HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0205 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
zen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit
to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed.
for public hearings, there is no absolute right to orally address the Council on an agenda item. Time permitting, the
fficer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance, not public
n. If you wish to speak e fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers.
The chair will recognize you and you as to the amount oftime allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 5, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Study Session of January 14, 2008
2. Special Meeting of January 14, 2008
4. Executive Session of January 15, 2008
3. Regular Council of January 15, 2008
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Presentation from the Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a
public contract with IKON Office Solutions for a 48-month copier rental?
3. Does the Council approve the engineering services contract with Hatch Energy for
$100,660 for independent inspection services required at Hosler Dam to meet Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission dam safety regulations?
4. Does the Council approve the engineering services contract Amendment #2 with Brown
and Caldwell for $73,000 for engineering services to improve water quality at Reeder
Reservoir?
5. Will the Council approve the 2008 Council liaison appointments to City boards and
commissions, to be effective immediately?
6. Does the Council wish to apply for Federal appropriations for 2009?
7. Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
8. Should Council approve revisions to the agreement documents between the City and
Brammo Motorsports, LLC, for the financing and construction of the Jefferson Street
extension project?
9. Should the Council resent the date of the continued SDC appeal hearing to March 4, 2008
and notify the appellant of the revised date?
C()UNCILMEETINGS ARE BROADCASr LIVE ()N CHANNEL 9
VISIr T1IE (Try CH:' ASIILAND'SWE]3 SITE 1\'1' WWW./\SIILAND.OR.US
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS {Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject of a
Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent
meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC ~2.04.040})
1. Will Council approve the resolution authorizing and ordering the improvement of Liberty
Street by formation of a Local Improvement District? Does the Council have any revisions
to the draft findings and orders pertaining to the formation of the Liberty Street Local
Improvement District? Will Council approve the resolution establishing a new date of
March 18, 2008 for a Public Hearing to consider the formation of a Local Improvement
District to improve the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets?
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending
on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Is the Council interested in negotiating a cooperative agreement with Jackson County to
provide for the voluntary transfer of residential development rights (transferable
development credits) from approved Jackson County Measure 49 claims to City of
Ashland designated receptor zones?
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Jackson
County and Rogue Valley Transit District for a park and ride facility at the north entrance
to Ashland?
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Does the Council approve first reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance amending
Chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code, for Revisions to Measure 37 Claims
Ordinance to address the adoption of Measure 49"?
2. Should the Council conduct first reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending
Chapter 18 of the Ashland Municipal Code, providing for revisions to definitions and
zoning district classifications, providing for revisions to conditional use standards and
general regulations for the following zoning districts: woodland residential, rural
residential, single family residential, suburban residential, low density multi-family
residential, high density multi family residential, North Mountain neighborhood, retail
commercial, employment, industrial, health care services and Southern Oregon
University; providing for revisions to chapters for tree preservation and protection,
physical and environmental contraints, general regulations, site design review, partitions,
performance standards option, parking, signage, procedures and enforcement, providing
also for corrections to and adoption of official maps, including zoing and overlay maps in
digital format"?
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Presentation on Mount Ashland Association Wastewater Plant
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-
2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL NILE'rINGS ARE BROADCASf LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT' THE CrfY OF ASIILAND'S \\/EB SIlT: AT' WWW.ASIILAND.OR.US
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JANUARY 14.2008
PAGE 1 of2
MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, January 14,2008 at 6:00 p.m.
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way.
ATTENDANCE
Councilors Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson, Navickas, and Hartzell were present.
1. Look Ahead Review.
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Council Look Ahead. She noted the
training session prior to the February 5, 2008 Council Meeting. She also clarified the Council could
utilize the second half of the February 4, 2008 Study Session to hold a Special Meeting if they are unable
to complete the Ashland Land Use Ordinance amendments tomorrow night.
Councilor Chapman spoke regarding the Imperitrice Property and recommended the Council decide what
they are going to do with the land before they give the water rights away.
Councilor Hartzell offered the following suggestions: 1) for the minutes of the Community Library
Advisory Committee to be posted on the City's website, 2) for the members of the Planning Commission
to be invited to the Council's deliberation of the Land Use Ordinance amendments, and 3) for the Fiscal
Stability Council Goal item to come before the Council sooner than currently listed on the Look Ahead.
2. Review of Regular Meeting Agenda for January 15, 2008.
Public Contract for the Purchase of a Street Sweeper
Councilor Hardesty noted this is a large expenditure and questioned if the purchase of the sweeper could
be deferred for one year. Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson explained the City is following its
equipment replacement schedule. City Administrator Martha Bennett added it is her understanding that
there are significant maintenance issues with this sweeper and replacement cannot be deferred; however,
she will verify this with staff.
Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Interne Pipeline
Clarification was requested on whether the TAP Pipeline would be used for emergency purposes only or
whether it would become part of the City's daily supply flow. Mr. Olson indicated Paula Brown would be
presenting this issue at tomorrow's meeting and would clarify at that time. Comment was made
requesting information on what this would cost each household. Mr. Olson stated he would prepare this
information and have it ready for tomorrow's meeting.
Willow Wind Sewer Service Request
Mr. Olson clarified the service line can handle the capacity in the instances when both buildings are being
used at the same time.
Measure 49
Request was made for staff to provide examples of what this has looked like in other communities.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JANUARY 14.2008
PAGE 2 of2
Order of Agenda Items
Council briefly discussed and Mayor Morrison announced they would address the amendments to the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance first and place the TAP Pipeline item to the end of agenda for them to
discuss should time allow.
3. How will the Council address funding requirements for the ambulance services program
in light of the diminishing stream associated with the provision of ambulance services?
Fire Chief Keith Woodley and Division Chief Greg Case provided a presentation to the Council. Mr.
Woodley explained that under the "old" Medicare rules, the City was able to bill the patient (or their
insurance) for the balance not covered by Medicare. However, under the new requirements, the City can
no longer do this and they are being forced to write off the balance. He indicated the shortfall is currently
1.4 million dollars.
Mr. Woodley listed the following short term options available to the City:
1) Increase the FireMed membership fee,
2) Charge an EMS response fee when patient treatment services are provided and no ambulance
transport occurs, and
3) Petition Jackson County Commissioners to approve a single ambulance transport rate.
Mr. Woodley stated the City's long term options are:
1) Implement a Fire/EMS utility charge similar to current City street and storm drain charges,
2) Investigate the potential for a public/private ambulance service partnership that serves the City's
interests, and
3) Investigate the potential for an ambulance services special district in the Rogue Valley.
The service delivery options are:
1) Subcontract with a private ambulance service provider for non-emergency services,
2) Release the ASA contract to a private ambulance service provider,
3) Maintain the status-quo and continue to provide tiered response with Fire Dept EMS resources, or
4) Jackson Co Fire District 5 annexes the City into their fire protection district.
Mr. Woodley commented on the advantages and disadvantages of each option and stated staffs
recommendation is to increase the FireMed membership fee, charge an EMS response fee when patient
treatment services are provided and no ambulance transport occurs, and petition Jackson County
Commissioners to approve a single ambulance transport rate. Staff also recommends they investigate long
term revenue stabilization options beyond the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
Ms. Bennett clarified there is no option that will recover the entire deficit. She added that the Budget
Committee will need to have a discussion during the budget process on taxes.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, January 14,2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL l'vIEETING
JANUARY 14, 2008
PAGE J of2
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson, Navickas and Hartzell were present.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Does the City Council wish to direct staff to draft a resolution supporting the formation of the
Rogue Valley Heritage District?
Tam Moore/Our Heritage Political Action Committee/2 North Oakdale, Medford/Commented on the
creation of the Rogue Valley Heritage District and explained the Political Action Committee is required
to gain the City Council's approval before they can circulate petitions in Ashland. Mr. Moore stated this
would be a county-wide district and they have already received approval from 7 of the 11 cities in
Jackson County. He added he expects to hear from the remaining cities this week.
Mr. Moore explained the process to create the Rogue Valley Heritage District includes the following:
1) Gaining approval from the city councils, allowing their citizens to be part of the district should
the formation be successful,
2) Petitioning the voters and collecting signatures from at least 15% of the registered voters living
within the proposed district, and
3) Placing the creation of the Rogue Valley Heritage District before the voters as part of the
November 2008 general election.
Mr. Moore clarified the tax rate would be capped at $0.07 per $1,000 assessed value, which would create
roughly $1 million for district distribution when levied in 2009. He requested the Council approve the
draft resolution provided, which will enable them to place the formation of this district before the Ashland
voters.
Mr. Moore clarified if the District is approved and they later decide they need more funding, this would
have to come back to the voters for approval. He also clarified in the past the County provided the
County's historical societies with funding; however this has ceased.
John Enders/Southern Oregon Historical SocietyNoiced his support for the Rogue Valley Heritage
District. He commented on the County levy that provided funds to the historical societies and clarified the
County is still collecting this money, but they are no longer giving it to the intended use and the funding
is going to the County's general fund instead. He stated that Ashland is the largest town in Jackson
County without a museum and this is something he would like to change. He added there is a great desire,
but a lack of resources.
Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to approve attached resolution. DISUCSSION:
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to amend motion to add the text "n. and agrees that Ashland will be
a jurisdictional member if the Heritage District is passed by voters" to the last statement in the
resolution. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 14,2008
PAGE 2 of2
DISCUSSION on Amended Motion: Councilor Hardesty expressed concern with the impact the tax
levy would have on citizens and noted they will be needing the community's support for other upcoming
items. Support was voiced for the resolution and it was noted that this motion does not approve the levy,
but rather places this issue before the voters so that they can decide. Roll Call Vote on Amended
Motion: Councilors Jackson, Hartzell, Navickas, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Hardesty,
NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Hardesty clarified that despite her vote, she will be support the Heritage District.
2. Should the Council waive the second penalty and related interest on the delinquent Food and
Beverage (Meals Tax) for Geppetto's Restaurant's activity for the month of April 200n
Ron Roth/Owner of Geppetto's/Provided some personal history about himself and his involvement in
the community. He also provided information on his wife's physical condition, and stated her medical
issues have made it difficult for her to work. Mr. Roth commented on the Meals Tax and noted it is
scheduled to sunset in 2010. He requested the Council drop the penalties provision completely and stated
that doing so would help gain voter support for the re-adoption of the tax.
Councilor Navickas voiced support for waiving the penalty fees owed by Mr. Roth and stated it is
important to realize the struggle of small businesses in this community.
Comment was made acknowledging Mr. Roth's contributions to the community, but noting that it would
be illegal and unethical for the Council to apply the law differently to one person.
Council briefly discussed the settlement agreement that was reached with Mr. Roth in 2005. Mayor
Morrison commented that the City modified its policy and forgave a certain amount when they went
through this with Mr. Roth last time. He stated the Council is sworn to uphold the laws of the City and to
waive the penalty would be special treatment.
Mr. Roth clarified he is requesting the penalties be waived due to a medical hardship.
Comment was made questioning how the City would get restaurants to pay on a timely basis if they took
the penalty away.
Councilor HartzeWSilbiger mls to accept the staff recommendation and require immediate
payment of $865.67. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello noted the City will need to adopt
findings.
Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger amended motion to authorize the Mayor to sign findings.
Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion: Councilors Navic~as, Jackson, Hartzell, Sllbiger, Chapman
and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 15, 2008
The Grove
1195 E. Main Street
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANU4RY J 5,2008
PAGE J 0/6
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in The Grove, 1195 E. Main Street.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger were present.
MAYOR'S ANNUAL ADDRESS
Mayor Morrison presented the annual "State ofthe City" address.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Executive Session of December 12, 2007, Executive Session of December 17, 2007,
Study Session of December 17, 2007, Executive Session of December 18, 2007, and Regular Council
Meeting of December 18,2007 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Morrison presented Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison with a plaque of recognition for his
34 years of service to the City of Ashland.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg accepted the Distinguished Budget Presentation A ward for
the current fiscal year from the Government Finance Officers Association. It was noted this is nineteenth
straight year the City has received this award.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Will the Council approve the employment contract of Richard Appicello as City Attorney?
3. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for Stillwater?
4. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for Ashland Sips, LLC?
5. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application for Cascade Peaks Spirits?
6. Does the Council wish to confirm an appointment by the Mayor for the vacancy on the
Conservation Commission for a term ending April 30, 2009?
7. Should Council authorize signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the County of
Jackson for "Intergovernmental Cooperation" to provide building inspection services?
8. Shall Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, accept a bid from Johnny Cat, Inc. and
award a contract in the amount of $87,406 for construction of the 1-5 Sanitary Sewer
Reconstruction Project No. 2007-15?
9. Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public
contract with Titan Sales Group for the purchase of a Street Sweeper at a cost of $156,811.00?
Mr. Appicello left the room during the Consent Agenda approval to avoid conflict.
Items #7 and #9 were pulled from the Consent Agenda.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
J)INUARY /5.2008
PAGE 2 of6
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson mls to approve Consent Agenda Items #1-6 and #8. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 6-0.
City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated the Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County needs
to be corrected on Page 2, Paragraph 2. She stated the last statement in that paragraph should read "... and
violations of State Law and City Ordinances."
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty mls to approve the Agreement with Jackson County for
Intergovernmental Cooperation with the change noted on Page 2 by the City Administrator. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Hardesty requested clarification on the maintenance issues regarding the sweeper and asked if the
purchase ofthe new sweeper could be deferred for one year. Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson stated
this sweeper was scheduled to be replaced last year, so it has already been deferred for one year. He added the
maintenance issues with this equipment are significant enough that deferment could cost the City more than
replacing it.
Councilor HardestylSilbiger nls to approve the public contract greater than $75,000 for the street
sweeper. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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 Council
wish to take: 1) Reject the appeal and affirm the staff calculation of SDC credit at $63,075, 2)
Grant the appeal and award the SDC credits in a greater amount, 3) Partially grant the appeal by
considering other aspects of the developer's improvements that may be eligible for additional
credits?
City Engineer Paula Brown noted staff received additional information from the appellant late this afternoon.
She stated the intent of the new information is not clear and staff has not had the opportunity to review it. Ms.
Brown provided a brief explanation of staff's recommendation and noted Page 4 of the Council
Communication details the basis of staff's determination of the credits.
Mayor Morrison questioned if the new information would have a bearing on the SDC credit determination.
City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that because the costs that were submitted today are less than what
was originally submitted, it would likely result in less credit than what the City has already determined.
Mark Bartholomew/Indicated he represents the appellant. Mr. Bartholomew apologized for the delay in
providing staff with the new information and stated the new information bears significantly on the staff
report. He commented on qualified public improvements and the two sections of street improvements they
feel qualify for SDC credits. Mr. Bartholomew voiced objection to the way the City applied its methodology
and stated they believe staff incorrectly multiplied their total costs. He urged the Council to continue this
hearing to a subsequent date so that staff can review the updated information provided today.
Bill Reagan/Briefly commented on the new information provided and clarified the portion of improvements
that are offsite of the development.
Mr. Bartholomew clarified the Planning Commission's order stated that the developer would be eligible for
SDC credits for the extra two feet and this invoice reflects those costs.
Ms. Brown clarified that the information provided today is completely different than what was given before,
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 15.2008
PAGE 3 of6
and some of the information does not apply to the credits they are asking for. She stated she would be happy to
work with staff to review the new information and return to Council, but believes that the information
provided will result in a smaller SDC credit. Ms. Brown explained that she cannot do a basis of analysis for
the additional two foot increment when she doesn't have the infonnation for the entire 24 ft. street, and asked
if the Council would request this information from the appellant.
At the City Administrator's request, Mr. Bartholomew agreed to provide this information within the next
week. Ms. Bennett clarified the appellant would have the opportunity for oral rebuttal at the continued public
hearing.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to continue the Public Hearing to the February 19,2008 City Council
Meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Terrence Stenson/l72 Alida Street/Provided a copy and an explanation of the information he submitted to
the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks, National Forests, and Public Lands,
concerning a completed Demonstration Project for an area located in Ashland Creek, within Lithia Park.
Glen Ward/537 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Stated he is speaking on behalf of the Ashland Masonic
Lodge and expressed concern with the City easement that was established to created a roadway. He stated a
separation of elevation has been created on their property and stated the City has not exercised due diligence
in making sure their property is protected from the liability that could occur. Mr. Ward stated the fence that
was erected is not sufficient and requested the Council direct staff to look at this situation. He stated their hope
is that the City will extend the existing fence to better protect the Lodge's members from the unsafe drop in
elevation. He added that the City should either correct the problem or indemnify them from liability should an
accident occur.
Jackson Cuevas/545 Oak Hill Circle/Commented on the First Annual March to End Homelessness. Mr.
Cuevas shared his desire for the City of Ashland to work together to set an example for the rest of the nation
and put an end to homelessness.
Council briefly discussed their preferences regarding the order of the remaining agenda items.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does Council approve the staff recommendation on the next steps and the proposed timing for the
City to connect to the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie pipeline?
City Engineer Paula Brown presented the staff report and stated staff s recommendation is to continue to
pursue the TAP project as shown on the schedule provided in the Council Communication. She clarified these
steps include: 1) Booster Pump Station Site Acquisition, 2) Final Design and Cost Benefit' Analysis, 3)
Permitting, and 5) TAP Intertie Construction. Ms. Brown requested Council approve the first two steps
outlined.
Ms. Brown clarified the average costs at this point are $1.50 per household per month and $6.00 per business
customer per month. She added individuals who use more water would pay more, and those who use less
water would pay less.
Ms. Brown explained that when the City first completed the study, staff indicated the City would need this
water by 2016 and this still holds true. However, she noted she has come before the Council many times
requested they complete the construction earlier. Ms. Brown acknowledged this is a big step for the City, but
stated she has always advocated implementing this process sooner so that this water supply will be available
ASHLAND CiTY COUNCiL MEETING
JANUARY /5.2008
PAGE 4 of6
both for emergency use and use during drought years.
Ms. Brown provided further clarification of the two options outlined in the Council Communication. She
stated Option 1 has construction beginning in 2010, and Option 2 delays the construction and makes this step
contingent on a future council decision.
Councilor Hartzell motioned to direct staff to move forward with the first three steps (Booster Pump
Station Site Acquisition, Final Design and Cost Benefit Analysis, and Permitting). Motion died due to
lack of second.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99 South/Submitted a copy of an article that he wrote for the Daily Tidings in
1995. Mr. Roth stated he has followed this project since the beginning and does not see the need for the TAP
Intertie. He stated there is already existing infrastructure that brings TID water into Ashland and questioned if
this money would be better spent on a different use.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Option #1 as outlined in the Staff Report, to establish the
TAP Line as an emergency water supply, and for a future Council to make the decision for the TAP
Line to be part of the City's regular supply. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas expressed concern with
making expenditures into the future and noted the City has not yet addressed the issue of disposal into Bear
Creek. He added that he is concerned the intertie will not be used for emergencies only and is worried that this
will result in irresponsible growth. Councilor Hartzell voiced opposition to the motion and stated she is not
convinced this water will be needed as soon as indicated and expressed support for conservation measures.
Councilor Silbiger stated that establishing a secondary supply source is the responsible path to take and voiced
support for the timeline presented. Mayor Morrison stated that if the Council is divided on this issue, they may
need to consider an alternative motion or defer this issue to another time. Councilor Chapman voiced support
for approving the first two steps at this time. Councilor Hartzell noted the possibility of treating wastewater to
drinkable standards and questioned what investment would be necessary to make this possible. Mayor
Morrison suggested withdrawing the motion, approving the first two steps outlined by staff, and discussing
the additional steps further. Motion was withdrawn.
Councilor Hardesty requested clarification on the permitting. Ms. Brown explained they will know better
what permits are necessary and whether they will need to acquire easements once the design is complete. She
added staff's recommendation is to move forward with the first two steps.
Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell m/s to approve the current schedule and direct staffto proceed with Step
#1: Booster Pump Station Site Acquisition, and Step #2: Final Design and Cost Benefit Analysis.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Silbiger, Hardesty, and Jackson, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO.
Motion passed 5-1.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Will Council approve a special contract to expand the existing sanitary sewer service to serve a
proposed building at the Willow Wind Educational Facility at 1494 East Main Street located
outside the urban growth boundary?
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented the staff report. He stated the Willow Wind Educational
Facility is owned by the School District and is located outside the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary.
Mr. Olson provided a brief history ofthe property, which used to operate as a farm. He explained the School
District has applied to Jackson County for permission to renovate the barn into a multi-use and performance
auditorium building, and they requesting the City expand the existing sewer service from the house to the bam.
Mr. Olson explained the contract presented has been reviewed by the City's Legal Department as well as the
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETiNG
J,lNUARY /5.2008
PAGE 5 of6
School District, and it addresses all of the applicable issues listed under AMC 14.03.031 Option A. He stated
that staff has no issues with providing the additional sewer service and stated the service line and the main
line are capable of handling the additional flow.
Mr. Olson clarified the sewer charges for the facility are based on actual use. He also clarified the City
reviewed the transportation element and submitted a letter of no concern to the County. He added that staff
felt the intersection could handle the additional traffic.
Melanie Mindlin/1338 Seen a Lane/Stated the barn project has been spearheaded by the Willow Wind
community and has been a grass roots effort. She noted they did all of the fundraising for the barn renovation
themselves and hopes the Council will support the Willow Wind community and approve the sewer request.
Juli DiChiro/635 Weller Lane/Stated the Willow Wind facility serves both the home-schooled community
and a K -8 alternative program. She stated there is no opportunity for these kids to have an assembly space and
the primary usage of this facility will be to serve those students. Ms. DiChiro noted the new facility will be
open to public use, but the School District will limit this use to numbers that are safe. She stated they do not
anticipate much increase on the impact of the sewer system and noted the County's approval is contingent on
the City's approval. Ms. DiChiro stated this facility will have a huge impact on the quality of services that are
provided to the families and children of Willow Wind and noted the community has worked very hard to
fundraise for this renovation.
Lincoln Zeve/555 Ashland Creek DriveINoted he is on the Willow Wind Barn Committee and has two
children enrolled at Willow Wind. He stated the facilities at the school are a bit lacking and this barn project
will enable the children to get out of the rain in the winter. He noted they have reached the end of their
fundraising efforts and they will be able to move this project forward with some rapidity if they receive
Council's approval.
Mark DiRenzo/931 Beswick Way/Stated he is also on the Barn Committee. Mr. DiRenzo stated it has been
a long road and this is the last step. He commented on Willow Winds benefits to the community and stated the
barn would provide a needed gathering space.
Garry Harris/65 Fair Oaks Drive, Medford/Stated he is also on the Barn Committee and voiced his
support for this project.
Councilor Navickas/Silbiger m/s to approve the special contract to expand sewer services to the
Willow Wind school property. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the contract
indicates that if there is a change in use, they will have to reapply to the City. Councilor Hartzell expressed
concerns with possible increased use in the future. She also expressed concern with possible traffic issues and
questioned if the City has the authority to request a guarantee in regards to this issue. Mr. Appicello stated the
City could talk to the County about these issues, but noted the property is outside of the City's land use
jurisdiction.
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to amend motion to direct staff to write a letter to the County
addressing potential for transportation, bike, and pedestrian impacts from an event center of this
nature. Voice Vote: Councilors Chapman, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Councilors Navickas, Jackson
and Silbiger, NO. Mayor Morrison, NO. Motion failed 4-3.
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Councilor Navickas,
Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Chapman and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
J4NUARY /5.2008
PAGE 6of6
Roll Call Vote on Original Motion: Councilors Navickas, Silbiger, Jackson and Hardesty, YES.
Councilors Hartzell and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Cont.)
2. Should the amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance recommended by the Planning
Commission and Staff, which implement many of the changes described in Phase 1 of the Siegel
report and proposes changes to the city's permitting and appeal procedures be approved?
Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to continue the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to the February 4, 2008
City Council Special Meeting and to leave the record open until that time. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 6-0.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (Cont.)
2. Is the Council interested in negotiating a cooperative agreement with Jackson County to provide for
the voluntary transfer of residential development rights (transferable development credits) from
approved Jackson County Measure 49 claims to CitY of Ashland designated receptor zones?
Item delayed to future meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Interim Report from the Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Department: Administration E-Mail: ann@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Secondary Contact:
Approval: Estimated Time: 15 Minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to provide direction or feedback to the Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc
Committee (CLAC)?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council ask questions and provide feedback to assist the Committee as they move
forward.
Background:
The CLAC began meeting in mid-October and have met numerous times over the past four months.
They have researched library governance models and library funding models. They have sought
insight from a number of invited guests including: Representative Peter Buckley, County
Commissioner C.W. Smith, Talent City Manager Betty Wheeler, County Library Advisory Board
Chair Kathleen Davis and others. The committee is developing a public involvement plan to be
conducted during April and May during which they will actively seek public input on library funding,
services and governance.
The primary focus of the committee has centered on viable funding alternatives recognizing the
importance of a county-wide library system. The attached minutes reflect the various options they
have explored.
Committee Chair Pam Vavra and committee members will be provide a brief presentation to the City
Council as an interim report. The report will not be ready until the council meeting and hard copies
will be distributed at that time.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Council can express any concerns and provide feedback as needed.
Potential Motions:
None
Attachments:
. Resolution 2007-29
. CLAC minutes
Page 1 of 1
020508 CLAC Report.CC.doc
r.,
2 05 08 Attachment CLAC
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-35
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF ASHLAND CITIZEN
LIBRARY ADVISORY AD HOC COMMITTEE.
RECITALS:
A. The City of Ashland and Jackson County are working towards reopening the Ashland
Public Library.
B. The City desires to establish a committee to advise the City Council on matters
relating to the Ashland Public Library, excluding daily administrative operations.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS
SECTION 1. Committee Established.
The Citizens Library Advisory Ad hoc Committee (CLAC) is established and shall
consist of up to ten voting members.
SECTION 2. Purpose and Duties.
The purpose of the CLAC shall be to advise the City Council on matters relating to the
Ashland Public Library, excluding daily administrative operations, once the library
reopens.
The committee shall have the following duties:
A. Review services provided by the Ashland Public Library during the interim period
from when the library reopens through June 2009.
B. Identify and recommend the delivery of future services by the Ashland Public Library.
C. Receive community input concerning the Ashland Public Library.
D. Work in conjunction with regional and other municipal groups to identify long term
library funding options and library governance options to be completed for council
review by March 2008.
E. Serve as a liaison with the County Library Advisory Committee.
SECTION 3. Qualifications, Vacancies, Terms
A. Voting members will include: up to two people with library experience, one person
with finance and taxation knowledge, one person with issue-based election campaign
experience and up to six at large positions.
B. In making the at large position appointments, the council shall give preference to
applicants which represent the various library users and partner organizations.
C. The CLAC shall establish a regular time, date and place of meeting and shall hold at
least one regular meeting every three months and more frequently if needed.
D. Any committee member, who is absent, without prior permission from the committee
chair, from three or more meetings in a one-year period shall be considered no longer
active and the position vacant and a new person shall be appointed to complete the term.
E. The CLAC shall terminate in June 2009.
SECTION 4 Meetings, Quorum, Reports
A. At its first meeting the committee shall elect a chair, vice chair and one of its members
to take minutes ofthe meetings and provide copies to the City Council.
B. A simple majority of the voting members constitutes a quorum.
C. Reports or recommendations of the committee shall be considered advisory in nature
and shall not be binding on the mayor or city council.
D. Meetings shall comply with Oregon Public Meeting laws.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
PASSED and ADOPTED this 18th day of September, 2007:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this 19th day of September, 2007:
John W Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, Interim City Attorney
2 05 08
Council Communication Attachment
CLAC
DRAFT Minutes
Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
January 17,2008
Guanajuato Room, Ashland Public Library
4:00-6:00 pm
Attendance:
Ashworth, Churchman, Vavra, Battistella, Keil, Burkholder, Seltzer (city staffliaison), Blossom
(library staff)
Absent:
Brown, Gibb
Guests:
Kathleen Davis, Chair Jackson County Library Advisory Board, Mark Smith from LSSI Jim
Olney, Jackson County Library Foundation, Pat Ashley
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 pm. Vavra added one item to the agenda: discussion of
Public involvement meeting: MIS Churchman/Burkholder approval of agenda.
Citizen Issues:
None
Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of December 13 regular meeting were approved, notes from the January 3 and January
10 meetings were approved.
Vavra welcomed and introduced Kathleen Davis, Chair of the Jackson County Library Advisory
Board. Batistella and Vavra thanked Davis for her efforts on behalf of county libraries.
Davis explained they are aiming for a 2010 election to form a special library district. She
commented on "lessons learned" from the previous two library measures and believes that they
"rushed" the issue to the ballot and did not spend enough time gathering information of about
constituents. She feels that there was too much haste given the eminent closure of the libraries.
The Board intends to bring a recommendation forward to the County Commissioners about the
2010 election/special district. They ask the Ashland Library Advisory Committee to wait and not
recommend forming a special district at the 2008 election but rather be a part of the 2010 efforts.
They want all the jurisdictions to move forward at the same pace.
The group has met with and hopes to partner with Oregon solutions to assist in designing a means
of moving forward. Enlist their help to determine the best vehicle to reach the various
stakeholders and bring people together. To determine how to engage voters who may be opposed
to funding the library system.
They have discussed designing and launching a major campaign centered on the importance of
literacy in Jackson County and how libraries contribute towards literacy. If Medford voters do
not support library services, Davis believes that we simply will not have a county library system.
The Board believes they must find a way to persuade Medford voters to support library services.
1
Despite the support of other Jackson County communities, the political reality is that we must get
Medford.
Partnering with Oregon solutions requires a project nomination by the Governor. County
Commissioners Smith and Gilmore are very interested in the project and have suggested
including the value of economic development as a result of a literacy project.
Burkholder asked at what point Ashland would know ifthe 2010 ballot is the plan and the
proposed levy amount. Davis assured her that Ashland would be kept in the loop and encouraged
committee members to work with the Board. Keil asked if the Board has considered the
federated model of providing library services. Davis is not familiar with that model but expressed
interest.
Davis spoke of the efforts of the Board to repair and develop a stronger relationship with the
County including the elected officials as well as the County Administrator. The Board agrees that
the County must be comfortable with whatever project and model is proposed in order to gain
their support.
Vavra asked about the Jackson County Library Advisory Board liaison with other regional
committees. Davis said the Board has limited membership and not enough people to serve as
liaison with the numerous library support groups. Davis attends the Library Friends Presidents
meeting.
Vavra thanked Davis for her time and introduced Pat Ashley.
Ashley served on the Jackson County Library Advisory Board for eight years and as liaison to the
Foundation. She now serves on the Board of Education for RCC. She supports the need to reach
out to all the uninterested people and determine their objections to funding the county system.
She believes that we must find out who these voters are and learn more about them and
"enlighten their self-interest".
She urges Ashland not to form its own district. The county wide special district measure will fail
without Ashland votes.
Ashley was thanked for her time.
The group began discussion of a recommendation to the City Council and identified two issues:
1) long term library funding
2) Keeping the Ashland library open to whatever date a county decision is made
The Ashland levy expires in June of2009. This creates a year gap in funding between the levy
expiration and the 2010 election.
The group identified three general choices:
1) Do nothing
2) Extend the existing levy for a period of time until supplemental funding is in place
(special countywide library district)
3) Form a smaller Ashland district
Vavra reminded group that they are scheduled to update the council on February 5. Should the
group present the list of alternatives they are considering?
2
General consensus was reached that the committee will recommend extending the existing levy
for a period of four years. The group agrees that it is very important not to put "numbers on the
table" until it is clear how much money is needed over the life of the levy.
MIS Keil/Ashlworth Move to recommend to the City Council to place on the November 2008
ballot a local option levy of an amount sufficient to operate the Ashland library at the level the
Ashland community desires for a period of four years.
Roll Call: Keil (yes) Burkholder (yes) Vavra (yes), Ashworth (yes), Churchman (yes), Batistella
(yes)
There was a brief discussion about a public involvement/input process. The group agrees it must
hold meetings specifically to engage the public on an extension of the levy. Seltzer will look for
available dates in Council Chambers for April.
Next meeting dates:
January 24 (study session)
January 31 (regular meeting)
Meeting adjourned 6:00 p.m.
Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
Meeting Notes
January 10, 2008
Guanajuato Room, Ashland Public Library
4:00-6:00 pm
Attendance: Vavra, Keil, Ashworth, Burkholder Churchman
Topics of discussion included:
Recap of previous meeting at which no quorum was present
Masanne's planned absence though March or April and potential impact on conducting
business if it results in lack of quorum, need for volunteer to assume liaison for JCLAC,
Planned first report to City Council on Feb 5, topics to include, possible
recommendation?
Possible future request of Ruth Metz
Plan for providing significant opportunity for public input re: service, perhaps May 29.
Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
Meeting Notes
3
January 3, 2008
Guanajuato Room, Ashland Public Library
4:00-6:00 pm
Attendance: Vavra, Blossom (library staff liaison), Churchman, Keil, Battistella
Absent: Burkholder, Morrison (Council liaison), Gibb, Brown, Ashworth, Seltzer (city
staff liaison)
Audience: Jim Faircloth, Anne Billeter, Jim Olney, Helga Motley
Call to Order: The meeting assembled at 4:00 pm. It was noted that only four Committee
members were present and that five were needed for a quorum. Therefore, the Meeting
was not officially called to order, but discussion ofltems on the draft Agenda proceeded
with the understanding that no official business would be conducted.
There was some discussion re the Minutes from December 17. Members were asked to
review their memories and notes in preparation for Approval on January 17.
Report on Study Session:
Churchman summarized the study session in a draft document which he passed out.
Keil reported on the session - bottom line, the city funding will end before something can
be done countywide. Options include:
1. Extend the current local levy until the county can do something - 2010 district.
- the city could raise money to pay for the interim -
a. Raise the tax up to 58 cents for the duration of the levy, then use the
money for the following year
b. Divert funds from some other source
2. Create a small district including only those that previously expressed support, ie.
Ashland, Talent, Pinehurst and?
3. Extension could for a school district, not just the city limits. This could be 20
cents, not 25 cents. Note: there are costs to creating a district.
Long Term Concerns:
There are many, such as how to involve the county, when, what leadership role
Ashland might take, political reaction to whatever Ashland does, who would lead a
county election, getting support and much more.
Keil believes a district including Ashland and Pinehurst is the only one that would
succeed.
Vavra will contact Morrison to see ifhe can talk with mayors of Talent and Phoenix and
gather info on how they would feel about studying the feasibility of creating a small
library district to include at most the Ashland, Pinehurst, and Talent-Phoenix School
Districts.
General Discussion included: Are we talking of forming a district that would act as a
supplement to what the county is doing or is a district that would fund all the services?
How long with the county fund the libraries, even in the minimal amount? When can
districts be formed? Only in November elections or is it possible to do this in a May
4
election, which would bring the money in a full year sooner due to tax collection policy?
Do we meet our charge if the suggestion is to recommend extending the local levy until
there is time to develop a long term plan for 2010? What is the best use of Ruth Metz
and what should we be asking of from her?
Vavra will invite Kathleen Davis, Jackson County Library Advisory Committee chair,
Colette Boehmer, chair of the Jackson County Library Foundation, and Pat Ashley,
library activist from Eagle Point, to the next meeting.
Evaluation of services - what is the measurement of good library services, beyond
circulation and counters? American Library Association and the Oregon Library
Association have standards for libraries. Ruth Metz might suggest criteria for evaluating
library services.
Anne Billeter spoke on her involvement in 2006 with forming a library district and why it
got to a bad start. 1. The group hit the cities cold with the request to support this. The
library staff had been working for 2 years on this, the cities were surprised.
2. The feasibility study wasn't finished because they didn't know what the $ value
would be that they were asking for.
3. The public was not involved enough.
Vavra will ask Ruth Metz if the previous feasibility study she did for Jackson County is a
public document and in any event request a copy.
A preliminary status report to the City Council is planned for Jan 15. It will be an
informal report. No recommendations are planned but an update on what the committee
has been doing. Vavra will ask to be on the Council Agenda.
Next meeting - January 10 - study session Guanjauto Room, Ashland library
Next Official Meeting - January 17
Meeting disbanded 5:30 p.m.
Amy Blossom, temporary notetaker.
Minutes
Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
December 13, 2007
Guanajuato Room, Ashland Public Library
4:00-6:00 pm
Attendance:
Ashworth, Brown, Churchman, Vavra, Battistella, Keil, Gibb, Seltzer (city staff liaison), Blossom
(library staff)
Absent:
Burkholder
Guests:
County Commissioner CW Smith, City Manager of Talent, Betty Wheeler
Audience:
5
Jim Olney, (Library Foundation), Anne Billiter, Wes Brain
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm. Vavra added one item to the agenda: report from
Brown, agenda approved.
Citizen Issues:
Wes Brain commented that he is opposed to LSSI running the library.
Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved by the committee.
Vavra welcomed and introduced County Commissioner Smith and invited him to comment on
long term county funding options for the library system.
Smith explained that the future of the library system is dependant on sustainable funding. It is
possible that O&C funding will be extended but there is no guarantee. If that funding is
suspended completely, the county can operate comfortably for the next four years, if the funding
is reauthorized, the county could operate for the next ten years.
Smith supports the formation of a special library district and feels it has worked well in Coos and
Curry counties, however he does not feel the current political climate is friendly for additional
taxes based on the failure of the past two library measures. The mood is not popular among the
general populace for increased taxes. Possibly looking at 24 months in the future before
exploring a special district and recommends extensive conversations with various communities to
gamer support for a special district.
When asked if the county would support a special district that might involve just the south valley
(Ashland, Talent) he said he would be supportive.
Discussion about a federated library system: the county runs all central services associated with
the county wide library system and each city funds its own library. Smith agrees it is a good
design as each library would reflect the desires of each individual city.
Keil wondered about incorporating the library system into the existing school district explaining
that this would save costs associated with creating a new district and require less time. The
school district could appoint a Board to oversee the libraries.
Smith was asked to comment on Jackson and Josephine Counties seeking a 2-county sales tax to
fund county services. Smith said only rudimentary research has been done. A sales tax would
eliminate property taxes designated for the county. Budget committee is interested in this
concept and will discuss at their December 19 meeting. Initial estimates anticipate a less than 2%
sales tax would suffice.
Vavra thanked Smith for his time and introduced Betty Wheeler, City Manager from Talent.
Wheeler spoke to Talent approach to fund the library by adding a utility fee to Talent utility bills.
The City Council felt that the Talent citizens had voted twice in favor of libraries and had
"spoken" of their support. This is why they did not go out for a library levy but rather created the
utility fee.
The $2 library utility fee generates enough revenue to keep the library open for 36 hours per week
allowing students to access the library computers after school and in the evenings.
6
Wheeler feels that Talent would be reluctant to be included as a special district. The tax rate is
already high because of the Urban Renewal District which sunsets in 2019 though there is some
push to dissolve it earlier. She also commented that Talent voters might feel that they will loose
their voice on any vote related to the special library district as Ashland voters outnumber Talent
voters. She also expressed concern that Special Districts often are disconnected with citizens.
City Councils and citizens are very connected to one another.
Committee member Brown gave an update to the committee on the recent County Library
Advisory Committee. The committee had invited representative from Oregon Solutions to speak
to building county wide support for a new library levy and the process to build community
consensus.
The Ashland Library will host Greeters on January 4 at 8: 15 a.m.
The committee briefly reviewed the list of alternatives and criteria sent by Ruth Metz. The
committee agreed that they must develop criteria by which to evaluate the various permanent
funding and governance options.
The Chair asked committee members to begin developing criteria for discussion at the next
regular meeting.
Meeting Dates
December 20 - study session
January 3 - regular meeting
January 10 - study session
January 17 - regular meeting
January 24 - study session
January 31 - regular meeting.
Meeting adjourned 6:00 p.m.
Minutes
Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
November 29, 2007
Guanajuato Room, Ashland Public Library
4:00-6:00 pm
Attendance:
Ashworth, Brown, Churchman, Vavra, Battistella, Burkholder, Keil, Gibb, Seltzer (city staff
liaison), Kinard (library staff)
Absent:
Roudebush
Guests:
Jim Olney, (Library Foundation), Julie French (Daily Tidings), Anne Billiter, Ann Guavara
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm. Vavra added one item to the agenda, the resignation
of Susan Roudebush; agenda approved.
Citizen Issues:
There was no public comment.
7
Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved by the committee.
Accept resignation of Roudebush:
The resignation of Roudebush was regretfully accepted by the committee.
Presentation by Ruth Metz and Tom Sponsler:
Ruth Metz, state library consultant and Tom Sponsler were introduced. Sponsler passed out a
timeline detailing the steps to form a special district. He explained that a special district must
determine a fixed tax rate just as cities and counties. This means that over time expenses increase
but no "new" money comes in. It is possible to get a higher authorized tax rate but the district is
not required to access the full amount until needed. No additional taxes can be levied. Generally,
a library special district is funded 95% through the property tax and 5% through fees and fines.
There are two ways to form a special district: by petition or by resolution. The resolution must be
made by the council commissioners of the county where the special district will be formed. It
cannot be formed by the individual cities.
Either way requires an economic feasibility study must be completed and must include an
analysis of existing and needed library services. The formation of the district process involves
three key steps: 1) petition to form special district or resolution 2) approval of tax rate and 3) the
formation of a aboard of directors. All three are included in the ballot measure. The formation of
a special district can only occur at a November election during even numbered years though that
requirement may change in an upcoming election.
The committee questioned and discussed boundaries of a district. Whether a small district could
be formed and later other areas added to the district or if the district boundaries must be
determined in advance. Sponsler explained that it could be done (a separate and different
process) and that the other areas/communities would have to opt in to the fixed tax rate previously
determined at the formation of the special district. A special district need not have contiguous
boundaries.
A district could be formed and could use the money to contract with the county to provide library
services via an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Keil wondered if there is another revenue
source that can be used to fund a library district beyond property tax. Metz commented that 95%
of library funding is through property tax and the remaining 5% generally comes from fees and
fines.
Keil asked about forming a new county. Sponsler explained that the formation of a new county
must be approved by the Oregon legislature and must be large enough to be considered. There
could be one library district for the entire State but to date no multiple county districts exist.
Metz was asked to comment on whether the data she collected a few years ago re: library services
in Jackson County was still valid. She explained that she met with each city Manager in southern
Oregon about funding and the possibility of forming a special district. Each was less interested in
paying for library services and more interested in a special district. She does not know if those
sentiments are the same today.
Metz asked the committee about the current political climate in Jackson County regarding
libraries and which other communities are supplementing current library services. Only Ashland
and Talent are currently supplementing library services.
Vavra expressed concern that the County Library Advisory Committee is looking at putting a
countywide district on the ballot in 2010. She has heard a proposal for a sales tax to fund Jackson
8
and Josephine libraries. She expressed concerned about the likelihood of success in getting
county wide support given the lack of support at two recent elections to fund libraries.
It was explained that during the last election two of the three county commissioners were publicly
opposed to the library levy. Failure of the levy could have resulted from other funding measures
that were on the ballot and/or lack of trust in county government because of the belief that
previously passed library funds were misused.
Keil mentioned that Ashland, Talent, rural Talent and the Rogue Valley Manor were the only
areas the fully supported the funding of libraries.
Metz suggested Ashland could consider continuing its local option levy for two extra years and
work towards a county-wide district. If it fails, start the process of forming a smaller district.
Discussion moved to the importance of establishing criteria by which to measure the options so
the committee could clearly demonstrate due diligence when bringing a recommendation forward
to the council. Vavra asked how we weigh the probability of success for our recommendation.
Gibb offered the following criteria as a basis for determining a recommendation:
1) political stability
2) long term stability
3) appropriate level of service for Ashland
Sponsler agreed with the criteria and suggested a reverse order.
Churchman offered a few different funding options to be fleshed out:
. Special district based on county boundaries
. Special district based on new boundaries
. Special district with supplemental funding by cities
. Extend the current system.
Metz offered to draft a variety of funding alternatives with criteria. She could send the initial list
to the committee to use as a starting point and no doubt other alternatives and criteria would
emerge. Then she will work with the committee to develop an action plan.
She also suggested speaking with the county commissioners/county administrator to determine if
they would even consider placing a special district on the ballot.
Meta will send a copy of the Wasco County economic feasibility study.
Review of update interview questions (Gibb):
No update
Review and prioritize Resource List (Batistella):
Batistellas passed out the updated Resource List. Vavra suggested now is the time to send a letter
to the list of contacts. Gibb suggested going through the list and prioritizing. He sees two pieces
of work: 1) list of funding options and criteria and 2) research and interviews.
Vavra reminded the group of the study session scheduled for next week, December 6, and
clarified the purpose would be for the committee to informally work without making any formal
decisions. Attendance is optional. Someone will take notes of the study session and send to
Seltzer.
Other:
9
. Seltzer will provide Ashland's share of central services fees for library services.
. Seltzer will provide copy of current IGA with county for library services.
. Seltzer will provide cost estimate to run the library as a municipal library.
Future Dates of Meetings
Dec. 6 - Study Session - Guajauato Room
Dec 13 - Meeting - Guanajuato Room
Dec 20 -Study Session - Gresham Room
Dec 27 - Meeting - Guanajuato Room
Meeting Adjourned at 6:05 pm
Minutes
Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
November 15, 2007
Guanajuato Room, Ashland Public Library
4:00-6:00 pm
Attendance:
Ashworth, Brown, Churchman, Vavra, Battistella, Burkholder, Keil, Gibb, Morrison
(Mayor), Blossom (library staff)
Absent:
Roudebush
Guests:
Peter Buckley, Jim Olney, (Library Foundatian), Helga Motley, Grace Hamilton, Janet
Anderson, Julie French (Daily Tidings), Mark Smith (LSSI)
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm and members approved the agenda as
presented. As an administrative note, Gibb will work with Vavra to get the agenda ready
for the city to post on the web site.
There was no public comment.
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved by the committee.
Peter Buckley shared his thoughts and knowledge about the role of the state in helping
library funding. There is no push on the state level to get local funding for libraries. Keil
asked about raising the cap on compression and Buckley felt there may be some
bipartisan support for this. There is some hope that something can be worked out with
the TOT or Transient Occupancy Tax, but it isn't in the works now. 2009 the state
budget will be concentrating on transportation. Buckley believes there will have to be
new revenue to support libraries. The state wants to stay out of anything the county now
supports. Keil wondered if there is another revenue source that can be used to fund a
library district beyond property tax.
Buckley feels an effective strategy could be to present a package of services, for example
include, the historic society, local transportation and libraries. Consider it county wide
but have a back up plan which might be a Talent/Ashland district of these services, or to
have a plan for the library to go out alone. Consider what works, but also what is best for
10
the county. Do the political work to see what can be done. Maybe the campaigning
could be done as a package but with individual measures.
A phone interview with Ruth Metz, library consultant, was held. This was an introductory
meeting, via phone, prior to her attending the next meeting on Nov 29. Metz was given
some background on the Ashland situation including the need for Ashland to have
options since our funding for extra service runs out in 2 years. The county money runs
out in 3 years. There are between 12 and 17 library districts in Oregon, some county,
some special. There are no multiple county districts. Wasco County led a very
successful district campaign in 2006. The Wasco County Commissioners strongly
supported the library district formation and the tax rate was 66 cents. Metz was advised
of 3 charges the committee is taking on: What kind of library does the community want,
How to finance that, and how will it be governed.
Another charge is to evaluate library services during the next 2 years. Metz is going to
flesh out what needs to be done and identify what she and Tom Sponsler, an attorney
specializing in districts, can provide and at what cost. The state library has paid $20,000
as a retainer for these services and so far only this committee and a group from Malheur
County have contacted Metz. Potential clients include Jackson, Josephine and Douglas
counties. There was a suggestion that Anne Billeter, a former JCLS manager be included
in further discussion as a local resource. Metz will bring a timeline she sees as necessary
to form a district in 2008.
Churchman has summarized ideas from different sources with the intent of seeing what
the library could look like and what services have been used. He will cite his sources.
Olney will check to see ifthe Foundation's full survey can be made available. Vavra will
send an official request for this report.
Reports:
Library Advisory Council - Burkholder, Vavra and Brown attended the LAC meeting
and they are hoping to have some option for permanent funding to the public in 2010. It
is not known yet what that will be. The Blue Ribbon panel presented their findings,
which were not conclusive on what could be done for permanent funding. They have now
disbanded. The LAC is very interested in determining the No votes from the county wide
campaign. They will work with Oregon Solutions, Steve Greenberg at orsolutions.org.
Presidents Forum Report - Vavra and Churchman reported. Sue Lopez, the President of
the Ashland Friends will be our liaison to this group.
Battistella will add committee member emails to the emaillist that Kathy Kudo sends out
on library issues.
Action Items:
. Make a list of what needs to be done by Metz and what Metz should do.
. Go over and prioritize the Status Resource List
. Library Interview Questions - go over and respond to these within 4 days.
Future Dates of Meetings - Nov 29 - Gresham Room
Dec. 6 - Study Session - Guajauato Room
Dec 13 - Meeting - Guanajuato Room
Dec 20 -Study Session - Gresham Room
Dec 27 - Meeting - Guanajuato Room
11
Meeting Adjourned at 6:00 pm
Minutes
Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
October 30, 2007
Gresham Room, Ashland Public Library
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Ashworth, Keil, Vavra, Burkholder, Roudebush, Gibb, Churchman, Batistella, Brown, Morrison (Mayor),
Seltzer (city staff), Blossom (library staff)
Absent:
None
Guests:
Jim Olney, Library Foundation
John Sexton, former Ashland librarian
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. and members approved the agenda as presented. Guest Jim
Olney introduced himself and explained the work of the foundation is to help fund support programs such
as storytelling and babies in the library.
Guest John Sexton encouraged the committee to "think outside" the traditional library services. He
believes that library services must be offered outside the library building and Liberians should go to where
people gather rather than expecting people to come to them. He reported that statistically regular library
users are only I in 4 and that it is important to identify those homogenous groups of people who could be
served by library services but that do not go to a library. Sexton has taken a library position in Westchester
county NY and commented on the funding and service structure of that system. It is funded from three
sources, State, county and local. There are 38 libraries in the county and it is a county system but each
library is unique to the community in which it is located. The county provides centralized professional
services and oversees the system but each operates as an independent library. He stresses that they are
numerous varying models of library services that should be explored.
Minutes of the previous meeting were approved by the committee. MIS Burkholder/Keil.
The group began to identify the Resource List including:
County Library Advisory committee, Presidents Forum, United Friends of the Library, Jackson County
Library foundation, LSSI, Coalition for Library Future, Ashland Friends of the Library, Phoenix and
Jacksonville appointed library committees, State Library Board, Ronnie Budget, Cathy Shaw, etc.
Batistella will compile the list and add all relevant information including group meeting times and locations
and contact information. Gibbs will gather potential questions from the committee members which will be
used to "interview" those included on the Resource List. Brown asked how SOU and ASD will be included
and it was suggested that Bill Street be added to the Resource List and recognized that committee member
Burkholder is the former SOU librarian.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen gave a brief overview of public meeting law, public record retention
and ethics for public officials.
Gibb gave an overview of his proposed work plan and timeline. The group discussed the plan and agreed
that the time line was fluid but that the committee should report back to the council at least once prior to a
final recommendation to the council in late spring. It was stressed that the group must gather data before it
can develop service and funding options. Vavra reminded the group that while reviewing current library
services and identifying future library services was two of the three charges of the committee, their primary
focus, at the request of the Mayor during the first meeting, is to identify a method of funding the library
system vs. how much is needed to fund a library and type of library services to fund.
Action Items:
. Develop Resource List (Batistella)
12
. Develop interview questions (All and send to Gibb)
. Deadline for funding opportunities (Batistella)
. Contact State Library Board re: access to consultant Metz (Burkholder)
. Gather and compile library existing data (Churchman and Blossom)
. Fact Finding ORS deadline for filing ballot measures (?)
Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.rn.
Minutes
Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
October 22, 2007
First Meeting
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Ashworth, Keil, Vavra, Burkholder, Roudebush, Gibb, Churchman, Batistella, Morrison (Mayor), Bennett
(city staff), Seltzer (city staff), Blossom (library staff)
Absent:
Brown
Mayor Morrison welcomed the group and commented on the diverse mix of participants. He asked the
group to focus their attention and work on developing a long-term library solution. Morrison asked the
group to bring a recommendation to the council no later than June of 2008 giving the council time to
prepare ballot language for the November 2008 election if necessary. Bennett reminded the group that the
Ashland library levy will expire in June of 2009 and encouraged to group to be mindful of a funding
solution prior to that date. She reiterated that the Ashland City Council has supported the concept of a
county-based library system and the committee should explore all possible options of maintaining such a
system including the formation of a special district. Special districts may only be voted on during even
numbered years.
Keil commented on the number of other library groups in the valley working on different library options
and that the County Library Advisory Committee is discussing a special district levy for 2010 election.
The Ashland committee should identify the various regional groups who are working towards long-term
funding and meet with those groups.
Discussion of meeting times, location and frequency. Given the initial workload, the group agreed to meet
every other week and aim for regular meetings to occur on Thursdays at 4:00 p.m. in the Gresham Room of
the Ashland Public Library. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 30 with subsequent meetings to
occur on Thursday, November 15 and Thursday, November 29 at 4:00 p.rn. in the Gresham Room.
Discussion of election of chair and vice chair and responsibilities associated with those positions. Vavra
suggested going around the room and each member speaking to their skills and interests. A number of
members commented that they prefer research over leadership. Some indicated an interest in public
relations, others didn't mind taking the role of chair but did not want to do the administrative work, others
preferred acting as a liaison to other groups and others indicated their skills at analysis. Consensus was
reached for Vavra to act as chair and Gibb and Ashworth as vice chairs.
Discussion about operating procedures and meeting guidelines; Seltzer to provide Public Meeting Law
guidelines and the recently adopted ethics ordinance.
Blossom gave an update on the library opening activities and the hours of operation.
It was suggested that at the next meeting the group define the "final product" they are working towards.
Not the solution but the objective of the group.
Action Items:
. List of regional library groups (Blossom)
. Deadline for funding opportunities (Batistella)
. Public Meeting Law and Ethics ordinance (Seltzer)
13
. Work Plan/Time line (all)
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
14
INTERIM REPORT TO COUNCIL
City of Ashland
Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
Interim Progress Report and Recommendation for November 2008 Ballot
February 5,2008
CONTENTS
. Summary
· Committee Description - Charge and Make-Up
. Task Delineation
· Progress to Date
· Recommendation for November 2008 Ballot
. Next Steps
SUMMARY
This Interim Progress Report details the work of the Citizen Library Advisory Ad Hoc
Committee (CLAC) from October 22,2007 through January 31,2008.
The CLAC has held eight regular meetings and four additional study sessions over the
course of three months. We have considered our charge, outlined the tasks needed to
accomplish our goal, and heard from elected officials, consultants, and knowledgeable
members of the public. We have consulted with other library groups to identify options
for near-term and long-term strategies to provide needed library services. We have also
considered various criteria and processes for evaluating and selecting among the options.
Although our work is far from done, we recommend that Council prepare to request, in
November 2008, voter approval on an extension of the local library option levy for four
years (through FYI2/13).
COMMITTEE CHARGE
The Ashland City Council formed the CLAC by resolution in September 2007,
specifying its charge and duties as:
The purpose of the CLAC shall be to advise the City Council on matters relating
to the Ashland Public Library, excluding daily administrative operations, once the
library reopens.
The committee shall have the following duties:
A. Review services provided by the Ashland Public Library during the
interim period from when the library reopens through June 2009.
B. Identify and recommend the delivery of future services by the Ashland
Public Library.
C. Receive community input concerning the Ashland Public Library.
D. Work in conjunction with regional and other municipal groups to identify
long-term library funding options and library governance options to be completed
for council review by March 2008.
E. Serve as a liaison with the County Library Advisory Committee.
The CLAC was impaneled in October.
CLAC Members include:
. Bill Ashworth (Vice-Chair)
. Masanee Brown
. Maureen Battistella
. Sue Burkholder
. David Churchman
. Peter Gibb (Vice-Chair)
. Chuck Keil
. Pam Vavra (Chair)
. Library Staff Liaison: Amy Blossom
. City Staff Liaison: Ann Seltzer
. City Council Liaison: Mayor John Morrison
Regular meeting attendees who have contributed substantially to the CLAC's work
include: Jim Olney, Executive Director ofthe Jackson County Library Foundation and
Anne Billeter, Former Manager of South Region Libraries and Children's Services of the
Jackson County Library System.
TASK DELINEA nON
The tasks required to respond to our charge were identified as follows:
. Information needs assessment
. Resource identification
. Data acquisition
. Criteria establishment
. Process determination
. Identification and evaluation of options for funding and governance
. Evaluation of current services
. Identification and evaluation of options for future services
PROGRESS
Responding to the charges relating to coordinating with Jackson County Library
Advisory Committee (JCLAC), Masanee Brown was assigned as liaison to JCLAC and
attend that group's monthly meetings.
We developed a list of community groups, elected or appointed officials and individuals,
stakeholders in library services throughout the county and to some extent the state of
Oregon. Below is a list of those consulted along with the most salient aspects of our
conversation with each ofthem.
While monthly meetings were planned, the CLAC accelerated its work and met every
two weeks and also held four informal but public study sessions.
We soon realized also that the current two-year levy does not provide ample time to
effectively coordinate with groups outside of Ashland. Therefore we decided to focus
first on what to recommend for the November 2008 General Election.
ST AKEHOLDERS AND CONSULT ANTS INTERVIEWED TO DATE
. John Sexton, former librarian at Ashland Branch: Resources for considering
future library services, the notion of a federation of libraries as opposed to a district or
county system
· Peter Buckley, State Representative: no state funding for libraries is likely; state
laws prohibit many revenue streams
. Ruth Metz, Library Consultant and Tom Sponsler, Attorney (consulting funded
by the Oregon State Library): timeline and requirements for establishing library
districts; suggested criteria for evaluating funding options and library services
. C.W. Smith, Jackson County Commissioner: would support formation of one or
more library districts, upon request by elected officials
. Betty Wheeler, City Manager, Talent: Library District to include Talent could be a
hard sell, in part because of compression.
. Kathleen Davis, Chair, JCLAC and former chair of Save Our Libraries
Campaign (SOLS): JCLAC is exploring a literacy campaign with the potential
advocacy of Oregon Solutions to raise awareness of library benefits; JCLAC may
pursue a county-wide library district in 2010.
. Pat Ashley, former JCLAC member, former JCLF board member, Eagle Point
library advocate: urges Ashland participation in a county-wide plan for library
services and suggests that Ashlarid's vote is necessary to pass a county-wide measure.
RECOMMENDATION
The CLAC recommends that Council prepare to place on the November 2008 ballot a
measure to extend the local library option levy for four years (through FY12113).
Over the next three months, we plan three or more public forums to gain insight and
consensus on library services and needed funding level. We expect to be able to
recommend a dollar amount by early summer.
This recommendation takes the following considerations into account:
. No long-term solution in cooperation with other jurisdictions can be completed by the
expiration of the current levy.
. An extension of at least one additional year of funding (through FY0911 0) is needed
to put Ashland in synch with the current County budget that supplies partial funding
of library operations.
. Current County funding for library operations expires at the end of FY0911 0
. Tax measures presented in November of even-numbered years do not require a
double majority, easing the campaign burden.
. No known Ashland-area tax measures will be competing for votes in November 2008.
. A four-year, rather than a two-year extension avoids the need to request still another
extension in 2010, when several competing tax measures are expected to be on the
ballot.
NEXT STEPS
. Conduct Public Forums and devise other avenues for obtaining citizen input on topics
including service, funding and governance
. Continue work on establishing plan for evaluating library services
. Refine plan for exploring various long-term governance and funding options
. Maintain and enhance coordination with other library groups, especially JCLAC
CONCLUSION
We feel our Committee is working well as a team. We have enjoyed the contributions
and support of many. We appreciate the opportunity to serve and to provide this interim
report on our progress to date. We stand ready to answer any questions from Council
regarding our work, our recommendation or planned next steps, and would welcome any
guidance or re-direction that Council may wish to offer.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission
December 20th, 2007 Regular Minutes
Roll Call: Vice Chair Julia Sommer, Tom Burnham, Steve Ryan and Mick Church
Chair David Young (absent), Matthew Seiler (absent), Jim Olney (absent)
Council Liaison: David Chapman
Staff: Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Steve McLennan, Police Officer
RVTD liaisons: Steve Maluk, TDM Planner (absent)
High school liaison: Vacant SOU liaison: Vacant
Call to Order
V ice Chair Sommer called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.m.
Approval of Minutes - November 15th, 2007
It was noted that the word "reigns" should be changed to "reins" in the last sentence on page 3. It was also
suggested that the minutes clarify Eric Dittmer's identity in the North Main discussion on Page 3.
Church/Chapman m/s to approve the October minutes as amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Public Forum
None.
Public Hearing - Planning Action #2007-o1941/Bellview School Bicycle Parking Variance
Severson spoke briefly about procedural elements for dealing with land-use actions which are handled through a
quasi-judicial hearing process at the Planning Commission. He explained rules regarding ex parte contact and
conflict of interest and noted that Chair David Young was not in attendance because as an employee of the Ashland
School District he was excluded from participating in the hearing by state and city regulations. Severson also
advised Councilor Chapman that because he may have to hear this item in the future if it were to be appealed to
Council, he may wish to remove himself to avoid future challenges of bias. Chapman exited the meeting.
Public hearing opened at 5 :23
Severson explained the request, and noted that this item was before the Commission because the application
involves a request for a Variance to the required number of bicycle parking spaces and Section 2.22.040 of the
Municipal Code empowers this Commission "To advise the Planning Commission in the administration of the Site
Review process with respect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and parking".
David Wilkerson of Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architects, the applicants, explained the request and noted that the
reasons for the Variance request were two-fold: the population of the school includes many younger students for
whom bicycling is not necessarily a viable alternative, and the geographic area served by the school includes areas
so far out that they do not lend themselves to bicycling, including parts of Dead Indian Memorial Road, the
Greensprings and the Colestine Valley. He suggested that these areas were too remote for school children to safely
bike to school. He added that the present state of some of the streets was not the best for bicycling as well, but
recognized that these facilities would be improved over time and were not a basis in the request.
Juli Dichiro, Superintendent of Schools, pointed out that the district has recently retrofitted all buses with special
mufflers and uses a green diesel fuel that has earned them recognition from the Department of Environmental
Quality for reducing emissions. She stated that the schools strongly encourage buses over cars as the greenest
vehicle option for getting to school. She reiterated Wilkerson's point about the geographic area served and noted
that for some students walking is not an option either. She emphasized that the school was happy with the recent
improvements of Tolman Creek Road but noted that there were at most only 5-10 bikes in the bike racks.
2007-1220 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 1 of5
Burnham questioned why the Variance was being requested, and Wilkerson responded that the parking requirement
also called for all spaces to be covered. He explained that this would involve additional space and sitework
requirements, and that there would be additional costs for racks and their covering if the standard number of spaces
were installed. He noted that the cover required for 60 bicycle spaces would be the equivalent of a three-car
garage, or roughly 20 by 60 feet and would create an attractive nuisance if only a few bikes were using the space.
He stated that this structure would be cost prohibitive, and would drive reductions elsewhere in the project. He
emphasized that the school could not see spending money on something that had little likelihood of being used. He
suggested that fourth and fifth graders were the primary riders. Wilkerson clarified for Church that the cost of the
bicycle parking installation to fully address the required 68 covered spaces was likely in the $30,000 to $50,0000
range when the location and sitework were considered in light of prevailing wage requirements.
Egon Dubois, Bicycle Safety Instructor for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, questioned whether the planning
began with the assumption of providing only 33 spaces or first explored the possibility of installing the required 68
spaces. He expressed concerns that bikes are required to navigate the mix of queuing parent vehicles. He stated that
there is a history of discouraging bicycling at the school, and suggested that the new school should be built for the
future rather than the past. He agreed that buses may be the safest and most friendly vehicle choice for students, but
suggested that they are far from the healthiest for the students. He stated that it would be wise to prepare for more
bicyclists, and noted that the Bicycle Transportation Alliance would be teaching bicycle safety education classes in
the school in the spring. He also asked the School to consider providing some sk~teboard racks, which have been
installed at other schools and which are made locally.
Wilkerson clarified that the applicants were trying to limit the number of access points to the school, and would be
splitting the entrances so there was one entry for bus riders, one for those dropped off by parents, and one for
bicycles. He noted that the use of overhangs around the building had been considered as a way to provide covered
parking, but indicated that most of the planned covered areas are to be dedicated to student circulation. DiChiro
noted that they were trying to control the entries for security reasons, and added that the need to limit the traffic on
the Siskiyou frontage to buses only was a requirement ofODOT.
Tatiana Bredekin, parent of a Bellview student, noted that her child biked to school at Bellview for all six years.
She noted that there are at least 20 bikes on the racks at Bellview when the weather is good, and that she has seen
International Walk and Bike to School Day event draw 50 students including 30-40 on bikes in the past. She added
that the type and placement of the current racks is far from encouraging. Bredekin suggested that the City and the
School District are currently paying to conduct a "Be a Fit Kid" program at Bellview where a teacher must oversee
students going around the track, and she recommended bicycling to school as a more practical, free approach to
create lifelong healthy habits and address the childhood obesity epidemic. She stated that in her experience, younger
children are more likely to ride and tend to stop as they get older. She concluded with a reminder that Ashland is a
Bicycle Friendly Community and that we need to encourage bicycling, especially for children.
Kat Smith, Bicycle Safety Instructor for the Rogue Valley Transportation District and Bicycle Transportation
Alliance, noted that she will be teaching a two-week bicycle safety education program at Bellview in the spring.
She clarified that the school had been unwilling to host these programs in the past, but that the program was being
allowed now with the recent improvements on Tolman Creek Road. She stated that bicycle advocacy relies heavily
on the "If you build it, they will come" approach, and suggested that this applied to the bike parking here as well.
Lisa Bach, parent of Bell view and Middle School students, noted that her children have ridden to school at Bellview
since the first grade and that her middle school age son is comfortable riding on Siskiyou with the recent
improvements. She emphasized that first grade is not too young for children to ride bicycles to school. She
suggested that there will be new developments in the area to increase the number of students for whom cycling is a
viable choice, and that there will be street improvements associated with these developments to improve the cycling
environment.
Peter Bach, Ashland Middle School Student who attended Bellview last year, noted that he rode his bike to Bellview
beginning with his first day in first grade. He added that with the recent improvements to Siskiyou Boulevard he
finds it to be as safe as the bike path, and faster. He stated that from a student's perspective, the type and placement
of the racks of Bellview were not encouraging for cyclists, and he noted that people also lock their bikes to the
2007- J 220 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 2 of5
fences and teachers keep their bikes in the halls outside their classrooms. He suggested that the Middle School also
needs additional bicycle parking.
Wilkerson clarified for Commissioners that the school has approximately 300 students now, and that while
emollments are actually forecast to decline the proposed school was designed to accommodate 340 students.
Severson noted that from a staff perspective, the requirement for only one bicycle parking space per five students is
specifically intended to address the demographic and geographic concerns raised by the applicants. He explained
that based on information provided by the applicants, of the 340 students who will be attending the school, bicycling
will likely be a viable alternative for 163 (or 48 percent of the student body) while bicycle parking is required for
only 20 percent of the student boqy, with 68 spaces. Additional bicycle parking demand from school staff is also
absorbed within the "one space per five students" requirement. Overall, Staff does not believe that the application
demonstrates either that there are site-specific circumstances necessitating a Variance or that providing less than the
required number of spaces will be beneficial or further the intention of the Comprehensive Plan, which recognizes a
lack of bicycle parking as a barrier to encouraging bicycling and which includes as a goal that the City "require
secure, sheltered bicycle parking in... institutions" like schools.
Dichiro clarified for Commissioners that the present bus ridership was at 65 students; she stated that she didn't have
a breakdown of how many of these riders were from the outlying geographic areas. She noted that school staff
consisted of 13 teachers and two specialists. Wilkerson questioned the basis of the 1 space per 5 students parking
requirement, and noted that the school was providing a staff shower which was intended to encourage cycling as
well as earning credits for LEED certification. Wilkerson concluded that the proposal was intended to encourage
cycling by providing 33 bicycle parking spaces while responding to the realities of the population and geographic
area served by Bellview School. He urged commissioners to focus on the same criteria that would be considered by
the Planning Commission as they framed their recommendation. He reiterated that the unique or unusual
circumstance had to do with the populations and geographic area served and the location of the school relative to
higher order streets, and suggested that there would be no negative impact to neighboring properties.
Public hearing closed at 6: 15 p.rn.
Burnham noted that the Commission is charged with encouraging cycling and seeing that adequate facilities to do so
are provided. He emphasized that this included providing bicycle racks and safer routes. He noted that
demographics can change, and added that he was a substitute bus driver for Bellview School at one time and felt that
it was inefficient to send a full sized school bus all the way up the Greensprings for a very few students residing
there. He indicated that he would like more detail on the demographic distribution of students, but added that he
lives relatively close to the school and often sees bicycling and skateboarding students.
Church noted that the school is intended to serve the needs of the school district for at least 50-60 years, and added
that while it is unknown if the school population will increase he feels it is very likely that there will be an increase
in walkers and bicyclists as gas prices increase. He suggested that the design proposed is largely automobile-
oriented, and noted that he has seen the impact that the automobile-focused private school on Clay Street has had on
the surrounding neighborhood. He concluded that in terms of policy, he did not believe it was wise to allow a
Variance that would have the possible effect of discouraging bicycling.
Ryan stated that he did not believe the applicants had demonstrated a unique or unusual circumstance relating to the
site, and added that if the parking standard was faulty it should be addressed legislatively separately from individual
planning applications. He suggested that granting the Variance could have the effect of encouraging students not to
bicycle, and he felt that downward pressure of this nature was counter to the second Variance criteria. He indicated
that he was concerned with the zero sum mentality behind the cost justification for not providing the required
bicycle parking, and concluded that the request did not meet the approval criteria for a Variance in his view.
Sommer indicated that she felt that 33 spaces was too little bicycle parking for the school. She emphasized the need
to address parents, staff and visitors in addition to students. She added that as gas prices mcrease, there will be an
increased need for localization and this may alter the geographic trends being encountered now by the school.
2007-1220 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 3 of5
Church suggested that the Commission focus on the Variance being requested rather than attempting to determine
some middle ground number of appropriate bicycle parking spaces.
Ryan/Church m/s to recommend that the Planning Commission deny the requested Variance to the required
number of bicycle parking spaces. Discussion: Sommer emphasized that the Planning Commission should be
aware that required bicycle parking is intended to serve not only the students, but also teachers, teaching
assistants, library staff, parents and other visitors. Church noted that the overall site planning for this
project is very automobile-oriented, and expressed concern that bicycling and walking to school can be
discouraged if these uses are marginalized through the site design. He expressed particular concern that
students arriving by bicycle would have to navigate through what the applicants themselves indicated would
be a significant amount of queuing parent traffic in the north parking lot in order to reach the proposed
bicycle parking location, and suggested that better site planning was necessary to provide safe access to the
required bicycle parking for students arriving by bicycle. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Chapman returned.
Subcommittee & Liaison Reports
Severson noted that there was an upcoming League of American Bicyclists training coming in February to Eugene.
He also noted that there was an upcoming transportation conference in Corvallis, and stated that he had received a
membership application and complementary newsletter from the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals that the Commission could consider funding with Commission funds. Chapman noted that there is
also a fall conference put on by the Alliance for Community Traffic Safety that could be considered, and Dubois
indicated that he would e-mail information on a Car Free Cities conference in Portland. Severson stated that he
would include this information in next month's packet for Commissioner review. Chapman pointed out bicycling-
related classes being offered through the Parks Department.
Severson noted that there would be a public workshop dealing with the Croman Mill site master planning process on
Wednesday, January 29th from 7:00 to 9:00 p.rn. at the Bellview Grange. Church and Burnham indicated they might
attend, and Sommer suggested that a formal representative be designated at the next meeting.
Central Ashland Bikepath Speed Limits
Burnham/Ryan m/s to recommend that there be a posted speed limit of 12 miles per hour on the Central
Ashland Bikepath (CAB). Discussion: MacLennan noted that typical radar can only detect speeds in the 15-
17 m.p.h. range, but he added that a laser can read speeds as low as 4 m.p.h. Burnham explained that he
feels the path is often crowded and people have a tendency to ride too fast. MacLennan noted that traffic
enforcement resources are limited, and he did not believe there would be staffing available for enforcement.
Members questioned whether volunteer patrols would be helpful, but it was noted that they were unable to
issue citations. Sommer pointed out that enforcement would be difficult, that bicycles typically don't have
speedometers, and that there would be a cost for installing sign age. She suggested directing energies
elsewhere. MacLennan stated that he would prefer regulations to address reckless behavior by those on the
CAB. Ryan concurred, and Dubois suggested that while regulating speeds was a good idea requiring courtesy
might be more effective. He also asked that bike path stop signs be replaced with full sized signs. . Voice
vote: Burnham YES; Sommer, Church and Ryan, NO. Motion failed 3-1.
Church questioned the possibility of installing stop signs for the cars at all CAB crossings. MacLennan indicated
that this would be difficult due to visibility concerns in some areas and might lead to accidents. He emphasized that
even if this were required, it would not relieve the bicyclists from their legally required due regard for safety prior to
entering an intersection.
Election of Officers - Secretary
Members present asked that this item be tabled until next month, and asked that Severson verify when elections
were last held to see if positions other than secretary be considered for election.
Follow-Up Items from Last Month
Severson noted that he believed Public Works staff was in on-going discussions with ODOT regarding the North
Main Street fog-line request, and stated that he would follow-up and report back next month.
2007-1220 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 4 of 5
Severson noted that he had discussed the Oak Street bike lane request with Jim Olson, and had been told that even
with the 40 foot curb to curb pavement width there was not room to accommodate more than a 3-foot bike lane. He
further explained that the Ashland standard called for a 6-foot bike lane and that the state requirements were that it
be no less than 4-feet, and this width was likely to increase rather than decrease. After discussion, members
suggested that the remaining alternative for Oak Street seemed to be the removal of on-street parking on one side to
accommodate bike lanes, and Sommer suggested that members walk and bike this section of Oak over the next
month and come to next month's meeting ready to discuss this possibility.
Severson noted that he and Olson and Paula Brown would be working to develop recommendations for the creation
of the Transportation Commission during the first quarter of 2008, and he would report back as these
recommendations developed.
Severson noted that he had spoken to Colin Swales about the Glenview Street shared facility request, and that
Colin's intent was to keep this possibility on the radar screen and to begin consider signage, improvements and
standards that would make such a facility functional.
New Business
Sommer noted that she would like to suggest that the ODOT grant discussed in the packet be used to fund extension
of the CAB from the Railroad Park to Oak Street or on to the Dog Park. Members also mentioned extension of the
CAB from Laurel Street out to Jackson Road, the bicycle training program, a bicycle connection to the Oak Knoll
area, and extension of the CAB from Tolman to Crowson Road. Severson suggested that he would pass these along
to Jim Olson and report back month; he clarified that the Public Works Department was still hopeful that this grant
might enable installation of sidewalks on Laurel Street to Helman School, but that they were looking for some
alternatives in the event that complications with the Railroad right-of-way made the Laurel Street sidewalks
impractical.
Aaenda Items for Next Month
Designation of Attendee for Croman Workshop; Election of Officers, Oak Street; Grant Opportunities; Car Free
Day/Car Free Living; Transportation System Plan Draft Project List; Wheeldon Memorial Update; North Main Fog-
Line Update; Transportation Commission?
Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Upcomina Meetinas:
Regular Meeting - January 1 i", 2007 at 5:15 p.rn.
1007- J 110 Bike & Ped minutes
Page 5 015
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2007
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Michael Dawkins
Mike Morris
Olena Black
John Fields
Pam Marsh
Dave Dotterrer
Melanie Mindlin
Tom Dimitre
Absent Members: None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi-judicial
items
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Sue Yates, Executive Secretary
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Molnar said at their last meeting, the Council approved the Verde Village application and they are moving toward adoption of
the Development Agreement by ordinance.
Molnar also mentioned they are in the process of finalizing the date for the first kick-off public workshop for Croman Mill
master planning effort. This will be scheduled for the last week in January.
Stromberg welcomed Michelle Mihalovich, our newest reporter from the Ashland Daily Tidings.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Black/Dimitre m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of minutes:
September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
November 13,2007 Hearings Board Minutes (Stromberg, Morris, Mindlin)
November 13, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes
November 27,2007 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes
Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to approve the consent agenda. Voice Vote: Approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, gave an update on the Park Street Apartment case. He reminded the Planning Commission that
they approved the apartment condominium conversion project that was appealed to Council and then taken to Circuit Court.
The judge ruled malfeasance and nonfeasance, and decided the allegations in the petition for Writ of Mandamus were correct
and signed a judgment in favor of the applicant, The Park Street Apartments. He asserted the City did not make a decision
within the required 120 days due primarily to the action of the Planning Commission. Bullock suggested in the future that: 1)
Findings should be adopted the same night as approved, 2) ask for an extension, 3) if not extended, expedite.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: #2007-01398
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 167,185, & 203 N. Mountain Ave.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Havurah Friends Investment Group, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a 12-lot, 15-unit subdivision for the properties located at 167, 185 and
203 North Mountain Avenue. Also included are requests for: the modification of a previously approved Site Review and
Conditional Use Permit (#2001-0039) for the Havurah Jewish Synagogue; Site Review approval to construct a two-story, six-unit
residential building; a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of one nine-inch diameter pine tree from Tax Lot #1701; a boundary
line adjustment with Tax Lots 1500, 1600, 1701, 1800 and 1700; and an Exception to Street Standards to allow a private drive
serving six units when they typically can serve no more than three units. (This request supersedes the previous Outline Plan
approval for a 14-lot, 13-unit subdivision granted under Planning Action #2006-01091.)
Marsh excused herself and left the room during this item because her husband has done work with Larry Medinger.
Recap - Last month Staff made a recommendation for approval. However, they asked that the Commission continue the action
to this month to allow Staff to re-notice the action and include criteria for Exception to Street Standards. The application was
noticed as a continuation, but there is new information from the applicant. If the public wishes to speak again, they may do so.
Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit
Dawkins has been by the site several times. Stromberg received an e-mail that he forwarded to Staff, but had no ex parte
contacts. Dotterrer said there has been no change since the last meeting. Morris, Fields, Mindlin, Black and Dimitre did not
have a site visit or ex parte contact. There were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Severson said since the last meeting there are two elements to discuss: I) Exception to Street Standards (he read the criteria),
and 2) the separation of Lot 1 as part of the Boundary Line Adjustmen
PUBLIC HEARING
MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204, explained this is a complex proposal. The applicants are unique; they are not
looking a project as a financial investment, but a community investment. The site is unique because of the following: 1) The
wetlands, 2) angle of the railroad tracks creating a number of odd shaped angles to the properties, 3) there are multiple
properties with different ownerships, 4) there is a historic home on the property, 5) there is a lack of storm water infrastructure
for the entire neighborhood, 6) the uniqueness of having the synagogue a participant in a residential application (a hybrid
mixed use), 7) having a major street that is an artery that will connect North Mountain Avenue to Oak Street, and 8) the
application incorporates a number of off-site improvements. Knox believes this is a better plan than the previous proposal.
The owners of Lot 1 will be a part of the homeowner's association.
LAURA ROBIN, 1090 Elkader, former President of the Havurah membership, is currently President of Havurah Friends
Investment Group (HFIG). She said at the last meeting those that spoke gave a great overall picture of why they are doing
what they are doing. None of the people in the HFIG would have gotten together to do this or any development had it not been
for the intention of the whole project; that is, there is a piece of land surrounding the Havurah on three sides and they had one
opportunity to grab it and do something with it. What they really wanted to do was to create community. They are very, very
excited about this plan.
LARRY MEDINGER, Fork Street, said they have a buyer for 203 North Mountain. They are a young family and they plan to do a
lot of restoration to the house.
AKIVA DEJACK, 534 Washington Street, has succeeded Laura Robin as President of the Havurah. He presided over the meeting
where they unanimously gave their approval for this project. There was not one vote against approving. He's proud to witness
the real effort that the HFIG group has done to do things the right way to keep the ideas of good urbanism in mind.
LAUREL MILLER, 550 Cove Road, stated she is on Board of the Havurah and she is an investor in HFIG. She supports
everything that was said at the last meeting. The support of the people she has talked with in Havurah and the greater Ashland
community is profound - members of the community are coming together to do the "right" thing. She sees in the design a way
to preserve the green space and respect the wetland and a way to incorporate the greater community. People are suggesting this
could be a kind of "model" project.
FRAN ORROCK, 1030 Ivy, was at meeting at Havurah last week (about 25 people in attendance). There were about eight there
people representing five reservations on the units. It would have represented a savings about ten trips if they lived there.
LAMA YESHE PARKE, 147 Granite Street, representing the Buddhist community in Ashland, spoke in favor of the project. She
said they have just broken ground on a new meditation center at the north end of Clear Creek Drive. They like to think of the
Havurah as their sister center on the south end of the future Clear Creek Drive. She added that many times they have been able
to utilize the sanctuary at the Havurah. The improvement of the parking and playground areas will be very beneficial. It will
benefit many organizations in the community.
ART BULLOCK, 791 GLENDOWER, thanked the applicants for the major re-do of this application since last October. The
unresolved issue relates to the drainage. The wetland area on the west side is fed essentially by a creek that goes under the
railroad, and the ability of that wetland to absorb a given amount of water is not clear. A major water main broke in the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
railroad district last spring and the flooding through there was significant. It was more than the gutter area under the railroad
tracks could handle and overflowed onto the back side (west side) of the property. There is a lack of information as to what
that area can hold and how much has been going through in the past during these critical events. Can an accurate finding be
made for adequate storm drainage and urban flood protection? (Relevant criteria: 18.88.030.4.a., b. and c.)
KEN WILSON, 190 Logan Drive, stated that he and his wife are members ofHFIG and members of the Havurah synagogue. He
sent a letter to the Commission summarizing their thoughts. They are involved with this project because it has become evident
this will make a nice addition to the community.
DEBORAH ZASLOW, 692 Elkader Street, said she is the wife of Rabbi David Zaslow and speaking on his behalf. She reiterated
that a lot of things could have been done with the land surrounding the Havurah. They are glad they have gotten together for
this intergenerational interaction for housing for seniors, ease of those housed to access the Havurah, and the ability to set up
programs that really foster interaction.
STAN SHULSTER, 165 Pilot View Drive, Medford, is a member ofHFIG. He hoped the Commission would remember his
testimony from last month. This is a win-win situation for the City and all involved.
Rebuttal
Knox agreed there are capacity issues on this property. They have been working with Public Works and the problem will be
fixed. Currently, the water sheet flows across the property, at times filling houses with water. This project will improve the
situation because they are adding wetlands that have storm capacity abilities. Public Works will do some channeling
improvements. All new storm water will be collected, fed through a bioswale and will go down a new pipe to North Mountain
over Village Drive.
Black expressed concern about the assessment and accuracy of the flows. What if the flows are heavier and higher? Medinger
said civil engineers will do the design work that will have to be approved by the City.
Stromberg closed the public hearing and the record.
Questions for Staff
Dimitre noted there would be approximately 60 vehicle trips per day to North Mountain and he wondered if anyone has
considered the left turns onto Mountain. Severson said it has not been discussed by the Commission or Public Works.
Severson said the applicants will have a more detailed engineering plan at Final Plan.
With regard to Bullock's references, Molnar said the approval standard (b) requires that the application provide adequate City
facilities. Based on the standard not to operate beyond capacity, he believes there is ample evidence in the record from the
engineering design and just how the aspects of the site work now to conclude or make a finding the approval standard has been
met. Standard (c) - existing natural features have been identified and incorporated - the applicants have a wetland delineation
that has already been approved by the State. They are increasing the size of the wetland in the common area. There seems to
be sufficient information to make a finding.
Black expressed concern that if they don't know what the flow is going to be and there is sunken parking, she hopes they have
the flood issues figured out. .
COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION
Dotterrer/Morris mls to approve PA2007.01398 including the Conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report ofthis meeting.
Mindlin expressed a particular appreciation for this application. Her first Planning Commission meeting was the first
application on this property. Her concerns about solar and over-paving have been addressed.
BlacklDotterrer mls to call for the question. Voice Vote: Approved.
Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously with Morris, Black, Fields, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Dawkins, Dimitre and Stromberg voting
"yes."
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Adoption of Findings: PA2007-01398, Havurah, 167, 185 and 203 North Mountain Avenue.
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
3
Black/Dotterrer m/s to approve the findings. Roll Call: Unanimously approved.
Marsh rejoined the meeting.
ARTERIAL SETBACKS . CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 25. 2007
Molnar said this is the third opportunity for the Planning Commission to discuss this item. Study Sessions were held in July
and September. Right before the September Study Session, an outreach workshop was held that was funded by the State
through the Transportation Growth Management Agency to talk about designing great arterial streets.
Harris explained why the setback issue is being considered. It was on the Commission's short-term code amendments in the
Zucker Report and an item mentioned in the Siegel Report that needed to be looked at. It was probably on both lists because
the arterial front yard setback has presented difficulties in terms of inconsistencies with other parts of the ordinance, the
Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Design Standards. There has been disagreement among the community
on the intent and purpose of the regulation, and where it should be applied. It has come up in a couple of planning actions
where it was very controversial (Northlight and North Main & Glenn Streets). After the September 25th Study Session, the
Planning Commission directed Staff to bring back one of two illustrations on Lithia Way that would show: 1) what the street
would look like if developed under Staffs recommended street frontage improvement approach, and 2) if Lithia Way was
developed under the existing regulations. She explained the four illustrations included in the packet (cross-section drawings of
the street). Harris said our current standard is a bit wider than what is seen on Main Street.
Stromberg wondered what Harris means when she talks about tree wells and the rest as sidewalk. Harris said there is a tiny
footnote in the Street Standards that says in a commercial area you'll use hardscape parkrows and street tree wells. The idea is
you usually have on-street parking in those areas and if you have a parkrow, it tends to not work very well because passengers
are exiting a car onto a grassy area. The parkrow gets replaced with concrete.
Stromberg is interested in measurements. Harris said they've tried to distinguish between a concrete parkrow or street tree line
from the actual sidewalk measurement. Stromberg found the language in the Street Standards to be confusing (page 22).
Harris continued with her presentation stating that Lithia Way is somewhat unusual when comparing to the other three
arterials, because on the upper side, the arterial does not apply, ending up with a larger setback on the north side (lower side).
Mindlin asked ifit is a problem to have different setbacks on different sides of the street. Harris said it's subjective. Some
people prefer inconsistencies. Molnar saidwe have inconsistencies because certain lots developed under standards we had on
the books at the time. The Commissioners should be looking at how they want the form to be. It shouldn't change because one
side of the street is zoned differently. Harris said in terms of a pedestrian corridor, the downtown areas tend to be the highest
traffic pedestrian corridor and there is a value in having a sidewalk that is wide enough on both sides of the street to
accommodate that.
Harris explained that the Commission recently struggled with the approval on the Kendrick building. When the end of the
block is book-ended by existing buildings that are close to the sidewalk and you are trying to transition the actual buildin~
faces and respect the historic nature of that district, it's difficult to figure out how to physically transition the buildings and
keep historically compatible architecture at the same time. It can be pretty tricky. In the case of the Kendrick building, they
asked for an Exception to the Street Standards. Molnar said the Jasmine building came fairly close to the implementation of
the Street Standards and at that time there really weren't any examples. Do you apply an Exception or do you just build to the
historic sidewalk? Over time, to be cautious, regardless of whether there is an existing sidewalk, an applicant has to meet the
new sidewalk standards or if they want to get a little closer to transition, they go through an Exception process.
Harris said she's heard comments from people about whether the slanting of the Kendrick building face is really compatible
with the historic nature of downtown. It's indicative of dealing with a block where both ends are set with buildings and street
improvements and trying to juggle with historic compatibility issues. The positive aspect of Lithia Way is that there are a lot
of opportunities for development. However, when you have a block that is half developed and the standards change, you do
the best you can.
Harris showed some photo manipulations giving a sense of what the two standards would look like.
Staff believes there are a variety of benefits of having a 15 foot setback as outlined in the Staff memo dated December 3,2007.
Briefly, those reasons are:
o More consistency with Comp Plan, Transportation System Plan and Street Standards.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
o Establish clear expectations for bike and pedestrian improvements required.
o Provide consistency with Site Design and Use Standards.
o Preserve and enhance elements that define the individual character of each arterial corridor.
o Preserve neighborhood character by maintaining continuity of established front yard areas.
o Support urban design principles and policies in the Comp Plan, Street Standards and Site Design and Use Standards.
o Provide clear direction to applicants, Staff, Planning Commission and City Council.
In terms of direction, Staff is looking for whether the Planning Commission wishes to proceed or move forward with
modifications of the arterial front yard setback. If so, should Staff to develop ordinance language to modify the arterial front
yard setback based on the street frontage improvement approach that Staff has presented?
PUBLIC COMMENT
COLIN SWALES, 461 Allison Street, referred to Figure 2. Most of the Railroad District was platted with a 70 foot right-of-way.
Lithia Way narrows to 60 feet. This can be seen because trees are having to be clipped off and can block off light to the upper
windows. On the north side of Lithia Way, we are pre-supposing the curbs have to stay where they are. Curbs are easily
moved. It would be best to move the whole of the travel lanes to the right and produce the 15 foot setback on the south side.
The trees could be moved too. If the curb moved over seven feet, it would take seven feet off the opposite side. When Mojo's
went in on the south side, there was originally a ten percent landscaping requirement in C-I-D. What's happened along that
side is that the developers have been allowed to rnax out their properties. So, before we give up the setback requirement, he
believes we have to look at what is required along there in terms of adequate pedestrian facilities for both sides. With a larger
setback, it would leave room for sidewalk cafes and other types ofhardscaping. We need to look at the whole ofthe corridor,
not just the right-of-way but how we can get the pedestrian amenities that we need. We shouldn't be measuring from the curb
when it is a flexible thing whereas the buildings are going to be there for a long time.
ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, stated that though the City hired consultants, Zucker and Siegel who did their analysis and
found inconsistencies in the ordinance, that the little stuff cannot be resolved without resolving the big stuff first. Policy
decisions have to be done at the Comp Plan level. The Commissioners are looking at a development driven patch to an already
dysfunctional patched code that immediately gets into questions about changing the C-I-D zone, building height, function and
transportation. It would be appropriate for the Commission to stop this process and fix the Comp Plan. A transportation plan
needs to be done first. Additionally, the Commission needs to take public safety into consideration. The problem with the
setback portion of the code is that the intention gets in the way of putting buildings all the way to the edge of the street. The
historic design code can still be satisfied without invading the 20 foot setback.
Black/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting beyond 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
MARK KNOX, 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 204, said he doesn't think it's all about what the developers get. It's about what we like
as a community. He loves Downtown Ashland; it is one of his favorite places. Why? The buildings themselves have certain
elements that create a wonderful fabric for the Downtown. One of the most important things in the Downtown is the
relationship between those buildings, the windows and the sidewalk. The sidewalk is relatively narrow and could be widened,
but at what point do you stop? If it gets too wide, there is a loss of connection between the pedestrians and the activities within
the buildings. As Swales said, if we can provide for just enough setback so the same opportunity that is provided along East
Main Street can then eventually applied to Lithia Way. He is concerned about the timing and the amount of money that would
eventually be spent to completely redo the section of Lithia Way. He noted in the photos that Harris showed of wider
sidewalks and landscaping in Downtown Medford, that the sidewalks were absent any pedestrians. He wants to see the
Commission talk about what is best for the community of Ashland. He's afraid the setback becoming more a political issue
than a true, sound planning issue. We have our professional staff trying to guide the Planning Commission and community in
the best way they possibly can by recommending no excessive dimensions because it will kill part of the street. In dealing with
sustainability issues, Knox would like to see us go with narrower streets and taller buildings.
COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS
Dawkins asked if it is conceivable you can fix the two ends between First and Pioneer Streets by bring the curb out further and
get the sidewalk so it has a more uniform line to it. Molnar said it's conceivable, but you have to look from the signal past
Puck's Donut lot. This would involve a multi-multi million dollar project. There is an opportunity on the Elks property, Wells
Fargo and Puck's Donut property to build to a wide sidewalk. You can't just shift the alignment on one block without it
affecting some severe transportation safety issues. Harris said it's an issue of property acquisitions.
Morris said it's not just sidewalks and curbs. There are storm drains, utilities, gas lines, water lines, etc. If you move the
street, all the infrastructure would all have to be moved too.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
Stromberg believes the south side of Lithia Way falls far short of being a great pedestrian environment. If the parking lane was
made into parking bays, and the street trees moved into those areas that form the bays, then the street expanse could be reduced
by one or two parking lanes. When the trees, the sidewalks and the buildings are balanced something magical can be achieved.
When we are talking about two-dimensional rules, we lose the ability for things to breathe, have unique features in different
places and that kind of chemistry when everything is thoughtfully inter-related in some way.
Before we make changes to the ordinance because the 20 foot front yard gives us a kind of flexibility, are we going to do a
Downtown Plan and visioning and get the community behind it? If that is going to happen, we should not be pre-empting this
by doing some relative simplistic change even though there some good reasons for it. In addition, the 20 foot front yard may
be a useful public interest in future court cases (Measure 49 and 37).
Dotterrer doesn't think it is realistic to realign the street. It seems to him we are not really talking about arterial setbacks but
what we decide to do in different sections of town. It seems it would be ridiculous to have the same arterial setback rules on
Lithia Way as we have on Ashland Street.
Marsh fmds it a joy to walk from her house to the Downtown. She wants to continue to have pedestrian-friendly access as part
of an alternative transportation plan. She sees this very much pedestrian driven, not developer driven. When Marsh walks
through the Downtown she finds she just starts walking at the places that feel good. She never walks in front of Soundpeace.
She always walks on the south side of Lithia Way because it feels safe. She feels safe on Main Street because there is a
defined area for pedestrians. It's that kind of environment that we need to cultivate throughout the Downtown area. She is
very comfortable with and heartily endorses Staffs recommendations for the Lithia Way section. It would be wonderful if we
had a Transportation Plan, Downtown Plan, and are-done Comp Plan in place, but the fact is that the development that is
pending is not going to wait until we have of these things in place. We need to make some changes now that we can be
reasonably certain will improve the environment that will create the kind of place we want this LithiaWay section to be.
Marsh commented that she works in Medford about a block from where the Staff photos were taken. Downtown Medford is
not a fun place to walk. One result is that there are no pedestrians. The big open areas do not feel safe; you always feel
exposed. It is just further evidence that the Staff s recommendation makes a lot of sense from an urban design and pedestrian
standpoint.
Harris reminded the Commissioners that at the first study session they went through each arterial. Each recommendation was
slightly different and tailored to each corridor to match the context and the character.
Dotterrer/Black m/s to continue the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved.
Dimitre is not sure he's in favor of giving back 12 feet for nothing when we can bargain something out of the developers. He
also has a problem with the bare minimum setback where there are no bus turnouts or any planning options in, the future
because the street will be too narrow to do anything different. The curb can move; it's not set in stone. He had hoped there
would be more ofa balanced presentation tonight. He doesn't feel we have had both sides of the issue and he feels the
Commission has something that is being pushed on them. He does not feel he has adequate information or different options.
Fields said the Downtown is for shopping, community, socializing, high density and people being on the street. Cities have
been planned all over the world. The accidental ones have been more successful than those that have been planned. The one
fact in the New Urbanism that keep coming back is there is a relationship to the street to the window. There is a relationship to
the volume of the buildings, the enclosure and how someone feels. We can't reconfigure curbs and gutters. He doesn't mind
the eight or nine foot sidewalk. As we see higher densities and taller buildings we'll begin to see that we need more width.
This is about creating good urban bones so that over time as these buildings come, businesses fail and are replaced with new
uses, that these buildings are capable oflearning. When they are 30 feet back from the curb they can't learn anything because
there is not enough room to build another building in front of it, on top of it or over it and we end up with dead space between
the street and the building. All we are trying to do is get around Lithia Way and the little infills that will create great
streetscape and create places where retail and other commercial uses will have a possibility as best we know how it happens.
He'd be in favor of modifying the ordinance just to fix a basic urban principle that's fairly simple. Otherwise, we need to
move on and get things done. Ifpeople haven't bought into these principles and it isn't obvious, someone needs to be doing
education.
Molnar said it has never been Staffs intention to push this on the Commission. They support long-range planning for the
Downtown. The proposed modification was an interim step to get us back to what we started on the books 15 years ago with
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
the Detailed Site Review and ten years ago with the Downtown Standards. Staff thought there was much more to lose by going
back to the antiquated 20 foot standard than what we had in practice for the last ten to 15 years. He added there have been a lot
of valid comments about looking comprehensively at areas of the downtown.
Morris said the 1992 Site Design Standards define the Site Design zone. Alcoves, setbacks and cafes are all things identified in
the standards. He would like to see Staff go ahead and come back with something on all the arterials either all at once or
whatever is most efficient for Staff.
Stromberg believes we should move ahead. The proposals by themselves are good ideas, but he also feels part of our town
running from the park to the railroad station is a real critical part and the couplet is a big problem. If we could solve those few
blocks, especially Lithia Way where it goes right through the middle and separates things and make that a really good
pedestrian environment, that it would be worth dollars and cents and social values, community unity, etc. What scares him is
that we go ahead with something tonight that turns into a very simple formula for how this area has to be treated, pre-empting
the ability to do something like make Lithia Way for through traffic two-way and East Main local traffic two-way before we
have some talented, experienced people look at it. He would like an option that goes along with it that we will also keep in
mind that this area needs to be planned in three dimensions, that we have a problem with the couplet, that we have an issue that
has to do with Measures 49 and 37 and it would be wonderful to get better pedestrian stuff happening on the south side of
Lithia Way.
Marsh said we have an opportunity tonight to take a small step toward making things better. That doesn't preclude us from
looking at much more detail at all of this area at some future point or adjusting or amending. In the meantime, if we do
nothing, we know that big parts of this area will be decided for us.
Marsh/Morris m/s to have Staff come back with appropriate language that would implement Staff's recommendation on the Lithia
Way portion with the idea that we tackle the other four arterials as a group subsequently at a future date. Marsh/Morris amended
the motion to have Staff come back with implementing language per Staff recommendation regarding the section of Lithia Way.
Molnar said Staff will draft language allowing some flexibility and address issues concerning Measure 37 and 49.
Morris/Fields m/s to call for the question. Voice Vote: Morris, Fields, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Marsh, Stromberg and Mindlin voted
"yes" and Black and Dimitre voted "no."
Roll Call on the motion: Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris, Fields, Mindlin and Stromberg voted "yes." Dawkins, Black and Dimitre voted
"no."
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. ORDERS & CONCLUSIONS - PA2007.01756 HELMAN SCHOOL
DotterrerlMorris m/s to approve. Voice Vote: Unanimously approved.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
DECEMBER 11, 2007
7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARINGS BOARD
DECEMBER 11, 2007
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.rn. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main
Street.
Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Chair
Mike Morris
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, , absent due to quasi-judicial
items
Staff Present:
Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner
Angela Barry, Assistant Planner
TYPE I PLANNING ACTIONS
PLANNING ACTION: PA2007-01983
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 881 Clay St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ken Baker
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Modification of a previously approved building envelope for a property
located at 881 Clay Street.
This action stands approved.
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2007-01900
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 988 Starlite
OWNER/APPLICANT: Paul and Ashley McQuade
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval to convert the existing
finished basement space to a 764 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 988
Starlite Place.
This action stands approved.
PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01930
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1252 Old Willow Lane
OWNER/APPLICANT: Grimm/Ourant
DESCRIPTION: Request for a Modification of a previously approved building envelope for the property
located at 1252 Old Willow Lane. The original building envelope was approved as part of the Ashland
Willows Subdivision.
This action stands approved.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Susan Yates, Executive Secretary
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of a Public Contract for a 48-Month
COPIER RENTAL
February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Legal Department E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
Richard Appicello
appicelr((l),ashland.or. us
Ali Brooks
Consent Agenda
Question:
Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public
contract with Ikon Office Solutions for a 48-month copier rental?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public contract for a 48-month rental copier be awarded to Ikon Office
Solutions.
Background:
The State of Oregon has entered into Price Agreement #7566 with Ikon Office Solutions for the rental
of copiers (digital, multifunction, and color). As an active member of the Oregon Cooperative
Purchasing Program (ORCPP), the City of Ashland is authorized to "piggyback" on this contract.
And, authority to piggyback on this contract, including an exemption from competitive bidding, is
granted under AMC 2.50.070(1).
This public contract will exceed the twenty-four month contract period; therefore, approval from the
Local Contract Review Board is required to enter into this public contract.
Related City Policies:
AMC 2.50.015 Authority
Unless otherwise expressly authorized by these Rules or by ordinance or order of the Council, all
contracts must be approved by the Council before they can be executed. The Council gives its approval
through its Consent Agenda which authorizes the Public Contracting Officer, his or her designee or the
contracting Department to execute the contract. The Council may also execute contracts itself.
AMC 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority
A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer
may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following:
ii. The contract does not exceed a twenty-four month contract period;
AMC 2.50.070 Procedure for Competitive Bids
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Bidding pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the
Attorney General Model Rules, OAR Chapter 137 Divisions 46 - 49, except for the following:
Page I of2
2008 48-Month Copier Rental Legal 05 Feb 2008.doc
r.t. ,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
(1) Contracts for the purchase of materials where competitive bids for the same materials have
been obtained by other public agencies or the federal government whose processes for bid and
award are substantially equivalent to those set forth herein, and the contract is to be awarded to
the party to whom the original contract was awarded so long as the price of the materials is the
same or lower than that in the original contract.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendation or
decline to approve the contract recommendation.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract for the
48-month rental copier to Ikon Office Solutions in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth
in the State of Oregon Price Agreement #7566.
Attachments:
Proposal
Page 2 of2
020508 Copier Rental contract.CC.doc
r~'
Current Situation
II Documellt Efficieltcy
AtWatk.CIll
Major Account Executive Joe Morris
541-660-4460
josmorris@ikoncom
Proposed Solution
Maintenance includes all toner, labor, parts, and supplies
for $.013 per copy usage contract
- Documellt Efficiency
_ AtWadt..
Major Account Executive Joe Morris
541-660-4460
josmorris@ikoncom
Summarr.
- DocumeDt Efficieltcy
_AtWadtl!ll
Major Account Executive Joe Morris
541-660-4460
josmorris@ikoncom
Sample Purchase Order
Billing:
IKON Office Solutions
P.O. Box 9115
Macon, GA 31208-9115
Customers Bill to
Remit Payments to:
IKON Office Solutions
P.O. Box 650073
Dallas, TX 75265-0073
Customers Ship to
Customers contact name and phone #
Oregon State Price Agreement #7566
1 ea. Canon IR3030
1 ea. DADF N1
1 ea. Cabinet
1 ea. Finisher - S 1
1 ea. UFR print kit S 1
1 ea. Universal send kit G 1
1 ea. Super G3 fax
$79.20
$21.84
$ 4.43
$22.39
$20.02
$21.84
$ 9.00
Total $178.72 a month
Maintenance $.013 per copy
Term of Contract 48 months
"This purchase is placed against state of Oregon solicitation #1020001401 and price
agreement #7566. The contract terms and conditions and special contract terms and
conditions (T's & C's) contained in the price agreement apply to this purchase and take
precedence over all other conflicting T's and C's, expressed or implied."
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of a Contract for an Independent Engineering Inspection
of Hosler Dam Required by the FERC
February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Public Works E-Mail:.
Finance Secondary Contact:
Martha Benne Estimated Time:
Jim Olson (488-5347)
OlsonJ@Ashland.or.us
Pieter Smeenk (488-5347)
Consent Agenda
Question:
Does the Council approve the engineering services contract with Hatch Energy for $100,660 for
independent inspection services required at Hosler Dam to meet Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission dam safety regulations?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached contract with Hatch Energy to complete the
required independent structural inspection, analysis, field investigation, and reporting requirements
specified in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Part 12 Safety Inspection
Guidelines. This is an ongoing analysis of Hosler Dam which is required by FERC at five year
intervals.
Background:
On January 16, 2008, two firms responded to the City's request for proposals to complete the Hosler
Dam FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and associated structural analyses. Hatch Energy and Robin
Charlwood & Associates LLC submitted proposals that were reviewed and competitively scored
according to predetermined criteria. Hatch Energy scored highest and a notice of intent to award letter
was sent on January 18,2008. Public Works now seeks City Council approval to enter into the
attached contract for engineering services.
All services are scheduled to be completed and submitted to FERC in 2008. The scope of work
includes three primary tasks:
1. Engineering evaluation and report on the condition of Hosler Dam in accordance with Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Part 12 Safety Inspection Guidelines.
2. Review and analysis of the 2007 diving inspection reports for Hosler Dam and the 2008 draft
reservoir study that includes a bathometric survey ofReed~r Reservoir prepared by Brown and
Caldwell as related to dam safety.
3. Review of previous Base Shear analyses conducted by Acres International and completion of
recommended follow-up field investigations to verify previous conclusions and address any
remaining FERC base shear stability questions.
This FERC Part 12 Inspection project is currently budgeted at $100,000, and the Hosler Dam Stability
Analysis project is budgeted at $50,000. Both of these projects are included in the scope of work for
this contract. The only other cost anticipated for these projects at this time is for rock drilling, which is
estimated to cost less than $15,000. and will be paid for under a separate contract.
Page 1 of2
C:\DOCUME-I \shipletd\LOCALS~ 1 \Temp\Draft- 2008-02-05 - CC FERC Part 12 contract.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
Under current City of Ashland Rules of Procedure for Public Contracting; AMC 2.50.020 (A),
contracts in excess of $75,000 require Local Contract Review Board approval prior to award.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, may approve this engineering services
contract, direct staff to make changes to the contract, or reject the contract.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to approve or reject the attached Engineering Services Contract with Hatch Energy.
-Or-
Council may direct staff to modify the contract.
Attachments:
Proposed Engineering Services contract with Hatch Energy
Proposal Narrative and budget submitted by Hatch Energy
Photo of Hosler Dam
Page 2 of2
C:\DOCUME-I \shipletd\LOCALS~ 1 \Temp\Draft- 2008-02-05 - CC FERC Part 12 contract.doc
r~'
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
Consultant services contract made on the date specified below in Recital A between the City and Consultant as
follows:
Recitals:
A. The following information applies to this contract:
CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND Consultant: HATCH ENERGY
City Hall Address: 6 NICKERSON STREET, STE 101
20 E. Main St. SEATTLE WA 98109
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 488-6002 Telephone: 206/352-5730
FAX: (541) 488-5311 FAX: 206/352-5734
Date of this agreement: 1[ B: RFP date: DECEMBER 7, 2007
FEBRUARY 6, 2008 Proposal date: JANUARY 16, 2008
1[2.2. Contracting officer: JAMES H. OLSON, INTERIM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
1[2.4. Project: FERC PART 12 DAM ANALYSIS PROJECT 2007-21
1[6. Consultant's representative: Hans de Mell, PE
1[8.3. Maximum contract amount: $100,660.00
B. On the date noted above, City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for consulting services needed by City for the
project described above. Consultant submitted a proposal in response to the RFP on the date noted above.
C. After reviewing Consultant's proposal and proposals submitted by other offerors, City selected Consultant to provide
the services covered by the RFP.
City and Consultant agree as follows:
1. Relationship between City and Consultant:
Consultant accepts the relationship of trust and confidence established between Consultant and City by this contract.
Consultant covenants with the City to perform services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards
generally recognized as being employed by professionals of consultant's caliber in the locality of the project.
Consultant further covenants to cooperate with City, City's representatives, contractors, and other interested parties in
furthering the interests of City with respect to the project. In order to promote successful completion of the project in an
expeditious and economical manner, Consultant shall provide professional consulting services for City in all phases of
the project to which this contract applies, serve as City's professional consulting representative for the project, and give
professional consultation and advice during the term of this contract. Consultant acknowledges that City is relying on
consultant to provide professional consulting services in a manner that is consistent with the interests of City.
2. Definitions:
Generally words, terms and phrases used in this contract shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the construction
industry, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. As used in this contract:
2.1. "City" means the City of Ashland, Oregon.
2.2. "Contracting officer" means the person specified in Recital A above or that person's designee.
2.3. "Project" means the project described in Recital A.
2.4. "Work" or "Services" shall mean all labor, materials, plans, specifications, opinions, reports, and other
consulting services and products which Consultant is required to provide under this contract.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-21 Hatch Contract Documents 1 OB.doc
- ----------rrr--T
3. Term: The term of this contract shall commence on the date specified in Recital A above and end on completion of
all services required by this contract unless sooner terminated as provided in this contract.
4. Authority of Contractina Officer: The contracting officer shall have the authority to act on behalf of City in the
administration and interpretation of this contract. The contracting officer shall have complete authority to authorize
services, transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define City's policies and make other decisions with
respect to Consultant's services.
5. Consultina Services: Consultant shall provide services to City that are described in the RFP.
5.1. In connection with the services described in the RFP, Consultant shall:
5.1.1. Consult appropriate representatives of City to clarify and define City's requirements
relative to the services.
5.1.2. Review available data relative to the services.
5.1.3. Identify data which is not available and is needed to fulfill the services, and act as
City's representative in obtaining such data.
5.1.4. Prepare monthly progress reports to the contracting Officer on the status of services.
5.1.5. Cooperate with other consultants retained by City in the exchange of information
needed for completion of the services and the project.
5.2. Consultant shall commence performance of services within five days after receiving written authorization
from the contracting officer for work described in the RFP. Consultant shall perform the services as expeditiously as is
consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the project. Upon request of City, Consultant
shall submit for City's approval, a schedule for the performance of work elements described in the RFP. Each schedule
shall include allowance for periods of time required for City's review and approval of Consultant's services. Each
schedule, approved by City, shall become a part of this contract.
5.3. Consultant shall perform the services as an independent contractor in accordance with generally
accepted standards in Consultant's profession. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical
accuracy and the coordination of all services performed by Consultant. Consultant shall, without additional
compensation, correct or revise any error or deficiencies in the services that are caused by Consultant's negligence.
City's review, approval, acceptance of, or payment for, any of the services shall not be construed to waive any of City's
rights under this contract or of any cause of action arising out of Consultant's services. In the event of any breach of
this contract by Consultant or negligent performance of any of the services, City's cause of action against Consultant
shall not be deemed to accrue until City discovers such breach or negligence, or should have, with reasonable
diligence, discovered such breach or negligence. The preceding sentence shall not be construed, however, to allow
City to prosecute an action against Consultant beyond the maximum time limitation provided by Oregon law.
6. Assianment of Consultant's Personnel:
6.1. The services covered by this contract shall be rendered by, or under the supervision of the person
specified in Recital A above, who shall act as Consultant's representative in all communications and transactions with
City.
6.2. Consultant will endeavor to honor reasonable specific requests of City with regard to assignment of
Consultant's employees to perform services if the requests are consistent with sound business and professional
practices.
7. Responsibilities of City:
7.1. City will cooperate fully with Consultant to achieve the objectives of this contract.
7.2. City will provide information, documents, materials and services that are within the possession or control
of City and are required by Consultant for performance of the services.
7.3. City will arrange for access to, and make all provisions for Consultant to enter upon, public and private
property as required for Consultant to perform the services.
7.4. City will provide all permits necessary for completion of the project.
7.5. The contracting officer will act as liaison between City, Consultant, public agencies, and others involved in
the project.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-21 Hatch Contract Documents 1 Oe.doc
------m- 1
8. Payment:
8.1. City shall pay Consultant for services and reimburse Consultant for expenses incurred by Consultant in
performance of services in accordance with a payment schedule to be submitted by Consultant and accepted by City.
No reimbursement will be made for expenses that are not specifically itemized in this payment schedule without prior
approval by the contracting officer.
8.2. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City for Consultant's services within ten days after the end of
the month covered by the invoice.
8.3. Total payments under this contract or any amendments shall not exceed the sum specified in Recital A
above.
9. Compliance with Law:
9.1. This contract will be govemed by and construed in accordance with laws of the State of Oregon.
Consultant shall promptly observe and comply with all present and future laws, orders, regulations, rules and
ordinances of federal, state, City and city governments with respect to the services including, but not limited to,
provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515, 279C.520 and 279C.530.
9.2. Pursuant to ORS 279C.520(2) any person employed by Consultant who performs work under this contract
shall be paid at least time and a half pay for all overtime in excess of 40 hours in anyone week, except for persons
who are excluded or exempt from overtime pay under ORS 653.010 to 653.261 or under 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 to
209.
9.3. Consultant is a "subject employer" as defined in ORS 656.005 and shall comply with ORS 656.017. Prior
to commencing any work, Consultant shall certify to City that Consultant has workers' compensation coverage required
by ORS Chapter 656. If Consultant is a carrier insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certificate of
insurance. If Consultant is a self-insured employer, Consultant shall provide City with a certification from the Oregon
Department of Insurance and Finance as evidence of Consultant's status.
9.4. If the amount of this contract is $15,964.00 or more, Consultant is required to comply with chapter 3.12
of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work
under this contract and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this contract.
Consultant is also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees.
10. Ownership of Documents:
All documents prepared by Consultant pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. To the extent permitted by
law, City shall, within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant, its
consultants, agents and employees against all damages, claims, expenses and losses arising out of any reuse of
plans, specifications and other documents prepared by Consultant without prior written authorization of Consultant.
11. Records:
11.1. Consultant shall develop and maintain complete books of account and other records on the services
which are adequate for evaluating Consultant's performance. Consultant shall maintain records in such a manner as to
provide a clear distinction between the expenditures and revenues related to the project and the expenditures and
revenues related to Consultant's other business.
11.2. Consultant's books and records shall be made available for inspection by City at reasonable times, to
verify Consultant's compliance with this contract. City shall have the right to request an audit of Consultant's books and
records by a certified public accountant retained by City.
12. Indemnification:
Consultant shall defend, indemnify and sa~e City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all
claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other expenses resulting from injury to any person (including injury
resulting in death), or damage to property (including loss or destruction), of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident
to the negligent performance of this contract by Consultant (including but not limited to, the negligent acts or omissions
of Consultant's employees, agents, and others designated by Consultant to perform work or services attendant to this
contract). Consultant shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs, judgments, damages or other
expenses, directly and proximately caused by the negligence of City.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-21 Hatch Contract Documents 1 OB.doc
13. Insurance:
13.1. Consultant shall, at its own expense, at all times during the term of this contract, maintain in force:
13.1.1. A comprehensive general liability policy including coverage for contractual liability for
obligations assumed under this contract, blanket contractual liability, products and completed
operations and owner's and contractor's protective insurance;
13.1.2. A professional errors and omissions liability policy; and
13.1.3. A comprehensive automobile liability policy including owned and non-owned
automobiles.
13.2. The coverage under each liability insurance policy shall be equal to or greater than the limits for claims
made under the Oregon Tort Claims Act with minimum coverage of $500,000 per occurrence (combined single limit for
bodily injury and property damage claims) or $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $100,000 per occurrence
for property damage.
13.3. Liability coverage shall be provided on an "occurrence" basis. "Claims made" coverage will not be
acceptable, except for the coverage required by subsection 13.1.2.
13.4. Contractor shall submit certificates of insurance acceptable to the City with the signed contract prior to
the commencement of any work under this agreement. Each certificate shall state that coverage afforded under the
policy cannot be cancelled or reduced in coverage cannot be made until at least 30 days prior written notice has been
given to City. A certificate which states merely that the issuing company "will endeavor to mail" written notice is
unacceptable.
14. Default:
14.1. There shall be a default under this contract if either party fails to perform any act or obligation required
by this contract within ten days after the other party gives written notice specifying the nature of the breach with
reasonable particularity. If the breach specified in the notice is of such a nature that it cannot be completely cured
within the ten day period, no default shall occur if the party receiving the notice begins performance of the act or
obligation within the ten day period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the
remedy as soon as practicable.
14.2. Notwithstanding subsection 14.1, either party may declare a default by written notice to the other party,
without allowing an opportunity to cure, if the other party repeatedly breaches the terms of this contract.
14.3. If a default occurs, the party injured by the default may elect to terminate this contract and pursue any
equitable or legal rights and remedies available under Oregon law. All remedies shall be cumulative.
14.4. Any litigation arising out of this contract shall be conducted in Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
Jackson County.
15. Termination:
15.1 Mutual consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties.
15.2 City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at any time by City upon 30 days' notice in
writing and delivered by certified mail or in person.
15.3 For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery
of written notice to Contractor, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following
conditions:
a. If City funding from federal, state, county, or other sources is not obtained and continued at
levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services;
b. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed or interpreted in such a way
that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer
eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or
c. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Contractor to provide the
services required by this contract for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed.
15.4 For Default or Breach.
a. Either City or Contractor may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by
the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written
notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-21 Hatch Contract Documents 1 OB.doc
m.
breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving notice may
authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of
termination by the party giving notice.
b. Time is of the essence for Contractor's performance of each and every obligation and duty
under this contract. City by written notice to Contractor of default or breach, may at any time terminate
the whole or any part of this contract if Contractor fails to provide services called for by this contract within
the time specified herein or in any extension thereof.
c. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (15.4) are not exclusive and are in
addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract.
15.5 Oblioation/Liabilitv of Parties: Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to
subsections 15.1, 15.2, 15.3 and 15.4 above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities or either party
already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless
whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections 15.1, 15.2, 15.3 and 15.4 of this section, Contractor shall
immediately ceased all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in notice of
termination. Further, upon termination, Contractor shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-
progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay
Contractor for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the
Contract.
16. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to
finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Consultant understands and agrees that City's
payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is
contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable
administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient
appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to
City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Consultants, with no further liability to Consultants.
17. Notices:
Any notice required to be given under this contract or any notice required to be given by law shall be in writing and may
be given by personal delivery or by registered or certified mail, or by any other manner prescribed by law.
17.1. Notices to City shall be addressed to the contracting officer at the address provided for the City in Recital
A above.
17.2. Notices to Consultant shall be addressed to the Consultant's representative at the address provided for
the Consultant in Recital A above.
18. Assionment:
City and Consultant and the respective successors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives of each are
bound by this contract to the other party and to the partners, successors, administrators, assigns and legal
representatives of the other party. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract Consultant's rights or obligations under
this contract without prior written consent of City. Except as stated in this section, nothing in this contract shall be
construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than City and Consultant.
19. Governino Law; Jurisdiction: Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or
proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the
Contractor that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the
Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum,
then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby
consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City
of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise,
from any claim or from the jurisdiction.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-21 Hatch Contract Documents 1 OB.doc
20. MERGER CLAUSE: THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF
THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH
WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC
INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS,
OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT.
CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.
21. Modification:
No modification of this contract shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the parties.
CONSULTANT
By:
CITY OF ASHLAND
By:
Signature
Lee Tuneberg
Finance Director
Printed Name
Its:
FedlD#
REVIEWED AS TO FORM:
By:
Legal Department
REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT:
By:
Date:
Department Head
Coding:
Date:
(For City use only)
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-21 Hatch Contract Documents 1 08.doc
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
1. Introduction
This technical and cost proposal is submitted by Hatch Acres Corporation, doing business as Hatch Energy, in
association with Donald E. Bowes, P.E. as a Subconsultant. This proposal is in response to the City of
Ashland's Request for Proposals for Engineering and Related Services for performance of the FERC Part 12
Safety Inspection and report and associated Base Shear analyses for Hosler Dam (Reeder Gulch Project).
Proposed herein is a Part 12 Safety Inspection and geotechnical analysis team with strong leadership and
technical qualifications. The team is centered on A. Richard Griffith and Donald E. Bowes as Co-Independent
Consultants (ClCs) with support from Heidi Wahto, who has participated as a technical recorder of several
PFMA sessions, and has assisted in the preparation of PFMA reports, Part 12 reports and Supporting Technical
Information (STI) documents. Technical support to the Independent Consultant will come from Steve Rigbey,
who will also manage the geotechnical program.
Mr. Griffith and Mr. Bowes both have experience dating back to the early 1970's in the performance of FERC
Part 12 safety inspections and the current FERC Dam Safety Performance Monitoring Program (DSPMP). Both
are FERC-approved Independent Consultants. Mr. Bowes has participated in more than 90 FERC Part 12
Independent Consultant Inspections and reports. Mr. Griffith has participated in some 10 FERC Part 12
Independent Consultant Inspections and reports. Mr. Griffith and Mr. Bowes will both sign and seal the Part
12 Report. This Co-Independent Consultant arrangement has been used in the past on numerous occasions
and has been implemented on several projects under the FERC's Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Hydropower Projects, Chapter 74, Dam Safety Performance Monitoring Program (Rev 1, July 1, 2005), herein
referred to as .Chapter 14..
2. Understanding of Project Scope and Approach
It is our understanding that this project involves three distinct parts or tasks to be accomplished under a
relatively aggressive time schedule. A discussion of how we propose to approach and accomplish this work
is presented below.
1. FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Report
Scope: Engineering evaluation and report on the condition of Hosler Dam in accordance with Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) Part 12 Safety Inspection Guidelines.
Description: The Part 12 inspection and report will be performed to conform to the FERC's Chapter 14
guidelines. The Independent Consultant Part 12 Report will be prepared in conformance with the report
outline in Chapter 14, Appendix H.
This inspection will be the first following the 2003 Potential Failure Modes Analysis (PFMA), inspection,
workshop and report. The 2003 PFMA Report is intended to serve as a key document and foundation for
subsequent Independent Consultant and FERC dam safety inspections. The PFMA will be reviewed carefully
for any new information that has come to light in the interim between Part 12 inspections (2003 and present)
that would require a supplemental PFMA description be prepared
Mr. Bowes will draft the Part 12 Report and Mr. Griffith will review and comment on the draft. A final draft
of the Part 12 Report will be sent to the City for review and comment. The Co-Independent Consultants
Findings and Recommendations are summarized in Section 1 of the Part 12 Report and both Co-Independent
Consultants seal and sign the certification page in that section of the report.
II HATCH-
energy
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
The general approach for the Part 12 inspection and report will involve:
· Review of previous PFMA and Part 12 Reports, the STI document and other studies and references as
necessary to perform the Part 12 services.
· Preparation of a questionnaire for the City to respond to specific information necessary to perform
the Part 12 evaluations and prepare the Report.
· Site inspection to take place in February, preferably, but before March 30, 2008. Note that in order
to maintain the aggressive schedule in Section 5 it is advised the inspection take place in February,
weather permitting.
. Preparation of the draft Part 12 Report based upon the 2003 PFMA Report or subsequent updates and
the engineering evaluations.
· Issuance of the draft Part 12 Report to the City for review and comment, incorporation of the City's
comments as appropriate and issuance of the final Part 12 Report to the City.
2. Review and Analysis of Diving Inspection
Scope: Review and analysis of the 2007 diving inspection reports for Hosler Dam and the 2008 draft
reservoir study that includes a bathometric survey of Reeder Reservoir prepared by Brown and Caldwell as
related to dam safety.
Description: Upon completion of the extensive investigation of Reeder Reservoir and provision of the study
reports, review results regarding the condition of the underwater face of the dam and intake structures. The
preliminary bathometric plan, video recordings and the final study results shall be provided by the City of
Ashland for.review and analysis by Hatch Acres.
3. Review and Completion of Base Shear Analyses
Scope: Review of previous Base Shear analyses conducted by Acres International and completion of
recommended follow-up field investigations to verify previous conclusions and address any remaining FERC
base shear stability questions.
Description: Additional investigations, review and analysis will be performed in accordance with the
investigation recommendations made by Hatch Acres in the Hosler Dam Evaluation, Additional Field
Investigations - PHASE I (2006). It is assumed that the field drilling program will be contracted directly by
the City and carried out with equipment most readily available to the City. The minimum sized core shall be
NQ3 (3" hole diameter, 2" core size) as indiCated within the above referenced report
4. Optional Item: STI Assistance
Scope: Provide review and/or assistance with the completion, assembly and submittal of the Supporting
Technical Information document.
Description: It is our understanding that the Supporting Technical Information (STI) document as required by
the FERC is nearly complete. The Hatch Acres team has experience in reviewing and supporting STI
development including: identification of necessary reports and resource documents for inclusion; interviews
with operators to identify standard operating procedures and surveillance and monitoring activities; and
assembly, production and submission of STI document. Should the City of Ashland require assistance with
the completion of its' STI, the hourly rates as presented in Section 7 of this proposal would apply. However,
R HATCH-
energy
2
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
an estimate of the cost of this optional item is not included in Section 7. A full scope and budget will be
developed if requested.
3. Firm's Capabilities and Resources
3.1 Hatch Acres Corporation
Organization and Management
Hatch Acres (formerly Acres International) was established, as a corporation, in 1924 and is a leading North
American engineering, planning and management company. Hatch Acres is organized into profit oriented
operating divisions, which work in three primary business sectors: Power, Transportation and Urban
Infrastructure, and Mining and Heavy Industrial. These in turn draw on the resources of technical
departments, which encompass the basic engineering and project execution disciplines: civil, electrical,
geotechnical, hydraulic, mechanical, procurement and project services. Other specialties include economics,
planning and regulatory and environmental management.
Hatch Acres has operated in the US since 1967 with various regional offices. Each regional office operates
with considerable local authority and dedication to the needs of its local clients. This operating philosophy
allows Hatch Acres to combine the local focus and accessibility of a local office with the backing of the full
staff and financial resources of the entire firm.
Hatch Acres' US West Coast office is located in Seattle, WA wherein the focus is to provide hydropower
engineering and FERC licensing services from conception and planning studies through final engineering,
construction management and project operation.
Hatch Acres Seattle experience and capability includes:
. FERC Part 12 Safety Inspections including the new DSPMP process.
· Evaluation of existing dams and hydroelectric facilities and design of rehabs and upgrades.
. Static and seismic stability analyses of dams, particularly concrete dams.
· Hydrological and hydraulics analyses for flood forecasting and hydraulic performance
. Instrumentation design, installation and monitoring.
. Design of earth, rockfill, CFRD, conventional and roller-compacted concrete dams.
. Risk assessments, dam failure inundation studies and flood inundation maps.
. Interaction and coordination with regulatory agencies.
Quality Procedures and Controls
Quality assurance will be undertaken in several ways. Administrative (and legal) quality control, associated
with the preparation of the engineering documents, will reside with the Co-Independent Consultants.
Technical Quality Control will be through the QNQC advisor, Mr. Richard Donnelly.
Hatch Acres has recently employed the SAP system for all its project budgeting, controlling, forecasting and
invoicing. The system assures timely invoicing procedures and allows a detailed code of accounts to be
introduced and managed for the entire project. All costs incurred during the execution of the project are
distributed against the code of accounts. Monitoring and trending are an important part of cost control. The
SAP system allows for a number of different ways to graphically express progress and forecasts. We propose
to make use of the SAP system to separately keep track of the various code of accounts to be established
during the kick-off conference, and of which the Part 12 inspection and the geotechnical investigations are
two of them.
II HATCH-
energy
3
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
3.2 Relevant Project Experience
The Seattle office of Hatch Acres has had extensive involvement in FERC Part 12 and PFMA process for
clients in Alaska, Washington and Oregon. In particular, Hatch Acres has participated in the PFMA
Workshops and has provided Independent Consultant services performing the most recent dam safety
inspection and review for the Solomon Gulch, Bradley lake, Blind Slough and Terror lake Projects in Alaska,
the Reeder Gulch Project in Oregon and the Priest Rapids and Wanapum Projects in Washington. Hatch
Acres has also provided the Facilitator for PFMA sessions for the Reeder Gulch Project in Oregon and the
Nisqually (Alder and laGrande) Project in Washington. As an additional service, Hatch Acres has provided
the Technical Recorder for all of the above listed projects with the exception of the Reeder Gulch Project and
with the addition of the Swan lake Project in Alaska. A brief description of the scope of each involvement is
presented below.
Full project descriptions of select relevant projects are shown in Appendix B. Also included in Appendix B
are project listings for Donald E. Bowes, P.E. PFMA, Independent Consultant and relative dam experience. In
addition, a confidential project sample is provided from the Solomon Gulch Project and is included with the
submission of this proposal (1 copy, bound separately).
Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project, FDPPA, Valdez, AK
The FERC Licensee for the Solomon Gulch Hydroelectric Project is the Four Dam Pool Power Agency
(FDPPA). The output of the project is purchased by the Copper Valley Electric Association, which also
operates the project on behalf of the FDPPA.
Major facilities include a dam, saddle dike, spillway, powerhouse, and penstocks. The 115-ft-high main dam
(crest EI. 690 ft) was constructed between June 1978 and January 1982 at the location of a low dam (crest EI.
610ft) built in 1907. From the dam, the creek runs 3,900 feet down a steep ravine to tidewater, flowing in a
series of rapids, cascades, and waterfalls. The two 48-inch diameter penstocks were constructed from surplus
steel pipe from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The Project provides energy for the areas of Valdez to Glennallen.
The Hatch Acres team (Griffith, Bowes and Wahto) participated as C1Cs and Technical Recorder for the PFMA
Workshop and prepared the Major Findings and Understandings, PFMA Report and the Part 12 Safety
Inspection Report for final submittal to the FERC. In addition, we provided direction to the FDPPA in for their
preparation of the Supporting Technical Information Document.
Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project - Wanapum and Priest Rapids Developments, Grant County PUD
Hatch Acres has an ongoing relationship with Grant County PUD for dam safety support of the Priest Rapids
Hydro Project (FERC Project No. 2114). This project consists of the Wanapum and Priest Rapids
Developments. Hatch Acres provided engineering services for the preparation of FERC dam safety reports
and conducted the PFMA session with Dick Griffith as Co-Independent Consultant with Donald E. Bowes,
P.E. Services continued with engineering analysis of project features to resolve dam safety concerns from the
PFMA session. Additionally Hatch Acres supports Grant County with regional issues initiated by the FERC for
coordination of seismicity of lower Columbia River hydroelectric projects.
Reeder Gulch Hydroelectric Project, City of Ashland, OR
The Reeder Gulch Hydro Project (FERC Project No. 1107) is owned and operated by the Department of
Public Works of the City of Ashland. It is situated on Ashland Creek in the southwestern part of the state of
Oregon, 3 miles south of the City of Ashland and approximately 10 miles north of the California border.
The project consists of:
· Reeder Gulch concrete arch dam on Ashland Creek (also known as Hosler Dam)
II! HATCH-
energy
4
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
. Reeder Gulch reservoir
· Two small concrete diversion dams at the upper end of the reservoir across the West and East Forks
of Ashland Creek
. A power plant about 3/4 -mile downstream of the dam
· A 24-inch steel pipe conduit (penstock) for supplying water from the reservoir to the filtration plant
through the power plant.
In this case, the City was not formally required to follow the PFMA procedure since the original FERC order
for the safety inspection preceded the initial issuance of Chapter 14 of the Engineering Guidelines. At the
option of the City, however, the safety inspection was performed by Hatch Acres according to the new FERC
Dam Safety Performance Monitoring Program. Accordingly, the condition of project works and the quality
and adequacy of project maintenance, surveillance and methods of operation with respect to public safety
were evaluated in a PFMA Workshop with reference to the Potential Failure Modes Analysis (PFMA)
guidelines in Chapter 14. Since the PFMA Workshop was not strictly required, Hatch Acres provided the
Facilitator.
It was found that the PFMA Workshop provided several benefits to the owner and other participants,
including:
. A thorough review of the original design basis and construction;
· Rationalization of monitoring and instrumentation requirements in terms of potential failure modes
instead of simply continuing original instrumentation because it is there;
. Providing a basis for reaching consensus on and ranking of dam safety issues; and
. Improving the owner's operating staff understanding of the dam safety issues and monitoring
programs.
Bradley lake Hydroelectric Project, AEA, Homer, AK
Hatch Acres was selected to perform consultant services for preparation of a Potential Failure Modes Analysis
(PFMA) and Report and performance of the Part 12 Independent Consultant Safety Inspection and Report on
the Bradley lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 8221). A. Richard Griffith, P.E. was selected and
approved as the Co-Independent Consultant for the safety inspection, along with Donald E. Bowes, P.E.
The Project, located on the Kenai Peninsula at the northeast end of Kachemak Bay near Homer, Alaska is
owned by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and is operated by Homer Electric Association (HEA).
Major elements of the project include a concrete faced, rockfill dam, an ungated spillway, a diversion tunnel
which also services as a low level outlet, a submerged intake leading to the power tunnel, a surface
powerhouse located on the shore of Kachemak Bay and a tailrace channel into the bay.
The consulting services performed by Hatch Acres and the Co-Independent Consultants included assistance
and support in development of the STI Document, performance of the 5-year safety inspection, organization
of and participation in the PFMA workshop, and issuance of the PFMA Report and Part 12 Dam Safety
Report.
In addition, in response to issues raised by the previous Part 12 Independent Consultant, Hatch Acres
performed an extensive review of the spillway piezometric data, which was followed by detailed stability
analyses of the spillway concrete gravity structure.
Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project, PMPL, Petersburg, AK
The Blind Slough Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 201) has been supplying the City of Petersburg
. HATCH-
energy
5
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
with electrical power since the 1920s. The project is located on Crystal lake on Mitkof Island approximately
16.5 highway miles south of the City of Petersburg, Alaska.
The Blind Slough project consists of:
. A 32-ft high by 205-ft long rockfill dam
. An ungated spillway
· Crystal lake reservoir with approximately 4450 acre-ft of active storage and a surface area of 233
acres at spillway crest elevation 1294 ft msl
. A 4642-ft long, 20-in. diameter steel penstock
· A small collection basin near the downstream toe of the project's dam containing two pumps used to
pump leakage flow into the project's penstock
· Two powerhouses with installed capacities of 1600 kW and 400 kW
Due to the small size of the utility staff for the City of Petersburg, Hatch Acres was asked to perform all
elements of the PFMA and Part 12 Independent Consultant services, including preparation of the Supporting
Technical Information Document, participation in the PFMA Workshop, performing the Part 12 inspection
and preparation of the PFMA and Safety Inspection Reports.
Terror lake Hydroelectric Project, FDPPA, Kodiak, AK
The FERC Licensee for the Terror lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2743) is the Four Dam Pool
Power Agency (FDPPA). The output of the project is purchased by the Kodiak Electric Association Inc.,
which also operates the project on behalf of the FDPPA. This project is remotely located on Kodiak Island
approximately 25 air miles southwest of the City of Kodiak, Alaska.
The Terror lake Dam is a concrete-faced rockfill dam approximately 193 feet in height and some 2,450 feet
long. The project is a trans-basin diversion project. A 23,300 foot-long, 11 foot diameter tunnel carries water
from Terror lake reservoir to an outlet portal located on the west slope of the Kizhuyak River Basin where
flows pass through a 3,400 foot-long penstock to a powerhouse containing two 11.5 megawatt generating
units. Outflow from the powerhouse is conveyed through a 2,275 foot-long, tailrace to the lower Kizhuyak
River. Additional water is diverted into the project tunnel from the 20 foot-high Falls Creek diversion dam,
the 40 foot-high Shotgun Creek diversion dam and the 20 foot-high Rolling Rock Creek diversion dam. These
are all fill structures with minimum storage capabilities.
The Hatch Acres team (Griffith, Bowes and Wahto) participated as C1Cs and Technical Recorder for the PFMA
Workshop and prepared the Major Findings and Understandings, PFMA Report and the Part 12 Safety
Inspection Report for final submittal to the FERC. In addition, we provided direction to the FDPPA in for their
preparation of the Supporting Technical Information Document.
Nisqually River Hydroelectric Project, Tacoma Power, Tacoma, WA
The Nisqually River Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 1862) which is owned and operated by Tacoma
Power consists of the Alder and laGrande developments on the Nisqually River in Western Washington.
Alder Dam, the upstream storage facility, is comprised of a concrete arch dam, a powerhouse immediately
downstream of the dam, a concrete gravity thrust block, gravity wing dam, and a tainter gate controlled
concrete gravity chute spillway on the left abutment with a plunge pool. The laGrande Dam facility is
located downstream and is the smaller of the two. It is composed of a curved concrete gravity dam that
impounds a 1.5 mile long reservoir, a tunnel with a surge tank, and five penstocks.
Hatch Acres provided services as Facilitator and Technical Recorder for the PFMA Workshop while Donald E.
Bowes, P.E. served as a Co-Independent Consultant with Eric Kollgaard.
. HATCH-
energy
6
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
Swan lake Hydroelectric Project, FDPPA, Ketchikan, AK
The FERC Licensee for the Swan lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2911) is the Four Dam Pool
Power Agency (FDPPA). The output of the project is purchased by the Ketchikan Public Utilities, which also
operates the project on behalf of the FDPPA. The project is remotely located on Revillagigedo Island
approximately 24 air miles northeast of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska.
The project consists of an arch dam and tunnel leading to a powerhouse at tidewater. Hatch Acres provided
services as Technical Recorder for the PFMA Workshop while Donald E. Bowes, P.E. served as the
Independent Consultant for the PFMA and Part 12 Independent Consultant services.
The development of a leak in a pipe embedded at the base of the of the concrete arch dam required repair.
Hatch Acres and R&M Engineering Consultants participated in the investigation of the cause of the leak,
designed a repair system and monitored the installation thereof with Donald E. Bowes, P.E. the Part 12
Independent Consultant acting as a special consultant to the FDPPA for the project.
3.3 Staff Availability
Hatch Acres commits to making available the key personnel as presented in this proposal for the duration of
the project in accordance with the project schedule as determined at the time of contract execution. Staffing
requirements for additional work or due to any time extensions will be reviewed by the Seattle Office relative
to the work load at that time.
4. Project T earn
Detailed resumes of the team members are included at Appendix A. A summary of the team members' most
recent experience with the FERC's new DSPMP and performance of Part 12 safety inspections is provided in
Table 1.
4.1 Project Manager
A. Richard Griffith, P.E.
As a Co-Independent Consultant and Project Manager, Mr. Griffith will playa key role as Part 12 consultant,
report production manager, and overall project and cost manager. Mr. Griffith is the Manager of Engineering
for the Seattle Office, a FERC-approved Independent Consultant, and has over 30 years of extensive
experience in hydropower projects. He has previously participated in PFMA sessions and accepted by FERC
as an Independent Consultant for the Blind Slough and Terror lake, Bradley lake and Solomon Gulch
Projects in Alaska (all concrete faced rockfill embankment dams), the Hosler Dam in Oregon and the Priest
Rapids and Wanapum Projects in Washington. In addition he has served as Facilitator for the PFMA sessions
for the Alder and laGrande Dams in Washington.
4.2 Key Personnel
Donald E. Bowes, P.E.
Mr. Bowes is a private consultant and a FERC-approved Independent Consultant located in Anacortes, WA
and with extensive experience in concrete faced rockfill embankment dam design, construction, and safety
inspection experience. He will assume the roles of Co-Independent Consultant and advisor to the drilling
program. In Alaska he has prepared designs on CFR dams for Caralana lake (28'), Chilkoot (41 '), Crystal
lake (75'), Swan lake (174'), Terror lake (193'), Virginia lake (130'), and West Creek (120'). He has been
involved in construction repairs to Upper Silvis lake (60') and Solomon Gulch Dam (108'). In other states,
Mr. Bowes has been involved with the CFR design of repairs to Courtright (320') and design of Chelan Falls
. HATCH-
energy
7
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
(200'), Ponderosa (235'), New Spicer Meadow (262'), and Deer Creek (275'). He was involved with the
construction of New Exchequer (480') in California. Internationally, Mr. Bowes prepared CFR designs for
Arbel (100'), Mevo-Hamna (66') and Parsa
(165') in Israel. He also was involved with
the CFR design and
construction of Ita (412') and Machadino
(413') located in Brazil.
e. Richard Donnelly, P. Eng.
Mr. Rick Donnelly will be responsible for
overall project QNQC as well as specific
quality control for Task 3, Review and
Completion of Base Shear Analyses. Mr.
Donnelly is Division Manager for
hydropower in
Central Canada. He has over 27 years
experience in all aspects of the design and
construction of dams, underground
structures and rock/overburden
excavations. Since 1998, Mr. Donnelly
has carried out more than 250 dam safety
and due diligence assessments for
individual dams and entire hydroelectric
facilities. His background includes small
hydro feasibility studies, Independent
Engineers Assessments, fast-track project
management, construction management
and the development of innovative
rehabilitation solutions for aging
hydroelectric stations using such tools as
Acres risk-based asset management
system.
Table 1 .c I .s ~
e "ii
.c c
'C cB ;; c
Part 12 and PFMA Experience C) 8
Blind Slough Project
(Gity of Petersburg, AK) IG
. Grystal Lake Dam
Reeder Gulch Project
(Gity of Ashland, OR) IG QA
. Hosler Dam
Priest Rapids Project (Grant Go. PUD,
WA) GIG GIG TR QA
. Priest Rapids Dam
. Wanapum Dam
Nisqually Project
(Tacoma Power, WA) Fac. GIG TR
. Alder Dam
. LaGrande Dam
Swan Lake Project GIG TR
(FDPPA, Ketchikan, AK)
Terror Lake Project (FDPPA, Kodiak,
AK) GIG CIG TR
. Terror Lake Dam
. Shotgun Greek Dam
Bradley Lake Project GIG CIG TR
(AEA, Homer, AK)
Cushman I and II Projects GIG
(Tacoma Power, WA)
Seymour Dam (BG Hydro, Vancouver, Eng. QA
BG)
IG / Go-IG
Fac.
TR
QA
Eng.
Independent Gonsultant / Go-IG
Facilitator
Technical Recorder
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Engineering services
Stephen Rigbey, P. Eng.
Mr. Steve Rigbey will be responsible for
directing the geotechnical field investigations, shear analyses and report and will contribute summary report
information to the Part 12 process in coordination with the Co-Independent Consultants. Mr. Rigbey has
worked for Hatch Acres since 1979, and is currently a Project Manager in the Water and Wind Power Unit
and Discipline Practice Lead - Geotechnical, based in the Vancouver, BC office. He has extensive
experience in geotechnical investigations worldwide, and has followed numerous projects through
investigation, design, construction and monitoring. A recent paper authored by Mr. Donnelly and Mr.
Stephen Rigbey entitled N Assessment of Shear Resistance for Blasted Rock FoundationsH is located in
Appendix B of this proposal.
Peter Friz, P. Eng.
Mr. Peter Friz will conduct the geotechnical field investigations. He is an Engineering Geologist based in the
. HATCH-
energy
8
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
Vancouver, BC office with more than 10 years experience in geological and geotechnical investigations,
environmental impact assessment, and site investigations for a variety of hydroelectric, transportation and
mineral exploration projects. Peter has undertaken various geological investigations, including geological
mapping, supervision of geological drill programs, supervision of curtain grouting, coordination of seismic
surveys, and acid rock drainage prediction studies, for numerous hydro and water resources projects. Peter
has also participated in several environmental overview assessments for water supply, transmission line and
highway upgrading projects and prepared operations, maintenance and surveillance manuals for
hydroelectric plants and flood control facilities.
Heidi Wahto, M.P.A.
Ms. Wahto will assist the Co-Independent Consultants in the preparatory activities for the inspection and in
the assembly of the standard elements of the Part 12 Report. She is the resident Regulatory Specialist for the
Seattle Office with more than 10 years of relative regulatory experience and has served in this capacity for the
Part 12 inspections and PFMA activities associated with the Blind Slough, Swan lake, Terror lake, Bradley
lake and Solomon Gulch Projects in Alaska as well as the Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams in Washington.
For the Blind Slough Project she was also responsible for the assembly, technical editing and submission of
the STI document. Accordingly, Ms. Wahto will participate as a technical editor in the production of the Part
12 Inspection Report as required for the project.
5. Work Process and Staff Requirement
Hatch Acres' external process for completing the work will follow the preliminary project schedule as
presented in Section 6. The expectations for City staff include:
. Complete and provide Diving Inspection Reports
. Provide all previous Part 12-related documents, reports and related studies
. Drafts of Hatch Acres reports will be submitted to the project manager for distribution and review
. Amount of time required by City staff to assemble and provide information depends on the
availability of those documents, over which Hatch Acres has no control. Expected participation in
the review of Hatch Acres work product is within 5 days of receipt of submittals as stated in RFP.
6. Project Calendar
The ability to meet the FERC's May 1, 2008 deadline is highly dependent on the team's ability to obtain and
review the Diving Inspection Study (Task 2) in a timely fashion and, more critically, to initiate and complete
the drilling program and geotechnical analysis (Task 3). The table below presents a preliminary schedule that
assumes adherence to the FERC's May 1, 2008 deadline. !'ny changes to the calendar dates during the
selection process will be incorporated into the final calendar to be negotiated at the time of the contract.
Kick-off meeting with City staff
Documentation to ClC's for review
Part 12 Site Inspection
Diving Inspection Study provided to CICs
Diving Inspection Study review I memo
Drill sampling, lab testing and analyses
Base Shear Analyses Report
Draft (90%) Part 12 Report to City
City's Comments Received by ClCs
Final Part 12 Report due to FERC
II HATCH-
energy
upon execution of contract Oanuary 2008)
upon execution of contract Oanuary 2008)
February 2008
February 2008
1 month after receipt of study
February 1 - 29,2008
April 1 , 2008
April 1 , 2008
April 7, 2008
May 1, 2008
9
City of Ashland, Department of Public Works - Hosler Dam
FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection and Base Shear Analysis
It has been our experience as Independent Consultants, that well-reasoned requests for time extension for the
purpose of obtaining critical information necessary to complete the safety assessment of the project have
been granted without hesitation by the FERC and that extended dates have been met on time and on budget.
7. References
Steve Fisher, P.E. Mossyrock and Cushman 1111 Hydro Projects: Mossyrock Unit Upgrade Study includes system
Tacoma Power modeling, economic analysis and design and procurement of major electrical and generating
3628 South 35111 Street equipment and resident manager services for the turbine/generator rebuild. Cushman Dam Crest
Tacoma, WA 98411 Crane Support includes design criteria and design basis memorandum, draft and final design drawings,
253-502-8000 and preparation of contract documents.
David Moore, P.E. Priest Rapids Part 12 and Dam Safety Services: Hatch Acres provides multiple engineering
Grant County PUD
15655 Wanapum Village Ln SW services and multiple year dam safety support with FERC related issues including: FERC Part 12 and
Beverly, WA 99321 PFMA reviews and reports, support for regional seismicity review of Columbia R. dams, trunnion
509-754-0500 anchor and spillway stability analysis, and stability analysis of Wanapum future units intake monoliths.
Joe Earsley, P.E. Solomon Gulch Part 12 and PFMA: Perform Part 12 Independent Consultant dam safety and PFMA
Four Dam Pool Power Agency review of the Solomon Gulch Dam including providing Technical Recorder services for the PFMA
1301 Huffman Road, Ste 201 Workshop and Major Findings and Understandings in addition to Part 12 Safety Inspection and PFMA
Anchorage. AK 99515
907-258-2281 Reports and required analyses.
Paul Rapp, P. Eng. Strathcona Dam Downstream Remediation Work: Design and prepare tender documents for the
BC Hydro, Dam Safety preferred upgrade option(s) to address the static piping and seismic issues associated with the earthfill
6911 Southpoint Drive dam, including the impact of the seismic performance of the power outlet works on the post-earthquake
Burnaby, BC V3N 4X8 stability of the dam. This includes geotechnical input for structural assessment and passive anchor
604-528-1600 design of intake tower, upstream wing walls and spillway dam-side pier.
8. Cost of Services
Our detailed cost breakdown for each of the portions of this project with hourly rates for project personnel is
provided in a separate sealed envelope as instructed in the RFP, Section IV-6.
9. Product Sample
One copy of a Part 12 Report is provided with this submission as a work sample for review (bound
separately). However, this report contains Critical Energy Infrastructure Information under 18 CFR 388.112
and must remain confidential and used by the City only for the purpose stated in the City/s RFP. We trust that
no reproductions will be made without prior approval from Hatch Acres and that the report will be returned
to Hatch Acres upon completion of the City's review of proposals.
10. Contract Considerations
Hatch Acres has reviewed the City/s standard contract conditions and we suggest that contract negotiations
address the following items:
. Inclusion of an exception to consequential damages and a limit on liability
. Payment clauses revised to include a specific payment period
. Addition of a clause on dispute resolution
. Insurance certificates would be prepared to show insurance limits equal to the minimums specified
in the RFP, but would also show aggregate limits
. HATCH-
energy
10
-nr-,
TABLE 8.1
City of Ashland
Hosler Dam
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
1 Project Startup and Management 28 $4,054 $70 $4,124
2 FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection 112 $17,336 $7,200 $24,536
3 Review/Analysis Diving Inspection 80 $12,380 $0 $12,380
4 Review/Complete Base Shear Analyses 236 $28,340 $1 ,400 $29,740
5 STI Document 116 $13,060 $920 $13,980
6 Draft Part 12 Report 64 $9,536 $0 $9,536
7 Final Part 12 Report 40 $5,824 $540 $6,364
Totals 676 $90,530 $10,130 $100,660
1/24/2008
Ashland - Cost Est rev 3.xls
Page 1 of 5
TABLE 8.2
City of Ashland
Hosler Dam
COST ESTIMATE. EXPENSES
1 Project Startup and Management $70
2 FERC Part 12 Safety Inspection $3,000 $2,400 $100 $7,200
3 Review/Analysis Diving Inspection $0
4 Review/Complete Base Shear Analyses $800 $600 $1,400
5 STI Document $400 $100 $250 $120 $50 $920
5 Draft Part 12 Report $0
6 Final Part 12 Report MQ MQQ $100 ~
Totals $4,200 $1,280 $2,650 $1,350 $400 $250 $10,130
1/24/2008
Page 2 of 5
(W)"OEQ:
cO~roo
W-,=O
...J(/)~~
m<((/).......
<Coo..J
I- ~I
C3 W
I-
<C
::IE
~
C/)
W
I-
C/)
o
o
~
ca
-
o
I-
1::
o
a..
a..
::s
U)
u
ell
U)
c
c
<C
(.)
~
U
ell
~
..CI
IV
...J
N
.;::
LL.
o
-
~
IV
3:
.a:-
m
c
c
o
c
>-
ell
..CI
en
~
In
I
o
m
~
iE
";::
C>
CI>
e
~
<C
z
co <:;:) co ;,;
..... ..... c-..
Q
"'t"
~
N N 0
N
.....
0 0
0 0
0 0
~ ~ GO 0
GO
GO
0 0
~ N co ..,.
....
q
.....
~ N co 0
en
en
~ N co 0
en
en
r! -
In
::s 0
0 (.)
:I: .
:= In
..... IV Ci
~ - 15
I:: Ul
CI> :a
e In
~ Ci ::s
CI> - U)
0) .0 0
q, -'= :a
I:: j ::s
~ U)
Q)
0 Q)
'b c "3
I:: ~ "Q
q, ~ Q)
c -'=
g- o 0
0 en
~ := ~
J!! 9 C1l
.><: 0.
CI) 0 ~
..... 52 a..
u "'": C"!
.CI> ..... .....
0-
ct:
..-
co
o
o
N
-
''It
N
-
....
<:;:) <0 c-.. m
C"') '" -
-
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N N ..,. co
.....
....
~ ~ C> co co ~
N M
en
.n
co <0 C> co N 0
..... N 'I) GO
'I)
00
l!! -
In
::s 0
0 (.)
:I: .
:= In
IV Ci
I:: U; 15
0 In :a
~ .B Ci ::s
U Q) 15 U)
CI> en ~ -
~ ..CI
1:: ~ ::s
0
.s (tl 0. en U)
16 ~ l3 Q)
~ 0 en g. en
>-
.e 1:5 ::s c ro
0 0 c
~ Q) .:;
.~ :g (tl
~ Q) c
N a.. 0. 0. 0
~ :i: en 1:;
..- .E
1:: :;:::; Q) Q)
c .:; ..2l 0.
~ Q) Q) en
:E a::: en .E
(,) ..... N C") ~
0:: N N N N
~
N
<0
co
~
<:;:) Q Q
<0 co co
CO)
c-..'
-
~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
C> 0 0
N N 0
N
N
0 0
C> 0 0
N N GO
'I)
...;
C> 0 0
N N 0
M
...;
C> 0 0
N N 0
M
...;
I:: -
0 r! In
~ ::s 0
U 0 (.)
CI> :I: .
~ := In
IV S
.s U; 0
0) In :a
.1:: Ci ::s
S - U)
.- 0
Q :a
.... ::s
0 U)
.!!
~ E
- :i:
q, ::s
I:: Q) "Q
.:; c
q: ~ (tl
....
'b >- 0
I:: "Q E
q, ::s Q)
~ Ci5 ::2:
CI> ..... N
'S M M
CI>
0::
CW)
C
<0
~
LO
'+-
o
('t)
Q)
OJ
co
Q.
<0
co
~
C
N
.....
~
<::>
.....
.....
~
~
.....
~
0)
r-....
.....
~
10
<0
.....
~
J2
~
0)
~
:-
as
C")-gE~
cO~roo
W...c::Clm
...J"'~<(
m<(",
<COO..J
~~:r:
(3 W
t-
<(
:E
i=
tn
W
t-
tn
o
o
tn
fti <C
- z
0
t-
1:: c
0 <0
Cl. -
Cl.
::s
IJ)
u
Q)
IJ)
<0
C CO
-
C
c(
(.)
~ <0
U CO
Q) -
I-
.Q
ca
...J
C
C'.I
N .....
.~ -
u.
c
0 .....
- .....
~ -
ca
:!:
~ ~
Gi .....
c -
c
0
C
>- ~
Q) .....
.Q -
D)
~
l.O
II> <0
; .....
-
0
ED
l.O
~ <0
- .....
!E -
.~
C)
CI>
E
~
.e
ca
a::
0)
~
:-
di
""t- OO <::> (0 00 CO ~
C") ""t- C") 10 (0 ~
CW)
cO
C'l
~
N <0 CO 0
~
N I~ N
(") II)
....
N
0 0 0
(") M CO
II)
N
<0 00 "<t- O CO 0
~ "<t- N (") ..... CD
..... .....
~-
.....
0 0
"<t- "<t- CO N
M
"':..
.....
"<t- O c::i CD
N Q)
N
..;
0 0
00 00 U) 0
..... ~
U)
~ N
~
-
ca
c::
oq: f -
II>
... (/) ::s 0
ca Q) c> 0 (.)
CI> 0 .2 :I: .
t5 <.> :g == II>
r: ca 'ii
- Ci
CI> 0 "0 "l
II) ts -
c> II> .Q
ca Q) c 'ii ::s
r:Q Q. ~ IJ)
(/) -
"- c 0
0 ~ E lj
c:: c> - ::s
c "0 c> 42 Iii IJ)
0 .~ C "0 C
~ C g;:a. c> c <+=
.!!! nI C nI "0
- E c
~ "l5.. Q.nI ~ c nI
E Q.(/) .s 0 ~
nI"O t5
~ E c ~ ::s ~
(.) c> <.> nI 0 "0
'b e c,c> iil ~ t:
Q. ~ .E 0 nI 0
c:: o c> .c iil Q.
ca i5 ~.2 nI Q)
~ ...J 0 0:::
CI> ~ N "<t- 1.0 <0
oS ..,j ..,j ..,j ..,j ..,j
CI>
a::
...
""t- C'l ~m
CO C")
-
~
00 00 U) 0
..... U)
Q)
0 0 0 0
<0 N CO 0
CO
00
<0 "<t- o 0
~ N 0
M
..;
f -
II>
::s 0
0 (.)
:I: .
== II>
ca 'ii
V; Ci
II> lj
'ii ::s
- IJ)
0
-
.Q
::s
"E "E IJ)
Q) Q)
E E
::s ::s
<.> <.>
0 0
0 0
.... ~ ~
c::
CI> (/) (/)
E ~ Iii
II 0 c
u:::
0 ~ "<t-
Q Lri Lri
i::
CI)
It)
<::> CO ~ CO
(0 CW)
It',)
0)
~
"<t- ~ 0
~
N
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 "<t- N 0
..... N
M_
.....
"<t- O
"<t- O ~ CD
.....
....
N "<t- CD ~
(") M
Q)
...,
CO 0 CO 0
N
<<"l
.....
f -
II>
::s 0
0 (.)
:I: .
== II>
ca 'ii
V; -
"E 0
.~ II> lj
Ci ::s
-0 - IJ)
.9 0
c lj
0 Iii
~ ::s
E IJ)
1:: ffi 'e
Q.
Q) .c
0 It ::s
2- (/)
t: t:
a:: 0 0
Q. Q.
c-.. Q) Q)
0::: 0:::
,.. .t: .t:
1:: nI nI
~ 0 0
~ N
~ <D <D
e
Q
CO
I.C)
-
o
-.:t
Q)
C>
ctl
a..
co
o
o
N
~
N
-
....
----------rrr T
C"')
cO
W
...J
!Xl
~
"OED::
alma
:COm
~.!!:l~
o~-J
.?;-I
o W
~
~
:!E
~
en
W
~
en
a
()
J!!
ns <C
- z
0
~
1:: <::>
0 co
Co ~
Co
:::I
U)
U
CP
U)
co
C ~
C
c(
U
..c co
ClIO
u ~
CP
.....
..a
..
...J
<::>
N
N ..-
0;:: ~
LL
<::>
0 ..-
..-
:c ~
~
~ 0)
r--.
Gi ..-
c ~
c
0
C
0)
>0- r--.
CP ..-
..a ~
CJ
~
...,
II) co
I ..-
~
0
lD
...,
..c co
- ..-
IE ~
0;::
C)
"'I- co
C'l .....
c:> ~
..,. ClC)
It')
~
"""
'Ot
<:)
<:) <:)
<:) <:)
""" """ GO
<:) <:)
""" N u:> 'Ot
.....
~
N """ u:> ~
~ ..... u:>
N
""" N u:> <:)
0)
0)
f ';)
Q) .e :::I 0
E 0 u
&! :I:
~ =t; II)
0) i;
- '0
~ '" -
II) ..a
:::: i; :::I
co - U)
0
15
:::I
U)
C
a 0 (ij
:;:::l
~ =
2- tU "e
Q. .0
a: ~ :::::I
c.. en
N 1:: 1::
- 0 0
1:: Q. Q.
~ Q)
~ 0::
~ ~
- ~ ~
CIS
c:
ii:
.....
<:)
'Ot
N
~
~ c:>
~
C'I~
~
C'I C'I
CO) ~
C'I~
~
c:> ~
CO) II)
C'I~
~
ClC) ~
-
- -
..,.~
-
~
ClC) c:>
C'I :g
-
..,.~
-
~
ClC) C'I
~
-~
~
~ <c
II)
..,.
-~
-
~
..,. c:>
- -
- ClC)
0:;
-
~
ClC) c:>
C'I C'I
- -
~
C'I
~
(J) I-
(J)
D:: 0
::) 0
0
::I: D::
LL 0
LL a::l
~ ~
(J) l-
I 0
I W
(J) D::
...J C
~ I
I
0 (J)
I- ...J
~
0
I-
co
Q
Q
N
-
'Oit
N
-
.....
U')
'0
U')
Q)
Cl
CO
a..
<:)
<:)
GO
GO
~
~".<.. ,~
. "^", ~...f
.. .
.
.,
'~.~.
, t~~~
. 7,
--
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Approval of Amendment No.2 to the Existing Engineering Services Contract with
Brown and Caldwell for Monitoring, Diving Inspection,
and Equipment Testing at Reeder Reservoir
February 5,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Jim Olson (488-5347)
Public Works E-Mail: OlsonJ@Ashland.or.us
Finance Secondary Contact: Pieter Smeenk (488-5347)
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
Does the Council approve the engineering services contract Amendment #2 with Brown and Caldwell
for $73,000 for engineering services to improve water quality at Reeder Reservoir?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached contract Amendment #2 with Brown and
Caldwell to conduct follow-on monitoring, equipment testing, and diving inspection at Reeder
Reservoir for the purpose of addressing ongoing algae blooms and nutrient loading issues that have
caused recent taste and odor issues.
Background:
Because of recent concerns raised regarding Ashland's source water quality, Council authorized
funding through the CIP program to study Reeder Reservoir. Brown and Caldwell was selected for
this task in partnership with Aquatic Ecosystem Sciences LLC, an Ashland-based environmental
sciences firm.
The consultants have sampled and analyzed water and sediment in the reservoir. They have also
conducted detailed bathometric surveying which compared existing lake bathymetry to earlier surveys.
The survey was aimed at determining the amount of silt and sediment in the reservoir proper. The
study also included recommendations to improve water quality. Most are long-term measures that do
not impact the current year budget. One exception is the recommendation to implement solar powered
mechanical recirculation units to reduce algae growth in the reservoir. There are significant benefits to
beginning utilization ofthis equipment in this fiscal year, including the need to have the units in place
prior to next summer's anticipated algae blooms.
The current Capital Improvement Plan budgeted $100,000 for this project, which was titled "Reeder
Reservoir Study". Of this budget amount, $62,000 have been approved and expended under contract
Amendment #1. The proposed Amendment #2 would result in a shortfall of approximately $35,000
for the project budget. Ofthose dollars, $29,000 would go toward rental and mobilizing two solar
powered recirculation units in the coming season to verify their effectiveness before recommending
purchase. Engineering feels that this incremental approach is the most fiscally responsible way to
implement this technology. All but $9,000 of the $29,000 could be applied toward purchase of the
Page 1 of2
C:\DOCUME-I \shipletd\LOCALS- I \Temp\Draft - 2008-02-05 - CC B&C Amend 2.doc
,.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
units, should they prove to be effective in reducing the taste and odor problems recently faced. If not,
the City would incur no additional cost. There is a strong likelihood that they will be effective. The
cost to purchase both units would be approximately $112,000 less $20,000 for the initial installation
and testing refund, or a net outlay in the next fiscal year of approximately $92,000.
The value engineering process for the Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements project has
identified over $35,000 in savings that can be utilized to offset the initial cost of the solar recirculation
units. No net increase in the water fund CIP budget is needed for this fiscal year.
Related City Policies:
Capital Improvement Plan Project previously adopted by City Council: Reeder Reservoir Study.
Under current City of Ashland Rules of Procedure for Public Contracting; AMC 2.50.020 (B)ii,
contracts amendments in excess of 35% above the base contract amount require Local Contract
Review Board approval prior to award.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, may approve this engineering services
contract, direct staff to make changes to the contract, or reject the contract amendment.
Potential Motions:
Council may move to approve or reject the attached Engineering Services Contract Amendment #2
with Brown and Caldwell.
-Or-
Council may direct staff to modify the contract amendment.
Attachments:
Contract Amendment number 2 with Brown and Caldwell, including exhibits A & B
Product literature for mechanical recirculation units.
Page 2 of2
C:\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOCALS-l \Temp\Draft - 2008-02-05 - CC B&C Amend 2.doc
,.,
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT
Consultant services contract made on the date specified below in Recital A between the City and Consultant as
follows:
Recitals:
A. The following information applies to this contract:
CITY: CITY OF ASHLAND Consultant: BROWN AND CALDWELL
City Hall Address: 6500 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 200
20 E. Main S1. PORTLAND OR 97239
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 488-6002 Telephone: 503/977-6632
FAX: (541) 488-5311 FAX: 503/244-9095
Date of this agreement: August 15, 2006 B: RFP date: April 7, 2006
Proposal date: May 18,2006
2.2. Contracting officer: James Olson, Interim Public Works Director
2.4. Project: WTP Process Improvements
6. Consultant's representative: Robert F. Willis, PE
8.3. Maximum contract amount: NTE $25,000
B. AMENDMENT NO.2
1. Modification to Section 5. Consultinq Services.
In accordance with the existing scope of services in this contract, the following additional consultant services
are added as further defined in Exhibits A & B, attached.
Item No. Description Amount
A Project Management $ 3,000
B Reeder Reservoir Water Quality Enhancement $61,636
C Construction Services Value Enhancements $ 6,152
C Water Treatment Plant Operation Improvements $ 2,212
$73,000
C: \DOCU ME-I \shipletd\LOCALS-1 \ Temp \B&C Amend 2.doc
2. Modification of Section 8. Payment
8.3 Total payment under this contract shall not exceed the adjusted total contract amount of $335,337.
A.
B.
C.
Original Contract
Amendment No. 1
Amendment No. 2
Adjusted total contract amount
CONSULTANT
By:
Signature
Bryan Paulson
Printed Name
Its: Vice President
Fed 10# 94-1446346
REVIEWED AS TO FORM:
By:
Legal Department Date:
C:\DOCUME-I \shipletd\LOCALS-1 \ Temp\B&C Amend 2.doc
$25,000
237,337
73,000
$335,337
CITY OF ASHLAND
By:
Lee Tuneberg
Administrative Services! Finance Director
REVIEWED AS TO CONTENT:
By:
Department Head
Coding:
Date:
(For City use only)
EXHIBIT A - Amendment 2
City of Ashland
Water Treatment Plant Improvements
Scope of Services
The services to be provided under the contract include the design and construction services for
improvements found to be necessary to improve, the operation and capacity of the Ashland water
treatment plant and to study and improve the quality of water in Reeder Reservoir. Amendment 2
includes several minor additions to the existing contract scope found necessary or advantageous to
add to the project. During the period of the project, algae concentrations in Reeder Reservoir
reached new highs and resulted in numerous taste and odor complaints from citizens. The on-
going study of Reeder Reservoir has identified options to help control the algae concentrations.
Amendment 2 will provide consultant services to implement the initial recommendations before the
summer of 2008. The amendment will also add consultant services to allow the water treatment
plant to better maintain its capacity during periods of higher algae concentrations.
The level of effort for these services is detailed in the Fee Estimate and Stafftng Plan in Exhibit B.
The level of effort provided is based on the revised project being completed by December 1, 2008.
PHASE 200 Project Management
Task 100 Project Management
· Provide additional project management services to extend the project scope and duration to
include the additional services included in Amendment 2.
Task 300 ~roject Closeout and As-builts
· Provide minor additional consultant services to include additional records required for the
additional scope in Amendment 2.
PHASE 240 Reeder Reservoir Study
Task 200 Inspection of Dam
· Contract and coordinate use of divers to inspect the dam's oudet structure's valves to determine
the reason they will not properly close. Clean the valve seats and provide visual confirmation
that the valves are working properly after cleaning.
Task 600 Toxic Algae Sampling
· Take 3 water samples to be tested for algae concentrations and for the presence of algal toxins.
One each from Reeder Reservoir, the inlet to the WTP and from the WTP finished water oudet.
A set of three samples shall be taken in the as necessary to monitor the reservoir algae
concentrations.
Exhibit A - Amendment 2
Page 1 of2
· Provide interim reports on toxin and algae concentrations to City staff after each sampling
sequence.
Task 700 Reservoir Circulation Improvements Study
· Install two reservoir circulation devices in Reeder Reservoir at locations to disrupt the algae
growth patterns and reduce the nutrients available to support algal growth. Provide the
equipment for 3 months and make available an option for the City to purchase the units.
· Prepare a tech memo containing the results of the algae sampling and the impact of the reservoir
circulation devices. Make a recommendation concerning the benefit to the City of purchasing
the circulation devices.
PHASE 280 Construction Services
Task 200 Office Engineering - Consultant services to assist the City in value engineering with the
water treatment plant contractor to make revisions to the contract work to take advantage of
efficiencies identified during project start-up and the following construction period.
PHASE 290 Filter Operation Improvements
The project pre-design report identified several process control changes that would assist the water
plant in obtaining its full rated capacity. Some of the recommendations can be made by plant staff.
This new phase is being added to provide some minor consultant assistance to allow completion of
the recommended improvements.
Task 100 Process Design Revisions - Consultant services to assist City staff and contractors in
reprogramming the SCADA system to provide enhanced operation of the water treatment plant
operation. :
Task 200 Implementation Review - Consultant services to review the reprogrammed SCADA
controls and work with City staff to begin operation of the new system.
Exhibit A - Amendment 2
Page 2 of2
BROWN AND CALDWELL
EXHIBIT B - Amendment 2
City of Ashland
Water Treatment Plant Improvements
1/24/2008
Task Number and Description Subconsultants Total
Cost
CD
u
~ C
III
.!! ~
C) iii .2
c CD <(
"S; 0 c
is .., 0
, ~
c Ul I!
III U
U ~ -
";: III .!
CD :s .!:
E 0" E
c( c( "0
"0 .c c(
-
CD C. U
u CD
c Q I!
~ >< - 'i
c
"0 III 0 -
0
c( :!: 0 I-
Labor Rate 5%
PHASE 200 - Project Management
100 Project Management $ - $ - $ 2,604
300 Project closeout and as-builts $ - $ - $ 396
Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000
PHASE 240 - Reeder Reservoir Study
200 Inspection of Dam - Valve Repair 10,500 $ 525 $ 11,025 $ 15,463
600 Toxic Algae Sampling $ 675 $ 14,175 $ 17,004
700 Reservoir Circulation Improvements Study $ 24,200 $ 1,210 $ 25,410 $ 29,169
Subtotal 10,500 $ 24,200 $ 2,410 $ 50,610 $ 61,636
PHASE 280 - Construction Services $ -
200 Office Engineering $ - $ 6,152
Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,152
PHASE 290 - Filter Operation Improvements
100 Process Design Revisions $ - $ - $ 1,600
200 Implementation Review $ - $ 612
Subtotal - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,212
TOTAL SEF 10,500 $ 24,200 $ 2,410 $ 50,610 $ 73,000
~'(Jj
~@TJ(i;uf!,eefb
SO....'cnNrecl """olr Orculator
"Qu."". Wcrtw, """'rallY'
FRESHWATER BENEFITS
The SolarBee@ is a floating solar-powered
circulator with a unique capability to:
· eliminate cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms,
· enhance water clarity and secondary production,
· oxygenate lake bottom waters and sediments to prevent
release of hydrogen sulfide. iron. manganese, and phosphorus,
· prevent seasonal fish kills, and
· reduce nuisance aquatic weed growth.
..
~.
'"
all without either toxic chemicals or fossil fuel consumption.
.............. .......
COGt,IlHM 1tJ1MIn.....
..... ......... ..............
In addition. the SolarBee is
economical for virtually any size
of lake or reservoir. requires
minimal maintenance, no , l=::=:I':,,~, ., I
infrastructure changes, and can
operate day and night using only
solar energy.
SolarBee, Inc. .530 25th Ave E . PO Box 1930. Dickinson, ND 58602
Ph (701) 225-4495 . Fax (701) 22~002 . (866) 437-8076. 'tWIW.solarbee.com
C 2007 SolarBee, Inc. . Dickinson, NO
VllB012307
~@~ee.
Solar-Powered Reservoir Circulator
"Quality Water, Naturally'
Day and night operation on solar power
No grid power source is needed
Summary specifications are available at
http://www.solarbee.com/models.shtml
Models Available:
· SB1250v12
· SB250Ov12
· SB5000v12
· SB10000v12
SOLARBEE~v12FEATURES
New brush-less motor is 97% efficient
· Motor requires no maintenance
· Only one moving part (motor)
· No gear-box to fail or maintain
. No brushes to replace
· Motor has a 25 year life expectancy
New control system & 80 watt solar panels
· SCADA outputs available, optional palm pilot
available for shore monitoring
· Provides periodic reversal function for solids re-
moval in wastewater systems
SolarBee, Inc. . 530 25th Ave E . PO Box 1930 . Dickinson. ND 58602
Ph (701) 225-4495 . Fax (701) 225-0002 . (866) 437-8076 . www.solarbee.com
e 2007 SolarBee. Inc. . Dickinson, NO
v12012307
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Council Liaisons 2008
February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Administration E-Mail:
Secondary Contact:
Estimated Time:
John Morrison, Mayor
morrisoj@ashland.or.us
Martha Bennett
Consent
Question:
Will the Council approve the 2008 Council liaison appointments to City boards and commissions, to be
effective immediately?
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of liaisons as listed.
Background:
Each year the Council liaisons to the City boards and commissions are selected by the Mayor, and
approved by the Council. The appointments will be effective immediately.
Related City Policies:
N/A
Council Options:
Approve appointments as listed or agree upon changes.
Potential Motions:
N/A
Attachments:
List of 2008 Council Liaison Appointments
Page 1 of 1
020508 Council Liaison Appointments.CC.doc
r.,
2008 Council Liaison Appointments
Airport Hospital Board
Russ Silbiger John Morrison
Audit Committee Housing
.
John Morrison Alice Hardesty
Band Board Parks & Recreation
Alice Hardesty Eric Navickas
Bike & Pedestrian Planning
David Chapman Cate Hartzell
Conservation Public Art
David Chapman Alice Hardesty
Forest Lands Traffic Safety
Eric Navickas Kate Jackson
Historic Tree
Eric Navickas Russ Silbiger
RVCOG RVMPO
Russ Silbiger John Morrison
RVACT SOREDI
John Morrison Kate Jackson
Chamber of Commerce County Taskforce on Homelessness
John Morrison Cate Hartzell.
Woodlands and Trails Association Bear Creek Greenway
David Chapman David Chapman
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) CLAC
Kate Jackson John Morrison
.------
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Federal Appropriations 2009 and Intergovernmental Plan
Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Department: Administration E-Mail: ann@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Secondary Contact:
Approval: Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the council wish to apply for federal appropriations for 2009?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend applying for federal appropriations for 2009 and does recommend
developing an Intergovernmental Plan.
Background:
The deadline to submit federal appropriation requests is February 12, 2008. Staffhas not had time to
research projects that might fit a federal appropriation request or to identify projects which meet the
federal timeline for implementation.
Federal appropriation requests are increasingly difficult to secure and are coming under greater
scrutiny. The Oregon delegation has been supportive of our previous appropriation requests and
assures us that all Oregon are submitted to the appropriate committee. We've been fortunate to receive
two requests: one for the forensic laboratory and one for a park and ride facility.
In lieu of submitting 2009 appropriation requests, staff recommends developing an Intergovernmental
Plan (lGP). The IGP would serve as the springboard and the umbrella document for the city's
intergovernmental relations and activities at the federal, state and regional level.
It would include federal, state and regional issues that might have an impact on the City of Ashland
(reduction in Medicare reimbursements for ambulance services) and/or priorities which are in tandem
with council and community goals (e.g. Senator Wyden's forest thinning and fire hazard reduction
plan). It is possible that once the IGP is developed obvious projects which fit a federal appropriation
request will surface. Appropriate actions could then be taken for FY20l 0 or FY2011.
The City of Ashland generally supports State legislative actions identified by the League of Oregon
Cities and responds to the Leagues "call to action" in the form of letters and emails for legislative
support or opposition. The IGP will detail the process by which the City determines its position and
how it will respond to League requests.
On a regional level, the plan will identify those areas of mutual interest in the Rogue Valley such as
county-wide library services and a viable fixed route transit system. It might include the Bear Creek
Greenway or regional transportation improvements - all issues that enhance not only Ashland but also
our region. The plan will incorporate appropriate actions that further those areas of mutual interest.
Page 1 of2
20508 Federal approiations.doc
r.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Staffhas not yet determined a process for developing the IGP but wi11look to the Council to have an
active role.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
1) Direct staff to begin developing an Intergovernmental Plan.
2) Direct staff to re-resubmit appropriations from 2008.
Potential Motions:
I move to accept staff recommendation not to apply for federal appropriations for 2009 and direct staff
to begin to develop an Intergovernmental Plan for future council review.
Attachments:
None
Page 2 of2
20508 Federal approiations.doc
~A'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Current Year Financial Report - October through December 2007
Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: I... Secondary Contact:
Approval: !J Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council accept the quarterly report as presented
Background:
The Administrative Services Department normally submits reports to Council on a quarterly basis to
provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout
the year. Information can be provided in differing formats and timetables at Council's request.
This report includes the first six months of the fiscal year and will be the basis for projecting revenues,
expenses and ending fund balances for the year and beginning budget discussions with the Budget
Committee.
The reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fund and
business activity presentations included in the adopted FY 2007-08 budget document and the manner
in which they will be shown in the end of year report.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available tor your review in
the Administrative Service Department office should you require any additional information.
Related City Policies:
City of Ashland Financial Management Policies, Budget Document Appendix
Council Options:
Council may accept this report as presented, recommend modifications as discussed or defer
acceptance (takes no action) awaiting further information or clarification.
Potential Motions:
This report is on the Consent Agenda and can be approved with other items. If removed from the
Consent Agenda for separate discussion one of the following motions may be employed:
A. Council moves to accept the financial report as presented.
B. Council moves to accept the report as modified by discussion.
CC - Quarterly Financial Report 2-5-08.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
C. Council takes no action pending further information or clarification.
Attachments:
Attached is the City of Ashland financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. This
report includes:
1. Financial Narrative (pages iii-vi)
2. Summary of Cash and Investments as of September 30 for the last two years (page 1)
3. Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide (page 2)
4. Schedule of Revenues by Fund (page 3)
5. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance per Resolution #2007-36 (pages 4-7)
6. Schedule of Expenditures by Fund (page 8)
The numbers presented are unaudited and unadjusted.
11
CC - Quarterly Financial Report 2-5-08.doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Financial Narrative
Summary of Cash and Investments provides an understanding of changes in the City's
cash position across funds and investment types. The city-wide cash balance has decreased
$994,227 between fiscal years at the end of December. This difference is less than the one
reported last quarter and a year ago due smaller expenditures on capital projects and more
tax revenue received in the current year.
Each fund varies for its own reasons. In general, cash balances increase in the second
quarter of the fiscal year as a majority of property tax revenue is received in November. Even
though cash balances are $6.1 million more than the first quarter of this year they are $1
million less than a year ago. This is consistent with the information provided last quarter
including our operational costs have increased, we did not raise utility rates until August 1 of
this year even though budgeted to increase in the first quarter of FY 2006-2007 and capital
projects have reduced reserves (most notably in the Water Fund as discussed below).
Please note that the Water, Wastewater and Electric enterprise funds have the largest
reductions in cash between years. This is due to the timing of revenue generation and
receipt being different than timing for expenditures. No borrowing for capital projects have
been done this year thus capital project costs have reduced operating and restricted
reserves. This will need to be considered as projects and budgets are approved.
Cash balances for funds that rely on property taxes are significantly higher than last quarter.
They are consistent with the prior year balances at the end of December and are reasonable
in light of the tax rates established through the budget process.
The distribution of cash and investment balances shows an increased amount ($2.1 million)
held in the Local Government Investment Pool to provide short term interest earnings beyond
that which could be gained from a bank account. General banking accounts are $1.1 million
less and longer-term City investments have decreased from $3 million to $1 million as part of
the overall $1 million reduction in cash between years.
The Combined Statement of Financial Position is similar to presentations in the annual
financial report. It is intended to provide the reader an overall sense of the City's financial
position at the present time. Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (EFB) is $26 million but
$1 million less than last year at this time. The balance is 49.3% larger than the budgeted
city-wide EFB and will reduce in the last half of the fiscal year as activities that rely heavily on
property taxes for funding utilize erode the taxes received in November.
The $1 million reduction in fund balance relates to the revenue and expense issues identified
above. A contributing factor is the $575,000 less than projected EFB being carried forward
from FY 2006-2007. Part of this relates to estimates on property tax revenue being higher
than actual due to less growth in valuations and a lower collection rate than recorded in our
books the prior year. Another contributing factor is that no capital project financing occurred
11l
CC - Quarterly Financial Report 2-5-08.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
in FY 2006-07 which would have had a positive impact on EFB and cash balances. Even so,
most funds ended the year well above the respective target fund balances.
Revenues and BudQetarv Resources at December 31,2007, total $33,683,493 as compared
to total year-to-date requirements of $30,854,375 which results in a $2.8million increase to
Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance. This is $9.2 million more than the City's Adopted
budget of a $6.4 million decrease during the year and relates to the timing of receipts
(especially property taxes) and expenses (especially operations paid for by property taxes).
The positive difference of $9.2 million will decrease each month through June. It is expected
to end slightly better than the negative difference budgeted but the end result is dependant
upon many factors such as variations in utility sales from weather and customer demand,
capital project construction and funding, tourism and tax collections.
Total Revenues on a city-wide basis are consistent with the prior year. General tax receipts
are up because of the added property tax rates levied in 2008 for library activities and
increased revenue from other taxes and franchise fees. No external financing has been done
and only 26.8% of internal transfers were completed in the first half of the year. The
$170,771 Transfer In represents the amount paid between funds for general debt service.
Total Requirements are at 41.5% of the annual budget for this "second quarter" of the year
with Personal Services at 48.1 % and Materials and Services well under the 50% mark. Total
Operating Expenditures are at 47.1 %, despite some annual costs and debt service being paid
in the first half of the year. This would indicate that some activities and related expenses
have not occurred. Similarly, Capital Outlay is only 19.5% of the annual budget and is $1.2
million less than the amount expended in the prior year at the same point in time.
BudQetarv Requirements activity includes the $170,771 Transfer Out mentioned above.
Contingency is unused and remains at the budgeted amount of $1 ,631 ,000 city-wide.
The Schedule of Revenues by Fund provides an overview of total resources by fund for the
year. It is too early in the year to make definitive predictions since many funds include
financing or seasonal revenue streams that have not occurred as of the date of this report.
More telling information is found later in this report in the individual fund statements
narratives to help the reader get a "sense" of how the year is progressing.
The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance is intended to present expenditures on a budget
basis by fund consistent with the resolution adopting appropriation levels in the budget
compliance section of the document. Appropriations are as adopted with the revised
resolution that was done to lower the amount to be spent on Ashland library operations with
one exception. In the General Fund, the Police Department budget was increased through
supplemental budget processes by $190,000 to recognize the receipt of forfeiture monies that
need to be expended in the current year.
An overview by fund is as follows:
General Fund - Total revenues are 52.4% and expenditures are 44.1 % with $400,000 in
Contingency unused. Charges for Services are 53.9% and taxes are 58.0% of budget,
IV
CC - Quarterly Financial Report 2-5-08.doc
r~'
-r--
CITY OF
ASHLAND
respectively. The budget includes $997,000 in revenue for the sale of Strawberry properties
and a similar amount to be spent on the affordable housing program. Neither has been
accomplished at this time. A budget adjustment will be needed to restore appropriations in
the Finance -Miscellaneous category that was reduced too much in the budget process.
Projections indicate a transfer from Contingency of up to $10,000 may be necessary.
CDBG Fund - Revenue and Expenditures are consistent with budgeted activities for the year.
Street Fund - A positive cash flow year-to-date has been recorded with $1.6 million in taxes,
charges, interest and intergovernmental revenue and $1.4 million in operational expenses.
Minimal capital project expenses have occurred as the master plan is reviewed.
Airport Fund - A negative cash flow has been recorded due to capital work funded by grants
on a reimbursement basis. Half of the annual debt service on hangars has been paid this
year. Hangar rental revenues fund the debt service.
Capital Improvements Fund - Charges for services are at 53.7% of the annual estimate with
total revenues at 48.2% of the budget. Expenditures are 34.0% of the budget resulting in
$338,428 positive impact on ending fund balance. This is 8% more than was budgeted.
Debt Service Fund - Charges for services, taxes, transfers and interest total $1,625,697
(including Telecommunications Fund's $356,000) with Debt service payments at $1,542,574
(76.5%) of budget. This has resulted in an Ending Fund Balance $642,386 (7%) above the
budgeted $601,085. EFB is expected to remain close to the budgeted amount through June.
Water Fund - Revenue from water sales are low compared to the prior year when the City
was able to continue selling TID water later into the year. Expenses exceed revenues by
$177,384 with Revenue posting 49.5% of the budgeted amount. All divisions are below the
50% mark except for those relating to capital projects or debt service. Staff will need to
monitor the revenue to expense and capital project costs to funding ratios through June.
Wastewater Fund - Expenses exceed Revenues by $840,687 with half of the DEQ annual
debt service made. Charges for services are at 45.6% but Tax revenue (80% of Food &
Beverage Tax proceeds) is only 33.3% year-to-date. Significant F&B tax payments will be
recorded in the second half of the year but consumed by the debt service payment for the
treatment plant. All divisions are below the 50% mark except for those relating to capital
projects or debt service. External borrowing of $3.0 million will soon be needed for the $1.2
million in approved capital projects this year and the $1.5 million in FY 2008-2009.
Electric Fund - Total Expenses are above Revenues by $511,201 with the Ending Fund
Balance at $1.67 million or 99.4% of budget. Recent cold weather will positively impact sales
and the bottom line as we move into the Spring when wholesale power raters are at their
lowest. Only the Supply Division is above the 50% mark and that will improve before the end
of the year. Surcharge revenues have contributed over $533,000 to operational costs and are
scheduled for review along with rates during the next few months.
v
CC - Quarterly Financial Report 2-5-08.doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Telecommunications Fund - Revenue is at 52.8% of budget including Miscellaneous Income
of $62,374 for selling set top boxes. Expenditures exceed revenues by $230,117 but include
this fund's portion ($356,000 to) of the Debt Service on AFN GO bonds. Fund balance is
growing and at $733,779 or 102.3% above budget and will help with future debt service.
Central Services Fund - Revenues and Expenditures are near breakeven with an $82,080
negative cash flow for the first half of the year resulting from revenues at 49.2% and
expenditures at 46.5% of budget. The fund balance was budgeted to drop $495,745 for the
year so the fund is doing better than expected. Most divisions are close to the 50% mark with
the City Recorder budget highest at 49.1 % due to approximately $10,000 in election
expenses for the September ballot. The fund balance is $620,000 above target and will
provide some offset to expenses by end of this year or in the budget for FY 2009.
Insurance Services Fund - Expenses total $457,396 (51.6% of budget) representing annual
premiums being paid in the first two quarters as compared to only $359,476 (53.5%) in
revenue (primarily internal charges) collected. EFB is stable but the City should increase this
reserve when ever possible due to changes occurring in the liability and workers
compensation programs.
Equipment Fund - Revenues are 52.1 % of the budget and Expenditures are at 43.5%
resulting in a $242,655 reduction in the fund balance at this time. Approximately 40% of this
year's budgeted acquisitions ($1.3 million) have been completed thus the EFB will decrease
close to what was anticipated in the budget process.
Cemetery Trust Fund - Charges for Service are 50.2% of budget. Interest earnings are at
75.9%. Interest earnings are transferred to the General Fund periodically through the year
and a budget adjustment will be needed to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code.
Parks and Recreation Fund - Revenues are ahead of Expenditures at this point by $1.4
million due to sizeable distributions of property taxes in November. Divisional expenses
average 46% of the budget with Charges for services at 44.1 %. The $2.57 million ending
fund balance will continually drop through June as expenditures funded by property taxes
reduce the amount. APRC should set this fund's target EFB at an amount sufficient to carry it
through to tax distributions in the following November.
Ashland Youth Activities Levv Fund - Revenues are $2.2 million and Expenses are $25,929.
Taxes collected in November and December are distributed to the school district in January
per the intergovernmental agreement. Oth~r distributions are done in March and June.
Parks Capital Improvements Fund - Only interest earnings have been recognized and no
expenses have been made as of this time.
Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports and fund statements
are available for your review in the Administrative Services Department office should you
require any additional information.
VI
CC - Quarterly Financial Report 2-5-08.doc
rA'
City of Ashland
Summary of Cash and Investments
December 31,2007
Balance Balance Change From
Fund December 31, 2007 December 31,2006 FY 2007
General Fund $ 4,029,609 $ 2,847,519 $ 1,182,090
Community Block Grant Fund 6,919 256,505 (249,586)
Street Fund 2,578,841 2,277,423 301,418
Airport Fund 32,876 53,955 (21,079)
Capital Improvements Fund 1,027,701 333,337 694,364
Debt Service Fund 278,451 140,383 138,068
Water Fund 2,882,791 4,257,130 (1,374,339)
Wastewater Fund 3,931,707 4,846,090 (914,383)
Electric Fund 1,045,235 1,878,849 (833,614)
Telecommunications Fund 585,254 539,326 45,928
Central Services Fund 1,071,752 996,880 74,872
Insurance Services Fund 1,308,628 1,330,636 (22,008)
Equipment Fund 1,516,879 1,680,950 (164,071)
Cemetery Trust Fund 756,839 735,822 21,017
21,053,483 22,174,805 $ (1,121,322)
Ski Ashland Agency Fund 2,476 26,721 (24,245)
Parks & Recreation Agency Fund 5,206,428 5,055,088 151,340
5,208,904 5,081,809 127,095
T olal Cash Distribution $ 26,262,387 $ 27,256,614 $ (994,227)
Manner of Investment
Petty Cash $ 3,510 $ 3,010 $ 500
General Banking Accounts 1,029,079 2,135,719 (1,106,640)
Local Govemment Inv. Pool 24,229,798 22,117,885 2,111,913
City Investments 1,000,000 3,000,000 (2,000,000)
Tolal Cash and Investments $ 26,262,387 $ 27,256,614 $ (994,227)
Dollar Distribution
Ski Ashland, Parks
and Recreation
Funds
20%
\
\
All Other (General
Government)
33%
Central Services,
Insurance and
Equipment Funds
15%
\ Business Type Funds
32%
6 Financial Report Dec31 FY 2008.xls
113012008
City of Ashland
Combined Statement of Financial Position City Wide
For the sixth month ended Dee 31, 2007
Fiscal Year 2008 Percent Fiscal Year 2007
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Collected I Year-To-Date
Resource Summary Actuals Adopted Expended Balance Actuals
Revenues
Taxes $ 12,907,839 $ 19,991,810 64.6% $ (7,083,971) $ 12,594,344
Licenses and Permits 428,740 900,000 47.6% (471,260) 400,500
Intergovernmental Revenues 1,007,831 3,386,500 29.8% (2,378,670) 1,506,791
Charges for Services 17 ,726,070 35,604,558 49.8% (17,878,488) 16,922,464
System Development Charges 394,936 930,000 42.5% (535,064) 418,011
Fines and Forfeitures 81,257 180,000 45.1% (98,743) 92,387
AssessmentPa~ents 40,059 102,427 39.1% (62,368) 77,401
Interest on Investments 563,599 787,950 71.5% (224,351) 424,516
Miscellaneous Revenues 362,392 1,616,300 22.4% (1,253,908) 310,239
Total Revenues 33,512,722 63,499,545 52.8% (29,986,823) 32,746,653
Budgetary Resources:
Other Financing Sources 3,800,000 0.0% (3,800,000)
Interfund Loans
Proceeds From Debt Issuance
Transfers In 170,771 638,073 26.8% (467,302) 459,922
Total Budgetary Resources 170,771 4,438,073 3.8% (4,267,302) 459,922
Total Resources 33,683,493 67,937,618 49.6% (34,254,125) 33,206,575
Requirements by Classification
Personal Services 11,346,561 23,583,545 48.1% 12,236,984 10,512,989
Materials and Services 13,994,656 31,421,388 44.5% 17,426,732 13,412,861
Debt Service 3,018,485 5,16-1,206 58.5% 2,142,721 2,838,949
Total Operating Expenditures 28,359,702 60,166,140 47.1% 31,806,437 26,764,799
Capital Construction
Capital Outlay 2,323,900 11,888,705 19.5% 9,564,805 3,514,818
I nterfund Loans
Transfers Out 170,771 638,073 26.8% 467,302 459,922
Contingencies 1,631,000 0.0% 1,631,000
Total Budgetary Requirements 170,771 2,269,073 7.5% 2,098,302 459,922
Total Requirements 30,854,375 74,323,921 41.5% 43,469,544 30,739,539
Excess (Deficiency) of Resources
over Requirements 2,829,118 (6,386,303) -44.3% 9,215,421 2,467,036
Working Capital Carryover 23,352,522 23,927,048 97.6% (574,526) 24,727,622
Unappropriated Ending Fund
Balance $ 26,181,640 $ 17,540,745 149.3% $ 8,640,895 $ 27,194,658
6 Financial Report Dee 31 FY 2008 .xls
1/3012008
2
City of Ashland
Schedule of Revenues By Fund
12/31/2007
Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2007
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Percent to Year-To.Date
Revenues by Fund Actuals 2008 Adopted Budget Balance Actuals
City
General Fund $ 7,936,127 $ 15,145,065 52.4% $ (7,208,938) $ 7,382,831
Community Block Grant Fund 28,681 213,500 13.4% (184,819) 381,042
Street Fund 1,607,251 4,410,000 36.4% (2,802,749) 2,061,737
Airport Fund 164,511 348,500 47.2% (183,989) 56,208
Capital Improvements Fund 786,426 1,631,961 48.2% (845,535) 809,724
Debt Service Fund 1,625,697 2,082,775 78.1% (457,078) 1,074,236
Water Fund 2,597,330 5,245,000 49.5% (2,647,670) 2,645,356
Wastewater Fund 2,049,835 7,905,600 25.9% (5,855,765) 2,370,231
Electric Fund 6,001,571 13,677,800 43.9% (7,676,229) 5,989,031
Telecommunications Fund 906,454 1,742,324 52.0% (835,870) 1,196,098
Central Services Fund 2,745,595 5,583,708 49.2% (2,838,113) 2,661,933
Insurance Services Fund 359,475 672,485 53.5% (313,010) 337,710
Equipment Fund 737,702 1,417,000 52.1% (679,298) 728,871
Cemetery Trust Fund 29,527 45,500 64.9% (15,973) 28,294
Total City Components 27,576,183 60,121,218 45.9% (32,545,036) 27,723,302
Parks and Recreation Component
Parks and Recreation Fund 3,863,337 4,946,400 78.1% (1,083,063) 3,522,975
Ashland Youth Activities Levy Fund 2,238,560 2,658,000 84.2% (419,440) 1,960,298
Parks Capital Improvement Fund 5,412 212,000 2.6% (206,588)
Total Parks Components 6,107,309 7,816,400 78.1% (1,709,091) 5,483,273
Total City 33,683,493 67,937,618 49.6% (34,254,125) 33,206,576
Working Capital Carryover 23,352,522 23,927,048 97.6% (574,526) 27,194,658
Total Budget $ 57,036,015 $ 91,864,667 62.1% $ (34,828,651) $ 60,401,234
6 Fnancial Report Dee 31 FY 2008.xls
113O/2OOll
3
City of Ashland
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the sixth month ended Dee 31, 2007
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Adopted Used Balance
General Fund
Administration $ 58,862 $ 121,050 48.6% $ 62,188
Administration - Library 71,940 373,635 19.3% 301,695
Administrative Services - Municipal Court 215,942 427,360 50.5% 211,418
Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 100,060 121,000 82.7% 20,940
Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 341,634 527,519 64.8% 185,885
Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 4,058 1,000 405.8% (3,058)
Administrative Services - Band 34,530 60,509 57.1% 25,979
Police Department 2,605,714 5,648,208 46.1% 3,042,494
Fire and Rescue Department 2,545,924 4,997,175 50.9% 2,451,251
Public Works - Cemetery Division 147,661 339,165 43.5% 191,504
Community Development - Planning Division 637,021 2,411,548 26.4% 1,774,527
Community Development - Building Division 400,868 833,991 48.1% 433,123
Transfers 500 500 100.0%
Contingency 400,000 0.0% 400,000
Total General Fund 7,164,714 16,262,660 44.1% 9,097,946
Community Development Block Grant Fund
Personal Services 10,968 23,600 46.5% 12,632
Materials and Services 23,673 203,700 11.6% 180,027
Total Community Development Grant Fund 34,641 227,300 15.2% 192,659
Street Fund
Public Works - Street Operations 909,767 3,327,919 27.3% 2,418,152
Public Works - Storm Water Operations 345,620 834,957 41.4% 489,337
Public Works - Transportation SDC's 64,676 188,800 34.3% 124,124
Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 41,336 172,500 24.0% 131,164
Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 5,205 685,998 0.8% 680,793
Debt 400,000 0.0% 400,000
Transfers 200,000 0.0% 200,000
Contingency 89,000 0.0% 89,000
Total Street Fund 1,366,604 5,899,174 23.2% 4,532,570
Airport Fund
Materials and Services 52,599 111,032 47.4% 58,433
Capital Outlay 125,104 228,605 54.7% 103,501
Debt Service 17,536 35,172 49.9% 17,636
Contingency 5,000 0.0% 5,000
Total Airport Fund 195,239 379,809 51.4% 184,570
6 Financial Report Dee 31 FY 2008.xls
1130/2008
4
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the sixth month ended Dee 31, 2007
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Adopted Used Balance
Capital Improvements Fund
Personal Services 87,003 176,216 49.4% 89,213
Materials and Services 174,408 489,275 35.6% 314,867
Capital Outlay 35,300 300,000 11.8% 264,700
Transfers 151,287 302,573 50.0% 151,286
Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50,000
Total Capital Improvements Fund 447,998 1,318,064 34.0% 870,066
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service 1,542,574 2,016,821 76.5% 474,247
Total Debt Service Fund 1,542,574 2,016,821 76.5% 474,247
Water Fund
Electric - Conservation Division 83,378 177,300 47.0% 93,922
Public Works -Forest Lands Management Division 108,365 385,670 28.1% 277,305
Public Works -Water Supply 211,313 448,819 47.1% 237,506
Public Works - Water Treatment 457,180 1,137,338 40.2% 680,158
Public Works - Water Division 1,287,021 3,802,816 33.8% 2,515,795
Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's N/A
Public Works -Improvement SDC's 15,102 605,250 2.5% 590,148
Public Works - Debt SDC's 108,102 124,850 86.6% 16,748
Contingency 144,000 0.0% 144,000
Total Water Fund 2,774,714 7,611,747 36.5% 4,837,033
WasteWater Fund
Public Works - Wastewater Collection 1,079,362 2,479,706 43.5% 1,400,344
Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 797,715 1,926,453 41.4% 1,128,738
Public Works -Reimbursements SDC's 1 ,483 239,403 0.6% 237,920
Public Works -Improvements SDC's 165,941 121,423 136.7% (44,518)
Debt Service 846,020 1,788,160 47.3% 942,140
Contingency 140,000 0.0% 140,000
Total Wastewater Fund 2,890,521 6,695,145 43.2% 3,804,624
Electric Fund
Electric - Conservation Division 284,575 942,887 30.2% 658,312
Electric - Supply 3,109,614 6,102,504 51.0% 2,992,890
Electric - Distribution 2,683,879 5,711,671 47.0% 3,027,792
Electric - Transmission 434,704 903,600 48.1% 468,896
Contingency 375,000 0.0% 375,000
Total Electric Fund 6,512,772 14,035,662 46.4% 7,522,890
6 Financial Report Dee 31 FY 2008.xls
113012008
5
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the sixth month ended Dee 31,2007
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Adopted Used Balance
Telecommunications Fund
IT - Intemet 648,442 1,228,233 52.8% 579,791
IT - High Speed Access 132,129 468,607 28.2% 336,4 78
Debt - To Debt Service Fund 356,000 356,000 100.0%
Contingency 100,000 0.0% 100,000
Total- Telecommunications Fund 1,136,571 2,152,840 52.8% 1,016,269
Central Services Fund
Administration Department 695,621 1,502,580 46.3% 806,959
Administrative Services Department 761 ,223 1,575,530 48.3% 814,307
IT - Computer Services Division 552,096 1,165,588 47.4% 613,492
City Recorder 146,455 298,569 49.1% 152,114
Public Works - Administration and Engineering 672,280 1,387,186 48.5% 714,906
Contingency 150,000 0.0% 150,000
Total Central Services Fund 2,827,675 6,079,453 46.5% 3,251,778
Insurance Services Fund
Personal Services 43,881 85,000 51.6% 41,119
Materials and Services 413,515 700,000 59.1% 286,485
Contingency 100,000 0.0% 100,000
Total Insurance Services Fund 457,396 885,000 51.7% 427,604
Equipment Fund
Personal Services 132,852 268,701 49.4% 135,849
Materials and Services 279,461 503,222 55.5% 223,761
Capital Outlay 568,043 1,438,000 39.5% 869,957
Contingency 43,000 0.0% 43,000
Total Equipment Fund 980,356 2,252,923 43.5% 1,272,567
Cemetery Trust Fund
Transfers 18,985 25,000 75.9% 6,015
Total Cemetery Trust Fund 18,985 25,000 75.9% 6,015
6 Financial Report Dee 31 FY 2008.xls
1/3012008
6
Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2007-36
For the sixth month ended Dee 31, 2007
Fiscal Year 2008
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year 2008 Percent
Actuals Adopted Used Balance
Parks and Recreation Fund
Parks Division 1,723,506 3,948,075 43.7% 2,224,569
Recreation Division 563,993 1,051,727 53.6% 487,734
Golf Division 190,186 419,019 45.4% 228,833
Debt Service 10,500 0.0% 10,500
Transfers 110,000 0.0% 110,000
Contingency 35,000 0.0% 35,000
Total Parks and Recreation Fund 2,477,686 5,574,321 44.4% 3,096,635
Youth Activities Levy Fund
Personal Services 1,196 196,000 0.6% 194,804
Materials and Services 24,733 2,381,000 1.0% 2,356,267
Total Youth Activities Levy Fund 25,929 2,577,000 1.0% 2,551,071
Parks Capital Improvement Fund
Capital Outlay 331,000 0.0% 331,000
Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 331,000 0.0% 331,000
Total Appropriations $ 30,854,375 $ 74,323,921 41.5% $ 43,469,546
6 Financial Report Dee 31 FY 2008.xl.
1130/2008
7
City of Ashland
Schedule of Expenditures By Fund
12/31/2007
Fiscal Year 2008 Fiscal Year 2007
Year-To-Date Fiscal Year Percent Year-To-Date
Requirements by Fund Actuals 2008 Adopted Expended Balance Actuals
City Funds
General Fund $ 7,164,713 $ 16,262,661 44.1% $ 9,097,948 $ 6,435,303
Community Block Grant Fund 34,641 227,300 15.2% 192,659 347,720
Street Fund 1,366,604 5,899,174 23.2% 4,532,570 1,195,722
Airport Fund 195,239 379,809 51.4% 184,570 54,059
Capital Improvements Fund 447,998 1,318,064 34.0% 870,066 1,196,482
Debt Service Fund 1,542,574 2,016,821 76.5% 474,247 1,386,137
Water Fund 2,774,714 7,611,747 36.5% 4,837,033 4,365,441
Wastewater Fund 2,890,521 6,695,145 43.2% 3,804,624 2,323,536
Electric Fund 6,512,772 14,035,662 46.4% 7,522,890 6,704,369
Telecommunications Fund 1,136,571 2,152,840 52.8% 1,016,269 1,001,390
Central Services Fund 2,827,675 6,079,453 46.5% 3,251,778 2,548,132
Insurance Services Fund 457,401 885,000 51.7% 427,599 425,787
Equipment Fund 980,356 2,252,923 43.5% 1,272,567 595,144
Cemetery Trust Fund 18,983 25,000 75.9% 6,017 9,422
Total City Components 28,350,762 65,841,599 43.1% 37,490,837 28,588,644
Parks and Recreation Component
Parks and Recreation Fund 2,477,684 5,574,318 44.4% 3,096,634 2,140,944
Youth Activities Levy Fund 25,929 2,577,000 1.0% 2,551,071 9,951
Parks Capital Improvements Fund 331,000 0.0% 331,000
Total Parks Components 2,503,612 8,482,318 29.5% 5,978,706 2,150,895
Total Requirements by Fund 30,854,375 74,323,921 41.5% 43,469,542 30,739,539
Ending Fund Balance 26,181,640 17,540,746 149.3% 8,640,894 27,194,658
Total Budget $ 57,036,015 $ 91,864,667 62.1% $ 52,110,436 $ 57,934,197
6 Financial Report Dee 31 FY 2008.xls
1/30J2008
8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Authorization to Enter into Revised Agreement with Brammo Motors on Jefferson
Street Extension Project
February 5,2008 Primary Staff Contact:
Administrative Services E-Mail:
Legal, Public Works Secondary Contact:
Community De I ment
Martha Benn t
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Lee Tuneberg
tuneber1@ashland.or.us
Richard Appicello
Approval:
Estimated Time:
Consent
Question:
Should Council Approve revisions to the agreement documents between the City and Brammo
Motorsports, LLC, for the financing and construction ofthe Jefferson Street Extension project?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the first amendment to the development and security agreement
between the City and Brammo to extend Jefferson Street.
Background:
The City has preliminary approval of a $400,000 grant and a $500,000 low-interest loan from the
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department to extend Jefferson Street enabling
construction of facilities generating new job opportunities within the City. The project has lagged over
the last year as terms and conditions have been resolved and awaiting the annexation ofthe related
properties.
This time delay requires an amendment to the agreements that were developed but not executed in
early 2007.
Approval will allow the project to move forward.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
Council can approve the amendment and allow the project to move forward or take no action and the
project will end without any payment from the State on the loan or grant.
Potential Motions:
I move to accept staff s recommendation, approving the first amendment to development and security
agreement between City of Ashland, Craig Bramscher, and Brammo Motorsports, LLC.
Attachments:
First Amendment
Page 1 of 1
CC - Revised BrammoAgreement on Jefferson Street Project - 2-5-08.doc
r.,
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF ASHLAND, CRAIG BRAMSCHER,
AND BRAMMO MOTORSPORTS, LLC
Whereas, the City of Ashland, approved the above referenced Development
Agreement with supporting documents and said documents were fully executed
by Craig Bramscher and Brammo Motorsports, LLC, (hereinafter "Developer")
and submitted to the City in February 2007; and
Whereas, the City of Ashland has not executed said Agreement and supporting
documents due to delays in processing the Annexation of the subject property;
and
Whereas, City has now conditionally approved the annexation and the Parties
desire to execute the Agreement and supporting documents together with a First
Amendment to reset and clarify compliance dates and clarify the responsibilities
of the parties, consistent with the original agreement; and
NOW THEREFORE, the Development and Security Agreement is herby
amended as follows:
1. Numbered paragraph 2 b. of the Agreement is amended to read as
follows:
Developer will:
***
b. Subject to final approval of the Development Grant and the
Development Loans and except as may be funded by grants received from
Oregon Economic Development, make all Required Public Improvements
at Developer's sole cost and expense. Developer understands and agrees
that if the cost of the Required Public Improvements exceeds the loan or
grant amounts received, the Developer is solely responsible for the cost
of said improvements in addition to repayment of loans or, in the event
of violation of grant terms, grant funds. This provision does not
prohibit or limits Developer's submittal of revised or additional loan or
grant requests. "Make all Required Public Improvements" in this
First Amendment to Brammo Development and Security Agreement
1
paragraph means the Developer pays the full cost of City construction
of the Required Public Improvements in accordance with public
contracting law and in compliance the OECDD grant and loan
conditions. Loan and grant funds shall be applied by the City to the
construction cost without the need to pass through said costs to the
Developer.
2. The dates for Developer compliance with paragraphs 2.c, 2.d., 2.e, 2.g. and
2.h are modified from January 19, 2007 to February 16, 2007. Updated
documents referenced in paragraphs 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, 2.g and 2.h, including but not
limited to a revised promissory note, trust deed and guarantee, shall be
submitted to the City Finance Director on or before February 19, 2008.
3. Numbered paragraph 3. of the Agreement is amended to read as follows:
City will:
a. Process the annexation request.
b. No later than fifteen days following Developer's compliance with
paragraphs c, d, e, g, and h of Section 2 of this Agreement, and submittal
of updated documents as called for in the First Amendment to this
Agreement. execute the necessary documents to receive the low interest
loans and/or grants offered through the Oregon Economic and
Community Development Department.
c. Receive and pass through apply the funds received from the
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, together
with funds received from the Developer, to the cost of engineering,
permitting and construction of the Required Public Improvements, in
accordance with City code, including public contracting requirements.
4. Section 4. j. Entire Agreement is amended to remove the words "relating
to the reservation of future public roads, rights of way"
5. The Effective Date of this Amendment and the original Agreement shall
be the date on which the last party to execute the Amendment to the Agreement
so executes it and a fully executed copy, or counterpart original of the
Amendment and the original executed Agreement is mailed, first class mail to
First Amendment to Brammo Development and Security Agreement
2
the other party
6. Any provision of the Agreement, not specifically amended or modified
herein shall remain in full force and effect.
Dated this '
of February 2008
BRAMMO MOTORSPORTS, LLC.
CITY OF ASHLAND
By:
Craig Bramscher, individually and
on behalf of Brammo Motorsports LLC.
Date:
By:
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Date:
ATTEST:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
First Amendment to Brammo Development and Security Agreement
3
DEVELOPMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN:
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, an Oregon Municipal
Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City"
AND:
CRAIG BRAMSCHER, an individual and BRAMMO
MOTORSPORTS, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company,
collectively hereinafter referred to as "Developer"
DATED:
THIS J...!e...- Day of
FGV
,2007.
PREMISES:
1. Developer has annexed the property more particularly described in attached
Exhibit A and hereinafter referred to as the "Property."
2. As a condition of annexation, Jefferson Street will have to be improved to City
street standards which includes but is not limited to: base, paving, curb, gutter,
sidewalk and storm drain, hereinafter referred to as "Required Public
Improvements. .,
3. Developer is responsible for the total cost of all improvements included in the
construction of the continuation of the Jefferson Street Extension.
4. Developer's proposal is expected to result in the creation of 134 new family wage
jobs.
5. City, in recognition of the benefit to City from the job creation, has applied for
and received tentative approval from the Oregon Economic Development
Department for $400,000 in a grant (the "Development Grant") and $500,000 in
low interest economic development loans (the "Development Loans") to assist
developer with the costs of installing the Required Public Improvements.
6. Developer must provide adequate assurances to City for completion of the project,
the resulting creation of jobs and repayment of the economic development loan
proceeds and in the event of default the grant funds.
Now Therefore. the Parties Agree as follows:
I. The premises are deemed true and are herein incorporated by reference.
2. Developer will:
a. Subject to final approval of the Development Grant and the Development
Loans, take all necessary steps to annex the Property to the City of
Ashland.
b. Subject to final approval of the Development Grant and the Development
Loans and except as may be funded by grants received from Oregon
Economic Development, make all Required Public Improvements at
Developer's cost.
c. No latcr than January 19,2007, providc City a copy of a real property
appraisal for the property.
d. No latcr than January 19,2007, provide City with a copy of the business
plan and corporate financial reports for Brammo Motorsports, LLC. which
the City agrees to keep confidential.
e. No later than, January 19,2007, provide City with a copy of Craig
Bramscher's personal financial reports, which the City agrees to keep
confidential.
f. Prior to City's acceptance of grant funds, provide City with a copy of a
level one environmcntal assessment of the property.
g. No later than, January 19, 2007, execute a promissory note and trust deed,
in substantially similar form to those attach cd hereto as Exhibit B, to
secure repayment of all loan proceeds and to secure any potential default
of conditions placcd on any Oregon Economic Development Grants.
h. No later than, January 19,2007, provide the City with a guarantee from
Craig Bramscher, personally, in substantially similar form to that attached
hereto as Exhibit C, for responsibility to repay all amounts owed by the
City for loan repayment or repayment prompted by any default in the grant
requirements.
3. City will:
a. Process the annexation request.
b. No later than fifteen days f()lIowing Developer's compliance with
paragraphs c, d, e, g and h of section 2 of this agreement, execute the
necessary documents to receive the low interest loans and/or grants
offered through the Oregon Economic and Community Development
Department.
c. Receive and pass through the funds received from the Oregon Economic
and Community Development Department.
4. Miscellaneous
a. Successors and Assif:!.ns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the respective personal representatives, heirs, successors,
and assigns of the parties.
b. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and
enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon.
c. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one and the same instrument, provided,
however, in no event shall this Agreement be effective unless and until
signed by the parties hereto.
d. Run with the Land. This agreement is an instrument affecting the title and
possession of the real property described above, more particularly
described in attached Exhibit "A", herein incorporated by reference.
Subject to final approval of the Development Grant and the Development
Loans, the terms and conditions herein imposed shall run with the land
and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors in
interest of Developer. Subject to final approval of the Development Grant
and the Development Loans, upon any sale or division of The Property,
the terms of this agreement shall apply separately to each parcel and the
owner of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on
Developer by this agreement.
e. Recording. Developer shall, pursuant to ORS 94.528, be responsible for
preparing and recording a memorandum of this Agreement in the official
Real Property Records for Jackson County, Oregon, within 15 days after
the date of this Agrcemcnt.
e. Recording.
Developer shall, pursuant to ORS 94.528, be responsible for preparing and recording a
memorandum of this Agreement in the official Real Property Records for Jackson
County, Oregon, within 15 days after the date of this Agreement. Upon performance by
Developer of all of its obligations under this Agreement, City will execute an instrument
in recordable form as may be reasonably requested by Developet to evidence such
performance.
f. Effective Date.
For all purposes of this Agreement, the "Effective Datc" or "Date" of this Agreement
shall be the date on which the last party to execute this Agreement so executes it and a
fully executed copy, or a fully executed counterpart original. is received by the other
party in the manner set forth herein.
g. Exhibits.
Each and all of the exhibits attached hereto are hereby incorporated into this Agreement
by reference.
h. Attorneys' Fees.
If either party to this Agreement commences an action, suit or other proceeding against
the othcr party hereto to cnforce any of the terms of this Agreement or because of the
breach by a party oC or any dispute concerning, any of the terms hereof, the losing or
defaulting party shall pay to the prevailing party (as determined by the court, agency or
other authority before which such litigation is heard) reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses
and costs of investigation as actually incllrred.
1. Severability.
If any term, provision or condition contained in this Agreement shall, to any extent, be
invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such
term, provision or condition to persons or circumstances other than those with respect to
which it is invalid or unenforceable. shall not be effected thereby. and each and every
other term. provision and condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to
the fullest extent possible permitted by law.
J. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto contain the entire agreement between
the parties relating to the reservation of future public roads. rights-of-way, and all prior
negotiations between the parties are merged in this Agreement and there are no promises.
agreements. conditions. undertakings. warranties or representations, oral or written.
express or implied, between them other than as herein set forth. No change or
modification of this agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by
the parties hereto. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement and other
agreements referred to herein shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the party
against whom it is sought to be enforced.
k. Authority.
The parties agree that the signatures of each below have full authority to sign this
Agreement and their signature shall bind the respective parties to this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer has caused this Agreement to be
executed as of the day and year firs above written.
BRAMMO MOTORSPORTS, LLC
(".-..,-..
BY:';;~~
C./JA./CA. 4-- 54-~x' ~
(Name)
cc:-D
(Title)
ACCEPTED THIS _ day of
,2007, by the City of Ashland.
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
By:
ATTEST:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
EXHIBIT A
A parcel of land situated in the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 39 South,
Range 1 East, of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, being more fully
described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Southwest Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 39 South, Range 1 East, of the
Willarnette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon; thence South 89"45'16" West (deed
record West), along the northerly boundary of that parcel set forth in Volume 309,
page 375, and Volume 335, page 321, Jackson County, Oregon, Deed Records, 126.28 feet
to a 5/B" x 30" Iron pin situated in the southwesterly right of way of Interstate
Highway No.5, for the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing South 89"45'16"
West (deed record West), along said parcel set forth in Volume 335, page 321, said
Deed Records, 311.72 feet to a 5/8" x 30" pin situated at the northwest corner
thereof; thence South 0"02'16" West (deed record South, and South 0017' West), along
the westerly boundary line of those parcels set forth in Volume 309, page 375, and
Volume 335, page 321, and Volume 439, page 482, said Deed Records, 692.15 feet to a
5/8" x 30" iron pin situated in the northeasterly right of way of the Southern
PaCIfIC RaIlroad, as claimed by said railroad; thence continuing South 0"02'16" West
(deed record South, and South 0"17' West), 66.42 feet, to a point in the
northeasterly right of way of the Southern Pacific Railroad, as set forth in Volume
245, page 480, and Volume 439, page 482, said Deed Records; thence along the deed
record location of said railroad, the following courses: Along the arc of a 2914.934
foot radius curve to the left, the radial bearings "in and out" are South 41038'15"
West and North 35042' 56" East (the central angle is 05055' 19"), 301.28 feet, to a
pOInt of spIral curvature; thence along the arc of a spiral curve to the left (the
long chord bears North.54052'59" West, 90.79 feet), to a point of tangency; thence
North 5501'04" West 601.29 feet; thence leaving said deed record location of said
railroad rIght of way, North 60"02'33" East, 55.27 feet, to a 5/8" x 30. iron pin
situated in the northeasterly right of way of the Southern Pacific Railroad, as
claimed by said railroad; thence leaving said right of way North 60002'33" East,
298.64 feet, to a 5/8" x 30" Iron pIn; thence East 159.24 feet, to a 5/8' x 30" iron
pin; thence North 06050'20" East, 42.30 feet, to a 5/8" x 30" iron pin, situated at
the southwest corner of that parcel set forth in No. 75-14182 of the Official Records
of Jackson County, Oregon; thence East, along the southerly boundary of the last
referred to parcel, 622.96 feet to a 5/8" x 30" iron pin situated in the
southwesterly right of way of Interstate Highway No.5; thence South 26041'00" East,
along said Interstate highway right of way, 47.61 feet, to the True Point of
Beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion of the herein above parcel that may be
situated within the right of way of the Southern Pacific Railroad.
(Code 5-08, Account #1-062312-0, Map #391E14A, Tax Lot #1104)
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
North Mountain Land Company SDC appeal hearing
February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
City Attorney's Offic E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us
Public Works Secondary Contact: Paula Brown
Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Should the City Council reset the date of the continued SDC appeal hearing to March 4, 2008 and
notify the appellant of the revised date?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the continued hearing date be changed to March 4, 2008
Background:
At the City Council's January 15,2008 meeting, the City Council continued the appeal hearing for the
above referenced matter to February 18, 2008. Key public Works personnel will be unavailable for this
February meeting. Legal staff has discussed a continuance with the appellant's attorney and appellant
consents to a reasonable continuance to facilitate staff attendance.
Related City Policies:
AMC 4.20.100.E. (requires ten working days notice to appellant of hearing date)
Council Options:
(1) Change the date of the continued appeal hearing;
(2) Do not change the date.
Potential Motions:
Move to reset the date of the continued SDC appeal hearing to March 4, 2008 and notify the appellant
of the revised date.
Attachments:
N/A
Page 1
020508 SDC Hearing date change. doc
r;.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Liberty
Street Local Improvement District and Adoption of a Resolution Setting a Public
Hearing to Consider the Formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve
the Alley Between Harrison and Morton Streets
February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412
Public Works / Engi eering E-Mail: olsoni@ashland.or.us
Legal/City Re r Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen552-2084
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 45 minutes
Question:
1. Will Council approve the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the improvement of
Liberty Street by formation of a Local Improvement District?
2. Does the Council have any revisions to the draft findings and orders pertaining to the formation
of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District?
3. Will Council approve the attached resolution establishing a new date of March 18,2008 for a
Public Hearing to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve the alley
between Harrison and Morton Streets?
Staff Recommendation:
Previously, Council had set a public hearing date of February 5, 2008 to consider the formation of a
Local Improvement District to improve Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton
Streets. While the Liberty Street property owners are prepared to address the Council on that date, the
owners abutting the alley have asked that the public hearing for the alley improvement be postponed to
provide adequate time to address two issues which will make the alley improvement more acceptable
to the property owners. The residents ofthe alley intend to petition the Traffic Safety Commission on
February 28, 2008 to limit the traffic on the alley to one-way and to install two speed humps in the
alley to help control vehicle speeds.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of the Liberty
Street Local Improvement District and review of the draft findings pertaining to that action. The
findings in their final form will be presented for adoption at the following meeting date. Staff further
recommends approval of the resolution setting a new public hearing date of March 18, 2008 to
consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve the Alley between Harrison and
Morton Streets.
Background:
Neighborhood Meetings
In response to majority petitions received from the property owners on Liberty Street and on the alley
south of Siskiyou Boulevard and located between Harrison and Morton Streets, the Council on
December 4,2007 set a public hearing date of February 5, 2008 to consider the formation of a Local
Improvement District to improve both Liberty Street and the alley. Engineering staffwas able to meet
Page 1 of6
C:\DOCUME-l\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\07-25 CC PH for Liberty & Setting PH for Alley 1 OS.doc
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
with the affected neighborhoods on January 16th and 1 ih to answer questions and disseminate
information regarding LID's and improvement options.
On January 16th, a neighborhood meeting was held at 51 Winburn Way to consider the proposed
improvement of Liberty Street. Nearly one half of the Liberty Street ownership was represented. All
those who attended the meeting were in favor of the project and expressed a desire to begin the design
process as quickly as possible.
The alley neighborhood met on January 1 ih at the Ashland Public Library with 13 people in
attendance. With the exception of one owner, the entire proposed assessment district was represented.
The neighborhood was in unanimous agreement that traffic on the alley had increased drastically
following the 2004 completion of the Siskiyou Boulevard renovation. It was contended that the median
closures at Union Street, Harrison Street and Liberty Street have caused traffic to be redirected onto
adjacent streets including the alley. It was estimated that traffic volumes have more than doubled since
2004. The residents asked that the public hearing for the alley improvement be delayed to allow
consideration by the Traffic Safety Commission of a one-way traffic designation for the alley. Since
one-way traffic often relates to faster traffic in alleys, the residents will also petition the Traffic Safety
Commission to authorize the installation of two speed humps to help control traffic speeds.
Alley Improvements
This proposed improvement consists of grading and paving the existing alley surface between Harrison
and Morton Street (south of Siskiyou Boulevard). The pavement would be eleven feet wide and would
be constructed with an inverted crown to control drainage. No curbs or sidewalks would be constructed
on the alley since the right of way is only 16 feet wide. The east side of Harrison Street at the alley
intersection will require extensive reconstruction (see photos). Although the Harrison Street repairs
would be included in the construction contract, they would not be funded through the LID. Since
Harrison Street is already fully improved, the repair work would be financed from street maintenance
momes.
Proposed Alley LID Boundary
The alley is located along the rear lot lines of five lots that front on the south side of Siskiyou
Boulevard, between Harrison and Morton Streets. Each of these has vehicular access onto the alley
rather than onto Siskiyou. Most of the lots have rear yard garages. Four additional lots front on the
south side of the alley with the center two lots taking sole access from the alley. The nine lots that
would make up the alley assessment district would receive a direct and definable benefit from the
improvement of the alley. It is proposed that the boundary ofthe assessment district be configured to
surround these nine lots as shown on the attached map.
Petition
A petition calling for the improvement of the alley was received in early October bearing nine names
and representing five of the nine lots, or 55.6% of the total assessment units. The represented lots
include 658 and 670 Siskiyou Boulevard and 162, 164 and 176 Harrison Streets.
Funding
The estimated improvement costs for the alley, including repair and maintenance work on Harrison
Street are as follows:
Page 2 of6
C:\DOCUME-l\shipJetd\LOCALS-l\Temp\07-25 CC PH for Liberty & Setting PH for Alley 1 08.doc
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Total Construction Cost $
Engineering & Administration Costs $
Total Estimated Project Cost I $
Less Harrison St Repair (total borne by City) $
Less Engineering Cost For Harrison St Repair $
Total LID Project Cost I $
48,580.00
12,000.00
60,580.00
20,530.00
6,000.00
34,050.00
Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09
75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X
20% of street surface cost 0.2 X
50% of engineering cost 0.5 X
60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X
$ 4,700.00
$23,050.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 300.00
Sub Total
$ 3,525.00
$ 4,610.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 180.00
$ 11,315.00
Number of Lots in proposed assessment district
Estimated per lot for alley improvement
Assessable Cost $ 22,735.00
9
$ 2,526.11
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Cost to be born by City including Harrison
Cost to be born by Property Owners
$60,580.00
$37,845.00 (60%)
$22,735.00 (40%)
Liberty Street Improvements
The improved portion of Liberty Street consists of curb and gutter and paving with a width of 34 feet.
The section of street south of Ashland Street has no sidewalks and ends approximately 290 feet from
the actual southerly end ofthe right of way. The proposed improvement project would continue the
street at a lesser width of 22 feet or less to the end of the right of way. Sidewalks could be installed on
one side of the street for slightly over half ofthe total length. The southerly 290 feet of right of way is
severely constrained with multiple mature trees, steep cut and fill slopes and drainage issues. It is
recommended that the southerly 290 feet of street be reduced to an 18 foot width and that sidewalks be
eliminated from this section.
Proposed Liberty Street LID Boundary
This LID is one that, like Plaza Avenue, where the formation of on LID has been previously attempted
several times, the last being in 2001. It is proposed that the assessment district be composed ofthose
lots that have actual frontage on the section of street to be improved as well as those lots which take
sole access from the section of street to be improved. There are sixteen lots with street frontage and
four lots that have sole access from the street including a parcel owned by the City of Ashland. This lot
was recently acquired as parks open space and has trail access along the irrigation ditch and a
maintenance easement through tax lot 100 to Liberty Street. The lot is not further dividable due to the
steep terrain and lack of a viable access. The maintenance easement was granted as maintenance
access, not an ingress and egress easement.
Page 3 of6
C:\DOCUME-l\shipletd\LOCALS-I\Temp\07-25 CC PH for Liberty & Setting PH for Alley I 08.doc
r.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Petition
Petitions calling for the improvement of southerly section of Liberty Street were received on August
ih, August 25th, and September 10, 2007 bearing names representing 15 of the 22 assessment units, or
68.2% of the total proposed assessment district. If the City owned lot is included in the "in favor"
computation the percentages increases to 72.7%.
Funding
The estimated improvement cost for Liberty Street is $220,000 including engineering and
administration costs. Following is a breakdown of the estimated development and assessment costs:
Total Construction Cost $
Engineering & Administration Costs $
Total Estimated Project Cost I $
Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09
75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X
20% of street surface cost 0.2 X
50% of engineering cost 0.5 X
60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X
$ 13,870.00 $
$ 156,070.00 $
$ 40,080.00 $
$ 9,980.00 $
Sub Total $
Assessable Cost
Number of Lots in proposed assessment district
Estimated per lot for Liberty Street improvement
Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007)
179,920.00
40,080.00
220,000.00 I
10,402.50
31,214.00
20,040.00
5,988.00
67,644.50
$ 152,355.50
22
$ 6,925.25
$ 5,251.00
Since Resolution 99-09 sets a maximum amount that may be born by the owners any additional cost
must be born by the City. In addition the single lot owned by the City also receives an assessment
which adds to the amount that the City will pay.
Amount to be paid by owners
Amount to be paid by City
a. Participation per Resolution 99-09
b. Amount over the maximum cap
c. Assessment for City owned lot
$ 115,522.00 (52.5%)
$ 67,644.50
$ 31,582.50
$ 5,251.00
$ 104,478.00 (47.5%)
$ 220,000.00 (100%)
TOTAL
Findings
The attached draft findings document the Council's considerations and decisions relating to the
formation ofthe Liberty Street local improvement district. Following the public hearing the findings
will be updated and presented to Council for adoption at a subsequent meeting.
Page 4 of 6
C:\DOCUME-l\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\07-25 CC PH for Liberty & Setting PH for Alley 1 OS.doc
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Importance of Paved Streets
Ashland has a firm understanding of the importance of its public street system. As stated in the
Ashland Street Standards Handbook adopted by Council in March of 1999, Ashland's streets are some
of the most important public spaces in the community and can shape and define a neighborhood.
Ashland's streets are intended to enhance, accommodate and promote all modes oftrave1 including
bicycle, pedestrian, vehicle and transit use. Although many profess to enjoy the rural feel provided by
a gravel or dirt surface street, it is impossible to provide enhanced and safe accommodations for all
modes of travel under unimproved street conditions.
The Ashland Comprehensive Plan and the Ashland Land Use Ordinance both address the importance
of well designed, well constructed streets. These documents, along with the Ashland Transportation
System Plan and the Transportation Element ofthe Comprehensive Plan, all deal with the need to
improve streets and provide a uniform set of development standards.
From a Public Works viewpoint there are a number of equally compelling reasons to improve gravel
streets with curb and gutter and paving including:
1. Reduced Maintenance Cost - Each year the Public Works Department spends thousands of
dollars to maintain gravel surfaces and drainage ditches. Once the street is paved, maintenance
costs are reduced to near zero for the first 10 to 15 years.
2. Drainage Control- The use of concrete curb and gutter with catch basins and storm drain
piping prevents the uncontrolled surface flow of water along an unimproved street eliminating
the need for unsafe and unsightly drainage ditches and eliminates erosion within the ditches.
3. Safety Improvement - The vertical curb contributes to safety by defining the edge of the street
for drivers, pedestrians and children. The curbs show drivers where to drive, where to turn and
where to park. Curbs also provide protection of street lights, fire hydrants signs and mail boxes.
The uniform paved surface also provides a much safer surface for all modes of transportation.
This is especially true in granitic surface streets where loose individual grains of decomposed
granite act as ball bearings beneath shoes and tires.
4. Environmental Improvements - The paving of dirt or gravel surfaced streets is a proven remedy
to reduce dust and particulate levels in the air and water born silt from the storm system.
LID Support
A notice of public hearing was sent to all property owners within the proposed Liberty Street
assessment district advising them of the date of the hearing. Owners were advised that they could
appear at the hearing or submit written comments as to why the improvements should not be installed
or why properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed.
As of this date, no comments, either written or otherwise have been received in opposition to this
proposed improvement. Little opposition is anticipated at the public hearing except from the usual
sources.
Related City Policies:
AMC Chapter 13.20 sets forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public
facilities under a Local Improvement District.
Page 5 of6
C:\DOCUME~1\shipletd\LOCALS-l\Temp\07-25 CC PH for Liberty & Setting PH for Alley 1 08.doc
~~,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Options:
Liberty Street LID
1. Council may approve or reject the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of
an LID to improve Liberty Street; or
2. Council may elect to delay approval of the improvement resolution pending additional
information from staff.
Alley LID
Council may approve or reject the attached resolution establishing a new public hearing date to
consider the formation of a LID to improve the alley or to establish on alternative date.
Potential Motions:
Liberty Street LID
1. Council may move to approve the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of
a Local Improvement District to improve Liberty Street; or
2. Council may move to reject or take no action on the attached resolution and may direct staff to
provide further information.
Alley LID
1. Council may move to approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing date of March 18,
2008 for a public hearing to consider the formation of a LID to improve the alley south of
Siskiyou Boulevard between Harrison and Morton Streets; or
2. Council may move to delay approval of the attached resolution.
Attachments:
Resolution, with exhibits, authorizing the improvement of Liberty Street
Resolution, with exhibits, setting a public hearing date for the alley improvement
Petitions
Vicinity maps
Letter from petitioners
Photographs
Draft Findings and Orders
Page 6 of6
H:\ShipletD\Council\Council Communication\2008\020508 PH Liberty & Setting PH.CC.doc
r.,
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO
LIBERTY STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM
DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL
COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
RECITALS:
A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements
described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and
to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional
share of the cost of the improvement; and
B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to
the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be
assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective
assessments to be levied for the costs.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots
described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Liberty Street Local
Improvement District, No. 88.
SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the
improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance
with costs estimated to be $220,000.00 of which $115,522.00 will be paid by special
assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $5251.00 per
equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the assessment area.
Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell
notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local
improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of
additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This
borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235(7).
SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds
to pay for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue
PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 CC Liberty Resolution Authorizing & Ordering.doc
bonds or other obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the
Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its
available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement
Bonds to be excludable from gross income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United
States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement
Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that
the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $117,200.00.
SECTION 5. The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties is characterized as
an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4).
SECTION 6. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the
respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the
city.
SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
12.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
day of
,2008.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2008.
John Morrison, Mayor
PAGE 2-FORMATION RESOLUTION
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 CC Liberty Resolution Authorizing & Ordering.doc
-<
E--
~
=
~
~
E-l
ZE-l
~~
t"I.lo
~~
t"I.l
<
~E-l
I'oilZ
E-ll'oill'oil
<~E-l
~~<
E-ll'oil~
t"I.lt"l.l
I'oil~
E-<
U
-
p:::
E-<
(;/)
-
o
E-<
ffi
:E
(;/)
(;/)
~
(;/)
(;/)
<
E-<
~
~
p:::
E-<
(;/)
I
t"I.lE-lt"l.l
t"I.lzE-l
I'oill'oil"""
~~~
<
~
p:::
~
~
-
....:l
o
~
(;/)
o
p...
o
p:::
p...
~ E-l .
<00
E-l..;lZ
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
......
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
......
o
C!
......
VI
N
.0-
~
o
C!
......
VI
N
VI~
~
......
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
......
N
E g
~ ~
~ 0 "0
~~ U v.i~
.g l-< >- ::s
~ "0 :!a "0 ~ <
~~ g ~z-d'
d(3::S .~ ::S~~
"O<::C: I::l fJ).~
~ ~..s....:l < Po< ~
:>'Q) ....r"Ol-<
~ Vi .D ~ 00';> U
~--~"O!5""'~l-<
"":€]~t>-ECl~
l=l Q) ~ ..... Q) ~-g
;]:-9 ~~:>:-9 ~~
5h....:l ~~..t:f....:l..2\O
:-;:::O~VI~'<:t"'<:t
::E~u~Z~~~
~
I'oil
~
o
Z
o
"""
E-l
;
U
t"I.l
I'oil
~
o
Z
~
~
o
z
!:l !:l
.9 .9
.~o .~o
~~~~
Po<--;'Po<--;'
"'........ ...........
......VlNVI
......... .........
o I 0 I
ZPo<ZPo<
..... .....
Q)~Q)~
~ Po< ~ Po<
Po< Po<
o
o
o
r-
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
~
......
......
o
o
r-
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
('f')
N
o
'<:t
o
~
VI
I
00
0\
~
o
o
o
......
r-
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
~
~
'<:t
\0
~
N
,.
0\
0\
~
o
o
o
N
r-
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
('f')
'<:t
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
......
......
....;
Q)
fJ)
'S
Q)
Cl
t!'
o
]~
::Sd(3 0
fJ) S..... N
!:l<;:: ~VI!:l<
~....ro...br- ~.....~
Q) 00 /1) . 00 0\ Q) 00
Cl r>: Vi >- ~ Cl r>:
e~t ~tO e~t
Q) >- Q) Q)
2:-9 8:-9] 2:-9
t;....:lQ)....:l~t;....:l
00 go,.s;;o 00
~ N ..... 0\ ~ ~ N
tZlr-tZlr-......tZlr-
o
00
('f')
o
o
o
I
'<:t
o
~
o
0\
00
N
......
\0
I
N
o
~
o
o
o
('f')
r-
......
o
~
r-
~
\0
......
~
\0
......
~
......
~
......
0\
~
0\
~
VI
\0
o
o
N
o
VI
o~
......
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
N
......
]
::s
fJ)
r-
~~ g
..... '<:t
~ 0\
Z <
~ u
::E 8
~ '5
'S ~
'50 <
.!:l ~
:> ;>
!:l~3 <
o ...... gf
fJ) !S .....
~..... ;>
"0-..:=
l=1 Q) 0\
<:::E......
o
00
~
o
o
o
I
'<:t
o
~
o
!:l0\
o .
....-4~~
.<;:: 0 0
~:>Po<o
Po< .S ....:l U
~ "0 ::E !:l
'<:t Q) "-' 0
0""8 o~
ZO('f')C)
_~OO~
Q) l-< OIl......
~cuPo<
Po<P::
N
o
('f')
r-
N
o
('f')
('f')
~
\0
......
~
\0
......
~
......
~
......
0\
~
0\
('f')
r-
00
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N
.0-
~
......
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
......
o
C!
......
VI
N
VI~
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
......
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
......
o
o
N
o
VI
o~
......
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
~
o
~
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
o
C!
......
VI
N.,
VI
~
N
......
-
::c: ~
~ Q)
..9 ....:l
~ ~
~ ~
~ "0 ~ s~ "0
~~ ] "0 ::c: ~~
......::s ] ::s ~ ~ ~::s
d(3fJ) ::s fJ) ::s ..!:l OfJ)
0< fJ) < fJ) Q) ~ ~ <
!:l.....~....:l<Z~....:l< ~-~ 0Il....r
..... 00 "0 l-<~ ~ \0 "0 l-<~...... Q) 00
;>--'-'Q) Vll-<Q)....~ l-<~
Q)€~Q) ('f')~Q)o::E ~€
~Q)C)8~~C)8fJ)...... ~Q)
~.D :."'j..... ~ 0 :."'j ..... "0 00 = .D
~~~Po<..s~~Po<~'<:tVlQ)~
0......;>;00 ~O ;>;oo~'?~ SVl
000 ~Vlc.,;.:; ~VI._"'jVl\O Or-
z\O::c:......<Po<::c:......~r-O\ur-
('f')
r-
('f')
~
......
o
I
VI
o
~
o
o
o
'<:t
('f')
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
('f')
0\
0\
VI
VI
......
VI
I
o
o
~
o
VI
o
'<:t
~
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
~
o
......
0\
~
......
o
('f')
I
o
0\
~
o
r-
o
'<:t
~
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
('f')
......
......
00
VI
VI
......
VI
I
o
o
~
o
o
o
VI
~
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
('f')
N
......
'<:t
o
N
o
\0
I
00
0\
~
o
o
o
\0
('f')
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
('f')
('f')
......
u
.g
00
o
=
::l
o
~
o(l
o
00
('f')
o
o
o
I
'<:t
o
~
o
-
'"
;.:j
'5
e
~
~
~
.D
;.:j
Vl
<'1
~
9
i
~
'7
~
<(
3
'i
"S..
:a
!!J
~
~
~
(j
o
o
r-
~
~
\0
......
~
......
0\
~
'<:t
......
E-o 0
0 ZE-o 0 0 0 0 0 q
q ~~ q q q q q C"l
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... C"l
.,... 000 .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... III
C"l., ~~ C"l., C"l., C"l., C"l., C"l., .,...
.,... .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... .....
GI'} GI'} GI'} GI'} GI'} GI'} .....
00 GI'}
<
~E-o
0 r;oilZ 0 0 0 0 0 ~
q E-or;oilr;oil q q q q q
..... <~E-o ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
.,... ~~~ .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... Eo-;
C"l., C"l., C"l., C"l., C"l., C"l., 0
.,... E-or;oil .,... .,... .,... .,... .,... Eo-;
GI'} 0000 GI'} GI'} GI'} GI'} GI'}
r;oil~
I
OOE-oOO
OOZE-o C"l
..... r;oilr;oil.... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
~~~ N
<
(/)
~
0
....:l
Cl
~
CIl
CIl
U U ~
0 ....:l ....:l (/)
= ,-.. ....:l ....:l ] ~ (/)
~ r;oil ~] €~ >.~ ~ <
11)~ ~ ~
ffi ~ 11) ~ 13 ~ ::2 ::2
~::2 8"'::2 8'::2 '" '"
o($~ 0 '-' '" ~< ~< ~
]~ I-< '" 0
<< ~< ~< ...t::.: ...c: .....~
~(/) ~CIl ~
t:: .r>: ::2(/) ~~ ~ ~ St sf
Ot:: < .~ 'Cdt:: -t::
C) 11) ~] :;] >-. 11) >-. 11)
(/),J:J '"5::E ~,J:J "'~~
~ ..... I ..... o ..... '" .....
N....:l N....:l N....:l ~....:l ~....:l
~..... >.~ ~..... ~..... ~\O ~I.O
.~o
~~ UC"l ~~ ~~ ....:l~ ....:l~
~ ~
0 0
..... .....
C"l Z .~ "'" .t:: ~ 00 r- .....
0 0 tio tio 1.0 0\ r-
oo .... ~~ ~~ .,... r- 0
C"l E-o 1.0
('f') 0 I "'" C"l 00
cr =-- .....~C"l ~C"l "'t 0 0
l:a N..... 0
..... ..... I \0
r- . I ~~ r-
O~ 0 0\
0 U Z..... 0
~ 00 _ C\$ _ C\$ ~ ~ ~
0 r;oil 11)- 11)- 0 0 0
~ C)~ C)~
~ ~
~ ~
0 ~ E-o . 0 ..... 0 ..... C"l
00 0 0 0
0 0 0 C"l C"l C"l
..... E-o...;!Z N C"l \0 1.0 \0
~ 0 ~ U ~ ~ ~
<
1.0 Z \0 1.0 \0 \0 1.0
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..... ~ ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\
~ ('f') ('f') ~ ('f') ('f')
.,... 0 \0 r- oo 0\ 0
..... Z ..... ..... ..... ..... C"l
0)
o
...,
00
o
=
::l
J
~
~
;:j
~
e
'"
'"
Q)
~
i
,l:J
;:j
lI"l
";l
r-
i
~
I
~
-<
9
i
i5.
:E
!!J
~
~
~
o
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_
A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH INTENT TO FORM A
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ALLEY SOUTH OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD
BOUNDED BY HARRISON AND MORTON STREETS CONSISTING OF
PAVING, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. It is the intention of the Council to commence improvements to construct
paving, drainage and associated improvements to the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard
and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets.
SECTION 2. The boundary description of the local improvement district is described as
those lots fronting on or having sole access from the alley as depicted on the map
referred to as Attachment No. 1 to Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. The city engineer's estimated cost of these improvements, including
engineering and administration costs, and the proposed allocation of the cost among
each of the property owners specially benefited for the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard
and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets is $34,050.00 of which $22,735.00 will be
paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on
Resolution 99-09 in the amount of $2,526.11 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential
equivalent dwelling unit for the alley within the assessment areas as depicted on
Attachment NO.2 to Exhibit A.
SECTION 4. The council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers, Ashland
Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on March 18, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., at which time and
place the owners of the benefited properties may appear or submit written comments
prior to or at the hearing as to why the improvement should not be constructed or why
the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed.
SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by
publishing a notice of the public hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than 30 days
prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners
of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and
assessment roll. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit "A" attached to this
resolution.
PAGE 1-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 Alley LID Resolution for PH 1 08.doc
SECTION 6 This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor..
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
~2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this
2008.
day of
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
,2008.
John W. Morrison, Mayor
PAGE 2-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 Alley LID Resolution for PH 1 08.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on March 18, 2008 at 7 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the
formation of a local improvement district as follows:
NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Grading, paving, drainage and associated
improvements to the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton
Streets.
BENEFITED:
Those lots fronting on the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and
Morton Streets as depicted on the attached map referred to as Attachment NO.1.
ESTIMATED COST:
The estimate of the local improvements including engineering and administration costs
is $34,050.00 for the alley, of which $22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on
benefited properties.
Additional information regarding the proposed improvement or method of assessment
may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR, phone
number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM.
All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments .
prior to or at the hearing, as to why the improvements should not be installed or why the
benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of
the property owners to be benefited object to the improvement, the improvement will be
suspended for six months.
PAGE 3-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 Alley LID Resolution for PH 1 DB. doc
C. z
. sa
CI}
... ZE
o<~
.;'..1 ..~
~:c=
utJ) ~
<I
ATTACHMENT NO.1 TO EXHIBIT A
z
~..... 0 CI)..
;>oo.E-t
.~..... .~... ~ 113.
~=r:{i
~ .. . CJ).:II
~..~..~..i
S.~.~.~
~ J;t.1 ~. ~
o ..~ .~ :!
gJ..~~.
~::l<
g<
....:!Il)
c_ ~ ~
:8 liiU.
~ e 'tDo
~. .1 .)~ g~.. ~.
" ,. ~. .....
C . III) 0
jil"iJJ~
cr o..~ F. en g r5
~ DOl;: re
o
<
E-
....
=
~
~
o
E-
N
~
~
~
=
U
<
E-
E-
<
----
E-o
~
~
00
z
o
00
~E-o
~~
o~
E-o-
ZO
OE-o
~ffi
0::E
::E~
'-'~
:>-00
~oo
.....:l<
.....:l
<
o
~
00
o
j:l.,
o
~
j:l.,
Q~
!: ~ ~ ::::
<~~ ..0
~~< ~
~~~ N~
CI) CI) V"t
~~
I
CI)~CI)
Cl)Z~
~~.. -
~~~
<
~SO 8
Eo<~Z S
Eo<
ZEo<
~~
Cl)o
~~
CI)
<
~
~
~
o
"c::I
.~
::I::
"0
"c::I"c::I
.0 a
<::a
~ '"
<<
.~~
-= i:::
..... 0
s~
~::E
0:1 on
..c::0\
c-
Z
o
~
u
CI)
~
Q
o
Z
~
~
o
z
-
-
..0
N
on
N
V"t
-
-
..0
N
on
N~
V"t
-
-
\0
N
on
N
V"t
-
-
-
..0
N
on
N
V"t
-
-
..0
N
on
N
V"t
- -
.~ "0
o ~
-l::a
~<
o ~
p=:oo
\0
af"'l
II) l<
fg 0
1I)l!l
~o
.....~
"'0 a "'0
a'l:: a
:El!l:E
-~ .~ < Q(3 <
\oIQ {O ..-*' t'O .....r
~ ::E C/) 'g C/)
~'S S 'is S
i ~ .~ :> '13
0:1 ~1a d'0:I
::eg::I::.g::I::
c;-lN_~
~ .- \0 .- \0
;>O-::I::-
0\
00
on
00
o
I
\0
00
~
i:::1I)~
.g.s 0
.- .....
~ 0 0
~-u
II) 0 I::
..c::oo
-~~
.....f"'l()
o ";I CIS
-~......
. .....
000
Zz'"
.... "c::I
II) i:! ...
~ CIS @
~~ ...
o
o
-
-
l!l
o
0\
o
~
-
l!l
o
0\
o
~
0\
f"'l
0\
f"'l
N
- -
- on
f"'l 00
o ~
N f"'l
I ,
\0 0\
0\ 0\
~ ~
o 0
- N
o 0
- ....
- ....
l!l l!l
o 0
0\ 0\
o 0
~ ~
- -
0\ 0\
f"'l f"'l
f"'l ~
....
-
..0
N
on
N
V"t
....
....
..0
N
on
N
V"t
-
....
..0
N
on
N
V"t
....
....
..0
N
on
N
V"t
....
....
..0
N
on
N
V"t
....
....
..0
N
on
N
V"t
....
-
..0
N
on
N~
V"t
....
....
\0
N
on
N
V"t
....
....
..0
N
on
N
V"t
....
....
..0
N
on
N~
V"t
-
-
..0
N
on
N
V"t
....
....
..0
N
on
N
V"t
..c::
~
~] N ~
~ "8~::a ~~]
. . 0:I~< .0\ r--::a
<-l~"'O..... ~<~af<
~ "E < 'S =l:I: ~ U en -l ~
'5 -5 d ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ s'S ~
~iiZi:::^;::l.l5"O~1l3~;::l
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ R 0 1) II) ~.~
.... s'J: u ~ <: .!S 0 ;:.] ~
.... fI} 1a .!= '" ~ > 0:1 ..... _ '"
~ q) ::I:: c3 Vi ] 0 .2 ~o 5 Vi
'" "'0 \0 () \O;::l on CIS '" 00
c3~~::E$~~::E' ~:2
~
"""'0
~ a
u::a
~ '"
~<..
..c:: >
_l!l
II) ;::l
5}
~ '"
ti"Vi
..Iod~
0:100
l!l\O
Sll)~
'.::l.s 0
.... .....
~ 0 0
~-u
II) 0 I::
..c::Oo
_N",
..... ',..:.:
o f"'l ()
N";I~
.~.....
o . 0
z~'"
.... "'0
8 ~ 8
~.... II)
~~...
f"'l
o
-
....
l!l
o
0\
o
~
-
0\
f"'l
on
\0
t-
0\
00
f"'l
,
\0
0\
~
o
o
o
0\
-
l!l
o
0\
o
~
-
0\
f"'l
\0
on
o
N
~
~
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
N
~
0\
o
j;.t;l
....
0\
f"'l
t-
\0
\0
0\
00
....
o
,
t-
o
o
N
~
o
o
N
on
f"'l
....
I
\0
o
o
N
~
o
o
....
N
o
o
N
N
l!l
o
0\
o
j;.t;l
l!l
o
0\
o
~
-
0\
f"'l
0\
f"'l
00
0\
~
~
~
~
M
N
V"t
~
r--
o
E-;
<>
.g
,..:
o
::
=
=
~
o'1.l
..
:.::l
l!
8
~
~
on
N
~
~
8
~
~
~
LLl
LLl
~
o
~
~
'1'
I
6'
~
:J
.0
=
3-
(:j
0\0
..z ~
o-<~
>-~ ~
~:c ~
Ut/)~
<t~
~.
CZ)
~~
~~
e3~
...:l>
~~
~~
~-
~
~
z~
II>
.!!
~
~S~~
:2;; ~
~~~~
""ilj-
O~~1il
~S3~
c~~~
10
'ii ,...
$ 0
o
o
10
N
1\ ~
.c
o
.5
G>
c
o ~
o
10 .
~ ~
ii ii
",. .
i:i 0. 'to " ~
~ 0 .! 3 ~
u ~ " ~
f [il U
};; .: .:: F ',;!fj .,' .
"... i ,~ 'AL~.f... ! If: r .~ _:'.. /1
, ....., /;4.1 , ~ /, " .lti7 'J' ,( L
. / ~ I~: I ~~: ~~ .' ~ ~
I.~ ;-r -I '~L I,' ,
~ ~ I' '. 'W'L f..., ~,. .
).a; /- ~1'1 ,...,
,,0 !~/J //j, . "" t
IV II , · '.;- 'I' I --L ~.".'~~ I ,. ~/
\ c::> . . J.. I. I ---CTI.,... . nr::
\ I :J I -- i'T' I . ~,
. rr ... liffl -"1..,.w....... --f ':' 1 , '\f'
),.... , I, .1
lfj 11- - J7"~ ---' .. ,~I~:\
J I ... &- (' .
~. -, -Ii . I". ~. I
~ -lb"... .~. ~ ,......:1
~~~ {~~'.~~~ c~~;_=~~~ r
~ (.,. /.
" ... J (A: _ _
..AI 'J...I' - ,~--r Y ..L I _ e.
~. "M'r1 · · ,
7(~ ' - '\
o~
=
,,-Z~
o<r:~
>- ..J ~
.....,.E-
-.-z
vt/)u
<~
E-t..-.
zE-t
~~
;:>CI)
Oz
~o
~~
-0
~~
~
~~
QZ
tl.10
Cl)CIl
~!
~'-'
~~J
.
\' r-4 .
\~t>" ~ ~
,J~o~~ n
~ 1~~
( .. ..Ar -"
J
~
~ .~::I
'"
.J!/
Z -<iiiiiii( ~ ~
-
~~~=
~~c~
~l!;~
!5~i61
1:;6~
iJ~n
~
N 10
II ci
.s::
u
.5
Gl
<5 t(J
ci
Ie
CD ci
oS!
! J
~~ll!
\:i! 0 ~ ~ 8"
tLJI
o
Il/V~/,VVi IO:OV t^^ ~V~~~lll~1
IH~ ur~ ~IUK~ .4~O~
IllIVVI/VVI
DEC-03-2001 MON 05:25 PH UPS STORE
FAK NO. 541
P. 01
5Lfl Lff/-lJi;fJlP
PETITION FQR STREET IMPROVEMEtiT
t
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
-RECEivED IlY THE CITY ENGINEERCX1 MtN: DATE: Uo71 t:> 7
.!) ~ JAMEs OLSON
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or pUrchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed stnIet
improvement. If titJe to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more person.. all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR ANO COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We. the undersigned owners of record of rear property in the City or Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that
Uberty Sttest beginning 18~' south of Claf'fJfJCe Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs. guttetS, paving and drainage control features In accordance with
plana and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of 8uch paVing
and improvements be assessed upon the re.' property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) Of'1laid street.
.t:IIIIm (P!.Ie p,.",t) Address Tax lot
~'?HA12D L. HAY 7~1 1-/~'rY '877 ASJ.lt..AoUp 3-4~5 J. -g,5e'l
e ~ I
~~ ~~ ~~ MI&.,D _. 3600
-
(;:Ipvb-w,~Icnt""'Idmin\UD\l.itcr1y Slnel "_inl PcIIrlon dDc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
- RECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER: )t> DATE: 'iJ I IoIl:!?
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MA VOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Uberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be Improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features in accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Prtnt)
Address
Tax Lot
3407
..h~
~
~q? V} f;ERrf OTIZ.
/?14.;<b)7
~o l:;Mrl~ Sf.
/q 10i-
I
TOr>tJ
G:\pub-wrlcs'\eng\dept-admin\UD\U"bcrty Street Pavillg Pecition.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
.ECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER~ . DATE: e:./ Z~ 1(>7
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Liberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features in accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Print)
Address
Tax Lot
3
~ ,8eer/
'3 10<:>
.
G:\pub-wrlcs\eng\dept-admin\LlD\Liberty Street Paving Petition.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
.JRECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER:~ DATE: f!>I07~1
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Uberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features in accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Print)
Address
Tax Lot
~~ ~~~~
...J ""M" ;. <<;7---
E/.../2A6ernH. ColC€~ ~76 .l-1r7G/(.T7 SI
~..k6t /<J~ &4
~7
700/
J
G:\pub-wrks\cng\dept-adminILIDILibcrty Street Paving Petition.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
'-RECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER:~ DATE: tJ 107/"7
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Uberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features In accordance wtth
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Print)
Address
Tax Lot
5/ (:)
~
G:\pub-wrb\eng\dept-admin\LID\l.JDc:rty Street Paving Petition.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
....JReCEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER:~ DATE: b !t>7/07
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Liberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features In accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and Improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Print)
Address
Tax Lot
~\-.
v
G:\pub-wrks\cng\dept-admiu\LlD\Libc:rty Street Paving Pc:titioo.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
~ECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERIt> DATE: 23/071.07
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Liberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be Improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features in accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please PrInt)
Address
Tax Lot
~ ~~~~
J. ~(P.I -. -
. () ..!). 'fJ ~-........ t., 1 ~~
-54t:J7
7 2-00
o
G:lpub-wrks\engldept-admin\UD\UbeIty Street Paving Petition.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
~ECEIVEDBYTHECITYENGINEER: 9i> . DATE: tJ/tJ7/07
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Uberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features in accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Print)
Address
Tax Lot
~
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\UD\Liberty Street Paving Petition.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
RECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEEf DATE: ZJ( <)7/07
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, aU must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Uberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features in accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners
of the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Print)
Address
Tax Lot
.: Jl7c.~ 'T IfA.s#
4J.J<..Y w.. ~eR+
,sop "t ~~
~5 JA~
71tJO
~1
~
v:\pub-wrla\cRg\dept-admln\LlD\Liberty Smet Paving Petition.doc
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT
LOCATION: LIBERTY STREET - Beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane to the end of right of way.
RECEIVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERJ1 DATE: 2>1071(;)7
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
Liberty Street beginning 185' south of Clarence Lane and extending south to the end of the right of way
be improved with sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and drainage control features in accordance with
plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and the cost of such paving
and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefited thereby and that we are the owners of
the real property fronting (or benefiting) on said street.
Name (Please Print) Address
!Z1C-J..1A1ZD L. HAY 7", /..-/~.TY 'BT; ASHL-A.Ut;J
Tax Lot
34"5 J '?,5~1J
G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\LID\Liberty Street Paving Petition. doc
o~l/1J;<-
NOTICE TO PETITIONERS: Persons signing this petition must be legal owners of record, or purchasers
in possession under a recorded land sale contract of real property abutting the proposed street
improvement. If title to any parcel of property is in the name of two or more persons, all must sign.
Petitioners should sign using their names as they appear on the records of ownership.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND:
We, the undersigned owners of record of real property in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon,
hereby petition that:
in accordance with plans and specifications therefor as shall be adopted by the City of Ashland and
the cost of such paving and improvements be assessed upon the real property benefitted thereby and
that we are the owners of the real property fronting (or benefitting) on said street.
Name (Please Print)
Address
/61... {~PfL~l54rJ <;(
Tax Lot
/10 I
&,iU \(. w A L-lJ~ ,A N k..
~W~
-Gt.t. i f) i Lea -
~J1~
~r;~V\ Pil~
1(~ l-l'~
\J i c.-ttJr.\ "'- l.r, l~
\j \~~'J.Jnv
1{~ bQ~ t~~ ~
7~ jQ ~
I~ L AfJD ~otJ
162. /Jo...r,.i<;t)h st-.
1/" J
lb ~ "~rr i$"o"'- sf- .
I/o Z
Ib 4-
UI\r-r '\ $". ~ st.
IloZ.
\.100
A~~~oU <.T
e>(!J
2.1..00
S j ')(c~ v T)/vl.
1 LU 0
'2.. / () <J
G:Dawn\Street\Petition for Street Improvement Form.wpd
January 25, 2008
Mayor Morrison and Council Members
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
RE: Liberty Street
Local Improvement District
Dear Mayor Morrison and Council Members:
This evening (February 5, 2008), we wish to thank our neighbors for joining together to petition
for the Liberty Street Improvements.
68% of our neighbors or 72% including the City of Ashland, favor the street improvements.
This strong showing of support for the street improvements is driven primarily by environmental
concerns; air quality and water runoff affecting the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood.
Water Runoff:
Water runoff causing erosion and flooding, threatens the health, safety and welfare of those
neighbors with property located below street level.
· The proposed street improvements; paving, curb and gutter, catch basins and storm drains
will control and intercept surface water runoff to Liberty Street and a natural drainage area to
the east of Liberty Street.
Air Oualitv:
During the summer months, the air quality on Liberty Street is impacted by vehicular traffic;
autos and trucks, causing elevated levels of dust/air pollution affecting the health of the
neighbors and frequent walkers on their way to hike trails located in the hills south of Liberty
Street.
· The proposed street improvements will reduce considerably if not eliminate entirely, air
pollution with the paving of Liberty Street.
Mayor Morrison and Council Members
January 25,2008
Page 2
Emen!encv Vehicle Access:
On occasion on street parking has severely reduced the width of sections of upper Liberty Street
causing a potential safety concern by limiting access for emergency vehicles; ambulance and fire
trucks.
· The proposed street improvements; curb and gutter and paving, will define Liberty Street
improving on street parking and emergency vehicle access, safeguarding the health, safety
and welfare of the neighborhood.
In closing, we wish to thank Jim Olson of the Engineering Department, for his willingness to
provide assistance in processing the Liberty Street LID. We request that you join with us and
support our petition for the Liberty Street Improvements.
Thank you,
tJ~!:~
Gary A e
695 Li e y Street
Atz 0
Dean Shos
720 Liberty Street
Ashland, OR 97520
~'r~
-- j ,;,,'11;, \'f
.~~. .t.f .\
Jl/J!!CI , it' ~. ·
'I · fILf;' ,
,~...~'.-
NEEDED REPAIRS ON HARRISON STREET
NEEDED REPAIRS ON HARRISON STREET
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 CC Photos 11 07.doc
ALLEY LOOKING EAST (NOTE GARAGE & VEHICLE ACCESS)
ALLEY AT MORTON STREET
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 CC Photos 11 07.doc
....~-_._-_..._-
ALLEY LOOKING WEST FROM MORTON STREET
C:\DOCUMB-Ilshipletd\LOCALS-I\Temp\07-25 CC Photos 11 07.doc
BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
February 5, 2008
IN THE MA TIER OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING' AND )
ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE )
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY )
STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING AND )
CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, )
STORM DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND )
AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND )
ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF )
PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL )
COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT )
)
APPLICANT: City of Ashland )
)
FINDINGS
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
RECITALS:
1) On December 4,2007, Council approved Resolution No. 2007-41 setting a public
hearing with intent to form a local improvement district (LID) for the construction of
improvements to Liberty Street consisting of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, paving,
drainage and associated improvements..
2) The Council has declared by Resolution No. 2007-41 to assess upon each lot or part
of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the
improvement; and it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to
the City. All property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable
amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs.
3) The Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 5,
2008, at which time a staff presentation was made, citizen testimony received and
exhibits presented. Council approved Resolution No. 2008-_ authorizing and
ordering the local improvements for the construction of improvements to Liberty
Street consisting of grading, paving and construction of curb and gutters, sidewalks,
storm drains and related appurtenances.
4) On February 5, 2008, Council approved Resolution No. 2008-_ authorizing the
City to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim
financing for the actual cost of the local improvement.
5) The Liberty Street LID No. 88 boundary was approved by Council as being all those
lots with frontage on or taking sole access from Liberty Street southerly of the
existing improved street section.
C:\DOCUME-Ilshipletd\LOCALS-I\Temp\07-25 CC Liberty LID Findings I 08.doc
Page I of 4
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the following exhibits will be used:
Exhibit 1 - Council Communication dated December 4, 2007
Exhibit 2 - Minutes of the December 4, 2007 Council meeting
Exhibit 3 - Resolution No. 2007-41 setting a public hearing
Exhibit 4 - Council Communication dated February 5, 2008
Exhibit 5 - Minutes of the February 5, 2008 Council meeting
Exhibit 6 - Resolution No. 2008-_ authorizing and ordering the improvement of
Liberty Street under the Liberty Street LID No. 88
SECTION 2: CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING NATURE OF IMPROVEMENTS
2. 1 The City Council intends to improve Liberty Street from the end of current
improvements southerly to the end of the right of way. The improvements are to
consist of grading and paving, construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm
drains and related appurtenances.
2.2 The proposed LID is in the best interest of the City. Evidence presented indicated
that the City will have an improved street for all modes of transportation with reduced
maintenance costs; enhanced environmental effects due to improved air quality and
better storm water controls; and a demonstrated improved safety with construction of
curbs, sidewalks and an asphalt road surface.
SECTION 3. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION
3.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Council Communication dated December 4,2007 and February
5,2008, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
3.2 The proposed LID boundary includes all lots fronting on or taking sole access from
Liberty Street southerly of the end ofthe existing improved section as depicted on
the map attached to Resolution No. 2007-41. This boundary was selected as these 20
properties would be directly benefited by the improvements to Liberty Street. The
benefit to these lots is readily definable and is much more direct than those who
might simply use the street as a throughway to access their property.
C:\DOCUME-l \<ihipletd\LOCALS-l \Ternp\07-25 CC Liberty LID Findings 1 OS.doc
Page 2 of 4
3.3 The proposed Liberty Street Local Improvement District is consistent with the 2007-
2012 Capital Improvement Plan and identified in the 2006-2007 budget adopted by
Council in June, 2006.
3.4 The City Council did not receive a remonstrance sufficient to postpone authorizing
and ordering the construction of the local improvement district.
SECTION 4. NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 A notice of public hearing was sent to all listed property owners (determined from
Jackson County Tax Assessment rolls) within the proposed assessment district. The
public hearing notice was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings.
SECTION S. ALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENT UNITS
5.1 Each ofthe 20 lots within the proposed assessment district has been allocated one
assessment unit. In addition, several lots have been allocated additional units of
assessment. Those lots with additional units are those lots that the Planning
Department has determined can be further divided. The number of assessment units is
equal to the number of current and future potential residential lots as defined in
Resolution No. 99-09 and as shown on the attachments to Resolution No. 2007-41.
SECTION 6. COST
6.1 The maximum assessable rate per unit is established by Resolution No. 99-09. The
maximum rate established in 1999 was $4,000 per unit. This rate is adjusted each
April in accordance with the Construction Cost Index established by the Engineering
News Record Index (ENR record) for Seattle, Washington. The current rate to be
charged for the Liberty Street LID No. 88 is $5,251.00 which is the maximum rate as
of Resolution No 2007-41 establishing the Public Hearing date. All costs over and
above the assessment amount will be borne by the City.
SECTION 7. DECISION
7.1 Based on evidence contained within the whole record on this matter, the City Council
concludes that the establishment of the LID boundary is in the City's best interest, is
justified as presented by staff and is supported by evidence contained within the
record.
7.2 Council finds that the public hearing was properly noticed.
7.3 Council further concludes that the allocation of assessment lots and associated cost
complies with Resolution No. 99-09 and represents the benefit received by each
affected property.
C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\07-25 CC Liberty LID Findings 1 08.doc
Page 3 of 4
7.4 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, the City Council authorizes and orders
the construction of improvements for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District
No. 88.
John Morrison, Mayor Date
C:\DOCUME-l \shipletd\LOCALS-l \Temp\07-25 CC Liberty LID Findings 1 OS.doc Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Measure 49: Transfer of Development Credits.
February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
City Attorney E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us
Community De ent Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Is the City Council interested in negotiating a cooperative agreement with Jackson County to provide
for the voluntary transfer of residential development rights (transferable development credits) from
approved Jackson County Measure 49 claims to City of Ashland designated receptor zones?
Staff Recommendation:
The transfer development credit provision in Measure 49 presents an opportunity for the City to
mitigate possible adverse public facility impacts caused by rural development in Jackson County
pursuant to Measure 49. The City has the opportunity to protect the City's view-shed by providing a
more suitable urban location for transferable residential density. Staff recommends pursuit of an
agreement.
Background:
Measure 49 was passed by Oregon voters in November 2007 and became effective in December 2007.
Previously approved Measure 37 waivers must now be processed as Measure 49 claims. For the most
part, valid rural claims will be awarded between 1-3 units under Section 6 or between 4-10 units under
Section 7 of the Act. The Measure expressly allows for the transfer of Measure 49 development
rights.. The City of Ashland (and other Cities) and Jackson County can enter into a cooperative
agreement(s) to transfer the development rights authorized by Measure 49 to more appropriate City
locations. The Measure directs such Cities and Counties to use state statutes governing conservation
easements and transferable development credits.
Measure 49 Section 11, numbered paragraph (8) provides
(8) A person that is eligible to be a holder as defined in ORS 271.715 may acquire the rights to
carry out a use of land authorized under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act from a willing seller
in the manner provided by ORS 271.715 to 271.795. Metro. cities and counties may enter into
cooperative agreements under ORS chapter 195 to establish a system for the purchase and sale
of severable development interests as described in ORS 94.531. A system established under
this subsection may provide for the transfer of severable development interests between the
jurisdictions of the public entities that are parties to the agreement for the purpose of allowing
development to occur in a location that is different from the location in which the development
interest arises. (emphasis added)
Page 1 of2
020508 Measure 49.CC.doc
r6'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Related City Policies:
An agreement to transfer density relates to Regional Problem Solving Plans; the City of Ashland
Comprehensive Plan; the Ashland Land Use Ordinance; ORS 271.715- 271.795 and ORS 94.531.
The City of Ashland Measure 37 claim ordinance (Chapter 18.110) will need to be amended in the near
future to accommodate new claims (Sections 12-14). This amendment should be on the February 5,
2007 agenda.
Council Options:
(1) Direct staff to develop a draft cooperative agreement and implementing comprehensive plan
and land use ordinance amendments. Discuss possible agreement with County staff, RPS, and
workshop implementation measures with Planning Commission and Counci1.[Staff
Recommendation]
(2) Take no action.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve staff recommendation.
Attachments:
Measure 49 Summary/ Measure 49 / ORS 94.531.
Page 2 of2
020508 Measure 49.CC.doc
~~,
2007 BALLOT :MEASURE 49
SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY
12/6/2007
SECfIONS 1 and 1a: CODIFICATION INORS CHAPTER 195
The codification of1his legislation in chapter 195 instead of 197 is not intended to have
any substantive effect. ORS 197.352 is being moved to chapter 195 simply because of
the limited remaining room for new sections in chapter 197. LCDC rulemaking authority
extends to ORS Chapter 195.
S~ON2:DEFINITIONS
(1) Acquisition date is as shown in county deed records. If there are multiple owners, it
is the earliest date.
(2) Claim.
(3) Enacted.
(4) Fair market value.
(S) Farming practice.
(6) Federal law.
(7) File.
(8) Forest practice.
(9) Ground water restricted area.
(10) High-value farmland.
(11) High-value forestland.
(12) Home site approval.
(13) Just compensation.
(14) Land use regulation.
(15) Measure 37 permit.
(16) Owner.
(17) Properly.
(18) Protection of public bealth and safety.
(19) Public entity.
(20) Urban growth boundary.
(21) Waivelwaiver.
(22) Zoned for residential use.
SECTION 3: STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Provide just compensation for unfair burdens, while retaining protections for fann and
forest uses and water resources.
1
SECI'ION 4: AMENDMENTS TO ORS 197.352 (MEASURE 37)
The amendments to ORS 197.352 (Measure 37) define how Measure 49 will operate for
claims based on new land use regulations, along with sections 12 through 14.
The amendments repeal the authorization to file a claim for existing land use regulations,
along with cause of action for compensation if regulations continue to apply.
The amendments also clarify that a decision by a public entity under Measure 37 or under
Measure 49 is not a land use decision.
SECI10N 5: JUST COMPENSATION FOR CLAIMS MADE BEFORE JUNE 28,
2007
This section sets up three pathways for claims made on or before June 28, 2007,
regardless of whether a waiver has been approved.
The three paths are:
. To receive just compensation under the "express" path in section 6;
. To receive just compensation under the "conditional" path in section 7; or
. To continue with any rights under Measure 37 that have vested under common
law as of the effective date of the Act, and that comply with the terms of
applicable waivers.
~
SECI10N 6: EXPRESS COMPENSATION FOR APPROVED AND PENDING
CLAIMS OUTSIDE OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES (ONE TO THREE
HOME SITES)
Section 6 authorizes persons with Measure 37 waivers and pending Measure 37 claims to
establish one to three home sites on their property. Claimants may reduce the
number of requested home sites to qualify (or amend their claim if they initially
sought some other use). To qualify:
. The claimant must own the property and all owners must consent to the claim;
. The property must be outside of an urban growth boundary and a city;
. A land use regulation must prohibit the lot, parcel or dwelling sought;
2
. The claimant must have filed a Measure 37 claim on or before June 28, 2007 with
both the county and the state;
. On the claimant's acquisition date, helshe must have been lawfully permitted to
establish at least the number ofhomesites sought;
. Exempt land use regulations (public health and safety; regulations required by
federal law) don't prohibit the home sites; and
. The claim must have complied with applicable state roles for Measure 37 claims
(if the claim was filed after December 4, 2006, it must include the denial of a land
use application).
There is no fee' for these claims, and the expectation is that in most cases little or
no additional information will be needed from the claimant.
SECfION 7: CONDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR APPROVED AND
PENDING CLAIMS OUTSIDE OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES (FOUR
TO TEN HOME SITES)
Section 7 authorizes persons with waivers and pending claims to
establish four to ten home sites on their property. Claimants may reduce the
number of requested home sites to qualify, but may not increase the size of their
claim.
To qualify:
. The claimant must meet the requirements under section 6 (above);
. The PIQPCrty must not be located on high-value fannland, high-value forestland,
or in a grotmdwater restricted area; and '
. An appraisal demonstrates that the fair market value of the property was reduced
by the enactment of one or more land use regulations, and that the amount of the
reduction is equal to or greater than the fair market value of the home sites that
the claimant wishes to establish on the property.
SECTION 8: PROCEDURES FOR APPROVED AND PENDING CLAIMS
OUTSIDE OF URBAN GROWfH BOUNDARIES
DLCD will send notice to virtually all claimants describing what their options are and
what (if any) additional information is needed.
Claimants elect what form of relief they want within 90 days of the DLCD notice.
3
If claimants choose "conditional" relief, they have until mid 2008 to submit an
appraisal. They may opt into the "express" path if they do so before submitting their
appraisal.
DLCD processes claims in the order received.
Review will include a notice and comment process for public involvement, and will allow
claimants to respond to comments received.
If only county regulations are involved, the claim is transferred to the county (Note for
pre-1973 claims).
When DLCD or the county approves a claim, they approve a: specific number of
home sites. The number of homes that may be developed on the property is set,
based on the waiver. Landowners still will go through the normal land division
and building permit processes to ensure that the homes comply with standards
relating to where the homes are built on the property and how they are built.
SECTION 9: JUST COMPENSATION FOR APPROVED AND PENDING
CLAIMS INSIDE OF URBAN GROwm BOUNDARIES
Section 9 authorizes persons with waivers and pending claims for
property within an uroan growth boundary to establish one or more dwellings, up
to a limit of 10.
To qualify:
. The claimant must own the property and all owners must have consented to the
claim;
. The property must be inside of an urban growth boundary;
. The property must be residentially-zoned;
. The claimant must have had the right to establish the dwelling(s) on his or her
acquisition date;
. One or more land use regulation{s) must prohibit the development of the
dwelling(s);
. Exempt land use regulations (public health and safety; regulations required by
fed.erallaw) don't prohibit the dwellings; and
4
. An appraisal demonstrates that the fair market value of the property was reduced
by the enactment of one or more land use regulations, and that the amount of the
reduction is equal to or greater than the fair market value of the home sites that
the claimant wishes to establish on tl:1e property.
SECflON 10: PROCEDURES FOR APPROVED AND PENDING CLAIMS
INSIDE OF URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES
The city or county that received the claim under Measure 37 reviews the claim to
ensure that it complies with the requirements of the Act
SECTION 11: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TRANSFERABILITY (FOR
APPROVED AND PENDING CLAIMS UNDER SECI10NS 6, 7 OR 9)
New lots/parcels in a resource zone are limited to 2 acres ifhigh~value, 5 acres ifnot.
Twenty home site cap, statewide, per owner.
All claims must comply with current development standards unless a standard
would prohibit the use. A standard prohibits a dwelling or a land division if it
makes it unlawful or economically unfeasible.
Home site approvals under the Act are transferable and run with the land (when
the property is sold, the home site approval will transfer with the sale), with. no
time limit on when the claimant must carry out the use.
When the claimant conveys the property, however, the new owner(s) have ten
years to build the dwelling and/or divide the property as authorized by the home
site approval.
If a claimant passes away during the processing of a claim., the claimant's heirs
are entitled to the relief that the claimant would have received.
Transfer of authorizations between properties to cluster allowed.
Cooperative agreements between cities, counties and Metro for transfer of development
rights acquired through Measure 49 waivers are authorized.
5
SECTION 12: NEW CLAIMS FOR NEW LAND USE REGULATIONS
New claims are allowed for new land use regulations that are enacted after January 1,
2007.
New land use regulations that trigger claims are restrictions on residential uses,
LCDC rules and goals, and restrictions on farm or forest practices.
.
SECTION 13: NEW CLAIMS, FILING AND REQUIRED CONTENTS
Claims must demonstrate loss of fair market value.
Just compensation is payment of money or waiver of regulations.
Just compensation is not transferable.
SECTION 14: PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF NEW CLAIMS
New claims must be filed within five years of the enactment of the land use
regulation;
Claims are filed with the public entity that enacted. them.
SECTION 15: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION
Notice requirements.
SECTION 16: JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review of decisions that a claimant is entitled. to relierunder Measure 49 are
reviewed. by the circuit courts. That review is on the record created before the public
entity, and issues are limited to those raised before the public entity (raise it or waive it
applies).
SECTIONS 17 & 18: OMBUDSMAN, QUALIF1CATlONS
State ombudsman to facilitate issues arising with both Measure 37 claimS and Measure
49 claims
6
-----rr-T-n--
SECTION 19: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ZONING AMENDMENTS;
ANNEXATION
Persons who seek and obtain comprehensiv~ plan or zoning amendments. or who petition
for annexation. are not then eligible to file claims for land use regulations enacted before
the application was filed.
SECTION20:APP~SALS
Specifies qualifications for appraisers under Measure 49.
SECTION 21: ACQUISITION DATE; MULTIPLE CLAIMANTS
Gives a surviving spouse an acquisition date that is the date of the marriage or the
date the deceased spouse acquired the property, whichever is later.
Ifthere are multiple claimants that acquired the property at different times. the
acquisition date that is used is the earliest date.
SECTION 21b: FAIR MARKET VALUE
Defines term using definition from case law.
SECTION 21: COMPENSATION AND CONSERVATION FUND
SECTION 23: CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SECTION 24: CAPTIONS
SECTION 25: REFERRAL
7
Text of Measure 49
AN ACT
Relating to compensation for loss of value of private real property resulting from
land use regulation; creating new provisions; amending ORS 93.040 and 197.352;
appropriating money; and providing that this Act shall be referred to the people
for their approval or rejection.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. Sections 2, 3 and 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act are adde4 to and made a
part of ORS chapter 195.
SECTION 1a. ORS 197.352 is added to and made a part of sections 5 to 22 of
this 2007 Act.
DEFINITIONS
SECTION 2. As used in this section and sections 3 and 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act:
(1) " Acquisition date" means the date described in section 21 of this 2007 Act.
(2) "Claim" means a written demand for compensation filed under:
(a) ORS 197.352, as in effect immediately before the effective date of this 2007
Act; or
(b) Sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act and ORS 197.352, as in effect on and after
the effective date of this 2007 Act.
(3) "Enacted" means enacted, adopted or amended.
(4) "Fair market value" means the value of property as determined under
section 21b of this 2007 Act.
(5) "Farming practice" has the meaning given that term in ORS 30.930.
(6) "Federal law" means:
(a) A statute, regulation, order, decree or policy enacted by a federal entity or
by a state entity acting under authority delegated by the federal government;
(b) A requirement contained in a plan or rule enacted by a compact entity; or
(c) A requirement contained in a permit issued by a federal or state agency
pursuant to a federal statute or regulation.
(7) TlFileTl means to submit a document to a public entity.
(8) TlForest practice" has the meaning given that term in ORS 527.620.
(9) TlGround water restricted area" means an area designated as a critical
ground water area or as a ground water limited area by the Water Resources
Department or Water Resources Commission before the effective date of this
2007 Act.
(10) TlHigh-value farmland" means:
(a) High-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710 that is land in an
exclusive farm use zone or a mixed farm and forest zone, except that the dates
specified in ORS 215.710 (2), (4) and (6) are the effective date of this 2007 Act.
(b) Land west of U.S. Highway 101 that is composed predominantly of the
following soils in Class III or IV or composed predominantly of a combination
of the soils described in ORS 215.710 (1) and the following soils:
(A) Subclassification IIIw, specifically Ettersburg Silt Loam and Croftland
Silty Clay Loam;
(B) Subclassification IIIe, specifically Klooqueth Silty Clay Loam and
Winchuck Silt Loam; and
(C) Subclassification IVw, specifically Huffling Silty Clay Loam.
(c) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone or a mixed farm and forest zone
and that on the date of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the
Seventy-fourth Legislative Assembly is:
(A) Within the place of use for a permit, certificate or decree for the use of
water for irrigation issued by the Water Resources Department;
.----"-------rr----.--
(B) Within the boundaries of a district, as defined in ORS 540.505; or
(C) Within the boundaries of a diking district formed under ORS chapter 551.
(d) Land that contains not less than five acres planted in wine grapes.
(e) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone and that is at an elevation
between 200 and 1,000 feet above mean sea level, with an aspect between 67.5
and 292.5 degrees and a slope between zero and 15 percent, and that is located
within:
(A) The Southern Oregon viticultural area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.179;
(B) The Umpqua Valley viticultural area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.89; or
(C) The Willamette Valley viticultural area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.90.
(f) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone and that is no more than 3,000
feet above mean sea level, with an aspect between 67.5 and 292.5 degrees and a
slope between zero and 15 percent, and that is located within:
(A) The portion of the Columbia Gorge viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.178 that is within the State of Oregon;
(B) The Rogue Valley viticultural area as described in 27 C.F.R. 9.132;
(C) The portion of the Columbia Valley viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.74 that is within the State of Oregon;
(D) The portion of the Walla Walla Valley viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.91 that is within the State of Oregon; or
(E) The portion of the Snake River Valley viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.208 that is within the State of Oregon.
(11) UHigh-value forestland" means land:
(a) That is in a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone, that is located in
western Oregon and composed predominantly of soils capable of producing
more than 120 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber and that is capable of
producing more than 5,000 cubic feet per year of commercial tree species; or
(b) That is in a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone, that is located in
eastern Oregon and composed predominantly of soils capable of producing
more than 85 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber and that is capable of
producing more than 4,000 cubic feet per year of commercial tree species.
(12) IIHome site approval" means approval of the subdivision or partition of
property or approval of the establishment of a dwelling on property.
(13) IIJust compensation" means:
(a) Relief under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act for land use regulations
enacted on or before January 1, 2007; and
(b) Relief under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act for land use regulations
enacted after January 1, 2007.
(14) "Land use regulation" means:
(a) A statute that establishes a minimum lot or parcel size;
(b) A provision in ORS 227.030 to 227.300, 227.350, 227.400, 227.450 or 227.500 or
in ORS chapter 215 that restricts the residential use of private real property;
(c) A provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land
division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property
zoned for residential use;
(d) A provision of a county comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land
division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property;
(e) A provision of the Oregon Forest Practices Act or an administrative rule of
the State Board of Forestry that regulates a forest practice and that implements
the Oregon Forest Practices Act;
(f) ORS 561.191, a provision of ORS 568.900 to 568.933 or an administrative rule
of the State Department of Agriculture that implements ORS 561.191 or 568.900
to 568.933;
(g) An administrative rule or goal of the Land Conservation and Development
Commission; or
(h) A provision of a Metro functional plan that restricts the residential use of
private real property.
(15) "Measure 37 permit" means a final decision by Metro, a city or a county to
authorize the development, subdivision or partition or other use of property
pursuant to a waiver.
(16) "Owner" means:
(a) The owner of fee title to the property as shown in the deed records of the
county where the property is located;
(b) The purchaser under a land sale contract, if there is a recorded land sale
contract in force for the property; or
(c) If the property is owned by the trustee of a revocable trust, the settlor of a
revocable trust, except that when the trust becomes irrevocable only the trustee
is the owner.
(17) "Property" means the private real property described in a claim and
contiguous private real property that is owned by the same owner, whether or
not the contiguous property is described in another claim, and that is not
property owned by the federal government, an Indian tribe or a public body,
as defined in ORS 192.410.
(18) "Protection of public health and safety" means a law, rule, ordinance,
order, policy, permit or other governmental authorization that restricts a use of
property in order to reduce the risk or consequence of fire, earthquake,
landslide, flood, storm, pollution, disease, crime or other natural or human
disaster or threat to persons or property including, but not limited to, building
and fire codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or hazardous waste
regulations and pollution control regulations.
(19) "Public entity" means the state, Metro, a county or a city.
(20) "Urban growth boundary" has the meaning given that term in ORS
195.060.
(21) "Waive" or "waiver" means an action or decision of a public entity to
modify, remove or not apply one or more land use regulations under sections 5
to 22 of this 2007 Act or ORS 197.352, as in effect immediately before the
effective date of this 2007 Act, to allow the owner to use property for a use
permitted when the owner acquired the property.
(22) "Zoned for residential use" means zoning that has as its primary purpose
single-family residential use.
LEGISLATIVE POLICY
ON FAIRNESS TO PROPERTY OWNERS
SECTION 3. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that:
(a) In some situations, land use regulations unfairly burden particular
property owners.
(b) To address these situations, it is necessary to amend Oregon's land use
statutes to provide just compensation for unfair burdens caused by land use
regulations.
(2) The purpose of sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act and the amendments to
Ballot Measure 37 (2004) is to modify Ballot Measure 37 (2004) to ensure that
Oregon law provides just compensation for unfair burdens while retaining
Oregon's protections for farm and forest uses and the state's water resources.
BALLOT MEASURE 37
SECTION 4. ORS 197.352 is amended to read:
197.352. [The following provisions are added to and made a part of ORS chapter 197:]
(1) If a public entity enacts [or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land
use regulation enacted prior to December 2, 2004, that restricts] one or more land use
regulations that restrict the residential use of private real property or [any
interest therein] a farming or forest practice and [has the effect of reducing] that
reduce the fair market value of the property, [or any interest therein,] then the
owner of the property s~all be [paid just compensation] entitled to just
compensation from the public entity that enacted the land use regulation or
regulations as provided in sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act.
(2) Just compensation under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act shall be [equal to]
based on the reduction in the fair market value of the [affected] property [interest]
resulting from [enactment or enforcement of] the land use regulation [as of the date
the owner makes written demand for compensation under this section].
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to land use regulations that were
enacted prior to the claimant's acquisition date or to land use regulations:
[(A)] (a) Restricting or prohibiting activities commonly and historically
recognized as public nuisances under common law[. This subsection shall be
construed narrowly in favor of a finding of compensation under this section];
[(B)] (b) Restricting or prohibiting activities for the protection of public health
and safety[, such as fire and building codes, health and sanitation regulations, solid or
hazardous waste regulations, and pollution control regulations];
[(C)] (c) To the extent the land use regulation is required to comply with federal
law; or
[(D)] (d) Restricting or prohibiting the use of a property for the purpose of selling
pornography or performing nude dancing. [Nothing in this subsection, however, is
intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States Constitutions;
or]
[(E) Enacted prior to the date of acquisition of the property by the owner or a family
member of the owner who owned the subject property prior to acquisition or inheritance
by the owner, whichever occurred first.]
[(4) Just compensation under subsection (1) of this section shall be due the owner of the
property if the land use regulation continues to be enforced against the property 180 days
after the owner of the property makes written demand for compensation under this
section to the public entity enacting or enforcing the land use regulation.]
[(5) For claims arising from land use regulations enacted prior to December 2,2004,
written demand for compensation under subsection (4) shall be made within two years of
December 2, 2004, or the date the public entity applies the land use regulation as an
approval criteria to an application submitted by the owner of the property, whichever is
later. For claims arising from land use regulations enacted after December 2, 2004,
written demand for compensation under subsection (4) shall be made within two years of
the enactment of the land use regulation, or the date the owner of the property submits a
land use application in which the land use regulation is an approval criteria, whichever is
later. ]
[(6) If a land use regulation continues to apply to the subject property more than 180
days after the present owner of the property has made written demand for compensation
under this section, the present owner of the property, or any interest therein, shall have a
cause of action for compensation under this section in the circuit court in which the real
property is located, and the present owner of the real property shall be entitled to
reasonable attorney fees, expenses, costs, and other disbursements reasonably incurred to
collect the compensation.]
(4)(a) Subsection (3)(a) of this section shall be construed narrowly in favor of
granting just compensation under this section. Nothing in subsection (3) of
this section is intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or
United States Constitution.
(b) Subsection (3)(b) of this section does not apply to any farming or forest
practice regulation that is enacted after January 1, 2007, unless the primary
purpose of the regulation is the protection of human health and safety.
(c) Subsection (3)(c) of this section does not apply to any farming or forest
practice regulation that is enacted after January 1, 2007, unless the public entity
enacting the regulation has no discretion under federal law to decline to enact
the regulation.
[(7)] (5) A [metropolitan service district, city, or county, or state agency] public entity
may adopt or apply procedures for the processing of claims under [this section,
but in no event shall these procedures act as a prerequisite to the filing of a compensation
claim under subsection (6) of this section, nor shall the failure of an owner of property to
file an application for a land use permit with the local government serve as grounds for
dismissal, abatement, or delay of a compensation claim under subsection (6) of this
section] sections 12 to 24 of this 2007 Act.
[(8)] (6) [Notwithstanding any other state statute or the availability of funds under
subsection (10) of this section, in lieu of payment of just compensation under this section,
the governing body responsible for enacting] The public entity that enacted the land
use regulation [may modify, remove, or not to apply the land use regulation or land use
regulations to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the
owner acquired the property] that gives rise to a claim under subsection (1) of this
section shall provide just compensation as required under sections 12 to 24 of
this 2007 Act.
[(9)] (7) A decision by a [governing body under this section shall not be considered a]
public entity that an owner qualifies for just compensation under sections 5 to
22 of this 2007 Act and a decision by a public entity on the nature and extent of
that compensation are not land use [decision as defined in ORS 197.015 (11)]
decisions.
[(10) Claims made under this section shall be paid from funds, if any, specifically
allocated by the legislature, city, county, or metropolitan service district for payment of
claims under this section. Notwithstanding the availability of funds under this
subsection, a metropolitan service district, city, county, or state agency shall have
discretion to use available funds to pay claims or to modify, remove, or not apply a land
use regulation or land use regulations pursuant to subsection (6) of this section. If a
claim has not been paid within two years from the date on which it accrues, the owner
shall be allowed to use the property as permitted at the time the owner acquired the
property. ]
[(11) Definitions - for purposes of this section:]
[(A) "Family member" shall include the wife, husband, son, daughter, mother, father,
brother, brother-in-law, sister, sister-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, stepparent, stepchild, grandparent, or
grandchild of the owner of the property, an estate of any of the foregoing family members,
or a legal entity owned by anyone or combination of these family members or the owner
of the property.]
[(B) "Land use regulation" shall include:]
[W Any statute regulating the use of land or any interest therein;]
[(ii) Administrative rules and goals of the Land Conservation and Development
Commission; ]
[(iii) Local government comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, land division
ordinances, and transportation ordinances;]
[(iv) Metropolitan service district regional framework plans, functional plans, planning
goals and objectives; and]
[(v) Statutes and administrative rules regulating farming and forest practices.]
[(C) "Owner" is the present owner of the property, or any interest therein.]
[(D) "Public entity" shall include the state, a metropolitan service district, a city, or a
county.]
[(12)] (8) The [remedy] remedies created by [this section is] sections 5 to 22 of this
2007 Act are in addition to any other remedy under the Oregon or United States
[Constitutions] Constitution, and [is] are not intended to modify or replace any
[other] constitutional remedy.
[(13)] (9) If any portion or portions of this section are declared invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this section shall remain in
full force and effect.
BALLOT MEASURE 37 CLAIMS MADE
ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF ADJOURNMENT
SINE DIE OF THE 2007 REGULAR SESSION
OF THE SEVENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Generally)
SECTION 5. A claimant that filed a claim under ORS 197.352 on or before the
date of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth
Legislative Assembly is entitled to just compensation as provided in:
(1) Section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act, at the claimant's election, if the property
described in the claim is located entirely outside any urban growth boundary
and entirely outside the boundaries of any city;
(2) Section 9 of this 2007 Act if the property described in the claim is located, in
whole or in part, within an urban growth boundary; or
(3) A waiver issued before the effective date of this 2007 Act to the extent that
the claimant's use of the property complies with the waiver and the claimant
has a common law vested right on the effective date of this 2007 Act to
complete and continue the use described in the waiver.
(Claims Relating to Property
Outside Urban Growth Boundaries)
SECTION 6. (1) A claimant that filed a claim under ORS 197.352 on or before
the date of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-
fourth Legislative Assembly is eligible for three home site approvals on the
property if the requirements of this section and sections 8 and 11 of this 2007
Act are met. The procedure for obtaining home site approvals under this
section is set forth in section 8 of this 2007 Act.
(2) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may be approved for property
under this section may not exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in a waiver issued by
the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in the claim filed
with the state; or
(b) Three, except that if there are existing dwellings on the property or the
property contains more than one lot or parcel, the number of lots, parcels or
dwellings that may be established is reduced so that the combined number of
lots, parcels or dwellings, including existing lots, parcels or dwellings located
on or contained within the property, does not exceed three.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, a claimant that otherwise
qualifies for relief under this section may establish at least one additional lot,
parcel or dwelling on the property. In addition, if the number of lots, parcels
or dwellings described in a waiver issued by the state before the effective date
of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not issued, the number of lots, parcels or
dwellings described in the claim filed with the state is more than three, the
claimant may amend the claim to reduce the number to no more than three by
filing notice of the amendment with the form required by section 8 of this 2007
Act.
(4) If a claim was for a use other than a subdivision or partition of property, or
other than approval for establishing a dwelling on the property, the claimant
may amend the claim to seek one or more home site approvals under this
section. A person amending a claim under this subsection may not make a
claim under section 7 of this 2007 Act.
(5) If multiple claims were filed for the same property, the number of lots,
parcels or dwellings that may be established for purposes of subsection (2)(a)
of this section is the number of lots, parcels or dwellings in the most recent
waiver issued by the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a
waiver was not issued, the most recent claim filed with the state, but not more
than three in any case.
(6) To qualify for a home site approval under this section, the claimant must
have filed a claim for the property with both the state and the county in which
the property is located. In addition, regardless of whether a waiver was issued
by the state or the county before the effective date of this 2007 Act, to qualify
for a home site approval under this section the claimant must establish that:
(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
(b) All owners of the property have consented in writing to the claim;
(c) The property is located entirely outside any urban growth boundary and
entirely outside the boundaries of any city;
(d) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or
dwelling;
(e) The establishment of the lot, parcel or dwelling is not prohibited by a land
use regulation described in ORS 197.352 (3); and
(f) On the claimant's acquisition date, the claimant lawfully was permitted to
establish at least the number of lots, parcels or dwellings on the property that
are authorized under this section.
(7) If the claim was filed after December 4, 2006, to issue a home site approval
under this section, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
must verify that the claim was filed in compliance with the applicable rules of
the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services.
(8) Except as provided in section 11 of this 2007 Act, if the Department of Land
Conservation and Development has issued a final order with a specific
number of home site approvals for a property under this section, the claimant
may seek other governmental authorizations required by law for the partition
or subdivision of the property or for the development of any dwelling
authorized, and a land use regulation enacted by the state or county that has
the effect of prohibiting the partition or subdivision, or the dwelling, does not
apply to the review of those authorizations.
SECTION 7. (1) A claimant that filed a claim under ORS 197.352 on or before
the date of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-
fourth Legislative Assembly for property that is not high-value farmland or
high-value forestland and that is not in a ground water restricted area is
eligible for four to 10 home site approvals for the property if the requirements
of this section and sections 8 and 11 of this 2007 Act are met. The procedure for
obtaining home site approvals under this section is set forth in section 8 of this
2007 Act.
(2) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings that may be established on the
property under this section may not exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in a waiver issued by
the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in the claim filed
with the state;
(b) 10, except that if there are existing dwellings on the property or the
property contains more than one lot or parcel, the number of lots, parcels or
dwellings that may be established is reduced, so that the combined number of
lots, parcels or dwellings, including existing lots, parcels or dwellings located
on or contained within the property, does not exceed 10; or
(c) The number of home site approvals with a total value that represents just
compensation for the reduction in fair market value caused by the enactment
of one or more land use regulations that were the basis for the claim, as set
forth in subsection (6) of this section.
(3) If the number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in a waiver issued by
the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the number of lots, parcels or dwellings described in the claim filed
with the state is more than 10, the claimant may amend the claim to reduce the
number to no more than 10 by filing notice of the amendment with the form
required by section 8 of this 2007 Act.
(4) If multiple claims were filed for the same property, the number of lots,
parcels or dwellings that may be established for purposes of subsection (2)(a)
of this section is the number of lots, parcels or dwellings in the most recent
waiver issued by the state before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a
waiver was not issued, the most recent claim filed with the state, but not more
than 10 in any case.
(5) To qualify for a home site approval under this section, the claimant must
have filed a claim for the property with both the state and the county in which
the property is located. In addition, regardless of whether a waiver was issued
by the state or the county before the effective date of this 2007 Act to qualify
for a home site approval under this section, the claimant must establish that:
(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
(b) All owners of the property have consented in writing to the claim;
(c) The property is located entirely outside any urban growth boundary and
entirely outside the boundaries of any city;
(d) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the lot, parcel or
dwelling;
(e) The establishment of the lot, parcel or dwelling is not prohibited by a land
use regulation described in ORS 197.352 (3);
(f) On the claimant's acquisition date, the claimant lawfully was permitted to
establish at least the number of lots, parcels and dwellings on the property
that are authorized under this section; and
(g) The enactment of one or more land use regulations, other than land use
regulations described in ORS 197.352 (3), that are the basis for the claim caused
a reduction in the fair market value of the property that is equal to or greater
than the fair market value of the home site approvals that may be established
on the property under subsection (2) of this section, with the reduction in fair
market value measured as set forth in subsection (6) of this section.
(6) The reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by the
enactment of one or more land use regulations that were the basis for the claim
is equal to the decrease, if any, in the fair market value of the property from
the date that is one year before the enactment of the land use regulation to the
date that is one year after the enactment, plus interest. If the claim is based on
the enactment of more than one land use regulation enacted on different dates,
the reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by each
regulation shall be determined separately and the values added together to
calculate the total reduction in fair market value. The reduction in fair market
value shall be adjusted by any ad valorem property taxes not paid as a result of
any special assessment of the property under ORS 308A.050 to 308A.128,
321.257 to 321.390, 321.700 to 321.754 or 321.805 to 321.855, plus interest, offset
by any severance taxes paid by the claimant and by any recapture of potential
additional tax liability that the claimant has paid or will pay for the property if
the property is disqualified from special assessment under ORS 308A.703.
Interest shall be computed under this subsection using the average interest
rate for a one-year United States Government Treasury Bill on December 31 of
each year of the period between the date the land use regulation was enacted
and the date the claim was filed, compounded annually on January 1 of each
year of the period.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, a claimant must provide
an appraisal showing the fair market value of the property one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation that was the basis for the claim and the
fair market value of the property one year after the enactment. The appraisal
also must show the fair market value of each home site approval to which the
claimant is entitled under section 6 (2) of this 2007 Act, along with evidence of
any ad valorem property taxes not paid, any severance taxes paid and any
recapture of additional tax liability that the claimant has paid or will pay for
the property if the property is disqualified from special assessment under
ORS 308A.703. The actual and reasonable cost of preparing the claim,
including the cost of the appraisal, not to exceed $5,000, may be added to the
calculation of the reduction in fair market value under subsection (6) of this
section. The appraisal must:
(a) Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chapter 674 or a person
registered under ORS chapter 308;
(b) Comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as
authorized by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
Act of 1989; and
(c) Expressly determine the highest and best use of the property at the time the
land use regulation was enacted.
(8) Relief may not be granted under this section if the highest and best use of
the property was not residential use at the time the land use regulation was
enacted.
(9) If the claim was filed after December 4, 2006, to issue a home site approval
under this section, the Department of Land Conservation and Development
must verify that the claim was filed in compliance with the applicable rules of
the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services.
(10) Except as provided in section 11 of this 2007 Act, if the Department of
Land Conservation and Development has issued a final order with a specific
number of home site approvals for the property under this section, the
claimant may seek other governmental authorizations required by law for the
subdivision or partition of the property or for the development of any
dwelling authorized, and a land use regulation enacted by the state or county
that has the effect of prohibiting the subdivision or partition, or the dwelling,
does not apply to the review of those authorizations.
SECTION 8. (1) No later than 120 days after the effective date of this 2007 Act,
the Department of Land Conservation and Development shall send notice to
all the following claimants that filed a claim for property outside an urban
growth boundary:
(a) A claimant whose claim was denied by the state before the effective date of
this 2007 Act, but who may become eligible for just compensation because of
section 21 (2) of this 2007 Act or any other provision of sections 5 to 22 of this
2007 Act;
(b) A claimant whose claim was approved by the state before the effective date
of this 2007 Act; and
(c) A claimant whose claim has not been approved or denied by the state
before the effective date of this 2007 Act.
(2) The notice required by subsection (1) of this section must:
(a) Explain the claimant's options if the claimant wishes to subdivide, partition
or establish a dwelling on the property under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act;
(b) Identify any information that the claimant must file; and
(c) Provide a form for the claimant's use.
(3) A claimant must choose whether to proceed under section 6 or 7 of this 2007
Act by filing the form provided by the department within 90 days after the
date the department mails the notice and form required under subsection (1) of
this section. In addition, the claimant must file any information required in
the notice. If the claimant fails to file the form within 90 days after the date the
department mails the notice, the claimant is not entitled to relief under section
6 or 7 of this 2007 Act.
(4) The department shall review the claims in the order in which the
department receives the forms required under subsection (3) of this section. In
addition to reviewing the claim, the department shall review the department's
record on the claim, the form required under subsection (3) of this section, any
new material from the claimant and any other information required by
sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act to ensure that the requirements of this section
and section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act are met. The department shall provide a copy
of the material submitted by the claimant to the county where the property is
located and consider written comments from the county that are timely filed
with the department. If the department determines that the only land use
regulations that restrict the claimant's use of the property are regulations that
were enacted by the county, the department shall transfer the claim to the
county where the property is located and the claim shall be processed by the
county in the same manner as prescribed by this section for the processing of
claims by the department. The county must consider any written comments
from the department that are timely filed with the county.
(5) If the claimant elects to obtain relief under section 7 of this 2007 Act, the
claimant must file an appraisal that establishes the reduction in the fair market
value of the property as required by section 7 (6) of this 2007 Act. The actual
and reasonable cost of preparing the claim, including the cost of the appraisal,
not to exceed $5,000, may be added to the calculation of the reduction in fair
market value under section 7 (6) of this 2007 Act. The appraisal must be filed
with the department or, if the claim is being processed by the county, with the
county within 180 days after the date the claimant files the election to obtain
relief under section 7 of this 2007 Act. A claimant that elects to obtain relief
under section 7 of this 2007 Act may change that election to obtain relief under
section 6 of this 2007 Act, but only if the claimant provides written notice of
the change on or before the date the appraisal is filed. If a county is processing
the claim, the county may impose a fee for the review of a claim under section
7 of this 2007 Act in an amount that does not exceed the actual and reasonable
cost of the review.
(6) The department or the county shall review claims as quickly as possible,
consistent with careful review of the claim. The department shall report to the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee on or before March 31, 2008, concerning the
department's progress and the counties' progress in completing review of
claims under sections 6 and 7 of this 2007 Act.
(7) The department's final order and a county's final decision on a claim under
section 6 or 7 of this 2007 Act must either deny the claim or approve the claim.
If the order or decision approves the claim, the order or decision must state the
number of home site approvals issued for the property and may contain other
terms that are necessary to ensure that the use of the property is lawful.
(Claims Relating to Property Within
Urban Growth Boundaries)
SECTION 9. (1) A claimant that filed a claim under ORS 197.352 on or before
the date of adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-
fourth Legislative Assembly for property located, in whole or in part, within
an urban growth boundary may establish one to 10 single-family dwellings on
the portion of the property located within the urban growth boundary.
(2) The number of single-family dwellings that may be established on the
portion of the property located within the urban growth boundary under this
section may not exceed the lesser of:
(a) The number of single-family dwellings described in a waiver issued by
Metro, a city or a county before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a
waiver was not issued, the number described in the claim filed with Metro, a
city or a county;
(b) 10, except that if there are existing dwellings on the property, the number
of single-family dwellings that may be established is reduced so that the
maximum number of dwellings, including existing dwellings located on the
property, does not exceed 10; or
(c) The number of single-family dwellings the total value of which represents
just compensation for the reduction in fair market value caused by the
enactment of one or more land use regulations that were the basis for the
claim, as set forth in subsection (6) of this section.
(3) If the number of single-family dwellings described in a waiver issued by
Metro, a city or a county before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a
waiver was not issued, the number described in the claim filed with Metro, a
city or a county is more than 10, the claimant may amend the claim to reduce
the number to no more than 10 by filing notice of the amendment with the
information required by section 10 of this 2007 Act.
(4) If multiple claims were filed for the same property, the number of single-
family dwellings that may be established for purposes of subsection (2)(a) of
this section is the number in the most recent waiver issued by Metro, a city or
a county before the effective date of this 2007 Act or, if a waiver was not
issued, the most recent claim filed with Metro, a city or a county, but not more
than 10 in any case.
(5) To qualify for the relief provided by this section, the claimant must have
filed a claim for the property with the city or county in which the property is
located. In addition, regardless of whether a waiver was issued by Metro, a city
or a county before the effective date of this 2007 Act, to qualify for relief under
this section, the claimant must establish that:
(a) The claimant is an owner of the property;
(b) All owners of the property have consented in writing to the claim;
(c) The property is located, in whole or in part, within an urban growth
boundary;
(d) On the claimant's acquisition date, the claimant lawfully was permitted to
establish at least the number of dwellings on the property that are authorized
under this section;
(e) The property is zoned for residential use;
(f) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the single-family
dwellings;
(g) The establishment of the single-family dwellings is not prohibited by a
land use regulation described in ORS 197.352 (3);
(h) The land use regulation described in paragraph (f) of this subsection was
enacted after the date the property, or any portion of the property, was brought
into the urban growth boundary;
(i) If the property is located within the boundaries of Metro, the land use
regulation that is the basis for the claim was enacted after the date the property
was included within the boundaries of Metro;
(j) If the property is located within a city, the land use regulation that is the
basis for the claim was enacted after the date the property was annexed to the
city; and
(k) The enactment of one or more land use regulations, other than land use
regulations described in oks 197.352 (3), that are the basis of the claim caused
a reduction in the fair market value of the property, as determined under
subsection (6) of this section, that is equal to or greater than the fair market
value of the single-family dwellings that may be established on the property
under subsection (2) of this section.
(6) The reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by the
enactment of one or more land use regulations that were the basis for the claim
is equal to the decrease, if any, in the fair market value of the property from
the date that is one year before the enactment of the land use regulation to the
date that is one year after the enactment, plus interest. If the claim is based on
the enactment of more than one land use regulation enacted on different dates,
the reduction in the fair market value of the property caused by each
regulation shall be determined separately and the values added together to
calculate the total reduction in fair market value. The reduction in fair market
value shall be adjusted by any ad valorem property taxes not paid as a result of
any special assessment of the property under ORS 308A.050 to 308A.128,
321.257 to 321.390, 321.700 to 321.754 or 321.805 to 321.855, plus interest, offset
by any severance taxes paid by the claimant and by any recapture of potential
additional tax liability that the claimant has paid or will pay for the property if
the property is disqualified from special assessment under ORS 308A.703.
Interest shall be computed under this subsection using the average interest
rate for a one-year United States Government Treasury Bill on December 31 of
each year of the period between the date the land use regulation was enacted
and the date the claim was filed, compounded annually on January 1 of each
year of the period.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) of this section, a claimant must provide
an appraisal showing the fair market value of the property one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation that was the basis for the claim and the
fair market value of the property one year after the enactment. The appraisal
also must show the fair market value of each single-family dwelling to which
the claimant is entitled under subsection (2) of this section, along with
evidence of any ad valorem property taxes not paid, any severance taxes paid
and any recapture of additional tax liability that the owner has paid or will pay
for the property if the property is disqualified from special assessment under
ORS 308A.703. The actual and reasonable cost of preparing the claim,
including the cost of the appraisal, not to exceed $5,000, may be added to the
calculation of the reduction in fair market value under section 7 (6) of this 2007
Act. The appraisal must:
(a) Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chapter 674 or a person
registered under ORS chapter 308;
(b) Comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as
authorized by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
Act of 1989; and
(c) Expressly determine the highest and best use of the property at the time the
land use regulation was enacted.
(8) Relief may not be granted under this section if the highest and best use of
the property was not residential use at the time the land use regulation was
enacted.
(9) When Metro, a city or a county has issued a final decision authorizing one
or more single-family dwellings under this section on the portion of the
property located within the urban growth boundary, the claimant may seek
other governmental authorizations required by law for that use, and a land use
regulation enacted by a public entity that has the effect of prohibiting the use
does not apply to the review of those authorizations, except as provided in
section 11 of this 2007 Act. If Metro is reviewing a claim for a property, and a
city or a county is reviewing a claim for the same property, Metro and the city
or county shall coordinate the review and decisions and may:
(a) Provide that one of the public entities be principally responsible for the
review; and
(b) Provide that the decision of each of the public entities is contingent on the
decision of the other public entity.
(10) The only types of land use that are authorized by this section are the
subdivision or partition of land for one or more single-family dwellings, or the
establishment of one or more single-family dwellings on land on which the
dwellings would not otherwise be allowed.
SECTION 10. (1) If Metro, a city or a county issued a waiver before the
effective date of this 2007 Act for property located, in whole or in part, within
an urban growth boundary, the public entity that issued the waiver must
review the claim, the record on the claim and the waiver to determine whether
the claimant is entitled to relief under section 9 of this 2007 Act. If the public
entity that issued the waiver lacks information needed to determine whether
the claimant is entitled to relief, the public entity shall issue a written request
to the claimant for the required information. The claimant must file the
required information within 90 days after receiving the request. If the claimant
does not file the information, the public entity shall review the claim based on
the information that is available. The public entity shall complete a tentative
review no later than 240 days after the effective date of this 2007 Act. The
public entity shall provide written notice to the claimant, the Department of
Land Conservation and Development and any other person entitled to notice
of the tentative determination as to whether the claimant qualifies for relief
under section 9 of this 2007 Act and, if so, the specific number of single-family
dwellings that the public entity proposes to authorize. The notice must state
that the recipient has 15 days to submit evidence or arguments in response to
the tentative determination, after which the public entity shall make a final
determination. A public entity shall make the final determination under this
subsection within 300 days after the effective date of this 2007 Act.
(2) If Metro, a city or a county has not made a final decision before the
effective date of this 2007 Act on a claim filed for property located, in whole or
in part, within an urban growth boundary, the public entity with which the
claim was filed shall send notice to the claimant within 90 days after the
effective date of this 2007 Act. The notice must:
(a) Explain that the claimant is entitled to seek relief under section 9 of this
2007 Act;
(b) Identify the information that the claimant must file; and
(c) Provide a form for the claimant's use.
(3) Within 120 days after the date the public entity mails notice under
subsection (2) of this section, a claimant must notify the public entity if the
claimant intends to continue the claim and must file the information required
in the notice. If the claimant fails to file the notice and required information
with the public entity within 120 days after the date the public entity mails the
notice, the claimant is not entitled to relief under section 9 of this 2007 Act.
(4) A public entity that receives a notice from a claimant under subsection (3)
of this section shall review the claim, the record on the claim, the notice
received from the claimant and the information required under subsection (3)
of this section to determine whether the claim demonstrates that the
requirements of section 9 of this 2007 Act are satisfied. The public entity shall
complete a tentative review no later than 120 days after receipt of the notice
from the claimant and shall provide written notice to the claimant, the
department and any other person entitled to notice of the tentative
determination as to whether the claimant qualifies for relief under section 9 of
this 2007 Act and, if so, the specific number of single-family dwellings that the
public entity proposes to authorize. The notice must state that the recipient has
15 days to submit evidence or arguments in response to the tentative
determination, after which the public entity shall make a final determination.
A public entity shall make the final determination under this subsection
within 180 days after receipt of the notice from the claimant.
(5) If a claimant filed a claim that is subject to this section after December 4,
2006, the claim must have included a copy of a final land use decision by the
city or county with land use jurisdiction over the property that denied an
application by the claimant for the residential use described in the claim. If the
claim was filed after December 4, 2006, and did not include a final land use
decision denying the residential use described in the claim, the claimant is not
entitled to relief under section 9 of this 2007 Act.
(Development Standards; Transferability)
SECTION 11. (1) A subdivision or partition of property, or the establishment
of a dwelling on property, authorized under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act
must comply with all applicable standards governing the siting or
development of the dwelling, lot or parcel including, but not limited to, the
location, design, construction or size of the dwelling, lot or parcel. However,
the standards must not be applied in a manner that has the effect of
prohibiting the establishment of the dwelling, lot or parcel authorized under
sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act unless the standards are reasonably necessary
to avoid or abate a nuisance, to protect public health or safety or to carry out
federal law.
(2) Before beginning construction of any dwelling authorized under section 6
or 7 of this 2007 Act, the owner must comply with the requirements of ORS
215.293 if the property is in an exclusive farm use zone, a forest zone or a
mixed farm and forest zone.
(3)(a) A city or county may approve the creation of a lot or parcel to contain a
dwelling authorized under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act. However, a new lot
or parcel located in an exclusive farm use zone, a forest zone or a mixed farm
and forest zone may not exceed:
(A) Two acres if the lot or parcel is located on high-value farmland, on high-
value forestland or on land within a ground water restricted area; or
(B) Five acres if the lot or parcel is not located on high-value farmland, on
high-value forestland or on land within a ground water restricted area.
(b) If the property is in an exclusive farm use zone, a forest zone or a mixed
farm and, forest zone, the new lots or parcels created must be clustered so as to
maximize suitability of the remnant lot or parcel for farm or forest use.
(4) If an owner is authorized to subdivide or partition more than one property,
or to establish dwellings on more than one property, under sections 5 to 11 of
this 2007 Act and the properties are in an exclusive farm use zone, a forest zone
or a mixed farm and forest zone, the owner may cluster some or all of the
dwellings, lots or parcels on one of the properties if that property is less
suitable than the other properties for farm or forest use. If one of the
properties is zoned for residential use, the owner may cluster some or all of the
dwellings, lots or parcels that would have been located in an exclusive farm
use zone, a forest zone or a mixed farm and forest zone on the property zoned
for residential use.
(5) An owner is not eligible for more than 20 home site approvals under
sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act, regardless of how many properties that person
owns or how many claims that person has filed.
(6) An authorization to partition or subdivide the property, or to establish
dwellings on the property, granted under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act runs
with the property and may be either transferred with the property or
encumbered by another person without affecting the authorization. There is
no time limit on when an authorization granted under section 6, 7 or 9 of this
2007 Act must be carried out, except that once the owner who obtained the
authorization conveys the property to a person other than the owner's spouse
or the trustee of a revocable trust in which the owner is the settlor, the
subsequent owner of the property must create the lots or parcels and establish
the dwellings authorized by a waiver under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act
within 10 years of the conveyance. In addition:
(a) A lot or parcel lawfully created based on an authorization under section 6, 7
or 9 of this 2007 Act remains a discrete lot or parcel, unless the lot or parcel
lines are vacated or the lot or parcel is further divided, as provided by law; and
(b) A dwelling or other residential use of the property based on an
authorization under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act is a permitted use and
may be established or continued by the claimant or a subsequent owner,
except that once the claimant conveys the property to a person other than the
claimant's spouse or the trustee of a revocable trust in which the claimant is
the settlor, the subsequent owner must establish the dwellings or other
residential use authorized under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act within 10
years of the conveyance.
(7) When relief has been claimed under sections 5 to 11 of this 2007 Act:
(a) Additional relief is not due; and
(b) An additional claim may not be filed, compensation is not due and a
waiver may not be issued with regard to the property under sections 5 to 22 of
this 2007 Act or ORS 197.352 as in effect immediately before the effective date
of this 2007 Act, except with respect to a land use regulation enacted after
January 1, 2007.
(8) A person that is eligible to be a holder as defined in ORS 271.715 may
acquire the rights to carry out a use of land authorized under sections 5 to 11 of
this 2007 Act from a willing seller in the manner provided by ORS 271.715 to
271.795. Metro, cities and counties may enter into cooperative agreements
under ORS chapter 195 to establish a system for the purchase and sale of
severable development interests as described in ORS 94.531. A system
established under this subsection may provide for the transfer of severable
development interests between the jurisdictions of the public entities that are
parties to the agreement for the purpose of allowing development to occur in a
location that is different from the location in which the development interest
arises.
(9) If a claimant is an individual, the entitlement to prosecute the claim under
section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act and an authorization to use the property
provided by a waiver under section 6, 7 or 9 of this 2007 Act:
(a) Is not affected by the death of the claimant if the death occurs on or after
the effective date of this 2007 Act; and
(b) Passes to the person that acquires the property by devise or by operation of
law.
BALLOT MEASURE 37 CLAIMS MADE
AFTER THE DATE OF ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
OF THE 2007 REGULAR SESSION OF THE
SEVENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Generally)
SECTION 12. (1) A person may file a claim for just compensation under
sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act and ORS 197.352 after the date of
adjournment sine die of the 2007 regular session of the Seventy-fourth
Legislative Assembly if:
(a) The person is an owner of the property and all owners of the property have
consented in writing to the filing of the claim;
(b) The person's desired use of the property is a residential use or a farming or
forest practice;
(c) The person's desired use of the property is restricted by one or more land
use regulations enacted after January 1, 2007; and
(d) The enactment of one or more land use regulations after January 1, 2007,
other than land use regulations described in ORS 197.352 (3), has reduced the
fair market value of the property.
(2) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the reduction in the fair
market value of the property caused by the enactment of one or more land use
regulations that are the basis for the claim is equal to the decrease, if any, in
the fair market value of the property from the date that is one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation to the date that is one year after the
enactment, plus interest. If the claim is based on the enactment of more than
one land use regulation enacted on different dates, the reduction in the fair
market value of the property caused by each regulation shall be determined
separately and the values added together to calculate the total reduction in fair
market value. Interest shall be computed under this subsection using the
average interest rate for a one-year United States Government Treasury Bill on
December 31 of each year of the period between the date the land use
regulation was enacted and the date the claim was filed, compounded
annually on January 1 of each year of the period. A claimant must provide an
appraisal showing the fa.ir market value of the property one year before the
enactment of the land use regulation and the fair market value of the property
one year after the enactment. The actual and reasonable cost of preparing the
claim, including the cost of the appraisal, not to exceed $5,000, may be added to
the calculation of the reduction in fair market value under this subsection. The
appraisal must:
(a) Be prepared by a person certified under ORS chapter 674 or a person
registered under ORS chapter 308;
(b) Comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as
authorized by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
Act of 1989; and
(c) Expressly determine the highest and best use of the property at the time the
land use regulation was enacted.
(3) Relief may not be granted under this section if the highest and best use of
the property at the time the land use regulation was enacted was not the use
that was restricted by the land use regulation.
(4) If the claimant establishes that the requirements of subsection (1) of this
section are satisfied and the land use regulation was enacted by Metro, a city
or a county, the public entity must either:
(a) Compensate the claimant for the reduction in the fair market value of the
property; or
(b) Authorize the claimant to use the property without application of the land
use regulation to the extent necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market
value of the property.
(5) If the claimant establishes that the requirements of subsection (1) of this
section are satisfied and the land use regulation was enacted by state
government, as defined in ORS 174.111, the state agency that is responsible for
administering the statute, statewide land use planning goal or rule, or the
Oregon Department of Administrative Services if there is no state agency
responsible for administering the statute, goal or rule, must:
(a) Compensate the claimant for the reduction in the fair market value of the
property; or
(b) Authorize the claimant to use the property without application of the land
use regulation to the extent necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market
value of the property.
(6) A use authorized by this section has the legal status of a lawful
nonconforming use in the same manner as provided by ORS 215.130. The
claimant may carry out a use authorized by a public entity under this section
except that a public entity may waive only land use regulations that were
enacted by the public entity. When a use authorized by this section is lawfully
established, the use may be continued lawfully in the same manner as
provided by ORS 215.130.
(Procedures for Actions on New Claims)
SECTION 13. (1) A person filing a claim under section 12 of this 2007 Act shall
file the claim in the manner provided by this section. If the property for which
the claim is filed has more than one owner, the claim must be signed by all the
owners or the claim must include a signed statement of consent from each
owner. Only one claim for each property may be filed for each land use
regulation.
(2) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act must be filed with the public
entity that enacted the land use regulation that is the basis for the claim.
(3) Metro, cities, counties and the Department of Land Conservation and
Development may impose a fee for the review of a claim filed under section 12
of this 2007 Act in an amount not to exceed the actual and reasonable cost of
reviewing the claim.
(4) A person must file a claim under section 12 of this 2007 Act within five
years after the date the land use regulation was enacted.
(5) A public entity that receives a claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act
must issue a final determination on the claim within 180 days after the date the
claim is complete, as described in subsection (9) of this section.
(6) If a claim under section 12 of this 2007 Act is filed with state government, as
defined in ORS 174.111, the claim must be filed with the department. If the
claim is filed with Metro, a city or a county, the claim must be filed with the
chief administrative office of the public entity, or with an individual
designated by ordinance, resolution or order of the public entity.
(7) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act must be in writing and must
include:
(a) The name and address of each owner;
(b) The address, if any, and tax lot number, township, range and section of the
property;
(c) Evidence of the acquisition date of the claimant, including the instrument
conveying the property to the claimant and a report from a title company
identifying the person in which title is vested and the claimant's acquisition
date and describing exceptions and encumbrances to title that are of record;
(d) A citation to the land use regulation that the claimant believes is restricting
the claimant's desired use of the property that is adequate to allow the public
entity to identify the specific land use regulation that is the basis for the claim;
(e) A description of the specific use of the property that the claimant desires to
carry out but cannot because of the land use regulation; and
(f) An appraisal of the property that complies with section 12 (2) of this 2007
Act.
(8) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act must include the fee, if any,
imposed by the public entity with which the claim is filed pursuant to
subsection (3) of this section.
(9) The public entity shall review a claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act
to determine whether the claim complies with the requirements of sections 12
to 14 of this 2007 Act. If the claim is incomplete, the public entity shall notify
the claimant in writing of the information or fee that is missing within 60 days
after receiving the claim and allow the claimant to submit the missing
information or fee. The claim is complete when the public entity receives any
fee required by subsection (8) of this section and:
(a) The missing information;
(b) Part of the missing information and written notice from the claimant that
the remainder of the missing information will not be provided; or
(c) Written notice from the claimant that none of the missing information will
be provided.
(10) If a public entity does not notify a claimant within 60 days after a claim is
filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act that information or the fee is missing
from the claim, the claim is deemed complete when filed.
(11) A claim filed under section 12 of this 2007 Act is deemed withdrawn if the
public entity gives notice to the claimant under subsection (9) of this section
and the claimant does not comply with the requirements of subsection (9) of
this section.
SECTION 14. (1) A public entity that receives a complete claim as described in
section 13 of this 2007 Act shall provide notice of the claim at least 30 days
before a public hearing on the claim or, if there will not be a public hearing, at
least 30 days before the deadline for submission of written comments, to:
(a) All owners identified in the claim;
(b) All persons described in ORS 197.763 (2);
(c) The Department of Land Conservation and Development, unless the claim
was filed with the department;
(d) Metro, if the property is located within the urban growth boundary of
Metro;
(e) The county in which the property is located, unless the claim was filed with
the county; and
(f) The city, if the property is located within the urban growth boundary or
adopted urban planning area of the city.
(2) The notice required under subsection (1) of this section must describe the
claim and state:
(a) Whether a public hearing will be held on the claim, the date, time and
location of the hearing, if any, and the final date for submission of written
evidence and arguments relating to the claim;
(b) That judicial review of the final determination of a public entity on the
claim is limited to the written evidence and arguments submitted to the public
entity; and
(c) That judicial review is available only for issues that are raised with
sufficient specificity to afford the public entity an opportunity to respond.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, written evidence and
arguments in proceedings on the claim must be submitted to the public entity
not later than:
(a) The close of the final public hearing on the claim; or
(b) If a public hearing is not held, the date that is specified by the public entity
in the notice required under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) The claimant may request additional time to submit written evidence and
arguments in response to testimony or submittals. The request must be made
before the close of testimony or the deadline for submission of written
evidence and arguments.
(5) A public entity shall make the record on review of a claim, including any
staff reports, available to the public before the close of the record as described
in subsections (3) and (4) of this section.
(6) A public entity shall mail a copy of the final determination to the claimant
and to any person who submitted written evidence or arguments before the
close of the record. The public entity shall forward to the county, and the
county shall record, a memorandum of the final determination in the deed
records of the county in which the property is located.
SECTION 15. In addition to any other notice required by law, a county must
give notice of a Measure 37 permit for property located entirely outside an
urban growth boundary to:
(1) The county assessor for the county in which the property is located;
(2) A district or municipality that supplies water for domestic, municipal or
irrigation uses and has a place of use or well located within one-half mile of
the property; and
(3) The Department of Land Conservation and Development, the State
Department of Agriculture, the Water Resources Department and the State
Forestry Department.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
SECTION 16. (1) A person that is adversely affected by a final determination
of a public entity under sections 5 to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act may obtain
judicial review of that determination under ORS 34.010 to 34.100, if the
determination is made by Metro, a city or a county, or under ORS 183.484, if
the determination is one of a state agency. Proceedings for review of a state
agency determination under sections 5 to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act must be
commenced in the county in which the affected property is located. Upon
motion of any party to the proceedings, the proceedings may be transferred to
any other county with jurisdiction under ORS 183.484 in the manner provided
by law for change of venue. A determination by a public entity under sections
5 to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act is not a land use decision.
(2) A person is adversely affected under subsection (1) of this section if the
person:
(a) Is an owner of the property that is the subject of the final determination; or
(b) Is a person who timely submitted written evidence, arguments or
comments to a public entity concerning the determination.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, judicial review of a final
determination under sections 5 to 11 or 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act or ORS 197.352
is:
(a) Limited to the evidence in the record of the public entity at the time of its
final determination.
(b) Available only for issues that are raised before the public entity with
sufficient specificity to afford the public entity an opportunity to respond.
OMBUDSMAN
SECTION 17. (1) The Governor shall appoint an individual to serve, at the
pleasure of the Governor, as the Compensation and Conservation
Ombudsman.
(2) The ombudsman must be an individual of recognized judgment,
objectivity and integrity who is qualified by training and experience to:
(a) Analyze problems of land use planning, real property law and real property
valuation; and
(b) Facilitate resolution of complex disputes.
SECTION 18. (1) For the purpose of helping to ensure that a claim is complete,
as described in section 13 of this 2007 Act, the Compensation and Conservation
Ombudsman may review a proposed claim if the review is requested by a
claimant that intends to file a claim under sections 12 to 14 of this 2007 Act and
ORS 197.352.
(2) At the request of the claimant or the public entity reviewing a claim, the
ombudsman may facilitate resolution of issues involving a claim under
sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act.
MISCELLANEOUS
SECTION 19. (1) If an owner submits an application for a comprehensive plan
or zoning amendment, or submits an application for an amendment to the
Metro urban growth boundary, and Metro, a city or a county approves the
amendment, the owner is not entitled to relief under sections 5 to 22 of this
2007 Act with respect to a land use regulation enacted before the date the
application was filed.
(2) If an owner files a petition to initiate annexation to a city and the city or
boundary commission approves the petition, the owner is not entitled to relief
under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act with respect to a land use regulation
. enacted before the date the petition was filed.
SECTION 20. An appraiser certified under ORS 674.310 or a person registered
under ORS chapter 308 may carry out the appraisals required by sections 5 to
22 of this 2007 Act. The Department of Land Conservation and Development is
authorized to retain persons to review the appraisals.
SECTION 21. (1) Except as provided in this section, a claimant's acquisition
date is the date the claimant became the owner of the property as shown in the
deed records of the county in which the property is located. If there is more
than one claimant for the same property under the same claim and the
claimants have different acquisition dates, the acquisition date is the earliest
of those dates.
(2) If the claimant is the surviving spouse of a person who was an owner of the
property in fee title, the claimant's acquisition date is the date the claimant
was married to the deceased spouse or the date the spouse acquired the
property, whichever is later. A claimant or a surviving spouse may disclaim
the relief provided under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act by using the
procedure provided in ORS 105.623 to 105.649.
(3) If a claimant conveyed the property to another person and reacquired the
property, whether by foreclosure or otherwise, the claimant's acquisition date
is the date the claimant reacquired ownership of the property.
(4) A default judgment entered after December 2, 2004, does not alter a
claimanf s acquisition date unless the claimant's acquisition date is after
December 2, 2004.
SECTION 21a. For the purposes of sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act, a document
is filed on the date the document is received by the public entity.
SECTION 21b. For the purposes of sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act, the fair
market value of property is the amount of money, in cash, that the property
would bring if the property was offered for sale by a person who desires to
sell the property but is not obligated to sell the property, and if the property
was bought by a person who was willing to buy the property but not obligated
to buy the property. The fair market value is the actual value of property, with
all of the property's adaptations to general and special purposes. The fair
market value of property does not include any prospective value, speculative
value or possible value based upon future expenditures and improvements.
SECTION 21c. If any part of sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act is held to be
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, all remaining parts of sections 5 to 22 of
this 2007 Act shall not be affected by the holding and shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 22. (1) The Compensation and Conservation Fund is established in
the State Treasury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Interest
earned on moneys in the Compensation and Conservation Fund shall be
credited to the fund. The fund consists of moneys received by the Department
of Land Conservation and Development under sections 5 to 22 of this 2007 Act
and other moneys available to the department for the purpose described in
subsection (2) of this section.
(2) Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the department for
the purpose of paying expenses incurred to review claims under sections 5 to
22 of this 2007 Act and for the purpose of paying the expenses of the
Compensation and Conservation Ombudsman appointed under section 17 of
this 2007 Act.
CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SECTION 23. ORS 93.040 is amended to read:
93.040. (1) The following statement shall be included in the body of an
instrument transferring or contracting to transfer fee title to real property except
for owner's sale agreements or earnest money receipts, or both, as provided in
subsection (2) of this section: "BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS
INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE
ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER [ORS 197.352] SECTIONS 2,
3 AND 5 TO 22 OF THIS 2007 ACT. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW
USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLA nON
OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING
OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE
TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR
COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES, TO
DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST
PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE
RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER [ORS
197.352] SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 TO 22 OF THIS 2007 ACT."
(2) In all owner's sale agreements and earnest money receipts, there shall be
included in the body of the instrument the following statement: "THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT MAY NOT BE WITHIN A
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT PROTECTING STRUCTURES. THE PROPERTY
IS SUBJECT TO LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT, IN FARM OR
FOREST ZONES, MAY NOT AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OR SITING OF A
RESIDENCE AND THAT LIMIT LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST
PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930 IN ALL ZONES. BEFORE SIGNING
OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE
TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER
[ORS 197.352] SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 TO 22 OF THIS 2007 ACT. BEFORE
SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING
FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE
CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES,
THE EXISTENCE OF FIRE PROTECTION FOR STRUCTURES AND THE
RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY, UNDER [ORS
197.352] SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 TO 22 OF THIS 2007 ACT."
(3) In all owners' sale agreements and earnest money receipts subject to ORS
358.505, there shall be included in the body of the instrument or by addendum
the following statement: "THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT
IS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER ORS 358.505. ORS 358.515
REQUIRES NOTIFICATION TO THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERV A TION
OFFICER OF SALE OR TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY."
(4) An action may not be maintained against the county recording officer for
recording an instrument that does not contain the statement required in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
(5) An action may not be maintained against any person for failure to include in
the instrument the statement required in subsection (1) or (2) of this section, or
for recording an instrument that does not contain the statement required in
subsection (1) or (2) of this section, unless the person acquiring or agreeing to
acquire fee title to the real property would not have executed or accepted the
instrument but for the absence in the instrument of the statement required by
subsection (1) or (2) of this section. An action may not be maintained by the
person acquiring or agreeing to acquire fee title to the real property against any
person other than the person transferring or contracting to transfer fee title to the
real property.
SECTION 24. The unit captions used in this 2007 Act are provided only for the
convenience of the reader and do not become part of the statutory law of this
state or express a legislative intent in the enactment of this 2007 Act.
SECTION 25. This 2007 Act shall be submitted to the people for their approval
or rejection at a special election held throughout this state as provided in
chapter , Oregon Laws 2007 (Enrolled House Bill 2083).
Page 1
10f1DOCUMENT
OREGON REVISED STATUTES
*** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2005 REGULAR SESSION OF THE 73RD LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY ***
*** ANNOTATIONS CURRENT THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2007 ***
TITLE 10. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TRANSACTIONS
CHAPTER 94. REAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDITS
GO TO OREGON REVISED STATUTES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY
ORS ~ 94.531 (2005)
94.531. Severable development interest in real property; transferable development credit.
(1) The governing body of a city or county is authorized to recognize a severable development interest in real prop-
erty. The governing body of the city or county may establish a system for the purchase and sale of development inter-
ests. The interest transferred shall be known as a transferable development credit. A transferable development credit
shall include the ability to establish in a location in the city or county a specified amount of residential or nonresidential
development that is different from development types or exceeds development limitations provided in the applicable
land use regulations for the location. All development authorized or approved using transferable development credits
shall comply with the land use planning goals adopted under ORS 197.225 and the acknowledged comprehensive plan.
(2) The ability to develop land from which credits are transferred shall be reduced by the amount of the develop-
ment credits transferred, and development on the land to which credits are transferred may be increased in accordance
with a transfer system formally adopted by the governing body of the city or county.
(3) The holder of a recorded mortgage encumbering land from which credits are transferred shall be given prior
written notice of the proposed conveyance by the record owner of the property and must consent to the conveyance be-
fore any development credits may be transferred from the property.
(4) A city or county with a transferable development credit system shall maintain a registry of all lots or parcels
from which credits have been transferred, the lots or parcels to which credits have been transferred and the allowable
development level for each lot or parcel following transfer.
(5) A city or county, or an elected official, appointed official, employee or agent of a city or county, shall not be
found liable for damages resulting from any error made in:
(a) Allowing the use of a transferable development credit that complies with an adopted transferable development
credit system and the acknowledged comprehensive plan; or
(b) Maintaining the registry required under subsection (4) of this section.
HISTORY: 1999 c.573 S 1
NOTES:
94.531 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 94
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
Example of Oregon TDC Program from Deschutes County
Chapter 11.12.
TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT PROGRAM
11.12.010. Definitions.
11.12.020. TDC Transactions.
11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria.
11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee.
11.12.010. Definitions.
As used in DCC 11.12, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 11.12.010.
"Certificate of TDC Purchase" means a certificate from Deschutes County that documents the purchase or,
in the case of a PRC, creation ofTDC(s).
"Department" means, for purposes of this chapter, the Deschutes County Community Development
Department.
"Existing Wastewater Treatment System" means a wastewater treatment system in use in the Sending Area
on May 31, 2006 that is not a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by Deschutes County.
"High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area" means the area mapped in 2000 by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife which shows the area of priority protection for migrating mule deer within a larger
migration corridor acknowledged under statewide planning Goal 5. A copy of this map is on file with the
Department.
"Net Developable Acre" means the acreage in a tract of land in a Receiving Area calculated by subtracting
the acreage reserved for collector road right-of-way and community parks and open space from the gross
acreage of a subject tract.
''Nitrate Loading Management Model" means the groundwater model developed by the US Geological
Survey to determine the nitrate loading capacity of the drinking water aquifer underlying south Deschutes
County.
''Nitrogen Reducing System" means a wastewater treatment system that reduces nitrogen loading to the
groundwater in accordance with the Nitrate Loading Management Model and that is approved by Deschutes
County.
"Pollution Reduction Credit" (PRC) means the credit given for the Retrofitting of an Existing Wastewater
Treatment System or payment into the County's fund.
"Receiving Area" means the area designated by the County where Transferable Development Credits are
required in order to purchase and develop a tract of land.
"Restrictive Covenant" means a legal instrument which places restrictions on future development on a lot or
parcel ofland in the Sending Area.
"Retrofit" means to upgrade or replace an Existing Wastewater Treatment System in the Sending Area with
a Nitrogen Reducing System approved by the County.
"Sending Area" means the area designated by the County in which Transferable Development Credits may
be sold.
"TDC Report" means a report from a title company verifying title to and encumbrances on the subject
property.
Chapter 11.12
(2006)
Example of Oregon TDC Program from Deschutes County
"Transferable Development Credit" (TDC) means the credit given for a Restrictive Covenant granted to
Deschutes County restricting the placement of a septic systenr. on the subject property or a PRC.
(Ord. 2006-016 SI, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 SI, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 Sl, 2002)
11.12.020. TDC Transactions.
A. Sale of TDCs from the Sending Area. Either Section B or C shall be followed for a-the creation of
TDCs,
B. Restrictive Covenant
1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that
the subject property is eligible for a TDC.
2. The Department shall send the property owner or interested person written verification confirming
the number ofTDCs the subject property is eligible for based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030.
3. Upon mutual agreement of a sale between the property owner and IDC purchaser, the following
transactions shall occur:
a. The property owner shall provide a IDC Report to the Department.
b. If the IDC purchaser is other than the County then the property owner and IDC purchaser shall
sign a TDC Contract form provided by the County.
c. Upon Department review and approval of the IDC Report and receipt of payment of the
consideration in accordance with the County's agreement with the property owner or the TDC
Contract pursuant to DCC 11.12.01O(A)(3)(b), the County shall prepare a Restrictive Covenant
that restricts development on the subject property. This Restrictive Covenant shall be signed by
the County and the property owner. The County shall record the Restrictive Covenant.
d. Contemporaneously with the recording of the Restrictive Covenant, County shall provide the
IDC purchaser with documentation of the IDC purchase.
e. PRC.
1. The property owner or any other interested person shall request verification from the County that
the subject property is eligible for a PRe.
2. The Department shall provide the property owner or interested person written verification
confirming the subject property is eligible for a PRC based on the criteria in DCC 11.12.030.
3. The County shall grant a PRC to a developer in the Receiving Area if the developer provides one of
the following:
a. A Retrofit, in cooperation with the property owner of a property eligible for a PRC, Existing
Wastewater Treatment System and documentation submitted to the County that includes proof
of ownership of the subject property, proof of consent of the property owner for the Retrofit,
and final County inspection of the Retrofit; or
b. Payment into the County's fund the proportional cost established by Board of County
Commissioner Resolution for a Retrofit. The County's fund shall be use d to aid property
owners in Retrofitting their Existing Wastewater Treatment Systems.
D. Assignment of IDCs to the Receiving Area. Prior to final plat approval in the Receiving Area, the
Department must have record of the required number of TDCs established and available to apply to
development of a tract or lot meeting the following criteria within the Receiving Area:
1. The tract or lot shall be located within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area in the La Pine
Urban Unincorporated Community and be zoned Residential General or Residential Center. The
Receiving Area is identified on a map prepared and maintained by the Department.
2. IDCs shall be assigned to a lot or tract based on the Net Developable Acres at a rate approved by
Board of County Commissioner resolution.
3. PRCs shall be assigned to a tract at a rate established by Board of County Commissioner resolution.
4. The Board may, by resolution, adjust the number of IDCs required per acre or alter the factors for
which IDCs are required in the Receiving Area.
Chapter 11.12
2
(2006)
In
Example of Oregon TDC Program from Deschutes County
E. Non-Residential Districts. Where permitted under DCC 18.61.050, uses in non-residential districts in
the Receiving Area do not require IDCs.
F. Right to Develop. If an owner of a lot or parcel of land eligible for a TDC chooses not to participate in
the TDC program, the owner shall not be restricted from developing said lot or parcel in accordance
with the applicable zoning standards in DCC Title 18, and any other applicable regulations, rules or
standards.
(Ord. 2006-016 SI, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 SI, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 SI, 2002)
11.12.030. TDC Sending Area Eligibility Criteria.
A. A lot or parcel that meets the following criteria is eligible to receive a TDC. The lot or parcel shall:
1. Be located within the "Sending Area" identified on a map prepared and maintained by the
Department;
2. Be no greater than two acres in area;
3. Be capable of being served by an on-site sewage disposal system that meets current Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality standards, as demonstrated by a satisfactory feasibility
evaluation for an on-site sewage disposal system or when the lot or parcel is shown as being eligible
for such system on the TDC Sending Area map; and
4. Not be developed with an existing sewage disposal system, or if developed with an existing sewage
disposal system, the landowner shall disable said system, or
5. Have received prior approval for a site evaluation or an installed septic system that has expired or is
no longer valid, or
6. Have an Existing Wastewater Treatment System eligible for a Retrofit.
B. TDCs shall be assigned to an eligible lot or parcel that meets the criteria in DCC 11.12.030(A), as
follows:
1. An eligible lot or parcel upon which a Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned one TDe.
2. An eligible lot or parcel located in the High Priority Deer Migration Corridor Area upon which a
Restrictive Covenant is recorded shall be assigned an additional one-halfIDC.
3. An eligible lot or parcel upon which an Existing Wastewater Treatment System has been Retrofitted
shall be assigned one IDe.
4. The Board of County Commissioners may by Resolution revise the number of IDCs assigned or
the factors for which TDCs are assigned to eligible lots or parcels in the Sending Area.
(Ord. 2006-016 SI, 2006; Ord. 2004-007 SI, 2004; Ord. 2002-010 SI, 2002)
11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee.
A. Purpose. The IDC Advisory Committee is an advisory committee whose purpose is to assist staff in
implementing the IDC program and to recommend to staff the means to accomplish the goals of
Regional Problem Solving insofar as the transfer of development credits from the Sending Area to the
Receiving Area are concerned.
B. Duties. The committee will advise staff in evaluating the IDC program for record keeping accuracy,
determine if program goals are being met, consider whether any changes to the IDC allocation criteria
in the Sending Area or TDC requirements in the Receiving Area are advisable, or if any other revisions
to the program are warranted. The committee may assist the County in determining which TDC options
to exercise.
e. Committee member terms. Committee members will be selected by staff based on the knowledge and
expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC Program. One-half the
initial members shall serve for one year and one-half shall serve for two years. Thereafter, members
shall serve two-year terms. Members may be requested to serve additional terms. Staff shall report the
membership of the IDC Advisory Committee to the Board of County Commissioners on an annual
basis.
Chapter 11.12
3
(2006)
Example of Oregon TDC Program from Deschutes County
D. Committee members. The TDC Advisory Committee may include a representative from each of the
following organizations, agencies or professions:
1. The International Society of Appraisers or an Oregon State Certified Appraiser;
2. A firm established for the purpose of real estate development or the representation of development
interests;
3. An individual with recognized expertise in hydrology or ground water;
4. An individual with recognized expertise in big game wildlife management;
5. The Community Solutions Team for Central Oregon;
6. An individual who resides in the designated Sending Area;
7. A member of the La Pine Community Action Team;
8. The Deschutes County Community Development Department Director or designee as an ex officio
member.
9. Staffmay select additional members as it deems appropriate.
(Ord. 2006-016 Sl, 2006; Ord. 2003-033 Sl, 2003; Ord. 2002-010 Sl, 2002)
Chapter 11.12
4
(2006)
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Park and Ride Memorandum of Understanding
February 5,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Administration E-Mail: ann@ashland.or.us
Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Martha Benn Estimated Time:
Question:
Does the council wish to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOV) with Jackson County
(County) and Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) for a park and ride facility at the north entrance to
Ashland?
Note: At the time the council packet was prepared, RVTD attorney had not yet submitted final
comments on the MOV. It is possible that a slightly revised MOV will be distributed at the Council
meeting if RVTD makes changes to the attached MOV.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving the MOV.
Background:
In 2005, at the request of the Ashland Vnited Front, the City of Ashland was provided a federal
earmark of approximately $310,000 for the purpose of creating a park and ride facility. The federal
funds under this earmark total approximately $250,000 and the balance of $60,000 must come from a
local match. These funds must be obligated by August of 2008 which requires all supporting
documents be submitted by RVTD to the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) by mid-April.
During the late 1990s RVTD received a similar earmark for a park and ride in the amount of
approximately $145,000. Those funds combined with the $250,000 will provide approximately
$395,000 for construction of the facility.
Jackson County is planning to secure a right of way for a new street connection between Highway 99
and Jackson Road which will require the purchase of private property. The purchase will result in
County acquisition of "non-economic" remainder of approximately one acre in size. The County will
donate the area to R VTD for the construction of the park and ride facility and the donation will serve
as the required local match. The property is located near the intersection of Valley View Road and
Highway 99 on the R VTD bus route.
RVTD has paid for a Documented Categorical Exclusion (DCE) required by the Federal Transit
Authority (FTA) and will incur engineering design costs associated with project. In addition, RVTD
must apply for either a Type II or Type 1 planning action through the County to secure a permit for
construction.
Page 1 of2
020508 MOU Park and Ride.doc
~.l'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
This project is listed in the Capital Improvements Plan of the City's current budget. The City is
prepared to help offset fees associated with the application process and engineering design fees. The
land and facility will be owned and maintained by RVTD.
Related City Policies:
Transportation Element of Comp Plan
Council Options:
· Approve the MOU as written.
. Approve the MOU with identified changes.
Potential Motions:
I move to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Ashland, Jackson County
and the Rogue Valley Transit District.
Attachments:
. Memorandum of Understanding
. Project description in CIP
. Rough sketch of proposed park and ride facility
Page 2 on
020508 MOU Park and Ride.doc
~A'
Memorandum of Understanding
City of Ashland
and
Jackson County
and
Rogue Valley Transportation District
This Memorandum of Understanding is made by and between the City of Ashland,
hereinafter called the City, Jackson County, hereinafter called the County and Rogue
Valley Transportation District, hereinafter called RVTD.
The City and RVTD desire a "Park and Ride" (P&R) facility near the north City limits to
encourage use of the RVTD bus system, which will reduce the number of vehicles and
parking needs inside the City.
The County is planning to secure right of way for a new street connection between
Highway 99 and Jackson Road, north of the current intersection of these two roads. This
new street will require the purchase of private property for the street right-of-way. The
private property purchase will result in County acquisition of a "non-economic
remainder" approximately less than one acre in size that will not be useful as either right-
of-way or most other purposes due to the size and location of the property.
The County will acquire the property under the guidelines of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHW A). County will make the non-economic remainder available to
City and RVTD for the construction of a P&R facility. RVTD will own the facility and
will be responsible for maintenance, subject to a future Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) between the parties.
RVTD has funds allocated to the P&R and the City provided a federal earmark of an
additional $250,000 to the P&R project. There are two restrictions on the $250,000:
First, these funds must be activated by the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) by
August of 2008 and second, the use of these funds requires a $60,000 match.
The County's purchase of the property qualifies as "match". The County will purchase
the property and designate the non-economic remainder purchase price toward the FT A
match requirement. If private capital is secured through a neighboring development via
County Land Use 'Conditions of Approval' requiring the private developer to provide
capital improvements directly benefiting the Park and Ride, County will consider the
value of these improvements as the match and seek reimbursement from R VTD up to that
value, not to exceed the match requirements. These improvements would include
completion of a full-access county standard road to the north of the parcel that is
necessary for accessing the facility, Park and Ride access (driveway) infrastructure and/or
infrastructure within the facility.
I
RVTD will prioritize grant expenditures to meet and remain in compliance with all
Federal, State and County land-use requirements. Additional improvements to the facility
after these requirements have been met are within RVTD's discretion and will be limited
to the funds available. All parties understand that if there are no remaining funds, RVTD
will not be held responsible for reimbursing County. Exceptions include private capital
secured from neighboring development(s), as stated in the preceding paragraph, in which
case R VTD will reimburse County up to the improvement value, not to exceed the match
requirement.
The August 2008 deadline will require: property acquisition, detailed design of the P&R
facility, an environmental study, and a construction bid and award process to occur prior
to August 2008. These steps are necessary to obligate the funds. If these steps are not
completed by the deadline the funds will not be obligated and will be reallocated by the
Federal government to a different project. All parties to this MOD are working to retain
the Federal funding and meet the deadline.
If other matching funds are obtained for the P&R project, in exchange for costs incurred
in acquiring the property the County expects to be reimbursed for the property from any
Federal funds that may remain after the project is completed.
R VTD will obtain an environmental consultant to develop the appropriate environmental
studies and recommend any required mitigation measures. The parties will assure
reimbursement to the County for the purchase of the land from any grant funds remaining
at the end of the project, if any.
RVTD will facilitate between the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the parties to
this MOD.
City of Ashland, Oregon
By
John Morrison, Mayor
Date
Jackson County, Oregon
~ D~
Danny Jordan, Jackson County Administrator
Rogue Valley Transportation District
By
Connie Skillman, Board Chair
Date
2
11
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TITLE: PARK & RIDE CREATION
capital improvements plan
PROJECT TYPE: TRANSPORTATION IPUBLlC SAFETY
RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT: Public Works Department/Engineering Division
Funding Sources:
$ 30.000 Street Fees/ Rates
$ 30,000
Project Description:
The City of Ashland in cooperation with
RVTD, ODOT and Jackson County intends
to develop approximately eighty parking
spaces for a "park and ride" lot located on
Hwy 99 north of Valley View Road. The
"park and ride location" will be adjacent to
a local bus stop enabling easy access into
downtown and to the major employers of
the community.
Project Cost by Budget Year:
Prior Years:
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total
$30,000
$30,000
The city's primary employers, Southern
Oregon University, City of Ashland,
Ashland Community Hospital and the
Ashland School District are located in
densely populated areas with a limited
supply of parking.
A park and ride program is
identified in the TIPC as
one component of
improved transit for the
community. This project
helps ease the parking
challenges of our
employees who commute
to Ashland and reduces
auto use and congestion in
Ashland. City expenses
are estimated
approximately $30.000.
city 0' ash/and 2-19
HilkkA1~ tN
,~
~
-....
r~:;~ir"
." . ..........
'- .. ~ -' t;.~ ?-""~
TlTII ("-"'f
,
I3I.AS t-"lId I
ovt
c::: .-
~~
(5kPilr-fi
o
:' . 1
"".j
j
r.
; .
,. )
t ).
., "~.
(" i
-1"\ .\-~ t' ,~-.
_1':--
('.
..
=t2""-h' ~"--'"
'~ 11
, '. I
- 6 ,F-----
'AGtld:- :>
~.. -'
_/"
r'
i ;
I '
1-/
CITY Of
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Measure 49 claims processing ordinance
February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
City Attorney's Office E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us
Community Develo ment Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Martha Benne Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Does the City Council approve first reading of "An Ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Ashland
Municipal Code, providing for Revisions to Measure 37 Claims Ordinance to address the adoption of
Measure 49."
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council conduct first reading
Background:
In accordance with the Council Rules, the attached ordinance was emailed to the Council on January
22, 2008. The Measure 49 claims procedures ordinance concerns only processing new claims under
Sections 12-14 of the Measure (in the City claims are limited to claims concerning residential use on
residentially (single family) zoned property). This is not a land use regulation. The full text of
Measure 49 is included in the materials on TDC. This process replaces the Measure 37 claims process
currentl y in Chapter 18.
This ordinance mostly tracks a sample ordinance prepared by Washington County which in turn tracks
the Measure. Staff added flexibility by acknowledging that an award of transferable development
rights may be an alternative to payment of monetary compensation. However, that decision is reserved
for the City Council.
Related City Policies:
AMC Section 18.110
Council Options:
(1) Conduct first reading and continue for second reading;
(2) Remand to staff for additional work.
Potential Motions:
[Staff conducts First Reading by title only: "An Ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Ashland
Municipal Code, providing for Revisions to Measure 37 Claims Ordinance to address the adoption of
Measure 49." ]
Move to approve First Reading and continue to February 19,2008 for second reading.
Attachments:
Draft Ordinance
Page 1
020508 M49 claims processing.CC.doc
r~'
18.110.005 Purpose and Scope
A. ORS 197.352(5) authorizes local government to establish
procedures governing new claims under Section 12 to 14 of Ballot
Measure 49 (2007). These provisions are in addition to and not in lieu
of the requirements of Ballot Measure 49.
B. As it relates to City claims, Ballot Measure 49 pennits
compensation claims only when a non-exempt City land development
regulation, enacted after January 1, 2007, restricts the residential use of
private real property zoned for primarily single family residential use
and it can be demonstrated in a qualified appraisal that the restriction
reduces fair market value.
18.110.010 Definitions
For the purposes of this Chapter, and the evaluation, assessment and
processing of Measure 49 claims, the following mean:
A. "Ballot Measure 49" means the measure enacted by the voters at
the November, 2007 General Election, which amended ORS
Chapter 197.
B. "Claim" means a written demand for compensation filed under
Section 12 to 14 of Measure 49 and ORS 197.25, as in effect on
and after the effective date of Measure 49
C. "Claimant" means the person who has filed a claim. The
claimant must be a current owner of the property that is the
subject of the claim.
D. ."City Administrator": the City Administrator of the City of
Ashland, or the City Administrator's designee.
E. "Fair market value" is the amount of money, in cash, that the
property would bring if the property was offered for sale by a
person who desires to sell the property but is not obligated to
sell the property, and if the property was bought by a person
who was willing to buy the property but not obligated to buy
the property. The fair market value is the actual value of
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 2
property, with all of the property's adaptations to general and
special purposes. The fair market value of property does not
include any prospective value, speculative value or possible
value based upon future expenditures and improvements.
F. "Interest" Is the average interest rate for a one-year United
States Government Treasury Bill on December 31 of each year
of the period between the date the land use regulation was
enacted and the date the claim was filed, compounded annually
on January 1 of each year of the period.
G. "Land Use Regulation" means a provision of a city
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land division
ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real
property zoned for residential use.
H. "Property" means the private real propert;y described in a claim
and contiguous private real property that is owned by the same
owner, whether or not the contiguous property is described in
another claim, and that is not property owned by the federal
government, an Indian tribe or a public body, as defined in
ORS 192.410.
I. "Reduction in fair market value" means the difference, if any,
in the fair market value of the property from the date that is one
year before the enactment of the land use regulation to the date
that is one year after the enactment, plus interest.
J. "Urban growth boundary" has the meaning given that term in
ORS 195.060.
K. "Waive" or "Waiver" means an action or decision authorizing
the claimant to use the property without application of the land
use regulation(s) to the extent necessary to offset the reduction
in fair market value of the property.
18.110.015 Measure 49: Delegation of authority to City Administrator
A. The City Administrator is delegated authority to determine
the validity of, and grant non-monetary compensation for,
claims filed under Section 12 to 14 of Measure 49 after Tune 28,
2007. The City Administrator may not authorize monetary
payment for any claim, nor may the City Administrator award
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 3
1 n ---r------
transferable development credits.
B. The City Administrator may forward any claim to the City
Council for resolution if the City Administrator determines it
would be in the public interest to do so. The City
Administrator shall forward a claim to the City Council for a
decision if the City Administrator concludes that payment of
monetary compensation or an award of transferable
development credits is an appropriate remedy.
18.110.020 Measure 49: Claim for Compensation
A. Filing. All claims shall be filed with the City
Administrator in person or by U.S. mail. The filing date
is the date the claim is received by the City.
B. Submittal requirements:
1. Claimant shall file a fully executed and completed
Measure 49 claim form provided by the City
Community Development Department including:
a. the name and address of each owner and
the date (supported by evidence) when the
property was acquired.
b. the address. if any. tax lot number.
township. range and section of the
property that is the subject of the claim;
c. a specific statement of the person's
desired use of the property for residential
use;
d. a specific reference ( or citation) to each
land use regulation enacted after January
1. 2007 that is alleged to restrict the
person's desired use of the property and
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 4
when the land use regulations were
enacted (the reference must be specific
enough to permit the City to identify the
precise regulation);
e. the amount of reduction in fair market
value (supported by evidence) alleged for
each regulation at issue plus interest;
f. whether a previous permit was issued for
development of the property including a
description of the use and case file
number;
g. whether a claim was filed for the subject
property with the state or any other
government; and
h. any other information reasonably related
to the review and processing of the claim
as required by the Director of Community
Development or as provided on the
Measure 49 claim form.
2. Claimant shall also provide:
Measure 49 Procedures
a. evidence of the acquisition date of the
claimant. including the instrument
conveying the property to the claimant
and a report from a title company
identifying the person in which title is
vested and the claimant's acquisition date
and described exceptions and
encumbrances to title that are of record;
b. the written consent of all of the owners if
there is more than one owner;
c. a qualifying appraisal (consistent with
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 5
Section 12 (2) of the Measure) showing the
fair market value of the property one year
before the enactment of each land use
regulation and the fair market value of the
property one year after the enactment.
The actual and reasonable cost of
preparing the claim. evidenced by
receipts. including the cost of the
appraisal. not to exceed $5.000. may be
added to the calculation of the reduction
in fair market value under this subsection.
The appraisal must: (1) be prepared by a
person certified under ORS chapter 674 or
a person registered under ORS chapter
308: (2) comply with the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice. as authorized by the Financial
Institutions Reform. Recovery. and
Enforcement Act of 1989: and (3) expressly
determine the highest and best use of the
property at the time the land use
regulation was enacted: and
d. a claim review fee to cover the actual and
reasonable cost of reviewing the claim. of
seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or such
other claim(s) review fee as set by
Resolution of the City Council.
3. Only one claim for each property may be filed for
each land use regulation.
C. Claim review process. The city shall:
1. deny a claim if:
a. it is not filed within five (5) years from the
date the land use regulation was enacted:
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 6
b. an application for a comprehensive plan
or zoning amendment is approved for the
subject property;
c. an application to include the property
within the UGH is approved; or
d. A petition to annex the property is
approved by the city.
2. determine whether a claim is complete within
sixty (60) days after receiving the claim;
3. notify the claimant of any missing information
within sixty (60) days after receiving the claim:
4. after providing notice of missing information.
deem the application complete if:
a. the claimant provides the missing
information and the required fee; or
b. the claimant provides written statement
that some or all of the missing
information will not be provided and the
required fee.
5. deem the application complete if the city fails to
notify the claimant of missing information within
sixty (60) days after receiving the claim:
6. deem the application withdrawn if the claimant
fails to provide the missing information. fee or a
written statement that some or all of the
information will not be provided within the time
specified in the notice of missing information: and
7. issue a final determination on a claim within 180
days from the date the claim is deemed complete.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 7
18.110.025 City Administrator Review and Decision.
A. Claims review process. Upon receipt of a filing. the City
Administrator shall follow the claims review process
under Section 18.110.020.
B. Review criteria. The City Administrator shall determine
whether to approve or deny the claim based upon the
criteria and standards in Ballot Measure 49 and based
upon a demonstration by the owner that:
1. A city land use regulation enacted after January 1.
2007 and after the property was acquired by the
owner(s) restricts the owner's desired residential
use of the property:
2. The city land use regulation has the effect of
reducing the fair market value of the property:
3. The highest and best use of the property at the
time the property was acquired is the owner's
desired use of the property:
4. The land use regulation is not an exempt land use
regulation under the terms of Ballot Measure 49:
5. The time limitations for filing a claim. as specified
in Ballot Measure 49. have not been exceeded: and
6. All other requirements of law. including Measure
49 requirements not specifically stated herein. .
have been met.
C. Acquisition date. The date the property was acquired is:
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 8
1. The date the claimant became the owner of the
property as shown in the deed records of T ackson
County;
2. If there is more than claimant for the same
property under the same claim and the claimants
have different acquisition dated, the acquisition
date is the earliest of those dated;
3. If the claimant is the surviving spouse of a person
who was an owner of the property in fee title, the
claimant's acquisition date is the date the claimant
was married to the deceased spouse or the date the
spouse acquired the property, whichever is later.
A claimant or a surviving spouse may disclaim
relief by using the procedure provided in ORS
105.623 to 105.649; and
4. If a claimant conveyed the property to another
person and reacquired the property, whether by
foreclosure or otherwise, the claimant's acquisition
date is the date the claimant reacquired ownership
of the property.
D. A default judgment entered after December 2, 2004, does
not alter a claimant's acquisition date unless the
claimant's acquisition date is after December 2, 2004.
E Notice of opportunity to comment of staff report. If a
claim is deemed complete and is not rejected, the City
Administrator shall draft a staff report. No less than
thirty days (30) notice of an opportunity to submit
written comments on the staff report shall be sent to:
1. The claimant or representative and all owners of
the subject property known to the City;
2. All property owners of record within one hundred
(100) feet of the subject property.
3. Any formally recognized City neighborhood
association in which the subject property is
located;
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 9
4. The Department of Land conservation and
Development;
5. Any special district or school district in which the
property is located or which has requested notice;
6. Jackson County; and
F. The notice shall contain:
1. the address. if any. tax lot number. township
range and section of the property that is the
subject of the claim and the date when the"
property was acquired;
2. a statement of the claim. including the owner's
desired use of the property for residential use;
. 3. a summary of the staff report including the
number of dwellings. lots or parcels as well as the
specific regulations alleged to restrict the use of
the property;
4. a statement that the claim. staff report and any
information submitted is available at the Ashland
Community Development Department,51
Winburn Way. Ashland. Oregon 97520. for
inspection or copying at cost and the phone
number of a City staff contact;
5. a statement that all persons may submit written
comments. evidence and arguments within the
comment period which shall end on a date certain
as specified in the notice (not less than thirty (30)
days from the date the notice is mailed);
6. a statement that judicial review of the final
determination on the claim is limited to the
written evidence and arguments submitted to the
city while the record is open;
7. a statement that prior to the end of the comment
period the claimant may request an additional
seven (7) days to respond to new evidence or to
submit final arguments
8. a statement that judicial review is available only
for issues that are raised with sufficient specificity
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 10
to afford the public entity an opportunity to
respond; and
9. any other information as deemed necessary by the
City Administrator.
G. The City Administrator shall consider comments actually
received by the conclusion of the comment period and
such other information as the City Administrator deems
relevant and material. Any request by claimant to
respond to new evidence or to submit final arguments
must be submitted before the close of the written
comment period as provided in the notice. The claimant
shall receive seven days to submit such evidence or
argument.
H. Final waiver or rejection of claim. A decision to issue a
waiver or reject a claim shall be reduced in writing and
signed by the City Administrator. The City
Administrator may waive some regulations identified in
the claim and deny waiver of others. The City
Administrator may not waive regulations that are not
specified in the claim. The City Administrator may
impose reasonable conditions on the waiver to protect
the public interest.
I. Notice of final waiver or rejection of a claim. The City
Administrator shall send notice and a copy of the
decision to the claimant. Notice of the final decision
shall also be sent to anyone who submitted any written
evidence or arguments prior to the close of the comment
period and to all persons entitled to notice of the
comment period. The notice shall contain a brief
description of the waiver, if any, including a listing of
all regulations that the City Administrator has decided to
not apply and the specific number of dwellings, lots or
parcels authorized by the waiver. The notice also shall
state that a claim has been, or may need to be, filed with
the State, or other entity, if the City Administrator thinks
that a state or other governmental regulation is
implicated.
J. The City Administrator may forward a claim to the City
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 11
Council for a public hearing and decision in accordance
with Section 18.110.035 and this Section. The City
Administrator shall consider such factors as: the amount
of compensation at issue; the nature of the proposed use
or development. if any; and the impact of the proposed
use or development. The decision of the City
Administrator to forward the claim to the City Council is
final and not subject to appeal. The City Council.
however, may summarily and without notice or hearing
elect to return the claim to the City Administrator for a
decision.
18.110.035 City Council Consideration and Decision.
A. Claim processing. All claims transferred by the City
Administrator to the City Council shall be processed by the City
Administrator consistent with the claims review process
provided under this Chapter. The City Council shall issue a
final decision after providing notice and a hearing within 180
days from the date the claim in deemed complete.
B. Notice and hearing. The decision of the City Council shall be
made after a public hearing conducted in accordance with such
procedures as the City Council may adopt. At least thirty (30)
days written notice shall be provided of the public hearing and
include such information as is set forth in Section 18.110.030,
providing all required notices above are modified to include
reference to the public hearing date rather than the comment
period. A staff report will be available at least fourteen (14)
calendar days prior to the hearing addressing:
1. whether the claim filed is complete; and
2. a recommendation as to whether and how much to pay in
compensation, or, in lieu thereof, a recommendation on
an award of transferable development credits, or a
recommendation regarding the number of dwellings and
lots that may be approved and the land regulation(s) that
should be waived.
C. Final decision. The City Council may reject the claim, pay
compensation, award transferable development credits, issue a
waiver or approve any combination of such remedies. The
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 12
decision shall otherwise be decided based on the same review
criteria applicable to a decision issued by the City
Administrator under Section 18.110.030. The City Council may
waive some regulations specified in the claim and deny waiver
of others. The City Council is not limited to those regulations
listed in the claim and may impose any conditions of approval
that it deems reasonable and appropriate to protect the public
interest. Notice of the City Council's final decision shall be
mailed to any person entitled to notice of the hearing or that
appeared orally or in writing at the public hearing.
18.110.040 Burden of proof and Record.
The claimant shall have the burden of proof on all matters
under this Chapter. The claimant bears sole responsibility for
ensuring that the record before the City contains all information
and evidence necessary to support the claim. The claimant shall
be precluded from submitting information or raising new
issues in any subsequent proceeding.
18.110.045 Effect of Waiver
A. A decision to waive a land use regulation shall in no way
impact any obligation to demonstrate compliance with any
regulations not expressly provided for in the decision or to
obtain any required approvals or permits.
B. A use authorized by a waiver has the legal status of a lawful
nonconforming use in the same manner as provided under ORS
215.130. The claimant may carry out a use authorized by a
public entity under this section except that a public entity may
waive only land use regulations that were enacted by the public
entity. When a use authorized by this section is lawfully
established, the use may be continued lawfully in the same
manner as provided by ORS 215.130.
18.110.050 Procedural Error.
No procedural defect in processing a claim shall invalidate any
proceeding or decision unless the party alleging the error
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 13
demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right. Inadvertent
failure to provide notice or complete notice shall not be grounds
for invalidating a decision.
18.110.060 Recording.
The City shall record a memorandum of the final waiver in the deed
records for lackson County. Oregon.
18.110.065 Reconsideration of Waiver.
The City Councilor City Administrator may. at its sole discretion.
reconsider a decision on a claim if it appears that the decision is
inconsistent with a subsequent court ruling; administrative rule or
other change in the law relative to Measure 49. The decision to
reconsider may be made without notice or hearing; but. the decision
on reconsideration shall be made only after notice and opportunity to
be heard consistent with the requirements for claim review provided
under this Chapter for City Administrator and City Council review
whichever is applicable. At the conclusion of the process. the City
Councilor City Administrator may affirm. modify. or revoke the
earlier decision. If the City Council modifies or revokes a decision
that resulted in payment of compensation. the City Council shall
specify the amount due from the claimant and the City may institute
an action for recovery. If the City Council or City Administrator
modifies or revokes a decision to modify. remove. or not apply a land
use regulation. it shall issue an order setting forth such remedy as it
deems appropriate to protect the public interest.
18.110.070 Appeals.
A. A person that is adversely affected by a final determination of
under this Chapter may obtain judicial review of that determination
under ORS 34.010 to 34.100. A person is adversely affected if the
person is:
1.
2.
an owner of the property that is the subject of the final
determination or;
a person who timely submitted written evidence.
arguments or comments.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 14
B. ludicial review of a decision under this Chapter is:
1. limited to evidence in the record at the time of the
final determination; and
2. available only for issues raised with sufficient specificity
to afford an opportunity to respond.
18.119.991 Purpose
The pl:lrpose of this Chapter is to establisfl the contents of a demand for just
compensation l:lader 2001 Measure 37 in order that the merits of claims l:lnder
Measl:lre 37 be adeql:lately e';all:lated; to provide pfoeeoores for pfOeessmg such
demands; to proyide a fair, jl:lst and e](peditiol:ls evall:lation ofMeasl:lre 37
elaims b)' the City; and to proteet the citizeas of the City of .^~shland fr{)m the
detrimeRtal effects to public health, safety and Y/elfare that wOl:lld result from
the gnmting of nOR meritoriol:lS claims. The provisioas of this Chapter arc
adopted pl:lrs1:lant to the City of .^~shland's home rule lll:lthority uader the Or'€Jgon
CORstirutioa, .^..rticle XI, Sectioa 2, and apply to those demands for jl:lst
compeasatioR that arc or may be allov/ed l:lnder MeaslHe 37, enaeted by the
electors of the State of Oregoa as a staIDte of the State of Oregon on Noyember
2, 2001.
18.119.919 DefiBitioBs
For the pl:lrposes of this Chapter, aRd the eyall:latiea, assessmeRt and processiag
of Measl:lre 37 claims, the followiag mean:
i'~. i'~ffected Property: the private real property that is alleged to have sHffored
a reooctioR ia fair m.arket yall:le as resl:llt of the City's regl:llatiea restricting the
use of that property aad for whieh a property O'll1'ler seeks compeRsatiaa f-ar the
reooctioR ia "all:le.
B. :\ppraisal: a written statement of an opinioR of the ',all:le of real property
prepared by an appraiser liceased by the Appraiser Certification and Licensure
Board ofthe State of Oregon, aad who holds the applicable certifieatioa fer the
type of appraisal.
C. Claimant: the property a'Niler '.vho submits a writtca claim for jl:lst
compeasatioa l:lnder Section 18.110.020.
D. City i'~dmiaistrator: the City .^..dmiRistrator afthe City of .\shland, or the
City :\dmiBistrator's desigaee.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 15
E. Common and Historically Recognized PHblie Nuisance Under Common
LW1.: lfllfeasaHable interfcreaees with rights common to the geaeral pHblic in the
l:lse ane eHjoyment oflafle, as reeognizee in judicial deeisiofls applying common
la-'ll rules. Under commoflla-w rules, an interfer-cace is tlHreasonable if the harm
to the pHblic right is significant, and the partieHlar pl:lblic use inter:feree with is
well suited to the character of the locality ane the owner's condHct or use ofthe
lane is l:lfl.suited to the charaeter of that locality.
F. Current Owner: the present fee simple ovmer of real property that is the
sl:lbject of the demand for compensation, as reflected in the deed records of
Jacksan County, Oregon, or the present OV/Ber or my interest in real pr-operty
that is the subject of the demand f-or compensation, as reflected in a written
iflstmment eOH-yeying ar ereatiHg the iHterest.
G. Demane for Just Caffl13eHsatian: <^~ "TItten eemand f-ar jl:lst eompeasatiofl
by a current ovmer parsuant to MeaSHfe 37 that fulfills the reqHirements of
ALUO 18.110.020.
H. Enforeee: to compel cOflformity with a ~and use r-cgulatiofl by the issuance
of a final order in a coHtested judicial or qHasi judicial pr-oceeding; to issue a
[mal deeisioB denying an applicatiofl to use pri'/ate real property, or iHterest in
real property, for a stated purpose thraugh the applieation of a land use
regula-tion as an apprayal eriteriaB.
I. Exempt Land Use Regulatioe: <^~ lane use regulatiafl that:
1. Restriets or prohibits acti'/ities commonly and historically
reeagnized as pl:lblie flHisanees l:lfl.der common law;
2. Restriets or prohibits activities for the protectiofl ofpl:lblic health and
safety, such as fire and building eades, health and sanitation r-cgulations, solid or
hazardoHs waste regulatiofls, ane polll:ltiaH eoftkol regulatiofls;
3. Is requiree in oreer ta eomply with federallav/;
1. Restriets or prohibits the use of property for the parpose of selling
pornography ar performing nl:lde dancing; or
5. 'N as eflacted prior ta the date of aequisition of the property by the owner or
a family member of the OVlRer.
J. F air Market Yall:le of the Property: the minimum amoHnt of cash which
eauld reasanably be expected to be paid for the pHrchase of a CHrrent awner's
real property or iftterest iB. real property, by aB. iB.formed bliyer, aetiB.g witholit
compHlsiofl, ta an informed seller, alsa aeting without eompHlsion, ifl an arms
leflgth transaction.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 16
K. Family member: a member oftke C1:HTent owner's family, as defined by
Measure 37.
L. Just CompensatiOl'l: an amoliftt of money equal to the redl:lctian in the fair
market vall:le af real property that is tHe direct resl:llt of the future enactment of a
land I:lse regl:llation ()f enfor-cement of an eJ{isting hmd lise regl:llatioR which
provides the basis for a demand for jl:lst compensation, as of the date a Cl:lrFent
owner makes the demand for jliSt compeRsatioR. A redliction of the fair market
yall:le of property shall exellide any reduction reoolting from eveRts, aetions or
oeC1:HTel'lces ather than the restrictioR af I:lses permitted by the land I:lse
regulation. f~ reductioR iR fair market vall:le shalll'lot mclude reooctioRs
resl:lltiRg from depreciation, changes in local, state or national ecoRomic
conditions, faill:lres by the current O'NRer to gainfully use the real property, lack
of p1:1-blic services to the real praperty, redl:lctiaRs in fair market vall:le resl:llting
from the existel'lee af a histarieally or cammal'lly reeognized p1:1-blic nuisanee or
pri'/ate nl:lisaHee an or aboat the property or s1:HTo\:lftding property, changes in
the value of the real praperty resl:lltiRg tram flliCtHatioRS in the real estate
market, or caBditiaRs OR surrol:lndiRg property, chaBges in "allie resl:llting from
the existence of any private eavenants, eaRditiaRs aRd restnetioRs, changes in
vallie caused by any other easements or restrictions OR the property ar the use
thereof or reduetions related to any other facters ather than redl:letioRs which ar-o
the direet result of the eRaetffient or eRforcement of a land use regl:llatian.
M. LaRd Use R-egl:llation: a land use regulation as defined by Measl:lre 37.
N. Interest in Real Property: any legally reeogmzed, alienable iRterest in real
property, having meRetary value, which is less than a fee simple aesalute.
O. Measare 37 claim: a claim for just compensation arising fram the
cireumstances set forth in Ballot MeasHre 37, adapted by the people of the State
of Oregon on Noyember 2,2004.
P. Real Praperty: privately held lots, parcels or tracts, as deseribed in the deed
cenveying the real property, or the interest in real praperty as eOR'/eyed in sueh
lots, parcels ar !raets, aVlRed by a curreRt OWBer.
Q. Restricts tHe Use of Praperty: prohibiting a particular use af the pwperty
()f making that use oRly pel1'l1issible I:lnder eertain eaRditians. Standards that
r<Jgulate the form of deyelopment, ha'N a stmetHre must be constructed, ar how
gradmg or fill is to be condueted, sHeR as yard setback requirements, height
limitatiaRs, erasion eontrol meaoores and building eade staHdar-ds, are not
restrictions on the I:lse af property. Regulations requiring or settiRg fees to be
charged ar-o not restrictions on the I:lse efproperty.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 17
18.110.015 Messure 37 DemsBds; RipeBess; Clsim AeeFHsl
A. The eurreHt ewner of real preperty ma-y submit a demand for just
eompensation under Measme 37 if the City enforees a hmd use regulation, other
tha-n an exempt regulation, against the property; the la-nd use regulatien Y/as
enaeted after the date the cl:1rrent owner, or, in proper case, a family member ef
the ey;ner as defined in }..LUO 18.110.010, acquired the real preperty; the la-nd
use regulatien restricts uses permitted on the r'0al property; and the restrietien
imposed by the la-nd use r-egulatien has the effect of ca-Hsing a reooetien in the
fair market yalue efthe r'0al property.
B. .^~ny eurrent owner WHO intends to assert a Measure 37 elaim shall make
that iHteHtien known at the time the cl:1rrent owner submits a-n application for
a-ny permit that wOlild reoolt in the use of the land use regulation that wOl:1ld be
the basis for the Measure 37 ela-im as a-n approval criteria.
C. No enforcemeHt shall be deemed to ha';e occurred merely beea-use the
curreHt owner has submitted a dema-nd for just compensation to the City a-nd the
demand for just eempensation was denied. Nothing in this s\:lbsection shall be
deemed to prevent the City trem engaging in any action that Y/ould resl:1lt in the
reselutien of a potential claim under Measme 37 prier te the date the la-nd use
regulation is enforeed against the eurrent owner's real property.
18.110.010 CaBteBts afDemsBds far CampensstiaB; Filing
A. In erder to adequately, completely a-nd expeditiOlisly assess the validity of
a C\Hfent O\vner's dema-nd for compensation, a-nd te protect the public iHterest
'linen deteFffiining v/hether to compensate for, modify, remove or not apply a
la-nd use regulation, any dema-nd for compensatien submitted to the City shall
eensist ef and inch:lde the fellowiBg:
I. .\ eompleted dema-nd for just eempeBsatien signed by the current ovmer
a-nd all others having an oWBership interest in the property. The demand shall be
submitted upon forms preseribed by the City Administrator.
2. Copies ef an deeds and other instrumeHts eelweying interests in the
affeeted real property to the eurrent owner.
3. .^~ title report issued not more tha-n thirty days prior to the submission of the
dema-nd fer just compensation, ,,;hich shall inelude the title history, the date the
current owner acquired title to the real preperty, the iBterests held by any other
C\ffrent o'.mers, an identification of any restrietions on use of the real property
unrelated to the land use regulatien agaiBst which just compensatien is seugflt,
ineluding, bl:1t not limited to, an-y restrietiens established by coyena-nts,
conditiens a-nd r'0stTIctions; easements, ether private restrictions, or other
regulations, restrictions or contracts.
1. .^. list ef the names and addresses, according te the most reeeRt preflerty tax
assessment role, of all property e'.Vflers ewning land within three hHndred feet of
the exterior b01:lfldaries of the proflerty for whieh a demand for just
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 18
compensation is being made.
S. A copy of the land l:lse regl:llation(s) that is(!lre) the basis for the demaRd
for jl:lst compensation. All potential claims of the carrent OWRer m\:lst be
consolidated at the time a demand for jast compensation is made.
6. f\ copy of the laRd ase regalation(s), showing the ases vlhieh 'Nere allowed
at the time the earr-ent ovmer, or iR relevant ease the family member, aCq1:lired
the property for which a demand for jast compensation is beiRg made.
7. For a Measme 37 elaim based on descent, proof that the prior ovmer 'Nas a
family member of the Cl:lffent owner.
8. Copies of any leases, easemeHts, eontraets or eOyeHaRts, conditions and
restrictions (CCRs) apfllieable to the real property, if aB.)', that impose
restrictions or other eneliiBbrances on the l:lse of the property.
9. The amoHflt of the alleged redaetioR iR fair market yahle of the real
property that the earrent owner belieyes is the amoaRt of jast compensation,
together with the methodology f-or arriviRg at the alleged redlictioH iR fair
market 'lalae and aB.)' sl:lflportiRg docl:lmentation such as aR appraisal by aR
appraiser lieeflsed by the ,^.:ppraiser Certifieation and Licens\:lre Board of the
State of Or-egon.
1O.Any other facts the earrent owncr believes are material to the evalliation and
assessment of claim for jast eempeRsation.
11.A $2S0 llflplieation processing fee.
B. Demands for jliSt eOInfleRsatioR shall be sl:lbmitted to the City
AdmiRistrater. No demaRd for jast compensation shall be deemed sabmitted
I:lntil all materials reql:lired by &lis seetion have been proyided to the City
Administrater by the carrent e'.vner. A notice of sl:lbmissieR shall be sent to the
e\:HTent OWHer at the time the City Administrator determines the e\:lfl'eHt owner's
aemand for jliSt eeInfleRsation has beeR deemed sabmitted.
C. NotwithstandiRg a slaimant's failme to provide all of the informatieR
and/or the applieatieR processiRg fee reqaired by sabseetion (A) of this seetioR,
the city may revie....1 and act on a elaim.
18.1Ht015 Notiee of DemaBd fOF Jast CompeBsatioB
'^1. The City '^1dmimstrator shall mail Rotice of demand to aay other OWRer
'.vith an interest in the CliITent oWRer's r-eal property, to all ovmers of real
property loeated within three lmnclred feet oftfie C\:HTent o'Nner's real property,
as listed en the most reeent pmperty tax assessment rolls, to neighberheod
grol:lfls and cOmIflanity organizatioRs ',yhose bOUBdaries inellide the Cl:lrrent
owner's real proflerty !lRd to those req1:lesting notiee. The Rotice shall:
1. State the basis of the demaRd, the amoHflt of the eOInfleRsation seaght and
the laRd l:lse regl:llation vrhich is the basis €If the demand;
2. IdeRtify the CliITent e'Hner's real property by the street adclress or ether
easily andemtood geegraphical refefenee;
3. State that perseRs noticed may previde written comments en the demand,
and provide the date Of} whish written commeBts are dl:le;
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 19
1. Idefltify a city represematiye and telephone ffiiiRber to contact to obtain
aaditional informatiofl; ana
5. State that a copy of the demand and the sHflflorting docl:lmems s1:l.bmitted
by the Cl:lfrent owner are available for inspection at no cost, and that copies will
be proyided at reasoflable cost.
B. Written commeflts regarding a demand ma-y be sl:lbmitted to the City
l..dministrator. Commeftts ml:lst be receiyea by the City ,'\dminist:rator 'Nithin 14
da-ys from the date of mailing of the notice of dema-nd f-or jl:lst compensation.
18.1H}'030 Claim PFoeessiDg aDd EvalaatioD
,^.. ,'\fter the current ovmer's demand for j1:l.st compeasatiofl is aeemed
s1:l.bmitted or is processea as pffwiaed in ALva 18.110.020(c), the City
,'\dministrator shall revievl and eval1:l.ate the demand aftd determiae whether the
demand meets the req1:l.irements, and satisfies the criteria, of Measure 37. The
City f..dministrator may obtain other appraisals and opinions of the '/al1:l.e of the
real property for the pl:lrposes of eyal1:l.atiflg the Cl:lrreftt o'lIner's estimate of the
reooction in the fair market '/al1:l.e.
B. The C1.Hfcnt owncr has the bmdefl of proof to demonstrate to the City by a
preponderance of the evideflce that j1:l.st compensation is ooe 1:l.nder Measl:lfe 37.
C. The City Administrator ma-y aeny a claim for j1:l.st compensation based 1:l.pon
one or more onhe following findings:
1. The reg1:l.lation that is the sMbject of the claim does not restrict the ase of
the private real property.
2. The fair ma-rket val1:l.e of the property is not reduced by the enactment or
enforcemeflt of the regulation.
3. The claim was not timely filed.
4. The Claimant is not the Cl:lffeftt property o'.'Iner.
5. The Claimant or family member of Claimant was not the property owner at
the time the regl:llation was aaopted.
6. The regtllation is a historically and cOHHflonly recognizea n1:l.isance law or
a law regl:llating pomogmphy or n1:l.de dancing.
7. The regl:llation is reql:lirea by federalla'lI.
8. The r-egulation protects pl:lblic health or safety.
9. The City is not the emity responsible f-or payment. The City is not
responsible if fue challeBgea law, mle, or4inance, resolation, goal or other
enactment was not enacted by the City.
10. The City has not tak-en final actiofl to enforce or apply the regalation to
the property for which compensation is claimed.
11. The Claimant is not legally entitled to compensation for a reason other
than those listed in subsections 1 through 10. The basis for this finding mast be
dearly explained.
12. The City Coancil has not established a fund for paYment of claims I::lflder
Measure 37.
D. The City ,^..dministrator shall maintain a r-ecord of all costs, inclading
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 20
personnel costs, incWTed by the City in processing the demand for jliSt
compensation. The City shall bill the eWTent O'Nner for all eosts incliITed, less
the $250 apf)lieation fee provided fer in"^1LUO l8.ll0.020(a)(11). The cHffeflt
o','l1'I:er shall remit to the City an aHleHnt eqHal to ~mch costs y:ithin thirty days
after the date of billing. In the eyeflt the City determines that jliSt eeffif)ensation
sholild be paid, the costs, less the $250 application fee shall be refunded. In the
eveflt the eHITeflt owner files an actien in eireHit COHrt and pre'/ails, the elaim
pmeessing eosts, less the $250 elaim f)roeessing application fee provided fer in
..^~LUO l8.ll0.020(a)(ll), shall be added te thejHdgment as a eost or
dioo\Hsemeftt, se long as the CliITeflt O\YHeT has timely paid those costs.
18.110.035 Natiee ta City CaDDeil aDd CaDDeil DeeisiaD
"^1. In the event the City "^1dministrator has denied the demaBd, or in the eveftt
the City "^1dministrator has recommended a determination that the demand is
valid, the City :\dministrator shall forward the deeision te the City COHflcil,
sHpported by findings. If the City ..\dministr-ater reeemmends the demaBd be
granted, in whole or in part, the City "^1dministmtor shall inelHde a
recommendation 'lIhether just compensation shoHld be paid aBd the amol:lflt of
such eompensation, or whether the land Hse regHlation be modified, remeved or
not applied te the real property.
B. If the City Administrater's decision is to deny the demand in whole, aHd
the City ..\dministrator does not receive a reqHest from at least two or more
COHReilors te hold a hearing regarding the demand within ten days after
receiving notiee ef the deeisien, the City l\dministrator may issue a SHHlmaf)'
denial.
C. The City Administrator shall sehedule a pl:lblie hearing befere the City
COlmcil on any demand f-or j1:lst eOffif)ensatien, other than demaBds for whieh a
sHmmary dORial has beOR issHed 1:lflder S\tbseetien (B) of this seetien. Netice of
the pl:lblic hearing shall be pro'/ided to the eHIToot owner, te all persons efttitled
to notice lmder f1LUO 18.110.025, te neighberhead groaflS and eommHRity
erganizatiens vlhose bOHndaries inelHde the CWT-ent owner's real property and te
those reqHesting notiee. Notiee may alse be f)1:1blished in a ne'tlspaper of general
eir-eulatien within the City, at the City f1dministrator's discretion.
D. After public hearing, the City Council may:
1. Deny the demand for j1:lst compensation based Hpon one of the groHnds for
denial set forth in ..^~LUO l8.ll0.030(C).
2. ktYani eOffif)ensatien, either in the amal:lflt requested, eT in seme other
amoHnt s1:lpported by the evidence in the record. Payment of any compensation
is sHbjeet to the availability and appropriation of funds for that pHrpose.
3. Modify the regHlation.
1. Reme'/e the regulation.
5. Not apply the regHlation.
6. AcqHir-e the affected Property thro1:lgh negotiation or eminent domain.
7. Take s1:lch other actions as the C01:lfleil deems apf)ropriate eonsisteftt with
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 21
Measure 37.
E. The City CauBeil's decision to modify, remove or waive the land use
regulatioH shall be based OH wbether tbe public interest ';Iould be better served
by eitber payiHg just compeBsation to tbe current OWHer or by modifyiBg,
remaving or \vaiviHg tbe land use regulation and shall be iH the form of a
resolutioH.
F. The Ovmer shall bear tbe bu-rden of proof relating to tbe Demand aHd
entitlement to just compeHsation. Tbe city shall bear the bu-rdeH of proof to
sh.o'", that the regulatioH is exempt under Measu-re 37, or ,^..LUO 1&.110.010(1).
The standard of proof shall be by a prepoBderance ofthe evidence.
G. A copy of the City C01:ffieil deeisioR or the City .^..dmiRistrator's su-mmary
deRial shall be seHt by mail to the ClHfeftt OVIRer, to eaeh persofl. with an
oVlRership iRterest, afl.d ta eaeh iRdividual or eBtity that partieipated in the
review process, pro'/ided a mailiHg address or email address vias provided to the
eity as part of the review proeess. The City Cou-ncil may establish. any relevant
conditions af apprayal fer eompensatic)R, should compeRsatioH be granted, or
for any other aetioR takeR under this subseetiofl..
H. Failure ta comply '.'lith any cOBditiofl. of approval is grounds for reyoeatiofl.
of the approval of the compeBsation for the Demand, grouftds for the City to
reeover afl.j' compensatiofl. paid aHd grounds for revaeatiaR af an)' other aetion
takeR under this SeetioR.
I. ,^.. decision to remove, modify or Rot 8:J3ply a land use regulatioR is personal
to the O','IRer, aRd shall autamatieally beeome void and invalid if the O';/Ber
eonveys the Property to another person before de'/elopment of the Property
consistent with the removal of, madifieatioR of or decision to not apply the land
use regulation is eompleted. DevelopmeBt of the Praperty 1:ffider this sub seetiofl.
shall Rot be deemed to be completed uBtil a eertifieate of oeeupancy or other
8:J3PfOpriate eertifieate iRdieating completion is issued by the City of ,^..shland
building official.
1. IR the eveBt the OV/fl.er (ar the O','IRer's successor in iBterest, if the
develepment is eampleted as deseribed in ALU01&.110.035(I)) fails ta fully
eemply with all eaBditiaBs af appraval or othenyise does Bet eempl)' fully with
the conditions of apPf{)';al, the city may iBstitute a re'/ecation or modification
praceeding before the city eouncil.
18.110.040 ModifieatioB, Removal OF 'VaiveF of LaBd Use RegulatioB
,^... If the City Couneil direets that the land use regulation be modified,
removed, Bet Rflplied or \'Iai'/ed, then the current owner shall be allewed ta lise
the real property for a l:lse permitted at the time the Cl:lrr-eBt owner acquired tbe
property. Sl:leeessors ift iftterest to the curr-eBt owner shall acquire their iBterests
in the r-eal praperty subjeet to sHeh land use regulatieBs as are in effect as of the
date of the sl:l(~cessor's aequisition of the real property, as provided by
Subsection (3)(E) ofMeasHfe 37, afl.d such interests shall have the legal status
ether"/ise provided by law.
Measure 49 pf{)cedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 22
B. .^~ copy of any City resoh:ltion eompensating for, modifying, removing or
wai'/iRg the laRd use regulation shall be recorded in the deed records of the
county wherein the real property lies.
C. .^~ eopy of all elaims submitted and the fiBel deeision and action taken in
fespOBse to it will be provided by the City .\amiBistrator at least lffiffi:lally to the
State of Oregon designated ageftey traeking eases related to Measl:lfe 37.
18.110.045 Prp.'ate Cause of f....etion
A. In order to protect the reasonable investment based expectations of other
property o''vners who ha'/e relied liflOft land use regulations in p\:lrchasing real
property, if:
I. The modificatioft, removal or wai'ler of the land use regulation pursuant to
Meas\:lfe 37 results in a private nuisance on other ovmers' real property, theft the
affected O\Vfler or o....mers shall have a ea\:lse of aetion in cir-euit cooo against the
C\:lITent ovmer to abate the nuisanee or to recover an am01:lnt equal to the
dimiffi:ltion of value in that owner or O\Vfler'S real preflerty as a result ofthe
ffi:lisanee;
2. The City Council's approyal of a claim by remo';ing or modifying a land
use regulatioft eauses a reduction in val1:le of other proflerty loeated ift the
vicinity of the Property, the ovmer( s) of the other proflerty shaH ha';e a cal:lse of
action in the aflflr-opriate Or-egon Circuit Cooo to reeoyer from the Ovmer(s) (of
the Property subject to the Demand) in the amount of sl:lch reooetion in '/alue.
B. The prevailing party in an aetion set f-orth in subsection A of this seetioR
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's f-ees and costs at trial aBd liflOft aflpeal.
18.110.050 Attorney Fees
If a Demand under Measure 37 and this Section is denied or not fully paid
within 180 aa-ys of the date of filiBg a cOffiflleted Demand, and the Owner
COfRfflenees sl:lit or actioR to collect compensation, and, if the City is the
prevailiftg party in Sl:lch action, theft City shall be entitled to any Sl:lm whieh a
cooo, inch:lding any appellate COl:lrt, ma-y adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees.
In the eveHt the City is the pre';ailing party aBd is represented by "in hOl:lse"
counsel, the preyailing party shall nevertheless be entitled to reco'/er reasonable
attorney fees based liflOft the reasonable time incl:lrred aBd the attorney fee rates
and cha-rges reasoRably a-nd generally aeeepted in Ashland, Oregon, for the type
of legal serviees performed.
Severability. The sectioRs, s\:lbseetions, paragraphs aBd ela\:lses of this ordiflaBce
are severable. The invalidity of one seetion, sl:lbsectioR, pafagraph, or clal:lse
shall not affect the valiaity of the remaining sections, subseetions, paragraphs
and clauses.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 23
EmergeHcy. The City Council of the City of Ashland fiHds that the health, safety
and welfare of the City of Ashland requires this ordinance to hayo immediate
effect. Therefore, the City Council hereby deelares the existence of an
emergeHcy and this omiflance shall be in full force aHd eff-ect from the time of
its passage by the COlincil and aflpro'/al by the Mayor.
SECTION 2: Severability. If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or
paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
sections, provisions, clauses, or paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions
of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.
SECTION 3 Savings Clause. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the
City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions
were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of
all cases filed or actions commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or
portions thereof were operative.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in
the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article",
"section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered, or re-lettered, and typographical errors and cross-references may be
corrected by the City Recorder, provided however that any Whereas clauses and
boilerplate provisions (Le. Sections 2-3} need not be codified.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C} of the City Charter on the _ day of , 2008,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2008.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of
,2008.
Measure 49 Procedures
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 24
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Measure 49 Procedures
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Draft: 1-22-08
Page 25
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Meeting Date:
Department:
Secondary Dept.:
Approval:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
February 4, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Community Development E-Mail: bill@ashland.or.us
L Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Estimated Time: 1 hour
Statement:
Should the amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that implement many of the changes
described in Phase 1 ofthe Siegel report and proposes changes to the city's permitting and appeal
procedures be approved?
Staff Recommendation:
These amendments are recommended by the Ashland Planning Commission and Planning Division
staff after several hearings, considerable discussion and deliberation.
Background:
A public hearing was held on December 18,2007 to review the proposed revisions to the Land Use
Ordinance. The public hearing was closed, but the record remained open in order to permit time for
additional information to be submitted into the record. Council deliberation on the proposed
amendments was continued to January 15,2008. Given other business on the agenda, the Council was
unable to deliberate on the matter and the item was continued to a Special Session before the Council
on February 4,2008.
A lengthy summary of the proposed amendments was provided in Council Communication and packet
materials for the December 18th, 2007 council meeting. For the January 15, 2008 Council packet, the
Legal Department prepared a draft ordinance for 15t reading. A revised copy of that ordinance has been
included with the February 4t\ 2008 packet.
This ordinance is on your February 5, 2008 agenda for first reading. If Council makes extensive
changes at the February 4,2007, Special Meeting then the first reading will be moved to the February
19,2008, regular meeting.
Related City Policies:
City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan
Council Options:
As noted in the Council Communication for the December 18,2007 meeting, staffhas attempted to
ensure that references to other sections of the Land Use Ordinance are not broken by this amendment.
One of the more important linkages in this draft is the changes to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use
Standards Chapter and 18.108, Procedures Chapter. It will not work to adopt one of these chapters and
not the other. They have been restructured to have all Procedure issues in the Procedures chapter, and
site design standards in the Site Design and Use Chapter.
Page 1 of2
CC - ALVa Amendments - Feb 2008
rA'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Additional Chan2:es to Procedures - Council Appeals:
The proposed changes to the procedures include some fundamental shifts in how land use decisions
are heard on review or appeal in front of the council. The December ISth, 2007 Council
Communication asked the following question:
Does the Council agree that an appeal of a Planning Commission land use decision
should be addressed by an "on the record" appeal proceeding?
Staff handed out a summary of key issues at the January 15, 200S Council meeting. Since the
Council never had the opportunity to deliberate on the ALUO amendments, this summary has been
included with this packet. The first question in the summary had to due with the issue of "on the
record" versus de novo appeals. If the Council chooses to keep the appeal procedures "on the
record" as drafted, the summary described several options for conducting an "on the record"
proceeding. The revised ordinance includes language to clarify the scope of the proceeding for an
"on the record" appeal. These changes are highlighted and described in detail in Section
IS.lOS.110.
Summary of Chan2:es and Corrections
In addition to clarifying the scope of proceedings for an "on the record", some minor corrections and
changes have be included in the latest draft ordinance. Many of these appear to be transcription errors
in which the language in the ordinance version was not consistent with the planning copy of the ALUO
dated Dec IS, 2007. Lastly, a minor amendment was added that requires additional plan detail for non-
residential projects within the Historic District Area. This was an early request by the Ashland
Historic Commission that was inadvertently omitted. A "Summary of Changes and Corrections" has
been included in the Council packet.
Potential Motions:
1. Move to approve first reading that includes the proposed amendments to the Land Use
Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff, and request that the
ordinance be brought back for second reading.
2. Move to approve first reading that includes the proposed amendments to the Land Use
Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff with the revisions as
suggested by the Council, and request that the ordinance be brought back for second
reading.
3. Move to deny the ordinance as proposed.
Attachments:
. ALUO Amendments - Ordinance for 1 st reading
· Summary of Changes and Corrections to ALUO Draft
· Summary of Key Issues - January 15, 200S - meeting handout
Page 2 of2
CC - ALVa Amendments - Feb 2008
,. ,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE; PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO DEFINITIONS
AND,ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS, PROVIDING FOR
REVISIONS TO CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS AND GENERAL
REGULATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING ZONING DISTRICTS:
WOODLAND RESIDENTIAL, RURAL RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY MUL TI-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD, RETAIL COMMERCIAL,
EMPLOYMENT, INDUSTRIAL, HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND
SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY; PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS TO
CHAPTERS FOR TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION, PHYSICAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS, GENERAL REGULATIONS, SITE
DESIGN REVIEW, PARTITIONS, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION
, PARKING, SIGNAGE, PROCEDURES AND ENFORCEMENT,
PROVIDING ALSO FOR CORRECTIONS TO AND ADOPTION OF
OFFICAL MAPS, INCLUDING ZONING AND OVERLAY MAPS IN
DIGITAL FORMAT
(PA: 2007-01283).
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions
are bold struck through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes,
and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant
or allow municipalities, as fully as tho,ugh this Charter specifically enumerated each
of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in
addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the
authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. Citv of
Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters. Local 1660. Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App.
293,531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 227.186 the Ashland Planning Department provided written
individual notice of the initial hearing of the above-described proposed changes to all
property owners in the City of Ashland; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
ordinance amendments and recommended approval to the City Council on October 23,
2007; and
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a public hearing on the above-
referenced amendments on December 18, 2007 and left the record open until January 15,
2008.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect
and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is
necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate
factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this
proceeding.
NOW THEREFORE,
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, Section 18.08.019 - Definition: Accessory Residential Unit, is added to
the Ashland Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.019 Accessory Residential Unit. A second dwellina unit either
attached to a sinale familY dwellina or located on the same lot with a sinale
family dwellina and haYina an indeDendent means of access.
SECTION 2, Section 18.08.078 - Definition: Basement, is added to the Ashland
Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.078 Basement. That Dortion of a buildina with a floor-to-ceilina heiaht
of not less than 6.5 feet and where fifty Dercent (500/0) or more of its
Derimeter walls are less than six (6) feet aboye natural arade and does not
exceed twelye (12) feet above finish arade at anv Doint.
SECTION 3, Section 18.08.090, Boarding-room house, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.08.090, Boarding-room house. A dwelling or part thereof, other than a hotel or
motel, where lodging with or without means is provided, for compensation, for three
(3) or more persons, for a minimum Deriod of thirty (30) days.
SECTION 4, Section 18.08.160 - Definition: Coverage, lot or site, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.08.160, Coverage, lot or site. Total area of all strtlettlres, buildinas. parking
areas, I'a~'ed driveways, or other solid surfaces sail distlulJanees that will not
allow normal water infiltration to the ground. Up to five percent (50/0) of the
lot area having Dorous solid surfaces, such as paths, patios, decks, and
similar surfaces is exemDt from lot coveraae reauirements. The coverage is
expressed as a percentage of such area in relation to the total gross area of the lot
or site. Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water retention
and soil characteristics of the site shall not be deemed part of the lot or site
coverage.
SECTION 5, Section18.08.256 - Definition: Floor areas, gross habitable, is added
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 2 -
To the Ashland Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.256 Floor areas. aross habitable. The total area of all floors in a
dwellina measured to its outside surfaces that are under the horizontal
oroiection of the roof or floor above with at least seven (71 feet of head
room. excludina uninhabitable soaces accessed solelv bv an exterior door.
SECTION 6, Section 18.08.257 - Definition: Floor area, gross, is added to the
Ashland Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.257 Floor Area. aross. The total area' of all floors in a buildina
measured to the outside surfaces that are under the horizontal oroiection of
the roof or floor above.
SECTION 7, Section18.08.281 - Definition: Ground floor, is added to the Ashland
Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.281 Ground Floor. The first floor of a buildina other than a cellar
or basement.
SECTION 8, Section 18.08.291 - Definition: Historic District, is added to the
Ashland Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.291 Historic District. A district identified as historicallv sianificant
under the City of Ashland Comorehensive Plan and its imolementina
reaulations (e.a. overlav zones).
SECTION 9, Section 18.08.485 - Definition: Mechanical Equipment, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.08.485, Mechanical equipment. Equipment or devices installed for a use
appurtenant to the primary use. Such equipment shall include heating and air
conditioning equipment, solar collectors, parabolic antennas, disc antenna, radio or
TV receiving or transmitting antennas, and any power generating devices. ~
fellewiRg eql::lil""eRt er de....iees are exe"'l't:
A. Private, ReR ee......ereial radie aRd tele"."isieR aRteRRas Ret
exeeediRg a height ef seveRty (79) fed ahe'..".e grade er thirt., (39)
fed ahe".'e aR existiRg strl::letl::lre, whiehever height is greater. He I'art
ef sl::leh aRteRRa shall he withiR the "lards reql::lired h)' this Chal'ter. A
hl::lildiRg I'er...it shall he reql::lired fer aR"1 aRteRRa ...ast, er tewer e."er
fift", (59) feet ahe"..e grade er thirty (39) feet ahe"..e aR existiRg
strl::letl::lre wheR the sa...e is eeRstrl::lEted eR the reef ef the strl::letl::lre.
B. ParaheliE aRteRRas I::IRder three (3) feet iR dia...eter.
SECTION 10, Section 18.05.530 - Definition: Parking Space, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.05.530, Parking Space, A space designed and designated to provide parking
for a motor vehicle and in comoliance with Chapter 18.92 parking
standards. A reetaRgle Ret less thaR eighteeR (18) feet leRg aRd RiRe (9)
feet wide tegether '..with aeEess aRd ...aRel::lrteriRg sl'aee sl::lffiEieRt te I'er...it a
staRdard al::lte...ehile te he I'arl(ed withiR the reetaRgle withel::lt the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 3 -
neeessit'( af ft'Ia\.<ing ather wehieles, saiel reetangle ta be laeateel a" af the
street right af way.
SECTION 11, Section 18.08.595 - Definition: Planning Application, Planning
Action, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.08.595, Planning aDDlication: Dlannina action, A planning application is an
application, other than an application for legislative amendment, filed
pursuant to the requirements of this ordinance. A planning action is a
proceeding pursuant to this ordinance in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of
specific parties are determined, and any appeal or review of such proceeding,
pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. A planning action does not include a
ministerial action or a legislative amendment.
SECTION 12, Section 18.08.601 - Definition: Porch, enclosed/unenclosed, is
added to the Ashland Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.601 Porch. enclosed/unenclosed. Covered Dorches. exterior
balconies. or other similar areas attached to a buildina and havina
dimensions of not less than six (6) feet in deDth bv eiaht (8) feet in lenath.
"Enclosed means the Dorch contains wall(s) that are more than forty-two
(42) inches in heiaht measured from finished floor level. for fifty Dercent
(500/0) or more of the Dorch Derimeter. "Unenclosed" means the Dorch
contains no such walls. but it may be covered.
SECTION 13, Section 18.08.602 - Definition: Porous Solid Surface, is added to the
Ashland Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.602 Porous Solid Surface. Porous solid surface is a Dermeable
surface built with an underlvina stone reservoir that temDorarilv stores
surface runoff before it infiltrates into the subsoil. Porous solid surfaces
include Dervious aSDhalt. Dervious concrete. arass or Dermeable Davers. or
decks that allow runoff to infiltrate the subsoil beneath the deck.
SECTION 14, Section 18.08.616 - Definition: Reconstruct, is added to the Ashland
Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.616 Reconstruct. To recreate or reassemble a structure or buildina
with a new or reDlacement structure that recreates or reDroduces its form.
shaDe and location as oriainallv built.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 4 -
SECTION 15, Section 18.08.650 - Definition: Setback, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.08.650, Setback: The horizontal perpendicular distance from a lot line to
the closest part of a building or structure that is subject to a setback or yard
requirement. Architectural projections may intrude into required setbacks
as set forth in Section 18.68.040. When multi-story setbacks are specified,
the setback for a story above the ground floor is measured horizontally from
the lot line to the plane of the nearest wall of the upper story. The Elistanee
between the eenter line ef a street anEl the speeial base line setbael( fre...
whieh 'w'arEl ...eastlre...ents are ...aEle, ...eastlreEl heriEentall"f anEl at right
angles fre... saiEl eenter line.
SECTION 16, Section 18.08.651 - Definition: Setback, Special, is added to the
Ashland Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.651 Setback. SDecial. The distance between the center line of a
street and the sDecial base line setback from which vard measurements
are made. measured horizontallv and at riaht anales from said center line.
SECTION 17, Section 18.08.661 - Definition: Story, half, is added to the Ashland
Municipal Code, and reads as follows:
18.08.661- StOry. half. A half story is a space under a sloping roof that has
the line of intersection of the roof and exterior wall face not more than
three (3) feet above the floor level below and in which space the floor area
with head room of five (5) feet or more occupies no more than fifty percent
(500/0) of the total floor area of the story directly beneath.
T
S f'r.(M_=>
-r
"""'''''Y
_ 1
Sloping Roof Half Story. If Floor Area "A" is no
more than 50% of Floor Area "6" - then "A" is a
half story. If the wall face is more than three (3)
feet above the floor level below at the rear or
side yard setback line, then it shall be considered
a full story for purposes of setback
measurements.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 5 -
SECTION 18, Section 18.08.662 - Definition: Story, of the Ashland Municipal Code,
is added to read as follows:
18.08.662 Storv. That Dortion of a building included between the UDDer
surface of anv floor and the UDDer surface of the floor next above. exceDt
that the tOD stOry shall be that Dortion of a building included between the
UDDer surface of the tOD floor and the ceiling above. A basement shall not
be considered a story. If the wall face of the upper most floor at the rear or
side yard setback line is more than three (3) feet above the floor level
below, the upper floor shall be considered a story for purposes of setbacks.
Unenclosed decks, porches, balconies and similar features are not
considered stories.
SECTION 19, Section 18.08.740 - Definition: Story, of the Ashland Municipal Code,
is amended to read as follows:
18.98.749. 5terv. That I'ertien ef a btlilEling ineltlEleEl between the tll'l'er
stlrfaee ef an', fleer BREI the tll'l'er stlrfaee ef the fleer next abe'll'e, exeel't
that the tel' stery shall be that I'ertien ef a btlilEling ineltlEleEl between the
tll'l'er stlrfaeE:) ef thE:) tel' fleer BREI the eeiling abe"lfE:). If the finisheEl fleer
1E:)...E:lI Elireetl-, abewe a base...ent er Eellar is ...erE:) than six (6) feet abe'.'e
graEle, the basE:)...ent er Eellar shall bE:) EensiElE:)reEl a stery'.
SECTION 20, Section 18.08.750 - Definition: Structure or building, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.08.750, Structure or building. That which is built or constructed; an edifice or
building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts
joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above
the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the
ground. Structures eighteen thirty (30) f!8t inches in height or less, including
entry stairs, uncovered porches, patios and similar structures, are exempt
from the side and rear yard setback requirements and from half (1/2) the yard
requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street.
SECTION 21, Section 18.08.795 - Definition: Traveler's Accommodations, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.08.795. Traveler's Accommodations. Any establishment in a residential zone
having rooms or dwellings rented or kept for rent to travelers or transients for a
charge or fee paid or to be paid for rental or use of such facilities for a period of less
than thirty (30) days.
SECTION 22, Section 18.08.830 - Definition: Yard, of the Ashland Municipal Code,
is amended to read as follows:
18.08.830. Yard - An open space on a lot which is unobstructed by a structure freft't
thE:) gretlnEl tll"..iarEl.
SECTION 23, Section 18.12.020, Classification of Districts, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 6 -
18.12.020. Classification of Districts. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided
into zoning districts designated as follows:
Zoning Districts and Overlays
Map Symbol and
Abbreviated Designation
Airport Overlay
Residential - Rural
Residential - Single Family
Residential - Low Density Multiple Family
Residential - High Density Multiple Family
Commercial
Commercial - Downtown
Employment
Industrial
Woodland Residential
SOU - Southern Oregon Universitv5tat~ C811~g~
Performance Standards (P) - Overlay
Detail Site Review Zone
Health Care Services Zone
North Mountain Neighborhood
Residential Overlay
Freeway Sign Overlay
A
RR
R-1
R-2
R-3
C-1
C-1-D
E-1
M-1
WR
SOU
P
DSR
HC
NM
R
f
SECTION 24, Section 18.12.030, Zoning Map, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
18.12.030, Zoning and Land Use Control Maps.
A. The location and boundaries of the zoning districts designated in Section 18.12.020,
physical and environmental constraints designated in Section 18.62.060,
Detail Site Review Zone designated in Chapter 18.72 are established as shown
on the map entitled "Zoning and Land Use Control Maps of the City of Ashland,"
dated with the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, and signed by the
Mayor and City Recorder and hereafter referred to as the "~Zoning and Land Use
Control mMaps."
B. The signed copy of said Z~oning and Land Use Control mMaps shall be maintained
on file in the office of the City Recorder and is made a part of this Title.
SECTION 25, Section 18.14.030, W-R, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.14.030 Conditional Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in
accordance with Chapter 18.104, Conditional Use Permits:
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses, but not including corporation,
storage or repair yards, warehouses and similar uses.
C. Private recreational uses and facilities, provided that the forested character of the
area is not disturbed.
D. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 7 -
E. Schools, both public and private.
F. Daycare centers.
G. Homes for the elderly and nursing homes.
H. An)" r~...e'."al ef thr~~ (3) er ...er~ Ii."ing tp~~s ef eY~r site: (6) ineh~s in
dia...~ter fre... an't" tax let dtlring an'; en~ (1) eal~ndar "fear, er anv fer... ef
ee......ereial legging. 5t1eh tlS~ shall be I'er...itt~d enl"7' '.I(h~n, in additien te
th~ Cenditienal Use Per...it findings, th~ fellewing findings ha'..~ been
dder...in~d:
1. Transl'ertatien te and fre... th~ site ean b~ aeee"'l'lish~d saf~l.". and
withetlt disttlrbane~ te r~sid~nts.
2. That adelltlat~ I'pevisiens ha'li'~ b~en ...ade fer eresien eentrel.
3. That adelltlat~ I'revisiens ha.-e b~en ...ad~ fer r~fer~statien.
4. That al'l're,.'al has b~en ebt~ined fre... all al'l'rel'riat~ Cetlnty, Stat~ and
F~d~ral ag~nei~s.
5. That th~r~ is ne I'rebabl~ dang~r ef wildfire.
6. That there is ad~lItlate stlret',." bending I're'..ided te th~ Cit'f te ~nstlr~ that
any r~lItlip~d referestatien and ~resien eentrel will be aeee"'l'lish~d.
H. Disc antenna for commercial use.
I. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
l. Temporary uses.
K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 26, Section 18.16.030, R-R, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.16.030 Conditional Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance
with Chapter 18.104, Conditional Use Permits:
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convalescent homes.
C. Parochial and private schools, including nursery schools, kindergarten, and day
nurseries; business, dancing, trade technical, or similar school.
D. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses; but not including corporation,
storage or repair yards, warehouses, and similar uses.
E. Private recreational uses and facilities, including country clubs, golf courses, swimming
clubs, and tennis clubs, but not including such intensive commercial recreational uses as
a driving range, race track, or amusement park.
F. Riding instructions and academies.
G. Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums, crematoriums.
H. Excavation and removal of sand, gravel, stone, loam, dirt, or other earth products,
subject to Section 18.68.080, Commercial Excavation.
I. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
J. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the
following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 8 -
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential
structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot,
and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions
for single-family dwellings of this Title.
5. If the accessory residential unit is not part of the primary dwelling, all
construction and land disturbance associated with the accessory residential unit
shall occur on lands with less than 25% slope.
6. If located in the Wildfire zone, the accessory residential unit shall have a
residential sprinkler system installed.
7. The lot on which the accessory residential unit is located shall have access to an
improved city street, paved to a minimum of 20' in width, with curbs, gutters,
and sidewalks.
8. No on-street parking credits shall be allowed for accessory residential units in the
RR-.s zone."
K. Disc antenna for commercial use.
L. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
M. Temporary uses.
N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 27, Section 18.16.040, R-R, General Regulations, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.16.040 General Regulations
A. Minimum lot area: Minimum lot areas in the RR zone may be one-half (Y2), one (1),
and two and one-half (2 Y2) acres, depending on the topographic nature, service
availability and surrounding land uses, and other relevant characteristics of the area.
B. Maximum lot coverage:
1. One-half (Y2) acre lots (RR-.s): twenty (20%) percent maximum.
2. One (1) acre lots (RR-l): twelve (12%) percent maximum.
3. Two and one-half (2 Y2) acre lots (RR-2.s): seven (7%) percent maximum.
C. Minimum lot width: All lots shall be at least one hundred (100) feet in width.
D. Lot depth: All lots shall be at least one hundred fifty (150) feet in depth. No lot
depth shall be more than three (3) times its width.
E. Minimum front yard: There shall be a front yard of at least twenty (20) feet.
F. Minimum side yard: There shall be a minimum side yard of five six (65) feet,
except ten (10) feet along the side yard facing the street on a corner lot.
G. Minimum rear yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard of ten (10) feet plus ten
(10) feet for each story in excess of one (1) story.
H. Maximum building height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and
one-half (2 Y2) stories in height, whichever is less. This does not include agricultural
structures fifty (50) feet or more from any property line.
SECTION 28, Section 18.20.030, R-l, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.20.030 Conditional Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance
with Chapter 18.104, Conditional Use Permits.
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 9 -
B. Hospitals, rest, nursing or convalescent homes.
C. Parochial and private schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens, day
nurseries, business, dancing, trade, technical or similar schools.
D. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses. (Ord. 2121 52, 1981)
E. Recreational uses and facilities, including country clubs, golf courses, swimming
clubs and tennis clubs; but not including such intensive commercial recreational uses
as a driving range, race track or amusement park.
F. Off-street parking lots adjoining a C or M district subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.92, Off-Street Parking.
G. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
H. Accessory residential units, subject to the Type I procedure and criteria, and the
following additional criteria:
1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback
requirements of the underlying zone.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 2 per lot.
3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential
structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot,
and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA.
4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the off-street Parking provisions
for single-family dwellings of this Title.
I. Group Homes. (Ord. 2348 51, 1985; Ord. 2624 51, 1991)
J. Disc antenna for commercial use.
K. Dwellings in the Historic District exceeding the maximum permitted floor
area pursuant to Section 18.20.040.
L. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
M. Temporary uses.
N. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
Section 29, Section 18.22.030, R-I-3.S, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.22.030 Conditional Uses
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Hospitals, rest, nursing or convalescent homes.
C. Parochial and private schools, including nursery schools, kindergartens, day
nurseries, dancing, trade, technical or similar schools.
D. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses.
E. Recreational uses and facilities, i!lcluding country clubs, golf courses, swimming
clubs and tennis clubs, but not including such intensive commercial recreational uses
as a driving range, race track or amusement park.
F. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
G. Limited personal service establishments in the home, such as beauticians, masseurs,
etc.
H. Disc antenna for commercial use.
I. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
J. Temporary uses.
K. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 10 -
SECTION 30 Section 18.22.040, R-1-3.5, General Regulations, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.22.040 General Regulations
A. Minimum Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be five thousand (5,000) square
feet, fer the first dwelliRg tlRit aRd except that a lot three thousand five
hundred (3,500) square feet or larger may be created fer eaeh additieRal when
the lot wHIt contains an existing single-family residence which meetseR it; heth
the existiRg aRd Rew strtlettlres mtlst meet the setback, density, and lot
coverage aRd let siEe requirements.aRd eriteria ef Chal'ter 18.76,the "iRer
LaRd l"'artitieR SeetieR ef the OrdiRaRee, jtlst as if eaeh strtlettlre wetlld he
leeated eR its e-HR let, regardless ef whether a Rew I'areel is heiRg ereated
er Ret. IR the AshlaRd Histerie Distriet, all resideRtial strtlettlres shall alse
he stlbjeet te these refltliremeRts. Variances under this Section are subject to
Type I procedures.
B. Minimum Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be fifty (50) feet.
C. Lot Depth. All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet. No lot depth
shall be more than two and one-half (2 V2) times its width.
D. Standard Yard Requirements. Front yard, twenty (20) feet; side yards, six (6) feet;
rear yard, ten (10) feet plus ten (10) feet for each story in excess of one (1) story.
In addition, the setbacks must comply with Section 18.70 which provides for solar
access. The side yard of a corner lot abutting a public street shall have a ten (10)
foot setback.
E. Special Yards--Distances Between Buildings.
1. The distance between any principal building and an accessory building shall be a
minimum of ten (10) feet.
2. An inner court providing access to a double-row dwelling group shall be a
minimum of twenty (20) feet.
3. The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half (V2) the sum of
the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance
be less than twelve (12) feet.
F. Maximum Height. No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half
(2 V2) stories in height, whichever is less.
G. Maximum Coverage. Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty-five (55%) percent. (Ord.
2228, 1982)
SECTION 31, Section 18.24.030, R-2, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.24.030, Conditional Uses
. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in
accordance with the chapter on conditional use permits:
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Parochial and private schools, business, dancing, trade, technical, or similar schools.
C. Manufactured housing developments subject to Chapter 18.84.
D. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 11 -
E. Professional offices or clinics for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, designer,
doctor or other practitioner of the healing arts, engineer, insurance agent or
adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor.
F. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convalescent homes.
G. Limited personal service establishments in the home, such as beauticians, masseurs
and the uses listed in subsection E above.
H. Wholesale plant nurseries, including accessory structures.
I. Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District
as idefttified "'7" the Ashlaftd Histerie Ce......issieft aftd approved by the City
Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600) sq. ft. in total
area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the
occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (1) half (112) time
employee (up to twenty-five (25) hours per week). Such use shall be designed to
serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully
improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The street shall be
a fully improved street of residential City standards or greater.
J. (Ord. 262452, 1991; deleted Ord. 2942 52, 2007)
K. Traveler's accommodations, subject to the following:
1. That all residences used for travelers accommodation be business-owner
occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property
occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the
travelers accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner
during operation of the accommodation. "Business-owner" shall be defined as a
person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who
have entered into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the
operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement to specifically state that
the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or financial
management of the accommodation, and that the business-owner is wholly
responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual
ownership of the business. (ORD 2806 51, 1997)
2. That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the
owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance with the
requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title.
3. That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-
interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed. Any exterior
illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate
any residential structures adjacent or nearby the travelers's accommodation in
violation of 18.72.110.
4. That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the
following criteria:
a. That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be
determined by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft.
Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot
area and the number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established
by this ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not
exceed 9 per approved travelers accommodation with primary lot frontage on
arterial streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved
travelers accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector
streets; or for travelers's accommodations not having primary frontage on an
arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as
determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be
measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or
arterial.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 12 -
b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will
occupy, there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space
remaining per unit.
5. That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary
residence may be altered and adapted for travelers's accommodation use,
including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to
accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and
lot coverages of the underlying zone.
6. Transfer of business-ownership of a traveler's accommodation shall be subject to
all requirements of this section, a..EI sHbjeet te Ce..Elitie..al Use P'er...it
a""re'."al and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveler's
accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this
ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous
approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of
business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals
shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section.
7. An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be
conducted as required by the laws of Jackson County or the State of Oregon.
8. That the property on which the travelers accommodation is operated is located
within 200 feet of a collector or arterial street as designated in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley
access to the site from the collector or arterial.
L. Hostels, "re',.iEleEl that the feeili~' be sHbjeet te a.. a....Hal Ty"e I re';iew fer
at least the first three (3) '"ears, after whieh ti...e the P'la....i..g Ce......issie..
...a', a""re.....e, H..Eler a Tj'"e II "reeeElHre, a "er...a..e..t "ermit fer the
feeilit." .
M. Disc antenna for commercial use.
N. Nonconforming use or structure changes required by Section 18.68.090.
O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a designated
Historic District which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA),
subject to the general regulations set forth in Section 18.24.040.
P. Temporary uses.
Q. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 32, 18.24.040 A.(l), R-2, General Regulations, Permitted Density, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.24.040 General Regulations
A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions.
1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development,
including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density
established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated
to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base
density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the
following standards and exceptions:
a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density or
minimum lot area requirements, provided the unit is not greater than
fifty percent (SO%) of the gross habitable floor area of the single
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 13 -
family residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 square feet of
gross habitable floor area.
b. hewever, I:IUnits, not considered as an accessory residential unit and
ef less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units
for the purposes of density calculations, with the feller.wing restrietiens.
ceo Minimum lot area for less than 2 units i::tAtt--l shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a
minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'.
db. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of
50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
ee. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of
9000 sq. ft. 8Itd except as determined by the base density and allowable
bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a
minimum depth of 80'.
SECTION 33, 18.24.040 1.1., R-2, General Regulations, Maximum Permitted Floor
Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the Historic District, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.24.040 General Regulations
1. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots
within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family
primary dwellings on individual lots within the an Historic District shall be
determined by the following:
1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors
(gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the
building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within
the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area
shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or
detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or
accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a
minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures
may connect the structures.
SECTION 34, 18.24.0403.1., R-2, General Regulations, Maximum Permitted Floor
Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential construction in
Performance Standards Options land divisions created within an Historic District.,
of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.24.040 General Regulations
J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and
new residential construction in Performance Standards Options land
divisions created within the an Historic District. The MPFA fer "'l:Iltil'le
dwellings en a single let within the Histerie Distriet shall be determined by the
following:
1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the
I'ri...ar't" dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the building(s),
including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the
structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area
shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or
detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or
accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 14 -
minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures
may connect the structures.
SECTION 35, Section 18.28.030, R-3, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.28.030 Conditicmal Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance
with the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A. Churches and similar religious institutions.
B. Parochial and private schools, business, dancing, trade, technical or similar schools.
C. Manufactured housing developments, subject to Chapter 18.84.
D. Public and quasi-public halls, lodges and clubs.
E. Professional offices or clinics for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, designer,
doctor, or other practitioner of the healing arts, engineer, insurance agent or
adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor.
F. Hospitals, rest, nursing and convalescent homes.
G. Limited personal service establishments in the home, such as beauticians, masseurs,
and the uses listed in subsection E above.
H. Wholesale plant nurseries, including accessory structures.
I. COrd. 262453, 1991; DELETED Ord 294255;2007)
J. Travelers accommodations, subject to the following:
1. That all residences used for travelers accommodation be business-owner
occupied. The business-owner shall be required to reside on the property occupied
by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travelers
accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner during operation
of the accommodation. "Business-owner" shall be defined as a person or persons
who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a
lease agreement with the property ownerCs) allowing for the operation of the
accommodation. Such lease agreement to specifically state that the property owner
is not involved in the day to day operation or financial management of the
accommodation, and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations
associated with the accommodation, and has actual ownership of the business. CORD
2806 52, 1997)
2. That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the
owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces shall be in conformance with the
requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title.
3. That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-
interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be allowed. Any exterior
illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate
any residential structures adjacent or nearby the travelers's accommodation in
violation of 18.72.110.
4. That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the
following criteria:
a. That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined
by dividing the total square footage of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots
under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the
number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this
ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall not exceed
9 per approved travelers accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial
streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved travelers
accommodation with primary lot frontage on designated collector streets; or
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 15 -
for travelers's accommodations not having primary frontage on an arterial
and within 200 feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined
by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public
street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial.
b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will
occupy, there must be at least 400 sq. ft. of gross interior floor space
remaining per unit.
5. That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary
residence may be altered and adapted for travelers's accommodation use,
including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to
accommodate additional units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and
lot coverages of the underlying zone.
6. Transfer of business-ownership of a travelers accommodation shall be subject to
all requirements of this section, a..d sl:Ibjeet te Ce..ditie..al Use Perft'lit
al'."e\,"al and conformance with the criteria of this section. All travelers's
accommodations receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this
ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming uses, with all previous
approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of
business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals
shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section.
L. Hostels, I're".-ided that the faeility be sl:Ibjeet te aR aRRl:lal T"fl'e I re".;ievl fer
at least the first three (3) ,"ears, after whieh tift'le the Pla....i..g Ceft'l...issie..
...a"t" al'l're""e, I:IRder a T"'l'e IIl'reeedl:lre, a l'er...aRe..t I'er...it fer the
facilit..-.
M. Disc antenna for commercial use.
N. Enlargement, extension, reconstruction, substitution, structural alteration
or reactivation of nonconforming uses and structures pursuant to Section
18.68.090.
O. New structures and additions to existing structures within a designated
Historic District which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA),
subject to the general regulations set forth in Section 18.28.040.
P. Temporary uses.
Q. Wireless Communication Facilities when attached to existing structures and
authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 36, Section 18.28.040 A.l., R-3, General Regulations, Permitted Density,
of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.28.040 General Regulations
A. Permitted Density and Minimum Lot Dimensions
1. Base Densities and Minimum Lot Dimensions. The density of the development,
including the density gained through bonus points, shall not exceed the density
established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated
to the public. The minimum density shall be 80% of the calculated base density.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base
density for the R-3 zone shall be 20.0 dwelling units per acre, in addition to the
following standards and exceptions:
a. An accessory residential unit is not required to meet density or
minimum lot area requirements provided the unit is not greater than
fifty percent (500/0) of the gross habitable floor area of the single
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 16 -
family residence on the lot and does not exceed 500 square feet of
gross habitable floor area.
b. hewe...er, tlUnits, not considered as an accessory residential unit and
ef-Iess than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units
for the purposes of density calculations, with the fellewiftg restrietiefts.
ceo Minimum lot area for less than two (2) units 4 shall be 5000 sq. ft. with a
minimum width of 50' and minimum depth of 80'
dlt. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 6,500 sq. ft. with 'a minimum width of
50' and a minimum depth of 80'.
ee. Developments of 3 units or greater shall have minimum lot area in excess of
8000 sq. ft. eM except as determined by the base density and allowable
bonus point calculations, and shall have a minimum width of 50' and a
minimum depth of 80'.
SECTION 37, Section 18.28.0401.1., R-3, General Regulations, Maximum
Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots within the
Historic District of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
I. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for single family dwellings on individual lots
within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for single family
primary dwellings on individual lots within the--an Historic District shall be
determined by the following:
1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors
(gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the
building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within
the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area
shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or
detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or
accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a
minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures
may connect the structures.
SECTION 38, Section 18.28.040 J.l., R-3, General Regulations, Maximum
Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and new residential
construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions created within an
Historic District. of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
J. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for multiple dwellings on a single lot and
new residential construction in Performance Standards Options land divisions
created within the an Historic District. The MPFA fer ...tlltil'le Elwelliftgs eft
a siftgle let withift the Hist:erie Distriet shall be determined by the following:
1. The MPFA shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the
I'ri...aF\" dwelling units measured to the outside surfaces of the building(s),
including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the
structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area
shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or
detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or
accessory residential units shall be separated from other structures by a
minimum of 6', except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures
may connect the structures.
SECTION 39, Section 18.30.020, NM General Regulations, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 17 -
18.30.020 , NM General Regulations
A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
Land uses, streets, alleys and pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in
accordance with those shown on the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by
Ordinance No. 2800.
1. Major and Minor Amendments
a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) A change in land use.
(2) A change in the street layout plan that requires a street to be eliminated
or to be located in such a manner as to not be consistent with the
neighborhood plan.
(3) A change in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
(4) A change in planned residential density.
(5) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment
definitions.
b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing, or signage.
(2) A change in the street layout that requires a local street, alley, easement,
pedestrian/bicycle accessway or utility to be shifted more than 50 feet in
any direction, as long as the change maintains the connectivity
established by the neighborhood plan.
2. Major Amendment Type II Procedure. A major amendment to the neighborhood
plan shall be processed as a Type II planning action concurrently with specific
development proposals. In addition to complying with the standards of this
section, findings must demonstrate that:
a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the
neighborhood plan;
b. The proposed modification furthers the design and access concepts advocated
by the neighborhood plan, including but not limited to pedestrian access,
bicycle access, and de-emphasis on garages as a residential design feature;
c. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose, objectives, or
functioning of the neighborhood plan.
d. The proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints
evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees,
rock outcroppings, wetlands, eten.or similar natural features, or to adjust to
existing property lines between project boundaries.
3. Minor Amendment Type I Procedure. A minor amendment to the neighborhood plan
may be approved as a Type I planning action concurrently with specific development
proposals. The request for a minor amendment shall include findings that
demonstrate that the change will not adversely affect the purpose, objectives, or
functioning of the neighborhood plan.
4. Utilities shall be installed underground to the greatest extent feasible. Where
possible, alleys shall be utilized for utility location, including transformers, pumping
stations, etc...
B. Lots With Alley Access. If the site is served by an alley, access and egress for motor
vehicles shall be to and from the alley. In such cases, curb openings along the street
frontage are prohibited.
C. Street, Alley and Pedestrian/bicycle Accessway Standards. The standards for
street, alley, and pedestrian/bicycle accessway improvements shall be as designated in
the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 18 -
D. Minimum Density. Proposals resulting in the creation of additional parcels or greater
than three units on a single parcel shall provide for residential densities between 75 to
110 percent of the base density for a given overlay, unless reductions in the total
number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography,
access limitations or similar physical constraints. (Proposals involving the development
of neighborhood commercial businesses and services shall be exempt from the above
requirements).
E. Density Transfer. Density transfer within a project from one overlay to another may.
be approved if it can be shown that the proposed density transfer furthers the design
and access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a variety of
residential unit sizes, types and architectural styles. a Eli",gersity in siEe anEl
style af hatlsh'g t"'I'es.
F. Drive-Up Uses. Drive-Up uses are not permitted within the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan area.
G. Performance Standards Overlay. All applications involving the creation of three or
more lots shall be processed under the Performance Standards Option chapter 18.88.
H. Fencing. No fencing exceeding three feet in height shall be allowed in the front lot area
between the structure and the street. No fencing shall be allowed in areas designated
as Floodplain Corridor.
I. Adjustment of Lot Lines. As part of the approval process for specific development
proposals, adjustments to proposed lot lines may be approved consistent with the
density standards of the neighborhood plan zoning district.
SECTION 40, Section 18.30.030, NM-C Neighborhood Central Overlay, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.30.030, NM-C Neighborhood Central Overlay
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of
dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base
density for the Neighborhood Central Overlay shall be 20 units per acre, however,
units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units
for the purposes of density calculations.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas within the Neighborhood Central Overlay, all uses
are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential
uses where one space shall be provided per residential unit. All parking areas shall
comply with the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site Review chapter.
C. Area, Yard Requirements: There shall be no minimum lot area, lot coverage, front
yard, side yard or rear yard requirement, except as required under the Off-Street
Parking Chapter or where required by the Site Review Chapter.
D. Solar Access: The solar setback shall not apply in the Neighborhood Central
Overlay.
E. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the NM-C overlay subject to
conditions limiting the hours and impact of operation;
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.
5. Neighborhood Oriented Retail Sales and Personal Services, with each building
limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
Ashtand Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 19 -
6. Professional Offices, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor
area.
7. Restaurants.
8. Manufacturing or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such
manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 square feet or less, and is contiguous to
the permitted retail outlet.
9. Basic Utility Providers, such as telephone or electric providers, with each building
limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
10. Community Services, with each building to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
11. Churches or Similar Religious Institutions, when the same such use is not located
on a contiguous property, nor more than two such uses in a given Overlay.
12. Neighborhood Clinics, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor
area.
F. Conditional Uses.
1. Temporary Uses.
2. Public Parking Lots.
G. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be seventy-five (75) percent.
SECTION 41, Section 18.30.040. C., NM-MF Neighborhood Core Overlay, Yard
Requirements, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.30.040, Neighborhood Core Overlay NM-MF
C. Yard Requirements
1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks sShall be a minimum of ten (10)
feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet, excluding garages.
Front yards may be reduced to five (5) feet for unenclosed porches
with a minimum depth of six (6) feet and a minimum width of
eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15)
feet from the front building facade and twenty (20) feet from the
sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent (500/0) of the total lineal
building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or
other covered parking space.
2. Side Yards. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive (5)
feet per for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor
dormer space, five (5) feet for each additional story, and. =F ten
(10) feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached
garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three (3) foot
side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings
sharing a common wall.
3. Rear Yards. Ten feet per story, with the exception of upper floor
dormer space which may be setback 15 feet. Single story, detached
garages and accessory buildings, and two story accessory buildings
adjacent to an alley shall have a minimum rear yard of four feet.
SECTION 42, Section 18.30.050.C. and F, NM-R-1-5 Neighborhood General Overlay,
Yard Requirements, and Lot Coverage of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended
to read as follows:
18.30.050, Neighborhood General Overlay NM-R-1-5
C. Yard Requirements
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 20 -
1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks sShall be a minimum of ten (10)
feet and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet, excluding garages.
Front yards may be reduced to five (5) feet for unenclosed porches
with a minimum depth of six (6) feet and a minimum width of
eight (8) feet. Garages shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15)
feet from the front building facade and twenty (20) feet from the
sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent (500/0) of the total lineal
building facade facing the street shall consist of garage, carport or
other covered parking space.
2. Side Yards. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of f-Five (5)
feet ~ for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor
dormer space, five (5) feet for each additional story, and. ~ ten
(10) feet when abutting a public street. Single story, detached
garages and accessory structures shall have a minimum three (3) foot
side yard, except that no side yard is required for accessory buildings
sharing a common wall.
3. Rear Yards. Ten feet per story, with the exception of upper floor
dormer space which may be setback 15 feet. Single story, detached
garages and accessory buildings, and two story accessory buildings
adjacent to an alley shall have a minimum rear yard of four feet.
D. Permitted Uses.
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.
E. Special Permitted Uses.
1. Accessory Residential Units, subject to the following requirements:
a. The proposal must comply with lot coverage and setback requirements
of the underlying zone.
b. That the maximum number of dwellings not exceed two per lot.
c. That the maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory
residential unit not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence
on the lot, and shall not exceed 750 sq. ft. GHFA. Second story
accessory residential units constructed above a detached accessory
building shall not exceed 500 sq. ft. GHFA.
d. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking
provisions for single-family dwellings of this title.
2. Community Services. with each building limited to 2,500 square feet of
total floor area.
F. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (500/0).
SECTION 43, Section 18.30.060.C.and G, NM-R-1-7.5 Neighborhood Edge Overlay,
Yard Requirements and Lot Coverage, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended
to read as follows:
18.30.060, Neighborhood Edge Overlay NM-R-1-7.5
C. Yard Requirements
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 21 -
1. Front Yards. Front yard setbacks sShall be a minimum of ten (10) feet
and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet, excluding garages. Front yards
may be reduced to five (5) feet for unenclosed porches with a minimum depth
of six (6) feet and a minimum width of eight (8) feet. Garages shall be
setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front building facade and
twenty (20) feet from the sidewalk. No greater than 50 percent (500/0) of
the total lineal building facade facing the street shall consist of garage,
carport or other covered parking space.
2. Side Yards~Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of fFive (5) feet pet"
for the first story, excluding half-stories and upper floor dormer space,
five (5) feet for each additional story, and. ~ ten (10) feet when
abutting a public street. Single story, detached garages and accessory
structures shall have a minimum three (3) foot side yard, except that no side
yard is required for accessory buildings sharing a common wall.
3. Rear Yards. Ten feet per story, with the exception of upper floor dormer
space which may be setback 15 feet. Single story, detached garages and
accessory buildings, and two story accessory buildings adjacent to an alley
shall have a minimum rear yard of four feet.
D. Permitted Uses.
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density calculations.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture
E. Special Permitted Uses.
1. Accessory Residential Units, subject to Site Review approval under a Type I
Procedure and the following requirements:
a. The proposal must comply with lot coverage and setback requirements of the
underlying zone.
b. That the maximum number of dwellings not exceed two per lot.
c. That the maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential
unit not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall
not exceed 750 sq. ft. GHFA. Second story accessory residential units constructed
above a detached accessory building shall not exceed 500 sq. ft. GHFA.
d. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the Off-Street Parking provisions
for single-family dwellings of this title.
F. Floodplain Corridor
1. Developments including lands within the identified floodplain corridor, including
street development, shall comply with the following requirements:
a. A hydrologic study prepared by a geotechnical expert shall be submitted
concurrently with specific development proposals indicating the impact of the
development on the floodplain corridor, and all efforts to be taken to mitigate
negative impacts from flooding in the area of the floodplain corridor and areas of
historic flooding.
b. The design of Greenway Drive, as indicated on the neighborhood plan, shall
incorporate flood protection measures, as determined by a geotechnical expert,
in the overall design of the new street. Such protection measures shall address
flooding in the floodplain corridor and in areas of historic flooding.
c. A grading plan for the overall development, indicating grade relationships
between the development and the floodplain corridor, shall be included with the
specific development proposal. A statement shall be included, prepared by a
geotechnical expert or licensed surveyor, indicating that the finish grade for all
buildable areas outside of the floodplain corridor shall be at or above the Ashland
floodplain corridor elevations indicated on the officially adopted city maps.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 22 -
G. Lot Coveraae: Maximum lot coverage shall be forty-five percent (450/0).
SECTION 44, 18.32.025.D., C-1, Retail Commercial District, Special Permitted Uses,
Residential Uses, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses
D. Residential uses.
1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of
the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted
or special permitted uses, excluding residential.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1
District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the purpose
of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross
habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit.
3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design
standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District.
4. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District.
5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential
units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through
procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be
affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
SECTION 45, 18.32.025.E., C-1, Retail Commercial District, Special Permitted Uses,
Drive Up uses, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses
E. Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows:
1. Drive-up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only, and only in the area
east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection
of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard.
2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Dri'./e 1:11' I:Ises "'S", e 1'1 I",." be alle",fJeEl in the C 1 Elistriets east ef s line
Elrawn l'erl'el'lEliel:llar te Ashlsl'IEI Street, at the il'lterseetiel'l et Ashlsl'IEI
Street sl'IEI Sisld"t'el:l Bel:lle....srEl.
3.4 Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria:
a. The average waiting time in line for each vehicle shall not exceed five
minutes. Failure to maintain this average waiting time may be grounds for
revocation of the approval.
b. All facilities providing drive-up service shall provide at least two designated
parking spaces immediately beyond the service window or provide other
satisfactory methods to allow customers requiring excessive waiting time to
receive service while parked.
c. A means of egress for vehicular customers who wish to leave the waiting line
shall be provided.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 23 -
d. The grade of the stacking area to the drive-up shall either be flat or downhill
to eliminate excessive fuel consumption and exhaust during the wait in line.
e. The drive-up shall be designed to provide as much natural ventilation as
possible to eliminate the buildup of exhaust gases.
f. Sufficient stacking area shall be provided to ensure that public rights-of-way
are not obstructed.
g. The sound level of communications systems shall not exceed 55 decibels at
the property line and shall otherwise comply with the Ashland Municipal Code
regarding sound levels.
h. The number of drive-up uses shall not exceed the 12 in existence on July 1,
1984. Drive-up uses may be transferred to another location in accord with all
requirements of this section. The number of drive-up window stalls shall not
exceed 1 per location, even if the transferred use had greater than one stall.
SECTION 46, 18.32.030, C-l, Retail Commercial District Conditional Uses, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, Is amended to read as follows:
18.32.030 Conditional Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance
with the chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A. Electrical substations.
B. Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities, except as allowed
as a special permitted use in 18.32.025.
C. New and used car sales, boat, trailer, and recreational vehicles sales and storage
areas, except within the Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Hotels and motels.
E. Temporary uses.
F. Outdoor storage of commodities associated with a permitted, special permitted or
conditional use.
G. Hostels, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least
the first three years, after which time the Planning Commission may approve, under
a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility.
H. Building material sales yards, but not including concrete or asphalt batch or mixing
plants.
I. Churches or similar religious institutions.
J. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized
pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
K. Structures which are greater than forty (40) feet in height, but less than
fifty-five (55) feet, in the "0" Downtown Overlay District.
SECTION 47, 18.40.020, E-l, Employment District, Permitted Uses, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.40.020 Permitted Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to the
requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards:
A. Professional, financial, and business and medical offices, and personal service
establishments.
B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, except that
retail uses shall be limited to no greater than 20,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor
space per lot.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 24 -
C. Restaurants. (Ord 2812, 54 1998)
D. Electrical, furniture, plumbing shop, printing, publishing, lithography or upholstery.
E. Light manufacturing, assembly, fabricating, or packaging of products from previously
prepared materials, such as cloth, plastic, wood (not including saw, planing, or
lumber mills or molding plants), paper, cotton, precious or semi-precious metals or
stone.
F. Manufacture of electric, electronic, or optical instruments and devices.
G. Administrative or research establishments.
H. Motion picture, television, or radio broadcasting studios operating at an established
or fixed location.
I. Mortuaries and crematoriums.
J. Building material sales yards, but not including concrete or asphalt batch or mixing
plants.
K. Kennels and veterinary clinics, with all animals housed within structures.
L. Bakeries
M. Public and quasi-public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public
parking lots, but excluding electrical substations.
N. Manufacture of pharmaceutical and similar items.
O. Wireless Communication Facilities permitted outright pursuant to Section
18.72.180.
SECTION 48, 18.40.030.E., E-1, Employment District, Special Permitted Uses,
Residential Uses, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.40.030, Special Permitted Uses
E. Residential uses.
1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of
the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted
or special permitted uses, excluding residential.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the
purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of
gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit.
3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design
standards as for permitted uses in the E-l District.
4. Residential uses shall only be located in those areas indicated as R-Overlay within
the E-l District, and shown on the official zoning map.
5. If the number of residential units exceed 10, then at least 10% of the residential
units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the
standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through
procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be
affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
SECTION 49, 18.40.040, E-1,Employment District, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.40.040 Conditional Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in
accordance with the chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A. Electrical substations.
B. Mini-warehouses and similar storage areas.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 25 -
C. Contractor equipment storage yards or storage and rental of equipment commonly
used by a contractor.
D. Automobile fuel sales.
E. New and used car sales, boat, trailer and recreational vehicles sales and storage
areas, provided that the use is not located within the Historic Interest Area as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
F. Hotels and motels.
G. Any use which involves outside storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other
material associated with the primary use on the site.
H. Private college, trade school, technical school, or similar school.
1. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located less than or
equal to 200' from the nearest residential district.
J. Cold storage plants, if such uses are located less than or equal to 200' from the
nearest residential district.
K. Automotive body repair and painting, including paint booths.
1. The use shall not be located within 200' of the nearest residentially zoned
property.
2. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot, to the
greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for
judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with
ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the
neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected.
3. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
L. Churches and similar religious institutions
M. Nightclubs and Bars.
N. Theaters (excluding drive-in) and similar entertainment uses.
O. Temporary uses.
P. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized
pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 50, 18.52.030, M-l, Industrial District, Conditional Uses, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.52.030 Conditional Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in
accordance with the chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A. Junkyard and auto wrecking yards.
B. Kennels and veterinary clinics.
C. Banks, restaurants or other convenience establishments designed to serve persons
working in the zone only.
D. Concrete or asphalt batch or mixing plants.
E. Temporary uses.
F.. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized
pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 51, 18.54.030, HC, Health Care Services Zone, Conditional Uses, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.54.030 Conditional Uses
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 26 -
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in
accordance with the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits:
A. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as beauticians and
masseurs.
B. Travelers' accommodations, subject to the requirements of the R-2 zone.
C. Professional offices for an accountant, architect, attorney, designer, engineer,
insurance agent or adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor.
D. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property, that is not
specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master Facility Plan.
E. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized pursuant to Section
18.72.180.
SECTION 52, 18.61.020.A., Tree Preservation and Protection, , Definitions, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.61.020 Definitions.
A. Arborist means a person licensed by the State of Oregon State Landscape
Contractors Board or Construction Contractors Board who has met the
eriteria fer is certified eatien as an arborist from the International Society of
Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists, and Maintai"s his er her
aeereditatie".
SECTION 53, 18.61.020.E., Tree Preservation and Protection, Definitions, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.61.020 Definitions.
D. Diameter at breast height or DBH means the diameter of the trunk thittIt, at its
maximum cross section, measured 54 inches (4 1/2 feet) above Mean ground level
at the base of the trunk. On Sloped lands, the measurement shall be taken on
the uphill side of tree.
SECTION 54, 18.61.035, Tree Preservation and Protection, Exempt Tree Removal
Activities, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.61.035 Exempt Tree Removal Activities.
The following activities are exempt from the requirement for tree removal permits:
A. Those activities associated with the establishment or alteration of any public park
under the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. However, the Ashland Parks
and Recreation Department shall provide an annual plan in January to the Tree
Commission outlining proposed tree removal and topping activities, and reporting on
tree removal and topping activities that were carried out in the previous year.
B. Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise
regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 27 -
C. Removal of trees in multi-family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise
regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62).
D. Removal of trees less than 6" DBH in any zone, excluding those trees located within
the public right of way or required as conditions of approval with landscape
improvements for planning actions.
E. Removal of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school lands, Southern Oregon
University, and other public land,t-Itttt-excluding Heritage trees and street trees
,..'tithin the I'tlblie right 8f Via)'.
F. Removal of trees within the Wildfire Lands area of the City, as defined on adopted maps, for the
purposes of wildfire fuel management, and in accord with the requirements of the Physical and
Environmental Constraints Chapter- 18.62.
G. Removal of dead trees.
H. Those activities associated with tree trimming for safety reasons, as mandated by the Oregon
Public Utilities Commission, by the City's Electric and Telecommunication Utility. However, the
Utility shall provide an annual plan to the Tree Commission outlining tree trimming activities and
reporting on tree trimming activities that were carried out in the previous year. Tree trimming
shall be done, at a minimum, by a Journeyman Tree Trimmer, as defined by the Utility, and will
be done in conformance and to comply with OPUC regulations.
I. Removal of street trees within the public right-of-way subject to street tree
removal permits in AMC 13.16.
SECTION 55, 18.61.042.8., Tree Preservation and Protection, Approval and Permit
Required, Verification Permit, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read
as follows:
18.61.042, Approval and Permit Required
B. TREE REMOVAL - VERIFICATION PERMIT:
1. If a site has received development approval through a planning action consistent
with the standards of this chapter, then a Verification Permit shall be required for
those trees approved for removal through that process. To obtain a verification
permit, an applicant must clearly identify on the property the trees to be
removed by tying pink tagging tape around each tree and submitting a site plan
indicating the location of the requested trees. Vegetation 4" to 6" DBH that is to
be removed shall also be marked with pink tagging tape. The Staff Advisor may
require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for
accurate verification of the permit application. The Staff Advisor will then verify
that the requested trees match the site plan approved with the planning action.
The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the original development permit.
2. Verification permits shall be required prior to the issuance of an excavation
permit or building permit and prior to any site disturbance and/or storage
of materials on feto the subject property.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 28 -
SECTION 56, 18.61.042.0., Tree Preservation and Protection, Approval and Permit
Required, Tree Removal, staff Permit, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended
to read as follows:
D. TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT:
1. Tree Removal-StitH Permits are required for the following activities:
a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-
I, or He.
b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots
(R-2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family detached
dwelling.
c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential purposes
including but not limited to R-I, RR, WR, and NM zones.
d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SOU, on lands under the control
of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of
Ashland.
2. Applications for Tree Removal - StitH Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the
Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.0-340 (fiu
I Procedure Netiee Reqtlirelfte"t5). If the tree removal is part of another planning
action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely filed,
shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action.
SECTION 57, 18.61.050.A., Tree Preservation and Protection, Plans Required, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.61.050 Platts Submittal Requirements.a
A. An application for all Tree Removal and Tree Topping Permits shall be Iftaele I:Il'e"
'erlft5 I'reseribeel br the Cit-;. The al'l'lieatie" fer a Tree Re1ft evaI Perlftits
include:
a. Plans drawn to scale shell containing a.t=Fhe number, size, species and
location of the trees proposed to be removed or topped on a site plan of the
property.
b. The anticipated date of removal or topping.
c. A statement of the reason for removal or topping.
d. Information concerning proposed landscaping or planting of new trees to replace
the trees to be removed, and
e. Evidence that the trees proposed for removal or toppinged have been clearly
identified on the property for visual inspection.
f. A Tree Protection Plan that includes trees located on the subject site that
are not proposed for removal, and any off-site trees where drip lines
extend into proposed landscaped areas on the subject site. Such plans
shall conform to the protection requirements under Section 18.61.200.
g. Any other information reasonably required by the City.
SECTION 58, 18.61.080.B., Tree Preservation and Protection, Criteria for Issuance
of Tree Removal Staff Permit, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read
as follows:
18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Staff Permit
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 29 -
An applicant for a Tree Removal Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following
criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to
substantiate the criteria for a permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree
that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be
consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and
standards, including but not limited to . (~.g. ether applicable Site Design
and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints-t. The Staff
Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to
allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree
densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject
property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require
that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by
the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site
plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would
lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with
other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree
granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall
be.a condition of approval of the permit.
SECTION 59, 18.61.084, Tree Preservation and Protection, Mitigation Required, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.61.084, Mitigation Required
An applicant f'I't8Y shall be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for
removal. The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the
following:
A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 Y2-inch caliper
healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6 foot tall evergreen tree for
each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually
equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location.
Larger trees may be required where the mitigation is intended, in part, to
replace a visual screen between land uses. "Suitable" species means the
tree's growth habits and environmental requirements are conducive to
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 30 -
the site, given the existing topography, soils, other vegetation, exposure
to wind and sun, nearby structures, overhead wires, etc. The tree shall be
planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting
and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council.
B. Replanting off site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available
space on the subject property, the replanting required in subsection A shall occur
on other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an
open space tract that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City owned or
dedicated open space or park. Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval
of the authorized property owners. If planting on City owned or dedicated
property, the City may specify the species and size of the tree. Nothing in this
section shall be construed as an obligation of the City to allow trees to be planted
on City owned or dedicated property.
C. Payment in lieu of planting. If in the City's determination no feasible alternative
exists to plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the tree
account an amount as established by resolution of the City Council.
D. An approved mitigation plan shall be fully implemented within one year
of a tree being removed unless otherwise set forth in a tree removal
application and approved in the tree removal permit.
SECTION 60, 18.61.092, Tree Preservation and Protection, Expiration of Tree
Removal Permits, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.61.092, Expiration of Tree Removal Permits
Tree removal permits shall remain valid for a period of one vear189 ela"t's from the
date of issuance or date of final decision by a hearing body, if applicable. A 30 day
extension shall be automatically granted by the Staff Advisor if requested in writing
before the expiration of the permit. Permits that have lapsed are void. Trees
removed after a tree removal permit has expired shall be considered a violation of
this Chapter.
SECTION 61, 18.62.040.H., Physical and Environmental Constraints, Approval and
Permit Required, Plans Required of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required.
H. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development requiring
a Physical Constraints Review:
1. The plans shall contain the following:
a. Project name.
b. Vicinity map.
c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger) utilizing
the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper. Multiple plans or layers shall be
prepared at the same scale, excluding detail drawings. The Staff Advisor
may authorize different scales and plan sheet sizes for projects,
provided the plans provide sufficient information to clearly identify
and evaluate the application request.
d. North arrow.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 31 -
e. Date.
f. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on
the boundary of the proposed development.
g. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
h. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures
within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and
which are to be removed.
i. Location and size of all public utilities affected by the proposed development.
j. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the
proposed development. Location of all other easements.
k. topographic map of the site at a contour interval of not less than two feet nor
greater than five feet. The topographic map shall also include a slope
analysis, indicating buildable areas, as shown in the graphic.
I. Location of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egress on the site, and
on-site circulation.
m Accurate locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to,
all trees as required in 18.62.080.D.l, including those of a caliper equal to or
greater than six inches d.b.h., native shrub masses with a diameter of ten
feet or greater, natural drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs, or creeks
on the site, and outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Natural features on
adjacent properties potentially impacted by the proposed development shall
also be included, such as trees with driplines extending across property lines.
In forested areas, it is necessary to identify only those trees which will be
affected or removed by the proposed development. Indicate any
contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
n. The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control, and tree
protection for the development as required by this chapter.
o. Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that contain only
buildable area, as defined by this Chapter.
p. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation lines.
q. Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts, fills, driveways,
building sites, and other construction areas. Indicate total area of
disturbance, total percentage of project site proposed for disturbance, and
maximum depths and heights of cuts and fill.
r. Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting from cuts
associated with the proposed development.
s. Applicant name, firm preparing plans, person responsible for plan
preparation, and plan preparation dates shall be indicated on all plans.
t. Proposed timeline for development based on estimated date of approval,
including completion dates for specific tasks.
2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080,
18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of this Chapter.
SECTION 62, 18.62.0S0.A., Physical and Environmental Constraints, Land
Classifications, Flood plain Corridor Lands, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
18.62.050 Land Classifications.
The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands
and their constraints to building and development on them:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 32 -
A. Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard.
The following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the
Federal Flood Insurance ProGram El'l'lergE:Jlte-j ~4altagE:Jl'l'leltt AgE:JAE"j,
and in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps
adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the
historical past.
4. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for
Riparian Preservation in 18.62.0S0.B and depicted as such on maps
adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060.
5. All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel
depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian
Preservation.
SECTION 63, 18.62.070. A. , Physical and Environmental Constraints, Development
Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands, Standards for Fill, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands.
For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor,
the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Ultiferl'l'l International Building
Code and International Residential Code, Chal'tE:Jr 79, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten feet outside of floodway channels,
as defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the angle of repose of
the material used for fill.
3. The amount of fill in the Flood plain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum. Fill
and other material imported from off the lot that could displace floodwater
shall be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build permitted
structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with approved
public and private street and driveway construction.
c. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured from April 1989, and shall not
exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the maximum cumulative
fill that can be imported onto the site, regardless of the number of permits
issued.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the permitted amounts in (3) above, then
fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or excavation only to
the extent necessary to create an elevated site for permitted development.
All additional fill material shall be obtained from the portion of the lot in the
Flood plain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall be located as close to the
outside edge of the Flood plain Corridor as feasible.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 33 -
SECTION 64, 18.62.070.G., Physical and Environmental Constraints, Development
Standards for Flood Plain Corridor Lands, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
18.62.070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands.
For all land use actions which could result in development of the Flood plain Corridor,
the following is required in addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10:
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Flood plain Corridor
lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted in
section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered or supported
by pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters over
the Flood plain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if it does not impact riparian
vegetation, and the clearance from finished grade is at least ten feet in height,
and is stlpperted b}" pillars that will have minimal impact on the flow of
floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more than two feet below
the flood corridor elevations.
SECTION 65, 18.62.080.8.1., Physical and Environmental Constraints,
Development Standards for Hillside Lands, Hillside Grading and Erosion Control, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside
shall provide plans conforming with the following items:
1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for
development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All
cuts, grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 79 ef the "..ifer... International
Building Code and be consistent with the provisions of this Title. Erosion
control measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids
in runoff from disturbed areas.
SECTION 66, 18.62.080.D.4., Physical and Environmental Constraints,
Development Standards for Hillside Lands, Tree Conservation, Protection and
Removal, Tree Protection, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands shall
conform to the following requirements:
4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved
during the course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree
protection standards:
a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project
site. Prior to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching,
grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation, the applicant
shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved adjacent to or
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 34 -
in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be established at the
perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the
fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor.
(see grsl'hie18.61.200)
c Tree Conserva t ion
.:\, Guideline
,
,
Planftlt.1iSta" memm>above a8ldttc to be revised...
b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material
storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to
prevent disturbances within tree protection areas.
,,~ ---~,-Dripline
TreeCa~8" '\(
... I
\ I
, I
'- I
......._~--_/
To provide minimum pro! eel ion 101 he
root area, I ake I he greal esl radius
from I runk I 0 dripline and creal e a
regular circle, using I he longesl radius,
ral her I han I 0 follow an irregular,
aoove ground, exisl ing I rea dripline.
c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elev.ation
shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation
unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape
professional. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline, a
landscape professional may be required to be present during grading
operations, and shall have authority to require protective measures to protect
the roots.
d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall
be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to appropriate storm
drain facilities and away from trees designated for conservation.
e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes
irreparable damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 35 -
project plan shall be revised to compensate for the loss. Under no
circumstances shall the developer be relieved of responsibility for compliance
with the provisions of this chapter.
SECTION 67, 18.64, SO, Southern Oregon State College District, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 18.64, SO, SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY STATE COLLECE
DISTRICT
SECTION 68, 18.64.010, SO, Southern Oregon State College District, Purpose, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.64.010 Purpose.
This district is designed to provide for the unique needs of sesE SOU as a State
educational institution functioning within the planning framework of the City. It can
be applied to all areas now or hereinafter owned by the State of Oregon acting by
and through the State Board of Higher Education and Southern Oregon state
Cellege University and located within the sesE SOU boundary, as shown on the
sesE SOU Comprehensive Plan, adopted by sesE SOU and approved by the City.
SECTION 69, 18.64.020, Southern Oregon State College District, Permitted Uses,
of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.64.020 Permitted Uses.
A. Uses permitted outright are all those which are directly related to the educational
functions of sesESOU, provided that such uses are indicated and located in
conformance with the adopted and City approved SOSC SOU Comprehensive Plan,
and are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property.
B. Wireless Communication Facilities authorized pursuant to Section
18.72.180.
SECTION 70, 18.64.030, Southern Oregon State College District, Conditional Uses,
of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.64.030 Conditional Uses.
A. Any use, site design, or construction or alteration of same not agreed upon in
advance by the City and sasc SOU in the sesE SOU Plan.
B. Any use, site design, or construction within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned
property.
C. Any construction over forty (40) feet in height.
D. Wireless Communication Facilities not permitted outright and authorized
pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
SECTION 71, 18.64.040, Southern Oregon State College District, General
Regulations, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.64.040 General Regulations.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 36 -
This Chapter, together with the Site Review, Sign and Off-Street Parking Chapters of
this Title, are the only portions of the Title to be effective within the 5eSG SOU
zone, except for areas within fifty (50) feet of privately-owned land, which are
subject to the Chapter on Conditional Use Permits.In addition, the creation or
vacation of public streets or public ways shall be subject to mutual agreement
between the City and 5eSG SOU and all other applicable laws.
SECTION 72, 18.68.040, General Regulations, Yard Measurements, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.68.040, Yard "easlue",el'lts Reauirements.
All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of
computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest
projection.thereaf al'lel shall be tll'lebstrtleteel tre", the gretll'lel tlp"A"arel, exeept
~Aarchitectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into the required
yards. retltlire"'ent.
SECTION 73, 18.68.090, General Regulations, Nonconforming Uses and Structures,
of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.68.090, Nonconforming Uses and Structures
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed,
substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(8
and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more
restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be
obtained when the use is changed to a permitted use within the zoning
district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(8
and C), aft existing nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed or the footprint modified, ar strtlettlrally altereel, except that
a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained te el'llarge er extenel a single
fa",i1", he",e in the resielel'ltial elistriet, pre"."ieleel that when the addition or
extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be el'llargeel, reeenstrtleteel restored or
rehabilitated er strtlettlrall,' altereel if its feetpril'lt is not changed in size or
shape, provided that the use of the structure is not changed except if in
conformance with the procedures of Section 18.68.090.A.1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal
maintenance and repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration
to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe by any official charged
with protecting public safety.
5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is damaged
to an extent of 500/0 or more of its replacement cost may be restored
only if the damage was not intentionally caused by the property owner
and the nonconformity is not increased. Any residential structure(s),
including multiple-family, in a residential zone damaged beyond 500/0 of
its replacement cost by a catastrophe, such as fire that is not
intentionally caused by the owner, may be reconstructed at the original
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 37 -
density provided the reconstruction is commenced within 2 years after
the catastrophe.
B. Discontinuance. If the nonconforming use of a building structure, or premises
ceases for a period of six (6) months or more, said use shall be considered
abandoned; and said building, structure, or premises shall thereafter be used only
for uses permitted in the district in which it is located. Discontinuance shall not
include a period of active reconstruction following a fire or other result of natural
hazard; and the Planning Commission may extend the discontinuance period in the
event of special unique unforeseen circumstances.
C. Reactivation. A non-conforming use, which has been abandoned for a period of
more than six (6) months may be reactivated to an equivalent or more restricted use
through the Conditional Use and Site Review process. In evaluating whether or not
to permit the reactivation of a non-conforming use, the Planning Commission, in
addition to using the criteria required for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review,
shall also use the following additional criteria:
1. That any improvements for the reactivation of the non-conforming use te a"
existing "e" ee"fer",i"g strtlettlre on the site shall be less than fifty (50%)
percent of the value of the structure. The value of the structure shall be
determined by either the assessed '...altle aeeerdi"g te the lael(se" Cetl"t"f
Assesser er an independent real estate appraiser licensed in the State of
Oregon. The value of the improvement shall be determined based upon
copies of the contractor's bid for said improvements, which shall be
required with the Conditional Use permit application. Personal property
necessary for the operation of the business or site improvements not included in
the structure shall not be counted as improvements under this criterionthts
eriteria.
2. An assessment that the traffic generated by the proposed use would not be
greater than permitted uses on the site. In assessing the traffic generated by the
proposed use, the Planning Commission shall consider the number of vehicle trips
per day, the hours of operation, and the types of traffic generated; i.e., truck or
passenger vehicle. The Planning Commission shall modify the Conditional Use
Permit so that the operation of the non-conforming use is limited to the same
traffic impact as permitted uses in the same zone.
3. That the noise generated by the proposal will be mitigated so that it complies
with the Ashland Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.08.170, and also that it does not
exceed the average ambient noise level already existing in the area, as measured
by this standard.
4. That there will be no lighting of the property which would have direct illumination
on adjacent uses and that there would be no reflected light from the property
greater than the amount of reflected light from any permitted use in that same
zone.
5. In a residential zone the findings must further address that such reactivation will
further implement Goal VI, Policy 2, Housing Chapter of the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan.
6. Nothing herein shall apply to non-conforming signs, which are governed by the
provisions of Section 18.96.150 of this Code.
D. Building or structure: Nothing contained in this Title shall require any change in
the plans, construction, alteration, or designated use of a structure for which a
building permit has been issued and construction has commenced prior to the
adoption of the ordinance codified herein and subsequent amendments thereto,
except that if the designated use will be nonconforming, it shall, for the purpose of
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 38 -
subsection (B) of this Section, be a discontinued use if not in operation within two
(2) years of the date of issuance of the building permit.
SECTION 74, 18.68.110, General Regulations, Front Yard - General Exception, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.68.110. Front Yard-General Exception
A. If there are dwellings or accessory buildings on both abutting lots (even if separated
by an alley or private way) with front or side yards abutting a public street with
sf less than the required Elel'th setback for the district, the front yard for the lot
need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures.
B. If there is a dwelling or accessory building on one (1) abutting lot with a front yard
of less than the required depth for the district, the front yard need not exceed a
depth one-half (V2) way between the depth of the abutting lot and the required front
yard depth.
C. The front yard may be reduced to ten (10) feet on hillside lots where the terrain has
an average steepness equal to, or exceeding a one (1) foot rise or fall in twe four
(~) feet of horizontal distance within the entire required yard, said vertical rise or
fall to be measured from the natural ground level at the property line.
SECTION 75, 18.68.140, General Regulations, Accessory Buildings and Structures,
of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.68.140 Accessory Buildings, aMI Structures and Mechanical Equipment.
Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the
principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with
the following limitations:
A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R
district.
B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided
there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house.
C. Mechanical equipment shall he sl:Ihjeet ta the I'Fa...isiafts af this Seetian.
Sl:Ieh eEltlil'",ent shall not be located between the main structure on the site
and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made
to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets.
Mechanical equipment and
, may be located within required side or rear yards,
provided such installation and operation is consistent with other
provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, including but not
limited to noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall
require a building permit.
D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential
district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory
structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys,
provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and
structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in
height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to an accessory
residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Title for
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 39 -
accessory residential units, including any required planning action
and/or site review.
SECTION 76, 18.68.160, General Regulations, Driveway Grades, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.68.160 Driveway Grades.
Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any
portion of the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with th~ erit~ria
e' the City of Ashland tandards I"lIblie Werlls D~l'art...e..t and al'l're'\'~d
installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. If
required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway
grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision clearance standards associated with
driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to the Variance section of
this title. .
SECTION 77, 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards, of the Ashland Municipal Code,
is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 18.72 SITE DESIGNREVIEW AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION 78, 18.72.030, Site Design and Use Standards, Application, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.72.030 Applicabilitvtieft
Site design a..d lIse standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined
below. a..d shall al'l'l", te all d~".;r~lel'...~..t i..dieat~d i.. this Chal't~r, exe~l't
fer thes~ de'.'del'...~..ts whieh are r~glllat~d b",.- th~ Sllbdi....isie..s (18.89),
the I"artitie..i..g (18.76), ~4a"lIfaetllred Hellsi..g (18.84) a..dl"~rfer...a..e~
Sta..dards (18.88).
A. ADDlicabilitv. The following development is subject to Site Design
Review:
1. Commercial. Industrial. Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-l, E-l, HC and M
zones.
b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public
buildings, schools, churches, etc.).
c. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 100/0 of the area
of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site,
or other changes which affect circulation.
e. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in
use which requires a greater number of parking spaces.
f. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to
another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial,
as defined by the zoning regulations of this Code.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 40 -
g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building
permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or
to a contributing property within an Historic District on the
National Register of Historic Places.
h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design
review per Section 18.72.030(B).
2. Residential uses:
a. Two or more residential units on a single lot.
b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes,
condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts.
c. Residential develoDment when off-street parking or landscaping,
in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards
Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the
boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking).
d Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building
permit and is individually listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design
review per Section 18.72.030(B).
B. ExemDtions. The following development is exempt from Site Design
Review application and procedure requirements provided that the
development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this
Chapter.
1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures
and uses.
2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning
(18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and
Performance Standards (18.88).
3. The following mechanical equipment:
a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not
exceeding a height of seventy (70) feet above grade or thirty (30)
feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and
provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards
required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any
antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty
(30) feet above an existing structure when the same is
constructed on the roof of the structure.
b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one
(1) meter in diameter, on anyone lot or dwelling unit.
c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with
the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties
located within designated historic districts. The devices shall
comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height
requirements of the respective zoning district.
d. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a, b, c)
above or (e) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-
way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with
other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and
setback requirements of Section 18.68.140(c).
e. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical
equipment in all zones.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 41 -
SECTION 79, 18.72.040, Approval Process, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
18.72.040, Approval Process.
Development subject to site design review shall be reviewed in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.108.
A. Staff Per...it. The 'ellewi..g tYl'es ef develel'...e..ts shall be stlbjeet te
al'l'reval tI..der the StaH Per...it Preeedtlre. A""t' Staff Per...it ...a"f be
I'reeessed as a TYl'e I I'er...it at the diseretie.. ef the StaH Adviser.
1. A""r" eha..ge ef eeetll'a"E:'f 're... a less i..te..si".'e te a ...ere i..te..sive
eeetll'a..e"i, as defi..ed i.. the City btlildi..g eede, er a..y eha..ge i.. tlse
whieh reEltlires a greater RtI...ber ef I'arld..g sl'aees.
2. A..'r" additie.. less tha.. 2,599 sEltlare fed er te.. I'eree..t ef the
btlildi..g's sEltlare Metage, whiehe..'er is less, te a btlildi..g.
3. A...," tlse whieh restllts i.. three er less dwelli..g tI..its I'er let, ether
tha.. si..gle 'a...i1"r" he...es e.. i..dividtlallets.
4. All i..stallatie..s ef ...eeha..ieal eEltlil'...e..t i.. a...,. I:e..e. I..stallatie.. ef
dise a..te....as shall be stlbjeet te the reEltlire...e..ts ef Seetie..
18.72.169. A..., dise a..te....a fer ee......ereial tlse i.. a reside..tiall:e..e
shall alse be stlbjeet te a Ce..ditie..al Use Per...it (18.194). (Ord.
2289 S5, 1984; Ord. 2457 S4, 1988).
5. All i..stallatie.. et wireless ee......tI..ieatie.. svste...s shall be stlbjeet te
the reEltlire...e..ts ef Seetie.. 18.72.189, i.. additie.. te all al'l'lieable
Site Desig.. a..d Use Sta..dards a..d are stlbjeet te the fellewi..g
81'1'r8.,.81 preeess:
Ze..i..g Desig..atie..s Attaehed te Alter..ative Freesta..di..g
Existi..g Strtlettlres Stll'l'ert
Strtlettlres 5trtlettlres
Reside..tial Ze..esffl GYP Prehibited Prehibited
E4 GYP GYP Prehibited
C 1 D (Dev'u..tew..)~ GYP Prehib,ited Prehibited
C 1 frEEway 8verls}- Site Re"..iev,U Site Re...iew GYP
E-4 Site Re....iew Site Re'\riew GYP
M-l- Site Re...iew Site Re,.-icw GYP
59 Site Re'.iew GYP GYP
N~4 (Nerth ~4etl..tai..) Prehibited Prehibited Prehibited
HisteriE: Distriet~ GYP Prehibited Prehibited
A 1 (Airl'ert Overla"/) GYP GYP GYP
HC (Health Care) GYP Prehibited Prehibited
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 42 -
~ 9..ly allewed e.. existi..g strtlettlres greater tha.. 45 feet i.. height. Fer the "tlr"eses ef this
seetie.. i.. reside..tial ~e..i..g distriets, existi..g strtlettlres shall i..eltlde the re"laee...e..t ef
existi..g "ele, ...ast, er tewer strtlettlres (stleh as staditl... light tev.'ers) fer the ee...bi..ed
"tlr"eses ef their "revietls tlse a..d wireless ee......tI..ieatie.. feeilities.
ffll'er...itted e.. "re e.iRi..g strtlettlres ".vith a height greater tha.. 59 feet i.. the ge\lJ..tew..
Ce......ereial distriet. I'rehibited i.. all ether distriets withi.. the Histerie 9istriet, as defi..ed i..
the Ce..."rehe..shre I'la...
6. AR)" ~xteriar chaRgE ta aRY strtlettlr~ listEd aR th~ NatiaRal RegistEr af
Histarie rlae~s." (ORD 2892, S2 1997) (Ord 2852 S3, 2999; Ord 2858
S6,2999)
B. TVI'E I rraeedtlrE. Th~ fellawiRg tyl'es af dE'.'~lal''''ERts shall h~ stlhj~et
ta al'l'ra'..al tlRd~r thE Tyl'~ I I'rae~dtlrE;
1. ARY ehaRg~ iR tlSE af a lat fra... aRE g~REral tlS~ eat~gar'; ta aRathEr
geR~ral tlSE eatega,.,", e.g., 'ra... resid~Rtial ta ea......~rei81 as d~fiRed
hV th~ EaRiRg r~gtllatiaRs af this Cad~.
2. AR" r~sid~Rtial tlS~ whieh restllts iR fatlr dw~IIiRg tlRits ar "'ar~ aR a
fet.
3. All REW strtlettlrES ar additiaRs greatEr thaR 2,599 stltlarE '~~t, E)fe~l't
fer dE't&elal'...~"ts iReltlded iR SeetiaR 18.72.949(A).
SECTION 80, 18.72.050, Site Design and Use Standards, Detail Site Review Zone,
of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone.
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards
adopted pursuant to Section 18.72.080.
B. AR~" d~'.~lal''''ERt iR th~ Detail Sit~ R~yiEVi ZaRE as d~fiRed iR th~ SitE
R~."i~w StaRdards adal'tEd I'tlrStlaRt ta this ehal'ter, whieh exeeeds
19,999 stltlare fe~t ar is laRger thaR 199 feet iR leRgth ar width, shall hE
re',iiEWed aeeardiRg ta the T'~'l'e 2 I'raeEdtlre.
B.E. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions
of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with to the
following standards:
1. &. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade
shall be considered as one building.
h2.Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as
measured outside the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the
purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or
more sides by walls but not a roof.
3e. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all
interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with
the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the
basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. Far the I'tlrl'ase af
this seetiaR, hase...eRt ",eaRS aR't" flaar le'.'E1 h~law thE first stary iR a
htlildiRg. First star;" shall ha'''~ the sa...e ...eaRiRg as I'ra't&ided iR thE
htlildiRg eadE.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 43 -
4ft.Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
C~.Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of
existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross
floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., including roof top parking, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall
not count toward the total gross floor area. Fer the I'l::Irl'esEJ ef this seetien,
hase",ent ",eans an',. fleer le..-el helew theJ first ste...y in a hl::lilding. First stel'\-"
shall ha'..e the sa"'e ",eaning as I're'.;ided in the hl::lilding eede.
SECTION 81, 18.72.060, Site Design and Use Standards, Plans Required, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.72.060, Plans Reauired
The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the project's
compliance with this Chapter:
A site plan containing the following:
A. Project name.
B. Vicinity map.
e. Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.)
The Staff Advisor may authorize different scales and plan sheet sizes for
projects, provided the plans provide sufficient information to clearly
identify and evaluate the application request.
D. North arrow.
E. Date.
F. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the
boundary of the proposed development.
G. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
H. Zoning designations of the proposed development.
I. Zoning designations adjacent to the proposed development.
J. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures
within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and
which are to be removed.
K. Location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed
development with the locations shown of:
1. Water lines and meter sizes.
2. Sewers, manholes and cleanouts.
3. Storm drainage and catch basins.
4. Opportunity-to-recycle site and solid waste receptacle, including proposed
screening.
L. The proposed location of:
1. Connection to the City water system.
2. Connection to the City sewer system.
3. Connection to the City electric utility system.
4. The proposed method of drainage of the site.
M. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements in and adjacent to the
proposed development.
N. Location, size and use of all contemplated and existing public areas within the
proposed development.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 44 -
O. All fire hydrants proposed to be located near the site and all fire hydrants
proposed to be located within the site.
P. A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of at least five (5) feet.
'Q. Location of all parking areas and all parking spaces, ingress and egress on the
site, and on-site circulation.
R. Use designations for all areas not covered by building.
S. Locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, any existing
trees of a caliber greater than six inches diameter at breast height, except in
forested areas, and any natural drainage ways or creeks existing on the site, and
any outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Indicate any contemplated
modifications to a natural feature.
T. A landscape plan showing the location, type and variety, size and any other
pertinent features of the proposed landscaping and plantings. At time of
installation, such plans shall include a layout of irrigation facilities and ensure the
plantings will continue to grow.
U. The elevations and locations of all proposed signs for the development.
V. For non-residential developments proposed on properties located in a Historic
District. an exterior wall section, window section and drawinQs of architectural
details (e.g. column width', cornice and base detail, relief and projection. etc.)
drawn to a scale of three-fourths (3/4) of an inch equals one (1) foot or larger.
VW. Exterior elevations of all buildings to be proposed on the site. Such plans
shall indicate the material, color, texture, shape and other design features of the
building, including all mechanical devices. Elevations shall be submitted drawn to
scale of one inch equals ten feet or greater.
WX A written summary showing the following:
1. For commercial and industrial developments:
a. The square footage contained in the area proposed to be developed.
b. The percentage of the lot covered by structures.
c. The percentage of the lot covered by other impervious surfaces.
d. The total number of parking spaces.
e. The total square footage of all landscaped areas.
2. For residential developments:
a. The total square footage in the development.
b. The number of dwelling units in the development (include the units by the
number of bedrooms in each unit, e.g., ten one-bedroom, 25 two-
bedroom, etc).
c. Percentage of lot coverage by:
i. Structures.
ii. Streets and roads.
iii. Recreation areas.
iv. Landscaping.
v. Parking areas.
3. For all developments, the following shall also be required: The method and
type of energy proposed to be used for heating, cooling and lighting of the
building, and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source
and the methods used to make the approximation.
SECTION 82, 18.72.080, Site Design and Use Standards, Site Design Standards, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.72.080 Site Design Standards.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 45 -
A. The Council may adopt standards by ordinance for site design and use. These
standards may contain:
1. Additional approval criteria for developments affected by this Chapter.
2. Information and recommendations regarding project and unit design and layout,
landscaping, energy use and conservation, and other considerations regarding
the site design.
3. Interpretations of the intent and purpose of this Chapter applied to specific
examples.
4. Other information or educational materials the Council deems advisable.
B. Before the Council may adopt or amend the guidelines, a public hearing must be held
by the Planning Commission and a recommendation and summary of the hearing
forwarded to the Council for its consideration.
C. The Site Design and Use Standards adopted by Ordinance No's. 2690, 2800,
2825 and 2900, shall be applied as follows:
1. The Multi-family Residential Development Standards in Section II.B. shall
be applied to the construction of attached single-family housing (e.g.
town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.).
2. The Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development standards in
Section II.C. shall be applied to non-residential development (e.g. public
buildings, schools, etc.).
SECTION 83, 18.72.105, Site Design and Use Standards, Expiration of Site Design
Review Approval, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is added and reads as follows:
18.72.105 EXDiration of Site DesiGn Review ADDroval.
Site design review approval granted under this Chapter shall expire if no
building permit or public improvement plan for the project has been
approved by the City within twelve (12) months of site design review
approval.
SECTION 84, 18.72.120, Site Design and Use Standards, Controlled Access, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.72.120 Controlled access.
A. Prier te aAny partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-l,
E-l or M-l zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth in section
(B) below. shall be Bl'l'lietl a 1'1 tI, if l'IeeessB",", If applicable, cross access
easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the
I'artitiel'lil'lg land division can be made from one or more points.
B. Stre'et and driveway Aaccess points in an R-2, R-3, C-l, E-l or M-l zone shall
be limited to the following:
1. Distance between driveways.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
on collector streets - 75 feet;
on residential streets - 50 feet.
2. Distance from intersections.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
on collector streets - 50 feet;
on residential streets - 35 feet.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 46 -
C. '/isiaR elearaRee staRftarfts.
1. Ha ahstr~etiaRs greater thaR twa aRft aRe half fed high, Rar aR,
laRftseal'iRg .....hieh will graw greater thaR t""/8 aRft aRe half feet high,
with the eKeel'tiaR af trees whase eaRal')" heights are at all ti...es
greater thaR eight feet, ...a", he I'laeeft iR a "JisiaR elearaRee area
fteter...iReft as fallaws:
The "JisiaR elearaRee area at the iRterseetiaR af twa streets is the
triaRgle far",eft 15"1 a liRe eaRReetiRg l'aiRts 25 feet fra", the iRterseetiaR
af I'ral'ert~" IiRes. IR the ease af aR iRterseetiaR iR"..al,."iRg aR aile)" aRft a
street, the triaRgle is far",eft 15", a liRe eaRReetiRg l'aiRts teR feet alaRg
the allE~'; aRft 25 feet alaRg the street. WheR the aRgle af iRterseetiaR
hebveeR the street aRft the alley is less thaR 39 ftegrees, the ftistaRee
shall he 25 feet. Ha str~et~re ar l'artiaR thereaf shall he ereeteft withiR
teR feet af the ftri'tJewa'js.
2. State af OregaR '.'isiaR ClearaRee StaRftarfts. The fallawiRg stal'l'iRg site
ftistaRees shall al'l'l\-' ta all State Highwars '.vithiR the Cit., ".vith the
I'reseriheft sl'eeft Ii",its. "eRieal stal'l'iRg sight ftistaRee ta he haseft aR
ftistaRee 'ra", three aRft aRe half feet aha'\re l'a'..e",eRt ta a l'aiRt six fed
ahave the l'a'J'e...eRt. COrft.2544 51, 1989)
30 mph200 feet
35 "'l'h225 feet
49 "'l'h275 feet
45 "'l'h325 feet
55 "'l'h459 fed
3. The visiaR elearaRee staRftarfts estahlisheft 15-, this seetiaR are Rat s~hieet
ta the yariaRee seetiaR af this title. COrft. 2695 52, 1999)
DC.
1.
Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments.
All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in
excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access
points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods
established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited.
SECTION 85, 18.72.170. Site Design and Use Standards, Development Standards
for Disc Antennas, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.72.170 Development Standards for Disc Antennas
A. Building Permit Required. All disc antennas shall be subject to review and approval
of the building official where required by the Building Code.
B. Development Standards. All disc antennas shall be located, designed, constructed,
treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards:
1. Antennas shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of
the Building Code.
2. Disc antennas exceeding one (ll meter 36 iRehes in diameter shall not be
permitted on the roof, except where there is no other location on the lot which
provides access to receiving or transmitting signals. In no case shall any part of
any antenna be located more than ten feet above the apex of the roof surface.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 47 -
Antennas mounted on the roof shall be located in the least visible location as
viewed from adjacent right-of-ways, and residential structures in residential zones.
3. No more than one disc antenna shall be permitted on each tract of land.
4. Ground mounted disc antennas shall be erected or maintained to the rear of the
main building, except in those instances when the subject property is cul-de-sac or
corner lot where the side yard is larger than the rear yard, in which case the
antenna may be located in the side yard. Antennas shall not be located in any
required setback area. No portion of an antenna array shall extend beyond the
property lines or into any front yard area. Guy wires shall not be anchored within
any front yard area but may be attached to the building.
5. Antennas may be ground-mounted, free standing, or supported by guy wires,
buildings, or other structures in compliance with the manufacturer's structural
specifications. Ground-mounted antennas shall be any antenna with its base
mounted directly in the ground, even if such antenna 'is supported or attached to
the wall of a building.
6. The antenna, including guy wires, supporting structures and accessory equipment,
shall be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact on surrounding
properties and from public streets. Antennas shall be screened through the
addition of architectural features and/or landscaping that harmonize with the
elements and characteristics of the property. The materials used in constructing
the antenna shall not be unnecessarily bright, shiny, garish, or reflective.
Whenever possible, disc antennas shall be constructed out of mesh material and
painted a color that will blend with the background.
7. Antennas shall meet all manufacturer's specifications. The mast or tower shall be
non-combustible. Corrosive hardware, such as brackets, turnbuckles, clips and
similar type equipment if used, shall be protected by plating or otherwise to guard
against corrosion.
8. Every antenna must be adequately grounded, for protection against a direct strike
of lightning, with an adequate ground wire. Ground wires shall be of the type
approved by the latest edition of the Electrical Code for grounding masts and
lightning arrestors and shall be installed in a mechanical manner, with as few
bends as possible, maintaining a clearance of at least two inches from combustible
materials. Lightning arrestors shall be used that are approved as safe by the
Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., and both sides of the line must be adequately
protected with proper arrestors to remove static charges accumulated on the line.
When lead-in conductors of polyethylene ribbon-type are used, lightning arrestors
must be installed in each conductor. When coaxial cable or shielded twin lead is
used for lead-in, suitable protection may be provided without lightning arrestors by
grounding the exterior metal sheath.
9. Antennas may contain no sign or graphic design as defined in the Ashland Sign
Code, even if the sign is permitted on the property.
SECTION 86, 18.72.180, Site Design and Use Standards, Development Standards
for Wireless Communication Facilities, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended
to read as follows:
18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities.
A. Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that
regulate the placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities,
while providing residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services
that these facilities support.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 48 -
Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the
impact imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but the
community as a whole.
The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of
wireless communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible,
especially in or near residential areas.
B. Submittals - In addition to the submittals required in section 18.72.060, the
following items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless
communication facility.
1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a
photo montage of the overall facility as proposed.
2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min 1"=10').
3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and
accessory buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of
the exterior materials.
4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150
feet of the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater
tha n 80 feet.
5. A map showing existing wireless communication facility sites operated by the
applicant within a 5 mile radius of the proposed site.
6. A collocation feasibility study that adequately indicates collocation efforts were
made and states the reasons collocation can or cannot occur.
7. A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement
does not preclude collocation.
8. Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number
and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate.
9. Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the
applicable design standards.
10. Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform
members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication
facility. Documentation to include:
a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility.
b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the
meeting.
c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the
meeti ng.
d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting.
C. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed,
constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards:
1. General Provisions
a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the
requirements of the Building Code. At the time of building permit application,
written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the
Aeronautics Section of the Oregon .Department of Transportation, and the
Federal Communication Commission that the proposed wireless
communication faCility complies with regulations administered by that agency,
or that the facility is exempt from regulation.
b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or
below ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve
minimal visual impact with the surrounding environment.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 49 -
c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations
imposed in each zoning district.
d. WCF shall be installed at the minimum height and mass necessary for its
intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height and mass shall be
prepared by a licensed engineer.
e. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of
two non-illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating
the name of the facility operator and a contact phone number.
f. Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site
and return the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the
Staff Advisor, if the facility is abandoned for a period greater than six
months. Removal and restoration must occur within 90 days of the end of the
six month period.
2. Preferred Designs
a. Where possible, the use of existing WCF sites for new installations shall be
encouraged. Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the
preferred option.
b. If (a) above is not feasible, WCF shall be attached to pre-existing structures,
when feasible.
c. If (a) or (b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall be used with
design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts
created by the proposed WCF.
d. If (a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a monopole design shall be
used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical manner to lessens
the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design. Platform
designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached
antenna design is not feasible.
e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support
structures.
3. Landscaping. The following standards apply to all WCF with any primary or
accessory equipment located on the ground and visible from a residential use or
the public right-of-way
a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought
resistant landscaped area.
b. The perimeter of the WCF shall be enclosed with a security fence or wall.
Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a natural sight
obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet.
c. The outer perimeter of the WCF shall have a 10 foot landscaped buffer zone.
d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper
growth and health of the vegetation.
e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide
a continuous canopy around the perimeter of the WCF. Each tree shall have a
caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the time of planting.
4. Visual Impacts
a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be
integrated into the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent
possible, shall not exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative
structure.
b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual
impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with
its purpose.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 50 -
c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a
non-reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the
structure to which it is attached.
d. WCF, in any zone, must be set back from any residential zone a distance
equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement may be reduced if,
as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated through
findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved
within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject
to the setback requirement.
e. Exterior lighting for a WCF is permitted only when required by a federal or
state authority.
f. All wireless communication support structures must have a non-reflective
finish and color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by
other government agencies.
g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of
visual impact of the WCF, additional design measures may be required.
These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage materials
and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding
techniques.
5. Collocation standards
a. Each addition of an antenna to an existing WCF requires a building permit,
unless the additional antenna increases the height of the facility more than
ten feet.
b. Addition of antennas to an existing WCF that increases the overall height of
the facility more than ten feet is subject to a site review. n(ORD 2802, 53
1997)
D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the
requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use
Standards and are subject to the following approval process:
Zonina Desianations Attached to Alternative Freestandina
Existina Structures SUDDort
Structures Structures
Residential Zones(l) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited
C-1-D CDowntownl(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
-C-1 - Freewav overlav Site Review Site Review CUP
E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
SOU Site Review CUP CUP
NM (North Mountainl Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Historic District(2) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
A-1 CAirDort Overlavl CUP CUP CUP
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 51 -
HC (Health Care)
CUP
Prohibited
Prohibited
SECTION 87, 18.76.040, Partitions, Administrative Preliminary Approval, of the
Ashland Municipal Code is deleted as follows:
18.76.040. Ad...il'listrative Prelil'l'li"al"'l." ABBre'./al
Prelil'l'lil'lary al'l're.."al fer all ...i"er la"d I'artitie"s whieh reEltlire "e T"'l'e II
";I'arial'lees shall be I'reeessed tI"der the T-'I'e I I'reeedtlre.
SECTION 88, 18.76.050, Partitions, Preliminary Approval by the Planning
Commission, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.76.050. Preliminary Aooroval b"w" the Pla""i"q Cel'l'l...issiel'l
If the I'rel'esed I'artitie" dees "et al'l'ear te eel'l'll'l-j with the reEltlirel'l'le"ts
fer retltil'le ad...i"istratiwe al'l're"..al, the I'rel'esal shall be stlb...itted te the
Plal'll'li"!J Ce......issiel'l a"d An application for a preliminary partition shall be
approved when the following conditions exist:
A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be
impeded.
B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will
not be impeded.
C. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months.
D. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable
to the land.
E. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained
in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 283658, 1999)
F. When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be
provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City
documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity.
G. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the
parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in
the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic
concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum
width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public
Works Department.
1. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor
land partition when all of the following conditions exist:
a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street.
b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not
exceed ten percent.
2. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the
applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the
owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners
agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not
remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such
improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 52 -
requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if
the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied.
H. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be
provided from the alley and prohibited from the street.
SECTION 89, 18.76.060, Partitions, Preliminary Approval of Flag Partitions, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.76.060. Preliminary Approval of Flaq Partitions. Partitions involving the creation of
flag lots shall be approved by the Planning Commission if the following conditions are
satisfied:
A. Conditions of the previous section have been met.
B. Except as provided in subsection 18.76.060.K, the flag drive for one flag lot
shall have a minimum width of 15 feet, and a 12 foot paved driving surface.
For drives serving two lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with 15 feet of
driving surface to the back of the first lot, and 12 feet, respectively, for the
rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet,
with a 15 foot paved driving surface.
Flag drives shall be constructed so as to prevent surface drainage from
flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. Flag drives shall be in the same
ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the
same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an
easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. There shall be
no parking 10 feet on either side of the flag drive entrance.
Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15%. Variances may
be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15% but no greater than
18% for no more than 200'. Such variances shall be required to meet all of
the criteria for approval as found in 18.100.
Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in
18.08.290, shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20 feet by 40 feet within 50 feet
of the structure. The Fire Work Area requirement shall be waived if the
structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system
installed.
Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads
under the Oregon "..iter... Fire Code and subject to all requirements
thereof.
When required by the Oregon Fire Code, Fflag drives greater than 150
~ feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance
Standards Guidelines in 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor, in coordination
with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround
requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length when taking the
following factors into consideration:
1. Oregon Fire Code access exemptions.
2. Physical constraints such as slope, significant trees, cuts and
fills.
3. Transportation layout and traffic impacts.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 53 -
4. Number of units served by the flag drive.
C. Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated in such a manner as to
eliminate the necessity for backing out.
D. Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common
driveways.
E. Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence,
wall or evergreen hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the
front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the
height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such
fence or landscaping shall be placed at the extreme outside of the flag drive
in order to ensure adequate fire access.
F. The applicant has executed and filed with the Planning Department ircctor an
agreement between applicant and the city for paving and screening of the flag
drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant,
or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as
specified by the Director of Public Works and screening as required by this
section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work
within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost
and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for
the maintenance of the paving and screening to standards as indicated in this
section and the assurance that such maintenance shall be continued.
G. A site plan has been approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan
shall be approved provided the regulations of the zoning and subdivision titles
are satisfied. Such a site plan shall contain the map requirements listed in
Section 18.76.050 and the following information:
1. The location of driveways, turnarounds parking spaces and useable yard
areas.
2. The location and type of screening.
3. For site plans of a flag lot, the building envelope shall be identified.
H. No more than two lots are served by the flag drive.
I. For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area,
exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage
requirements of the zoning district.
J. Flag lots shall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal
dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term
"useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a
structure or automobile from the ground upward.
K. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this
section, except that:
1. Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition
of approval;
2. No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole;
3. A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flag pole,
improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver
block surface from the street to the buildable area of the flag lot;
4. The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance
of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flaglot
clearly visible from the street on a 4" X 4" post 3Y2 feet high. The post
shall be painted white with black numbers 3 inches high running vertically
down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings,
the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two feet by three feet white
sign clearly visible from the street with three inch black numbers.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 54 -
SECTION 90, 18.76.075, Partitions, Expiration of Preliminary Partition Plan, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is added and reads as follows:
18.76.075. EXDiration.of Preliminarv Partition Plan.
Preliminary partition plans approved under this Chapter shall expire if a
final partition plat has not been approved by the City within eighteen (18)
months of preliminary plan approval.
SECTION 91, 18.88.050.E., Performance Standards Options, Street Standards,
Street Grade, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.88.050 Street Standards.
E. Street Grade. Street grades measured at the street centerline for dedicated streets
and flag drives shall be as follows:
1. Street and private drive grades in Performance Standards Developments shall not
exceed a maximum grade of 15%. No variance may be granted to this section
for public streets. Variances may be granted for private drives for grades in
excess of 15% but not greater than 18% for no more than 200'. Such variances
shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval as found in 18.100.
Private drives serving structures greater than 24' in height, as defined in 18.08.290,
shall provide a Fire Work Area of 20' by 40' within 50' of the structure. The Fire
Work Area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an
approved automatic sprinkler system installed.
Private drives and work areas shall be deemed F4re Lanes and subject to all
requirements thereof.
When required by the Oregon Fire Code, pprivate drives greater than .as&! 150
feet in length shall provide a turnaround as defined in the Performance Standards
Guidelines as provided in 18.88.090. The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the
Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement
up to a maximum of 250 feet in length when taking the following factors
into consideration:
1. Oregon Fire Code access exemptions.
2. Physical constraints such as slope, significant trees, cuts and fills.
3. Transportation layout and traffic impacts.
4. Number of units served by the flag drive.
SECTION 92, 18.92.070, Off-Street Parking, Automobile Parking Design
Requirements, of the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements
A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 55 -
of 9 x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with
18.92.050. Parking spaces EIfNI shall have a 22 faat back-up maneuvering
space no less than twenty-two (22) feet, except where parking is angled, and
which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles.
B.' Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to
parking areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a
shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet.
2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with
adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a
forward manner.
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway
20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site,
with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and
permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be
served by a driveway 12 feet in width.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by
minor land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway
intersections with streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots
where feasible. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured
from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway
approach.
b. Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family
developments shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have
been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all
necessary access easements.
c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and
driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or
the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with
standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be
done under permit of the Engineering Division.
C. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width.
D. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area
except as set forth in Section 18.68.020. Ha sig..s, strtlettlres ar ".-egetatia..
ift exeess af twa a..d a..e half feet i.. height shall he plaeed i.. the visia..
eleara..ee area. The ".'isia.. eleara..ee area is the tria..gle fer...ed h"r' a Ii..e
ea....eeti..g pai..ts 25 feet fra... the i..terseetia.. af prepert"t' Ii..es. I.. the
ease af a.. i..terseetia.. i"~'al"..i..g a.. aile)' a..d a street, the tria..gle is far...ed
hrr' a Ii..e ea....eeti..g pai..ts te.. (19) feet ala..g the aile", a..d 25 feet ala..g
the street. Whe.. the a..gle af i..terseetie.. hetwee.. the street a..d the aile",
is less tha.. 39 degrees, the dista..ee shall he 25 feet. Ha sig..s, strtlettlres
ar ""egetatia.. ar partia.. thereaf shall he ereeted withi.. te.. (19) feet af
dri~-ewa",s tI..less the sa...e is less tha.. twa a..d a..e half feet i.. height. The
....isia.. eleara..ee sta..dards estahlished h", this seetia.. are ..at stlhjeet ta the
\faria..ee seetia.. af this title.
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided
below, shall apply in all cases, except Single-family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards
on file in the office of the City Engineer.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 56 -
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-a rounds shall have
provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet
flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private
property.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing
constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces
permanently and clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and
width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so
constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where
appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no
vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen
hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall
be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way
line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required
screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or
hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately
maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be
maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be
designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways
are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like
institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than
five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as
measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be
reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street
property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings
shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12
months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls,
fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking
areas.
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to
cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including
the landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be
uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation
facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees,
plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven
parking spaces is required.
8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light
element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property.
SECTION 93, 18.96.070, Sign Regulations, Residential sign Regulations, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.96.070 Residential and North Mountain Sign Regulations.
Signs in the residential (R) and North Mountain (NM) districts tat shall conform
to the following regulations:
A. Special Provisions:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 57 -
1. No sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the
premises on which such sign is located.
2. Internally illuminated signs shall not be permitted.
3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as permitting any type of sign in
conjunction with a commercial use allowed as a home occupation, as no signs are
allowed in conjunction with a home occupation. Signs in residential areas are
only permitted in conjunction with a Conditional Use.
B. Type of Signs Permitted.
1. Neighborhood identification signs. One sign shall be permitted at each
entry point to residential developments not exceeding an area of six square
feet per sign with lettering not over nine inches in height, located not over
three feet above grade.
2. Conditional Uses. Uses authorized in accordance with the Chapter on
Conditional Use Permits may be permitted one ground sign not exceeding an
overall height of five feet and an area of fifteen square feet, set back at least
ten feet from property lines; or one wall sign in lieu of a ground sign. Such
signs shall be approved in conjunction with the issuance of such conditional
use permit. Said signs shall not use plastic as part of the exterior visual
effect and shall not be internally illuminated.
3. Retail commercial uses allowed as a conditional use in the Railroad District
and traveler's accommodations in residential zones shall be allowed one wall
sign or one ground sign which meets the following criteria:
a. The total size of the sign is limited to six square feet.
b. The maximum height of any ground sign is to be three feet above grade.
c. The sign must be constructed of wood and cannot be internally
illuminated.
4. North Mountain Signs. Signs for approved non-residential uses within
the NM-R15, NM-C and NM Civic zones shall be Dermitted one ground
sign not exceeding an overall height of five feet and an area of fifteen
square feet, set back at least ten feet from property lines; or one wall
or awning sign in lieu of a ground sign. Said signs shall not use
plastic as part of the exterior visual effect and shall not be internally
illuminated.
SECTION 94, 18.96.150, Sign Regulations, Governmental Signs, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.96.150 Governmental Signs.
Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use to place a sign that does not
conform to this Code when the Ce......issie.. it is determineds that, in addition to
the criteria for a conditional use, the sign is necessary to further that agency's public
purpose.
SECTION 95, 18.108.015, Procedures, Pre-Application Conference, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.015. Pre-ADDlication Conference, An applicant shall request a pre-application
conference prior to submitting an application for a Type I, II or III planning action or
an Expedited Land Division. The purpose of the conference shall be to acquaint
the applicant with the substantive and procedural requirements of the Land Use
Ordinance, provide for an exchange of information regarding applicable elements of
the comprehensive plan and development requirements and to identify policies and
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 58 -
regulations that create opportunities or pose significant constraints for the proposed
development. The Staff advisor is authorized to waive pre-application
conference requirements and to create procedures which allow for
electronic or other alternative forms of conferences.
SECTION 96, 18.108.017, Procedures, Applications, of the Ashland Municipal Code,
is amended to read as follows:
18.108.017 Applications.
A. In order to initiate a planning action, three f:8l'ies 8f a complete application shall be
submitted to the Planning Department as set forth below.
1. Complete applications shall include:
a. All of the required information for the specific action requested,
b. Written findings of fact,
c. Complete and signed application form. The application must be signed by one
or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is
requested, or their authorized agents. The application shall not be considered
complete unless it is accompanied by the appropriate application fee.
2. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178.
The City will inform the applicant of deficiencies within 30 days of application.
The applicant then has 31 days in which to provide a complete application. The
City will begin the appropriate application procedure when the application is
deemed complete, or at the end of the 31 day period.
3. The Staff Advisor is authorized to set standards and procedures for
application submittal requirements, including the number and type of
applications required (e.g. hard and/or electronic copies), size and
format of applications (e.g. paper size and electronic format), and dates
when applications can be received. The Staff Advisor shall make the
requirements for application submittals readily available to the public to
review.
B. All applicants for Types I, II and III planning actions shall have completed a pre-
application conference for the project within a 6-month time period preceding the
filing of the application. This requirement may be waived by the Staff Advisor if in
the Staff Advisor's opinion the information to be gathered in a pre-application
conference already exists in the final application.
SECTION 97, 18.108.020, Procedures, Types of Procedures, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.020 Types of Procedures..!.
There are three general types of procedures: 1) ministerial actions; 2)
planning actions, and 3) legislative amendments. When a project proposal
involves more than one application and more than one type of procedure,
the applications shall be reviewed together by the same decision body and
follow the highest level procedure applying to anyone of the applications.
A. Ministerial Actions. The Staff Advisor shall have the authority to review and
approve or deny the following matters which shall be ministerial actions:
1. Final subdivision plat approval. (18.80.050)
2. Final partition map approval. (18.76.120)
4. Minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 59 -
5. Boundary line adjustments. (18.76.140)
6. Zoning permits. (18.112.010)
7. Sign permits. (18.96.050)
8. Home occupation permits. (18.94.130)
9. Extension of time limits for approved planning actions (18.112.030).
10.Mechanical equipment exempt from Site Review.
11.Conversion of existing multi-family dwelling units into for-purchase
housing.
B. Planning Actions. All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the
four following procedures:
h Staff Permit Preeedtlre
1~. Type I Procedure
2a. Type II Procedure
34. Type III Procedure
4. Expedited Land Divisions
C. Legislative Amendments. Legislative amendments shall be subject to the
procedures established in section 18.108.170.
SECTION 98, 18.108.025, Procedures, Consolidated Review Procedures, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is added and reads as follows:
18.108.025 Consolidated Review Procedures.
An applicant may apply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed
for a development project. The consolidated procedure shall be subject to
the time limitations set out in ORS 227.178. The consolidated procedure
shall follow the most restrictive procedure in the development project.
SECTION 99, 18.108.030, Procedures, Expedited Land Divisions - Staff Permits, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.030, EXDedited Land Divisions Staff PerMit Preeedtlre.
A. Applicability.
1. An expedited land division is an action that:
a. Includes land that is zoned for residential uses.
b. Is solely for the purposes of residential use, including recreational
or open space uses accessory to residential use.
c. Does not provide for dwellings or accessory buildings to be located
on land that is specifically mapped and designated for full or
partial protection of natural features that protect open spaces,
physical and environmental constraints per Chapter 18.62,
riparian corridors, wetlands, designated historic districts or
structures.
d. Meets minimum standards in the Street Standards Handbook and
Section 18.88.050.
e. Creates enough lots or parcels to allow building residential units
at 80 percent (800/0) or more of the maximum net density
permitted by the zoning designation of the site.
2. A land division that creates three or fewer parcels under ORS 92.010
and ALUO 18.76.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 60 -
3. An expedited land division as described in this section is not a land
use decision or a limited land use decision under ORS 197.015 or a
permit under ORS 227.160.
4. All requirements outlined in Chapter 18.76 apply to expedited land
divisions except for those provisions modified within this section.
B. Procedure and Notice Requirements.
1. Application Completeness.
a. If the application for expedited land division is incomplete, the
Staff Advisor shall notify the applicant of exactly what information
is missing within 21 days of receipt of the application and allow
the applicant to submit the missing information. For purposes of
computation of time under this section, the application shall be
deemed complete on the date the applicant submits the requested
information or refuses in writing to submit it.
b. If the application was complete when first submitted or the
applicant submits the requested additional information within 180
days of the date the application was first submitted, approval or
denial of the application shall be based upon the standards and
criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first
submitted.
2. The city shall provide written notice of the receipt of the completed
application for an expedited land division to any state agency, local
government or special district responsible for providing public
facilities or services to the development and to owners of property
within 100 feet of the entire contiguous site for which the application
is made. The notification list shall be compiled from the most recent
property tax assessment roll. For purposes of appeal to the referee
under ORS 197.375, this requirement shall be deemed met when the
local government can provide an affidavit or other certification that
such notice was given. Notice shall also be provided to any
neighborhood or community planning organization recognized by the
governing body and whose boundaries include the site.
3. The notice required under subsection (2) of this section shall:
a. State:
i. The deadline for submitting written comments;
ii. That issues that may provide the basis for an appeal to the
.
referee must be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the
comment period; and
iii. That issues must be raised with sufficient specificity to enable
the local government to respond to the issue.
b. Set forth, by commonly used citation, the applicable criteria for
the decision.
c. Set forth the street address or other easily understood
geographical reference to the subject property.
d. State the place, date and time that comments are due.
e. State a time and place where copies of all evidence submitted by
the applicant will be available for review.
f. Include the name and telephone number of a local government
contact person.
g. Briefly summarize the local decision-making process for the
expedited land division decision being made.
4. After notice under subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the city
shall:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 61 -
a. Provide a 14-day period for submission of written comments prior
to the decision.
b. Make a decision to approve or deny the application within 63 days
of receiving a completed application, based on whether it satisfies
the substantive requirements of the local government's land use
regulations. An approval may include conditions to ensure that the
application meets the applicable land use regulations. For
applications subject to this section, the city:
i. Shall not hold a hearing on the application; and
ii. Shall issue a written determination of compliance or
noncompliance with applicable land use regulations that
includes a summary statement explaining the determination.
The summary statement may be in any form reasonably
intended to communicate the local government's basis for the
determination.
c. Provide notice of the decision to the applicant and to those who
received notice under subsection (2) of this section within 63 days
of the date of a completed application. The notice of decision shall
include:
i. The summary statement described in paragraph (b )(ii) of this
subsection; and
ii. An explanation of appeal rights under ORS 197.375
C. Appeals
1. An appeal of a decision made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365 shall
be made as follows:
a. An appeal must be filed with the local government within 14 days
of mailing of the notice of the decision under ORS 197.365 (4),
and shall be accompanied by a $300 deposit for costs.
b. A decision may be appealed by:
i. The applicant; or
ii. Any person or organization who files written comments in the
time period established under ORS 197.365.
c. An appeal shall be based solely on allegations:
i. Of violation of the substantive provisions of the applicable land
use regulations;
ii. Of unconstitutionality of the decision;
iii. That the application is not eligible for review under ORS
197.360 to 197.380 and should be reviewed as a land use
decision or limited land use decision; or
iv. That the parties' substantive rights have been substantially
prejudiced by an error in procedure by the local government.
2. The city shall appoint a referee to decide the appeal of a decision
made under ORS 197.360 and 197.365. The referee shall not be an
employee or official of the local government. The City Administrator is
authorized to hire, under contract on an as needed basis, a referee to
decide such appeals. If the city has designated a hearings officer
under ORS 227.165, the City Administrator may designate the
hearings officer as the referee for appeals of a decision made under
ORS 197.360 and 197.365.
3. Within seven days of being appointed to decide the appeal, the
referee shall notify the applicant, the local government, the appellant
if other than the applicant, any person or organization entitled to
notice under ORS 197.365 (2) that provided written comments to the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 62 -
local government and all providers of public facilities and services
entitled to notice under ORS 197.365 (2) and advise them of the
manner in which they may participate in the appeal. A person or
organization that provided written comments to the local government
but did not file an appeal under subsection (1) of this section may
participate only with respect to the issues raised in the written
comments submitted by that person or organization. The referee may
use any procedure for decision-making consistent with the interests
of the parties to ensure a fair opportunity to present information and
argument. The referee shall provide the local government an
opportunity to explain its decision, but is not limited to reviewing the
local government decision and may consider information not
presented to the local government.
4. Referee Decision.
a. The referee shall apply the substantive requirements of the local
government's land use regulations and ORS 197.360. If the
referee determines that the application does not qualify as an
expedited land division as described in ORS 197.360, the referee
shall remand the application for consideration as a land use
decision or limited land use decision. In all other cases, the
referee shall seek to identify means by which the application can
satisfy the applicable requirements.
b. The. referee may not reduce the density of the land division
application. The referee shall make a written decision approving or
denying the application or approving it with conditions designed to
ensure that the application satisfies the land use regulations,
within 42 days of the filing of an appeal. The referee may not
remand the application to the local government for any reason
other than as set forth in this subsection.
5 Unless the governing body of the local government finds exigent
circumstances, a referee who fails to issue a written decision within
42 days of the filing of an appeal shall receive no compensation for
service as referee in the appeal.
6. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the referee shall order
the city to refund the deposit for costs to an appellant who materially
improves his or her position from the decision of the local
government. The referee shall assess the cost of the appeal in excess
of the deposit for costs, up to a maximum of $500, including the
deposit paid under subsection (1) of this section, against an appellant
who does not materially improve his or her position from the decision
of the local government. The local government shall pay the portion
of the costs of the appeal not assessed against the appellant. The
costs of the appeal include the compensation paid the referee and
costs incurred by the local government, but not the costs of other
parties.
D. Effective Date of Decision. Unless appealed within 14 days of mailing a
notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision becomes final on the 15th
day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and
ORS 197.375.
A. Aetiefts IfteltlEleEl. The fellewiRg plaRRiftg aetieRs shall be stlbjeet te the
Staff I"er",it I"reeeEltlre:
1. Site Reo.dew fer twe er three resiEleRtial tlRits eft a siRgle let.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 63 -
2. Ph"fSieal a..d E..r..ira.....~..tal Ca..strai..ts Re.."i~vJ Per...its as allaw~d i..
Chal'ter 18.62.
3. ':aria..ees d~serih~d i.. Seetia.. 18.79.969.
4. Site R~".;iews i.. C 1, E 1, HC a..d ~4 Ea..~s fer ~xl'a..sia..s af a..
~xisti..g ttS~ that da ..at reqttire ..~w httildi..g ar~a i.. ~)(e~ss af 2,599
sql:lar~ f~d, ar ...adifieatia.. af ...ar~ tha.. 19% af th~ area af the site.
5. Ext~..sia.. af ti...e Ii...its far al'l'raV'~d I'la....i..g aetia..s. Twa
exte..sia..s af ttl' ta 12 ...a..ths eaeh ft'Ia", he al'l'ra"..ed l:I..der the
fellawi..g ea..ditia..s:
a. A eha..ge af ea..ditia..s, fer whieh the al'l'liea..t was ..at
resl'a..sihle, I'reo..~..ted the al'l'liea..t fra... ea"'l'ldi..g the
d~V'e1al'...e..t withi.. the arigi..al tift'l~ Ii...itatia.., a..d
h. La..d Use Ordi..a..c~ reqttir~ft'I~..ts al'l'lieahle ta the de...e1al'ft'I~..t
ha61e ..at eha..ged si..ee the arigi..al al'l'ra"..al. A.. ~xte..sia.. ...a".." he
gra..t~d, haw~Yer, if reqttir~...e..ts ha".le eha..g~d a..d th~ al'l'liea..t
agr~es ta ca"'I'I",." with a..y sttch eha..g~s.
6. The fallawi..g deo.'e1al'...e..ts stthjeet ta th~ Sit~ Desig.. a..d Us~
Sta..dards i.. s~etia.. 18.72.949.A:
a. A..".." eha..g~ af aeel:ll'a..e"{ fra... a I~ss i..t~..si"..e ta a ft'Iar~ i..t~..si'...~
aeel:ll'a..ey, as d~fi..~d i.. th~ Cit", hl:lildi..g ead~, ar a..," eha..ge i..
ttse vJhieh r~qttires a gr~at~r ..1:I...her af I'arki..g sl'aees.
h. A..",." additia.. less tha.. 2,599 sqttare fed ar te.. I'eree..t af the
httildi..g's sql:lare featage, whiehe"....~r is less, ta a hl:lildi..g.
e. All i..stallatia..s af ...eeha..ieal eqttil'...~..t i.. a..', Ea..e.
d. I..stallatia.. af dise a..te....as stthj~et ta the reql:lire...e..ts af
Seetia.. 18.72.169. A.." dise a..te....a far ea......ereial I:Ise i.. a
reside..tial Ea..e shall alsa he stthj~et ta a Ca..ditia..al Use Per...it
(18.194).
e. A..,.." ext~riar eha..ge ta a strl:letttre listed a.. the Natia..al Register
af Histarie Plae~s.
7. A..", ather I'la....i..g aetia.. d~sig..ated as sl:lhjeet ta the Staff Perft'lit
Praeedttre.
8. Other I'la....i..g aetia..s ..at atherwise listed ar desig..ated as a T"fl'e I,
II ar III I'rac~dl:lre.
B. Ti...e Li...its, Natiee a..d Heari..g Reql:lire...e..ts. Al'l'lieatia..s sl:lhjeet ta
the Staff P~r...it Praeedttre shall he I'rae~ss~d as fallaws:
1. Withi.. 14 days after reeeil't af a eaft'll'lete al'l'lieatia.. the Staff
Ad"....isar shall al'l'ra'.'e, al'l'ra'..e with ea..ditia..s ar de..',." the
al'l'lieatia.. 1:I..less stteh ti...e Ii...itatia.. is ext~..ded with the ea..se..t
af the al'l'liea..t. The Staff Ad".lisar shall e..ter fi..di..gs a..d
ea..ell:lsia..s ta jttstifr the deeisia...
2. Natiee af the deeisia.. shall he ft'Iailed withi.. se1l-"e.. da"{s af the
d~eisia... The ..atiee shall ea..tai.. the fallawi..g i..farft'latia..:
a. The d~eisia.. af the Staff Ad1l-"isar a..d the date af the deeisia...
h. That..a I'l:Ihlie heari..g will he held 1:I..less sl'~eifieallv reqtt~sted.
e. That a reqttest far a I'tthlic heari..g ...l:Ist he ...ade h)" the date
i..dicated a.. the ..atiee i.. arder far a I'tthlie h~ari..g ta he
sehedttled.
d. That a reqtlest fer a I'tlhlie heari"g shall i"eltlde the "aft'le B"d
address af the I'~rsa" reqttesti..g the I'tthlic heari"g, the file
"1:Ift'lh~r af the I'la"..i..g actia.. a..EI the sl'eeific gratt..ds far which
the decisia.. shal:lld he re".;ersed ar ft'Iadified, hased a.. the
al'l'licahle criteria ar I'racedttral irregl:llarity.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 200B-p. 64 -
3. Netiee shall Ite ",aileel te the fellewing I'ersens:
a. The al'l'lieant, er atltheriEeel agent.
It. The stlltjeet I'rel'ertJ ewner.
e. All ewners ef reeerel ef I'rel'el+{ en the ",estreeent I'rel'ert', tax
assess",ent rell within the I'letice area eldineel as that area withil'l
199 feet ef the stlltjeet I'rel'ert'j.
4. I"'ersel'ls te whe", the netiee is ",aileel shall ha'.e 19 ela'fs fre", the elate
ef "'aml'lg in whieh te refltlest a I'tlltlie hearing. Refltlests fer a I'tlltlie
hearing shall ",ed the fellewing refltlire",ents:
a. The refll:lest shall Ite fileel It', the elate sl'eeifieel in the I'letice ef
eleeisiel'l.
It. The refll:lest shall Ite in writing anel il'lell:lele the al'I'ellal'lt's I'la"'e,
aelelress, the file nl:l",lter ef the I'lal'lning aetiel'l al'lel the sl'eeific
gretll'lels fer whieh the eleeisien shel:llel Ite re'.'erseel er ",eelifieel,
Itaseel el'l the al'l'liealtle eriteria er I'reeeell:lral irregtllarity.
5. If a refltlest fer a I'tlltlie hearing is ti...el", reeei",,"eel, a I'l:Iltlie hearil'lg shall
Ite seheell:lleel fer the I'lext regl:llar Ce",,,,issien er Hearings Bearel
"'eetil'lg allewing aelefll:late ti",e te "'eet the netiee refll:lire",ents ef
seetiel'l 18.198.989. The I'l:Iltlie hearil'lg shall Ite il'l aeeerel with the
refll:lire"'el'lts ef sediel'l 18.198.199.
SECTION 100, 18.108.040, Procedures, Type I Procedure, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.040 Type I Procedure.
A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I
Procedure:
1. Site Desian Review. The following developments that are subject to the
Site Design Review Standards outlined in 18.72 shall follow the Type I
permit procedures.
a. Downtown Desian Standards Zone. Any development which is less
than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square
footage, whichever is less.
b. Detail Site Review. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone,
as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter
18.72, which is less than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area.
c. Commercial. Industrial and Non-residential Uses
i. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-l, E-l, HC and M
zones, not within the Downtown Design Standards zone, that do not
require new building area in excess of 200/0 of an existing building's
square footage or 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever
is less.
ii. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 100/0 of the area
of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less
iii.Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or
other changes which alters circulation affecting adjacent property or
public right-of-way.
iv.Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive
occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use
which requires a greater number of parking spaces.
v. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another
general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 65 -
defined by the zoning regulations of this Code.
vi. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit
and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a
contributing property within an Historic District on the National
Register of Historic Places.
d. Residential
i. Two or more residential units on a single lot.
ii. All new structures or additions less than 10,000 square feet of
gross floor area, other than single-family homes or accessory uses
on individual lots
iii.Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes,
condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts.
iv.Off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved
Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not
located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g.
shared parking).
v. Anv exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit
and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
2. Miscellaneous Actions.
1. final Plan Al'l're"ll'al fer l"'erfer...ancE:l Staru:lards Stlhdivisiens.
2. SitE:l RE:l,..iE:lwS ethE:lr than thesE:l stlhjeet te a Staff PE:lr...it I"'reeedtlre er
T"I'E:l II PreeedtlrE:l.
3. I"'artitiens 1::Jhieh refltlirE:l ne ....ariafteE:ls er enl', ....ariaftcE:ls stlhjeet te
T"I'E:l I I'reeE:ldtlrE:ls.
a4.Amendments or modification to conditions of approval for Type I
planning actions.
5. CrE:latieft e' a I'ri'.-rate waj", as allewE:ld ift sE:letieft 18.89.939.B.
b. Amendment or modification to conditions of aDDroval for Type II
actions where the modification involves onlv changes to tree
removal and/or building enveloDes.planning actions:,
c. Phvsical and Environmental Constraints Review Dermits as
allowed in ChaDter 18.62.
d. Tree removal permits as required by Section 18.61.042(0).
36.Conditional Use Permits. The following conditional use permits are
subject to Type I review procedures:
a. Conditional use permits involving existing structures or additions to
existing structures, and not involving more than three (3) residential
dwelling units-er
b. -tTemporary uses.
c. Enlargement, expansion, etc. of nonconforming structures in
accordance with 18.68.090(2).
d. Government signs per Section 18.96.150.
e. The following uses in Residential zones:
i. Accessory residential units
Ii. Daycare centers.
iii. Public and public utility buildings, structures and uses less than
2,500 square feet in building footprint and disturbs less than
7,500 square feet of land.
iv. Structures in excess of 35 feet in R-3 zone.
v. All new structures, additions or expansions that exceed MPFA in
historic district up to 250/0, but the addition is no larger than 300
s.f. or 100/0 of the existing floor area, whichever is less.
vi. Hostels.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 66 -
vii. Public Parking Lots in the NM-C zone.
viii. Community Services in the NM-R15 zone.
f. The following uses in Commercial or Industrial zones:
i. Electrical substations
ii. Outdoor storage of commodities.
g. The following uses in the Health Care Services Zone:
i. Limited personal service providers in the home, such as
beauticians and masseurs.
ii. Professional offices for an accountant, architect, attorney,
designer, engineer, insurance agent or adjuster, investment or
management counselor or surveyor.
iii. Any medically-related use, located on City-owned property that is
not specifically allowed by the Ashland Community Hospital Master
Facility Plan.
h. Conditional uses in the Southern Oregon University District.
4~. Variances for:
a. Sign placement.
b. Non-conforming signs, when bringing them into conformance as described in
section 18.96.130.0.
c. Up to 50% reduction of standard yard requirements.
d. Parking in setback areas.
e. Up to 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces.
f. Up to 10% reduction in the required minimum lot area.
g. Up to 10% increase in the maximum lot coverage percentage.
h. Up to 20% reduction in lot width or lot depth requirements.
i. Up to 50% reduction for parking requirements in Ashland's Historic District as
described in section 18.92.055.
j. Up to 10% variance on height, width, depth, length or other dimension not
otherwise listed in this section.
k. Site Design and Use Standards as provided in section 18.72.090.
5. Partitions and Land Divisions.
a. Partitions which require no variances or only variances subject to
Type I procedures.
b. Creation of a private way, as allowed in section 18.80.030.B.
c. Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Subdivisions.
8. Th~ felle'.-Jing de'.-~Iel'...~nts sl:Ibjeet te th~ Site 9~sign and Use
Standards in seetien 18.72.949.B:
a. An'; ehang~ in I:Ise ef a let 're... ene g~n~ral I:Ise cat~ger'i te anether
g~neral I:Ise eategef'\", ~.g., fre... r~sid~ntial te ee......~reial, as d~fined
"'J' the Eening regl:llatiens e' this Cede.
.,. Any residential I:Ise whieh r~sl:llts in 'el:lr dVlelling I:Inits er ...er~ en a
~
e. All n~v.u strl:letl:lr~s er additiens gr~ater than 2,599 setl:lar~ f~~t, exe~l't
'er de'.'e1el'...~nts inell:ld~d in seetien 18.198.939.A.6.
69.Any other planning action designated as subject to the Type I Procedure.
7. Prior to the Staff Advisor providing notice of application and making a
decision, applicants or the Staff Advisor may request planning actions
subject to a Type I procedure be heard by the Commission or Hearings
Board. In such case, the Staff Advisor shall not make a decision and shall
schedule a hearing before the Commission or Hearings Board to be heard
as provided in section 18.108.050.
B. Notice of ADDlication. Ti...~ Li...its, Netiee and H~aring R~etl:lire...~nti!J.
Al'l'lieatiens sl:l"j~et te th~ T'/I'~ I I"ree~dl:lr~ shall "e I'ree~si!J~d as fellews:
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 67 -
1. Within 10 days of the city's determination that an application is
complete, but no less than 20 days before the Staff Advisor makes a
decision, written notice of the application shall be mailed to all of the
following:
a. Applicant.
b. Owners of the subject property.
c. Owners of properties located within 200 feet of the perimeter of the
subject property.
d. Neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized
by the city council that includes the area of the subject property.
e. For final partitions, final subdivisions, and final Outline Plans, to
interested parties of record from the tentative decision.
f. For modification applications, to persons who requested notice of the
original application that is being modified.
2. The written notice shall include all of the following:
a. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference
to the subject property.
b. The applicable criteria for the decision, listed by commonly used
citation.
c. The place, date, and time that comments are due.
d. A statement that copies of all evidenct[! relied upon by the applicant
are available for review, and can be obtained at cost.
e. A statement that issues that may provide the basis for an appeal to
the Land Use Board of Appeals must be raised in writing and with
sufficient specificity to enable the decision maker to respond to the
issue.
f. The name and phone number of a city contact person.
g. A brief summary of the local decision making process for the decision
being made.
3. Posted Notice. A notice shall be posted on the subject property in such a
manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way. Posting shall
occur no later than the date of mailing notice of application.
4. Notices shall allow a 14-day period for the submission of written
comments, starting from the date of mailing. All comments must be
received by the city within that 14-day period.
c. Decision. Within 45 days of the city's determination that an application is
complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, the Staff
Advisor shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Type I application.
D. Notice of Decision.
1 Within 5 days after the Staff Advisor renders a decision, the city shall
mail notice of the decision to the following:
a. Applicant.
b. Owner and occupants of the subject property.
c. Neighborhood group or community organization officially recognized
by the city that includes the area of the subject property.
d. Any group or individual who submitted written comments during the
comment period.
e. Those groups or individuals who requested notice of the decision.
f. Property owners and occupants of property located within 200 feet of
the perimeter of the subject property.
2. The notice shall include all of the following:
a. A description of the nature of the decision of the Staff Advisor.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 68 -
b. An explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed use
or uses which could be authorized.
c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference
to the subject property.
d. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone
number where additional information may be obtained.
e. 'A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and
evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable
criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost.
f. A statement that any person who was mailed a written notice of the
Staff Advisor's decision may request reconsideration or appeal as
provided in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2).
g. A statement that the Staff Advisor's decision will not become final
until the period for filing a local appeal has expired.
h. An explanation that a person who is mailed written notice of the Staff
Advisor's decision cannot appeal directly to LUBA.
3. Unless the decision is reconsidered or appealed according to the
procedures in ALUO 18.108.070(B)(2), the Staff Advisor's decision is
effective on the 13th day after notice of the decision is mailed.
1. Ce"'l'lde al'l'lieatie..s shall Ise reviewefl at the first regularl," seheflulefl
Ce......issie.. ...eeti..g whieh is helfl at least 39 flays after the suls...issie..
ef the ee"'l'lde al'l'lieatie...
2. Withi.. 14 fla"t"s after reeeil't ef a ee"'l'lete al'l'lieatie.., the Staff Aflviser
shall al'l'rewe, al'l're'l."e v.uith ee..flitiens er flen", the al'l'lieatien u..less
sueh ti...e Ii...itatien is extenflefl with the eense..t ef the al'l'liea..t. The
Staff Afll';iser shall e..ter fi..fli..gs a..fI eenelusie..s te justif'j the fleeisie...
3. Netiee ef the fleeisien shall Ise ...ailefl withi.. se'....e.. fla"iS ef the fleeisien
te the I'ersens fleserilsefl in seetien 18.198.939.B.3. The ..etiee shall
eentai.. the inler...atie.. refluirefl in seetie.. 18.198.939.B.2 plus a
state...ent that unless a I'ulslie hearing is refluestefl, the aetie.. will Ise
re",..iewefl Isrr" the Ce......issien. I"erse..s te whe... the ..etiee is ",ailefl shall
ha"..e 19 fla",s fre", the flate ef ...ailing i.. whieh te refluest a I'ulslie
heari..g Iselere the Ce......issie... Refluests fer a I'ulslie heari..g shall
ee"ler", te the refluire...e..ts ef seetie.. 18.198.939.B.4.
4. If a refluest ler a I'ulslie heari..g is ti...e1"r" reeei\.'efl, a I'ulslie hearing shall
Ise seheflulefl fer the ..ext regular Ce......issien er Hearings Bearfl ...eeti..g
allewi..g aflefluate ti...e te ee"'l'ly with the netiee refluire...ents ef
seetien 18.198.989. The I'ulslie heari..g shall Ise i.. aeeerfl with the
refluire...e..ts ef seetie.. 18.198.199.
5. If ne refluest fer a I'ulslie heari..g is ti...el.,. reeei"..efl, the fleeisie.. shall Ise
reviewefl Is't" the Ce......issie.. er Heari..gs Bearfl at its first regularly
seheflulefl ...eeti..g 39 flays after suls...issie.. ef the al'l'lieatien. The
Ce......issien er Bearfl ...aj":
a. A...e..fI the fleeisien; i.. sueh ease, the aetie.. shall Ise re netieefl as a
T"il'e I fleeisie.., with a 7 fla"t" I'eriefl within whieh te refluest a I'ulslie
hearing, exeel't that the Ce......issien shall net re....iew the fledsien
agai.. sheulfl there Ise ..e sueh refluest filefl.
Is. Initiate a I'ulslie heari..g ef the eleeisie.., threl:lgh a ...aierity .Jete ef
these in attenflanee, te Ise hearfl at the fellewing ...e..th's regularl",
sehefluleel Ce......issie.. er Bearfl ...edi..g.
e. TalEe..e aetie.. at the "'eeting whe.. the fleeisien is seheflulefl en the
agenfla. I.. sueh ease the fleeisien is final the next fls"t".
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 69 -
6. Prier te the Staff Aelviser ....aldng a eleeisien, a""lieants er the Staff Aeliliser
....a"/ reetHest "Ianning aetiens sHhjeet te a Ty"e I "reeeelHre he hearelh", the
Ce........issien er Bearel. In sHeh case, the Staff AeI".fiser shall net ....alte a eledsien
anel shall seheelHle a hearing hdere the Ce........issien er Bearel te he hearel as
"re'llieleel in seetien 18.198.949.B.4.
SECTIO~ 101, 18.108.050, Procedures, Type II Procedure, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.050 Type II Procedure.
A. Actions Included. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type II
Procedure:
1. All Conditional Use Permits not subject to a Type I procedure.
2. All variances not subject to the Type I procedure.
3. Outline Plan for subdivisions under the Performance Standard Options CAMC
Chapter 18.88).
4. Preliminary Plat for subdivisions under the standard subdivision code CAMC
Chapter 18.80).
5. Final Plan approval for all subdivision requests under the Performance Standard
Options not requiring Outline Plan approval.
6. Any appeal "Hhlie hearing of a Staff Advisor decision, including a Type I
Planning Action or Interpretation of the Ashland Land Use Code.
resHlting 're.... the Staff Per....it PreceelHre.
7. Any other planning action not designated as subject to the TVDe I or TVDe III
Ty"e II Procedure.
B. Time Limits, Notice and Hearing Requirements. Applications subject to the Type II
Procedure shall be processed as follows:
1. The Staff Advisor, acting under the authority of ORS 227.165, may hold
an initial evidentiary hearing on Type II applications once they are
deemed complete. The Staff Advisor shall transmit copies of the record
developed at the hearing to the Commission for additional public
hearing, deliberation and decision. The Staff Advisor is not authorized to
make decisions on Type II applications.
24-.Complete applications shall be heard at a the first regularly scheduled Commission
meeting which is held at least 30 days after the submission of the complete
application.
3.a.Notice of the hearing mailed as provided in section 18.108.080.
43. Public hearing(s) shall be held before the Commission and/or Staff Advisor in
accord with the requirements of section 18.108.100.
SECTION 102, 18.108.060, Procedures, Type III Procedures, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.060. Type III Procedures
A. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III Procedure:
1. Zone Changes or Amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps,
except for legislative amendments.
2. Comprehensive Plan Map Changes or changes to other official maps, except
for legislative amendments.
3. Annexations.
4. Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 70 -
B. Standards for Type III Planning Actions.
1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes
subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may
be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application
demonstrates that:
a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable
housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning
or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the
changed circumstances; or
c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an
action; or
d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from
one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide one of the
following:
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 120% of median income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 100% of median income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 80% of median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 60% of median income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is
transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer
or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying
with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and
all needed public facilities shall be extended to the aroa or areas proposed
for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable
housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of
the project; or
e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial,
employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not
negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply
as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide one of the following:
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 120% of median income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 100% of median income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 80% of median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or
below 60% of median income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is
transferred to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer
or comparable Development Corporation for the purpose of complying
with subsection 2 above. The land shall be located within the project and
all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed
for dedication. Ownership of the land and/or air space shall be transferred
to the affordable housing developer or Development Corporation prior to
commencement of the project.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 71 -
The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be
determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole
unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to
guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than
60 years.
Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions.
C. Type III Procedure.
1. Applications subject to the Type III Procedure shall be processed as follows:
a. Complete applications shall be heard at the first regularly scheduled
Commission meeting which is held at least 45 days after the submission of
the application.
b. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed as provided in section 18.108.080.
c. A public hearing shall be held before the Commission as provided in
18.108.100.
2. Fer planning aetiens EleseribeEl in seetien 18.198.969.A. 1 anEl 2, thE
Ce......issien shall ha"""E the alltherit",. te tal(e skleh aetien as is
neeessary te ...al(e the a...enEl"'Ents te ...al's anEl EenES as a rEslIlt ef
thE Eleeisien withe lit fllrther aetien fre... thE Cellneil lInless thE
Eleeisien is appeal eel. The Eleeisien ef thE Ce......issien ...a", be
al'l'ealeEl te the Cellneil as I're\.-iElEEI in seetien 18.198.119.
3. Fer planning aetiens EleseribeEl in seetien 18.198.969.A. 3 anEl 2, t
2. The Commission shall make a report of its findings and recommendations on the
proposed action. Such report shall be forwarded to the City Council within 45
days of the public hearing.
a. Upon receipt of the report, or within 60 days of the Commission hearing, the
Council shall hold a public hearing as provided in 18.108.100. Public notice of
such hearing shall be sent as provided in section 18.108.080.
b. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, o~ deny the application.
SECTION 103, 18.108.070, Procedures, Effective Date of Decision and Appeals, of
the Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.070, Effective Date of Decision and Appeals.
A. Ministerial actions are effective on the date of the decision of the Staff Advisor and
are not subject to appeal.
B. Actions subject to appeal:
1. Staff PErmit Deeisiens. EXDedited Land Divisions. Unless appealed within
14 days of mailing a notice of decision, the Staff Advisor decision
becomes final on the 15th day. Appeals shall be considered as set forth
in ALUO 18.108.030(C) and ORS 197.375. YnlEss a reqllest fer a I'lIblie
hearing is ...aEle, thE final Eleeisien ef thE Cit, fer planning aetiens
reslllting 're... thE Staff Permit I'reeeElllrE shall be thE Staff AEI...-iser
Eleeisien, whieh shall bE ef'eetivE tEn Ela1S aftEr thE Elate ef Eleeisien. If
hearEl b}" the Ce...missien er BearEl, thE Cemmissien er BearEl Eleeisien
shall bE the final ElEeisien ef thE Cit\- en skleh mattErs, effeeti"..e 15 Ela"iS
after the finEli..gs aElel'teEl It\-" the Ce......issie.. are sig..eEl It", the Chair ef
the Cemmissie.. anEl maileEl te thE parties.
2. Type I Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. YnlEss a reqllest fer a I'lIblie hearing is
maEle, t,Ihe final decision of the City for planning actions resulting from the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 72 -
Type I Planning Procedure shall be the Staff Advisor decision, effective on the
13th day after notice of the decision is mailed sehefltllefl te he reviewefl
h"t" the Ce......issie.. e, Bearfl. If a I'tlhlie hea,i..g is helfl ht" the
Ce......issie.. e, Bea,fI, the fleeisie.. ef the Ce......issie.. e, Bearfl shall
he the fi..al fleeisie.. ef the Cit'7", unless reconsideration of the action is
approved by the Staff Advisor or appealed to the Cetl..eil Commission
as provided in section 18.108.070(B)(2)(c).119.A.
b. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider Type I planning
actions as set forth below.
i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City
Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the
decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor
that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking
for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the staff advisor,
might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to
factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter
or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the
application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to
respond to the issue prior to making a decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of
mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days
whether to reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Planning Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred
crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the
decision for purposes of reconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall
decide within ten (10) days to affirm, modify, or reverse the
original decision. The Staff Advisor shall send notice of the
reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party
entitled to notice of the planning action.
iv. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to
the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration
request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that
requested reconsideration.
c. Aooeal.
i. If a I'tlhlie hea,i..g is helfl, Within twelve (121 davs of the date
of the mailina of the Staff Advisor's final decision. includina anv
aooroved reconsideration reauest. the decision mav be aooealed to
the Plannina Commission bv anv oartv entitled to receive notice of the
olannina action. The aooeal shall be submitted to the Plannina
Commission Secretary on a form aooroved bv the City Administrator.
be accomoanied bv a fee established oursuant to Citv Council action.
and be received bv the citv no later than 4:30 o.m. on the 12th dav
after the notice of decision is mailed.
ii. If an aooellant orevails at the hearina or uoon subseauent
aooeal. the fee for the initial hearina shall be refunded. The fee
reauired in this section shall not aoolv to aooeals made bv
neiahborhood or communitv oraanizations recoanized bv the city and
whose boundaries include the site.
III. The aooeal shall be considered at the next reaular Plannina
Commission or Hearinas Board meetina. The aooeal shall be a de
novo hearina and shall be considered the initial evidentiary hearina
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 73 -
reQuired under ALUO 18.108.050 and ORS 197.763 as the basis for an
aDDeal to the Land Use Board of ADDeals. The PlanninQ Commission or
HearinQs Board the. final decision on aDDeal shall be effective 135 days
after the findings adopted by the Commission or Board are signed by the
Chair of the Commission or Board and mailed to the parties.
iv. The aDDeal reQuirements of this section must be fullv met or
the aDDeal will be considered bv the city as a iurisdictional defect and
will not be heard or considered.
d. Final Decision of Citv. The decision of the Cel:lneil Commission shall be
tne final decision of the City on appeals heard by the Cel:lneil Commission
on Type I Planning actions, effective the day the findings adopted by the
Cel:lneil Commission are signed by the "a"ier Chair and mailed to the
parties.
3. Type II Planning Actions.
a. Effective Date of Decision. The decision of the Commission is the final
decision of the City resulting from the Type II Planning Procedure, effective
135 days after the findings adopted by the Commission are signed by the
Chair of the Commission and mailed to the parties, unless reconsideration
of the action is authorized as provided in Section (b) below or
appealed to the Council as provided in section 18.108.110.A.
b. Reconsideration.
i. Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City
Agency may request reconsideration of the action after the
Planning Commission final decision has been made by providing
evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through
no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the
opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision.
Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the
failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the
opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to
afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue
prior to making a decision.
ii. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five (5) days of
mailing. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three (3) days
whether to reconsider the matter.
iii. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the
decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule reconsideration with
notice to participants of the matter before the Planning
Commission. Reconsideration shall be scheduled before the
Planning Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Reconsideration shall be limited to the portion of the decision
affected by the facts not raised during the open public hearing and
record.
iv. Regardless of who files the request for reconsideration, if the
applicant has not consented to an extension of the time limits
(120 day rule) as necessary to render a decision on the
reconsideration, the reconsideration shall be denied by the Staff
Advisor.
v. The Planning Commission shall decide to affirm, modify, or reverse
the original decision. The Planning Commission Secretary shall
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 74 -
send notice of the reconsideration decision to any party entitled to
notice of the planning action.
c. Final Decision of City. The decision of the Council shall be the final decision
of the City on appeals heard by the Council, on TVDe II Plannina
actions,effective the day the findings adopted by the Council are signed by
the Mayor and mailed to the
4. Tye!:!!!..........~.la I1l1il1g..~cti~ns.
5. The City Council may call up any planning action for a JU:lhlie heariftg aftEl
decision upon motion and majority vote, provided such vote takes place in the
required appeal time period, as eHtlifteEl hele".ii. Unless the planning action
is appealed and a public hearing is required, the City Council review of
the Planning Action is limited to the record and public testimony is not
allowed. The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of
the Planning Commission, or may remand the decision to the Planning
Commission for additional consideration if sufficient time is permitted for
making a final decision of the city. The City Council shall make findings
and conclusions and cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
of the planning action.
C. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for any action under this Title until the
decision is final, as defined in this section.
SECTION 104, 18.108.080, Procedures, Public Notice, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.080, Public Hearing Notice.
Public notice for hearings before the Staff Advisor, Hearings Board or Commission
for planning actions shall be given as follows:
A. Notices shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the hearing to:
1. The applicant or authorized agent,
2. The subject property owner, and
3. All owners of record of property on the most recent property tax
assessment roll within 200 feet of the subject property.Hftless the
heariftg has heeft reflHesteEl HftEler the Staff per...it I'reeeElHre. 1ft
sHeh ease the ftetiee shall he ...aileEl eftl)" te ewfters viithift 199
feet ef the sHhjeet I'rel'ept",..
B. Mailed notices shall contain the following information, provided, however, that
notices for hearings before the Council shall not contain th'e statements specified
in paragraphs 8 and 9:
1. Explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed use or uses
which could be authorized.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 75 -
2. List of the applicable criteria from the ordinance and the plan that apply to
the application at issue.
3. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the
subject property.
4. The name of a local government representative to contact and the telephone
number where additional information may be obtained.
5. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied
upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no
cost and will be provided at reasonable cost.
6. The date, time and location of the hearing or of the meeting, if no hearing is
involved.
7. A statement that failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by
letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker
an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue.
8. A statement that if additional document's or evidence is provided in support of
the application, any party shall be entitled to a continuance of the hearing.
9. A statement that unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing.
C. Posted Notice. Exeel't fer Staff Per...it I"reeeflllre I'la....i..g aetie..s, A notice,
as described in this subsection, shall be posted on the subject property by the
al'l'liea..t city in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-
way at least 10 days prior to the date of the Ce.......issie.. ....eeti..g. Failure by
the al'l'liea..t city to post a notice, or post in clear view from a public right-of-
way shall be considered an incomplete application. The al'l'liea..t city shall
certify, for the record of the hearing, that the posting was accomplished. The
failure of the posted notice to remain on the property shall not invalidate the
proceedings. The posted notice shall only contain the following information:
planning action number, brief description of the proposal, phone number and
address for contact at Ashland Planning Department.
D. Additional Requirements for Type II and III Public Notice. In addition to the
notice specified in section 18.108.080.A, Band C, notice for Type II and III
procedures shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at
least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing before the Commission.
E. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall
not invalidate such proceedings if the City can demonstrate by affidavit that such
notice was mailed. The failure to receive notice shall not invalidate the decision
after the action is final if a good faith attempt was made to notify all persons
entitled to receive notice.
F.. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that:
1. The city did not mail the notice required in 9 18.108.939.8;
2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights;
and
3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person
knew of should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall
schedule a hearing for the next regular Commission or Hearings Board
meeting allowing adequate time to comply with the notice requirements of
section 18.108.080. The public hearing shall be conducted as provided in
9 18.108.100.
If a hearing is conducted under this section, the decision of the Commission or
Hearings Board shall supersede the previous decision.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 76 -
G. Whenever it is demonstrated to the Staff Advisor that:
1. The city did not comply with the notice requirements in 9 18.108.080.A
through E;
2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights;
and
3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person
knew or should have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a
hearing before the Board, Commission or Council that heard or would have
heard the matter involving the defective notice.
a. The Staff Advisor shall notify by mail all persons who previously appeared
in the matter and all persons who were entitled to mailed notice but were
not mailed such notice.
b. The hearing shall be conducted as provided in 9 18.108.100 if it is a
hearing before the Board or Commission, except that the record of the
previous hearing shall be reviewed and considered by the Board or
Commission. If it is an appeal before the Council, the Council may hear
such matters as are permitted in 9 18.108.110.
A decision made after the hearing shall supersede the previous decision.
H. Notwithstanding the period specified in subsections F.3 and G.3 of this section,
the period for a hearing or appeal shall not exceed three years after the date of
the initial decision.
SECTION 105, 18.108.110, Procedures, Appeal to Council, of the Ashland Municipal
Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.110,Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of =Fyjte I d€leisians far whieh a hearing has !s€len held, af Type II
decisions or of Typc III dccisioRs dcscribcd in ~cction lS.10S.0GO.A.l ;::md 2 -shall
be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard
Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Faihlre ta "af th€l A""eal r€le
at th€l ti...e All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110. includina the
aDDeal fee. must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as
is filed is a jurisdictional!x defective and will not be heard or considered.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the
Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the
decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as
a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for
which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable
criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place af the
hearing aftto consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties
at least 20 days prior to the hearingmeeting.
4. The appeal shall be based solely "on the record" established before the
Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be subject to a public
hearing and additional evidence. However, if in the determination of the
City Administrator that a factual error occurred or additional substantive
information might affect the outcome of the decision, the City Council
may accept additional testimony limited to these facts and information
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 77 -
as set forth in a notice of appeal. The Council, or the Mayor in the
absence of Council rules, may set forth the procedure for the conduct of
"on the record" appeals. a dc ..eve E:l'J'idcAtiar",. hcari..g.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny
the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings
and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as
justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be
sent to all parties participating in the appeal.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 78 -
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined
as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure
to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right
of appeal to the Council.
3. The Cstlneil, .,-, ...ajsritv' -.'ste.
34.Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
SECTION 106, 18.108.160, Procedures, Ordinance Interpretations, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations.
A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is clear doubt regarding
its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase,
the Staff Advisor is authorized to interpret this land use code and decisions
issued pursuant to this land use code. Any person may request an
interpretation by submitting such request on a written form approved by
the city administrator and accompanied by a fee established by the city
council. Within twenty (20) days of receipt of the written request, the Staff
Advisor shall make a written interpretation and mail or deliver a copy to the
party requesting the interpretation, the Planning Commission and City
Council. Appeals of these interpretations shall be heard by the Planning
Commission in the manner set out in ALUO 18.108.050.
B. The Staff Advisor may interluet the I'rsvisisn in writing sr refer the I're....isien
interpretation request directly to the Commission for interpretation. The
Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt.
C. Neither the Staff AElvissr's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect
of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the
Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations:
1. The comprehensive plan;
2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular
section in question; and
3. The opinion of the City Attorney.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 79 -
DB. Unless the Planning Commission by majority vote chooses to review
the =fhe interpretation of the Staff Advisor, or the interpretation is appealed
pursuant to Section 18.108.160(A), or the City Council directs the Planning
Commission to review the interpretation, the interpretation decision is final.
shall .,~ ferward~d te the Commission, who shall have the authority to modify the
interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the
Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. Whenever such an
interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be
made available for public distribution.
SECTION 107, 18.112.030, Enforcement, Revocation - Permit Expiration, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.112.030, Revocation - permit expiration.
Any zoning permit, or planning action granted in accordance with the terms of this
Title shall be deemed revoked if not used within one year from date of approval, unless
another time period is specified in another section of this Title. Said permit shall not be
deemed used until the permittee has actually obtained a building permit, and
commenced construction thereunder, or has actually commenced the permitted use of
the premises. The Staff Aedvisor te th~ Plarutil'lg Cerftrftissiel'l may grant an
extension te this tirft~ I'~ried stl"j~et te th~ T"fl'e 1 I'ree~dtlre s~t ferth il'l
ChBl't~r 18.198 ef this Title.of the approval under the following conditions:
1. One time extension no longer than eighteen (18) months is allowed.
2. The Staff Advisor shall find that a change of conditions for which the
applicant was not responsible prevented the applicant from completed
the development within the original time limitation.
3. Land Use Ordinance requirements applicable to the development have
not changed since the original approval. An extension may be granted,
however, if requirements have changed and the applicant agrees to
comply with any such changes.
SECTION 108, 18.112.040, Enforcement, Revocation - conditions violated, of the
Ashland Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.112.040, Revocation - conditions violated.
Any zoning permit or planning action granted in accordance with the terms of this
Title may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such permit or variance are
violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith.
SECTION 109, Digital Maps. The following Official Maps in electronic format,
attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, are officially adopted by
the City of Ashland:
1. AirDort Overlav Zone
2. Site desiGn Zones
3. Detailed Site Review Zone
4. Downtown DesiGn Standards - Overlav
5. Hillside Lands
6. Historic Districts
7. North Mountain Zone
8. Phvsical and Environmental Constraints MaDS
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 80 -
9. FloodDlain Corridor Lands
10. RiDarian Preservation Lands
11. Hillside Lands
12. Wildfire Lands
13. Severe Constraints Lands
14. Performance Standards Overlav
15. ResidentialOverlav
16. Zonina MaD
SECTION 110, Severability.
If any section, provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or
the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid,
such invalidity shall not affect the other sections, provisions, clauses or
paragraphs of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are
declared to be severable.
SECTION 111 Savings Clause.
Notwithstanding this amendment, the City ordinances in existence at the
time any land use action was legally deemed commenced, shall remain valid
and in full force and effect for purposes of all applications, cases and actions
filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof
were operative.
SECTION 112, Codification.
Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the Ashland Municipal
Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article",
"section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be
renumbered, or re-Iettered, and typographical errors and cross-reference
corrections, corrected by the City Recorder, provided however that Sections
110, thru 112, unincorporated Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions
need not be codified.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of , 2008,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2008
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this
day of
, 2008.
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 81 -
John W. Morrison, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Ashland Land Use Ordinance Amendments
First Reading: February 4, 2008-p. 82 -
Summary of Changes and Corrections to ALVa Draft
Feb 4, 2008
1. SECTION 1, Section 18.08.071 Accessory Residential Unit
It should be 18.08.019 so that it is alphabetically before 18.08.020 Accessory
structure or use.
2. SECTION 72, Section 18.68.040
Transcription error - 18.68.040 replaces 18.68.050 in the text
3. Edited sections below. Most of these appear to be transcription errors in
which the language in the ordinance version was not consistent with the planning
copy of the ALUO dated Dec 18, 2007.
Sections edited:
18.08.740
18. n.030.A.1
18.108.040.B.4
18.108.11O.A
18.112.030
18.112.040
4. Also, references to "planning director" changed to Staff Advisor.
5. SECTION 18.72.060 Plans Required
Additional details are required for non-residential projects located within the
Historic District (see V. below).
The following submittals shall be required in order to determine the project's compliance
with this Chapter:
A site plan containing the following:
A. Project name.
B. Vicinity map.
C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet or larger.)
D. North arrow.
E. Date.
F. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets within or on the
boundary of the proposed development.
G. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
H. Zoning designations of the proposed development.
I. Zoning designations adjacent to the proposed development.
J. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences and structures
within the proposed development. Indicate which buildings are to remain and
which are to be removed.
K. Location and size of all public utilities in and adjacent to the proposed
development with the locations shown of:
1. Water lines and meter sizes.
2. Sewers, manholes and cleanouts.
3. Storm drainage and catch basins.
4. Opportunity-to-recycle site and solid waste receptacle, including proposed
screemng.
L. The proposed location of:
1. Connection to the City water system.
2. Connection to the City sewer system.
3. Connection to the City electric utility system.
4. The proposed method of drainage of the site.
M. Location of drainage ways or public utility easements III and adjacent to the
proposed development.
N. Location, size and use of all contemplated and existing public areas within the
proposed development.
O. All fire hydrants proposed to be located near the site and all fire hydrants
proposed to be located within the site.
P. A topographic map of the site at a contour interval of at least five (5) feet.
Q. Location of all parking areas and all parking spaces, ingress and egress on the site,
and on-site circulation.
R. Use designations for all areas not covered by building.
S. Locations of all existing natural features including, but not limited to, any existing
trees of a caliber greater than six inches diameter at breast height, except in
forested areas, and any natural drainage ways or creeks existing on the site, and
any outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Indicate any contemplated
modifications to a natural feature.
T. A landscape plan showing the location, type and variety, size and any other
pertinent features of the proposed landscaping and plantings. At time of
installation, such plans shall include a layout of irrigation facilities and ensure the
plantings will continue to grow.
U. The elevations and locations of all proposed signs for the development.
V. For non-residential developments proposed on properties located in a
Historic District. an exterior wall section. window section and drawin2s of
architectural details (e.2. column width. cornice and base detail. relief and
proiection. etc.) drawn to a scale of three-fourths (3/4) of an inch equals one
(1) foot or lar2er.
VW. Exterior elevations of all buildings to be proposed on the site. Such plans shall
indicate the material, color, texture, shape and other design features of the
building, including all mechanical devices. Elevations shall be submitted drawn
to scale of one inch equals ten feet or greater.
W~.A written summary showing the following:
1. For commercial and industrial developments:
a. The square footage contained in the area proposed to be developed.
b. The percentage of the lot covered by structures.
c. The percentage of the lot covered by other impervious surfaces.
d. The total number of parking spaces.
e. The total square footage of all landscaped areas.
2. For residential developments:
a. The total square footage in the development.
b. The number of dwelling units in the development (include the units by the
number of bedrooms in each unit, e.g., ten one-bedroom, 25 two-bedroom,
etc).
c. Percentage of lot coverage by:
i. Structures.
ii. Streets and roads.
iii. Recreation areas.
iv. Landscaping.
v. Parking areas.
3. For all developments, the following shall also be required: The method and
type of energy proposed to be used for heating, cooling and lighting of the
building, and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source
and the methods used to make the approximation.
6. SECTION 105,18.108.110, Procedures, Appeal to Council, of the Ashland
Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows:
18.108.110,Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of +ype I deei!lions for whieh a hearing has been held, of Type II
decisions at af T)'fle III aeeisialls desetmed ill ~eetiell 1 &.1 O&.OaO.A.1 and 2 -
. be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The
standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. Failure to pay the
Appeal Fee at the time All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110~
includine: the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered
by the city as is filed is a jurisdictiona1!y defective and will not be heard or
considered.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the
Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the
decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies
as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds
for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable
criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place ef--the
hearing onto consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties
at least 20 days prior to the hearing meeting.
4. The appeal shall be based solely "on the record" established before the
Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be subject to a public
hearing and additional evidence. However, if in the determination of the
City Administrator that a factual error occurred or additional
substantive information might affect the outcome of the decision, the City
Council may accept additional testimony limited to these facts and
information as set forth in a notice of appeal. The Council, or the Mayor
in the absence of Council rules, may set forth the procedure for the
conduct of "on the record" appeals. a de nova evidentiary hearing.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or
deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make
fmdings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as
justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be
sent to all parties participating in the appeal.
4. The appeal shall be a de nova evidentiary hearing
4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in
subparae:raph 4.B. below. the review of a decision of the Plan nine:
Commission bv the City Council shall be confined to the record of the
proceedine: before the Plannine: Commission. The record shall consist of
the application and all materials submitted with it: documentarv
evidence. exhibits and materials submitted durine: the hearine: or at other
times when the record was open before the Commission: recorded
testimonv: the decision of the approvine: authoritv. includine: the findine:s
and conclusions. In addition. for purposes of Citv Council review. the
notice of appeal and the written are:uments submitted by the parties to
the appeal. (and the oral are:uments on the record. if oral are:ument is
allowed). shall become part of the record.
B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a
limited basis. if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City
Administrator toe:ether with the notice of appeal and the City
Administrator determines prior to the City Council appeal hearine: that
reQuestine: party has demonstrated that:
(a.) That the hearine: body committed a procedural error that
preiudiced the reQuestine: party's substantial rie:hts and that
reopenine: the record is the only alternative to remandine: the
application to the hearine: body to correct the error: or
(b.) That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists
and could not have been presented to the hearine: body. A
reQuestine: party may only Qualify for this exception if he or
she demonstrates that the new evidence concerns an
unanticipated event which occurred after the close of the
hearine: before the hearine: body. This exception shall be
strictly construed bv the Council in order to ensure that all
relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearine:
body.
Re-openine: the record for purposes of this section means the submission
of additional written testimony and evidence. not oral testimony before
the City Council. Oral are:ument on the appeal may be permitted at the
sole discretion of the Council.
C. Upon review. the City Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and
shall limit its review to determinine: whether there is substantial evidence
to support the findine:s of the tribunal which heard the matter. or to
determinine: if errors in law were committed bv such tribunal. Review
shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth
in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council
that was not raised before the hearine: body with sufficient specificity to
enable the hearine: body and the parties to respond. The appellant is also
precluded from raisin!!: an issue on appeal to the Council if he or she
could have raised the issue before the hearin!!:s body but failed to do so.
5. The Council may affirm, reverse, 9f' modify or remand the decision and may
approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council
shall make fmdings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record
before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a
fmal order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal.
B. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be
defmed as the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing.
Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing,
precludes the right of appeal to the Council.
3. The Cauneil, b)' ma-jarity vote.
34. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
1. Does the City Council want to adopt a process that requires appeals
to the City Council from the Planning Commission to be held "on-
the-record?"
If yes, then the Council needs to discuss the scoue of the proceedings. This would
include:
./ The level of oral participation - no testimony, testimony limited to the applicant
and appellant, testimony limited to people who have standing (provided written or
oral testimony prior to the close of the record) or testimony by anyone who
wishes to appear (limited to facts in the record)
./ Nature of arguments - Limit arguments raised before the City Council to those
that were raised in the letter of appeal and as set forth in the notice of appeal.
./ Decision is supported by substantial evidence - The Council would evaluate
whether or hot the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence
in the whole record.
./ Appropriate application of the law - The Council would determine if the
Commission improperly applied ordinances or other law
If yes, then, does the Council wish to more clearly derme the criteria that the City
Administrator would use when making a decision to allow a partial de-novo
hearing?
Such criteria may include:
./ That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error that prejudiced the
requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record is the only
alternative to correct the error; or
./ That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists and could not have
been presented to the hearing body (e.g. a new study). A requesting party may
only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence
concerns an unanticipated event which occurred after the close of the hearing
before the hearing body. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council
in order to ensure that all relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the
hearing body.
2. Does the Council want to adopt the provisions that would make the
Planning Commission's decision on Type I applications final, with
the next appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals?
Some items to consider:
./ ,Gives greater weight to the Planning Commission and their decisions.
.,.. More staff time would be taken at the Commission level to prepare the findings of the
decision. Since this is the final decision of the City, additional details may be added
to the findings in order to support and uphold the Commission's decision.
.,.. Provides greater flexibility to ensure that the City makes a decision on a land use
application within the 120-day time line required by State statute.
3. Does the Council want to adopt the provisions that allow a building
with a tOO-foot length that is less than to,OOO square feet to become
a Type I decision (with appeal to the Commission)?
.,.. Planning Director would make the initial final decision with regards to the application
of design standards for smaller commercial projects located along the more visible
commercial corridors (e.g. Ashland Street, Siskiyou Blvd., East Main, Lithia Way,
etc.)
.,.. The Planning Commission would review larger buildings of greater than 10,000
square feet where issues of bulk and scale tend to be of interest.
4. Does the Council want to permit there to be an Evidentiary Hearing
by staff for Type II decisions? If so, does the Council wish to defme
specific criteria for these hearings?
.,.. Provides an early opportunity to ask questions and gain clarity on issues prior to the
public hearing before the Planning Commission
s. Does the Council wish to adopt the provisions that allow for an
application for an interpretation of the Land Use Code?
If so, the Legal Department has raised the following concerns:
.,.. Creates a process for advisory decisions that are subject to appeal
.,.. Issues of interpretation should be addressed within the context of a planning
application decision (quasi-judicial process)
.,.. If the intent of the provision is unclear, the ordinance language should be
amended.
r.,
Type I
Type II
Type III
Community
Development
Director
Initial Decision
Ashland
Planning
Commission
(De novo)
Initial Decislbn Recommendation
to
(De novo) Council
Final Decision
Ashland
City Council
Final Decision
Final Decision
(On the Record)
Appeal
to
LUBA
Yes
Yes
Yes
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Presentation on Mount Ashland Association Wastewater Plant
Meeting Date: February 5,2008 Primary Staff Contact: Martha J. Bennett
Department: Administration E-Mail: bennettm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Secondary Contact:
Approval: Martha J. Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Does the Council wish to invite Mount Ashland Association (MAA) and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) to make a presentation about the performance and regulations related to
the wastewater treatment plant at the Mount Ashland Ski Area?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that if Council wishes to discuss issues related to the regulations that apply to the
MAA treatment plant and the performance of the plant that the City invite representatives from MAA
(the operator) and DEQ (the regulatory agency) to make a presentation after the ski area closes for the
2008 season.
Background:
At Council's request, staff gave copies of the reports that MAA submits to DEQ about the wastewater
plant to the City Council. After receiving those reports, Councilor Navickas asked ifthere could be
City Council discussion about the wastewater plant.
Since the City is not the operator of the plant and does not hold the permits, staff recommends that the
Council decide whether it wishes to have MAA and DEQ address the issues that the Council may be
concerned about. Because the ski area is at its peak, busiest time of year, staff recommends that we
ask for the presentation after the ski season concludes, in late April or early May ofthis year.
Related City Policies:
None.
Council Options:
Council can direct staffto:
· Request a presentation from MAA and DEQ as recommended.
· Take no action
· Take a different action
Potential Motions:
I move that we direct the City Administrator to request a presentation from MAA and DEQ
Attachments:
None
Page I of I
020508 MAA Sewage Treatment Plant.CC.doc
r~'