fax: 541488-6006
TTY: 800-735-2900
'A'
Bif,Jrs Back-Hoe Service 'Inc.
1568 Pacific Lane - Phoenix, Oregon 97535
Telephone (541) 773-3995
BILL REAGAN - Owner
CCB# 21657
Meadowbrook 'Park 11 at North Mountain
Quantity Estimate tOCompJetion
March 16, 2006
Item East Nevada Street Units Qty Un,tPrice Total Price
1 Excavation (Roadway) t 5~'11,40 Cy 2200 $6.50 $14,300.00
2 Asphalt Concrete, Class "c" 2.2~S..I'2 Tons 880 $63.00 $55,440.00
3 Base, 3/4"-0" Minus Crushed Rock 2'leSOadJ Cy 3000 $25.00 $75.000.00
4 Geotextile Fabric, Non-Woven 1j;. SY 5374 $1.00 $5,374.00
5 18' Driveway Apron '2...l"!Bb EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00
6 26' Commercial Driveway Apron \~O EA 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00
7 Curb & Gutter 152.b1"'r IF 3234 $7.25 $23,446.50
8 Sidewalk SF 2480 $4.25 $10,540.00
9 Wheel Chair Ramps EA 9 $800.00 $7,200.00
10 SawcutExi$.ting Asphalt LF 60 $4.00 $240.00
11 Remove Existing AS,phalt Tons 492 $5.00 $2,460.00
12 Construct Natural Green Area 4q5:;J SF 1100 $4.50 $4,950.00
13 SDCI (4A) 2~ EA 4 $,720.00 $2,880.00
14 Rock Excavation f"2. eGO LS 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
iJ 4 ?O?1 .04- Sub-Total $216,830.50
Item North Mountain Avenue Units Qty Unit Price Total Price
1 Excavation & Haul Away Cy 403 $6.50 $2,619.50
2 Asphalt Concrete, Class nc" Tons 90 $63.00 $5,670.00
3 Base, 3/4"-0" Minus Crushed Rock Cy 449 $25.00 $11,225.00
4 Geotextile Fabric, Non-Woven Sy 862 $1.00 $862.00
5 Standard Vertical Curb (16") LF 218 $10.00 $2,180.00
6 Curb & Gutter LF 381 $7.25 $2,762.25
7 Wheel Chair Ramps EA 3 $800.00 $2,400.00
8 Sawcut Existing Asphalt LF 480 $4.00 $1,920.00
9 Remove Irrigation Structure EA 1 $800.00 $800.00
10 Street Lights LS 1 $40,325.00 $40,325.00
11 Crosswalks LS 1 $8,040.00 $8,040.00
12 lot Grading, Sidewalk, & Utility Backfill lS 1 $16.200,00 $16,200.00
Sub-Total $95,003.75
Grand-Total $311,834.25
Time line:
Start April 3, 2006
Complete June 15, 2006 To Completion
1999 tf t: Ii/
(lJ9 ~ CQ 0'"
<VV~~"J~~~
\ IlY
{~
Jul
SDC ELIGIBLE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
1.5 Beach Street . at Siskiyou Upgrade
1-5 Tolman Cr Rd - Siskiyou to UPRR Capacity
'> 6-10 Nevada - Bear Creek lo N Mountain Capacity
6-10 Bear Creek BrldQe ell Nevada Capacity
6-10 N Mountain - Hersey to Nepenthe (Yo street) Capacity
6-10 Tolman Cr - Siskiyou Blvd Approaches Capacity
6-10 Clay St - Siskiyou to Ashland Upgrade
6-10 E Main - City Limit$ to Normal (west) Capacity
11-20 N Main - Hwy 99 to Fox Upgrade
11-20 Ashland Mine Rd Upgrade
11.20 E Hersey . Ann to Mountain ('h Street) Upgrade
11-20 4th SI Extension 10 Hersey Capacity
11-20 N Mountain - Nepenthe 10 Nevada Capacity
11-20 Tolman Cr - Green Meadows 10 Black Oak Upgrade
11.20 Tolman Cr. Black Oak 10 Siskiyou Upgrade
11-20 E Main . Normal Ave 10 City limits (east) Upgrade
11-20 E Main - aIToIman Creek Rd Upgrade
11-20 Crowson Rd - Si5kiyou 10 Green Springs Hwy Upgrade
11.20 Nannal Avenue Extension to E Main Capacity
11-20 Clay SI -Ashland 10 E Main Upgrade
11-20 Tolman Cr Rd -Ashland St 10 E Main Capacity
11-20 Mistletoe - Siskiyou 10 Tolman Creek Upgrade
11-20 Dead indian - Green Springs Hwy Approach Upgrade
'., . ,:,' -,.';" --0 :'.' n, ' .. ' '~,' '~~'^ '~',.' ",' ': .' '-, .":"~-~,:~ :.:,', ' ",','. :~: ~:;:2-~'~:?j
INTERSECTIONS
SiskiyoulUthiaIE Main 25%
Oak StlHersey 51 Traffic Signal
11-20 UPRR CROSSINGS (4) Upgrade 1,000,000 15%
11-20 TRANSIT (Loc.l, capital (osts) Capacity 303,282 25%
11-20 SIDEWALKS Capacity 2.052,000 25%
11-20 BICYCLE FAClUTlES Capacity 3.041,000 25%
LOCAl IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Combo 3,135.119 18%
':';' '-~'.' "."'..~ :: ': ',':"'-'" -': H~:~<~,:, , ',.-','.':' ''':;:::..::'7:' --. ,::, "'-'.'-T;,:.~ "~~:'::':::,:'i~
LNOT=
ost Per ELNDT
~ugust 1, 1999 Cost per
ElNDT '" $93
anuary 1, 2000 Cost per
ELNDT = $154
~uly 1, 2000 Cost per
ELNDT = $214
City of Ashland - Department of Community Development
'"
~tr.j.)i)DOWb'i' I1lR COfi'lf\JT1~~ SOC Cf{tPITS J1/50 fOc,
'R~pfORXlD)\) \WG, Of t.. NBV N),\. ST. (see "'~6\clVl4 ~'of dev. ')
~Y\J\ll ON \~
~bm ur 6. NE~AoA ;.-y-
~ol'ORT?bC-l OF Rol\~R K. U-,l.\ F--tf ~ fiJ'lNNINC A11 !)~
(:;tt rAtto.sJv.v{ CON of ?\cIjl\T)\~ G:1:H}'(\ C~rd;h'Dn ()0,21 ")
(;iJ ','. . +' ;9~:::: 39.6% cf lrrf. -~effiS 11hru 4
I s ~ 'y.- .,--. . c, 'l, nIl" {
~~tde~ .~,~~.- /0 = ChI I 0 I )i"'e 1 ~ 1-
A\.,'v ar.-tt:~ LJNt MEryl'S A.R-; (!i~ EN.... ~l.L8' Wb!8\.S Of( ~OT
A-T ~ S\.1(.IRLE BtGFtL5t (j~ t)-tE:\R- WCA1)~ (-Stt t\~~
b\~ S~vJ~ (~-S,\rS ~khoe )
~
lo1~ = ~l)gs'1\Q4-
PRD'PO~~N Cf CQ1~ &Wbl~~lE Pot. ~p c. (~t:P)T~ 6S%~
(":te O\~C""~ COPj o('S'DC ~1Mble,lL ll:A<:'jbR:rAtJD\J ')\W~y'11
$
Tl<AN)r6R.T.P.-ltVf'.~ SO'_ ~d\t ~ ~l)03.C},()~x. 6s~
= 11 ~ bili:.
'* lAC! opt'" &~ (.oulyc:d \11 \ '1~ ~ J bfO~ '( ~~ I ~ h; Ynl\c (~oml1'lT\~
/
/
gates in fences and man-door on garages, landscaping, entrance walks, porch stoops, residential lighting,
windows in second story facades and garages that support a general appearance of front yards. The
design toward Nevada Street shall be consistent with Architectural Elevation provided by the applicant
at the March II, 2003 Public Hearing.
27) That pedestrian-scaled street lighting installed along North Mountain, East Nevada, Greenway Drive and
all neighborhood streets shall comply with the standards of Ashland's Electric Utility and approved by
the Staff Advisor. In general, the City of Ashland's Commercial light standard (i.e. Sternburg) shall be
installed in the NM-C area, while the City of Ashland's residential light standard (with downward
illumination) shall be installed along residential streets.
28) That the final engineering submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat for all streets and alleys
shall be consistent with City standards addressing distance between driveways, as well as driveway
distance from proposed street intersections. Specifically, with units 66-78. In addition, a shared
driveway approach (12' in width) is required to serve units 48 & 50 and units 57 & 59.
29) That the applicant shall be responsible for the improvement of E. Nevada Street from the intersection
with Greenway Drive east to the intersection with North Mountain Avenue. Such improvement shall
include a minimum 24' paved width, curb and gutter on both sides of the street. A parkrow and sidewalk
on the south side of the street from the intersection with Greenway Drive east to end of the applicant's
property shall also be C':onstructed. No sidewalk improvements shall be required at this time for the
right-of-way abutting tax lots 500 and 600 (White and Marr properties). The applicant shall be eligible
for SDC credits for improvement costs b~yond those improvements shown on the layout plan for the
subdivision. Specifically, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for asphalt ~fIDi:Q~tiQ~v2.2~:to
2rl~~~ammt1t~m~M~@adi} for the frontage of the applicant's property and tax
lot 401 (Cislo). Further, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for the ~!i~~~e~!~>
;ahuttiR~i0.tatiOt}:.an:d1hea: Street improvement plans and SDC credits shall be reviewed and
included as part afFinal Plan review. All streets shall be constructed and surfaced prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
30) That the written authorization from the Oregon Division of State Lands, and any other applicable Federal
or State permitting agency, be provided for alteration of the delineated wetland prior to Final Plat
approval or proceeding with the constructions of subdivision improvements. If off-site mitigation is
approved, mitigation measures shall be located and carried out in the floodplain and should be associated
with the water quality facility. In addition, the design of the water quality facility shall blend together
with the natural area and habitat associated with the floodplain. A final design for the mitigation plan,
including grading and wetland Planting Plan, shall be provided prior to signature of the Final Survey
Plat.
31) The following Solar Access standards shall be applied to the project:
A. Sin~le Familv Homes (Type F). - All homes (Type F) with public right-of-
way to the north shall be subject to Solar Standard "A". All other homes (Type
F) that are to be constructed on easUwest oriented lots and that do not have a
right-of-\.vay to the north shall be pennitted 10 have their shadow encroach four feet up (measured 4-
I
I
I
I
I
=!
~
.;) 1"1"\ ~
1~+S~S" "111111 I ......
,. S ~ l:J!r"L.
Itt~, :::l Vi ': ~.~ II
( , '
NJV lNn
!~
~
-,
O.
0..
l-
(/)
~_..
!i~ ~'" Ill!!
l_.~. to:6 ;.,
u'-i;;:~ 1~
NO N
'--i; ~ U
h..!J ~J -
89;
..,
~
.~a::
(68
~..
Itl
....
..,
<r
o
<r
>
w
Z
---l
I
-----l
t
I
I
I
I
I J
I l
I
I
I
I
I- I
V'l I
: f
I I I
I I
<11 ~ I I
031 ti=- ~l I
! ~ r _71
, ~E,g I
/"'1:2 j
I -"' I
r-- i
! ~~__~__~l
-----...
~.._----
--
.., I
;:; I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. 1,---:-
.--..W 1 :
I ",.'. I:
I. :' I'. .
~ Ii I" .
- ;:!..
! i I
-L _1.--
i
~((I.'f:M elll'k
--
r...WNDAlE PARKWAY
\(t::j instrumcn\ Is ::; ClJ< fset COPy
cf Hl13 oii; _~ , 'IS 111 thi', ofik';_
""'-^'-I"''''~
.f, 1: 'J t. 'i t. L)
/\ ND
FILED
2
3
:strator
UrlTY
07 SEP I 7 PM 2: I 0
.Rlt.L COllRT .'\DrW-/ISTRt.TOR
DOCKETED BY
4
5
CIRCUIT COURT OF TIlE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
6 NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY,
LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company,
Case No.
l173695 r1
7
8
9
Petitioner,
ORDER FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
Ys.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal
10 corporation of the state of Oregon
11 Res ondent.
12 Petitioner having petitioned for a writ of review to issue requiring respondent to return to
13 the clerk of the court a certified copy of the records and proceedings concerning respondent's
14 decision to award System Development Charge credits in the amount of $63,075, IT APPEARS
15 TO THE COURT that an undertaking has been filed by this petitioner, as required by law,
16 It is HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of this court forthwith issue a writ directed to
17 respondent requiring the return of the writ to this court on or before OUo &.-Jz... ~~ , 2007,
18 together with a certified copy of the records and proceedings, concerning System Development
19 Charge credits related to planning action 2003-151, together with the findings and final order
20 rendered.
21
22
23
24
DATED:
~.17
,2007.
p~ --I~.~-
Circuit Court J udge "_~
?l\
~: I
Page 1 - AFFIDAVIT OF SURETY
124429B\Aflidavil of Surely
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779.8900
1
RECEiVED
t.tW
FILED
07 SEP II PI1 2: I 0
2
.Rtt.l COURT f.Or1;N1STRATOR
3
4
5
DOCKEtED B '(
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
6 State ex reI NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND
COMPANY, LLC, an Oregon Limited
7 Liability Company,
Case No.
117:-l695C1-
8
Relator,
ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
9 vs.
10 THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal
corporation of the state of Oregon
11
12
Defendant.
13 The State of Oregon, on the relation of North Mountain Land Company, LLC, has
14 petitioned for issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus, direct to City of Ashland.
15 It is ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall issue an alternative writ of mandamus in
16 accordance with the petition herein, commanding defendant to provide an appeal hearing to
17 determine the proper amount of System Development Charge credits due under planning action
18 2003-151 in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100 or to show cause before this court
19 why defendant has not done so; and directing defendant to return the writ, with its certificate
20 annexed on Odobz.-r ~lt 9.'00 A.~, in Room ~o3 , of the Jackson County
21 Circuit Court.
22
23
24
25
26
DATED:
~J. /1 ,2007.
~'4/ ~
Circuit Court Judge
Page I - ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
\24429B\ Order Allowing Alternative Writ of Mandamus
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 MUIJ>hy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
1
2
3
4
IN TIIE CIRCillT COURT OF TIIE ST ATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
5
6 State ex reI NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND
COMPANY, LLC, an Oregon Limited
7 Liability Company,
8 Relator,
073695 1;.1
Case No.
ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
9 vs.
10 THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal
corporation of the state of Oregon
11
12
Defendant.
13 TO: City of Ashland
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
From the petition of the State of Oregon, on the relation of North Mountain Land
Company, LLC, the following facts appear:
1.
Relator North Mountain Land Company, LLC ("North Mountain"), is an Oregon Limited
Liability Company duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Oregon. Relator owns
property ("Property") in Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, that is the subject of this petition.
2.
Defendant is a duly organized and existing local government body.
22
23
24
3.
Relator filed an application to subdivide the Property for residential development.
Defendant approved the application ("Approval") with conditions under Planning Action 2003-
:: I
151 on June 10,2003.
11/
Page I-ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford. OR 97504
54) -779-8900
\24429B\ Alternative Writ of Mandamus
4.
2 The Approval required Relator to construct improvements to E. Nevada Street from the
3 intersection with Greenway Drive east to the intersection with North Mountain A venue, including
4 a minimum 24-foot paved width and curb and gutter on both sides of the street. The Approval
5 also required construction of a parkrow and sidewalk to the south side of the street from the
6 intersection with Greenway Drive east to the end of the Property.
7 5.
8 Relator constructed the required improvements stated in Paragraph 3 at a total cost of
9 $311,834.25.
10 6.
11 Defendant's municipal code requires Defendant to grant credits against System
12 Development Charges when a capital improvement constructed as part of a development reduces
13 the development's demand upon existing capital improvements or the need for future capital
14 improvements which would otherwise have to be provided at Defendant's expense under existing
15 city policies. Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.090(C). The improvements in Paragraph 3 are part of
16 the "SDC Eligible Transportation Improvements." The "SDC Eligible Transportation
17 Improvements" are part of Defendant's comprehensive plan and are adopted pursuant to
18 ORS 223.309.
19 7.
20 Defendant offered $63,075.00 in System Development Charge credits as compensation for
21 the SDC Eligible Improvements in a letter dated February 16,2007. That letter was written by
22 Associate Engineer Pieter Smeenk and addressed to Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager of the
23 Public Works Department of Defendant. The letter was copied to Relator's attorney.
24 8.
25 Relator made $311,834.25 in improvements. Relator should be entitled to $311,834.25 in
26 System Development Charge credits. By awarding an incorrect amount of System Development
Page 2 -ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
124429B\ Alternative Writ of Mandamus
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541.n9.8900
1 Charge credits, Defendant failed to follow the procedure for calculating System Development
2 Charge credits, calculated System Development Charge credits in a manner not supported by
3 substantial evidence, and improperly construed its applicable law in calculating System
4 Development Charge credits.
5 9.
6 Relator met with Defendant's attorney on May 17, 2007 to question how Defendant
7 arrived at the credit amount in the February 16, 2007 letter. At the request of Defendant's
8 attorney, Relator sent a letter via electronic mail to Defendant's attorney, outlining Relator's
9 assertions that the System Development Charge credits were not sufficient.
10 10.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Defendant's attorney responded on May 31, 2007 by sending a letter stating that
Defendant was correct in its determination of the System Development Charge credits. Defendant
also stated that the February 16,2007 letter from Pieter Smeenk constituted a final and un appealed
decision.
11.
Defendant's municipal code states that, following a decision on System Development
Charge credits by the City Administrator or the City Administrator's designee, a person aggrieved
by that decision shall appeal the decision by written request with the City Recorder for
consideration by the City Council. Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.1oo(B).
12.
Pieter Smeenk's letter of February 16, 2007 did not contain any language to indicate that it
constituted an official decision on System Development Charge credits, was not from the City
Administrator, did not indicate that Mr. Smeenk is the City Administrator's designee, was not
addressed to Relator, and did not inform Relator of any appeal rights, in violation of
251
26
ORS 223.302(3)(a).
1/1
Page 3 -ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
HORNECKER. COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 MUlJ>by Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
\24429B\ Alternative Writ of Mandamus
1 13.
2 In response to Defendant's attorney's letter of May 31, 2007, Relator sent a letter via
3 electronic mail and U.S. Mail to the City Recorder on June 8, 2007, requesting an appeal under
4 Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100(B).
5 14.
6 Defendant's City Recorder acknowledged receipt of Relator's appeal request on June 11,
7 2007.
8 15.
9 Defendant's municipal code requires Defendant to hear the appeal within 30 days of the
10 receipt of the request for appeal. Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100(E).
11 16.
12 On July 24, 2007, Defendant mailed a letter to Relator's attorney, stating that the appeal
13 was untimely, and that the final decision was rendered on February 16,2007. Because Defendant
14 did not give Relator an opportunity for an appeal hearing, as provided by Defendant's municipal
15 code, Defendant did not follow the procedure applicable to the matter before it.
16 17.
17 Pursuant to ORS 34.040, this writ should be allowed because Defendant:
18
19
A.
B.
Failed to follow the applicable appeal procedure mandated by its municipal code;
Made a determination of System Development Charge credits that is not supported
20 by substantial evidence;
21
C.
Improperly construed its own municipal code in denying Relator's request for
22 appeal.
23 18.
24 A substantial interest of Relator has been injured, because Relator believes it is due an
25 additional $248,759.25 in System Development Charge credits.
26 III
Page 4 -ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & lIEYSELL, LLP
711 MUlJ'hy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
\244298\ Alternative Writ of Mandamus
19.
2 Relator has no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy than the review prayed for herein.
3 20.
4 Relator filed an application to subdivide the Property for residential development.
5 Defendant approved the application ("Approval") with conditions under Planning Action 2003-
6 151 on June 10,2003.
7 21.
8 On July 24, 2007, Defendant mailed a letter to Relator's attorney, stating that the appeal
9 was untimely, and that the final decision was rendered on February 16, 2007. Defendant denied
10 Relator an appeal hearing.
11 WHEREFORE, you are commanded to provide an appeal hearing to determine the
12 property amount of System Development Charge credits due under planning action 2003-151 in
13 accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100 immediately after your receipt of this writ, or
14 to appear before this court or a judge hereof, on D cJ. d.d.. , 2007, at q :01) AM. in
15 Room :J..03, of the Jackson County Circuit Court, to show cause why you have not granted
16 an appeal pursuant to Relator's request for an appeal under Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100(E).
17 You are further commanded then and there to return this writ, with your certificate annexed,
18 showing that you have granted an appeal or showing cause for your omission to do so.
19 DATED: ~ \<l ,2007.
20
21
Cl
22
23
24
251
26
\244298\ Alternative Writ of Mandamus
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
Page 5 -ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
1
i,<ECEIVED A.ND FILE['
2
- ZOOl SEP 13 AM 10: 26
3
j.'<Ci.SOll ClkCUn COURT
DOCKETED BY:
4
5
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ST ATE OF OREGON
FOR TIm COUNTY OF JACKSON
6 NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY,
LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company,
Case No.
n7~695 =t 1-
7
8
9
Petitioner,
AFFIDA VIT OF SURETY
vs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal
10 corporation of the state of Oregon
11 Res ndent.
12 State of Oregon )
) ss.
13 County of Jackson )
14 I, Steve DeCarlow, being fIrst duly sworn, say:
15
16
17
1.
2.
3.
I make this affidavit as surety for North Mountain Land Company, LLC.
I am a resident of Oregon.
I am a freeholder of worth within Oregon and am worth more than the sum of $100
18 specified in the undertaking, exclusive of property exempt from execution, and over and above all
19 just debts and liabilities.
20 III
21 III
22 III
23 III
24 III
25 III
26 III
Page 1 - AFFIDAVIT OF SURETY
\24429B\Affidavit of Surety
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Mcdfcrd, OR 97504
541-779-8900
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~~ I
4.
I am not an attorney at law, peace officer, clerk, or other officer of the court.
DATED: September 12, 2007.
By: JL tP~
Steve DeCarlow , Surety
Subscribed and sworn to before me on September 12, 2007.
~'f1~
Notary for State of Ore n
My Commission Expires: 03 - 14 - dOl I
OFFICIAL SEAL
GINA II. RY~
NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 413142
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAR. 14. 2011
Page 2 - AFFIDAVIT OF SURETY
\24429B\Affidavit of Surety
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97 504
541-779-8900
1
D J:' (' J:' I V EO 'l p,; n F 1\ r L
'~\ .... ....., ~ t ,...... , .."'--<' . ...... ~_
2
2001 SEP t 3 AM 10: 25
j t\ Ci\ SOH Clh CUi T COUP.',
3
Goel< HED BY:
4
"5
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
6 NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY,
liC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company,
Case No.
073695 ~ 1-
7
8
9
Petitioner,
UNDERTAKING FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
vs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal
10 corporation of the state of Oregon
11 Res ndent.
12 WHEREAS, the above-named petitioner is applying for a writ of review claiming that
13 respondent has erroneously proceeded in the exercise of its function in denial of System
14 Development Charge credits owed to petitioner under planning action 2003-151.
15 NOW THEREFORE, petitioner, Steve DeCarlow, as principal, and Steve DeCarlow, as
16 surety, is jointly and severally bound and undertakes this action on the review in the sum of $100.
17 DATED: September 12, 2007.
18 NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY, u..c
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Page 1 - UNDERT AlaNa FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
\24429B\Undertaking for Writ of Review
By:
J4Adwl--
Steve DeCarlow, Member
By:
jj;;dwf
Steve DeCarlow, Surety
nORNE~ (;Q\YLING,
HASSEN lllEySELL, LLP
717 Murpby Rood
Medford, OR 97504
.54 ].779.8900
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
073695l:-~
NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY,
LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company,
Case No.
7
8
9
Petitioner,
WRIT OF REVIEW
vs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal
10 corporation of the state of Oregon
11 Res ondent.
12
13
TO: City of Ashland
By virtue of an order of the above-entitled court, made and entered on ---3,... It,...
14 2007, you are hereby required to return this writ to the court on or before
15
10" ;; J-
, 2007, with a certified copy of the records and proceedings had in the
16 matter of System Development Charge credits owed to petitioner under planning action 2003-151,
17 together with the findings and final order rendered.
18 This writ is based on the petition for writ of review filed ~i. \3 , 2007,
19 attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
20
21
WITNESS b. \:J\.-'\J.Q...\YO- , clerk of the court, with the seal thereof, affixed
~.\~
,2007.
22
23
24
25
261
Page 1 -WRIT OF REVIEW
HORNECKER. COWLING,
HASSEN & HEY SELL, LLP
717 MUl]lby Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
\24429B\ Wril of Review
1
2
3
4
5
R E eEl V E 0 .^, N D F I L t ="
2607 SEP 13 AM 10: 2S
);\;::;~~SC:4 eiF-CUlT COUF:T
DOCHTEO 8 Y:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON
6 NORTH MOUNTAIN LAND COMPANY,
LLC, an Oregon Limited Uability Company,
Case No.
073695"t::: 1-
7
8
9
PetitionerlRelator,
PE1ITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW OR
ALTERNATIVELY RELATOR'S PErmON
FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
vs.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal
10 corporation of the state of Oregon
11 Res ondent/Defendant.
12 FIrSt Claim for Relief-Petition for Writ of Mandamus
13 1.
14 PetitionerlRelator North Mountain Land Company, u.c ("North Mountain"), is an
15 Oregon ~ted Liability Company duly authorized to conduct business in the State of Oregon.
16 PetitionerlRelator owns property ("Property") in Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, that is the
17 subject of this peti.tion.
18 2.
19 Respondent/Defendant is a duly organized and existing local government body.
20 3.
21 PetitionerlRelator filed an application to subdivide the Property for residential
22 development. RespondentJDefendant approved the application ("Approval") with conditions
23 under Planning Action 2003-151 on June 10, 2003. The Approval is attached as Exhibit A and
24 incorporated herein by this reference.
25 III
26 III
Page 1 - PETmON FOR REVIEW
H:\Uscr\Filcs\24429B\PetitiOD Writ ofRcview-Mandamus.doc
HORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & HEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
EXHiBIT NO. ~_~
1 4.
2 The Approval required PetitionerlRelator to construct improvements to E. Nevada Street
3 from the intersection with Greenway Drive east to the intersection with North Mountain A venue,
4 including a minimum 24-foot paved width and curb and gutter on both sides of the street. The
5 Approval also required construction of a parkrow and sidewalk to the south side of the street from
6 the intersection with Greenway Drive east to the end of the Property.
7 5.
8 PetitionerlRelator constructed the required improvements stated in Paragraph 3 at a total
9 cost of $311,834.25.
10 6.
11 RespondentlDefendant's municipal code requires Respondent/Defendant to grant credits
12 against System Development Charges when a capital improvement constructed as part of a
13 development reduces the development's demand upon existing capital improvements or the need
14 for future capital improvements which would otherwise have to be provided at
15 RespondentlDefendant's expense under existing city policies. Ashland Municipal Code
16 4.20.090(C). The improvements referred to in Paragraph 3 are part of the "SDC Eligible
17 Transportation Improvements," attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. The
18 "SDC Eligible Transportation Improvements" are part of Respondent/Defendant's comprehensive
19 plan and are adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309.
20 7.
21 RespondentlDefendant offered $63,075.00 in System Development Charge credits as
22 compensation for the SDC Eligible Improvements in a letter dated February 16,2007 (attached as
23 Exhibit C). That letter was written by Associate Engineer Pieter Smeenk and addressed to Adam
24 Hanks, Permit Center Manager of the Public W orIes Department of RespondentlDefendanl The
25 letter was copied to PetitionerlRelator's attorney.
26 I III
Page 2 - PEITIlON FOR REVIEW
H:\Uscr\Files\24429B\Petition W ril of Review-Mandanms.doc
BORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & BEYSELL, LLP
717 Mmphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
1 8.
2 Petitioner/Relator made $311,834.25 in improvements, as shown on Exhibit D, which is
3 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Per Exhibit D, PetitionerlRelator should be
4 entitled to $311,834.25 in System Development Charge credits. By awarding an incorrect amount
5 of System Development Charge credits, Respondent/Defendant failed to follow the procedure for
6 calculating System Development Charge credits, calculated System Development Charge credits
7 in a manner not supported by substantial evidence, and improperly construed its applicable law in
8 calculating System Development Charge credits.
9 9.
10 PetitionerlRelator met with Respondent/Defendant's attorney on May 17,2007 to question
11 how RespondentJDefendant arrived at the credit amount in the February 16,2007 letter. At the
12 request of Respondent/Defendant's attorney, PetitionerlRelator sent a letter dated May 18,2007
13 (attached as Exhibit E) via electronic mail to RespondentlDefendant's attorney, outlining
14 PetitionerlRelator's assertions that the System Development Charge credits were not sufficient.
15 10.
16 RespondentlDefendant's attorney responded on May 31,2007 by sending a letter (attached
17 as Exhibit F) stating that RespondentlDefendant was correct in its determination of the System
18 Development Charge credits. Respondent/Defendant also stated that the February 16, 2007 letter
19 from Pieter Smeenk constituted a final and unappealed decision.
20 11.
21 RespondentlDefendant's municipal code states that, following a decision on System
22 Development Charge credits by the City Administrator or the City Administrator's designee, a
23 person aggrieved by that decision shall appeal the decision by written request with the City
24 Recorder for consideration by the City Council. Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100(B) (attached
25 as Exhibit G).
26 III
Page 3 - PETITION FOR REVIEW
H:\User\Flles\24429B\PetitioD Writ of Rcview-Maadanm.doc
BORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN" IlEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford. OR 97504
541.n9-8900
12.
2 Pieter Smeenk's letter of February 16,2007 did not contain any language to indicate that it
3 constituted an official decision on System Development Charge credits, was not from the City
4 Administrator, did not indicate that Mr. Smeenk is the City Administrator's designee, was not
5 addressed to PetitionerlRelator, and did not inform PetitionerlRelator of any appeal rights, in
6 violation of ORS 223.302(3)(a).
7 13.
8 In response to RespondentJDefendant's attorney's letter of May 31, 2007,
9 PetitionerlRelator sent a letter (attached as Exhibit H) via electronic mail and U.S. Mail to the City
10 Recorder on June 8, 2007, requesting an appeal under Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100(B).
11 14.
12 RespondentIDefendant's City Recorder acknowledged receipt of PetitionerlRelator's
13 appeal request on June 11,2007.
14 15.
15 RespondentlDefendant's municipal code requires RespondentIDefendant to hear the appeal
16 within 30 days of the receipt of the request for appeal. Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100(E).
17 16.
18 On July 24, 2007, RespondentlDefendant mailed a letter (attached as Exhibit 1) to
19 PetitionerIRelator's attorney, stating that the appeal was untimely, and that the final decision was
20 rendered on February 16,2007. Because RespondentlDefendant did not give PetitionerlRelator an
21 opportunity for an appeal hearing, as provided by RespondentJDefendants municipal code,
22 RespondentJDefendant did not follow the procedure applicable to the matter before it.
23 17.
24 Pursuant to ORS 34.040, this writ should be allowed because RespondentIDefendant:
25
A.
Failed to follow the applicable appeal procedure mandated by its municipal code;
261 III
Page 4 - PErmaN FOR REVIEW
H:\UserWlIes\24429B\PetitiOD Writ of Review-MandamJs.doc
BORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & BEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medfonl, OR 97504
541.779-8900
1
B.
Made a determination of System Development Charge credits that is not supported
2 by substantial evidence;
3
C.
Improperly construed its own municipal code In denying PetitionerlRelator's
4 request for appeal.
5 18.
6 A substantial interest of PetitionerlRelator has been injured, because PetitionerlRelator
7 believes it is due an additional $248,759.25 in System Development Charge credits.
8 19.
9 PetitionerlRelator has no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy than the review prayed
10 for herein.
11 Second Claim for Relief-Petition for Writ of Mandamus
12 20.
13 Petitioner /Relator realleges paragraph one.
14 21.
15 Petitioner /Relator filed an application to subdivide the Property for residential
16 development. Defendant approved the application ("Approval") with conditions under Planning
17 Action 2003-151 on June 10, 2003. The Approval is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated
18 herein by this reference.
19 22.
20 Petitioner /Relator realleges paragraphs 4-7 and 9-15.
21 23.
22 On July 24, 2007, Defendant mailed a letter to Relator's attorney, stating that the appeal
23 was untimely, and that the final decision was rendered on February 16, 2007. This letter is
24 attached as Exhibit I and incorporated herein by reference. Defendant denied Relator an appeal
25 hearing.
26 III
Page 5 - PErmON FOR REVIEW
H:\User'FlIes\24429B\PetitiOD Writ of Revicw-Mandanus.doc
BORNECKER, COWLING,
HASSEN & BEYSELL, LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541-779-8900
1
WHEREFORE, PetitionerlRelator prays for relief from the Court as follows:
2
1.
For an order issuing a writ of review directed to Respondent/Defendant,
3 commanding Respondent/Defendant to return the writ to this Court with a certified copy of the
4 record and proceedings in this matter for review by the Court.
5
2.
Alternatively, Relator respectfully requests that the Court issue an order
6 commanding Respondent/Defendant, immediately after receipt of the writ, to provide an. appeal
7 hearing in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.100 or to show cause why the
8 Defendant has not done as commanded.
9 DATED: September 12, 2007.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MARK S. B OLOMEW, OSB No. 03566
Of Attorneys for PetitionerlRelator
Fax No.: 541-773-2635
E-mail: msb@roguelaw.com
Trial Attorney: P. David Ingalls, OSB No. 78439
I hereby certify that I have examined the proceeding in this matter to the extent that it is
now available to me and have examined the determination made in it and that the decision and
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
261
Page 6 - PETITION FOR REVIEW
H:\User\FlIes\24429B\Petition Wril of Review-Mandamus.doc
BORNECKER. COWLING,
HASSEN & BEYSE1L, LLP
117 Murphy Road
Medfonl, OR 91504
541.779-8900
gates in fences and man-door on garages, lanclscaping, entrance walks, porch Stoops, residential lighting,
winaows in second story facades and garages. that support a general appeaiance of front yards. The
design toward NeVada Street shall be consistent with Architectw'al Elevation provided by the applicant
at the March 11, 2003 ~lic Hearing. .
27) That pedestrian-scaled street ligbtitig installed along North Mountain, East Nevada, Greenway Drive imd
all neighborhood streets shall comply with the standards of Ashland's Electric Utility and approved by
the Staff Advisor. In general, the City of Ashland's Commercial light standard (Le. Stemburg) shall be
installed in the NM-C area, while the City of Ashland's residential light standard (with downward
illumination) shall be installed along residential streets.
. .
28) That the final engineering submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat for all streets and alleys
shall be consistent with City standards addressing distance between drivewa~,. as well as 'driveway
distance from proposed street intersections. Specifically, with units 66-78. In addition, a shared
driveway approach (12' in width) is required to serve units 48 & 50 and units 57 & 59.
29) That the applicant shaD be responsible for the improvem~t of E. Nevada Street from the intersectio~
with Greenway Drive east to the intersection with North Mountain Avenue. Such improvement shall
include a minimum 24' paved width, cwb and gutter on both sides of the street A parkrow and sidewalk
on the south side of the street from the intersection with Greenway Drive east to end ofth~ applicant's
. property shalla1so be ronstructed. No Sidewalk improvements sha11l:>e required at this wile for the ..
right-of-way abutting taX-lots 500 and 600 (White and Marr properties). The applicant shall be eligible
for SDC credits for improv~ent costs b~yond those improvements shown on the layout plan for the
SubdiVi~n. Sp~fica1ly, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for asphalt
for the frontage of the applicant's property and tax
lot 401 (Cislo). Further, the applicant shall be eligible for SDC credits for the
.... . .. ~,...,.. . '^~ Street improvement plans and SDC credits shall be reviewed and
~ .
included as part afFinal Plan review. All streets shall be constructed and surfaced prior to the issuance
. of a building permit.
,,, I ~_ t.; ',~, ;. ',I. "." ' .." 1 \ \ ~ :'l) .-t~l.. 'I fl. '({';t',,~: .;
" ':' I: 'Ip ",...~.._.., ~ 1;~/(j,t':
30) That the. written authorization from. the Oregon Division of State Lands, and any other applicable Federal
or State permitting ~genCy, be provided for alteration of the delineated wetland prior to Final Plat
approval or proceeding with the constructions of subdivision improvements. If off-site mitigation is .
approved., mitigation measures shall 1?e located and carried out iil the floodplain and should be associated
with the water quality facility. In addition, the design of the water quality facility shall.blend together
with~the nfJ-tural area and habitat associated with the floodplain. A final design for the mitigation plan,
including grading and wetland Planting Plan, shall be provided prior to signature of the Final Survey
Plat.
31) ~e following Solar Access standards shall be applied to the project:
A. Sinele Family Homes (Type F). - All homes (Type F) with pubiic right-of-
way to ~e north shall be subject to Solar Standard "A", All other homes (Type
F) that are to be constructed on east/west.oriented lots and that do not have a
right-of-way to the north shall be pennitted to have their shadow encroach four feet up (measured~-
Exhibit A -
P;;~e I _ of~
SDC ELIGIBLE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
Julv, 1999 { I'. .t/
'(J.J1 ~ ~~ OV
,,' Q:dJ u:
'vV Jl:~"i ~~~
\~
~~
Ci/v of Ashland Transportat;- .' Svstems Development Charre
1-5 Beach Street - It Siskiyou Upgrade
1-5 Tolman Cr Rd - SiskIyou to UPRR Capadty
> 6-10 Nevada - Bear Creek to N Mountain Capadty
6-10 Bear Creek BridQe 0 Nevada Capacity
6-10 N MountaIn - Hersey to Nepenthe (% IIreet) Capacity
6-10 Tolman Cr - Siskiyou Blvd Approad1es Capadty
6-10 Clay St - Siskiyou 10 Ashland Upgrade
6-10 E Main - CIty Units 10 Normal (west) Capacity
11-20 N Main . Hwy 99 to Fox Upgrade
11-20 Ashland Mine Rd Upgrade
11-20 E Hersey . Ann lD Mountain (% Street) Upgrade
11-20 .... St ExI8nsIon to Hersey Capacity
11-20 N Mount8In - Nepenthe to Nevada Capacity
11-20 Tolman Cr . Green Meadows lD Black Oak Upgrade
11-20 Tolman Cr . Black Oak to SIIkIyou Upgrade
11-20 E MaIn - NonnaI Ave to CIty limits (east) Upgrade
11,20 E Main . It Tolman Creek Rd Upgrade
11-20 Crowson Rd . Siskiyou to Green SprIngs Hwy Upgrade
11-20 Norin.I Avenue EDInaIon 10 E Main c.paclty .
11-20 Clay St - AIhIand to E Main Upgrade
11-20 Tolman Cr Rd - AshIInd St 10 E ~ Capacity
11-20 MistIeIDe - SiskIyou to Tolman Creek Upgrade
11-20 Dead indian - Green Springs Hwy ApproIc:h Upgrade
INTERSECTIONS
SiskiyouIUthIa/ MaIn 1,000,000
Oak StIHeney St Traftic Signal
11-20. UPRRCROSSINGS (4) Upgrade 1,000,000
11-20 TRANSIT (LoeaI, capital costs) Capadty 303,282
11-20 SIDEWALKS CapacIty 2,052,000
11-20 BICYCLE FACIUTlES CapacIty 3,041,000
LOCAl IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS Combo 3,135,119
15%
25%
25%
25%
18%
- - - '"'
. .
.' . . ' ,..- v: .' '. ~' .
~- - - . <--. y _. ..~. ,--~
~DT=
Per ELNDT
38$~~
ugust 1, 1998 Cost per
LNOT = $93
anuary 1, 2000 Cost per
LNOT= $154
uly 1, 2000 . Cost per
OT = $214
City of Ashland - Department of Community Development
4
Exhibit
P!".!1~ /
fJ
of /
February 16, 2007
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Adam Hanks
City of Ashland
20 East Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: MEADOWBROOK SUBDIVISION (PW NO. 03-06)
Dear Adam,
I have reviewed the costs that are eligible for transportation SDC credits as prescribed
by final planning conditions for the above referenced project, reviewed the estimates
provided by the contractor, assigned the appropriate percentages according to the SDC
eligibility criteria, and reviewed my calculations and assumptions with the Public Works
Director and Oty Attorney. Please credit the developer for $63,075 for building permits
that are issued Within the subdivision's boundaries.
If you have any questions, please call me at 552-2413.
Sincerely,
~~
Pieter Smeenk PE SE
Associate Engineer
cc: Mark S. Bartholomew
Steve DeCarlow
Richard Appicello
Bill Molnar
Paula Brown
Jim Olson
Public Wor1a; Englneeertng
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5587
Fax: 541-488~
TTY: 600-735-2900
orA'
Exhlblt ~ ,
. .
-..,..
B~l!"S Ba'c.k-Hoe Servici.nc.
1568 Pacific Lane - Phoenix, Oregon 97535
Telephone (541) n3-3995
-BILL REAGAN - Owner
CCB# 21657
Meadowbro6k Park II at .No~h Mountain
Quantity Estimate to ,Completion .
.March 16, 2006
ltem East -Nevada Street Units Qty Unit .Prlce Total Price
1 Excavation (Roadway) t 5f,<11,~ CY 2200 $6.50 $14,300.00
2 Asphalt Concrete, Class "C" '21.~..\'2. Tons 880 $63.00 '$55;440.00
3 Base, 3/4....0." Minus Crushed Rook 1..~ e5Q,U) CY 3000 $25.00 $7.5,000.00
,4 Geotextile Fabric, Non-Woven l.\1~ ~ BY 5374 $1.00 $5,374.00
5 18' Driveway Apron b :EA 2 $800.00 $1,600.00
6 26' Commercial Driveway Apron \~O EA 1 $1,400.00 $1,400.00
7 Curb & Gutter 15u,1,fo1 LF 3234 $7.25 $23,446.50
a Sidewalk SF 2480 $4.25 $10,540.00
9 Wheel Chair Ramps :EA 9 $800.00 $7,200.00
10 Sawcut 'Exis.ting Asphalt -LF 60 $4.00 $240.-aO
11 Remove Existing Asphalt Tons 492 $5.00 '$2,460.00
12 'Construct Natural Green Area 4,\~ SF 1100 '$4.50 $4,950.00
13 SDCI (4A) 2~ EA 4 '$720.00 '.$2,aaO.OO
14 Rock Excavation 17. <:OJ lS 1 . $12,000.00 $12,000.00
~ 4?o~ .Oct Sub-Total $21 f),830.50
ltem North 'Mountain Avenue Units Qty Unit Price Total Price
1 Excavation '& Haul Away Cy 403 $6.'50 $2,619.50
2 Asphalt Concrete, Class"e" Tons 90 $63.00 $5,670.00
'3 Base, 3/4"-0" Minus Crushed Rock Cy 449 $25.00 $11.225.{)0
4 GeotextJle Fabric, Non-Woven Sy 862 $1.00 '$862.00
5 Standard Vertical Cun> (16") LF 218 .$10.00 $2,160.00
6 Curb & BUtter IF 381 $7.25 $2,162.25
7 Wheel Chair Ramps EA . 3 $800.00 $2,400.00
8 Sawcut E)(jsting Asphalt LF 480 '$4.00 $1,920.00
9 He move Irrigation Structure EA 1 $800.00 .$800,00
10 Street Lights LS 1 $40,325.00 $40,325.00
11 Crosswalks LS 1 $8,040.00 $8,040.00
12 Lot Grading, Sidewalk, & Utility Backfill LS 1 $16..200.00 . $16,2QO.00
Sub-Total $95;003.75
Grand-Total $311,834.25
Time Line:
Start April 3, 2006
Complete June 15,2006 "D To Completion
ExhIbit
PMA_l nf I
HORNECE ., COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSE , L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. Hornecker
Robert L. Cowling
J obn R. Hassen
R. Ray Heysell
R Scott Plouse
P. Dnid Ingalls
Adam T. Stamp~
Joseph E. Kellerman
James A. WBllan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. Vanderhoof
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-8900
FIlX: (541 )779.2982
http:www.roguelaw.com
Richard L. BUlin
.Stefanie 1.. Burke
Mark S. Bartholomew
Eric B. Mitton
--Erik C. Larsen, U-M.
Stephen 1.. Brown
Of Coruuel- Fred M- Aebl
Retired - B. Kent Blackhurst
Errin B. Hogan 1921.2000
· Also admitted In California
"Also admitted in Idaho
VIA E-MAIL
May 18,2007
Richard Appicello, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Ashland
20 E. Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Meadowbrook Park n
Our File No. 24429B
Dear Mr. Appicello:
Thank you for meeting with Steve, David, and me yesterday. This letter is intended
to clarify the issues we have identified with regard to SDC credits as follows:
1. The sum of the developer's expenditures is listed, and written, on the document
from Bill's Backhoe Service, Inc. Those handwritten numbers were derived' by Pieter
Smeenk. Pieter's sum total is $97,039.04. Pieter then multiplied this figure by .65 to arrive
at the total amount of credits, which is $63,075. It is unclear to us why $97,039.04 was
multiplied by .65. Pieter pointed to a document entitled "SDC Eligible Transportation
Improvements," which states that Item No.3, Nevada - Bear Creek to North Mountain, is
listed with a capacity of 65 percent. It is unclear to us what the 65 percent figure represents.
Additionally, we have not found any authority in the Comprehensive Plan that would
indicate that the 65 percent capacity should result in credits in the amount of only 65 percent
of expenditures. The 65 percent is apparently derived from the SDC portion of the total
project and the revised estimated cost of Nevada - Bear Creek to North Mountain. That is,
that the SDC portion of the total project, being $274,560, is 65 percent of the revised
estimated cost of $422,400. The SDC Eligible Transportaticm Improvements document also
Exhlblt
Page'!
-
C
of '-.3
HORN! :ER, COWLING, HASSEN & HE', ~LL
Richard Appicello. Esq.
May 18,2007
Page 2
seems to indicate that the amount of $239,923 is eligible for rebate. If that is the case, why is
the developer currently only set to receive $63,075?
2. It appears that Mr. Smeenk's calculations are erroneous, perhaps due to a
misunderstanding of the figures on the document from Bill's Backhoe Service. For example,
Item No.1 - Excavation had a total price of $14,300. This figure, along with all other
figures on the document from Bill's Backhoe Service, is the cost of the improvements
abutting tax lots 500 and 600, which by Mr. Smeenk's calculations constituted 34.8 percent
of the total improvements on East Nevada. Mr. Smeenk credited 34.8 percent of $14,300 to
the SDC credits (prior to multiplying it by .65). However, he only gave credit for 2/24ths of
60.5 percent of $14,300 (as well as all of the other items on the Bill's Backhoe Service
document). We believe that Mr. Smeenk was perhaps mistaken about the total cost and was
under the impression that the figures represented the total cost of construction of that portion
of the street not abutting tax lots 500 or 600 or located near North Mountain. Because the
Bill's Backhoe Service figures already only included the marginal increased costs from 22
feet to 24 feet of street, his multiplication of the portion of expenditures allocable to that
portion of East Nevada by 2124th should not have been done, because it was already taken
into account prior to submittal of the figures to the City.
3. 4.7 percent of the work performed on East Nevada Street, which on a
handwritten note by Mr. Smeenk titled ''Methodology for Computing SDC Credits" dated
11-30-06, was not credited. Mr. Smeenk indicated that this was because it was only parking
and did not increase capacity. It is true that the developer only receives SDC credits for
improvements that increase capacity. However, that portion fronting the North Mountain
Avenue right-of-way is indeed a street which connects East Nevada and North Mountain,
thereby enhancing capacity.
4. Item No. 11 on the Bill's Backhoe Service document is for the removal of
existing asphalt. This was not credited. We believe that this should be credited, because it
was a necessary precursor to construction of the road, which increases capacity.
5. The developer also constructed part of North Mountain Avenue just south of
the previously mentioned 4.7 percent segment It is apparent from the Bill's Backhoe Service
document that no credits were awarded for that work, which totaled $95,003.75. It is our
understanding that the City's position is that the approval document, paragraph 29, only
specifically stated that the development will be eligible for SDC credits for. asphalt widening
from 22 feet to 24 feet and curb and gutter on the north side of East Nevada, for tax lot 401,
and for street improvements abutting tax lots 500 and 600. Although the improvements done
on North Mountain A venue were not specifically mentioned in paragraph 29 for SDC credits,
paragraph 29 does mandate, as a condition of approval, the improvements the developer did
perform on North Mountain A venue. That section of North Mountain A venue does appear to
C
exhibit 3
P&ge c:2. . of
HORN~ ..ffiR, COWLING, HASSEN & HE _ _ELL
Richard Appicello, Esq.
May 18,2007
Page 3
be one of the SDC eligible transportation improvements according to that document. We
believe that the work performed on North Mountain Avenue is a qualified public
improvement, which is on the City's list of SDC eligible transportation improvements, and,
therefore, SDC credits should be awarded for that work.
We appreciate your attention to these matters and thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
:gmr
cc: Steve DeCarlow
MARK S. BARTHOLOMEW
exhibit
r. ,-::2
6
oi
~-=
CITY OF
ASHLAND
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney
Sue Colton, Paralegal
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
May 31, 2007
Mark S. Bartholomew
Homecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell, L.L.P.
717 Murphy Road .'
Medford, OR 97504,
RE: Meadowbrook Park n
May 18, 2007 correspondence on SDC credit
Dear Mark:
I am in receipt of your request to re-examine the February 16, 2007 SDC Credit determination for the above
referencedproject. In response to your request, I reviewed your submission, the documentation for the February
16, 2007 determination and,Imet :with PuPlic:Works DirectorP~ 13rown and,Pieter Smeenk, Associate
Engineer regarding yourallegations~ -' ',', .
At the outset, I would note that the February 16,2007 decision on SDC credit is a final unappealed decision. Any
appeal of this determination to the CitY Council would have needed to be filed, along an analySis of the alleged
errors, within 10 working days of the final determination. No such appeal was filed; accordingly, please do not
interpret the City's willingness to review your allegati~ as re-<>pening orre-lnaking that final decision.
You requested an explanation regarding the 65% figure. Simply put, the Qualified Public Improvement,
, identified in the Plan and eligtble for SDCcredit is 65% of the identifi~ transportation improvement. While'the
estimated cost of the total,facility is $422,400~oD1y65%ofthisimprovement is quiilifieqaS SDC eligtble. If you
constructed the entire improvenient at a cost of $422,400,you certainly would be eligtble for 65% [$239,923] in
SDC credit. As you constrocted $97,039.04 of the imprOvement, you are eligt'ble for $63,075: .'
As regards the alleged math error in paragraph 2, Mr. 'Smeenk has reviewed you assertions andiriforms me that
there is no error: '
The methodology used was, based on averaging, and as such, waS imprecise, but if the actual excavation
quantities as detailed by the as-built topographic survey were to be used instead of averages, ,the eligible SDC
credit would actually be less than I initially ,estimated, because over 70% of the length of the north curb line
of ENevada SJeither required fill (not excavation) or lnatched. emtinggrade: Only the portion between
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
.www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
aODicelr(ci)ashland .or.us
coltons@ashland.or.u5
snown(ci)ashland.or.us
~:.,
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
exhibit
1)--. J
F
-, ';J./
station 34+07 and 38+ 70 'required significant excavation, and only 2' of width out of that 24' width was
eligible for SDe credit (ea $1400 = 207 OJ. In addition, much of that waS "rock excavation ", which was
credited at the maximum rate of 65% under the rock excavation line item, so it was effectively credited twice.
As regards the remaining allegations, it appears that the unappealed land use decision specifically delineated
eligIbie improvements. While the approval did provide an opportunity to address these matters and work out
credit as part of final plan approval, pursuant to the conditions of approval: "...SDe credits shall be reviewed and
included as part of the Final Plan review", this was not done. Also, with regard to the referenced improvements
on North Mountain, obviously these improvements provide access to the new parking lot and during the final plan
review City staff did not see these improvements as capacity increasing facilities. Ai> an aside, the location of the
parking area iJi the right-of-way is questionable even with City authorization under Chapter 13 of the Municipal
. Code. [If you have not obtained an encroachment permit, please do so immediately.]
Accordingly, it does not appear that it would be appropriate to revisit the credit determinations made during the
now final, land use decisions and the, now final, 8nm;n;~tive determination of credit. If you have additional
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
RA/sc
G:\1egal\Ric~DC MEADOWBROOK S.31.07.doc
'.
_....:...~.
H_ Exhibit . r
Page c1. of c9.. I'
recommendation by the Park and Recreation Commission for land or park development
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, referred to in Section 4.20.060(B).
E. In situations where the amount of credit exceeds the amount of the system
development charge, the excess credit is not transferable to another development. It
may be transferred to another phase of the original development.
F. Credit shall not be transferable from one type of capital improvement to another.
4.20.100 Appeal Procedures
A. As used in this Section "working day. means a day when the general offices of the
City are open to transact business with the public.
B. A person aggrieved by a decision required or permitted to be made by the City
Administrator or designee under Sections 4.20.010 through 4.20.090 or a person
challenging the propriety of an expenditure of systems development charge revenues
may appeal the decision or expenditure by filing a written request with the City Recorder
for consideration by the City Council. Such appeal shall describe with particularity the
dedsion or the expenditure from which the person appeals and shall comply with
subsection D of this section. (ORD 2791, 510 1997)
C. An appeal of an expenditure must be filed within two years of the date of alleged
improper expenditure. Appeals of any other decision must be filed within 10 working
days of the date of the dedsion.
D. The appeal shall state:
1. The name and address of the appellant;
2. The nature of the determination being appealed;
3. The reason the determination is incorrect; and
4; What the correct determination should be.
An appellant who fails to file such a statement within the time permitted waives any
objections, and the appeal shall be dismissed. (ORD 2791, 510 1997)
E. Unless the appellant and the City agree to a longer period, an appeal shall be heard
within 30 days of the receipt of the written appeal. At least 10 working days prior to the
hearing, the City shall mail notice of the time and location thereof to the appellant.
F. The City Council shall hear and determine the appeal on the basis of the appellant's
written statement and any additional evidence the appellant deems appropriate. At the
hearing, the appellant may present testimony and oral argument personally or by
counsel. The City may present written or oral testimony at this same hearing. The rules
of evidence as used by courts of law do not apply. (ORD 2791, 510 1997)
G. The appellant shall carry the burden of proving that the determination being appealed
is incorrect and what the correct determination should be.
H. The City Council shall render its decision within 15 days after the hearing date and the
decision of the Council shall be final. The decision shall be in writing but written findings
shall not be made or required unless the Council in its discretion, elects to make findings
for precedential purposes.
Any legal action contesting the Council's decision on the appeal shall be filed within 60
days of the Council's decision.
exhibit G
PBGa / ~ of I
-
-
hHn.II",."l.nll t;lC'h l'Jinrl nr l1{1/~^r1oD""";...."t ........._0'0_,......... ......'-_rr___.... O_r".... J _ T", f""lo' "" A
rag~ 1. Ul 1.
Mark S. Bartholomew
From: Mark S. Bartholomew
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 9:16 AM
To: 'christeb@ashland.or.us'; 'Richard Appicello'
Attachments: appeal.pdf
Mr. Appicello and Ms. Christensen,
Attached is an appeal of the city's SDC credits for Meadowbrook Park II at North Mountain. A copy is
in the mail as well.
Thank you.
Mark S. Bartholomew
Homecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell LLP
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
541. n9-8900 voice
541. n3-2635 fax
http://www.roguelaw.com
:' L Hof J}
HORNECI ., COWLING, HASSEN & HEYSL ~, L.L.P.
Attorneys at Law
Gregory T. Hornecker
Robert L. Cowling
John R. Baasen
R. Ray Heysell
H. Scott Plouse
P. David Ingalls
Adam T. Stamp~
Joseph E. Kellerman
James A. Wa1lan
Benjamin M. Bloom
Charles E. Bolen
Ryan J. VanderhooC
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
(541) 779-8900
Fax: (541)779-2982
http:www.rogudaw.rom
Richard L. BDlIn
'Stefanie L. Burke
Mark S. Bartholomew
Eric B. Mitton
'.Erik C. Larsen., LL.M.
Stephen L. Brown
Of Cowud - Fred M. Aebl
Rdirtd - B. Kent Blackhurst
Ervin B. Hogan 1927-2000
· AJso admltted In CalIfornia
.. AJso acbDtted In Idaho
VIA E-MAll., AND REGULAR MAlL
June 8, 2007
Ms. Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
City of Ashland
.20 E. Main St
Ashland, OR 97520
RE:
Meadowbrook Park IT Appeal of SDC credit determination
au; File No. 24429B
Dear Ms. Christensen:
We are requesting an appeal hearing, pursuant to 4.20.100(B), of the City's
determination of the amount of SDC credits owed to North Mountain Land Company, LLC.
North Mountain Land Company, LLC is entitled to SDC credits as a result of work
performed by the developer for PW N:o. 03-06.
1. Appellant-North Mountain Land Company, LLC, 3126 State Street, Suite 202,
Medford, OR 97504.
2. Agents for Appellant-P. David Ingalls and Mark Bartholomew, 717 Murphy Road,
Medford, OR 97504.
3. Nature of the Determination Being Appealed-City's determination that $63,075 in
credit is owed to Appellant.
4. The City's determination is incorrect for the following reasons:
Exhibit
.,.r2
1-1
_ of
4 ~
HORN. ..:ER, COWLING, HASSEN & HE._ 2LL
Barbara Christensen
June 8,2007
Page 2
A. The sum of the developer's expenditures is listed. and written, on the document
from Bill's Backhoe Service, Inc. Those handwritten numbers were derived by Pieter
Smeenk. Mr. Smeenk's sum total is $97,039.04. Mr. Smeenk then multiplied this figure by
.65 to arrive at the total amount of credits, which is $63,075. It is unclear to us why
$97,039.04 was multiplied by .65. Mr. Smeenk pointed to a document entitled "SDC
Eligible Transportation Improvements," which states that Item No.3, Nevada - Bear Creek
to North Mountain, is listed with a capacity of 65 percent. It is unclear to us what the 65
percent figure represents. Additionally, we have not found any authority in the
Comprehensive Plan that would indicate that the 65 percent capacity should result in credits
in the amount of only 65 percent of expenditures. The 65 percent is apparently derived from
the SDC portion of the total project and the revised estimated cost of Nevada _ Bear Creek to
North Mountain. That is, that the SDCportion of the total project, being $274,560, is 65
percent of the revised estimated cost of $422,400. The SDC Eligible Transportation
Improvements document also seems to indicate that the amount of $239,923 is eligible for
rebate. If that is the case, why is the developer currently only set to receive $63,0757 We
believe the developer is entitled to more.
B. It appears that Mr. Smeenk's calculations are erroneous, perhaps due to a
misunderstanding of the figures on the document from Bill's Backhoe Service. For example,
Item No.1 - Excavation had a total price of $14,300. This figure, along with all other
. figures on the document from Bill's Backhoe Service, is the cost of the improvements
abutting tax lots 500 and 600, which by Mr. Smeenk's calculations constituted 34.8 percent
of the total improvements on East Nevada. Mr. Smeenk credited 34.8 percent of $14,300 to
the SDC credits (prior to multiplying it by .65). However, he only gave credit for 2I24ths of
60.5 percent of $14,300 (as well as all of the other items on the Bill's Backhoe Service
document). We believe that Mr. Smeenk was perhaps mistaken. about the total cost and was
under the impression that the figures represented the total cost of construction of that portion
of the street not abutting tax lots 500 or 600 or located near North Mountain. Because the
figures from Bill's Backhoe Service already only included the marginal increased costs from
22 feet to 24 feet of street, his multiplication of the portion of expenditures allocable to that
portion of East Nevada by 2124th, should not have been done, because it was already taken
into account prior to submittal of the figures to the City.
C. 4.7 percent of the work performed on East Nevada Street, which on a
handwritten note by Mr. Smeenk titled "Methodology for Computing SDC Credits" dated
11-30-06, was not credited. Mr. Smeenk indicated that this was because it was only parking.
and did not increase capacity. It is true that the developer only receives SDC credits for
improvements that increase capacity. However, that portion fronting the North Mountain
Avenue right-of-way is indeed a street which connects East Nevada and North Mountain,
thereby enhancing capacity.
ExhIbit f! ~
Page. 1 of 4- .
BORN_ _AER, COWLING, HASSEN & Illi A --"ELL
Barbara Christensen
June 8, 2007
Page 3
D. Item Nos. 8, 9, 10, and lIon the Bill's Backhoe Service document were not
credited. We believe these should be credited. Sawcutting and removing existing asphalt are
necessary precursors to the construction of the road, increasing capacity. Sidewalks and
wheel chair ramps are necessary components of road construction, also lending to capacity.
E. The developer also constructed part of North Mountain Avenue just south of
the previously mentioned 4.7 percent segment. It is apparent from Bill's Backhoe Service's
document that no credits were awarded for that work, which totaled $95,003.75. It is our
understanding that the City's position is that the approval document, paragraph 29, only
specifically stated that the development will be eligible for SDC credits for asphalt widening
from 22 feet to 24 feet and curb and.gutter on the north side of East Nevada. for tax lot 401,
and for street improvements abutting tax lots 500 and 600. Although the improvements done
on North Mountain A venue were not specifically mentioned in paragraph 29 for SDC credits,
paragraph 29 does mandate, as a condition of approval, the improvements the developer did
perform on North Mountain Avenue. That section of North Mountain Avenue does appear to
be one of the SDC eligible transportation improvements according to that document. We
believe that the work performed on North Mountain Avenue is a qualified public
improvement, which is on. the City's list of SDC eligible transportation improvements, and,
therefore, SDC credits should be awarded for that work.
5. We respectfully request credit in the amount of $311,834.25, as noted on the attached
document fromBill's Backhoe Service.
Chapter 4 of the municipal code does not indicate that there is an appeal fee for an
appeal of an SDC credit determination. Please advise us immediately if a fee is required.
Very truly yours,
f{Jdc
MARK S. BARTHOLOMEW
:gmr
cc: Richard AppiCello. Esq.
H:\USER'u.9LES\24429B\appeal.SDC credits issues.doc
Exhibit fI
Pa1Js 4- of '-I ~
-
July 24, 2007
CITY OF
ASHLAND
. Mark S. Bartholomew
Homecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell , L.L.P.
717 Murphy Road
Medford, OR 97504
RE: Meadowbrook Park IT
February 16,2007 SDC credit determination
The City Administrator reviewed your request for an appeal hearing and .prepared a letter to you
dated June 19, 2007. Unfortunately, that letter was inadvertently not mailed to. you. We
apologize for the delay in providing you this notification. The text of Ms. Bennett's letter :reads
as follows:
I am in receipt of your June 8, 2007 request for an appeal hearing pursuant to AMC
4.20.10O(B) concerning the above referenCed determination. As regards the require<iappeal
statement, AMC 4.20.100 (D) provides: .
An appellant who fails to file such a statement Within the time permitted 'waive~ any
objections, and the appeal shall be dismissed. . .
~.rr~e.;Prrmitted" i~ ~xpressly ~ in AMC 420J OO(C), ~'~ppealsof ~y' other
d~lS1onIll1.lSt be filed WIthin 10 working days of the date of the decISIon. Accordingly, any
,. .~. ..J ~~""~'.~
~e~r:Prthe.-FC;~I1:lary 16, 2007 decision needed to be filed on or before March 5, 2007. The .
. :: QitY.<;ouncifi~, Without jurisdiction to Consider untimely appeals. The Code language is
. . . mandatory requiring dismissal; no allowance is granted to excuse a late filing. Therefore, the
June 8, 2007 appeal is hereby dismissed.
. .
. .
If you have any questio~, please feel free to con~Int~rim City Attorney Richard Appicello:
Sincerely,
MM
Dick Wanderscheid
Electric Department Director
Acting City Administrator
Cc: Ric~<iAppicello
Barbara,Christenseri. .
Ea~~, 13~6\Yn,. .... · ....
~~"#\"4._ ,.,.... '. -.,..!: r. I .
Piefei Smeenk;.. ..
.... . . ~~ .. --... .
. . - -'." ~
., '-j..
: : -' '...'
~'" . .-;j.-.... :';'-.--:...:-: ~'J ;-',,~ ~.~;:_'.~ ::11 ;_1':" ~...':~;.;;.(.. ;,;!'~.._c.~. _~'{.Ui"..'. i.""
,~.. 'C . _:... ,,'~ '~". '. '-';.~!'t- .~::i::-; '~.~.:~:::) q\:~~'~~t.'I" :. .~Ot~'~J\:~'-~)'.'. .-~
;,' '.. c ..;~;. ":i 'i: . .:T! C; ~; .~)C} 'yy.e;/ .:,.;'1.: :!TI~ ;);_ '''' J .. '..
.. ~ ~ { ,::" - .. ., .
ADMINISTRATION
20 East Main Street .
Ashland. Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us .
Tel: 541-4~OO2
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
.~~.
r.,
I'RIHTID ON RICYCUD PAPB\
. Exhibit '
I
.r.
~